1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 99 ]

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr.

Speaker, whereupon Mr. Bruch, Deputy Speaker, took the chair pursuant

section 46 (2) of the Constitution Act.

THRONE DEBATE

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation and Travel Industry.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, it is always a

privilege to take

part in all of the debates in the House, but I think

I especially appreciate this particular debate because it allows the

Members a great deal of leeway to bring up almost any subject that they

may possibly have on their minds.

Before going into the substance of my remarks today, there are a

couple of comments that have passed in this House and a few

observations, that I think it would be fair to suggest should be

reviewed a little in the minds of the people offering them.

I think it has been quite clearly established that, in terms of

creating employment opportunities for people, British Columbia in the

last decade has produced those opportunities in terms of new jobs at

twice the Canadian average. I think it is also observable that British

Columbia has become, in fact, a magnet drawing people to it from all

parts of Canada, because its population growth could not otherwise be

justified or qualified. In other words, not only have we had quite a

productive population within the Province, but we have drawn many new

members of our society to this part of the world from other parts of

Canada.

The Province is in no way able to limit and in no way desirous of

limiting the number of people who come to the Province from other parts

of Canada. At the same time, it is hardly a justifiable argument that

the Province which, along with the rest of Canada, has been suffering

the results of high interest rates, high interest rates that resulted

from, in part at least, a predetermined policy on the part of the

National Government, high interest rates predicted, encouraged and

established in fact by that National Government, which not too many

years ago declined and vetoed most vigorously British Columbia's

substantial participation in the Bank of British Columbia, which would

have given this Government some opportunity at least to in some measure

alleviate the impact of high interest rates within the Province under

present conditions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, neither the Liberal Party nor the National

Government can have it both ways. They cannot, on one hand, vigorously

assert as their sole prerogative the management of monetary policy for

this country, embark on a deliberate programme of high interest rates,

create the atmosphere and the climate that reduce the establishment of

new industry and new job opportunities, and then have the Liberal Party

come into this House, Mr. Speaker, and try to tell us that it is a

Provincial responsibility when the end results of high interest rates

were clearly indicated to the National Government by our Premier, and

the results that followed from those interest rates were entirely

predictable and the resulting unemployment is directly traceable in

large measure to the fact that the new jobs have not been created, and

the new jobs have not been created because of the lack of capital at

reasonable rates. I don't think we find solutions to problems by trying

to subscribe their origin to other than their natural sources.

I think another matter that deserves comment, Mr. Speaker, relates

to the Skagit Valley and the Ross Dam. I want to make it quite clear

that we do not wish to say anything that will in any way embarrass any

negotiations that may or may not be taking place between the National

Government and the Government of the United States. We certainly do not

offer, at least at this time, any opinion on the fine legal points

raised as to possible deficiencies in the procedures of the IJC or any

other international agency sponsored by the National Government.

If I understand what the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano was

proposing yesterday, however, it really boils down to a proposal that

onerous that the company will not proceed. The total lack of ethics in

such an approach leads me to believe his remarks were even more vague

and obscure than they seemed. It is not too long ago that a very bitter

war was fought because international agreements were not honoured. If

the honourable Member is not prepared to consult his legally-trained

colleagues on matters of law…

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't trust them.

MR. KIERNAN: …I would suggest he at least consult them on a

matter of ethics. It's a very important point, Mr. Speaker, and this

question of honouring international agreements is far more critical to

the world today than some people seem to realize.

I would like to deal primarily, today, Mr. Speaker, with the overall

parks programme in British Columbia and its implications in the

changing society.

In the light of our magnificent potential for outdoor recreation, I

think we are wise to look at the whole picture as we plan for the

future and also to try to resolve the manner in which a high quality

environment may be protected to the utmost and, at the same time,

satisfy the ever-increasing needs of a rapidly rising population. Now

those are the two basic propositions. If what I say today seems to be

somewhat far-ranging, it is only because experience teaches one the

inescapable fact that nothing occurs in splendid isolation and the

course of human activity oft-times conditions the future far beyond

anything earlier anticipated. Great strides in terms of a comprehensive

parks programme have been made since the Department of Recreation and

Conservation was established in 1957. At that time, there were 117

Provincial parks in the system; today, there are 279 Provincial parks,

which works out to one new park a month for 13 years and you've got a

few left over.

The Park Act passed by this Legislative Assembly in 1965 laid down

specific policy concepts for the Provincial parks programme. Since that

time, we have been working towards the realization of these concepts

and, while a few situations still exist that are not consistent with

park policy as laid down at that time, we are working to eliminate them

and within this decade should complete that elimination of the

inconsistencies as near as it is practical to do so.

Upon second reading of the Park Act in 1965, I drew to the attention

of the House some of the historic inconsistencies that had existed in

park policy. Now, for the benefit of the new Members and to refresh the

memories of some who were here,

I'd like to just briefly summarize that situation. If those areas of

the Province set aside as Provincial

[ Page 100 ]

parks were in fact to be used only for recreational

use and ecological preservation, obviously, no alienations of timber,

mineral or land rights could be permitted within the park boundaries.

Yet, historically, in relation to the Class A parks and the Class B

parks, the large ones at least, not only had these alienations existed

but, in fact, parks had been established over land already honeycombed

with timber and mineral alienations and with apparently no intention

whatsoever of extinguishing those existing alienations. Class B

Provincial parks were actually established as multiple resource use

areas and only the sale of the land itself was precluded by their Class

B status.

While it was assumed in the public mind, at least, that Class A

parks were to have a high degree of protection, this was not

necessarily so. I cited at that time that Kokanee Glacier Park, which

is near Nelson, was established in 1922 as a Class A park and had

almost one-third of its 64,000 acres occupied by mineral claims at the

time it was established. Many of those mineral claims were actually

Crown granted at the time it was established. A great number of these

mineral claims are in good standing to this day and, while there hasn't

been a great deal of production from them, they nevertheless exist.

Within the law, there are only a few choices open to us. One is buy

out the mineral claims and thus eliminate the problem. Two is cancel

that portion of the park occupied by the mineral claims and eliminate

the problem that way. Three, live with the situation in hopes that the

mineral claims, upon further examination, will be dropped as being not

worthy of further effort. Four, require the claim owner to prove

mineral exists or, conversely, attempt to prove that the claims have

been staked for other than mining purposes. We have used all four

methods; none is entirely satisfactory. Buying out is generally too

expensive. Excluding from the park boundaries is not necessarily the

most satisfactory answer, although sometimes it is the only answer.

Living with the situation really doesn't resolve anything, because you

don't know when they are liable to proceed with development and

requiring the owner of claims to prove that mineral exists, in itself,

can be expensive and, quite often, it is still debatable after he has

proved that mineralization, in fact, exists, to determine whether or

not the mineralization is such that it can be economically mined at the

present or at some future date.

Both one and two are clear-cut, three and four are uncertain, and

none of them is entirely satisfactory. It should not be assumed from

the foregoing that we are beset by such problems on every hand. The

vast majority of our Provincial Parks has no alienation and none will

be allowed. There are, however, some problem areas in larger parks,

which must either be lived with or dealt with. A little later on I will

offer some recommendations for the future in this regard.

The Regional Park Act, passed in 1965 — that was a busy year for

parks — provided a new vehicle by which local Government could acquire

an interest in park areas outside of the boundaries of the particular

municipality, by joining together with other adjacent municipalities

and contiguous unorganized territory. The regional park districts under

the above statute, or the regional district under the Municipal Act

served as the administrative instrument, depending upon which locally

was felt to be the more appropriate. For the interest of the Members,

through you, Mr. Speaker, I have prepared these notes and they will be

available to them because they may be of some interest for them in

discussions with their own municipal people.

Class B Provincial parks were and remain primarily parks of local

interest, managed generally by local Parks Boards. Land titled to Class

B parks, unless formerly transferred to other jurisdictions, is vested

in the Crown Provincial. In the case of municipal parks, land title is

usually vested in the local municipality and these parks are generally

managed locally. For example, however, Stanley Park is a city park, the

believe, a 99 year-lease on the site. So there are exceptions even in

the case of clear title.

Class C parks have, on occasion, been transferred from the

Provincial park system to both municipal and regional park districts,

where these districts have been considered as the most appropriate

vehicle for the administration of such parks. There will likely be

further transfers of Class C parks in the future.

National parks within the Province to date have been confined to the

Rocky Mountain region. These National parks, coupled with National

parks in Alberta, which immediately adjoin Mount Robson Provincial and

Hamber Provincial Park in British Columbia, form a solid block of park

land in excess of four million acres astride the Rocky Mountain Range.

A comprehensive look at parks in the Province must, therefore, take

into consideration the park lands and park programmes of Federal,

Provincial, regional and municipal Governments in order to appreciate

the total programme in progress in the Province. To the above must be

added Fort Steele, Barkerville and, now, Fort St. James. While such

restorations are not funded directly through the Provincial parks vote,

they are, nevertheless, major park attractions and represent

substantial expenditures of Provincial funds. Nor should we overlook

the park potential of the Creston Wildlife Management Area. This 16,000

acres of wet land dedicated primarily to enhancing the wild water fowl

perpetuation has important park implications from the standpoint of

nature study and related subjects. It is, however, not designated a

park. It has its own statutes and it is not operated from any funds

within the park vote. It is a joint project of the Provincial

Government, through the Wildlife Branch; the Federal Government,

through the Canadian Wildlife Service; British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority, by grants in aid of capital development; Ducks Unlimited,

and other agencies, which I think is indicative of the project's appeal

when we consider the wide financial support it is now receiving.

Projects always require money and, while this is not the Budget

Debate, since there appears to be some confusion in the public mind

about what the Provincial Government is providing towards the

acquisition, development and management of park lands, I would

summarize the current fiscal year briefly (that's the year we are

presently in): $3,356,000 in the Provincial Parks Branch vote; $400,000

in the Aid to Regional Parks vote; $500,000 provided for Acquisition of

National Park Land (the West Coast park); $500,000 provided for

historic sites' improvement, restoration and management, or a total of

$4,756,000, of which slightly over one million is being spent in the

current year in terms of acquiring parks property.

Operating expenses of Manning Park Lodge are not included in the

foregoing. Manning Park Lodge is a commercial operation. It pays its

own costs from the revenue received for food and room services and, if

you added the cash flow of Manning Park Lodge to the foregoing, you

would be adding approximately $300,000 to the vote. It pays its own way

at the present time (interruption). No $300,000

[ Page 101 ]

gross (interruption) . I'd have to check on that one, Mr. Member. I

think it provided for additional facilities at Gibson Pass Ski Lift.

But I'll check on it to be specific.

The idea of a West Coast National Park has been the subject of

lengthy discussions and investigations for a number of years. Prior to

Federal-Provincial negotiations, Long Beach had been reserved for park

purposes, that is, the beach itself, and some Crown Provincial and

privately-owned land had been assembled by the Province. The Federal

Government also held a couple of thousand acres in terms of a National

Defence Reserve and the Province had optioned additional key acreage in

the area. It was logical, therefore, that we should, in our

negotiations, direct the attention of the National Park Service to this

part of the Province. The National Park Service agreed to make a

serious study of the proposal and, in this, we were assisted by our

Parks Planning Division. From this study came a confidential report

setting forth the merits, not only of the Long Beach Area as we had

originally discussed, but a greatly enlarged area of approximately

18,000 acres, contiguous to Long Beach. Two additional areas had also

been included in the overall, tentative report. We had, in fact, the

recommendation for not one, but three separate areas on the West Coast

to be included in the National Park. They were now identified as phase

one, two and three. Long Beach was Effingham Island and the Lifesaving

Trail. The Long Beach Area, phase one, originally under discussion,

when enlarged as a result of the project study, added to the proposal

17 miles of foreshore on the open Pacific for a total of 21 miles

(equal to the distance of the water front from Oak Bay Marina to

Sidney, by the way) and 17 miles of interior shoreline, together with a

further 19,000 acres of park land, in all 35,800 acres, of which 22,000

acres are land and 13,000 acres roughly are water and foreshore.

As agreed to by our joint planning staff, phase one has as its key

attraction Long Beach, plus all of the area on the West Coast extending

from the south of Wya Point northwesterly to include Florencia Bay,

Wickaninnish Bay, Long Beach, Schooner Cove, Portland Point and Point

Cox, then generally easterly to include most of the foreshore of Grice

and Indian Bays. The inland boundary on the south and east includes

water frontage and back-up lands on Kennedy Lake, which provide fresh

water swimming on an area roughly the size of Elk Lake.

Phase two consists of a group of islands lying in Barkley Sound

commonly known as the Effingham group. Of the hundred islands or more

in the group, at least 52 are large enough to warrant names. These

islands and the water around them within the boundaries of the park,

may be compared in size with the area of the municipality of West

Vancouver or, it could be said, it is 22 times the area of Stanley

Park, with the land mass of the islands being about 3 times the size of

Stanley Park.

During the Spring Session of 1969, the West Coast National Park Act

was passed to provide the legislative vehicle, not only for the

designation of the general area but also to provide the authority to

resolve the problems we felt we would encounter in putting such a parks

programme together. The agreement was signed in the spring of 1970 and

we commenced negotiations to purchase the numerous private properties.

While this area has often been referred to as a largely uninhabited,

prime, coastal wilderness and not likely to present many problems in

land assembly, it should be noted that, of the 38 miles of waterfront

and 35,000 acres of land and water now in the process of assembly for

phase one, an area incidentally twice the size of the original project,

there are 185 owners, involving 252 properties, whose businesses,

resorts, residences and vacant or unimproved land are to be acquired.

There was a sawmill to be relocated, forestry rights to be bought out

and roads to be diverted.

Phase two, the Effingham Island Group does not appear to present

major problems as there is, at present, little human activity there and

only a few alienations are involved. To date, we have not negotiated to

acquire any private interests presently in existence in the Effingham

Islands Group.

Phase three, consists of the Lifesaving Trail, the boundaries of

which have not yet been finally determined but, generally, the Trail

commences at, and includes most of, the estuary of the Gordon River at

the Head of Port San Juan, along the Coast northwest to include Owen

Point, Carmen Point, Fashina Point, Cape Beale, a coastline of about 57

miles. Proposals are now being made to enlarge the programme far beyond

protecting the historic trail, which was the original concept.

I have noted that phase one, the Long Beach area, has been expanded

to more than double its original projected size. Barring some totally

unforeseen problems, these increased boundaries have now been

confirmed. We are now receiving proposals for a large expansion of

phase three. While, no doubt, desirable from a park standpoint, these

proposals require the most careful consideration and examination for it

must be obvious that every expansion increases the cost of land

assembly, increases the complexity of the negotiations, demands a

broader scope of land use planning, and requires that the Government

find replacement acreage for the additional portions proposed to be

deleted from existing tree farm licenses. Additionally, with respect to

phase three, in establishing a single purpose use on 57 miles of

coastline from Cape Beale to Port San Juan, the question arises, in so

doing, would we unwittingly be creating problems for future development

of the West Coast hinterland behind the Lifesaving Trail. In our desire

to provide the utmost possible protection for the trail and its

environment, might we not frustrate interior developments requiring

access to the ocean in the future? If access were subsequently

provided, would this perhaps be a violation of the concept upon which

the park was originally established? Bear in mind, also, that the

combined coastline of phase one and phase three is equal to the

distance from Vancouver to Hope.

These are serious questions for the type of problems we encounter

and often arise because yesterday's planning was not property assessed

against tomorrow's necessities. An example is our recent experience in

being obliged to provide a corridor across Strathcona Park to permit

land access to Gold River from the East Coast of Vancouver Island,

since no practical land route to the community could other-wise be

established.

A further important question, in view of the high level in

unemployment: how much of our financial resources ought to be directed

to property purchases when such purchases generally generate little

immediate employment? Should we, in fact, be spending substantial sums

on property purchases or should we concentrate the direction of the

greatest possible amount of available funds to activities which create

new jobs in the shortest possible time?

I leave these thoughts with you for, while we are most sympathetic

to the ideas of further park expansion, as responsible legislators, it

behoves us to take a longer look at the whole picture.

Mount Seymour Provincial Park, the most popular park in

[ Page 102 ]

the whole park system, and it is only a small park, it's only 8,000

acres, located about 12 miles from the City of Vancouver, is, in fact,

in a continuous state of overcrowding through the winter weekends. Ski

development here presents a myriad of problems. By nature, the park's

rocky and broken terrain requires that we do extensive rock work every

time we work on roads, parking lots or ski runs and the costs are, of

course, proportionate to the conditions with which we have to deal.

Studies directed to accommodating more people in this area provided

only two possible courses of action — one, extend the lift facilities

over and beyond Mystery Peak to open up new ski areas. While this would

improve the quality of the skiing, it would not increase our people

capacity, unless we expanded in a massive way the parking lot and

support facilities presently encompassed within the present service

centre complex. For a number of reasons this would be undesirable and,

in terms of the terrain, it would be impractical because we are

crouched on a ridge, right there. Alternative two — construct an

entirely new access route from about the microwave station location,

south and east of the present area, bypassing De Pencier Bluff to the

east and establishing a new base near De Pencier Lake. This would

require, an initial survey indicated, about 5 million dollars to put

together a viable complex and the road to the new location. From the

foregoing, it must be concluded that except for slope and facility

improvement and the obvious need for further reconstruction of the

access road to the ski area, we have reached the limit of practical

expansion in terms of winter sports use at Mount Seymour Provincial

Park.

Two other factors related to the park warrant attention: the access

road and the satellite trails which fan out from the centre complex.

The access road to Mount Seymour is the subject of continuing

complaints. Originally constructed to very low standards it snakes to

3,000 ft. from virtually sea level in about 8 miles, and, for the

better part of the winter season, is subjected to spontaneous

thaw-freeze cycles as well as to torrential rains and heavy snow. Parts

of the road which have been rebuilt stand up to weather and traffic

conditions quite well. The parts not rebuilt are, at times, hazardous.

We do everything possible to keep the road passable through the winter

months. It must be remembered there are stretches where 10 miles an

hour or even less may be the prudent speed. Trails in the park, which

fan out from the central complex, are notorious in that people using

them tend to lose all sense of direction. Blaze orange and black signs

and ribbon coloured markers have been strategically placed, within the

last two weeks, along the trails as a temporary safety measure and,

this coming summer, a connecting ring trail will be constructed in an

effort to direct the trail buffs back to the central complex.

One of our problems with signing in Mount Seymour has been the

unfortunate idea that some people have that signs are meant to be torn

down and used for shovelling snow, sliding on as a toboggan or just

generally bust up for the sheer heck of it. I don't know, short of

steel and concrete, how we can establish a signing system that will

resist the vandalistic stupidity of some people.

Trails in the park which fan out from the central complex are

notorious because people do lose their sense of direction and we have

provided this temporary signing programme. While blaze orange on black

may be totally inconsistent with the nature aura of a park, that is the

only kind of sign that has real visibility under bad haze conditions.

Much of the park is rugged and wild and, to the uninitiated, dangerous.

The situation is further compounded by the foolhardy, the

adventuresome, who go forth alone into such areas and, here, I cannot

stress too strongly the advisability of the buddy system over the loner

system. I say foolhardy, advisedly, for even the most experienced and

knowledgeable mountaineer would seldom venture far afield in the

wilderness for, if he were to suffer a fall or an injury, he would well

run the risk of disappearing for all time, simply because nobody knew

he was hurt or knew where he was. Well, we have continued to devote a

substantial portion of our parks funds to this important park; we have

also stopped the means of spreading the recreational load that

originates with that very dense metropolitan area, the lower Fraser

Valley and Greater Vancouver.

The Government has never believed that it was primarily its

prerogative or responsibility to develop ski facilities within the

Province. Recognizing the ever-increasing popularity of winter sports,

however, we have tried to encourage a variety of organizations and

people to develop winter sports facilities. These have been launched,

managed and financed by many different groups throughout the Province.

Some thrive. A few are struggling to survive and others have fallen by

the wayside. Since 1968, the ski operation in Gibson Pass in Manning

Park has been greatly expanded and, under the direct supervision of the

Regional Park Superintendent, has become a very popular ski

development. Armed with this experience, we are now in a position to

take on the responsibility of another winter recreation development

and, as my colleague, the Honourable Ray Williston, told you yesterday,

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to take over the operation at Cypress

Bowl. Any expenditure that we could make at Seymour would not produce,

in terms of the dollars spent, as much recreational opportunity as the

equivalent amount spent at Cypress Bowl. In other words, to go into the

De Pencier Lake area would require a substantial expenditure and, on

our projections, the equivalent expenditure in providing access and

facilities in the Cypress Bowl area would produce a lot more usable

recreational space. This will be a day use area. I don't foresee the

need to establish any accommodation facilities other than for staff,

that is, dwelling facilities. You will, of course, require a day lodge

and a coffee shop and that kind of thing but, as far as the development

we envisage is concerned, it would be very much along the line of what

presently exists at Mount Seymour. It would not, I think, have the same

limitations of terrain that we encounter at Mount Seymour.

I don't want to fool anybody that it won't be expensive to develop

Cypress, it will. The most inexpensive development that we have had in

the Province has been Gibson Pass in Manning Park. There the terrain is

ideal, the weather conditions are just about ideal, and for the amount

of money we have spent, we have had a very good development. Seymour is

tremendously popular and, regardless of what else happens, it will

always be popular because it is so close to the urban area. In terms of

terrain, it is really bad, in terms of weather conditions it's less

than ideal. It's the fact that it is so close that gives it its great

popularity. I don't doubt that Cypress will be very much the same

(interruption) . We will own and operate the operation ourselves,

totally (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Members please address the Chair?

MR. KIERNAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We were having

[ Page 103 ]

a little conversation and I know that that is quite improper. I want

to turn to another subject now, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if some of the

honourable Members would prefer to have their conversations in the

coffee shop, so I can get this Speech wound up. The Ministers' Land Use

Committee has been active during the year in terms of resolving

specific land use problems and pursuing pilot projects of long-range

implication. From our studies and deliberations to date, it is evident

that only by integration of the planning activities of the several

departments of Government involved can we produce a good land use

programme. In some areas, multiple land use is not only desirable but

necessary. There are instances, however, where land and water must be

dedicated to single use. For example, nature conservancies, ecological

preserves and intensively used recreation areas and our Provincial

parks.

Multiple use, however, permits timber harvesting, hiking, hunting,

fishing, livestock raising, riding trails. The list is endless. It has

been observed by game management personnel that, in many areas, the

climax forest growth gradually crowds out all ground cover and, with

the resulting lack of forage, wildlife is forced out of that area.

Within these areas, therefore, from a wildlife management standpoint,

forest removal is not only desirable, it is absolutely essential. New

park recommendations today are being received from many areas of the

Province, sponsored by a wide variety of organizations and individuals.

Some of these recommendations are well documented, supported by maps,

photographs and a very comprehensive picture of the proposal.

In reviewing past and present programmes of park designation and

development, we have, I think, highlighted some of the factors that we

must take into consideration in the allocating and dedicating of Crown

land to a single purpose. Costs of assembling privately owned parcels

for parks purposes, either in conjunction with Crown land or without

additions of Crown land, have been noted. If we look at these

recommendations strictly from a park standpoint, all of the submissions

have merit. I have not seen a single submission that did not have merit

from a park standpoint that has been made to the Government over the

last three or four years.

The real problem is one of selectivity, for most of the land mass of

this Province has park-like qualities. If these recommended areas, most

of which are substantial in size, are to be given park status, they

must now be processed and evaluated by the technical committees and

finally passed by the Ministers' Land Use Committee, prior to

dedication for a single use purpose.

This, of necessity, is a very searching process but only by careful

evaluation can we avoid creating real problems and unworkable land use

conflicts. In the process of determining appropriate and compatible

land use, one is led inevitably to consideration of the indirect

effects of the use of land and to face the all-encompassing and

fundamental problems related to ecology and environment.

This is a subject so complex as to permit only a few basic

observations on this occasion. These are offered with the hopes that,

in some small measure, they will contribute to a realistic evaluation

of the material and knowledge available to us in order that research

and action may be directed to the situations most critically in need of

our special attention.

We are, in fact, making progress. Every mining company today is

required to plan land reclamation as part of its mining operation and

post a cash bond to ensure that reclamation will actually be carried

out. Every pulp mill built in the last decade has been required to use

the most effective methods for both air and water pollution control

presently available and is committed to use more advanced methods as

they are proven. Danger of pesticides, such as DDT, are now rigidly

controlled by the Department of Agriculture and may be used only on

prescription, if no safe alternative method exists. Bear in mind,

however, that even if we succeed in totally eliminating the use of DDT

in the Province of British Columbia and the surrounding areas, we will

still have DDT present in our wildlife, especially in the migratory

species, because DDT now permeates every corner of this globe,

including the Arctic Circle.

The Litter Act has already heightened awareness of the need to

control litter and has substantially reduced the number of no-deposit,

no-return soft drink bottles in circulation. Quality standards for air,

water and land are being progressively established and background

studies are being completed so that we will know when and in what

manner pollution is taking place. One cannot be long associated,

however, with the work of biologists without becoming highly sensitive

to the seriousness of the problems that man has unwittingly created in

pursuit of affluence. Research and breakthroughs in the field of

medicine have substantially negated the natural, biological controls of

population growth and, by a matter of simple mathematical progression,

all indications point to an increase in world population from

approximately 3.2 billion today to 6.4 billion by the turn of the

century.

This, in itself, represents a massive demand on world resources, far

beyond anything we have so far witnessed. The standard of living has

been raised for millions of people to a level undreamed of at the

beginning of this century. Yet the existence of other millions, and

their numbers are increasing at an alarming rate, is little better than

that of their forbears in the Dark Ages. Unless we can bring a better

balance to the living standard throughout the world, do we really think

that world peace is capable of achievement? Modern technology is so

highly developed that it is capable of producing a tremendous volume of

goods. It has also developed the capability of total annihilation of

society as we know it. Thoughtful people everywhere look with dread and

anguish on two great nations who, metaphorically speaking, have their

finger on the trigger of world destruction, in the form of the ICBM and

the hydrogen warhead.

In searching for the answer to why this is so, set aside ideological

arguments, step away from political platitudes, and one is face to face

with the root cause of this dilemma — distrust, fear and their natural

offspring, hatred. If gloom and doom are your cup of tea, here's a

great bellyful for you and you may weep to your heart's content. Should

you, however, wish to be positive about this world of ours and, in

spite of the obvious hazards, it is a wonderful world, many

opportunities are presented. Above all, let us not be the purveyors of

distrust and fear by wrongfully attributing wrong motives and

intentions to people and to situations by distorting or ignoring the

facts. The greatest danger around us is not pollution, great as that

danger may be, it is distrust, fear and hatred. We've replaced such

negative forces with positive ones. We can reach solutions to even the

most massive problems that confront mankind. These are times of rapid

change, of great challenge, of great opportunity. Never in human

history has mass survival been so dependent upon clear thinking, honest

appraisals and wise judgements. I believe we are capable of meeting

this challenge but only on the foundation of confidence, trust and

positive action can

[ Page 104 ]

we hope to do so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to make it somewhat longer now because the Member from Vancouver Centre is encouraging me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the lead of the honourable

Minister. He opened his remarks by talking in terms in the fact that

the Provincial Government had no hand in this unemployment situation. I

would just like to reiterate, however, that, in the course of the

unemployment situation, the Government admittedly left one thousand

places in the Civil Service not filled. This, of course, was validated

by the Honourable Premier in making an announcement just before this

Session, when he said that they would be filling the places of those

thousand people that were out of jobs during the time when they should

have had jobs.

One other little item that I think we should all be aware of. The

Insurance committee, the new Insurance Board that is being set up by

the Provincial Government is already hard at work, despite the fact

that it hasn't met yet. I noticed two announcements in the paper. One

an announcement by Byron Straight the only member of that board, I

think, who is not a Government employee, indicating that the cost of

insurance will rise again in spite of the fact that the cost of

insurance has already risen around 12 per cent (interruption) . No, I

don't see his name. However, I think that it would be a far stronger

board if we didn't have this kind of pronouncement at the outset,

indicating to the insurance companies, "Go ahead, insurance companies,

do your best to sock it to the public." That's precisely, it seems to

me, what is going to happen.

The other pronouncement by that same actuary on January 28 was the

whole matter of good drivers should pay for bad drivers. This is the

suggestion that came before the committee last year and it may be a

good one. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that good drivers should be

looking at the Government for a little more control with respect to

keeping bad drivers off the road, because insurance companies, surely,

should not be making those kinds of decisions.

Mr. Speaker, recently a plywood fence went up in New Westminster and

it signified a new wing for the Royal Columbian Hospital. We're

delighted to see that plywood go up, despite the fact that they are

only modular units, which are only temporary. The fact is we are going

to have replaced in New Westminster the 1912 wing, that wing that I

described in this House last year and many of you displayed some

interest in. I would like to compliment the Government on following my

advice on this matter and, certainly, I'd like to compliment the people

of New Westminster, the doctors, the newspapers and all the other

people who were so helpful in getting our story across, because that

hospital is an important institution in the lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, the price was somewhat high, however. The price for

that hospital came with a new budget and that new budget demanded

things such as staff cuts which, in turn, promoted less care. As a

matter of fact, in some instances, it brought care down to the danger

level. Mr. Speaker, the minister says, "Nonsense." I know a neighbour,

in one instance, who went to that hospital, felt that she had had a

fairly good operation but, unfortunately, she came up with an infection

although the staff had really worked hard. I'm getting phone call after

phone call with regard to that hospital and the fact is the staff cuts

were prejudicial. Mr. Speaker, cutting costs is not only a problem at

the Royal Columbian Hospital; 16 hospitals out of 104 in the Province

said that they did not drop in quality of health care. Did not.

Therefore, 88, Mr. Speaker, must have dropped in quality of health

care. (I came here with the same cold I left with last year.) Prince

George hospital, right now, provides 2.3 nursing hours per patient day

and everybody agrees it should be 3.4 hours per patient day. There must

be an alternative. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the alternative must come

as a result of us reviewing our our whole matter of health care in the

Province. Because New Westminster is the centre of a health care

hodge-podge, we are extremely conscious of a lack of co-ordination. We

have two major hospitals, a few private hospitals and a large school

for the retarded, and are close to the huge Riverview-Valleyview

complex. Naturally many of our citizens work with or are employed by

these institutions. The fact that comes through, loud and clear, is

lack of co-ordination. There is no evidence that the Government has

long-range plans for bringing the delivery of health care into this

Province into the twentieth century. The incredible temporary patching

up of our old and inadequate health care facilities seems to be the

most glaring example of penny-wise and pound-foolish policy ever

exhibited. Health care should be considered just that. All the facets

of health care and the delivery of those services should be properly

co-ordinated under one minister and with one top ranking deputy to see

to it that interdepartmental cooperation does take place. Included in

this portfolio or department should be the Medical Services Commission,

Mr. Speaker. No longer should we see doctors going in one direction,

mental health in another. Public health and BCHIS are also at different

tangents. With the kind of overview provided by capable people with

research facilities, we could expect some real improvements in the

delivery of health care.

One of the improvements which should emerge would be a greater

concentration of preventative medicine. Presently 5 per cent of the

health care budget is expended on public health. That 5 per cent

includes public health research and preventative medicine. Mr. Speaker,

that's patently ridiculous. Our aim should be toward a healthy society

not a "wait until they are sick" route. The latter is so much more

expensive, yet this is where we find ourselves. We have been

conditioned to think that health care is administering to the sick.

Surely, this fallacy must be removed. Saving a person from sickness is

so much more effective than waiting to treat the sick man. If all

efforts were co-ordinated, a great deal more emphasis could be placed

on preventative health care and research, obviously.

Another change that could occur would be a move to encourage doctors

to embark upon group practices. The encouragement could take many

forms, including financial rewards to keep people well. The group

clinics are producing. To see where the British Columbia population

requires 1,769 days of hospital per thousand population and the Puget

Sound group, which is a group hospital care, requires only 455 patient

days, should tell us something. Every group plan that I have looked at

has shown a real improvement over the generally accepted method of

medical care. Just to further emphasize the problem, not only are we

subject to that high requirement of acute care but, in addition, we

require 243 extended care patient days per thousand population. Now

these are charts from the Puget Sound Group care. Here's our exposure

of 121,716 people and so, in this case, it's not a

[ Page 105 ]

small exposure, it's a large one. Out of this we see 455 patient

days required. Mr. Speaker, I think that speaks for itself and it

speaks for all group care practices.

Another benefit which could be gained by proper co-ordination, would

be immediate expansion of extended care and intermediate care

facilities. The Minister of Health admits that many expensive acute

care beds are taken by people requiring a different level of service.

Now the range of service in hospitals goes from very expensive, $150 to

$200 per day, intensive care beds, to $50 and up, acute care beds. Then

we get down to the extended care, $15 a day and up and then, I think,

we can move into another area and think in terms of chronic care in the

$8 category and, possibly, go down to $5 a day supervised boarding.

Now, I think, this whole range of health care should be a part of the

delivery system. Surely, it is time to provide facilities to suit

needs. If the priority does become people, it's time to provide the

type of services and facilities in this Province so that we cover the

whole range.

What happens is, of course, the Federal Government cuts out at the

extended care. They cut out at that $15 per day range and so,

therefore, anything below that, despite the fact that it might save us

money, is ignored; however, incorporating that might very well be an

idea to place an awful lot more people under the care and still for no

more cost. The Minister once said quantity is what he wanted. The

savings made in providing care to meet needs would take the sting out

of the Federal position as far as we are concerned, I feel assured.

It's been suggested that the dollar a day for those actually ill

should be raised. The people on short stay are maintaining a home and

often losing their income while they are ill. I won't look down the

aisle but I think we all know where that's coming from, Mr. Speaker. It

is time, I think, that we take a look at personal participation at the

other end. Remember, it could be, however, that down at the other end

of the scale where people are chronically ill or ill for the rest of

their lives and they have an income, that we might require some more

participation from that group. From those who can afford it, maybe

three to four dollars a day, because the hospital becomes their home. I

think everybody would agree, including them, that this is fair enough.

But don't raise the rates at the other end of the spectrum because

these people, of course, are losing so much already.

Now the subject of prescription drugs should be closely studied. The

estimate now is that 30 per cent of the prescriptions go unfilled

because people cannot afford medicine. We are probably admitting many

seriously ill people to the hospitals just because they are unable to

heed the advice of their doctors, financially. No doubt, the thoughtful

approach in the future will be to see to it that prescription drugs

become part of a health programme.

All these areas and many, many more could be part of an overall

co-ordinated effort if Government would give the lead. This Government

has run behind the needs of the people for so long, it is no wonder we

find ourselves with critical problems in the delivery of health care

services. Mr. Loffmark, the Minister of Health, told us last May 27

that we had two choices — quality or quantity, and he chose the latter.

Under the circumstances, I would imagine he has no choice. But I would

suggest that we can give quantity and quality if, in fact, we will

streamline our health care programme, including getting the Medical

Services Commission out of the Provincial Secretary's Department. I

think what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is perpetrating a tremendous

waste of money and it's time we took a real good look at this.

While I'm dealing with health for a moment, here's a thought that I

think we could all take seriously — this matter of food and drugs. For

years, we have known that there is a really bad situation as far as

poisonings are concerned in this country. A recent report by the

Federal Food and Drug Directorate indicates the likelihood of an

increase in accidental poisonings from 41,722 in 1968 to over 50,000 in

1970. Now 75 per cent of all these accidental poisonings involve

children under the age of five. It's been proven by tests both here and

in the United States that these figures could be reduced three-fold if

the use of child-proof drug containers were made mandatory. I think

it's time the Department of Health is given the go ahead in this

matter, Mr. Speaker. That is a very strong suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, in the B.C. Legislature, we share a great

responsibility with the elected Members in the Federal Parliament and

in the other Provincial Legislatures. In response to increasing demands

from millions of Canadians who face discrimination daily, a Federal

Royal Commission has called for sweeping legislative changes to

eliminate injustices that have existed for generations. I refer, of

course, to the discrimination in our country against women, to the

attitudes and practices which have had the effect of relegating them to

a subordinate position and have denied them the full range of rights

and opportunities available to men in this country. The Royal

Commission on the Status of Women has made its report and the years of

study that have gone into the report establish clearly the wide range

of ways in which our society discriminates against women. The

injustices basically fall into four categories: inequality before the

law, unfair distribution of social freedoms and responsibilities, and

the widespread propagation of prejudicial written and visual material,

and much of it comes from women.

Mr. Speaker, as I look across the way, I ask the Members to consider

briefly some of the most basic examples in each of these categories and

some of the steps that are required to eliminate these injustices. This

is a serious matter. We all had better look ahead ten years, right now.

For years we have imposed discriminatory conditions in our laws on

women who marry. Most basic of these is the fact that we require, in

various ways, that a woman assume her husband's surname. Did you ever

think of that? Passport regulations, for example, require that a woman

upon marrying, obtain a new passport bearing her husband's Surname.

Even the distinction between Miss and Mrs., a distinction not applied

to men is discriminatory. Our human rights legislation should guarantee

the rights of a woman upon marriage to retain her own name and should

prohibit on application or other forms any requirement that a woman use

the prefix Miss or Mrs. The greatest single area in which women face

discrimination and unjust prejudice, as we are finding in the back

leagues and… (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Order!

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we still say our human

rights legislation should guarantee the right of a woman upon marriage

to retain her own name and should prohibit on application or other

forms any requirement that a woman use Miss or Mrs. Think about it,

back there in the boondocks. The greatest single area in which women

face discrimination and unjust treatment is in the employment

conditions and opportunities (interruption) . That's all right,

[ Page 106 ]

Mr. Speaker, I've got all afternoon. The normal business pattern is

to consign and often confine women to the work areas of limited

opportunities. They are the secretaries not the account executives; the

filing clerks not the salesmen. It is true that women are promoted to

senior positions but only by showing themselves to be markedly superior

to junior male employees, junior male employees. The normal pattern in

almost every business in this country is to find in offices half or

more of the staff women, with few if any of the senior or managerial

positions held by women. The wages and working conditions vary greatly.

Often relatively junior male employees are paid more than experienced,

knowledgeable and skilled secretaries, and everyone of us have seen

that. The males often have greater movement and are treated within the

office hierarchy as senior to women, irrespective of their relative

lengths of service and responsibility. I know, Mr. Speaker, that some

of the things that I am saying are not necessarily shared by all the

people in my Party.

In the professions, Mr. Speaker, the same discrimination can be

found, except in the traditionally female professions, such as nursing.

Women are a very small minority and women are discouraged rather than

encouraged from entering many professions. In spite of the efforts of

trade unions, women are still the object of discrimination in

industrial occupations. In organized industrial operations, unions

have, in most cases, eliminated separate and inferior wage scales for

women. In some cases, however, artificial job classifications are an

indirect form of wage discrimination. In unorganized industrial

operations, the practice is widespread. Unfortunately, even where

unions have been able to win genuinely equal wage rates, the results

have been that companies have simply stopped hiring women. The best

example is to be found in the case of plywood plants, and most of us

know the situations right now happening in B.C. At one time, there were

separate wage rates and many people were employed in plywood plants.

Since the IWA negotiated equal rates in organized plywood plants,

companies have, in most instances, stopped hiring women and the number

of women in the industry declined as women already in the industry

retire or leave the industry. Even in the industries where women are

the major portion of the work force, the foremen or supervisors are

generally men, with few women being promoted to the supervisory

positions.

To rectify this situation, rigorously enforced Government

legislation is required. Some American States and recently the

Government of Manitoba have introduced legislation which prohibits one

of the most obvious methods of employment discrimination, the newspaper

categorization of "Help Wanted, Men" and "Help Wanted, Women." Now,

similar legislation is required in B.C. In view of the present

inadequacies of enforcement of human rights legislation, it is

essential that a Director of Women's Rights be appointed by the

Government, and that this position be given authority and

responsibility for vigorously speaking out and taking action against

any form of discrimination against women.

To ensure that this is properly carried out, it is desirable to

appoint a woman, who not only is dedicated to achieving and protecting

full rights for women but is also known and respected in B.C., so that

individual women encountering discrimination will know to whom to turn

with their grievances. The third source of discrimination, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would you put in?

MR. COCKE: I know many who could handle it nicely. The third source of discrimination, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would you put in?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, does that man have the right to appoint this person? Otherwise, I'm not going to answer his question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member is not here to answer anybody's question but to address himself to the Chair.

MR. COCKE: The third source of discrimination is one of the

most difficult to eliminate. Mr. Speaker, I'm doing exactly what the

honourable Member before me did. I just want to make sure that I don't

miss anything. Traditionally, our society has arbitrarily assigned

responsibility for child care and home management to women. For

generations, it was generally accepted that a woman's place was in the

home. Such is no longer the case, whether we like it or not.

Increasingly, women are demanding the opportunity to pursue other forms

of work outside the home and there is no doubt that this demand will

increase steadily in the years ahead. To satisfy these demands requires

either that our society accept interchangeability of roles so that, in

many cases, husbands will stay home and keep house, or that we adjust

to the new situation created when both husband and wife work. It

appears that the latter situation is the more likely and I suggest,

therefore, that we consider various proposals which have been put

forward and act to encourage and assist our society to make this

adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, since we are digressing a little bit, right now, I'd

like to make a suggestion. I have four children, all girls, pretty well

grown up, and I've got a wife. In my house I see that those people are

people and that they are equal people (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Here we go, back to Turkey Neck Bend. Changes are required, Mr. Speaker, to adjust to a situation… (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Changes are required, Mr. Speaker, to adjust to a

situation in which it is common for both husband and wife to work. In

two ways. Our educational system must prepare children for the changed

roles required in adulthood. In general, this means giving a new

perspective to children. Traditionally, the family has been depicted as

functioning with a clear division of responsibility. Father goes to

work, mother stays home and keeps house. Girls have always been given a

special training in home-making arts, while boys have normally not been

given this training. As part of the new perspective, home-making must

be presented as a shared responsibility, with boys as well as girls

given training in domestic subjects and taught to expect to share these

responsibilities. Texts must be revised to get away from the

traditional, stereotyped differences between roles of men and women

(interruption). Yes, I can cook, and make wine, too.

The second type of change required is to meet the needs of child

care. Day care centres must become as much a community responsibility

as public schools have become in this century. Day care centres must

become our

[ Page 107 ]

responsibility. They might, in fact, be directly connected with the

public school system or, alternatively, we might encourage the pattern

which has developed in some countries of providing day care centres in

conjunction with major businesses or industrial complexes. In either

case, we must develop facilities that provide carefully trained men and

women to operate day care centres. These changes are simply recognizing

the needs of today and the developments which are obviously going to

occur tomorrow.

The most difficult aspects of the problem of achieving equality for

women is to overcome stereotypes which have been propagated for years

by the media. An evening spent watching television or a careful look at

any popular magazine will illustrate this problem. Women are shown as

creatures who, because they are lost without men, must devote a major

portion of their attention to winning or keeping them. From head to

toe, a woman is urged to purchase a multitude of products, just to make

sure she does not lose out. At the same time, she is continually shown

as a housekeeper, who is sufficiently dull-witted that she invariably

uses the wrong product until someone (usually a man) saves her from her

own stupidity. While advertising is the worst culprit, the media

carries other prejudicial material. Women are generally identified less

by their own accomplishments than they are by their male associations.

An example, which would have been amusing if it weren't so sad, could

be found in the front-page story of the Vancouver Sun on the

Report of the Royal Commission of the Status of Women. Referring to the

Commission Chairman, Anne Francis, the reporter automatically added

parenthetically that she was the wife of parliamentary correspondent,

John Bird. It's no slight to Mr. Bird to suggest that, perhaps, Anne

Francis is better known to the public than he is. Certainly, it could

hardly be suggested that her husband constituted her principal

qualifications to head a Royal Commission. And yet this goes on in the

media. Editors, however, are, for the most part, men; most journalists

are men; most radio commentators are men; and, as a result, it is

highly surprising that the news of men's activities constitute a major

portion of the hard news in the media.

Stories concerning women usually have a somewhat strange air as

though they were dealing with a creature from another world. From

sports to service clubs, men's news and activities are given

prominence. As I've suggested, one of the keys is the male domination

of the media. Obviously, therefore, one of the keys to rectify the

situation is to ensure that women are involved in the media in greater

numbers.

I recognize that, in this area of prejudice as in other areas of

prejudice, few of the solutions can be achieved legislatively. The

Government can, however, provide leadership and exert pressure to

encourage change in the direction of equality.

I have not dealt with the issue that has come to be identified with

the Women's Liberation Movement — our abortion laws. This is, of

course, basically a subject for Federal legislation. I believe,

however, that our Provincial Government must recognize that basic

principle, that women have the sole right to determine what happens to

their own bodies. I, therefore, urge the Government to take steps to

accommodate the present demands for abortion. Present facilities are

totally unable to cope with this situation. In concluding this appeal

for action to eliminate the present inequities faced by women in our

country, I would point to all male Members of the Legislature, and

indeed to males everywhere, that we, who have for years benefited from

our society's discrimination against women, have a moral obligation to

devote considerable attention and energy to working toward conditions

of real equality for women in our society.

Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not as I said at the outset, ten

years from now we are not going to recognize this world. Twenty years

from now, we might be getting a lot closer to the kind of equality I am

talking about here (interruption) . And what's wrong with that?

Mr. Speaker, the Province can't control interest rates but I think

it's time we put pressure on the Federal Government to stop…. I'll put

this right on to you, Mr. Attorney-General…. Government cannot control

interest rates and it's time that we put pressure on the Federal

Government to stop flagrant displays of usury in this Province. I have

here a statement form showing a statement from a mortgage owner and

this statement says that the man borrowed $7,200 on a second mortgage.

He had to pay fees and bonuses of $958.70. He actually got out of the

mortgage $6,241.30. Mr. Speaker, at the end of three years, well,

thirty-three months, this man is down to the amount that he got. He

paid $127.00 per month for three years to get down to the amount of

money he originally got. This is terrible. It takes him five years to

get down to $5,000. Five years after he's only borrowed $6,200. It's

not the fault of the Government for not dealing with it, because they

can't deal with it. This Government has been talking about inflation

over the last few days. Let me tell you about inflation. Inflation is

caused, in my view, by unearned income and capital gains. Unearned

income and capital gains, and that's unearned income, Mr. Speaker,

that's unearned income of the worst kind. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the

kind of thing that provokes wage demands. We are looking at it in the

wrong way, when we keep blaming labour and keep hollering at Haynes and

the rest. The fact of the matter is what is putting those people in

those positions.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to wind up by having a few words to say, and I

will have many more in other debates in the House, and I'd like to talk

about something that is close to New Westminster's heart. My

constituency has suffered through years of neglect from this Provincial

Government and I think that is pretty well known throughout the

country. We are embarking upon a massive and costly sewage disposal

plant. This Government, that seems bent on clobbering municipalities,

has pulled out of its bag of tricks, I think, a real low blow. New

Westminster is to lose its contract to buy bulk power from B.C. Hydro.

This Crown Corporation has decided to snatch $800,000 per year out of

the pockets of the residents of New Westminster (interruption). Yes,

I'm in favour of this, you just wait and see. This is no privilege,

this is a traditional right. Don't tell me that stuff. A traditional

right, Mr. Speaker. An absolute right. We should be accustomed to the

Government welshing on their commitments to municipalities. We keep

hoping for some pang of conscience to hit those in positions of power.

But the B.C. Hydro is a creature of this Government and it's a giant

creature. The policy, if indeed it is Government policy, that a

municipality must not distribute power to its own citizens is

ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. Our history of

distribution of power is long standing and was an outgrowth of

community effort. Should a senior Government have the power to take

away rights from a junior Government? No, I say, unless the people's

interests are not served. They are served here and everybody in this

House knows it. The fact of the matter is that it was a community

effort that built our distribution service not the rest of the

Province. New

[ Page 108 ]

Westminster built it. New Westminster is a child of this Government and it is being treated like an unwanted stepchild.

Now, B.C. Hydro sells bulk power to Puget Light and Power on an

unreturnable basis. Yes, on an unreturnable basis and imagine favouring

the people on the other side of the border to our own people here in

British Columbia. You talk about an unwanted stepchild.

The action contemplated is aimed particularly at the senior

citizens of New Westminster. People in the far west end of our city are

still without sewers. Now, those are the people we adopted from the

Provincial Government, for heaven's sake. Part of the area I described

is the old DL 170 and it has not been helped by this Government as

promised, so with the expenses they now face they really are going to

have to dig deep into their resources. Many will be forced out of their

homes. The loss of revenue from the distribution of power is too much

for these citizens to face. Now the municipal government will be forced

to act as a hatchet man, in order to keep the Provincial Government's

hands clean. I intend to bring to the attention of every resident of

New Westminster just who the real culprits are. It's the Government,

with their fingers in the pie.

For the benefit of those who do not know the history of New

Westminster's electrical power situation, I'd like to bring you up to

date. New Westminster has been generating their own power, or had been

generating their own power prior to 1904, when the B.C. Electric

appealed to New Westminster to become a customer for bulk power. A fair

and equitable agreement was reached, with New Westminster retaining its

distribution system and B.C. Electric selling them bulk power. It was

fair and equitable, not charity, not even a great bargain. It is not a

bargain today. Many large industries in this Province and corporations

doing business with this Province are able to buy bulk power cheaper

from the same source as New Westminster. In other words, big industry

here is paying less for their bulk power than New Westminster. We are

not asking for anything particularly great. I would like to see our

bill per kilowatt hour at Puget Lake. The chairman of Hydro, obviously,

does not believe in honouring old agreements; the Finance Minister

disclaims any responsibility to see that fair play is exercised in this

area; the law of the jungle prevails — muscle over integrity. We are

only 40,000 people in New Westminster, but let the Government be warned

that we intend to fight this.

Mr. Speaker, we fought and won on the Royal Columbian Hospital and

we intend to fight and win on this issue. If you have your own

distribution system, well, of course, you should have the right to sell

power. We've got our distribution system and it was a community effort

that got it (interruption) . Probably, that's what we'll have to do. In

fact, we can't deal with Hydro. Why don't you say to Puget Power,

"Produce your own power?" What are you talking about? We're a child of

this Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Member address the Chair?

MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker, it comes back to one thing. I

think that we can probably say that we're governed by guess and by

folly. I hope to see you in other debates in this Session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I'm glad, Mr.

Speaker, that after that last debate from the Honourable Member for New

Westminster that women are still women, even though he tried very hard

to make out that he didn't know the difference. That's how confusing

the Royal Commission on Equality for Women is. You know, it must have

been very difficult for him to know which was his mother or father. I

was thinking of all the references that he gave us and he certainly

must have had some substantial help in getting together this speech on

suffrage for women. It seemed to me a little reminiscent of some

background where it was coming from another country from which a lot of

people tried to escape. Maybe it was an imported speech.

Mr. Speaker, before we begin the main part of our address this

afternoon here in respect to the needs and the aspirations of the people

of Saanich and the Islands, I would like to probably break in

with…having followed the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He

prompted my mind to recall that out on the Gulf Islands we hear a great

deal about the restoration of those Islands to the Crown. Some of the

Federal Members think that we should buy back all the Islands gradually

and then put them all in the Crown. I would like to draw to a more

reasonable conclusion and bring to the attention of the Minister that

on Pender Island, Mayne Island and Saturna, there is not a Provincial

Crown water front park, a park with water front. I think this in an

opportune time, maybe, to put some action to our desires to afford some

water front property on those Islands and I hope that it might be a

Centennial project for the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

We've heard a good deal about rapid transit, too, and it might be

appropriate at this moment — when so many people find that there is no

transit at all, that it's not rapid, that it's standing still — to say

a word on behalf of those people who rely implicitly and completely on

bus transportation. I know that the machinery for settling disputes

such as this has to take its course and grind out whatever kind of

agreement can be reached but, it seems to me, that if there was going

to be a strike, it certainly wouldn't have lasted very long if it had

been held before Christmas. I wonder sometimes in the planning of a

strike, if these things are taken into consideration. Probably the

least discomfort was for the public and, therefore, it was felt they

could arbitrate at another time that would be more convenient for the

bus drivers or the bus system. I hope that, in not trying to come down

heavily on employees or on management, that the negotiations will be

rapidly brought to conclusion and that the people who do depend highly

on bus transportation will be afforded it. I must say something in

sympathy, though, with all those who want clean air and easy movement

of traffic — it's certainly been a lot easier without the busses. Maybe

it's time we had a new invention of some kind so that independent

travel might be afforded without using mass media of transportation.

Maybe we need a different type of automobile or propulsion and that

will come in its time when individuals will probably take to

semirelaxation from gravity and move in an altogether different form of

motivation than we do today. Anything could happen in the science of

invention that we have achieved by landing on planets, etc.

I would like to say in beginning my remarks to a Centennial Year — one hundred — how do we measure it? Some measure time by events.

Others, and maybe more frequently, by the grouping of years. A quarter

century, a decade. Our modern way of life gives us a constant

measurement, Mr. Speaker, of thirty days and the bills come

[ Page 109 ]

in. Our natives used to use the moon as the regulator of time but

now it is the landing field for astronauts. Man has never really been

very far-sighted, anyway. Even with the advent of our long-range

planners, ten years is a long distance to look into the future but,

looking back, we have short memories, which sometimes is just as well.

However, 1952 seems only a short step back into the memory to many here

in this Legislature but a great memorial event took place then that

shaped the future of British Columbia in such a remarkable way that it

affected the history of all Canada, as well as this Province.

That far-flung western Province became an exploration and discovery

expedition for tens of thousands of Canadians, as well as many from

other parts of this world. The greatest long-range planner in the

universe is its Creator and he handed this portion of His creation to

us on a blue and green platter, edged with gold. Looking back one

hundred years we talk about progress but it was all here before we

came. Some talk about problems as though we had had one hundred years

of problems. I believe that problems really are opportunities. These

opportunities are best made use of when man takes into partnership, as

well as consideration, the long-range planner of the universe. Man even

sometimes talks about the retention of the ecology, the natural

surroundings unspoiled by man, as though man were foreign to this

earth. Yet he is part of the natural surroundings and man can best fit

into the Master's plan when he recognizes there is a Master. The

songwriter wrote:

The love of God is greater far than tongue or pen could ever tell;

It goes beyond the highest star and reaches to the lowest hill.

Could we with ink the ocean fill, were every stock on earth a quill, and every man a scribe by trade

To write the love of God above, would drain the ocean dry.

Nor could the scroll contain the whole, though stretched from sky to sky.

It might be, and it could be, an appropriate time to talk about the

ecology of the human being, and how it has become so spoiled and

polluted and decadent, misused and thrown away on the garbage heap of

life, human debris. It might be an appropriate time to talk about it.

Maybe we can fit it in another time, after we have grown tired of

talking about the materialistic garbage dumps and the pollution that we

have scattered across our countryside, which seems so over-important to

us today while we neglect the weightier subjects of human ecology.

There are many talents that I have noted come to light, Mr. Speaker, in

this Chamber, and I'm not speaking about the ability to ignore each

other. However, I am not proposing that I have any talent except a deep

appreciation for the many good things that British Columbia has meant

to me and still mean to me. So, in honour of this Centennial, I wish to

present my brief resume of British Columbia. Dedicated to British

Columbia, the beautiful. Before I do, I'd like to say that I

appreciated very much the symbol of the flag that was seen decking all

our desks when we came into the Legislature at the opening of this

Session. I would suggest that it might be appropriate to start every

Session that way, but using our own British Columbia flag here. They

could be returned. Yes, I like to see them but maybe they could be laid

down during the debates, because they do interfere with vision. But it

is appropriate that we show to those who come into the Legislature that

there is an honour and a loyalty and a pledge taken when we serve in

this place and it does do honour to show our appreciation of that fact.

I would also recommend to the Speaker that it would be helpful to those

in the galleries and even to Members themselves, especially coming new

into this House, that we might have our constituency either on the

front of the desk or on the mike itself. I think it would be helpful.

Now, this is my remark regarding a brief

summary of British Columbia as

I saw it in poetry.

The marking of time is a classic event

In the history of man it shows where he went

In science and fiction, in action and fame,

The makers of history are recorded by name.

The Cookes and Frasers, the Thompsons and kind,

The Vancouvers and Pembertons, let's keep them in mind.

Of heroes unsung many more could be found,

They've honoured B.C. though they're under its ground.

Through blood and by sweat and seldom by sword,

This Province its progress was soon to record.

A junior in politics and Confederation alike,

The "Trail" it would blaze and was not merely a hike.

Of Cariboo gold and pioneer strength

It's told in books of very great length,

We've Wells and Barkerville — from childhood to grave

They are part of the glory we're trying to save.

Of mountains and lakes and fish in the streams

We've more than the wildest of anyone's dreams.

Of timber in forests we can shout with the strong

And praise the Government, for to us they belong.

The mines in the mountains, the wheat on the plains,

The hydro in rivers and government trains,

Are a part of its glory, the half is not told,

For its oil and its gas are still to unfold.

Of shipping and dockyards we've still got a few

But shipping by air is filling the blue,

Of daffodils, tulips and Mum's not the word,

We can tell of our orchards, they're first, not second or third.

Of swimming a strait, or climbing a peak,

Don't travel afar if you've got itching feet.

At home on the range or sailing the sea

This Province has got it wherever you be.

A tunnel, a railroad, a bridge that is high,

You name it we've got it to "pie in the sky"

One hundred is old for you and for me

But it's only a child for good old B.C.

Come and see for yourself,

And when you come stand tall in the land,

Drink deeply of its beauty

And be thankful it all came from His hand.

These are my sentiments and I'm sure many of you could do better.

British Columbia has many more years of history than a hundred years,

and it's a great romance story recorded by many historians and writers

and, no doubt, many more

[ Page 110 ]

books could be written about this Province of British Columbia. The

document we are debating reviews a brief span of history, the Throne

Speech, and forecasts a few things to come. Admittedly, it is a

parliamentary, ritualistic performance, setting the stage for the less

disciplined debate to follow but, admittedly, too, the Opposition's

opening remarks belittling the Throne submission, are equally

traditional in their condemnation. Of course, tradition does not

necessarily mean that the debate has to be without substance or

meaning; therefore, the traditional Throne Speech sets up the framework

for all of the discussion that is to follow. Tradition has purpose and

meaning as we respect it. There is a fraction and a factor in our

generation which have — taken the words, "authority" and

"establishment" and made them something dirty and blasphemous. They

hate tradition. They urinate on loyalty and seem to have a philosophy

of destruction — tear it down, burn it down and out of the ashes try to

build something else. This belligerent attitude is certainly not in

keeping with Centennial memories or pioneer respect. Denouncing

authority, they demand authority. Loathing responsibility, they want

responsibility. Demanding their freedom, they stifle the freedom of

others. Shouting for People Power, they push others around. They talk

about a dialogue, and they deny the representative of the Crown to

speak, so that he can be heard in the assembly of democracy. I think

the professor of the University of Montana, K. Ross Toole, summed it up

on behalf of a great many of people of our day when he said: "I am a

square, and I am sick of hippies, yippies, militants and nonsense. I am

tired of being blamed, maimed, and contrite. I am tired of tolerance

and the reaching out, which is always my function, for understanding. I

am sick of the total irrationalities of the campus rebel, whose bearded

visage, dirty hair and body odour and tactics, are childish but brutal,

naive but dangerous, in the essence of arrogant tyranny, the tyranny of

spoiled brats. The trouble is that that minority threatens to tyrannize

the majority and take over. I dislike that minority; I am aghast that

the majority takes it and allows itself to be used. As one fed-up

member of the establishment which, by the way, is nothing but an

euphemism to society, I say it's time to call a halt. We owe the

younger generation what all older people have owed younger generations

— love, protection to a point, and respect when they deserve it. We do

not owe them our souls, our privacy, our whole lives and, above all, we

do not owe them immunity from our mistakes or their own." Mr. Speaker,

to the Attorney-General and to this House, I think too often we have

excused the actions of our minority who stage things such as we saw in

this House on Opening Day, as being a mere mistake, or the things that

we experience and see in our universities — Simon Fraser, as another

example, of passing them off as a mere mistake of youth. These are not

childish overtures on the keyboard of life but they are deliberate

plays to not only disrupt the order of events in the majority of lives

but to destroy the well thought out plans of others who are dedicated

to the loyalty and purpose of making Canada a better place to live in,

and that is the majority of citizens and their undertakings. "Regarding

these spoiled brats," he said, "they lack the common courtesy and

regard for the opinions of others, and these are not merely the

decorations on the piecrust of society. They are the heart of the pie

and too many youngsters are egocentric boors. They will not listen and

discuss. They will only shout down and throw rocks. Society has

classically ostracized arrogance without the backing of demonstrable

accomplishment." He continues: "Why then do we tolerate arrogant slobs,

urinating on our beliefs and defiling our premises? It is not the

police we need. Our generation and theirs, it is an expression of our

disgust and disdain. Yet we do more than permit this behaviour, we

dignify it with introspective flagellation." I endorse the professor's

remarks, too, when he says that the worst of it is that we, speaking of

their own profession and faculties in particular in a paroxysm of

self-abnegation, go along and apologize as if we had personally created

the ills of the world, and thus tend ourselves to chaos. We are the

led, not the leaders, and we are fools. This sums up my opinion, too,

of the men like Kirkby, the professor, and this Assembly. This

democratic institution represents leadership and must take the

responsibility for tolerating and condoning and backing off from using

its leadership policies and possibilities, from allowing itself and its

opinions to be trampled under, not by the Opposition, that's their

policy to oppose and criticize, but by people in our democratic

institutions who not only openly flaunt Canadian law and public

accepted discipline, but recommend its destruction from the pedestals

of learning institutes. Professing themselves to be wise, they have

become fools, recognizing their own authority only. We have far too

many apologists for this group in high places. We warp our laws and our

administration into a stigmatic contour to accommodate a crooked and a

perverse generation of biased bigots.

At the conference in Montreal last year on crime and prevention, a

senior police officer from Montreal accused Governments of handcuffing

the police at the expense of protecting the law-abiding citizens. We

have the results of that by the overall enforcement of the Emergency

Powers Act, because we forbade and even handicapped the local

administrational law to do its job property. Also we give encouragement

to criminal activity and make things legal in the belief that it is

somehow going to make them right. That's what the LeDain Report

proposes when it comes to drugs, too. The officer's statements were

carried across the country and should cause shame to come upon each one

of the Provincial regimes which may have attempted to frame legislation

weighted in favour of the law breakers. This brings me to the FLQ and

the nasty episode, the Laportes and the Crosses, which from that day

on, has been a heavy cross for all Canadians to bear. Who set the stage

for this catastrophe? This highjacking of Canadians by foreign-trained

espionage — the revolutionaries who got their fine points in the Cuban

camps on how to destroy and take over a democratic government. Where

does Canada fit in? Is she about to become the meat in the sandwich

between two great world communist powers? In the name of recognizing

Red China, at the same time dealing with Russia, and also with

exchanging the, what they consider themselves to be, war prisoners,

with Cuba, is Canada getting into a dangerous triangle that we are

going to find ourselves the meat in the sandwich? Where does Canada fit

in?

In the name of trade and commerce have we so soon, so quickly

forgotten the Grozenkos and the many others that have followed since,

as well as the Jews who are trying to escape from Russia with their

very lives and are forced to spend the remaining years maybe of their

lives in a country from which they wish to escape, and those in a

prison? And we deal with these people who assassinate innocent people

in Canada, with respect? Are you in favour of that? We allow them to

hold us, the Canadian people, at ransom, hijack all of Canada, not just

a plane. Deal with men who have been trained from the camps in Russia

through Cuba in the

[ Page 111 ]

techniques of world revolutionaries? Who bred the viper? Who

cultured it that stung our hand and poisoned our society? I am sure

that most of our Canadian people know.

It is my opportunity to discuss with you this afternoon, this

permissive society, the option on drugs, and all of the other things

that have clouded the real issues of what is the trouble and why we are

going in the direction that we are going. We only have to think of some

of the people who pay the supreme price for an undisciplined society.

We have the Beatles and others who have travelled over the continents

today, some of them repudiating what they did with sorrow and with

tears. Lennon repudiating and renouncing what he did as having missed

the way. We have Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix committing suicide. We

have others leaving notes behind them of the sorrow that they have,

because they were led on a drug-abuse career, in the name of opting out

of society. Then we have those who apologize for them and, in high

places, make it easier to cast doubt upon the established principles

that have led us this far in our hundred years so well. Even the

institutions that we cherish here were to see the desecration of its

former parliament at the will and whim of those who invaded its

premises only to get excitement and to draw attention to their

misdemeanour. I think that if there's any enforcement of law it should

be in respect to what they attempted to do. I have with me remarks

regarding those who were enticed into such actions when they joined the

Students for Democratic Society. A young girl has this to say, "I got

beaten up by some of the guys because I had killed a future

revolutionary," she said, speaking of the abortion. "Others raise their

kids in the movement, everyone helping out." These are the kind of

ideas that we have that are being pressed to the front today, that life

is cheap. Yet, when we come to our wars, we have many people who

denounce the war as being a loss of life, which it is. We come to

abortions and we seem to condone the idea that life is cheap, that you

can start it and finish it anywhere along the line and you don't have

to feel responsible.

I couldn't help but read in the report of the events in this

Legislature when the Member for Oak Bay did a very admirable job of

laying out the arguments, pro and con, for abortions on demand. Turning

over, Mr. Speaker, just two pages, I saw in the same newspaper the

great applaud and concern for the accomplishment that was announced

that they had succeeded in doing away with abortions in cattle. Now, I

just want to know, doesn't that cause you to wonder? Who are the

cattle? Looking for easy ways out of destroying life, in one instance

and, in the other way, among animals, we're looking for every way

possible to sustain life so that there be no abortion, even by a

natural method. Well, there are many who have done a great amount of

research on this.

I recommend for the reading of anyone in this Legislature in respect

to the use and abuse of drugs, a report by the late Honourable J. Elmer

Blanchard, Attorney-General, and the Honourable Gordon Bennett, the

Minister of Education and Justice, for Prince Edward Island, on the

Commission of Enquiry into the Nonmedical Use of Drugs. They caption it

by saying that a drug is guilty until proven innocent and they quote

from the New England Medical Journal the various scientific and medical

committees that have studied the matter and have come to a surprisingly

unanimous conclusion, that marijuana should not be legalized for

general consumption. Dr. F.W. Lundell, a professor of psychiatry at

McGill University, is also quoted as saying, "Serious adverse reactions

for users of marijuana do occur with greater frequency and severe

consequences as suggested in the LeDain Interim Report. To legalize

marijuana now could be disastrous in our present state of our society."

I think that these men are timely in their warnings and the reason why

I bring it to this House at this opportune time, is that there is a

feeling going abroad by some that we're coming to the pinnacle of this

experimentation in drugs, and that now is the time to go easy on it and

to probably go soft on soft drugs. I want to say that this is no time

to give up the vigilance, because we have reports that are continually

coming in. Some young men, who have taken time off from school finish

their courses by using correspondence and then using their spare time,

have done thorough research, on a personal basis, in the drug use in

the schools and high schools of this country and on this Island, in

particular. Their facts were as they found them by talking to their

peers with whom they had no difficulty in discussing them openly

because they were well known to them. They do not include anybody else

except the direct conversations as they were held between the students

and themselves. The coverage is extensive and adequate enough to prove

a trend. It shows that the use of some 15 drugs, which were canvassed

by this young person, is on the increase, which is substantiated by the

best reports that we have from across the country and the United

States, too. They run parallel, so we know that there is accuracy in

the review and I would say that copies of the

summary are available on

request from myself. I am going to read as it is reported in here. The

teenagers have used the following drugs at least three times in six

months. These estimates were taken from a period of nine months between

April, 1970, and October, 1970, and we include the real soft drugs such

as tobacco, which some are even including who argue for the easing up

on laws regarding marijuana. Tobacco, 74 per cent; alcohol, 78 per

cent; marijuana, 56 per cent, which runs very close to the averages

taken elsewhere, so we find that this is quite accurate. Hashish, 49

per cent, in schools; some solvents, 4 per cent. It's interesting to

note that solvents users opted out at about Grade 9. Amphetamines, 3

per cent; barbiturates, 38 per cent; mescaline, 13 per cent; STP, 2 per

cent; DMT, 2 per cent; LSD, 11 per cent; MDA, 8 per cent; codeine, 1

per cent; demerol, 1 per cent; morphine, 2 per cent; speed, 6 per cent;

and heroin, 3 per cent. This is the estimate of this young man on the

major drugs that are presently being abused in the Greater Victoria

area: Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, Central Saanich, North

Saanich, Sidney, Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, View Royal and Sooke,

approximately a population of 200,000. The most commonly used drugs

were tobacco and alcohol and these are followed by marijuana, hashish,

barbiturates, mescaline, LSD, MDA and speed. The least used were

solvents: amphetamines, heroin, morphine, demerol, codeine and STP. He

said that he found that about 25 per cent of the students have used

marijuana and have stopped. With the other drugs, the proportion that

has stopped was about half. The use of drugs is more common as students

get older. The greater increase in drugs comes usually around Grade 9

and 10 level and upward.

I was amazed to sit in a group of businessmen the other day who said

that they had come from a certain city and were going to parties that

were 50 or 60 in number. They said it was common to find, appearing on

the table amongst them after they all had had their round of drinks,

from an unknown source, that they would usually break open a few joints

of marijuana. He said no one seemed to know where they came from but

usually the businessmen…I had an argument with him over what type of

business and profes-

[ Page 112 ]

sional people would be there. He said, "Well, don't bring me into

the open by name," and I said that I wouldn't but I do know the young

man has a high position in the investment field in this city. He said,

"In that city when we went to these meetings, some 50 or 60 or as high

as 75 would be present. He said, "We never knew where it came from but

we used it and it was common for people from the professions to be

there, where half of them were nurses, many of them were teachers and

other higher intellectual, educated groups." So, this is common use,

and he said, "Well, what can you do about it? Isn't it time we just

forgot the whole issue and allowed the thing to run wild?" I don't

think you can, when you have all of the lives of those who are not

capable of making a rational discretionary decision on this when they

are youngsters, who are in an experimental stage. I think that we must

do everything that we can according to the Federal Government to

educate, to upgrade our information continually and to keep pace with

the times and with the amount of research that is going on constantly

in the human evaluation as to the effect of these things, bad or

otherwise. He goes on to say that marijuana use was one hundred times

higher among students from above-average districts than it was among

middle-class and poor districts. Marijuana use, and drug use on the

whole, is higher among average or below average students in schools.

For example, the most logical to use drugs were students with E, D, C,

C- and C+ ratings. Students who had drug users as friends were about 98

per cent more likely to use drugs than students who didn't have friends

who used drugs. About 75 per cent of the students who have used drugs,

have used more than one drug. This excludes barbiturates, tobacco and

alcohol. About 25 per cent of the students who used drugs were involved

with several drugs, such as marijuana, hashish, LSD, mescaline and MDA.

Now this isn't new, altogether; many other reports have come out

that we've studied over the years. They are similar, but to think that

this was provided by a young man in our community who comes from a very

reliable family, which is well known in the circles of athletics and

sports. This man took it upon himself because he felt the urgency of

the situation, the near-brink disaster that he feels that many of our

lives of our young people are at. If anything can be done to show that

the bridge is out on a highway, then we should do it to warn traffic

from going over the brink. This is what we are trying to do in reading

from this young man's report today; not to vouch for its accuracy, not

to agree completely with all of these figures, but he has done an

admirable job, one that the committee in this House failed to do

because, I was chairman of that committee, and we wanted to get on with

not having a report that was too harsh on hashish, I believe. Today, I

believe there are far too many who apologize for it. "I find it very

clear," he says, "that the main security threat is to Canadians'

unity." This is something important that he found in this thing. I read

it into the annals of this country now with no apologies, because we've

experienced, as Canadians, a threat against our way of Government. It

was a real threat that caused all of Canada to come to its knees and

bow to a few saboteurs and assassinators. For that reason, it's serious

business that I'm dealing with. He says, "I find that the most

important activities in the drug community are those directionalized

from outside of Canada."

We have great problems being posed and created by sympathizers and

adherents of the communist movement, which create problems in

themselves. I read from an

article about a girl, who said that the

first thing she learned when she got into drugs was the teachings of

communist leaders: Lenin, Marx and Mao Tse-Tung, and, with other girls,

was taught to use firearms. That's an accurate report and I visited

some of these people to talk to them, too. Canada is one of the

greatest targets for subversive activities because it can be used as a

base against the United States. The communist agents, sympathizers and

adherents to their cause have so far been successful in penetrating and

infiltrating some organizations in B.C. It is particularly important to

realize that the communists, in their search for stooge agents, will

make use of every means possible from compromise to individual weakness

and blackmail. They have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to

recruit stooge agents, supporters and adherents to their cause by using

all kinds of individual weaknesses and one of them, of course, is the

experimentation in drugs. The types of communist subversive activities

in B.C. range from front organizations to all kinds of attempts to

convert individuals in Government…I'll recognize that the words that

I'm reading from here, and I'm proud of it, were written by a

19-year-old boy, with no help from anyone else, and the report was put

in my hand a few days ago…individuals in Government, the

universities, political groups or parties, the media, the unions and

the police. The communists find it very easy to exaggerate and exploit

all kinds of elements which would cause social unrest. The communist

agents seem to conduct a certain amount of subversive activity through

communist missions and illegal residents, individuals living here

illegally under false names. I was amazed, walking into some of the

homes that I have responsibility for rental and talking to the

individuals. I said, "Well, you've just moved in. Where are you from?"

"We're from Vancouver." I said, "Where were you from before that?"

"Well, the girl I live with is from B.C. but I'm from California."

Before I could walk away from that place a car drove up and a social

worker got out and came in and took all the reports to give them

something to live on.

I was down in the United States recently interviewing some of the

press media and some of the politicians, too. I couldn't help but say

to the press in a certain city, when he said, "What are your common

problems with us down here?" I said, "Probably welfare. At one time we

had a lot of people from your State who came up to our country looking

for gold and they did a great job of helping to settle British

Columbia. Now we have another kind of golddigger. He comes up for

welfare and to escape his responsibilities to your country." He looked

at me and he said, "Have you many of us?" I said, "I'm expecting a

couple more shortly." He said "Who are they? How do you know?" I said,

"I think they're a couple by the name of Fulbright and Kennedy." He

turned pink and the little reporter, Nancy was her name, she started

writing as quickly as possible. I said, "Nancy, send me the paper if

that's in it because I think your editor who I'm talking to is going to

censor it." I never did get the paper so I presume that it was censored.

This is the way I feel about people who come up here to escape their

responsibilities in that country. I don't think that we did a favour,

in some respects, to the Hungarians who have come into this country.

Many of them have done a great job but they came away from a country

that they disagreed with the type of Government in and maybe they

exported the very ones who would return freedom to those countries.

Maybe Czechoslovakia is another case in point. Maybe when we accept

them and let them flee for their very lives, we are allowing them to

export the very people who would return a

[ Page 113 ]

balance of freedom to those countries. If we continue to do the same

in this country…under fear of similar situations here, then we would

turn it over to those who are like the ones who assassinated Laporte. I

certainly don't intend to abrogate my responsibilities when it comes to

those fellows, the Roses and the Simards, and the Ferrons, who ran with

the Rene Levesque group, and then arbitrate when men are in a tunnel to

get them out. When the same men campaign for Levesque, you begin to

wonder what kind of skullduggery and collusion goes on in the ranks of

that kind. It's time that maybe we began to talk about it. We felt that

these reports, somehow or other, can't be true. When you read your

newspapers and see men's names appearing constantly, one after the

other, in the different front organizations, in the different positions

in democracy, and then we try to negotiate with that kind of people.

How much further can we drive our police into failing to fulfill their

administrative responsibilities? We make it difficult for them. Maybe,

too, if there has been any brutality and cruelty amongst the police,

it's been the fault of those in high positions who have failed to keep

the high standard up for people who go into the ranks, because we've

been noticing continually that the advice of some is to lower the

standards and change the code. I don't think we can afford to do that.

The young man says the communist agents seem to conduct a certain

amount of subversive activity through communist missions, illegal

residents, individuals living here legally under false names. There are

communist subversive activities here in B.C. In the open and

underground, which are usually stooges and sympathizers of all kinds. I

notice this in talking to certain people who work in the area of the

tramp and hippie and yippie and others. In talking to them and

listening to them, giving advice to the young runaway, I've talked to a

number of these kids who have vacated, opted out a home and ended up in

some place that would give them harbour. Invariably, amongst certain

elements, the tone is this. Accuse them of being a product of the

society, that it's really not their fault and the system is to blame,

and then move right in on the system and the establishment and

deprecate it and call it dirty things. I've seen it in Council Chambers

and I've listened to it on the streets. When I walked the streets of

Montreal and St. Catherine's and everywhere and I saw that mass of

humanity for five hours a night and contacted them and continually

interviewed them as to what they thought the outcome was going to be of

the disposition of Quebec with the FLQ on the rise, there was no

hesitation from television producers in programming, and I have their

names, to young students from Sir George William, to many who stood in

my hotel lobby and in my room till one o'clock in the morning to talk

about these things. On the streets, everyone that I spoke to of that

teenage group, in the parks, not one ever said, "There will not be a

revolt or a rebellion" or "There will not be any assassinations." Their

remark to me was not "if" but "now, when?" And I said, "When do you

think?" "it must be in 1970 because our plans will run out of steam if

we don't fulfill our revolutions in 1970." Why the police and others in

high places could not go down the streets and find it out just as

easily as I did as I stayed in the hotel there, I cannot understand.

Maybe it's because we have got to the place again of insensibility

where anything goes. We read of death on our highways, in our

institutions. A murder took place the other day, apparently, in one of

our institutions for handicapped. It's in the newspapers and I hope it

will be really and thoroughly investigated and somebody will be brought

to time for that and there won't be an explanation to explain it away.

We have come to where the cheapness of life makes us insensible to

our own safety…. I think of the death on our highways. There's a

murderer loose on our highways that takes 50 per cent of all accidents:

responsible for the fatalities, I should say 50 per cent of the

fatalities in our accidents. We do very little about it; our effort as

a Government in respect to curbing alcoholism is pathetic. It's

pathetic and I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I believe

that we've got to come down harder on helping and I believe that we

should cause the breweries to be responsible for the rate of crime and

the lives that are destroyed and the loss of employment, which is a

very serious factor in our factories and in our industries. The

breweries should be traced to their responsibility the same as we try

to trace responsibility for an accident. If we can award a claim

against an insurance company, we surely should be able to award a claim

against the culprit in the accident. Many of our accidents are openly

closed-shut-closed cases of the contribution of alcohol to it. I've had

friends wiped out on the highways here, instantly killed by someone

under the influence of alcohol; they can't be replaced. Yet we seem to

become insensible to the terrible loss of life and property that is

caused by this agent of death. Maybe it's because we all find ourselves

some time or another vulnerable to it. Many of us, I shouldn't say all.

Many of us find ourselves vulnerable to it. Many times I'm in good

association and friendship and it's pledged upon you. It's very

difficult to say no. I suppose a person feels that he's part of the

go-around on it and he doesn't want to really condemn it. I could go on

to read the report but I will not take the time. I think that we may be

able to deal further with this young man's report at another time in

the estimates of the Attorney-General. It is serious enough, though, to

read into the record just to say, "Let's take cognizance of doing

something about saving our young people's lives."

I noted that, in the report of the Attorney-General, the late

Attorney-General, Mr. Blanchard, there was included an interesting

section on an actual experiment with a person who drove an automobile

after smoking a couple of joints of marijuana. The frightening thing

about it is that the police, when they stopped the automobile, could

find no detection of anything wrong with the person. Just prior to

stopping it he had said on the tape recorder to the man next to him,

"I'm driving this automobile while I'm upside down. I've got to stop

because I cannot drive any further." So they pulled over to the side

and that's when they were accosted by the traffic policemen, who

investigating, wanted to know what was wrong and they just said they

were changing drivers, and that's all. But then he began to drive again

and commented about his upside down feeling that he had while driving

the car. So the serious

part in these accidents is that we are looking

for a mechanical failure and really it's a loose nut behind the wheel — and we can't find it. There's no way of knowing. I think that's a

serious enough charge that we should never, never legalize anything

that cannot be detected in that sense when we are still using

automobiles to get to and from our place and destinations. I could go

on to the next, and next, and next. It is extremely sad and very, very

important that we take a very close look at what has been said and do

everything we can to not encourage the use of drugs.

Now, I want to speak for a moment about regionalism and green belts.

Should farmers have a choice and, I believe that the farmers must

retain their individual rights to their

[ Page 114 ]

property, to have a choice as to whether the Government is going to

institute the responsibility of the municipality to legislate green

belts in an area with the farmer being left in no position to really

choose and without going to the problem of trying to displace or

replace a council. I hope that in this Session, we will not see

anything that will prejudice or jeopardize the position of the farmer

in this respect. I do hope, however, that we will be able to see

something that will help him in his position of higher taxes that he

can do nothing about, and lower income as well — that we assist him,

probably in further exemption of taxes on his farm land and also the

buildings, at that time.

In respect to the Pat Bay Highway, I want to say we do appreciate,

in the Saanich Peninsula and to all those tourists and fine people who

come here to visit, that we are making great strides in assisting the

people to have easier transportation. Problems of getting into the city

have been very difficult. It took a long while to build a pyramid and I

just hope that it doesn't take as long to build the Pat Bay Highway. A

lot of people out there have had, not for the first time, a nip off

their property, and after a while coming back and buying the remainder.

We've seen a lot of second looks going on and I hope that if there's

any second look to be taken it will be in respect to the merging of

traffic at the intersections and also to the residents along the way,

and that there will be a melding lane sufficient that people don't have

to enter onto moving traffic of 50 to 60 miles an hour from a standing

start. They must be given the opportunity to merge properly and I

noticed that a lot of the access right-of-way does not provide for it

at this time. I hope that this will be taken into consideration.

I would liked to have covered the facts on pollution. I think that

the overemphasis of pollution can be very detrimental as a fear

campaign amongst our industries and prevents a lot of jobs from taking

place because of the fact that we're in such a state of flux of

opinions as to what the detriments of pollution are that we can't move

on with the development of our country and get the jobs going again. I

think that it has also been indicated that the uncertainty in financial

circles as to what the interest rate would do and what the Federal

Government would do with the Benson situation has caused an awful lot

of concern and cutting back in getting factories going and providing

jobs.

I know that Canadians are beginning to consider once more that a

change of men in Ottawa might change the policies. But let's make it

clear. If you're going to use a wheelbarrow for an economic vehicle it

makes little difference whether Trudeau is between the handlebars, or

Tommy Douglas, or Stanfield, in or out of his underwear. It really

won't matter because all they can do is wheel either a little or

smaller or a bigger load. If the economic vehicle is going to be fixed

and made to fit to the occasion of our age, then it's going to take

some people who know what the cause is and not just haywire the

symptoms up. The tinker-toy policies of Trudeau have destroyed

confidence in the economy and, meanwhile, the emasculating knife of

Benson has nearly scared the panty hose off a lot of businessmen. May

the people of Canada never be forced to carry the Benson burden of

proposed White Paper taxation. It is possible that the nation's

economic ills are on the way to convalescence but if we are frightened

any more by the White Paper statistics, and the Benson White Paper on

unemployed, too, is another hair-raiser, then we'll have real problems

on our doorstep from the Federal Government. I want to thank you, Mr.

Speaker, for the opportunity of addressing this Parliament this

afternoon on behalf of the people of Saanich and the Islands.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've

come a long way in the history of Parliament when you've developed a

system for what happens when the Speaker elected in the House doesn't

show up. I hope whatever is the reason for his absence today is of a

minor nature and we welcome you in his high station. Back in 1648, they

had the same problem and all they could think of to do was to adjourn

the House until they could find him. He was, at that time, very sick

because, as it happened, he'd been at a banquet the night before. Of

course, nothing like that ever happens today. You know, the Throne

Speech is no longer in vogue or in practice. As I stumbled over that

interesting excerpt that we have in our library…you may not know it

but we do have the Commons Journals of the year 1648 right here,

preserved, right from the Mother of Parliaments. It's well worth

looking at if you can figure out the difference between an "s" and an

"f". Some of the members over there may not but, on the other hand, it

was clear from the report on that day that Parliament wanted to know

why the King had summonsed them there; I might add, he didn't give them

very much reason for calling them together. That was the year he lost

his head.

This is the year, Mr. Speaker, this Government has lost its head

because, in the opening Speech that we examined and partly heard, it's

evident that this Government no longer considers it its duty in the

year A.D. 1971 to tell the Members of this House the cause of their

being summonsed. Today, we can only speculate that the Government and

the Premier of the Province believe in the State-of-the-Union address,

a recounting of the past and no notions for the future. This Government

is obviously in a state of disarray and demise, when it can no longer

tell us why we are called to attend. When you realize that the great

historic truth of Parliament, the great tradition, has been that before

the King could find the money for his ships or his men or, in those

days, his extravagances, it was necessary for the Commons to be

summonsed to meet, and he put the best case he could upon his needs. No

longer is that true in British Columbia. This is the year that marks

the turning point both of the purpose of the opening Speech and the

turning point of this Government. Very significant that they did it

themselves. What insuperable arrogance is this, that they do not choose

to disclose anywhere in the statement anything but the most innocuous

of reasons or progress? When you think of the things that could be in

an opening Speech for this Session on the historical occasion of the

one hundredth anniversary of our entry into Confederation, what a

dismal prospect they offer for the citizens of British Columbia in the

opening Speech. All they do is substitute a different list of visitors

to the Province. All they do is resummarize and rephrase the same old

cants, and "can't," I suppose is the right word for this Government.

The same old "can't do this" or "can't do that," the same old excuses

on the subject of pollution, the same old excuses that they have always

had on the problems of unemployment. Instead of turning their face

towards the difficulties that must be solved, they keep looking towards

the sunset as their sun declines and say to those who will still

listen, "It was a beautiful day, wasn't it?" The sun is setting, in my

opinion, when you see that kind of an opening Speech

[ Page 115 ]

on Opening Day.

I wanted to deal with one of the indications of how this Government

has, in its own way, become a kind of Charles the First, in the way it

has attempted to ignore the niceties of the democratic system. This

relates to the constituency that I have the honour to represent and the

municipality which surrounds the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, the

municipality of Burnaby, a very proud and historic area of the lower

mainland, an area whose history goes right back to the gold rush days.

Indeed, the first surveys that were made there were commenced when the

Royal Engineers came to New Westminster and covered the area right over

to Burrard Inlet. That municipality has now over one hundred and forty

thousand citizens and it is a very progressive community that has led

the lower mainland in many ways in pioneering. They have one unique

quality besides their constant choice of representatives. They have

another unique quality and that is that they like to make decisions

themselves about what they want to do in their future. All they ask,

being reasonable men and women, is that they be consulted and that

these matters of their future be, so far as democracy permits, retained

in their own hands. It was a stunning and arrogant trick for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs to send them his decree like any petty

Castro or any czar of the nineteenth century, that they, without

consultation, were going to be changed in their constituency to a city,

without prior negotiations, prior conferences, without considering the

many factors that are involved in this great municipality that do

affect their future (interruption) .

I read the Statutes. The very fact that Henry VIII had a number of

Statutes, which led to his disestablishment, didn't make them right.

England paid for many years for that arrogance of Henry VIII. Mr.

Speaker, the Statute empowers the Lieutenant-Governor in Council but it

does not say that you do not negotiate, you do not confer, you do not

treat with the citizens involved. In this respect, the Minister has

shown a lamentable disregard for the courtesies of life in British

Columbia in 1971. It was ironic to hear him say that although he has

never had the temerity to do this particular act before with a major

urban area, he had done this before to little villages. The 1