1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 263 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I know that

all the Members in the House are very familiar with the Kinsmen

organisation and the wonderful work that they do, particularly at this

moment with the Marching Mothers. We have in the House today four

representatives from the Kinsmen organisation, the Canadian

Association. The Governor of British Columbia, Mr. Ken Leaney, Deputy

Governor, Mr. Ray Rogers, Mr. Randy Dillon, and with us the President

of the Canadian Association from Ontario, Mr. Bill Watson.

I know that the Members will join me in welcoming them and congratulating them on their excellent work.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Would the Honourable Member tell us where they are sitting in the gallery?

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's Gallery.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered

to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the first

sitting after today:

Bill No. 8 intituled

An Act to Amend the Court of Appeal Act .

Bill No. 7 intituled

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act .

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

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

as I take my place in this debate I am glad that all the Members or

most of them that can be are present. I wish to comment on something

that I think will be important to them all. We have new quarters in

these buildings for which we are truly grateful but I noticed that

there has been another change in accommodating the Members which I view

with great regret.

I draw the attention of the Honourable the Minister of Public Works to the

signs that have suddenly appeared along the driveway approaching this building: "M.L.A.

Parking Only." I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a backward step. I think that it would

be a proper approach into our second century if we were to remove all vehicles

from the front of this building. We have beautiful grounds, we have a beautiful

building day and night and to find that this view of these grounds and this

building are cluttered by all kind of and sizes and shapes of motor vehicles

is, I suggest, in this year of 1972 a backward step.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as I look around at some of the

Members align="center" I think that a couple blocks walk wouldn't do any of them any

harm. I don't go so far as to extend those remarks to the Honourable

Premier, I think that a man in his position is entitled to some special

attention as far as parking his car is concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But I do think, Mr. Speaker, that with the

disappearance of the snow and the coming of fine weather again it would

be proper, as crocuses begin to bloom in Victoria, that those signs

disappear. I'm against cars in front of the buildings. I can see that

in a matter of a few months we'll have oil and brake fluid and

everything dripped all over the roads and what could be a vast

improvement has been lost to us.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker — which I'm sure the Honourable

Minister will act upon immediately — I would like to direct to the

Members' attention a couple of items which I think are significant for

purposes of this debate.

Two of the Members who have already spoken, I refer to the

Honourable Minister without Portfolio from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs.

Jordan) and to the Honourable Member from South Peace (Mr. Marshall)

have directed their attention to the plight of the agricultural

community in this province, and I join with them. I regret very much

that the time available to the Minister of Agriculture yesterday in his

opening debate could not have been spent in reviewing matters which are

under his responsibility and those problems which require urgent

resolution.

The Minister said in his speech to the British Columbia Fruit

Growers' Association in January of this year that a farmer has the most

desirable environment in which to live. I think there are many in the

chamber who would agree with that statement. I certainly do. But I am

concerned that with increasing urbanisation and with a lack of

attention to policies for agriculture on behalf of the government the

environment for the farmer is slowly shrinking.

More and more of our agricultural lands close to the urbanised areas

are being withdrawn from agricultural production and I think this is a

retrograde step. The Minister himself on occasion has pointed out that

if we ever find ourselves in the situation where we must rely entirely

upon foreign countries, foreign jurisdictions for our supply of food

stuffs, then we are indeed in a dangerous position.

Now there are some who say well, if that ever occurred we'd just go

back into agricultural production. Some have even said that we can

restore to agriculture easily those areas which have already been

devoted for intensive urban use.

To those people, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there is more

to the operation of our agricultural community than just the existence

of land. You've got to have farmers in order to farm. When you destroy

the opportunity that our farming communities have to engage profitably

and productively in their enterprise, and when they leave that

enterprise, then to win them back into that field is a task which I

suspect will find little success.

We must provide a proper substantial base for the agricultural

community of this province and we must sustain it. It is the

responsibility of the government — indeed the responsibility of the two

Members that are having a conversation this very moment — the Minister

of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance — to see that this is done.

[ Page 264 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They never do …

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Because in the same speech, Mr. Speaker,

given by the Minister in January he said: "The greatest problem facing

this industry at this particular time is of course the terrific

increase and the threat of increase of cheap imports from areas where

wages are low and costs are low."

AN HON. MEMBER: The greatest problem is the Minister.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. The greatest problem facing

agriculture in the Province of British Columbia today is the Minister

and his government — because they continue to ignore the plight of the

farmer and the farming community. And they ignore it at their peril, I

submit to them.

Mr. Speaker, there are things which should have appeared in the

opening speech read by His Honour the LieutenantGovernor — things which

the Minister of Agriculture insisted should be in that opening speech.

But they were absent. He's let the farmer down again.

I suggest that in this year, 1972, with the propensity of the

Minister of Finance for the establishment of funds of various kinds for

various purposes, that he regrets the oversight on the part of the

Minister of Agriculture in the opening speech and tomorrow, when he

brings down his budget, that he announce the establishment of an

agricultural lands trust, a perpetual fund of $100 million to be used

for the acquisition of lands which are in danger of disappearing from

agricultural use and retention of agricultural land presently in use

and the restoration to agricultural use of lands which have been

diverted to other uses, and to adopt as part of the programme

accompanying that fund a policy whereby those lands will be leased to

the farming community for use in the production of food stuffs.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to listen to the Honourable Lady

Minister who comes from an agricultural community who has so little

understanding of the opportunities which can be made available to

farmers if they can avoid the tremendous capital costs of providing

themselves with land.

We are not attempting to wipe out the small farmer, we are

attempting to sustain the small farmer, and the farmer's son and the

farmer's son's son. Generation after generation; so that we have a

subsisting agricultural community, not one which is divorced entirely

from the production of foodstuffs, not one which is cut up into 10-acre

pony farms for the rich. We want producing farms, not an escape valve

for the wealthy — a tax haven for them. That's not the kind of

operation we want in this province. That certainly is not state

ownership. Yes, it is a green belt …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have some order, please?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it supplies a matter in which to

fulfill the concern which was so aptly expressed by the Member from

Delta (Mr. Wenman) and I congratulate him on standing up and telling

his own government where they are failing and where they continue to

fail.

As well as this aspect, I would have hoped that the Minister of

Agriculture could have seen that in the opening speech the

establishment of a food council which was recommended by the

agricultural committee after careful and lengthy examination into the

problems affecting the producers last year.

In a unanimous report filed with this House the committee

recommended that the authority and jurisdiction of the Department of

Agriculture be expanded to include not only matters relating to the

production of foodstuff, but also to the distribution and marketing

thereof.

A very careful examination was made. The Minister himself expressed

himself to the committee along these lines. And yet here we come — one

year later, another year lost — without a mention of enabling his

department to do the job that needs to be done, of ensuring that we

have food production, food marketing, food distribution in this

province which ensures for the consumer the opportunity to purchase

foodstuffs at a fair price, and at fair return to the farmers. Silence,

is all that we have from the Minister in this regard.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there was no mention of continuing burden

of tax that the agricultural community continues to bear. And I would

hope that the Minister of Finance tomorrow might also consider it wise

to establish a farm production grant system, similar to that which he

already provided for the home-owners, in the Province of British

Columbia.

As a home-owner you are entitled to a grant made of your taxes just

by owning and living in your home. I suggest that farmers are prepared

to go farther than that. And would say to this government we will

maintain standards of production but if we maintain those standards of

production which the Department of Agriculture would fix, then may we

at least have some relief from the crushing burden of real property

which is placed upon us — in many cases by this very government, not by

local government.

Another area that the Minister of Finance should consider is a

relief to the farming community from the impact of succession duty.

This was bad enough before, but with the regrettable action on the part

of the federal government of applying a capital gains tax in respect of

the succession to farm lands, the farming community — the rancher — is

now faced with a double burden.

And, Mr. Speaker, the farmers and ranchers in this province except

in rare instance are not men of means so that on their deaths other

assets may be used to pay the duties and the capital gains tax. What

will result, Mr. Speaker, is the forced sale of the family farm in

order to pay the duties exacted by this government and the tax that

will be exacted by the federal government. Taxing them right out of

existence.

Now, this could be alleviated, Mr. Speaker, within the

responsibilities of this government, by giving an exemption in

respective succession duties for those farm lands which are passed on

to the family of the deceased farmer and which will continue to be used

in the farm community — continue to be productive units. It will

provide them with that relief. And this is within the power of this

government.

At the same time I would urge the Minister of Agriculture and all of

the government, and I would join with them, in continuing to press the

federal government for changes in the unfortunate legislation which

will have such a terrible burden upon our farming community.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in things that this government must do — to

bring under control bulldozer prospectors of this province, who without

notice to the farmer, to the rancher — the person who is interested in

the grazing lands of our province — have the right to go upon lands

with the

[ Page 265 ]

bulldozer, scar it up, walk away, without having to

remedy the damage that has been done, the damage to animals and the

destruction of valuable grazing land.

This is within the control, of the Minister of Agriculture, the

Minister of Mines, who sits on his left, and the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources who sits just in front of him. And why

these three Ministers can't get together and resolve this simple

problem is beyond my understanding.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, I've talked to cattlemens' organisations

who have raised this with the Minister. And the answer that they tell

me they get from the Minister is that he's in favour — that somehow or

other the Premier is to blame. Well, I can scarcely countenance that,

Mr. Speaker, when I consider what the attitude of the Premier is as

expressed by him in the Press.

On November 18, a Thursday, there appeared in the Victoria Colonist

a report of a statement made by the Premier when he flew back into

Vancouver from Ottawa, following a federal-provincial conference.

You know, he got on the plane in Ottawa and he flew over this vast

land over all that prairie farmland and he made a survey. And what did

he say? "Bennett said he was sick at heart to see farms being abandoned

on the prairies and towns being boarded up. He said: 'It's not healthy

to be driving these people and owners from the Maritimes into the slums

of the cities when a negative tax would keep them in their homes'."

Mr. Speaker, it's not healthy to drive the farmers from the farms in

British Columbia into the city slums either, by the negative policies

of this provincial government. And when are they going to change?

The Minister of Agriculture is aware of the problems which face the

farmers. He's aware of the imperative need for solutions. And yet

somehow or other he's been completely ineffective in the task of

convincing his colleagues in the cabinet of that need in bringing

before this House measures which will provide the solutions.

Mr. Speaker, it's not enough for the Minister of Agriculture to be

the friend of the farmers. He's got to be their champion too. Because

that is the only way the farmer is going to survive in the province. We

must have a solution to the dilemma which all those years of inaction

on the part of this government have brought to the farmers.

Mr. Speaker, we had an interesting discussion contribution in this

debate from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

Mr. Williston) the other day. As usual the Minister acquitted himself

with distinction — he always delivers a carefully-worded,

carefully-prepared address.

But it appears that the insatiable appetite of this government to

push back the frontiers, and to bask in the flowery praise received as

empire builders has lead it into a trap which has consequences for

those who have followed the government's lead — and serious and tragic

consequences for this province as well.

The government in this respect, Mr. Speaker, has been trapped into

believing that bigness is beauty. And I think that they perhaps now are

coming to realise that big is bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vancouver Centre is.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It may appear that bigness is beautiful to

the Press agents who write the stories for this government. But it's

not the case as the record is now proving.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the carefully-prepared statements from

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources were really a

confession of that failure. A failure which stemmed from a lack of

study, a lack of careful planning of the expansion into north central

British Columbia and the application of existing rigid inflexible rules

and regulations from the forest service applied on universal basis.

The Minister in his remarks said that this industry is not simply a

number of large impersonal corporations, but rather provides an ideal

economic base from which flow numerous job opportunities, community

stability and the potential for enhancing certain intangible values as

well as the obvious tangible ones.

Well we've had an instance of the fate of large impersonal

corporations, and their impact upon this province. On Wednesday of this

week, February 2, it was announced in a banner story in the business

finance pages of the Vancouver Province "$60 Million Forest

Loss Cited." It tells of the financial tragedy which has befallen the

operation of Bulkley Valley Forest Industries Ltd. Losses of $60

million in one operation. An operation which has a saw mill that has

not produced near its capacity, and judged by some forest observers to

need major revision before it can.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh it's easy to blame some of the errors

on the part of the owners, and the engineers who designed the plant.

It's true it was bad engineering. But where was the Minister and his

department when these decisions were being made? Was no examination

being made into them? Was no care being taken to see what kind of

organisation, and what kind of facilities would be used in the winning

of the forest resource?

And what did the Minister say when contacted about this particular

problem?

He said: "There was concern in the government because of the investment

that had been made in the community of Houston, not only by this

company but by those who had committed money and debt in new homes,

commercial ventures and schools."

And this is the industry which the Minister said, and as I read a

few moments ago, that provides an ideal economic base from which flow

numerous job opportunities, community stability. I wonder what kind of

community stability there is today in Houston?

It's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia's image is so bad

as the Minister himself remarked in his address. But he quoted in his

address: "I think that British Columbia is an investor's nightmare."

This is the attitude of the investment community. You were caught

between an aggressive union, and an ingressive government which is

constantly trying to get more money for its trees. And again British

Columbia is a cemetery of company earnings. I don't know how else to

describe it.

No, the experience, Mr. Speaker, at Houston will not go far to

improving that image. It is not going to provide any other way to

describe it unless rapid, thoughtful changes of policy are announced by

this government and undertaken forthwith.

The Minister also said — and I draw your attention to the impact

that this has not only on the company and companies operating in this

field, but on the community as well. What the Minister said is true:

"The people of the province have a direct interest in the profitability

of operations." And again he said it is for this reason that interest

has been taken in this

[ Page 266 ]

matter of profit for the first time at the

administrative level. For the first time, the forest service has

suddenly decided that profit is important to the proper management of

the forest resource. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that to this

Minister that at least would have been obvious long, long ago. Without

profit there can be no success, and without success then the government

has failed in the discharge of its responsibility in this most vital

area.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister that one of the troubles

which affects the north central British Columbia area, and which has

affected Bulkley Valley — and by the way, Mr. Speaker, at this moment I

might wonder if Bulkley Valley is not the first of two or perhaps three

of such financial disasters that will be reported shortly.

We already know that Columbia Cellulose at its Prince Rupert

operation is losing something in the neighbourhood of $1 million a

month. How long that company can sustain that kind of loss must be a

great concern to the Minister. And if Columbia Cellulose is having a

problem, how long before Eurocan will follow?

But one of the things that the Minister forgot when they moved into

north central British Columbia was the value which the independent

intermediate and small-size operator had in the efficient functioning — the efficient integration of the forest industry. And I'm surprised

that he forgot that. Because in his remarks the other day he said: "If

one were to stand back now, and take an overview of the central

interior wood processing situation," — now this is not Bulkley Valley

but the central interior wood processing situation — "we would find the

largest group of efficient close-utilisation sawmills to be found

anywhere in the world today." And he went on to say: "As long as the

successful continue to predominate we will continue to make progress."

Certainly we have the example in the central interior. I suppose

that the Quesnel area is one of the outstanding examples of the

integration of the forest industry — not only by function, but also by

size. We have sawmilling, plywood, and we'll shortly have a pulp

operation functioning in that area.

We have the majors involved in the pulp, and the plywood and the

sawmill. But we also have the intermediate and small operators engaged

in that area. With a timber resource made available to them by the

people of this province. And they integrate in size as well as in

function.

This is entirely lacking in decisions made by the government when moving into the area of north central British Columbia.

And why was it done? I think the Minister owes us an explanation of

why that experience of which he speaks so proudly in the central

interior of the province was not also carried on into north central

British Columbia. Indeed not only was the experience not carried on,

but Bulkley Valley itself, as well as getting an allocation of timber

from the Crown, acquired the timber rights of the other independent

operators in the area. They're out of business. When those small and

intermediate independent operators move out of business you lose a real

strength in the communities that those small independent operators can

produce.

The strength in the Quesnel area is that you have operators there

who have grown up in the industry. The owners live in the community and

they have a real sense of responsibility to their employees and to the

community. That is lacking when we seek to allow large corporate

enterprise to take over our forest resources and to operate exclusively.

There is a very great distinction between the decision which is made

by the owner-managed operation — before he shuts down his plant and

puts 50 or 100 of his fellow citizens out of work — and the decision

which is taken in a boardroom in New York or London or Copenhagen to do

the same thing.

The decisions are entirely different. Different factors are taken into account.

One of the factors that the owner-operator, the small intermediate

operator, takes into account is the stability of his own community.

This must be continued. This is one of the positive plusses that we get

from the Crown management of the timber resources in this province.

The Minister — and I won't quote his remarks because I don't have

them noted — but the Minister was careful to point out, and I agree

with him, that we must look not only at the direct benefit which comes

from the wood operation but we must look at the continuing benefits

through the entire community, due to the sustained growth and

livelihood of that enterprise.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to overcome the bad

image that we have earned because of the Bulkley Valley experience, if

we are going to avoid .making further mistakes as this government

pushes farther north in this province, even beyond north central

British Columbia, that policy must be radically altered to encourage

for every incentive as its means to provide a proper balance in the

forest industry.

It's true that this policy must take into account transport. I am

aware of the difficulties that are faced by the operators in the north

central portion of British Columbia with regard to transportation. They

do not have the P.G.E. They have the C.N.R. The C.N.R. Is run as a

railroad or attempted to. It makes its only profits from operations of

the railroad

whereas this government with the Crown corporation under

its control is able to encourage policy decisions in the P.G.E. which

can assist to sustain the forest resource industry.

I'm not suggesting that that is an improper rule for the P.G.E., but

it makes a difference — a very direct, a very great difference. But

one, Mr. Speaker, that could not have escaped the Minister when the

decision was made to move into the Bulkley-Skeena area in North Central

B.C.

Another factor which must betaken into account is that of wood

quality. There is no question that there is decadence in some areas of

the Skeena. Decadence which makes the functioning of close utilisation

extremely difficult, and I suggest that to apply the rigid inflexible

rules of close utilisation in the Skeena area is indeed not close

utilisation but excessive utilisation — excessive utilisation to the

detriment of the enterprise.

We must also take into account the available labour force. The

skills which are lacking in many of the people labour force in that

area.

Lastly I think that the Minister must take into account the

availability of financing for the intermediate and small operators who

must be encouraged to go back into the north central B.C. area and help

to sustain this economy and for the communities which will be built

around them.

This can be done by immediately making available to independent

operators a wood supply which will in turn enable them to go and raise

the kind of financing that is essential in order to provide a modern

mill of even intermediate size.

Mr. Speaker, when we're speaking of the intermediate operator these days we're speaking of an operation in the

[ Page 267 ]

nature of $2-3 million. That's the kind of capital

investment that goes into intermediate operations in this day and age.

It's a lot of money. Indeed it might be possible for the Hon. Minister

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to exert himself in this

area and to really wonder whether or not there shouldn't be some

incentive from his department directed to small and intermediate

operators who will go into this area and establish themselves.

The use of incentives and the implementation of these policies, I

suggest, is not a subsidy, but is a realistic recognition of the

obstacles which confront the operator in the profitable management of

the forest resource which the people own but are prepared to allocate

to those operators.

The Minister well knows that at the forest industry it is not within

the classification of a hot-house industry which requires constant

infusions of government aid. On the contrary, the proven record of the

forest industry in other areas of the province based upon the

Minister's own figures shows that the industry is the mainstay of the

provincial economy. The Minister must also recognise that careful

nurturing is essential, if past records are to be sustained. The

government is the custodian — the trustee, if you like, of the people's

forest resources.

The experience in north central British Columbia raises serious

doubts in my mind as to the competency of the government to discharge

its responsibilities in this most important role. It has stumbled on

its march to the new frontier. What should have been positive growth

has turned into a rescue operation. With this record what can further

advances in the north expect?

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will turn to one final matter which also

raises doubts in my mind as to the competency of this government.

Throughout the speech and in previous speeches in previous sessions

we have heard Members of the Opposition speak about the age and the

arrogance of this government. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker that the

young don't have any stranglehold on competency.

That's the true measure. Not age. Not arrogance. Or lack of it. But

whether or not the government by its records is competent to administer

the affairs of this province, to give to the people the returns that

they are entitled to expect.

I think that one of the areas where the lack of competency, the

failure of the government, is most clearly shown is in the

administration of those institutions established in this Legislature by

the representatives of the people of the province, but now administered

by this government — through all of its years maladministered.

I speak of the land registry system. I speak of the provincial court

system. I speak of the court registry system. The Registrar of

Companies office, the Superintendent of Insurance who administers

insurance, real estates, Collection Agents Licensing Act , the Mortgage Brokers Act .

By the way, Mr. Speaker in this regard what has happened to the Mortgage Brokers Act ?

That legislation which was going to prove such a boon to the small

borrower in this province? To protect him from the ravages of lenders.

When are we going to proclaim part two, and really provide them with

the protection? Nothing has been done. In the securities field, in the

Public Utilities Commission, and in the Coroner's office — these are

institutions which are the direct responsibility of this government to

administer.

We are a society, Mr. Speaker, which is based upon law and the rule

of law. May it always be so. But the way in which this government has

maladministered the institutions under its responsibility raises grave

doubts as to whether the laws which are passed in this assembly are

really producing for the people the results which were intended by this

assembly.

It stems entirely from the failure to give these institutions the

support which they need to do the job. We find a couple of classic

examples. The Public Utilities Commission — and I don't want to go into

the details — has already been discussed in earlier debate in this

House. How it has badly handled the matter of cemetery trust funds.

I know the reason why. The Attorney General knows the reason why.

Because they haven't got the staff to do the job. So how does the

government react, Mr. Speaker? They pass an order-in-council saying

that you don't any more have to be concerned with the trust fund. You

don't pass them in court any more, in public view. You handle them

somehow or other in the P.U.C. Itself.

Also being discussed is the matter of Kaiser Resources Limited and

the opportunities which present themselves to insiders to make what

would appear to be improper profits on the purchase and disposal of

shares.

This isn't supposed to happen under the laws passed in this province

in 1967. I remember when the then Attorney General — how I wish we had

him now — how the then Attorney General stood in his place and told

this House that from the passage of that Act that no longer would

insiders, people with inside knowledge, be able to use that knowledge

for their own personal knowledge.

But go today to the Securities Commission and find out what kind of

records are maintained in respect of insider reports. They don't have

the staff. They're not published.

What Member of this assembly has seen a published report of

insiders' dealings in shares? They don't exist — don't exist because

they don't have the staff.

Well, I don't want to bring up Common Wealth Trust because the

record of this government in dealing with matters of serious trust

nature is extremely bad. The company's office report was filed by the

Attorney General last night. We have nearly 8,000 incorporations this

year — a 24 per cent increase over the previous year. This office is

now administrating 84,000 plus companies, societies and cooperatives.

Now the corporate institution, Mr. Speaker, is a valuable one in our

society. But it is also one which is capable of abuse, and has been

used and abused. We must have, within the institutions which this

government administers, the people who can properly assess what passes

before them. We don't have it. We don't have it because of

niggardlyness on the part of this government.

I have made a review of the staff in all of the areas I have

mentioned and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to find that

for less than $1 million — about 1/15th of 1 per cent, 1/15th of 1 per

cent of the budget of this province — we could double and in some cases

treble the senior administrative staff members of each of these

divisions. We could equip them to do the job we expect them to do as

legislators. We've said so, in the legislation that's passed. Permit

them to discharge their responsibilities.

Because Mr. Speaker, I know these people. They are responsible

individuals, dedicated to their job, but prevented from doing their job

by this government. It's a disgrace. If you can't administer these

institutions then is it any wonder that those other institutions with

which this government must deal — institutions from our society, our

medical profession, our teachers, the labour union — how can this

government deal with those institutions when it can't even

[ Page 268 ]

run the ones which are its direct responsibility?

In this regard I want to mention one last matter which is of great

concern to me — and why it has not been of grave concern to the

Attorney General I will never know.

A year ago the Member from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) stood in his

place and talked about an incident which had occurred in his

constituency, wherein a member of a police force was involved in a

tragic accident. Questions were raised about the kind of inquest that

was held.

We all know what happened. The Attorney General finally, after many,

many months moved and a new inquest was convened under the auspices of

the supervisory coroner of this province. We have now had a second one,

where a death has occurred and a member of a police force has been

involved.

Aside altogether from the manner in which the inquest was held, Mr.

Speaker, every time one of these instances arises the members of the

police forces who discharge their responsibility in this province are

brought in line for serious criticism which is not justified.

Why has the Attorney General not seen fit after the first instance

to require, as a rule, that when any member of any police force is

engaged in a fatality an inquest is to be held? When any member of the

government service is involved in a fatality an inquest is to be held.

Why do they not provide that the supervisory coroner shall be

instructed forthwith to convene the inquest, and to conduct it to its

conclusion? Then we have assurance of fairness.

I'm not suggesting that the local coroners aren't fair but it

removes all doubt when you bring someone of a senior nature to take the

responsibilities in such a grave matter. We take steps which then

retain the respect which police officers and members of the government

service are entitled to have in those communities in which they are

obliged to carry out their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding may I say that it has been an enjoyable

debate all these days. From my point of view. I suspect that I have

learned more from what has not been said, by the Members opposite, than

from the remarks that they have uttered here. It is what they have left

out that is of great interest to me.

The first Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) last night

pointed out the line in the throne speech which was of such interest to

him, and I thank him for doing so. Because I too think it is the most

important line in this opening speech. And I quote again: "We have much

to be thankful for in British Columbia, and we look forward to the

coming year with renewed vigor and a sense of challenge."

Mr. Speaker, that's what's wrong with this government. It is looking

forward to the coming year. The Honourable the Member from Shuswap (Mr.

Jefcoat) when he rose in this chamber and seconded the motion which we

are now debating, drew to the attention of Hon. Members the rapidity of

change with which we are currently faced.

Mr. Speaker, we can't look to this coming year. It is scarcely

satisfactory if we look forward to the balance of this decade. We

should be considering in this chamber today, and the government should

have before us what it considered is proper for British Columbia in the

1980's. Because each day, Mr. Speaker, we have as visitors to this

chamber those people who will be the citizens of 1980. It is for them

that we must start to move now.

We are not. This opening speech takes them into an account not one

bit. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, above all else that we will

oppose this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the throne speech two weeks ago proved to be an empty statement.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I could not help comparing it with the throne

speech from the Mother of Parliament, the British Parliament, I believe

it was November 12.

And in that throne speech it states that among measures referred to

in the Queen's Speech, and this is the important thing, it outlined the

government's policies, and programmes for the coming session. And then

it goes on to list legislation after legislation, which was to be

introduced. What a comparison to the empty statement that we were

presented with two weeks ago.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, ever since then we've been subjected to

equally empty statements from the government Ministers, who have been

striving, striving to reply in the vacuum created by the innocuous

material of the throne speech.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the most strident, outrageous

example of this was the speech given by the Minister of Social Welfare

and Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) who gave a non-speech. He gave a

speech Mr. Speaker, in which he did not once mention his own

department, or its policies — except I understand out in the corridor

after he left the floor. You know, Mr. Speaker, by his actions that

evening this Minister showed complete contempt towards this

Legislature, and our parliamentary conditions. And I hold the Premier

of this province responsible for allowing such a performance to take

place.

In his excellent book "Future Shock" Alvin Toffler analyses the

rapidly changing environment in which we are all living today. The most

rapidly changing environment. to which man has ever been exposed. And

his book argues very forcefully that unless man quickly learns to

control the rate of change, not only in his personal affairs, but in

society at large, we are doomed to a massive adaptational breakdown.

I was particularly interested in the

section of the book which

discusses the roles which future governments, and governments of today,

must play if we are to avoid this massive breakdown.

For example — and I'd like to list some of the points: Governments

must give a clarification of important and long-range social goals.

That is, focus must be on long-range goals rather than immediate

programmes alone. There must be a democratisation of the way in which

governments arrive at these goals. In other words the citizens of today

and the future must be wired into the system. And new links must be

forged between government and citizens. And there must be new ties with

tomorrow. But above all, Mr. Speaker, governments must be accountable.

Power must always be accountable and responsible.

You know, Mr. Speaker, although I am not an advocate of a "grading

system," I find it necessary today to grade the Social Credit

government of British Columbia on the points that I have just outlined

and after all, this government belongs to the old school so I think we

can apply the grading system too.

The Social Credit government of British Columbia fails completely in

measuring up to these vital and essential goals which any government

today must have as their policy.

I have come to the conclusion after witnessing this government in action for six years here in the House, that it

[ Page 269 ]

is not only heading for a massive breakdown itself,

but the tragedy is that if this government is not removed from power it

will also face the citizens of our province with a massive breakdown

too — economically and socially.

And I say this, Mr. Speaker, because this government across from us

is a government of the past. It's a government that has no vision of

the future. A government which simply reacts to issues. It's a

government Mr. Speaker, which suffers from myopia. It has an instinct

to think only about immediate returns and immediate consequences.

Each of the New Democratic Party Members during the last two weeks,

during this debate, have pointed out this myopia and they have

recommended needed new flexible policies in many and varied areas in

this debate.

The Leader of our Party in his opening speech outlined the very

fruitful, meaningful discussions which he alone initiated with the

State of Washington on environmental programmes.

You know, it's interesting that almost every government Minister has

commented on this trip. Obviously they realise the importance of this

trip and they realise their own negligence in this area.

But, Mr. Speaker, why didn't this government initiate such talks as

the Honourable Leader of the Opposition did? Why didn't they initiate

these talks themselves years ago? And I'm not talking about officials

getting together. I am talking about the politicians, the

representatives of two regions which have many problems in common.

AN HON. MEMBER: They go to Hawaii.

MRS. DAILLY: People were amazed down there at the reaction.

For the first time they had an opportunity to discuss, sit down and

really discuss common problems with politicians from another country.

But unfortunately although this government has not seen fit to take

this action — very unfortunate although still not too late — there's

much to be done.

Many more discussions should take place on joint policies,

particularly regarding environmental policies. But the tragedy is that

because this government through past inaction did not take action — particularly on the matter of the oil tankers — we are now faced with

the accomplished fact. Because according to reports which we heard from

Senators in Washington the oil lobbyists have won and all we can do now

(and this is what one Senator told us) is to be prepared to cope with

oil spillage.

And you know, with the very inadequate standards of oil tanker

construction today this means that we in British Columbia are now faced

with inescapable and continuing devastation of our beautiful coastline.

And what has this government done to stop this? What have they done as

a government?

You know, Mr. Speaker, the constituency of BurnabyNorth which I

represent has been subjected to industrial vomit filling our skies from

oil refineries for too many years. And the provincial government alone

have had the sole responsibility for industrial air pollution ever

since taking office and it has done nothing in those years to protect

the citizens of Burnaby and elsewhere.

This January by cabinet order, the Greater Vancouver Regional

District now does have the authority to regulate air pollution, and of

course with the authority goes the responsibility to raise the money.

Hopefully, we may now see some action against the pollutants.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that once again that

we are going to find a very heavy hand of this centralised government

impeding the necessary steps to stop the polluters.

I'd like to quote from a clipping of the Vancouver Sun from January 25, which is headed: "Cabinet Passes Defective Order on Air Pollution, say Regional Board."

The provincial cabinet order giving the Greater Vancouver Regional

District authority to regulate air pollution has turned out to be

defective. District spokesmen say that because of a legal slip the

order fails to require the operators of heating plants, restaurants, or

commercial incinerators to report what pollutants they are emitting

into the air, or even to apply for permits. Frank Burnell, the

district's director of operations, said that the defective clause had

been brought to the attention of the province's Municipal Affairs

Department by the regional district's lawyer before it went to cabinet.

Apparently his suggestion was overlooked.

You know Mr. Speaker, the regional district applied for the cabinet

order, or the letter patent, last April. And finally after local mayors

and alderman complained the province was dragging its feet on a

turnover of authority over air pollution the order was issued at the

end of December.

You know, isn't it ironic Mr. Speaker, that we can see the cabinet

producing orders in council, day after day very quickly on other

matters, but when it comes to the matter of handing over the authority

for air pollution they have dragged their feet. Why?

Mr. Burnell went on to say that the Province — and this is most interesting,

that is the cabinet … decided to keep close control by making further

cabinet approval necessary before any air pollution bylaw passed by the regional

District's directors can come into effect. "In other words," said

the district chairman of the pollution committee," it

appears the government is afraid of what the Regional District may do …"

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that if action is not forthcoming on

air pollution that I will make it quite clear to the citizens of North

Burnaby who is responsible. I will make it quite clear to the citizens

of North Burnaby that this is a government which has consistently put

the interests of large corporations ahead of the interests of its

citizens.

During this debate our Members have all expressed their very grave

concern with the ailing economy of this province, and the result of

high unemployment. Here again we have been given no blueprint from the

government or from its ministers on how the economy of this province is

to be revived.

The Department of Industrial Trade and Development has been severely

criticised for their inertia in this area — and not only by the

official Opposition, but also by some of its own government back

benchers.

Our Members have pointed out over and over again many areas where

revenues from our natural resources could be increased through

royalties. But the only policy which this government appears to espouse

to cure the ailing economy of British Columbia is the very policy which

the federal Liberal government tried and failed — and that policy is to

fight inflation by creating unemployment.

This provincial policy, Mr. Speaker, is very evident in education

and finance legislation which has been produced by this government,

legislation which is restricting school board budgets to such a degree

that personnel and teachers are having to be dropped from the roll. We

are increasing the

[ Page 270 ]

amount

of unemployed teachers, teachers' aides and other personnel in this

province, all because of the policy of a government, which strangely

enough always complained about the economic policies of the federal

Liberals.

We hear that every day, for every excuse when they can't figure. out

an answer, and here we have the irony of the Social Credit government

of British Columbia following in the disastrous economic footsteps of

the federal Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, our Members have pointed out the major weakness of the

government's economic policy over the years and again during this

session — a policy which is based on the exploitation and export of our

natural resources in the raw state. An unbalanced economy which is not

developing secondary or other industries.

I was pleased the other day to hear the Honourable second Member

from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who stressed the

importance of the tourism industry to our province. And I heartily

agree with her. However, I would like to ask the Honourable Member to

please use her influence with her cabinet and government to prevent the

desecration of our beautiful province by her own government's policies

re the, exploitation of our natural resources without proper

environmental control.

Mr. Speaker, if this is not done how can we eventually advertise

"come to beautiful British Columbia."? This was so evident to our

caucus when we took our trip throughout the province. The most

beautiful place one could travel through in the world; until suddenly

you come upon a pulp mill and the emissions from that pulp mill

completely obliterate the scenery and we know what they've done to the

streams and the rivers surrounding it.

I again implore and ask the Honourable Member who stresses tourism;

do something about those policies of your government which are

destroying the province.

Mr. Speaker, we must have properly planned, carefully integrated

management. We hear this from the Honourable Members over there,

particularly the Minister of Forestry. However, to date we have really

not seen any real will on the part of that government to put integrated

resource principles into action. Surely a government today must plan

for the future. The most important thing of all is that any government

planning for the future must at all times weigh the question of damage

to wildlife, to the environment and to the aesthetic values against the

costs and benefits of resource developments.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to discuss the inadequacies of this

government in coping with many of the social problems in our province

today.

Here again, we have evidence of a myopic government in action. You

know we have heard much discussion these last two weeks on the drug

problem. From all Members, almost every Member. The Honourable Member

from Burnaby Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) made an excellent constructive

contribution to this debate. But in contrast, the second Member from

Little Mountain attacks the problem from the wrong end.

You know, a scientific analysis for the reasons of drug taking may

be helpful, but surely the government should be devoting its studies,

not to the results of drug taking, but to the underlying social

diseases which cause drug taking?

Here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote what I consider was an

excellent

article from the Children's Aid Society. The Children's Aid

Society is against glue sniffing and against the sale of glue for

sniffing. Everyone in this chamber is, but the society doesn't think

either is an offence.

Glue sniffing is a serious problem, but making criminals of kids who engage in self-destructive behaviour, solves nothing.

I heard a Member yesterday, I think it was the Member from

Vancouver South, say "the stupid glue sniffing." We tend to say that

kids who sniff glue are problems. They are not a problem, they have a

problem, Mr. Speaker. Glue sniffing, child beating, delinquency, all

these problems are symptoms of the inequities in our society.

You know, it is useless to treat the symptoms and to completely

ignore the underlying social diseases. I never hear a discussion on

this level from our Members across the way. You know, the report went

on to say that some of the diseases, of course we know, are lack of

jobs, lack of proper housing, and lack of recreation and community life

facilities in public housing projects.

It does not end with the poor. The problems are grossest for poor

people, but every one suffers from obvious ways in which our society is

misorganised. Kids who aren't poor are irresponsible about drugs. They

see their parents using drugs of all sorts. They see them at work at

jobs that do not satisfy them. They hear their parents talking about

sharing and then they see them balk at giving up luxuries when other

children are without birthday parties and bathing suits.

The Children's Aid Society wants money, they want money for a

preventive budget. This is what is needed today, we must get into the

field of prevention of these social diseases which are causing the drug

taking and the drug problem. Surely then, Mr. Speaker, the government

must devote all its energies to the prevention of social diseases,

that's where your energies and your money and your budget should go.

The same applies to abortion and birth control.

The Honourable Member from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) for the

last two years in the House, has discussed the sterilisation and

vasectomies and she has considered it to be exceedingly brave to even

mention those words in the House. Who else would do so? I am mentioning

them today. Other Members have, Mr. Speaker. No one's afraid to discuss

those words, it's sheer nonsense. What we're concerned about is what's

been done about it.

I want to ask the Honourable Member, through you Mr. Speaker, what

has she done about family planning, in the Province of British Columbia.

I once recall being at a meeting when I heard the lady Minister from

the North Okanagan once say in justifying her position as a Minister

without Portfolio, that she was there so she could exert influence on

the cabinet.

I now ask this lady Minister, Mr. Speaker, to use her influence, use

her influence to increase aid to the Family Planning Association. Use

it so that the general public can become far better informed regarding

various birth control measures than it is at present.

For goodness sake let's stop being so coy about putting this

literature into our school systems. The students in our school systems

are crying out for information. People may be shocked at the idea that

birth control literature should go into schools, but fortunately there

are progressive boards that have faced up to the fact that it is needed.

I do think that perhaps the best answer is to increase the Family

Planning Association budget and not let them just sit in their offices

any more. They admit themselves the only way to disseminate birth

control information is to get out in the neighbourhood with that

information but they must have government support to do it.

Mr. Speaker, the whole area of health care in this province

[ Page 271 ]

also needs a blueprint and our Members on this side of the House

will be discussing this in detail in further debates. Here again, there

was nothing in the throne debate to give encouragement in this area.

Yes, we've heard great praise heaped on the special-care homes for

the aged. But, we had laid on our desks the formula to provide these

special-care homes. We were told that this was a great pioneer thing

that was being done in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I contend that

the day is long past for construction of such homes to rest on local

initiative. This is the government's responsibility. I do not buy this

line that we always hear from the Opposition; let's have community

involvement. It's good for the community to become involved. We can

have community involvement but first of all set your priorities — and

the aged people in this province need health care.

What about prescription drugs? What about prescription drugs for our

low-income groups, the working poor, and the senior citizens? You must

all know the cases — we are accused of going through tragic cases in

this House, but you must be all exposed to them. Senior citizens who

have their whole supplement wiped out in trying to pay for drugs, for

the ones who do not fit in under the drug qualification.

Yesterday we heard the Premier of this province is the greatest,

compassionate leader who has ever been in this province. If this

Premier is so compassionate, Mr. Speaker, why has he not taken his fat

surplusses, stop sitting on them and ease the suffering of the people

in this province?

We listened to the Minister of Education the other night with

considerable disappointment. Even though we know he could not discuss

anything pertinent to Bill 3, it certainly did not restrict him from

discussing or outlining for us the future of education in this

province. Again, no philosophic statement from the Minister of

Education. The Minister mentioned briefly preparing our young people

who will be the leaders of our society in the year 2000. His

preparation includes an announcement about the changing to the metric

system. An announcement of accreditation changes.

Mr. Speaker, we want more than this from the Minister of Education.

I sincerely hope that he will elaborate on this during the educational

estimates of the budget, for I consider it vitally important and I

certainly am prepared and so will other members here, in our Opposition

party, we will be prepared to discuss this during the educational

estimates.

One of the most important issues facing our society today and facing

our students and our schools is how are we going to prepare them for

this completely new society that they are moving into which is changing

every day. These are the questions that we want to see the Minister

devote himself to.

I would like to conclude on two subjects which I feel very, very

strongly about, and in which I again feel this government has failed

miserably.

First one is regarding the care of our young girls and people who

have been put in corrective insitutions. I am referring here

specifically to Willingdon School for Girls. May I say I was most

pleased yesterday to hear the Member from Burrard who spoke on Brannan

Lake and I believe stated that he would like to see it eventually

phased out for regional group centres and I completely agree with him.

Willingdon Girls' School — you know, I recall the Honourable Minister

of Municipal Affairs saying earlier during his speech, almost chastising the

members of the Opposition for even discussing such things as what happens in

Willingdon. He says: "I don't want to hear about these things." Mr.

Minister, I intend to discuss the Willingdon Girls' School here today and now.

For I believe that as a Member of the Legislature, it's my duty to bring it

to the attention of this House.

It's been brought to the attention many times by the Honourable

Leader but it must be brought again, the situation which now exists at

the Willingdon School for Girls. I hope the Minister of Welfare is

listening for, Mr. Speaker, I understand that since becoming Minister

of Welfare or Social Rehabilitation or whatever it is, he has not been

inside the Willingdon Girls' School. I do wish he would stay to listen

to the comments on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the plane's leaving.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I call on the government to close

down the Willingdon Girls' School. This school is obsolete in concept

entirely. It supposedly is supposed to be a place of correction. We are

all aware that the government said that there are no longer any

correctional homes, all we have now are treatment centres.

I wish some of the Members would take a trip to that home. I know

some have, and what I'm frankly amazed at is that their reaction has

not been stronger. I ask you, what would you call a large institution

with a high wire fence surrounding it, an institution which has a

policy of locking girls in their rooms at night and where in 1972 we

still see a solitary confinement room with a mattress on the floor,

open toilet, — five rooms. You're right, the Hon. Member from New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) accompanied me and he was absolutely shocked.

We saw these solitary confinement rooms, locked doors with even a

hole in the top of them — what for? — to pass food through and to

observe the disturbed young girl who is put in there. I don't think

even in the prisons of Kentucky or Alabama or Tennessee would you see

such rooms existing today.

Would you, Mr. Speaker, call this a correctional institution or a

treatment centre? It's neither, it's just a holding centre, that's all

it is. How many Members in this House have or have had 13-year-old

daughters, how would you feel if you knew that your daughter was placed

in such an institution? As a matter of fact, how many of us in this

room would like to go to bed every night and have a key, a door lock

behind us? This is what happens to the girls at the Willingdon Girls'

Home.

When I questioned the supervisor on why the locked doors, I was told

the girls themselves have asked for it. Mr. Speaker, I then talked to

girls who were graduates of the place and frankly this is not the story

I heard from them.

I am not saying that the supervisor was not being honest with me,

perhaps some girls did, but it's the very fact that they have to lock

the doors because of inadequate supervision that is the point here.

Should girls be subjected to this?

Another question I ask you, as our Member from New Westminster

brought up … You know, really, Mr. Speaker, I hear a Member in this

House laughing during this discussion. That is why we get nowhere with

this government when we try to discuss things.

We will remember this, we'll remember this when we're discussing the

Willingdon Girls' Home. I am not using the Willingdon Girls' Home for

any election platform. I am using it for the sake of the girls in that

school. This has been brought up every year. The atmosphere, if you

walked into that room, Madam Member, and saw what these girls are

exposed to, surely you would have to speak out but I doubt

[ Page 272 ]

you would.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere at Willingdon is

oppressive and I have been through it. It has no respect for a girl's

individuality or sensitivity. I reiterate, I am not blaming the staff

or the supervisor. As a matter of a fact when that monster of a place — and I'm talking about it physically here — when it was built, the

present supervisor recommended that small regional centres would be

preferable. She recommended this, a woman who had worked with young

girls.

She was completely ignored. Once again this government in its

arrogance or plain stupidity proceeded to ignore the wishes of people

who are knowledgeable in the field. Because of the large area the

institution covers and because of the lack of trained staff, this

Willingdon Girls' Home is just nothing more than a holding centre,

that's all.

Certainly it has a beautiful swimming pool, and I'm sure the other

members will go on platforms and extol the beautiful swimming pool and

the gymnasium which is larger than any gym I've seen in any elementary

school. That is not the point. These young girls don't care about a

swimming pool or a gym. These girls want people who will relate to

them. Who will sit down with them in small groups and help them with

their problems.

Understanding is what these girls want — 58 girls in this massive

institution. I call upon the government to turn that institution over

to the senior citizens of Burnaby. Excellent living quarters for them.

There are small cottages, there are kitchens where their food could be

made and taken to them. I'm sure they could well make use of the large

recreational centre.

But the girls who have been sent to Willingdon have been sent there

as a last resort. No one knows what to do with them. What a concession

for this government, after all these years. What are we doing? We're

isolating these girls from the community. These girls need an

opportunity to have that isolation repaired, back in communities

themselves.

I'd also like the House to know — and I know the Hon. Member for

Mackenzie (Hon. Mrs. Dawson) is particularily interested in this — approximately 25 per cent of the girls at Willingdon are native

Indians. Can you imagine the added isolation these girls must feel in

such an institution right in an urban centre? Oh, Mr. Speaker, I

sincerely hope that some action will be taken by the government and the

Minister on this home. The Minister is responsible. This situation must

not be allowed to continue.

Finally I'd like to turn your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a subject

which I have been very dismayed to see has not been discussed in this

debate by any Member of the House — even by the four lady government

Members. That's the whole matter of the state o£ the women in this

province.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I called upon the government to set up a

government committee under a Minister to study the recommendations of

the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. There has been

no action on this. I appreciate the fact that there are changes coming

in the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act , but Mr. Speaker, there

are well over 30 recommendations in that report which apply

provincially. Why is the government not at least studying these

recommendations? Why are the lady Members or one of the male Members

not taking up this cause? I don't care who does it. Do it.

Do you realise that in this province we still have outright cases of

sex discrimination in payment for work and promotion? It's right in our

own government departments. The Minister of Labour is well aware of it.

For sex discrimination does exist in provincial government departments

and I know he will deny it. However, I hope we will have an opportunity

during the questions and answers of the labour estimates to go back

onto this subject of discrimination in our own government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I must repeat again what I've said year after year in this House

since I came here. It's the government's responsibility to set the example.

Set it in government. Set it in your departments. Set it on the floor of this

House. So again for the sixth time of asking: Where are the girl pages?

Why should girls be denied an educational experience such as this?

Although I know some people would question the experience, at least it

would prepare these young people hopefully for some interest in

politics.

Last year I recall what the Hon. Premier said when I brought up the

matter of can we not have girl pages as well as boy pages. The Hon.

Premier called across the floor to me: "What would they wear?" Well,

Mr. Premier I had a picture taken especially for you. I am going to

send it over to you now.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: It is a picture of a page girl in Washington.

You asked me what did they wear? I think their costume is very nice.

They also have page-girls in Manitoba and Ontario, and I do hope you

will consider it.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): That comes under the office of Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Speaker …

AN HON. MEMBER: Say the word, say the word.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker …

AN HON. MEMBER: Just press the button.

MRS. DAILLY: The Hon. Premier did show an interest last year. I thought perhaps he might influence the Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm always interested in girls. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: I just want to point out to the Hon. Premier,

Mr. Speaker, I took it up with the Speaker personally last year. But we

still have no girls.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I took it up with him too.

MRS. DAILLY: Did you too? I appreciate your help very much.

MR. DOWDING: If you can't even accomplish that, you might as well pack it up. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 273 ]

MRS. DAILLY: You know, Mr. Speaker, I shall be speaking again

in further speeches in this session on the status of women. But I would

like to conclude by pressing on two very vital things.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have I got the Member's leave?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Which is the page-girl?

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, thank you, Mr. Premier. I hope you're not intending to demote me to a page-girl, Mr. Premier. (Laughter).

However, there are two things which I really would like to stress

and there are so many areas in the status commission which must be

stressed in this House. But in particular I'd like to see government

action in the area day-care centres. Mr. Speaker, I'm so tired from

hearing from the Member again from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

when she speaks to women's groups on day-care centres. Her main answer

is we mustn't have government-run day-care centres. Evasion, evasion,

evasion. I say get to work. Get to work and give some leadership.

That's what we want from you.

I would also like to see, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a

separate child care board, separated from the other Community Care Act

which includes, I believe senior citizens. Let's show the rest of

Canada that British Columbia can give the leadership and the

establishment of day-care centres.

I also feel that there are many, many things about the Human Rights

Commission Act which I have been going over that really need correction

if we are going to really prevent discrimination in this province and I

hope this to produce amendments on this Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned before the lack of wiring people

into the system. Speaking of the status of women, let me tell this

government that the women's groups springing up across our province are

very quickly learning to wire themselves into the system. The

government has not moved on these matters, even with the four

government lady Members. So the women's groups are on the move. Let me

remind you, Mr. Speaker, that women make up over 50 per cent of the

population of this province.

All over the province, Mr. Speaker, groups are springing up. They're

springing up with a multiplicity of problems. You know these groups are

finally taking collective action to try and prod this tired old

government into change. They have found they have to do this, Mr.

Speaker, because they have found this government has become

increasingly arrogant, non-accountable, and using its great powers in

very dangerous dictatorial ways.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is a great change in the land. The old

master hand of the Premier is slipping. It's slipping because of

heavy-handed undemocratic decrees and policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arrogance.

MRS. DAILLY: The people of this province are uniting. They

are uniting against the government. They are uniting against the

government which has no vision, no accountabilities, and can no longer

provide for the new society. Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to vote in

favour of the throne speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement):

I'd like to straighten out a bit of misinformation. I hope the last

speaker was more accurate on the rest of her statements than she was on

the statement about me not being at Willingdon School.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Because I want to inform her and the House that I have been and was at Willingdon School.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Recreation, Conservation and Travel Industry.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation, Conservation and Travel Industry):

Mr. Speaker, in having the privilege of winding up this throne debate

on behalf of the government you do inherit a few advantages. You have

first of all the opportunity to sit back and try and distill the wisdom

and the essence from the remarks of the various Members in this House

and in the process of this distillation I come to the conclusion that

while this government is not always right this government is on the

right track.

Of the two Members that spoke today, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Member

says we are taxing the forest industry user too hard. The N.D.P. says

we're not getting enough money from them. So I suppose we must be just

about in the right position on the middle of the road. The Liberals

don't know where they are quite frankly, but that's their problem. Not

ours.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: I think also it was interesting to have

observed that while the Member from Cowichan–Malahat (Mr. Strachan) says

that this Social Credit government will leave the country bankrupt the

lady Member who just sat down accuses us of sitting on our fat

surplusses. Now, Mr. Speaker, you can't be bankrupt and sit on a fat

surplus at the same time. There are many things that are possible but

that isn't one of them. However, Mr. Speaker, this is not unusual.

They're so confused over there that they don't know the difference

between a surplus and a deficit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Now let us come to the question of the

throne speech. But first of all, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition has reared his head and I ought to give him a modicum of

attention.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: That will become very clear to you in due

course. Don't rush me. I've waited a long time for this opportunity.

But I do really think that the Hon. Member deserves the Oscar for the

masterly nothing statement of this session, I believe, in reporting his

efforts at international relations and I commend him for it. Perhaps

he'll have a little less anti-Americanism in this House from here on in

from

[ Page 274 ]

that side. I commend him for his effort.

I think it was well that he went down there but I just want to

remind him of one of the statements he made in this House with all the

pomp of a real international ambassador.

The Hon. Member said among other things that arose from this great

interchange across the border was an agreement to consider holding

public forums on questions of general interest. An agreement to

consider to hold public forums. If that isn't a nothing statement I

don't know what is. Because if you analyse it, they didn't agree to do

anything. They agreed to consider.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Mr. Member, Mr. Member, just while we're on

this platitudinous statement, just while we're on this statement, I

thought this really took the cake: "We need a non-polluting steel mill

and copper mill in B.C." Amen! Don't you suppose some of the best

technical, scientific brains in the whole world have been looking for

ways and means of producing steel and copper without pollution? If the

Hon. Member was even halfway up-to-date on what the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources has been doing, he would know that he has been

pushing the most enlightened research in relation to a non-polluting

copper smelter that is available anywhere in the world.

If it is possible to build this on an economic scale this will be

the kind of copper smelter we will have in B.C. If you want to know one

more fact the reason we don't have a copper smelter in British Columbia

at this moment is because we do not believe that built on present

standards they can produce copper and still abide by our nonpollution

requirements. So when those Members are passing all these vague ideas

around …

AN HON. MEMBER: Vague? They're not vague.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Platitudinous — everybody is looking for a

non-polluting steel mill, copper mill and pulp mill. But in the

meantime as a forestry province we have to convert what would otherwise

be tremendous volumes of waste material into pulp. If there is such a

thing as a non-pollutant pulp mill found tomorrow, we will be the first

to adopt it here in British Columbia.

We're getting closer. The tremendous improvement between the mills

that were built 20 and 25 years ago and the mills that are being built

today is very observable right here in this province. We don't suggest

for one moment that we've reached perfection. Because we haven't. But

we are as close to perfection in the Province of British Columbia with

our new pulp mills as anyone on this globe has come to this date.

I think also that when we're talking about this very broad question

of environment we should realise that there are some rather practical

things that we can do in terms of protecting the quality of the

environment.

I had placed on Members' desks today a little report on our project

S.A.M. It's nothing spectacular. But it's a basic proposition that

deals with a basic problem in terms and with means that are available

to us right now.

I'm sure that we are the first government on the North American

continent to take this kind of direct practical action to solve this

kind of a problem.

We've had some success and some difficulties in relation to the

Litter Act . But certainly we have materially improved the situation in

relation to the cans and bottles being scattered around the country.

I simply want to advise you at this time that in relation to the

Litter Act — those sections dealing with bottles and cans — a legal

loop-hole was found during the course of the summer. The fact that it

was found somewhat weakens the intent of the Act and I will be

recommending to you ways and means to restore the Act to its original

intent and I just want to assure the public and industry exactly what

our intent is.

There's no great changes — we're simply maintaining the principle

that we established. The principle is simply this. If you sell these

commodities you must refund the empty containers. There is no other

practical method by which the system can function.

Certainly this very broad question of ecology could be the subject

of a five hour address and you would not come close to covering all the

facets. But since our Hon. Premier, the Minister of Finance, has some

resolutions to place before you today I believe, and in view of the

fact that the two previous speakers stayed within the hour which they

had said they would do, I too will stay within the hour and conclude my

remarks before ten minutes to five, whether I'm finished or not.

I found it rather interesting as we were going through the debate,

Mr. Speaker, to have repeatedly raised this question of secondary

industry. Now I think everyone as a matter of principle is in favour of

secondary industry, especially clean secondary industry. That's just

like motherhood, everybody can be in favour of it. But I think we also

want to recognise the nature of the time and place that we occupy in

the world today — the nature of our economy and why our economy is the

way it is.

We have either the highest or the next to highest wage scale in

Canada. I believe one month Ontario moves a little ahead of us and the

next month we move ahead of them.

We have also one of the most difficult areas of land mass in the

world to manage in terms of roads and bridges and other services. We

have a good resource base and that resource base if we handle it wisely

gives us the natural advantage by which we cannot only manage a rather

difficult geographic area but also maintain this high standard of

living for most of the people in the province.

It has a further factor to it. Because it is from this resource

base, this 100,000 basic jobs, that many of the other 700,000 jobs

spring. Take away that resource base and frankly the whole economy of

this province would collapse with very severe repercussions on the

national economy.

I suggest to you that you stop and think about that because when you

are looking at the butcher shop, these chain stores, the bakery shops,

the drug store, the service station, the hotels — take a look at how

much of that really comes from that original resource dollar — the

original generator, of the whole economic train from which this

government, the municipal and national governments extract as a portion

of the productivity the means with which they provide the services for

all of the people not only of this province but of Canada.

So while it is excellent to seek out those secondary and tertiary

industries that can add to the economic base of this province, we

should not overlook the fact that if we are going to artificially

create hot-house industry for the sake of creating work, we better

understand that we may have to hand-feed those hot-house industries in

perpetuity or watch them go under.

I think this is something we're inclined to overlook from

[ Page 275 ]

time to time because it's all very well to say: "Well, we shouldn't

be importing this" or "we shouldn't be importing that." Now if we are

prepared to accept the wage standard that in some cases exists in

countries we're importing from, undoubtedly we could produce those

commodities right here.

But I say to you, and you will agree, that we have a better wage

standard and we want to maintain and improve that standard and we will

do it where we have a natural advantage.

Now your secondary industries are coming but they in turn are coming

where they have some natural advantages going for them — for example,

the manufacturing of aluminum pipe for irrigation and a wide variety of

other services. It's a natural now because aluminum is refined in

British Columbia and in many parts of the province we have a high

demand for aluminum irrigation pipes. So, it is a natural. We are not

dependent on manufacturing and shipping it thousands of miles away.

Now this is the type of thing that I describe as a secondary

industry with a natural advantage. So when you get into the field where

we have no natural advantage you are hard pushed because you have only

a limited trading area available to you.

If you had a much larger trading area, a much larger volume

potential, then you can move into the economy of mass production but if

you are producing at a limited volume for a limited market you will not

get the economies inherent in mass-production and long-run, so you must

either receive a substantially higher price for your production or go

broke in the process of producing.

Now those are very simple economic laws and all the shaking of the

heads and negative thinking upon the part of the Opposition do not

change simple economic laws.

There are a couple of other matters that have been talked about a

bit during these debates, some of them rather superficially, I thought.

I thought the leader of the Liberal Party was perhaps better informed

on the basic facts of the conversion of energy than he seems to be by

conversion of energy. I mean, while I agree that it's quite possible,

quite practical, to serve all of our future electrical need by using

natural gas as a fuel — I think you will find that that was the

statement, that we had plenty of natural gas and we could produce all

our future electricity from natural gas as a fuel …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Well, if that wasn't what he said, then it sounded like what he said.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: That's what it was reported as, so perhaps

we could correct it because I was sure. The Hon. Leader knows as well

as I do that in the conversion of energy from one kind to another there

is always a high loss of that energy unit and to convert natural gas to

electricity and then use the electricity for heating except under very

unusual conditions would be very poor utilisation of our energy

resource. Because your …

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: This is a matter that comes under the

control of the National Energy Board, I believe, and before we get too

excited about that we should just remember that when the original

export order was approved that was the only basis for the pipeline from

the Peace River country down to the southwest corner of the province

where most of the population still lives.

It was only the basis of that export order that provided any kind of

an economic load for that pipeline and no one at that time would have

built a pipeline without some semblance of a load for the pipeline to

carry.

Now we should remember that. We should remember that because we

should be fair and objective about our assessment of facts. I think

another pipeline that is of some considerable interest at the moment is

the possibility of getting natural gas over to Vancouver Island.

Well, we all know Vancouver Island is an energy-short area. There

are a few possible Hydro projects still on the island but I don't think

anyone would seriously want to push their development — first of all

they would be rather disruptive of the island's ecology and secondly

they wouldn't produce very much power in return for that disruption.

So, the island as it moves into the future will have to have some new

energy source.

Now it is also fairly apparent from our experience in operating an

air-mix gas plant in Victoria that there is no way you can really give

service and encourage expansion if you're depending on an air mix plant

to provide the raw materials that you distribute.

By air-mix I simply mean propane butane mixed with air at a central

plant and distributed through a pipe system. So it would be desirable

to certainly bring natural gas to Vancouver Island and I would bring

back to the memory of the older Members the fact that in 1959, a

company known as Magna Pipeline was given a certificate to build a

pipeline from the mainland to Vancouver Island and Magna's certificate

was conditional — it only became operable upon actually placing an

order for the pipeline.

They placed an order with the Callendar Cable Company of Great

Britain, an order for two lines about 4 in. in inside diameter to

operate at 1,500 pounds pressure to the square inch and roughly 24

miles long. You'll recall that, and they spent with the Callendar Cable

Company $2 or $3 million at least in building a pipeline and then found

it wouldn't work. That was what they told us but I suspect it was

something deeper than that too …

But the thing is this, Callendar Cable Company, which is a very

responsible British corporation, bought their way out of their contract

with Magna to supply that pipe, as I recall, paying penalties of a

couple of millions of dollars because they said: "Frankly, if we can

build it at all we can't complete it and deliver it on time and our

penalty clauses are so severe we are better off to buy our way out of

the contract."

Now at that time the general question of gas to Vancouver Island by

pipeline died for the simple reason that nobody was going to grab onto

something that had already cost a reputable company several million

dollars and they couldn't hack it.

Later on and I'm sure many of you heard the report, there were

various off-the-record proposals coming forward. Well, you can solve

this problem by: "Don't try to build across here where it is so wide

and where it's so deep and where the contours are so rough, go farther

up, go up north 150 miles where the straits are narrower and the

contours are better and cross your pipeline up there."

Well, that only made sense if you were coming down, say, from Williams Lake to the coast at an entirely new location

[ Page 276 ]

and the argument again was offered that such a route was feasible

and that it might well be desirable because a pipeline is something

like a railroad — it tends to open up a new part of country simply by

supplying an economical energy source in that part of the country.

It was also argued, and with some merit, that it had another

advantage. We know that we are dependent in Vancouver and all the lower

Fraser Valley on a source of natural gas that originates 600 miles away

and is dependent upon a single pipeline through the Coquihalla Pass for

our supply of that energy.

If we lose that line, while it would be possible to get some gas

from the United States because we are inter-connected, if you lost it

in the winter they are also at the point where they are hard pressed to

meet their demands, and your supply would be at best pretty thin.

Now, let's face it, we have almost 200,000 customers on that gas

pipeline between the lower mainland and a few customers over here in

Victoria so the idea that you come by a entirely new route — that you

take advantage of the narrower northern crossing and come across to

Vancouver Island — seems to have on the surface of it at least quite a

bit going for it, because eventually if you come down that way for one

thing you don't have to loop the line through the Coquihalla Pass which

you will have to do if you place a substantial load on the existing gas

pipeline. You're going to have to loop it, and if you are looping it

through what is admittedly sometimes a dangerous slide area, would you

be better off to bring your second line on an entirely different route?

And then some day in the future, if you want to really consolidate your

position and you can do it from an engineering standpoint, tie your

north line — your Vancouver Island line — back to the mainland in this

general area and you now have two routes from which if you can't serve

your total load at least in the event that you'll have lost one line

you can serve the essential load.

Let's face it, when the weather goes down to 28 degrees and 25

degrees and 20 degrees and you are dependent solely on that gas furnace

in the basement to keep you warm, you're not going to be either happy

or enthusiastic if the fire goes out and there is nothing coming

through the line to keep it going. So you do have a responsibility to

look at these facts.

Now all the government is concerned with is simply this. To get gas

to Vancouver Island, to get it to the island by the best route — not

just on the short-term view but on the long-term view as well, to get

it there with the least possible cost and to guarantee the security of

supply as near as it is possible.

Now, of course, practically everybody you speak to is an expert on this subject until you confront them with the question.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: The whole question really boils down to

this. When so many people say they have so many good ideas the only way

is to put all those ideas in front of a commission, give them proper

cross-examination, make them verify their economic and engineering

proposals and from that surely if there is a best route it should

emerge.

It may emerge that it is not economic or practical because bear in

mind, the volume of gas that you can use on the island will depend on

the price you are charging for that gas and whether it is economical to

build the line or not, conversely, will depend upon the volume of gas

you can put through it. So it may not be economical.

There again, the question of using gas to generate electric energy

on Vancouver Island has to hinge on the price of the gas because if the

price of the gas is too high you can't afford to use it for electrical

generation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about nuclear power?

HON. MR. KIERNAN: That I think is another very broad subject

and I'm not going to get into nuclear energy this afternoon because I

think to deal with it even in a casual manner you've got to devote at

least an hour to it. And I followed the original research at Calder

Hall and Shreveport. I have had the opportunity to talk to some rather

expert people in this field and all I'm going to say is this.

We in this province are not obliged to go to nuclear energy at this

time because we have many other energy sources available to us. Now

there are other areas where they don't have those alternatives, and

they are going to nuclear energy because they don't have the

alternatives.

I have seen enough transpire in this last decade to convince me that

there are still quite a few bugs to work out of this nuclear thing. So

I say no … So I simply say …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Well, the Honourable leader of the Liberal

Party accused me a little earlier of not listening. The Hon. Member is

not listening. I simply say that we are not obliged to use nuclear

energy at this time because we have many other energy sources available

to us. Do you agree? Do you agree we have many energy sources available?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNON: I like my friend the leader of the Liberal

Party. He has such a simple direct approach to everything. You're

either for it, or against it. And if you're against it, well it doesn't

matter whether there's any reason for that or not — it's just black and

white. I don't know what kind of a world he lives in but hasn't he

discovered there are various shades in between?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never-never-land.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: What will emerge in terms of the gas

pipeline will depend, I think, what some of the best engineering and

economic brains can put forward as a solution.

Certainly we've got some good engineers in Hydro, and we've got

access to some pretty fair economic brains and some pretty fair

consulting engineering brains as well. But we don't claim for one

minute that we have the last word over there, on a problem of this

nature.

So our position simply is we will enter this competition, if you

wish, on the same footing as everybody else, and we expect that whoever

has the best proposition is going to come out as the successful

contender. If it is economical at all to build a pipeline for our gas

to Vancouver Island.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, we're running pretty well on in time, and

I'd like to deal with another subject that has had somewhat casual

mention in this House, and I'd like to prevail on your time for a few

moments to indicate to you that in my opinion it deserves much more

than the casual

[ Page 277 ]

attention it has received so far.

It's the question of flood control in the lower Fraser Valley.

Having sat as the Member for one of the constituencies in the Fraser

Valley now for 20 years I think I speak with some knowledge of the

situation.

I also feel that I have a very direct responsibility on behalf of my

constituents and every person in that lower Fraser Valley to put the

facts as I know them on the table.

Now, some people may disagree with the facts as I present them, but

if they have a different set of facts to present then by all means — God bless them, they should present them. But it really boils down to

this, and for the gentlemen of the media there will be notes available.

If I happen to leave out a little bit in my remarks it is simply

because I feel freer speaking verbatim.

In 1948 we had a pretty rough flood over there. It did a lot of

damage, and after that flood a good many millions of dollars were spent

putting the dykes back in shape and try to rehabilitate the people that

were pushed out of their homes, things were mucked up pretty badly.

If you recall we lost both railway lines, we lost both highways, we

lost all communication other than by air, or boat with the interior of

the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Yes, I was there, Charlie … Now, as a

result of this '48 flood, a joint board was set up between the

provincial and federal government known as the Fraser River Board. And

they worked on this problem of how do you control the flooding of the

Fraser, in the most effective manner.

Now, after about five years of pretty intensive engineering work,

and I have all the reports here, they came up with what are really two

basic recommendations. They said: "Improve your dykes — but you can't

rely solely on the dykes to protect you. You have got to be able to

store somewhere on that river system about 12 million acre-feet of

water, so that when you get a really high water year you can hold back

a minimum of 12 million acre-feet. Now you can either store it or

divert it but get 12 million acre-feet out of that river system."

And they said: "Here are a number of projects including diverting

the McGregor River into the Peace River which will give you 4 million

acre-feet of diversion."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Well, they felt a flood level without any

storage on the river, would give you a level at Mission of 26 feet or a

little above 26 feet. Well, now we were in real trouble in '48 at 23

feet. The dykes were improved after '48. And I think we can stand 24

feet at Mission. But bear in mind when you start pushing up to that 26

feet you're getting pretty high up the scale, you're getting into a lot

of water. The water volumes were roughly of this dimension.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: They can't really. Because while a 100-year

flood could be expected to occur once in 100 years, they could reoccur

twice in two years. You can't guarantee the intervals.

Now 1894 was the worst flood they could identify, simply by bench

marks up at Yale and things of that nature. It was roughly 20 per cent

bigger than the flood of 1948, and they said: "Don't take that as your

final criteria because there's no guarantee that you couldn't have a

bigger flood than 1894. After all that Fraser River drains 90,000

square miles — it drains one quarter of the Province of British

Columbia. Your maximum cubic feet a second at Hope in 1894 was

estimated to be 620,000 cubic feet per second. Which is roughly

3,600,000 gallons per second. Now your 1948 flood was of the order of

530 or 540,000 cubic feet a second."

Now they said in effect: "You pull that flood crest down below

400,000 cubic feet per second. Improve the dykes to the standards we

are recommending, they are pretty safe." And in order to store the

water they said: "Here are a number of projects that can be done with

minimum damage to the salmon fisheries. Yes, it'll flood valley floors,

it'll take up several thousand acres. But these projects will give you

the minimum water storage capability that we believe you need. And some

of them can generate some electrical energy which will help pay for the

cost of the work."

Now, this was in the neighbourhood at that time in '63 estimated to

be in excess of $400 million, and they said: "There are some works that

we haven't included in these costs." So I think at that time even the

estimates would properly be in excess of $400 million.

Now, there's a few things wrong with it. For one thing the diversion

of the McGregor has potential for quite a fishery problem in that you

are diverting a Pacific drainage basin — or part of it — into an Arctic

drainage basin, and you've got different fish species, in your Arctic

drainage basin than you have in your Pacific drainage basin.

Now, I don't think there is any way that you can 100 per cent

guarantee that you can tie these two drainage basins together for

interchange of water without some risk of getting your fish species out

of the Peace River system, into the Fraser River system. So that is one

problem that quite frankly some of our people have expressed concern

about.

The other one that is of direct concern to me is that the storages

recommended would knock out several of the falls in Wells Grey Park. It

would store on Clearwater Lake, Agar Lake, and Hobson Lake and quite

frankly it wouldn't leave that park anything like the way it is today.

No matter how tidily you did the job.

Now, in the background and appearing several times and then fading

away has been the talk about the Moran dam. The site would be about 20

miles above Lillooet. Now there are reports, and the preliminary report

of the Fraser River Board indicate a whole variety of projects that

might be done.

But they refer to the Moran dam in these general terms and say it

would store in excess of 9 million acre-feet. It would generate a

generous amount of power, and it would give you all the flood control

you need to protect the Fraser Valley.

It would also take out a lot or perhaps all of those salmon runs

that spawn above the Moran dam site, but this would not affect to any

noticable degree your spawning runs on the Thompson River system which

takes off at Lytton rather than above Lillooet.

Now those are the things that are in the background on this Moran

question. But no one has ever done the engineering to settle the

question whether you could build a dam at Moran or not. So until you

determine whether you can build a dam the whole thing is pretty

academic.

[ Page 278 ]

But if you find that that question is answered yes, then I think we

must have all the facts on the table — not only the implications for

the fish run, the ecological damage as weighed against the ecological

damage of these other five or six reservoirs. What the power costs

would be, what the construction costs would be, whether or not in fact

it would guarantee the flood-proofing of the lower Fraser Valley.

Only when we have all of these facts are we in a position to make an

intelligent judgment. Because we are going to have to make a decision

right here, we're going to have to make a decision to flood-proof that

Fraser Valley one way or another.

Because we're not talking about some little local dyking district.

We're talking about 230 miles of dykes, we're talking about 170,000

acres of land, and we're talking about the whole area. Because flood

those areas and you disrupt the whole of the lower Fraser Valley,

you're talking about the area where half the people of the province

live.

So this question has got to be resolved and it's got to be resolved

in a permanent way. Because while there were very large numbers of

people and livestock displaced in '48. The situation since then, with

the population more than doubling in the area …

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you prevent it?

HON. MR KIERNAN: Now that is, a real intelligent question. I

think you ought to perhaps go to the top of the class. After all, the

history of that valley is founded upon people moving in, dyking out the

waters and setting up their homes, communities and farms. There's after

all half the people of the province that live in that half of one per

cent of British Columbia. And every acre out there is valuable and if

you don't believe so go out and try and buy an acre.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, I've heard this beautiful

nonsense that the farmers are just as happy if the river floods,

because it puts all this good silt on their farms and makes the crops

grow. Well, my goodness, if we wanted the place to flood, we wouldn't

have built the ruddy dykes in the first place. And of all the stupid

arguments I've heard that really has to take the cake.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: All I'm really saying is this, that we want

all of the facts. We're going to have to make a decision and 100 years

ago, or even 80 years ago, you could have decided perhaps to keep

everybody out of the Fraser Valley but you can't turn back the clock in

that fashion now.

What I am saying to the Hon. Member is this. We had more people in

that flood area in '48 than twice the number of constituents that he

represents in his riding.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): You've got a lot more now.

HON. MR KIERNAN: I'll say we have. And so the answer is to flood-proof the Fraser Valley and just on the …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Yes I know, but sometimes that water is

pretty cold and muddy. But the other factor is we are going ahead with

the dyking work. One district at least has completed all its dyking

work under the federal provincial agreement. But while the board

estimated that dyking work can be done for about $4 million in 1963, it

looks now with the improvements they've made to the plans, and

improvements to the internal drainage, and tackling such things as the

Serpentine project it looks as though the total bill just in the Fraser

Valley could go close to $80 million. The Serpentine project alone is

now past the $1,500 an acre mark. And yet if you do it at a much lesser

level than that you are better off to have left it alone and just leave

it to flood. Because unless you do it right, really you shouldn't do it

at all.

All I'm saying about the Moran is simply this — we should have all

the facts on the table because no matter what we do we're going to have

to flood some valleys somewhere in order to protect that Fraser Valley,

we're going to have to store some water.

Let's make our decision in full knowledge of all of the facts, and

not just some of them. And that's really why I was little aggravated

because all I was emphasising was flood control was not being

considered in relation to Moran and yet in my opinion if Moran is ever

built it should only be built because of flood control.

We have enough power sources as far as the other purposes are

concerned. Certainly if you build it for flood control you're going to

recover as much of your cost as you can from electrical generation.

That makes sense. I expect the decision will be made in the way the

decisions are finally made. Right in the political arena. Because after

all, we're elected to make these decisions and we have to make them.

We may not always agree on the decisions we're making but

nevertheless, certainly, that's the job. That's the job we're elected

to do. If you don't want to make decisions well then you shouldn't seek

election.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker there will be ample opportunity

to discuss matters of interest on a broad variety of subjects as we

move through the next six, eight, 10 weeks of this session. But I

thought I might close on a note of where I believe our society is going

and what society really expects from government.

Society does not expect government to either do its thinking for it

or continually hold its hand. Society expects government to do those

things that society can only effectively do through its government. I

do not think you build a strong and healthy society by trying to solve

everybody's problems for them. That people have to make their own best

efforts and then be given help if with their own best efforts they

cannot solve their problems.

But I do not subscribe, and this government does not subscribe, to

the idea that government should have all the answers for everybody

because people have to be encouraged to think and work and strive for

themselves.

Only those that find they cannot make it on their own should then be

as a matter of public policy assisted by the government to help people

to help themselves. We should accept that we are not all wise and that

the situation changes day to day and we assess the situation with what

good knowledge we have been given and try in our time in our own right

in all humility and — Mr. Member from Yale — without heaping acrimony

or evil intent of purpose on anyone to

[ Page 279 ]

solve the problems of society.

For I respect your opinion and I respect your integrity. Please respect mine and the integrity of this government. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question before the House is

that we, Her Majesty's most judicial and loyal subjects, the

legislative assembly of British Columbia in session assembled beg leave

to thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has

addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-35

Ney

Tisdalle

Smith

Merilees

Bruch

McDiarmid

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

Chabot

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Chant

Mussallem

Kiernan

Loffmark

Price

Williston

Gaglardi

Capozzi

Bennett

Campbell, D.R.J.

Vogel

Peterson

Brothers

LeCours

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

Jefcoat

Wolfe

NAYS-17

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Wallace

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

PAIR:

Black

Gardom

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move seconded

by the Hon. Attorney General that this House will at the next sitting resolve

itself into a committee to consider the supply granted to Her Majesty,

and

this order have precedence over all other business except introduction

of bills until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Hon. Attorney General that this House will at its next sitting resolve

itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the

supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

HON. MR BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this being private members' day I would call Motion No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

was a question raised earlier this year, first by a newspaper report,

that some omissions had occurred in the printed recording of the

debates that we had received some months after the debates had taken

place.

Upon checking our own notes and other records that came to our

attention we found that indeed there had been some discrepancies in the

recording of the debates and that certain comments had been made in

particular in exchange between the Premier and myself.

The earliest opportunity we had to bring this to the House's

attention was, of course, on opening day. At that time an amendment to

the motion was ruled out of order because we did not give notice of

motion and of course it would be impossible to give notice of motion

because the House had just met.

The records indicate, Mr. Speaker, as I quote from the Victoria

Times of November 17, that an exchange that took place between myself

and the Premier on March 23 had been omitted and it should have been

included on page 766 of Hansard Mr. Speaker, the exchange went as

follows: This is what has been omitted according to the newspaper

article:

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker may I humbly submit obviously

nothing stops the Premier speaking any time he wants. He breaks the

rules of this House by jumping up when he doesn't have the floor, by

interrupting when he doesn't have the right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't understand the rules of the House. He makes his Press conference here in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: He breaks the rules and he sits down and smiles

about it. You know, Mr. Chairman, we see the Premier abusing the House

time and time again.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, no! We know who gets thrown out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! We're on the second …

MR. BARRETT: We know who's got the authority.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: You want to threaten to throw me out again? You

run the House that way? Threatening members. Threatening to silence

them. Threatening them all the time.

This statement is followed by the Speaker's printed comment about

not wanting to threaten anybody. Questioned about editing the

proceedings, the Speaker is alleged to have said in the paper: "Nothing

was taken out of the text. Nor was anything added to the text."

It goes on to say that the Speaker later said he checked a

typescript of the debate of March 23 and found a

section had been

omitted because it was considered an interruption and not related to

the bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, my point is that we too have a copy of the original transcript, the typescript of this exchange and the

[ Page 280 ]

point is who is to determine when Hansard is to be edited? It cannot

be truly considered an accurate record of the debate if any item

whatsoever is taken out of those recordings. It is dangerous in my

opinion that this record be allowed to continue its dissemination

throughout the Province of British Columbia with deletions made.

Anyone can fairly make an evaluation of why those deletions were

made if in fact the deletions have been made. It is a fair comment — because this particular deletion was made — it is a fair comment that

it was made to protect the image of the Premier.

It can be made fairly, Mr. Speaker, it can be made fairly because

anyone who wishes to may interpret for any reason whatsoever why

anything was omitted and no Member, the Premier included, should be

placed in that position in this House.

Any Member who speaks should clearly understand that he is

responsible for what he said. Every Member who speaks takes the

opportunity for speaking for his constituents and his personal

responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed of anything I have ever said in this

House and I want every word that I utter to be recorded fairly so that

people outside of this province who pay for us to be here expect us to

say, to state exactly how we feel, on any issue at any time and in my

opinion, Mr. Speaker, no one has the right to add or subtract or change

in any way any statement made by any Member here while it's being

recorded under the limited Hansard that we have in this House.

Mr. Speaker, any editing, any changes leave charges open. Not only

to the Premier but to myself and every single Member of the House.

I take full responsibility for any words that I utter in this House

and no one in my opinion other than the total House itself can decide

what should or should not go in the records because that's the debate

that has to take place here in the House by the elected Members of the

House — not by any other person or any other conditions.

Mr. Speaker it is the intention of this motion that the 1971 Record

of Debates be corrected to correspond with the electronic tapes of the

proceedings and I suggest for the preservation of any confidence at all

by the public in the Members of this House that this motion pass, that

those past records be corrected and in the future a House committee, a

permanent House committee be established to insure that there is no

further editing of any speeches under any circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I'm not

aware of any jurisdiction anywhere that is able to record the every

word as the Leader of the Opposition would have this chamber record

every word that is spoken in the chamber, every interruption.

Certainly, it doesn't happen in the Mother of Parliaments, it doesn't

happen in the House of Commons in this country and the Honourable

Members full well know — know full well, I'd like to change that one so

that it makes sense. The Honourable Members know full well that in

Ottawa they receive the transcripts and they are able to correct it

because in the transcriptions there may be errors made in terms of the

words that are said.

I notice in many of my statements, it appears in the transcripts as

"and" when it should be "in"; these sort of corrections are made

everywhere. Furthermore it's impossible, I suggest, it's impossible

for every interruption …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Now, how can anyone record the words that

are being said at this precise moment, Mr. Speaker, and have them

record it? It is impossible. And this is what's wrong with the N.D.P.

In this province. They came up with all these theories and they're not

workable, they're not feasible. And they know it's not feasible and

we've proven it here today.

I would, however, now that the Honourable the Leader of the

Opposition has made a specific reference to a specific debate which he

indicates has not been recorded properly and he referred to a specific

page of Hansard , page 766, I do want the opportunity to check

that matter and compare as the Leader of the Opposition has done and

therefore I move the adjournment of this debate at this time.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-34

Ney

Tisdalle

Wolfe

Merilees

Bruch

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

Chabot

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Musallem

Kiernan

Chant

Price

Williston

Loffmark

Capozzi

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Fraser

Brothers

Little

Fraser

Richter

Jefcoat

NAYS-17

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Wallace

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

PAIR:

Black

Gardom

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 4, the Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker I think Motion No. 4 is

self-explanatory — that a special committee be appointed to review the

policy governing the classification of motion picture films prior to

the display within the province and to make recommendations to the

House for any revision thereof deemed to be in the public interest.

That the special committee appointed under standing order 68 be

instructed to prepare and report with all convenient speed a list of

[ Page 281 ]

Members to compose a special committee appointed by this resolution,

and that the special committee appointed by this resolution be

empowered to send for persons, papers, films and records and to hear

any representation that this special committee deems in its discretion

necessary. Moved by myself and seconded by my colleague, the Minister

of Education.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR PETERSON: We're following the procedure the

Honourable the former Leader of the Opposition well knows, starting at

the beginning of the motions and then going down through the list,

respecting as we always do private Members' day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recall to the Honourable Members that in 1970

— I can't recall whether it was on a private Members' day or not — the

Motion Pictures Act was amended. Well we had many that year, just as

many that year as we have had in previous sessions and in fact, many

more. But the Motion Pictures Act was amended, modernised in many

respects, providing for classification of motion pictures in the

Province of British Columbia.

There has been some experience now in the operation of the new

legislation, the types of classifications that are provided for. There

are those who feel and who have suggested that there be broader

classifications or new classifications of film.

I'm sure too that there are those who have received submissions in

the past as I have had of more restrictions on the kinds of films that

are being shown, the decline in quality of the films as relates to

greater violence or this sort of thing. So that there are complaints on

the kinds of films that are shown and as well the numbers in the

various categories that are available — a common complaint, not

sufficient films of good entertainment for children and for families.

The purpose of this resolution is to review the situation as it is

at the moment. Not to refer to a select standing committee but to give

each of the parties represented in this House an opportunity to select

those who they wish to serve on such a committee tha