1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 325 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

By leave of the House, the Honourable the Premier presented

Conclusions of the Third Working Session of the Constitutional

Conference held at Ottawa, February 8 and 9, 1971. Permission was

granted for the published release, that was agreed upon and printed by

the Secretariat, to be incorporated in printed form in the records

(Hansard). (See Appendix).

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce.

HON. W. T. SKILLINGS (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is a

distinct privilege and pleasure to stand in my place today to represent

the great constituency of the capital city of Victoria.

Before I commence my formal remarks, I wish, at this time, to file

with the House my Annual Report of my Department of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce up to December 31, 1970 and, at the

same time, on each of your desks, you will find the Third Quarter

Report of industrial expansion in British Columbia, broken down into

census divisions. For the new Members of the House, I would advise you

that the census divisions are the different areas broken down in the

Province so that you can find your own area and then see what's been

going on in that area (interruption).

No, they're not general census discs at all. They are just… (interruption) .

I'd like to explain to the House, today, because there has been a

great deal of controversy as to the actual function of part of my

department and I would like to explain, today, that we would like to

have orderly and economic sound development within the Province and the

record in British Columbia speaks for itself. During 1970, a year of

business readjustment, $3 billion were invested within this Province. I

don't want you to do too much laughing, my friend, the Leader of the

Liberal Party. I've got something to say about you a little later on.

You will not pass unnoticed. In the industrial sector alone, $500

million were spent in the modernization of plant and equipment and over

$200 million were spent on secondary industry. Compare, and I say

compare, the record of the three Prairie Provinces with British

Columbia. During the past five years, 66 per cent more capital

investment went into British Columbia than all of the three Prairie

Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. You can't make

comparisons with oranges and apples. You've got to consider

approximately the same number of people and that is the reason I made

the comparison with the Prairie Provinces. That also includes the $90

million that was invested in The Pas — I think the Leader of the

Opposition knows when I refer to The Pas in northern Manitoba.

Now the purpose and the basic duties of the Research Department are

not unlike those of an intelligence organization in a military

establishment. In both cases, they consist of collecting information

from all available sources, evaluating it and, it is hoped, reaching

the correct conclusion with respect to future capabilities and

performance.

Now, it is not the purpose of this Government to just search for

industry, at any cost. We must always remember the taxpayers pay in the

end. I have only to remind you of the current experiences of Manitoba

and Nova Scotia, to name two Provinces, that have blundered very

tragically in trying to obtain industry at any cost. Ours is a

pragmatic approach based on sound economic and statistical research and

a level-headed approach to development. We seek out viable

opportunities, ones that will benefit the people of this Province and

not penalize them. There are few industrial and commercial firms of

consequence in this Province that have not taken advantage of the

services that the department has to offer. We are particularly

solicitous of the small firm and individual.

Let me just digress for a moment about industrial development. It

means many things to many people. Dr. J.J. Deutsch, in a speech to the

Council of Resource Ministers in Ottawa, recently, when talking about

industrial development said, "What is needed is hard-headed economic

analysis, because you are dealing with realistic businessmen and

sceptical investors."

Take, for example, the regional industrial economic studies prepared

by this Province. Last year, we released three very outstanding

reports: one, the Central Kootenay Region; another, the Bulkley-Nechako

Region; and another, the Columbia-Shuswap Region. These reports

analyzed the resource base of the areas and outlined the potential for

future development. Are they useful? Let me quote from a letter my

department received from an official of the Bulkley Valley Regional

District: "It is a most comprehensive study and has created tremendous

interest in this regional district and many of the other regional

districts of the Province." An official of the Cariboo Region had this

to say about the study: "This study contains a tremendous wealth of

information." I must say our Department has done a superb job. We find

we are constantly being asked for copies by people planning to move to

this part of British Columbia (interruption) .

I know you would, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you what you should do, now.

You should start and get a hold of the German motor company, now, too.

It is doing a great deal of development within the Province.

We are continually seeking out new products and new markets for our

manufacturing industry. Our statistical and market research facilities

permit us to examine important inter-Provincial trade flows with a view

to replacement through local manufacture. A special study of this

nature is now under way, which will indicate products that might well

be manufactured in British Columbia in the area of work in which we are

developing a more sophisticated basis of approach. A more detailed

examination is undertaken of specific industries, where opportunities

appear to be particularly favourable, or where underutilization of

existing facilities is apparent. Two such studies, one dealing with

mobile homes and, the other, with metal-forming industry are nearing

completion and they, I think, will be released by the middle of 1971.

I would like to refer, particularly, and I have a copy here, to a

particular study we made on the Pacific rim. It has received…anybody

wishing to have one may…This is the Pacific run study that has caused

a great deal of interest. I may say we have had requests for this from

Japan and California and a great many parts of the Pacific rim, because

it's very factual and very, very informative.

During the past year, we have released studies on the pulp and paper

and the mining industries and they've received very great appreciation

from the B.C. Chamber of Mines and by

[ Page 326 ]

the mining industry, because of a very, very deep in-depth study of that industry.

I should like to make one point very clear. We are not engaged in collecting routine statistics. Through our Statistics Act ,

we have access to many sources of information not available to any

other parties. Through the use of magnetic tapes and the facilities of

our highly developed data centre, we are able to record a vast body of

economic and statistical data. Some segments of this material on wage

rates, trade, etc. are published annually. The balance is used for

departmental studies and, in a non-confidential way, it is made

available to universities, industrials and research for market

analysis, industry evaluation and the like.

I want to say something about our general economy. The year 1970 was

a particularly difficult one, due in large measure, to misguided

National policies of restraint and also due, in part, to extensive

labour-management disputes. But, in spite of all these problems, the

Gross National Product of British Columbia rose by 7.1 per cent and we

will continue to outpace overall Canadian experience in 1971. My

department has forecast that the Gross Product for British Columbia

will be more than 9 per cent this year for growth and, in real terms,

of about 6 per cent. The Government is very concerned about the current

high levels of unemployment, which has been a great cause of comment

within this Chamber. I was going, at some length, to review the

pathetic results of our participation with the Federal Government but

two of my colleagues have done it in great depth.

Let it suffice to say this. That, to date, after four months of

waiting, I have not had a reply from Mr. Marchand. As I explained to

the House only yesterday, my colleague the Minister of Municipal

Affairs has wired for permission to release the correspondence between

the different departments. I may say that we, in British Columbia, are

not asking for any special treatment. This has been said before and I

reiterate. We only say that, when the Federal Government is spending

$200 million in other endeavours outside the Province of British

Columbia and we are about 10 per cent of the National body, we should

be getting advantage of about $20 million and we can't get permission

for the expenditure of one dollar under this new Special Area Incentive Act that we discussed yesterday.

Now there's been a lot of talk by the Leader of the Opposition,

making light of the Premier's Budget statement that we're going to have

25 additional jobs (laughter) . I should say 25,000 additional jobs (interruption) . It's all very well to go back and use statistics, but you must use them fairly. In other words …

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you for causing it. You and the labour bosses caused it (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. SKILLINGS: Now, as I say, there is a very old adage, you know, that figures don't lie but sometimes certain people… (interruption) .

As a matter of fact, you listen, my friend, you may learn something.

It's rather doubtful, but you might. I want to make it abundantly clear

that, last year, on the average yearly increases…. let me give you

some figures that will be released very shortly by the National

Government. In all of last year, the four Atlantic Provinces, on an

average yearly increase, increased by 4,000 jobs. The Prairie

Provinces, on an average yearly increase, had 8,000 jobs. The Province

of Quebec and, as you know, that Mr. Bourassa, the new Premier of

Quebec…well, I'm not a linguist. I can't speak French, perhaps, as

well as some of the people over there. The Province of Quebec, on an

average yearly increase, had 12,000 new jobs and, as you know, the

Premier of that Province came out with a great statement that he was

going to have 100,000. The Province of British Columbia, during 1970,

which was a very trying year, had an average yearly increase of 15,000

jobs during 1970 (interruption) .

No, the 1970 statistics are not out yet, my friend, but they will be

very shortly. As a matter of fact, I think that the Leader of the

Opposition should be, perhaps, put in his place, because I was given,

by one of the students at the University of Victoria, a little notice

that was sent out. I must show it to the House because I get quite a

laugh out of it. I know that he will, because, although he thinks he's

pulling the wool over the people's eyes in this Legislature and of the

general public, the University students are not fooled. Here is a

notice that appeared just a week ago at the University of Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very humourous.

MR. SKILLINGS: Very humorous, I thought. I'll read it, Mr.

Speaker, so the House will know exactly what they think, this is, the

student body at the University of Victoria. "Marxist at large.

Well-known godless Marxist, Dave Barrett, sometimes called Leader of

the Opposition, will offend the sensibilities of decent Victorians next

Tuesday. Come and be outraged. Free coffee." A typical Socialist

gimmick. So there, my friend, is what some of the University of

Victoria pupils think of you and …

AN HON. MEMBER: Author, author.

MR. SKILLINGS: I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you still got kids going to school?

MR. SKILLINGS: Yes, I certainly have. I'm very proud of the

fact. I've got two, in the gallery, at the University of Victoria. What

do you think of that'? (interruption) . No, it was printed by the students themselves (interruption) .

No, not my sons. My sons had nothing to do with it. I think they are

going to be a little chagrined that I produced it, today, but I did,

anyway.

Now, then, I must say a word or two about the Leader of the Liberal

rump group. He presented his third budget, and I was talking to a very

prominent Victoria businessman, and I said, "What did you think of the

Leader of the Liberal Party's third budget?" he said, "Third budget? I

haven't read his first or second yet." I think that is just about… (interruption) .

Well, I want to say this, that as I listened to the Leader of the

Liberal Party, I then realized why the Federal Government is in the

mess it's in, because they've got three… I would say they are very

brilliant men in their own right, but they're not practical, they're

Fabian Socialists and I could name the Prime Minister, Mr. Marchand and

Mr. Pelletier. Now, my department prepared for me a long list of the

accomplishments of all three of the distinguished gentlemen I

[ Page 327 ]

mentioned and not one of them has ever done what I

would say an honest day's work. They've all been either university

professors, lawyers or people of that kind and I may say…. . (interruption) .

Yes, free the working man. They're going to free the working man and

the trouble with these Liberals is they have the wrong priorities and

the wrong roles and the wrong emphasis and the wrong administration and

procedures. Now, if you don't think that the Prime Minister of Canada

is just, really, a unique person, I am going to tell you something that

is true. He is so far out that in 1960, in 1960, which is only 11 years

ago, he was going to do a very practical thing. He was going to paddle

a canoe from Florida to Cuba. Look it up, if you want to do some

reading, my friend

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please (interruption) .

MR. SKILLINGS: Don't be attacking our civil servants. They're doing a very fine job. They just came across this in a periodical.

Well, to finish my story, of course, the Prime Minister…

. No, I want to tell you.

This businessman I was talking to, said, "Well", he said, "if we listen

to the Leader of the Liberal Party we'll all be up a creek and we'll

have no paddle to get out with."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the end of the joke?

MR. SKILLINGS: No, that's not the end of the joke at all.

That's only the start of the joke. The joke is on the Canadian people.

That's who the joke is on. As you remember, when he ran for the

leadership, he said, "Why, this is a joke." It certainly turned out to

be some joke, didn't it?

Now, then, I want to say something else. The Leader of the NDP in

our House has been very solicitous about new industry. I may say that

in the early part of January I went back with a group of people to the

capital of the Province of which his Party is the Government. I may say

there are literally hundreds of industries in Manitoba that are looking

for another place to reside. They're either going to come to British

Columbia or to Ontario and I'm not fooling. This is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're strong in both Provinces.

MR. SKILLINGS: Yes, you certainly are strong in both

Provinces. But I'm telling you, Mr. Leader, if you were to spend a

little bit more time advising, perhaps, your colleagues in Manitoba you

might be a little bit farther ahead. As a matter of fact, there is an

old adage, "When you do a good day's work, you have certain

satisfaction, irrespective of any of the wolves that go crying around

the door outside." Particularly, that Second Member for Vancouver East

who acts, I would say, in a very, very un-parliamentary manner because

he attacks people outside the House who haven't got an opportunity to

reply.

As a matter of fact, to get down to the specifics… (interruption) .

Are you all finished, now? I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that the

honourable Member has been throwing challenges about, "Anybody like to

go down?" I'm talking now, about the Second Member for Vancouver East.

He's talking about people challenging him. I challenge him to come

across and substantiate his charges in the city of Victoria, the

capital city, where people can see what the Government is doing every

day. I challenge you to come over to my riding. Say yes or no. (interruption) .

I've got no intention of leaving the beautiful capital city where the

daffodils are now six inches high. The Premier said that in Ottawa (interruption) .

Well, I'll tell you. The same thing happened to J. Donald Smith that is

going to happen to you, next election, my friend. Don't forget about

that. Now in the old days some of you… (interruption) .

Well, you might lose it, too. You may lose it, too. You lost the

leadership of the Party, so, if I were you, I wouldn't talk too much.

I'm not talking too much. As a matter of fact, I won't speak as long as

you spoke in this House. I've had a lot of interruptions but I have

always kept… (interruption) .

I know. With help like yours I need no enemies. In the old days, I used

to have a crystal ball, perhaps some of you will remember, and I used

to make some fantastic predictions. I'll make one prediction — that the

Leader of the Liberal rump group will not contest the next general

election as the Leader, because I have been advised that the Federal

group are disenchanted with him, the Provincial group is disenchanted

with him, and his own son and the young Liberals say he's only doing a

63 per cent job, or something like that, or 30 per cent job, or

something. So, that's the only prediction I'm going to make this year

and I haven't got a crystal ball at all.

Now let's get down to the Budget itself. I say this, that as far as the Budget presented last Friday is concerned… (interruption) yes, I could be critical.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't be critical about the Budget.

MR. SKILLINGS: No, not too critical, because I think it's the finest Budget British Columbia has ever had (interruption) .

Now, if you have anything else to say, my friend, go outside and have

another press conference like the Leader of the Liberal Party does,

will you?

Now, Mr. Speaker, they tell me now that the press boys said, "We're

getting awfully sick you know of these Liberal prepared press releases.

They are coming out just as fast as that mimeograph machine can get

them out." He said, "We just hope that it burns a bearing one of these

days because there's too many coming out."

Now, the only three increases in this Budget were the cigarette tax, gasoline …

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. SKILLINGS: Can I not discuss that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister may refer to them but not discuss them.

MR. SKILLINGS: No, I'm not going to discuss them in any depth

at all. At the same time, for 19 years the Province of British Columbia

has had a balanced Budget. Now, I would like any other Province in

Canada, including the Federal Government, to come up with a record like

that. At the same time, we have given a broad range of added advantages

to the people of British Columbia that they have not got in any other

Province. I'm telling you, now, that we are the first Legislature to

sit…and I would say this, that, as far as the other Legislatures go,

Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, across the country, there won't be one

Province in all of Canada that can compare with the Budget that we had

presented to us last Friday. Time is the only thing that will

[ Page 328 ]

prove that. Just wait and see. As far as the basic

increases of about $40 million in increased taxes — $25 million of that

is going to go to alcohol, tobacco and drug addiction research and… (interruption) .

No, no. Now, listen. As a matter of fact, I'm getting sick and tired of

the Leader of the Liberal Party saying, "B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro." Just

a moment. You're against Hydro, are you'! (Interruption.)

In other words, Mr. Speaker, he made a great charge in the House when

he spoke on Monday, in his famous budget, that the Hydro should go out

on the public money market to raise their money. What better investment

can the people of British Columbia make with their money than investing

it in their own Hydro electric — the cities or the people? The other

thing I would say is this, as we're talking about the charges to Hydro,

the thing you've got to remember is this, Mr. Speaker,…. .

AN HON. MEMBER: I wasn't wired for shock.

MR. SKILLINGS: You couldn't be wired for shock. You've

shocked so many people you're shockproof. The policy, Mr. Leader, of

your Party, going back long before you sat in this House…I can

remember your predecessor, who is now sitting in the House in Ottawa.

He said, "Don't go in for these large Hydro things, just put on a

100,000 kilowatts a year as we need it." We would have had brown-outs

all through Vancouver and all through the Province of British Columbia,

if we had listened to your stupid observations at that time. Candle

power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Candle power politics.

MR. SKILLINGS: There's one thing I'm particularly happy

about, Mr. Speaker, in this Budget. For the first time since I've been

in the House, or the first time since the University of Victoria has

been in competition with the University of British Columbia and Simon

Fraser, we now have $4 million of capital investment. It will be four,

four and six, and before you know it, it's a million dollars more, and

I see that the University is going to have to revamp its projected

building programme. With $400 million for education and with a

reduction in the municipal share of social assistance, I think the

municipalities, although they'll never be happy because I myself for

six years sat as an alderman and I know the problems of municipalities,

but I think this Budget has been very, very fair to them. Twenty

million dollars more for the Provincial home acquisition grant and, I

think, perhaps, one of the great charges that I got out of the Budget

was the $15 million for an accelerated parks development plan which, I

think, will benefit all the people. The home-owner grant is increased

from $160 to $170, which will, in a partial way, alleviate the increase

in municipal taxes, but don't think for one minute that the home-owner

grant was instituted in the first place to take up the slack of all

municipal taxes. As you know, as people demand more and more services

and the employees within the city demand more and more wages, there is

no way that you can stop taxes going up because wages are going up.

It's a vicious circle (interruption) .

Yes, and as a matter of fact, I hear all of these charges about how

unfair the Government of British Columbia is, but my colleague, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, has offered to resign his seat if

anybody in this House can find a better formula for municipalities than

we have in the Province of British Columbia. Is that not so, Mr.

Minister?

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Certainly.

MR. SKILLINGS: That's right.

This Government each and every year has also allocated certain

increases for Civil Service wage increases and they will be adjudicated

in the proper way through the Civil Service Commission. I think that is

a just and proper way to… (interruption) . Well, I'll tell you, my friend, you're never going to live long enough to be that. Remember that (interruption) .

Well, as a matter of fact, you can't have it both the ways. They tell

you to go out and attract industry and when you do go out, they

criticise you for travelling.

I may say that I made a trip in that year to Japan to turn the sod

for our Pavilion in Osaka and I may say that — you can say as you like

— I think that it was among the first five pavilions and we had to

compete not with Provinces or States but with world powers. I think

that the reaction from both the Japanese people and the world at large

is that the Canadian Pavilion was a terrific success. In that same

year, I went to Czechoslovakia to sign the contract for our audiovisual

performance or show within our Pavilion. I think the Member from Atlin

will say that it was one of the best audiovisual presentations at the

entire Fair. We had, literally, hundreds of thousands of people see it

and we've had a great deal of very, very kind comments since.

As a matter of fact, I had several newspaper reports as to… (interruption) .

I don't know what you're talking about. No, no. But my colleague from

Columbia mentioned the fact that the general public, and I don't think

you can consider the Sun , which is published by Stu Keate, is a

great supporter of this Government…but they said that they agreed

with the very modest tax adjustments. The Daily Colonist was also

referred to by the Member from Columbia and I want to say this, that I

think the editorial is very, very favourable — it says, "…. .

tailored to the times." I'm not against anybody smoking. I smoke,

sometimes, and, sometimes, I don't. It's up to the individual.

But the last paragraph, the last paragraph in this editorial in the Colonist… (laughter) .

No, I don't want my friend from Kootenay to get up and say, "You're

opposed to poor people smoking." It's their own particular decision,

but the last paragraph of the Colonist editorial on Saturday, February

6, about this Budget — and that's what we're discussing today — …. .

"Indeed, if you stop smoking and buy a smaller car, the Budget could

save you money." Now, don't say I said that. That's what the editorial

said. It's up to the individual. As far as all the controversy

regarding the 5 per cent sales tax …

AN HON. MEMBER: If you stop smoking you save money and your health at the same time.

MR. SKILLINGS: That's right. The other tax about which there

has been some criticism is the 5 per cent hotel and motel tax. I've had

letters and telephone calls in the city of Victoria from responsible

people saying, "Why hasn't this Government put this sales tax on long

ago on hotels and motels?" Wherever you travel in the world today you

will find a tax. As a matter of fact, in Japan it was 12 per cent. In

parts of Europe, it's 10 and 15 per cent.

Another thing I want to make abundantly clear — I only brought it up

in passing — is that it must be across the board. In other words, you

can't have one municipality having it and another not having it,

because that would cause unlimited problems when it came to conventions

and that kind of

[ Page 329 ]

thing. As far as I'm concerned, I told the Whip I'd

be down at 10 minutes to 3. I've stayed within my prescribed time and I

ask each and every Member of this House, not to vote on Party lines,

but to vote your conscience, vote for this Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, thank you. Mr.

Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand again in my

place representing New Westminster. Mr. Speaker, I don't quite share

the former Member's position with regard to the Budget. I can't quite

understand what his position is, so, therefore, it's hard to share (interruption) . Maybe that accounts for it.

Mr. Speaker, I think, however, that it's time that we discussed some

ramifications or, at least, we have a discussion on what the Minister

of Health said yesterday with regard to the rubella mess. Rubella, as

most people know, is German measles. Yesterday, the Minister of Health

provided us with a look at a new side of himself. Instead of his

usually aggressive stance, he was the very essence of quiet concern

with respect to that problem. The Minister was concerned about pregnant

women being vaccinated, he was concerned about those with cancer or

leukaemia being vaccinated, he was also concerned about those with

gamma globulin deficiency being vaccinated, he was concerned about

those who had fever or other illnesses and, then, he went on to say,

that he was also concerned about people being vaccinated despite the

fact that they had a religious antipathy towards vaccination.

What was he doing, Mr. Speaker? Either he was proving his lack of

understanding or he was muddying up the water. To prevent or stop an

epidemic, it's recommended that you immunize from the age of 1 to 12,

Mr. Member, age 1 to 12. So let's review this group of people, the five

groups that we were concerned about.

Pregnant women. Their doctors, of course, want them to not be

vaccinated for rubella. Their doctors all know, they read medical

journals, too, that they're not to be vaccinated because it could, in

fact, create the same condition as would be created if, in fact, the

pregnant woman contacted rubella.

Also, the concern about cancer and leukaemia. Again, this is a problem in the doctors' backyard.

Those with gamma globulin deficiency — there are probably two or

three in the whole Province between the ages of 1 to 12 with this

problem.

As far as those with fever or other illnesses, they're told,

immediately they go to a clinic or a doctor, to wait a week or however

long it takes to become well.

As far as the religious reasons, there is no compulsion in this

Province, in any event, for anybody to be vaccinated. What we were

asking for and what those who were really pressing for the mass

immunization programme were pressing for was a kind of programme that

would stop the normal carriers from infecting the community. The normal

carriers of rubella are children from the age of 1 to 12. If, in fact,

you can stop them from carrying it, they don't carry it to their

mothers or their mothers' friends, who may become pregnant during the

course of an epidemic.

The same points, however, with regard to all of these points could

be used for other vaccines, which have been mighty effective. If we

stop using polio, whooping cough, red measles, typhoid, tetanus,

diphtheria, scarlet fever and all of these vaccines because of the fact

that they might hurt somebody with gamma globulin and so on, we would

never have had a vaccination programme in the first place. Let's just

look at what happened in those cases. Virtually, all those diseases

have been wiped out. Now, I think that's the thing that we have to

concern ourselves with, is the fact that we wanted to wipe out, and

still want to wipe out, rubella because of its very serious nature.

It is little wonder we were late in the crunch, Mr. Speaker, little

wonder. One of those prominent virologists report, Dr. Enders and Dr.

Horstman…if you read on in the Enders Report, he advises mass

immunization at the end of his report. Certainly, scientifically, he

says that you've got to work on it and improve the vaccine, if in fact,

you can. That's a scientist's normal attitude towards this sort of

thing. But as to the degree of protection not being as high as it

should be, and this was what Enders was talking about, why, then, did

the Minister approve half shots during the epidemic? Half shots of the

vaccine. Yesterday, the Minister said it was introduced in June. The

actual vaccine, the first, was made available on May 1, 1970. That was

the Belgium type. The second type was the American type and both of

these were approved, both of them were approved. There was one American

strain that was not approved and it did prove to be, certainly, not as

valuable as these others and, probably, a little dangerous. But, in any

event, these two strains were approved and were quite acceptable. I

understand that, even right now, children are getting half shots. That

started in September and has gone on. In October, I believe, the

pre-schoolers began receiving half shots of the vaccine (interruption) .

Well, the Minister said yesterday he was concerned about the fact

that maybe it wasn't strong enough, thinking in terms of the Enders

Report, or would you like me to repeat that portion of my speech?

Now, we go on from that report and we think of the Horstman

situation. Now, Dr. Horstman talks about reinfection, but there's no

proof of blood infection or contagiousness subsequent to the shot,

subsequent to the vaccination. It could also happen that you could be

reinfected with rubella. Back in July, July 22, I have a report here

that the U.S. position in this whole matter was, "Here, in the United

States, officials say a year-old programme to do just that is turning

into the most successful vaccination programme in U.S. history." That's

talking about rubella — to wipe out rubella, the same as they've wiped

out other diseases. So they apparently saw no real problem with regard

to Dr. Horstman's concern about possible reinfection and carried on

with it. It's been immeasurably successful, as we will hear in just a

moment.

Now, the Minister went on to produce his secret weapon. Now that

secret weapon was HI testing. HI testing is the first line of defense.

Now, this first line of defense prompted the Provincial Laboratory to

send out a notice to a clinic last fall that I know of, "Don't send in

any more tests, we can't keep up." Now, how many got that notice? Who

knows? During that period, obviously, the facilities were overtaxed.

Also it takes time and, if you rely on abortions to solve the problem

after the fact, I say it's patently evident that this is backwards and

wrong. The prevention of the infection, if possible, has to be the way.

Now the HI has its place as a backup but its weaknesses are clear. The

rash motivates the women to get the test. It's the rash that motivates

them to go out and seek the test. Only one out of three women, however,

get the rash with rubella, only one out of three; therefore, we are

only dealing with a third of the group, in the first place, if we're

relying on the HI test. The facilities

[ Page 330 ]

would be overtaxed if you had to test all pregnant

women. Here's a release, last June, where it says, "It isn't all

pregnant women who get the test, says Dr. Homiman." Dr. Horniman is in

the B.C. Medical Association. "It isn't all pregnant women who get the

test," said Dr. Homiman. "We can't get this test done as a normal

procedure. It is only the ones that do show some evidence of German

measles that get the test." Dr. George Gibson said that the matter of

screening pregnant women came up at the last meeting of the

Association's Board of Directors and that the Board felt that the

Province's ability to do mass screening was quite limited. "We

certainly think that tests should be more available to the general

public," said Dr. Gibson, "and we're concerned about the terrible risk

to pregnant mothers. We feel that the screening programme should move

ahead and become more widespread. However, I wouldn't want to say that

the Provincial Laboratory isn't doing its job. It is probably doing as

well as can be expected." Now, I think that pretty well answers the HI

test position.

Are we going to rely on a National conference on immunization for a

decision? The Minister indicated that we were; however, recently, there

was a National conference held in the United States and its decision,

Mr. Speaker, was mass immunization. I can't imagine anything much more

coming out of our National conference.

The Minister pointed out that only one affected child has appeared

so far. As I recall, it was forecast that we should start watching

early this year and this is early this year. I hope against hope that

we find no more. Rumour has it that there are one or two more, however,

and many who are affected are deaf and it takes up to six months after

birth to detect this defect. I hope we see no more affected children

and, surely, in the future, we must insist on clear thinking and quick

decision-making in crisis situations. Not dollars before decisions, Mr.

Speaker. Decisions made as a response to confrontation is not good

enough and yet so many of the decisions that we see made by the

Government, Mr. Speaker, are made as a response to confrontation and

it's not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move on. I'd like to move to the area of

one of our tenants in British Columbia, B.C. Telephone. Mr. Speaker,

they are at it, again. Those barons of free enterprise — the B.C.

Telephone Company — want a bigger piece of the pie. Let's just examine

this great free enterprise concern. General Telephone and Electronics

of New York owns the controlling interest of Anglo-Canadian Telephone

Company. That great telephone company deals in money, and — that's what

it deals in, it deals in money, not phone service — has the controlling

interest in B.C. Tel. OK? Now General Tel and its errand boy,

Anglo-Canadian, also have other holdings, Mr. Speaker. Those other

holdings are such as Automatic Electric, Canada Telephone and Supplies,

Lenkurt Electric, Dominion Directories and many more. But those are

just a good little representative group of free enterprises. Now, there

are other companies involved in this outrageous monopoly but let's just

see what the effect of this parent-child relationship is in the

Province of British Columbia.

Papa Tel, you know Daddy Tel, Papa Tel, insists that its family of

companies keep the faith. He insists that they keep the faith.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ma Bell.

MR. COCKE: Ma Bell, that's the other Tel. Papa Tel, that's

General Telephone and Electronics, in case anybody has forgotten, of

New York, calls the shots. If you don't think so, look over the set-up.

B.C. Telephone is the company which has to answer to the Board of

Transport Commissioners. All the other companies are in the clear. They

don't answer to anybody. They don't answer to the Board of Transport

Commissioners as to their profits, as to whether they're doing business

in a sound or an unsound manner. They answer to Papa Tel, clearly to

make profits at whatever rate the traffic will bear. That's where they

are — clear as a bell. There's no protection for the traffic, neither

the protection afforded by competition, nor the protection afforded by

Government authority or public disclosure. But, certainly, there is no

protection whatsoever afforded the people of this Province against the

kind of thing that's going on. In 1965, for example, 90 per cent of the

supplies required by B.C. Tel came from subsidiaries of GT and E direct

subsidiaries and indirect subsidiaries. Automatic Electric was selling

about $13 million a year worth of material and equipment to B.C. Tel.

Compare, if you will, those great Prairie Provinces that the Minister

of Industrial Development was talking about a few minutes ago, those

great Prairie Provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. They are

Government telephones and they're not locked into a giant like we're

locked in. Our locked-in giant is something else again. Our locked-in

giant is the place where the money is just sort of kept at a minimal

rate of flow. It's outside our locked-in giant, where the action is.

All these systems put their requirements out to bid, these other

Provinces. B.C. Tel puts its bids to bed. There's no question about

that. There's an iron curtain around that B.C. Telephone and its

purchasing department, the like of which would make the Soviet Union

pale. They put the highly profitable portion of their business with

those sister companies that I've named. The set-up in B.C. Tel's office

in Burnaby is one of the most obvious aspects of this whole thing. It's

really of great interest. Here you find B.C. Tel's purchasing

department in Burnaby on 10th Avenue. In the same building 30 or 40

feet from the B.C. Tel's office, in the same building, is Automatic

Electric's office and, also, you'll find Canada Telephone and Supply in

the same office. All having coffee together, lunch together. I'm sure,

they probably play golf at the same clubs together. Wouldn't be

surprised. Some are dummies, some are not. The Automatic Electric is

the one big supplier. Such arrogance, Mr. Speaker, such arrogance even

rivals this Government. It rivals this Government. Who else is there in

Canada who would try that? Bell Telephone doesn't. They have their

connections, exactly the same, or very similar, but, at least, they

stay out of the buildings. At least, they stay out of the buildings.

But here you've got them all together.

Canada Telephone and Supply is not quite the same as Automatic

Electric. It is an installer of major equipment but it is there, too,

and I would think that they get all the contracts for installing major

equipment. Something tells me that. If you see anybody else doing it,

let us know.

Now, the end result, I think, Mr. Speaker, is obvious. If you look

at your telephone, it has the Automatic Electric stamp marked right on

it. Next time you go to your office, look at your telephone, and you'll

notice the little Automatic Electric stamp on it. In Alberta, your

phone could be a Northern phone, it could be ITT, or it could be

Automatic Electric. The same in Saskatchewan. At least, there's some

competition there.

Here is just one good example of what happens in British

[ Page 331 ]

Columbia. A cord key for a key set in B.C. — B.C.

Tel pays $15, Alberta pays $12. There are a lot of cords for key sets.

These are just a few examples that you can sometimes pick out because

most of this is done behind those three closed doors. It's a shame, Mr.

Speaker. The Prairie systems buy four-conductor wire cheaper than the

B.C. Tel buys three conductor wire. And on and on and on it goes. What

do we get for our expensive phone service? Just about the poorest

quality in the Nation, the poorest quality you can imagine. Order a

phone in Alberta and you'll get that phone within three or four days,

no more than four. Order a phone in Saskatchewan and you wait no more

than four days. Order a phone in British Columbia and you can count on

waiting 14 days. Fourteen days, Mr. Speaker, a lot of mountains (interruption) .

That's right. Now even when your house is wired, or even when your

apartment is wired, for a telephone, Mr. Speaker, you still wait 14

days for this service. What quality? What right have they to go to the

Board of Transport Commissioners and ask for an increase in rates? How

about trying to get… (interruption) . Mr. Minister, as long as you're here, they'll stay there, those intelligent men (laughter) .

Thank you, but, anyway, let's get back to the telephones for a minute.

Try to get a long distance line out of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

You'll fail almost as often as you succeed. Any of you Cabinet

Ministers, with the exception of the Cabinet Minister over there, knows

that, because you're always having to get lines out of the Province.

I'm sure you're having as much trouble as I am and many of the people I

know are. The quality of the service for the price should be great.

Yet, what is it? It's just awful. It's a poor quality of service.

Let's look at the publicly-owned telephone systems. Manitoba, it's

$3.90 in Winnipeg; Saskatchewan, $4.15 in Regina; and Calgary, $4.25 in

Alberta, the Alberta Government telephones. They're paying those kind

of prices for better quality of service and everything else than we are.

Mr. Speaker, there's one other thought that I should bring to your

attention and that is just what happens to this company? This company,

that is asking for an increase, with all of their sister companies

making huge profits, made $19,051,000 last year. They made $19,175,000,

the year before, and having been in business for some time, like the

Member across the way, I know how businessmen look at things like that.

They say, "Well, we didn't make as much as last year, therefore, we

lost a hundred thousand or whatever." Yes, that's the reasoning right

there — $19,051,000 they made this year. Now, if they're having a

little trouble with the salaries, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the

Member over there who doesn't understand, I would suggest that maybe

they should get Automatic Electric to cut their rates for some of the

supplies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. COCKE: Right. OK? Where do we go from here, Mr. Speaker?

I say it's best that we buy the telephone company or at least…now I'm

talking about a Crown corporation, yes, buy the telephone company or,

at least, insist that the Board of Transport Commissioners turn down

the request for rate increases.

Mr. Speaker, my course would be the Crown corporation route. I make

no apology for that. There is no competition. We're talking about a

utility and that utility is a very sensitive utility. It is our

communication medium in this Province and it's controlled, not only

outside of the Province, it's controlled outside of the country. I

think that's pretty bad news.

The tax savings, Mr. Speaker, alone, would cut the cost of service

to the home-owner nearly in half. The present profits would pay for the

utility in less than 15 years. The savings in operating and money

normally used for expansion could provide for future expansion. Mr.

Speaker, I see no other course but to head in the direction of making

the B.C. Telephone a Crown corporation and using it as they do in those

other Provinces.

Mr. Speaker, this Legislature could do nothing more appropriate, I

think, in this our Centennial Year, than enact a programme of

legislation to guarantee that all our senior citizens could enjoy the

good life. On the other hand, our Centennial celebrations will have

rather a hollow ring if we do nothing to improve the plight of

thousands of elderly British Columbians. In view of the urgency of this

matter, I do not believe it would do any harm to remind the Members of

this House of the cruel facts of life for the majority of retired

people in our Province. In my own constituency, I have been in

tumbledown homes, whose shabby rooms have become home to many of our

pensioners. Mr. Speaker, I can show Members squalid tenement blocks

occupied primarily by elderly citizens. Worst of all, are the nursing

homes and rest homes of substandard quality. I know that my

constituency is not unique. In Vancouver's east end, in Kitsilano, on

Richards and Hamilton, and on Cordova, similar conditions prevail. On a

smaller scale, in every community in the Province, it's easy to

pinpoint the slum areas and, in particular, the pensioners' slums,

where so many are condemned to live simply because they're old. That,

of course, is only one aspect.

We know something of rummage sales in our Party. For years, our

members have held them as fund-raising activities. We don't have quite

the access as other Parties have to money. We have seen many, many old

people showing up at rummage sales, simply looking for decent wearable

clothing which they can afford. The Salvation Army and the other

secondhand stores see hundreds of retired British Columbians every day,

certainly, as many as can be found shopping in those great department

stores. For large numbers of retired people, appearance and style are,

by necessity, irrelevant. The greatest expectation is to obtain

clothing which is warm and comfortable. That, too, is rather a bleak

prospect for people who have worked hard all their lives, contributing

to the development of the good life.

Mr. Speaker, what about food — life's other essential? I suggest

that any honourable Members, who have not done so, talk to people

living on pensions about their diet. If the answers don't shock you,

nothing will. For those who have cooking facilities, the weekly food

budget is often so low that their diets are unhealthy, at worst, and

unappetizing, at best. The others, those living in rooms, well, you can

find them in any of the hundreds of greasy spoons throughout the

Province, enduring meals that Members of this House would walk away

from. Now, of course, there are many who can afford decent housing,

food and clothing, even then, however, life is lacking much that we

enjoy. Recreational opportunities, enough money to travel a bit, a

chance to see a concert, a car to drive. For the majority of retired

British Columbians, financial factors prevent some or all of these

possibilities for making retirement years more enjoyable. As far as I'm

concerned, and as far as my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are

concerned, it's just not good enough to cast aside the people who built

British Columbia and to

[ Page 332 ]

condemn them to a dreary existence, living out

their hard-earned retirement years in the continual struggle for even

the necessities of life.

For no other reason than its failure to include sweeping provisions

for improving the life of retired British Columbians, this Budget

introduced by the Government would stand condemned, Mr. Speaker. In a

year, supposedly devoted to recognizing British Columbia's history,

it's a mockery to ignore in the Provincial Budget the people who shaped

that history.

I propose, today, that, during this Session of the Legislature, we

launch an imaginative and far-reaching programme to ensure the best

possible life for British Columbia's senior citizens. I'll spend a few

minutes outlining some of the measures which should be included in such

a programme.

A reasonable guaranteed income, Mr. Speaker, should be embarked

upon. In reply to critics who warn of the alleged dangers of

large-scale influx of retired Canadians in British Columbia, I would

suggest that we welcome any such increase in population. Pensioners are

consumers and any significant increase in the number of consumers in

B.C., with adequate purchasing power, would be a powerful stimulus to

our economy and, by increasing the local market, would materially

assist the healthy department of secondary industry in this Province.

Even the provisions of a guaranteed income is not sufficient, in

itself. In the first place, it's essential that we eliminate provisions

in the Old Age Assistance Act, which denies old age assistance to

retired people owning assets. Requiring people to give up their few

hard-earned capital assets, in order to qualify for needed assistance,

is a relic of the nineteenth century, more appropriate to British

Columbia's first year of Confederation than to our hundredth year, Mr.

Speaker. In addition to making our proposed guaranteed income available

to all senior citizens, elimination of these provisions would make

other pensioners eligible for supplementary benefits, such as free

prescription drugs and bus passes.

Adequate income will not fully solve another great problem faced by

many of our retired citizens. There would still remain a great shortage

of appropriate low-cost housing and, as part of our Centennial

objective, we should include the goal of ensuring that every British

Columbian of retirement years, who does not own his or her own home,

should have available suitable housing which does not put an undue

strain on his or her income. There are some excellent examples of such

housing for senior citizens, but thousands more units are urgently

required. Some Federal funds are available. A substantial allocation of

Provincial funds and direct leadership by a Provincial agency in

undertaking low-cost housing developments for senior citizens

throughout the Province is required, if we are to meet the change of

providing adequate housing for all, Mr. Speaker. For those British

Columbians, who have retired and who own and wish to maintain their own

homes, the burden of property taxation is intolerable. We have long

advocated removal of the burden of education costs from residential

property taxes. At the very least, that could be done, initially, for

senior citizens. At the very least, it could be done for them, exempt

from payment the school cost portion of residential property taxes.

Most pensioners who own their own homes could afford to maintain them

without, as at present, suffering real hardship to do so.

Most of my remarks, so far, have referred to all retired British

Columbians. One of the sad facts of life is that illness and chronic

health problems in many cases are unavoidable during the retirement

years. We've repeatedly advocated Government action to provide adequate

chronic care facilities in British Columbia. That need still exists and

it is still a top priority. In addition, however, in developing a

large-scale programme of public low-cost housing for senior citizens,

provision should be made for limited care facilities in such housing

developments. A resident nurse, limited care clinic and available

domestic assistance in all senior citizen housing complexes would

provide economical and various necessary medical assistance to

pensioners who are mobile but who suffer from a variety of chronic

ailments. Combined with adequate chronic care and nursing home

facilities, such provisions would ensure that all British Columbians

have the opportunity for the health care necessary to enable them to

enjoy their retirement years.

An area, the importance of which has been recognized only in recent

years, is the area of social and recreational needs of the elderly. In

June of last year, I had the opportunity to attend a conference on the

problems of senior citizens, sponsored by that infamous B.C.

Federation, by the way, of Labour. No, this was a conference sponsored

by the B.C. Federation of Labour. The principle guest speaker was Dr.

David Schoenfeld of the University of Calgary and he's an acknowledged

expert in that field. His views on the importance of the subject of

health and happiness of retired citizens were extremely interesting.

Throughout his presentation, however, it was emphasized that a great

deal of research is still required to determine the kind of social and

recreational facilities that are required to meet the needs of the

elderly. Accordingly, I would urge the Government to make provision for

a thorough study into this question, with a view to determining the

kind of social and recreational facilities which are most needed and

with a view to the introduction of a Government programme to provide

such facilities.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in this matter, I want to point out that

we are wasting a great resource in British Columbia and, indeed,

throughout Canada. Our thousands of retired citizens, collectively,

represent a treasure chest of valuable knowledge, skills and

experience. Lifetimes spent in an infinite variety of occupations have,

in turn, provided an infinite source of know-how. This experience is,

at present, almost totally wasted, because life for most pensioners is,

simply, a question of day-to-day existence. There is little time or

incentive to make available skills and knowledge to the community.

Those skills are not available to the community, because they are in

their little hives. Nor have we, as a society, made any real effort to

encourage use of the skills and knowledge which are going to waste. I

suggest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that a supplement to the kind of

programme that I have proposed should be an organized effort, under

Government initiative, to encourage retired people to voluntarily make

their knowledge and skills available to the community, to whatever

extent they wish, and to encourage all kinds of organizations and

groups to take advantage of the talent and experience which are

available. By making it possible for retired citizens to enjoy a better

and fuller life, we would also be making it possible for the rest of

the community to enjoy the real benefits from those people.

Finally, a word about costs. We've emphasized, repeatedly, that one

of the sources of necessary social capital in this Province is to be

found by ensuring that people of the Province receive an adequate

return on the development of our natural resources. Nowhere is this

more appropriate than

[ Page 333 ]

in considering the needs of the elderly.

In addition, in evaluating proposed Government expenditure during

the year, I find many areas of expenditure which, to me, are less

important than the expenditure to provide a decent life for the

builders of British Columbia. Our Centennial expenditures, for example,

in themselves, are an excellent example of a place where we could do a

little saving. I think that they're worthwhile but, certainly, they are

less important than the well being of thousands of retired citizens.

Furthermore, I'm firmly convinced that a comprehensive programme to

ensure decent living standards and an opportunity to enjoy life for our

senior citizens would have the full support of every working British

Columbian. As a result, I'm equally sure that a fair and equitable

division of additional costs resulting from such a programme would also

be widely accepted, not only in this Legislature, but in every corner

of the Province. Nothing that we could do in this Legislature would

make me prouder to be a Member than a programme to bring the good life

to people who have brought us up to our present level of development,

Mr. Speaker. Nothing would be a better recognition of our first one

hundred years. Nothing would be a better start for our second hundred

years. I urge the Government to consider this matter seriously, and to

act on it. I can assure you that meaningful steps in this direction

will have the full support of my colleagues and myself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with another item on the agenda. When a

government is committed to a course set by multinational corporations,

that government is vulnerable. We all remember the off-hand comment of

the president of General Motors, you know, "What's good for General

Motors is good for the country." (Interruption.)

You know, later, that same man, Charlie Wilson moved into Government.

He moved into Government. Significant, isn't it, that the roles are

interchangeable? We've seen similar situations of role changing in

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. There is no contradiction in the eyes of

those men. There's no contradiction, whatsoever. Profit motive is

omnipotent and these Governments are locked into the system which will

sacrifice anything in the name of growth. What are we sacrificing, Mr.

Speaker? I think I'll do a speech on insurance, after I've done this (interruption) .

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get back to what's on my desk and not yours,

the great sacrifice that we're making, and we are sacrificing, is the

access to every opinion except those that adhere to the principle that

what's good for the Mogul is good for the country. That's exactly what

we're sacrificing in this Province. The decision-makers in our society

are those mighty hunters, hunters of the buck, hunters of the buck.

When the powers of Government and industry are interchangeable, we have

only one opinion. On most Government appointed Boards, you will find

the same names that appear on the boards of directors of large

corporations. There is no voice of the housewives. There is no voice of

labour. There is no voice of the students. Society is not composed of

leaders in industry and Government. Society is people from all walks of

life, Mr. Speaker. What a change it would be if, suddenly, we saw

opportunities given to associations and unions, those great

organizations representative of great numbers of people, incidentally,

to provide members to boards, Mr. Speaker. Who speaks for the workers

in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We do.

MR. COCKE: Who speaks for the teachers in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We do.

MR. COCKE: Who speaks for the housewives in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We do.

MR. COCKE: On Hydro?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We do.

MR. COCKE: Who speaks for the women on Hydro? Who speaks for

the workers on Hydro? Who speaks for the teachers on the Hydro Board,

or the University Board, or the Liquor Board, or all the other boards

in this Province? There's a myth abroad, Mr. Speaker…. (interruption) . That's right. Who speaks for the Indians?

There's a myth abroad, Mr. Speaker, that only those of great

success, only those of…I'm standing. Sure, I'll speak for anybody who

is a good person in society. The kinds of things that he has done have

been far more representative than the kinds of things that have been

done over there. So don't make cracks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. COCKE: OK, Mr. Speaker, to repeat. There is a myth abroad

that only those who are a great success in the business world can come

up with rational opinions and firm decisions. Mr. Speaker, that's a

pretty weak myth, but it's there just the same. That's right. It's a

dangerous myth, Mr. Speaker. My feeling is that these people are great

conformists. They might be hard workers, but they're great conformists.

In their conformity, lies the weakness of the whole method. If clarity

of thought and concern for the needs of people were the criteria for

the appointment of people to key board positions, I'd feel a great deal

more confident in the future of Government institutions and utilities

in this Province, a lot more confident.

As an aside, during the Budget Speech, the Premier mentioned, "This

is a budget to benefit the people." If it is, how nice. But, who else

should be considered, Mr. Speaker, who else should be considered in the

Budget? This indicates to me that the needs of the people are an

afterthought. The first consideration is to supply industry with a

great resource of people to serve their needs and a Province rich in

natural resources to fill their tills with huge profits, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Government has to be vulnerable if its only source

of information is from the establishment. This is not to say that all

the opinions that they are receiving are wrong. It is to say, however,

that the establishment will not furnish information detrimental to its

own objectives and goals. The future, of necessity, belongs to an

informed public. Now, if we disregard the need for involvement of the

broadest cross-section of the people, we will fail to meet their needs

and the whole parliamentary system is in jeopardy. Once again, I repeat

my appeal for working standing committees of this House, moving around

the Province learning the needs of people. There is no excuse for a

Government keeping the Members of the Legislature away from the total

community. People are ready and informed sufficiently to provide us

with an abundance of useful information. The Legislature, in order to

become more

[ Page 334 ]

relevant, must be in closer contact with the people

and their problems. The fact that each constituency is represented by

an M.L.A. is not enough, particularly in those constituencies

represented by a Government Member.

It should not be the wish here in the Legislature of our Province to make… (interruption) .

Enough to get elected, Mr. Member, enough to get elected. I had a lot

more people voting for me than voted for you, Mr. Member (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. COCKE: Now, it should be the wish here in the

Legislature, Mr. Speaker, to make democracy work more effectively. This

objective can best be served by the involvement of people of every walk

of life. Communication does not take place with those alienated, we all

know that. Time and thought must be spent in involving the aged, youth,

the poor and the professionals, working men and women and those unable

to work, who seem to be so abhorrent to some Members of this

Government. Surely, it's time for long distance Government to return to

the people and represent their best interests. I submit that the

Budgets of the future must not only benefit people, but they must serve

people. Divine right decision-making may work, but it is unlikely to

serve. A government may remain in power after it has ceased serving,

but what a legacy it leaves! This old Government here, courtesy of

public relation firms and an unlimited supply of election funds — that's where you are — should take note. The public needs are not being

solved by corporate interests, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a book printed and distributed by the B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority and in this book are figures, figures,

figures, figures. No recourse, Mr. Speaker, as to why those figures are

there. We know, for an example, that the Hydro paid some Sullivan so

many thousands of dollars and we know that they paid Adam so many

hundreds of dollars and so on. All of these things we know. But there

is no back-up, no vouchers, no voucher system in this Province, no

explanation of what's going on in Hydro. That's all we want to know — what's going on in Hydro and all of the other publicly-owned operations

in this Province? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the

Honourable Member from North Vancouver-Capilano that the motion that,

"Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee

of Supply" be amended by adding the following words, "That this House

regrets that the Budget Speech fails to disclose any assurances that

the accounts of Crown corporations or agencies such as British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, Workmen's

Compensation Board and British Columbia Liquor Control Board will be

scrutinized or revealed to the Legislature or its Public Accounts

Committee of the House and that the accounts, vouchers, receipts and

documents relating to the said Crown agencies will be available to the

Members of this House." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

since the Second Member for Point Grey read last week the Liberal

speech from the Throne, and since the First Member from Point Grey

presented the Liberal budget, I find it very difficult to understand

why the Government, or how the Government, can still be standing,

especially, Mr. Speaker, after the first speech this afternoon by the

Honourable Minister, I do sense a certain wobbling or leaning, I think,

by some Members of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the honourable Member second the amendment?

MR. BROUSSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then, would he sign the amendment, please?

MR. BROUSSON: When I spoke a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, I

referred somewhat facetiously to my two honourable colleagues who

practice law. Several Members on the other side, perhaps lacking a

certain sense of humour, have commented a little unfavourably on this.

So I want to clarify my position on this, Mr. Speaker, and to make very

clear that I have the greatest confidence in my colleagues. In fact, I

want to recommend them both to all Members of this House, especially,

Mr. Speaker, to the Department of the Attorney-General. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, if any department needs assistance in drawing up legislation,

I consider my colleagues very well qualified and I'm sure they will

give you very valuable advice at very reasonable rates (laughter) .

Mr. Speaker, there's been mention by several Members in this Debate

of the proposed Burrard Inlet crossing. I want to mention it very

briefly again today because I believe there are several points that are

still badly misunderstood. The Leader of the Liberal Party explained on

Monday how easily it might be financed by a cooperative effort by all

levels of Government. It's unfortunate that no one, so far, on the

Government side, has yet had the courage to raise and discuss this

subject. I do believe that the Second Member for Vancouver Centre did

agree with my proposal on a Vancouver Regional District Transportation

Authority that would include the crossing, rapid transit, freeways, the

major entrances to Vancouver and, most important, parking.

Confusion seems to lie in the tremendous importance of Burrard

crossing, not just to the North Shore but to all of Vancouver, the

lower mainland and, in fact, to British Columbia.

First of all, consider the necessity of the heavy traffic between

many parts of Vancouver and the North Shore, traffic for Nanaimo and

Vancouver Island through Horseshoe Bay, traffic for the growing

industrial centre of Squamish and for Whistler and, soon, on to

Lillooet, traffic taking freight to the PGE station for transport to

the great north and central parts of our Province, traffic for the

container terminal for sea transport to Prince Rupert and all the north

coast, salesmen and students and many others, who live and work in many

different parts of the lower mainland and must move from one part to

the other, traffic seeking recreation along the beautiful Sunshine

Coast, or Seymour, or Cypress Bowl or Grouse or Whistler or just maybe,

that future San Moritz of British Columbia — Powder Mountain. For all

of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a North Shore crossing,

it is a lower mainland and a British Columbia crossing of Burrard Inlet.

Some people have suggested, "Let's build a rapid transit crossing

only." Let me show you why this won't work and is, simply, not a

practical solution. First, it will take at least ten years before the

rapid transit system is functioning and going somewhere. Second, in

1985, the studies show that more than one half of the traffic will not

want to go to, or start

[ Page 335 ]

from, the Vancouver central business district.

Third, if all the travelers going to the central business district were

to use rapid transit, the two existing crossings would still be

completely clogged, anyway, with the other traffic we've been talking

about. Fourth, a separate rapid transit system would cost, by itself,

nearly $100 million and would not provide the other advantages for

Vancouver city that I want to explain again. This is the important

point that everyone is missing — the crossing does not flash freeways

through the downtown area, it does not dump heavy traffic in the

central business district. Instead, it provides a route under the

central business district for the through traffic and arranges for its

distribution wherever it needs to go, to the east-west points, to False

Creek, to Point Grey, to downtown, to the east end and so on. The fact

is, that rather than greater downtown congestion, when the crossing

opens, an average of 70,000 cars per day will disappear from

Vancouver's downtown streets because of the by-pass tunnel and the new

waterfront distributor.

As Paddy Sherman writes in the Vancouver Province , this is

not a project to make life easier for the fat cats of the North Shore.

Its main purpose is to save Vancouver from strangulation and make it a

decent place in which to live. So, again, Mr. Speaker, let's quit

politicking about the Burrard Crossing and rapid transit and get on

with what has to be done. It will never cost us less. Mr. Speaker, I

find I have something in common with the Member from Oak Bay, when he

said last night, that he believed in hammering away at the same issues

and problems until somebody listens. I very much believe in this same

approach. The question is, "Is anyone listening?" For instance, I want

to mention again, Mr. Speaker, some of the problems caused for the

construction industry and its associated trades and subtrades by at

least two departments of this Government.

For two years, now, I've been explaining to the House the very

serious difficulties caused by the administration of the Fire Marshal's

Act under the Attorney-General. The honourable Members will, perhaps,

remember how I described the very major problems of safety, the danger

to life and property, all over British Columbia, because propane gas

and oil furnaces come under the jurisdiction of this department.

Inspections are carried out by a great many completely unqualified,

though well-meaning, people, such as RCMP constables, acting part-time

fire chiefs and so on. At the same time, natural gas installations are

inspected under a different set of rules by the well-qualified people

of the Safety Services Division of the Department of Public Works. Last

year, I detailed, at length, several instances of how dangerous to life

and property this situation is. Since then there have been more

examples come to light.

How much longer will the people of British Columbia be exposed to

this danger by the insistence of the Attorney-General in maintaining

this antiquated arrangement? The other part of the problem is the

matter of building codes. To an extent, the fire marshall is

responsible, here, also. The rules he enforces, albeit they are

enforced very weakly, vary in different parts of the Province. In fact,

they vary even in different parts of Greater Victoria. At the same

time, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been making loud noises

about standardized codes across the Province so that each small

community doesn't have its own set of rules for plumbing and all the

other phases of construction. I know the plumbing industry has been

working with the Minister and, hopefully, he will have some

announcement or some legislation during this present Session. Many of

us will eagerly await and support this.

I thought the House might be interested in a story about some of the

very early problems of the building industry with respect to

construction codes. This one goes back to a gentleman, in very ancient

history, a well-known builder, who was seeking a building permit on a

mountain in the Near East. "Well, Mr. Moah," said the building

official, reading from the application form. The applicant corrected

him. "Mr. Noah, then," said the official, "where were we? Oh, yes,

you're the one who wants to build the Arch." "That's Ark," Noah

corrected him. "All right, Ark," said the official. "Listen, do you

realize the bottom of this thing is designed to be round? That's no

good at all. A building with a round bottom isn't going to stand up.

Besides it completely ignores the wind and sea as loading

requirements." "It's not really a building," said Noah, "it's more like

a refuge." "No matter what you call it, you must modify the plan in

order to obtain clearance," said the official. "I'm not certain there's

time to revise," protested Noah. "It can't be helped," shrugged the

official, "but there's more yet. These dimensions, for instance, you've

scored these in what-you-call-its." "Cubits," said Noah, "cubits were

specified." "Very fancy," said the official, "very avant-garde. But we

deal in good old feet and inches around here. Whoever did your

specifications, will just have to convert everything to feet." "I'm not

sure we can ask Him to do that," said Noah, "He really doesn't take to

being told what to do." "Another thing I must ask," said the official,

"what's all this space for at the lower levels?" "That's to serve as

quarters for animals," Noah ventured cautiously. "Uh, huh, and how many

pets do you have?" "Two." "Two of what?" "Two of, well, everything."

"Good grief, you mean this is going to be some sort of boarding

kennel?" "Not at all, " said Noah, "my family will be there, too." "My

dear fellow, we can't possibly do a thing for you until you obtain

clearance from the Health Department, the SPCA and the veterinary

approval," the official advised. "Redesign the bottom, convert the

cubits and obtain three preliminary permits." "There just isn't time,"

said Noah. "Nonsense," said the official, "you can do it as soon as

this rain stops."

So you can see, Mr. Speaker, these problems aren't really very new.

While the Minister of Municipal Affairs is, perhaps, making a little

progress, he might get together with his colleagues and the Attorney — General's Department and Public Works and solve the other very

dangerous situation as well.

One of the popular subjects in the debates in this House is always

pollution. I want to explore, today, a phase of pollution about which

not very much has been said or done — that of solid waste. Waste has

become pollution. What goes into the air, water and the garbage cans

rolls back to confront an economy ill-equipped to deal with it. At the

same time, as waste increases, resources shrink. About 25 tons of

minerals were taken from the earth and processed last year to support

each North American citizen. Even the supply of regenerable resources,

such as trees and natural fibres, is diminishing. Given present rates

of consumption and replacement, the United States will be using more

trees than it grows by 1980. The idea that waste is raw material, that

it can be converted into new and useful products by recycling, is

gaining support. It solves the converging dilemmas of pollution and

disappearing resources. We might say, "We can no longer look at

pollution as something to get rid of. We have to look rather at

pollution as an unused resource."

Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, speaking last

[ Page 336 ]

October, in Toronto — "The Next Industrial

Revolution" was the topic of the conference at which he was speaking.

Dr. Spilhaus said that one of the oddest paradoxes is that the

sophisticated technology which provides us with so many things is only

allowed to do half its job." We use a thousand and one products, we

discard them. Our municipalities and governments remind me of the lazy

housewife, when asked what she did with the garbage, said "Oh, I just

kick it around until it gets lost." They grind things up, they burn

them, they conscientiously dilute them and hope no one will notice.

Only relatively recently, have we begun to apply the logic of what I

call closing the loop. Closing the loop means compressing garbage

rather than burning it, then using it for land-fill. It means grinding

up bottles and using the powder as a binder for highway surfacing. It

means crushing old cars into neat cubes and melting them down into new

cars. It is in a word, the systematic reuse of everything. Not only

human wastes, but industrial and chemical products once used up can be

recycled.

What is the situation in British Columbia? The Greater Vancouver

Regional District recently received the Keller Report on solid waste

management and it should be required reading for every legislator and

for everyone interested in conservation. This report shows that the

average solid waste production is 8 lbs. per person per day. In Greater

Vancouver, this means that, in 1969, over 500,000 tons of waste were

deposited in land-fills. It means that collection and disposal for

about a million people cost $5 1/4 million, more than 7 per cent of the

general tax levy in Greater Vancouver. The disturbing point is that

this is growing at about 15 per cent per year. Already, the figure of

1969 is probably closer to $7 million for 1971. The present prime

method of disposing of refuse by land-fill methods is available to us

for a projected maximum of not more than 20 years. The important point

to note, here, is that other factors, primarily ecological, can force

the abandonment of this method very much sooner. Straight disposal must

shift to other more sophisticated approaches, such as extracting from

refuse, heat and electrical energy, better use of space and land-fill

by compacting, consolidation and recycling.

It's the last I want to discuss briefly now — the three R's of waste

disposal, as Mr. Keller calls them, recovery, recycling and reuse. Many

industries are recycling waste products and, to a lesser extent,

recovered products. About 7 per cent of all paper manufactured in

Canada is produced from secondary fibres extracted from reclaimed

waste. This compares with 20 per cent in the United States, but there

would be a much lower percentage in B.C. Most of the recycled paper in

B.C. originates in paper manufacturing and converting operations Much

of this is repulped at the primary mills. Some is sold to the Burnaby

Paperboard Mill which uses waste paper collected in the community and

converts it into roofing felts, gypsum board, corrugated box liner

boards and so on. Some waste paper is always used in the manufacture of

moulded paper products, such as egg cartons and excelsior. Generally,

it appears unlikely that present manufacturing facilities would be

capable of utilizing all of the waste paper developed in B.C. but it's

clear that a great deal more could be recycled than is being done now.

At the present time, the Regional District generates over 100,000

tons of waste paper each year but only about half of this can presently

be absorbed in the pulping process. If means can be found for an

economically sound paper salvage industry, with the cooperation of the

Provincial and regional levels of Government, theoretically, this

100,000 tons of paper per year removed for waste disposal could mean a

saving of close to $1 million per year in the cost of these services.

This would also save space in the refuse dumps, create work for a

number of people and save many acres of forests. For example, this

year's Regional Districts' telephone directories, 550,000, if repulped

after salvaging, would save 35,000 trees.

I believe some of these problems might be overcome and a great deal

more accomplished if research could come up with an efficient

small-scale operation designed to use the type and amount of newspaper

available in B.C., perhaps, integrated with a primary mill, and

designed to produce a finished product acceptable by available markets.

It might be necessary for Government to assist in this research and,

perhaps, make grants or give tax incentives, to get the project under

way.

One industry in B.C. that's been much affected by legislation in

this field is the soft drink canning industry, which was dealt a major

blow by the Litter Act , which we passed last year. I believe the reaction of this industry to the Litter Act

is a great example of free enterprise — independent local industry

meeting the challenge this Legislature gave them last year. The soft

drink canners formed their own nonprofit organization to arrange for

facilities to receive the returned soft drink cans and to make the

two-cent refund to the public. Now, this is all the Litter Act

requires. Nothing is said in the Act about disposing of the returned

cans. This company proposes to gather the cans up, or it does gather

the cans up, crushes and bales them and ships them to Seattle, where

they are being treated, detinned and other chemical treatments and they

are going to be, in Seattle, recycled into steel again. In the course

of about five or six weeks, Mr. Speaker, from January 1 until February

15, nearly 500,000 tins will have been accumulated. These 500,000 cans

will not go into any garbage dump, they will be recycled to conserve

valuable land space, land-fill and to conserve resources of steel.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what happens to all the beer cans that the

brewing industry and the Liquor Control Board have returned to them.

Are they being recycled? Unfortunately, not. Under the supervision of

the Liquor Control Board vendor, these beer cans are burned or

otherwise treated to render them unusable and then they're dumped.

Surely, now that private enterprise has made it possible, we should see

that a Provincial Government agency, such as the Liquor Control Board,

takes steps to arrange for used beer cans to be reconverted into useful

metal, not just sent to the garbage dump.

As a matter of fact, if the legislation were properly written and if

other arrangements were made, many thousands of liquor and wine bottles

could also be recycled and reused in British Columbia rather than being

turned into garbage. I'd like to turn now to another waste disposal

problem.

Last year, I remember very well driving down a winding road in

Hawaii through a very green and luxuriant forest of trees, to one of

those very beautiful beaches. Spoiling that island paradise, on the

very edge of that beautiful white sand beach, were no less than 35 old

wrecks of abandoned automobiles. Now, in British Columbia, in 1969,

112,000 passenger cars did not have their licenses renewed; 112,000

cars disappeared off the streets of British Columbia. In 1970, 63,000

autos and trucks will be retired in Greater Vancouver, alone. What will

happen to these vehicles? About 5 per cent, 3,000 in Vancouver, roughly

another 3,000 elsewhere in the

[ Page 337 ]

Province, will be abandoned, illegally, to litter

our highways and beauty spots, at places like Bowen Island, along the

Fraser River and so on. Some of you, perhaps, have noticed an abandoned

car lying in the silver Skagit River on the way to the Skagit Valley.

There are even cars abandoned in the Skagit itself. Other cars will be

acquired by junk dealers, scrap processors and still others will be

acquired by backyard car strippers for the purpose of partial

cannibalization. We've all seen the results and the collection of rusty

auto hulks in many parts of our Province, usually in the country or on

the outskirts of towns and villages. Sometimes, even, a legitimate junk

dealer or scrap processor ends up with a huge pile of auto hulks much

higher than any screen he might have built.

Quite apart from the visual pollution of our countryside, handling

of illegally abandoned autos is expensive and it's often impossible to

trace the person responsible for the abandonment. Keller, in his

report, demonstrates that a total of at least $14 is the cost to

identify, and, perhaps $7 for towing, or say $21 cost to the State, if

you like, just to get the car to a scrapyard plus, probably, other

hidden costs.

What happens next to these old cars, at the present time? Many of

them, to date, have been used for the building of dykes and other forms

of land-fill. But this is neither satisfactory nor economical and

there's simply no place to put them all. The scrapyard, after

dismantling, crushes the car and makes a small bundle about 2 ft. by 2

ft. which may then find a market at the steel mill in Vancouver,

Western Canada Steel. The problem is that this kind of preparation of

the scrap steel leaves so many impurities that it's unattractive to the

steel mill and the price is low. The only way an automobile hulk can be

processed in a way that the steel can properly be recycled is by the

use of a machine called a hammer mill or, more commonly, a shredder.

This machine, once the gas tanks and the tires and the seats are

removed, literally tears the car apart into small fragments about the

size of your fist. Then magnetic and other kinds of automatic

separators complete the job by getting the ferrous metals out of the

scrap. Then, the scrap processor and the mill can adequately use the

steel. The only difficulty is that such a machine costs, at least, a

million dollars, perhaps, one and a half million dollars to install

and, therefore, it needs an assured supply of scrap of, perhaps, 35

thousand tons a year or, in other words, most of the available supply

of cars being retired each year in the lower mainland. This supply,

obviously, must be guaranteed to the mill, by some means, to make the

mill an economic venture. Thus, it seems we have the technology to

solve the problem and it would be possible to eliminate the unsightly

abandoned autos and, at the same time, conserve our dwindling resources

by recycling the scrap steel. To make this work, we'll need some help

from Government. The Greater Vancouver Regional District is now

applying for letters patent to take over the problem of solid waste

disposal and I hope the Provincial Government will act faster in

answering the district, in this case, than it did to its request to go

into low-cost housing. The district is going to need a lot of help in

this regard.

As we've said many times before, pollution knows no boundaries and

the Vancouver Regional District cannot tackle the obsolete auto

situation alone, since cars from other districts and all over the

Province, in fact, are going to be involved, As we said earlier, there

are considerable costs to be recovered and some means must be found to

get the auto to a place where it can be properly recycled by the

shredding machine and the steel mill.

An arrangement must be made so that, first, it is more attractive to

the possessor of an obsolete or scrap car to get it to the processing

plant than to abandon it or leave it lying in a yard elsewhere; second,

that there are available funds to cover the cost of hauling and

handling the cars that are abandoned. A contract needs to be arranged,

at least, on a regional basis, perhaps, on a Provincial basis, for one

processor to handle all the available junk cars, so that an assured

source of supply would justify the considerable investment for the

necessary plant.

There are several ways this plan might be funded. The State of

Maryland has a system, which they started about two years ago, which

adds one dollar to the cost of the annual license each year. One

suggestion that I would put forward, would be that each new car, when

registered for the first time, would be charged an extra $25, then,

when that car was delivered to the contract scrap processor, at various

designated spots all over the Province, a refund of, perhaps, $20 would

be made. The $5 difference would help defray the cost of transportation

of the auto hulk, after it's crushed, to the central plant and, thus,

most parts, where there are any appreciable settlements, most parts of

beautiful British Columbia could be kept clear of unsightly old

automobiles.

What I've been trying to say is that there are many products and

industries which, today, have the technology and the capacity to

recover, recycle and reuse. But without incentive, without pressure or

guidance or assistance, industry, alone, either cannot or will not do

it. We need Government, then, to do these things, provide guidance and

assist in research to develop a more practical recycling technology;

second, to provide tax incentives to encourage industry in recycling

projects; third, to develop educational programmes to persuade the

public to waste less; fourth, provide assistance to municipalities to

reduce waste disposal costs by co-ordinating their waste collection

systems with recycling programmes; fifth, Government should make sure

that its own agencies, such as the Liquor Control Board, participate in

such programmes in every possible way; and sixth, ensure that

legislation, such as the Litter Act, is designed not only to discourage

litter but to encourage recycling.

Mr. Speaker, in thinking about this problem I have just been

discussing, I've been wondering what department in the present

Government might assume responsibility for these functions and, without

a proper Department of Environmental Management, it's pretty hard to

find a Minister who might be interested. It doesn't really seem like a

job for the Cabinet Environmental and Land Use Committee, so, I

suppose, it would have to end up with our old friend, the Provincial

pollution czar, the Minister for Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

I listened very closely to him during his recent speech and I

carefully read the copy he so kindly made available to us. First, I

want to congratulate the Government for having discovered that the

system it was using, for environmental management wasn't working too

well and did require some changes. Let me quote from the Ministers'

speech: "It may seem strange, at this time in history, to state that

this is the first time in Canada that an attempt has been made to bring

together all of the responsible administrative agencies within the

Provincial administration to assist in the development of co-ordinated

Crown land-use policies."

Well, Mr. Speaker, throughout the last Session, the Opposition and

many of the Government backbenchers pleaded with the Government to do

just that, to bring together all of the required expertise from all

departments

[ Page 338 ]

and have them work as one co-ordinated unit for the

management of the environment of British Columbia. I'm delighted that

the Government says it's going to, at least, partially follow the

advice it was given. From the speech, and from later press interviews

with the Minister, it appears that situations, like that of Utah Mines

will be avoided, in the future, by such decisions being made by this

Cabinet committee. This is clearly spelled out to be made "after

independent evaluation and public hearings, before any development

takes place."

Mr. Speaker, this is a laudable objective but I just wonder if the

Minister's colleagues on this committee realize what they're getting

themselves in for, because there are going to be many, many requests

for public hearings. I'm sure the public would not be satisfied with

any less than a hearing where the full Cabinet Environment and Land Use

Committee was there, including, of course, the very latest and newest

recruit to this committee, the Minister of Health. We're glad that the

Government has been honest enough to admit the errors of the Utah

situation. I think this lesson is one that's worth while going over

again very briefly to see what we can learn.

The press reports confirm that, in addition to his remarks in the

House, the Minister had agreed that the hand of the Director of

Pollution Control had been forced, in practical terms, in the

commitment of large sums of money to the project. In fact, as we all

know, Utah had spent over $30 million before any public hearings were

held, before any public decision was made and even Government agencies,

like B.C. Hydro, were involved with heavy commitments. Mr. Speaker,

this was clearly a form of economic blackmail and it's the very thing

that we've been suspicious of all along and which many of us have

raised repeatedly in this House and elsewhere.

There's an ominous parallel between the Utah situation, so fresh in

the minds of all the Members, and that raised by a number of people

last week in this House — the transport of oil by tanker from Alaska

down the B.C. coast to a refinery on Puget Sound, just 12 miles below

the international border.

The Member for Alberni and all the Government side were very quick

to piously call for help from the Federal Government to stop the flow

of oil tankers and we, on this side, supported that call. But, in view

of the circumstances, some of us were surprised at the quickness of the

Social Credit Government's support for this position. As we know, Mr.

Speaker, there's a refinery nearly completed at Cherry Point, where

$150 million has already been spent. This refinery waits for its

supplies of oil to come from Alaska by tanker. In Alaska, already,

thousands of feet of pipe are ready for laying in place. Work camps are

already built along the pipeline route. More pipes arrive every week

and, yet, no permits have been given to this project and hearings are

to start next week in Washington. Surely, this expenditure of hundreds

of millions of dollars by the developers before the environmental

decisions are made is exactly the same kind of economic blackmail that

this Government allowed to take place in 1970 in the Utah case. The

Minister has publicly stated the result of that case.

Mr. Speaker, it's very easy to resist this kind of economic pressure

when it's across the other side of the international boundary and it's

very easy to support pious resolutions. My question, now, to the

Government is this. Supposing that the Cherry Point refinery were 12

miles north on the Canadian side and still needed to get its supplies

by oil tanker from its wells in Alaska, what decision would the

Government make then? Would it, then, support the motion by the Member

from Alberni quite so quickly? Or does it depend on whose ox is being

gored?

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to second the motion of the Member from

New Westminster. Last year, we debated for many days the B.C. Hydro

rate increase in the most cynical sham of a debate that was possible, a

political debate of wasted postures and frustrated questions, while the

man with all the answers sat silent, hour after hour, in that far

corner of the House. Dr. Shrum was muzzled, by the order of the

Premier, and there was no way to find out the truth. This Government

calls itself a Government of the people — the Government of the little

people. If it were truly a Government of those little people, it would

make itself accountable to the people in every way. It would tell the

people, without hesitation, the things it was doing. Why are you so

afraid of the light of day on B.C. Hydro? Why are you afraid of the

sunshine coming in on the operations of the PGE? What goes on behind

the closed doors of the Liquor Control Board? What skeletons are in

those closets, Mr. Speaker? You've had some skeletons in the closets

over the years. What are you hiding now?

Mr. Speaker, on this side, we believe in openness, frankness and

honesty. We believe in letting the sunshine in. What are you afraid of?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition, on the amendment.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Speaking to the amendment, Mr.

Speaker, I regret that the Premier is not in his place, but I assume

that someone over there is running the House when the Premier is not

present. Based on that assumption, I have a number of comments to make

and some questions to ask and I will be very brief. Will the temporary

leader please indicate who is in charge so I know to whom to address my

remarks, through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member will address his remarks to the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: I understand that. I didn't see them all jumping. Some of the aspirants aren't available.

Mr. Speaker, we have been elected by the people of British Columbia

to supervise the expenditure of their money. To properly do this, we

must have before us every single account, every single record, every

single book that deals with the fiscal or monetary matters in terms of

the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this Government ran a campaign, in 1952, against an

Order-in-Council Government, claiming that the Government of the day,

the Coalition at that time, was a secret Government. The Coalition, in

1949, had an overwhelming majority and its arrogance, up to 1952,

allowed it to believe that it could hide public accounts, it could hide

books, it could hide the true story of what was happening with the

taxpayers' dollars, simply, because it had a majority.

The purpose of this motion is very clear, Mr. Speaker. We want the

B.C. Hydro books. We want the PGE books. We want the Liquor Control

Board books. We want the Workmen's Compensation Board books and we want

to know more details about the B.C. Medical Plan, other than the Blue

Book, published by the Provincial Secretary. I'll tell you this. This

Government goes around this Province saying that they pride themselves

on being a businessman's Government. I

[ Page 339 ]

know of no other business that hides its books the

way this Government does, Mr. Speaker. This is a Government that goes

around this Province saying that we like to keep the people informed.

By keeping the books hidden, Mr. Speaker, is that how you keep them

informed?

Mr. Speaker, this year, for the first time in years, I will not be a

member of the Public Accounts Committee. I know the frustrations of

that committee when we cannot call for vouchers in Public Accounts to

deal with Government departments, in terms of these hidden books. You

know, Mr. Speaker, I think if the true story of how this Government

hides the truth, hides the facts and keeps the books secret from the

people of British Columbia, if it were truly known throughout this

Province you would be swept out of office — as you should be swept out

of office (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your point of order?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): My point of order is that I'm

chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, duly appointed, elected, and

no books of any kind have ever been withheld, all the vouchers were

presented, at all times. This is a complete untruth.

MR. BARRETT: What this displays, Mr. Speaker, is the complete

ignorance, the complete ignorance of the Social Credit backbenchers. I

challenge him in the Public Accounts tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, to produce

to Public Accounts the complete books of B.C. Hydro, the PGE, the

Liquor Control Board, the Workmen's Compensation Board and the B.C.

Medical Plan. Produce them to our Members, tomorrow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Just one moment.

MR. MUSSALLEM: When a statement of this kind is permitted on

the floor of this House…and I tell you again there have never been

any accounts… (interruption) . I'm replying. All the accounts were presented (interruption) .

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order. The question of untruth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable Member made his statement and the statement will be accepted by the honourable Member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I say, and I say it loudly and

clearly, that it is a lie to say that the B.C. Hydro accounts, the PGE

Railway accounts, the Liquor Board accounts, the Workmen's Compensation

Board accounts and the B.C. Medical Plan accounts can and will be

delivered to the Public Accounts Committee, unless this motion is

passed. Now, I am not accusing any Member of stating a lie, Mr.

Speaker. I am saying that it would be a lie to say that, under the

present rules of this House, these following accounts would show up in

detail to the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't produce it.

MR. BARRETT: …the whole matter rests, Mr. Speaker, purely on

the fact that, if that Member professes ignorance about the limits of

what this House has been able to see, then, I can accept his excuse.

But, for the Cabinet benches, who know full well that they have kept

these accounts secret from the people of British Columbia, they bear

the burden.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Just one moment. I will not permit, and I hope

you will not permit, a speaker to allude ignorance when he doesn't know

what he's talking about.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the Floor and he is ignorant of the rules. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Member could deal with the matter without the reflection of …

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the Floor and I am making a

statement and included in the statement I am saying that, if anybody in

this House said that the Public Accounts Committee could examine fully

the accounts of Hydro, the PGE, the Liquor Control Board, the Workmen's

Compensation Board or the B.C. Medical Plan, I would say then, sir,

that the Member would be telling a lie. Now, that's what it is. That's

exactly what it is. I challenge this Government, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to say who is responsible for keeping these books secret and

when will the secrecy end, so that the taxpayers of this Province can

expect this Government to live up to its simple, honestly-given

statement that we keep the public informed, Mr. Speaker. They do not.

Stand up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): It must be

apparent to all the Members of this House and, indeed, to the public of

the Province that one thing that the honourable Members of the

Opposition are most resentful of and that is successful Government

enterprise. If you look at this amendment, Mr. Speaker, you will find

that all of the enterprises referred to in the amendment, have one

thing in common — they are successful and they reflect to the credit of

this administration. It seems that the only way these Members feel they

can change from that side of the House to this side of the House is if

they can throw some sand in the gears, if they can keep the senior

people of these enterprises marching over here with ferry loads of

books and accounts and all the vouchers and everything else, every

Workmen's Compensation claim.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. PETERSON: Where in Canada, I ask you, where in Canada are

Workmen's Compensation Boards handled this way? Name one Province. Was

it in Saskatchewan when the CCF were in power? No. Is it in Manitoba

where the NDP is in power? No. This is plain politics (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PETERSON: But, Mr. Speaker, the most important aspect of

this entire proposal presented as it is as in amendment, today, is that

it is a motion of nonconfidence in Government. Regardless of the

merits, or otherwise, of the actual contents of the resolution, it is

still a motion of nonconfidence and, therefore, not acceptable.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the amendment, the

[ Page 340 ]

Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm very

disappointed to hear the Attorney-General state that, regardless of the

merits of the particular amendment, they would be forced to vote

against it, because I think that illustrates, better than any

statements the Attorney-General has ever made in this House, the degree

of arrogance that's grown up with the Government grown bloated with

power.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. PETERSON: He misquoted me I said, "…merits or otherwise."

MR. McGEER: I'll quote you, then, "merits or otherwise." I

still think, Mr. Speaker, that one could never hear a clearer statement

reflecting the bloated arrogance of a Government than its determination

to vote a motion or resolution down, regardless of its merit.

The present chairman of the Public Accounts Committee stated, on a

point of order, that the accounts in question had never been denied to

members of the committee or Members of this House. I want to state,

now, that last year I requested the accounts of the Liquor Control

Board, I was refused them. I requested the accounts of the B.C. Hydro,

I was refused them. I request them, again, now. I will request them

again in the Public Accounts Committee and the chairman will have an

opportunity, then, to correct the Leader of the Opposition by producing

those accounts and permitting the witnesses to be called.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he said he would not do it. He said that in the committee.

MR. McGEER: This afternoon, in the House, he stated to us

that those accounts and those statements had never been refused. I say

they have been refused and I ask for them, again, now. I will continue

to ask for them until we receive them or until we're the Government and

produce them ourselves. Mr. Speaker, a state of complete hysteria … (interruption) . No, (interruption) ,

it's not hysteria, Mr. Minister, it's responsibility, because taxation,

without investigation, is simply a form of taxation without

representation.

You are denying the people of British Columbia, because you deny us,

the proper accounts and records of these shadowy operations, and I

describe them as shadowy because their financial accounts are kept in

secret, to the people, who have as much right to see them, because they

are elected by the people, as you do. It isn't enough, Mr. Speaker, to

demand that Crown agencies and corporations have accountability to

Members of the Cabinet, because Members of the Cabinet are not elected

individuals, not to those posts as Cabinet Ministers. You are elected

as individual representatives of a constituency the same as I am and

the same as every other Member in this House. The electors give you no

special privileges as Cabinet Ministers and, when we ask for these

rights on the floor of the House, we ask for rights as equal Members to

any of you who are hiding those accounts. Yet, Social Credit, in its

younger and more responsible days, before it became bloated with

arrogance, ran on the programme of ending the secret Orders-in-Council.

They're all back again. Opening the files — they're all locked again.

Telling us about all the operations that had been kept underneath the

bed for so many years and, yet, that's where they are again today.

Only in this afternoon's newspapers, do we see the reasons why we

must look — the practical reasons — at the B.C. Hydro accounts this

year. "Hydro Cuts Bus Service," blares the headlines. "Cutbacks in bus

schedules in Victoria and Vancouver are expected to be announced later

this week. Details of scheduled proposals are being withheld by B.C.

Hydro until the Crown corporation advises municipal councils. Gordon

Shrum, Hydro Chairman, said, Tuesday, the

schedule alterations would

involve a fundamental change in our philosophy about urban

transportation. He said the transit system was losing $4.4 million,

prior to wage increases for transit division workers who settled for an

18.7 per cent raise over 27 months after a 32-day strike."

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you check that?

MR. McGEER: The B.C. Government pays a $2 million subsidy to

Hydro, that we can check. We vote that, in the House, every year. How

do we know whether this $4.4 million is correct or incorrect? Because

Chairman Shrum says so and, as long as this Government is in office, if

Chairman Shrum says so, that's got to be good enough for the people of

British Columbia.

It is not good enough for me and it's not good enough for responsible elected officials anywhere …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: in any party, in any government. The reason, Mr.

Speaker, is, simply, whatever utility or monopoly, whether Crown

corporation or otherwise, wishes to justify rate increases, or any

financial matter which affects the public as a whole, they produce

complete and factual data relating to that. It's somewhat of an irony

that, what used to be a public corporation, held by private

individuals, gave complete and detailed records in a responsible

fashion to the public as a whole, as the B.C. Electric did when it

appeared before the Public Utilities Commission at a time when that

party was not loaded with retired politicians and when it gave some

service to the people of British Columbia. Those were in the days when

the public had some rights, because the public, too, could appear

before that body, question the responsible individuals in the B.C.

Electric and satisfy themselves and other individuals that right was

being done. But, now that the B.C. Hydro has become a Crown

corporation, theoretically belonging to the public, now it hides behind

the shrouds of secrecy. No accountability any longer. Massive amounts

of tax money. This $2 million subsidy we give it each year, that's just

a beginning, because hundreds of millions of dollars, each year, find

their way into the B.C. Hydro accounts. The trust accounts, now, total

almost a billion dollars and, I suppose, when the answers to questions

on the Order Paper are produced, it will show over a billion dollars of

the public's money held in trust by this Government, now, in the hands

of B.C. Hydro. But never a meeting of the Board of Directors, where the

public can be there who are the real owners of this Corporation. Never

can the public or their elected representatives call the Members of

this organization to their account to ask questions. That's all gone

and if we're to have this secrecy and lack of accountability in a Crown

corporation that's growing fat on public money, then, we'd be better

off if it were in private hands because, then, we could find out

something about the policy.

[ Page 341 ]

What's happened here is the loss of rights of the elected and,

because of that, the loss of rights of the electors. Mr. Speaker, this

loss isn't accomplished by miles, it's accomplished by inches. It's

accomplished by decrees, and not debates. The B.C. Hydro is only one of

those organizations that must be held to account if it's to be a public

corporation in the true sense of the word.

Last year, we were denied, as well, access to the accounts of the

Liquor Control Board. I ask for these again. To show how times have

changed, I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, in the past, the Liquor

Control Board has been before the Public Accounts Committee in the days

when the objective was not to hide Public Accounts from the people of

the Province but to shed light on Government methods and Government

buying practices. Well, it was 1947, before the days of Social Credit,

in the days of what the Premier describes as the bad old Coalition.

Those were the days when it was possible to question the liquor

practices of British Columbia, the purchasing practices of this shadowy

Crown agency.

But that time has now gone and the question which must occur to

every thinking British Columbian, today, is what — is the Government

trying to hide. What better way to face down the critics of the

Government, and we're amongst them, than to produce the information and

show how wrong we were? What better way is there than that? What

greater vindication of the policies of your Government than to do that?

But when you're afraid, when you hide behind the Public Accounts

Committee, and there are devices for closure, make no mistake about it

…Last year, the Public Accounts Committee had no debate about the

Public Accounts of this Province. That wasn't because there was a

refusal to produce the B.C. Hydro accounts, or the PGE, or the Liquor

Control Board accounts, this was because there were irregularities in

the vouchers themselves. What's the device, Mr. Speaker, when the

Public Accounts Committee discovers wrongdoing? Look back at the Journals ,

year after year after year. What happens is that the Public Accounts

Committee brings in a report which is read and received, never to be

adopted — this would start a debate in the House and, by this method,

the people who discover the irregularities in Public Accounts, are

prevented from bringing these to the attention either of the Public

Accounts Committee or the House itself through debate, what discoveries

have been made. To make matters worse, when it comes to the larger

issue — the amounts of money that really begin to count, the billion

dollars that lie in the B.C. Hydro, the $150 million or so that are

handled by the Liquor Control Board, the $100 million or so that are

handled by the PGE, each year — when it comes to the really big amounts

of money, that's when the curtain, the iron curtain, of the Government

descends over public business in the Province.

This is what this motion is really about — the iron curtain

surrounding public business when it comes to the public's money. What

we are here to do, Mr. Speaker, and why this motion is on the Order

Paper, is not that there be a publicity show, which the Government so

often accuses us of, but so that the iron curtain can be rung up,

because the very kinds of things that make us condemn those iron

curtain countries are the kinds of things you're beginning to practice

over on that side, denying the legitimate rights of the people through

their elected representatives, hiding from the public … (interruption) .

"Ridiculous," says the Member, who is just as afraid as the Cabinet

Ministers of finding out what's going on in these corporations. But I

say, if I'm wrong, prove it so, produce those accounts. If the chairman

of the Public Accounts Committee wishes to prove me wrong, he can,

simply, by saying, "We'll produce those accounts and we'll call those

witnesses." It's very simple. Don't vote us down and then say you were

right. Prove that we are wrong by producing those accounts and

producing those witnesses.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, I think we

ought to get the records straight on the democratic process here. I

think we ought to begin by understanding the role of the Opposition and

a role that they play very well. Their role is nothing more nor less

than the destruction of confidence in the Government for the purposes

of themselves becoming the Government. So let's not wiffy-waffy around

and try to pretend that this is other than a vote of nonconfidence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. KIERNAN: Obviously, the Government expects this sort of

performance from the Opposition. But equally obviously, responsible

Government …

AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsible.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. KIERNAN: …does not provide the opportunity for the

Opposition to accept the role of Government, except by the due process

of the ballot. Let's not have any illusions about that proposition.

Now, on this question of producing this book or that book, have we

reached the point in this country where we have no confidence any

longer in the due process of audit, in the due process of annual

reports, in the due process of Cabinet responsibility? I know quite

well you must fall back…

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have the books in the open.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Each Member will have his own opportunity to make his speech. Will you please give the honourable Member his opportunity.

MR. KIERNAN: You find so little in the Budget, itself, to

attack that you must, of necessity, raise a phoney issue. I sympathize

with you. I sympathize with the weakness of your position. But, simply

because I sympathize with your weakness… (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order'?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member said it

was a phoney issue. I ask him to withdraw that statement immediately.

That's a disgraceful statement coming from a Minister of the Crown and

a director of B.C. Hydro. You're a small man, Mr. Minister. I ask him

to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. He said it's a phoney motion and that's quite

contradictory to accepted parliamentary practice.

[ Page 342 ]

He should know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member be seated?

MR. KIERNAN: Since the honourable Member feels so strongly

about the word, "phoney," I will withdraw the word, "Phoney." We will

describe it as an unusual issue, an unusual issue. Unusual, in the

sense that traditionally, traditionally, both the Power Commission and

the Hydro Authority operated on the basis of due process of audit and

responsibility of the Board. If we have reached the stage where Board

responsibility is no longer acceptable to the people of this Province,

then, let the electorate determine that and, certainly, the Government

is not going to be dictated to by the Opposition. I think, Mr. Speaker,

that I have made our point clear that we consider this to be nothing

more or less than a vote of nonconfidence emanating from the Opposition

benches, as well it might, and, certainly, we are going to vote against

the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, the Minister just wound up by saying, "Certainly, this is a vote of nonconfidence in the Government." (Interruption.)

DEPUTY SPE