1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 63 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of

students from City School who are visiting with us today

accompanied by two parents, Mrs. Teavan and Mr. Eskin, and two

teachers, Mr. Alan Crawford and Mr. Mike Day.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL FINANCE

AUTHORITY ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

14 intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance

Authority of British Columbia Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 14 read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

Mr. Chabot moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

15 intituled

An Act to Amend the Labour Relations Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 15 read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to raise a point of privilege. I wish to make a statement. In reading yesterday's

Hansard I note that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) stated,

"It shouldn't be surprising. If you read through Hansard the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain did describe the NDP policy in the last session when

she said, 'We are going to teach people to work for the love of working. We

think people ought to learn that to give through work is better than to receive'

and on and on."

Mr. Speaker, I have examined the two times I spoke during

the last session of the Legislature and at no point did I make

those statements or anything remotely resembling them.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Madam Member.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, we debated yesterday an amendment and I will try and

restrict my remarks to the Speech from the Throne excluding

consideration of the material covered yesterday. But perhaps

before I get on to that directly, I would like to outline, as

we see it in this party on this side of House, precisely the

type of role that we fulfil in this area. I mention this

because among some of the comments made, there has been some

difficulty in some Members at least in understanding what

precisely the role of the Opposition parties is.

We feel that the best description of this perhaps is by a

former well-known national Leader of the Opposition, John

Diefenbaker. He was speaking almost 25 years ago and

he said this — I would like to quote it for the record and also

I think for the benefit of all Members, He said in Toronto on

October 27, 1949:

"If parliament is to be preserved as a living

institution, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition must fearlessly

perform its functions. When it properly discharges them, the

preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history

proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds

and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It

must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the

cabinet of the rights of the people.

It should supervise expenditures and prevent

over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion

wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault. It suggests

amendments. It asks questions and elicits information. It

arouses, educates and moulds public opinion by voice and vote.

It must scrutinize every act of the Government and in doing so,

prevents the short-cuts through democratic procedures that

governments like to make. The absence of a strong Opposition

means a one-party state and a one-party state means an

all-powerful cabinet."

I feel those are wise words and I preface our major

[ Page 64 ]

intervention in this debate

of the first real session of this Legislature by quoting my former colleague

in the 28th federal parliament and a man whom I am pleased to know personally

and describe as a friend, the former Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker.

I feel that the debates that we have had in this House over

the last few days and of course in the fall session have

indicated that despite the change in the province over the past

few months, there is a difficult period of adjustment for both

the Government and the official Opposition. Now I think that,

Mr. Speaker, it is right to say that this transition, although

difficult, is perhaps more pleasurable than painful for the NDP

and perhaps more painful than pleasurable for Social Credit

Members. But it appears from our vantage point — our unchanged

Liberal vantage point of five Members — to be equally difficult

for both.

Mr. Speaker, I quoted a moment ago John Diefenbaker and what

he said almost 25 years ago. But talking of Mr. Diefenbaker, I

think there is a curious similarity between his performance in

office and that of the Premier of this province. At least the

Premier's performance so far. Now both these men are

interesting and likeable people. Both were elected with large

majorities, more or less to the surprise of their opponents and

of the public. But both men…

AN HON. MEMBER: And themselves.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "And themselves" my colleague from Point

Grey adds, which I think is perhaps not true because I think

the present Premier of the province, as I did, expected the

shift in the Government last time and he expected it to go his

way, as did I in the final days of the campaign. Nevertheless

it was a surprise I think to many of his backbenchers who find

themselves here today.

Now John Diefenbaker had great gifts but he, I think, had

great difficulty in adjusting from the role of an Opposition

leader to that of first Minister. I might add that John

Diefenbaker still has great gifts. He's not a man that we speak

of in the past. He is still active in Canadian politics and, I

trust, will long remain so.

Nevertheless, the ability to shoulder executive

responsibility was not one of his gifts. He was never able to

distinguish between his skill as a debater and the skill

required to manage public affairs and to govern this nation. At

least this is my opinion, I feel, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday we saw an interesting

example of the same skills and the same lack of skills being

displayed by our Premier.

Now at this time obviously, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House prevent reconsidering

the subject matter of yesterday's debate but I would like to use that debate

as an example of the debating technique which Mr. Diefenbaker is such a master

of, and at which our present Premier is no slouch. And his predecessor in this

province is no slouch either.

Now we have in this province a total unemployment figure of

something like 80,000 in December. It's up 16,000 from November

and my figures, Mr. Speaker, are from page 6 of the Statistics

Canada publication No. 71 - 001 December 1972 — "Selected

Seasonally Adjusted Figures Month to Month." By contrast the

same tables show employment in the Atlantic Region as down by

7,000, in Quebec down by 1,000, in Ontario down by 7,000, and

in the Prairies where of course there are two out of three

governments that are NDP governments, it is up by 5,000. As I

said before, in B.C. it is up by 16,000 — a substantial

increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, those figures are of concern and my

friends on my right rightly put forward an amendment to the

motion on this yesterday but I have no intention of going into

yesterday's debate on that amendment. What I am interested in

and I think all Members of this House and indeed the province

should be interested in is the style of the Government's

response and in particular the Premier's response.

Well, shades of John Diefenbaker again. Yesterday we had our

Premier ignore the specific responsibility of his Government.

He launched into a speech on the federal government's

shipbuilding programme and on a Canadian merchant marine. Well,

whether or not a Canadian merchant marine is a good idea or

whether or not further subsidies to shipbuilding industries are

a good idea, I am quite willing to discuss.

I was one of two B.C. MP's in Ottawa who had shipbuilding

interests in their ridings. For the past 4 years I have studied

the matter. Well, there is plenty of information on this, and I

would be delighted to discuss it with him but of course the

information given was strictly the contents of a telegram

unanswered unfortunately between the Prime Minister and the

Premier, Now I am, as I said, quite willing to discuss later on in

this House or outside it the virtues or otherwise of

subsidizing a Canadian merchant marine. As a merchant fleet

becomes more capital-intensive, as the amount of investment

needed for each job created as a merchant seaman approaches $1

million apiece, perhaps a capitally developed country might

well find they can compete with some of the less developed

nations of the world.

Nevertheless, that is something which we can discuss

elsewhere, but what I find distressing is the Premier's

performance in that he pays so little attention to his own

sphere of responsibility and his own sphere of influence. Like

John Diefenbaker years ago, our Premier seems to believe that a

speech irrelevant to his own responsibility would somehow make

the problem go away. Now certainly, Mr. Speaker, our Premier

has managed to divert attention

[ Page 65 ]

from the problem. What he says is news, and what he ignores

is presumably not news. Certainly he can count on a relatively

servile group of backbenchers whose support for the Premier's

political and debating performance apparently outweighs their

concern for the large numbers of unemployed in this

province.

Mr. Speaker, diverting attention from the problem may get

headlines and may impress the backbench, but it does nothing,

let me repeat, nothing to improve the unemployment situation in

the province. Now I trust that the Premier and his supporters

realize this. And I trust that they are not so intrigued with

the political and debating aspects that they have forgotten

that the figures we were discussing — the numbers — represent

people, real people, flesh and blood people, people with skills

and ability who cannot find work to support themselves and

their families, as they would like to. Now I don't think they

are impressed by debating and political skills displayed in

this chamber.

I don't think they are impressed by a failure to deal

realistically and sensibly with their problems. I don't think

that their respect for this Legislature and for our ability to

deal with their problems is in any way enhanced by yesterday's

performance. In fact, not only the unemployed, Mr. Speaker, but

is anybody's respect increased by yesterday's performance of

our Premier and indeed of this Legislature?

Perhaps the few professionals involved — ourselves, the

professional politicians of this province, perhaps the Press

which again in the gallery there can be considered to be

professionals in the sense that they observe and mark us

according to our performance in the House — well, they are

impressed by debating and political skills but I think that is

about as far as it goes.

A Premier should have I think executive skills,

administrative skills, as well as a concern for politics, and a

Premier should have concern for people. Yesterday was an

opportunity for us in this House in particular…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you know the rules. You do not

touch upon the vote in detail. It has already been canvassed by

the House and voted upon in this session according to our

rules. Therefore I would urge the Members in future discussing

this question to deal with it not in detail because that could

have been done yesterday, should have been done yesterday, and

indeed was done yesterday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, Mr. Speaker, I agree with your proposal. My

point in making this intervention was to describe the style of the Government,

not to rehash debate. I'm describing a style and approach to a problem, a real

human problem and in this way I feel it is germane to a speech in this debate

on the address replying to the opening speech.

However in view of your comments I trust that perhaps a

reading of Hansard will point out that I am trying to

stick specifically to the style of government rather than

discussing for example the areas where unemployment can be

improved or otherwise.

MR. SPEAKER: I suggest the Hon. Member read Hansard

tomorrow and then I'll make a ruling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I will move on then as you

have suggested. I have no wish to argue the point like this but

I feel, if I can just finish one sentence, it was an

opportunity to correct a mistake that occurred in the throne

speech. It was an opportunity to correct a mistake not taken.

We represent many people in this province, and I trust it will

be corrected in short order.

Well, returning to the document itself, Mr. Speaker — the

opening speech by Colonel the Hon. John R. Nicholson — it's a

puzzling document. Now prior to its release we were informed at

some length that it was going to be a contrast to the verbose,

fulsome opening speeches of the previous administration. And

there is no doubt that those people on the Government benches

who made this point are quite right.

There was a suggestion made that it is a return to British

parliamentary practice but here I have a great deal more

difficulty with those who made that point. I have consulted

May, the recognized British authority, I consulted Beauchesne,

the recognized Canadian authority, neither of them particularly

helpful. I then turned to the previous throne speeches of our

federal parliament, some of which I was present at the reading

of, I turned then to the British Hansard to see what

Harold Wilson had to say in replying to the throne speeches

given by her Majesty the Queen in the British House.

I am afraid that my research has failed to support the

Premier's contention that the type of opening speech His Honour

read last Thursday is a traditional opening speech. I don't

feel, Mr. Speaker, that the thinness and lack of content in

this unimpressive document can be supported by quoting

imaginary precedents. Let me go over it in more detail. It's

eminently unambitious, forgettable and no doubt the 5 days

since it was first read, Mr. Speaker, has been quite enough

time to wipe it from your memory.

The first page contains little of note. We are told that the

special session of last October is an indication of the

carefully designed programmes to meet the priorities and

expectations of the people of this province. Well, I find that

this remark astounds me. During that special session we heard

excuse after excuse as to why one subject or another had not

been taken up in that session.

The favourite refrain was "give us time." The Ministers

would say this and then add that we will

[ Page 66 ]

deal with it in due course, and there was the other popular

excuse and I am thinking particularly of the Minimum

Wage Act and guaranteed monthly income for senior citizens.

The other excuse was that there was inadequate information or

research material at hand and once again we in Opposition were

charitable enough to the new Government to accept these

excuses.

But it is a different matter now. Apparently the Government

believes that we were faced by carefully designed policies and

programmes. Well, I have mentioned already we had a debate on

unemployment. With those figures I wonder whether the

Government policies were carefully designed to deal with the

problem. According to the throne speech they were. According to

the throne speech the Government had carefully taken into

account its policies and programmes and I quote "it was

carefully designed to meet both the priorities and expectations

of our people in the most appropriate way."

Well I wonder whether we can describe the lack of

legislation in this area in the fall session in that way. My

own view is that we cannot and that is a bit of boasting which

might well have been left out. The speech follows, Mr. Speaker,

with a paragraph of the satisfaction that we all feel at the

ceasefire in Vietnam. Now all of us in Opposition and I know I

am speaking for every one of us here, fully agree with the

point made by His Honour in this regard and fully support the

Government statements along that line. I might mention that I

have more than a dispassionate interest in that I spent a year

in Indochina mostly in Vietnam as a legal adviser to the

Canadian Commissioners in the Indochina international control

and supervisor commission.

Well, for 19 years we Canadians have been serving in

Indochina trying to have the 1954 agreement that ended the war

between the French and the Viets respected. And we and our

colleagues were unsuccessful. And if you'll forgive me for a

moment, Mr. Speaker, I think that Canadians and people of other

nationalities too, should understand fully that there is no way

for a control commission to guarantee a peace settlement. All

it can do is observe and report its findings on violations, if

any. Peace depends not on the commission; it depends on the

willingness of the former combatants to respect the agreement.

I think our two decades of experience in Indochina, and

certainly my own experience, show that its value is slight

unless the parties concerned have a genuine desire for

peace.

Mr. Speaker, the next paragraph of the speech is again

curious. We have references to meetings between Ministers of

the Government and their counterparts in other provinces and

the cabinet Ministers of the federal government. And it goes on

to say, "Sincere appreciation for our contributions has been

expressed by many in these important discussions, and expressions of optimism…" et cetera. Well, no doubt there

have been such meetings. They continue between all provincial

governments and the federal government, and between provinces

themselves on a regular basis.

We even had, Mr. Speaker, a conference of welfare Ministers

in this province. But, perhaps again, instead of unsupported

statements and self congratulations, the Government should be

making a serious effort to co-ordinate the conflicting

Ministerial statements. For example, the impression was given

during the social welfare Ministers meeting that British

Columbia supports and indeed would be willing to extend the

Quebec concept of provincial control over social services. I

have with me clippings on that point.

The next problem of course was that the Minister of Finance

went off to meet with other financial Ministers and the

apparent tack taken by him was different from that of his

welfare Minister. I trust that the lack of communication, or

the lack of co-ordination, will be dealt with because I see the

Premier shaking his head. In my view there is contradiction

here, or at least a lack of clarity, and I trust that this will

be cleared up in due course and there will be a consistent

British Columbia position put forward.

We also have the confusion that surrounded the meeting of

our Premier with the Prime Minister of the country. It was

confusion on the federal government's willingness to change its

position regarding the provisions of the guaranteed income

supplement scheme. It was news to me when the Premier made this

announcement, because I had spoken with the Prime Minister

three days before, and failed to get any suggestion from him

that this would take place. But of course, later on it happened

that the Prime Minister himself had to issue a press release

clarifying the Premier's statement and pointing out that in

this area the federal position had not been changed. I think

perhaps we were in an area where a lack of preparation had gone

on beforehand. And perhaps the Premier, had he prepared himself

a little better, might well have realized that there was

flexibility in the federal scheme before, which he apparently

was unaware of.

Now, we have another area in which I think I might — as he's

not in the House — praise the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). I think he has been a bit

of a slow starter in this area, but he has shown in what he's

done that he's willing to end the war which existed between the

provincial forest service, and the federal fisheries branch.

Now, I think it's high time that this took place. For far too

long our fisheries resources have been severely damaged by the

refusal of our forest service to pay attention to this valuable

resource.

I don't think our fisheries in British Columbia can be

protected by the federal department alone unless

[ Page 67 ]

there is proper green strip legislation, unless it improves

logging practices, and unless these are instituted by the

provincial Government, there is no way that the federal

department can alone protect the salmon streams. And if that's

the case the fisheries resources will continue to decline as in

previous years. Now, there's nothing in the throne speech about

legislation in this area being forthcoming.

But I do appreciate the fact that the Minister of Forests

has taken the first step in pointing out to his department that

they must co-operate with the federal authorities, and that use

of one resource must not result in the destruction of another.

I think he's taken the first step in a relatively long journey.

I think that he's stepping, however, in the right direction and

I'm looking forward to hearing of more and closer co-operation

between his department and the federal fisheries authorities

because there is a great deal to be done. As I'm throwing out

congratulations, I think perhaps the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall) also deserves congratulations for the way he has

handled some of the federal-provincial negotiations that he's

been involved in. I think that his attitude again has been

constructive. It's very difficult to throw roses at the

Provincial Secretary.

Anyway, perhaps the most important area of

federal-provincial co-operation between Ministers is the

co-operation between the Premier of this province and the

senior federal cabinet Minister, the Hon. Jack Davis, the

Minister of the Environment. Now, the only area that we

unfortunately read about of their discussions has been a

somewhat acrimonious exchange. I regret this sincerely, because

I don't honestly believe that you can have a successful

federal-provincial relationship, as indeed we must have for the

benefit of our citizens, if you have feuding on the part of the

Premier and the senior federal cabinet Minister responsible for

B.C.

Now, the issue of course is the question of Howe Sound and

the question of Squamish. We are aware, all of us, of the

desire over the years of B.C. Rail to build up the port of

Squamish as an industrial port. And I am pleased that the

Premier, following the recommendations of the two environmental

reports in the area, has seen fit to suggest that Squamish not

be pushed by B.C. Rail as such a port, However, the suggestion

is that the port simply move 6 or 7 miles down the Sound, to

the port Britannia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member from the area says 10, Anyway,

whatever the distance between the two communities, the problem

is fairly straightforward. It's whether or not we are to have

Howe Sound protected environmentally. I think that we should

have it — well, the Premier says, "one ship a week." The same arguments used, I've heard so often from oil

companies trying to tell me that there is no problem in oil

shipments. Perhaps it's a thin edge of the wedge. I'm sure that

when the port of Vancouver was opened there was less than one

ship a week.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Mr. Premier, I'm merely saying that

if we are to establish a major port it may well not be one ship

a week.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Should we close the Vancouver port?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the statement is made by the

Premier, that Britannia will not be a major port. I'm sure that

gives pleasure.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, and I've just been told that the Irish Stardust

was heading for Squamish when it went aground, and managed to spill oil over

Alert Bay, and other areas of the north end of Vancouver Island. Whatever it

is, it's decisions…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The echoes of Premier Bennett, I thought he was in

the high seas, Mr. Speaker, but I see that he's sitting third over in the government

benches living inside the suit of our good friend from Coquitlam. The same echoes,

of the same old Premier, the same story, the same argument…

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Point of order. I would

like to point out to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay that he has

referred to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor by name, and

then has again…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NICOLSON: Victoria, I'm sorry, Victoria. Apologies to

Oak Bay, but this is the second time this has happened in this

speech, and I as a new Member I would certainly if I'm wrong

like to know the ruling on this.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good, I'll tell him why he's wrong,

Mr. Speaker. First thing was, that I was quoting from a

document presented to us by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

It says, "opening speech of Colonel the Hon. John R.

Nicholson." That's the quote that I made. I find it difficult

to quote a document if you're not allowed to read the

words.

The second thing — I believe my reference was to His Honour.

Now if I made another reference and

[ Page 68 ]

mentioned His Honour the Colonel by any other name, well I

apologize to him and to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well the rule, as I think we all know, is that

you speak only in the kindliest terms of His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor. You speak only in the kindliest terms of

any foreign Minister, and of the Speaker, that's the rule.

(Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I don't know, perhaps when the Hon.

Member gets more experience I'll be happy to discuss this

after. But you do have difficulty quoting documents if you're

not permitted to read the words. In any event, where was I,

back to Squamish, or was it Britannia? Anyway, we are on Howe

Sound.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're on the high seas, I think.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, right, Mr. Premier, on the high

seas. Well, in any event, the comments made by the Premier are

regrettable because this is the type of thing that should be

looked at carefully. It is not simply a question of one or the

other, and I will go into that later in my speech, I think that there is a need here, first of all, for decent

cooperation and decent lines of communication between the

Premier and the senior B.C. federal cabinet Ministers. How else

can we get the provincial government's views well heard in

Ottawa? How else can we have co-operation for the benefit of

both parties and both Governments?

So, this is an objective which I trust the Premier will bear

in mind. I would like to suggest, in order not only to

facilitate things in this area but also to avoid the difficulty

that he has, that he drop the presidency of B.C. Rail. There is

an obvious conflict of interest between the presidency of a

railroad — which is determined to justify its previous

decisions on investment in terms of machinery, or in terms of

laying track, or its previous decisions in terms of

exploitation of resources — and the role of the Premier, which

I think should be a great deal more dispassionate, The Premier rolled his eyes and thought that was horrible. I

don't think he can visualize the distinction between the

presidency of a railroad and that of Premier. Only, I think,

because he remembers so well our former Premier who, as I said,

is never far away despite his physical absence.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm not criticizing, my dear lady. I'm

just suggesting that the man is…

MR. SPEAKER: Would you all address the Chair when you have a

comment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The lady Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) seems to think that I am criticizing the former

Premier. All I'm suggesting is that his influence remains

despite his physical absence. If that is criticism, I'm

surprised. I would have thought that it would be almost a minor

bit of congratulation — the pointing out that his influence is

pervasive, wherever he may be in the world.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Somebody says "permeates the chamber" — well, maybe that's true. In any event, I do feel that it is

necessary for the Premier to divert himself of the presidency

of B.C. Rail. The experience of other provinces with their

northern railroad and the experience of the federal government

with respect to the CNR, do not indicate there is any need

whatsoever to have these two jobs combined in the same

person.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he's referring, of course, to the

other Social Credit province of Alberta, which perhaps had a

change in government because they followed this procedure

too.

Nevertheless, there is no real reason for the two jobs to be

combined in one person and indeed, when you add in the Minister

of Finance, I think the work-load of our Premier is too great.

When I can point out that there are many areas where he has

failed to brief himself properly for our discussions — and I

will be giving another example very shortly — I think there is

clear need for a division of powers within this province.

Now that we have a Government, I trust, more interested in

the environment than the previous Government — now that we have

a Government which may well have a different point of view, as

a Government, than the B.C. Railroad — perhaps the time has

come to consider another person for this job. This would allow

the Premier to take a dispassionate look at things and to judge

things on their merits instead of as the president of the

railroad worried as to whether he will be able to match the

profit or loss statements of the former Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett), the Member for South Okanagan.

In any event, I would strongly. suggest that steps be taken

by the Premier to divest himself of that responsibility.

We come now, Mr. Speaker, to what I may call the most unfortunate references

to the death of two distinguished Canadians, Lester Pearson and Herbert Anscomb.

We again concur completely with what the Government has said in the Speech from

the Throne and what His Honour read to us the other day. Both were dedicated

public servants. Both served this

[ Page 69 ]

country and this province well and we share

the regret expressed by His Honour.

There is, following that, the travel

section of the speech.

Here again we find our new Premier following in the footsteps

of the old. Up to now his travels have not proved as expensive.

I personally can well remember the involved planning and work

that went into the visit of the former Premier to Hong Kong — in

1966 I think, or 1967 — when I was an assistant Canadian trade

commissioner there. But the present Premier is off to a pretty

good start.

We don't begrudge him his efforts in this regard. But I do

object somewhat strongly to the fact that he has discussed

matters of critical importance to British Columbians, namely

the potential oil pollution on our coast from the

Alaska-to-Cherry Point route, without taking the time to

adequately prepare himself for these discussions. As a result,

the net effect of his efforts has in all probability been

negative from the British Columbia point of view.

Now, oil and energy questions are extremely complex, as no

doubt the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) in his two-day

journey to Washington, discovered. They require a tremendous

amount of time and preparation and a great deal of expertise.

The Canadian government, for example, as the Hon. Provincial

Secretary knows well, keeps two men full time in Washington

doing nothing else but considering energy questions. In my two

years of visiting Washington, approximately every three months,

on energy matters I have only realized the fact that I know

very little about it. It is not something for the quick or flip

remarks.

In any event, I trust that the Premier now realizes how

important it is to brief himself properly before such meetings

and discussions. It is not enough that intentions are good — and nobody questions his intentions. But good intentions are

simply no match for a skilled and well-informed opponent such

as we find in Governor Dan Evans of Washington State. We must

face the fact that Washington State and Dan Evans — and for

that matter Governor William Egan and the State of Alaska — want an Alaska-to-Washington State tanker route. We must face

the fact that we do not, because it is not in the interests of

our province. If anything would underline this, it is, of

course, the spill of a few days ago at Alert Bay.

So I think that the skill demonstrated by Governor Egan in putting words into

the mouth of our Premier — words that damaged the efforts that many of us — British

Columbians, Canadians from other provinces, as well as the even greater number

of Americans who are opposing this pipeline — I don't think that that was very

helpful to us. More than a year ago on an earlier visit to Olympia — the reference

of the news cutting on this I think would be January 14, 1972, in the Victoria

Daily Colonist — Mr. Barrett made the same mistake of discounting the success

of those of us who are opposing the Alaska pipeline and the west coast tanker

route.

Now surely the more than 12 months that have elapsed must

have shown our Premier that what Governor Egan told him then

was wrong, and is just as wrong now. This pipeline has been

delayed for three years and it has been delayed not by

defeatism but by confidence. We feel — I know I speak for all

those many thousands of Canadians who have helped me

financially and in other ways — we feel that our cause is right

and we intend to fight. If the Premier does not wish to help

us, as we think he could, that is his privilege. But certainly

we do not like the idea of him being used by our opponents, who

of course have a very different interest indeed.

The speech, Mr. Speaker, then goes on to a list of bills — and it is a meagre list — which are meant to come forward at

this session. Now there is nothing very new or startling in any

of them. We in this party heartily approve of the concept of a

Bill of Rights and we congratulate the Attorney General for

having this brought forward at this time — and it is put at the

top of the list. Indeed, had it not been put forward, we

probably would have been putting forward a private Member's

bill of our own. We trust that the bill that we have in mind

and the bill the Government brings forward will be similar,

because we think it is a very important step. I think that the

House knows this.

We discussed at some length, during the fall session of the

Legislature, the need to curb ministerial powers — the need to

prevent abuse by Ministers and their agents, abuse which would

result in a diminution of rights of the citizen. We feel there

is an important place for a Bill of Rights. We trust that it

will permit suing the Government. We trust that it will permit

suing B.C. Hydro and other Crown corporations. We think it is

important that a Bill of Rights be brought forward.

But a Bill of Rights is not everything. I quoted earlier

from Mr. Diefenbaker. I quoted earlier his views of what a

Legislature should do — scrutinize, examine, make sure that

Ministers justify the powers that they demand. I am willing to

excuse backbenchers on the Government side for what we think

and said at the time was far too hasty acceptance of

ministerial requests for powers which they did not justify but

stated that they needed. I said that we will forgive them

because of inexperience in the fall session. But we trust that

in future we will not have the same type of legislation brought

forward without some sign of recognition of the need for

individual liberty protected in legislation, recognition by

people other than those in the Opposition.

The Minister of Labour is not here at the moment but we are

going to be interested to see whether this bill, this Bill of

Rights, contains, for example, a conscience clause dealing with

union membership. It

[ Page 70 ]

is a matter up to now that he has rejected. It is a matter

which, perhaps as we are dealing with the Bill of Rights,

should be seriously considered.

Anyway, we look forward to that bill. We trust the Attorney

General will bring forward a bill which we can accept not only

in principle but in virtually all of its measures and its

paragraphs. We await with anticipation what he brings

forward.

Now the next bill on the list is a government automobile

insurance bill and it's ironic that in this Speech from the

Throne this comes immediately following a Bill of Rights. Will

the public's right to deal with whichever insurance

carrier he wishes, government or private company, be

preserved?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have a statement from the backbench of

the Government side that this right will be denied. Well I find

that curious, in view of the fact that the very first

suggestion is that we have a Bill of Rights.

AN. HON. MEMBER: That's the reserve Attorney General

talking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I think, certainly the would-be

Attorney General.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Even your own backbench wouldn't laugh at

that one.

Will the average motorist, we wonder, have the right to

choose for himself the government supplier or any private

supplier? We feel that's a point which should be brought

forward. It's a point we raised — obviously unsuccessfully — during the election campaign. But the views of our party

members at our convention last year and the points that we put

forward in the campaign we feel are valid and we intend to

check that bill very closely.

The next item is amendments to improve the pension plans

administered by the government. We welcome amendments to the

pension plan. Heaven knows we argued long and loud, Mr. Speaker — or the best we could in any event — in the fall session of

the Legislature, pointing out irregularities and errors in the

scheme that was at that time proposed by the Government. And we

found that the replies given at that time were not adequate.

The replies indicated the Ministers were not sure what they

were dealing with. We expect and I presume that this bill,

among other things, perhaps will clean up some of those

mistakes, some of those errors that were made at that time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's amendments to the Constitution Act and a revision

of some departmental Acts to reflect the new thrusts and priorities of the Government

— ironically, thrusts and priorities which have not been set out in this speech.

We, therefore, cannot know what these new thrusts and priorities might be but

we will be looking at it with interest.

We understand from statements already made that four new

cabinet posts will be established. If it can be justified we

will certainly support that. I can see an eager look come into

the eyes of some of the backbenchers over there who I can see

absolutely support the idea of more cabinet posts, But if

they're justified, we accept it and we will be interested in

the views put forward.

It's quite likely, I think, that many of these changes could

well be justified. We just don't know and cannot tell from this

Speech from the Throne because the words "amendments to the

Constitution Act and revision of some departmental Acts," et cetera hardly tells us a thing about what the

Government intends to do.

We feel that we obviously will be opposing an increase in

bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, but we cannot tell until

the Acts actually come forward.

Amendments to the Park Act and Litter Act are

the next mentioned. Once again there's no indication of what

the thrust or direction of the Government will be.

Perhaps I can point out that under the previous

administration the acreage of parks in this province actually

declined although the number doubled. It declined almost by

half and some will say it declined by more than half. I welcome

the Government's proposal if this does mean that there is going

to be an increase in the number of our parks. I welcome it.

They'll find Members on this side who have often spoken — I am

thinking in particular of my Hon. friend from Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) who has often spoken in favour of increasing parkland

who often opposed in this House as well as elsewhere the

reduction of parkland of a previous administration. You will

find us definitely on your favour there. Again though, we just

cannot tell from this document what precisely you have in

mind.

The next line is amendments to the Land Act and the

University Endowment Lands Act . I am not too sure again

what's in mind. When dealing with the general subject of land

perhaps we can assume that these amendments have got something

to do with the land freeze on agricultural lands. If this isn't

the correct assumption, forgive me. But there's no way I can

really tell and we have been told that amendments or

legislation will be coming forward dealing with farmlands.

Our position on this, Mr. Speaker, is clear. We do not

oppose, in principle, legislation to control urban sprawl and

preserve farmland. It's been said time after time by Members in

this party. It's been said on the hustings, it's been said in

the House. We do feel,

[ Page 71 ]

however, that there should be proper provision made for

compensation — compensation to the farmer who is affected

should be full and fair and that is, in our view, in full for

the development rights lost. And he should have this value

established not by government inspectors but by independent

assessors, and further, that the farmer should have the right

of appeal. We feel these are very minimum rights, especially

when we're talking about a Bill of Rights in the Speech from

the Throne.

What we are suggesting in fact is that fair market value be

established, that the value of agricultural land be deducted

from that, and the difference — the development rights of that

land — should be paid by society to the people who have been

adversely affected.

I'll give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Say the farmland is

worth, for farm purposes, $2,000. But say it's worth $5,000 for

subdivision purposes. Well, the difference is $3,000 and we

feel that if you are going to cut a man's land, if you are

going to take away a right from him to do what he wishes with

it, you should compensate him for it and it should be to the

tune of $3,000 development rights lost.

We feel that's just and we feel that's fair and we feel it's

going to be expensive. We know that. And we'll be sympathetic

to requests for funds for this. But we feel under the present

circumstances, when we're affecting the livelihood of many men

and women — men and women who have for years and years been

willing to work at a relatively low return — it's only fair to

compensate them for this loss in value of their property.

Fifty per cent of the British Columbia farmers are over the

age of 50. They are looking forward to retirement which means

they're looking forward to selling their land. Many of them

have worked for many decades knowing that they were not getting

the same return as they would get if they were working in the

forest industry, if they were working as professionals, or if

they were working as MLA's. But they continued to work on it

because they thought that their own land was appreciating and

they would at least get the value of their land out and they

could then retire on the proceeds.

And it is important to remember — quite apart from any

demonstrations that might have brought it to our attention

dramatically — that we're dealing with the rights of a large

number of people, a number of people who are very, very

concerned about what is going to happen to them.

The figures given by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture are

that 82 per cent of farmers would do better off if they didn't

work at all, But they continue farming because the value of

their land has been increasing and because they love the

occupation of farming and wish to do that as their life's work.

I only feel it's fair that we treat these farmers fairly. Greenbelt legislation designed to go around the city is

basically for the benefit of the city dweller. The farmer is

already farming; the city dweller is the one who wants to

preserve the farm land for him to drive through.

If society as a whole thinks it's valuable and important

that farmland be preserved — and society as a whole, let's face

it, is represented in this House by the Government party — society as a whole should pay. Farmers contribute taxes. They

in turn will be paying part of it, too. But I don't think they

should be singled out for any extra cost as a result.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday we welcome

administrative and legislative changes to the Department of

Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce. The first one we

suggest, of course, is an individual Minister. The present

Minister is a competent Attorney General and no doubt would be

a competent Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and

Commerce had he the time to devote to it. But presumably this

is one of the areas where there is to be a new portfolio

created and I think that probably the Attorney General would be

grateful if that burden is taken off his shoulders.

If we get that perhaps we will get something approaching an

industrial strategy or a strategy of industrial development for

unemployment about which we talked yesterday. But in any event

we look forward to this because it's high time we had it

and we only regret that in his Speech from the Throne there

is no opportunity for us to discuss the thrusts and intentions

of the Government. There is no opportunity here because

everything about the Department of Industrial Development,

Trade, and Commerce is simply tied up in "some administrative

and legislative changes." We think it's important that this

department be strengthened.

We regret, as I and as my Hon. friend from Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) said yesterday, the closing of an office in California

which might have been of assistance before a decent opportunity

had been given for its value to be assessed. We trust that

there will be a decent, reasonable industrial strategy designed

to curb the enormous increase in the jobless which we have

experienced over the last few months.

Legislative Procedures and Practices Act. We again

have been working on this, members of our party. We welcome

them, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to hearing your views on

this. Perhaps as a result of your comments to me yesterday, you

might wipe out that provision which allows a seconder of an

amendment motion to speak at length on any subject. You might

restrict that seconder to the amendment that she's seconding — or he or she is seconding — that is the proposal I put forward

to you now as a result of my experience yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: You're proposing to restrict

[ Page 72 ]

debate by the Opposition?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that the

seconder of an amendment be treated in the same way as other

speakers in that debate. We come to the final page of the

speech. And there is in the first paragraph a curious, and a

curiously attractive, sentence — namely, the Government's

determination to depart from, "acquisitive North American

values that have seen profligacy and waste on all sides."

Well I'm sure no party in this House wants to see profligacy

and waste. I wonder whether the Government would not at some

time clarify the ambiguity of this sentence. For example, is it

the Government's intention to curb the acquisitiveness which

leads workers to put forward wage demands above those of

previous years? Is the I.W.A. to be told that its "acquisitive

North American values" are no longer to motivate it during

contract negotiations?

This sentence is an interesting bit of rhetoric. But when

it's brought down to the here and now of our everyday lives, it

has even more interesting ramifications. You know, Mr. Speaker,

it's all very well for us to talk in this building about

society and society in general. But what is society? Society,

Mr. Speaker, is me, it's you, it's that person over there, and

that person down here. If society is every one of us — and we

cannot make a statement about society in general and then

ignore it at the individual level — otherwise, of course, this

statement has no meaning at all.

So we ask the Government to clarify this statement. There

will be Government speakers coming up. What, precisely do they

mean by this? What wage negotiations will have Government

interference designed to cut down on this acquisitiveness?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would MLA's strike?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, indeed, the suggestion comes to mean

that there will be no more increases in pay for MLA's. That's

one excellent start perhaps, based on this statement. We would

like to know what it means. Are we to accept in this chamber

reduction in the emoluments for what we do? Perhaps we

should.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm not altogether sure that the

Government itself knows. But I'm disappointed the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has left the room because

obviously it means that he can't get his jet aircraft, which

was wheeled into the hangar a couple of days ago, — the

Government hangar at Pat Bay — with much secrecy.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is an evaluation of jet aircraft

apparently taking place. No information is available to the

public.

Interjections by Some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I'll explain this

then in more detail as there is obviously interest in it. What

has happened is that a government aircraft was put outside.

Somewhat late in the evening an American jet aircraft was

brought in — a Cessna Citation, serial number, got it all,

N542CC. Here's the Wall Street Journal ad. The

Government has evidently taken up the Wall Street

Journal .

HON. MR. BARRETT : Is it a leftover from Ottawa?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, there's no Cessna Citations. The

Ottawa jets were purchased by the Hon. George Hees. They're

pretty ancient at this stage. They're Lockheed Jet Stars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that mean that they're executive

jets?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But in any event, we're talking about

acquisitive North American values. I wonder whether or not — this aircraft may well have been put in there for simply hangaring purposes, Mr. Speaker, I don't know. But I find it

strange that a government aircraft should be moved out of a

government hangar and this aircraft should be put in there, if

it has not got some connection with the Government. Perhaps if

it was simply a commercial deal, it would go to a commercial

hangar.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Minister of Highways would want

to make a come-back. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My friend says that the former Minister

of Highways may well make a come-back. Anyway, we wonder, is

that aircraft to be one of those things which are part of the

North American way of life which we're to do without? I don't

personally think it's a very good idea. Governor Reagan of

California, who has a state as populous as all of Canada and a

G.N.P. almost half again as much as Canada, has only just

acquired an executive jet — on the grounds that hijacking makes

it unsafe for him to travel on commercial aircraft.

(Laughter).

I don't know whether I'm giving the Premier an idea and a

reason for buying an aircraft. But we would like to know what

precisely they have in mind. We have, of course, when

discussing acquisitive North American society, redecoration of

Government offices — and perhaps they were somewhat thread-

[ Page 73 ]

bare. The redecoration has been done in excellent taste. We

congratulate the Government on doing a good job of

redecorating.

All we can say is perhaps it should now stop, if we are to

get away from some of our acquisitive North American values.

The Premier, having had his own office redecorated, shakes his

head in agreement with me. So the other Ministers will

presumably have short shrift. Nevertheless, we would like to

know precisely what this sentence means — how it can be

done.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to have growth — to have opportunity for the economy to expand and still

preserve the environment. I genuinely believe that there has

been much discussion on this in recent months and years, much

of which I have read as a very interested layman. It is not

necessary, Mr. Speaker, for us to forego jobs and forego any

increase in the standard of living, simply because of the fear

that we have of environmental degradation. I've spoken

probably, Mr. Speaker, for too long. I'm sure people will

applaud that statement. I'm glad to see that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) responds like Pavlov's dog to my

suggestions.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants more.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He wants more, does he? Oh, very good.

Anyway I will just quote them from the Monthly Labour

Review of the United States Department of Labour, an

excellent publication, where they are discussing the ideas of

Barry Commoner, who is one of those who believe that the world

should not stop, it should simply take a new direction. I'm

quite sure that the Government will agree with this. And I'm

quite sure when they tackle some of the problems that we have

in this province, they will realize the correctness of

Commoner's approach.

A couple of quotes, Mr. Speaker. He says: "Production

activities with intense environmental impacts have displaced

activities with less serious environmental impacts. The growth

pattern has been counter-ecological." Now he goes on to say,

"This foregoing conclusion," which I agree with, "could

be easily misconstrued to mean that technology is per se

ecologically harmful."

The remainder of this

article in the November, 1971 issue goes on to deal with

the fact that, if you can channel growth into ecologically less harmful or ecologically

beneficial areas, there is no need to worry about such things as unemployment

or loss of jobs or reduction in the standard of living. One final quote on this,

on page 12: "It would appear possible to reduce the environmental impact of

human activities by developing alternatives to ecologically faulty activities.

This can he accomplished not by abandoning technology and the economic goods

it can yield, but by developing new technologies which incorporate not only

the knowledge of the physical science but ecological wisdom as well." I'm sure

that's a statement that no party in this House would disagree with. I'm sure

that this is a fruitful area for this Government and this Legislature to look

at.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in

summary I feel that the Speech from

the Throne, as given to us, is a disappointing document. The

Government had an opportunity to discuss at some length, in

philosophical terms, its priorities, its thrusts, its

intentions, its desires, its hopes. It's the first throne

speech of a new Government, the first new Government we've had

in 20 years. It was my hope that we would have a philosophical

document dealing with what the Government hoped to achieve in

the next four years or, if they wished to be ambitious, in the

next eight. I think that this opportunity has been missed, and

it's disappointing to me.

I would like to have had more of a statement of where the

province is going, what the Premier has in mind, what his

Ministers are thinking about. We've missed that chance. I trust

that we will try and rectify it in future debates of this House

in this session.

Alternately, I had expected that if there was not a wide

ranging philosophical discussion of how and where we are going,

there might be a bread and butter, meat and potatoes type of

throne speech dealing with some of our day to day problems — and some of the things that should be done on a day to day

basis.

Again I was disappointed in this. But equalling my

disappointment in that respect, was my disappointment

yesterday. I do feel that it is important for us to face up to

some of the real problems. It's all too easy for those of us

who are skilled in debating — and there are many here more

skilled than I am — to divert attention into areas which are

irrelevant.

It's all too easy to avoid the real problem that has

happened yesterday my friends to my right, but forward. But

that really doesn't handle the problems of British Columbia.

That really doesn't deal with the guts of what we are talking

about. I think that we are all of us probably to blame. I think

certainly the Premier is to blame for this tone that was set

yesterday.

I think that if I can go back to my original quote from John

Diefenbaker — if I can go back to my original reference to him — this province will not see good government, and will see the

quick erosion of a big Government majority, unless the Premier

grasps the concept that he must administer, he must act as

executive, as well as acting as a debater and a politician. I

suggest that five months is plenty of time for him to change

gears from Leader of the Opposition to being Premier. And I

trust that it will happen fairly soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

[ Page 74 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel

very pleased and gratified to take my place in the throne

speech debate in the first regular session of the 30th

Parliament. When I resigned from the Social Credit Party — or

perhaps, as my former friends would have it, when I defected;

it just depends which direction you are looking from — the

leader of that party not only predicted my political demise but

he said that no Conservatives would be elected at all to this

House.

Now I'm not mentioning the point to castigate a man who has

given the province very worthy service. In fairness one should

not castigate a public figure whose role in public life is now

clearly at an end — as witnessed by his own choice of at least

semi-retirement when he should be fulfilling his duty as the MLA

for South Okanagan. I merely raise the point to demonstrate the

reappearance of elected Progressive Conservatives in this

Legislature.

It will be the role of the two Conservative Members — after

a long absence of Conservatives — at least to outline the

philosophy and the policies we believe in. Of course, democracy

is a clash of philosophies; it allows people to put forward

ideas. We don't expect that side of the House to agree with us

and, because of the philosophical differences, we don't agree

with them. But the heart and soul of democracy is that the

people of this province should have a clear understanding of

what the two sides do believe — and whether, in fact, they

behave as they say they believe. So the next time around they

have a clear choice between the present socialist Government

and the alternative.

Someone'll say that's the kiss of death, but…

(Laughter).

But one of our eminent columnists has written — and I'm sorry

that he isn't in the House — he has written that the Hon.

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has been delegated by

the Premier to keep me politically alive; to "keep the Tory

rump functioning and breathing so that the faint hope of the

Tory resurgence is kept burning." End of quote.

Now at least, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of anatomical

accuracy, I don't think the rump has anything to do with

breathing. (Laughter.)

And while I have the greatest respect for the Hon. Minister

of Highways, I really feel that he and I have some basic

philosophical differences. So I think I can get along fine

without his fatherly attention.

It's also interesting to see the Premier pick up new titles

as he progresses. When he left the special session, Mr.

Speaker, he had the title of "Dangerous Dave." But I see that

after a visit to Olympia we have to address him as "Your

Excellency." (Laughter).

But joking apart, this party appreciates the effort the

Premier has made in establishing good relationships with our

neighbours, particularly those who share our coastline. We feel

that nothing but good can come from better understanding between British Columbia and

the State of Washington.

I would also like to thank the Premier for his awareness and

consideration in improving the office space allocated to the

Conservative Members. We are moving from our present single

room to two rooms high in the building on the next floor up.

And I hope that that reflects the fact that the party is on the

up and up.

Actually the stairs are quite steep, Mr. Speaker, I think

that I might have to repeat my plea to the Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that

outpatient oxygen be provided free. The second room is really

in the attic and, as I peered out the window with the sloping

roof and memories of Edinburgh and so on, a sudden silly

thought went through my mind. I recalled how when I used to go

to Socred conventions we always used to sing a symbolic hymn,

"Oh God, our Help in Ages Past." I just suddenly had the silly

thought that if the Conservatives should now adopt a symbolic

hymn it would most aptly be "Nearer my God to Thee."

(Laughter).

But we do appreciate the efforts made to give us better

space and I would just make one further request, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Premier. I don't like to sound like Oliver

Twist, but I would hope that when he comes to enlarge the civil

service by 1,000, he might hire 999 civil servants and one

research assistant for the Conservatives.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP administration has made

serious efforts to fulfil many of the promises they made in

the election campaign. I think their aim to have an open style

of government is commendable. And certainly anything which

keeps government open will be supported by this party.

I am also delighted to realize early in the administration

that the Premier answers his letters. In fact, the department

of the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon.

Mr. Levi) has gone one step further. For the first time in the

few years that I have been in politics I was invited to take

part in a seminar, in an advisory capacity to Government, on

drug abuse. I think it's this co-operative effort on drug abuse

where our solutions and our debates should certainly rise above

party politics.

Now I've said so much in favour of the Government that I'm

sure people are becoming confused. One sad, misguided Oak Bay

resident went on a radio interview the other day and said that,

because I had congratulated the Government on some of the

things they had done, it was obvious I'm even now in the

process of moving over to the NDP party. (Laughter.)

I'm glad you're laughing, Mr. Speaker, because I thought it

was the funniest thing I had heard in a long time, too.

Actually it's a little sad also, because it reflects the

concept of so many people — that politicians in opposition

parties must oppose simply

[ Page 75 ]

for the sake of opposing and should never acknowledge or

give credit for the positive accomplishments of Government.

This, I can assure the House, Mr. Speaker, is not my personal

feeling and it's not the philosophy of the Conservative Party.

In this session and in future sessions I would hope that we

could come forward with keen debate, constructive criticism and

always a sincere attempt, on our part at least, to let the

people of the province know what we think. And if you on the

other side of the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, tell them

your philosophy, then we hope that democracy will really

flourish.

A comment that I heard someone make to me was: "You know the

first week or so around the House is just great. Everybody's

shaking hands. And from then onwards they're shaking fists." I

hope that we can change that previous practice.

Now that was the good news for the Government. However, I

feel, as I said yesterday in the throne speech debate, that it

has to be classified as disappointing. And I'd like to quote

what the present Premier said just a year ago, He said, "after

this throne speech in the first year of our second century,

when we expected Government and its responsibility to announce

the directions it was going." I think that was a very valid

observation.

And later on he said: "It must be said for the record that one of the greatest

opportunities of outlining new directions for the people of this province was

dramatically missed by the Government in the throne speech." With respect, Mr.

Speaker, I have to say that we in this party feel that that quotation aptly

applies now to the now Premier.

We feel that it is devoid of substance — and his own

quotation, describing the last throne speech as a "hollow

document," is still applicable to the present.

It cannot be ignored either, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier,

in many ways, seems to be following the habits and customs of

the man he criticized so roundly. And "Dangerous Dave, "

Mr. Speaker, needn't shake his head, because there is the fact

on record that he was very strongly opposed to the idea of the

Premier also being Minister of Finance. I can well remember

hearing him say that it "placed too much power in the hands of

one man."

Now we have the tables turned and he is doing exactly what

the former Premier was criticized for doing. Time alone will

tell whether this feeling he has about holding power will

engulf him as it did the former Premier with the same

devastating consequences for his party.

I personally feel this will not happen, Mr. Speaker. But I

think that the danger note has to be sounded. The feeling in

this party is that it would be much better, as with the other

dual portfolios, to have a Minister deal with each

department.

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Opposition

parties that are a little concerned. From an interview, or at

least a news report, on television last night it was reported that many of the Premier's

backbenchers are not prepared to accept the empty words of the

throne speech. One unidentified backbencher is quoted as

complaining about the fact that the backbenchers are not

consulted or even made party to cabinet announcements, such as

the decision to move the coal port from Squamish. This report

went on to claim that 10 backbenchers attended the Premier's

press conference to learn about this decision at the same time

as the Press learned about it.

I would have to say that this, indeed, is shades of the

Social Credit regime. Furthermore, the speaker claimed that a

caucus meeting was held at which cabinet Ministers dropped in — and that indeed is reminiscent of the Socred administration.

Yet I can remember the Premier saying how shocked he was, time

and time again, to hear of the fact that the then Premier

Bennett never went to caucus. As was said in this House at the

special session, we begin to wonder just how well the present

Premier has learned his lesson of political infighting and

intrigue from the splendid example set by his predecessor — at

least "splendid" if that is the way you feel politics should be

played, and I certainly don't.

But if the backbenchers are restless, Mr. Speaker, and ripe

for revolution, this seems surprising this early in the life of

the present Government. If this is true — but I think time

should be left to prove whether it is or it isn't — I'm

reporting what was said on the media…

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't believe that.

MR. WALLACE: I've got an open mind. Maybe it's too open

sometimes. I like to be shown but I'm always eager to hear just

in case it turns out to be true. (Laughter). So I preface my

next comment with the fact that, if this is true, I certainly

couldn't criticize the backbenchers. The election campaign of

the socialist Government was a vigorous one, promising many

ideas which appealed obviously to the voter — and it's very

disappointing after all this promise of progressive legislation

that we should be presented with such a dull throne speech.

Perhaps if I have accused the present Premier, Mr. Speaker,

of being too reminiscent of the former Premier, there is one

difference. I think that after his long apprenticeship in the

Opposition, he is probably making the mistakes much sooner and

won't last as long.

To digress for a moment, we feel that some statement on our

party's behalf should be made on the matter of the Squamish

decision announced yesterday. It is…

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. WALLACE: "Why?" Aren't you interested in the environment

of your own riding?

[ Page 76 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes. Why are you talking about it?

MR. WALLACE: Well, you're the Member. Am I not entitled to

talk about your affairs?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you address the Chair, please?

MR. WALLACE: That's democracy! That's democracy! Why

shouldn't I talk about your affairs?

MR. SPEAKER: , Please address the Chair, Hon. Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I would have thought the reason, Mr. Speaker,

was quite obvious that with only two Members in the House, it

becomes rather difficult for our party to be adequately

represented and to present the views of people who wish to have

this point of view presented from other ridings. I would seek

your correction if this is not a reasonable…

MR. SPEAKER: There is no restriction on free speech in here

providing it follows the rules.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: The point to be made, in our view, is that to

look at the controversy which has been raised simply in terms

of coal is a rather narrow vision. There should be a total

environmental study for the whole of the Howe Sound area. It

serves, as we all know, as a very large recreational outlet for

greater Vancouver. It would certainly be the view and the hope

and policy of the Conservative Party that the study would be

carried out through the agency of the new Department of the

Environment which, it has been announced, will be set up.

There are enough problems, I understand, with respect to the

pulp mills at Woodfibre and Port Mellon and, despite what has

been said earlier, there is an increasing amount of freighter

traffic in the Sound. There is potential danger to fish and

marine life, and indeed to water purity, from the increased

amount of sewage which is being discharged from the

recreational cottages and other homes in the area — and, of

course, from the environmental dangers which result from

increased port development anywhere.

It is also a fact that in the election the NDP candidate in

West Vancouver–Howe Sound stated that it would never be the

policy of the NDP to export coal out of Howe Sound. I'll be

very frank with the House — this is not my personal knowledge

that this was said in the campaign. I am acting on the

information which was given to me from that riding.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: The other point which I had meant to mention — and I would tread warily because it deals somewhat with jobs — is that if we are setting up a Department of the Environment, I

would hope that, of the 1,000 new jobs, a large number in the

civil service would be allocated to that particular new

department. The simple reason being that when we have travelled

to other parts of the Island, in particular, and inquired of

people who are very interested in preserving our streams and

rivers, they feel that too much is done after the event — when

possibly some environmental studies prior to logging and other

practices would have prevented the event.

Mr. Speaker, based on the statement that I made earlier that

we should let people know what we stand for, I propose to just

mention a few of the bills which our party will be introducing.

One reason we are not introducing them right away is that we

recognize the rule of anticipation. And I feel that it is

unfortunate when we still have the throne speech and budget

speech to carry on for the next three weeks — that it is

unfortunate if one tables bills which prevents Members choosing

to talk on these subjects during the debates.

I would also hope, Mr. Speaker, with our intention to change

the rules of the House that, contrary to what has happened in

the past, the House will be given an opportunity to debate

bills in the hands of private Members.

We would, as stated in our election campaign, introduce a

Bill of Rights. I am sorry that so many comments have been made

to suggest or imply that a Bill of Rights, because it is often

difficult to implement, is hardly worth writing simply for the

reasons that have been stated — that people have to have the

wish and the intent to adhere to the Bill of Rights. But

surely, by documenting it and putting it in a formal document

which is passed by this Legislature, surely at least that

demonstrates the good will and intent of the Members and their

hopes for a better society. I think that the bill that we will

table will give some of the equality and justice for women

which was so eagerly sought by the Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown).

The Conservative Party is very concerned about the

individual — his privacy, his protection and the dangers of the

individual being engulfed by the heavy hand of the state. We

will introduce a bill called the Public Document

Confidentiality Act which would ensure that any document or

paper which has come into being by a department or Crown agency

of the Government, which relates to the personal history and

record of a child or adult, cannot be disclosed to any person

without the written consent of that person. And when private

information has been disclosed, the aggrieved person will have

recourse in a

[ Page 77 ]

court of law.

We intend to introduce a bill entitled The Government

Computer Privacy Act . This bill would safeguard the privacy

of individual citizens by preventing indiscriminate access to

government computers and data banks which contain personal

information. It would regulate and control the dissemination of

data from government computers and prevent the pooling by

unauthorized persons of personal information maintained by

government departments. It would also establish a computer

register, which would provide in readily available form the

nature of the data, the purpose for which it is stored and the

class of civil servant authorized to extract data from it.

We will also introduce a bill called the Consumer Credit

Disclosure Protection Act , which would give the individual

wide powers to have access to any files containing information

in the hands of a consumer reporting agency. The bill in

general would give much needed protection to the individual

where consumer credit, employment and insurance information are

nowadays so vital to his personal affairs.

We would bring in a bill to control one of the problems we

have had recently in Victoria. We would call it the

Instructional Institution Bonding Act , whereby dance

studios cannot take large sums of money from citizens and then

skip town, as happened in Victoria.

We would also introduce as a result of another individual

incident in this area, the Abandoned Refrigerator Act ,

which would be intended to prevent the abandoning of

refrigerators in such a way that children can become trapped

and die. Very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that for as long as

refrigerators have been around there is only one province in

the whole of Canada, namely Saskatchewan, that has any

definitive legislation to try and prevent such disasters.

We also talked, and I think we always will be talking in the

House in debate about the style of government. We would

certainly create an ombudsman and the post of Auditor General.

We will introduce a bill also in this session called the

Conflict of Interests Act . This bill will apply to any

person holding public office by virtue of a public vote and

will require that every elected official on taking office, will

file a statement of personal assets and liabilities and sources

of personal income. It will also prohibit elected officials

from purchasing land in British Columbia except for a family

home, farm, or cottage. We hope that we will have the

opportunity to discuss further details of this bill. The theme

of which is very close to many people's hearts when they feel

and see the records or the disclosures in other jurisdictions

and in the past in this province.

We will introduce an Administrative Appeals Act ,

which will provide for a review of all decisions made by an

administrative official — which affect the rights and interests

of an individual whose groups are

associations. We feel that the law is presently antiquated

in its provision for remedies. And in our opinion with a growing bureaucratic involvement of

government in the affairs of the individual, this kind of

appeal is more necessary than ever.

We will introduce a B.C. Crown Corporation Accountability

Act which will require Crown corporations to present their

financial affairs for full and detailed review by elected

officials, either a committee of the Legislature or the Whole

House.

We also sought election on a platform which we called the

"quality of life." As I have stated in this House before, on

more than one occasion, we fully support the concept of a

Department of the Environment to co-ordinate and integrate

existing arms of government dealing with the environment — under separate departments at the present time.

In terms of the quality of life we would certainly amend the

Hospital Insurance Act to bring coverage to patients in

private hospitals and nursing homes under B.C.H.I.S. to give

them exactly the same coverage which presently exists for other

levels of illness.

And I'd like to comment a minute or two later on the news

released by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) today, Mr.

Speaker, regarding Richmond Heights Hospital.

We would introduce a bill called the Senior Citizens

Council Act which would create a provincial council

concerned with the problems and aspirations of senior citizens

throughout the province. The council would seek to promote

public understanding and education in assisting the senior

citizens with their basic problems of pensions and housing.

Again, with the same subject we would introduce a bill

called the Forensic Clinic Act which would enable

judges and magistrates to refer a person who is charged or

convicted of an offence to attend a forensic clinic for

examination, diagnosis, or treatment. With the tremendous drug

abuse problem in British Columbia there is need for

investigation and research in what is more a medical and social

problem than a criminal problem. This bill would allow

investigation to be arranged by the judge and he would have

flexibility in handling cases.

On this point I would like to say that the party fully

supports the action of the Attorney General in setting up a

task force — because he has become so intimately aware of the

fact that more than half of the jail residents have a drug

problem or a drug involvement.

We would introduce

an Act to reduce the municipal share of

social assistance from 15 per cent to not more than 10 per

cent. In terms of economic development, again it is nothing new — we talked about it a year ago — setting up of a provincial

development fund to provide low interest loans, or provincial

guarantee of loans for business and

[ Page 78 ]

industry to expand.

We have also campaigned on encouraging the independent and

private sector to be active in social problems. And we would be

introducing a bill called the Day Care Centres Act which

would encourage private organizations to participate in the

provision of day care centres.

These are the kind of subjects that we think are important

at the present time in the province. And these are the kind of

bills which I hope will be given an opportunity to be debated.

I won't say too much, Mr. Speaker, about agriculture because

the particular topic has been mentioned yesterday, and today.

It's safe to say that certainly we are opposed not to the

concept of trying to preserve land or to make the best use of

land. That is not in question, or in debate. We realize that

land to coin the old phrase — I forget which comedian said it — but he said, "They're not making any more of it, so you better

get it while it's there." I can't remember the comedian, but

one of the old timers. I think we all recognize that this is

the fact of the matter.

But we feel in our party that it is very unfair and

discriminatory to choose the method that has been chosen by the

Government, namely put a complete freeze on the subdivision of

the farmer's land. The government has met with the

representatives of the industry, as we have, and I must say

that if I were a farmer I would feel exactly as they do. They

put up with a minimal standard of living, which certainly in

terms of their annual net income and the hours they work, is

less than $2 an hour for very many of them. But, they do this

in the hope that their land is appreciating and at least when

it comes their time to retire they can have assets which accrue

from the appreciation of the land.

If indeed government wishes to continue to have low food

prices — and that is a good aim in itself — but if the

government wishes to have low food prices at the sacrifice of

the farmer who works long hours for low income — they can't

have that on the one hand, and also take away his right to

appreciation of his assets. I think that our policy would

certainly be that either the order-in-council should be

rescinded and some better form of legislation developed, that

the farmer be given fair compensation for what he has lost in

terms of cash by the order in council.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've talked a great deal about party and

philosophy and policies. But I think one of the

responsibilities in this debate regardless of politics, is to

bring forward some of our crying social problems. And certainly

one of these above all others has to be the drug abuse problem

in our society. Particularly the abuse of heroin. But in

highlighting heroin, let me make it very, very plain that this

is not meant in any way to diminish the dangers of other drugs,

the so called soft drugs. Because if you're involved in the

consequences of drug abuse and you see the people involved — there really is no such thing as a

harmless drug. As far as that goes there is no such thing as a

harmless medical drug. The simplest drug used for good medical

reasons usually has some dangers. And certainly the non-medical

use of the vast array of illegal drugs has to be one of the

most frightening influences in society today. I certainly

reject the thought and the point of view that is often put

forward that because this drug, or that drug, is no worse than

alcohol then it should be legalized. That has to be the most

twisted kind of thinking that I've ever heard — that if you

compare something not by its value but by how little harm it

does. I think for that reason alone, and certainly as far as I

am concerned, and as far as the Conservative Party is

concerned, we certainly are opposed to the legalization of

marijuana. Or any drug, for that matter.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, just very quickly a few words

about the heroin problem — because this particular drug renders

the victim so totally a slave to the drug. If you sit and talk

to an addict who tells you that he has lied and cheated, and

stolen money from his own children to support his habit, and

I've met more than one addict who tells me this, then I think

society must wake up to the fact of the absolutely total

enslavement and degradation which happens to a person who

becomes a heroin addict.

I think really this is the central theme or should be the

central point when we are looking at the problem of heroin

addiction. It's not quite like any other force on a person.

When a person is enslaved by heroin he is no longer a criminal

problem in my opinion, he is a serious and probably incurable — I say that advisedly — probably an incurable medical

problem.

Now I know it is difficult for society — it's certainly

difficult for me to accept the fact that it is probably

incurable. But unfortunately if you look at the facts and the

figures and you look at experience, there are very few "cured" — and word is a little dangerous to use in the drug scene — but

there are very few "cured" heroin addicts.

One thing is equally certain. There are many of them causing

all kinds of social mayhem and disaster by breaking the law in

order to support their habit. While it sounds rather negative

and the kind of decision one would rather not take, I really

would appeal, Mr. Speaker, to Government to look seriously at

the positive values to society of providing heroin to

registered addicts under medical supervision in conjunction

with rehabilitation facilities and every other kind of health

or counseling facility to give those who do wish to break the

habit that chance.

At the present time these addicts are simply on a

heroin-crime-jail roundabout with tremendous upheaval not only

to society but certainly to the innocent members of their

family. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, whole families are thrown into

total disorganization and disruption. They get into debt to

[ Page 79 ]

many thousands of dollars. They are under threat of physical

harm because they are behind with payments and the children

sense the disruption in the household. A totally innocent

family can be brought to complete ruin.

So that while my suggestion that we should really consider

making heroin available to registered addicts under strict

supervision may sound the reverse of what I just said about

marijuana, let me emphasize I'm talking about the established,

proven addict whose problem would appear to be helped by no

other method than keeping him out of jail and at the same time

attempting to rehabilitate him.

I know that this requires federal legislation and I would

hope that when the task force has completed its work… One of

the hearings I attended in the task force was attended by a new

association that has been set up called the Concerned Citizens'

Association and some of the tales told to that task force are

rather harrowing and almost unbelievable but they are true. I

hope that the Attorney General will take this kind of

information and seek federal cooperation and at least attempt

some new approach to the heroin problem.

It is certain that even if the suggestions that I am making

are not found to be useful, I would certainly plead very

urgently that at least we try some new approach because the

present situation is totally and utterly futile.

I would like to speak for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, on the

subject of strikes which is another major problem in our

society. We had a headline the other day which read, "1972

B.C.'s Worst Labour Year". Over 2 million days were lost and we

all know that strikes not only affect our vital export markets

on which our economy depends but they certainly cause real harm

very often to innocent parties.

It is also interesting that many people have spoken publicly

that the strike weapon has now been recognized as a cruel and

often a senseless way for individuals to seek justice in the

marketplace. It may be that strikes served a purpose in days

gone by when the odds were stacked so heavily in the favour of

the employer. But I think today that the opposing forces of

management and labour are certainly more evenly balanced. It is

also an obvious fact that in some strikes there are no winners,

only losers. Even the veteran labour leader, George Meany, has

described it as archaic and suggested that society move towards

accepting the concept of compulsory arbitration more

readily.

The Conservative Party certainly acknowledges the importance

and supports the concept of free collective bargaining. Let

there be no doubt about that. In fact as an historical note, it

is interesting to read and the House would be interested to

know that in Britain in 1874, the Conservative Government under

the famous Prime Minister Disraeli first gave workers full collective bargaining. In 1875 — the Hon. Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is smiling and I think he'll like

this, too — that in 1875, the Trades Union Congress recorded an

official vote of thanks to the Conservative Government for its

attitude to collective bargaining.

But anyway, I think it probably points out that despite our

differences across this floor and in other Houses there is no

party that has any kind of monopoly on its interest in the

betterment of society, better conditions of work and improving

the lot of the working man. Perhaps we are slower than you are.

This is the common criticism.

Just to make the point — we feel that there has to be a more

eager acceptance of the concept of compulsory arbitration

because of the damage done to people and to the economy by

frequent and lengthy strikes.

I would have to say at this point, Mr. Speaker, we would

like to make our stand very plain in regard to government

employees. When it seems that industrialized nations all over

the world are recognizing the senselessness and the damage

frequently done by strikes, we feel that it just makes no sense

at all to give the right to strike to government employees.

Again I would say that we believe completely in giving them

full bargaining rights and at all times encouraging every

aspect of negotiation which is likely to speed up a settlement.

But we certainly feel that the strike of government employees

would create a serious breakdown in the whole administrative

structure and affairs of this province. We would perhaps go

further and say that we consider it irresponsible of the NDP

Government in the light of strike experience at this time to

widen the segment of society who have the right to strike in

what is a particularly vital function in our province.

In a recent essay, Arnold Toynbee, who is the famous British

historian — it is interesting to quote what he says. He says

that some of the tactics of strike mechanisms show that

civilization is manifestly beating a retreat. In so called

peace time, he says, the parties who quarrel are trying to use

pressure on their opponents by tormenting third parties against

whom they have no grievance. Foreign diplomats are kidnapped,

planes are hijacked, supplies of coal, gas, electricity,

transport and other necessities of life are cut off by workers

with the object of coercing the public into begging private

employers and governments to concede contentious wage

claims.

I have no wish to belabour that point any further except to

finish talking about strikes with the local situation in our

schools. Let me preface this, Mr. Speaker, by saying that in no

way am I taking sides in the strike. The workers believe that

they have a point and the school board believes that they are

protecting the taxpayers, as indeed it is their duty, against

an unreasonable wage demand. That is the dispute. I'm

[ Page 80 ]

not arguing for or against who is right in the dispute. Mr.

Speaker, one point I want to make very, very clear — and it was

interesting that the Premier the other day made the comment that opinions are

never expressed from empty chairs. Put another way, I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that two sides to a dispute will never agree until

they sit down and talk. As far as the school dispute is concerned, I,

as a parent of four children in school, think it is very

irresponsible of all parties concerned — I'm not laying the blame at anybody's

door, I'm laying the blame at everybody's door in the dispute.

I think it is just unbelievable that 10 days could go by and

the parties didn't even sit down and talk. I don't want excuses

that somebody is too busy or cannot be there, or Tuesday

doesn't suit or Saturday doesn't suit. I'm just saying that all

the children practically — certainly in the junior and senior

secondary schools in this greater Victoria area — are now into

their third week when they are, to all intents and purposes,

getting no education.

Now, I don't think that any of us really want this

situation. I'm sure we don't, not even the people who are

striking. All I'm saying is that surely there has to be

mechanisms whether it be compulsory arbitration or otherwise,

whereby this kind of situation which just makes no sense at all

should be brought to a halt. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that

too often we allow strikes to go on until some really serious

point is reached and until the third innocent party in the

dispute really does scream out and suffer and shout, and then

something is done. And I think that if we have any sense of our

public duty, whether we are MLA's or board officials or

workers, that surely this should not be acceptable in our

society today.

Mr. Speaker, I think I was misunderstood in the telegram

that I sent to the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly). It was interpreted as a direct request that she or the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), who also received a

telegram, intervene with some form of compulsion. And I'd like

the House to understand very clearly that what I said in the

telegram was that I would urge the sides to be brought

together.

Now I was not asking either Minister to come forward with

chapter and verse and the full power of law to force them back.

I was simply hoping that the Ministers concerned would at least

make a public statement informally and in a friendly way, say

to the two parties, "Look, we're not taking sides on the

dispute. We're not forcing you back to work. But for the love

of Peter, get down and talk. Because if you don't talk you'll

never reach an agreement."

But the fact is that 10 days went by and the children were

out of school and the two sides never even met to talk over the

problem. I think this is shocking and as far as I am concerned

as a parent I am very angry about it — and that's rather obvious, I

guess.

I would like to comment on the Minister of Health Services

and Hospital Insurance's (Hon. Mr. Cocke) statement this

morning that negotiations are underway to attempt to take over

Richmond Heights Hospital. I have spoken in this House before — the Minister nods his head, so maybe that is not correct

reporting, Let me put it this way, to get to the subject, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken many times that I feel

that patients in nursing homes are getting a very raw deal from

society. I think we're agreed on that.

I would like to put forward our point of view that it would

not seem unreasonable to either acquire modern facilities which

exist or build new facilities under exactly the same structure

which we now have for acute hospitals and extended care

hospitals. I am talking about the 40/60 split between the local

municipalities and the provincial government for the capital

construction of facilities to accommodate people requiring what

we call "intermediate care." And I know these terms are

confusing to many people.

But very simply, Mr. Speaker, we sort of have two levels of

illness at the moment — you might say two ends of the scale.

The very acutely ill and the very chronically ill are covered

under B.C.H.I.S., but in the middle we have a large segment — several thousands of patients — who require a level of care

between these two and they presently receive no help. And I may

say, no help from the federal government or the provincial

government.

I was certainly encouraged to read in the Press today that

there was a move afoot to bring these facilities under the care

of government. I would just like to say, while applauding the

general idea, that I hope somehow the mechanism will provide

for strong local involvement in the management and running of

these institutions. I think again that history shows that

government-run hospitals are not…The Premier has often

talked about Riverview and the past history of the care in

mental hospitals in this province and elsewhere. I am not just

saying it happened in B.C., but the fact is that governments

generally do not run hospitals well,

whereas people at the

local level — somewhat in the same idea that I think it's very

important to have local school boards for local interest. I

would hope and I think it's the policy of our party — indeed it

was in our election platform — that these facilities would be

provided and that patients would be given coverage. But I would

hope it is not meant to centralize these hospitals, or the

control and administration of these hospitals, but to give the

management to local citizens, dedicated and interested as they

have shown themselves to be in the past in our general

hospitals.

[ Page 81 ]

The throne speech mentions "profligacy and waste on all

sides," and again I would not want, Mr. Speaker, to

tread on the subject of yesterday's amendment debate — but I

think we must put it on record that our party agrees that

growth for the sake of growth and planned obsolescence just

don't make sense.

But we have to go on record also as making it clear that we

find it irreconcilable to create jobs on the one hand and limit

industrial and economic expansion on the other. To tread on the

matter very lightly, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we believe

that a balance can be reached between these two objectives

without damage to our environment and without ever-increasing

unemployment.

In finishing, Mr. Speaker — and I have talked longer than I

had intended — the choice between the socialist and

non-socialist government would be a good note to finish with, I

think. We believe that the initiative of the individual is the

prime mover of economic and social progress, and that the heavy

hand of the state can only retard progress.

We feel that the word "freedom" is fundamental to a

Conservative: the freedom to choose your residence, your job,

your religion, your family, your education, your wage, your

politics, your movements and so on are very basic to the

average man. And we feel that the one agent in society which is

giving less and less of that freedom in these various areas is

government.

The Conservative feels that you cannot have total freedom

and total security. We feel that you want to be free rather

than be secure and we don't feel that government can give you

both.

A Conservative feels that freedom is foremost and that a

free people will prosper. And that can best be ensured within

society by preventing power from being concentrated in the

hands of too few people.

Somebody said to me the other day, "It's not very easy being

a Conservative, because you're often accused of being

reactionary or of protecting wealth and privilege." And maybe

some Conservatives are doing that. But I assure the House this

is not my intent or my concept of being a Conservative.

I would say further that in my experience the vast majority

of Conservatives are ordinary, dedicated Canadians, trying to

preserve a balanced society in which there is a place for all

socio-economic groups Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): May I have a

podium, please.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I won't be too long. On occasion in

this House I have gone 3 1/4 hours, but by that time it would be

the 6 o'clock hour and I promise I will not keep you till 6

o'clock this evening. How much before 6 o'clock depends on how

the afternoon goes.

Now I have listened with a great deal of interest to the

debate so far. Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be back in the

House once again participating in the formal, full-blown throne

debate. We had a brief flurry in the fall session, and this is

the first normal session — or usual session — since the last

election.

There was a period during that election when I wasn't sure

whether or not I was going to be back for this throne speech

because the day before the election one of the Vancouver

papers, in examining the province constituency by constituency,

said that "the Socreds could pull an upset and take

Cowichan-Malahat away from the former NDP leader."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. That was in the newspapers of

August 29, 1972. I am happy to say they didn't quite make

it.

I have listened to the speeches this afternoon. I listened

to the speech by the Hon. leader of the Liberal party

describing the role of the Opposition in the words of John

Diefenbaker. Many famous politicians, both in Britain and in

this country have described the role of the Opposition — it's a

situation with which I am fairly familiar having had some few

years in that particular role.

MR. McGEER: You're still playing Opposition.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I always give a Government speech — even

when I was in Opposition I gave a Government speech. But

however…

AN HON, MEMBER: Always confused.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. Never confused. But sometimes,

because other people didn't understand, they were confused,

they were operating from the wrong base. Like my good friend

who just sat down, the House leader of the Conservative party,

(Mr. Wallace) whom as everyone knows I admire very much and I

think he's an outstanding individual and a first-rate Member

for Oak Bay, and sincere and forthright and I appreciate his

remarks all the time…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …and he has no highway problems — that's right — he has no highway problem. But you know when he

wound up I think

[ Page 82 ]

he made clear the difference between those who sit in this

House as Members of the New Democratic Party and those who

belong not just to the Conservative Party but to the Liberal

Party and the Social Credit Party.

The Member for Oak Bay said that the Conservative Party is

trying to preserve the balance in our society. Now that is the

point from which his thinking and the thinking of all those

people in the private enterprise parties start. They assume

that there is a balance in today's society. We say there has

been no balance. We say there has been an imbalance and we are

going to bring balance to it. We don't want to preserve this

imbalance that has existed in our society. That's why we're

here because we recognize there was an imbalance and we are

going to set out to correct that imbalance.

Now the leader of the Liberal Party made some reference to a

private plane for the Minister of Highways.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which leader?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I don't know which one it is,

whether it's that one now sitting in the leader's chair,

the former leader, the ex-leader, the new leader, the once was

leader or which one it was, but anyway…

AN HON. MEMBER: The leader of a new party.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that's the one on the other side, the

leader of the new party. But anyway he made some reference to

"a secrecy of a Cessna Citation." I can't remember the names of

all these planes — that was locked up in a Government hangar

outside, out in Victoria. Certainly there was a plane out there — I think it was a Cessna Citation. I didn't see it.

But it is true that we've looked at a number of planes. I

remember in the last session of this Legislative Assembly, Members on both sides of

the House urged the Government of that day to do something to

replace the present planes that were owned by the Government.

Members on both sides of the House. I allowed the TV cameras

out there and I announced publicly that I was setting up a

committee to examine the plane requirements of this province

and its civil servants, and to make recommendations to me as to

what should be done.

And in the course of doing that job there have been a number

of planes examined and that's how you arrived at a decision to

make your recommendations. But I can assure you that what

happened under the aegis of a previous Minister of Highways

with jet planes or any other planes — it won't happen as long

as I am Minister of Highways.

And he talks about secrecy? There was a TV camera out there this morning! Where's the secrecy? Take

your camera out. Take pictures. I don't care.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Investigators? I don't know who the

investigator is, but anyway — oh, it's a morning show is it?

Well I'm usually working in the mornings. (Laughter). Even when

I was in Opposition I used to work in the morning. I didn't

have time to watch TV or radio or wherever this programme

is.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON: In one car — out the other.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: During the election, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this

House, how it operated, how it had operated in the past and how I wanted to

see it operate in the future. I was concerned about the way in which the House

was operated and the attitudes displayed in the House. And I was determined

that there should be some change in the climate of politics both in and out

of this House. I felt that this was very necessary. It would restore the faith

of the people in politics and politicians, and during the life of this Government,

in the comparatively few days that we have sat in session during the short session

last fall and the session so far this year, there has been an honest sincere

attempt on the part of the Members of this Government to change the climate

and temper of politics in this House.

I'm disappointed that, in the actions and attitudes of the

official Opposition especially, we see this determination on

their part to retain in this House the old politics, the old

rancour, the old anger that was so much a part of politics

during the last 20 years. I simply want to express my regret

that they seem determined to maintain that atmosphere in this

House, and I hope that as time progresses they will realize the

error of their ways.

I want to commend the mover and the seconder of the motion

we are now discussing. I think the speeches they both gave were

thoughtful, thought provoking and constructive. I appreciate

the speech made by the lady Member regarding the Human Rights

Act. For many years in this House we pointed out that ever

since the Conservative federal Government passed the Canadian

Bill of Rights the complementary provincial bill was absolutely

necessary if we were to get a full bill of rights in

legislation applicable to the Province of British Columbia.

The lead-off man for the Opposition said that legislation of

human rights won't change human thinking and that's probably

true. But I want to tell him that human thinking won't change

until those who think otherwise are exposed to working and

associating with people of another colour, another

[ Page 83 ]

sex or another religion who can hack it on the job and in

society equally well. Now that's what is required.

That's why legislation is a necessary first part towards

changing human thinking. Because too many people have been

brainwashed into thinking that because a person is of another

colour or another sex or another religion or another ethnic

group, they are not as good as they are, and incapable of

hacking it. And when you have legislation that forces society

to take certain measures, to take certain steps to allow

certain things to happen, then people are exposed to the

possibility that perhaps the original attitudes were wrong.

This is what is happening in many places in the United

States through the Presidential Affirmative Action Programme

where any company who wants to get the benefit of the

government contract must demonstrate very clearly that their

employees right through the whole organization are a fair

reflection of the society of that community, whether they be

Mexican, Negro, Italians — you name it. That is actually

working in the United States, and people are recognizing

through this government attitude, this government demand, that

people of a different colour and a different nation can do the

job.

I talked with a senator in the Washington State Legislature

when I was down there who is in charge of an Affirmative Action

programme for the telephone company down there. The stories he

told me about the sort of feedback you get to this certainly

was a revelation to me, and it indicated to me very clearly

that you can change human thinking once they are exposed to the

kind of things they have avoided in the past.

As the Minister of Highways of this province we have a few

problems here. I have initiated talks with the federal

Department of Indian Affairs to give the Indians of this

province the same treatment as non-Indians insofar as highways

are concerned.

The Member from Atlin — the Minister without Portfolio — and

I sat down with some representatives of the Indian group and

the Indian representative with my officials and I am optimistic

we're on the way to getting that situation resolved. With the

Indians accepting their responsibilities as far as highways are

concerned and the provincial government treating the Indians

exactly the same way as they treat non-Indians.

You know the Opposition quoted the Premier that if the

resources of this province stay in the ground for 50 years then

let them stay there, but they forgot to say that he added to

that. He said, "let them stay there till a generation comes

along that can do a better job." Can do a better job.

If we can't find ways of utilizing the resources of this

province in a proper and adequate fashion then we are better to

leave them there so that someone with perhaps more brains than our generation has are able to

do a better job of it. It is our intention to try and do a

better job and that's why there will be some changes made, but

I think we can agree that the tally is now in and the mad rush

to get rid of our resources at fire sale prices in this

province in the rawest possible state is economic suicide.

You know, some time ago a man by the name of Nelson, in

reviewing our present society, said that "technology began as

an extension of tools and as such brought uncounted blessings

with it. Now, swollen beyond any conceivable human scale, it

rolls along — a blind Moloch, overriding all needs of the human

spirit, all traditions, customs, races, ideologies. There is no

one in the driver's seat."

That is basically what has been happening to our society.

There has been no one in the driver's seat. Technology has been

making the decisions and pushing us further and further toward

the precipice. Well, as long as we are the Government there is

going to be someone in the driver's seat as far as the

developments in this province are concerned. Moloch was the

chief god of the Phoenicians, whose worship consisted chiefly

of human sacrifices, ordeals by fire and mutilation. That is

what has been happening to our society, too. Mutilation, human

sacrifice, without consideration of where we were going.

I think it is obvious that all the cry from the other side about an "economic

climate" is because they don't want any change. They are all conservatives.

They are trying to preserve what is now rather than trying to correct what is

wrong now. We have to adapt and change according to the needs of the times.

The dinosaur, I think, is a prime example of something that couldn't adapt to

change and disappeared. Someone said the same thing happened to Social Credit

— they couldn't adapt to change — and they are about to disappear too. Well,

certainly they are fragmented,

AN HON. MEMBER: Won't you miss us?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, no. I wouldn't miss you a

bit. (Laughter). Wouldn't miss you a bit.

MRS. JORDAN: You won't have to put it to the test

because we aren't disappearing.

AN. HON. MEMBER: That's obvious. (Laughter).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The throne speech mentions the

automobile insurance plan. You know, the other day I was going

through some papers and I came across a speech that I made the

first time the Premier ran for office in 1960. There is the

page of notes I had when I gave that speech the first time the

present Premier ran for office in 1960 in the days of the CCF.

One of the items I have listed to talk about

[ Page 84 ]

is automobile insurance, among other things. So here it's up

in a throne speech introduced by that same Premier.

I listened to the remarks from across the way from the first

spokesman for the Opposition about automobile insurance. You

know, I don't think he really knows what he is talking about.

He said the only people who will benefit from a government

automobile insurance plan will be those on the assigned risk

plan or perhaps the younger drivers at the expense of

others.

I have only made one statement about what my objectives are

in the matter of this government automobile insurance plan and

I will repeat it now. Those with the bad driving records will

pay more than those with good driving records. That is the only

statement I have made and it is the only statement I am going

to make at this time about what is in the proposed

legislation.

But I have been asked a number of times by people: "What

should we do? Our insurance policy is up for renewal. Should we

renew it or wait until after the legislation is in?" Well I

cannot tell you what is in the legislation but I am going to

tell you that I have an automobile insurance policy that

expires in February and I am going to renew it for 12 months. I

expect to have a few more words to say about automobile

insurance before this session is over.

But I really want to talk about this afternoon is my own

department — the Department of Highways. One of the first

actions I took as Minister of Highways was to have the B.C. No.

1 signs taken down and the Trans-Canada Highway signs

reinstalled. The question is on the order paper as to how much

this is going to cost and that question will be answered as

soon as I can get the figures. I think it is very clear why I

had those signs replaced. I felt it was a demonstration to the

people of this province and to the people of Canada that B.C.

was a part of Canada and intended to remain a part of Canada.

That B.C. would not indulge in the cheap political tricks that

epitomized the former administration in their relationship with

Ottawa. I knew when I gave the order to change them that it

would cost money but there are times you have to spend money to

correct something that was done wrong. I want to tell you I

have had letters from all over British Columbia and all over

Canada commending British Columbia and this Government for

taking that action.

I want to tell you also that, as far as I am concerned, the

statement that was made in the Journal of Commerce of

January 22 by Olaf Naas, the president of the B.C. Road

Builders' Association, will not happen as long as I am Minister

of Highways. What did Olaf Naas say — the president of the B.C.

Road Builders' Association? He said that in the past, much of

the Government highway construction programme was based on

political expediency. Now there is a man with a lot of experience in highly …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. That's what he said. Check the

Journal of Commerce , January 22 of this year. He said

that in the past, much of the Government highway construction

programme was based on political expediency. Well there is

going to be an end to that as long as I am Minister of

Highways. I don't promise to make this province one whole

stretch of blacktop or concrete. I promise not to make this

province one whole stretch of blacktop or concrete.

Mind you, when I look at the requests that have come to my

department from the chambers of commerce, the municipalities,

the ratepayers' associations, the regional district and MLA's,

I get a mental picture of B.C. as one whole field of blacktop.

When I look at the programme that was presented to me by one

group, I estimated the cost of that one programme, scattered

all over the province, at about $5 billion. I think I might

have a little trouble in getting that amount of money from the

Minister of Finance. He didn't react at all.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: However, it is obvious that we do have

many highway problems in the province. They will be settled and

decided on a priority basis of the greatest need. It is also

obvious that especially within the urban and city areas there

has to be some new thinking on the development of highway

systems in the Province of British Columbia. The density of our

urban areas is decreasing and rural sprawl and ribbon

development is increasing. The causes are complex but the chief

factors are the attractiveness of rural environment, the high

cost of urban services, lower rural taxes, increasing personal

income and the ability of the automobile to conquer

distance.

But the true costs of the automobile are hidden. Direct

costs are well known when we build a highway. But the indirect

costs arising out of the impact of the automobile are not

always appreciated. For example, the automobile produces lower

density population, which increases utilities costs because of

longer sewer lines and power lines to serve the same number of

customers. The impact is felt in the full range of services — police, roads, water, sewer, schools, power, phone, ambulance,

welfare and almost every aspect of the social community.

In general, drivers wish to travel at high speed on internal

highways in urban areas. The only facility that can move high

volumes at high speed in an urban area is a freeway. To

accommodate this demand in the built-up areas would require a

network of freeways in the urban areas about three miles

apart.

[ Page 85 ]

British Columbia can't afford this solution, (1) because of

undesirable social impact, and (2) because of the excessive

dollar costs.

Under these circumstances, it is not possible to provide

high-speed facilities in urban areas for the small through

mov