1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19,1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

BCR boxcar shortage. Mr.

Bennett — 9

Leasing of cars by BCR. Mr. Curtis — 10

Extra funding for reduction of pupil-teacher ratio.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 10

Discrimination against pregnant employees. Mr. Wallace — 10

Secret Hydro committee on Columbia River treaty.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 11

Status of BCR railcars. Mr. Phillips — 11

Employees for railcar plant. Mr. McClelland — 11

Progress of public service union negotiations. Mr. Gibson — 11

Amount of BCR rolling stock out of service. Mr. Curtis — 12

Possible design problem with new ferries. Mr. Wallace — 12

Necessity of special warrant for BCR. Mr. Fraser — 12

Accuracy of Forest Service cost estimates. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 12

Reason for BCR special warrant. Mr. Smith — 12

Throne speech debate

Mr. Skelly — 13

Mr. Rolston — 20

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1975

The House met at 3 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I would like

the House to welcome the Stanley Humphries High School

Doukhobor Choir from Castlegar, who are here today along with

Mr. Peter Samoyloff, of Ootischenia, and Mr. Leonard Voykin, of

Pass Creek, British Columbia.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce a class of students who are here today from Alberni

District Secondary School under the direction of their teacher,

Mr. Ranson.

I would also like to introduce Alderman Walter Behn, from

the City of Port Alberni, who is also here today.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House

to welcome today a constituent from Comox riding — namely Mr.

Tom Barnett, former MP.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to report to the House that since this is Brotherhood

Week, the Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) and myself

attended the ninth annual inter-faith dinner last night in

Vancouver; and I'd like to report that one of British

Columbia's finest persons, the Hon. Mr. Justice Angelo Branca,

was named man of the year at that meeting. I'd like this House

to extend our congratulations to Mr. Justice Branca.

Oral questions .

BCR BOXCAR SHORTAGE

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Premier as president of the B.C. Railway: because of the

depressed economy of the north and the interior and the

unemployment rate that's over 10 per cent — and it's now being

compounded by an alarming shortage of cars of the BCR — could

the Premier advise the House on what action is being taken to

alleviate this shortage?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the unemployment

rate is 7.1 per cent.

MR. BENNETT: Not in the interior.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, you can define

statistics if you want. We trust in the federal government

statistics....

MR. BENNETT: They said that it was over 10 per cent in the

interior.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not often that we trust in the

federal government, but in the area of statistics we'll give

them a break.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'll answer the speech, Mr. Speaker.

In the past we were not in a position to provide cars for

ourselves. Shortly after we came in the House, on a question

from the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, who's not present

today, about the question of supplying ourselves with cars, we

took immediate action and had a study done to see whether or

not it was feasible for us to build our own cars.

I'm happy to say that by late March we will begin producing

our own railcars here in the Province of British Columbia,

employing a number of people who are....

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): That plant was

started before you even....

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was no car plant even being

considered by the railway before we were elected, Mr. Member,

and I want to say that they didn't even make good cabooses.

The question, then, of unemployment will be relieved by

that.

We've also had an interesting inquiry from a private railway

interested in purchasing some of our cars.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, because I never did find out

how we were going to get cars on the railway immediately to

alleviate the alarming shortage. The car plant, of course, was

to open on January 1, 1974, and then it was going to be July 1,

1974....

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, is the Hon. Member launching into a

speech?

MR. BENNETT: I'm asking a supplementary question of the

Premier as to whether this delay has compounded this problem

and if he can guarantee to the House that the March date he

gave of the opening of this plant will lead to the production

facilities of 83 cars per month.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know what kind of cars the Member

is speaking of, but if he has any knowledge of the exact kind

of cars that are short.... The only knowledge I have is that

there is a shortage of coal cars used by the CPR on their

unit

[ Page 10 ]

trains from Revelstoke down to Roberts Bank.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know anything about your

railroad.

MR. BENNETT: Now that we have a chance to advise the

president of the railway of the shortage of the cars on the

railway that he should know about, it's on lumber cars. And

there are specific cases, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member answering questions or

asking them?

MR. BENNETT: I have advised the president of the railway,

the Premier, that on Monday alone one lumber company, John

Ernst Lumber Co. Ltd. of Quesnel, applied for 20 cars and there

were none. All interior lumber manufacturers ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: ...are on quota. Could the Premier please

advise when the car shortage will be alleviated?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I take notice of that

question. I was under the impression that those Members were

saying that all the mills were closed down. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, order, please! It is becoming a debate. I

would appreciate it if somebody else could have the floor on

this first question period.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: And the fact that the president of the railway

cannot answer the question....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I take it as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please!

LEASING OF CARS

BY BCR

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Premier

and president of the railway, I wonder if he could indicate how

many cars are now leased by BCR.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will take it as notice,

giving the exact number.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we have covered a lot of time on one question and

I would like some other Members to be recognized on other subjects.

EXTRA FUNDING FOR REDUCTION

OF PUPIL-TEACHER RATIO

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Education.

May I ask her what extra funding is to be available to help

school boards and local taxpayers meet the extra costs of the

2,000 teachers hired last year in line with the government's

policy of reducing the pupil-teacher ratio?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I don't think the

intention of the question period is to have the Member who is

being questioned go into a speech. I think I would suggest that

you wait until the budget speech and my own speech, and then

you will have a complete answer to that question. Otherwise I

can take up the rest of the question period.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST

PREGNANT EMPLOYEES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Labour: is

the Minister of Labour aware of any instances where there has

been dismissal or layoff of a female employee because of

pregnancy?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): No, Mr. Speaker. I'm

not aware of any specific incidence of a female being dismissed

for the sole reason of pregnancy.

MR. WALLACE: Is it, then, in light of the Minister's public

statement, the policy of the department to regard dismissal

because of pregnancy to be a breach of human rights at all

stages of pregnancy and in all types of employment?

HON. MR. KING: Yes, the Human Rights Code clearly prohibits

discrimination on the basis of sex, religion and colour, and it

provides also that reasonable cause must be provided to

discriminate against anyone during the course of employment or

in terms of making available public accommodation and so

on.

In my view the grounds of being pregnant would not be

reasonable cause for dismissal from employment, and I offered

that view when questioned on this subject.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that they

are really verging on asking opinions on questions of law.

[ Page 11 ]

SECRET HYDRO COMMITTEE

ON COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A question to

the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in his

capacity as a director of British Columbia Hydro. Last Sunday

evening there was a television programme ("The Reckoning")

shown in British Columbia dealing with the Columbia River

treaty projects. I have a copy of the transcript and the

commentator said, in part:

"In the B.C. Hydro building a secret committee was put

together to unload costs into other departments. Highways,

Forest Service and others were tapped for funds and the public

knew nothing about it."

My question is: in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro,

has the Minister evidence of such a committee existing in B.C.

Hydro?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am personally unaware of such a committee. However,

the matter is most serious and it is one which I would like to answer at a later

stage to the House once I have further information.

STATUS OF BCR RAILCARS

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Premier

and president of the British Columbia Railway. Some time ago the railway had

on order several hundred cars from Hawker-Siddeley of Nova Scotia. I'd like

to ask the president of the railway if these cars were purchased as in the original

agreement or, if not, any of them were leased. Were they purchased in total?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I will give you a report

tomorrow of all of the cars we have leased, and all we have

purchased.

MR. PHILLIPS: Of the cars that were leased, were any of the

cars leased through American leasing firms?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was the money obtained from the United States,

and what was the interest rate?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'll take it as notice.

EMPLOYEES FOR RAILCAR PLANT

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's on the same subject with

regard to the British Columbia Railway

Co. I wonder if the Premier, as president of the railway,

could advise the House whether or not there have been employees

at full pay waiting to go on stream at this car plant whenever

it becomes operational. If so, how many, and are they at the

management level or at the labourers' level?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, at the works level, not to my

knowledge is there anyone waiting on stream. There certainly is

management; as is the case with all start-up, there must be

management people ready. They are now, as I understand,

interviewing people to take on the trade skills in the plant

itself.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would the Premier confirm, Mr. Speaker, on

the same supplementary, that some of these people are in the

$20,000-per-year range and have been working for as long as two

years for B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we hired people to set up the

plant; it couldn't come out of thin air. They have been on as

soon as we gave the go-ahead....

MR. McCLELLAND: January, '74.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if they want the

answers or not, but the plant cannot come out of thin air. We

hired people to bring the plant into being.

PROGRESS OF

PUBLIC SERVICE UNION NEGOTIATIONS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the

Provincial Secretary could forecast to the House when

negotiations might be completed with the public service unions

and when the figures for the settlements already arrived at

might be made public.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I have no idea when all

the components will be finalized. I think we're in the region

of nine down and three to go. I'll advise the Members of the

House of some opportunity I may have as to when they will be

complete. But they're going along very well indeed.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Provincial Secretary could release some of those figures before

the budget, or in connection with the budget, because it will

help us in assessing the projections.

[ Page 12 ]

HON. MR. HALL: I'll take that under advisement.

AMOUNT OF BCR

ROLLING STOCK OUT OF SERVICE

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the president of B.C. Railway,

the Premier: I wonder if the Premier could tell the House how

many cars and locomotives of the railway are now out of service

as a result of derailments, deteriorated conditions, and delays

in servicing and repairs of those locomotives and cars.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since the Members want these

questions in detail, I suggest they put them on the order paper

so I can give the complete return.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: I think he has taken it as notice but he has

made a suggestion: when a question is so complicated that it

should not be asked in question period, the proper way is to

ask for the filing of a return.

Interjection.

POSSIBLE DESIGN PROBLEM

WITH NEW FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation

and Communications with regard to the two ferries at present

under construction by Burrard Drydock Co. Ltd. Has the

unconventional design led to problems with the shaft?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): No, no

problems. (Laughter.)

NECESSITY OF

SPECIAL WARRANT FOR BCR

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, another question to the Premier

as president of the railroad. I would like to know whether he can assure the

House that the $15 million special warrant issued in favour of the British Columbia

Railway on January 16 would not have been necessary at all if there had not

been a strike on the railroad in November, December and early January.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical

question. The money will be repaid by the railroad, but I will

have a most interesting, detailed report to give to the House

on the railroad's operations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hurray!

MR. PHILLIPS: When?

ACCURACY OF

FOREST SERVICE COST ESTIMATES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. May I ask him whether

his inquiries into the contract between Can-Cel and Twin Valley

Timber in northern B.C. have indicated that the cost estimates

done by the Forest Service, which he quoted earlier as being

the basis for this contract being profitable, have indeed

turned out to be incorrect?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we have information regarding

three cutting permits, and the prices on all three cutting

permits vary, so there are differences between them. Some, if

my memory serves me correctly, are as indicated; others are

somewhat different. As I indicated in public statements

earlier, however, Canadian Cellulose bore additional costs. But

I do find the question difficult to understand, Mr. Speaker, in

view of the fact that it was a contract between two parties in

the free enterprise system that the Member supports.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the

Minister: in view of the fact that this is not the first

company which has had difficulties of this kind, and in view of

the criticisms and requests by the northern interior producers

to have the whole question of Can-Cel contractors and

independent suppliers looked into, and in view of the fact the

Minister indicated there were some errors in previous

statements on costs, would he now accede to the request to have

the whole matter looked into?

This may well have been a private contract as he has

indicated, but failures to pay bills to suppliers could be very

serious to towns such as Stewart and other communities in

northern British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would simply say that I am satisfied

that the actions taken by Canadian Cellulose were satisfactory

and that it's a matter between the parties and not a matter of

direct action, as we see it, for the government.

REASON FOR BCR SPECIAL WARRANT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Premier, as president of the B.C. Railway. The Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) addressed a question to the Premier. It

was suggested the question was hypothetical — concerning a $15

million order-in-council. It's not a hypothetical question, Mr.

Speaker. The order-in-council states explicitly:

[ Page 13 ]

"Whereas the Minister of Finance has reported that as a

result of certain employees of the British Columbia Railway Co.

having withheld their services over an extended period of time

and the consequent curtailment of operating revenue, it is in

the public interest to grant the sum of $15 million to the

company." Mr. Premier, was the total of $15 million required,

as suggested in the order-in-council, to cover for losses as a

result of that railway strike?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the money is a short-term

loan to the railroad to make up for the loss of revenue during

the period of the work stoppage plus other smaller items as

detailed. The order-in-council covers that and the money will

be repaid.

Orders of the day .

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to

have been selected by my colleagues in the government caucus to

move the following motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Rolston):

That the following address be presented to His Honour, the

Lieutenant-Governor:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the

Legislative Assembly in session assembled, beg leave to thank

Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has

addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Mr. Speaker, this must be the longest throne speech ever

presented by a government in this province, and the record of achievement it outlines is

fantastic. In fact, if anything, it understates the

accomplishments of the New Democratic Party government in the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I didn't hear

anything about the high unemployment rate.

MR. SKELLY: In the space of 30 short months we have totally

transformed this province...

MR. PHILLIPS: Down the welfare well.

MR. SKELLY: ...and its social and economic institutions,

and we have done so in the face of the most irrational,

irresponsible and doctrinaire opposition.

Just going over some of the items in the throne speech —

take the example of the Land Commission Act, which is the key

to the most successful, long-term agricultural policy in North

America.

By first taking steps to preserve the resource base of the

industry, then following through with legislation to assure

that farming and food processing would be profitable

occupations, we have again made agriculture an attractive

vocation for our young people, and I believe that we have

restored the viability of rural life in this province.

Mr. Speaker, in the past the rural ridings of this province

voted strongly in favour of the Social Credit government in

spite of the fact that Socred policy, or the lack of it,

resulted in a loss of a large amount of our best farmland, the

closure of food processing plants in the Fraser Valley, and a

decline in the viability of the family farm unit in this

province. But now the reverse is true.

I would just like to read a

section from the January

Farmers' Institute News that confirms this point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Which one of your PR men wrote that?

MR. SKELLY: I think it was the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture.

"It is with interest to note that needed dairy production in British Columbia is increasing, as opposed to

other provinces and Washington state where it is dropping,

indicating that the object of stabilizing the dairy industry in

British Columbia is being achieved and is reflected in the

increased total production."

This is a direct result, Mr. Speaker, of a well-planned food

resources policy confidently administered by an NDP Minister.

And the key to the whole policy is the preservation and

enhancement of our agricultural land resource base.

But I ask you to cast your mind back a short time to the

spring of 1973 when this bill was first presented in the House,

when the opposition stormed about the province waving copies of

the bill and proclaiming that this was the first step in the

establishment of a communist state in western Canada. We were

subjected in this House to a 20-hour filibuster, including

readings from Karl Marx.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That was the most watered-down 20-hour speech

I've ever heard in my life — including readings from Karl Marx

and descriptions of collective farms in Russia. It was an

incredible display. But the worst display I've ever seen in

this House, although I've only been here 30 months — and you're

really starting anew today — was the comments of the Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), the Member for the floodplains,

when he predicted bloodshed in the streets. He called this

legislation the kind of legislation that serves to

[ Page 14 ]

inflame and incite rebellion.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I've only been here for 30 months,

but I've never seen, never heard, irresponsible criticism of

the type that that Member started in this House. But in spite

of their dogmatic response to the bill, and in spite of their

attempts to generate fear and terror throughout this province,

this bill is now a respectable statute. Legislators in other

areas, including Washington state, are now using this statute

as a model for land-use control in that state.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad the opposition forced you to amend

that bill.

MR. SKELLY: Hogwash! Hogwash! Not a single proposal for

amendments came from that side of the House. As the Minister

pointed out during that debate, there was not a single proposal

for amendment from that side of the House. They all came from

the government side. Check the record.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the bill is now a respectable

statute. Even legislators in Washington state are looking at

that bill as the model for their land-use legislation. They're

taking courage from the determination of our government, and

particularly our Ministers, to protect and preserve the

agricultural land base of this province.

I know that I speak for all Members of the House, and for

the farmers in the Alberni riding particularly, when I say that

I'm proud of this government's legislation and its record of

administration in the field of agriculture in British Columbia.

We look forward to the new proposals to expand that

agricultural policy during the present session, as outlined in

the throne speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Live in the past; it'll soon be history.

MR. SKELLY: Another achievement of the New Democratic Party

that's cited in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, is Autoplan. I

believe that the Minister responsible for this plan also

deserves congratulations. In less than a year — in the short

space of 216 days — this Minister put together the

largest insurance corporation in the country, with the lowest

and best rate structure of any insurance company operating in

Canada.

When Autoplan was in the process of being established, in 1973 and 1974, that

Minister was subjected to the most vicious and vitriolic criticism imaginable.

The opposition told us it couldn't be done. They said that the NDP didn't have

the business acumen to set up an automobile insurance plan. I don't know where

you get that business acumen — maybe by trading your house in for a motel or

something. But we showed that we could do it. The Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

called ICBC — and he's not here today, I see — an entry into the private field

where traditionally and historically governments haven't succeeded.

But his memory is short and his vision restricted. Just

three provinces away, he seems to forget, the Liberal Party,

when they ran Saskatchewan into the ground for eight years,

maintained that automobile insurance plan they have in

Saskatchewan, and even boasted of it as a good policy.

MR. PHILLIPS: The losses stay in B.C.

MR. SKELLY: But despite the smokescreen, Mr. Speaker, and

their threats of gloom and doom, Autoplan is now functioning

smoothly, offering the best coverage, and at the lowest rates

in the country. At the same time insurance companies in other

provinces are raising their premiums by 16 and 18 per

cent; our company has reduced rates and taken steps to equalize

them throughout the province.

We have demonstrated that government involvement in the

insurance business can succeed, that premium dollars which

formerly left the province to be invested at the discretion of

company directors in Zurich and Hartford, Connecticut, and in

Britain, are now being invested in this province at the

discretion of people who are running an insurance company right

here in this province, an insurance company owned by the people

of British Columbia.

We have demonstrated that the corporation can be more

responsive to the complaints and inquiries of clients when they

arise than the private companies who previously operated from

outside the province. When my constituents call me with an

insurance problem or an inquiry, I can redirect it immediately

to management in Vancouver and solutions come back within

24 hours. But I remember when the private insurance

companies were doing business in this province, if you wanted

an answer to a question you had to call Toronto to talk to the

Canadian branch manager of some foreign U.S. company.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where do you borrow your money?

MR. SKELLY: We lost $600,000 on the Columbia River

treaty; we've got to borrow it back from some place.

MR. PHILLIPS: From the Arabs.

MR. SKELLY: It's often difficult to see how successfully the

government insurance can be run because of the emotional fog

that surrounds the insurance question in this province, an

emotional fog created by that opposition over there.

MR. PHILLIPS: And political hot air from that

[ Page 15 ]

side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member for

South Peace River would restrain himself until his own speech

in which he has 40 minutes.

MR. SKELLY: Then you'll really see some political hot air,

Mr. Speaker.

But it's always good to get kind of an objective view of

government insurance by travelling outside the province to see

what's happening elsewhere. A few months ago, Mr. Speaker, I

visited the State of Queensland, Australia. While I was in

Queensland, I visited the head office of that state's

government insurance which was established many years ago, by

the way, by a Labour government, and that insurance office is

now being maintained by the National Party in Queensland.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, that was at my own expense.

That insurance company is now being maintained by the

National Party of Queensland; it's a little bit to the left of

Social Credit but a little bit to the right of Mussolini.

(Laughter.) Even that party has kept state government insurance

in operation and is performing very successfully indeed.

I met with the general manager, Mr. Colin Douglas, and the

manager of the workers' compensation

section of that state

government insurance office. They gave me an hour and a half of

their time to explain how their system works, and it works very

successfully indeed — they do almost $0.5 billion in business

each year. At the time I was in Brisbane they had several large

office buildings under construction in the downtown area of

Brisbane. At that time they were the second largest property

owner in the state and one of the largest property

taxpayers.

The vast majority of government insurance office revenues

are invested in the State of Queensland, in public as well as

private securities, and the corporation even makes a policy of

investing and supporting local artists by buying their works

and displaying them in public buildings. This is the type of

responsibility we can expect from companies such as Autoplan

who have the interest of the province and the people of the

province at heart.

Mr. Douglas admits that these are poor times for the insurance companies operating

in the world. He points out that SGIO Queensland has had to take over the business

of private firms that were unable to compete in the present economic conditions

and have either gone bankrupt or left the state. But he says that in poor economic

situations, the government insurance corporation is better able to weather the

storm, better than private concerns, and they even improve their services during

these economic problems.

Mr. Speaker, as the throne speech indicates, Autoplan is one

of the major success stories of the NDP government. It is a

personal success story for the Minister of Transportation and I

suspect that this legislation also will become a model for

other provinces and other states to follow.

The throne speech also alludes to severe economic conditions

in the forest sector and I am pleased to note that the

government is taking steps to cushion the effect of the market

slump by proposing an employment programme in the forests

which, I understand, will involve a debris cleanup programme

and a more intensive management of the public forests.

Government forest management in the past has been a subject

of criticism, particularly from respected foresters such as

Professor John Walters of UBC. Much of this criticism has been

justifiable. We do not manage our forest resources as well as

is the case in Europe or the Scandinavian countries, or even as

well as lands held in private ownership by some of the larger

multinational corporations.

One of the reasons for this is the fact that the previous

government did not provide the staff or funds to manage the

forests intensively. The former Minister even said that he kept

the Forest Service staff purposely small so that the industry

would police itself. We know the results of that. He obviously

did not take resource management seriously, even though it was

accepted as a government responsibility in the public

sustained-yield units.

As a result of the forest employment policy announced in the

throne speech, I look forward to a more intensive approach to

forest management in planting, thinning, spacing and

fertilizing some of the stands in our prime growing areas. This

will have the result, I think, of increasing productivity in

those areas so that a greater volume of timber may be obtained

from a smaller growing area, and that way we can eliminate some

of the areas where there is resource conflict, such as in

alpine areas and stream bank areas. We can eliminate those from

forest production without reducing the total productivity of

the province.

But if the government can be faulted for its activities in

the management of public forests, I don't think they can be

faulted at all for the way they have managed the processing

sector of the industry. As the throne speech points out, the

government's interest in the forest industry has been extremely

profitable over the past years. Canada Cellulose has achieved

the best ratio of net income to capital invested of any company

reporting in 1974, and they have the second best profit picture

in dollar terms of any company operating in British Columbia in

the same year. They have achieved this without laying off a

single

[ Page 16 ]

employee. This is good management, Mr. Speaker, and it's

socialist management. Can-Cel might have improved its profit

picture by getting rid of employees, as other companies have

done, or by cutting down on production in certain less

profitable areas, as other companies have done. But the NDP has

consistently demanded that management operate with conscience

in the forest industry and this government, through its

companies, has kept their people working.

I wonder what Social Credit would have done under the same

situation. Remember when we had economic restraints back in the

'50s and '60s? What did Social Credit do? The first thing they

did was sack civil servants. Civil servants, social workers

included, they put on the welfare rolls because at that time

there was no unemployment insurance for government employees.

When there was an economic cutback you guys sacked civil

servants. That was the policy of Social Credit.

I wonder what the Liberals would have done under the same

situation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): They'd do the

right thing.

MR. SKELLY: They would have permitted an American company to

purchase Columbia Cellulose, shut down the Prince Rupert

operation, write off their losses and continue to operate in

the Kootenays. That's Liberal policy; it's been Liberal policy

under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for

years.

The Liberals attacked the government for acquiring Columbia

Cellulose. They compared it to buying the Titanic before it hit

the iceberg. Some Titanic, Mr. Speaker! The only Titanic that's

in danger of sinking in this province is the Liberal Party, and

I hear that the skipper is going down without his hands.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, this government has been able to

operate in the forest industry under severe economic conditions

with a record of success that private companies haven't been

able to equal. And we've provided a degree of certainty to

employees of government-controlled concerns that other

companies haven't been bothered or haven't been willing to

provide. We don't espouse the philosophy that people are to be

sacrificed for profit, and Can-Cel is a good example.

Our responsibility of keeping these people working during severe economic conditions

and to keep the economy going has a multiplier effect that benefits communities,

every community where Can-Cel is operating. It protects small businessmen, protects

suppliers and contractors. This is hardly a record of a government that, according

to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), has set out to destroy the economy

of this province. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what the record of private industry

is in the forest products sector. I think we should take a look at that record,

especially the record of those companies that boast of their good corporate

citizenship because of the fact that they live here, and companies that spend

hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax-deductible advertising funds publishing

brochures about their environmental concern and their concern for the great

outdoors — complete with veiled threats that if they're forced to do a better

job, they're going to move elsewhere.

Of course, the company I'm referring to is MacMillan

Bloedel. But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are

hundreds of cases I can cite where MacMillan Bloedel has been a

good corporate citizen, They have maintained employment in the

Alberni Valley, and the company has contributed a great deal to

the recreational and cultural opportunities of the people who

live in the communities where it works. The Premier was down in

Port Alberni a few days ago to open the Mount Arrowsmith Ski

Society in the regional park out there. MacMillan Bloedel

contributed 1,250 acres of that park for the purpose of that

ski club. But there are also disturbing aspects of MacMillan

Bloedel's operation that are characteristic of every

multinational corporation.

In spite of its public relations campaign, its operations

aren't always competently managed. The Cypre River division,

north of Tofino, is the perfect example. That's old Gibson

territory up there. At the same time that MacMillan Bloedel was

publishing its brochures to tell us how much they value the

outdoors and what a fine job they're doing in managing the

forests of British Columbia, they shut down the Cypre River

division, shut it down and left 12 million board feet of timber

lying on the ground. They didn't clean it up, no yarding,

didn't remove the timber. They left 12 million feet lying on

the ground, and they announced that they were closing down

indefinitely and pulling out their equipment.

At the same time, they were distributing the brochures to

those readers of Maclean's magazine and Weekend

magazine and Time magazine — that Canadian news magazine — saying they had plans underway to move to Brazil, in

partnership with Brascan, and to develop a 250,000-acre tree

farm down there with two pulp mills. They're going to employ

5,000 to 7,000 Brazilians down there. Why Brazil? The

vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel, vice-president of

resources, says that the government is stable, the economy is a

fast-growing one and the trees grow rapidly there.

How is the stability of Brazil achieved as opposed

[ Page

17 ]

to the uncertainty said to be rampant in British Columbia?

What characteristics does Brazil have that favour the

establishment of multinationals,

whereas we are told that

capital is fleeing this province? It's simple, really.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Brazil has a military dictatorship that exerts a high degree

of control over political and economic life. It does this by

the regular means employed by political dictatorships and by

military dictatorships: bullets, torture, arbitrary

imprisonment, and repressive legislation that suppresses trade

unions, keeps wages low and outlaws strikes and any other

legitimate expression of discontent.

As a result, in Brazil the poorest 40 per cent of the people

receive only 3 per cent of the national income, while the

richest 5 per cent take more than a third.

Is this the type of political climate that causes

multinationals to grow and flourish? Is British Columbia, under

the New Democratic Party, where public debate of the issues is

regarded as the right, where the process of government is more

open than ever, where the philosophy of the ruling party is

that all citizens should benefit from the harvest of natural

resources...? Is this the type of political climate that

multinationals view with suspicion and uncertainty? If this is

the case, Mr. Speaker, then we should re-examine the priorities

of large corporations doing business in this province, and we

should demand some assurance that profits from our resources

will not be exported during poor market periods and will not be

used to buttress the economies of foreign dictatorships and to

further oppress the citizens of those countries.

One of the disturbing problems faced by this provincial

government is in the field of federal-provincial relations,

which is also alluded to in the throne speech. When this

government came into office 30 months ago, we promised to

improve communications with the federal government, and we

demonstrated our intention by participating actively in

federal-provincial conferences, which the former government

didn't see fit to attend at all.

Previous throne speeches have reported in glowing terms the

results of federal-provincial conferences and of the increased

rapport with the federal government. I actually believe that

under the NDP we have developed closer ties with other regions

of Canada. And all British Columbians applauded the symbolic

gesture when we symbolically rejoined Confederation by tearing

down those old BC-1 signs and replaced them with Trans-Canada

Highway signs indicating that we were back in the country.

But any hopes that we may have generated for continued improvement of our relationship

with the federal government were extinguished during the last federal election.

Relying on its large base of support in central Canada, the Liberal Party took

a majority of seats in the House of Commons, and they proceeded to retaliate

against the western provinces for the fact that 75 per cent of the people in

the western provinces voted against them.

How did the Liberals do in western Canada? Mr. Speaker, I

cannot recall a time in Canadian history....

AN HON. MEMBER: How did the NDP do in B.C.?

MR. SKELLY: How did the Social Credit do in B.C.?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: You elected one, but he changed his coat. But

they change their coats over there so often you don't know

which side they're on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, at least we didn't have to go around and

hire them up when they were defeated.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I can't recall a time in Canadian

history, except possibly during the Riel Rebellion, when

relationships between Canada and the western provinces were

more strained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY: The provisions of the recent Turner budget....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That's pretty harsh

language.

MR. SKELLY: The provisions of the recent Turner budget were

purposely designed to undermine the revenue base and to subvert

the economic development strategies employed in the western

provinces. The announcement that royalties imposed on natural

resources would be no longer deductible for federal tax

purposes was a direct attack on this province in particular, as

we had just passed the Mineral Royalties Act when the

announcement came down.

The federal government was aware that the impact of this

announcement in Ontario and Quebec, where the major Liberal

support base lies, would be minimal, because these provinces

have refined the practice to a high art of giving away their

resources with very little return to the people. For example — and the most recent examples I have from the Canada Year Book

are 1969, unfortunately, but I believe the same proportion

exists today — during that year the gross natural resource

revenue for the Province of Ontario was $54 million, while the

gross revenue for

[ Page 18 ]

Quebec from natural resources was $66 million. In British

Columbia gross revenue from natural resources during the same

period was $127 million, more than both those provinces

combined.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well certainly, that's a good policy.

MR. SKELLY: And they have more resources, more mineral

reserves. Direct revenues from natural resources, formerly a

small percentage of the gross revenue of those eastern

provinces, are 2 per cent in the case of Quebec and 1.6 per

cent in the case of Ontario. But direct natural resource

revenues in British Columbia are 12 per cent of our gross

income and increasing.

So any move by the federal Liberal government is a direct

attack on this province's ability to pay its own way and to

provide services that we as a government have committed

ourselves to provide. I'm speaking of services such as

ambulance coverage, Mincome, Pharmacare and community

recreation facilities.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow the federal government to

destroy the economy of this province and to turn us into a

have-not province out of political revenge. I congratulate the

Premier for his stand on the natural gas issue, and I hope he

will continue his firm stand against federal Liberal inroads to

ruin our resource base.

The municipalities of my constituency are also in support of

this position. They welcome the Premier's proposal to share the

increase in revenue resources that will come from the natural

gas tax. This province has developed a unique policy with

regard to sharing resource revenues with municipalities. As the

throne speech indicates, we are putting in a municipal tree

farm in Smithers and Burns Lake. Other municipal tree farms

that are underway will provide additional shares of resource

revenues for those municipalities. They also are fully behind

the Premier's proposal to share the natural gas revenues with

the municipalities.

The other disturbing announcement made recently by the

federal Liberals is that they are planning to eliminate the

tax-exempt status of provincial Crown corporations. Again, this

is a direct attempt to subvert an important economic

development strategy of the western provinces which have

traditionally relied upon Crown corporations as a means of

capital investment in the absence of any serious federal

attempt to reduce regional disparities and to establish

secondary industry in western Canada.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is

doing an excellent job in maintaining pressure on the federal

Liberals to increase investment programmes and incentives here.

I believe the Minister can take personal credit for the

elimination of the lower limit on Export Development Corp. loans which allow smaller companies such

as the type we have in Western Canada to take advantage of

long-term export development corporation financing.

But the process of convincing the federal Liberals that

there is potential for secondary industry is a difficult one.

After all, their main source of support is in the industrial

area of central Canada. They have admitted that the major part

of their party revenues is provided by large corporations in

central Canada. The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Mr. Trudeau) has

admitted that because of the contributions they receive from

that area and from the multinational corporations, those people

speak with louder voices.

Anyone who doesn't believe in the reality of this statement

should occasionally read the Hansard of the committee

hearings held last year on the bill to raise the ceiling for

Export Development Corp. loans. It was reported that the major

recipients of EDC benefits were large multinationals with

headquarters in the Liberal hinterland. The two Canadian

companies who received the major benefit of EDC financing were

held by prominent eastern Liberals like Paul Martin Jr. and the

Simard family of Quebec.

This type of regional and political pork-barrelling is more

likely to continue under the present Liberal majority

government, and the disparity in economic development between

central Canada and the west is likely to become more and more

acute.

It was possible in the past, when the Liberal policy was

simply to neglect regions outside of Ontario and Quebec, for

the western provinces to grow by exploiting resource revenues

and public investment through Crown corporations. But the

policy has now turned from one of neglect to a direct attack on

the economic foundations of the west.

There used to be talk of western separatism in this country,

Mr. Speaker, but I don't think in this case we are talking

about western separatism; we are talking about a conscious

effort on the part of the federal government to sabotage

Confederation by reducing the west again to colonial status,

and by reducing its people to hewers of wood and drawers of

water.

I call upon the Premier and this government to combat this

movement with all the resources, to work toward a state of

Confederation where all provinces can be equal partners and

where different political philosophies and economic strategies

can co-exist to the benefit of all Canadians.

There is just a final point I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker,

before you call on the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), and

that is in relation to this government's commitment in the

throne speech to assist in relieving the suffering of Third

World countries. We of the government have attempted to reverse

the wastefulness of the lifestyle we enjoy here

[ Page 19 ]

in North America at the expense of a great majority of

people in the world who suffer from diseases and discomforts

related to hunger and malnutrition.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sell them some more cheap newsprint.

MR. SKELLY: I know that the people of British Columbia are

looking forward to this government for leadership in aiding

suffering peoples. We have had some of these people come to

visit us. In addition to the people mentioned in the throne

speech, we've had delegations from the people in Portuguese

Africa who are struggling for liberation from one of the few

remaining colonial powers in that area. We've also had

representatives from South Vietnam — people who suffered from

torture and imprisonment and exile, not because they were

Communists, not because they were supporters of North Vietnam,

but because they believed in a democratic government

representing all political views. We've also received

delegations from Chile — again people who have suffered from

imprisonment, torture, threats of death, and finally exile from

their homeland because they supported a democratically elected

government.

Mr. Speaker, these people have high expectations of our

government because of our concern for democratic institutions

and our support for the aspirations of people throughout the

world, for free institutions and for a fair distribution of

wealth. I am very pleased to read in the throne speech that we

will increase our commitment to help relieve the suffering

people throughout the world.

In the past Canada has always contributed to international

humanitarian efforts in far greater proportion than her

population would suggest. Our contribution to two world wars

and peace-keeping forces of the United Nations testify to this

effort.

At one time we were considered a leader of smaller nations,

a nation of peacemakers, but in the past 10 years we've lost

that reputation. Instead, we've become known as the largest

merchant of weapons per capita on earth.

I note in the papers that Canada is now aggressively

pursuing an arms deal with Turkey, now that the United States

has refused military support to that country. The terrible

thing about this proposed arms sale, aside from the morality of

selling weapons in the first place, is that they could be used

against our own soldiers on Cyprus.

But the most terrifying activity of the federal government

in international trade is the rush to create nuclear weapon

capabilities in some of the most unstable and oppressed

countries on earth.

Canada has already sold India a CANDU nuclear power plant that gave that country

the potential to develop an atomic bomb. The federal government has also finalized

an agreement with Argentina to sell a nuclear reactor to that country. Argentina

is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, but they do have

an agreement with India to exchange nuclear technology.

If that in itself doesn't concern you, I would like to read

some comments in the federal Hansard by John Rodriguez,

NDP member for Nickle Belt, and also our authority on

Latin-American relations in the House of Commons:

"Argentina has not signed or ratified the 1968 Nuclear

Non-proliferation Treaty which pledges non-nuclear nations not

to accept or manufacture nuclear arms. Argentina already has an

atomic plant. The stability of the country in June, 1973, (to

give you a quick rundown) was as follows:

"Hector Campora took over the government from the military.

There was bloody rioting, and a general strike in Buenos Aires.

Three Ford Motor Co. executives were shot. A million dollars in

protection money was paid to terrorist organizations by Ford.

Dirk Kloosterman, the secretary-general of the Auto Mechanics'

Union, was murdered.

"In July, 1973, Peron came back. There were riots: 34 were dead

and 342 wounded. September, 1973, Jose Rucci, head of the General Confederation

of Labour, Argentina's largest [labour] union...was murdered. There was a

30-hour general strike in Argentina. In December, 1973, John Swint, general

manager of Ford [Motors], was murdered. In 1973, 160 kidnappings; over $20 million

(U.S.) was paid in ransom.

"One Export Development [Corp.] loan for a nuclear reactor was

approved in April of 1974.

"In May of 1974, Jorge Quiroga, a judge, was gunned down. The

police overthrew the municipal government of Cordoba; several banks were blown

up in Buenos Aires. There were May Day riots and over 1,000 were injured. The

U.S. Exxon executive, Victor Samuelson, was released by kidnappers after 144

days of captivity and $14.2 million (U.S.) in ransom. The same day, the U.S.

begins personnel pull-out and limited the U.S. Investment [in Argentina]."

That's the kind of stable country that the federal

government is selling CANDU nuclear reactors to. Even MacMillan

Bloedel wouldn't consider that government stable enough to set

up a forest plant. Obviously, these comments on the stability of the Argentine

political situation did not deter our federal government from

proceeding with the sale to Argentina. In fact, they are now

negotiating with another military dictatorship in South Korea — another country that hasn't signed that nuclear

non-proliferation treaty. And, Mr. Speaker, the rumour is

current that our federal government is now negotiating a deal

with the Union of South Africa, a country known for its liberal

policies.

I intend to present the resolution to the House at this

session which calls upon the federal government

[ Page 20 ]

to recognize its responsibility to preserve the peace and

security of the world by calling a halt to sales of CANDU

nuclear reactors. I look forward to the support of the House

for that resolution.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the

throne speech gives an excellent outline of the government's

record, a government that is actively pursuing the best

interests of the people of this province, a government that is

creating institutions that other areas look upon as desirable

models. The eyes of many people throughout the world are on

focus on us and I don't think that any government on this

continent is being watched with higher expectations.

Mr. Speaker, as the record shows, we have gone a long way

towards fulfilling these expectations. Thank you.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): A point of

order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition, on a

point of order.

MR. BENNETT: I rise to offer a motion under standing order

49, namely that this House is of the opinion that because of

the environmental damage possible due to today's serious

chlorine spill...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: ...in the Strait of Georgia...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: ...the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) be permitted to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: I'm allowed to read my motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I would just ask the Leader

of the Opposition to wait until I've checked the order to see

what his point of order is. Would the Hon. Member please state

his point of order before he presents any motion to the

House?

MR. BENNETT: The motion is self-explanatory. It's a point of

order under 49. We have an urgent spill and I would like to

invite statement from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources as contained in my motion. I am asking unanimous

leave of the House...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: ...so the Minister can make a statement under

standing order 49.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the House for leave.

Leave not granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately, leave has to be granted

unanimously.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

on a point of order. The Hon. Member (Mr. Skelly) who has just

taken his place, in his remarks moving the motion, indicated

that in connection with the Land Commission Act no amendments

had been offered by the opposition. I would like the record to

show that the afternoon of April 16, 1973, saw such amendments

being offered. Indeed, to the credit of the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), he accepted three amendments

put forward by the opposition.

Interjections.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's an honour to

represent the people of the very beautiful, far-flung Dewdney

constituency on the north side of the Fraser Valley and a rare

privilege to second the very helpful speech from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

We're very conscious this afternoon that our beloved friend

and counsel, Ned DeBeck, Q.C., has passed to his creator; he is

not with us. The Rolston family has had for nearly 60 years a

special relationship with Mr. and Mrs. DeBeck. It was my

grandmother who went to school with Mrs. DeBeck and who, as an

MLA in 1941 and for several sessions, stayed with the DeBecks

and played bridge with them. I don't know if she ever learned

to turn blocks of wood on the lathe, but she certainly enjoyed

his counsel and discussions and many an evening of bridge.

Our Premier, of course, on several occasions has called on

us to use the collective wisdom of the senior citizens of this

province. There couldn't, for me, be a better illustration than

the wisdom and the dignity and the peace of Ned DeBeck.

As a young MLA, I came here and was pretty confused with the

procedure. I remember several times going over to chat with him

and to gain direction from him.

I suppose all of us, too, had to keep a pretty straight face

when, prior to getting our cheques, he looked at us and said:

"Mr. Rolston, how many days have you been in the last

Legislature?"

[ Page 21 ]

We send our condolences and certainly appreciate the life and the wisdom of this man.

Mr. Speaker, I want to now talk about education and

priorities in education. I feel it's a responsibility of an MLA

to go into classrooms and to talk to students, teachers,

administrators, the school board people and certainly to the

public. This is something I greatly enjoy.

I have two children in school and, like many of you, find

education a very immediate thing. We're daily evaluating and

hearing what is happening in school. In my constituency often

the community gravitates around the school, and it's very, very

important to us.

I think it's also fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that we're in a

time of very rapid social change, a time when as parents we

have difficulty sometimes understanding and disciplining our

children. We sometimes have a difficulty understanding what's

happening in school with the new math and the new programmes.

It's understandable that we sometimes take this out on the

teacher or on that school. Maybe our frailty or our inability

is sometimes passed on to the school as a scapegoat.

The school, of course, is crucial for all of us. In talking

about this, I first of all want to say some things about

quality and about purpose.

I as a parent hope that my children learn how to make

decisions, that they learn how to solve problems, that they

learn self-determination very early. This is vital. This can be

inculcated in the day care. We now have universal kindergartens

in most parts of the province and also in those formative

primary years. I hope that my children learn very early that

they have to take risks. Of course, part of learning is taking

risks. All of us here have taken risks and we've made some bad

mistakes at times in that process of taking risks. I would be

the first to admit that. But I feel that's very necessary.

This government is hoping that students take the risk of

leaving Mission or Maple Ridge in the summer and get out to the

northern parts of British Columbia on our student summer

employment programme called STEP, and get out there and see

what's happening, and we would say the same thing about school.

We hope that it deals with the total child, the effect of

training and teaching of the total child, and so therefore

we're talking about the rational and the emotional, the

spiritual, the aesthetic, the moral and the physical part,

which is the whole part of a child's life.

I was fascinated to read some letters — I wonder if they

were drummed up by the remnants of the Unity Party in Pouce

Coupe, or South Peace, or somewhere — saying that the NDP

government is doing away with religion, Mr. Speaker. Well, I

would just remind this House that there is an innocuous

section

in the Public Schools Act — which has been there for two decades at

least — 167, talking about the opening exercises of schools,

and this is probably where these writers feel that this

government is against religion and doing away with

religion.

I find this opening exercise

section where you have to

listen to the Bible reading, without any explanation, and that

you recite the prayer. Often this is a form of just quietening

the child down, a parody, Mr. Speaker, on religion. Then, later

on, we're told that there is to be no religious dogma

inculcated; yet we talk about a liberal arts education and we

talk about learning all of life, and religion is certainly part

of life. I would ask that legislators look at that section. I

have never been happy with that section. I personally don't see

why school districts can't make their own minds up about what

those opening exercises are.

Also I think that school districts should be encouraged to

develop programmes — religion is part of the whole dimension of

life — a course on the major religions of the world and the

major themes in religion. Certainly, if any government is going

to try to do something, it's this government.

It was this government, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that at

least allowed ordained clergymen now to teach in school. Mr.

Wenman, who once was a backbencher with the Socreds, tried for

years with a motion on the order paper to get his government to

loosen that up, with no success.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the school, we're

talking about the whole aspect of life. I don't presume to

think that the school really is the main influence on a child.

I think the peer group, television, the home, the community,

hopefully the church, and many other influences are

significant. We're told that there are 10,000 hours of

television watched by a child before he goes into grade 1. So,

therefore, I hope and I believe our government is gradually

moving towards integrating school with the whole community of

life, the wider arena of life, and I hope that teachers become

loosened up and gradually gain confidence, become adapted to

working with this larger area of life.

I feel maybe the straight academic programme, which I was

brought up in, in an academic kind of school, might be still

very valid, Mr. Speaker, for many students and for many

teachers. But it is similarly valid that we could have students

that maybe take a programme in the classroom in the morning,

but in the afternoon move out into the job situation, the work

situation, maybe the skilled training situation, so that they

can relate more to the wider community, to the trade union

community, to the management community, to the Indian

community. There is a very large Indian population in the

Fraser Valley and a community which needs special homemaking

skills. I believe that this wider

[ Page 22 ]

community could help as the department and the school boards

decide their purpose.

I might just remind this House that school boards are

responsible for developing policy. I'm reassured that School

District 75, Mission, and 42 in Maple Ridge are working on

policy. I got quite annoyed when I heard the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) recently on television say that this

government is emasculating boards in the business of developing

policy. That is absolute nonsense and I'd love him to see in

print some of the, I think, excellent policy that Maple Ridge,

School District 42, is currently working on. In fact, it's

published for feedback in the paper. I'm counting on our

government....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Name one policy.

MR. ROLSTON: Name one policy. Venture schools — School

District 42 is moving into the venture school. Our government

needs to find what the job needs are in British Columbia.

At lunch yesterday I said to the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King): "Now what's happening in an inventory of the job

needs for the next five years?" Surely that's reasonable.

Industry needs to know well in advance in its hiring practices,

and I'm hoping that our government will be able — with the help

of the federal government, as you remember, through a programme

called the Canada Manpower Assistance Programme — to find those

needs.

There's been a phenomenal growth, Mr. Speaker, in the

community college. We have a new college called the Fraser

Valley College working in five school districts in the Fraser

Valley. Although it did take over the night school programme,

we already have 3,500 people in night school programmes in that

college. We have many people in the full-time programme. In

September we anticipate 805 people taking the full-time

programme in the Fraser Valley College.

Let's look at that quality. There's been a lot of debate in

the press, on the hotlines, about quality. What's happening in

schools? What emphasis is being left in schools? We are told by

educators that we are in kind of a humanitarian emphasis.

Presumably that means an emphasis on relationships, on the

total aspect of growing and of growing as a person.

But, Mr. Speaker, the first thing, surely, is the teacher.

I think we have to be honest in that sometimes people teach

because maybe this is the only thing initially they saw

themselves doing. Sometimes maybe they have come into it

through a somewhat devious way. But I believe it is the

responsibility of the Department of Education to help in the

upgrading of those teachers.

There's going to be a debate, no doubt. I don't know if it will be in this

session, but we're going to have to face the decision of who decides competency

in the teaching profession. Now the BCTF claims that they can develop a committee

to do this. I'm not so sure about that. I am not so sure that they are the only

people who have that right to decide competency. Other professionals don't.

We have other people, lay people, deciding or taking

part in that decision.

Should it be the principal? Should it be the superintendent or the department

or a school committee? I don't know. Certainly there's going to be discussion,

because it's a very valid question. It's related to this whole business of upgrading,

of professional development. I think that the board should get money from Victoria

to help in that upgrading of the professional teacher so that he or she is more

competent to deal with this vast changing world, are less threatened by what

they feel they are up to.

Now it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker, if some of these

highly paid professional teachers were allowed to do more

teaching. They complain that they don't have help with the

xeroxing and the flash cards and the preparing of bulletins and

marking and stencil-making. It could be that more schools

should follow the lead and get into hiring paraprofessionals, parateachers, that could do this work so the teacher is paid

to do a job of lesson preparation and getting in front of that

classroom where the real work is to be done. But, again, I'm

saying that they have to decide their self-esteem; they need to

decide and have, I think, a very good opinion of themselves,

and certainly the department and the boards, I believe, are

ready to help in that development of self-esteem and of

competency.

I want to remind this House that this government — related

to this discussion of quality — has reduced the pupil-teacher

ratio by 2.86 in two years. We are presumably going to have

better remedial teaching through this, more individual

attention, more time for individual learning. I don't see any

great panacea in this, but I think it should still be

encouraged, and I certainly hope that money will go to the

school districts that don't have the mill rate. Vancouver

raises nearly $2 million with one mill rate, and that certainly

isn't my experience where I work and live. But as well as

looking at this pupil-teacher ratio, which we have made a

commitment will go down — and we do need to get money to these

poor areas — we also need to look at varieties in education.

Again, this is not new. We have had varieties. I've mentioned the academic

variety; I've mentioned the academic model; I've mentioned the Venture School

as a model in Maple Ridge, the education for life as an emphasis where the kids

spend time on day trips, develop a greater sense of socializing and understanding

each other. They do have to learn basic math, basic skills, which, of course,

our government will not compromise on.

[ Page

23 ]

Admittedly, you know, the school is getting some flack on

this business of basic skills. But there's a problem of basic

skills that might have started with that group in the corner.

We've been in business for 2 1/2 years. If you're talking about

a 15-year-old having difficulty with language arts, it's very

likely that the 15-year-old was short-changed, or there just

wasn't the right emphasis, or there was a knee-jerk response by

the Socred Department of Education probably a decade ago.

So I believe that there are varieties, and teachers are

excited about varieties. They are excited about

apprenticeship-type schools that I've mentioned. They are

excited about relating more immediately to the work situation.

The Member for West Vancouver (Mr. L.A. Williams), a lawyer,

would like to know that there are lawyers now working in

special classes, legal classes, law classes in some of the high

schools in the Fraser Valley. I think that's very exciting. I

didn't benefit from that, and I certainly should have. Eric

Hamber boasts a special humanities programme in grade 11 — an

autonomous school within a school — that looks at socials,

history, political science, sociology, psychology, takes field

trips, and is very confident — and which again, I think, will

develop quality and self-esteem in the profession.

I have to admit that I find school threatening still. It's

intimidating, even though you go as an MLA to speak sometime,

or to meet staff; it's still a school. I guess that that image

is left with a lot of people.

I heard a Minister of Education once say that maybe the

schools should be a vast community compound. They're sometimes

lost. There would be the public health, the resource centres,

the public library — like Agassiz, where the public library is

in the high school complex — and people would feel they're more

a part of a larger community, that a lot of that will rub off

and maybe rub off for years to come. But also it will be a

little less threatening.

Our government is spending over $3 million on the Spectrum

School, just a few miles from this Legislature, which I think

is going to be an exciting illustration of a large, compound

type of school. That staff, who have been in very poor

temporary facilities for nearly a year, are looking forward to

that new school.

Last spring, you know, our government gave authority to develop local curricula,

and again this is to complement the three basic skills of reading, writing and

arithmetic — basic skills which we do require. MLAs, I'm sure, lament some of

the letters they receive from people who just don't know how to put things down

clearly, how to state their problems. I think I recognize the problem. I think

it's valuable to be able to put your thoughts down in writing. Now we want to

complement those with local skills that are needed. In my area, it would be

different from West Vancouver. We would teach local skills of agriculture, of

soils, maybe knowing more about the trade union movement because of its influence

in the area, more maybe about corrections, certainly more about basic survival

and adventure programmes.

I want to say something about discipline. Does this House

realize that the Minister sent out a memo last September to all

the principals asking that they discuss with their staff four

things: class management, evaluation and testing, communication

with parents — which is very important — and the sex and race

discrimination thing, and that there were many, many useful

discussions and dialogues? In fact, Victoria School District is

putting together right now their preliminary draft of their

material to be sent to the Minister. This, in a sense, was an

in-service programme, dialoguing. In a sense, in a low-profile

way, it was able to get a response from the 1,400 teachers, for

instance, in Victoria — a very vital thing.

The whole business of discipline and authority surely is a

wider issue than just the principal and the senior people. The

other teachers, and the response of those more responsible

students, who can have a very big peer group influence on the

others, and the parents surely should all be encouraged to feed

material in on the business of authority in the classroom.

I want to now say something about money. This is going to be

a very vital discussion. Our government is committed to

progressive funding of education. Our government spent $554

million in the budget, and that was increased by $44.2 million

in special warrants. Of that, $16 million went to school

districts to help in the pupil-teacher ratio, and I hope that

continues. But Victoria at times needs to gain recognition for

giving more money per instructional unit, in fact, a 19.4 per

cent increase in per-educational unit. That's $18,250 per

instructional unit. That's the maximum amount allowed under the

Public Schools Act. Of course, this can be added to. You add

your bus; then you bring it up to a little under $20,000 per

instructional unit. You add extra things, like the busing costs

and other administrative costs.

I hope we're committed to ultimately paying 100 per cent for

the operating costs of community colleges. I hope that will

happen. We are now paying 100 per cent of the capital costs of

community colleges; we are spending $91 million in capital

programmes for public schools, more than at any other time in

history. That's a very big increase.

That means $2.6 million in Mission alone; $3.3 million in

Maple Ridge. That means a total of 10 schools are being

modified. In fact, some new schools are currently being built

in Maple Ridge. We were delighted in Mission to hear that

additions to three schools came in a little under tender, and

it was very gratifying to hear of that.

This is the greatest amount in capital programmes

[ Page 24 ]

in the history of this province.

One of the legacies of this group in the corner, the

Socreds, was that they somehow centralized the already unwieldy

educational financial business into Victoria. This became very

demoralizing to school boards. They seemed to have to go

through all the red tape and more red tape. They seemed to be

confused by the Socred blue book of the mid-1950s as to what a

school should look like, whether it be A, B, C or D model.

I feel in a sense some of that blue book must still be

around because there still seems to be a hurdle to get

permission for special warrants on operating. We have a list of

these special warrants. Maple Ridge, for instance, needed an

$800 warrant — a small thing, surely, to go through

cabinet.

The New Democratic government is trying to encourage school

boards to plan for five years. We're in a programme right now

of site acquisition in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge; we're

working with planners and with the municipal council. Surely

this is responsible; this is good economics. This was not

really possible under Social Credit. You couldn't pick up sites

five or six years in advance; you couldn't do planning of large

building units like the Burke Mountain project. We feel this is

responsible.

We are currently in a very heavy capital programme in school

district 42. Admittedly, there is a controversy between

municipal and school board people as to who pays for what. I

need to have some explanation from the House and from the

Minister because there is some confusion in my mind. The mayor

of Pitt Meadows will say, "Will, you have to pay all of the

impost fee and all of the lineal-foot fee for the storm sewers

and water and everything, as if the school was going to use so

many building lots." Yet the school board says that if you do

that you are going to raise the mill rate a couple of mills,

and we can't have that. You are just going to shift the burden

onto the taxpayers through school taxation.

Of course, the other thing, too, would be that if Pitt

Meadows paid the entire cost of these services, that would have

been reflected in their higher general mill.

I think some kind of decision has to be made. It seems to me that developers

could pay a big percentage of that servicing cost. Surely when a school goes

into a new area, the people developing that area who are counting on it — in

fact, who are advertising the area because of the new school — need to pay a

bigger percentage of that impost and those direct service costs. The Social

Credit group, Mr. Speaker, before we took office, starved this province on that

Canada Manpower training programme. Do you realize that, Mr. Speaker? When we

took office we went to the federal government and we said, "Look, we have not

been getting enough money for skill training and for job training — the BCIT

kind of thing — to operate that."

We must give credit to the federal government because they

saw the problem; they saw that we were starved and they have

come through. Hopefully, we can continue to negotiate a

catch-up so that B.C. can catch up to the rest of the provinces

in what is being spent on technical training, much of which is

subsidized by the federal government.

Now, let's look at agriculture, which is essential to my

riding. The dairy farmers are increasingly confident in Dave

Stupich, the Minister of Agriculture. If you are a farmer with

$300,000 in a dairy farm and for years have felt it was time to

liquidate that farm and get out of the business and maybe take

your chance of subdivision, you are at last guaranteed a decent

income, a just income for labour and investment.

The cost of producing milk is nearly $14 a hundredweight.

This has increased about $3 in my time as an MLA.

The dairymen in Nicomen Island, and Hatzic prairie, and

Mission-Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge are riding high with the

income assurance programme, because this is the thing: their

costs are around $13.92; they pay 20 cents into the programme

as their premium; they are only given $11.87 for the quota

value of their liquid milk. So there is about a $2.05

difference which is made up by the programme that our Minister

has passed through this House — the dairy income programme. Of

course, we know this programme is now available for swine

people, for the tomato people and the tree-fruit people.

I think that this is a beginning. Admittedly, it has been

kind of a cultural shock for all of us in this income assurance

programme, and I confess there was a cultural shock when we

looked at the agricultural land reserves, which again were

vital to Dewdney riding. I think we all would admit that this

was quite an adjustment for the government to say: "Look here.

This is too valuable for food producing; this land, according

to slope, according to climate, according to soil type, and

according to size, must be reserved for agriculture."

I'm happy to report that the farmers again are now content

to get on with producing food. That great pot of gold at the

end of the rainbow isn't really that real any more for them

because they now have a decent and dignified income — they're

willing to produce food. They, incidentally, are being very

supportive of this and I think they're very content.

Incidentally, you should know that 81.7 percent of Pitt

Meadows is in agriculture, 18 per cent of Maple Ridge, and 14

per cent of the district of Mission, but of course much of the

riding is electoral area and that is largely in

agriculture.

These farmers appreciate the credit programme

[ Page 25 ]

where $15 million maximum has been granted by this House to

help discount existing agriculture loans and credits, and again

this is seeing a new confidence. Farmers are going back to the

soil. A kind of new style ranching up in the Cariboo is

developing. I only hope they have the ability. They certainly

have the enthusiasm — I hope they have the ability and the

staying power.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Oh, I can't give you the precise amount, but I

would think a dozen — more up in the Cariboo.

The House has heard our cry for greater help for diking, and

last winter the budget removed the 10 per cent local share. We

are very happy with that, and this means that Mission is moving

ahead with a diking programme, and Pitt Meadows, who weren't

able to afford that 10 per cent, they — I hope this winter, or

certainly next winter — will be moving ahead with their diking

programme.

But, Mr. Speaker, this House should know that in response to

my plea for an interim help for floods during the high water of

last summer, the Ministers of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) responded and they

paid one-half of the losses to cattle, to equipment, to houses,

and to personal property totalling $303 million in Dewdney

riding, and not all of the appraisals are in yet. I think this

is a pretty practical demonstration to help the farmer in his

viability.

The Minister of Agriculture is not here, but he and members

of the agriculture committee need to realize that there is a

problem in the Fraser Valley with raspberries — there really

is. Sugar is much, much more expensive and raspberries and

strawberries largely are sugar-related products. The strawberry

stands that you see out on the road might be two, maybe three,

per cent of the volume of that business.

There is a real problem in the Fraser Valley because three

years ago the federal and provincial Departments of Agriculture — three years ago, before we took office — encouraged a greater

raspberry production. We have 15 more acres of raspberries in

the Fraser Valley than we had. This means that the total

production could be eight million pounds of raspberries, and I

worry what happens to them. Are they not picked, or are they

dumped? Because you need to know, Mr. Speaker, and this House

needs to know. We just talked about food, you know, for the

poor and the starving world; 600 acres of the 1,600 acres in

berries have no commitment, no contract with a canner — no

contract at all. That is a real concern.

I think our government, and especially Economic Development

and the Department of Agriculture, need to get together. I'd

like to meet with them, develop new markets, and develop a new process without using

sugar — maybe a new way of freezing. Freezing doesn't use that

much sugar anyway. So, with the help of researchers, we can

develop a new market. These people must at least get 32.5 cents

a pound, the cost of producing these berries.

Of course, you are competing with a lower cost Mexican berry

of the everbearing variety, which continues to come into this

province. I don't know, we could maybe ask Ottawa to put a

tariff on imported strawberries. But I can imagine the Mexicans

would put a tariff on our Ontario-built tractors which are

worth a lot more money so maybe there is very little likelihood

of that.

But, on the brighter side, in the cold-crop vegetable

business — broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage — things are

really moving. The Fraser Valley has more acreage under

production than ever before. York Farms and some of the large

companies are leasing thousands of acres. Thanks to the

agricultural land reserves now, we are quite content to get on

with the business of producing cold vegetable crops.

We're going to have a self-sufficiency. I think the day will

come when we'll have self-sufficiency in this — maybe even in

lettuce. Dave Stupich reminded a group recently that as

companies consolidate their energy needs and eventually look

for energy self-sufficiency, maybe we need to look to food

self-sufficiency. That's going to be a really tough thing to go

after but at least we have the agricultural reserves to help us

on the way.

Let's look at the Attorney-General's department and justice.

Last spring this House passed the Justice Development

Commission. We have eight justice councils in the Fraser

Valley, with the help of a co-coordinator working out of

Abbotsford. There are 25 people who have been meeting now for

two months in the evenings in Maple Ridge and in Mission,

looking at justice.

The delivery of a better court system. We've had special

worries about the family court in Mission. A better correction

system, legal services, and the police.

First of all, a lot of sharing was necessary. There's a lot

of very hostile and hysterical reaction regarding juvenile

delinquency, police, and courts. But, my goodness, it doesn't

hurt for people in a town to listen to what the police go

through on a Friday night. Just what is the report of the

evening shift of the Mission police detachment? It was pretty

helpful to listen to that, and we did. I gained insight and

other people are gaining insight. Our police commission is

greatly helping on this. Police commissioners have already

spent considerable time on the beat with police people.

We, of course, listen to other sharing. The difficulty of

understanding the court system. I must confess I didn't realize

that the Juvenile Delinquents

[ Page 26 ]

Act is a federal Act, g oing back to 1929. The MPs promise us

there will be some revision to this pretty archaic Act. In this

province a juvenile or a child is up to the age of 17. It's

very rare that he'd be raised to the adult court to face the

Criminal Code.

There's been a lot of sharing, a lot of looking at this

part, a lot of discussion in a very useful way regarding the

whole business of the juvenile, who, Mr. Levi reminds us, is a

child. He's a child in the community; he lives in a home; he

lives in a family in the community. That community needs to be

more responsible in coping with that child.

But this government really hasn't changed the facilities

available to the juvenile. Again, I guess I get defensive when

I hear people saying we've taken away Brannan Lake. Brannan

Lake is there. It's used in a more useful way, though, as a

diagnostic centre for young boys and girls on Vancouver Island.

We still have in Haney Correctional Institute and in Oakalla a

remand capacity. We still place juveniles in the House of

Concorde. At Centre Creek we have 38 foster homes. We have the

use of the Vancouver Foundation.

We have three times as many group living homes, Mr. Speaker.

The Socreds wonder where some of the $100 million overrun went.

Well, it went into useful programmes, Mr. Speaker. It went into

a 104 group living homes, which are a lot better than jails. It

went into 28 residential treatment centres; 480 children are

being evaluated and are residing in these treatment centres.

Some of that money went into programmes which we call the

alternate school. Many of these children in the alternate

school are on probation, but at least they're staying on in

some kind of growth-learning situation. I have two of these in

my riding. We have 9,000 children in special care in British

Columbia.

These justice councils, I think, are very useful. They allow

the people to share where they're at. They allow MLAs and

aldermen and sergeants of the police and lawyers to share where

they're at. But we agree that the children belong to the

community. It's not going to be very helpful to take them out

of the community. The old solution of "out of sight, out of

mind" is an insane way to deal with people. It's not very

human. It's not in the long run going to bring very useful

results. If you want to keep the welfare rolls large, or if you

want to keep illiteracy, or if you want to see that more go

into mental institutions, or maybe into jails, you might foster

that programme — but not this government.

I think the truth is that legislators need to remember that the children who

are sent away become more rebellious. You don't really solve the problem. They

often come back in a more desperate state. I can testify to six young boys that

I personally worked with that went to the old Brannan Lake. They become more

hostile. They become more desperate. We need to be close to these people. We

need to develop programmes for these people. We are now starting to manage caseloads

in corrections using private agencies. We need to use grandparents to relate

more to these young people.

This government is at least allowing access to this

discussion through these justice councils, just as I think

we've opened up school boards. School board people are now paid

more. There's in my area real challenge to get on those school

boards. I think we're giving greater access to our community

colleges so that the people are consulted. Groups within the

community are consulted.

I'm very proud that there are three Indian people — and I'm

sure that the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) is proud —

on that Fraser Valley College: people who have already proven

themselves in this province, respectable leaders, people like

Bill Mussle, who is a highly respected person in this province,

making his contribution with unique things that he is asking

for that are needed in the Fraser Valley in post-secondary

education.

We're giving access increasingly through resource boards.

This is gradual. I hope we don't rush it, but in some cases we

already have the forerunner in community college boards. Again,

I think this is allowing people to have access to power and,

more important, allowing people to change power. You don't just

change individual lives, but you change structures. To use the

word "evangelism" is to bring good news — to people, yes, but

also to structures and to powers. I think that this is very

exciting.

Our government is trying to help the community cope with all

ages, and I believe that it's very normal that this be done in

the community, that the child be looked after in the community.

That's why we spent $130 million in the Department of Human

Resources for children in the community. If we have a juvenile

that's having difficulty with the law, he should be dealt with

in the community.

In some areas we're starting the work-service programme. If

juveniles in Surrey or in Maple Ridge knock over no-parking

signs on the weekend — which has been a fad — they go back, and

with a court order they repair those no-parking signs, or they

repair the windows or whatever is damaged, so that restitution

is done not just to the victim, not just to the municipality or

to the house or to the small business; but also they learn

responsibility. They go through a bit of a guilt thing as they

grow up and as they face their responsibility. I believe

communities support that attitude of delivering justice.

Let's face it, a lot of children are abandoned in this

province. They might be fed, they might be clothed, they might

have a place to stay, but they are emotionally and spiritually

abandoned. They're starved. They see their parents run off

early in the morning, often both to go to work, and they

just

[ Page 27 ]

don't feel that those parents stand for something. I believe

that when you are discussing education and teachers or

legislators.... I expect adults to be able to stand up for a

value, for what they believe. I think it absolutely doesn't

make sense that a teacher or lawyer or minister or MLA doesn't

stand for something, or doesn't go in with that value system

into this situation. Parents need to have that. Parents need to

have something that they stand for, and they need to ask pretty

essential spiritual questions about life.

It's interesting that in Surrey a report was leaked to the

press before it got into council that admitted that in a big

part of the juvenile delinquency there were two parents, often

in the middle class. I wonder what kind of parents we are

talking about. What kind of example?

Finally, this justice council is trying to help people plan

for new programmes. Our group realized that there is a

hard-core group of juveniles in the Fraser Valley that need

some kind of custody — a hard-core group, maybe not more than

two or three in Mission. I'm told that there was one young

fellow in Cranbrook: when you took that young fellow out of

Cranbrook, he just seemed to allow the school system and the

other infrastructure to operate a great deal better. But you

know and I know that there can be some pretty difficult kids,

and if those kids can be sent in a short-term way, maybe for

three months, to cool down in a community remand centre.... I

believe that Mr. Berger is saying a somewhat similar thing.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, we're discovering this; we're working on

this. You were away when I spoke earlier. But our group

recognizes this need, and it's maybe a need to help these

people grow, maybe to evaluate, maybe to do some diagnostic

work, maybe to use some material that school board

psychologists already have, that the police already have, the

pastor. A group of other people in the community can feed the

stuff in to this local remand centre. I don't know who runs it,

whether it's the Attorney-General or Mr. Levi; I just don't

know. But I would like to think that this would be looked at

creatively. I feel that there has been a chance for the people

of my riding to make their suggestions. This is an assignment

that they're working on, that they're refining. Incidentally,

it's not new. There's a remand centre in Prince George with

this kind of involvement.

We have transit services now in the north part of the

Fraser. Jim Lorimer (Minister of Municipal Affairs) has been

able to help us get buses from the south side that went to

Delta and Tsawwassen. They've moved now to the north side of

the river. We're now seeing hourly bus service out to Maple Ridge and an increased service out to Mission and across to

Abbotsford. It's a much faster service. I believe it's dealing

with the dilemma of the highway and the automobile. I believe

that I've spoken briefly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

about the fare, which is $1.40 and rather high for that quick

commuting trip in to Vancouver to work, and I'm hoping that

when Hydro gets delivery of those buses, which are still held

up by strikes in Winnipeg, we will be able to renegotiate that

fare.

Mr. Speaker, now I want to turn to these maps. You can see

here a picture of a submarine. This is the Trident submarine, a

submarine which is presently in construction on the eastern

side of the United States. You can see here the Straits of

Georgia. You can see where the Gulf Island Trust is managing

these beautiful islands here, and you can see here a place

called Bangor, down on the Hood Canal on the western side of

Puget Sound.

Maybe Mr. Kelly could just put up this picture here, a

picture of the munitions dump at Bangor. It's been around for

many years. These subs, these nuclear Trident missile-carrying

subs, will be going down the Hood Canal, down here, past

Camella Point, past Race Rocks, around Wilson Point and down

this narrow place into Bangor in Washington, landing right

about there.

This is, I think, a very fearful prospect, Mr. Speaker. This

is right on the doorsteps of this province, and it should

concern us all. It should concern our survival. It is a concern

of many of the MPs. And yet one MP admitted last Saturday that

there are some things that you just don't want to talk about.

He confessed that Trident was one of the things that people

don't want to talk about — even MPs. Even Mr. MacEachen, Mr.

Speaker.

I am concerned. This is 60 miles from this Legislature. It

is next to British Columbia, where we are trying to develop a

whole new programme for people, where we are being concerned

about the ecology, about reserving the best agricultural land,

about Gulf Islands, about tanker routes, about a better form of

taxation, about better programmes in schools and family courts,

et cetera, about programmes for senior citizens.

But it seems somewhat incongruous to me that this programme

of the Trident, the new programme that is going to be the main

military thrust on the Pacific of the United States, should be

60 miles from our borders without consultation and that it

should be so close that there will be a great deal of anxiety

by us all.

I feel that if we don't proceed and at least object to this,

we are going to be somewhat complicit, possibly through our

ignorance, Mr. Speaker, in this menace, in this escalation of

the arms race.

Some of the MPs, like Stu Leggatt and others, and I, feel

that the U.S. is moving away from a deterrent,

[ Page 28 ]

defensive position, to an offensive position, Mr. Speaker.

Since the end of World War II, as you know, both the western

powers and the Soviet bloc have operated from the position of

deterrent strategy, but the Trident significantly changes the

U.S.'s position to a first strike strategy. That's what I am

worried about. That's what I confess to you. I think,

prophetically, this House should be doing something about it.

This surely can only escalate the arms race with the Chinese

and with the Russians.

The United States had developed the MIRV, and here is a

picture of the MIRV. It's one of 24 nuclear missiles. All 24

are capable of knocking 408 cities or silos in Russia or China

or elsewhere. Each is equipped with the MIRV, the Multiple, Independently-targeted, Re-entry Vehicle, each capable of, once

well in its trajectory, altering that trajectory or improving

on it, and landing precisely in a silo, in what we call a hard

weapons situation, in Russia or wherever. This is a much

different situation from the old balance of terror, Mr.

Speaker. I think that this so-called breakthrough — as well as

this MIRV being able to alter its course while in its

trajectory, it can go 5,000 miles and land precisely, Mr.

Speaker, in a Russian silo where their missiles are housed —

should concern you and concern this House. You should be aware that in recent months the United States

have spent $2.5 billion a year in developing a sonar system, as

well as the MIRV, which is able to detect underwater submarines

any place in the world. Mr. Speaker, if tonight you want to

read, or a Member wants to read, please take the time to read

the hearings of the Committee on Armed Services of the United

States Senate. It's very well documented here. You can at least

thank the Americans for having the stuff in print.

This sonar detector is capable of finding a submarine in any

part of any ocean. You can see the consequences of these

so-called breakthroughs. The USSR will not have a deterrent for

the Trident system; at least they certainly don't now. The U.S.

has a first strike capacity, Mr. Speaker. That's a different

ball game, That's a very dangerous nuclear strategy, and we

need to be aware of it, we who are 60 miles away from this

nerve centre at Bangor. It's a very dangerous situation, in

terms of nuclear was, since the development of atomic weapons

35 years ago.

Does our law agree with this danger? Allan MacEachen doesn't

seem to. He doesn't seem to mind not being consulted about the

Trident. He says:

"I do not consider that it would be in Canada's interest to

make representations to the United States authorities

concerning the establishment of this base unless a peacetime

environmental hazard appears or is likely to develop."

What kind of hazard do we need to wait for, Mr. Speaker? I

wonder if in Canada we need to have some kind of a defence

against the U.S. defence system, at least against this kind of

defence system. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the U.S.

arsenal already includes 31 Poseidon missile-launching

submarines. Each has the capacity of 320 Hiroshimas. We are not

talking about 10. Congress has already approved 10 Trident

missile-launching subs. Each carries 24 missiles. Each can

destroy 408 different cities, or silos, or other

submarines.

Bangor, Washington, is a nerve centre and the site of this

operation. There will be 10 16,000-ton, 550-ft. submarines

passing Victoria, passing Race Rocks — they admit in this

documentation — possibly going into Canadian waters.

Isn't that a concern of this Legislature, of a sovereign

nation? The territorial imperative is as important to me as it

is to you. Surely the United States navy who, after all, are

going to be sharing the Straits of Juan de Fuca need to hear

our concern. They tell us that they admit that it might be

mined, that they might need to shoot their way out — get this,

Mr. Speaker — shoot their way out to the Straits of Juan de

Fuca. We admit that Russian trawlers will be coming even more

frequently past Cape Flattery, Carmella Point and Barkley Sound

to monitor these submarines as they move out on their deadly,

redundant mission.

I remind this House that radioactive fallout from such an

attack on this base or on the straits will undoubtedly land in

the southern part of British Columbia. I remind this House that

B.C. has evidently, in military language, already been

designated as a locale for deflect of other target missiles

from the Trident system. In the language of the military,

Bangor would become "the primary trade-off target" and the

population of B.C. would be written off as "collateral damage

in an initial nuclear attack."

In other words, we are the No. I target place on the North

American continent, Mr. Speaker.

You compound this with our already great concern about oil

spills.... I gather that today — I don't know the details of

that — the Premier is already concerned about....

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Chlorine, okay….tanker spills coming from

supertankers down the west coast. Think of the combination of

supertankers and the Trident missile launching submarines!

The Doukhobors came here yesterday and beautifully sang for

peace. We work for peace. But peace is not passive, Mr.

Speaker. It requires effort; it requires paying attention; it

requires doing some work. It requires a sense of justice, of

brotherhood,

[ Page 29 ]

and trusting. I don't believe the Americans should be

encouraged to escalate the already fearsome war and arms race.

This submarine will cost four times the budget of the United

Nations.

I am anxious. I call on this government to formally protest

to the United States, through the Canadian government, that on

moral, ecological and territorial grounds the construction of

this Trident missile base at Bangor, Washington, is a great

concern. I call on this government, especially Mr. Williams,

the Minister of environment.

My final sentence, Mr. Speaker, is that we release funds for

an independent study into the possible connection of our

industry and research in British Columbia with the U.S.

strategic military operations in Bangor or elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, when I began 60 minutes ago, I reminded you of

the dignity and the peace and the wisdom and the contribution

of Ned DeBeck, 92 years young. I remind you of the life and the

generosity and the experience of that man. Some of us would

like to share with that. I remind this House that this is the

place where some non-violent work can begin. I thank you for

the opportunity to express it. Thank you.

Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate,

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that if you

rise at any time before you intend to speak in your formal

debate, you may lose your place on the floor if anyone

objected. In this case I'm sure no one would object.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presented the 103rd report of the

Department of Education.

Hon. R.A. Williams presented the report of the secretariat

of the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Cocke presented the 101st annual report of the

vital statistics branch for 1972 and the annual report for the

year ended March 31, 1974, for the Medical Services Commission

of B.C.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:09 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada