1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 97 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

THE HON. ISABEL P. DAWSON (Mackenzie) – Minister without Portfolio:

(The first portion of the Honourable Minister's speech was not recorded.) She continues….

…. are engaged in employment areas using our natural resources

namely, millworkers, loggers, fishermen, miners. As I look about me

here today and know how many of the members on this side of the House

represent strong labour ridings, for example, Trail, Nanaimo, Port

Alberni, Fort George, Comox, Skeena, Kamloops, Prince Rupert and

others, there is a clear indication that the working man and the

working woman supports this Government, in a sincere effort to serve

well and forthrightly, not only the cause of labour, but all the people

in this great Province of British Columbia. As I travel throughout my

constituency in particular and, indeed, around the Province as a whole,

I find that the working man asks many questions concerning many aspects

of government. He asks for information about our home-owner grant, he's

pleased with the medicare plan and hospital coverage which has

eliminated for him much of the worries involved in sickness in the

family. He is interested, too, in the recreational facilities such as

marinas, campsites and parks. He likes the home-owner grant, because it

helps him where it counts, in his pocketbook, and the home acquisition

grant makes it possible for many workers to acquire a home of their

own. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to note in the Throne Speech that these

grants are going to be extended to help make it possible for more

people to acquire their own homes, whether by new construction or by

purchase of an older home. Although modern cave dwelling is necessary

in largely populated areas, there are still many people who are

desirous of acquiring a spot to call their own. For those who so wish,

the home-owner acquisition grant is a concrete and practical inducement

for them to do so.

I am pleased, also, to note in the Throne Speech mention has been

made of increased ferry services over the past year to the Sunshine

Coast area in particular. Like elsewhere in the Province, tourist

traffic is rapidly expanding. More and more people are visiting our

Mackenzie area. Implementation of these extra ferry services thus

ensures that such expansion will continue in the future.

Later in this Session I hope to have the opportunity of speaking

more fully on matters pertaining to our elder citizens. However, I must

say that I am very pleased to see that in the Throne Speech mention is

made of increased pensions for those of our senior citizens in need.

Last year under the B.C. Cultural Fund we saw the first all-native

children musical tattoo in Kamloops. Some 450 boys and girls

representing a number of native bands throughout British Columbia

staged what I would say was an outstanding performance comprising

marching displays, dance groups, and exhibitions of native arts. I feel

that these young people and their co-ordinator deserve the highest

praise for their efforts, and I am pleased to report to this House that

plans are underway for a second such tattoo to be held in the latter

part of May in the Fraser Valley area. It is our hope that during our

Centennial Year of 1971 these young people will travel to several

centres throughout the Province so that more of our citizens may have

the opportunity of enjoying this outstanding display of native talent.

Mr. Speaker, as we range the highways and the byways of our Province

we frequently observe signs which read "Keep B.C. Green". These signs

reinforce the responsibility of those using the highways to do their

part in preventing forest fires. It is my feeling that the individual

who not only uses the highways, but also enjoys camping or picnicking

off the beaten track and along the shores of our beautiful lakes and

coast, has the added responsibility besides being careful with matches,

cigarettes and campfires, of attending to the proper disposal of

litter. There is nothing more offensive to those who appreciate the

beauty of nature than to come upon the discarded remains of a picnic in

the form of empty milk cartons, paper bags, bottles, cans of all

descriptions, and the unsavory odour of decaying vegetable matter.

Indeed, there are those, I am sorry to say, who seem to use our woods

and our shores as a repository for their household garbage, with what

appears to be apparent lack of consideration concerning the

unsightliness of their deposits and a total disregard of the dangers

inherent in discarding broken bottles and cans which can cause injury

to children as well as creating a health problem. Forest fires have

been known to have started as a result of bottles being thrown into the

woods. I feel sure that those who litter the countryside with such

garbage would not dream of doing so to their own property. Therefore it

is difficult to understand why they feel no responsibility for

preserving the beauty of nature for our citizens and tourists alike.

Perhaps some people need more education in the areas of the harmful

effects of indiscriminate littering. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would

recommend two things. First of all, I would like to see the Minister of

Education give consideration to including an anti-litter programme

within the school programme from the Grade 1 to the Grade 8 level.

Somewhere in there I think it should be included. I also think that the

members of this House could do much to help this problem if they would

make use of a new set of slides called "Louie, The Litter Rat", a most

excellent set of slides, and I think that if our members would do this

as we travel around the Province, we would overcome a great deal of the

litter problems. I would also like to say perhaps we should change our

slogan on the highways where it says "Keep B.C. Green" to "Keep B.C.

Clean Green".

Pollution, the malaise of this era, is a direct result of the

population explosion throughout the world. For those who can remember

how things were before the upsurge of technological advances, the

situation is brought sharply into focus. For those of us who grew up in

this era, it is a matter of concern because we wonder just where it is

going to end. The younger generation has also become involved and they,

too, are seeking a panacea. Indeed, all of us are concerned and are

searching for explanations and genuine remedies. Pollution is a

by-product of an affluent society. No one can deny that industrial and

commercial development should be used for the betterment of man at

large and, in fact, our present economic structure decrees that unless

discoveries resulting from many types of research are controlled, sets

of circumstances could well arise whereby the balance of nature might

and does become upset. The whole spectrum of pollution is vast.

Therefore, to be effective, scientists and researchers must specialize

in a particular facet of this field. I believe that it is our business

to sift and comb all available material which is being circulated today

by way of the communication media. Therefore, let us draw aside the

veil which has shrouded the aspect of water pollution specifically

[ Page 98 ]

in regard to detergents. What is pollution?

Pollution is the over-abundance of any substance found where it is not

desired, with the result that an imbalance occurs in the natural

environment into which the substance enters. Therefore, when one talks

of pollution one must, of necessity, speak of a specific situation.

Table salt is a pollutant in some circumstances. Water itself is a

pollutant, for example, in time of flood. Present concern in regard to

phosphorus and phosphates is also related to the fact that phosphates

are very good fertilizers. They have been used for many years as

fertilizers and they will, and indeed do, encourage the growth of plant

life whether the plant life occurs on earth or in the water. In water,

the major concern is that they encourage the growth of aquatic plant

life, particularly certain forms of algae. While phosphorus is

undeniably a pollutant in these terms, it must be recognized by

everyone that there are other sources of phosphorus in natural

waterways and streams than from the use of detergents in domestic

effluent. Not that I am trying to minimize this source, but rather it

points to the fact that other geneses do indeed exist. Even so,

domestic use of detergents is one source of pollution. Therefore its

limitation can indeed improve the situation. The obvious and immediate

solution, one could readily say, is to curtail, as much as possible,

the entry of effluent containing phosphates into natural waters.

Phosphates, as I mentioned, are used extensively in the field of

agriculture. As they often reach the natural waterways since they are

carried to our streams and rivers through action of the elements, for

instance rain. The use of phosphates as fertilizer is a necessity so

that food may be produced to feed the growing population the world

over. Another way to reduce the situation would be at the source of

manufacture, which raises the question of why phosphates are used.

Once again, industrial and commercial development in several related

fields has made it necessary to introduce stronger cleaning agents in

order to extract grime and new stains from man-made fabrics. In the

sphere of domestic detergents one must start with mechanical aids,

washing machines, dishwashers, rug shampoo applicators, and the like,

all of which have been contrived or designed to cope with the new

fabrics produced by textile manufacturers, whether these fabrics are

used as personal or domestic items. That is why today I intend to bring

to your attention the wide use of detergents by a vast number of

homemakers. It is virtually impossible, Mr. Speaker, to watch a TV

programme, listen to a radio, or read a newspaper, without being

assailed by a statement declaiming the merits of various brands of

detergents. The terminology used in relation to household detergents,

while it may be familiar to those who are knowledgeable in the areas of

chemistry and related sciences, is bandied about by speakers, picked up

by advertising media, and subsequently passed on to the general public,

in particular the homemaker. Many of the terms used are not yet to be

found in a dictionary. Therefore the homemaker may be unable to assess

the relative merits of one product in relation to another. For

instance, as I wander among the aisles displaying detergents, packages

in every hue and emblazoned with stars, circles and pictures of

lemon-fresh hands, I wonder whether other homemakers are as entranced

as I am by the display before my eyes. Should I choose a product

containing enzymes or enzolves? The package that proudly boasts of new

cleaning miracles? What is new is not stated. Therefore, what is the

mere homemaker to do? Use the brand she has been using for years, or

turn aside in favour of another brand which promises her blazing white

whiteness, that powers out stains and powers in brightness? Or that

certain product which tells her she can get her whole wash so clean it

is spotless? Some products tell her they have a new cleaning miracle,

unidentified other than by a couple of letters; still others boldly

claim that her nylon garments will be white again if she uses that

product. There are products that claim the homemaker cannot get along

without built-in fabric softener, or that she can get her whole house

spotless. Not only does the homemaker almost require a science degree

in order to select a detergent, but also she is faced with being

selective in other allied fields as well. Her final selection is a very

difficult one, Mr. Speaker. Having selected a detergent, brand x, y or

z as the case may be, she might visit the men's toiletry aisle where

she is again faced with a major decision. Does she buy for the man in

her life a bold new deodorizer which tells her if he has any doubts

about himself give him something else. For her own hair care she must

decide whether to purchase alpha, beta, or delta. One trial package

tells her she is about to lose her back seat driver and that had she

used the product displayed she might have kept him. What is the poor

homemaker to do? Decisions, decisions, decisions!

Referring to the lack of

definitions for these new terms, it appears

that what is required for the homemaker is some sort of glossary of

terms pertinent to detergents. What are some of these words? How are

they defined? First of all, the word detergent itself. The definition

of the word detergent, either synthetic or non-synthetic is, "a

man-made cleaning agent with properties of promoting wetting,

suspension, and dispersion of soil particles." Phosphates are defined

as "chemically composed of a salt or ester of phosphoric acid (sodium

phosphate)". Phosphates act both as a cleaning agent and a fertilizer.

Agriculturally, a fertilizing material may contain compounds of

phosphorus. Phosphates used as fertilizers encourage growth on land and

in water. In water they set up a chain reaction upon certain species of

algae, which is a natural water plant, so that they take more than

their quota of oxygen at the expense of other aquatic life.

You know, another beaut of a word is this one, "eutrophication".

This word's meaning is, "A natural process by which a closed body of

water, a lake, changes and dies to become land." This process usually

takes centuries of time and requires a build-up of excess deposits of

algae, an aquatic plant life, lowering the water level, thus converting

the lake first into a swamp then finally to land. I didn't know about

this word until I started looking into the detergent problem. I find

one is learning new words and new things every day. Biodegradable. This

term means that the detergent is capable, that is to say 90 per cent

capable, of being broken down by bacteria in a matter of hours.

Detergents now sold are not all biodegradable. Many are in part but not

wholly so. The key to biodegradability is the speed with which the

substance breaks down. Some products take a few hours, some a few days,

some a few weeks, some a few months, some a few years, and possibly

even some, never. With agitation, some of these will re-suds and

re-suds again. The importance of the speed factor in relation to

substance is to ensure the phosphates are broken down quickly. Mr.

Speaker, homemakers must know whether doing away with phosphates and

detergents will indeed help the pollution malaise. Where the effluent

runs off, away goes the sewage-system of septic tanks. It is my feeling

that she has a right to know whether biodegradability is a concrete

solution. The homemaker has a right to know the truth about these

[ Page 99 ]

products. Half-truths are not enough. For example,

the write-up that appears in a column of a local paper, dated January

the 15th, 1970, stated that certain levels of phosphates are contained

in washing compounds of any kind or brand. To me the

article leaves

much to be desired from the point of view of clarity. Since not only

are our washing compounds discussed, but also mention is made of

additives to washing — products used in rinses after the clothes have

been washed in detergents, and even some products which we should

normally class as disinfectants, these evidently are classed as

detergents. There's nothing in the

article that would indicate whether

any of these products are partly biodegradable or not. Therefore, I set

up an experiment of my own, and I have before me, as you will see in a

moment, Mr. Speaker, the results of this experiment.

(The Honourable the Minister then displayed the results of tests she

had made on several household detergents containing various degrees of

phosphate.)

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge, if it is not indeed now being

done, that the whole aspect of biodegradability in relation to

detergents be pursued with as much vigour as possible, and with all

dispatch, not only for those in government, but also those concerned in

the production and use of modern washing compounds. Thus the homemaker

will be able to know the truth from the half-truth in the detergent

area and I am fully confident, Mr. Speaker, that homemakers are indeed

most anxious to help search out an answer to the pollution potential as

related to the use of phosphates. Detergents or no detergents, the

family wash must be done. Give the homemaker the answers, and I would

say she'll get on with the job.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have here with me today a number of letters

from women who have tested one of the products before you today. As

early as last November I gave these ladies unmarked samples of washing

powder and asked that they use the sample in their weekly wash. I

further asked for their comments in writing on the merits or not, as

the case might be, of the washing powder sample given. In addition, I

have a number of letters from women who have been using a biodegradable

compound for some time. I leave with you this thought, Mr. Speaker, is

biodegradability the answer or not? Surely, if men of science can put a

man on the moon, they can devise a washing compound that can still give

the homemaker the whitest wash yet not leave a doubt in her mind as to

whether it contains a possible pollutant. Such a washing compound would

safeguard the homemaker and her family and indeed the community in

which she lives from the pollution malaise of this era, thus making an

affluent, rather than an effluent society.

Mr. Speaker, just in closing, I would like to read two or three of

these letters that were passed on to me last night. "I have been using

a biodegradable product for over a year and can recommend it as a most

satisfactory anti-pollutant washing compound product. If more

housewives, especially those with large families, would be told about

its qualities, and use, it would be, I feel sure, a wonderful help, not

only for our water pollution but also a longer life to our sewer

pipes."…. "I received a sample of a biodegradable laundry detergent

in the mail two weeks ago. After using this, I find it gives the same

cleanliness to clothes as other detergents, but the result of not as

much lather makes it easier on my wash and septic tank. This decreases

pollution and makes for a better and healthier area. I am definitely in

favour of these biodegradable detergents." Mr. Speaker, it is not my

point here to recommend any products, or to state whether

biodegradability is the answer, but rather to say that as a homemaker

myself, I think that the women in the Province are looking for an

answer sincerely to the problem of pollution in detergents. I am sure

that with their help, and coming up with an answer to this detergent

phosphates problem, that the women of British Columbia will get in

there and do a job well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. ALEXANDER B. MACDONALD (1st –Vancouver East): Mr.

Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate, I want to first

congratulate yourself on your election to guide over our deliberations.

I'm sure you will not be like the Irish Judge who, on his appointment,

said that he would be very careful to walk that fine line between

partiality on the one side and impartiality on the other…(laughter).

I said I am sure that his Honour the Speaker wouldn't do that. I wish

too, in rising to participate in this debate, to congratulate the old

members of this Assembly, whom have shown unbelievable survival

instincts, some of whom, in particular on the other side of the House,

have been here for 15, 16, 17 years. For 17 years they have turned the

people of British Columbia every way but loose. And I want to also

congratulate the new members, the gosling parliamentarians, and I have

enjoyed their opening speeches. I have enjoyed their opening speeches.

I have enjoyed particularly listening to the new Social Credit members.

The member for South Peace River, I enjoyed his speech, and the member

for Oak Bay, and it occurred to me that there are light years and two

political parties separating those two honourable members, they are

ideologically miles apart, and maybe this is part of the signs of the

breakup of Social Credit itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh!

MR. MACDONALD: Oak Bay in the past has returned to this House

— I was thinking particularly of that member Alan McFarlane, a great

humanitarian from that area, who has since passed to his reward,….

(laughter) and I compare him with the present member from Oak Bay, who

loves to attack socialism in all its forms. He says…. Ah, what's

behind it when you strip away the verbiage? Three dollar increase in

the health care in our hospitals. Who's that going to hit? The

privileged rich fat cats of society, or is it going to hit those least

able to pay in a health field? That's what he means by attacking

socialism. Sock it to the little man. Sock it to the little man. His

attitude in this House is going to be completely predictable, because

you strip away the verbiage, and on every issue you will find that he

is on the side of the privileged groups of society. When the Minister

himself brings up the matter of high medical fees, in some cases

unconscionably high medical fees, milking the B.C. Medical Plan, who

says that there should be a curtain of silence drawn over such

activities? The member from Oak Bay….

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. MACDONALD: ….Certainly he did. I read the newspapers.

Even the Attorney-General has been attacking us philosophically. Yes,

you said that under our new leader we took a sharp turn left, and under

our previous leader, Tom Berger, you said we took a sharp turn left,

and under Bob Strachan you said we took a sharp turn left, and where

does

[ Page 100 ]

that leave us facing…. Right! It leaves us facing

right — right! (laughter) We may very well have to change our leader

again to get back on course, but there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, where

the Attorney-General is facing. He has given to the private insurance

companies the right to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury and levy

fines upon the motorists of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!

MR. MACDONALD: …. Don't ask me to speak on the leadership,

Mr. Speaker, because everybody knows, or they should know by this time,

that I'm kind of committed — my middle name is Barrett.

I was interested too, Mr. Speaker, in the course of this Throne

Debate to hear the attack of many speakers on Mr. Benson's White Paper.

Now I don't subscribe to all the details of that White Paper, but I

think people, and I include the Minister of Welfare over there, are

advancing under a heavy smoke screen because their real target is to

defeat the capital gains tax. I say that it is high time that,

speculative profits should be taxed like a working man's wage. I have

heard no support from that side of the House in defence of that kind of

equitable tax principle, and I think when you make these broad side

attacks on the White Paper, that you ought to support what's good in

it, and the proposals for a capital gains tax, however they may have to

be changed, are a step toward equitable taxation. Instead of that they

spend their time, Mr. Speaker, in attacking poor Professor Watkins….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh.

MR.MACDONALD: ….who, they say, is a dangerous man, a

dangerous radical, when really — and I don't agree with everything he

wrote in his paper, but I agree with a lot of it and I've made that

claim — when really he is a rock-ribbed Canadian. He is a rock-ribbed

Canadian. I don't agree with everything in that paper. But I don't

agree either with the progressive alienation of ownership and control

of the equities in Canadian industry to any other country. I don't

agree with that kind of foreign control. I've known nothing to equal

the record of this Government for the alienation of our resources. When

they almost gave land dedicated as Crown reserve for park purposes to a

group affiliated with the Mafia, this may be said to be the last straw.

But bit by bit we've seen the control of equity, the right to be

masters in our own house in British Columbia, traded off by this

Government for quick cash, and we're going to pay a heavy cost for it.

I notice in the columns of a leading columnist in the Vancouver Sun

that he poses the question "What's wrong with American Investment in

Canada?" Well, I think we need American capital in Canada. America is

the great generator of capital investment funds in the world because it

is the richest economy in the world, and it is an exciting country. It

has a bit of everything in there. A society that produces, for example,

a Dr. Benjamin Spock and the freedom of expression and the exciting

works in film and art that are coming out of the United States is

something of which we can be proud. But there are bad things, too. It's

got everything in that society. But in essence the reason why we are

concerned, Mr. Speaker, about American ownership of equity — not us

going to the capital markets and raising money by debentures for Hydro

or for our industries — that's fine. We need that capital, and they

need a place to invest at a good return and a safe return, and that's

Canada among other places. But we do object to seeing our equities, the

essential ownership and control of our resources alienated, no matter

to whom. The essential reason in simply this, that Canada has an

unfavourable trade balance with the United States of America in the

sense that we import more from that country than we sell to her and we

balance the books by an inflow of capital to buy up the equities in our

industry. But the counter-balancing thing that comes out of this is the

dividend flow back over the border.

When you've sold your equities, when you've parted with the

essential ownership of the resources of your own country, what do you

do for an encore? What do you do for control and equity and a sense of

pride in your own country? How do you avoid economic colonialism in

those circumstances?

AN HON. MEMBER: After you've sold everything else you'll sell your soul.

MR. MACDONALD: But I leave this subject by saying that you

can't forever sell off your dividend-producing equities without

suffering as a country from pernicious anaemia. And that's the run in

the long run. I say to those who are our detractors, that we who take

this position, Mr. Speaker, are not anti-American but we are and we

intend to remain pro-Canadian.

I want to say something, Mr. Speaker, about labour, and I'm not

going to say very much today. I think most people will agree that — we

should all try to agree in this year 1970, as we start a new Session — that the present picture of labour bargaining is most unsatisfactory.

Prices, income, inflation, groups in society being hit and heavily hit,

including organized labour, by what is becoming run-away inflation,

bargaining breaking down in many cases, unnecessary strikes — as hard

on labour as they are on the community. I think, and I don't mind

saying it quite frankly, that we in the N.D.P. should spend time, and

this is the year to do it, in not only glaring at the Socreds opposite

but in looking at ourselves and looking at our own policy, and

preparing for the 70's and preparing for a time, which I hope will come

next time, when the people will have confidence in us. But it is up to

us, it is up to us, and I think there’s a legitimate criticism of the

N.D.P. in the labour field in that people know what we're against — Bill 43, Bill 93 — the Civil Servant one — and Bill 42. I think that we

must develop, publish, and acclaim on the floor of this Legislature a

labour policy for the 70's based upon a changing era, in which the

bargaining table is no longer employers and employees sitting at that

bargaining table, but there is a third party who is present and should

be present, and that is the public.

But this afternoon I want, Mr. Speaker, to talk only on two points

in the field of labour. One is the matter of Canadian economy within

B.C. and Canadian unions. Basically Canadian unions have Canadian

economy, and I include amongst them the international unions. I'm not

against international unions — a great union like the I.W.A., for

example, has full control of its affairs in British Columbia, and that

is true of many of the other international unions. But it isn't true of

all of the unions in the Canadian labour field, and I'm thinking

particularly of some of the crafts and trades, and I have no hesitation

in saying that there should be full autonomy in labour as in industry

within Canada in the matter of vital economic decisions. Where it

occurs, and it occurs in very few cases but it does occur, that

[ Page 101 ]

an international representative or a business agent

is appointed by an American head office, I say that is wrong, he should

be appointed by the Canadian membership. Where the international

constitution prevents membership participation in public affairs, I say

that is intolerable, and there are cases of that. Where strike funds

may be under international control or contracts negotiated in British

Columbia subject to international approval, I say that is wrong. Where

a member of a trade union can be expelled by an international office

and his last court of appeal, his last court of resort is an

international tribunal, I say that is wrong too. On this question, Mr.

Speaker, of Canadian autonomy, I think the membership of the trade

union movement are ahead in these few cases of their own leaders, and

I'm glad that the cases I'm speaking about are a minority in the trade

union movement. But I think that Canadian autonomy is as important here

as it is in the field of capital.

Now the other point I wanted to make, was in regard to union pension

funds, because as you know, Mr. Speaker, we have Canada Pension Plan.

But almost all negotiated contracts provide, in addition, for pension

plans, welfare plans, occasionally now a burial plan, although they are

going out pretty well, and I think again that these pet plans should be

controlled and invested in Canada. I think that the accumulation of

pension funds is one of the essential ingredients in the life blood of

the Canadian economy. In most cases this is perfectly true today, in a

few cases it is not. We in this Legislature set up a Committee, I think

it was about four years ago, Mr. Speaker, to look at pension plans from

the standpoint of the protection of the membership, transferability,

vesting rights, and the right to know, and that committee was

stillborn. That was an important job that we in this Legislature could

have done, and it is a field in which legislation is badly needed.

Because there are many private plans, particularly in the labour field

today, where the membership, the contributors, the beneficiaries, do

not have access to the books of the plan, have no say in the investment

portfolio of the plan, have no chance of transferability if they change

their job, have difficulty in getting back even their own contributions

on occasion when the company moves, or something of that sort happens,

and I say that this is an essential field in terms of the preservation

of human economic rights, where this Legislature should investigate and

legislate.

I suppose I should say something, Mr. Speaker, about the election we

passed through last August, all the other speakers have done that, and

I'm prepared to make a confession. They say confession is good for the

soul and I suppose we should make some confession, and what I would say

is this, that we had nothing to do with breaking up of the Trudeau

Rally at the Armories. We can't take any credit for that at all

(laughter). We had nothing to do with it and we thought we better let

the Government know that. It was an election that was very much

dominated by the dollar.

I don't know whether the leader of the Liberal party was right, but

he said that in the election the mass media had been bought. Well, what

a dreadful suggestion to make about the press that was! He should know

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist,

but seeing what the man will do unbribed there's no occasion to."

(laughter) So I don't know, I think it's a terrible suggestion to think

that the placing of advertisements in the press of Canada would

influence editorial policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, never.

MR. MACDONALD: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I do favour a Press

Council in Canada such as they have in the United Kingdom. I think

there should be on it a reputable journalist and a wise judge, although

you might need the lamp of Diogenes to find those. (laughter)

AN HON. MEMBER: A wise judge, or an honest judge?

MR. MACDONALD: ….and

renowned public people. But I don't think that such a Press Council,

and nobody suggests it should have legal powers in terms of ordering or

prosecuting, but that they should have power to hear complaints, to

investigate, to admonish, and to publish their findings. You know the

parliamentary and the democratic process has passed through a period of

change. The fourth estate has been moving up the ladder of democracy

and they are professionals, the newsmen, and they must be regarded as

such. They can't take everything, for example, off that tape that is

recording our words today, they have to select, they have to interpret,

they have to investigate, and of course the radio and the television

media, are playing an increasingly important role in the democratic

process, even more important as parliaments are becoming rusty. We're

relying too much on old procedures and not adapting to the present day,

even on such little things as letting television into the Legislature,

and many rule changes, and as a result the press and the other media

become an essential safeguard and outlet for the democratic process.

I'm glad to say that it is a profession, that they do have a union to

protect them within limits under that contract, and that British

Columbia in this field has a proud record. I think some of the finest

newsmen in Canada have left British Columbia and we've contributed

(laughter)…. we've contributed them to the national and international

democratic process.

But I think a Press Council has to be there to do these things.

First to hear grievances by individuals against newspapers. Radio and

the television media, of course, have got their own governing body, and

I'd be careful about saying well, the individual who feels he's hurt

should run to Court in a libel action, because over a long period of

time libel action, can have a tendency to curtail freedom of

expression. The better approach is to have a Press Council — another

outlet for such grievances. I think a Press Council can be important,

Mr. Speaker, in protecting the freedom of the press itself against

pressures either governmental or private, by private I mean economic,

or even hysterical public opinion. I think it could be important in

protecting the working newsman as a professional with respect to his

copy to see that it is not changed or cut so as to change the

interpretation that he, as a professional, has given to events. I think

a Press Council should be on hand to watch those chains — the newspaper

chains — because there are chains in Canada that have many newspapers

in their stables, and no doubt that control will grow. Local autonomy

of the press in most cases is there, in that local management has

control, but we don't know that it will always be there, we don't even

know that we're safe in this country from foreign domination in the

long run of our press, such as happened in France before the last war.

We're in an area here of difficulty, of weighing and balancing

individual human rights. The individual's right to be left alone is an

important right. On the other hand, the suppression of news can lead to

abuse and can lead to a

[ Page 102 ]

suppression of something that the public as a whole has a right to

know. So it's in this kind of a field that a Press Council made up of

competent, acknowledged, experienced people can, I think, exert a

salutary influence.

Now I said, in effect, I suppose I admitted that the Government

didn't buy the press in the last election, but they certainly did buy

an advertising and public relations bureau. They bought Lovick's

Advertising, and I'm complaining about this because for ten years one

advertising firm, without tenders being called, has been able to get

the Government's business department by department — P.G.E., Hydro — oh, I know they lost Hydro after the last election, no before the last

election, as a consolation prize to Mickey O'Brien. But look at the

awards that have gone to James Lovick Advertising, and how much money

is involved? 1967 — $608,000; 1968 — $490,000; 1969 — $703,000 make

that $704,000, it's almost that, and then there is the P.G.E. account

and other accounts that are not published in Public Accounts as such.

None of this was awarded on tender by this Government, which my friend,

the Leader of the Opposition, says is a free enterprise Government.

None of this was let by tender. It was all done, according to what we

can learn, in the judgment of the senior civil servants in the

department involved and, by an odd coincidence, they all came up with

James Lovick time after time. By an odd coincidence, that was the

Socred P.R. firm in the last election which handled their campaign and

donated for the services of the Premier, two men, Dan Eckman and Cam

Kenmuir, both very good P.R. men, but I say that the taxpayer's dollar

has been used by this Government to buy an ad firm to brainwash the

taxpayer himself.

In the 1970's, and I think we're all concerned about this, we must

be increasingly concerned, not about the material progress of life in

British Columbia, heaven knows that's gone on reasonably well, not for

all groups in society, but in terms of total production and that kind

of thing, materially we've done pretty well. But the plain fact of the

matter is that the quality of life in this Province has been failing

year by year. We're being devoured by a growing technology which brings

many benefits in its train but it's a little bit late for the

sorcerer's apprentice. Something you turn on and you can't turn off

again. You can't turn off the flood, and as a result beautiful British

Columbia is in danger environmentally today as it has never been

before, and there's been a failure, Mr. Speaker, of political

leadership on this matter of pollution. The contamination of our

environment and the hard unpopular facts have to be put to people, and

the cost of cleaning up our environment has to be presented to people.

I think if we present the challenge that the polluters must pay, and

the polluters are not just industry. Industry plays the bigger roles in

the total picture, but the polluter is in a sense all of us. I disagree

with the member for Esquimalt who said the other day, talking about

phosphates, that the housewife would be opposed to the banning of

phosphates in her detergent. I don't think that for a minute. I think

that's a slur on the ability and the willingness of the people of

British Columbia to rise to the environmental challenge, and I think

the failure of leadership is here on the floor of this House, in

matters of that kind.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that.

MR. MACDONALD: No he didn't, but I do. I think there's been a

failure, and perhaps I should say a failure, to some extent, on all

sides of the House. I'm not trying to be partisan, particularly today,

and particularly on this issue. I think the housewife has courage to

back up the kind of decision that has to be taken and that decision is

not just as the speaker who preceded me gave it, that decision is

simply a ban on deleterious phosphates that are creating contamination

of our lakes and rivers. A ban and nothing short of that. If the soap

companies complain, and influence, and wheedle, then they will have to

be ignored.

Speaking of the quality of life, I want to mention two perhaps minor

matters. First, the Attorney-General spoke the other day after a

provincial judge in Vancouver had made some remarks about guns, and

later withdrew them. He is a very good provincial judge, if I may say

so, but I don't think that we have begun to meet the threat of a

gun-happy, trigger-happy society such as they have today below the

line. The commercial pressures to put guns in the hands of individuals

are there, and there is a willingness, perhaps in all of us, to think

of the gun perhaps as a virility symbol, I don't know. Perhaps it gives

some kind of a sense of security by having a gun in your home. But, the

fact of the matter is that guns are proliferating in our society at a

rate that is not being checked by the Turner amendments to the Criminal

Code.

There were 175 holdups in the city of Vancouver last year, gun

holdups, but only 50 of them ever got to court. Now the Turner

amendments to the Criminal Code prevent absolutely such things as

muffled guns, that muffle the sound, switch-blade knives, and sawed-off

shotguns or rifles. But that's all that is prohibited. But that

amendment permits hand guns with the approval of, in the case of

Vancouver, I suppose the Chief of Police, to be in the home of the

individual, in the store of the small shopkeeper, and it permits rifles

to anyone. No restrictions on that kind of weapon, even automatics, and

I say that this is too wide an allowance of firearms in our society,

and that the quality of life is certainly not going to be enhanced in

the Province of British Columbia by following the American example

where these weapons are so freely available that they are a menace to

everyone, including those who think, falsely, that by having a gun they

are safer, when the fact is they are more apt as not to provoke a gun

fight by having such a weapon in their possession. We are not going to

enhance the quality of life in British Columbia by finding it down the

barrel of a gun. I would hope the Attorney-General would look at that

Turner amendment and make representations in terms of stricter gun

control.

Now I want to say one other thing about the quality of life now that

I'm on the Criminal Code, and it was brought up by the honourable

member from Capilano-Seymour in a sort of a hit and miss way the other

day, and that's the matter of abortions. Again, we have in the Criminal

Code of Canada — they broke the ice — but we have a kind of a

face-saving amendment to that Criminal Code which requires the woman

who is about to have an unwanted child to make an application to

something called the Therapeutic Abortions Committee established under

the Criminal Code of Canada, and I say that's degrading. I say that is

an abridgement of the rights of women. I don't think that she should be

required to do more than consult with whom she pleases, spiritual or

lay, and then it should be her consent and that of a doctor, and that

should be it. I would quickly add, Mr. Speaker, that in any suggested

changes to the Criminal Code in this respect I have no intention of

suggesting they be made retroactive.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to give a long speech today about

contamination of the natural environment, about what is happening to

beautiful British Columbia today. I think that

[ Page 103 ]

people are familiar with that problem, but as I said earlier, I

don't think we have faced up to the steps that have to be taken, and I

don't think the public has faced up to the bill that has to be

presented to them. We in this Legislature have taken pygmy steps to

meet a giant problem, and we've fallen far short. The fact of the

matter is that the ravaged earth must be repaid, and the principle

that must be adopted, if that is to happen, is that the polluter must

pay. Not just industry, but in some cases, in fact I would say in all

cases all of us in one way or another, and there's a large bill still

outstanding against us.

But the plain fact is we are losing the war right now against

pollution and contamination of our environment. The quality of our life

is deteriorating. Our green spaces are being devoured by asphalt and

concrete and residential subdivisions on good farming green land. Our

air is becoming increasingly polluted to the point where the livability

of life on earth over a longer period of time has been seriously

questioned. Our sea is becoming a sump, not to mention our rivers and

lakes, and the noise level in many of our cities is rising above that

level of decibels which is good for health. We are only about 20 years

behind say, Chicago, Illinois, and if we are going to win this kind of

a battle we've got to get the message through that there are costs that

have to be paid. Maybe I shouldn't speak on this subject because I'm a

victim of pollution myself. Up at the Sunshine Coast last

September I was bitten on the big toe by a sea urchin, and as a result

of that my foot swole up and I had to carry my left shoe in my hand for

about two weeks, including into court, and the sea urchin — and I'd

swear it was a Social Crediter — would not be there if it wasn't

proliferating, not on its natural diet of kelp, then they stay in

reasonable numbers, but on the sewage, the human excrement from

pleasure craft in some of our nicest bays and nooks on the British

Columbia coast. This is the additional diet that's led to the increase

of these little animals. For the lack of courage of this Government in

requiring all pleasure craft to install chemical heads, I was sitting by

that sea urchin.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, a three-pronged attack on the problem that I

am talking about. Firstly, in the case of industry, the legal

regulation under the Pollution Control Act has fallen far short of what

is required. New social techniques are necessary. Secondly, in the case

of air pollution, it is absurd for this Legislature to slough

responsibility off to the municipalities and regional districts. The

responsibility is right here. Thirdly, we must fire the opening shot in

the war against the worst polluter of all, and that is the private

automobile, and we should look at this problem in terms of the

population figures. With British Columbia increasing more than the

North American average, our population will double by the year 2005,

and quadruple, based upon present birth rates, by the year 2040. These

pressures, that will prove absolutely intolerable in Latin America,

will be scarcely bearable here without strong action on our part. I

quote Charles Hatch, the President of the University of California, who

says that the smog cloud is increasing ten times faster than the

population, and that's the size of the problem which doesn't apply only

in California. It applies right here.

Now what about industry? We have been waging a powder puff war on

industrial pollution. Under the Pollution Control Act we have power to

regulate and to issue permits, and to shut down an industry if the

courage is there, and to prosecute, but that Pollution Control Board is

understaffed, woefully understaffed. We have not provided an adequate

amount in subsidies to enable municipalities and bodies to go into

principally sewage treatment. We have failed to ban phosphates, which

I mentioned earlier. We have failed to ban D.D.T., which should be

banned along with its related chlorinated hydro-carbons. There is needed

in that Pollution Control Act, in addition to regulation and banning,

Mr. Speaker, a new social concept, and that social concept should be a

waste disposal charge. After all, when we get rid of our garbage, we

pay for it directly or through our taxes. When an industry throws

noxious fumes into the common air that we all breathe, it should pay if

it's to be allowed to do that. It has to be allowed to emit some smoke.

It should pay for that privilege. If effluent is going into our rivers

and lakes and seas, then there should be a waste disposal charge levied

against that industry to be paid just along with the other economic

costs of doing that business. The advantage of fixing such waste

disposal costs is simply this, that you try to equate them — and they

do this in Germany — you try to equate them roughly in terms of the

cost to that industry of installing clean disposal methods, and you fix

your waste disposal charges accordingly. In addition to regulation,

you bring the pressure of economics to bear on industry to change, and

if you bring the pressure of economics to bear, you have a no better

goad than that to pollution control.

Secondly, about the air. I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, and I took

down the words from the Speech from the Throne. "Air quality standards

will be incorporated into municipal and district air pollution

by-laws." Will be. We on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, have

bitterly complained that this Legislature has not even begun the

process under the Pollution Control Act of assuming responsibility for

air pollution. We say, when will it happen at the municipal level? We

say there is not a number of smog clouds, there will be one. As a

matter of fact it will seep over the American border in time, too. We

say it can't be left to districts who are bound under their charters

and, perhaps with reason, to be competing with each other for industry

to settle in this or that district. What has happened here is a total

abdication of responsibility by this Legislature.

Now, I turn to the automobile, the greatest polluter of all, and I

think that the principle "the polluter must pay" applies here too, and

I think we have to flash a warning amber light against the auto as we

have known it. The car has not been a friend of man as the horse was,

although on occasion it may have been a little too friendly so far as

some of the girls are concerned. It may be, and I hope it is, that as

we meet here in 1970, the car as we have known it with its internal

combustion engine, fumes spewing, is heading for the last junkyard, and

yet this is not a popular thing to say. Ingrained habits, and a bit of

privacy in the car and convenience, mean that the car is rather

sacrosanct in our society, and it isn't helped by the lobbies of the

motor industry and the oil industry and all their kith and kin and

friends and public relations. We have, to a very considerable extent,

been convinced that what is good for General Motors is good for us.

Lots of people think that, and the failure of leadership is at the

political level when confronted with that kind of a problem, because we

all know that it isn't necessarily so. The result in British Columbia

and in other societies, particularly in North America, is that

everywhere we have starved public transit to fatten the oil and auto

corporations.

The honourable the second member for Vancouver Centre says that we

need legislation making auto emission devices mandatory in the Province

of British Columbia. I agree with it. But I think it is absolutely

wishful thinking to say that this would solve the smog problem.

[ Page 104 ]

It just may be possible that it could cut down on as much as 50 per

cent of the noxious fumes — all this is wishful thinking — this is not

the California experience and these are not the California figures.

This is the kind of wishful thinking that we can, in our lifetime — and

these are the average figures — each of us, every man, woman and child,

burn 26,000 gallons of gasoline and not create air pollution. You can't

do it. That is the number. If you can control the pollution by 50 per

cent through some such device then you must remember that the number of

cars is increasing by 50 per cent very, very quickly too. The

experience in California is simply that the smog cloud, in spite of

what they have done in Los Angeles, is increasing and that the

automobile is up to 50 per cent responsible as the chief polluter.

Perhaps a more effective thing would be, if you are thinking of

palliatives, to look at the cars with huge cubic capacities, engine

capacities, running sometimes up to 350 horsepower, on the market

today, creating, with their additional capacity, just that much more in

the way of fumes deleterious to health.

If you look at the figures you say to yourself, well maybe the car

will breed itself out of existence by sheer numbers, because in British

Columbia, the 1964 to 1972 figures from the Motor Vehicle Branch, the

best projections they have, show the increase in the number of cars in

British Columbia is going on at an average of 6.15 per cent per year

compounded. Now that means that you double your car population in about

12 years. The projections of the Motor Vehicle Branch for 1970 — total

cars, public, private, commercial, run 1,067,000, 1971 — 1,126,000,

1972 — 1,186,000, increasing, Mr. Speaker, at about three times the

rate of the population increase, threatening not only to devour our

green spaces but to make man not the master of technology but its

servant. Oh yes, 6.15 per cent increase per year is at least three

times the population growth rate.

What is the cost of the internal combustion gasoline driven car

which, in our urban environment, is proving itself costly, wasteful,

and obsolete as a means of moving people? The cost to the individual is

about 11 cents a mile, which is high. The cost to our health, worse

than anything the cigarettes are doing, for the good petroleum of the

earth is converted in the internal combustion engine into poisonous

gases, including carbon monoxide, oxides of sulphur, oxides of

nitrogen, hydro-carbons, particles of lead. In the whole world the

figures are that 200,000,000 tons of matter are thrown into the air

cover each year, 94.6 per cent of which comes from auto exhaust. That

is why I say almost 50 per cent. You can't talk about pollution without

doing something about the internal combustion engine.

Thirdly, when you look at the social costs, look at the way God's

green earth is being converted acre by acre into sterile miles of

highway and super highway and parking lots, to the extent that

scientists are sincerely concerned, with very good reason, that the

oxygen-producing green plants and trees that sustain life will no

longer have that needed earth on which to flourish. Look at the

congestion, look at the costs of congestion, in our downtown cities at

the present time, amounting almost, even in the City of Vancouver, to

traffic strangulation, where we have one man — and it might be myself — smoking a big cigar, driving a good car, the only occupant of that car,

perhaps 250 horsepower, and driving along the street and holding up a

bus with 50 people in it. This is the kind of thing we are getting

into. Public transit, on the other hand, means that we return streets

to people and streets were meant for people, it means lower costs, it

means you can use electricity and electricity is clean, it means you

can reduce noise, it means that you travel more safely.

The costs of the accidents and other things should be looked at in

relation to this problem, because this is a social cost which, when you

look at the figures, you can't blink at. In the month of October last,

the latest month for which there were figures, in the Province of

British Columbia 62 were killed on the roads, 1900 injured — I can

hardly believe these figures myself but I rechecked them — and the

property damage, not personal damage, property damage that month was

$3,316,000. In a total year in the Province of British Columbia we kill

about 500 people, and is this the safe, modern, ultra-modern way in

which people have to be moved and are able to move from place to place?

What are we doing about it, Mr. Speaker? What we are doing about it

is planning in this Province to increase bus fares, increase bus fares,

and I say that is ecological madness. I say those fares are too high

now. I say there should be first priority for public transit, and I say

that this is a field where there should be subsidies to encourage and

promote public transit, it should not be run as a business. Yet, just

as surely, Mr. Speaker, as this Legislature will sit here and hear the

Government announce increases in hydro, announcements of increases in

bus fares are coming sooner or later, and I say that that kind of a

course must be stopped and that this is indeed ecological madness. You

should not expect public transit to pay for itself. It should be

subsidized and the ultimate cost to encourage its use should be free

public transit.

You know, in Castro's Cuba today one service that you might like to

think about is free in the sense that it is paid by the community and

that is the telephone. You don't have to reach into your pocket for a

dime. I cite that example, because I think that in terms of social

equality the time is coming and should come when certain basic

essential human needs are met in that way — and I include health, and

education, and transportation and communication in that kind of a

field. But the costs are going to be heavy. The earth has to be repaid.

There is a cost in inconvenience. There is a cost in money. But we

can't have the situation where one bus is available or an electric

vehicle in the neighbourhood to move people at about 33 times the

efficiency of private gasoline-driven automobiles, and ignore the kind

of facts, that that is shouting at us. Rapid transit is just in its

infancy. New methods of rapid transit are exciting. Everything from

rail, subways, to mono-rail, to bus parking bays at the end of a subway

or high-frequency rail line, and as I said in the neighbourhood there

are smaller vehicles such as milk delivery vans in Great Britain which

are already being driven by electricity to move noiselessly and cleanly

through the neighbourhood, and that can apply to people.

I think, too, Mr. Speaker, that we should have in British Columbia

some auto-free enclaves. I think of Stanley Park for one. Why haven't

we got in Stanley Park a large parking bay, if you will, at the mouth

of the Park and then, within the Park, rubber-wheeled electric-driven

vans or jitneys to transport people freely from place to place in that

Park instead of seeing the trees wilting and the noise level mounting

in that most beautiful park of Vancouver. Why shouldn't some of the

Gulf Islands of British Columbia, among the most beautiful islands in

the world, be car-free? There are elderly people who would like to do

this kind of work. With good taxi service, flat-deck trucks available,

the cost would be much lower than carrying a car over there and that

kind of transportation could be available, but the private automobile

would be banned to save the beauty of those

[ Page 105 ]

islands.

Our problem in British Columbia within this field, Mr. Speaker, is

that we have no imagination — we have failed to show imagination or

leadership in the field of urban affairs or public transit. In the

province of Alberta, good square Alberta, Old Testament Alberta, under

the premiership of solid Premier Strom, the 1970 Speech from the Throne

came down and it said that the Legislature would have a Bill

establishing an urban transportation authority, and I might also add, a

housing authority by Act of that Legislature, to promote inexorably and

quickly, rapid transit in that Province. Edmonton already has on the

drawing board plans for rapid transit and we are far behind in this

Province. What I am talking about is a major social shift. If necessary

based on the principle that the polluter must pay, there may have to be

heavier costs levied against the private automobile, particularly the

big high-powered automobile with the huge engine capacity, and there

will have to be on the other side dividends returned to the people in

terms of modern, ultra-modern public transit, if possible free but

certainly way below the costs that we think of today.

For too long we have felt to ourselves and we have failed to say in

this Legislature that pollution has a great bill to present, not only

to industry, but to all of the people of the Province. The earth must

be repaid. The leadership needed is here at the political level. If we

are ready to give the people the challenge, I have no doubt whatsoever

that they will rise to meet it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. BERT PRICE (2nd-Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, needless

to say I am very happy to see you in that Chair, and I think it is

worthy of comment that since so many people in this House have said the

same thing at the opening of this Session, you find it rather

remarkable that you were not put there unanimously.

It is a great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, for me to come back to this

very critical audience, probably the most critical audience in British

Columbia, and I might add that this is the 16th time that I have had

the honour of speaking for Vancouver-Burrard along with my colleague in

this Parliament. I think, too, that I should mention that from what I

have heard of the new members speaking in this Session that they have

certainly set a challenge to those who have been here before, because

their speeches have been very well thought out and, I think, very

constructive so far as the future of B.C. is concerned.

Now, there is one thing that I must speak about from the standpoint

of my own riding, and it applies to others, and that is housing, and if

anyone doesn't think that this is a particularly critical thing, Mr.

Speaker, then they are not in the position of a young family with

children trying to get a place to live, because they are up against a

problem which is heartbreaking and one that is almost impossible to

beat. Very few apartments and many home-owners today just don't seem to

want children in their apartment. I know of cases where a family has

been split up in order that a man can live where he is earning his

living, and I don't think that this is right.

The high rents are something which I don't know whether this

Government can do very much about or not, but there certainly is a need

for a change in the Landlord and Tenant Act. A tenant today seems to

have too little protection, and I am not so sure that a Government can

do too much about this because, after all, if somebody owns a premise

the only hold he has on it is his lease or his rental agreement, and if

he wants to take possession of it for one reason or another it is very

hard to say that he should not do that. But, at the same time, the

situation is very, very serious and probably those who are hardest hit

are those on fixed incomes. They move into a building and presumably it

is within their scope to carry on for many years. Then inflation

catches up with them and the high rent keeps going up repeatedly and

they have no chance to fight back. They can't find another place

because they are not available, and it creates a situation which, I

think, is very unfair to the fixed income people.

Now the only solution Mr. Speaker, in my estimation, is more homes,

and when you talk about the City of Vancouver, it's useless to talk

about buying a lot and building a home for perhaps at least 85 per cent

of the population. I was told of a piece of property — a lot 72 feet by

140 that sold in south Granville last week for $25,000 and it doesn't

take any imagination at all to see what puts the cost of a lot of the

homes entirely out of the privilege of 95 per cent of the population.

But I think there is a way of getting around this, and the thing which,

in my opinion, offers the opportunity to many people, is the Strata

Titles Act.

I hear many people saying they only wish they could get into some

kind of an organization where they could take

part in an apartment and

help to build up an equity in that apartment after it is built. But the

problem of the individual, and I'm speaking now of those people in my

own area particularly, where we have some thousands of older homes 50

to 60 years old, and they were big homes, because in those days, homes

were built large, and today, they very often hold two, three and even

four families. These people would like to go into a home of their own

or a residence of their own, but they are not available. These people

are not hard up — most of them have good jobs and are quite willing to

invest in a place to live — but the difficulty is that there is no way

of them getting together.

I think that the Government could well consider setting up a

Commissioner of Housing, or a Department of Housing which would aid

people to take advantage of this Strata Titles Act. The legislation is

there, but all it needs, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, is some

governmental help whereby people who would go into these suites could

get some kind of help to organize and start the ball rolling. I think

myself that it is one of the most valuable things that could happen to

people, because it's been stated here many times, that a home owner is

a happier person, and furthermore, it gives them a chance to take some

advantage of the equity growth of the Province which, I think, is going

to continue for a long time. If they can start owning a place today and

paying for it, in fifteen years they have an equity which will mean

something and they may be able to move out of town or to another part

of British Columbia and they can take advantage of that capital gain.

This condition is going to get worse, because we are told by people who

make a study of this, that by 1980, 80 per cent of the population in

Canada will be living in 23 cities and you can bet your bottom dollar

that Vancouver will be one of those to grow faster than any other in

Canada.

During the campaign, Mr. Speaker, I don't think any one subject was

discussed with me by various people going throughout the riding, as was

the situation that we have in Kitsilano with what we call hippies. The

residents and the businessmen alike have a great fear and a great anger

of this situation which has existed now for several years. I heard so

[ Page 106 ]

many people discussing this, and coming to me and telling me what

they thought, that I said that I would do anything I could to help them

with that situation. Whether I have or not already is very difficult to

tell. I have talked to police, I've talked to our Attorney-General,

I've talked to newspaper people, I've talked to people at the City

Hall, and pointed out the situation as I had found it in that area. The

difficulty with these hippies, and now I want to offer some definition

of hippies, so that there is not too much misunderstanding. I don't

think we should be too concerned about the colour of a person's hair,

or the length of their hair, and long hair in one form or another is

becoming more and more common all of the time, and it's a trend that we

perhaps will have to accept, even though many of us older squares don't

like it. But the hippie that I'm talking about has no regard for other

people. He does not intend to work or earn his own living, but will be

a sponger and will remain a sponger as long as the law will permit him

to remain.

I would like to read a few letters, and these letters are quite

recent, Mr. Speaker, here's one January the 16th. "As a resident of the

Kitsilano district, I am very concerned regarding the inadequate

protection given by the city police to matters in this neighbourhood.

In view of the density of the population, which amounts to overcrowding

in many of the residential homes, plus the amount of crime and the use

of drugs by certain segments of the population, I feel that the police

in no way gives sufficient protection to the peace and property of the

long-term residents." Another one: — "It is my opinion that the use of

drugs and the break-ins in the Kitsilano area is increasing and, as a

result, more innocent children are involved." Another one: — "I have

been a resident of the Kitsilano district since 1919, and have seen the

area since become from a fine residential district to a dangerous place

to live in. Every time I am in a position that I have to be out in the

evening hours, I literally dread getting off of the 4th Avenue bus and

going down Maple Street and walking on 3rd Avenue to where I live. That

stop seems to be the stop for so many odd characters. I deplore the

litter on 4th Avenue, and one has just to raise one's eyes to see the

deplorable conditions of the living quarters above the stores. While

the so-called Flower Children seem to have left, from my observation,

we are left with the original hard-core non-workers, and I think that

this type is now desperate, for I have heard so many reports of thefts

from the many merchants in the area." There are many others — I have a

file here a couple of inches thick on this subject, and I don't know

what you're going to be able to do about this.

But I can tell you that since I was elected about half the calls

which I have received from residents have been concerning drugs. This

has amazed me, Mr. Speaker, because in the 14 years that I was a member

prior to that time, I don't think that I had more than six people talk

to me concerning their families and drugs, and yet since I was elected

these are about half the calls I have received. It's a tragic thing,

it's a heart-breaking thing to listen to parents talking to you about

their children who have become addicted, or at least users of

marijuana. It's all very well for these people to talk about it doesn't

do any harm and it should be legalized. I'm quite sure that if they had

listened to parents such as I have, after I was elected, that they

would certainly not tolerate that kind of opinion. I don't know just

what's going to be done to overcome the situation with marijuana,

particularly in my own area which I speak of, but I do believe that a

different approach must be taken than what has already been taken by

the police. The police approach is necessary, and it will remain

necessary, but this is not the whole answer.

I recall the situation of a man who is now probably 24 or 25 but he

spent 18 months in gaol on account of marijuana, and the story went

like this, and I'm inclined to believe it. He was at a party where

these people were passing around these cigarettes, and a couple of

fellows came in. They weren't known, but they acted as though they were

right at home, and one of them got kind of wild and started running

around with a knife. His friend who came in with him, said "Oh, all he

wants is some marijuana, if he gets hold of that he'll be all right, he

will quieten down." So, the story was, one of them sold him a couple of

cigarettes containing marijuana, and the result was that he was charged

with trafficking and served 18 months. Now this is several years ago,

but the situation I am getting at is that I'm not too sure that this is

the best way to prevent the use. I think somehow or other there will

have to be an approach taken by people with a knowledge and the

determination that smoking marijuana is a dangerous thing and something

which should be left alone, and I think there is room to do this.

Unless something is done to try and influence these young people, it

looks as if the situation will get worse. The police that I have talked

to tell me that they could control this in a very short time if they

had more power, but they lack the power to search, they have no test

for drug impairment. To get a warrant they must name their informant,

and these are the things that tie the hands of the police so that they

are not able to do as much as they would like to.

Now Mr. Speaker, coming from the city, I come from an area where we

certainly have no farms, but we do eat a great deal of food, and I have

been concerned and I spoke about this in the House before — about our

food supply in this Province. I think it is rather a shame and I think

it's an unnecessary thing that we should have to rely to the extent

that we do on imports. During 1968, which is the latest figures that I

have, I think it is amazing the amount of food which is imported which

could be grown here. For instance celery — we grew $270,000 worth and

imported $688,000. This is in British Columbia, not in Canada, I am

talking about what comes through into B.C. Lettuce, $670,000 grown

here, $1,269,000 brought in. Parsnips, a very simple thing for farmers

to grow — $20,000 grown and $61,000 brought in. Potatoes, which you

would think we would have plenty of, and yet of $4,500,000 that were

grown here, also imported were $2,098,000. There is a list here of

about 25 things in the vegetable line which I think could well be grown

here, but somehow or other there's not nearly enough grown to meet the

demand, and into British Columbia last year were imported $11,933,000

worth of green vegetables, fresh vegetables, and to me this is a shame.

I think it should be considered very carefully by the Department of

Agriculture to see if they can't find some way of offering an incentive

to farmers that would try and grow more of these at home. I think it is

a dangerous thing for us to have to rely entirely on food brought in

from the United States. It's quite obvious that governments are already

to offer incentives to industry, but I think that this farming industry

is something which somehow should have more incentives than it is

getting at the present time.

Another thing I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the use of

campers and trailers, and these have increased tremendously in the very

recent years. The Motor Vehicle Department told me that in three years

the number of licensed trailers in B.C. has gone from 60,000 to well

over

[ Page 107 ]

90,000, and this is just an indication of how these vehicles are

being used. You can imagine with half the population in the lower

mainland, that a large percentage of these in the Province are used

from the lower mainland, and although we have a creditable increase in

the number of parks and camping sites throughout the Province, there

are relatively very few within a hundred miles of Vancouver. I

certainly hope that the Government will try to do something about this

before too long, because families take great pride in getting their

youngsters out and away from the cities even for a weekend, and at the

present time, within the limit of their travel, there is no place to

get off the road. I would certainly recommend that there be a large

increase in the number of campsites where people can get their trailers

and campers off the road, so that they can use them on weekends. At the

present time there are 737 spaces within about a hundred miles of

Vancouver, but 500 of these are in two locations, Cultus Lake, and

Garibaldi Park, and so it is obvious that there are not too many more.

This is something which would be greatly appreciated by the people in

the lower mainland and, believe me, these trailers and mobile homes are

going to increase by leaps and bounds.

Now a little closer to home in Vancouver, I would like to mention

the foreshore of the University of British Columbia area, and this has

been subject to erosion from the sea for all time, of course, but the

situation is getting worse all the time. There has already been a

considerable amount of area that has slid into the sea, including some

buildings, and unless there is some action taken to protect the

foreshore, it is going to get worse, and the land is so expensive that

I think it is poor strategy to stand by and do nothing about it. This,

Mr. Speaker, I am pretty sure is a Provincial Government

responsibility…(applause). Stay on the land and control the

land — you're dealing with very expensive property and if you wait long

enough you are going to lose it, and I would certainly recommend that

the Government take a good look at that and try and do something about

it before we lose another hundred acres.

Another thing, too, which I think is within the scope of the

Government to do something about is the Seymour Creek watershed. Now,

at one time the Greater Vancouver and District Water Board felt that

they would need all the waters in Seymour Creek for fresh-water

purposes around the lower mainland, but about 15 years ago, or maybe

more now, they built a dam on the Seymour which is about ten or eleven

miles from the shore, and they still have control of the lower

watersheds, Mr. Speaker. This is a wonderful area for camping and

hiking and for parks purposes during the summer months of the year, and

the Water Board are rather a dog-in-the-manager over this, they won't

permit anyone to go into it unless they have an individual pass. This

is not a watershed, and I don't think it ever will be, and I never

heard anybody say they think it ever will be used for watershed

purposes. It's merely being held because they own it and they feel that

what they have they are going to hold. This is adjacent to Seymour

Creek Park and I think it would be a natural place for the Government

to use as a park area, and if they won't do it themselves they could

acquire ownership of it or control of it and turn it over to the

Regional Parks Board. But it doesn't look as though the Greater

Vancouver and District Water Board is going to let this go by

themselves unless somebody forces them to do it, and the need is so

urgent for park areas near the City of Vancouver now, in the lower

mainland, that I think it is time the Government stepped in and did

something about it. There's no need to spend any money, the roads are

there, the natural beauty is there and all it needs is the privilege of

being able to get in there, Mr. Speaker. This is denied the people at

the present time, and I don't think it should be.

There is a group of people throughout British Columbia, and in

Vancouver we have 426 of them left, and these are people who worked

for municipalities and cities and retired prior to 1957. This is not a

problem of the Provincial Government, and I think the Provincial

Government, in fact I know that the Provincial Government gets a great

deal of credit from these old-time pensioners for the efforts that the

Provincial Secretary has made in years gone by to try and get their

pensions increased. These people are in a very serious position. Their

pension plan started in 1928 and it looked very good, but the

depression came along, the municipalities were unable to pay their

share into the Fund, and though they promised to catch up they never

did, with the result that this Government started a new plan which went

into effect in April, 1957. At that time it was pointed out that those

going on pension after '57 would have one of the best pensions in

Canada, and this is quite so, and it has remained so, but although

those that went on pension prior to '57 were promised that something

would be done for them, very little has been done, and it was only

through prodding by this Government that the municipalities put up the

money themselves and permitted the excess earnings of the Fund to be

used to increase the pensions of these older people.

I think it's a dangerous thing, Mr. Speaker, when we permit older

people to be trod down like this without somebody trying to help them.

I think, too, that the people on my right here should be able to offer

these old pensioners some help, and yet so far they've had no help from

the present people that are working through their unions. Unions have

denied the right of the employers or the older people to dip into the

excess earnings of this Municipal Superannuation Fund. I think the Fund

is basically supposed to supply a pension on an earning power of 4 1/4 per

cent and at the present time it is earning 5.7 per cent average. Of

course you might bear in mind that these Funds go back many, many years

and the old bonds don't earn a very high rate of interest. But the

situation today leaves these people in a very bad state, and I have a

list here of the pensions which these people are getting and I'll just

read some of them to show you what they're up against. Here's a man and

wife with 32 years — $76.09, another one 32 years — $74.99, another one

$55.38, another 27 years — $88.05, another one $88.86, and the list is

all the way through, and there are at present in British Columbia about

950 of these people.

I'm not going to tell you what anybody is getting as an individual, I don't intend to.

The City of Vancouver has a Resolution by these old people before

them which I think they're going to consider tomorrow, and I only hope

that the City of Vancouver will try and help these people out. A short

time ago the municipalities of Burnaby, New Westminster, and Oak Bay,

and the Royal Jubilee Hospital, all got together and they agreed to

raise these people by a dollar a month in a maximum of 25 years. I

don't think these people are asking too much, Mr. Speaker. They don't

ask anything from the Government except help and influence, and I only

hope that the Government will try and do what they can to influence the

municipalities and the people that are at present working to try and

consider using part of these excess earnings to increase these old

peoples' stipend, because what they're getting now is not a fair deal.

The need is very urgent and I

[ Page 108 ]

hope that something can be done.

Now another point that I want to talk to you about — it may not be

very important to some people, but it is to me — and that is the kind

of support which the liquor interests, and I'm speaking particularly of

the brewery interests, give to support amateur sport, and as I have a

particular interest in soccer football I know something of which I say.

You know, there's more people play soccer football in the world than

any other sport, and it's one that I think deserves the support of

pretty near everybody. But I have found out through personal

experience, and I'm not guessing, that the brewers, in putting up money

towards soccer and the promotion of soccer, have no interest in the

sport itself, their pure and prime concern is selling more beer. I've

listened to the pitch by these P.R. men when they hand out these

cheques to these various team managers. They will find out that there's

so many men on the team, and they have so many people in their families

and they have so many friends, and they will run off a list just

showing how many bottles of beer in a year that that could amount to if

these fellows will only get busy and try and make sure that they use

the kind of beer that's promoting their game. Now, I will say this,

from my own standpoint I rather doubt whether this is the design of the

brewery owners themselves to put up a pitch like this to these young

people, but it's done. I have heard these P.R. men indicate that these

teams should bootleg by selling beer in their club rooms, and when

somebody has pointed to them that this is bootlegging they say "Well

you'd be crazy to let anybody in you didn't know".

I think this is a very dangerous thing, and if the breweries are so

interested in promoting sport, Mr. Speaker, I think that they should

put their money into a fund which is distributed by somebody not

interested or concerned with the breweries themselves. I think it

should be done by the Football Association or by some branch of

Government like the Physical Fitness Fund. But anyway, to permit this

to continue, in my estimation, is just not a fair thing to young

people, and I think it should be stopped.

Now another thing which I think too many people won't agree with me

is the control of noise on motor vehicles. Vancouver has a by-law which

is quite effective and there's no doubt that it's going to go a long

way to control noise, but this is not enough. The trucks are coming

into Vancouver from all over the Province and it seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that the Motor Vehicle Department should have a predetermined

level of how much noise a truck is permitted to make. This is not a

difficult thing to control. You know how quiet a car is, and there's no

reason why a truck can't be just as quiet, it doesn't matter whether

it's diesel or gas. Actually, a diesel doesn't make as much noise as a

gas engine. But unless the Government will set a limit and enforce it,

I don't think that we're ever going to control this noise, and it's

something which I think should be controlled.

While I'm talking about cars I might say something about insurance,

and I think the Government has a great deal of credit coming to it for

its attempt to try and help the motorist with automobile insurance.

This has been a very good move and, of course, the secret of the

insurance situation today is that it's not exactly compulsory

insurance. The compulsory

part is a $250 fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a choice of a fine or gaol.

MR. PRICE: You have a fine or gaol — exactly. This is it.

This is right. Just wait a minute and you'll see what I'm trying to get

at, because in spite of the fact that people are going to be faced with

a fine or some time in gaol, you're going to see a certain amount of

people driving without insurance, and what to do about that? These

people also will get into accidents. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that

because this is so, that the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund should be

increased, because a fine is no help to the person that gets hurt.

Believe me, if there are any cars on the road without insurance, sure

as fate they're the ones that are going to cause injury to somebody.

The insurance companies in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, with this

type of plan which the Government is working, are the people that are

on trial, and unless the insurance companies come out with a system

that will work and supply it at a cost people are able and willing to

pay, then the situation will be that the Government will have to take

over. I hope this does not happen, because if the Government ever did

take over the insurance of automobiles they would get a limited

coverage which would end up with less protection than what they're

going to get with the present system.

Now, for many years, Mr. Speaker, in this House I have advocated

that the road from Agassiz to Hope on the north side of the river be

completed, and there's no doubt that it will be completed in due

course. The only thing is it's been a long time coming, and in the

meantime the road from the freeway into Hope is a real bottleneck

anytime there's a holiday weekend. These are two roads which the

Government should try and do something about probably on a number one

priority, because they affect half the cars of the Province, and it's

certainly no fun when you've got to wait two hours to go 25 miles.

Another road which I think should be gone ahead with without delay

is the completion of the road from Squamish to Lillooet, because this

would make a loop from Vancouver up the Fraser on the north side, and

across and down through Lillooet and through Squamish, one of the most

beautiful drives that you'll ever find in British Columbia, and I'm

just waiting for the day when it will be finished.

I think it's worthy of taking note of the fact that the extra money

on gas tax going over these roads when they're finished will probably

pay sufficient interest to warrant their completion, because I know the

road from Squamish to North Vancouver, every time a car makes one trip

back and forth on that, the Government gets about 50 cents in gas tax,

and that's a lot of money.

Now, many people, Mr. Speaker, have spoken on the Benson White

Paper, and I'm glad that they do and I hope more people will, and I

hope they'll support the Council for Fair Taxation which is being

developed all across Canada. I think that small industry is the thing

which will be hurt the worst with this type of taxation, and the reason

I think this is worth protecting is because it takes about one

generation to develop an industry where it is in a position to be of

very much value, and already we've had some indication that secondary

industries in British Columbia will move to the United States if this

plan goes into effect. In Canada, the expected spending power has

indicated that it will increase from $1,910 in 1967 to $2,500 in 1975,

but believe me, if this White Paper comes into effect that will stop

dead in its tracks and there's no possibility of it going up at that

rate. It's indicated that the standard of living in the next eight

years will go up equivalent to what it has done in the past thirteen

years. I'm talking about the standard of living — you know what I mean.

The difficulty is that if this White Paper goes into effect,

[ Page 109 ]

instead of the consumer getting this money to spend it will be the

Federal Government which will spend it, and I think it's something

which every person in British Columbia should be very concerned about,

because we earn more money here than they do in most other parts of

Canada. I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, that an alternate to this White

Paper would be to devalue the Canadian dollar, and this would encourage

foreign investment, it would discourage our own dollars from going out,

it would make us competitive, and I'm quite sure in my own mind that it

probably is one of the best ways that we could sell our wheat crop.

There's been a great deal of discussion in the press recently on the

discovery of oil in the Arctic Ocean, or in the Arctic area, and I hear

over television and radio that the Americans are ready to go ahead with

a pipeline that's going to cost 1600 million dollars, a 48-inch

pipeline and I do think that there are some questions which we should

ask because I would like to know how B.C. is going to fit into this

scheme. I'd like to know whether we can have any of this pipe made in

British Columbia to put into this pipeline. Premier Strom of Alberta

recently made a trip to Japan, and I'm wondering whether he did not go

to talk to the Fuji interests about the steel that's going to be used

in that pipeline probably in Alberta. At the present time there's some

chance, I suppose, that British Columbia will be almost bypassed with

this line because it will come south to Alaska, across British Columbia

as quickly as possible, and then south through Alberta.

Well, I certainly hope that the Government of British Columbia is

aware of this situation and that they're trying to do something about

it to keep as much of the line as possible in British Columbia, because

believe me, if this line does come down through British Columbia it

means prosperity for B.C. You know, after the war we had the war

spending which made us prosperous, we had the Kitimat projects, we've

had the oil line from Alberta to Vancouver, the gas lines from the

north and now the dams, and if we can have this pipeline from the

Arctic go through B.C. it will go a long way towards keeping this

country prosperous, and that's the kind of thing which we want to see.

I'm quite concerned about this pollution, as everybody else is, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm very sorry to see the last issue of Time which came

out today carry a picture of industrial waste near Richmond, B.C., and

there's a little note underneath it — it says "Not what to do but how

to do it." Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the Federal Government

method of doing it so far is going to be very much help, because in

passing their Bill C-144, the Clean Water Act, what they have done is

pass a Bill that leaves it up to the provinces to help enforce

anti-pollution measures, or do nothing at all, and I don't think that

is good enough. Another thing too, it would give, according to this

Act, the powers to the province to levy effluent discharge fees and,

personally, I can't see this as the answer to pollution because I don't

think it is any good to charge somebody a fee for pollution — the

pollution should be overcome in some way or another. It may not be

easy. I don't think, too, that it's possible to have pollution

controlled if the B.C. Government leaves it up to the municipalities.

I'm of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that this Government should lay

down standards and be in a position to enforce them, and I don't think

you'll ever be able to properly do it on a municipal basis. Mind you,

the reason that the Federal Government left it so loose will probably

be used by the Provincial Government too, and that is that the country

is so big, that what would apply in one area does not necessarily apply

in another, and if they tried to make

an Act that would cover the whole

of Canada, it would be so weak as to be useless. I can quite agree that

there is some merit in that statement, but nevertheless the situation

with pollution, although you might say it is a very fashionable

subject today, is also a very important subject — it's something that

we must do something about, and I think the Provincial Government will

get a great deal of credit from every resident in the Province, if they

will take a firm stand and make severe penalties and have a very high

standard of control. If this Government doesn't take the lead, don't

expect the municipalities to do it because I don't think they will.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the attention you have given me and thank you very much.

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

MR. DAVID M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, it's nice to be back in Victoria. Already we seem to recognize

some of the same problems coming up again and again. As a matter of

fact, driving along into Victoria from the ferry the first morning

along the Pat Bay so-called highway, I noticed that the same old

surveyors are still out surveying the highway. There was the

Rose-Blanshard diversion still coming out of Victoria and going

nowhere. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, no one seems to know when or where we are going to

have a Pat Bay Highway. Well I must tell the members from the Victoria

area that we have something in common, because a month or so ago we had

surveyors on the Upper-Levels highway in the North Shore. They have

gone away, too, and no one quite seems to know where they have gone.

I would like to join, Mr. Speaker, with my fellow sophomore, the

honourable member from Burnaby-Willingdon, in speaking from our wealth

of experience and welcoming the new members and congratulating them on

their many fine speeches which have already made a great contribution

to the debates of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the important issues being discussed today

outside of this House, I would think, and especially within it, is the

depreciation of our environment. It has almost replaced the weather as

a topic for conversation and to many it seems like the weather — it's

much talked about but little is being done about it. Many people hear

what responsible scientists predict and are fearful for the very

survival of the human species on this planet. As unthinkable as this

idea may appear to be, it is one that must be carefully considered. In

fact, preparing for these remarks on the weekend, I spent half the day

re-reading some of the material I had collected from many sources. This

was the most frightening hours of reading I can remember, more

terrifying, more convincing than any horror story and these are

scientific, they are true. Let me mention just a few examples. David

Gates of Washington University says, "Man has lit the fuse of the

environmental bomb — the question is not whether it will explode but

when." Responsible leaders of the nation in and out of the scientific

community give us not more than a generation or two to stop the

spoiling of our environment or, alternatively, contaminate forever the

water we drink, the food we eat, the air we breathe, the good earth on

which we five.

The Chairman of the American House Sub-Committee on

[ Page 110 ]

Science has said, "We have not less than 30 or more

than 70 years, to reverse the destructive trend which a sprawling,

acquisitive humanity

has traded for itself, according to the most competent testimony which

our Science Sub-Committee has been able to elicit from the forecasters.

After that period it will be too late to stem the human tide. Too late

to control eradication of resources — too late to halt pollution of the

earth — too late for anything except to witness the gradual shrinking

of our standard of living and the erosion of personal liberty." In

1968, more than 200 experts from 50 countries met at the UNESCO

Headquarters in Paris. They gave the unanimous opinion that within 20

years life on our planet will show the first signs of succumbing to

pollution. The atmosphere will become unbreathable for men and animals,

life will cease in rivers and lakes, plants will wither from poisoning.

Barry Commoner, the great ecologist of Washington University, put it

more simply, perhaps best of all. "The price of pollution could be the

death of man."

We don't need to go that far afield to find the problem. People in

British Columbia don't need the scientist to make them aware that our

environment is rapidly depreciating. All they need is their eyes, ears

and noses to detect that our once clean air is now fouled by automobile

exhaust and industrial fumes. Our lovely salt-water beaches are being

posted as unsafe for swimming. Our interior fresh-water lakes are

booming — with algae. Roadside and recreational areas are littered with

aluminum beverage cans, and throw-away bottles that defy the natural

disposal systems of nature. Our beautiful coastal inlets and mountain

valleys are scarred by the strip mines, polluted by industrial plants.

As a result, the people of the Province are uniting to protest

pollution in all its forms.

Virtually in every community in the Province, anti-pollution groups

are being formed. In my own riding of North Vancouver–Capilano, last

Thursday night, several hundred people met to form such a group. One of

the remarkable things about these groups is the kind of people who

constitute them. They aren't just ardent conservationists, habitual

joiners, chronic protesters. They represent a broad cross-section of

the community — students, workers, housewives, executives. The one

thing they have in common — they are not happy about the way our

environment is being mistreated and they are determined to do something

about it. They look to us, their elected representatives, to do

something about it too. They want leadership, and they deserve nothing

less. But too often their plans go unheeded and even unanswered.

MacLeans Magazine noted this last month, when they observed that SPEC,

with 2,000 members in Vancouver, 28 branches through the Province,

doesn't receive answers from the British Columbia government or Premier

W.A.C. Bennett.

What do some of our other leaders say about the present situation? Quoting from the Vancouver Sun ,

October 30, 1969 — "The Greater Vancouver Regional District will

develop an air pollution control programme of its own, without a

financial contribution from the provincial government. The District

reached this decision Wednesday, after it was told the provincial

government has no budget or policy for air pollution control. 'There is

no money, no policy, no staff, or anything else related to this

matter,' said Vancouver Alderman Hugh Berg. 'It's time for us to

proceed on our own.' Berg is a member of the Regional District

Committee, which had met with Resources Minister Ray Williston on

October 15th." Quoting from the headline of the Province January 15,

1970, "Anti-pollution is told to pipe down! Speaking to the annual

Truck Loggers Association Convention, Lands and Forest Minister Ray

Williston, said — quote — 'People are expecting too much, too soon in

pollution, or to be more precise, environmental control'." Quoting,

from the same paper, Mr. John Drinka, president of the Truck Loggers

Association said, "The economy of this province, the standard of living

of its people, and its employment, could be destroyed by the

destruction of the land use programmes now in operation." And Mr. Drinka

rated demands by conservationists as fourth in the major problems

facing his industry, after inflation, declining productivity, and

labour problems.

Quoting from the Vancouver Sun , January 10th, 1970, "The

people of B.C. might have to face substantial sacrifices to achieve the

goals set by the more emotional advocates of pollution control." End of

quote. Recreation and Conservation Minister Mr. Kiernan told a meeting

in Campbell River — in quotes again — "Emotionalism leads to loss of

perspectives in dealing with pollution problems. After all, we are

polluting the atmosphere every time we take a breath." End of quote.

The degree of concern by the people of our Province, has been noted as

far away as the New York Times. December 11th, 1969, this distinguished

newspaper reported, "The people of British Columbia seem to be more

attuned to environmental issues than in many other regions."

Many of these people look forward in this Session of the Legislature

with the hope that their desire for action would be finally answered by

effective legislation. But judging from the hints contained in the

Speech from the Throne, this hope appears to be in vain. All we are

promised is that the municipalities and regional districts will be

required to enact by-laws to control air pollution. This is nothing

less than a cruel, transparent hoax on the people of this Province, and

it is especially shameful, when a Government Minister last year coined,

that "Nowhere in North America is there better pollution-control

legislation than we have in this Province."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister look to the Province of

Ontario for an example of effective pollution-control legislation. Of

particular interest should be Ontario's experience in the matter of air

pollution legislation. As long ago as January, 1967, responsibility for

air pollution control was transferred from the municipalities to the

Ontario Government's Air Pollution Control Service. In commenting upon

this move, January, 1968, Canadian Business Journal, Modern Power and

Engineering, observed — "In taking over responsibility for controlling

all air pollution sources, the Ontario government has set an example

which other provinces should be quick to follow. Furthermore, the

all-embracing scientific research, monitoring and control programmes

being adopted by the reorganized Provincial Air Pollution Control

Service, is exactly the type of approach all provinces need to take in

tackling the complex air pollution problem. Any delusions that

municipalities can adequately and equitably handle air pollution

control is shattered by actual performance, not to mention logic." End

of quote. The

article goes on to trace ten years of problems and

failures in air pollution control under municipal responsibility in

Ontario, and we are just starting out to go back to give it to the

municipalities and districts.

It is not just private citizens who want more realistic air

pollution control legislation. Enlightened and forward looking

industries see the need too. This is pointed out in this same

article

that I referred to in Modern Power and Engineering, which warns its

readers — quote "There is no

[ Page 111 ]

solace for industry in the fact that control programmes across

Canada so far are disjointed, inadequate and in many cases

non-existent. Stricter regulations and tighter controls will inevitably

come and they will be based on current levels of atmospheric

contamination in specific areas. While governments sleep or

procrastinate, pollution levels build up. You avoid pollution control

equipment today only to face doubly stringent control tomorrow, because

pollution concentrations in the area have become excessively high. Or

you avoid installing control equipment by building in an area where

regulations don't exist, only to be hit with costs five to ten times as

high when standards are finally imposed." The magazine urges its

readers to press for air pollution control programmes and

scientifically established regulations administered at the Provincial

level — and that's a very respected business and engineering journal.

It is interesting to note also, Mr. Speaker, progress in this regard

being made in Sweden, whose Ambassador visited us last week. He told us

that tough new anti-pollution laws passed last July, tackle pollution

on land, sea and in the air. Municipal sewage systems have been major

sinners in Sweden, such as in British Columbia. Now there are more than

1,000 sewage treatment plants under construction, with the Federal

government paying half the costs. Not primary treatment but tertiary.

Federal government of Sweden. It is also interesting to note, Mr.

Speaker, that a few days ago the Alberta Speech from the Throne

promised legislation establishing an environment conservation authority

armed with broad powers to help preserve a healthy environment, and tax

incentives for abatement of water, soil and air pollution. I repeat,

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province want leadership from their

Government, not empty boasting or promises in place of action. Their

feelings were summed up very well by Dr. John Chase of Simon Fraser

University, when he presented a carefully researched report to the

meeting protesting pollution in North Vancouver of last week. In

calling for some meaningful provincial legislation and tougher

penalties for polluters, Dr. Chase said — "Government seems to be

evading its responsibilities and passing the buck, while our

environment deteriorates at a rapidly increasing rate."

But air pollution is just one of many causes of what has been termed

our environmental crisis. To understand the full extent of the many

threats which confront our quality of life, perhaps even life itself,

one should read the report issued by the Secretary-General of the

United Nations, entitled "Problems of the Human Environment." One

section of this report defines a situation which I would like to deal

with specifically. Here is what the Secretary-General says, "There

appears to be a wide-spread imbalance between efforts to enhance

economic productivity and efforts to maintain a stable or improving

environment. Conflicts between the demands of the urban industrial

centres for water, power, transportation networks, and space for

buildings on the one hand, the necessity for maintaining mineral

productivity and rural amenities on the other, are widespread.

Cultivated lands, river systems, lakes, estuaries, marsh lands, are

particularly hard hit. The need exists to provide for adequate planning

for overall land use, including conservation of natural environment.

The entire array of wild species and biological community necessary for

scientific cultural purposes, while still increasing their supply of

food and materials, needs the organization of space required for man's

survival."

This

section of the U.N. report could have very well have been

written as a warning aimed at us in British Columbia. We dam our rivers

with little if any thought to the ecological consequences. We just as

quickly leap to conclusions regarding diversion of one river system

into another. We pave thousands of acres of the finest black soil to be

found anywhere, and I am sure some of the Federation of Agriculture

people here today are very conscious of that problem. Yet as we destroy

these priceless chunks of our landscape, the need for agricultural and

recreational land increases as our leisure-time, disposable income,

population steadily climbs. Already, Mr. Speaker, the lower mainland of

British Columbia from Vancouver to Hope has over 1,000,000 persons, and

as we continue to grow and encourage further growth, thus placing

greater and greater strain on our already limited and overcrowded

agricultural and recreational land resources.

While the people of this Province are clamoring for an end to

unthinking development, the Province continues heedless of both the

warnings of ecologists and the desires of the public. We heard one such

story last week. I was delighted when the honourable member for

Yale-Lillooet raised the matter of the Skagit Valley. The loss of this

recreational and wildlife resource is so tragic and so needless that

enough cannot be said about it. A number of people have asked me the

reason for my interest, since the Skagit is obviously a long way from

North Vancouver. I suppose the reason I became involved is one way of

showing the importance of this valley to British Columbia. No less than

four of my own constituents in the space of a few days, each quite

separately, came to me with this story, because these were all people

who had used and loved the Skagit Valley for many years. You see, the

lower mainland isn't very big anymore and it is getting smaller. You

leave North Vancouver at eight o'clock in the morning, you go out 401

and just before Hope you turn south off the Trans-Canada highway, down

a gravel road past Silver Creek over a low divide to 26-Mile Bridge,

and you are in the Skagit Valley. By half past ten you are sitting by a

large beaver dam having coffee in the sun surrounded by magnificent

mountains and looking across a couple of miles of stumps and mud near

the American border where the present level of Ross Lake has gone down.

A little later you are walking along the gravel spawning beds of the

Skagit and you come across an elderly couple munching sandwiches, It

turns out they are retired. They live in Whalley, and they come out

here frequently, sometimes to fish, more often just to walk and enjoy

the beautiful valley of the Skagit.

So you see, the people of Vancouver need to use this valley, and

when you consider that some predictions say they might have 2,000,000

people between Squamish and Hope some day, you begin to understand why.

To quote the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, "Without planning

and the sacrifice of some short-term gains, by 1990 there could be one

massive urban block filling in from Point Grey to Hope." This is truly

a unique valley. Most of the mountain valleys of B.C. are V-shaped, but

this one is like a U with steep sides and a wide flat bottom over one

and a half to two miles across, through which for 12 and 15 miles the

Skagit River meanders with miles of good gravel trout-spawning beds,

through pleasant grassy meadows, until it runs into the top of Ross

Lake just north of the American border.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the page, if he would — could

I have one of the pages? — to pass these pictures, all but one of which

I have taken myself in the Skagit Valley. I think they will give some

idea of the

[ Page 112 ]

conditions there. Would you pass it so that all the members have a

chance to have a look. Thanks. I have some slides, Mr. Speaker, that I

would be delighted to show anyone after the House rises. At the top of

the Valley, fortunately just outside the area to be flooded, is the

finest of three groves in British Columbia of the wild red

rhododendron, most magnificent of all B.C. native shrubs. Four hundred

or more deer use the Valley as a headquarters and this year, because

there is little snow, the deer are wintering right on the valley

floor. There are beaver dams and lodges, black bears, and many other

animals and wild life. Fishing is the best — I think probably it is the

last good stream for fly-fishing in the lower mainland, with Rainbow,

Dolly Varden, Cutthroat, and so on. To the east the mountains of

Manning Park. To the south Mount Outram over 8,000 feet. To the west

the mountains and valleys that lead to Chilliwack Lake 25 miles away.

The road goes on across the border for a mile or two, and runs along

the grey rocky shore of Ross Lake, hanging at the bottom of almost

vertical hillsides. In fact, there is so little room between the lake

and the cliffs that you can see where people have camped right on the

roadway. That is on the American side.

Is the Valley used? Mr. Speaker, on the opening day of the fishing

season last June, there were between three and four thousand people in

that valley. During 1969 at least 15 — probably 20,000 people — visited

the Skagit. Hunters, fishermen, campers, tourists, maybe some who just

wanted to sit on a log on a gravel bar and look at the clear rushing

trout stream. There are no facilities, no campsites, nothing organized,

except the garbage dump area which has been set up by the local

Conservation Officer just because he loves the Skagit Valley. There

could be more. Skagit could be part of a magnificent international park

area anchored on the east to Manning Park, running along the border for

30 or 40 miles to include Chilliwack Lake and matching up to the

south with the great new North Cascade National Park in the State of

Washington. This could become an international park of the highest

stature, only two hours from downtown Vancouver. But all we are going

to get, Mr. Speaker, is 888 acres — just over a square mile, not much

more than a good campsite. Mr. Minister of Recreation and Conservation

is quoted in the Vancouver Sun of December 11th. "We would have

preferred that this flooding situation didn't exist, but now it is just

a matter of doing what we can to cope with the situation." Well, some

of us don't give up so easily. Of course, you know the problem. The

City of Seattle needs power and the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources on January 10, 1967, just three years ago, signed an

agreement to allow Seattle to raise Ross Dam by 125 feet to flood the

Skagit Valley almost to 26-Mile Bridge, and because it is such a wide

flat valley, this will virtually destroy its present existence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give away! Give away!

MR. BROUSSON: …. All this arose, Mr. Speaker, from an Order

of Approval issued by the International Joint Commission in 1942. After

public hearings in Seattle, which said, "The City of Seattle shall

adequately compensate the Province of British Columbia for any damage

caused in British Columbia." What is the adequate compensation that we

are going to get? $35,000 a year for 99 years, for approximately 6,300

acres to indemnify the citizens of British Columbia for the loss of

this unique and irreplaceable recreational resource. About $5.50 per

acre per year. Now I wonder how this figure was arrived at. I have been

told, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Lands quite often uses about

five per cent of the value of the land as a guide for lease value. At

this rate they set the value of the land at about $110 an acre. I am

advised that recreational valley bottom land in this area would be a

steal at many times that price. I am sure there are many people in this

House who would gladly pay many times $110 an acre for land in the

Skagit Valley. I know also for example, Mr. Speaker, a plot in almost

inaccessible parts of Garibaldi Park area, not desirable, almost

inaccessible, renting at the equivalent of $40 per acre to Canadian

citizens.

Another yardstick, Mr. Speaker, might be the value of timber,

fishing, hunting, and recreational resources that have been lost. Mr.

Speaker, I think I would like to give the figures, if some of my

friends would like to give me the opportunity. Another yardstick, Mr.

Speaker, might be value of the timber, fishing, hunting, and

recreational resources that are going to be lost. These have been

estimated — on a sustained yield basis to be $40 to $50 per acre per

year. What does the Government say about the price? $5.50 per acre per

year. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation as quoted in the

Vancouver Sun of January 12th said, "The only place we had any

room to negotiate was in regard to remuneration and in that respect the

guidelines laid down didn't give us much room either." The Minister

explained that by this he meant the payment to British Columbia which

worked out to about $5.50 per flooded acre, is a realistic rate

compared to rates which would be charged for developments within the

Province. In quotes again, "The opinion is that we can't deal more

harshly with international agreements than we would on development

within the Province." Mr. Speaker, I want to go personally on record,

or on tape, as disagreeing most strongly with that opinion.

I also have a letter, Mr. Speaker, dated December 5, 1969, from the

Water Rights Branch. "The annual payment of about $35,000 by the City

of Seattle was based on the energy rental which would have been payable

on a power licence if the water running across the international

boundary had been utilized in an equivalent hydro development in

British Columbia. This was a negotiated figure which necessarily

included judgements of many factors, including the effect on forest and

recreation." Well, I think we have already destroyed the validity of

this explanation. However, I don't want to dwell on the matter of the

cost, Mr. Speaker, because it is not the main problem. But the fact

remains, as I told the people in Seattle, it seems as if the Yankee

Traders skinned us, or at least the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources, pretty badly. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it is worth

while to note that Seattle City Power and Light charge $8.15 per 1,000

kilowatt hours while we in B.C. pay B.C. Hydro $14.50 for the same

amount. Why should we subsidize Seattle light bills?

Of course, the real irony of all this is the fact that Seattle also

is getting a bad financial deal. They are going to pay $45,000,000 for

only 140,000 kilowatts which is $320 per kilowatt, a very high capital

cost indeed for peaking power. Perhaps two and one-half or three times

what it should be. Now these figures, Mr. Speaker, are based on the

Smith-Barney report. The Smith-Barney report was prepared by Seattle

City Power's own consultants and was released last fall. On this basis

it has been estimated that their costs could be as high as 1.29 cents

per kilowatt hour — 1.29 cents per kilowatt hour — on a power plant

that is costing them $320 per installed kilowatt.

[ Page 113 ]

When we began looking into all this we were delighted to find a

great many of our American neighbours were pretty upset also. Because

Washington, too, will lose some magnificent and irreplaceable

resources, both recreational and ecological, if the Ross project

proceeds. Of course, the interesting thing is, you know, many