1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 317 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. This afternoon we have in the gallery visiting with us

today the general business class, grade 12, of Sir Charles

Tupper School, with their teachers, Mr. Holman and Mrs. Heivey.

I would ask the House to give them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MINERAL ACT

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

79 intituled

An Act to Amend the Mineral Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 79 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PLACER MINING ACT

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

80 intituled

An Act to Amend the Placer Mining Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 80 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues, the Hon. Members for the various

ridings in the Province of British Columbia for that warm and

gracious welcome to me, one of the tenderfoots who will be making his input for the initial time during the 30th

parliament and this most important debate.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I deliberately neglected to

participate during the first short session because I'm somewhat

of a deliberate type and wanted to find out what was going on

before I opened my mouth. (Laughter).

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You'll find out now.

MR. BARNES: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think I have

got the tiger by its tail because now that I've found out what

is happening, I can't renege on the deal. I think I'm stuck

here for quite a few years and I'm going to have to do

something. (Laughter).

I understand, from observing the behaviour of my colleagues,

Mr. Speaker, that it is in order and customary to congratulate

persons such as yourself who are assuming positions for the

first time.

MR. SPEAKER: That is in order. (Laughter).

MR. BARNES: Well in that case, Mr. Speaker, may I extend my

congratulations to you…for being successful in receiving

what I believe was a unanimous election by all Members of the

House.

I would like to state to you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm here on

official business. (Laughter). I know that comes as a surprise

to some of you, but I am here on official business.

I would like to bring a message — you've heard that before — but this message, Mr. Speaker, is official only to me and I

would like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Members of this

House, to make it official to them; to try to express to you

some of the things that I have been asked to carry out during

my tenure in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to request of this Government

that it look beyond the short-term gains and the quick

political victories that so many of us opt for; although we

must admit that to survive, you sometimes have to be expedient.

But we should make these secondary in our overall

considerations, because we do have a pretty immense task ahead

of us.

I am asked to suggest to the Government, Mr. Speaker, that

it use wisely the time it has in trying to develop

constructively the energies that it has put into policies, and

to make these policies more cohesive and useful to the people

of British Columbia as a composite package — one that is not

going to be disjointed, but one that will comprehensively reap

benefits long after most of us are gone.

Mr. Speaker, the message is direct and it is no more than a

recapitulation of what we already know. Simply put, it means

that this Government is to end make-do, expedient

administrative practices respecting the people's affairs. It

means the emphasis should

[ Page 318 ]

be shifted to a more equitable balance between people things

and material things.

Now if there are those here who disbelieve this to be the

message, then I urge them to recall the night of August 30,

1972 — just a little than six months ago. The mandate

received on that evening, Mr. Speaker, was not an exclusive

mandate from the socialist elite; it was not just a mandate

from the tried and the true of the party; it was a mandate, Mr.

Speaker, of the people of British Columbia — people who have

been referred to by many of the post-election analysts as the

"protest" voters and "those who are looking for alternatives"

types.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should just call them the people of

British Columbia; the ones who made the choice of what should

be done, August 30, 1972. There are still those who doubt the

magnitude of the mandate — remember, the New Democratic Party

is one of the most publicized parties in the country. For

generations the New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the

CCF party in the province received enormous publicity — most of

it free — coming from antagonistic opponents who sought to use

the power of the media to discredit us.

In fact just at this very moment, I believe this party is in

fortunate receipt, Mr. Speaker, of corporate publicity

assistance. It is rumored I understand a certain group with a

budget of something like $100,000 is out there diligently

trying to promote one of our up-coming programmes.

(Laughter).

So with this kind of exposure, Mr. Speaker, how can there be

any doubt that the people of B.C. knew quite well for which

they voted? They were aware that we were a reformative and

innovative programme party dedicated to providing programmes

for the people of this province first, and for "things"

second.

Mr. Speaker, I have chosen my words quite carefully for what

I am about to say now and I feel that I should be afforded the

opportunity to do a bit of philosophizing. As we get on into

this session and subsequent sessions I am going to, I'm sure,

have to buckle down and get to certain details but I don't want

to confuse you with details right now. I want to give you some

broad views on what is important because the people out there,

Mr. Speaker, are talking about things that they understand.

Fundamental things. They're not that complicated. We have to be

complicated because we somehow have been put in the role of

administrators of the public affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should take cognizance of what we are about because

I suspect that we are starting to lose faith. I believe we are losing faith

in each other. I think we're becoming quite possibly, skeptical and paranoid

about human behavior. We are trying so desperately to survive as individuals

that we are running the risk of failing as sisters and brothers. Now that may

be a bit high handed but I think that when we forget what spirit is all about,

we run the great danger of forgetting what makes the world go round.

Now if I live to be 100,000 years old, no, better, if live

to be 900 years old — I believe that was how long Methuselah

lasted — if I live to be 900 years old, I don't think I shall

every forget the enormous vibrancy and spirit of August 30,

1972. I don't believe that a journalist writing, or commentator

broadcasting, an artist creating, or a politician reliving what

happened on that evening could truly express the importance of

the spirit that was felt there by all of those people in the

Province of British Columbia.

Even so, let it be recorded that what happened was not just

a political victory. What happened was a whole people joining

in the struggle for liberation. It was a coming together of the

human spirit, so to speak. The kind you don't just whip up at a

moment's notice. I'll even go so far, Mr. Speaker, as to

suggest that those professed and renowned opponents of the

socialist movement were probably disbelieving — but way down

deep, they too were secretly hoping for better things to come.

I know we are going to forget this most of the time, but after

all they are people too, and citizens.

The Government has made some important decisions since being

in office and in fairness to it, it has had to perform under

considerable difficulties. But now the pains of birth and of

formative development should be subsiding. It should now look

to taking decisive action — action that will further relieve

the citizens of this province.

It is late, Mr. Speaker, and we need access to justice for

all of the people and we need it now. We must start to look

more comprehensively and with new and more sophisticated eyes

at the contemporary needs and education. I mean, who says that

the public school system, as it stands, should permit

youngsters at age 6 only? The Minister of Finance? Because it

certainly is an economical consideration.

And let's either provide employment guarantees, Mr. Speaker,

or stop making all this to-do about it and come up with

intelligent alternatives — like a guaranteed income and all the

rest.

Who are we kidding really, and how long must we go on

peddling health so essential to the lives of children, adults

and elder citizens alike? You want to have your teeth filled?

If you do, and you've got $20 — go right ahead. It will get you

one tooth filled. Such, my friends, is the high cost of

luxury.

We are at the critical crossroads and we may even have gone

beyond.

For a start let's recognize that the essentials of human

life must now be reviewed. We must take a look at what they are

worth to us and take them off the bargaining table, Mr.

Speaker. Let us separate the wheat from the chaff — then we can

all go and have a share of the wheat. I think it would be fair

to let the people who want the chaff bargain for it.

[ Page 319 ]

For one thing, Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to see introduction

of legislation that will allow government activity in the food

and housing field through cooperatives immediately instituted.

In the truly competitive economy, I feel that the public should

at least be on a par with the corporate citizen. Having an

equal opportunity to influence the market value of a given

product is not reasonable for the people of this province, I

think used as a regulating device, it could provide a good

alternative for this Government — one that probably would be

much more effective than such stringent regulations as price

control and regulations that people don't like to obey. Instead

you simply go into business — call it people business — and if

you don't like the way things are you alter the price. If

anybody's upset, they come and sit down and talk to you about

it. That way we may be able to keep the equilibrium. We don't

need to get nasty or insulting, we simply cooperate and we

participate.

Now, there are going to be those people who will argue that

the Government's participation in cooperatives is directly or

indirectly going to be advantageous to them because of certain

overhead costs. Well, the policy of this Government is to

respect the rights of all people to bargain. And I'm sure that

there will be no employees or otherwise connected with the

Government who will not be benefiting from their capacities to

get a fair deal. Therefore the Government more than likely will

be spending just as much as private operators, but of course

with some exceptions.

One of the exceptions may be that there may not have to be

the same cost involved in promotions — because a good deal does

not have to be promoted too much. Other things might be the

distribution of shares for certain of these stocks because

these things cost money, time, and staff. The government may

not have all of these costs; it may have some of them. There

may be some problem I guess, when you talk about net profit and

this kind of thing. But I think we could sit down and talk

about these things too — amicably, friendly, and sort of

together.

I believe that arm in arm, hand in hand, that the public

could work along with the corporate citizen quite well. And we

should all be able to survive for many, many years to come — as

long as we have the best interests of each other in mind. After

all the Government is here to provide responsibly its

administrative duties; not here to destroy the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make mention of something that has been on my

mind for a long time. I know that it is of political significance to a lot of

people but I never have been that good at being a politician. I probably have

a death wish. I'm going to commit suicide but I will do my job. You know, I

was one of those youngsters that was trained from the old school. So I'm not

ascribing to any particular lobbyist's dreams or desires. I'm telling you, Mr.

Speaker, and this assembly through you, that there is an area that has been

long neglected in this province. In fact, it has been neglected for a long time

in the country and probably on the North American continent. That is the just

due, the rights of people, not only in this world but all of the worlds. We

simply are out of step.

I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that we have instituted

immediately a ministry of human rights. I know it doesn't seem

very urgent because we've got all kinds of economical things to

do. But I think if we were to draw some parallels about the

costs we are suffering because of the lack of a ministry such

as this, there would be no question in the minds of any

actuarial expert or anyone concerned about dollars and cents

that we can afford to do anything but get on with it.

Such an umbrella organization, to my mind, has tragically

been omitted in this province. But now, Mr. Speaker, I think

that we should demonstrate the faith that we have in all the

people who come from all over the world and make up this

community by taking the first step and forming a human rights

ministry. We have ministries, Mr. Speaker, for oil in the

ground, not to mention trees and minerals of other

descriptions. We have a ministry of travel industry. In fact,

we even have a ministry for nobody called the Minister without

Portfolio. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, must we continue to insult the people of this

province in this way any longer? I pray not.

Under a ministry of human rights we would accommodate men as

well as women. We would accommodate those who are red, white,

black and brown under this ministry, Mr. Speaker. There would

be no special favours, no special deals, but there would be

equality and justice for all. Under the new legislation would

be an advisory human rights commission made up of all colours,

cultures, races, socio-economic levels — and both sexes would

be included.

The ministry would promote the qualities of human dignity

and citizenship in this province with pretty much the same zest

and vigour and diligence that the good Hon. Minister of Travel

Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall) is doing for that department. I think

that's only fair.

Just let me ask the males who are present with us this

afternoon a question. Why are there women today who are

becoming more impatient and distrustful and indeed, in some

instances, downright aggressive and antagonistic, not to

mention being hostile? (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, are these women

to be condemned and are we surprised at their behaviour? Or

would we just like to kid ourselves and think that we are?

Well, if you didn't know it, Mr. Speaker, and this assembly

through you, Mr. Speaker — I hope you're

[ Page 320 ]

not getting uptight at me referring to you all the time.

You're all right with me. (Laughter). Well in any case, my

colleagues, if you didn't know it, the behaviour of these women

is only a symptom of what is to come. You take a look around

and see for yourself. See if you don't agree.

On the other side are the native peoples of this province.

You know what they've got to say. Someplace else are the scores

of disenchanted youths of all descriptions. Elsewhere are

immigrants, new Canadians we call them. Some of us have

degenerated to calling foreigners and aliens and whatnot all

kinds of things other than Canadians. We're learning. Then you

have your welfare casualties and those people who are socially

and physically deprived and alienated. You can go on and on and

on.

Let me say this, that very little in this world is a

laughing matter. But in these trying times I've had to

personally do a lot of laughing. I certainly don't exclude

myself from that category because I've experienced quite a bit

in my time…the Hon. Members, through you, Mr. Speaker. So

please whatever you do, don't tell me that all I have to do is

look around me in this great big beautiful province of ours and

look at all the smiling faces.

In finalizing, before the advent of such capitalistic

contrivances as family breakdown, Mr. Speaker, there might have

been considerable merit in the longstanding philosophy that an

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But since our

previously believable institutions are now fading — not just to

mention the breakdown of the family, but the church — we have

found ourselves in the position where we are going to have to

take another look. We're going to have to review, Mr. Speaker,

that proposition — you might call it a 16 to 1 formula — that

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Now, if we were to reverse that, we would be closer to the

point. I made a comment during one of my heated sessions before

August 30 during the campaign — and I suggested that if we

could spend $1 million on rehabilitation and social assistance

and we could justify that, surely we could spend an equal

amount on the other end of the scale in prevention.

Let's take a look at the comparison. You have a 16 to 1

proposition. Are there 16 ounces in a pound? I haven't been to

school for a long time. Whatever it is,. 16 or whatever. O.K.

That's 16 to 1. Now, if we were to match dollar for dollar on a

par basis with the expenditures for rehabilitation and social

assistance and anything else on that end of the scale, you

would have a reversal of that on a dollar to dollar basis. It

would mean that you multiply 16-fold the original philosophical

idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

That's what you would do.

What we now have is par but in fact you have philosophically changed your thinking

and now you're willing to spend 16 to 1, which is how far behind we are in prevention

— 16 to 1, right now, Mr. Speaker. I think that we should change that.

I would like to…I'm more long-winded than I thought. I

only intended to talk 15 or 20 minutes. So It just say this and

let my last words be probably the most important of all.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have an acute situation in

my riding particularly and probably throughout this province.

We have a shortage of housing of all descriptions, but let's be

specific — we have a shortage of housing for elderly citizens.

I know many, many of the citizens who are waiting on lists to

get into some of the existing accommodation that was especially

designed to meet their social and physical needs. And they

can't get in.

Mr. Speaker, there's discrimination even there, because the

people who can afford it have taken these places over, and they

can't get in. So they're still being ripped off and they're

subject to the prowling wolves on the streets who are taking

them for everything that they can afford, when they really

can't afford it. You saw what they did to those people who were

fortunate enough to qualify for the minimum income assistance.

These people were immediately subjected to the ruthlessness of

these people out there who don't care about anything except

making money at all costs.

I think that that really supports my earlier point about

cooperatives. I think that if people are going to play ball

like that that's fine — this is a free society. But we're going

to play ball too. And we are responsible for regulating the

game.

But as I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, I would like us to really just

slow down and think these elderly citizens are not just so

much chaff that is finished and you throw over in the corner

some place; these are the people who were here before we came.

These are the ones who have taken their lumps. I think it's

really disrespectful and discourteous to subject these people

who have been running this battle for so long to that kind of

activity on the streets. I think we owe our elders a little

more respect.

I for one, Mr. Speaker, feel that we should do things

comprehensively, thoroughly and with foresight and would like

us to look at this as not a political matter, but a matter of

humanitarian concern, and take some action to assist these

elderly citizens. I think that we should do this right away.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You know, Mr.

Speaker, if that applause had lasted another five seconds I

would have felt inclined to sit down, because I was ahead.

(Laughter). I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that such accord,

such warmth and

[ Page 321 ]

genuine understanding, and such interest expressed to me by

the House is much like people waiting to see if Granny's going

to fall down the stairs.

With regard to the last speaker, Mr. Speaker, I would like

to say it is remarkable to me how a Member as nice as he is

could ever play for Capozzi. But in all seriousness, Mr.

Speaker, I think it a very excellent and a very thought-provoking speech and I would indeed congratulate him.

We've experienced quite a debate over the days, Mr. Speaker,

and we have hard a raft of "thrusts" and "inputs" and

"rip-offs", and it really somewhat makes me wonder what

happened to the "vigours" the "viables" and the "meaningfuls"

of yesteryear.

The debate, Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, has been living

proof of the fact that a politician can put meat on the leanest

bone. Because if ever a throne speech was Mother Hubbard I

think it's this one. It was so bare that even the Premier and

the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, had to take to the halls for their

utterance of imports, the coal ports and the ferry terminals

and so forth.

I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that apropos of these somewhat

uniquely timed major announcements coming from the corridors, I

think that the exception that was raised in the House, through

the modus operandi did fail, and correctly did fail, on the

grounds of parliamentary legality. And it should have failed on

that premise. But it should have not failed on the premises of

best ethics, nor on the premise of best record, because that's

what the machine in the corner is all about, and that's why

everyone in this House worked so hard over the years to have

come into being, and I'm speaking of Hansard .

Lots of Members have received a number of letters so far in

the session, and not too many have been read — thankfully, I

suppose we'll all say — but I'm going to not necessarily break

precedent, but read a few that I received and I hope the Hon.

Members will take them kindly.

This one came in this way, Mr. Speaker:

"Dear Sir:

I like Speaker Dowding." — You're supposed to applaud — "I like

his ex mero motu, too, and I wish him rots of ruck with his Ratin.

Signed ,

"Pro Pelle Cutem"

Now, here's a copy of a letter that went to the Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). It went this way:

"Dear Sir:

Thanks for your help and understanding.

Signed ,

"Ex-Miner"

Here's a rather strange one. "Signed with a tear":

"The next time the Assembly sits late in a Friday night would someone please arrange for a pair for Fred Moonen."

Here's one that came without a stamp.

"Dear Sir:

When you said the Premier was a good scout, I thought he'd help

me across the street, not onto it."

Signed ,

"His insurance agent"

(Laughter). Well, this correspondent tells me, Mr. Speaker, that

political parties are somewhat like orchestras at times — they

start to develop their own theme songs. Next door, they've used

"Oh God Our Help in Ages Past". It seems to me that really, in

the past, they didn't do too badly, Mr. Speaker, and I think

perhaps they should change that to perhaps "for now" and for

"the future."

But the correspondent continues, Mr. Speaker, and he says

that there should be one for the Conservatives. Taking a look

at the score, it seems to be parodied on that fine old hymn for

children — and you all remember that — "Jesus loves me, this I

know, for the Bible tells me so." And with no sacrilegious

intent, Mr. Speaker, it goes this way:

The people love us, this

we know, For the socialists tell us so." (Laughter).

Here's another one in question-and-answer form. It's

addressed: "To whomst it doth concern:

"Question: With a Social Credit leadership convention coming

up, is Phil G. still in the wings?

"Answer: Yes, sir, and you'd better believe it! God bless

you, and Amen!"

It's signed "Anonymous." (Laughter).

And finally:

"Dear Liberal: Give em hell, and the best to George Gregory,

Gordon Gibson and Alan McFarlane."

Signed ,

"Informed" (Laughter).

Well, I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that there have been some very

marvelous contributions by all of those who have to cope and

grope within these four walls and, although we've had some

remarkable recantations of immutable positions from over there

on the Social Credit side, I do feel that the substance of

their non-confidence motions — and I'm not reflecting upon a

vote, Mr. Speaker — very clearly and well illustrated the

feelings and needs of B.C. people, which in those respects

unfortunately are the same today as they were one year ago.

The terrific concern and economic disablement resulting from

the staggering rate of unemployment — that's not been cured by

the new Government, and the old Opposition would have spoken

just as strongly as the new Opposition did, and would have

introduced a motion, probably word-for-word. The terrific

concern, also Mr. Speaker, about the erosion of individual

rights — and we've had some very excellent statements about

that earlier today. And about the awesome erosion, and perhaps

indulgent

[ Page 322 ]

power of cabinet action without the benefit of legislative

sanction that's still in B.C. and is still without proper or

indeed any access to legal redress. And that was really the

substance of the second motion.

And I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that the same motions would have

indeed been introduced by the former Opposition — perhaps even

more forcefully, I don't know, but such is B.C.'s political "la

ronde".

We've heard the same fine and very genuine sentiments about

the same problem, but with the still clearly identifiable lack

of preventative medicine, and a still clearly identifiable lack

of cure. I say it's high level debate and low level action, and

that seems to be the curse that most besets this chamber.

There have been an awful lot of good ideas expressed, but

we've talked before about the ludicrousness of finding the best

Okanagan apple for sale in Idaho at a lesser price than in

Vancouver, about not community utilizing our school plants,

about our senior citizens often being tax-forced out of their

homes into the unpleasant unfamiliarity of expensive rest homes

and on and on, Mr. Speaker. And with all Members on all sides

agreeing as to the validity of the premises, and the extent of

the problems, and the need for cures, but still no performance.

And indeed, Mr. Speaker, if only more could be accomplished

than talked about, how refreshing that would be for all of

us.

That would be an interesting topic for the Press, or indeed

a thesis for some student of politics — to make a chronological

and detailed analysis of the process of some measure of reform

from its inception to its actuality. I'm sure for such a task

patience would be the prime prerequisite. But how much more

effective and pleasant it would be to put one programme into

work rather than talk about 10.

We've experienced very excellent enthusiasm from the

Government backbench and we have certainly enjoyed the new and

varying styles of those who are searching for the correct route

to cabinet. They've taken just about every course imaginable — maybe most a little more left than right. Some have ridden with

the wind, or into it; some have tried the rocky road and others

the philosophical path. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's

certainly going to be interesting to see who succeeds — even

though it's going to be too bad that the mortality rate is

going to be so high.

Let's all wish the chosen well and, for whatever a forecast

is worth, it seems apparent — at least to me right now — that

the tortoises are easily overtaking the hares.

In listening to so many fine talks from all sides, it also

seems that, more than ever, the concept that a Speech from the

Throne is supposed to document the direction of the Government

has become pretty passé in this province.

For in all consciousness and fairness, Mr. Speaker, we should agree that the

offerings that have flowed forth in here have hardly emanated from either support

with, or contention to, this throne speech document. There have been some tremendous

expressions of philosophy, philosophical direction, and philosophical interest

from the House; but I don't think that really and truly flowed from or against

the throne speech.

So rather than cling to a form whilst foregoing its

substance — and a form, I'd say, which is held in little, if

any, interest by the general public — perhaps a more

contemporaneous and efficient procedure would be to start off — still in the traditional sense, fine and dandy — with a

statement of policy plus a complete list of proposed

legislation by the Government, followed by the remarks of only

the first advocates of all other parties.

Then move tout de suite into consideration of the budget

with all Members participating — twice, if they choose. The

same opportunity of debate; no suggestion of cutting debate at

all. In fact, I would say that the seconders should be able to

continue and not lose their place under those

circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, it's with the budget and the legislation and

the estimates when the business starts getting done.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Order, order.

MR. GARDOM: What's your trouble? You're in order. Don't be

worried, my friend. It's all right.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He's just getting

crotchety.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, well. He's been here a long time, Madam

Member. (Laughter).

For that's when we try to rip-off our problems with viable,

meaningful and vigorous inputs and thrusts into our economy and

into our laws, Mr. Speaker — you see this thing is catching — then insofar as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, if I

had a seconder left, Mr. Speaker — which unfortunately I have

not — I would have to move that it was with regret that if there

had to be one, it would have to be like this. So I can say

"R.I.P." to it and move onward.

We can't say, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has not come

through the past five or six months unscathed. It sure seems

that their 40 per cent is slowly starting to erode, because

people do not like bus purchases without tender; people do not

like cabinet freezings which, apart from probably being ultra

vires, will result in the long run, if they have not already,

in some form of economic expropriation; people will not accept

the rather histrionic forcing of a Howe Sound coal port down

their throats. Make no mistake of that.

[ Page 323 ]

You know, Mr. Speaker, we don't need loaded rhetoric or a

thousand studies to see that Britannia Beach is not the

priority place. I would just commend the Hon. Premier to show

any student, in any school, from grades 1 to 12, anywhere in

this province:

(1) where our ports are now,

(2) where the bulk of our underdeveloped resources are,

(3) where the bulk of our population now is,

(4) where, in any reasonable run, a port will be most needed

and best suited. And I'd say 100 per cent of those students

would say to the Premier: "Go north with your port, young man.

Go north with your port.:

People are not enamoured also, Mr. Speaker, with the

heavy-handed, non-consultative treatment foisted onto Kamloops

and onto Kelowna. People were not sold on the Premier's pitch

for subsidized shipbuilding to cure the ills of unemployment — and which even he, with his infinite grace, charm, capacity and

all of those other things, was really only able to deliver with

the conviction of Lawrence Welk singing Pagliacci.

(Laughter).

You know, all the Hon. Premier needed, Mr. Speaker, to add

to that performance to make it completely similar to what we

heard before, was Bill Budd and a black Homburg.

The people, Mr. Speaker, are grieving about the Government's

allocation of priorities: to wit, your chopping of private

automobile insurance in priority to killing the heroin

industry. That's a priority decision you've made, and I think

you've made a wrong one. Perhaps putting all of those people

out of work. Perhaps — we don't know. But they're afraid. They

sure are afraid. You've received letters about it. They're

going to say, "Am I going to still have a job tomorrow when

this B.C. automobile insurance…" Are they? Are they?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Are they?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Put your question on the order

paper.

MR. GARDOM: "Put the question on the order paper,"

says the Hon. Premier. I'm afraid putting a question on the

order paper isn't going to make them too happy when they've got

to face their mortgage payments at the end of the month.

I'll tell you that the clerks and the saleswomen and the

bookkeepers and the agents and the adjusters feel — and I think

they feel very correctly — that you could have accomplished

your task by an intelligent use of regulation which is already

on the statute books, and not by take-over. And not by

take-over.

Your decision is pretty tough to understand.

The people are worried, Mr. Speaker. They're worried about

how this Government has so far used power: no bids, cabinet

directives, economic executions of industry, all without the

right of legal redress to any who may be hurt. No right in the

Province of B.C., still, to sue an errant Government. Our

citizens are still without the right to sue the Crown. Our

citizens are still without the right to the benefit of an

ombudsman to wade through the snarls and tangles of

bureaucratic red tape. And still no indication that there will

be full accountability. "Is it coming," says the Hon….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Ah! Will you back it, my friend?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): You'll have to wait for

the debate.

MR. GARDOM: Still no indication that there will be full

accountability of the business of the people, and still no

indication that this Government fully accepts the theory that

public money must be totally subject to public account.

In specific, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking of the Crown

corporations: Hydro, B.C. Railway and the Liquor Control Board.

I'd say that the Ministers concerned must furnish complete

particulars or programmes, policies, expenditures and incomes

of those concerned. They must be subject to full inquiry before

the Public Accounts Committee of this Legislature and there

must be a provincial Auditor General in British Columbia.

Because we do not wish "democracy in the dark" to continue any

longer in B.C.

Where are the full assurances and the fulsome assurances

from the Government that these things will come into being?

We've heard none so far. There are none in this document, in

this so-called Speech from the Throne.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the bigger government is, the more

powerful it becomes — that's a natural process. Consequently,

the higher is its duty and the greater its responsibility to

provide safeguards and checks and balances against any

possibility of abuse of power. But if these things are going to

be coming in B.C. from that side over there, fine and dandy.

But they certainly are not here yet and they should have been

announced in this throne speech.

We have heard the Opposition talk continuously in the throne

debate. We've heard the former Opposition — as they then were — talk continuously about full accountability. Are they going to

go ahead, Mr. Speaker, and take the same course as last year

when they voted a $500 million bill — $100 million a line —

[ Page 324 ]

without a question? Is that going to be their practice in

the province or are they the reformers that they say they are?

Let's hope they are; but there have been no indications of that

coming yet.

Nor, Mr. Speaker, in passing — and I say this lightly — is

it recommended that the Premier should walk around these halls

talking to his Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) because

that can give rise to very, very awkward rumours.

I want to tell the Hon. Attorney General (Mr. Macdonald) — unfortunately he's not here; he's the person in charge of

restraints — and I'd like to tell the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke), who is here, and who is in charge of the boys with

the nets and the white coats — that what they may be seeing

when the Premier is going down the hall talking to the Minister

of Finance, is not a new experience in this province. It's just

an old form of political schizophrenia, which is far from

unfamiliar to all of our citizens, All he's doing, Mr. Speaker, is he taketh with the left hand

and he giveth from the right. About the only thing that I see

is altered in this construction is the hands that are doing the

giving and doing the taking.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the most universally unsettling

feeling that is still permeating the province is the

uncertainty the people have concerning the economic direction

of the government. Is it left of waffle, right of waffle,

infra-waffle, ultra-waffle or just plain dead-on waffle? Now

according to Webster's Dictionary , "waffle" means to

flutter, flap or blather, or in the nutrient sense it means

pancake batter in an indented form, and I think the word

"indented" is perhaps entitled to some significance, because it

seems from the 38 members of the Government side we've had

almost 38 different "indentations" or expressions of that

economic direction and there's still no great indication of

what the way will be.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Look up the

meaning of the word indent.

MR. GARDOM: Don't feel lonely, Mr. Member. I know you've had

a tortuous path in politics but things are rosier for you now.

You're not forgotten.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll get to you.

MR. GARDOM: Semper Strachan. (Laughter). But the Government

leader, and that is not you, Mr. Minister of Highways, has not

told the people of B.C. he's prepared to save the province from

the designs of the more radical wing of his party. The reason

may well be that they have a larger control of its destiny than

he'd care to admit.

You'd think, Mr. Speaker, it may be a little too early for

intra-party postures to become so evident. But they have become

evident and it seems that the radical wing, or the rads have their standard bearer. It's

slowly becoming evident who'll be spearheading the moderates or

the mods. Which leaves the Premier — someone used to say it's a

Liberal position — which leaves the Premier walking somewhat

hesitatingly in never-never, in between, trying to find a

schismatic balance between historically opposed forces on the

one hand and on the other hand, present a package to the public

of British Columbia that does not frighten it out of its

wits.

It wasn't hard for the NDP the first time around — because

you happily inherited a negative vote situation, and to a great

extent created it. But today the NDP 40 per cent is moving way

closer to 30 per cent than it is to 50. And trying to sell that

NDP package to that soon to be 70 per cent of the public who

are opposed to your philosophies could well be the poor old

Premier's Armageddon.

So I suppose his game has got to be to play for time. In

playing for time that's why the uncertain curtain has been run

across this province, with the result that capital is afraid,

labour is leery, expansion is at a crawl if not dead in

neutral, and little wonder that unemployment is on the incline.

All of that spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e, which has emanated from your

most leftist side, because B.C. people do not want to become

TKO'd by takeovers. If they had wished that, you wouldn't have

received a 40 per cent vote, you'd have received an 80 per cent

vote. But that's not what the majority of B.C. people want in

government.

I'll tell you what they do want. They want a government that

will, at all times, democratize the political process; that

will direct and regulate in the public interest, but retain

incentive and stimulate interest and farm out the tasks of

services to the private sector. So go ahead and set the

guidelines and the standards and provide the employment

incentives. Get the best deal possible for the public with a

view to decreasing but not increasing the in-House complement

and keep government out of the job of doing it itself. That's

the gospel that should be preached in B.C. today and if it was,

that uncertain curtain would lift in a hurry and so indeed it

should.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources; Minister

of Recreation and Conservation): M-o-t-h-e-r.

MR. GARDOM: I've always liked her my friend, I've always

liked her. I got a letter from her too, as a matter of fact.

(Laughter). She said, "You're doing a great job. How come you

aren't speaker?" But I don't know. (Laughter).

You may recall that during the fall I spoke of the leader of

the Social Credit Party and of his tenure of service and his

loyalty to the province, and I indeed congratulated him on his

ten year gladiatorship. But he must be slowly accepting his

well deserved desire

[ Page 325 ]

to retire. I'm sure that it is obvious to everyone in here,

and to the general public as well. I'd say for a statesman-like

departure which is unequivocally and unquestionably his due,

and in the interests of this province and the Legislature that

the decision should be made and it should be made now.

Certainly not on the basis of partisan politics, which appears

to be the principal influencing factor for the absence of his

decision so far. That, to use the phrase, "Oh, unfortunately

he's not here," of the Member for South Peace (Mr.

Phillips) and the rejoinder of the former first socialist

Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

The Member for South Peace, when he sat over there in one of

the chairs at the back got rather incensed one day and turning

on — I have forgotten, I think it was us probably — the Liberal

Party — and he said, "Oh, Mr. Speaker, what they're doing,

they're playing political politics." And Torn Berger, as it

then was said, "and that's the worst kind." (Laughter). And I'm

afraid that's what we're seeing over here by the Hon. Member

for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett).

Because the Opposition over here, they want to find a new

leader. Que sera sera , true, but they want to know who

it will be. And they want to let him or her take their chances

along with the Liberals and the Conservatives and the NDP in

Okanagan South, and permit the winner to become a part of this

parliament.

I'd ask all Members, and particularly the new ones, to have

a look at the Constitution Act RSBC 1960

Chapter 71 and

Amendments thereto, and particularly sections 55 and 62, and

were the Speaker in the chair, I am sure he'd say that this is

found at page 816 of the first volume. This is the procedure.

It's laid down there: that if there is to be a resignation,

there first of all has to be a notice to the Speaker, and then

the Speaker sends a warrant to the Deputy Provincial Secretary,

who issues the Writ of Election. The distance between the

notice to the Speaker and issuance of the Writ of Election is 6

months and the distance from the writ to the election is 2, so

the total altogether is an 8 month period.

Let's just look at that 8 month period for a while. Even if

the Hon. Member should cable now from shipboard that he will

not return, a new representative would not be in a position to

serve his electorate until October of this year.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Government decides

that.

MR. GARDOM: No, it's in the statute my friend. Little wonder

you had trouble with the law. In October of this year, at least

from what we hear from what the Premier tells the little birds,

we are then going to be in session. So we would be once again

in the awkward position perhaps of not having an individual present. So I would say that within the next week

or so it's just about the last chance for this assembly to sit

as a 55 Member assembly in October unless notice is given right

now by the Member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: He says, don't hold my breath. Alright, I'll

tell you what will happen if the notice is not given. This is

exactly what will happen, you know it too, and I think it's

very unfortunate for you folks over there.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't worry about us,

MR. GARDOM: Well somebody has got to worry about you, Ma'am. (Laughter).

The other point is this, surely it's not within the spirit,

Mr. Speaker, of the Constitution Act nor the history of

representative government here that a Member, particularly one

that has been favoured with such high office, to time his

retirement to such a partisan consideration as waiting for the

results of the convention. Because when this convention goes in

November, the Social Credit will end up with a new leader. That

is a certainty. That will be a certainty whether the Hon.

Member for Okanagan South runs or not. So let's just face that

as fact. Surely It's extremely unlikely that he would carry on

after that. There would be no rationale to that, save and

except some other Member over here would volunteer to step down

and let a new leader take a shot at his seat. No, I don't see

any volunteers.

So on the basis of no resignation in either case until this

November, the province could face one vacancy in a 55 person

assembly, not only through the fall, but into the winter of

1974 and right smack into the fall of 1974 — 8 months from the

Notice of Vacancy and that's the time required.

Since it indeed appears conclusive, Mr. Speaker, that a new

representative will be coming here, he or she should get here

as quickly as possible. Hence I hope all Members from all sides

would urge the Hon. Member to make his farewell and receive all

of those accolades to which he's entitled, and let's get along

with the election of a new representative for Okanagan

South.

Now, on the Government side, amongst its lady Members, a

Ministry of women seems to be running 50-50. So it's going to

be very interesting to hear the casting opinion of the Lady

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). But it seems to me,

Mr. Speaker, that the redress they seek should be obtainable

within the existing framework and without the establishment of

a separate infra-structure. But apart from that, Mr. Speaker,

surely the greatest call for new

[ Page 326 ]

Ministry by far is not for a Ministry of women, but a

Minister of the Environment. Anti-pollution laws in B.C. are

still far from being sufficiently encompassing and are still

far from being effective.

I've always advocated that in this area the mandate of all

of us should be short and simple and very definitive — polluters beware. We need an environmental bill of rights and

we should establish a ministry of the environment. Under its

aegis, amongst other things, there should be the administration

of a province-wide Clean Air Act . New industries should meet

environmental standards or their doors should remain closed.

Old industries should be encouraged by depletion allowances and

interest-free loans to come up to scratch.

This conversion from polluter to non-polluter should also

provide more work and provide more jobs. Perpetual offenders

should be encouraged to phase out because the public interest

should be the main interest. Insignificant fines have certainly

not proven to be the answer or proven to be successful.

Penalties should be stiffened and injunctive processes should

be made available against the defilers.

I've introduced, Mr. Speaker, certain amendments to the

Pollution Control Act, which I'm not at liberty to talk about

now. But I would indeed welcome the comments and suggestions of

the Members concerning that matter which, I trust, is now in

their books.

But the silence of the Government, Mr. Speaker, for the

establishment of this new ministry has been pretty deafening.

It's also been a pretty deafening silence concerning its

specific resource policy. Also very, very silent indeed has

been the desk of the Minister of Forests and whatever. Whatever

that bodes, Mr. Speaker, whether it bodes good or bad will have

to be seen. But at the present time, if nothing else, that also

certainly bodes uncertainty. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

the very worst thing that he could do would be to come up with

some kind of a micro-economic or micro-procedural change to the

forest industry without consideration of its whole

spectrum.

This is the most unique economic situation that we have in the province. The

world-wide dependencies and internal and external complexities of that lifeline

industry make it indeed very, very vulnerable to precipitous change. I feel

very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that this over-all resource and its management and

the taxation policies affecting it are far, far too important to be left to

the politicians alone. I'm particularly apprehensive of the simplistic posture

of the Waffle Manifesto, which indicates that the relevant instrument for bringing

the Canadian economy under Canadian ownership and control "include extensive

public control over investment and nationalization of the commanding heights

of the economy, such as the key resource industries, finance and credit, and

industries strategic to planning our economy." Do not please, Mr. Speaker, do

not please — and I'm addressing the Government — come in with just that for

the forestry industry, or our province will end up right smack in the soup.

So I advocate, Mr. Speaker, the reception of greater

expertise and say that it is indeed high time that B.C. once

again had the benefit of a dispassionate fact-finding body such

as the Sloan Royal Commission. The call we have here today, Mr.

Speaker, is not for some kind of mono-politic tampering but to

look at the whole thing and to consider it from all bases. If

British Columbia ever, ever received something of value out of

a royal commission, it did out of the Sloan commission on

forestry. The first one was around 1944-45 and Commissioner

Sloan recommended that there should be another public inquiry

in 10 years. So the second one was in 1955 and 1956. The

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

well remembers.

But now it's 1973 — 17 years later. During those 17 years

the industry has encountered enormous change, both in its

operation and its technology, its content, its taxation and the

extent of its sociological effect upon British Columbia. The

questions that faced those earlier commissions, Mr. Speaker,

are not the questions that we're faced with today.

Ecological balance has become a great priority. Logging

techniques are far more sophisticated. Existing ownership is

far more centralized. Government then had greater detachment

than it has now. The industry is today faced with an entirely

different set of trading blocks…a very, very important

point and from which the possibilities of a great freeze in the

not-inconceivable future is something that has to be taken into

account. The customers are of different character and there's

an every-changing degree of reliance upon them. Labour is more

demanding. Capital source is more skeptical and taxes are on

the increase. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, marked changes from 1955 to

Also in the Sloan commission, the B.C. forest service

appeared as sort of depression-oriented. They felt they'd never

be able to have the necessary budget or expertise or staff for

adequate research or planning for the industry. The tree farm

businesses were delivered on the basis that large industry was

the entity most capable of conducting proper forestry

practices, a premise that this Government largely

questions.

So for answers, Mr. Speaker, and opinions as to whether this

one aspect I'm speaking of now is best suited to be all

industry or all government or a conjunction of the two — for

those kinds of answers and opinions we should also hear from

the experts in the field.

Another point dealing with this. There seems to be no doubt

that the bigger indeed are getting bigger and

[ Page 327 ]

the smaller are disappearing. But are we sure that's in our

best interest? There's no question that B.C.'s an export

province and there's no question that we must have the large

organizations, But a balance of the large and the small proved

very much in the past to be the better economy and a better

base for an even society. Is that going to be our forecast for

the future? Shouldn't we find that out?

The smaller operator, Mr. Speaker, questions that the open

log market is pretty darn difficult to find. The tariff

position works to his disadvantage. The heavy equipment he

needs to operate today is so expensive he's almost priced out

of existence. In other areas, such as cameras and cars and

radios, the flow from Japan and Europe have brought about

realistic solutions to this kind of problem. But there hasn't

been much similar kind of counterbalance with the logging

equipment.

In order to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the small logger

receive some land, the Sloan concept was that the public

working circles be set up for them on a quota system with the

forestry service doing the forestry in this type of tenure. But

then the law of the market came into play, and pretty soon it

was found that the larger companies were purchasing the smaller

operators' quota. So, once more, the big became bigger and the

small became smaller.

Chief Justice Sloan recommended this: that each tree farm

licence have a certain number of contracts available for the

smaller operators. This was to be incorporated in the tree farm

licence contract and this was done. But maybe it wasn't clearly

enough spelled out, that such contracts should be from stump to

dump. Or indeed, maybe in today's logging methods that is

totally uneconomic. But this provision of allowing for the

little man has also largely been circumvented by allowing

transactions for felling and yarding and booming and so forth,

and also by the letting of pretty darn tough open-end contracts

where small contractors could be cut off for almost any reason

with very little notice.

There's another factor which very much enters the picture

since the Sloan commission. That's the very complex utilization

of wood. The TFL has increased tremendously in volume because

of its use in pulp and veneer, all of which were not too

merchantable say around 1955. Now we find there's a different

and more highly integrated use but once again pretty well under

the original ground rules.

An additional factor which seems to forecast the end of the little man is that

under the present system, when stumpage finally goes down after a market fall,

many of the small operators are caught in the bind. The market fell yet they

had a fixed stumpage. So maybe a better formula for determining governmental

revenue would be a percentage of the market's price of logs as opposed to an

earlier guestimate as to stumpage value. Maybe that's something else that should

be looked at.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It's a sliding scale

now.

MR. GARDOM: But in the forestry economy of today, Mr.

Speaker, the little operator has become, for all practical

purposes, an economic anachronism. You know, maybe his erosion

is inevitable but I hope it isn't and I think it should be

found out. That's why I say that everything points to the need

for another royal commission into this important plus industry — And, I would say, with very broad lines of reference for an

updated review to include a consideration of existing policies

and priorities, as well as areas of encouragement and

improvement and guidelines for the future. We should be

looking, Mr. Speaker, without any question of a doubt at the

whole spectrum.

Taxation of the forestry industry is another point that will

require a great deal of in-depth study.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fred Moonen's speech.

MR. GARDOM: No, it's not Fred Moonen's speech, my friend.

It's mine.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the royal commission should also

look into whether reforestation should be intensified and

researched via the Government. Should we not develop better

trees and better methods of harvesting them, in view of the

enormous degree of public involvement? Should not the

Government offer more incentive for research, for development

and for better methods, and for more sophisticated lines of

equipment which would more effectively convert decadent and

smaller timber into useful and merchantable products?

Should not Government also very clearly indicate what its

precise posture and attitudes will be so industry-wide long

range and lead planning can take place?

We have seen terrific progress I think in the past few

years, in the fact of forest management appreciating that it

involves not only forest companies but people from the

environmental, recreational and conservation field, Harmonious

agreement, I think, is slowly being reached between these

concerns, and it has got to continue to remain a harmonious

arrangement.

I also think, Mr. Speaker, that there has to be greater

incentive and greater research done concerning an emphasis for

increasing flexibility on the part of the lumber industry to

accommodate as many end uses of lumber as possible. We've got

to shore up and invigorate the secondary facilities for the

remanufacture of lumber products and stimulate an incentive

programme for that purpose.

And, I say through licensing or taxing, perhaps

[ Page

328 ]

some incentive should be provided to those who are prepared to maintain domestic

ownership of the wherewithal which is brought about by the existence of the

B.C. tree.

Today we see — certainly not to the same extent as during

the era of the Sloan Commission — an enormous transition in the

lumber industry, particularly in the interior, from the days

when ownership used to be in the hands of pioneer British

Columbians. In 1973, with precious few exceptions, we have

major foreign-based companies controlling the cutting of timber

for pulp and lumber. It is a pity in my view that so many B.C.

owners sold as they did. But perhaps they wouldn't have if they

had been instilled with greater faith in the future and

prosperity of their endeavour.

Perhaps the reluctant sellers would have remained had they

received better assurance from the programmes and policies of

this province, tax and otherwise. They wouldn't have been

forced into being gobbled up or forced to close their doors by

virtue of uncertain tenure and uncertainty of markets, labour

instability and uncertainty of long-range policies which could

grant them a fair opportunity for continued progress.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this royal commission could

indeed well look at this point, in order to give stimulus to

those who own at home, produce at home and want to process and

manufacture at home, surely a few controls or incentives should

be government-stimulated for their encouragement for unless and

until we have some kind of effective free trade area, which I

think is long overdue, in B.C. we shouldn't be relegated to the

job of just cutting and shipping to some foreign-based

organization to process.

There is absolutely no simplistic approach to this industry

which I have said and which we all know is the economic

lifeline of the province, but tinkering with it is not going to

produce realistic situations and realistic solutions.

Change may well be in order. But I say that change should

not come about without very serious in-depth consideration and

in-depth study from all areas, and with everyone connected

having the opportunity for a public say. So, in order that we

can have this new look, Mr. Speaker, and in order that we may

receive the expertise of the industry in all of its environs

and of those satellite operations in the communities and the

people of B.C. who are reliant upon its success, I say the

matters that I have raised here and, no doubt, many, many more

should be put to a royal commission.

This has been recommended by me before. The industry has

also become in accord — for example, the truck loggers who

support the proposition. And I say that the sooner the

Government initiates the proposal the better, because now is

not the time for ad hoc.

Before sitting down, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say one word about schools and

just a couple of words to the Hon. lady Member who is in her seat. I would like

to talk about the area of independent schools. I understand that the Independent

Schools Association will be very soon meeting Cabinet and that in itself is

a great step forward for them. I commend the Cabinet for the position it has

taken.

The arguments for the support and recognition of independent

schools in the province are well known and they are very well

documented. Here are six pretty good reasons. We can look to

the United Nations for decent definition: "Everyone has the

right to education: education shall be free; it shall be

compulsory; parents have the prior right to choose the kind of

education that shall be given to their children." Value can

also be gained, Mr. Speaker, from the opportunity for

diversification.

Look also at the test of fairness. Look also at the economic

consequences of continuing non-support. Look to other areas for

precedent. We don't have to do that but…worldwide, all

Canada save B.C. Look for legal competence. The British North

America Act allows for the establishment and providing of more

than one educational system, and hence contemplates it.

In 1971, Mr. Speaker, I proposed a motion to the

House. It read this way: "that this House recommend that the

Minister of Education examine the feasibility of paying for

educational services at independent schools in this province

and/or providing those schools with educational aid and similar

benefits now enjoyed by out public schools and/or otherwise

recognizing the contribution made to the academic educations of

some 23,000 students now attending the independent schools in

B.C."…but no success. This just died on the vine as did

many motions in those days. But I would like to make the point,

Mr. Speaker, that education should be the joint responsibility

of the family and the school.

We must keep in mind that the conveyance of factual

knowledge is not the only criterion for learning. There is a

question here also of minority rights, of equity and of the

basic tenet of any acceptable philosophy, fairness. But apart

from the philosophical arguments there is an enormous economic

argument. Independent schools are performing an indispensable

service.

They equip and educate about 23,000 people per year. They

provide jobs, they provide income and if they were all closed

and all turned public, the added burden on public funds would

overnight become enormous. In operating moneys alone it would

probably come in at around $15 million, totally exclusive of

buildings or capital cost. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that

any government should be indifferent to the potential economic

collapse of these institutions. If that did happen overnight it

could,

[ Page 329 ]

apart from everything else, throw the public school system

into chaos.

But they are starting to fold. They are starting to fold in

this province because the load is too heavy. I say this, five

points: provide qualifying independent schools with access to

all educational aids, libraries and aptitude tests; permit

teaching time by certified teachers to count towards their

standing with the Department of Education" accept

transferability of pupils; ensure that public buses stop at the

corner, not leave independent school children standing in the

rain. The fifth point is that I would commend the province to

finance a handsome portion, 60 per cent or at least 50/50

partnership, in the operating cost of independent schools which

meet provincial standards, with one proviso — that the

Government would not contribute to studies outside the accepted

provincial curriculum.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, providing the independent

schools effectively educate and meet provincial standards and

subject themselves to some kind of school board control, they

should receive help and there should be no ifs, ands or buts

about that. And I'd say with continuing consultation this kind

of policy would not detract from but enhance the quality of

education in our province. Surely education is a right and

pluralism is an advantage.

You know, it doesn't matter a whit — and I used this example

before and I think it sums it up best of all, Mr. Speaker — it

doesn't matter two hoots who runs the hospital as long as it is

properly run. That is the key principle in the field of health — the cure. Similarly in education, it is to educate and that's

the job. And providing, and this is the caveat, providing the

independent schools effectively educate and meet provincial

standards and be subject to consultation and inspection, they

furnish a public function. They should be entitled to due

recognition. That's only fair and I indeed hope that this new

Government intends to be fair.

This debate is waning into its final stages, Mr. Speaker,

and I intend to sit down in a moment — in order to alert the

next speaker. But before I do so I wish to make a very

important public announcement. And particularly so as not to

catch the Government or any of my legislative colleagues off

guard or by surprise, and I don't want to create any kind of

unexpected shocks…and that's this: When the Government

falls this afternoon I hope that I shall have played a small

part in the history of the province by voting against this

motion. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Alberni,

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank

you, fellow Members. This is the first time I've risen in the House to take

part in this debate and I'd like to say that I feel fairly edgy at this point.

First of all, it's a bit of a disadvantage to be included on

the Speaker's list on the last day. For one reason, you're

sandwiched in between two of the "big guns" of the Opposition….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SKELLY: Also, I wrote my speech about a week ago and

it's beginning to look like there's seagull tracks all over it

(Laughter).

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very proud to be

a Member of this assembly and extremely proud to be associated

with the first socialist Government of the Province of B.C.

The people of Alberni are also pleased to be back in the

socialist fold. Many of the things that should have been said

on their behalf over the past six years went unsaid, and

they're looking forward to me and to this administration for

better representation than they had in the past. I'll do my

best to see that they get it.

During the past few months some exciting new governments

have been elected in this Commonwealth. The new Labour Prime

Ministers of Australia and New Zealand have made some startling

announcements that have completely reversed the previous policy

directions of those governments. While B.C. is not in the same

international league as Australia and New Zealand, some of the

changes advocated by our Government are no less fundamental,

and people everywhere are watching as the "just and open era"

takes shape in this province.

We have heard a great deal in the last few days in the way

of complaints and criticisms of the throne speech. Some

Opposition Members have called it a "hollow document", devoid

of any statement of philosophy or intent. But, Mr. Speaker,

that's the role of the Opposition as they see it.

I'm sure if His Honour had read

chapter and verse from the

Holy Bible the Opposition would have proposed several

amendments. (Laughter). I hate to admit The address is short but it does reveal in part, for those

who listened, the direction of this administration and some of

its underlying philosophies. It indicates that the government

will consult more with neighbouring states and provinces than

it did in the past. It states our concern for the profligacy

and waste caused by acquisitive North American values.

The most important point of the throne speech, Mr. Speaker,

is that it underlines our party's interest in the people and

our government's determination to provide quality services for

those people.

If anything characterized the previous administration, it

was a lack of active concern for the needs of people. The mess

which the new cabinet is trying to

[ Page 330 ]

tidy up now is evidence of that.

The condition of our health and correction facilities, our

pension plans, social services — all of these are criminally

inadequate. I'm pleased to note that the NDP has already taken

positive steps to improve those services.

It will take time and a good deal of study before remedial

measures are implemented and I realize that our own people out

there are extremely impatient. But it should be clear to all of

us by now that this Government is determined to keep its

promises.

One promise we made before the last election is to create a

government automobile insurance plan. As the throne speech

indicates, legislation to establish the plan will be presented

during this session.

The merits of government automobile insurance have been

debated for more than two decades — since it was first

successfully introduced in Saskatchewan. No doubt the ground

will be covered again most thoroughly when the bill comes up

for consideration in the House.

I'd like to say this, Mr. Speaker: in spite of the

misinformation propagated by the insurance companies and the

Insurance Bureau of Canada; in spite of the expensive and

misleading "option" campaign which recently flopped in this

province, the people of British Columbia want government

monopoly of auto insurance. They want it as soon as is humanly

possible and they don't want a watered-down version such as

that offered by the Liberal Party during the last campaign.

That plan was a thinly-disguised attempt to subsidize insurance

companies in order to get in on their campaign loot.

All of the letters I have received since the election have

supported government auto insurance. Several have asked us to

go much further, into other lines of insurance such as home

protection and small craft insurance. I suggest that once the

automobile plan is in operation, the Minister should give those

requests serious consideration.

Throughout the last campaign — and especially on the

question of automobile insurance — the Opposition kept

referring to the old saw of "free enterprise versus socialism".

And why not? Like mother's home remedy, it worked in the

past.

I understand that some of the Members on the opposite

benches are starting a new "old line" party — new party but

same old line (Laughter) — that has offered to restore free

enterprise to British Columbia. But is it still possible that

those people over there believe that free enterprise ever

governed the economic life of B.C.? Mr. Speaker, free

enterprise never existed. It's a myth that has clouded the

thinking of old line parties for years.

From the time of its inception, this province has been

company-dominated. Our first governor was an employee of the

Hudson's Bay Company and later administration, although not

directly on corporate payrolls, divided up this province into huge corporate

concessions.

For example, there's now two major fishing companies

operating in this province — both foreign controlled. A small

clique of timber companies have divided among themselves the

largest part of our Crown forests. The same can be said of

mining, manufacturing, transportation and food processing

industries.

The most visible characteristic of the economic development

in this province has always been monopoly or oligopoly control.

It is truly the "company" province.

I noticed in the Press recently that the Combines

Investigation

section of the federal government has begun

proceedings against several building product firms. I don't

intend to go into that issue because it's before the courts.

However, I'd like to speak briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the problem

of industrial concentration because it's of particular interest

to the people of Alberni who are dependent almost entirely on

concentrated industries such as fisheries and forestry.

There are three major forest management concerns in my

constituency: Tahsis Company, mainly with mills in the northern

part of the constituency at Gold River and Tahsis;

MacMillan-Bloedel, in the central part of the island with mills

at Port Alberni; and B.C. Forest Products, with large holdings

on the coast and in the Nitnat area in the south of my

constituency.

In all areas, forest company cheques are the largest

payroll. In three of the municipalities, forest-related

industries pay the largest portion of municipal taxes. In the

Nootka Sound-Kyuquot Sound-Barkley Sound areas, restricted

access logging roads are the only means of ground travel for

people and freight. If the company changes its cutting areas,

those roads would be abandoned or neglected. If a company

decides to close its operation or to cut down on production

near or in a municipality, that municipality could end up as a

ghost town — Ocean Falls is a good example.

The point I am trying to make is that large forest

management companies have a tremendous influence in the

economic, social and political life of every community in my

riding. I believe this is a dangerous situation because

corporate priorities are not the priorities of the people in

those communities.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the needs of the people — their

priorities — are the first concern of this Government.

The first priority of a corporation is to make a profit. The

first concern of corporate management is to return a profit to

that corporation. There's nothing wrong with this concern from

a management point of view. It's often a question of survival

in a high-pressure line of work.

Often corporations demand such an intense loyalty from management that family and personal

[ Page 331 ]

life, marriages are sacrificed to the profit motive. The result

is a small executive elite which tends toward a peculiarly distorted point of

view. It's a point of view that can only conceive of costs and benefits in terms

that can be quantified into dollars, If a man wishes to survive in the management

game, he must cultivate that point of view to the exclusion of all others.

I once had lunch with a manager from a forest company and

the conversation after lunch turned to his company's decision

to subdivide and sell lands that were previously under forest

management. The reason for subdivision was that the lands were

no longer useful for harvesting of trees. It was mainly rock

and it couldn't be replanted.

When I suggested that the company leave the land in its

present state for recreational or aesthetic reasons, he said

that no benefit would accrue to the company unless the land was

developed, and consequently it will be developed. I can

understand why a person with that viewpoint became a successful

corporation manager and I can appreciate that survival in his

career motivated his decision. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't

believe that men with this point of view should be allowed to

exercise control over the everyday political, social and

economic lives of people in large areas of this province.

Because most people are not devoted to the earning of corporate

profits but are interested in the enjoyment of their friends,

their families and the environment of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the previous government abdicated much of its

planning function to corporations. Not simply the

responsibility for planning resource management, but also the

function of planning services to people. In many communities

such as Gold River and Tahsis and the Nootka-Kyuquot Sound

region, where community life is dominated by the company, the

people are extremely unhappy.

To their credit, the corporations do attempt to solve some

of the people's problems. But because of management's

particular point of view, their limited understanding of

problems that aren't production or profit related, solutions

are not always possible. What is required, Mr. Speaker, is a

Government take-over. I'm not asking that the Government

nationalize the large forest firms, simply that we take over

some of the functions that have previously been turned over to

those firms by default of the previous government.

Some of the functions I'm thinking of at the moment are

fish, wildlife and land management; provision of housing,

transportation, recreational and other services. I know that

the companies would willingly part with these functions. I'm

not so sure that they'd be willing to pay for them if the

Government took them over, but I'm convinced that they should

pay for them.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this Government will begin to pursue a functional

type of socialism within a short time; that it will signal its intention by

assuming the function of providing full-time road access on a joint-use basis

to communities in the northern part of my constituency.

I would also like to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) give close attention to company-dominated

towns, perhaps with a view to taking over vacant land in those

towns that are presently controlled by forest companies. I'm

not asking that this should be done without compensation, I

believe that the companies originally paid $100 an acre and

perhaps we should buy it back for that price.

I would also like to see the whole question of industrial

concentration in the forest industry submitted to a commission

of inquiry. As the previous speaker said, a commission of

inquiry in the forest industry is long overdue, and I agree

with that. I believe there's strong evidence to indicate that

private monopolies and oligopolies are causing us tremendous

economic harm. Ralph Nader's study group on antitrust

enforcement in the U.S. has produced some startling information

to back up this assertion.

For example, and I'm quoting from the antitrust study group:

"27 out of 28 econometric studies have found a significant

correlation between monopoly market power and high prices …

An internal federal trade commission report notes that if

highly concentrated industries were deconcentrated to the point

where the four largest firms controlled 40 per cent or less of

an industry's sales, prices would fall by 25 per cent or more."

And third, "the overall cost of monopoly and share monopoly in

terms of lost production is somewhere between S48 billion and

$60 billion annually."

Those facts, Mr. Speaker, apply mainly to the United States,

but I'm certain that if the effects of industrial concentration

were investigated in this country, we would find that it is

equally harmful here. Nader's book also documents the effects

of monopolies on unemployment, inflation, political and social

life, industrial efficiency and innovation. The picture

presented by that study is not a happy one and indicates a

pressing need for a study to be done in our own province.

The taxpayers and consumers of this province are tired of

feeding the bank accounts of bloated monopolies that have

controlled the economy of this province for years. They welcome

the Government's announcement that a commission will be

established to control prices in the oil industry. They welcome

the investigation into price-fixing among building products

firms. They would like to see action taken to control prices in

other highly-concentrated sectors of the economy.

Before I leave fisheries and forestry entirely, I would like

to draw the attention of the Hon. Members to the important

question of maintaining

[ Page 332 ]

fish and wild life habitat. This is one of the functions I

mentioned previously that had been turned over by the previous

government to the forest management companies. The result has

been the wholesale destruction of spawning streams, estuaries

and wildlife winter ranges.

There was a picture in the Vancouver Sun recently

which shows the Cameron Valley, located in my constituency,

completely stripped of trees up to a level of about 2,000 feet.

This valley is a national disgrace. Not only is it bad

management of wildlife habitat but it's also bad forest

practice. If the company had logged the valley floor and the

side hills in alternate patches, they could have built roads on

the side hills long ago. Now they have to build those roads at

today's spiraling costs. The cost of harvesting poorer timber

at the higher levels has become prohibitive. In the meantime,

as a result of creaming all the best timber from the valley

bottoms, they have destroyed the habitat and brought elk on

this island to the verge of extinction.

The story is the same in watersheds such as the Gold River,

draw the line on destructive logging practices and they must do

it quickly. I know that the Minister is concerned about this

issue and he has seen firsthand the effects of poor logging

practices when we visited the Indian River and Staghorn Creek

in the Tofino area. I hope that new regulations governing fish

and wildlife habitat will be forthcoming before cutting permits

are issued for this winter's logging.

A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) took a little time out from

his speech to discuss a topic about which he had strong

feelings. For a few minutes today I'd like to do the same.

I'm sorry the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

isn't here. While I was a student at the university, I worked

for two years at Oakalla Prison Farm and I'd like to say this,

Mr. Speaker, that Oakalla was a real education for me. There is

far more to learn in prisons about human relationships and our

society's attitudes than you can ever possibly learn in a

university. It was an experience that had a profound influence

on me and one that I won't soon forget.

Large penal institutions have a brutalizing effect, not just on the inmates

who live there but also on the people who work in them. The reason is that it's

institutional rather than human needs that your job is designed to fulfill.

For example, if a man asks to have a shave or a shower, you have to tell him

to wait until the time appointed, no matter how uncomfortable he feels. We must

remember that time is an institutional dimension, as well as the four walls.

If a man asks for a job to do so that he might feel useful or so that he might

relieve the tension that he feels after being cooped up alone in his cell all

day thinking about his problems, you have to tell him that there's no work to

do. It's all been taken care of in an institution. Or that prisoners on remand

can't work — they're not allowed to. If a man is having difficulty with his

family relationships or with his trial and he wants a special visit or a phone

call to the outside, you have to tell him to put his name on a long list. By

the time his name comes up, it may be too late to solve the problem.

The result is an increase in tension and anxiety, an

emotional strain which often leads to senseless violence,

attempted suicides and suicides. I can give you several

examples. One of an inmate from the lower mainland, a fairly

young man about my age, who couldn't sleep one night. He was

pacing his cell, concerned about the problems — his trial, his

appeal — so as I walked past his cell one night, he took the

sharpened tip of his spoon and drove it into his arm. By

mutilating his body he was able to get out of the cell, go to

the hospital for a change of scenery, I suppose, and to get a

prescription for sleeping medication to get rid of his

problem.

On another night, when I took the midnight count prior to

taking over supervision of the west wing, I found another man

slouched over his bed and the whole floor of his cell was

covered with blood. He had slashed every vein on his body that

he could reach with a razor blade before losing consciousness.

It took five hours of surgery and several transfusions to

revive that man. But he did suffer some brain damage and he

will never recover.

I could recount hundreds more incidents from my experience,

incidents of self-mutilation, attempted suicides and successful

suicides. But I'd like to mention two assaults on staff that

occurred while I worked there. In one case, a guard was beaten

unconscious by inmates armed with metal chairs. In the second

case, another guard was beaten and permanently disabled with

steel bedposts.

Both of the staff members involved were fairly gentle,

family men and the attacks on them were not personally

motivated. They were simply mindless, violent, responses

resulting from institutional tensions and frustration. I don't

know what kind of thought went into the design and operation of

such an inflexible, ineffective, dehumanizing institution like

Oakalla. I can't understand the kind of mediaeval thinking of

the Government that maintained it over the past 20 years. I

can't understand what kind of thinking kept that institution

going. They can't say like the people who lived in the shadows

of Dachau and Auschwitz that they didn't know what was going on

in there. They knew it and they remained silent.

They knew that until about five years ago, the whole

institution was crawling with cockroaches. They knew that the

very bricks of the building were permeated with the stench of

60 years of close human habitation. They knew it was a school

[ Page 333 ]

crime, a breeding ground of drug addiction and homosexuality

and they did nothing about it.

They could be excused if a prison like Oakalla solved

problems, if it protected society or if by punishment offenders

it was a deterrent to crime — or even if it corrected

offenders. But prisons, and that one especially, did none of

these things. A man who goes to Oakalla leaves there

permanently scarred.

In many cases, simply because of long separation, he has

lost touch with his family and friends, those who might give

him support in becoming a good citizen when he hits the street.

When he does get out of prison he is lonely, insecure. He's not

under supervision but always under suspicion.

His only contacts are those from prison and when I worked

there something like 85 out of 100 inmates committed crimes

again and returned.

The previous government might be excused if institutional

prisons were less expensive and they were always concerned, Mr.

Speaker, about balancing the book. If there was some kind of a

trade-off between social costs and economic benefits they might

be excused. But it has always been demonstrated clearly that

institutional prisons are far more expensive than other means

of correction.

If we adopted a programme in this province of increased

supervision and support for offenders in the community, we

could allow many inmates to provide for themselves and their

families and possibly to pay some compensation for their

victims. This type of programme would keep family and friends

together, strengthen the offender's position in the straight

community, rather than disrupting it, and although the

professional staff required would be more highly paid than

custodial staff, they can handle the higher case loads, and the

cost per person under supervision would be lower.

Under the present correctional system we break up families,

put the bread winners in prison and leave the rest of the

family to struggle along on welfare and the crime victim

instead of receiving compensation or partial compensation is

saddled with prison and welfare bills in addition to his

original losses.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that some offenders should never be sent

to jail and I am also convinced that some require such a high

level of supervision that perhaps they should never be let out.

But there should be varying levels of custody in between prison

and unconditional release.

These could be in the form of day paroles, work releases,

weekend sentences or half-way houses and conditional releases.

These forms of supervision and support can only be prescribed

by people who are trained and experienced in the analysis and

modification of human behavior. For this reason I think the

judges who are trained to determine on law and on facts and on

the conduct of legal processes should never be allowed to pass

sentence on people.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that the Hon. Attorney-General

has reversed the trend of the past 20 years. He has established

a commission to inquire into the operation of the corrections

branch and I hope that this committee will recommend the

demolition of Oakalla and similar institutions, and that we

will move into more productive methods to prevent and to

correct criminal behavior.

If the Attorney-General needs someone to hammer down the

first wall of that barbaric institution, I'd be perfectly

willing to handle the hammer and the wrecking bar if the

Opposition will let me hold onto it for a while. I understand

that another Member of the cabinet has some experience in this

regard and I'd be pleased to work alongside him.

I'm also pleased to hear the new Government — and this is on

another topic — has devoted some of its effort towards making

cities more livable by improving rapid transit facilities, by

negotiating better financial and land banking arrangements for

urban housing and by rationalizing the boundaries of

municipalities. Also by demanding better treatment for sewage

and other municipal services. I am aware that Canada is the

fastest urbanizing country in the world and that these measures

to improve the quality of urban life are long overdue.

The previous government in its unplanned, ad hoc way either

ignored urban problems and hoped that they would disappear or

more often than not they aggravated those problems by

gerrymandering municipal boundaries, by catering to speculators

and by ignoring sound planning techniques. As an MLA for a

rural constituency, Mr. Speaker, I welcome this new focus on

problems of urban decay, mainly because of my concern for the

people who suffer the effects of an unhealthy city environment.

However, a beneficial side effect of this concentration on city

problems and their solutions is the relief of pressures on

suburban and rural areas.

As the Government improves the quality of life in the cities

and makes them more desirable places to live, and as they

reorganize land use priorities in the rural areas, we can

expect to see the tapering off in the progress of urban sprawl

and sporadic residential development outside of cities, Many

people on the east coast of Vancouver Island and in the Alberni

Valley have witnessed the sprawl of urban development into the

rural area and most of this sprawl is of the worst type

imaginable. Subdivisions hurriedly carved out of farm and

forest lands, poorly serviced with gravel roads and inadequate

provision for water supplies and sewage disposal.

As these subdivisions multiply, local services and

environmental systems are taxed beyond their limits. Schools

are over crowded; power distribution is hampered by excessive

demands resulting in low voltage and frequent interruption and

streams and

[ Page 334 ]

wet lands are polluted by sewage disposal fields.

At the same time assessments and taxes are increasing to the

point where rural residents are unwilling and in many cases

unable to pay. The only people who profit from this state of

affairs, Mr. Speaker, are a small group of land speculators

whose greed for short-term profit saddles the Government with

the necessity to provide for services and the people with the

necessity to pay for them.

Not the least among these speculators were several Social

Credit MLA's and the sons of Social Credit cabinet Ministers

and although they claim they are as strong as ever, I'm sure

that this is not the case and for the people of Alberni anyway,

I say that we are well rid of them.

But we in the rural constituencies recognize the need to

improve urban environments and applaud the work that has been

done thus far, in the very few months that this Government has

been in office. We urge you most strongly not to forget the

out-back — those small rural coastal communities that struggled

along for years with meagre assistance from this past

Government and no worthwhile assistance at all from our

new-found friends in Ottawa.

I would like to remind the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that there

are several communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island

that have no public power at all. Places like Ahousat. They

requested a power generation years ago, under the former

government but each time they were given the run-around. Hydro

sent them to Indian Affairs. Indian Affairs sent them back to

Hydro and the Social Credit MLA forgot about their problems

because year after year they put their trust in the New

Democratic Party.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, like others who have supported us

for many years, the efforts of the Ahousat citizens were

rewarded and a government was elected that is concerned about

people in small communities. These people now expect a fair

deal from the Government, Mr. Speaker, and I'm certain that our

Premier won't let them down.

I visited Ahousat several times last year and I was taken

around the village from house to house by members of the band

council and the band council has done a tremendous amount of

work to build up that community. Improvements in housing — they

have brought houses in that are fully wired and for the most

modern electrical conveniences and yet they don't have public

power and in one house a woman had a jolly-jumper hanging from

the ceiling where an electric light connection should have

been.

When. I return to the west coast at the end of this session,

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I'll be able to tell the people of

Ahousat that a power generator is on the way.

Another convenience that most of us have taken for granted

is the telephone and although I have begun to doubt its

usefulness since I became a MLA there are a great many people in B.C. that don't have telephone service.

From Tofino north to Estevan Point there's an ancient magnet

type of system. You know the type I mean, in vogue before the

advent of the 20 great years. There are four lines up the

coast, a maximum of 19 subscribers on each line. It's a real

feat of intelligence to try to memorize the bell code. It's

also a feat to try to preserve your sanity as you're sitting in

a council meeting and the telephone is sounding off in code for

hours on end.

But really, Mr. Speaker, the problems of electricity and

communication are relatively minor ones on the coast, although

we'd like to see some solution out there. What we really need

is a stable industrial base that will ensure the survival of

those communities by providing work for young people. It's a

real tragedy when a young person from Nanaimo, Campbell River

or Port Alberni drifts off to Vancouver because he can't get a

job in his own town, and possibly, in many cases, ends up

involved with drugs or alcohol. But in small villages on the

West Coast, the tragedy of a single family is compounded

because it's shared by everyone. Mr. Speaker, I urge the new

Government to give careful consideration to those who live in

our rural coastal communities. Those people are stubbornly

independent and, once given assistance to re-establish their

industries, they're perfectly willing to stand on their own

feet.

One final point I'd like to make, and a question which I

believe to be of the first priority, is that of aboriginal

title to the lands and resources of this province. I'm fully

aware that the Premier has appointed a Minister Without

Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) to study the whole range of

problems facing the Indian people in British Columbia. I

wouldn't like to prescribe limits for that study. However, I

think it's of primary importance for this Government to make a

basic statement of its position with regard to the Indian

claims. It's an issue that previous administrations have

attempted to ignore and sweep under the carpet, but the problem

is still very much with us. In the long history of British

expansion and colonization in America, it was the policy of the

Imperial Crown to acknowledge aboriginal title, and to

extinguish it with compensation by treaty. Most of the time

compensation was grossly inadequate.

In British Columbia, however, with very few exceptions,

there were no treaties — no compensation whatsoever. I hope

that during this session the Government will make a statement

addressed to the Indian people of this province and to the

recognize aboriginal title to the lands and resources of this

province, and that we are prepared to participate with those

two jurisdictions to negotiate a fair and final and final

compensation for the loss of native title. Thank you.

[ Page 335 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I do want to say that I waited a long time to take my

place in this debate — to speak on behalf of the people that I

represent in the Columbia River constituency. The constituency

I come from, Mr. Speaker, is one which is forestry oriented,

but tourism plays a very important role as well. Not too long

ago, just a few days ago, one of the Chambers of Commerce in my

constituency wrote the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr.

Hall) in relationship to the tourist industry. There are

communities in my riding that would not exist — there would be

no reason for their existence — if it were not for tourism. I

speak specifically about communities such as Radium Hot Springs

and Fairmont Hot Springs. Also, the community in which I live,

Invermere, is tourist oriented.

We have a tremendous influx of tourists from the Province of

Alberta. In fact, there are at least 300 summer homes on Lake

Windermere owned by Albertans. But the concern expressed in the

letter from the Chamber of Commerce to the Minister of Travel

Industry was that related to the closing of the travel industry

offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles. They indicated their

concern of this closure. They also indicated very clearly the

percentage of tourists that come from California into the

Windermere valley. It's substantial. It's substantial.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Get your facts straight.

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

MR. CHABOT: It certainly has been, it certainly has. (Laughter). Travel

industry hasn't been closed?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Well, at least I'm telling you that the travel

industry, and you're so secretive over there…. I'll talk

about that in just a few moments. This is a letter that was

written to you. If you haven't closed them, you're on the verge

of closing them and they're quite concerned. They're quite

concerned.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Next subject.

MR. CHABOT: You know, I never cease to be amazed by the Socialist mind.

It wiffle-waffles in all directions, Mr. Speaker. In all directions. I just

heard the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), just a few moments ago, plead to

the Government for power line extensions in his constituency — that there was

a need for power in these remote communities. At the same time the Premier is

saying, "Turn the lights out. Don't consume so much electricity." How inconsistent

are those socialists? How inconsistent are they really? Most inconsistent.

You know, the Member, the Second Member (Mr. Lauk) — and

thank God there's a good First Member for Vancouver Centre, or

he'd never have been elected to this assembly — he had this to

say when he spoke just a few days ago, relative to research.

"The official Opposition offered in debate nothing but

unresearched, groundless accusations based on gut reaction and

not reasoned argument." He also said, "What's wrong with your

research assistant? What's wrong with your research

assistant?"

You know, I was rather surprised the following day…for a

statement like that from a big city criminal lawyer to be made

in this House, accusing other Members not to have researched

their material, Mr. Speaker. I read in the newspaper the next

day the following statement about this same man who is accusing

the Opposition of not doing sufficient research on the material

which they deliver in this House.

This is what the newspaper

article said. It's very short,

I'll read it to you. "It will no doubt come as a surprise to

Southam press, but an NDP backbencher Wednesday gave one of

their papers, the Province in Vancouver, to a competing

newspaper group. Gary Lauk, NDP Vancouver Centre, told the

Legislature he was glad to see the quality of the Province

is improving, and he speculated that perhaps Lance Corporal

Malone was on holiday somewhere." Then in brackets it says,

"Brigadier Richard Malone is the president and general manager

of F.P. Publications of Winnipeg, which controls the

Sun . The Province is controlled by Southam Press,

a separate company."

Now that was a well-researched statement you made, Mr.

Member. Very well researched! But why I bring up this point….

I don't think it's the question of the lack of research that

you've made. I assure you you've probably lost a lot of court

cases too. Because, if that's the type of research you do, you

deserve to lose your court cases.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Say that outside the

House.

MR. CHABOT: I'll tell you, you have one Member sitting

beside you that's frightened to repeat the irresponsible

statements he made in this assembly. But the thing that I don't

like is the disparaging remark made against an individual who

is in no position to defend himself in this House, by calling

him "Lance Corporal" when he's a brigadier. (Laughter). The man

can't defend himself. Attack me if you like, but don't attack

people that cannot defend themselves on the floor of this

House.

[ Page 336 ]

You know that Member, Mr. Speaker, will say almost anything,

almost anything to get into the cabinet — almost anything. But

I've watched his performance over the last two weeks. I've

watched him very closely, his actions — not necessarily his

performance in this House, but his actions outside of this

House. I want to tell you that he would make a better butler

than he would a cabinet Minister — a better butler than a

cabinet Minister.

Not too long ago I read an

article in the newspaper of a

statement made by the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) — in one

of his newspapers. I want to say that his attitude is a fresh,

honest perspective of the political role. The man's

straightforward and he expresses the frustrations and the way

he thinks that legislation should be introduced and the type of

consideration that should be given to other organizations in

the province. I think it's an enlightening statement which he

has made. It is worthy of repeating at this time.

This is what he had to say:

"The MLA from Omineca is looking forward to the re-opening

of the B.C. Legislature with mixed feelings. Visiting in Fort

St. James last Wednesday, Mr. Kelly admitted there has been a

general feeling of disorientation in Victoria since the

provincial election of last summer while new NDP Members and

cabinet Ministers have attempted to familiarize themselves with

protocol and the workings of government.

'I am certain things will begin to take shape once we get back

into session,' Kelly said. 'At first I felt very ineffective because I had so

many people to meet in my riding and so many problems to bring to the attention

of the Government. I admit there were times when I really didn't know where

to begin but I am now becoming more familiar with some of the pressing needs

of the Omineca area, and I have spent considerable time travelling throughout

the riding, meeting with individuals, with village council — it all takes time.'

'It cannot be done overnight,' he says, 'it cannot be done overnight.'

Mr. Kelly deplored the private auto insurance companies that appear to be waging

a strong advertising campaign against government car insurance in the province.

'These people had their chance for years and they just wouldn't give the people

a break. When the people finally voted for an NDP government last summer, knowing

that one of our plans was to institute government auto insurance, then they

all began the great cry about monopolies."'

Here is a very significant part of the statement —

"'There's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to sell car

insurance if they wish.'"

No reason why they shouldn't be allowed to sell car insurance if they wish.

I want to assure you, Mr. Member from Omineca, we'll keep an eye on you when

the vote comes for monopoly car insurance in this province. We will keep an

eye on you — how you vote, whether you are sincere, whether you vote by conviction

or as a sheep in this assembly, we'll keep an eye on you.

But he went on to say: "But frankly I can't see any of them

wanting to compete with what the NDP Government plans to

offer." Nobody else knows what they are going to offer. In

fact, the Government doesn't know themselves. But apparently

he does.

He goes on and he says one of the main problems for you

backbenchers in Victoria in recent months has been one of poor

communication from an open government.

"None of us has been informed yet as to what proposals the

Government plans to make and this has made it difficult for us

to work on our own presentations. However, once the cabinet

gets into the swing of things I feel certain that the secretive

aspect will disappear and everything will be, completely open

for all Members of the Legislative Assembly."

He has indicated very clearly that you have a closed,

secretive organization over there, and he is looking for

changes. He is looking for changes from that Government. He is

looking for fulfillment of that promise you, made to the

people, of open government. He is waiting patiently for open

government. He hasn't seen any evidence of it as yet. I don't

know how long he'll wait.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS: (South Peace River): Forever.

MR. CHABOT: You know, I never cease to be amazed by some of

the postures taken in this assembly by some of the Members, and

some of the public statements they make as well.

Now I don't want to challenge the women and their fight they

have going on at the moment but there are a lot of

inconsistencies with their approach to a particular situation.

Because I heard the Member from Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

get up here and advocate the establishment of a Ministry of

Women. And then I listened to the Member from Comox (Ms.

Sanford) get up and ridicule the idea of a Ministry of Women.

Then a few days ago I heard the First Member from

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young) get up and defend the

establishment of a Ministry of Women portfolio.

I say that if there exists discrimination against women in

this province — that it should be resolved forthwith. But I say

very clearly that there is no need for the establishment of a

Women's Ministry, or a Ministry of Women, call it what you may,

in the Province of British Columbia. It would be a boondoggle.

It is unnecessary in, this province. It is not necessary,

whatsoever.

[ Page 337 ]

But I think you have to realize instead of fighting each

other in this assembly on what you believe your priorities are,

you must realize that at the last takeover convention of the

NDP in Vancouver, you were clearly told by the Premier of this

province, in no uncertain terms he told you, that he is opposed

to a Ministry of Women in the Province of British Columbia.

Now what I suggest you do, rather than fight amongst

yourselves on the floor of this assembly, is attempt to

influence the majority of the cabinet Ministers over here. If

you really, sincerely believe that there is a need for this

particular type of portfolio in this province, convince a

majority of the cabinet Ministers over here and if you can't do

that, attempt to convince the Premier, because I think he

wields a fair amount of power in that cabinet.

So, I suggest that if you're frustrated about this

particular issue, why don't you attack the Premier — he's the

man who has said that there won't be a Ministry of Women in

this province. You won't influence him by talking the way

you're doing on the floor of the House. Go to the cabinet — convince the cabinet. But first of all, convince the Premier. I

want to assure you that you are going to have a hard selling

job to convince him of the need of a Ministry of Women.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of statements relating

to the Human Rights Act on the subject which I was just

talking about a few moments ago. But the Member from

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) has made a great variety of

statements about the Human Rights Act of this province.

There was a substantial

article in the Vancouver Sun on

January 6 in which she made statements about the Human

Rights Act of British Columbia. She said this: "The

Human Rights Act has holes so large you can drive a

tanker through." You can drive a tanker through the Human

Rights Act — that was her statement. Then in that same

article it says: "MLA Rosemary Brown has promised to have a new

Act ready for the spring session." For the spring session.

Now I have had no indication that she is going to be

presenting her new Act, but apparently she is going to be

present one.

Then we listen to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

speak about the Human Rights Act when he spoke last

Monday. He had this to say about the Human Rights

Act :

"The Human Rights Act of this province is one statute which

requires the complete thoroughgoing overhaul. It is typical of the previous

government that they paid lip service to an ideal and did very little else.

I will do little more than outline a few of the things I consider ineffective

in the Act and leave the matter there, since I expect the commission of enquiry

will do a complete study of this vital topic, and suggest amendments which will

make British Columbia a leader in this field rather than one of the provinces

bringing up the rear."

That speech was delivered on February 5, last Monday, by the

Minister of Labour. First we hear from the Member from

Vancouver-Burrard that you can drive a tanker through the

Human Rights Act . Then she in turn says in that same

article that she is going to be bringing in a new human rights

Act this session. Then we listen to the Minister of Labour, who

says that he is going to include in the terms of reference to

the commission of enquiry the question of amendments to the

Human Rights Act .

That's not all. Just two days before the Minister spoke last

Monday, on Saturday the Member from Vancouver-Burrard, while

she was speaking at the United Fishermen and Allied Workers

Convention, had this to say about the Human Rights Act .

Referring to the B.C. Human Rights Act Ms. Brown said:

"It isn't all that bad compared to other provinces." — This is

a direct quote — "The trouble has been that the people

administering it didn't believe in it."

So early in January you say the Act is a terrible Act, that

you could drive a tanker through it, that you would be

presenting a new Act at this session. And then we hear from the

Minister of Labour. He says he is going to have it revised or

thrown into the lap of the commission of enquiry. Then again we

see a complete circle made by the Member from Vancouver-Burrard

relative to her position on the Human Rights Act — a

complete reversal of her original position. But the significant

thing in what she had to say here is what disturbs me.

That is the most deliberate, unfair attack against the civil

service — saying that the trouble has been that the people

administering it didn't believe in it — is a direct attack again

the director of the Human Rights Act , Jack Sherlock — a

direct attack against Jack Sherlock, a man who has given 40

years of his life to the service of people in this province.

That's a very unjustifiable attack against his integrity — a

man that I consider one of the most outstanding men in the

Department of Labour in this province. I don't think these

attacks should be continued — attacking the civil service and

attacking Mr. Sherlock.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a strange obsession on the

part of the Government to acquire land, to establish a land

bank. It's a philosophical obsession they have. They'll

purchase land at almost any price. They purchased some land in

the City of Victoria, 4.3 acres of land. We heard the Minister

indicate yesterday that he either has presently allocated $13

million for land assembly or will, in future, earmark $13

million for the accumulation of land. But he's buying land at

almost any price. 4.3 acres of land purchased in Victoria for

low-cost housing or housing

[ Page 338 ]

of some description, at a purchase price of $82,000 an

acre.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. CHABOT: $82,000 an acre. It's unreal,, unreal, Mr.

Speaker, unbelievable, that they have this unbelievable urge

to acquire land and to amass land at almost any cost — almost

any cost. I want to assure you that they were ripped-off when

they purchased their land in Victoria from the City of

Victoria. I don't blame the City of Victoria, if this

Government is so hung up on accumulation of land from another

level of government. I don't blame the municipal governments

for, holding you up in the sale of land.

They originally made an, offer to the City of Victoria to

purchase this 4.3 acres of land located in Victoria West, on

McCaskill Street. Originally they offered the City of Victoria

$275,000 based on a 55-unit construction on this 4.3 acres — to

build 55 units on this land. After they approached the City of

Victoria, the City of Victoria said, "Well, we'll examine your

proposal and see whether we agree with it."

So the City of Victoria came back with a counterproposal,

and said: "Well, we think that this land can tolerate 70 units — not 55; 70 units. But you've already indicated that you're

prepared to pay $5,000 per unit, so we'll up the price from

$275,000 to $350,000 and you'll still be able to maintain your

original intent of $5,000 per unit."

What a bunch of nonsense! You know the only problem here is

the fact that the City of Victoria should have said that,

"instead of allowing you to building 70 units on this 4.3 acres

of land, we'll allow you 140 units", and they would have

received from the provincial government $700,000 for the land.

I fault them for that and that alone.

I'm telling you that this Government has such a strange

obsession about land banks they'll pay almost any price and

reach any form of terms with municipal governments. It's almost

unreal.

So you've purchased this land on the basis of constructing

70 units on 4.3 acres, which I consider high-density. But the

question comes to mind, in view of the fact that you're

competing with other levels of local government in land

ownership: are you going to acquire the land that is held by

all municipal governments? Is that your intent — to buy all

their land? Are you prepared to pay $82,000 an acre for all

suitable residential land? Because in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District there are 9,000 acres of land controlled by

the various cities that make up that regional district. If you

pay $82,000 an acre for that land, you'll have wasted $738

million of taxpayers' money.

No, there is this strange obsession. There is this real anxiety on the part

of Government to accumulate land — any kind of land as long as they have a land

bank.

The federal government participates up to a certain level — I'm not sure exactly but I think it's maximum $5 million. I

stand to be corrected on that — 75 per cent through C.M.H.C.,

in which they participate in the purchase of this land. All I

want to say of the national government is that they should

establish guidelines on the allocation of their portion of the

land bank so that we don't have this type of expenditure on the

part of a provincial government in buying extremely expensive

land….

MRS. JORDAN: It's irresponsible.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not going to call it irresponsible.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Try. Say it.

MR. CHABOT: The federal government should establish some

very stringent guidelines against actions which I have

described about this provincial government. This Government

just wants to accumulate land.

You know, what they will do, really, in paying those kind of

prices, is establish ghettos on real expensive land. They could

have purchased suitable residential land in Victoria and in the

adjoining Municipality of Saanich for between $6,000 and

$20,000 an acre. They could have found very suitable land.

I didn't see the Mayor of…are you still the mayor? I

didn't see the Mayor of Saanich (Mr. Curtis) nod his head, but

I know for a fact that the maximum price you have to pay for

suitable residential land is $20,000 an acre — prime

residential land — $20,000 an acre. Yet they pay $86,000 an

acre…

AN HON. MEMBER: Four times as much.

MR. CHABOT: …in their obsession to accumulate land. No,

they could have ensured that the density wouldn't have been as

high as it will be on this 4.3 acres.

No, I'll never understand their land policies and their