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)

MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ 29020200019.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 19 ]

MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is

indeed a pleasure to stand in my place two years in a row as the Leader

of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I

thought I would mention that, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I can't match the

record of the Premier but two in a row is pretty good going,

considering the past history that we've had. But no matter the problems

we've had, Mr. Speaker, ours are over and we have that vicarious

pleasure of watching the games that are going on on that side about

succession, which I personally hope won't be a matter they will have to

deal with for a long, long time. But when the time comes, our problems

will look like a Sunday school picnic compared to the things we know

are going on over there. Who hired the last PR man and the kind of

things that emanate from that?

Mr. Speaker, this is Centennial Year, the first Session of the

British Columbia Legislature after coming into the Confederation in

January, 1872 and, of course, the Honourable the Minister of Health

related some of the experiences of the activities of Members in

Centennial Year. One was the Shmockey activity. I was asked to play and

for a number of reasons I turned down the invitation — 205 reasons — but I have accepted another invitation on behalf of a number of Members

in this House who cross party lines. The Minister of Highways, the

Member for Vancouver East and a number of others of us in this House

have an advantage over the rest of the Members in that we were

graduates of Britannia High School and, on behalf of the Members of

this House who graduated from Britannia, I am going to be playing in a

rugby game on February 20. That means that everything I have to say

this Session must be put in before February 20. In any event I look

forward to that activity and I have been at the training table upstairs

already in preparation for that event and I expect to do my best. This

running away with the ball is a confusion as to where the ball is.

Anyway, be that as it may, that is my contribution to the Centennial

Year in terms of athletics.

I just wanted to bring to the House's attention, I hate to do this

because I don't like to embarrass the Government Party, Mr. Speaker,

you know that's not my want. I don't like to point out that there are

really no firsts in this Province but I want to quote from the Throne

Speech of the First Legislative Session in 1872 and it says that, in

part: "…A full statement of all monies received and expended subsequent

to the union of this Province with the Dominion, together with the

estimates of the probable revenue for the current year, and of the

expenditure proposed to be incurred during that period, the latter of

which is based upon the strictest economy comparable with efficient

administration of our affairs and due attention to the requirements of

the country, will be laid before you early in the Session." That's a

hundred years ago; it sounds like today, but the next line is the

grabber. "Free from debt and with considerable accumulated funds at

your disposal I am confident that through your judgement and prudence

the financial resources of the Province,…" etc. So you're not alone,

Mr. Premier, we were debt free, really, in those days and there is no

mention in here at all about contingent liabilities, not a bit, but I

guess it's taken us a hundred years to acquire the contingent

liabilities.

During the past year, while we were here in this House, a television

crew was doing a television show on the Leader of the Opposition and

because cameras were not allowed in the House, Mr. Speaker, they had an

artist sitting in the gallery doing some sketches and some very, very

interesting drawings of Members of the House. I have them on loan,

permanent loan from the crew that did that programme. Some of the

pictures I have had framed; the others are in my office and if the

Members are interested they are more than welcome to come down and see

them. I brought one that I had framed to the House today — this is a

very good series of sketches of the Premier. I had it framed and I am

giving it to the Premier. Well, Mr. Member, not only is it going around

in circles but one of the most appropriate sketches is a picture of his

back. The view was taken from the Opposition benches, obviously, but in

any event I think it is an excellent series of drawings of the Premier

and I hope the Premier will be able to use this, possibly in his

office. I think it is very, very well done and I think he's captured

you very well. There is no charge for the frame, Mr. Premier, it was

done in the Government carpentry shop.

The only other bit of comment that I have is that I want to talk

quite a bit about the tour I had. During the great debate in Canada

about the War Measures Act and the Temporary Measures Act

which the Creditistes and the New Democrats voted against in the

Federal House, there was an emotional outburst by the Attorney-General

of this Province that brought forward an Order-in-Council and the

Order-in-Council declared that, as public policy, no person teaching or

instructing our youth in educational institutions receiving Government

support shall continue in the employment of the educational institution

if they advocate the policies of La Fronte de Liberation de Quebec

or the overthrow of democratically elected governments by violent

means. Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of discussion

around civil rights and the use of politics at a time like this by the

Attorney-General. I was up at Terrace at the time and I was fortunate

enough to receive a copy of a press release issued by the Teachers'

Association, the branch up in that area, which supported the

Attorney-General's position. The teachers, one group of teachers, did

support the Attorney-General's position and I thought I should bring

you, verbatim the press

release that was issued at that time. The Head of the School Board is a

Mr. Lee; he's the Chairman of the School Board, and the President of

the Skeena-Cassiar District Teachers' Association is a Mr. John Chen

Wing, and I'll read for you the press release that Mr. John Chen Wing

issued. It is entitled: "Teachers' President Supports Chairman Lee."

"Mr. John Chen Wing, President of the Skeena-Cassiar District Teachers'

Association, commented today on Chairman Lee's recent statement

regarding the Provincial Government's Order-in-Council about teachers:

'I agree wholeheartedly with Chairman Lee. However,' he said, 'the

Order-in-Council does not go far enough, it should be extended to

include school trustees, school janitors, school nurses and school bus

drivers.' He commented, 'While there is no proof as yet that any

trustees in B.C. are FLQ sympathizers, in these troubled times one

cannot be too careful."' — I thought it was an appropriate response to

the really silly Order-in-Council promulgated by the Attorney-General

of this Province at a time of severe crisis in Canada, and it's really

interesting that,

[ 29020200020.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 20 ]

after his years as Minister of Education, he

wouldn't have enough faith in the common sense of the teachers of this

Province and that he would lower the dignity of the Executive Chamber

by bringing in this kind of Order-in-Council. We would have expected

something better.

Mr. Speaker, I did visit almost all the areas of British Columbia as

well as maintain contact here in Victoria through my office. Some of

the areas that I visited will be referred to today. The previous

speaker was suggesting that M.L.A.s weren't on the job. I want to tell

you that everywhere I travelled I found evidence that all the elected

M.L.A.s of all parties generally were on the job. I don't think that it

is worthwhile for a Member to come in this House and say that so-and-so

isn't doing such-and-such, because there is too much of the feeling

abroad that M.L.A.s aren't working all year round. Regardless of party,

Mr. Speaker, it's been my experience that most M.L.A.s are putting in

12 and 14 hours a day working on the job. That's how they've been able

to survive here in this House and some, of course, have been able to

survive beyond reason. Be that as it may, I even was welcomed in the

north by the M.L.A. from that area, and I appreciated it very, very

much. He attended my meeting and that made two of us there, but it was

very hospitable of him to be there and I did appreciate it.

The Throne Speech, Mr. Chairman, was compiled essentially, in my

opinion, by civil servants. With no apologies, I point out that it had

to be compiled by civil servants because the Government wasn't around

to write it. It's very difficult to get mail up from Palm Springs or

over from Hawaii and, as a result, those people were left in Africa,

where there are no problems — South Africa, where there are just no

problems. An incredible statement from the Minister of Social — whatever it is — no problems in South Africa — the Commonwealth just

about broke up over South Africa, but he saw no problems there. At any

rate, the civil servants did write the Speech and left out a number of

things that I think are very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we tried to discuss immediately

was the problem of unemployment. I am going to make very brief

reference to some statistics at this point and then I will come back to

them later on. In November, 1970, these are the last figures that I was

able to obtain from the Canada Manpower Department, there were 76,000

unemployed in British Columbia. Since that time, we understand, there

has been quite an increase. In November, 1969, there were 48,000

unemployed in British Columbia, almost a doubling of unemployed in one

year, Mr. Speaker. There is another significant figure that I wish to

share with the House at this point and then leave for a few moments. In

1965, the number of unemployed in British Columbia was 25,000 and only

7,000 of that group were in the age group between 14 and 24. Now we

have the situation of 76,000 unemployed with 31,000 in the age group of

14 to 24. We have a situation where, in 1965, about 30 per cent of the

unemployed was in the age group of 14 to 24 and now it is over 45 per

cent. That age group represents, Mr. Speaker, not people who have yet

planted deep roots into the kind of social structure that our society

is made up of, generally unmarried, generally better trained and

generally with a higher level of or a lower level of frustration

tolerance about unemployment. This age group does not have the same

kind of investment in our society that an older unemployed worker has.

This age group is generally idealistic, easily frustrated, short-term

in the kind of goals it expects and is conditioned very heavily by a

society that equates success with having a job, earning money, driving

a car and being relatively freewheeling in our society. When you

frustrate those ambitions that, legitimately or otherwise, have been

instilled in the young people of this country, Mr. Speaker, you have a

potentially explosive situation. You must remember that even in the

Throne Speech itself, on page 5, there is an ironic reference to this

very point when the Throne Speech says: "…During the past decade it

became obvious to my Government that there would be a great demand in

modern society for technically-trained people, and that facilities

should be constructed in which students could obtain a type of training

of benefit to themselves and to the communities in which they live. It

becomes increasingly more apparent that, in order to obtain employment

in the resource-based industries of our Province, workmen would require

special skills and expert training…." Not when you export the raw

materials — somebody else has the jobs, not us. When you export coal

and iron ore and whole logs, you don't need a highly trained work force

being frustrated at this end and it is a mistake to say as you say in

here that they need the special skills and expert training unless there

is some planning for jobs at the end of the training. "…My Government,

therefore, embarked on an ambitious programme of diversifying our

post-secondary education facilities. During the past year, the wisdom

of this policy was proven by the large number of students who received

their training in our vocational schools and colleges and who, in

consequence, are now qualified to take their place in the industrial

development of our Province…." There are no jobs for them, Mr. Premier.

There are a thousand university graduates out there in whom we have

invested literally tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to train and

they are now walking the streets looking for jobs, and this Government

gets upset because, as an example of their frustration, they came to

this House. Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about that later on.

But I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the very system that

we are committed to on that side of the House and on this side of the

House is being challenged in North America in a way that has never been

challenged before and to give glib, unthinking, foolish political

statements about the behaviour in this House last Thursday will bring

about the destruction of this system a lot faster than having some

sensible, rational discussion around the real problems that we face in

this Province. Mr. Speaker, If it were my son or my daughter that put

in four years in high school and two years in a vocational school and

did all those things that they were told to do — don't drop out, stay

in school, behave yourself, conform, get an education — and then they

graduated and they weren't given a job, I could understand their

frustration in not having employment. If I were a married man on the

breadline with three or four children waiting at home for Daddy, the

provider, to come home with a pay cheque and a wife who is out working

as a waitress or earning minimal increment to supplement the family's

income, then if you don't understand the frustration of that kind of

situation, you are simply not fit to govern any more. You went through

the last Provincial election campaign with a slogan: "Take home pay

with Bennett, strike pay with Berger" and, Mr. Speaker, there has been

no pay for the working people of this Province who had invested faith

in this Government as we are told constantly by Members on that side of

the House. Constantly, we are told: "Look at us, we represent

working-class ridings. They have rejected a New Democratic Party and

they have voted for the Social Credit." They did, indeed, and what have

you done for

[ 29020200021.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 21 ]

them? Because of the behaviour of a small,

irrational group of people, which is symptomatic of a greater social

problem in British Columbia, you condemn out-of-hand the bulk of the

people who came here to demonstrate because of the need for jobs. Many

of those people who were out there voted for this Government in the

last election and it is an incredible kind of performance that we saw.

Mr. Speaker, what about those who are working? One of the classic

examples of the kind of limited income that people can bring in while

they are earning in British Columbia is the Sandringham Hospital — just

up the street. Last September, that hospital became a bargaining unit

of CUPE and they went out on strike because they wanted living wages — they were earning $1.50 an hour. How do you expect to raise a family on

$1.50 an hour? They were told by the corporation that runs the

Sandringham Hospital that they have to understand that the hospital was

in business to make a profit and the hospital is indeed in business to

make a profit. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation because of the lack of

chronic care facilities promised by this Government time and time

again. We find large private investors dealing in human misery by

making profits out of private hospitals, while people who have paid

taxes in this Province do without the service. I think even the Member

from Oak Bay had some comments about that. Yesterday, he said we should

bring in the churches. Bring in the churches and reduce the concept of

care in British Columbia back to charity! Not only did he suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that we charge the sick five dollars a day but he said that

the Church should be playing a role, a significant role, in this

particular strike. I would like to read to the House the comment of a

leading religious figure in Victoria who attempted to mediate in this

dispute because of his concern for the patients and concern for the

families who are affected by this strike. I quote from the Victoria Times

of December 17, 1970: "The rector of St. Andrews Cathedral said

Wednesday in his offer to act as mediator in the Sandringham Private

Hospital strike he was rudely rebuffed by two officials of the National

Nursing Homes Limited. Monseignor Michael O'Connell told the Victoria

Labour Council that Sandringham management is more interested in

exploiting 'dear old Granny' than in the welfare of its workers.

O'Connell, representing the Greater Victoria Council of Churches, was

in Vancouver Monday for a meeting with Neil Cook, President of the

National Nursing Homes Association, and Official Donald Dewar, Cook and

Dewar, apparently questioned his right as a church official to be

involved." The attitude of these nursing home owners, Mr. Speaker, is

"mind your own business" and to go on from there I quote the

Monseignor. He said, "One thing that annoyed me very much was that

'dear old Granny' was mentioned about 10 times and I would submit that

anyone who doesn't care about Judy walking the picket line doesn't have

much concern for Granny either." O'Connell said the dispute was brought

about by irresponsible and unenlightened self-interest and capitalists.

That's the Church speaking and it is able to see clearly what the

problem is in terms of after-care for chronically ill people in nursing

homes. For a Member to stand here as he does, representing an area from

Victoria, being aware of this situation and giving a pious call for the

churches when the churches have already taken a position and have been

rebuffed for that position, Mr. Speaker, I tell you I don't think he's

been doing his homework. What we need, and we need now, is a

responsible public hospital programme regarding total care for all

citizens of British Columbia as the need arises, and if we'd get on

with the preventative services that have been neglected by the Minister

of Health, even to the point that that Member recognizes, we would have

been saving money along the way as well as, incidentally, saving some

people from the suffering that is going on. I suggest that if the

Minister of Labour, now freshly back, would pay some attention to that

particular problem, we might be able to set some better standards.

Just a last word about

the National Homes Limited that owns the Sandringham Hospital. Just to

disabuse anyone of the attitude or the feeling that this company is in

business for its goodwill, let me read you some facts about the

National Nursing Homes Limited. There are a total of 62 doctors who are

shareholders, including eight from British Columbia. A drug company is

also a shareholder — Belvedere Drugs Limited, Alberta. The annual

report indicates a record year for the company, with gross revenue 40

per cent greater than for the previous year. Net income for these

private hospitals that can't afford to pay more to their employees in

1969 was $111,205, net income for 1970 was $605,371, an increase of

half a million dollars in one year, but not enough money to increase

the wages of the people who must attend the sick. Five hundred and

twenty-one beds were added during the year and the company attracted

and generated 10 million dollars in new capital. The company revenue,

in total, was 4.8 million dollars. Paid to the directors and senior

officers as salaries was $103,000. The company has nine nursing homes

and four private hospitals in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and

British Columbia. This is a lucrative investment industry. "Soak the

sick, soak the elderly and keep the workers' wages down low and we'll

make ourselves a handsome profit." Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that

the Church has already taken a position and the Church has said that

this is immoral. I couldn't agree with the Victoria Council of Churches

any more than that, Mr. Speaker, any more than that ( interruption ). The

irony of that, Mr. Member, in charging the sick $450 a month or more,

is that those people who have been consciously aware of their

responsibilities as citizens and have put money aside for a rainy day,

those people who have never been a burden on the taxpayers as welfare

recipients, who have worked hard all their lives accumulating a small

pool of funds, find themselves sick, go into a private home, are

ineligible for welfare and they lose all of their private savings. And

the irony is that someone who has spent as he went along, maybe could

have saved something but didn't, and then needs the care, is

immediately able to receive social assistance. It punishes those people

who have been what we call, or you call, responsible citizens and

that's the double irony of that particular thing.

Mr. Speaker, during the tour that I made through British Columbia, I

visited many, many places for the first time in my political life.

There are some areas of British Columbia where, after I left, I wasn't

welcome in terms of coming back again, but I'll have more to say about

that later this Session. I want to… ( interruption ). Mr. Premier, I

could make some reference to the happening on opening day related to

that remark, but I won't. I want to spend a little time going over some

of the areas that I visited and pointing out some of the things that I

saw and some of the concerns that I have because of what is happening

in this Province. You can't see? That's a terrible admission for

Government Members ( laughter ). I can't hold the thing up throughout the

whole thing but I will try to give you some idea; I will give you a

verbal description. I had a friend of mine do it and it was very, very

kind of him to spend the time. Yes, I expect a bill, even though he's

my friend. I expect the bill to be quite

[ 29020200022.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 22 ]

substantial. The first area that I want to talk about is the Elk

Valley. It is in the Rocky Mountain trench in the lower part here of

British Columbia. It is blanketed by coal permits, Kaiser and Fording

are already in operation, and many are poised to go again. More big

game species are in that area than in East Africa. Mining operations

are concentrated on winter range of wildlife and Kaiser has not been

able to live up to its promise for reclamation of that area. Growing

conditions are more severe in that area than in any others. In spite of

laws, much tougher laws in the Appalachians, there has been no attempt

to even have tough laws here in British Columbia. We have a very weak

Bill and it is generally being ignored by the Kaiser Corporation.

Remember, while this is going on we receive no direct royalties from

Kaiser. We're shipping this coal to Japan; the first 15-year contract

signed by Kaiser allows us to ship the coal to Japan without a five

cents royalty. Last year I introduced a Bill in this House, Mr.

Speaker, that would have put a one dollar a ton surcharge on every ton

of coal leaving British Columbia for export. Last year, we exported

some 12 million tons of coal which would have collected 12 million

dollars. The Member is concerned about the export of coal, Mr. Speaker.

If you're crying for Kaiser, Mr. Member, let me tell you that I have no

sympathy for Kaiser messing up our beautiful Province without any

direct return to this Province of ours except, Mr. Speaker, for the few

jobs that come out of Revelstoke and the constituency of

Revelstoke-Slocan. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we witnessed an attempt

to even rob those few jobs from British Columbia by this Government

appealing to the Federal Transport Commission to allow the export of

Canadian coal over American railroads so that American workers can have

jobs. And then we have the Member from Revelstoke-Slocan piously saying

that he agrees with this. Aren't you fighting for the railroad workers

in your constituency, through you, Mr. Speaker? Not at all, not at all.

They are more interested in providing jobs for Americans rather than

for Canadians who receive very little benefits from the whole coal deal

in that area. In the Flathead Valley, another magnificent wilderness

area, another right here, Mr. Member, if you will take a look, right

down here, the Flathead Valley. You haven't been up there recently but

they'd like to see you up there. Added to the Elk and Fording Valleys

and the Livingstone and Kananaskis Valleys in Alberta, it adds up to

the potential despoilation of an enormous area of the southwest of

Alberta and British Columbia. The Kootenay River Valley, the next main

valley from the Elk, is the Rocky Mountain trench and the best part of

it, the southernmost area drained by the Kootenay River, will be

flooded for 40 miles north of the United States border by Libby Dam in

Montana, one of the Columbia Treaty Dams. Ranches, farms and wildlife

are affected. British Columbia gets nothing for the destruction of the

valley which will be mud-swept for miles when the water is drawn down.

That's in the Kootenay River Valley, Mr. Member. In Kimberley, the

pollution of the Mark Creek and St. Mary River must be the most blatant

pollution in British Columbia. That's close to where you come from, Mr.

Member. These streams have been destroyed by Cominco and nothing has

been done. There is a rumour that something may be done now because the

U.S. Corps of Engineers doesn't want this material pouring into its

Libby impoundment. The only previous action taken by Cominco on

pollution control was because of the legal suit by the United States.

What about the M.L.A. from that area, is he fighting on behalf of some

kind of better pollution control? What is the return? The Skookumchuck

pulp mill, it was to be pollution free, due to new processes which were

subsequently announced as failures, and the evidence of pollution can

now be seen far downstream. The magnificient Rocky Mountain trench is

stage by stage being destroyed because nothing is being done to protect

those things that have been taken away. It cannot be argued that it's

being done in the name of economic development.

I had last year's Throne

Speech here somewhere and I was going to

quote. Here it is, right here. This was the Throne Speech given a year

ago January in this House and I quote: "I am pleased to note that the

water-pollution problems have been solved in all the new pulp

installations." That's what they said last year in this House and

"…will soon be remedied in the older mills." Just a year ago that's

what

they said. "…Intensive research continues to resolve the problem of

kraft-mill odour. Tax incentives offered by my Government covering the

installation of all nonproductive equipment installed only for

pollution control has assisted with the tremendous improvement which

has already been recorded." Mr. Chairman, there has been no improvement

recorded in the past year. The Skookumchuck mill was to be the mill

that was talked about in your Throne Speech last year and the

Skookumchuck River has been poisoned by the effluent of that mill. You

are not even telling us about it this year in the Throne Speech. You've

forgotten what you said one year ago. You know, Mr. Member, I think

your Throne Speech is all mixed up. Of course, we have to promise, it's

always good for a promise ( interruption ). I'm coming to Buttle Lake, my

friend, and we'll talk about some of your statements about that

particular area. Then we move over, Mr. Chairman, up to Duncan Lake.

The Duncan River flows into the Kootenay Lake from the north end; the

river was dammed under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty. The dam

generates no power and is for storage only. A public lookout was

established to overlook the dam site in the new impoundment. Around the

comer from the lookout the beginnings of a lake 35 miles long stretch

away to the north. The timber stands dead. The lake was never cleared.

Money was provided in the Treaty to do this clearing but instead it was

spent building a forest access road up the valley. This road will be

used by one private company, Kootenay Forest Products of Nelson, who

have vast timber holdings in the upper Duncan. This firm will run

trucks with 12 ft. wide bunks on the road and it is planning to build a

huge causeway on the top end of the Kootenay Lake to act as a log dump

and booming ground. When that happens the public will be locked out of

the road for which they paid the bill. Those trees stand there dead as

a monument to the statements made time and time again by the Minister

of Lands and Forests that we'll clean out every one of these areas.

They've left a trail of devastation throughout the whole area. The

question of flood control on Duncan Lake is really a matter to be

concerned with. We were told that the control flow out of that dam

would allow flood control. Residents are still farming on the flats

between the dam and Kootenay Lake at a distance of about 12 miles. The

erratic action of the river, caused by its being controlled instead of

running off on a normal process, has caused severe erosion of the land.

One farmer has lost 100 acres, another around 20, still others have

lost lesser amounts but stand to lose more. Their complaints to B.C.

Hydro have fallen on deaf ears. The erosion results from the following

situation: Normally, the Kootenay Lake is high in the spring; this is

the time the Duncan River usually runs off the snow pack. Now the water

[ 29020200023.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 23 ]

is contained behind the dam. Kootenay Lake is very low when the dam

is pulled and, as a result, the river reaches greatly increased

velocity since there is no high water. It is now a local joke that this

dam was built as a flood control dam according to Hydro. Why won't they

answer the farmers who have complained? Why isn't there a reply from

B.C. Hydro to the people who live in that area? In terms of Nelson, the

west arm of the Kootenay Lake is badly polluted — the Member from

Nelson-Creston knows that. Nelson sewage has been a principal

contributor but the thousands of residents all along the shoreline have

only septic tanks to rely on, and seepage into the mainstream would

seem inevitable. The bathing beach in Nelson was open to the public

last year, after being closed a year earlier. It was a cool summer. It

was closed the year before for health reasons. The residents are

terrified of plans to build a pulp mill on the west arm just above

Nelson and I know that we will hear from the Member from Nelson-Creston

as to his position on this proposed pulp mill. This would dump its

effluent into Kootenay Lake. The Kootenay Lake is known as one of the

cleanest and most beautiful fresh water lakes in British Columbia. I

don't know if the Attorney-General has been up there, right down in

this area here. At the outbreak of the Kootenay River at Balfour, the

lake is relatively clean. Downstream from this outlet, between Balfour

and Nelson, the water gets increasingly more polluted, mostly from

sewage. At present, the only industry dumping effluent into Kootenay

Lake is the Blue Bell Mine owned by Cominco but this operation is

stopping within a few months and presumably the pollution will then

come to an end. But the plans of the Kootenay Forest Products, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, for a booming ground in the north end

of the lake is certain to cause a serious bark and turpidity problem.

This will also disrupt one of the choicest swimming areas and I don't

know what planning is being done in that regard. The Mica Dam

( interruption )…the swimming area, Mr. Member, is back on the west arm

of the Kootenay Lake. That's where the swimming was closed for a year.

The Mica Dam, the key structure in the Columbia River Treaty, will

create a lake 130 miles long. Apart from the shoreline within sight of

the dam itself, the reservoir is not being cleared, again, another

man-made lake in British Columbia filled with dead trees, but rather

highgrading of the best timber is being carried out on part of the

reservoir area. The reservoir would be worthless for recreational

purposes, with tributaries such as the Wood River, which lead to some

of the finest alpine country in the Canadian Rockies destined to become

impenetrable, log choked inlets. The management of the reservoir has

been condemned by conservationists and by professional foresters, as

well as people in the community of Golden. The Arrow Reservoir, the

Okanagan Lake, I want to skip over some of this because there is a

great deal of detail that has been gathered during my visit throughout

the area.

I want to talk a bit about the Okanagan Lake. The lake is seriously

threatened by pollution, according to the Medical Health Officer in the

area, Dr. David Clark. Since 1955, over 700 tons of DDT have been

dumped onto the orchards. Residues have found their way into the lake

and water courses. Fish over two pounds are too heavily contaminated

for human consumption. The sewage treatment plants of Kelowna, Vernon

and Penticton are the best in the Province and are far better than the

Provincial Government's maximum standards, but only half the people in

the whole valley have the benefit of sewers. The water in the lake is

extremely vulnerable. The lake is a relic from the Ice Age and if it

were emptied now it would never fill again. Biologists of the

Provincial Game Department estimate that it takes 50 years to change

the water in the lake. Industries in Kelowna have been major polluters

for years. Sunlight Products dumps its production effluent into Brants

Creek which flows into Okanagan Lake and it is so full of sugars and

hot liquids it smokes and steams in the winter, and in summer it smells

like a sewer. Even though, Mr. Speaker, the towns have constructed

excellent sewage disposal facilities, the Government has not seen fit

to control the industrial polluters in that area. The Government has

come up with a proposal, that it is gently pushing, to have a diversion

from the Shuswap area to flush out the Okanagan Lake. Dr. Clark, I

think it was, described this as an attempt to look upon the Okanagan

Lake as a toilet bowl and have the Shuswap flush it out. It cannot be

done. The Member is right, it cannot be done. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we

have not had a clear-cut statement from this Government that they are

opposed to the Shuswap diversion. The Member from Shuswap stands on

both feet on both sides of the issue and we have no idea, if this

diversion did take place, of what kind of lasting damage would be done

to the Adams River salmon run. There is a pattern right across this

Province, Mr. Speaker, of despoilation because of a lack of planning or

a lack of understanding of the effect of unplanned development that has

taken place under this Government. The Fraser River, Mr. Chairman, is

the largest salmon-producing river in the world. These salmon runs are

now threatened by the threat of a power dam on the Fraser River. We see

that the Chamber of Commerce up the valley has flown a kite about the

Moran Dam and I don't know if it's the Government's intention to make a

move to create an atmosphere for the Moran Dam, but there is no

adequate research on the damage that would be caused by that dam being

built. We move over very quickly, Mr. Chairman, to the Strait of

Georgia and it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to see the kind of fight

that goes on between this Government and the Federal Government over

the Strait of Georgia. We have the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation taking the position that this Government has the right to

drill for oil. It's the only Recreation and Conservation Department I

know that thinks that oil derricks have a more aesthetic value than

trees, Mr. Chairman. The argument is that, and I give credit to the

Federal Minister, Mr. Davis, for taking the position ( interruption ).

No, he hasn't forgotten that experience. With the oil spills that we

are witnessing now on both coasts of the United States, we find

statements from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation leaving us

with a feeling that they would be more than anxious to start oil

drilling in the Georgia Strait if the Federal Government would mind its

own business.

Then we come, of course, to Buttle Lake. Now I remember those

debates, Mr. Chairman, I remember when the Member from Cowichan-Malahat

got up and had some very tough exchanges with the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation, and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the

M.L.A. from that area. At that time we had demonstrations, too; we had

committees coming down from the Campbell River area protesting the

dumping of Western Mines effluent into Buttle Lake and we were told,

Mr. Speaker, that there was nothing to worry about, nothing to worry

about, that everything would be taken care of. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs said that if there were technical evidence of

pollution he would be the first to man the barricades. He's still here

today. "He's leaden-footed," says the Member behind me.

[ 29020200024.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 24 ]

The other Member says, "We have now a biologist's report indicating

dangerously high levels of copper and lead in the fish of Buttle Lake."

Conservation Minister, Ken Kiernan, said that he would stand and drink

the water off the surface any day of the week. It's good for his health

that he didn't keep his promise. Then the last statement of all, like

King Canute, the Resource Minister, Mr. Williston said, "The lake will

not be allowed to be polluted." It is polluted, my friend, and you're

the M.L.A. from that area and you've been away from it for some time so

you can't be blamed for the pollution. But it has been polluted by

Western Mines, Mr. Speaker, and I want to point out that when we

receive these pious statements from Ministers assuring this House that

there will be no pollution, there is an admission that they don't know

what they are talking about. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would never call a

Minister of the Parliament a liar, never. Not only is it against the

rules but I don't think any Minister of the Crown would tell a lie.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is maybe observable are statements made in

ignorance, not on the philosophy as expounded by the former Minister of

Highways when he sat in this House and said, "When I tell a lie it is

only because I think I am telling the truth." We heard that one from

the Member from Kamloops. But I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, for

responsible Ministers of the Crown to stand up and attempt to assure

this House that no pollution will take place — "I will man the

barricades" or "I will drink the water from the lake" — just three

years ago and to find out that the lake has been poisoned consistently

since the Pollution Control Board allowed them to dump their effluent

in the lake, we have no faith whatsoever in the veracity of any one of

those Ministers' statements about pollution, none whatsoever. How can

we be expected to believe them, with the evidence that is forthcoming

and then on top of that, Mr. Speaker, we get a Throne Speech the very

day that the Pollution Control Board has announced that they are going

to allow Utah Mines to dump their effluent into Rupert Inlet? Does

anyone doubt that, Mr. Speaker? Was Utah Mines nervously twitching

their hands wondering whether or not the Pollution Board was going to

turn them down? Just to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that Utah Mines would

not get unduly upset that the Pollution Control Board might turn them

down, there were 150 applicants to speak to the Pollution Control Board

and only four were allowed to speak. You know, Mr. Speaker, the

Pollution Control Board's behaviour on issuing the permit to pollute

the Utah Mines reminds one of the Damon Runyan description of the dice

game. Very fair, my friend. Damon Runyan's description of a dice game

with Harry the Horse and a few other members standing around playing

dice, Mr. Speaker, when along came Big Julie. That's right, Mr. Member,

you are very familiar with your Damon Runyan. Into the room stepped Big

Julie, he scooped up the dice and put them in a hat. Big Julie was the

local enforcer and Big Julie shook the dice in a hat and called out,

"seven," and he took the money and no one dared to look in the hat, Mr.

Speaker. They accepted Big Julie's word. Then he rolled a six. But it

is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that there are more experts on Damon

Runyan's methods than I, because this Government, Mr. Chairman, has

been playing the Big Julie role with the dice, Mr. Speaker. There they

are, Big Julies, through the Pollution Control Board. "We've looked in,

there's no pollution, you can have the permit," and they shake the dice

again. We look in and we say people are being emotional — they want to

look in the hat. Well, of course, they didn't wait for the permit, they

knew very well what Big Julie was going to shake up in those dice, Mr.

Speaker. They knew very well that they weren't spending 12 to 14

million dollars for nothing. And the Member from Oak Bay yesterday said

we have to learn to live with it; we have to learn to live with Big

Julie? Yes, Mr. Member, you are quite right, we have to learn to die

with it.

I for one find the statements in the Throne Speech about the

ecological control that is being developed in the Province of British

Columbia nothing more than an insult, and I quote: "A broad approach to

the general matter of ecological balance to the environment has been

made through the Land Use Committee, chaired by the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources, and comprised of the Ministers of

Agriculture, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Municipal Affairs, and

Recreation and Conservation." They are all in on the crap game, Mr.

Speaker. "Arrangements are now being made to bring an even broader

scope of opinion and advice to the vital question of environmental

management by the Province by the inclusion on the Committee of the

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance." Now they are

bringing in the Minister of Health. Why was he cut out of the Buttle

Lake study in the first place? We asked questions in this House of the

former Minister of Health if, indeed, a health study had been done in

the Buttle Lake area by the Department of Health and we were told, "We

don't know." To this day, we have never had an answer from the

responsible Minister in this House as to whether or not an independent

study of the potential effluent damage to Buttle Lake was ever done by

the Health Department. There is some question that the Health

Department actually did do a study in that area and reported that the

effluent could be damaging to human health and that the Health

Committee was disbanded. Now we're told in last week's Throne Speech

that the Health Department will be called back in — into the Land Use

Committee. What is the use of all this development, Mr. Speaker, if

human beings' health is being endangered? It's all very well that we

can make all kinds of comments about the silly statements, especially

by the Minister of Municipal Affairs manning the barricades. It is all

very well for us to say he can get the lead out. It is all very well

for us to make other humourous comments, but I challenge the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation to go on a daily diet of Buttle Lake

water right now, not a one-shot drink of 24D like Dr. Shrum who has no

fears of becoming pregnant. But I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, the Minister of Mines, the

Minister of Water Resources, have now added the Minister of Health to

the Committee and what power will he have? We don't question the

sincerity or the competence of the Minister of Health. We know that he

has not been permitted to do his job and he has to carry the can of

responsibility for the wild statements and promises of his Cabinet

colleagues. He even had to admit that the Clearwater promise would not

be delivered. The Minister of Social Welfare, Rehabilitation and

Improvement, and Business Men's Alliance, an expert on Africa, promised

the hospital and the poor Minister of Health had to announce that it

couldn't be built. The Premier promised it, too. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the whole Pollution Control Board should be dispensed

with. I suggest to you that the Land Use Committee should be dispensed

with and the whole matter of pollution control should be turned over to

the Department of Health to assure the citizens of British Columbia

that no development is taking place that endangers their health, or

their children's health, or any one else's in the community. And I

would like to hear a report from the Minister giving some assurance

that the people who live in

[ 29020200025.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 25 ]

these areas are not endangered in terms of their health.

The last area I will refer to briefly, Mr. Speaker, is the Williston

Lake area and the Prince Rupert Mill where effluent has been known to

spill from that mill and where a charge was actually laid. We have a

panorama, Mr. Speaker, of the Province of British Columbia being

misused by a Government that believes its own statements piously given

in this House. Evidence has piled up that there has been no sensible

planning on the development of the resources of this Province and, in

their attempts to do what they think is best in terms of development,

they have not thought of the basic security of the health of the

citizens of this Province. Mr. Chairman, if you want proof of their

philosophy then I quote from a speech by the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation to the Social Credit ladies and I quote. "B.C. has a

responsibility not only to Canada and North America but to the world in

general. We have to be good stewards for the resources over which we

have control but to deny other people a share of our resources is not

only economically unwise but socially and politically unacceptable. I

think it is morally wrong," Kiernan told the annual meeting of the

Women's Auxiliary of the B.C. Social Credit League. "Unless this world

lives on a basis of morality it can't live very long at all. It is an

attitude of such selfishness that it could not help but turn other

people against us." If this world doesn't live in morality we can't

live at all. I suppose his statements on Buttle Lake were in that

category. Mr. Speaker, I challenge this Government to take one of its

famous second looks as to what is going on in this Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the tourist industry represents one of the major

industries in this Province. The Throne Speech alludes to the fact that

470 million dollars were spent by tourists in this Province last year.

I suggest that a more sensible management of our Province would call

for an immediate programme of reclamation projects throughout the

Province of British Columbia. There are literally tens of thousands of

young people, Mr. Speaker, who do not have jobs. Most of these young

people are caught up in the ideological commitment towards preserving

Mother Earth as it should be rather than despoiling it. A 3 per cent

tax on all capital and improvement expenditures in the Province of

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, would produce 25 to 30 million dollars

immediately in this Province. Those funds could be turned over to

employ young people on vast reclamation projects throughout this whole

Province. The Member who sits as the Minister of Agriculture came to

this House on the issue of preserving the Tweedsmuir Park area. He has

forgotten Ootsa Lake, but Ootsa Lake was the beginning of unparalleled

devastation by thoughtless and stupid development of this Province,

with no planning or no commitment. Mr. Speaker, the unemployed of this

Province would welcome the opportunity of cleaning up the mess and we

could sell British Columbia on the concept of "Parks–British Columbia,"

a beacon for all of North America, where people could come and visit

a Province that was clean, pure and protected. The side benefits, of

course, would be a tremendous boost to our tourist economy and a

fantastic, long-lasting commitment to heavy, labour-producing jobs in

just maintaining this beautiful Province.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there have to be aggressive moves for

reciprocal arrangements to receive the maximum benefits for the export

of our raw material. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what the point is in

digging big holes in the ground to provide the Japanese with iron ore

and coal through companies that are American-owned, with the profits

going to multinational corporations in the United States and Great

Britain? What kind of government can the people of British Columbia

admire when a Minister stands up at his political convention and

announces, "We must export because we have to be good neighbours." I

suggest to you that being a good neighbour, Mr. Speaker, calls for some

reciprocal rights. You say that the Opposition never has constructive

ideas. You say that you've brought employment to British Columbia. You

say that only you have led to this great development. I suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, that this Government hasn't bargained one bit for

reciprocal arrangements on the use of its raw material. I suggest to

you that your Minister of Trade and Industrial Matters has done nothing

to bring new business to British Columbia to provide jobs for the

people in this Province. They are more interested in exporting

materials. Do you think that the Japanese don't feel some obligation?

If, indeed, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation says it's only

a one-way obligation to Japan that we must provide them with the

materials, have we never thought of asking the Japanese to reciprocate?

Mr. Speaker, last November I wrote two Japanese corporations, as the

Leader of the Opposition. I wrote the Datsun Motor Corporation and I

wrote the Toyota Company and I'll read to you the letter that I wrote

to the President of Toyota Motor Company (the same letter I sent to

Datsun): "At the conclusion of this year, 1970, we in British Columbia

have had an opportunity of observing the most successful sales record

that your corporation has had in British Columbia and Canada. Your

automobiles have been widely accepted by the Canadian public and have

made a major impact on the Canadian market. There is little doubt that

your sales will continue to increase. With this in mind we are also

able to realize the fact that your automobile industry is partly

dependent on the natural resources of the Province of British Columbia.

The market that your industry has provided for our natural resources is

an ever-growing one. We here in British Columbia, on the other hand,

are in great need of secondary industry of our own. It would seem,

therefore, that the concept of establishing an automobile assembly

plant in British Columbia by your company would be feasible. Since your

sales records indicate a constant market and your company depends on

our natural resources to provide your automobiles, I would think there

would be mutual advantage in your establishing an automobile assembly

plant in British Columbia. I would appreciate hearing from you as to

whether or not you have ever considered establishing an automobile

assembly plant in British Columbia and, if this thought has occurred to

you, would you be willing to enter negotiations with the proper

authorities in British Columbia and implement the planning of an

automobile assembly plant?"

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that, as Leader of the

Opposition, I have been able to enter negotiations with the Datsun

Corporation, which is considering putting an automobile plant in Quebec

because there has been no aggressive tendency shown for British

Columbia, and I will be meeting with their representative. But the

Toyota Company has gone even further and I will read to you a letter

that I have received today from the Vice-President of the Toyota Motor

Corporation: "Dear Sir: Your letter of November 23, 1970, addressed to

the President of the Toyota Motor Company, Limited, has been forwarded

to my attention. Considering that the Canadian market is very important

and that a still more important one has to be made in order to continue

to expand the operation, I have interest in your

[ 29020200026.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 26 ]

proposal. Therefore, I would like to send our Toyota representative

in Toronto, Mr. T. Fujiaka, to meet with you. As for the appointment,

Mr. Fujiaka will contact you shortly." Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of

Trade and Industry is not too busy travelling, if he could spare a few

moments, I invite him to the meeting. Mr. Speaker, we're interested in

providing jobs out of the natural resources that belong to the people

of British Columbia. Clean jobs, Mr. Speaker. The Minister himself is

not showing any initiative. They've been to Japan before and they've

all had steam baths. They would have been able to accomplish a lot more

just by putting the case to the Japanese industrialists. I suggest to

you, Mr. Speaker, that I am looking forward to my meeting with this

gentleman and I am hopeful that out of it an automobile assembly plant

will be placed here in British Columbia to employ two to three hundred

people assembling Japanese automobiles for sale on the Canadian market.

That's the least we can do, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of

British Columbia. It's ironic that the Leader of the Opposition has to

stand in the House and announce moves for industrial development of

this Province, with a Government with 38 seats, with trade missions

over to Japan, with a flock of Cabinet Ministers going over to Osaka to

the World's Fair, coming back with promises, promises, promises, when a

little bit of aggressive action by a Member of this House can bring

about what I hope will be the beginning of the establishment of an

automobile assembly plant here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by just making a brief referral back

to the opening day of this House. I will not comment on the statements

by the Premier or by the Attorney-General. But let me tell you this.

The President of the United States has announced that there must be a

revolution in the United States to begin clearing up the problems

they're faced with in that country, including unemployment, the lack of

social security, cleaning up their environment and new goals for their

society. The President of the United States is cognizant of the vast

and rapid shifts of attitudes and feelings in North America. There is

not a Member of this House who isn't committed to the democratic

parliamentary system, but I'm telling you this, Mr. Speaker, in my

opinion, that whole system and its fabric is on test here in Canada and

in British Columbia. Unless this Government, which has been given

authority by the people of British Columbia, gets British Columbia

moving again, we may be faced with the same problems they have in the

United States and the role of the democratic socialist party in that

context, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a meaningful alternative within the

legislative system. Anybody who doesn't understand that and attacks the

role of that party is attacking the system in a far more dangerous way

than any small demonstration can. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that

we intend throughout this Session to lay before this House alternative

ways of revenue gathering, alternative ways of developing this

Province, and alternative ways of protecting the people of this

Province. The Throne Speech is a tired, useless, hollow document

produced by a Government that sits with 38 seats, that has forgotten

the little man, and has forgotten the reason why it was elected in the

first place.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. We have started off on a new Session of the Legislature and

I'm certainly pleased to see the Government Members all present with

their usual winter tans. They are all looking very fit and healthy this

year. We're discussing a brand new Throne Speech today and when I

listened to the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor present this Speech

from the Throne last week, I thought perhaps the problem was that we

couldn't hear the Speech from the Throne. There was so much din in the

background that I thought maybe the reason why I didn't hear any new

proposals from the Government was because they were lost in the noise

in the background — people demanding jobs. But when the afternoon was

over and I went out to read the Throne Speech, I found I had been

mistaken on one count, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were gathered here to

hear a Speech from the Throne, one of the long traditions as old as

Parliament itself. But I found that, when I read the press accounts

outside, instead we had a State-of-the-Union Address and I was able to

read in the Victoria Times not only a full report on the

State-of-the-Union message but the

interpretation of it put forward by

the Chief Executive, the President of this Province. It seems to me

that the press must have been given advance copies of this Speech. It

was an eight and one quarter-page State-of-the-Union message and it was

a pretty partisan rehash of what the Government had done. There was

only one sentence, Mr. Speaker, in that whole speech which dealt with

the most important problem in this Province and, really, it was

presented not as a challenge to the people of the Province for the

coming year but just a justification and an apology for some of the

Ministers who have been inconvenienced by the difficulties we have had

in the past year. Of course, I refer to the Minister of Finance, whose

revenues haven't been up to snuff; the Minister of Labour who has had

just a few problems during the year; the Minister of Social

Rehabilitation, who has found that he hasn't had enough money to pay

all the welfare costs. The next sentence on page 8 reads this way:

"Inflation, high unemployment, and the migration of individuals and

families to British Columbia in search of employment and a better life

were three socio-economic factors which contributed to sharply rising

demands for social services and income maintenance to persons in need."

Whole sections were missing from that Speech that should have been

dealing with the underlying causes and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

perhaps one of the underlying reasons was on page 6 of the Speech. I

want to quote from that: "My Government pursues a sound, modern system

of personnel administration for the public service. It is deeply

conscious of the high quality of its Civil Service and is appreciative

of its loyal support." Just a month before, a story appeared on

December 29 with the dateline, Victoria: "The Provincial Civil Service

has been cut by 1,400 persons in the last year as a result of Premier

Bennett's cost freeze. The staff cuts were brought about by a policy of

filling only essential positions when employees retired or left their

jobs for other reasons." Now, in January, we are treated to a report

from the Premier that he was adding a thousand persons to the Civil

Service, but what had happened, Mr. Speaker, was simply this: The

Government discovered, after it had laid off 1,400 people, that the

Civil Service simply couldn't operate and so the job reductions had to

be limited to only 400. We're going to let a thousand people back on

the payroll and that's how we're going to combat unemployment in this

Province. The migratory Ministers of the Government, including our

President, were away over Christmas vacation seeking a little warmth in

the sun. Well, I think they should have stuck around, Mr. Speaker,

because things were pretty hot in British Columbia. When the time

[ 29020200027.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 27 ]

came to prepare the State-of-the-Union message it seems there

weren't enough people around to do the job, that it just wasn't

possible for the Civil Service to come up with the kind of

recommendations that would give some promise to the people during

1971. Now if this kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, represents "…a sound,

modern system of personnel administration" for any business, let alone

the public service, then Simon Legree with his whip would be the

epitome of skill in modern industrial relations.

We heard a very nice, moving speech on Friday from the Member from

Columbia River, a stirring second from the Member from Oak Bay but I

think, Mr. Speaker, that these Members might have had just a phrase of

apology in the motion they offered to the Lieutenant-Governor for some

of the discourtesies that were that wonderful gentleman's unfortunate

fate on opening day. I think it was carelessness rather than any

deliberate attempt to secure political gain, but the Lieutenant-Governor was exposed to indignity. First of all, the Speech was

distributed in advance of delivery so that not only were the contents

of that Speech on the street before the Lieutenant-Governor had

finished delivering his Address, but an

interpretation by the President

of the Union had been given, so one press report said, "…after the

Speech." Here it is: "Bennett, in an interview after the Speech,

admitted that it contained even less indication than usual of this

Government's legislative program. He called it rather a

State-of-the-Province Address." This was in the four-star edition of

the Vancouver Sun , a paper that has a deadline of 12:30 in the

afternoon. I would think it torture enough for the Lieutenant-Governor

to have had to wade through that Speech, but to have it described as a

State-of the-Province or a State-of-the-Union Address, something

reserved for American Presidents, is a second indignity. I'm not

blaming the Members of the Fourth Estate; it's their job to get out and

get as much as they can from people who are willing to talk, even if

they talk too much. But I think it is a discourtesy to Members of this

Assembly as well as to the Lieutenant-Governor to have the contents of

the Speech complete with interviews alleged to have been given after

that Speech was delivered on the presses of this Province three hours

before we met in the Assembly ( interruption ). I'm talking, Mr. Speaker,

of course, about the message given by the Lieutenant-Governor, not the

Premier nor President, but the Lieutenant-Governor, and the very least

that could be done is to give that gentleman the courtesy of him giving

the Speech first, unencumbered by

interpretations by the President and

by the kind of security precautions that would guarantee a dignified

presentation. Any of you who had come over to demonstrate would

naturally want to get in where the action was, and this is where the

security precautions should have been the strictest. I'm pleased to

note that the security precautions are here today, the Member from

North Vancouver–Seymour is attempting to rival the First Member from

Vancouver Centre on length of hair and he was stopped today as he came

to take his seat. But you won't keep us out of the Chamber that way,

Mr. Speaker.

Everybody, Mr. Speaker, is talking about pollution these days and so

is the Government. The only trouble is that they are only talking about

pollution, not doing something about it and, this year, once again, I

see by the headline that went to press before the Speech was delivered:

"Top priority pledged to B.C.'s environment. Throne Speech forecasts

best ecological climate."

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. McGEER: Well, about three o'clock. We've had this stiff

and continuing paper war on pollution for some time, and a series of

devastating attacks has been launched in the Throne Speech in past

years. In 1967, this is what we had: "With the onrush of industrial

development in B.C., my Government has recognized as one of its

cardinal responsibilities the preservation for all time of the

blessings of clean air, pure water and fertile soil." The next year we

lashed out again: "My Government is continuing to pursue vigorously its

programme for the abatement of pollution in all its forms. You will be

asked to consider amendments to further strengthen and expand the

present Act." But, Mr. Speaker, the Government didn't rest on its

laurels with that. Next year we came back again. "My Government is

continuing to pursue vigorously its attack on pollution wherever it may

occur in British Columbia, on land, on water or in the air." Now last

year, and this was an exciting new dimension, the whir of computers

were in it: "My Government will continue to work towards the protection

and preservation of our total environment so that all our citizens may

enjoy the beauties and wonders of our heritage as intended by nature.

Reports will be made to the Legislature concerning the efforts and

progress being made." Now, this year, a fifth consecutive attack: "The

main and foremost policy of my Government is directed to the

improvement of the total environment of its citizens, to the end that

they shall all enjoy the best ecological climate in the world."

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has told us how British Columbia

has the finest pollution control laws and the best environment in the

world. Now, here's how we are going to attack it this year. There's

another paragraph here: "A broad approach to the general matter of

ecological balance of the environment has been made through the Land

Use Committee, chaired by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources, and comprised of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Ministers of Municipal Affairs

and Recreation and Conservation. Not content with this "fearsome

foursome," we are going to add a fifth battler this year and that's the

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. That's enough to

make anyone interested in ecology simply tremble in his boots, to have

a formidable array like that. The Honourable Members will recall that

it was just a year ago that the Minister of Health Services was drummed

out of this select little group. And some of us, perhaps it was wrong,

Mr. Speaker, but some of us thought it was because he might have been

just a little zealous in the things he said. He stated there was going

to be a clean-up in British Columbia and he sounded like he meant it.

This was a little too much for the Minister of Municipal Affairs

because that kind of thing posed a pretty serious threat. So, what was

done at the last Session? We put it all into the more reliable hands of

the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. And as long as we

have the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources handling the

problems of pollution, we all know we don't need to give another

thought to it. Anyway, I suppose this "fearsome foursome," which may

become the "fighting five," is hoping the Minister of Health Services

has learnt his lesson. But for the sake of the people of British

Columbia I hope he hasn't, and that he still continues to be as

unrepentant about cleanliness as he was when he got turfed off that

committee.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to pass over to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance a picture,

[ 29020200028.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 28 ]

and I'm going to do it by way of the benches up here. If you would

pass it over to the Minister, I'd appreciate it. It demonstrates

something. I never thought that I would have to raise this question in

our Legislative Assembly. I never thought we would come to this.

Always in the past when I've talked about pollution, I've maintained

that the number one priority is to deal with the cleanliness of our

water. I've usually concentrated on our beaches and recreational areas,

saying, "We have to keep these clean because we bathe in them." But I

never thought that I would have to raise the subject of our drinking

water. I thought it would get across to this select committee, somehow,

that if we are going to combat pollution we ought to be able to get a

drink of clean water. I think that there is quite a lot of alkali in it

and a few other things, because what that picture shows is some cattle

about to defecate in the Naramata water supply. The Naramata water

supply, Mr. Speaker, provides flush plumbing for about 75 head of

cattle. Now, this is a fact and has something to do with bovine faecal

matter. The amount produced by a cow is roughly 16 times as much as

that produced by a human and, no doubt, that's the origin of that

well-known nonparliamentary expression. Certainly, it describes the

content of the drinking water for the people of Naramata. Now, 75 head

of cattle would be the equivalent of about one thousand people using

the water supply as an outdoor privy, or, I suppose, if the streams are

running down into the collecting basin, it would be like a flush

toilet, Now this has all been brought to the attention of that fearless

battler against pollution, the Minister of Lands and Forests. Before

quoting what the protector of our environment has to say on this

question, I'd like to quote first what the Medical Health Officer of

the area has to say about it: "Faecal coliform levels: From the results

collected to date, there are strong indications that heavy

contamination is entering the water supply below the storage dam areas.

Faecal coliform levels of 240 per 100 mills, were recorded in two

samples at the lower settling pond." He goes on to say: "It is

recognized by water quality authorities, that raw, untreated water

containing more than 50 coli parts per 100 mills should receive

additional treatment over and above simple chlorination. Viruses may be

present in the ratio of a hundred-to-one in the untreated water. That

could indicate a public health problem, for which at the moment there

is no yardstick to measure. Chlorine in the amount used for the

destruction of pathogenic bacteria will not destroy viruses."

The Water Irrigation Authority for the area had this to say:

"We have installed three chlorinators at considerable cost to our

taxpayers, but like all mechanical devices they are not foolproof and

we have actually experienced failures for short periods, even though

they are inspected and serviced daily. When you are dealing with

coliform counts of the levels indicated in our sample reports, this

could be extremely dangerous."

What were these coli point counts? Well, at the south chlorinator,

this is as it's taken into the water supply, 924 per hundred mills; at

the north chlorinator, 865; at the settling pond, 900. Now, as you move

up to higher and higher elevations, the coliform counts go down. At the

4,300 ft. level at the Naramata Dam, 31.6; at Big Meadow Dam, 5,300

ft. down to 1.13. So there is little doubt that the cattle using the

water reservoir to deposit their cow pies — I believe that's the term — are contaminating the water supply for a whole town in British

Columbia. You can imagine the outcry if there were a thousand people

scrambling over the wire fence at the Cleveland Dam in Vancouver and

using the lake behind there as an outdoor privy. But if they did, the

coliform counts wouldn't be nearly as high as they are at Naramata

because, of course, there's a huge lake there where the faecal matter

would get very well diluted. The Health Officer for the area estimates

3,000 tons of faecal matter have been dropped in the drainage district

in recent years. That would fill a pretty big privy. Three thousand

tons — that's a lot of bovine faecal matter.

What does the Minister in charge of pollution have to say about

this? This is what he writes on December 17 and all these facts have

been brought out publicly, at union boards of health meetings, all

during the past year or two. He says this, and I'm quoting the Minister

of Lands and Forests: "With reference to bacterial contamination, the

results of tests just received by my Department, although indicating a

consistently high coliform level at the intake, are variable at higher

elevations on Crown Range and are not consistent with livestock

distribution in that area. They do not indicate that the removal of

stock from Crown Range, with the resulting loss of from six to eight

tons of beef production annually, would itself solve the problem of

contamination." Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason why I draw this letter to

the attention of the House is because there is gross contamination of a

water supply for a large town in the Okanagan. The problem is one not

restricted to that irrigation district, because there are a score of

others in that valley with similar problems.

What I'm trying to say to the Members of this House is that our

values are so warped and twisted that we would sooner contaminate water

supplies with bovine faecal matter than give up from six to eight tons

of beef production a year. Now, how wrong can your priorities be in

this Province, and what more condemning evidence could ever be brought

before an Assembly than that we are prepared to sit back and allow

faecal matter in our water supplies, rather than interfere, in any way,

with industrial development in the Province? And when you are prepared

to do that with a water supply you don't care about lakes for swimming,

or forests or recreational areas of any kind, or the fish, or the

wildlife, or anything else, except those things which produce dollars

for the Government. That's the attitude about ecology in this Province

— those five pathetic Ministers, every one of them anxious to pollute

the Province. Take the Minister of Health this time. Don't fire him

from that group; listen to what he has to say. I would suggest further,

Mr. Speaker, that this particular matter of contamination of water

supplies in this Province should be referred immediately to the

Standing Committee on Health and Welfare of this Assembly. I want to

call witnesses and investigate, in great detail, the matter of our

drinking water supply throughout the Province and, in turn, the

disposal of human and animal waste.

This problem exists because the Minister of Lands and Forests gives

Crown grazing permits to cattle so that they can wander all through our

watersheds and use them as flush toilets. That's stupidity. Quite apart

from carefully watched standards, how, when you are prepared to do that

kind of thing and, in private, write these kind of asinine letters, can

you have the gall to appear before this Assembly, year after year, with

these pious and empty pronouncements about the environment? It is

beyond my powers of conception. What a Government!

Mr. Speaker, there was one part of the Throne Speech which

interested me and that was the suggestion that we would consider

amendments to the Provincial Elections Act .

[ 29020200029.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 29 ]

We have had quite a few demonstrations in British Columbia and a lot

of them had their source in the belief that the Government, the people

that are elected, are out of touch with reality, at least they are out

of touch with the concerns of the people and, I think, as far as

matters of pollution are concerned, nothing could be more obvious. But

perhaps one reason is the degree to which this Legislative Assembly

fails to reflect the distribution of people in this Province. There is

nothing approaching equality of a vote and when that's the situation,

perhaps it isn't surprising that the Members who are elected don't

represent the concerns of the citizens. My vote in this Legislative

Assembly can be cancelled by a member who got only 4 per cent as many

votes. What that means is that people in some ridings of this Province

have an electoral power 25 times greater than people in other parts. We

can't alter that. A vote should not be unequal in a democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: But it is. It is.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it is, and that's required by law. You don't

find anywhere in the Federal Government this business of 25 times the

value of one vote in one constituency versus one vote in another. It's

the value of a man's vote. Senate has nothing to do with votes. I'm

against the Senate, anyway. I want redistribution in this Province and

have it redistributed fairly, with some philosophy about what a man's

vote should be worth. You tell me why one man's vote should be worth 25

times another man's vote. Why? Well, I don't believe trees or acres

should be represented by any one in this Assembly, only people. As long

as votes in this Assembly are equal then the votes of the people who

put us here should be equal. Justify why one man's vote should be worth

more than another. Well, I think we should do more than just

redistribute this Assembly and that's to go back to the good

old-fashioned system of the plebiscite. I think if some of the people

of this Province, who are demonstrating angrily against the lack of

response of the elected Members, were given an opportunity, just now

and again, to express their opinions on certain matters, then perhaps

we'd remove the cause of some of these ugly incidents of civil

disobedience. We saw evidence enough of that last Thursday. And, again,

we not only have the problem in this Province of one man's vote being

worth as much as 25 times another man's vote, we have the disruption of

fair representation by the warping of party standings in the House. You

Government Members control 70 per cent of the votes in the House, with

your 38 seats, but you don't have a majority of the people supporting

you at the polls, never have had, never will have. There are more

people against you than are for you. You had 46 per cent; the Official

Opposition here, 34 per cent of the vote and only 22 per cent of the

seats; the Liberals, 20 per cent of the votes, and 9 per cent of the

seats. So we don't have, in the way the Assembly votes are distributed,

a fair representation of the party position.

Now, here's what I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and that's that we should

go back to the old preferential ballot and, in this way, each member

who is elected would ultimately have a majority of the people in his

own constituency behind him. I know when Social Credit came to power,

they eliminated this system. The Premier said it was too complicated.

It wasn't too complicated to get him in there, but once he got there it

was too complicated to keep it. I don't think it's too complicated, Mr.

Speaker, I think that most people who can vote in this Province are

able to count to four or five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Various shouted remarks.)

MR. McGEER: I think so. Yes, the Member put his finger on it. It was needed only once for Social Credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Various shouted remarks.)

MR. McGEER: It's a good one. I think it might be a good idea

to get Social Credit out of power, but that's an opinion. The important

thing, however, is that with the preferential ballot, in the final

analysis at least you know one thing, and that is that the man who

finally takes his seat has obtained the support of more than 50 per

cent of the people in his riding. Now, at the same time we produce this

preferential ballot system and redistribution of seats, we should set

up a system whereby citizens of this Province who want a question

decided by all the people will have a chance by obtaining a sufficient

number of signatures to have that question placed on a ballot. I want

to suggest the kind of things that, where they are put to the

plebiscite, might lead to a lot more satisfaction on the part of the

governed as to the motives and judgement of those who govern.

I'd like to suggest the following — Sunday sports. What's wrong with

having a Provincial plebiscite on Sunday sports? You know, we used to

have plebiscites in this Province. We had one on liquor laws at one

time. That's how prohibition ended. All these terrific profits you reap

on the liquor stores, that's traced back to a plebiscite. Daylight

saving time, that was a matter of plebiscite, too.

Why not let the people of this Province say whether they want Sunday

sports? Why not have them say, through a plebiscite, whether they'd

like beer and wine sold in supermarkets? Break the liquor racket in the

Province; this is something that has to be gone into sooner or later in

the Province ( interruption ).

Yes, I am. Are you in favour of it? It's too convenient the way it

is, isn't it? Other matters might be decided by plebiscite. Labour is

complaining about anti-labour legislation. Why not put whether or not

there should be check-offs for union dues to a Provincial plebiscite?

What's wrong with that? Why not put whether or not there should be

secondary picketing allowed? Put that to plebiscite, or whether there

should be compulsory arbitration; we could put that to plebiscite.

Whether the cities in municipalities of this Province should get a

larger share of the tax revenue; we could put that to plebiscite. For

my part, I would be willing to see all of these questions tested by

plebiscite — whether they are moral matters, financial matters, labour

matters or matters dealing with the treatment of our cities. And I

would be willing to abide by their decisions, as well. How many parties

in this Legislature would be prepared to do the same? Why not let the

public have its say? We do, on the matter of schools and hospitals,

money matters in cities; why not on these moral questions that, in the

House, we duck year after year, with the feeble guise that the public

doesn't want it.

You know we had this radical change, Mr. Speaker, this

State-of-the-Union message by the new President of British Columbia.

Well, I think, the least we should be entitled to, if we are going to

have these dramatic shifts to the American system, is a debate on the

matter of the Canadian Constitution, because this has never taken place

in this House and the view that was presented to the Nation at the

Federal-provincial Conference wasn't the view of this Legislative

Assembly. It was the view of the Social Credit Party only.

[ 29020200030.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 30 ]

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I was one who appeared before the Joint

Committee on the Constitution, because I felt it essential that the

rest of the Nation not be left with the impression that the bigoted

message brought by British Columbia to that Conference represented the

feeling of all the Members of the Legislature or all the people of

British Columbia. We want more than the prejudices of the people who

sit on the right hand side of the House. And I'll repeat again that the

Provincial Liberal Party in British Columbia is quite prepared to

discuss the extent to which linguistic rights should be embodied in a

Bill of Rights within the Constitution. We will not accept a

categorical rejection of the principle of protection of language rights

in that Bill and in that Constitution.

The new Constitution for Canada simply cannot be a vehicle for the

brokerage of power between the various levels of Government. What that

Constitution must be, is a vehicle for the humble citizen. It should

enshrine his inalienable rights, his privileges, his protections. This

is what I found most offensive about the brief presented by Social

Credit to that February, 1969, Conference. But here's what you had to

say, you and your Government: "The first implication of an entrenched

Bill of Rights is that it amounts to a restriction of legislative

supremacy which has been the underlying philosophy of our parliamentary

system. Moreover, such a restriction on legislative supremacy would to

a greater extent be at the expense of Provincial jurisdiction rather

than the Federal jurisdiction." Now, you've shown what's on your mind — not the humble citizen but your Government and its powers. That's not

what a Constitution should be about.

We, in the Liberal party, categorically reject the concept that

Government is master and that the people are merely chattels. And we

should say among the rights which every citizen should have, regardless

of where he may live in Canada, should be the right to sue the

Government. How about that, Mr. Attorney-General, is that wrong?

Without the consent of the Crown, whether the Crown be represented by

the Federal or Provincial or municipal jurisdiction. I don't need to

remind the Members of this Assembly that that inalienable right does

not belong to British Columbia.

The new Constitution, Mr. Speaker, should provide for a mandatory Hansard ,

so that what the elected members say can be faithfully transmitted to

the electors they serve. And we are servants, not masters. And if a

citizen, Mr. Speaker, wishes to stand up in our legislative galleries,

as many are this afternoon, and take notes of what I say or what

anybody else says, that should be his privilege because we are his

servants. I don't know whether the people in the galleries realize it

or not, but in British Columbia today they are not allowed to take out

pencil and paper because it is a violation of rules set down by the

Government who thinks it is the master.

I don't see any point at all, Mr. Speaker, in trying to encourage an

informed citizenry about public affairs, when the people who sit in

this Chamber are so hypocritical that they are afraid to print the

words that are said and afraid to have the public sit in the galleries

and take them down themselves.

If modern times, Mr. Speaker, make it possible for the electronic

media to take the proceedings of this House through radio and

television into the homes of every citizen in the Province, who are we

to prevent that? How does it serve democracy? Sealing off this Chamber

where public business is conducted from the very people whom we serve.

I think the new Constitution should have in it provisions protecting

the individual against invasions of privacy. I would think, Mr.

Speaker, that that would include Provincial judges. They are entitled

to as much privacy as any other citizen. I don't know if the

Attorney-General agrees with that or not, but he asks what rights, and

I would include those. There are a number of legal rights of

individuals with respect to civil and criminal law which require

protection by embodiment in the Constitution. I'm not going to go over

them all because they are contained in the Bill of Rights that was

former Prime Minister Diefenbaker's greatest contribution.

I only want to emphasize that the new Constitution must recognize

that however we may divide or apportion Government authority or

responsibility, the Government serves the citizen. And the citizen is

not divisible to the convenience of governments, no matter how long

they may sit at conferences and decide who should have what power over

them.

The first Member from Vancouver Centre mentioned the Senate and I

think Senate reform is long overdue. I say, make it elective or abolish

it. Nobody could pretend that the Senate is fair. I certainly wouldn't

( interruption ). You know, Mr. Speaker, a little while ago I visited the

Senate and one of the guards at the gate suggested that maybe I was

looking at my future home. I said, "No, my future home is in Victoria,

where we are going to produce a Constitution that will serve for a

hundred years," and which will have, Mr. Speaker, embodied in it the

kind of civil rights that this arrogant group that's in power today

persistently denies the citizens ( interruption ). Are you against

invasions of privacy, Mr. Attorney-General? Are you against the

citizens suing the Crown without permission of the Crown? Yes, of

course, you are. Look at what you do. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no

higher act of statesmanship could be undertaken by the elected

representatives of our day than to proclaim a Constitution, whose

nature would be an inspiration to the nations of the world and which

would leave no doubt that Canadian citizenship is the most prized

possession on earth. We don't have that today. Despite the splendid

words of this Government, on all occasions, particularly on the

State-of the-Union Addresses, the deeds aren't always that splendid,

and I want to give you an example which touches on little people, human

rights and the Constitution.

There's a saying, you know, "that a man's home is his castle," and

it presumes that, in his own domain, he can be king, with his faithful

queen. Well, Mr. Speaker, a man cannot be king in his castle in British

Columbia, not if Chairman Shrum wants that castle, or if the Provincial

Cabinet wants that castle, because the Presidential rulers will say

whether or not that man's castle is his own. Now just occasionally, Mr.

Speaker, some lowly and humble citizens fight back and the people hear

about them very briefly, but they all get trampled, sooner or later,

and then they disappear from sight. But each time we have one of these

episodes, it should remind us of the cruelty of absolute power and the

inhumanity of civil laws in the hands of an arrogant old Government

that believes a Bill of Rights entrenched in the Constitution is wrong,

because it interferes with legislative supremacy. Well, that's where we

differ in philosophy, because we believe it's the citizen who is

important and that the elected people are servants and not rulers.

Now, the story I want to tell you about today is perhaps one you've

heard before and, certainly, you should know the gentleman who is

involved, because he's one of yours, a Social Crediter, P.A. Codyre.

You've heard of him. He owns a modest little home; it's on four acres

of land. It's out on Munn Road. I visited it the other day. It sits on

a little knoll

[ 29020200031.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 31 ]

and there are trees all around and, just behind that property,

there's some vacant land. Everything was lovely out there on Munn Road,

until the B.C. Hydro came along and somebody in the Engineering

Department made a decision that he'd like to run a transmission line

through Codyre's property. Well, just like ominous signs of an

occupation, right outside the kitchen window of the Codyre's property

today, you'll see that little triangle with the flag hanging down and

that symbol, if it's hung on your property, means it's "Game over,

buddy, because you've got to get out."

You never get to discuss, in this Province, whether or not that

property is needed. That isn't the rule of the legislative supremacy

game. The rule is, "We'll pay you what we think it's worth, and if you

don't like it we'll appoint an arbitrator." "No, no," he said, "I don't

want any money for my property, I just want to stay there because I

like it." I know that's a pretty funny attitude, that a man is so

attached to his property and his little castle that he can't be bought

off. He's the first one to admit that no citizen can stand in the way

of progress, but he points out that 46 acres of vacant land lie right

behind his property, and I've been and tramped over that vacant land

and it does exist. But it doesn't do him a bit of good to argue that

the vacant land should be used for that transmission line and that it

would be just as good as his own land. Yet Chairman Shrum makes the

decision that he wants that property, because in this Province you

never argue that the land is needed. All you do is argue over the

price. If you can believe it, when Shrum was asked why he needed that

property, his reply was, "If the route were changed, it would cause

visual pollution because the poles would zig-zag." Bennett said,

"Arbitration has worked well in B.C. expropriation cases," but Codyre

says that he and the other residents are fighting for a principle.

People are no longer going to tolerate the expropriation of their land

unnecessarily. What is involved is a matter of principle. Whether your

home, or my home, or anyone else's home, is safe from arbitrary and

unnecessary occupation, because of Orders-in Council passed behind

those green oak Cabinet doors. Other techniques that are used are

simple: pressure — and it always works — you knock off a few. In this

case, one of the people sold, they've all sold except Codyre now. "I

feel as long as B.C. Hydro offers a fair price, there's not much sense

holding out," he said. "Let's face it, Hydro isn't going to let five

people hold them up." Codyre's answer: "So what, if I lose this battle,

every little poor soul in B.C. is done."

Shrum came to see him but, as he pointed out, Shrum's mind was made

up. He just wanted to see a curiosity, a man who had enough spunk to

fight the B.C. Hydro. Well, today, the Hydro crews are moving freely

around Codyre's property. They've given him a cheque, which he has not

cashed and, I think, Mr. Speaker, the way things are today, we should

all be thankful for the Pat Codyres of this Province, because if the

little man is to have any rights at all and any protection at all, it

will be because there are just a few individuals who won't sell out,

who believe in a principle and who won't bend to the temptations of

money.

We've got to have new expropriation laws in this Province. A man's

home is his castle, and it shouldn't be taken unless it can be proved

that no other reasonable alternative exists. The value of that property

should not be just the market value of the property, what someone else

is willing to pay for it, but what it would cost that man to find

something which would mean as much to him, plus his resettlement costs.

And, above all, there must be guaranteed access to the Courts. You

people on that side strut because of your piece of paper entitled The

Human Rights Act . Well, that's only a piece of paper. The real

accomplishment will come when the public has some protection against

you, against the depredations of the master servants, and those are the

Crown Corporations. We need deeds and not words and it doesn't just

apply to the matter of human rights.

In 1969, Mr. Speaker, we had fear preached to us in British

Columbia. That was fear preached by the Premier. He talked about those

godless, socialist Marxists, the fear of a godless party, that had

amongst its ranks of candidates, no less than three ordained ministers,

and from that Goebbels-like statement, we proceeded to preach another

fear, an economic fear. How many remember that slogan, "It'll be take

home pay with Bennett or strike pay with Berger." That was 1969, when

we were preaching fear but, now, Mr. Speaker, the poor public of

British Columbia has the worst of both worlds. They've got both Bennett

and strike pay and, I think, if we'd summed up the State-of-the-Union

Address on Thursday, we could have done it with one word — striking — because that described British Columbia in 1970. That's the story of

British Columbia, the good life Province, in the year one thousand,

nine hundred and seventy, A.D. We had people on strike, the first day

of 1970; we had people on strike the last day of 1970; and we had

people on strike every day in between. We have had people on strike in

1971 every day so far. But not only did we have people on strike, we

also had people locked out, and not only were they locked out, but we

had people whose jobs completely vanished. They vanished because of the

strikes and lockouts and the way these removed from the essential

services, materials and all the other things that are carried in a

balanced economy. The toll that was taken last year was colossal and,

because we had people on strike and people locked out, this Province

fell so far short of its potential last year, it almost staggers the

imagination. The economy was shaken right to its roots. New projects

were postponed, and necessary works didn't proceed, and new jobs that

should have been created, weren't created. What was the total during

1970? 2,900,000 man-days lost. That wasn't in the report of the good

life in the State-of-the-Union Address. We just overlooked that little

point. That figure is so large in its meaning of want, and misery, and

poverty, and wastefulness, that it's almost meaningless. You have to

look for other comparisons to get a grasp of how much. Over 23,000,000

man-hours of work lost and that's the direct effect of it. How much is

this? Well, it's the equivalent of over 11,000 people out of work for a

full year, just in the man-days lost through these strikes and

lockouts. That's the direct effect, but if you use a factor, which most

people do, of the multiplying of one job upon another, then these

11,600 become closer to 30,000 for a full year.

We had, in British Columbia, during 1970, nearly 45 per cent of all

the man-days lost in the Nation and across the Nation it was a bad

year. While this was going on, month by month, the unemployment was

going up. Over 70,000 in the month of December. The major contributor

to that rise in unemployment was the consequence of this 2,900,000

man-days of work lost. Do you know how many 70,000 are, that are

unemployed today? That's the equivalent of all the working people in

Victoria, and Esquimalt, and Saanich, and Duncan, and all the people on

the lower part of Vancouver Island put together. That's the number of

people who are out of work in British Columbia today. What are you

doing about it? Well, you know, those who defend the Provincial

Government policies have tried to suggest that all of this is

[ 29020200032.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 32 ]

because of Federal Government policies — best statement of the

Session ( interruption ). Sure, and so are your deputy ministers, and so

is your Minister of Labour ( interruption ).

Well, Mr. Speaker, a year ago in this House, I warned of the

consequences of that example, and who started it? The Government right

here, because 1970 commenced as the year of the big grab. Oh, yes,

you're the people that campaigned on the slogan, "Take home pay with

Bennett or strike pay with Berger," and when you'd preached, it worked.

Oh, yes, it worked. Then you began to preach with strength, asking for

labour and management to be cautious, not to take too much, to be

careful with their demands. Then what happened? Why, we got to the

House and found that the B.C. Hydro, with the encouragement of the

Provincial Government, was bouncing its rates up by 20 per cent. You

know, in a moment of truth, the Chairman of the B.C. Hydro told us

that, for political reasons, the true cost of the Hydro projects had

been disguised from the public. But the end result of this most

ill-timed price increase and, I say, it was the worst-timed price

increase in British Columbia's history, the little people of the

Province were hit hard. In some cases, for those on minimum rates,

their hydro bills were doubled. Others got off with 20 per cent

increase, but the big industries got off almost scot-free. That wasn't

equity; that wasn't sound leadership; that was grab. Then came the grab

by the M.L.A.s, anxious for their cut and somehow thinking that the

others wouldn't want the same. I warned the Legislature then, to hoots

of derision, that these were going to be ruinous policies. Now, look

what's happened since. The storm signals were up then and we were the

ones that ran up the flag.

Just how did this last year compare with previous years? I want to

read you the statistics of this Government that's so proud of its

labour relations. "In 1960, there were 35,848 man-days lost. In 1961,

there were 34,659 man-days lost. In 1962, 32,987. In 1963, 24,956. In

1964, 181,784. In 1965, 104,000. Now the Government really began to brag

about its labour relations policies and all the wonderful things it had

done to bring about peace in this Province. But, in 1966, that figure

was 272,922. In 1967, 327,272. Up again in '68, 406,729. That was the

year you brought in the Mediation Commission. '69, the Mediation

Commission now in full swing, up again, 406,645. And now we come to

this year, 1970. When we came here a year ago, in January, 7,100

man-days lost. Then the Hydro increase came through, 22,980. Then the

increase to the M.L.A.s came through, 33,690, and then we prorogued

and the others began to seek their share. In April, it was 436,500. In

May, 640,000. In June, 724,000. In that one month, our man-days lost

were almost twice as great as any previous year in the decade. In July,

634,000. In August, 189,700. In September, 135,240. Then, with the

winds of winter whistling, October, 50,230; November, 16,680; and in

December, 16,680. So, even when the dust had settled and the wounded

are all over the Province, still in one month, half as many man-days

lost as in most years of the decade. In January of this year, just to

this date in January, more man-days have already been lost than in

January and February put together last year. Well, what does this mean

in terms of jobs, because there is a direct relation between the two?

61,000 unemployed in January; 57,000 in February; 59,000 in March;

58,000 in April. Then, as summer came, and as our unemployment normally

dwindles to a fraction, we go up to 72,000. June, our peak working

month, 87,000. July, 76,000; August, 64,000; September, 58,000;

October, 69,000; November, 76,000; and, in December, despite the

Christmas rush, still 70,000. What do we expect for the months ahead? I

hope I am wrong but I'm afraid it will begin to climb again.

When you examine the root causes of this, you find that there's more

than greed in Government example involved in what took place. There was

weak and spineless leadership and that has been the basic fault. That

and an inexcusable ineptitude. These were the disputes that caused the

trouble and there were seven of them. The first, and most important,

was the Construction Labour Relations Association versus the

Construction Trade Union. This was the main event and it was fought to

a knock-out finish. Who were involved? The plumbers, the carpenters,

the labourers, the bricklayers, the bricklayers' helpers, the heat and

frost insulators, the operating engineers, the cement masons, the

tunnel and rock workers, and the Teamsters. Thirty thousand workmen

affected. The strike ran from April 14 to July 27. There were

2,160,000, I stand corrected, lockouts; 2,160,000 man-days lost; a

payroll loss of $88,500,000; and the estimated loss to the economy

ranged between 250 and 488 million dollars. That dispute, Mr. Speaker,

was under Provincial jurisdiction.

The second event, and this was one I came to learn a little bit

about, was between the pulp and paper workers, versus the Pulp and

Paper Industrial Relations Bureau. That one went from July 24 to

September 29, affecting 3,908 men; 190,000 man-days lost; a payroll

loss of 8.1 million dollars; the loss to the economy estimated at 60

million dollars. Total loss, 68.1 million dollars. And you know, Mr.

Speaker, when the Government wasn't doing anything and the cost of this

unnecessary strike began to mount, I agreed to act as a mediator

because no one was doing the job. And the Member from Columbia River

has the colossal gall to suggest in this House that this was some kind

of a settlement that inevitably had to come about. If that were the

case, why didn't the Attorney-General and Labour Minister settle it on

Day One? Why did it have to run from July 24 to September 29, if this

is what the Member from Columbia River thinks was the situation? Then

we had the United Steel Workers versus the aluminum Company of Canada

at Kitimat, and that went from July 14 to October 27; 1,998 men, and

150,000 lost man-days. The payroll loss there was 6.5 million dollars;

the loss to the company was 45.2 million dollars. Another 51.8 million

dollars down the drain. Once more, Provincial jurisdiction.

The fourth largest event was one with which the guests in the

gallery will be very familiar. That was Pacific Press versus the five

printing trade unions. The total time lost, 80,000 man-days; a payroll

loss, 2.5 million dollars; direct revenue, another 7.5 million dollars;

for a total loss of 10 million dollars. This dispute was under

Provincial jurisdiction. Well, the next was the cement industry. Ocean

Cement, Lafarge Concrete and Metro Concrete versus the Teamsters. That

battle lasted from April 3 to July 20; 650 men out of work; 50,000

man-days were lost for a payroll loss of 1.6 million dollars. The

economic loss was 16.6 million dollars. This dispute was under

Provincial jurisdiction.

The sixth dispute, in rank of damage done, was that between the B.C.

Towboat Owners and the Merchant Services Guild. That one ran from May 3

to June 15. It affected 1,200 men and this dispute resulted in 37,000

lost man-days. The seventh dispute was that affecting the Canadian

Union of Postal Workers and the Canada Post Office ( interruption ). I

don't have a value. We got the values from the Mediation Commission for

the others. The next was the Post Office and the man-days of work here

that were lost were somewhere

[ 29020200033.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 33 ]

between 25 and 30 thousand. That dispute was under Federal jurisdiction, too.

Now, the point I want to make about all of these matters, Mr.

Speaker, is that if you take all those disputes that were under

Provincial jurisdiction, they account for over 97 per cent of all the

lost time, and those disputes under Federal jurisdiction amounted to 2

per cent. Less than 60,000 man-days lost through the main disputes

under Federal jurisdiction, and over 2 million man-days lost in those

under Provincial jurisdiction. And this is what we have coming out of

Victoria. Think, my good friends, these speakers come from your own

Mediation Commission. Here's what the Deputy Minister of Labour has to

say in the face of these statistics: "The Federal Government is more to

blame for the time lost in B.C. due to strikes and lockouts than the

Provincial Government, Deputy Minister of Labour Sands said in a speech

to the B.C. Road Builders. I should hasten to point out that much of

the time loss which occurred in the Province was not its responsibility

in such disputes as the longshoring, towboat and postal strikes, which

come under Federal jurisdiction." Now, I don't know what he thought

about the other 97 per cent of the time lost, whether he felt that he

had some responsibility and the Minister of Labour had some

responsibility, or not. Here's what the Minister of Labour had to say

in his New Year's message: "1970 was a year which saw a number of

favourable developments. In particular, the persistent rise in the cost

of living tapered off somewhat, and labour income is estimated to be

nearly 10 per cent higher than in the previous year." What about all

those people who had these millions and millions of dollars lost

through strikes and lockouts, and the 76,000 unemployed? "Realizing the

seriousness of the situation, that the amount of damage that had been

done to our economy early in the year by the towboat strike which came

under Federal jurisdiction, the Provincial Government did all in its

power to assist the parties to resolve their difficulties without work

stoppages. To this end, a highly flexible approach was adopted and

different procedures were used to meet varying circumstances." I think

that's a description, Mr. Speaker, of a rubber backbone, because all

its flexible approach did was to lead us to over 30 times as many

man-days lost in Provincial jurisdiction as what we encountered in

those other two main disputes which, too, demanded further action than

was received. The consequence of it all, of course, has been that our

unemployment rate here has been double that of the Nation — a

disgraceful statistic that we've rarely had to face and, because of the

dreadful consequences, we've been suggesting now positive actions that

the Government could undertake to get the people who have been harmed

by these spineless policies back to work again.

During the past month and a half I have put forward a practical

suggestion per day for putting people in British Columbia to work and

these are some of them: one is to start work on Cypress Bowl. There is

no reason why it couldn't be done now if the Minister of Lands and

Forests could disentangle himself from the gambling interests of the

Bahamas. The Government has endorsed a proposal to build the B.C.

Sports Hall of Fame. A fine proposal, let's go ahead with this as a

Centennial project. The plans are ready. I'm sure Honourable Members in

this House will all be standing up suggesting specific roadwork that

should be done and I'd like to suggest some for the constituency of

Point Grey. I think there was something like 16 dollars spent on roads

in Point Grey last year. But I asked the Minister of Highways to

complete the 16th Avenue Road from Blanca to the central area of UBC

and he said that "it wasn't important." Just on the other side of the

constituency, the Government built a beautiful four-lane stretch of

road out to the Shaughnessy Golf Course and there it ended. One wonders

whether that stretch of road wasn't put there for the benefit of the

golf championship that was being held there that year.

I like, I must say, Mr. Speaker, many of the things that the

Minister of Health Services has done this past year. He seems to have

got hospitals moving despite all the difficulties that seem to have

greeted every Cabinet Minister in his attempts to get budgets. I know

they've been a problem to the Minister of Social Welfare and

Rehabilitation because he's had to pick up the bits that the Minister

of Labour has let fall onto his lap. But there are still long waiting

lists in our hospitals, as the Member from Oak Bay pointed out in his

seconding speech. One of the new problems that's occurred is the

tremendous demand for abortions which now tie up hospital beds and

operating theatres. We need to have under hospital jurisdiction special

abortion clinics built to take care of this new load. No doubt, we will

hear from the Members from the north and I know the Member from South

Peace River will be talking about the Court House and the Provincial

Government Building at Dawson Creek which were promised many years ago.

Well, if we had perhaps some more aggressive Membership this promise

might have been fulfilled, but the city contributed that land many

years ago and it stood vacant, despite firm promises from the

Government. Then there's that poor little community of Clearwater, the

one that the Minister of Highways promised would have a hospital. Do

you remember that promise, Mr. Minister? There was a promise that there

would be a hospital at Port Hardy and at least we got one there before

the doctor left, but in Clearwater, no hospital. No hospital, no

doctor, and I just suggest to the public of British Columbia they had

better not test the curves on that stretch of road, not until we get

this little public works underway. Well, I suppose the Member doesn't

think I know what I'm talking about either, but he left the town. Why

would a doctor stay in a town without a hospital? Why would a carpenter

go to work without any tools? Well, certainly, there was no shortage of

jobs in any constituency. The Minister of Recreation knows full well

how desperately needed the widening of Route 401 is between Hope and

Rosedale. We always get the slow tour through that constituency as we

wind down through the traffic. "They're going to fix it up." It seems

to me we've heard that one before. At Powell River, we've got lots of

work we can do there by widening Marine Drive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. MeGEER: You don't want any work done in your

constituency? Well, that's an interesting report we can take back, that

you don't want the work done. That's an interesting view, perhaps

that's why nothing is being done.

I see that the Minister of Education has left, but it's been a long

time since the Minister of Highways promised that the people of that

district, that is now in the Minister of Highways' riding, would get

their proper highway brought up to trans-Canada standards. You remember

when you went through the area and said to wait a while and we'll put

that northern one through, then we'll build that southern

trans-Provincial up to the same standard? That promise has been pretty

slow coming through. Surely all the engineering studies have been done

and if they have to go ahead, why not now and put all these unemployed

people to work?

[ 29020200034.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 34 ]

We do have an influential Member, of course, in West Vancouver and

the widening of the Upper Levels Highway, I understand, will finally

take place — more credit to a hard-working local Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen million dollars. If you had built it a year ago, when you promised it, you would have saved a million bucks.

MR. McGEER: Well, you don't have any difficulty ferreting out

promises that have been made by the Government on the matter of

highways. What is really more difficult to find out is why these things

haven't been done. There was a time when the jewel in the Social Credit

crown was the highways of the Province and now all we have is more and

more complaints from people as the foot-dragging goes on in Victoria. I

think that we not only need a little more action from the Government in

highways, particularly at times like this, but we could have a little

more action from the Crown Corporations, as well, because you know

there are all kinds of hydro lines that need to be buried, strung like

rats' nests all over Vancouver and Victoria.

If we've got nothing else to do, maybe we ought to get on with

tackling some of the pollution problems in the Province. I'm sure that

the Minister without Portfolio, from Vernon, North Okanagan, I'm

talking about Vernon and all those plywood fences in downtown Vernon

where that park was promised. Do you remember that, Mr. Minister? No

reason why we shouldn't go ahead with that park in downtown Vernon.

Good local Membership would perhaps have got something when the economy

of the Province is slow. I'm sure that Mr. Speaker, although he can't

say so, would love to have a ferry slip put into the Government ferry

slip for the Queen Charlotte Islands, so that isolated people could get

more than one visit with the Lieutenant-Governor every three years or

whenever the elections come along. We suggested that Burnaby Lake

should be rehabilitated for a rowing course in the Summer Festival of

Sports. I'm sure that some of the Members here would be very pleased to

see the child psychiatric facilities go ahead. Ministers without

Portfolio have made this a particular project, to try to get child

psychiatric facilities in British Columbia and I heartily support their

efforts; I only wish they had been successful. But, again, the plans

there have been waiting since 1967. I think our municipalities could

use some help. You know, when the Government couldn't think of anything

to do and the Federal Government made its 35 million-dollar loan

available, who was it said, "Why that's a joke?" That was the Minister

of Welfare, the Minister of Rehabilitation. Not interested in jobs

which that money would produce, not interested. "We'll lend them the

money," he says, "we'll lend them the money." Then the Premier thought

better of it, didn't he? He thought it over and the next day he said,

"We'll take that money after all." Then they invited proposals from the

municipal governments around the Province, and what's the next

announcement? They couldn't go ahead with all the suggestions they got

because it was double the 35 million dollars that were made available,

which just shows you what is waiting in the way of works projects in

this Province. Here we have that ridiculous situation of people wanting

work, possessing skills.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): You had better stay out of that.

MR. McGEER: You said that you would lend the Federal

Government the money.

The question the people of British Columbia

want to know is where is the take home pay you promised? Where is the

take home pay you promised in that 1969 election? Well, I still recoil

from that State-of-the-Union Speech, so much self-praise and not one

word of genuine concern for the unemployed, not one. I think probably

those rose-coloured glasses are getting as dark as burgundy and as

Bobby Burns would say, and it's his day coming up, "Oh, would some

power gie us to see ourselves as others see us." What we need is no

tin-cup begging from Ottawa, as the Minister of Industrial Development

provided, but rather a programme for the people of the Province. Oh,

yes, all he wanted was more incentive areas from Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. McGEER: You heard him, oh, yes. The same Minister that

stood up in this House and said, "We don't want any hothouse industries

in this Province." As soon as we left this Legislature and he'd given

the Premier's line, off he is running with his palm out to Ottawa

asking for the kinds of incentives that have been recommended by us in

this House year after year. What we require in this Province is proper

leadership; what we've had is the kind of leadership that's chalked up

surpluses, it's taken money out of circulation, boosted the Hydro

rates, boosted M.L.A.s pay, slash