1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 225 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): How sweet it is. Mr.

Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to the early show, I am delighted to say

a few words and, particularly, to so many smiling faces, which I think

is great tribute to the most kind and generous hospitality of His

Honour yesterday evening.

You know this premium hour is really a rare treat for a person in the Opposition….

AN HON. MEMBER: Golden hour.

MR. GARDOM: Golden hour. Golden days in your case, Mr.

Premier, golden days in your case. But this premium hour is, indeed, a

rare treat and I am usually allotted the time about 5:45, a quarter to

six, and I've got to finish by six o'clock. I want to give the Members

my assurance, right here and now, that I guarantee to finish by six

tonight. Make no mistake of that. It's also pleasant…oh, Simon and

Garfunkel are not in here. I was going to have a few words about them

but I see the Victoria Members are not yet with us. I suppose they're

still under a potted palm somewhere in the Empress Hotel, Mr. Speaker,

but I will reserve a few comments for them later as they come.

The Member from Kamloops, starting at this hour, I noticed that he

only has a two o'clock rather than a five o'clock shadow and, Mr.

Speaker, I intend to make absolutely no reference, during my talk, by

virtue of the fact that the hour is early for you, too, and you're

absolutely on your mettle. I'm not going to say a single, solitary

word, Mr. Speaker, about the evils of cigarette advertising or that

marvellous piece of legislation, which you will find number 2 in your

Bill Book.

I think all the talks so far, Mr. Speaker, have been very, very

good. I think it's been an excellent debate and I don't think that we

have not heard from any speaker, at least one very good and one very

sincere and one very concrete suggestion. You know, I thought for a

moment that, if all of these things were ever distilled into Government

policy, we'd have a veritable Utopia in B.C. Perhaps, this is what

we're working for, but we haven't quite got that far. I think all of

the Members who have spoken should indeed be complimented for their

contributions. The Government side started with Jim the Knife and I

notice they're ending with Dan the Knife, so they are being very

consistent in that regard.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, there is not any person in this Assembly

who's not making a very genuine effort to support that which he

believes in, and that is the job of all of us. However, in some cases

we have to question the belief. Of the speeches that I have heard to

this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like, and this is not a partisan

decision on my part, to give top credit to a very ennobling discourse

from a Member who's not yet present — the Member who sits up in the

corner here, yesterday, the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour. I

think he gave us a very provocative discussion and he expressed very

thoughtful sentiments. I think his message, purely and simply, Mr.

Speaker, was that democracy is on trial throughout the world and we,

who revere its continuance and feel in our bones that it is the best

method that poor, old, imperfect Man has yet designed to regulate

himself, have not only to keep but we've got to preach that kind of a

faith and preach the preservation of the concept of the continuing

dignity of the individual, the continuing quest for betterment,

equality before the law and opportunity for all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me this document. This is the

Throne Speech of the policies and philosophies of the Government of

British Columbia in a Province that is this year celebrating its one

hundredth birthday. I think this is a time that should have been the

time for inspiration to meet the challenge and the excitement of the

future, with a Throne Speech that, Mr. Speaker, certainly should have

gone down in the annals of our history as recording 1971 as B.C.'s

finest hour. What we've got here, Mr. Speaker, you should take a

careful look at it — it's something that you would sort of expect to

fall out of the back pew of a third-rate funeral parlour. It reads like

an obituary. It's lugubrious when it should have been happy, and it's

eulogistic when it should have been leaping forward. I'd say in three

letters, Mr. Speaker, the best thing that I can say for it is RIP — "Rest in Peace." This is what I would have liked to have heard. This is

the type of Throne Speech that I would have liked to have heard. It

would start like this:

Welcome to the Second Session of the Twenty-ninth Parliament. Roll up your sleeves, you've got a job to do.

First of all, happy birthday and congratulations, B.C. You're a

hundred years old, barely teethed in the time of the rest of the world

but, nevertheless, a little giant roaring to get going. You've only two

million people, energetic, industrious, with a twinkle in their eye and

a spring in their step, and an enormous land mass with a treasure which

is still barely scratched, and shorelined by a fabulous ocean with

untold bounty and infinite opportunity to what once was called the Far

East and is now the Near West, a Province with a beauty of climate of

spirit in the future that is unsurpassed. But we also experience the

troubles of our time, which are not only unto us — unemployment,

inflation, environmental difficulties, the congestion in our cities,

the apartness that has developed between Government and the citizens,

the lack of facilities for our aged, sick and downtrodden. It shall,

therefore, be our commitment to come, as best we can, within our own

ability, to immediate grips with all of these concerns of nagging

magnitude. It will be our job, Mr. Speaker, to ride hard not just to

encounter but to overcome.

The function of the S peech

from the Throne, in any parliamentary democracy, is not just as a

symbol of historic formality but it is as a beacon of significance for

the guidance of our people. Its responsibility is to set forth the

philosophies and policies of a Government and to catalogue the measures

of reform which we propose to adopt at this Session. In the debate that

follows, we shall welcome all constructive criticism and suggestions in

order that we may enrich our programmes for the good of the people of

the Province and, wherever possible, we shall act on these suggestions

from whatever side of the Floor they may emanate.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been invited to B.C. to

participate and join with us in our Centennial celebrations. We shall

extend to Her Majesty every hospitality but also see that, for once,

she has some fun, a time to relax and is able to enjoy herself as any

guest should. I'd say, Mr. Speaker, none of these continuing schedules

where she's opening everything

[ Page 226 ]

that has four walls and seeing every dignity from the dogcatcher up.

We shall recognize as our cardinal responsibility the preservation

of law and order, knowing that, in the furtherance of our democratic

process, without law and without order, the alternative is chaos and

anarchy and the subjugation of the rights of the individual. Laws that

are in force shall be enforced and with fairness, equality and wisdom,

and the laws that we have outgrown, or have become irrelevant, or which

we've given lip service to, shall be removed, because justice results

from legal respect and one cannot have legal respect for that which is

irrelevant, out of touch, unenforced or archaic.

Now, irrespective of the programmes of Government, other than ours,

many of which we criticize and many of which we criticize justifiably,

our trust shall be to do everything which is possible in our power to

infuse the economy and lessen the blight of unemployment. We shall

invest in the future by furnishing jobs, today. The funds are here, we

shall harness our resources and put them to work, work in the highways,

work in the bridges, work in the public structures, and we shall

shelter the sick and shelter the chronic and build the classrooms. As

an immediate incentive to boost housing in the private sector, we shall

eliminate the 5 per cent tax on building materials. We shall press the

of construction. In order that the home-owner shall benefit and not

have this saving gobbled up along the line by those in industry, be it

management or labour or any combination of them, we intend to grant a

rebate of the tax paid on such building materials, providing the same

is granted as a discount to the home buyer for his purchase price.

We heard a lot about the plight of our senior citizens. They have

made possible our heritage and when a buck was a buck and not just two

bits as it is today. Now, in so many cases, they are struggling on

fixed incomes or none, they're lonely, they're miserable, often hungry

and sick and they can't get by. So, some initial help for them. We

shall start building golden age residences to enable them to spend

their twilight years in dignity. For those senior citizens who own

their own homes, we shall grant a moratorium on land taxes, on a loan

basis, to enable them to remain in their surroundings as long as they

live. This tax moratorium loan would be an encumbrance upon their

property, payable either upon its disposition or upon their decease.

This is merely an investment, Mr. Speaker, and an excellent one.

In the field of labour management, in the public interest, we think

the wage price leapfrog should be very carefully considered and,

especially, from the position of those who end up most hurt, and, with

a view to establishing checks and balances in order to calm the tribal

dance between management and labour and establish, once and for all,

that, whenever the public interest is affected, these behemoths would

be subject to public microscope.

We shall establish an independent economic council and this council

shall be free from Government and free from management and free from

labour. Its job will be to deal with the three sides of the issue and,

if need be, throughout the complete bargaining process. Its function

will be to fact-find and to make public, information that is neutral

and independent in order to bring to an end the propaganda wars, the

slanted figures, the embellished facts and the pad of statistics with

which the public finds itself bombarded in almost every

management-labour dispute, today. The cost of this council would be

absorbed one-third each — one-third by management, one by labour, and

one by Government, so that they would each have an economic involvement

in the process. We hope this would bring some measure of better

economic stability to the Province by its clinical, hard and continuing

look at our whole labour management set-up. This would be five-pronged

from the point of production, market, standard of living, costs and

prices, and public interest.

There is absolutely no question, Mr. Speaker, in the complex and

interdependent society in which we live now, that big management and

big labour are no longer isolated unto themselves, and, whenever they

injuriously affect their third partner, the public, it, too, shall be

heard. In the final analysis, its interest shall be the one that shall

prevail.

Dealing with cities and municipalities, we would incorporate a new

philosophy for these things, be they, heretofore, regarded as creatures

of Government, but not in the future. They will be regarded as

partners, with a freer rein from the Province to guide their own

destinies, for example, in planning and in taxation. We shall initiate

an immediate review and revision of the whole Provincial-municipal tax

structure, for we appreciate that it's neither possible nor equitable

in the density situation that exists in this country to continue to

place the heaviest burdens on the property owners. It is our philosophy

that our tax policy shall have to be based on the premise that services

for land are to be paid for by taxes on land, and services for people

are to be paid for by taxes on people.

The long-range plans of the municipalities to date have been stifled

by virtue of their difficulties in the money market. In order to

bolster employment and in order to make these long-range plans and

projects feasible, the Provincial Government shall, heretofore and

thereafter, guarantee all future municipal bonds. Each and every

municipal bond issue shall receive the guarantee of the Government of

British Columbia. We would also call upon the Federal Government to

furnish income tax relief to the individual purchases of these

municipal bonds, to the extent that the interest which they would

receive from those bonds would be tax free in the hands of such

individuals. We conclude that this would be very much in the interests

of the municipalities, make the securities far, far more marketable and

be a great incentive for the small investor, because these securities

have got to be funded. This will be a good way to do it and a good way

to attract the necessary investment capital and, certainly, at a more

reasonable rate.

The transit needs of B.C. people have to be recognized as not merely

a civic or a municipal responsibility but a Provincial one, too. The

Greater Vancouver–New Westminster–Burnaby area obviously requires

immediate stimulation and infusion of dollars in order to prevent a

transit crisis. It is a question of either urban chaos or urban

survival. We shall, therefore, plough back to the city of Vancouver one

half of the motor-vehicle taxes that are collected out of that region

each year, which would be approximately $20 million and provide that as

an impetus to initiate the rapid transit authority in which we intend

to become a full partner.

Pollution — immediate war on pollutioning. We will say to the

polluter, "Beware!" We shall institute an environmental bill of rights

and establish a ministry of environment. Under its aegis, amongst other

things, there will be administration of a Province-wide Clean Air Act.

Our mandate will be that new industries will have to meet environmental

standards or their doors will remain closed. We shall encourage old

industries by depletion allowances and interest-free loans to come up to

[ Page 227 ]

scratch. Now, of course, the conversion from

polluter to nonpolluter will, obviously, provide more jobs. Dealing

with the perpetual offenders, they will definitely phase out, because

we view that the public interest shall be the main interest. Any

industries which have Government contracts and which repeatedly pollute

shall face cancellation of their agreement. Government business will be

done with the clean and not with the dirty, and there's plenty of the

former to be found in B.C. Insignificant fines are certainly not the

answer and penalties will have to be stiffened and injunctive processes

will be available against the defilers. We intend to show our teeth in

this region.

One of the myths that has to be destroyed, once and for all, is the

myth that the Government is the "they." The "they" — mysterious and

isolated, as opposed to the "we."

Whereas, in the past, there may have

been some distant officials in the mythological Court of Cecil I, we

shall incorporate, once and for all, a Government that is of, for and

by the people. The Government, as Robert Kennedy said, will be one that

will accommodate itself to the citizen rather than the other way

around. That is the kind of accommodation that we'd like to see in this

Province.

We'll institute a programme of legal rights to ensure and preserve

the concept of the individual, the Bill of Intrinsic Rights — the same

for all — the underprivileged, the privileged, the Government, the

citizens, the young and the old. A fair Compensation Act shall end the

iniquitous Cossack-like seizures that we have heretofore experienced,

and all of these things without fair hearing, without fair assessment

and, mostly, with a denial of all of the basic principles of natural

justice. No longer shall the seizor be the judge, the jury and the

unfair compensator.

Our citizens shall have the same rights against his Government that

his Government has against him, and we shall squash, like a beetle, the

hoary concept of the past — that the Crown can do no wrong, something

which should have perished with the Divine Right of kings. We intend to

lift that drawbridge. The Courts will be open to the people against the

Government, as they are now open to the Government against its people.

At long last, we shall see that those people, who are personally

injured as a result of crime, get treated at least as well as the

criminal. There shall be introduced a Criminal Victims Compensation

Act, along the lines of the existing no-fault insurance provision. We

shall shore up the law, expand the Securities Department to protect the

investor, make known the frauds, prosecute the white-collar crook, and

to the fullest extent of the law. The corporate balance sheets in B.C.

will become meaningful and they will show true values and not just a

series of hypothetical figures whose only virtue is that they add up.

These balance sheets shall be supported, upon oath, to give the

defaulters pause because they would then know that they could face the

penalties of perjury. A Conflict of Interest Act shall be introduced to

ensure that public officials and elected representatives, who, in some

cases, have difficulty making a decision themselves, are guided and

governed by a prescribed set of standards and in order to obviate any

conflict between their private interest and their public

responsibilities.

We shall ensure that no longer will it be able to be said in B.C.

that there's one law for the rich and another for the poor and we shall

provide legal care, not in the universal sense, for all, as in

medicare, but it shall be furnished for those who are without funds and

who establish proof of need and there shall be information centres for

legal assistance.

The Law Reform Committee will be instructed to expedite its research

into programmes and priorities of law reform. They will be further

directed to much more emphasize those branches of the law which most

concern themselves with people and with the greatest frequency of

matters which are before the people, say consumer protection,

improvement of minimum standards, the establishment of family forums to

incorporate each and every branch of family law and a review of all of

the statutes of the Province.

An Office of Ombudsman will be instituted and, most important,

completely free from Governmental or any form of political pressure.

Its job will be to help the citizens wade through the bureaucratic

snarls and the mountains of red tape.

Mr. Speaker, if a man wishes to buy cold beer or wine in his

favourite market he shall be able to do so and bring to an end the

hypocrisy of our former liquor laws. The ground rules in B.C. will be

civilized drinking attitudes and convenience to the consumer. No

longer, a starvation pittance granted to alcoholic rehabilitation and

to education against alcoholic abuse. We shall ensure that these

worthwhile endeavours are properly endowed and detoxification centres

will be initiated.

Routine housekeeping amendments for the improvement of existing

statutes will be placed in the hands of the Legal and Legislative

Committee of this House for its perusal and advice. There shall be

committees for every Portfolio and all committees will function. They

will also scrutinize any legislation that is pertinent to them and long

before it ever reaches the floor of the House for debate. We shall

establish the office of Auditor-General, with full authority to him and

to this Legislative Assembly to examine…( interruption ).

Well, we want him here. I couldn't care whether Ottawa wanted him or

not, my friend. We need him in the Province of B.C. I'm in the Province

of B.C. and I'm advocating this for the Province of B.C. We would give

him and the Legislative Assembly full authority to examine all public

assets, liabilities and expenditures, including those of the B.C. Crown

Corporations.

We'd institute a complete Hansard

and permit television and broadcast of the debates, and the public up

here would be entitled to sit in the galleries and make any kind of

notes they wish. A daily question and answer period should be

established and it would be our solemn commitment to bring this

Legislature, not only into this century but right into this decade, for

it is our philosophy that all public business means exactly what it

says — it is public. It shall be open to public scrutiny and the

secrecy shall end in B.C. once and for all.

The Cabinet shall be answerable and the Cabinet shall function and

no more out-for-lunch, out-of-job Ministresses without Portfolio. There

will be a Ministry of Environment, a Ministry of Fisheries, and an

Attorney-General to administer and enforce the law, and a Minister of

Labour to do just that and nothing else, and none of this two-hat

stuff. These are the critical Ministries of the moment, and this

half-time, part-time, 50 per cent time, is just like driving along the

rockiest of roads with two flat tires.

We also recognize that the cracker-barrel provisions of our Elections Act

are long overdue for review and we shall introduce amendments, being

guided by the undeniable principle of democracy that one man is equal

to one vote. In order to permit greater in-depth response and choice

from the public, we shall establish a system of preferential balloting.

There shall be fixed elections…( laughter ).

You know, Mr. Speaker, you have to have a little bit of semantic error in this House to wake everybody up. Elections

[ Page 228 ]

shall be on fixed and determined dates. Thank you

very much. Elections shall be on fixed and determined dates and

election expenses…you'd like to hear a little bit about that,

wouldn't you? Election expenses, per Member, over a figure that would

be determined by the whole of this House, would attract a tax levy of

50 per cent. Government advertising shall not identify any Member or

Portfolio within four months prior to the time of election. Also, the

Auditor-General would be empowered to bring restitution action against

any violator, because Government funds are public funds and not for the

political propagation of any party or any Member of this Assembly.

The forestry industry is B.C.'s lifeline and dramatic changes have

been experienced since the Sloan Commission about fifteen years ago and

I'd like to speak to you of some ten of them. Firstly, the ecological

commitments of the 1970's were not before Chief Justice Sloan. Logging

methods have altered. All procedures are now more sophisticated. There

is a much more highly integrated use of wood, a change of market, a

centralization of ownership, with the big getting bigger and the small

getting smaller, a greater degree of absentee landlords, and the

labour-management relations have become, certainly, far more disruptive

today than they were in 1956. Greater, also, is our need for

reforestation and research and, with all of these ten and, I think,

very, very substantial differences, we conclude that there's now needed

a second look at the findings adopted by the Sloan Commission, which

I'll readily concur gave B.C. full value.

Hence, we will entertain a careful review of its findings in the

light of today's operations and solicit particulars and opinions from

all sectors, with particular reference as to whether or not there have

been the best adaptations to the changes which have occasioned. Now,

there's obviously a lot of questions there, Mr. Speaker, and the

answers have to be obtained. I don't think there's anyone sitting in

this House or standing in this House, today, who could say that he

would have those.

The mining industry has very validly criticized, recently, the fact

that mineral claims in the Province are being rather wretchedly

processed and this seems to be pretty well staff failure more than

anything else, or not enough staff, is, perhaps, the best way to

express that. All necessary staff increases shall be attended to to

rectify that situation. Our goal would be that the industry would,

annually, generate an income impact of $1 billion within the next five

years and, to that end, it would be our responsibility and duty to

extend every encouragement possible.

A fellow who's too often forgotten and too long forgotten and,

particularly, now, today, in view of the fact that we are in an

urbanizing trend, is the farmer. He's the last person to receive

increases, he's the first to suffer cuts and he's being milked left,

right and centre by each level of distribution. We would stress the

more direct route — encourage farmers' markets, producer to consumer,

so that each of them can have some degree of a break.

A scientific, industrial research park will start at the University

endowment lands in Vancouver–Point Grey so that British Columbians can

learn to process their natural products and not just cut them, dig

them, catch them, bag them and then ship them away. We herald the

demise of the policy of extract and run. The greatest raw materials and

best supply of natural energies are ours and "Made in B.C." shall

become our label. Terrific emphasis shall be placed on secondary

industry, with accommodation loans and area incentives for new products

and processes.

Education — it's trite to say and we all agree it's darned expensive

— but it's obviously our least expensive raw material for a successful

tomorrow. But we have to be sure that we get true educational value out

of the educational dollar. New buildings should be integrated both in

design and in function for community use as well as school use. We

stress that the best teachers should teach and the best administrators

should administer, believing very much in the Peter principle, in that

regard, and we would encourage that these lines not be crossed. We

further conclude that equal pay doesn't necessarily produce equal

effort or equal result, and that there should be some type of an

enriched or merit pay for the better instructors. We view our public

universities as organizations, which should best complement, as opposed

to compete with, each other and in-depth priority should be determined

between the three major universities for the teaching of the more

intensive specialty courses.

A Financial and Academic Committee shall be struck to set priorities

for the distribution of Government funds for all higher education and

to establish consistent educational standards. Ad hoc decisions shall

be replaced by long-range planning so as to enable our universities and

colleges to make a more effective contribution to the welfare and

future of our Province.

A fact of life is that independent schools in this Province are

relieving B.C. taxpayers of approximately $40 million, annually, of

expense and are educating about 25,000 pupils. They are filling a need

and they're doing a job, but they're facing crippling expenses. I say,

providing they meet Provincial standards and providing they subject

themselves to a degree of school board control and inspection as

mutually agreed to, that assistance would be awarded to qualifying

independent schools to the extent of 50 per cent of their operational

costs on the basis of existing Provincial student unit cost plus normal

access, of course, to all normal and usual educational aids.

Concerning pension investments, you'll be asked to consider

amendments to the pension statutes in order to provide fair and more

contemporary return to all of those who have contributed. We view that

the investment portfolios of all of these B.C. Government–administered

pension funds should be carefully examined and that a B.C. Pension

Investment Committee, once again separate from Government, be

established to furnish investment counsel in order to pave the way to

change that the existing Portfolios will not be based on almost total

concentration of one investment but to a broader base for greater

security.

We strongly support the views of the Canadian Dental Association and

the Canadian Medical Association, the U.S. Public Health Service and

the World Health Organization that community fluoridation is very

needful. This decision should continue to be that of the community

concerned but, for consistency of democratic choice, we propose to

forthwith alter the plebiscite requirement from 60 per cent to a simple

majority. I'd say, for reduction of tooth decay, the saving of wasteful

hours of patients box-carred in the waiting rooms of dentists and for

some elimination of the high dental costs, that the choice is,

certainly, that of the public but it should be obvious.

In the other fields of health care, as much emphasis as possible

should be placed upon prevention. Educational films of the tragic and

drastic results of drug abuse should be circulated in the schools and

all schools. Immunization for prevalent disease should be provided at

Government cost, and speedily and without controversy, and in this

regard our

[ Page 229 ]

Minister of Health would be on call at all times.

For the sick, we would have open operating theatres and have them

available seven days a week. We would construct more convalescent and

recuperative facilities and many small and pleasant extended care

centres, evenly distributed throughout the Province, with a view to

eliminating as much as possible the heretofore custodial aspects of

chronic and geriatric assistance.

Dealing with our native Indians, no longer shall the book be closed

on them. They are 45,000 in number and they're growing. This isn't the

metal but it's the torch. We've got to grab it and make sure that this

is, definitely, the era of emergence of the Indians and see that they

have exactly the same services as the rest of our community, whether

they are on their reservations or off.

An immediate set-off against the escalation of automobile insurance

rates, and pending the effectiveness of the Rating Board, we would

direct that a motorist shall be entitled to a discount to the extent of

bank interest on any premiums he prepays or, failing that, that the

insurers may not insist upon prepaid insurance. The interest in this

money is a profit which should be ploughed back to the motorist. All

new motor-vehicles imported into B.C. will have to be equipped with a

proper bumper. It's an accepted fact that the automobile industry has

not produced a functional bumper for over thirty years. It is estimated

that last year, alone, in the United States over $1 billion worth of

damage could have been eliminated had a bumper been designed to do the

job that it was intended to do — keep a car out of all but major

trouble. We view that this gingerbread construction has got to stop and

that the manufacture for obsolescence has been a safety and economic

hoax of the worst order. B.C. may well be small but, to the car

industry, it should deliver this caveat, "Get with it or keep out." To

cut down the accident rate, we shall establish compulsory driver

education in all of our secondary schools, and Province-wide compulsory

motor-vehicle testing.

Welfare, properly called rehabilitation, requires total

reassessment. It, certainly, requires adequate personnel and improved

departmental morale and a completely new attitude to better enable

recipients to acquire capacity, purpose, self-devotion and the

wherewithal to leave its ranks. The Department shall become subject to

total investigation by a committee of this House. Day care centres need

help and they shall obviously receive it.

Leisure time is on the upswing and recreation has become a part of

our healthy life. We'll stress the return to participating, as opposed

to spectating, and shall incorporate programmes of instruction and

guidance for that purpose.

Skagit shall be saved. Powder Mountain shall be diffused and Cypress

shall proceed as a public park. I state great congratulations to the

Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for his efforts. A few names

have been suggested but, I think, it would be a little untoward to tag

an area of such natural grandeur with a human label. You know, Barrett

Bowl sounds a little too culinary to me, in any event, so we suggest

that only certain of the runs be named after the more active

participants in the affair. But, again, receiving first call for you,

we're sure that you prefer your distaff side to be granted the honour.

Hence, the most beautiful site will be fittingly called "Shirley's

Run." The avalanche area will be called "Benguet Keep-off." The slalom

will be named "The Council," after West Vancouver, which, really, took

more turns in this thing than anyone else. The downhill, in view of its

very, very accelerated rate of descent, will be appropriately called

"Social Discredit." The jump will be "Kiernan's Last Leap." The

slipperiest slope will obviously be known as "Alpine" and we're going

to have two bunny runs — one is going to be called "Williston" and the

other is going to be called "Won'tiston."

Mr. Speaker, I say, with guidance from above, and energies of this

Assembly and the desire of our fellow British Columbians, all of this

cannot only be done but shall be done.

This is the type of Speech from the Throne that I would have liked

to have heard. We do have to remember one thing — that programmes for

reform in this Province seem to be more in the ballot box than they

seem to be in this Legislature. But the people are very slow to catch

the Premier's programme for power, which is wither the force of the

Legislature, magnify the power of the Cabinet, put the brakes on the

people's access to information and permit secrecy to reign supreme, ram

the Legislation through and to heck with the sifting and screening of

any policies by the general public. This programme for power is,

really, so simple and so obvious, it's somewhat odd that it's still

rather obscure to some people. It's certainly not political magic. It

is just political in mandarism.

This is it. Three Sessions of the Premier's programme for power. The

first Session: catch the new boys, bring in a little innocuous

legislation, no money, tighten the belt, build up the reserves the next

year, harass the Liberals and ignore the Socialists. The second

Session: all the contentious legislation, get it off the trays so the

people aren't aroused at the polls, loosen up the money belt just

enough to whet an appetite, harass the Liberals but, towards the end,

start to puff a little straw into the Socialists. The third Session — this is the wondrous one: all of the motherhood stuff and the

cornicopias spilleth everywhere, cool it with the Liberals, build the

Socialists into the biggest menace since the days of Caligula, then he

calls himself St. George, solicits public assistance and runs around

the Province trying to tilt at the little straw dragon that he built

himself. But the flaw, Mr. Speaker, is in the mould and the flaw is

this — it is his capacity to self-destruct, because you can fool some

of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the

time. One day, the big tent will fold up and disappear into the night — the sooner the better.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to perform this

awesome job today of winding up this debate on behalf of this side of

the Legislature. I want to pay my respects to everybody I've not had an

opportunity to say hello or goodbye to. Everybody's looking very well.

The second Session is here and, as the previous speaker said, this is

probably the mid-Session. We're half-way through knowing each other, as

it were, that is, those who have got a survival rate and, all in all,

it's been a good start.

The previous speaker was brief. I thought he wrote his speech very

well. I sensed he had a speech and he was looking for a role. The sad

fact, Mr. Speaker, is, and we may as well get this out of the way right

off the bat, the Liberals don't have a role in this Chamber. In this

Chamber, Liberals don't have a role as they don't have a role outside,

because they're frankly disclaiming the role that they've had before.

They should remember that the person who they so frequently depart from

these days — the Prime Minister of the country — is essentially the man

who got them there in the first place.

[ Page 230 ]

I noticed that the Member, who just took his seat, spoke of King

Cecil I. I'm not one of his supporters, if, indeed, he's referring to

the person I think he's referring to, but I notice he didn't mention

President Trudeau and, I think, thereby hangs a tale that we should all

seriously think about. One of the things he said, of course, and I

picked this up because I'm always interested in debates on the

Elections Act, that's our survival rope, you know. He talked about a 50

per cent tax levy on political donations.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no, no.

MR. HALL: That's what you said, Mr. Member. A 50 per cent tax levy on political donations…( interruption ).

It just means that those who get a lot now will just get twice as much

as before to be where they are. We know which of the Parties the

wealthy communities support and that 50 per cent tax levy doesn't

appeal to me one bit.

In summarizing this debate, Mr. Speaker, I want to disagree with the

previous speaker. I, personally, and I'm speaking purely personally

now, I felt it's been a dull debate. It's been sparked only on a few

occasions in the last two weeks and the cause is obvious. The cause is

because of the dull Speech from the Throne. I think that the previous

Member summed that Speech up and I don't intend to spend much time

discussing its content, rather, the omissions and the things we've

heard since.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I honestly feel there has been an

unreal quality to the work of the total Legislature in the last two

weeks and I don't want, please, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that I'm

criticizing people on the other side. I'm not. I think the House has

seen an unreal quality in our debates in the last two weeks and I feel

that sincerely and that all Members share this feeling. It was caused,

in the main, by Opening Day and the realization that, whilst those

traditional ceremonies were going on a week ago Thursday, a quarter of

a million people in British Columbia were barely existing on a minimal

level of employment and of income, a level below that which is classed

as subsistence. I think everybody in the House feels that and I want to

just interject here that, in a way of a criticism, if you like, that

only one Member on the Government side of the House has talked about

that problem and expressed himself in the terms of the people we're

talking about as individuals. I want to compliment the Member from

Vancouver Centre for doing that. He was the only Member on the

Government side who talked about the individual problem. For those who

are casting around looking for leadership material, I've had some

experience there. I would command that maybe they should be looking in

that direction ( interruption ). I was successful, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: For how long?

MR. HALL: For as long as it took you to pull the plug on the election. I don't mind admitting that, but my job was fulfilled.

Over 20 per cent of our people, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker, exist below the declared poverty level and all of that was, I

think, brought into sharp focus on Opening Day by the orderly

demonstration that happened outside the Parliamentary buildings and,

then, was brought into even sharper, tragic focus by the stupid

incidents in the gallery. We've all thought about that a lot, everyone

of us. We thought about it in different ways. I do want to remind you,

Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will remember this when we think of those

events, that I was the first Member of this House last year to talk

about the problems outside and the growing irrelevancy and the possible

confrontation. Those thoughts have been picked up by other Members in

the House and I want to, particularly, commend, as I will later on, the

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour, who made mention of them yesterday.

I'm going to return to that point and that growing irrelevancy later.

In reporting to my constituents over the weekend and reporting to my

Party Members and my family, they asked me about the Throne Speech and

how it affected Surrey. I was unable, really, to tell them very much

about it, as I have said. That's unfortunate because my riding is one

of the first to feel the effects of bad Government, one of the first to

really feel the effects of stupid policies. Some general references in

the Throne Speech will, of course, affect the good people there but

there's one specific reference, and I use this to buttress my argument

about growing irrelevancy and to put it where it belongs not just

simply into the halls of the unemployed or the young people but all

people, and this is the reference on page 3 to the Fraser River flood

control programme. You know, that's a hollow joke out in Surrey, Mr.

Speaker? a hollow joke. The Diking commission out there has given up

long ago because they have seen no action, only these empty statements

in the Throne Speech, and the empty promises in the Budget Speech, and

the lack of expenditure flowing from the estimates. They discussed it

at the failure of the joint programme and they've joined the ranks,

those farmers, those pioneers, out in the Surrey area, have joined the

ranks of the people who feel this growing irrelevancy that Members are

referring to.

The other reference in the Throne Speech, of course, moving from the

general to the specific, was in the matter of welfare rates. In my

riding, Mr. Speaker, I've seen this cost increase over three-fold

during the past three years from $4 1/2 million to $15 million. $4 1/2

million to $15 million, a burden that's caused a revolt in the

Municipal Hall and in the Aldermen. The Council threatened to withhold

payments. They've gone through the UBCM. They've again threatened to

withhold payments and, now, they're saying that they're going to have

to use their welfare money to pay for the snow removal costs in that

municipality. That's how disorganized the policies of this Government

have made the municipality of Surrey. That's how the silly behaviour of

this Government has caused an equally stupid reaction on the part of

that municipality.

In looking back over the past ten days, I think of some of the

comments that have been made by some of the Government backbenchers

during the debate. The Member from Delta referred to a wasteful

educational programme. He's talking about the money that goes into it

and the fact that we are not getting, I suppose, the delivered dollar

value. Both the Members from the Peace River area talked about poor

roads and the way that the Government had forgotten the North. The

Member from the Cariboo was a critic of the PGE and he said they were

causing pollution and he agreed, I think, with me about the absurd

welfare formula. The Member from Centre said that the Government was,

essentially, asleep, looking at statistics, and he wanted the public

works programmes now and he complained about a dog-in-the-manger

attitude over Provincial land in the city. In Richmond, the Member

there complained about the signs of a police state and he believed that

this Government, this Provincial Government, this little Government,

had a role to play in curbing inflation. He talked about energy

credits. I

[ Page 231 ]

haven't had a letter since my television appearance

last week from the Member in Prince George, who has the same idea. I

think we should get you two together, then, maybe, I'll understand what

you're both talking about. It seems to me that the Member from Oak Bay

was talking about a wasteful health programme and then we had an

interesting admission from the Member from Vancouver South, that's the

Second Member, that we were told to cut back on public works programmes.

I just register these as we go past as being some interesting

comments in the speeches to date. Then we had the really big

admissions, Mr. Speaker, we had the admissions of mistakes by the

Cabinet. We had the statement from the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources, the Minister for Pollution, that they've really been

doing it all the wrong way around. That's what we've been telling him

for a long time. We've been telling him, since I've been in this House,

that the pollution programme was the wrong way around, that the time to

talk about pollution is before the development goes in not after you've

done all the work. I'll return to that when I deal with Utah Mines.

But, at least, he's realized that the total effect of development has

to be measured in social, cost-accountancy terms and that's got to take

place before the first sod is turned or the first electric cable goes

in.

The Attorney-General admitted he's now realized the truth that, if

the public is forced into a compulsory insurance scheme, the public

must be protected and not gouged, and that the public has the right to

see the justification for any increase before such an increase is

rammed down their collective throats. I think we've still got a

ridiculous insurance plan, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think we should be

satisfied until we see a complete Government-operated, compulsory auto

insurance scheme. That's been up as an issue for a long time and I

suggest the Government will eventually get around to that.

Last year every single Member spoke about pollution and I want to

share some experiences with you, Mr. Speaker, because I've been up in

the Port Hardy area on a couple of occasions attending the hearings

that were held in connection with Utah Mines. The last two times I went

up there to attend hearings, I was the only Member of the Legislature

there. I missed the Member of the riding, I suppose, in a personal way,

and I thought that he would have been able to have got there and found

out what was going on. But I wanted to tell him that the report we got

from the Minister wasn't entirely accurate. The facts, as I understand

them, are that the application was to discharge this incredible figure

— 9.3 million gallons of effluent per day — that means, Mr. Speaker,

for every year, we're going to flood an area that would be equal to 20

square miles to the depth of one foot — 20 square miles to the depth of

one foot. Half of that effluent, half of that incredibly sized area

that will be flooded to one foot, contains in it by weight suspended

solids with cyanide, zinc and other reagents.

Now, the Minister said that there were no scientific facts, really,

presented at the hearing. Well, I was there, and he wasn't. I want to

tell you that, if ever the young people of British Columbia should have

been proud, it was the day a young fellow, called Mr. Moore, stood up

at those hearings and presented real hard scientific facts to that

hearing, ruled and chaired by Mr. Venables. He presented facts after

facts after facts of the most abstruse and esoteric nature about tides

and currents and layers. To say that there was no real scientific

evidence presented there is a lot of nonsense.

The hearings themselves were held up in Port Hardy and everybody who

attended the hearings had to fly into Port Hardy or get in somehow or

other because nobody living in the area attended the hearings. No hotel

accommodation. The Mayor, for instance, put up a number of press men. I

slept in the house of the editor of the local paper. It was ridiculous.

Every single hotel room was full and then we held the hearings in a

hall out of town, six or seven miles out of town, having to get taxis

to get there, a mile away from the nearest place where you could only

get a cup of coffee, let alone a meal. The temperature in the hall must

have been close to freezing, Mr. Speaker, and they lasted from 8:30 in

the morning till 8:00 at night, 8:30 in the morning till 8:00 at night.

The most absurd way of doing the people's business I've ever seen in my

life. But interestingly enough, when we were in Port Hardy the night

before they started, we were told that there was an announcement out by

the Director of the Pollution Control Board that the permit was going

ahead anyway, that the permit was going ahead anyway. And this was

printed in the newspaper and at noon the following day after all the

people in that building, in that Lions Gate Hall, I think it was, or

Lions Hall, trooped a mile or so to the airport to get a cup of coffee,

the Province , that grand newspaper…( interruption ).

No, no, hit the area. I watched the Director of the Pollution Control

Board read this very

article while sitting on a stool in the airport

restaurant: "Utah Mine Go Ahead Obvious. B.C.'s Director of Pollution

Control says it's obvious that the Utah copper molybdenum mining

project will be allowed to go ahead." I don't know why I spent the $72

to go up there, really. I don't know why those people went up there.

The night before, when I was in the Port Hardy Hotel, I saw a fellow I

knew who's in the electrical energy business. I asked him what he was

doing up there and he said, "Oh, I'm doing the preliminary work for the

32 megawatt cable that's going in for the mine."

But the hearings are still on. A mockery, silly, absolutely silly,

but it's true and now we've had what we understand to be a reversal of

policy. Let me say, before the small group to my left gets too

exercised about this, that their Minister, their pollution fighter,

their brave Cabinet Minister Davis, who wants to declare a park in the

Georgia Strait, he's approved it. He's approved of this scheme, so, I

think, it really means that the role that the Liberal Party has to

offer in this House is having the very support cut right from

underneath it.

You know, we can go into Buttle Lake…and before the Liberals start

applauding the news and the speeches of the people who opposed that,

remember where they stood on Buttle Lake, remember where they stood.

Their leader said that Buttle was beautiful, Buttle was beautiful. All

the warnings have come true. Every warning this side made about Buttle

Lake has come true. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the lake may

become the richest ore body in the world ( laughter ).

I was interested in the announcement made by the Minister about the

incorporation of another Cabinet Minister in this Environmental

Committee, this ecological committee. They've recruited the Minister of

Health. I was surprised about that, because we've been calling for the

Minister of Health to be in the pollution fight for a long time, even

though he was seated only a couple of years ago. But I found out why

they wanted him on. He's passed his test. He's passed that rigid test

for all the pollution fighters. He passed it in Trail when he wouldn't

allow the public or the public health officials to know what the real

readings were about smoke emission in the city of Trail…how he moved

the

[ Page 232 ]

machines that registered the pollution in Trail and

they can't get them back. Once you've done that, you're a natural to be

on the Pollution Control Committee ( interruption ).

You're a natural. No reports allowed and the public health office is

not to announce or to see the readings. The policy on pollution and

environmental defense has got to be fairly simple. It's got to be tough

and, most important, it has to be backed up by some desire. That's

really, all we're asking for. The mechanics of the thing aren't that

difficult. It's the absence of desire that bothers me. A number of

principles occur to us. One is that the rate of return to people

measured in social as well as economic terms must be the guiding

principle of any development. That's simple, it just needs some desire.

We, on this side of the House, reject the concept of growth for

growth's sake. You can't condense that down into any fewer words, Mr.

Speaker. All it needs is some desire and commitment. We must insist

instead…. I'll start that over ( interruption ). That's right. That's like a Social Credit Caucus meeting — sterile atmosphere.

Establishment of this principle calls for, instead, that we should

insist on development policies that will improve the quality of life

and to eliminate unjust economic conditions. We've proposed the

establishment of an Environmental Control Department or Council,

independent of Government and industry. If we provided such a Council

with funds, they would have the general responsibility of mobilizing

the best scientific and social knowledge about the state of our

environment. They could identify and plan the needed research and they

could provide the Government and the public with information on the

problem. We suggest that the Government really do what they said they

were going to do and, that is, to build a central planning agency of

the Government which will, as a continuing function, assess the

long-term environmental effects of all the Government programmes. We

should require that all the new large-scale developments, as well as

the new chemical and technical innovations, be evaluated for their

effect, their overall effect, on the ecology before their introduction.

We should set up a monitoring system and we should leave it to measure,

to analyze and to report changes in the environment and provide early

warning. We should establish and enforce the standards of those

permissible levels that that technical committee tells us are safe.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, about unemployment. We had a

debate one evening on unemployment. I mentioned, at that time, the kind

of debate I would like to have seen. I think we can all agree on the

Federal failures and there's no point in just kicking them around

forever and ever. Their failure is complete and total and a shocking

disgrace. I expect the Minister of Municipal Affairs to follow me to

canvass well that particular aspect. He'd be less than the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, if he didn't. But there is a Provincial role, Mr.

Speaker. Funnily enough the Minister of Agriculture, an awfully silent

Member of the House, admitted that there is a Provincial role. So did

the Member from Vancouver Centre. The tragedy, Mr. Speaker, is not that

they haven't done anything about it but that they can't see that they

should and could. That's the tragedy.

Their role is, of course, to prime the economic pump by public works

to encourage and to guide — and they can bring pressure. We have seen

the pressure this Government can bring on anybody it wants to bring.

They can guide and they can encourage by pressure on the private

sector. They can do what some of their antecedents did during the wars,

where we saw mobilizations of effort. I don't need to spend much time

on how that can be done. There should be some fact-finding going on.

The Labour Committee, Mr. Speaker, should be called into action.

I regret to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that this morning we attempted

to get a motion into that committee, that would have seen the Labour

Committee moving forward, that would have said that the Standing

Committee on Labour should meet each week, in accordance with

long-standing practice, to hear representations on matters concerning

labour which the public may wish to submit, that we invite

representations from employer and employee organizations concerned with

collective bargaining, that we get down to some work, that we find out

what's going on.

From 1930 to 1935, there was 14 1/2 per cent unemployed. We're fast

approaching that figure, fast approaching that figure, and I share the

concern of the Minister of Industry and Trade Developments over

truthful figures. He said he doesn't know what they are but thinks they

are inflated. I'm sure he's right. I'm sure he's right. I don't want to

casually toss figures of 99,000 about, but I feel we should know. I

feel we should know what kind of unemployment, what skills are being

underemployed, what age groups are involved.

I'm told, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that over 13 per

cent of the under-twenty work force is unemployed. That's a tragedy.

How can the Minister of Education go around building schools, opening

schools and saying what a wonderful Province it is and what a future

you've got, when 13 1/2 per cent of the people under twenty are

unemployed? I joined with the Minister, I praised him, I think, six

months ago, for opening new schools and seeing the new things that are

going on. Schools that are too late, I might add, but, nevertheless,

they're there. How can we look those people in the face when 13 1/2 per

cent of them are unemployed?

There's an increase, Mr. Speaker, a 60 per cent increase in the

number who have been unemployed for over six months. Now, it's one

thing being out of work for two weeks. It's one thing being out of work

for four weeks. You can make do, you can borrow a buck from your uncle,

you can cash something in. But when you are unemployed for over six

months you're down the tube. This Government should be finding out

what's going on and we're not doing that. The Minister of Labour is

adding fuel to the flames every time he stands up and opens his mouth.

By continuing to tackle organized labour in this Province he is adding

fuel to the confrontation. I don't mind him privately getting up-tight.

I'd get up-tight, too, if I were him, but he's got an extra role to

play. Leave the hatcheting to your backbenchers about organized labour,

Mr. Minister of Labour, and you play the role in the middle — the

neutral role. Have your private thoughts but not your public

utterances, because the day is coming when the goodwill of this

Government is going to run out if you're not careful, Mr. Minister, and

your continued attacks on organized labour in this Province are doing

your Government no service whatsoever. Similarly, the Minister of

Lands, Forests, and Water Resources can't resist getting into the act

every now and again. Six months ago, he told the IWA, "Don't bother

asking for any more money, it's not there." What right has he got to

say that and how does he know? Now, he's told us, a week ago, that the

cut is down, the inventories are up, look for short time working. You

might not have said it in that many words, Mr. Minister, and I don't

accuse you, of all people, of insincerity, but I do say that your role

as a Cabinet Minister demands that you refrain from that kind of

statement. Take advice from your Leader,

[ Page 233 ]

who doesn't make that kind of mistake ( interruption ). That's right. I might come to those later on.

There was a $64 million surplus and we drew back on public works.

Public works were halted, yet the surplus was supposed to be for a

rainy day. All the pension funds were in Hydro, none of that magic

bookkeeping, none of that transference last year, none of those magic

fingers in the till moving and ladling the money around so we could do

the work. Just static. The borrowings, the school borrowings went from

$76 million in 1967 to $70 million in 1970. That's cooling it off.

That's Trudeauism and the Premier did exactly the same thing as the

Prime Minister of this country. The hospital boys went from $20 million

in 1968 to $6 million in 1970. That's cooling it off. The NHA housing — and maybe we'll hear something about housing from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs — NHA Housing, the last full year, 1969, we've picked

up half a million dollars from Ottawa, half a million dollars, and

Ontario picked up 8.8 million dollars. That's hardly doing our thing.

The morale of the people who are unemployed is important and I want

to say, Mr. Speaker, that you're not going to improve the morale by

having headlines in the paper that says ten thousand jobs and then

having them find out that it's a myth. When asked about these ten

thousand jobs, the Member of the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen

said, "It was statistically relevant to say that ten thousand jobs

existed." What on earth does he mean by "…statistically relevant to

say?" Were they there or weren't they there? What an answer to a guy

with qualifications that goes for a job to say that, "There are ten

thousand jobs but they're statistically relevant." He went on to say

that they existed when the turnover, through retirements and

promotions, was taken into consideration. Then, when he left the PAB

office, he said, he realized that he was being offered a hypothetical

job. That's a lovely thing to do to the morale of the unemployed in

this Province. You know, ten thousand jobs rings a bell somewhere.

Weren't we going to lose ten thousand jobs one time and something

happened? That figure seems to be stuck in the Ministers' craw.

I propose, Mr. Speaker, instead, like Manitoba, we put into the pot

our 10 per cent share for housing, like they have done, $55 million — that's what they've done to build, in their case — and we can match it

for 3,650 housing units. I propose, like Manitoba has done and that's

not one of those half Provinces that I hear about so much, to put into

the kitty for municipal works programmes $6 million. Surely, we can

find $6 million over there somewhere. That's what Manitoba did.

Another idea I might suggest to the Minister of Education and to the

Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Labour is to open up the

education system right now for the unemployed. Open it up. Fix it up

through agencies or night schools or adult education or the

universities, get some task force going so that, at least, those people

unemployed can learn during this period of forced idleness. Many of

them will want to do that. I see no signs you even believe that they

exist out there. There should be a ban on overtime. We should

accelerate the public works programme, we should use the Labour

Committee and, I think, we should have an immediate conference on

housing. I know that sounds like a typical politician's statement — a

conference on housing — but I've got some confidence in that Minister

because he's really on the campaign trail. I think he could share a

conference and come up smelling like a rose, having the decisions made,

and make himself the hero of the hour, the hero of the hour. Get the

decision-makers in one room, Mr. Minister, and we can get some housing

going. All the lumber in the world at the cheapest possible price, with

most of the carpenters in this Province unemployed, with lots of Crown

land and we can't build houses. You've got to be a genius to do that, a

genius to do that.

The side effects of unemployment though, Mr. Speaker, are welfare

and I've illustrated the effects in Surrey where there are other

problems. I just want to mention one because it's more than a passing

interest. I understand the Minister without Portfolio talked about it — it's the question of deserted wives. I just want to say, and I've lost

the Minister of Labour and the Attorney-General, again. I guess he's

gone. I want to see that this problem is solved because the pattern of

prosecution of husbands who have deserted wives and vise versa

is so varied, so incredibly different from one area to the other that

suspicion is aroused in the minds of both parties involved. My

suspicions are aroused, too, in terms of the efficiency and strength of

the family courts. I will refer, I guess, to that when the

Attorney-General is up for estimates.

We've had the problem in Surrey, Mr. Speaker, of the private

hospitals. I want to be careful what I say because, I understand, that

there is still a lawsuit going on. I do want to say this — that the

municipalities won't pay the rate that the private hospitals want, that

the Welfare Department won't pick up the difference, the Council that I

am involved with, naturally, the Surrey Council, has lost one case, won

another and now it's gone further up the lists. In the meantime, they

are not paying the money. Now, I appreciate that there may be legal

reasons why they don't want to pay the money, but I'll tell you what

else is happening and that is that the people on social welfare in the

private hospitals in Surrey aren't even getting their comfort money.

The Council and the Social Welfare Administrator are so wrapped up in

this silly, legal problem that the elderly people who are trapped, as

it were, are locked into those special nursing homes, those rest homes,

aren't even getting their $10 comfort money. That's pretty grim. I

raised this over and over again with the Department and with the

doctors involved who have put patients there, and it's a sad case of

bureaucracy just running rampant over innocent people.

I think we're still due an explanation, Mr. Speaker, about the tax

proposals of the Minister of Rehabilitation. I suppose we may have to

wait until the Budget Debate for that, but I'm sure we're all curious

to know the full details of the way he's managed to take one part of

the Carter Report and one part of the White Paper and mix them up and

come up with another report so that apparently a dollar is a dollar

only when you are on social welfare, only when you are on social

welfare.

I want to turn my attention for a second to education. In Surrey,

we're now the third biggest district, according to the last report. Our

problems are those of a growing municipality and the main problem it

faces right now is the whole question that surrounds the assembly of

land for these schools. In Surrey, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the

acquisition of fifty school sites in the next six years. Fifty new

schools in six years. That's got to be on today's prices, I suppose, in

terms of land acquisition costs and building — somewhere in the order

of $40 to $50 million. Yet, in the north end of the riding, where the

crowded area is, already, I am hearing people, taxpayers and officials

and so on, say that we can't afford the price for the land, that maybe

we should build up, maybe we should cut off playing fields and so on

and so forth. I can see the beginnings of the kind of decision

[ Page 234 ]

that must have been made years ago that saw

two-storey schools built in Vancouver without playing fields. The east

end getting the dirty end of the stick, or the pointed end of the

stick, and the good schools going on the west side. I don't want to see

it happen in North Surrey because I believe that a child in North

Surrey is entitled to exactly the same as the kid in South Surrey and I

want to impress upon the Minister of Education the problems of that

growing area. The Surrey-Delta-Coquitlam area is the fastest growing in

the Province. We all make that claim but the facts are in on that area,

to the north of the river and to the south of the river. The problems

there are going to bedevil this Government over the next year until,

perhaps, there's a chance for a change of Government. I want to make

sure that you're well aware.

I was going to deal at some length, Mr. Speaker, with the finance

formula. I believe it's got to be changed. I think it's had a levelling

down effect but I'm going to leave those comments to another debate,

perhaps, the educational estimates.

May I just say, however, in passing, that the disaster that's been

caused by Bill 86 will haunt this Government and the record of this

Government for a long time.

Well, the Minister's shaking his head so I'm tempted to go on with

my analysis of the financial formula. The fact of the matter is, that

if you do go over 110 per cent, that's one thing, and all seven

referendums that have gone up to now have been turned down, but the

insidious thing about it is the budgeting of the school boards to make

sure they get nowhere near that 110 per cent in the first place, that's

a debilitating effect even before the budget's in.

We're starting to get education on the cheap. That's the modus operandi .

We've seen "lighthouse" districts go down as disaster areas. The school

boards aren't fighting the referendum defeat. In West Vancouver, and

mind you I admit I'm not from West Vancouver so I guess I can say this

with a great deal of freedom, I think that some fat could have been

trimmed off. That's right, I think you'll agree with me. But then, when

you've trimmed the fat off and that's fine, when you see probationary

teachers have lost their jobs, that teacher aides were fired, that

experimental science programmes and language programmes were

emasculated, that audiovisual services were curtailed — that's not

trimming the fat off, that's cutting the legs off, that's gutting it,

Mr. Minister.

I submit that the arbitrary formula has had a devastating

psychological effect on the school boards, which now tend to budget

below the 110 per cent and to reduce their provisional budgets to a

figure within the 110 per cent. How many kindergartens have been

introduced since Bill 86? Class sizes have increased, teacher aides

have been reduced in number, pupil transportation has been cut,

educational leave has been denied and teachers and supplies have been

reduced. Those are facts.

Another weakness in the formula is the fact that grants to school

districts are based on the average expenditure of all districts in the

Province and the averaging takes no recognition of the very real

differences that must occur between school districts. Some rural

districts have transportation costs, urban districts have got special

educational costs, yet the grants treat everybody the same. The worst

effect of the average grant is that the "lighthouse districts", which

have had the courage to introduce educational innovations, educational

experimentation — and I believe we should control educational

experimentation, I really do, we should have measurement programmes — but the fact of the matter is they are being punished by being forced

to budget down to an average.

The philosophy behind the formula, Bill 86, two years ago, is the

philosophy of keeping expenditures down rather than the want of

providing the best possible education. The Government brought it down

in a bookkeeping, cool it, save the line, sort of mood. They wanted to

arrest the alarming rate in the increase of spending in educational

function. I will say this, I believe that was your motivation and

you've succeeded. You really have. The gross operating cost per pupil

increased by 10 per cent from 1967 to 1968, but it only increased by

8.6 per cent from 1968 to 1969. So you held the line. You really did,

but at what a cost! I submit that that cost is too great to pay in an

effort to hold that kind of line. There have got to be better ways of

doing it.

The last thing, and this may be construed as some personal criticism

— I have some reservations about the discretion that's afforded the

Minister of Education in setting out the size of the instructional

unit, because I feel that the Minister is too busy bookkeeping, he's

busy averaging the formula instead of getting down to the real analysis

of what's going on in the school districts.

The group on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, this year, have

allotted me a new task and, as a non-lawyer, I'm to investigate and

look into the activities and the programmes and the bills and the acts

that surround the Attorney-General. I believe it's a blow for freedom

for the non-lawyers. I have just a couple of points for the

Attorney-General during this debate and one is, maybe, a question

couched in ignorance. It's this, "Why is the Law Reform Commission

taking so long to do what essentially seems to be a simple job? What

are the Law Reform Commission's priorities?" Another question, "Mr.

Speaker, are they examining any of those dusty reports that are in the

Attorney-General's office?"

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, too, and, through you, to the

Attorney-General, why the House can't address itself to the problem of

young offenders instead of leaving it to the lawyers? I believe that we

should have, this year, a special committee of the House set up, a

select committee, I don't know what the names are, to go into the whole

problem of young offenders instead of leaving it to the lawyers. I

admire and think that lawyers have a great deal to offer in this

connection but, I contend, that as practicing politicians, as parents

and as citizens we might have some better ideas than those that have

come forward so far.

Again, to the Attorney-General, on page 4 of the Throne Speech,

there is reference to motor carriers and safety. The fact of the matter

is that, this last year, the rate of accidents that have involved large

vehicles has climbed to such an extent that it's a National and

Provincial disgrace. We have killed more truck drivers this last year

in this Province than you can shake a stick at. Truck after truck has

gone down a canyon. We've hit railway crossings — three of them in my

riding alone. The police in the units that the Minister of Highways

knows well, 401, 499, can tell you of case after case after case where

truck drivers have been asleep at the wheel, through long hours. The

Federal Legislation that was passed is a mockery, I'll tell you that, a

mockery. And, again, I want to implore the Attorney-General to get down

to some brass tacks on the question of the size of the vehicles, the

speed of the vehicles, the safety programme of the vehicles, the hours

the men work and the regular inspections. We're going to go the same

way the States has gone in terms of size,

[ Page 235 ]

without following their route in terms of

inspection. I was pleased to have the Minister of Commercial Transport

tell me that they've refused the CPR application to go for triple

trailers. I hope that refusal is current for this year. If it is, Mr.

Speaker, to you, Mr. Minister, you're the first Minister that's ever

refused the CPR anything in its life. I congratulate you for it. I've

been trying to arrange an appointment with the Attorney-General on

this. I'm not criticizing him. He's had some problems these last six

months and I hope to see him during the Session.

The Speech from the Throne, and I refer to that document again, Mr.

Speaker, you realize, of course, was read by a tenant. His Honour, the

tenant, said that all was well in the field of landlord-tenants, that

there has been a tremendous improvement in relationships between them.

If that's so, Mr. Speaker, how come there's a special magistrate in the

Small Debts Court handling all the problems? How come Mr. G.R. Levy is

doing nothing else but handling landlord and tenant grievances in the

Small Debts Court? I want to make some suggestions and I will do, at a

later date, to improve the Landlord and Tennant Act .

I want to make sure that the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province gets

the full protection of this Act so that when the tenant makes his

Speech next year he will really be able to say that he's protected

against landlords.

A passing note about protection and safety, Mr. Speaker. I noticed,

because I happen to live near a ferry terminal, that all last fall and

this winter, in the Tsawwassen area, we've experienced interruptions in

the ferry service. More interruptions than I can ever remember before.

My memory I don't present to you as fact, but I can't remember as many

interruptions in the ferry service, particularly with the stretched

ferries during high tide and high winds. I can only assume that the

ferries that have been stretched have presented a problem to the crew

and to the docking crew that is just insoluble at times of high tide

and high winds. Perhaps, the good Minister will share with us the

reasons for that and also acquaint the House of all the factors, the

recommendations and the rules which may or may not, which should or

should not, have been instituted since that tragic collision in Active

Pass.

The use of our resources in our land is a subject, Mr. Speaker,

that's going to be debated continually in this House because the

difference between the Parties in this House is never quite so marked

as it is during debates on resources and land. The Member for Dewdney

castigated Ottawa. He likened the Province, that is, speaking through

Liberal eyes, as a goblet to be drained. The fact is that British

Columbia, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is a goblet that is being drained by

anybody who comes along the road and meets the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation or his colleague from Lands and Forests. The two

policy speeches by those Ministers at the Social Credit Convention are

documents of simplicity. They spelled out their policy. I'm not going

to read them. I can't bring myself to read them. They simply adopt the

posture that all is for sale on the customer's terms and if there's any

problems about licenses, about boundaries, about fees, claims, access

or competition, they'll fix it up for you, they'll fix it up for you.

The same goes, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, for some of the things that

the Cabinet does in terms of zoning and interference with regional

districts. Much has been mentioned of that. I wish the Ministers

involved would leave some of these districts alone and leave them to

make their own decisions. I simply ask, again, in reference to that,

why won't the Premier keep his promise made two years ago regarding

highway development, regarding the public lands along the highways,

with public bidding on that type of land that's been made more valuable

by expenditures of public money? It's a simple statement of principle

and we expect the Premier to keep that promise.

The Member for Cowichan-Malahat stunned the Minister of Recreation

the other day, causing him to leap to his feet because he read out an

old letter, a letter from the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of

Mines. Well, I got a letter yesterday from the same organization and, I

think, it is another one of those gems that we'll be hearing about for

a long time to come. They sent me a letter. It's a carbon copy, or at

least a printed copy, of the letter they sent to the Minister of Mines.

Here's the B.C. Chamber of Mines complaining because the B.C. Wildlife

Federation and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture have asked for

revision of the British Columbia Mineral Act .

They accuse these associations of seizing upon a controversy between

the mining and park interests in the East Sooke area in an effort to

promote their own interests. Here's the B.C. Chamber of Mines accusing

the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture

have accused them of going before the Government in an effort to

promote their own interests. That's a shocking thing to do. I've had

more stuff from the B.C. Chamber of Mines promoting their own interests

than any other single group. If I filed all I've got, complaining about

taxes and all the rest of it, from the B.C. Chamber of Mines I could

fill one of their holes. It goes on to say that it is presumptuous of

these two associations, which are not knowledgeable in mineral

exploration and mine development, to recommend to the Government

changes in

an Act that only indirectly involves them. It's

presumptuous, according to the B.C. Chamber of Mines for the Wildlife

Federation and the Agricultural Federation to talk about mineral

exploration. Obviously, any recommendations that these associations

make, it continues, will be biased in their favour. Now, I know the

B.C. Chamber of Mines is a real fair outfit, a real fair outfit.

They've no bias. It finishes up, later on, by saying that damage done

by mining to the environment of British Columbia and, especially to

agricultural wildlife, is of a minor and temporary nature. I don't

know. That's from one of the most incredible letters I've ever received

as an M.L.A. ( interruption ).

Of course, they are. It's the language that they use in it when they

talk about other people. It's the most remarkable document I've seen — to suggest that it's presumptuous of other associations to interest

themselves in the parks of this Province, in the agriculture of this

Province and the things that go on, having seen the record of this

Government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I would be remiss if I didn't make some

mention to the House of the Minister who follows me today, because, of

course, I can't speak after he does. I find him congenial. I find him

helpful, a keen debater. I have, as I mentioned, spent a little bit of

time in his riding, recently, and I learned how industriously he's

seeking special status for the north end of the Island, how

industriously he's seeking that definition of a depressed area — the

kind of thing they did for the Okanagan a while ago. He's learning from

his Leader, and he, no doubt, seeks the same kind of bonanza that we've

seen in the Okanagan. He's seeking the same kind of bonanza that we've

seen in the Okanagan and his role, perhaps, isn't that of Mr.

Cartwright, perhaps, it's Hoss, but, more probably, Little Joe. I had

prepared a motion privately, Mr. Minister, today, based on a motion of

nonconfidence, as it were, based on our lack of confidence in

[ Page 236 ]

the Attorney-General. As I'm the last speaker, I

need a seconder and I wondered if you'd indicate whether you'd sign it

or not. The Minister used to be fleet of foot. But since the Buttle

Lake disclosure, he's become leaden-footed but I do wish the Minister

well. I am looking forward to his speech. If he requires any advice on

his leadership campaign, he has only to ask. I've got some experience

that might be of some use to him. I look forward to meeting with you

later on.

Mr. Speaker, I want to finish up by saying and returning to a most serious note, a note that…( interruption ). You're reacting well, you're reacting well.

Mr. Speaker, seriously, I want to return to the question that was

raised last year and, again, this year. We had an eloquent address

yesterday. An eloquent address from the, I suppose I've got to call him

the small 'l', Liberal Member from North Vancouver–Seymour. During that

address, he denounced his Federal counterparts and he's assumed a more

individualistic position. But, before we become too sympathetic towards

him in his loneliness, we should remember that he has been joined by a

large group of young Liberals who win vote the following way. Five per

cent of them will vote NDP Federally, and 13 per cent of them will vote

NDP Provincially. So, before we get too sympathetic, he's got a lot of

company, Mr. Speaker ( interruption ). There won't be 13 per cent ( interruption ). I don't know, I have it here. It's printed in the paper ( interruption ). Oh, the editor here. The editor — Mr. Rick McGeer. It's a Rick McGeer ( laughter ).

We'll have to find that out. It will be interesting. We heard a week

ago about referenda on everything but it seems to me there had better

be another referendum on the whole existence of the Provincial Liberal

Party.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, and I want to return to my…( interruption ). You'll have your turn when he speaks. You've to get after him, you know. He's running ahead of you.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I first uttered the part about irrelevancy

and what was essentially contained in that good Member's speech. I want

to applaud him for it. Seriously, we can joke about some of the other

things but I'm as concerned as he is because of what we observe all the

year round. We know of the growing pressures that are outside this

Chamber, the pressures in society. We know of the calls for change and

the hoots of derision and, let me say, just as a matter of record, that

the hoots of derision that I got on Opening Day outside from many of

those demonstrators, were because, I think, they felt that my person

represented an elected Member who was irrelevant, as we all are

irrelevant in the system as they see it today. This charge of

irrelevancy, this charge of derision, these calls for change come from

people, unfortunately, whose ranks are growing and they're growing, Mr.

Speaker, because they see a vacuum developing in the Province. They

really do see a vacuum developing in the Province. The Premier used to

be able to spot these forces. He used to be able to observe these

forces and make the adjustments and the changes to accommodate and to

gather them unto himself. But he doesn't spot them any longer, when he

puts his faith in his wiring system. He says, Mr. Speaker, that he's

plugged into God.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. HALL: The Premier of the Province.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): I never said that.

MR. HALL: You're reported as saying that, Mr. Premier. That must be why the native peoples of Athabasca….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member will accept that statement.

MR. HALL: I accept it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Don't keep repeating it. He's not repeating it.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I certainly withdraw that statement.

It's been current for a year. If he wants me to withdraw it now, that's

fine. I withdraw it. Mr. Speaker, I feel the Premier and the Cabinet

are falling straight into the occupational disease of long-lived

governments and that is, namely, arrogance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: oh, oh, oh.

MR. HALL: You've been there too long. When you realize what's

happened to the native people of Athabasca and you read in the paper

that the damage to their environment, to their hunting and to their

livelihood has been done by

an act of God instead of by the Bennett

Dam, the connection becomes rather obvious. The Premier has lost his

touch, in my view, and his forgetfulness is now obvious. You should

listen to some of the people who go out in the constituencies, Mr.

Premier, and you'll observe those vacuums growing, with the touch that

you have.

Seriously, I believe what the Member said yesterday about hate. I

think the Premier, too, applauded that statement, yesterday. I reject

the concept of hate, Mr. Speaker. It's too often shown itself over the

last two weeks, but I can describe my feelings about the Government

without that kind of excessive language. It's not hate. I want to

describe my feelings about the Government to you, Mr. Speaker, as I

close this debate — on what I feel. It's not hate, but it's anger at

the opportunities that have slipped this Government by. It's not hate,

Mr. Speaker, but it's despair at their lack of understanding of the

problems of the day. It's not hate, but sorrow at what they continue to

do to the rights and practices of this House. And, lastly, Mr. Speaker,

it's not hate, but determination to sweep them away before they do any

more irreparable damage to this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I regret we will have to support the Speech from the Throne on its merits.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to

be able to take my place in this debate after having waited patiently

for some time. I'm delighted to follow my good friend from Surrey, who

managed to put together an hour and twenty minutes of an unserious

speech and then mentioned that he was going to be serious for the last

five minutes. That's not surprising, Mr. Speaker, because a great deal

of posturing, during the last couple of weeks, has been a sham from

Opening Day. The Speech from the Throne was an expression, first of

all, of hope, of optimism, of forward-looking into the next decade of

our Province. It's not unusual because I can remember, long before I

got into the House, the main contribution to debate from the benches

opposite was doom and gloom, and the black crepe paper

[ Page 237 ]

has, certainly, been out, once again, from day one.

No mention of now being a time for, psychologically if nothing else,

when no other Government in the country is putting its best foot

forward, a lifting up of the spirits of people in the country,

something that the Federal Government, certainly, should be doing and

are simply shrugging their shoulders or ignoring any questions or

arrogantly turning their heads from the people of this country. Surely,

it is time for a Speech from the Throne whose very description can be

summed up in terms of hope and optimism. But, on day one, the sham

which has followed us from that day, in terms, particularly, of the

Official Opposition in this House, that Speech from His Honour — that

was day one, my friend, if you don't know anything about…( interruption ).

Were you not here? That Speech from His Honour and we had the legal

adviser of the Official Opposition sitting down on the far end of the

table to help the Leader. They were going to put in a little bit of

effort, a little bit of a resolution that day. The legal adviser was

down there to help the Leader put something on the Floor while His

Honour was speaking, or after he spoke. Of course, that was not

considered the politic thing to do that day. So, of course, the next

day, Mr. Speaker, the legal adviser was moved from the right hand of

the Leader of the Opposition down to his current position so he could

help the Member for North Vancouver in his legal manoeuverings on the

Skagit Valley, because, as the Member for North Vancouver said, he

couldn't trust his own legal advisers who were sitting on the Liberal

benches — and that's understandable.

Mr. Speaker, on day two, once again, the Leader of Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition came to his feet and he wished to interrupt the

debate. Once again, he had an urgent matter of public importance. Of

course, Mr. Speaker, you, in your usual way, were wise enough to tell

him that he would have an opportunity at an early date to pursue this

question of unemployment. In your usual helpful manner, you told him

when he could do that. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall, because

your memory is excellent, that the Leader had an opportunity on the

first day of the week following. After two days of reflection, surely

you were still of the opinion, Mr. Leader, that unemployment indeed was

worth more than sham tactics and was, in fact, a problem for the

individual person in British Columbia. But did you, in your wisdom, Mr.

Leader, stand in your place at the earliest opportunity? Did you take

the advice of the Speaker, so helpfully given, and stand in your place

and do anything about it when you had the first opportunity?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no.

MR. CAMPBELL: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker…( interruption ).

Continuing the sham position at another date, another day comes along,

and the Member for Lillooet is the person who's speaking on behalf of

the NDP. What did he do, Mr. Speaker, about this very important motion

that was supposed to have put forward some ideas on behalf of the

unemployed in the Province of British Columbia? What did he do? He

finished his speech, sat down and forgot about it, until somebody

tugged his coat and said, "For goodness sake, get back, get back up." ( Applause .)

That's what he did. So, Mr. Speaker, let the people of British Columbia

know that, from day one in this Legislature, the NDP Opposition in this

Province has carried out a political game that can only be described as

sham, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I had a bet with somebody that it would take me 60

seconds to get you people over there up and get lippy when the Member

for Comox is speaking. Don't call me the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

today. I'm speaking for the people of Comox ( interruption ). I'll come to that, too, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some interesting things said during the

speeches and, because this is a debate, I'm certainly going to mention

some of them. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party is an

interesting chap, when he's here. One of the interesting things that I

happened to notice about his position 48 hours before the House was to

come into sitting…. I suggested that the position of the NDP

Opposition in this debate has been sham ( interruption ). S-H-A-M ( laughter ).

But 48 hours before the House was to hear His Honour's Address, the

Leader of the Liberal Party, on the twenty-sixth day of his effort to

produce 26 mimeograph letters for presentation of the Liberal Party's

policy, was delightfully on a radio broadcast saying, "On the very

first day, I shall rise in my place and I shall ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs how much money the Government has put out on sewage

treatment plants." Well, there's at least two things wrong with that

position of the Leader of the Liberal Party. He's been in the House

long enough to know, first of all, that he's asking the wrong Minister.

That has nothing to do with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. But the

second thing that's wrong with it, Mr. Speaker, is that he didn't do it

and not only that, Mr. Speaker, ( interruption )…not

only that, Mr. Speaker, he never in the course of his address, this

friend of municipality, he never mentioned municipality once. A

complete ( interruption )…a complete case of sham — S-H, for the benefit of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey S-H-A-M spells sham ( interruption ).

But, anyway, Mr. Speaker, there were some delightfully interesting

things uncovered and, perhaps, discovered, during the course of the

debate, as to the position of our friends' offices and I'm not going to

uncover the whole catalogue because we all were here and listening, I

know, carefully. But, I think, you'd like to be reminded of some of

those positions because you may wish to repeat them later on.

Well, interestingly enough, the Member for Lillooet started things

off by telling us he was going to set the coal in the Elk Valley on

fire to produce power. Of course, their position on pollution is well

known. I know that the Member for Kootenay took the first opportunity,

because he spoke after the Member for Lillooet. The Member for

Kootenay, I would have assumed, would have disabused this House of the

notion that the NDP wish to set the Elk Valley on fire. I can only

assume now…

AN HON. MEMBER: The Hat Creek coal.

MR. CAMPBELL: …You want to burn the Hat Creek coal, now. Is that your position? ( laughter ).

That's interesting, too. Thank you very much, Mr. Member, for your

position. This is understandable — fair is fair. The Member for

Lillooet is going to burn the coal in the Member for Kootenay's riding

and the Member for Kootenay is going to burn the coal in the Member for

Lillooet's riding ( laughter ).

Thank you, Mr. Member. Mr. Speaker, there's one thing that the Member

cannot resist and that is that he goes back to my description of them

last year. "Yours truly," you know, "Me, too."

Mr. Speaker, I was really critically amazed at the former Leader of the opposition, the Member for Cowichan

[ Page 238 ]

Malahat. I counted, Mr. Member, when you were on

your feet and it's unusual for you because you very often have such a

broad view of things…. But, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall as he went

down the catalogue of his position on such a great variety of things,

what did he do? He put it right on a personal basis and said, "I want,

I want, I want, I want, I want." Now, I'm not going to tell you…( interruption ).

I'm not. Oh, no. You went far beyond that, Mr. Member, far beyond that.

You know, Mr. Member, how many times you said, "I want" — 23 times.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the new personality cult from the Member for

Cowichan-Malahat.

AN HON. MEMBER: He still thinks he's the Leader that's why.

MR. CAMPBELL: Then we have the delightful position by the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano and, of course, he described the

Skagit Valley in very detailed terms. I listened with great interest,

because it's the first time, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature, that

I've heard a problem described in such detail. Then the Member, and I

have his exact words, "We have no problem on the Skagit because it

won't happen." That's the first time I've ever heard a Member speak for

half an hour and describe a nonproblem. Then, Mr. Member for Kootenay,

you delighted us with the simple explanation for the disturbance in the

gallery and I thank you for that. You said that the reason for the

disturbance in the gallery and the demonstrations outside was power ( interruption ). Power. P-O — I'm having difficulty with the Members. I'm having to spell my speech. P-O-W-E-R, Mr. Member. I would…( interruption ).

You certainly did, Mr. Member. Then we had some delightful ideas from

the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour, yesterday. He was upset that

the Legislature is a place where there's talk, talk, talk, and he

described himself as a "small 'I… Liberal. It's kind of interesting

that he should find it difficult to listen to debate in this

Legislature. That's why we're here. A very famous "small 'l'"

Liberal…( interruption )

during the time of the difficult days of the beginning of the Third

Republic in France was a chap by the name of Clemenceau. What did he

have to say about parliament? He said, "Parliament is sometimes a very

inconvenient place but silence is much worse." But, perhaps, the most

incredible thing of all that the Member had to say yesterday, was that

he has his understanding of parliamentary democracy in the concept that

he or I or anyone else in this Legislature is here by appointment — that he's appointed to this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the Members of this Legislature belong to a very

exclusive club, because all 55 of us, including yourself, Mr. Speaker,

are elected by the people and not appointed. His understanding of

parliamentary democracy and the constitutional type of monarchy is far

different than mine. I'll tell you that, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting, as well, during the course of the

debate, and I compliment them on their speeches, in particular to hear

the discussion from Mrs. Cocke and Mr. Dailly ( laughter ).

They were both delightful. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it was a time for

confession, as well, during the course of the Speech from the Throne. I

was delighted in the confession by the Member for Atlin and, of course,

that's not the only confession that's been made as to the real position

of the NDP in this Province during the course of the last year. The

Member for Surrey was good enough to talk about people in my area, so I

don't want to disappoint him by talking about some of the people in my

area and some of their views. The constant association of the NDP with

rioters, dissenters, Black Panthers, liberation groups, Friendship to

Cuba, to China, always engaging in criticism of our judiciary system,

never failing to hold in suspicion our police departments, always

concurring in any suggestion that the police acted with brutality,

feeling and voicing the suggestion that any vilification of the police

is humorous and acceptable, the constant praise in the Pacific Tribune

for the actions of the Federal Leader and the 16 Federal MP's and the

Provincial Members, welcoming and accepting from any source criticism

of the United States, failure to recognize them as our friends and

neighbours, failure to do more than set out as the conscience of

various Governments, refusal to permit provisions for veterans in our

policy decision…. All of those were interesting confessions in the

last year, Mr. Speaker, and, perhaps, more clearly than anything else,

illustrate the position of the NDP. I'm glad you asked the question ( interruption ). Well, Mr. Speaker, the person who said that was the president of the Comox-Alberni NDP Federal Riding.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to just two subjects this afternoon.

The first one, Mr. Speaker, has to do with this old question of

environment and pollution control. I was delighted that the Member for

Surrey spoke about it. I wasn't too delighted by the way he did speak

about it because he, certainly, I know, unwittingly, misled the House

as to what happened at the hearings ( interruption ).

Is that right? Well, Mr. Member, I know that you were good enough this

afternoon to talk about the position of importance of regional

districts. I know that you will be delighted to share with the House

the position assumed by the chairman of this particular regional

district in which this hearing was held. I'll read it to you, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, so that you will be advised that, in

giving the story to this Legislature, and I'll have something to say

about another Member who was giving stories to this Legislature, I

think you should tell the whole story. I'll read you the full letter

and it's addressed to Mr. Venables. "I wish to thank yourself and your

staff…." ( Interruption .) The

date is January 8, 1971. It's on the letterhead of the Regional

District of Mount Waddington. "I wish to thank yourself and your staff

on behalf of our Board for the enjoyable and informative meeting which

we had with you on your recent visit here." The Member from Surrey left

the impression that there were no local residents there at all. This is

completely false and the Member knows it. "Meetings, such as this, help

in so many ways towards a better understanding of our mutual

objectives. I also wish to express our appreciation for the manner in

which the public hearing on the Utah application was held. We certainly

agree with: (1) your policy of holding at least one hearing in the

involved area; (2) the policy of allowing anyone to attend, even though

they are not officially on the agenda as applicants or objectors to ask

questions; and (3) the policy of keeping cameras and microphones out of

the hearing. With best personal regards. (Signed) G.F. Fernie, Chairman

of the Mount Waddington Regional District."

Mr. Speaker, the whole question of pollution is an issue which,

certainly, some people have some things to say about which I consider

quite intelligent, and others, certainly, have done very little to

advance the public understanding of this most complex question. I know

the Member for Surrey, probably, is aware of some of the views

expressed by a former Minister in the Labour Government when we've been

talking about unemployment. His name happens to be Mr. Anthony

Crossland and, I know, that the Member for Surrey,

[ Page 239 ]

having fairly recently come from that part of the

world, would have an appreciation for the intellect and intelligence of

this particular man who happens to represent a constituency which is

largely a working-class constituency. His views on pollution control

and environmental management are exactly the same as my own. This idea

that there is a possibility, first of all, that there is no growth

possible or desirable, of course, is intellectually dishonest. It's the

position of the elite and it is a form of elitism which is not going to

do very much for the Province of British Columbia.

It is obvious, and I'll quote some of the statements made by this

particular Minister. "It may well be," Crossland conceives, "if it is

uncontrolled and stupidly managed, that growth is undesirable." I would

agree with that. "But the real problem is to improve the environment

already polluted of the poor as well as of the rich and this can only

be done with the resources of an expanding, much more productive,

economy." He goes on to say that his own constituents want better

housing, lower housing densities, better schools, better hospitals;

they want washing machines and refrigerators; they want to relieve

themselves of domestic drudgery; they want cars; they want weekends in

Majorca, they want the freedom they can have in terms of holidays and

weekends; and they're not, as he indicates, Galbraith-sy, the

bouncing-around, economist who has suddenly discovered a new world;

they're not brainwashed about having these tastes; they're normal

individuals who have these tastes because those things are desirable in

themselves. Mr. Speaker, the idea that we can have a British Columbia

without growth is intellectually dishonest, but the idea, Mr. Speaker,

that we can have a British Columbia with growth and the same protected

environment, at the same time, is not intellectually dishonest. That is

the policy, that happens to be the policy of the present Government.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that worry me in terms of

achieving that, not the least of which is quite often the studied

attempt being made on the part of many people to misconstrue, as the

Member for Surrey, certainly did, and others, to misconstrue the real

thrust of the statements made in the Speech from the Throne, in terms

of co-ordinating the activities in this complex area of the

environment. Because we've already had a very clear-cut indication of

how wrong it is to have resource departments of Government which don't

inter-relate one to the other, or to set up environmental czars as we

see happening at the Federal scene, setting up environmental czars who

have already indicated that their relationship with some of their

brother Ministers is either nonexistent or not wished for, in the first

instance. I refer to the obvious battle going on between Mr. Davis and

Mr. Greene on the Federal scene.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, I have gone into the communities in British

Columbia, by design, and I have gone into courthouses in British

Columbia, by design, and I've purposely gone down the halls of those

buildings and I've asked the district agriculturist if he happened to

know the forester, who was four doors away from him, and the answer,

unfortunately, was, "No." I've asked the parks superintendent in these

communities if he happened to know the name of the fisheries officer of

the Federal Department of Fisheries, who was down the block, and,

unfortunately, the answer was, "No." I've gone in and asked the land

inspector if he knew the name of the district agriculturist, who was

four doors down the hall in that particular Government building, and it

was not just one, it was more than one, if he happened to know his name

and, of course, again, the answer was, "No." The reason for this is

very simple because there's been a compartmentalization approach to

pollution control and environmental management, not only in this

Province but all over the world. We see the Federal people going down

this foolish, foolish road, because that's exactly what it is, Mr.

Speaker. When you consider that the complex problems of environment

affect responsibilities within the orbit of resource departments and,

certainly, the Department of Health and the overall financial

management of the Province, then you begin to understand that any

attempt to meet the problems of growth plus the maintenance of

environment is only a sham unless you co-ordinate the activities of all

those Government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you this. This Government does not intend

that our approach to pollution is a sham and a simple window-dressing

or wallpaper on the wall, in terms of statutes that either won't work

or there is no attempt made to study the administrative machinery

that's involved in the set-up.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not just talking here in terms of the

administrative apparatus and the thrusts of Government, I'm talking

about the attitude of the people who have had a lot to say about

environmental management and pollution control in this Province and

outside. Anyone examining the speech by Mr. Davis at the University on

May 29, 1970, could not help but have been struck by the seriousness of

what he had to say, if he meant what he said. He's talking about

several things. He's talking about the bad location of the pulp mill at

Houston. One of the facts, Mr. Speaker, before I go on to say what Mr.

Davis said the very next day…. The facts are that consultants were

working with his department from October 19, 1964. "There is not enough

water at this pulp mill," and these are exact quotes from the

Minister's speech. "In the collection of data the company sought and

obtained the assistance of the Federal Department of Mines, Energy and

Resources, and the Department of Fisheries, starting in the fall of

1964." I won't read it all because you'll get the idea of what I'm

getting at from what he said the next day. "Such a disaster," he's

talking about the impact on salmon spawning; "such a disaster," he's

talking about spills; "such a disaster would be simply intolerable," he

said, "considering the Federal Government has just pumped $10 million

into building artificial spawning grounds on Babine Lake upstream from

the proposed Houston plant." Now what's wrong with that statement? I'll

tell you what's wrong with that statement, Mr. Speaker, and,

particularly to the Liberal Members, through you, Mr. Speaker. It just

happens to be geographically inaccurate. The hatcheries are located on

the Fulton River which flows into Babine Lake which, in turn, flows

into the Skeena. Surely the Minister of Fisheries, as he was at that

time, should have known that simple fact before he spoke deliberately

and positively on this question at the University of British Columbia

on May 29, 1970. There's more. The Minister goes on to talk about the

Houston Pulp Mill. Oh, if you don't want to listen, Mr. Member, you go

on outside ( interruption ).

We are going to take a good long look. What did he say on May 29?

"We're going to take a good long look at the site of the Houston Pulp

Mill." What would his own department have done, Mr. Speaker? Well,

here's the answer. "The Department of Fisheries has been kept fully

informed of these developments for six years and had formally adopted

the proposal for the pulp mill on April 29, 1970." Mr. Speaker, you

know, when you make speeches like that,

[ Page 240 ]

somebody's liable to ask you a few questions,

particularly people who are serious, Mr. Speaker, about pollution

control. Is the Minister pulling the leg of the Canadian people? Is he

serious about environment or is it political charity? I say, Mr.

Speaker, that the evidence is clear and concise that the statements

being made by the new environmental czar in Canada are the very kind of

statements I'm talking about when I say they're intellectually

dishonest. The very next day, Mr. Speaker, what happened? He had to

back up, retract and tell it the way it was and, incidentally, not only

tell it the way it was, tell it the way it is ( interruption ). Both. That's the point I was making ( interruption ).

Both. You finally got it, Mr. Member. That's good. Mr. Speaker, on June

1, one day after this speech at the University of British Columbia…( interruption )

I said 1970. "Mr. Jack Davis said today that he is hopeful that special

problems due to the low and variable flow of the river at the Bulkley

Valley Forest Industry complex at Houston will be resolved. The company

is aware of the difficult proposition they have on this site and have

gone to extreme lengths to head off problems due to the river flow.

Already the company is planning to do a number of things that are

exceptional in the industry, such as ten-day biological treatment ponds

and an extremely high measure of recycling," Davis said. Davis said the

company had always worked closely with his department. "With this

cooperative attitude on the part of the company, I feel we will work

this thing out," Davis said. "Of course we will continue to watch the

project very closely. We cannot afford mistakes on a salmon-spawning

river."

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister, the new environmental czar for Canada,

had stopped there that would perhaps have been excusable. But, Mr.

Speaker, if we're going to make an intelligent attack on pollution

control in this Province and we are, I'm going to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, and through you, particularly the Liberal Members in this

House, we're going to need the cooperation of that particular Minister

and a number of other Government departments at the Federal level, and

it won't be for fun. It's going to be based on a proper co-ordination

of activities between the three levels of Government, because it was

this Minister, and the Minister who's responsible for Lands, Forests,

and Water Resources, together with the Member for Alberni, who went to

the first conference in Canada on environmental management, when

everybody was fussing around and fiddling around with the problem, and

that was in Montreal. The fundamental outcome of that conference was

that it was absolutely necessary to have a co-ordinated attack on the

environmental problems as between local government, Provincial

Government and Federal Government. That's still our position, Mr.

Member. I'm glad you're nodding your head because that doesn't appear

to be the intellectual position of the present environmental czar for

Canada, Here, we have some further statements, Mr. Speaker, about the

closing out of B.C. pulp mills. Great, grandiose pulp closures are

going to be immediately forthcoming from the Minister and "…every

pulp mill in British Columbia is tomorrow morning going to be meeting

certain standards," says the Minister. Of course, if the Minister says

something like that, I think the people, Mr. Speaker, in British

Columbia are entitled to take him at his word. Now if he's going to

close the pulp mills anywhere, why doesn't he do just that? I'll tell

you why he's not going to do that — he hasn't got the position. He has

not taken that position, officially, in writing, as he does when he's

talking to this group or that group or the other group, or he doesn't

have to back up his statements, or close out a town, or work out an

arrangement with pulp mills. He said, very clearly — I'll give him

credit for that — that before the pulp mills that we're talking about

in the Interior, and he had grace enough to say that they are the best

in the world ( interruption )….You You don't think Mr. Davis said that, eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't say that I don't think they're the best in the world.

MR. CAMPBELL: They are, my friend.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what does the environmental czar for Canada really

say? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what he says. He signed this

letter. It was written on December 18, 1970. He says as follows, "My

stand is purely and simply that it is prudent to expect that all

activities in this country which generate pollutants provide the

highest degree of control of such pollutants as is practicable with

current technology. Shortly I will be in a position…." For over two

years, this Minister has been bouncing around talking about the

standards in British Columbia pulp mills, inciting all kinds of weird

and wonderful statements and doubts and anything you want to name, the

very reverse of what proper planning should be. What does he say? This,

incidentally is December 18, 1970. "Shortly…be in a position to

review, with industry, the limits which we are proposing as best

practicable with current technology." Get this, "With new plants, of

course, I would expect the highest standards." Now, isn't that

delightful? "With the older plants, of course, I fully appreciate that

each mill is unique and the rate of abatement action must be negotiated

over some time, mill by mill." Now, isn't that amazing?

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make crystal clear here this

afternoon is: number one, there is going to be a real desire on the

part of this Government to carry on, in an effective and in a

co-ordinated way, the necessary technical study and research and

cooperation, with not only the Federal Government but all the regional

districts in this Province and it is, in no way, Mr. Speaker, helpful

to that position of this Government to have these foolish and

poetically-based diatribes coming from the environmental czar. Now, I

want this House to be particularly clear that this is the kind of issue

which gets illustrated in a very clear way in terms of the Skagit. I'm

not going to talk about that at any great length here this afternoon.

But we have a Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, who, I'm sure, has a

connection or should have with his Liberal friends in Ottawa, and for

the Minister, the environmental czar, to assume the full responsibility

for what he considers is happening in the Skagit… fine and dandy.

There's great cooperation between the Province of British Columbia and

that Federal Minister. He has already assumed the role and far be it

from this Government to stand in his way.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment because there is a motion on the

Order Paper and my friend, the Member for Surrey, in passing, talked

about the importance of regional disparity legislation in my particular

area of British Columbia, suggesting that I was trying to get the north

end of Vancouver Island declared a depressed area. Mr. Speaker, nothing

could be further from the truth. But, certainly, Mr. Speaker, in

British Columbia, and this was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne,

there's been a lot of jobs created in the last little while in the

Province of British Columbia and a good many of them are in the instant

towns of British Columbia, a good many of them are in the northern part

of Vancouver Island, a good many of them are along High-

[ Page 241 ]

way 16 and many of them extend up into my friends'

country, who have a motion on the Order Paper having to do with the

application of regional disparities to areas of fast growth.

We were talking, Mr. Speaker, about legitimate aid from the Regional

Disparities Department of Mr. Marchand for areas which have proven to

be of high job-generating capacity, where the immediate requirement for

capital in schools, in hospitals, in sidewalks, in sewers, in water

systems are immediate, and you have to telescope that capital

investment into a very narrow period of time. Surely that's an

understandable position. But you cannot telescope the revenue — and

it's substantial the revenue that comes from those newly developing

communities — into exactly the same period of time when so much of it

is skimmed off long before the local authority or the Provincial

authority… it's skimmed off to the Federal Treasury, Mr. Speaker, and

these quickly developing communities are the very foundation for the

high job-generating capacity of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the reason

why we have been able to absorb more than our fair share, far beyond

the natural birthrate prospects of British Columbia, why we've been

able to provide jobs in British Columbia is because people who first

went into those communities put the money on the line right away

without a nickel's w