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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 203 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I am very

pleased to be able to stand and take my place in the debate on the

Speech from the Throne today, and also for having the opportunity to

once again represent the people from North Okanagan. As most of you

know, I feel that their needs and aspirations can best be tended to by

working with the various departments involved and also with my various

colleagues. So, I don't intend to speak directly on the constituency of

the North Okanagan today, other than to say that it is still the most

beautiful place to live. We still preserve the basic qualities of life

and we intend to. I would like to invite you all to western Canada's

largest winter carnival in February. Are you coming?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the conversation and the

presentations of the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, the first

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I know that he always looks forward to

this day, to find out what nice things I have to say about him. I want

to assure him that, during the last few years, I have watched him with

great interest and listened very carefully to a number of things he has

said. I must acknowledge he has a very agile mind and that he is

certainly a man of high standard education, better than most people in

British Columbia. But I've noticed that he's always hunting. In 1968,

he was wandering along the beaches of British Columbia hunting for his

identity and hunting for his place in British Columbia and hunting for

a new life for British Columbia. I was pleased to see, when I saw him

on television not long before this Session began, that he said, "I have

found what I am looking for. I have found a Liberal, scientific life

for British Columbia." He said that he had found his whole new purpose,

that he had found a whole new philosophy for British Columbia, he had

found a whole new, Liberal financing programme, a new environment, a

new economy, new recreation pursuits, in fact, a new life for the

people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, while he was designing this new life for British

Columbians, he was also designing and hunting for other new lives. He

was the scientific, Liberal architect for a great new toy for the

children of Vancouver. He went a'hunting again, this time for the

narwhal, and he said, "Not only will we have this new toy for our

amusement, but the narwhal will have a new life, it will have better

shelter, it will have better food, it will have a better climate than

in the Atlantic. In fact, the narwhal will have a better life with him

than with nature."

Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened to that narwhal? In its new,

Liberal life, it died — in its new, scientific, Liberal life. However,

I admire his hunting instincts and he's been hunting for a new life. He

hunted for a new life for the narwhal. I also feel that I should

comment on the fact that, periodically, he likes to stop the Ministers

without Portfolio (interruption) .

Well, that's the question, Mr. Member. He votes closure on their

debates, he calls them dollies, at times. He personally reshuffles

things, in fact, he states that, really, he is not terribly fond of a

place for women over 40, and, periodically, he shoots them out of the

Cabinet. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not a hunter but those of my friends who

are hunters tell me that the shooter shoots for two reasons: the first

is from desire, and the second is from fear (laughter) .

However, Mr. Speaker, we have had two excellent speeches during this

Session of the Legislature regarding our first citizens of the Province

and we had one two years ago from the Honourable Member from Alberni.

In this one hundredth year of British Columbia's time in

Confederation, our time within the life of Canada's Federation, I would

like to draw from two concepts of our first citizens and their tenets

in life. One is the term, nittle mooshen ,

which I'm sure the Honourable Member from Atlin will know. It's the

Indian term for crossing over a creek. No matter how wide the stream,

the banks almost touch and they are strong and they will carry weight

and it's easy to cross. That's the term nittle mooshen .

The second tenet is that the basic philosophy that the Indians have

had in Canada for the family is a place in this family for everyone,

whether young or old. Whether there was disagreement and whether anyone

happened to approve of the way in which that family lived, there has

been a strong thread of family strength and a strong family philosophy.

We've been inundated in this Legislature with talks of the generation

gap. Only last Thursday during a debate on the Speech from the Throne,

the former NDP Leader and the Honourable Member from Cowichan-Malahat,

I would suggest, viciously, berated his own generation and he, really,

viciously, laid at the feet of his generation all the ills of the

world. All the bills of the world, Mr. Speaker. Not one word of credit

to a generation which, in my humble opinion, and I'm not a member of

that generation, has contributed much to our society. He implied that

they have made no contribution and these are the people, some who are

now dead, who fought wars, so that we had the right to stand up in this

House and say the things we say. People who lost sons and husbands,

people who fought through the wilderness, endured hardships and people

who have passed down to us the basics for many of the pleasures and

comforts that we enjoy today — the scientific advancements and the

medical advancements. I would suggest, that his suggestion that only

the youth have the answer and the implication that he made that all

other people and ideas are obsolete, is wrong. Such actions and such a

tirade only serve to create and enhance an unwarranted generation gap.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should take this Indian word, nittle mooshen ,

and follow the first citizens' basic tenet, "No matter how wide the

stream." With the ideas and the variety of life styles of youth today,

we have to bring strong banks closer together. We must call it the

family unit, and we should and must cross over and cross back in this

one hundredth year, or nittle mooshen

in Centennial Year. There must be the right and the place for all ages

in the family unit and this should be paramount in the principles of

the legislation and social customs that we develop in British Columbia

and Canada.

America's families are in trouble, trouble so deep and pervasive as

to threaten the future of our Nation and this was declared by a major

report in December, 1970, by the American Conference on Children.

Today, we see that anthropologists and intellectuals are gaining

headlines by asking, "Can the family survive?"

A small number of people, swinging adults or rebelling students,

perhaps, people living in communes and individuals who want to indulge

in relatively free physical relationships,

[ Page 204 ]

are calling to question the very meaning and the

very structure of the stable family unit as it is in our society. Some

are even ridiculing it. This attempt to degenerate the family in its

role extends far beyond the rooms of the home and the pages of the

paper, but it overlooks the all-important fact that history shows that

no society and no culture has ever survived following family

deterioration. It overlooks the fact that with the liberalization of

the laws, the crushing emphasis today on everyone doing his own thing,

and the exploitation of youth and their natural exuberance, their

rebellion and, frankly, their love of being different, by the

intellectual and the press… But, in this kaleidoscope of action, two

major points have been lost. The first is that laws are made for the

guidance of man and the control of fools and broad laws can only be of

value to society if there are equal emphasis and public acceptance of

the fact that legal relaxation requires greater individual

responsibility and greater group responsibility. Secondly, that,

basically, it has been the broad family unit, its responsibilities and

its needs that have brought stability to society, that have brought

progress to society, and that have enforced the social conscience on

society. I'll grant you that it was the individual fellow who was doing

his own thing, which lead to the original discovery and exploration of

British Columbia; however, once it was discovered, he, who was doing

his own thing, went on and. did his own thing. It was the men, the

women and the children that were called upon to give this outpost of

British Columbia meaning and reason to stabilize and to build the

outpost. It was the family that developed, through necessity, trade,

and economic progress.

The evolution of our laws and structures were for the protection of

the individuals and the individual family. Culture, itself, generally

springs from the family and family activities and, certainly,

individual discipline and control resulted from consideration of other

members within the family and, then, in turn, other members of the

community and, in turn, the Nation.

In downgrading and, virtually, trying to destroy the concept of

individual responsibility and the family unit, we are virtually

starting out to destroy our own society and to destroy ourselves. There

are four ways in which we can respond. We can divide all our assets

equally among the people of British Columbia; we can relax all our

laws; we can be free from any responsibility and sit back in our

socialist haven and just have fun and accept the results; or we can do

what some are doing, and opt out. These people are actively fleeing the

family concept, they are actively fleeing the need for responsibility,

and they are doing their own thing. They roam the country and they bed

down anywhere and, generally, they live off the society that they

despise.

There is another alternative and that is to form communes, and,

generally, as you know, these fall into two types. There is the

fragmented, rather squalid existence, without law and, at times,

leading to violent death. In these, there is a breakdown in health

through poor nutrition. Social, disease and alcohol and drug usage lead

to child neglect and to individual breakdown. We also see, on

examination of these communes, great evidence of exploitations of the

weak by the strong and there is a parasitic demand on the other members

of the working society, not to mention the great depletion of our

natural resources in the form of wood and wildlife for their own

survival and the resulting pollution problem.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind helping people in communes. I don't mind

working with them, but I rather object to getting letters from them

telling me how I am abrogating my social responsibility to pollution

and pollution control, and then go out and see them and find there is

nary a place to stand, walk or sit that isn't mutilated by pollution.

The other type of commune, which, while less socially destructive to

an individual and, I think, to our society, on examination, reveals the

creation of a rather narrow, age graded, class, homogeneous society.

This is, in fact, what they are condemning. They have, perhaps, even

greater flaws than our present society because the newer communities

don't have older people and they don't have an integration of varied

interests and an integration of varied responsibilities. There's

evidence of a very highly developed sense of property rights within

themselves and the whole commune, in itself, becomes closed to anyone

but themselves or closed to anyone but an accepted few. Again, while

they are isolating themselves from constructive contribution to the

life in British Columbia, they continue to make what amounts to

parasitic demands on the structure of our society. They may deliver

their own babies at home, but they certainly demand structured medical

care and structured facilities to tend to their postpartum hemorrhages,

to tend to their gall bladder operations or their heart attacks or

their ever-needed social penicillin. They make demands on society for

the production of certain foods which they can't grow themselves, for

transportation when they leave the commune and, again, on the natural

woods and resources for their heat and their existence. They, too, Mr.

Speaker, do and will become major pollution problems, while demanding

that others assume the responsibilities and the costs for overall

environmental management.

I have visited with, and I'm sure other members have, and talked

with some of these people of these communes. I, certainly, have made my

decision. I feel that youth, today, as fine as they are, and they are

fine, but no more than the youth of other generations have they got all

the answers. The opting outers, well, it may answer their own problems

and I don't deny them this right. But, certainly, they do not have the

ready solution to society's problems. In this Centennial Year, as we

reflect over the past one hundred years of our history, the

accomplishments and the shortcomings of previous generations, I think

it wise that we, who are helping to mould the future, whether we're

legislators or students, home-makers, judges or architects, must be

guided by the lessons of history and we must look carefully at the

vacuum in the so-called answers which are put forth today.

I believe that we must all re-emphasize the family unit and the

place for all ages in the family. I would suggest that no Government in

Canada has done more for, or places greater emphasis on, the family,

its social and moral needs than is reflected in the underlying

principles and in the legislation of this Government and in the Speech

from the Throne.

You should take the home-owner grant as an example. The total

investment of the Provincial Government homeowner grant, for one year,

and that year is 1969, was $54,817,369, and the total amount to date,

since its inception, up to March 31, 1970, is $386,745,144. The

honourable Member says, "wow." I hope that that is in respect to the

fact that this money, sir, is generated from the labours of less than

two million people in British Columbia. By sound management, this money

is turned back to the people of British Columbia to help older people,

to help people, sir, who aren't in the high-income bracket, stay in

[ Page 205 ]

their own homes and have a home of their own.

I'd like to state, along with this, that this is a human programme

and it doesn't segregate people. The worker gets the same advantage as

the non-worker. A man who goes out and puts his money into his home and

saves his money is not penalized. This home-owner grant applies to

everyone and I believe that that is the principle of the democratic

process (interruption) . Yes,

everyone should own their own home or their own part of the Province.

If they don't choose to, then it shouldn't be because of money, it

should be a matter of their life style.

I think the home acquisition grant is very important in family

development. As you know, it's a $1,000 outright gift for new homes and

a $500 grant for older homes. Just in the grants of a $1,000 per home

and $500 per home, it has cost, or has been given back to the people of

British Columbia, $24 million since it started. This is to emphasize,

particularly, the opportunity for young people or old people who

haven't ever had a home, to own their own home and to own part of

British Columbia, and to realize that, in ownership, comes pride. In

ownership, comes health and, in ownership, comes ability and, in

ownership, comes family unity. In the second mortgage loan programme,

which is an alternate plan to the home acquisition grant, there have

been $28 million spent since it started. But it's not only a matter of

money, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of principle and the Strata Title Act

doesn't cost the taxpayer any money. But it does allow people who don't

choose to own a home or a piece of land to own part of a major complex

in their own names, so that, in fact, they do have a home.

There are other programmes, senior citizen housing, and elderly

citizen friendship centre, the hospital programme, all programmes which

help to strengthen families and help them to make the family life free

from unnecessary stress and worry and help to leave the individual

family free to help itself as it sees fit and as its abilities allow.

Now, there's been quite a lot of comment from across the floor and I

assume that in the Speech from the Throne we hear great reference to

the benefits to people, among whom are women and I would like,

particularly, to ask the honourable Members of the Liberal Party if

they agree with the much talked about report that for women there

should be insurances, such as sickness benefits and disability

pensions, maternity benefits, and widows' pensions, maternity grants,

certainly day care centres, the problem of the support or maintenance

of unmarried mothers of children. I see agreement. Unemployment

assistance measures in Canada must be designed as constructively as

possible, in relation to public employment projects. There is not an

opportunity for women to take part as fully as they should in our

universities and I see general agreement and I'm glad I do, because I

would suggest that the report that I'm reading from was a report

commissioned by the Federal Government for postwar problems of women in

1943. I commend this to you, not because everything hasn't been,

implemented, because this Government has long said that the value of a

Royal Commission may not necessarily have been in every recommendation

put into the letter of the law but, in fact, it arouses public interest

and often stirs the public in the right direction without the need for

legislation.

So I respect this report and I respect the intent of the Government

that brought it in. I don't condemn them for not getting everything

accomplished. I do commend them for doing another report. But I would

point out to the Members who have been so critical of out Government,

which has not always accepted every commission, letter and word

perfectly, that their own Government realizes, in part, the intent of

these reports (interruption) .

Well, the reason is that our Royal Commissions are so effective that

they bring about the necessary changes in attitude, without

legislation, and we don't believe in over-legislation. That side of the

House, Mr. Speaker, would legislate you out of bed in the morning and

to bed at night and probably a few other things. That is the socialist

philosophy, the strong arm of Socialism. We believe in the freedom of

the individual and I see the Honourable Leader of the NDP becomes

petrified when he thinks of the strong arm of Socialism.

However, I would like to turn my attention further to family life

and this report, if shelved tomorrow, in direct recommendation has

already had an irreversible effect on family life in British Columbia

and in Canada. The reaction of the people to this report will,

certainly, greatly influence legislation and will influence our family

life.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are too many discussions going on in the House. In all fairness to the speaker, order.

MRS. JORDAN: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that never before

has there been so much discussion about men's and women's rights and,

really, never have the women of British Columbia and Canada, whether

they champion this report, holus-bolus, before they've read it, or

whether they seriously study and question the recommendations, whether

they question its philosophy, and in fact, it is special treatment that

it advocates rather than equal partnership… Does this report, in

fact, actually advocate inhibiting legislation and is the philosophy of

the report constructive, or is the philosophy of this report

detrimental to the family and to our Canadian way of life? These are

the questions, I think, that must be answered in the future, not today,

because, certainly, no one understands this report fully, or its

implications, and I would add, certainly, not the Member from New

Westminster, as my colleague pointed out.

In referring back to the principles that are outlined in the Speech

from the Throne in relation to the family, I would suggest that the

first place in which we must strengthen family life and equal

partnership for women is the Income Tax Act .

This act recognizes, or I suggest, this act must recognize that $250 a

year basic exemption for a child is not sufficient, that the basic

exemption must be raised and not completely removed as suggested in

this report, that a $500 tax payment from the Federal Government, or

from any level of Government, Mr. Speaker, to women who have children,

is unbelievable. What a paternalistic attitude! It's another Department

of Indian Affairs. If the Federal Government, the Liberal Government,

adopts this attitude on tax policy, I suggest they are merely changing

the so-called chattel mortgage from the hands of the husband to the

hands of the Government or the State. If the mother stays at home and

doesn't work, under this recommendation, she is virtually the ward of a

State. If she is childless, she is discriminated against and, if a

woman goes to work, then the Federal chattel mortgage, or the dollar

grant, is taxed right out of the family hands.

There must be incentive, Mr. Speaker, for the women of British

Columbia and Canadian women to fill an independent role within the

family unit. The way to allow men and women equal status and equal

opportunity is to make the full legitimate cost of housekeepers,

home-makers, baby-sitters

[ Page 206 ]

fully income tax deductible. The $500 tax deduction

for housekeepers and baby-sitters proposed in the White Paper, I

suggest, is nothing more than a flushing action to flush out low income

and elderly people and students who baby-sit to earn extra income. And,

that this is the greedy hand of the Revenue Department in Ottawa. It

gives no recognition to the fact that these elderly figures provide a

grandparent figure in the family unit which, today, because of its

nomadic existence, is sadly lacking. It means that the working mother

is discriminated against for working by making her family

responsibility and her take-home dollar pay a penalty. If a working

woman or a man needs or wants a housekeeper or a baby-sitter, he or she

should be able to assume the rightful position of employer, with legal

tax deductions and legal responsibilities.

Such an exemption is either valid or it's not valid. If it's under

the income tax, there should be no half-way measure and it can't be, as

the White Paper proposes, half if and half not.

At a time of high unemployment, Mr. Speaker, a stroke of the Federal

Government pen, creating this income tax exemption could provide

thousands of new jobs with better pay. The stroke of a Federal

Government pen on the Income Tax Act ,

would make home-making, baby-sitting, recognized vocations and the

highly respected positions that they are and should be. Most important,

it will strengthen and broaden the family unit — the home — by keeping

the children in the home and introducing a new figure and a new

interest as well as relieving the working woman who chooses to have a

career from the double duty of work outside and work at home. This

income tax deduction puts the family income earners on an equal

footing. This tax exemption should be extended, I suggest, to any home

where the mother has a housekeeper or baby-sitter and it shouldn't

matter whether her housekeeper or baby-sitter is needed because of

gainful employment, perhaps, because of enjoying some social activities

and some freedom from the home, or because of her volunteer community

work.

Another area where I believe that the stroke of the pen of the Federal Government on the Income Tax Act

could be amended to provide employment opportunities and in an area

that affects the family, is in the simple area of gardening, or as the

aesthetics call it, landscaping. If a regular gardening service around

the home was made income tax deductible, as it is for industry, it

would create hundreds of new jobs, particularly for elderly and

low-income people and for students, as well as for those people with

less skills than the rest. In fact, it is the students and the elderly

and the low-income who are having difficulty finding jobs at this

period of high unemployment.

The youth of today want to be with nature, this is one of their

cries and many people, who don't have great technical skills or who

can't undertake prolonged periods of training, have a natural skill and

a natural affinity for the soil. I suggest that gardening should be a

recognized vocation and could provide instant jobs in British Columbia.

I believe that gardening alone would provide 50,000 jobs and I believe

that the proposal to make housekeepers' and home-makers' income tax

deductible would provide another 50,000 jobs. In case anybody from the

Opposition likes to say, "Well, that's fine to advocate the Federal

Government do something, but what are we doing?" You've heard of many

announcements in this House of what the Provincial Government is doing

in releasing funds to create employment. I would like to announce,

today, that, in the North Okanagan, the Courthouse—Law Courts Park will

go to tender, not as a winter works project, as the Leader of the

Opposition so brilliantly allowed, because if he knew anything about

economics he'd know that construction of that type of a park at this

time of year would be highly costly, and would not be able to proceed

with the amount of manpower that will suffice in the spring and summer.

Also there will be new highways and maintenance programmes and these

will go to tender also. The reason this project has been selected is

because, while the initial cost and capital cost is considerable, most

of the cost is in the labour not in the materials, and it will provide

a great number of job opportunities for people in the North Okanagan.

I'd like to speak for a moment about day care centres. I, frankly,

believe that there is a place in our society and in British Columbia

for day care centres but as an adjunct to family living. Where it is a

matter of financial need for working or for stay-at-home mothers, I

believe that these should be supplemented or paid for as now in British

Columbia, but with a broader Federal-Provincial sharing programme. The

fees of those not in need should be income tax deductible. The capital

cost of day care centres should be on a formula, I believe, of one

quarter Federal, one quarter Provincial, one quarter local, all grants,

and one quarter financed under CMHC long-term, low-interest loans. The

reason for the one quarter local is that, I believe, there should be

local interest groups in conjunction with these day care centres. They

should be established in heavily populated areas and, as my colleague

from Vancouver–Little Mountain has said, in mid- and low-income areas

and in conjunction with housing in these areas. Rather than the State

provide this, I believe that industry should be encouraged to establish

day care centres in industrial parks. The cost and the care should be

part of the wage negotiation between the employees, whether they are

male or female, and the employers. Shopping centres should be

encouraged to include day care centres for employees, male or female,

as well as for shoppers. All day care centres, where possible, should

be administered by a professional but staffed by vocationally trained

and nonprofessional males and females. We must not overlook the value

of interested parents or grandparents who would like to take time in

these centres. The centre should be within walking location of the

majority of the employees, whether it's in an industrial park, a

factory, a major department store or a shopping centre, in order that

the parents of the children in the day care centre can be encouraged to

have lunch with their children, if possible, have their coffee break

with their children, so that, in fact, we are not building an isolated,

artificial family unit away from the home. We are recognizing that

people can enjoy an occupation and still have constant contact with

their families.

I would suggest, by no stretch of the imagination, should day care

centres be the large, do-it-now, state-operated, compulsory,

bureaucratic, impersonal monsters that are so often advocated in this

House by the NDP. In the words of the Honourable First Member from

Burnaby, while I appreciate her interest in this area and I appreciate

that you have your problems within your Party, I find it difficult to

help you realize that people want to be free. People do not want to be

involved in the State-operated day care centres, which you have been

advocating and which is reflected by the homes in England, where

families are separated. I suggest that there is no question that day

care centres should never, ever, become wholly tax supported, hide-away

centres for children, leaving British Columbia with State-reared

children

[ Page 207 ]

rather than with family-reared children.

Mr. Speaker, another point of concern to those interested in the

families of British Columbia and Canada are the changes in the

character of today's family. This is a character change brought about

by many developments: the increased growth in the metropolitan areas,

the common and increasing corporate or vocation transfer, the

convenience of the automobile, the tendency of our architects and

planners to segregate the children from the parents, and the

midgeneration from the elderly generation. In the less complicated and

urbanized days, the average family was an extended family or a kinship

family. This, simply, means that the parents and the children were

surrounded by relatives, aunts, uncles, grandparents and, if the

relatives didn't live in the same household or in the same block, it

was down the street on the different farms. Today's life style change

has left the typical family isolated and it is called the so-called

nuclear family: a mother, a father, and children and, sometimes, less,

and, frequently, they are located miles from the home of the nearest

relative. As interfamily contacts become less and the increased contact

with the community has become more formal and segmented, people will

have to turn more to the family as a source of the affection and

security that we all crave and all need. But this instant demand for

affection, without the supporting structure of age variance and

interest variance and interfamily culture and religious support, is

found very much wanting and leaves a vacuum in the lives of our

children and in the lives of our parents and in the lives of the

grandparents.

I think that individuals should not be shielded from the realities

of life, whether they be good or bad, by the state or by the temporary

life styles. All of us, particularly children, need to be in close

contact with the world of different kinds of people, whether it's at

work, whether it's people suffering, or whether it's people at play.

How can a child, or anyone, for that matter, build up a broad sense of

values in his activities if they only involve one age group? Certainly,

how can a child appreciate the scope of human emotion or leisure time,

if his sole contact is with his immediate gang and peers, instead of

simple activities, such as fishing with his uncle, or climbing on his

grandfather's knee, or whiling away some time with an older generation,

and people who have found the secret of inner peace and who have found

a real value in life?

I suggest it is a ridiculous notion, that the NDP constantly

propose, that children, or parents, for that matter, need to be

protected from the experience of seeing anyone in pain, or anyone who

is old, or, for that matter, anyone who may not smell nice. I think

it's an emotional loss not to have shared in a multi-age-group

Christmas or family gathering. I wonder how anyone could develop a

deep…you are certainly rising to the bait, I must suggest, honourable

Member. How can you have a deep and basic sense of values if you

haven't experienced responsibilities and if you don't know what pain or

sadness is?

With the knowledge of this family isolation and the present obvious,

emotional need of the single-parent family, and the lonely, elderly

citizen, and the unemployed, I suggest that, in 1971, every family in

British Columbia should choose a family buddy from those less fortunate

than themselves and in different age groups. We should draw these

families into our daily activities and to share our recreational time.

All service clubs should quietly find families of lonely people who are

in need, not just at Christmas time, Mr. Speaker, but year round. They

should be prepared to share some of their comforts and personalities

and their energies with them.

Government calls on youth groups to adopt elderly citizens and youth

groups should help elderly citizens and adopt them and help them with

chores of simple things, such as painting their homes, their gardening,

their shopping, and that they should spend some leisure time with them,

walking or talking, and that youth groups should undertake and help

handicapped people, take them for walks, work with them on their

hobbies, and that low-income people should be invited to their homes

and their sports activities. Let's negate the dire predictions of the

pundits. We can, certainly, make Centennial Year the start of a new

family by emphasizing a buddy family year (interruption) . I'm amazed that the honourable Members of the Opposition can think that family life is a matter to be jested about (interruption) . Hilarious.

I think that we can not only make British Columbia beautiful British

Columbia, but it can be the family Province in the family of

Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, these aren't the only answers but, I suggest, that they

are some of the challenges for family life in British Columbia and that

they are some of the sound and practical answers. There are other

matters, such as family planning, and money management which I would

like to speak about in later debates. I had hoped to talk about the

Okanagan basin joint study, in order to enlighten the honourable

Members from the other side, who constantly confuse and misquote this,

but I shall save that for another Debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and fellow Members. It does appear to be Ladies' Day, this

afternoon, with all apologies to the honourable Member who is coming up

later.

In all seriousness, I would like to say that I do think that in this

Legislature in British Columbia, we can be proud of the fact that, out

of the whole of Canada, I believe, that there are only twelve women

Members of the Legislature, and this House has five. Mind you, it's

unfortunate that it is distributed the way it is, but we can't do

anything about that, Mr. Speaker. I'm still very, very pleased and very

proud, when one goes across Canada, to be able to point out that at

least the people of the Province of British Columbia do not show quite

the same discrimination as they do in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting to take my place in the Throne

Speech debate, particularly at this stage of the debate. The mover of

the Throne Speech, the Member from Columbia River, I'm sorry, opened

the debate by espousing the Spiro Agnew technique, which holds that

vilification of one group, Mr. Speaker, has the power to spur another

group to action which he deems favourable. This is a very nasty

premise, that differs not at all from the youth who spits in the face

of authority and screams obscenities.

May I say, that more and more of our citizens are becoming fed up

with this old type of political insult and invective. If we, as

politicians, are concerned with disenchantment by many of our citizens

with our combat here in the Legislature, and many of our citizens are

beginning to consider out combat irrelevant, it is speeches, such as

the Member from Columbia River and the approval of his fellow Members,

which is contributing to this disenchantment. The fact that other

Members of the Government have carried on similar old-style political

attacks during this week, simply underlines the fact that this

Government has no under

[ Page 208 ]

standing of the vast problems confronting us today (interruption) , or, perhaps, even worse, they may understand but, in their smugness and in their arrogance, they simply no longer care.

Certainly, yesterday… (interruption)

I'm coming to you, Mr. Member, in a moment. Certainly, yesterday, the

Member from Vancouver East documented vividly the smugness and

arrogance and the lack of concern which this Government has today for

the people of British Columbia. The interesting thing I found was that,

last night, during the most eloquent speech, the Member from Vancouver

Centre, I must admit gave a most eloquent delivery, but it was

interesting to note that, usually, he's very vocal in attacking the

Member from Vancouver East but, last night, he was strangely silent. As

a matter of fact he resorted to the old-type political insult and

invective which I have been referring to, he simply had to smear,

personally, the Leader of the Opposition interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. The Member either makes a Point of Order or takes his seat. Proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm glad to get you on your feet, Mr. Member,

because I was hoping we might get something out of you that we didn't

get last night.

You know, Mr. Speaker, no Government today can afford the luxury of

simply responding to problems, they must anticipate problems. Yet, we

have Government in British Columbia which is always announcing plans

for action next year on the problems which we faced last year. I

sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the voters today are looking for a

new breed of politicians. They are looking for politicians who care

about the needs of our citizens and not just pretend to care. However,

until there are some very basic changes in our electoral system, the

advent of a host of new, concerned politicians remains but a dream. I'm

referring, specifically, to the great need in this Legislature, and in

Legislatures across the country, for limitation on campaign

expenditures and some kind of public financing of election campaigns.

Let's just look again…and I know this has been brought up in the

House before, but I think the public of British Columbia must be

continually reminded of the situation that exists in this Province.

Let's look at the expenditures listed for our last Provincial election.

Social Credit, $526,815; this came from the official returns. New

Democratic Party, $79,363; Liberal Party, $156,876. Now, what does this

show, Mr. Speaker? This shows that the New Democratic Party was

outspent eight to one by the Social Credit Party.

This simply means that no matter how good an organizing job we do,

how good our candidates are, how strong they are, how strong our issues

are, we have great difficulty in making our case against the kind of

money that's being spent.

Legislation limiting campaign funds and lifting the veils of secrecy

on contributors is essential to ensure the true democratic process in

this Province, for limitation on campaign expenditures would eliminate

the possibility of any special interest groups buying an election for

any party. Mr. Speaker, we, in this Party, accept this principle. I'm

challenging the Government. Do you accept this principle? If you do

accept this challenge, you will bring in legislation this Session to

change the Electoral Act in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that a politician must be constantly

questioning and seeking answers. That's why I would like to relate the

rest of my speech, today, to the question asked by George Wald, a Nobel

Prize winner. Once he asked, in a very touching speech, and this was

his question. "Is it good for children? Are hydrogen bombs, whether

American, Russian, Chinese good for children? Are polluted skies and

streams good for children? Is hunger good for children?" Any of you

Members of the Legislature who watched the programme I did last Sunday

night, Weekend , I don't think

anybody would have any difficulty answering the question on whether

bombs are good for children. I think that was one of the most tragic

documentaries I have ever seen. It was a documentary which showed what

has happened to the children in Vietnam since this war started. There

was a 9-year-old girl with both legs blown off and one arm. That was

only one example. A war like this has to be stopped and, yet, we, even

our Canadian Government is doing very little to stop this war. I just

hope that the people in the United States saw this picture and they

might question, seriously, spending their tax dollar to maim children.

Mr. Speaker, I have related this question, "Is it good for

children?" to the policies of this Government because, I say, that many

of the policies or the lack of policies of this Government are not good

for children in this Province. I'd like to start off with the area of

health care. Is it good for children to be denied the right to proper

dental care? Yet this is the situation in British Columbia today. All

of you in this Legislature must know of cases where parents in the

low-income bracket and, now, it's even becoming the middle-income

bracket, cannot even afford to take their children to the dentist for

proper care. Is this good for children? I call on this Government to

implement dental care into our medicare programme. It is the only

answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: If Manitoba can do it, we can do it.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. Is it good for children to be born, Mr.

Speaker, with some form of mental retardation or deformity because of

slow Provincial Government action? Yet, without pressure from concerned

people, such as doctors, nurses and other citizens, we had that very

situation last summer in this Province, when the Minister of Health was

planning to implement only a limited vaccination programme to prevent

pregnant women contracting German measles.

I have a whole file of clippings here, which shows the very sad, sad

story and the very slow, slow action of this Government in that vital

area last summer. I don't want to take the time to read them all to the

House but, just for an example, early July, 1970: "Health Minister

Loffmark said the public might be better advised to get measles vaccine

through their own doctor or druggist, at their own cost, rather than

expect any massive Government supply of vaccine." He suggests that you

can take a family to get vaccine for less than a bottle of Scotch. That

was one of his first statements we heard from the Minister. How does

that help the child? Then we had another article: "The Greater

Vancouver Association of B.C. Social Workers urged Premier Bennett to

lay aside any political or jurisdictional consideration to ensure the

people of this Province are protected from the suffering and heartbreak

which will result unless such a programme is put into immediate

effect." All Mr. Loffmark indicated at the, time was that there would

be little or no change in their current limited programme.

Dr. Fred Bryans, Head of the Gynaecology Department at the

University of B.C. said, "There is an obvious need for immunization,

but the best way to immunize children…." This is when they were

discussing the pros and cons. Then he went on to say, "Several months

ago, we, the B.C. Medical

[ Page 209 ]

Association, submitted a brief to Mr. Loffmark on

the whole situation, and the real need for a programme, because we knew

an epidemic was coming. But, at that time, it was turned down. The only

reason he has made the announcement that the Government is embarking on

a limited programme is that he has been pressured." Finally we have a

situation, today, fortunately, through the help of concerned and

interested citizens, where we did manage to have a massive immunization

programme. But, without pressure on the Government, we would not have

had this programme. Imagine a Government sitting back on a vital issue

like this. Yet, this is what we had in this Province this summer from

this Government (interruption) .

Right. With a $64 million surplus, they were quibbling over the sum of

$500,000 for vaccination, which would prevent a child from spending his

life in an institution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then we get a lecture on family life.

MRS. DAILLY: Is it good, Mr. Speaker, for children to be

brought up in homes where the parents are constantly near the brink of

exhaustion, trying to cope with the care of retarded and physically

handicapped children? We have documentations throughout the last few

years of groups of women getting together. It's pathetic, really, to

read about it. They don't know where to put their handicapped child so

they are trying to form groups of their own, societies of their own, so

that they can have a rest and get some help.

I call on the Government to even look at their neighbouring Province

of Alberta and see what they have done in the field of establishing

facilities for the physically handicapped. It's time to get working in

this area, it's time to stop leaving it up to local initiative.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be subjected to pollution,

which is obviously injurious to their health? Just several months ago,

at a conference in Ottawa, air pollution was the major subject. I would

like to quote from this article, in which this doctor said, Dr. David

Bates of McGill University, stated, "Air pollution in major Canadian

cities is affecting the lungs of young children and, possibly,

increasing the chances of serious chest trouble in later years." He

said he based his claim on two studies of children and air pollution

conducted in Montreal and the United Kingdom. He said the six-year U.K.

study, involving 4,000 youngsters, found infections in the lower chest

system and they were four times more common in children from high

pollution areas compared to low pollution areas. "The three-year

Montreal study of several hundred children found no connection between

the incidence of asthma and pollution," Dr. Bates said, "but it did

find a positive link between pollution and a mild form of bronchitis."

Dr. Bates added, "Current pollution readings in large Canadian cities — Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver — indicated that children under two

years of age were suffering this increased burden of disease."

Mr. Speaker, the area in which I live, North Burnaby, and where I

reside, on either side of our home there are two refineries, one Shell,

one Standard. They are belching out pollution every day. We do know

that Shell has made an attempt to cut down on pollution. We haven't too

much information from the other refinery. I recall reading, a while

ago, in the paper, where an American ecologist was taken for a trip up

our local mountains, where he could have a good view of the lower

mainland. He looked over at the area where I live and said, "My God, it

looks like Dante's Inferno." He said, "Do the people who live there

realize that they are slowly dying."

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't we all?

MRS. DAILLY: Well, perhaps you are not concerned about the

speed at which you die, but I am. The point is that when local councils

try to combat these large refineries they are met by highly technical

staffs from the refineries, who have volumes and volumes of material

and technical knowledge to throw at the local council. Surely, it's the

Provincial Government's responsibility to help provide the cost of

monitoring so that, at least, we can find out what we are really up

against here, and, secondly, to provide the technical data in support

of the claims of the people in Burnaby that they are slowly dying

because of this pollution.

We need help from the Provincial Government but what is this

Government doing? Its policy? This Government's policies in fighting

pollution are mainly words, words, words, and always the handy device,

Mr. Minister, of tossing much of the financial responsibility for

antipollution measures on the regional and municipal districts of the

Province, which are already overburdened with trying to cope with the

everyday cost of services, not only to property, but to people.

You know this simply means, this inaction on the Provincial

Government's part, over these many years, on pollution, it simply means

that this Government is placing a price tag on the health of the

children in this Province. We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the Budget

Speech on Friday with hopes that we will find some concrete policies

which will point the way to an all-out war on pollution by this

Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to question: Is it good for children

to be denied proper nutrition because of the high cost of food? Yet

this situation exists in many, many families in British Columbia today.

As a matter of fact, in a recent

article in the Victoria Times ,

there was a most interesting comparison between the food prices in the

city of Toronto and the city of Victoria. Some of these comparisons

showed that all meat costs in Victoria were higher than in the city of

Toronto, all meat prices. The only thing that you could get cheaper in

the city of Victoria than you could in Toronto were cake mixes.

Combined with these high food costs, Mr. Speaker, there was a recent

article in the Daily Colonist ,

which points out that the average Victoria breadwinner earned a weekly

wage of $115.47, last July — the average Victoria worker. The average

wage for the Province, at large, is not only significantly higher but

the gap keeps widening. For instance, in 1968, the Provincial average

wage was $16.78 higher than the Victoria average. The difference was

$18.88 in 1969, and $21.12 last year.

Now, in light of these figures, I hope that the Members of the

Legislature will note, Mr. Speaker, this city, which has the lowest

average wages, is a town of civil servants who are denied the right to

collective bargaining and are still subjected to one of the highest

standards of living in this continent. Cost-wise. Also, equally tragic,

Victoria has an exceedingly high percentage of senior citizens who,

too, are caught in the grip of the unfettered rise in prices in their

city.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be subjected to crowded, substandard living conditions (interruption) ?

Well, you know, Mr. Minister if you want to quibble over my phraseology

and grammar, it really points out that you have no basic concern with

the issues I'm trying to bring out

[ Page 210 ]

(interruption) . I want to ask again.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be subjected to crowded,

substandard living conditions? Yet, the tragic fact is that far too

many children in British Columbia today are living under these

conditions because this Government continues, and we heard this

repeated in the last Member's speech, continues, and if I may use the

expression, to be hung-up on private ownership. All we hear is that the

individual should have his own home. It doesn't matter if, because of

this philosophy, thousands of children are being denied proper housing.

Yesterday, I was very pleased, though, to hear one of the Government

Members, the Member, I believe, from Vancouver-Burrard, point out the

great need for more low-rental public housing in this Province. You

know our record in British Columbia re public housing is disgraceful.

Forty-five hundred units, I believe, in spite of the excellent

cost-sharing established by the Federal Government. It has not been

made use of. However, I must

part company with the Honourable Member

from Vancouver-Burrard, when he seemed to put the emphasis on the

cities and the municipalities moving in this area, because the first

action, I say, and have said in the past Sessions, must come from the

Provincial Government. They are the ones who should get moving and give

some active leadership to the municipalities and regional districts in

the whole area of low-cost price public housing.

Not only is leadership lacking but, for those districts which are

sincerely attempting to move into low-rental housing they are met by

stalling tactics from the Provincial Government. I would hope that the

Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, during the estimates or when

he speaks, will tell us why there was such a delay, in fact, I don't

even know if they've received it yet, in the delivering of the letters

patent to the Lower Mainland Housing Authority. I know, in our own

district, there's nothing but delay, delay, delay, in trying to get

their low-rental housing units going. The delay was not from the

Federal Government, it was from the Provincial Government. I can just

hope, Mr. Speaker, that this budget on Friday will point out that this

Government is finally aware of the need for low-cost housing and we

will see more money put into that

section of the budget.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be denied an adequate

learning environment in many areas in this Province because of

Government legislation which, literally, freezes school boards into a

position in preparing their annual budget, a position where they have

difficulty maintaining essential services, let alone expansion into new

areas, which are vital to meet the need of today's children?

I certainly intend, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on today's crisis in

education in future debates. I saw the Honourable Minister shaking his

head, but I don't know if he saw the Daily Colonist

this morning. I was saving this for later, Mr. Minister, but, when I

saw you shaking your head, I suggest you check this. It was in this

morning's Colonist and the

headline is: "Filthy rooms, Teacher Lack, Follow Referendum Defeat."

Filthy schoolrooms, stinking offices, small children walking along busy

and dangerous roads, a music teacher with a near-intolerable work load,

increasing class sizes and shrinking programmes. That's the picture

painted of Nanaimo School District in a Special Learning Commission's

Report to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and it was blamed entirely on

the loss of the referendum. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there

will be far more examples of what this formula has done to our children

in this Province later on in future debates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nanaimo doesn't have any representation here anyway.

MRS. DAILLY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Minister of Education to call the Standing Committee on Education and

Social Welfare to meet to discuss in detail the effect of Bill 86 on

our educational system, for once, giving trustees, teachers, parents,

students and concerned citizens of this Province an opportunity to meet

with an all-Party house committee on the vital subject of education. An

opportunity, by the way, Mr. Speaker, which has been denied them ever

since the Social Credit Party came to power.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that, in 1948, for the first

time, education was included in one of the Standing Committees. It was

added to the then Social Welfare Committee and this move was instigated

by the former CCF House Leader, Harold Winch. But, even more

interesting, is the fact that in those days of that bad old Coalition

Government, the Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education

actually met and held meetings and made reports, without having the

matter referred to it by the House.

Let me read to you from the Legislative Journal of March 24, 1950.

It is very interesting to note, as an aside, that it starts off, "Madam

Speaker," and ends, "Tilly Jean Rolston, Chairman." Actually, Women's

Lib was further ahead in 1950 than it is today. I'm talking about women

holding positions of importance in this House. "Madam Speaker: Your

Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education begs leave to

report as follows: As nothing was referred to this Committee by the

House, it went ahead and held four meetings during the course of the

Session. Dr. Marian Sherman addressed the meeting on mental health,

child delinquency and adult education. Colonel Fairey from the

Department of Education spoke on new methods of education and gave an

account on the school system." Now there's more to the report but I

won't go on any longer. All of which is, "Respectfully submitted, Tilly

Jean Rolston, Chairman." We even have the minutes here of that actual

meeting if any Member would like to read them.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Coalition.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, the bad old days of the Coalition. You

know, Mr. Speaker, this ridiculous practice of standing house

committees meeting and adjourning the same day for the entire Session

because no matter has been referred to them by the House, only came

into force when the present Government took office. Yes, they even had

Opposition Members able to hold a position as a secretary in a

committee, and this would be unheard of under the present

administration.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that tomorrow, when these standing

committees are called, that we intend to make this point again and much

more strongly. That's a commitment. Mr. Speaker, the one area, of

course, is the public account. Why shouldn't an Opposition Member hold

that position, if it is done everywhere else, in every other

jurisdiction? (Interruption.) The chairman.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the last point I wish to make today is to

question whether it is good for children to be brought up in a society

which discriminates against a very large

section of that society,

simply on the basis of sex. Which leads me into a discussion on a very

fine document,

[ Page 211 ]

which was already referred to by the past speaker,

the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, a

report which I hope all Members of the Legislature will read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. No way.

MRS. DAILLY: The remark from the Honourable Minister, "No

way", you know, it's attitudes like that, Mr. Minister, that will not

only lose you the leadership but have created the attitude against

women that exists today in this Province.

I found it most interesting to listen to the Honourable Member from

North Okanagan. I was delighted to see her in attendance, also, at the

seminar on the Royal Status, which was held all day Saturday in

Vancouver, at which the chairman, Mrs. Anne Bird, spoke to us and we

had discussion groups. But, after listening to the honourable Member, I

really wonder if she and I had attended the same meeting, because we

certainly didn't get the same

interpretation of some of the

recommendations out of it, at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture us about family life. Down there is where they need it.

MRS. DAILLY: It was most heartening to those of us who have

been speaking in this House on necessary changes in the status of

Canadian women for a number of years to see this fine document

produced. Because it is a fine document, it's a lengthy one and,

perhaps, that's why it throws you off, Mr. Minister. I certainly don't

intend to go into all the aspects, Mr. Minister, of that document,

today. However, I would, for the information of Members who have not

read it, just like to list some basic positions because I sincerely

feel that the Honourable Member from North Okanagan misinterpreted some

of the recommendations of this commission.

One basic position they take and this is it as it says in the book.

"The Commission is not concerned to keep married women in the house or

to chase them out of it." It argues that women should have the right to

choose whether or not they will take outside employment. Society,

though, should establish the conditions which will make it possible to

exercise this free choice without incurring heavy penalties. All women

involved in public life know that they do face penalties, which men do

not face because of the attitudes which exist in our society today.

Women, as well as men, vary widely in their abilities, attitudes and

drives and, to the greatest degree possible, they should have the

opportunity to develop according to their individual bent. Women must

actively resist the social forces that would fit them into a

preconceived mould. To you, Mr. Minister of Education, through you, Mr.

Speaker, I am going to refer, specifically, to school textbooks which,

certainly, have kept women in a preconceived mould. If you run through

the whole school textbook spectrum, you will see that whenever they are

referring to occupations they have the little girl stereotyped into the

nurse and teacher but the boy always into the business world,

management, technical world. I do think our very school textbooks are

continuing on this attitude and I hope this is something we can discuss

later.

Again, I must make my point as I do every year. Where are the girl

page boys? To the new page boys, let me say we are not trying to

eliminate you but we would like some girls along with you here. Why

shouldn't they share the experience? You know, it's in the National

interest. Let's have a vote. I discussed this with the Speaker of the

House last year and had hoped, perhaps, we might have a few girls on

the Floor this year but, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any

change made.

Another basic position the Royal Commission report takes is that

it's in the National interest to develop and make full use of the

skills and abilities of women. I believe the report cost well over two

million dollars and I think it was well worth it, compared to what this

Government has spent on commission reports, that nothing has come out

of.

The community, the employer, and women themselves have a

responsibility to see that this is done. Here, once again, as I have in

past speeches, I ask this Government to set the example by considering

women for appointment to Government commissions, advisory bodies, etc.,

and, particularly, investigating the promoting procedures in the Civil

Service, to ensure that capable women have equal opportunities. And

this is where I had hoped…the Member from North Okanagan referred

mainly to what should be done in changes Federally. I was very

disappointed that she doesn't see there are over 30 recommendations

which apply Provincially and can take place by legislation in this

House.

The Commission does not support the principle of special treatment

for women. Equality of opportunity, of treatment, and status is the

goal. However, I do disagree with them on this point. I notice the

Honourable Member from Little Mountain nodding her head and I think she

and I agree on this point, because the commission report recommends,

"Special treatment in some fields will be necessary for awhile to erase

the present gross imbalances of women in areas." They specifically

recommend that two women from every Province be placed on the Senate.

Firstly, I believe the Senate is obsolete, anyway, but I don't know why

they have to even mention the Senate. Aside from that, the basic

principle here is that, in my belief, this is tokenism and I don't

believe in any form of tokenism in appointments.

Another basic position of the report is that women should share

equally, and I think this is the final one I'm bringing up…and I

think there are so many of the men, who don't realize this. Another

basic position of the report is that women should share equally with

men the responsibilities of society as well as its privileges.

Mr. Speaker, in later debates and presentation of private Members'

bills, I'll refer in more detail to some recommendations of the report,

which should be acted on at the Provincial level. At this time,

however, I would wish to first call upon the Government to establish an

implementation committee, headed by a Cabinet Minister, to study the

status report in depth, with a view to recommending Government action

in areas of the report which come under Provincial jurisdiction. I was

most disappointed that the past speaker did not bring this up. I was

hoping she would because she was at the conference and this is one of

the points that was stressed.

Mr. Speaker, I opened my speech today with the question, "Is it good

for children?" In conclusion, therefore, I would also like to urge the

Government to implement immediately one other very strong

recommendation from the status report and that is the establishment of

a Provincial Child Care Board, this Board to be responsible for the

establishment and the supervision of day care centres and other child

care programmes. I want to comment here on the remarks made by the last

speaker, regarding day care centres. I don't think she's been listening

to my speeches because, at

[ Page 212 ]

no time, did I advocate State-controlled day care

centres. I have simply suggested that this Government get moving and

take the initiative and see that there are more day care centres

established and not leave it up to local initiative. But, again, we had

this honourable Minister saying, "We want local initiative in

establishment of day care centres." If we wait for that local

initiative for the first step, we are not going to get the required day

care centres we need. We are not getting leadership in this and, again,

I ask you to seriously consider establishing an overall Child Care

Board, so that you can really get to work in this Province, find out

the areas where there are no day care centres, and there are many

still, Mr. Minister, and do something about it.

I also believe that there should be cost-sharing and it is available

through the Federal Government. Let's make use of it and get this off

the ground (interruption) .

The main point there is, before a day care centre can get started, you

insist that it must start from a local group. I have seen the hard

struggle that groups, particularly I know of, of unmarried women who

tried to get a day care centre going, but they simply do not have the

initial capital. You need to provide the initial capital to get it

going.

Mr. Speaker, I'm emphasizing this Child Care Board because, in

conclusion, I would like to say that if we are truly concerned with the

future well-being of the children of this Province, our future

citizens, it is essential to provide the best possible early learning

environment for them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. AGNES KRIPPS (Vancouver South): It is my honour, Mr.

Speaker, to once again take my place in this debate on the Throne

Speech and to represent, along with the Honourable Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance, the greatest constituency in our

Province, Vancouver South. I know that today is Ladies' Day, even if

the Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Seymour who follows me, has

"Lib." beside his name and I presume that stands for Women's Lib. I

guess it's time for a haircut.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to extend my congratulations to the mover

and the seconder of the motion that is now under debate. Both the

Honourable Member for Columbia and the Honourable Member for Oak Bay

deserve top marks for excellent addresses. As for the Opposition

parties, well, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the Throne Speech

debate is a time when Members of the Official Opposition and the

Liberal Party, as small as it may be, add up all their grievances, real

and imaginary, and they come to this Chamber well armed to criticize

the actions of the Government. That's understandable, that's what they

are supposed to do. But, Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that, at

least, some of their criticism would have been interlaced with some

constructive proposals and suggestions. Criticism just for the sake of

criticism doesn't contribute anything towards good sound policies and

legislation. May I point out to the Honourable Member from New

Westminster, I can't see him in his seat, so would you please pass the

message, that self-styled defender of women's rights, that the Province

of British Columbia, with five women elected, has the most women

M.L.A.s of all Provinces in Canada. I would also point out that the

Province of British Columbia contributed the only woman Member to the

House of Commons in Ottawa, a former British Columbia M.L.A. and now

the Member of Parliament for Kingsway, Mrs. Grace MacInnis. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, British Columbia leads in all areas, including women's rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring to the attention of this

Assembly, the date of March 24. That, in this 1971 Centennial Year,

marks the fiftieth anniversary of the appointment of Mrs. Mary Ellen

Smith, the first woman to have been elected to the B.C. Legislature as

a Minister without Portfolio in the Liberal Government of Premier John

Hart. This appointment was the first one of its kind in the world and,

once again, it happened in British Columbia.

I also wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate

the British Columbia Centennial Committee, under the chairmanship of

Mr. Laurie J. Wallace, and all the local Centennial Committees

throughout the Province which are working so enthusiastically on

Centennial programmes and projects at this time.

Mr. Speaker, in this Centennial Year, I would hope that all British

Columbians will commemorate, with appropriate events, the one hundredth

anniversary of ' the birth of Canada's great painter and writer of

native Indian ancestry, Emily Carr, who was born in British Columbia,

in particular Victoria, on December 13, 1871. I would like to suggest,

at this time, that all Members of this Legislative Assembly, regardless

of our political affiliation, as individual M.L.A.s, unite our efforts

and work together in a spirit of friendship, goodwill, mutual respect

and understanding so that we might undertake our own M.L.A. Centennial

project. In this respect, I would suggest that the project could be a

Centennial mini-park in the neighbourhood of the birthplace of Emily

Carr, here in Victoria. I would further suggest that this Centennial

mini-park be named Kanaka, the Indian word meaning meeting place.

Mr. Speaker, I also think that, in this Centennial Year, it is most

fitting for us to pause and reflect for a moment upon the enormous

contribution made by our pioneers, who, through their tireless efforts,

devotion and dedication, opened up a rugged, untamed country and pushed

back the frontiers to expose the rich natural wealth of this Province.

Their’s was a challenging life, a hard life, a life of sweat and tears

and of backbreaking labour and, in spite of the many obstacles and

untold hardships with which they were faced, they willingly poured all

their human resources into the lifestream of the Province's endeavour.

It is to these pioneers that I wish to pay special tribute in this

Centennial year. I would further suggest that we erect a plaque, with

an appropriate inscription "In Honour of Our Pioneers". This plaque

should be placed on one of the walls surrounding this Legislative

Chamber, where it will serve as a constant reminder to all who enter

these buildings that, indeed, in this B.C. Centennial Year, citizens

remember with kind thoughts the efforts of our pioneers. The

accomplishments of our pioneers give us confidence to continue building

a great country upon the solid foundations they have laid.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw the attention

of this House to the fact that one of my constituents, Miss Marion

Young Marshall, will be celebrating her one hundredth birthday on

February 27 of this year. She is, in fact, older than British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people of British Columbia took

forward to the visit of Her Majesty the Queen and members of the Royal

Family. I hope the Royal Family will have an opportunity to see many of

the various aspects of life in British Columbia and its diverse

regions. I hope all British Columbians will do everything possible to

make their

[ Page 213 ]

visit an enjoyable and memorable one.

Mr. Speaker, I consider our Sovereign to be a symbol of Canadian

unity and I look forward, as I am sure all British Columbians do, to

that great opportunity of showing our respect and the honour that we

have for the Royal Family, as individuals, and for the responsibilities

they hold in relation to the democratic form of government that we

enjoy.

Monsieur le Speaker, quelle que soit notre origine ethnique, quelle

que soit notre langue, quelle que soit notre passe historique, nous

constatons que le symbole de la souverainete joue un role important

dans l'unification du Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I note in the Throne Speech that the main and foremost

policy of our Government is and I quote, "… directed to the

improvement of the total environment of its citizens, to the end that

they shall enjoy the best ecological climate in the world." I also note

in the same Speech, that "Protection of the natural environment has

become one of the most important challenges of the decade."

It is with these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to bring

to the attention of this Assembly the fact that the Atlantic Richfield

Oil Company is building, just 12 miles south of the Canadian border at

Cherry Point, a huge refinery for Alaskan crude oil. I wish to

emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this large refinery is not just being

planned, it is actually under construction, now. I understand that the

Atlantic Richfield Company has already ordered three 125,000-ton

tankers to run the shuttle between Valdez, Alaska, and Cherry Point. As

a starter, some of these tankers will carry as much as 40 million…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Might I point out to the honourable Member Resolution number 4 on the Order Paper? The Member is anticipating the resolution.

MRS. KRIPPS: Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Mr. Speaker. That means I can't give what I propose? I have a concrete proposal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think the Member should best save that for debate on that resolution.

MRS. KRIPPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in relation to you bringing

this to my attention, I think the idea of Jack Davis suggesting a

pipeline through Canada is for the birds. Who are we to dictate to the

United States how they are going to deliver the oil? The fact of the

matter is we have to be prepared, and we have to be prepared not for

one oil refinery, but for twenty. I would, therefore, suggest, Mr.

Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm afraid the Member is anticipating the motion and should move on to the next subject.

MRS. KRIPPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall carry on with my proposal when the resolution comes up.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that British Columbia has no

protection against the use of possible toxic chemicals to disperse oil.

According to Dr. Schachter, Deputy Director of the United Nations

Institute of Training and Research, "Dispersants are sometimes more

toxic to marine life than the oil they disperse."

I would, therefore, suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our Government

request the Federal Government authorities to enact legislation that

would ban the use of toxic chemicals in oil dispersion in Canadian

waters until such time as we are assured of their safety (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The resolution deals with transportation. She is quite in order.

MRS. KRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, another area of concern to me is

the high cost of prescription drugs and, in the best interest of the

public who should, I believe, receive quality treatment at the lowest

possible prices, I wish to discuss this subject and offer some positive

suggestions that would make it possible to reduce the cost of

prescription drugs at the consumer level.

As a prelude to my concern to the high cost of prescription drugs, I

think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to become familiar with the

nomenclature of drugs. Drugs constitute a group of fine chemicals, that

is, therapeutically active ingredients, which can be clearly defined by

standard chemical names following standard chemical nomenclature, for

example, sodium bicarbonate.

These follow the ordinary rules of chemistry which describe chemical

compounds; however, as the synthesis of chemicals grew in number, the

chemical names attached to the new compounds became more and more

unwieldy. For example, 7-chloro-2 (methyloamino)-5-phenyl-3H,

4benzodiazepine-4-oxide hydrochloride. Hence, a consequent introduction

of a peculiar pharmaceutical nomenclature became necessary to overcome

this particular problem. The chemical name still remains the standard

of reference for the particular identity of the drug but, because of

the difficulties involved in expressing the true chemical name, the one

that I just now rattled off for you, in a manner understandable by

those less informed than organic chemists, a system of "recognized

names" was developed.

The new recognized name of a drug is selected when it is introduced

by an official organization or is designated as such in official drug

publications, such as the British Pharmacopoeia, the United States

Pharmacopoeia, or the International Pharmocopeia of the World Health

Organization. In Canada, the new name becomes the "proper" name, or, in

other jurisdictions, the "approved" name, or, even, indeed, the

"international nonproprietary" name.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the honourable Members of this Assembly to

note that in most schools of pharmacy and medicine, the generic name of

a drug is taught to students as the "recognized" or "proper" name of

the particular drug and, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would also like

them to note that drugs purchased by hospitals and other Government

purchasing agencies are ordered by their generic names through a tender

system known as the Canadian Government Specifications Board Standards

for Manufacture, Control and Distribution of Drugs (74GHI).

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that the

generic name may be used by anybody. It is not the exclusive property

of any one particular drug manufacturing company or any country.

However, Mr. Speaker, it became very clear, at an early date, to drug

manufacturing companies that considerable advantage might be attained

if a still more simplified designation for drugs could be found,

especially for commercial and marketing purposes. Accordingly, drug

manufacturers designated a particular generic drug under a brand name

or a proprietary name which was registered as a trademark in that

country or countries where the drug was sold. The brand name designates

the particular manufacturer

[ Page 214 ]

who, through strenuous promotional activity,

introduced a system of marketing where drugs would be, and usually are,

referred to by their brand name as a particular product of an

identifiable manufacturer. The brand name chosen is an

euphonious-sounding one, usually involving few syllables and is a name

more readily retained in the physician's mind because of its

simplicity. However, I wish to emphasize the fact that every brand name

continues to have its corresponding generic name. For example: brand

name, Librium, the generic equivalent is Chlordiazepoxide; brand name,

Valium, generic equivalent is diazepam; brand name, Miltown, generic

equivalent is meprobramate; brand name, P50, generic equivalent is

penicillin, 500,000 international units; brand name, Diuril, generic

equivalent is chlorothiazide; brand name, 292, which is one that

everyone in here knows, generic equivalent is acetylsalicylic acid,

phenacetin, caffeine citrate, codeine phosphate, grains one half.

It should be remembered that it is still the generic name that is

published in the official pharmocopoeias and formularies. Unlike the

generic names, which may be used by any drug manufacturer, the brand

name is the exclusive property of the particular drug manufacturers

with whom the product is identified. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, brand

name drugs are generally more expensive, sometimes a lot more

expensive, than their generic equivalents. For example, let us take an

anticholinergic drug, brand name, pro-banthine, 15 mgm, would cost the

pharmacist approximately $44 per 1,000 tablets, yet its generic

equivalent, propanthelene bromide, 15 mgm, would cost the pharmacist

approximately $8.40 per 1,000 tablets. The brand name is over five

times more expensive. Let's take another example. One of the

psychotherapeutic agents, brand name, Librium, 10 mgm, would cost the

pharmacist approximately $45 per 1,000 capsules, yet, its generic

equivalent, chlordiazepoxide, 10 mgm, would cost the pharmacist

approximately $9.60 per 1,000 tablets. Let's take another example. One

of the tranquilizers, brand name, Largactil, 35 mgm, would cost the

pharmacist approximately $5.93 per 100 tablets, yet, its generic

equivalent chlorpromozine hydrochloride, 25 mgm, would cost the

pharmacist 80 cents per 100 tablets.

It is quite obvious that at the manufacturers' level, brand name

prescription drugs are considerably higher in price than their generic

counterparts. This price discrepancy exists, not only in the

prescription drug field but also in over-the counter drugs. For

example: brand name, Aspirin, 5 grains, would retail for approximately

$1.73 for 200 tablets, yet, its generic equivalent, acetylsalicylic

acid, 5 grains, would retail for approximately 79 cents for 200 tablets.

Being a cautious man, the busy doctor prescribes those drugs he has

heard of, read of and has some knowledge of, drugs manufactured by a

company known to him, usually a large brand name manufacturing firm,

with detail men in the field carrying out a very expensive promotional

and advertising scheme. These vigorous activities by the drug

manufacturing companies are not directed to the final consumer but, in

the main, to the doctor who does all the prescribing. The doctor

chooses the drug product, writes out the prescription and the

pharmacist fills the prescription, usually a brand name. The consumer

of the drug has no choice of purchase at all. The doctor is the key

person who has the most control over the purchase of the drug product.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this high cost of producing the brand name

drugs at the manufacturers' level is a factor that bears a direct

influence on drug prices at the consumer level.

I wish to say a few words about quality and safety. This is of

paramount importance to the public. Assurance of a high level of

quality and safety of drugs is of prime importance to the public

interest. A brand name product, with its own specified patent, a

trademark, has nothing whatever to do with quality. It is true that the

large drug manufacturing companies, through their excessive advertising

and promotions, would have us believe that only a brand-name,

trademarked drug, carries the assurance of high quality and safety. But

honourable Members, this is simply not the case. Assurance of equality

depends first on the integrity of the particular manufacturer and,

second, upon the controls exercised by the Federal Food and Drug

Directorate. The patent itself confers no guarantee of quality, nor is

it an essential commodity of quality. There is no evidence whatever

that drugs, which have never been patented, or on which patents have

expired, are any less safe than patented drugs.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Food and Drug Directorate, which is the

regulatory body of the food and drug industry, has the function of

protecting the consumer. against frauds and hazards to health in the

sale of foods, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices. It is, therefore,

the duty of this body to protect the public against unsafe drugs. So

that the public may be assured that such protection is being given, Mr.

Speaker, all manufacturers, brand or generic, must abide by the Federal

food and drug regulations as set forth by the Federal Government.

With regard to the drug manufacturing industry, Mr. Speaker, in

order that the public may be assured of such protection, before a

generic or brand name product is put on the market, the manufacturer

has to satisfy the Federal Food and Drug Directorate in all areas of

the drug product's activity, as outlined in the manufacturing

facilities and controls

section of the Federal food and drug

regulations. This

section states that, "No manufacturer shall sell a

drug in dosage form, unless the drug has been prepared, manufactured,

preserved, packaged, processed, stored, labelled and tested under

suitable conditions. The Quality Control Department of the Food and

Drug Directorate has the same standards for the manufacture of both the

brand name and the generic drugs.

The Federal Guide for Manufacturers ,

brand or generic, states that the Quality Control Department are

people, "…who ensure that the final product possesses all the desired

characteristics of identity, purity, potency, safety, uniformity.

efficacy and stability, within established levels, that meet all legal,

professional and company standards." This means we get the same quality

control of the drugs whether they are brand name or generic.

According to the Federal Food and Drug Directorate, the regulatory

body of the drug manufacturing industry, in their opinion, based on

testing they perform, generic named drugs and brand name drugs are

equally safe. To assist smaller generic producers to compete with the

large brand name drug manufacturers, the Federal Government launched a

loan programme in 1969 to help the generic firms rationalize some of

their common activities, merge and expand, in general, actions to

increase their productivity.

Mr. Speaker, the brand name manufacturer takes every step to protect

his exclusive position, by his brand name promotion and advertising,

knowing very well that the busy physician, after repeated promotional

activities, whether it be brainwashing through extensive advertising or

through the detail men, will become indoctrinated to prescribe brand

name drug products.

[ Page 215 ]

Ordinarily, the busy physician is not price-conscious when he is

prescribing medication. Very often, he may not even know what the drugs

cost and he may or may not realize that there are lower cost

alternatives on the market.

Mr. Speaker, although brand name manufacturers try to defend the

height of their prices by reference to the vast sums of money spent on

research in the interest of advancing the cause of health and medical

science, which, I agree is a very worthy cause, may I, Mr. Speaker,

point out to the honourable Members that in terms of the drug

manufacturers' sales dollar, as reported by 41 members of the Canadian

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association for Canada, in 1964, only 7

per cent was spent for research and development of all kinds, while

their sales promotion expenses accounted for 30 per cent of their sales

dollar. That is, 30 cents of every dollar goes on advertising and

promotion of the brand name drug. This is four times as much spent on

sales promotion of the brand name, rather than on its research. Mr.

Speaker, this fact, alone, should explain the high pressure

salesmanship, the brainwashing being done by the brand name

manufacturer for use of his particular product; therefore, I believe,

that when a doctor prescribes a brand name product, the patient, in

this case, the consumer, has to pay a substantially higher price for

the medication when, in fact, a generic equivalent could have been used

at a substantial saving. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that wider

use of generic name drugs by hospitals and government agencies, such as

those paying for welfare recipient prescriptions, would result in a

substantial saving for the taxpayer.

According to the Pharmacy Act

of British Columbia, if a doctor prescribes a particular brand name

drug, under no circumstances may a pharmacist select another brand name

product or its generic equivalent, even if the patient could make a

tremendous saving on the cost of the prescription without any loss of

therapy.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I would urge our Government

to bring in legislation that would permit the pharmacist to make a

product selection and, thereby, give the consumer quality treatment

with a choice of price. I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the

pharmacist's responsibility, in such a circumstance, would be limited

to product selection only, not drug selection. The medication is, and

must remain, the physician's responsibility and prerogative. My

proposal of product selection does not constitute an infringement on

the physician's prerogative to choose the brand he wishes, for he will

still maintain his right to insist, if he wishes, on a particular brand

by merely putting on the prescription the letters, "NS," or "No

Substitute" or by designating the name of the manufacturing company.

As a responsible professional man, the pharmacist's product

selection will be based on his knowledge of the ability of a

manufacturer to produce a quality product, and the pharmacist's

knowledge, in this respect, is the equal of the physician's, for both

receive their knowledge from the same sources. I believe, Mr. Speaker,

that the proposed legislation will not only enable the pharmacist to

make a product selection in the interests of the consumer, but it will

foster the greatest possible degree of competition, consistent with the

highest standards of health care and physical safety. Such legislation

would be an honest attempt by the Government of British Columbia to

provide a mechanism for lower prescription drug prices.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House and,

in particular, that of the Attorney-General, to the

article in the Vancouver Sun , dated February 1, 1971, namely, "Marriage Racket Cracked."

Mr. Speaker, this racket involves approximately three hundred East

Indian men. These individuals will be dealt with in a Court of Law;

however, I do regret to hear that the East Indian community, with whom

I have a very close association, received such adverse publicity,

because, Mr. Speaker, the members of the East Indian community are

exemplary Canadian citizens.

The new Sikh Temple, the largest one of its kind in the world, is in

my constituency. It is a great landmark, a cultural, educational,

religious and recreational complex, and, I know, from my direct

association with these people, that they would want me to express their

feelings of hurt and regret.

Under our present Canadian immigration laws, if a visitor wishes to

apply for "landed immigrant" status, he requires 50 points out of 100.

These points are based on his age, education, personal assessment,

training, type of work, availability of work (presently at zero), and

demand in the area. However, if he marries a Canadian-born girl, the

point system is immediately nullified and he qualifies for landed

immigrant status. Upon receiving a marriage document, the couple

proceeds immediately to the Immigration Department to apply for their

landed immigrant status. After receiving this status, they immediately

apply for a divorce, or an annulment, and/or welfare. Mr. Speaker, I

understand the same plan of marriage convenience operates in Vancouver

and, in particular, West Vancouver, for the American draft dodgers.

In this marriage of convenience, where a would-be Canadian citizen

makes a mockery of our Canadian law, that type of person should not be

permitted to become a Canadian citizen. That type of person is

undesirable in Canada and I would, therefore, suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that the Attorney-General make strong representation to the Department

of Immigration that necessary amendments be made to our immigration

laws.

Mr. Speaker, during the past week…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are too many conversations going on in this House.

MRS. KRIPPS: During the past week, I have listened to

honourable Members in this House express their concern and views on the

current unemployment crisis and, I, too, want to add my concern to this

matter; however, I believe, concern is not enough. As responsible

legislators, our concern must be followed by immediate action and a

positive, constructive approach to the whole situation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, galloping inflation was considered a

National emergency and a series of programmes, the merits of which I do

not wish to discuss at this time, were initiated by the Federal

Government to curb inflation.

As a result of this deliberately planned programme of restraint,

another crisis was created — that of staggering unemployment, to the

tune of $38,000, of which 70,000 are in British Columbia. According to

some economists, as well as the Federal Minister of Manpower and

Immigration, the Honourable Otto Lang, this situation is going to get

worse, rather than better.

Mr. Speaker, my figures are based on the latest available Dominion

Bureau of Statistics of December, 1970, prior to the issuance of' the

secret memorandum of this year, dated January 18, to all Manpower

offices, to play down the unemployment figures which, I understand, are

now

[ Page 216 ]

756,000, secretly, unemployed.

At this point, it doesn't really matter whether the figures are

538,000 or 756,000 unemployed. The fact of the matter is, that the

unemployment situation is massive and this crisis is as great as, if

not greater, than the war on inflation. These people are all victims of

a deliberate Federal plan to curb inflation. I don't think it is fair,

Mr. Speaker, that these suffering human beings should pay the full

price to satisfy the interests of Trudeau's "just society." This is a

Canadian tragedy and, as responsible Canadian citizens, it is our

National duty to compensate victims of the battle of inflation. To help

them now is both a challenge and an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployed are not interested in excuses. They

don't really care who created this crisis or why they are paying the

full price. These unemployed want jobs, and they want them right now,

like, today, or better still, yesterday. The Federal Government knew

before it launched its anti-inflationary programme that there would be

massive unemployment. The fact of the matter is, they knew two years

ago that there would be unemployment, because they were deliberately

planning it, they were deliberately creating it, they were the chief

architects of this master plan. Mr. Speaker, they were extremely

successful in their efforts. I give them full credit for their success.

No one will deny the fact that the Federal Government succeeded in

creating this staggering unemployment. But what I cannot comprehend,

Mr. Speaker, is why a Government, knowing that there would be

unemployment, made no provision whatsoever, made no plans to take care

of these victims of the battle of inflation. The only comprehensive

policy I heard from Trudeau was the famous words of wisdom, "Take it or

lump it."

Let's face the facts, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government made a

mistake. It overcooled the economy. In fact, it practically froze it. I

would, therefore, suggest, Mr. Speaker, since the Federal Government

was instrumental in creating this National crisis, that it takes the

bull by the horns and immediately declares the unemployment crisis a

state of National emergency. If there ever was a time, Mr. Speaker,

when we should place human values over material things, it is now.

I would further suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government

launch an immediate public works programme, at all levels of

Government, with all the necessary incentives, such as preferred

interest rates, bonuses and any other such benefits that might be

needed, to start these projects going immediately.

I would also suggest a drastic reduction of interest rates to get

the wheels of business and industry rolling again and, for those who

may not be fortunate enough to be absorbed into the labour force

immediately, I would suggest an extension and increase in the

unemployment insurance benefits.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we must not lose sight of long-range

programmes to create new business and industry which, in turn, will

provide more jobs. In a free and democratic society, we are capable of

maintaining an atmosphere of stability and confidence so that people

with capital could establish an industry, develop an enterprise and,

thus, provide more jobs. As in the past, I am confident the British

Columbia Government will continue to stimulate, expand and manage our

economy in a manner that will maintain high levels of employment.

However, Mr. Speaker, I also believe it is time for us to help

ourselves by creating our own industry, out of our own natural

resources, with our own people and our own money.

As Canadians, we must begin to invest in our own country. I don't

think that we should continue to depend on foreign investment forever.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to think and act Canadian.

British Columbians have always been fired by the pioneering spirit

in the development of our resources and in economic progress and, it is

for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I would propose that we establish a

British Columbia Development Corporation for the purpose of developing

a long-range programme of profitable primary and secondary industry,

with Government participation and an opportunity for the people of

British Columbia to invest in their own Province.

With these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, let us go forth into the

second century of our Province with faith, courage, vision and

confidence, to build together a greater British Columbia and a

prosperous and united Canadian Nation. I thank you.

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

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, may I say first of all it is a privilege to be among such

charming company this afternoon? I appreciate my hair is a little

longer this year and I thought the Government Whip had become somewhat

confused but I notice, none the less, gentlemen, that the male shall

have the last word, today, as well.

Mr. Speaker, may I spend some time, first of all, commenting on some

of the points that have been raised during the course of this debate?

Before I forget, I would like to make reference to a situation in which

the honourable Member, who spoke prior to myself, found herself this

afternoon, dealing with rules of this House. I propose some change.

Right away, I would like to mention to Members that one change I would

propose immediately is that I do not believe that any Member, even with

the best of intentions, should be in a position to cut off debate on an

issue that, in my opinion, is more critical than anything we face today

in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome those who are here in the Chamber,

unfortunately, the attendance has not been the best this afternoon, but

all is not lost. We'll be able to read about it six months from now,

which, of course, is too late to make corrections in our Hansard

and points out the shortcomings of the system that we began last year.

I really must complain, on behalf of one of my constituents, who I

quoted in this House last year, a charming, elderly lady who is a

senior citizen. I made reference to the budget she must live on. The Hansard

I received some time ago, instead of mentioning that her budget did not

contain graphs, indicated that the dear lady's budget did not contain

"grass." I really take some objection to this, on her behalf, but I

understand that is not the only error and, perhaps, things will be

better this year.

Mr. Speaker, amongst other things that have been mentioned during

this debate, we've had the proposal from the Member from Revelstoke, I

believe, that we should pass laws making it an offense to desecrate our

flag. I wish to go on record, first of all, that I am unalterably

opposed to sending the Minister of Public Works to jail and, of course,

that Member has only been with us two years. But, if anybody has ever

desecrated the flag of Canada, it has been that Member in this Chamber.

All of which points out, Mr.

[ Page 217 ]

Speaker, that honour is something that is earned

and respect is hard won and no amount of legislation, in my opinion,

will ever change that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Member from Dewdney, who I'm happy to

see is in his place, made reference to our Prime Minister's recent

jaunt around the world and his attendance at the Prime Ministers'

Conference. When we had the Leadership Convention of our Party, I think

it is known in this House, that I was not one of those who supported

our present Prime Minister. I was happy to offer my support to the

Honourable John Turner; however, I have had reason during this past

year to change my opinion of our Prime Minister and, I think, he has

done some things of which we can be most proud.

Amongst those, Mr. Speaker, is his performance at the Commonwealth

Prime Ministers' Conference and I found the remarks from the Member of

Dewdney, yesterday, absolutely incredible. They certainly are not in

keeping with the remarks of literally hundreds of foreign commentators

and well spoken and well respected newsmen from all countries of the

Commonwealth, who have credited the Prime Minister with being the man

who avoided the showdown on the Commonwealth and the South African arms

issue. Mr. Speaker, the Member did not even quote the Prime Minister

correctly. In alleging that the Prime Minister was advocating breaking

up the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister was speaking to a group of

Indian students. What he said was, that, if Britain went ahead with its

plan to send arms to South Africa, he felt that the black nations in

Africa would withdraw from the Commonwealth and, with the feeling in

America these days, he expected Canada would be forced to follow — but

that he would regret this action.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it did that Member credit what he said in

this House yesterday. The Member, who has his seat beside me,

unfortunately, is not here, but I would like to add my support to a

proposal he made yesterday — that hunting in this Province should be

abolished. I think the day has long gone when we can justify the arming

of a brave human being with the most high-powered rifle, as being some

kind of sport.

AN HON. MEMBER: Save a few lives, Barrie.

MR. CLARK: It would, indeed, do that, Mr. Member. It would, of course, save lives.

Mr. Speaker, there has been mention of the proposed third crossing

of Burrard Inlet in this debate and well it should be mentioned. The

young of our Province and of our land today say of we politicians that

we talk and talk and talk and do very little. Mr. Speaker, we may have

another one of those opportunities to prove what they say. The

malcontents of our society say that we never accomplish those things

which we advocate. We, sometimes, in fact, argue ourselves into chaos.

Mr. Speaker, I propose that, in regard to the third crossing of Burrard

Inlet, this Government and the Federal Government, jointly undertake to

guarantee the costs of this construction, the exact proportion of which

can be agreed upon as it is being built. This is a procedure, Mr.

Minister, which works very well on labour disputes, on those issues

that can remain unresolved. In my opinion, every report and study into

this crossing has recommended its necessity and there is no excuse,

while two senior Governments argue with each other, that this crossing

be not built. It would be a great spurt to our economy and I would

propose this is one way of getting it started.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the seconder of the motion

we are debating. I agree with what the Member from Oak Bay had to say

in this debate about a subject that we discussed at some length last

year, namely, abortion. But his discussion, I think, raised some

questions that have been in my mind during the year, questions which, I

feet must be posed to the Minister of Health and must be answered by

him.

The first question, in connection with abortion and the new Federal

law as it is being applied in this Province, is what has he done and

what will he do to encourage the Federal Government to eliminate all

reference to abortion from the Criminal Code? What has he done? What

will he do?

The second question. What has he done and what will he do to offset

the demands on operating facilities, as a result of the increased

demands for this operation? Should operating rooms be opened longer

hours? Should more beds be devoted to surgery? In my own constituency,

Mr. Speaker, in Lions Gate Hospital, I am informed that 36 more beds

are required to make full use of the operating facilities that are

currently there, which strikes me as being very odd, considering that

we are supposed to have such a long waiting list and that that waiting

list is because of unavailable operating facilities.

The third question, I believe, the Minister must answer. What has he

done and what will he do to encourage fairness to those who reside in

areas where there are fewer than three doctors? During this past

summer, I wrote the hospitals of this Province, asking them what their

policy was regarding this subject. It became very evident that the

hospitals in the metropolitan area had taken action in accordance with

the Criminal Code, but that the hospitals in the rural sections of the

Province were not in a position to do so because of the requirements of

that code. In fact, it wasn't equal rights before the law, because the

woman seeking an abortion was required to leave home in order to obtain

one in many sections of this Province. I would ask the Minister what is

he doing or what has he done to alleviate that situation?

Mr. Speaker, the fourth question I would ask him is a difficult one.

But, because it is difficult, it does not mean he is justified in

dodging it. The question is: what is his policy and what is the policy

of this Government regarding those hospitals supported from the public

purse, which are operated by religious orders, and which, as a result,

have not set up abortion committees? I appreciate that it is an

extremely awkward question but that is one of the responsibilities of

Government. I think the people of this Province have a right to know

the policy of that Minister and this Government.

Mr. Speaker, turning to another subject. We left this Chamber, I

think, last year, in high hopes of some reformation to our liquor laws.

I think some of us did but perhaps our naivete was showing.

Unfortunately, while we wait, the bureaucrats bungled. We had a

delightful situation during the summer. The Liquor Control Board

brought in regulations affecting clubs in Vancouver, which were

absolutely unbelievable. It would have forced the clubs out of business

overnight. The Member for Vancouver Centre, the first Member, not

present at the moment, came to the rescue. I congratulate that Member.

We ribbed him about it a little earlier but I congratulate him. He did

come over and managed to talk some reason into the Liquor Control Board

and the regulations were changed. But while we were waiting, Mr.

Speaker, for a change in our liquor laws, what was the Liquor Control

Board doing? Amongst other things they were writing letters. To give

the Members some idea, here's a

[ Page 218 ]

letter, to a well-known gentleman in this Province,

who has reason to be associated, or in association, with the board from

time to time. "It has been reported to this office that your firm has

endeavoured to assist in the littering of the Province by the

distribution of 10,000 tin buttons, bearing your likeness, as shown on

your beer labels. Would you kindly advise this office as to why you

have distributed these buttons in contravention of the advertising

section of the Government Liquor Act ?" My, we were pleased they were on their job. It was addressed, as you have probably guessed, to the Tartan Breweries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Uncle Ben!

MR. CLARK: Uncle Ben replied, as only he can, Mr. Speaker,

and he said to Mr. Woodland, the executive assistant of the Liquor

Control Board, on December 8, 1970. "At first reading I was tempted to

treat your letter with the contempt that it deserved and commit it to

the refuse can; however, on second thought, I felt I should set the

record straight on several points and will, therefore, make the

following comments." I don't intend to read them all to the House. But

he does point out: "Firstly, the subject buttons were not purchased,

paid for or distributed by Uncle Ben's Tartan Breweries Ltd. They

represent my personal effort in the campaign against litter and were

ordered and paid for by myself from my own funds."

He had something else to say. He said, "Finally, I take exception to

your harassing, antagonistic, obstructionistic attitude to my firm and

to myself. It seems to me you are constantly on the lookout for some

excuse to rap my knuckles." This is the letter to the Liquor Control

Board. Oh, there are other things in the letter, too, Mr. Speaker.

For example, Mr. Ginter, the writer of this letter, says, "Don't you

think that it's about time that you began to give my competitors equal

treatment and direct some of your investigative activities and threats

to firms, such as Capozzi's, as well as other wineries, who, I am

informed, still brazenly violate the Act by sponsoring wine and cheese

parties, giving discounts or even free samples of wines? Why are we not

allowed to sponsor these wine and cheese parties, with the same

immunity as is apparently enjoyed by our competitors?" All kinds of

interesting things in this letter, Mr. Speaker.

But the point that Mr. Ginter makes and, I think, he makes it very

well, is in a postscript to his letter, in which he says, "I think it

would be a lot more helpful to the people of this Province if you would

devote some of your time and energy in persuading the Government to

implement the recommendations of the British Columbia Liquor Enquiry

Commission, which was very costly and which contained many good points,

instead of harassing me." I support Mr. Ginter in that.

Mr. Speaker, we have had debate in the House…

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you file the letter?

MR. CLARK: I'd be happy to file the letter, yes. There has

been debate, Mr. Speaker, during the past few days, about some items

which, although they were not in the Throne Speech, are important to

this Province. They are items mentioned by our Ministers. The Minister

of Recreation and Conservation, to be precise, has announced plans, and

the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, as well, for the

development of Cypress Bowl. While I don't intend to dwell on the

Cypress Bowl aspect of this, Mount Seymour is in my constituency, as

you know, and I wish to inform the Minister that I agree with his plan

to complete the present development on Mount Seymour and then move on

to Cypress Bowl. I do so because I believe that he is absolutely

accurate when he suggests that the expense of opening up the balance of

the mountain is far in excess of what the expense would be in Cypress

Bowl, due to the terrain. But what will he leave behind? I would

suggest that the Members should pay attention for just a moment,

because I believe the Minister left the impression that, within a

matter of months, we would be donning our skis and gliding down the

slopes of Cypress Bowl.

Don't you believe it, Mr. Speaker. If the record of this Government

on Mount Seymour is any indication of how they are going to move on

Cypress Bowl, I'll be too old to ski in that particular recreation area

(interruption) . I hope I am. It's one of the more enjoyable sports.

Mr. Speaker, in the last year of which we have record, namely, 1969,

this Government spent less money in the development of Mount Seymour

than in any year since 1966. There has been no effort at all to

complete Mount Seymour. Every year I have placed on the Order Paper,

questions as to the maintenance costs, salary spent and the capital

improvements to Mount Seymour. Simple addition will show and prove by

the Government's own figures that, in 1969, they spent less than they

did in 1966. Indeed, they have spent less every year. The road remains

unpaved. You had to close the mountain, finally, to tobogganers and

those who would like to sleigh down the slopes because you haven't

developed any. You said it was dangerous and came out as the great

protector. Really, what you should have done, is groomed some of the

hills so that they were safe for toboggan runs or sleigh runs. There

are no developed trails, Mr. Speaker, in Mount Seymour, despite what

the Minister might have said about the grand trails in that mountain.

It is, in fact, dangerous at certain spots. It's possible to wander off

what trail there is and, within ten yards, fall into a chasm that would

lead only to your death.

We have asked repeatedly for funds to be expended in marking the

trails in Mount Seymour and they have not been devoted to it, at ail.

Now, the Minister has admitted there is inadequate signing and I would

hesitate to be so pointed as to suggest that the responsibility for the

deaths on that mountain lies with this Government. If they don't lie

with this Government, where do they lie, Mr. Speaker? Without

exception, the deaths have been caused by people getting lost on that

mountain. We are not talking about a mountain somewhere in the middle

of British Columbia, that is remote. We are talking about a mountain in

the middle of a city. It has the worst roads of any ski resort in this

area. It has a chalet built by the Province of British Columbia, in

which skiers are not even allowed to eat lunches. It is an incredible

development. There are no other cities in this area, Mr. Speaker, with

an asset such as Mount Seymour, where young children can go and learn

to ski. Yet, the facts and statistics prove that this Government has,

in no way, given priority to the development of this asset.

So, Mr. Speaker, to those who intend to plan ski trips to Cypress

Bowl, don't hold your breath. Don't expect to ski on Cypress for a

while and, to the absent Minister, I would ask please that he completes

what he set out to do on Mount Seymour before he moves on to Cypress

Bowl.

Mr. Speaker, there has been and there should be, great discussion on pollution in this debate. This is supposed to be

[ Page 219 ]

the big year of the pollution fight. Of course, if

you read last year's Speech from the Throne, last year was, too. At the

same…

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk, talk, talk.

MR. CLARK: The talk, talk, talk, is in your Throne Speech,

Mr. Minister. How about some action, action, action? At the same time,

Mr. Speaker, that the Government says this is the big year for the

pollution fight, their agencies have authorized a mine to dump 9.3

million gallons of mill waste daily into Rupert Inlet. That's action.

At the same time that we read the fine words of the Throne Speech,

Buttle Lake is producing fish that are contaminated. What does the

Government really say, Mr. Speaker, that they are going to do, as far

as pollution is concerned? Hang on to your seats. The big move is that

they are going to add the Minister of Health to the Land Use Committee.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon me if that doesn't fill me with

overwhelming confidence.

May I ask the Premier's attention, Mr. Speaker, and your own, to an

article from the Everett Herald ,

Washington, June 5, 1970, which I think tells the story that we face in

a rather humourous way. Perhaps, in parable fashion. I think it clearly

illustrates what we are facing and what this Government has not

realized. It's an interview. I make my living interviewing, Mr.

Speaker, maybe that's why I enjoy this story.

This is an interview with, presumably, a radio commentator or a

television commentator, and a dinosaur. It begins with the interviewer

saying, "Good morning, sir, you are a dinosaur?" "Yes. I'm a

brontosaurus myself. I come from a long line of brontosauri. We've

lived here in this swamp for 140 million years. It's a lovely place,

don't you think?" "Very. I see that you eat those succulent looking

reeds that grow up on the shallows." "Yes, they are the only thing I

really care for." "But I see, sir, that, when you move about, you seem

to trample more reeds under foot than you eat." "Well, when you weigh

in at 50 tons…" "But aren't you concerned, sir, about destroying your

food supply?" "Not at all, young man, there has always been plenty of

reeds to eat and there always will be, even though the swamp is a bit

shallower." "Shallower?" "When I was a lad, it came up to my shoulders.

Now it's up to my hips. I suppose that's what got the young ones all

stirred up, that and the change in climate." "The climate's changed,

sir?" "Yes, it's much less humid than it was when I was a boy. You

know, it's not the coolness that bothers you it's the lack of

humidity." "You said, sir, that the young were stirred up?" "Oh, just a

few wild-eyed radicals. They are going around shouting, 'The swamp's

drying up, the swamp's drying up.' Sheer nonsense, there's always been

a swamp, and there always will be a swamp. No swamp! It's impossible

for the saurian mind to concede. They have a plan of action, nothing

practical. They want us all to learn to eat those leaves growing on the

bank. Leaves, mind you, can't abide the. stuff, doesn't set well, don't

you know." "But, if, just by chance, the swamp is drying up…" "I'm

not about to change my ways, young man, reed eating was good enough for

my grandfather a billion times removed and it is certainly good enough

for me." "But, sir, you agree that the world is changing and yet you

say that you will make no attempt to adapt to these new conditions.

Aren't you afraid that you will become extinct?" "Extinct? Are you out

of your mind, young man? There always have been dinosaurs and there

always will be dinosaurs. After you've been ruling the world for 140

million years, there's one thing you know in your bones." "What's that,

sir?" "The good Lord created the planet solely for the enjoyment of us

dinosaurs."

Mr. Speaker, as I reread the Throne Speech, watch the point. As I

reread the Throne Speech th