1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 22,1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 7 ]

FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1971

The House met at 2:30 p.m.

The Hon. W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker six Messages from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered

to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next

sitting after today:

Bill (No. 2) intituled

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act .

Bill (No. 3) intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act .

Bill (No. 4) intituled

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act, 1961 .

Bill (No. 5) intituled

An Act to Amend the School District and Regional Colleges (Pensions) Act .

Bill (No. 6) intituled

An Act to Amend the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act .

Bill (No. 7) intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Service Group Insurance Act .

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House pursuant to Standing Order 35 to discuss a definite

matter of urgent public importance, namely, the critical emergency

created by unemployment of 70,000 British Columbia citizens and the

need for immediate emergency measures to alleviate the hardships which

affect the unemployed and the general prosperity of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. It is seldom required that

the Speaker is requested to decide the urgency of a matter, and only on

about five occasions, as published in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice ,

is there any indication that the Speaker has decided the matter of

urgency itself. The Speaker is called upon to decide the matter of

urgency of debate at this particular time. A reference to page 365 in

the 17th edition of May will indicate that the motion has been refused

when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in

time, and specifically in Subsection 5, when the matter could be raised

by moving an amendment to the Address in answer to the King's Speech

which of course would be, in our particular jurisdiction, the Address

in reply to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's Speech. In other

words, the parliamentary opportunity to discuss the matter that has

been suggested by this urgency motion can be made by an amendment to

the Speech from the Throne either today or on a following day. The

matter therefore fails in urgency and is out of order.

MR. BARRETT: I'm afraid I will have to challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling has been challenged. The question is: "Shall the Speaker's ruling be sustained?"

The Speaker's ruling was sustained on the following division:-

YEAS – 37

Messieurs

Black

LeCours

Smith

Peterson

Vogel

Wolfe

Bennett

Richter

Campbell

Williston

Shelford

Fraser

Kiernan

Brothers

Marshall

Dawson

Campbell

Merilees

Jordan

Gaglardi

Ney

McCarthy

Loffmark

Wallace

Bruch

Chant

Price

Tisdalle

Skillings

Mussallem

Jefcoat

Capozzi

Kripps

Little

McDiarmid

Wenman

Chabot

NAYS –16

Messieurs

Barrett

Calder

Nimsick

Williams

Dowding

Hall

Strachan

Lorimer

Macdonald

Hartley

Williams

Cocke

McGeer

Gardom

Clark

Brousson

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I take great

pleasure in presenting the following motion, moved by James R. Chabot,

seconded by G. Scott Wallace, that the following Address be presented

to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful

and loyal subjects the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in

Session assembled, take leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious

Speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the

present Session."

In speaking to the motion, I see that the Leader of the Official

Opposition has just disappeared for a moment. I wanted to comment about

his semantics here, which took place a few moments ago. The only

conclusion I can come to is that they're readily ashamed of what took

place here yesterday. I'll have a little more to say about that a

little later on, too.

Mr. Speaker, this for British Columbia is a very eventful year. It's

the hundredth anniversary of British Columbia becoming a part of this

great Dominion of Canada, and I think that it's important that one sits

back and reflects what this country was like one hundred years ago

because, in 1871, in British Columbia, we had a population of less than

ten thousand people and, today, one hundred years later, it's over two

million people. I hope that this fantastic growth, especially the great

growth that has taken place over the last nineteen years, won't project

itself into the next hundred years, because if it does, we will have a

larger population than we presently have in the United States.

At the time of British Columbia entering Confederation, there were

elected 25 M.L.A.s, 12 from Vancouver Island and 13 throughout the

mainland, for a population of less

[ Page 8 ]

than ten thousand people. In other words, one M.L.A. represented approximately four hundred people.

Today, one M.L.A., an average M.L.A., represents approximately

thirty-six thousand people. Approximately thirty-six thousand people

are represented by one M.L.A. But I think what we should reflect is the

tolerance and the understanding that existed one hundred years ago.

Those people who were the legislators in the groups that influenced the

first Parliament of our country did not have the understanding and

tolerance we have today. One hundred years ago, they didn't allow the

native Indians, nor did they allow the Chinese, to vote in this

Province. It wasn't until several years later that they were given this

right. And British Columbia has proved that ethnic groups have

assimilated themselves very well within our society, because it was

from British Columbia that the first Member of Parliament of Chinese

ancestry was elected to the House of Commons from Vancouver Centre. And

it was from British Columbia that the first native Indian was elected

to the House of Commons. And it's in British Columbia that we have a

native son, our friend from Atlin. He might not have too many people,

but they're just as important as other people, aren't they? But, at the

time of Confederation, there was great variety of opinions as to the

direction that this particular territory should go; whether it should

join the Confederation, or whether it should be annexed with the United

States. And, I want to say thank God that sanity prevailed, because now

we have a great Dominion from sea to sea, and one of the prime reasons

for the people of that day deciding to join the Confederation, was the

promise by the National Government that they would build a cross-Canada

railroad from sea to sea. But typical of Liberals, it took many, many

years to fulfill that promise, many, many years. It took so many years

that the people in this Province became restless with these broken

promises. There was talk of secession. There was talk in those

particular days of the favouritism that was shown to some of the

eastern provinces, and those talks continued from that day to this,

regardless of political leadership within this Province, because these

are a fact of life. But British Columbia joined Canada to strengthen

the Confederation, to contribute something to a united Canada, and I

speak for many concerned British Columbians, that British Columbians

are prepared to continue to make economic sacrifices in order to keep

Canada united.

This year we're celebrating not only the Centennial of Canada, we're

also celebrating a very eventful year, because we're celebrating the

thirtieth anniversary of the M.L.A. from South Okanagan in public

service, a man who has given loyal dedication to the betterment of his

fellow British Columbians. Not only has he served for 30 years as an

M.L.A. for South Okanagan, but 19 of those years have been in giving

the type of leadership and direction which British Columbians have

asked for.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about unemployment, I'm just as

concerned, I am sure, and so is everyone else in this House, just as

concerned about unemployment, as was indicated by the Leader of the

Official Opposition this afternoon. This is something that we should

all be extremely concerned about. I think this Government has taken

action in many respects to try to curb this problem. The Government has

set up a retraining programme in which they're going to train unskilled

people so that they can take their rightful place in our society. I

think the Government should be commended for this action. But we should

look at the root cause, the root cause of the unemployment within this

Nation, and that's because of the stupid fiscal policies of the Liberal

Government in Ottawa. Their stupid fiscal policies, and those Liberals

stand up here and try to tell us that they are concerned about

unemployment. I wonder, I wonder what action, what type of influence,

they have tried to bring on Ottawa to curb those types of policy which

were instituted by their fellow Liberals in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, it is

unfortunate that the Leader of the Official Opposition has gone again.

He never seems to be in his chair, he's always gone. You know,

yesterday, in this Chamber we witnessed one of the most despicable,

deplorable and disgraceful demonstrations this Parliament has ever

seen. And I think that those people who were involved initially and

indirectly should hang their heads in shame. This demonstration was

directly sponsored and paid for by the B.C. Federation of Labour, in

conjunction with the NDP. The heavy hand of the socialist was well

visible in this demonstration yesterday. When I look at those banners

flying, those huge banners that British Columbia's young New Democrats

— I wonder if they were not involved. They were flaunting the red flag

out in the front, a red flag attached to banners such as these: "Jobs

with the NDP Labour to Power." I think that it's extremely tragic

that…

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): You wouldn't know a Maoist if you saw one.

MR. CHABOT: That's right, I wouldn't, but you would, you

would, you'd know what one looks like. You want the flag, you want it?

I think it's tragic that the majority of law-abiding union members have

had to contribute to that disgraceful episode that took place here

yesterday. Thousands of dollars of union members' dollars were wasted

in this demonstration. And speaking as a union member of long standing,

I deplore those political tactics.

I listened as I was coming into this building yesterday to the

Leader of the Official Opposition out there inciting the people, out

there inciting them. "This is your building," he said, "this is your

building." That's what he was saying. He incited them. Then I read the

press this morning, his statements in which he tried to weasel out of

his responsibility. Let me assure you, these were hollow, shallow

platitudes he was repeating. The Leader of the Liberal Party

participated as well — unknowingly, unwittingly, he participated. He

was out there talking. He didn't realize that the little fires he was

starting would come out of control. You started the fires ( interruption ).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, that Party is guilty of the

demonstration yesterday. That Party was an accomplice to that

demonstration yesterday. What happened to the statements of the Leader

of the NDP, in which he said…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Honourable Member

please be seated? Is the Honourable Member standing to a point of order

or a point of privilege?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): To a point of privilege,

Mr. Speaker. As a Member of the Party, I have been accused by the

speaker who has just taken his place of being an accomplice to not only

a demonstration, but presumably an accomplice to the violence that took

place in the buildings. That is utterly and categorically false. It is

a false

[ Page 9 ]

canard that is being spread deliberately by Members opposite, and I demand a withdrawal….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Honourable Member be

seated. He has not made out a point of privilege. Nevertheless, the

Member has made a statement that he himself was not implicated in any

demonstration which took place, and that statement must be accepted by

all Members of this Legislature. Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't implicate that particular Member who

rose on what he called a point of privilege, but I am directly

implicating the Party who is a party to these ( interruption ).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. DOWDING: The Honourable Member said to this House that

the Honourable Member who spoke and complained was not implicated, but

he did not do the same with me and I was out there, my friend. Mr.

Speaker, I was out there. But, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Leader

of the Opposition, I endorsed his words, when he said…I want to clear

this point…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member is still on a point of order.

MR. DOWDING: Yes, I want to speak to my point of order. It is

simply that I had nothing to do with what those people, the Yippees,

did in here, and I want to point out that the Leader of the Opposition

told those people to use democratic, parliamentary means…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member, proceed.

MR. CHABOT: The Leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition

told those people, outside this hall, outside this Chamber, that "this

is your building." Think it over, think it over. Disgraceful,

completely inciting those people. Whatever happened to those pious

statements of the Leader of the Official Opposition of last summer, in

which he stated that he would disassociate himself from the B.C.

Federation of Labour? Whatever happened? I'll tell you what happened.

When Ray Haynes tells him to jump, he asks, "how high?" The Leader of

the Official Opposition is not worthy of the job! Not worthy of it! I

would suggest to the B.C. Federation of Labour and to the NDP that they

owe an apology to the people of British Columbia. We've seen this same

Member, you stated that this Member didn't incite those people outside.

He made one of his infrequent trips to northern British Columbia this

summer, and he incited a municipal council up there, by telling them

that it was a shack town. Calling the community of Chetwynd, what is

basically a new community, calling it a shack town. He incited those

people and you can't deny that, and he denied he incited them, just

like he incited those people outside. And when the little brush fire

got away, he ran for cover and said, "I'm sorry."

Mr. Speaker, we've heard of a great variety of statements about the

good life, the rounded life, and now we have the new life in British

Columbia. Because I'm happy and I want to congratulate the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation for his initiative, along with the

cooperation of B.C. Hydro, in the project in which they are going to

reclaim the mess which is now called Stave Lake. I think that it is

important that this mistake, this Liberal mistake, took place many

years ago, but at that particular time, I think that we can forgive

those people for the mistakes they made, because conservation was not

the most important thought in the peoples' minds at that particular

time. But I think that it will, once reclaimed, add another very

important recreational facility to the heaviest concentration of people

in our Province.

Another area which is presently being reclaimed is Ootsa Lake,

another Liberal mistake being rectified. There's logging on Ootsa Lake

at the present time and some of the flooded timber is economically

being removed, and I hope that their endeavour is successful so that

Ootsa Lake will become a great part of the Tweedsmuir Provincial Park.

I want to suggest to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources that he should do everything to encourage those individuals

who are working on that project. In fact, if they find they are having

financial hardships, I would have no hesitation, in fact, I have no

hesitation in recommending that the Government subsidize these loggers

if the need be.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it can be safely said that, as far as

the economy of British Columbia is concerned, the nicest thing about

1970 is that it's over. In this connection 1 would like to review some

of the incidents that have ravaged the economy of our Province. In

speaking about the labour situation in British Columbia, I don't stand

here and I don't profess to be an expert in the field of labour.

Although I've been a member of a labour union for many years, probably

longer than any member in this Legislature — in fact, there are very

few Members in this Legislature that can say that they have been a

member of a labour union. In the statements and suggestions that I will

be making today, I don't profess to speak for labour, I don't profess

to be speaking for management, nor am I projecting the direction of

Government in this serious matter, but I am speaking on behalf of

concerned British Columbians. The majority of time-loss due to strikes

and lockouts that took place in Canada, took place in our Province. We

have lost approximately three million man-days in 1970, almost half the

national total, more time-loss than in the preceding decade in this

Province. Economically this has had a very severe effect on our ability

to render services to people.

The Government was warned by labour that 1969 would be a picnic

compared to 1970. They were correct in their prediction. Strikes have

taken place in nearly every major industry, the docks, construction,

towboats, pulp and paper, smelting — to mention a few of the bigger

ones. The dock strike and the towboat strike, both of which had severe

effects on our economy, were the responsibility of the Federal Labour

Department, and the severity and the length of these strikes leave one

to question the methods utilized by the Federal Government in settling

labour disputes. There appeared to be a very limited degree of concern

for the economy of the particular areas in the resolving of these

strikes. I'm not suggesting that this was the case, but I am suggesting

that the Federal system of labour dispute settlement is archaic and in

need of revamping. The Federal Government in 1970 suggested voluntary

wage guidelines to help combat inflation. They were immediately told by

the Canadian Labour Congress that the guidelines were not necessary

and, furthermore, they would not be respected. In fact, the voluntary

guidelines established by the National Government were a fiasco. They

weren't even able to impose their guidelines on their own civil

servants, the postal workers. The average increase in wages in British

Columbia

[ Page 10 ]

was approximately 10 per cent in 1970, which is far removed from the

suggested 6 per cent. With the downward trend in the economy in Canada,

one would be inclined to believe that settlements would be less

inflationary. The leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, this summer, in his

great knowledge of labour-management problems, suggested that we should

have a system of labour courts in British Columbia. I can't support

that type of a suggestion because this, to me, leads to compulsory

arbitration. We already have in British Columbia, a far superior method

of resolving labour disputes with the Mediation Act. I'm rather

surprised to hear these suggestions from that Member, in view of his

position on the Mediation Act, which is binding only when the public

interest and welfare of this state is in jeopardy.

This same Member had the opportunity this summer to act as a

mediation officer in a pulp industry dispute. It is gratifying to see a

Member of the Legislature offer himself in this role, especially when

the union concerned had no alternative but to accept the settlement

made by other pulp mills with the international membership. I'm sure

the Member gained very little knowledge in the collective bargaining

process; nevertheless, a useful purpose was served.

Collective bargaining is a means of negotiating between labour and

management the value or the price of labour. This same bargaining takes

place between employers and employees of the semiprofessional or the

professional groups. But to those groups who are not bargaining from a

power position — that is — by the withdrawal of their services — the

results in many instances are not as satisfactory as those secured by

labour unions. Labour unions have proved a very useful purpose in the

fight against low wages for their membership. Many unions still act in

a very responsible manner. There are, however, some that refuse to be

responsible and fail to take into account suggestions by Government of

the economic conditions of the country, or of the Province, or of the

industry's ability to absorb the demands. Until such time as we're able

to have responsible bargaining on both sides, we will continue to have

labour strife in British Columbia. I am a great believer in free

collective bargaining with no intervention. The Government should be

the last resort for the settlement of the dispute. The tendency today

is to rely more heavily on Government intervention. Increase in

productivity, cost of living, wage disparity, should be the prime

bargaining points in wage demands. These three points rarely enter into

negotiations today.

In 1968, I voted in this Legislature for Bill 33,

an Act Respecting

Collective Bargaining and Mediation, because I believed the legislation

to be an improvement over the makeshift methods of resolving work

stoppages in essential industries. Prior to this legislation, to

resolve a problem in essential industry, it was necessary to call a

Session before it could be resolved and this, in many instances, can

have very devastating effects. You people try to leave the implication

that Bill 33 means compulsory arbitration. Certainly, I agree that

there is one section,

section 18, that gives the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council authority to make a recommendation binding, to protect the

public interest and welfare. There comes a time when governments must

take action to protect the interest of the individuals or groups

affected by lockouts and/or strikes. Unless governments are prepared to

take this responsibility, who else should? The public should be able,

at the appropriate time, to decide whether a government has abused that

privilege. I'm sure that most Members here, along with myself, have

taken a keener interest in labour-management problems in 1970, because

of the great disruptive forces that have been cast upon this Province.

I'm sure that many Members have looked at some of the disputes that

have taken place, read some of the decisions, and are far more familiar

with the problems that labour and management have had to deal with. But

there has been a strong reluctance on the part of labour to cooperate

with the Mediation Commission, in particular by the B.C. Federation of

Labour. It has, in most instances, advised other affiliated unions to

boycott the Commission. Despite what Mr. Haynes recently said, in a

letter to the Vancouver Sun , in which he says that, "…these

unions make this decision unilaterally,…." he has told us in

assembly that they must defy the Mediation Commission. The B.C.

Federation of Labour appears to accept compulsion only when it is in

their interest.

In Canada today, in the majority of our industries, there is

compulsory unionism, either through closed-shop, or union-shop clauses.

There are groups and individuals who are today questioning this aspect

of compulsion. Some unions fail to appreciate this tremendous

concession. I'm not suggesting that it should be abolished, because

without it unions would be greatly weakened. It is desirable that

unions be strong, in order to protect the workers they represent, but

governments can no longer tolerate unions that would attempt to coerce

their will upon the electorate, regardless of the consequences.

We see here in British Columbia the B.C. Federation of Labour

dictating policy to the NDP, of which I mentioned a little bit a few

moments ago. This political party is making a feeble attempt to divorce

itself from this influence but with very little success. This

organization is not satisfied with dictating to its membership and to

the NDP. It wants to dictate to the Government and, in turn, to the

people, in its attitude to the Mediation Act.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't too long ago that I was approached by a

contractor, who wanted to know why, in most instances, the Government

insists that they let contracts to unionized contractors only. This

individual has a relatively large non-unionized contracting firm. He is

of the opinion that the Government, with this approach, is

discriminating against nonunion contractors in this Province. Mind you,

he did state that he was not interested in Government contracts, but he

is concerned because he believes that his company and his workers

contribute as much to this Province, to the society in our Province, as

do union members. I'm bringing up this point merely to point out that

labour unions have been given preferential treatment in this Province,

and not to suggest that the practice be done away with. I believe that

the penalty clauses of the Mediation Act should be reviewed, that in

every instance where the worker is made a party to the violation, this

part should be deleted.

The union member in many instances is not aware of the actions being

taken on his behalf by his union. Why should he be penalized for the

actions of the union leaders? With this deletion, I believe that the

penalty should be reviewed and changed to reflect a more realistic

basis for the violation, because the maximum penalty under the

Mediation Act, as far as unions are concerned, is even less than what

the B.C. Federation of Labour spent for their demonstration here

yesterday, and I think that if we're going to look at the improvement

of this part of the Mediation Act I think we should do it in a very

realistic way.

The Mediation Act has not proven to be the effective tool for labour peace that I had expected it would be. I am

[ Page 11 ]

inclined to believe that its ineffectiveness is directly related to

the political motivation of the B.C. Federation of Labour. Certain

statements made by the Chairman of the Commission certainly lead me to

question his credibility. Statements, such as: "There should be no

collective bargaining for Civil Servants," should never have been

issued. You were out of the House, Mr. Member, when I said that I was

not giving the direction of Government as far as improvement of labour

legislation. With the mood of labour regarding the Act, more time is

required to realize what it can become — the useful means of resolving

collective bargaining disputes. I certainly support the principle of

non-Government intervention in labour disputes excepting when the

public welfare is at stake. There are other less desirable ways of

settling labour disputes and as the Throne Speech mentioned,

section 18

was rarely used in 1970 and only when the public interest was at stake.

In several instances, management has shown a reluctance to communicate

with unions and in so doing forcing Mediation Commission involvement.

Communication is vital to labour peace and unless there is more

communication we can expect labour strikes to continue in this Province.

To every Member in this Legislature the public interest should be

paramount and I believe for the benefit of some Members across the way

that I am going to repeat that statement to every Member of this

Legislature. The public interest should be paramount. The right of free

collective bargaining should never be challenged and the only occasion

in which Government should intervene is on behalf of the public

welfare. The Mediation Act is a vehicle to help resolve deadlocked

negotiations with the most modern and effective means available in this

country.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am going to say a few words about

pollution, because this is no doubt one of the most controversial

subjects on this continent at the present time. It is gratifying to see

that in the Throne Speech there is heavy emphasis on our environment.

The Government indicates that its number one priority for the '70's is

that of the improvement of our environment. Pollution or environment is

the subject on which many people profess to be experts, although those

most closely associated with its prevention and control have no

hesitation in stating that very little is known. Its control is a

subject of massive research. There is a great deal of emotional

reaction to the establishment of industries within our Province. The

reaction rarely considers whether the industry will have an effect upon

our environment. Few people are familiar with the Pollution Control

Act. Fewer still are aware of the various steps being taken by the

Government to control our air, water and land. I believe that, in this

respect, the Government has a responsibility to let the people know

what they are doing to avoid pollution in this Province.

We're hearing

a great deal about mercury pollution at the moment. It is really

shocking to me to hear of the extremely high mercury content in the

dogfish, which are all prepared ready to be exported to a market, which

has today imperilled a potential market of 500,000 pounds of what is

basically a scavenger fish. In this connection, in connection with the

promotion of a market, I want to give credit to the Federal Minister of

Fisheries for the initiative which he displayed in securing a market

for this fish which most West Coast fishermen look upon as a curse. You

know, mercury pollution is not only found in the oceans; many of our

fresh waters, lakes and streams have a very high degree of pollution,

and not too long ago it was stated that industry from North America is

dumping 5,000 tons of mercury into the ocean annually. This certainly

endangers our fish population and because of the great retention

capacity of fish of being able to retain a heavy mercury content within

their systems for at least 500 days, there is great danger of spreading

this contamination to other areas. Mercury pollution is not only

through indiscriminate dumping; there are hundreds of tons of mercury

pollution being poured into the air through the vaporization of coal as

well, and I think that we should look upon this situation, the

contamination of our water systems, as a shocking situation. Some

bodies of water will take decades to restore because of the degree of

contamination. The mercury usage today has increased twenty-fold in the

last fifty or so years. I think that research steps must be taken to

control the use and abuse of this material.

As it is recognized that coal contains mercury, I would suggest that

the Pollution Control Board undertake studies to establish the amount

of mercury contained in the coal being mined in the East Kootenays.

There have been certain groups advocating that we should not tolerate

the export of our thermal coal from the East Kootenays but that we

should use it instead for generation of power in the East Kootenays and

the export of power to the United States. I certainly don't support

this position as far as the Crowsnest area is concerned, because the

utilization of such vast amounts of coal within the narrow confines of

the Crowsnest Pass would create a serious mercury pollution problem.

I think the Pollution Control Board should also investigate the

proposal of the 490-mile pipeline to transport coal from the East

Kootenays to Roberts Bank. Such questions of whether oil will be used

in their process must be answered in research. Will the water, after

having been used in the transportation process, be dumped in the ocean

and, if so, will the mercury content, or a portion of the mercury

content, become separated and further pollute our fish population? I

would suggest that these questions must be researched and information

secured long before the pipeline becomes a reality.

The fishing industry in British Columbia warrants our concern and

actions to alleviate this very serious problem. In the United States,

for the first year in which it kept a record of fish mortality in 1969,

41 million fish died, of which 26 million died by indiscriminate

dumping of industrial waste in the ocean. It has reached such an

alarming degree as far as fish contamination and decrease of numbers

through industrial pollution that last year there was a decrease in the

catch of fish by 160 million dollars. I personally have always over the

years imagined that we would be able to, and future generations would

be able to, look to the oceans to help curb world hunger. I am now

starting to question the validity of the thought when I see the abuse

that is taking place. The ocean has a great ability of cleansing

itself; this ability is being challenged at the present time. When one

looks at what is happening in the Mediterranean, because that ocean has

almost reached the point of no return, I think it is time for concern.

I think that we all have a very direct interest in the ocean. The ocean

can tolerate only so much abuse. We should be concerned about the

Americans dumping radio-active materials in the ocean as well. We

should be concerned about the Americans transporting oil from Alaska

along the British Columbia coast to the American ports.

The problems of the ocean are our problems, although international

in nature, nevertheless we should familiarize the National Government

with our concern.

The United Nations should establish guidelines to preserve

[ Page 12 ]

our oceans and not wait until it reaches the situation, such as Lake

Erie, where it is proposed to spend over one billion dollars to

reclaim. After all, 70 per cent of our oxygen originates from the ocean.

I was rather amused by the statement from the Leader of the Liberal

Party, in which he stated we should have a law, in fact, I believe he

stated he would introduce a Bill this Session. He is not here again,

unfortunately, because I would like to hear his comments on what I have

to say, but perhaps you accept this as standard procedure. We have very

great difficulty in finding the Leader of the Liberal Party; he is

either on the telephone or on a hot line instead of being here looking

after the peoples' business. I would be inclined to suspect that the

law, such as being proposed by the Liberals, would result in a rash of

frivolous lawsuits. What is required are strict standards to protect

our land, water and air, and I think that these standards should be

established through the co-ordination of all levels of Government.

British Columbia has taken the initiative through its Pollution

Control Act to register all land and water pollution during 1970 and

has set a December 31, 1971 deadline for the registration of all types

of air pollution. This is the first step necessary to evaluate a

problem. In this respect we are far ahead of the United States, far

ahead of the United States, who are just today commencing a programme

of registration of polluters and, let me assure you, the pollution

problem in the United States cannot be compared with that in this

Province. However, since the guidelines were established for the

registration of air pollution within this Province, the Government has

been presented with a study it commissioned to the B.C. Research

Council. I understand that the report suggests the Government can

either take remedial action now or face costly corrective measures at a

later date. As the report suggests that air pollution in this Province

does reach high degrees at certain times, I would hope that the

Government will take immediate action by establishing standards to

protect our air.

I was pleased to see that the Federal Government has created a

Department of Environmental Management, with a Minister in charge. I

hope that this Department, along with the various Provincial

Governments, will work out the boundaries of jurisdiction so that

responsibilities can be clearly defined. This new Department should

promote sewage treatment through financial assistance in cooperation

with Provincial Governments. The Federal Department should give

financial support to Provincial research facilities based on Provincial

initiative. The Provincial Government should have no hesitation in

engaging scientists and ecologists with the necessary research

facilities to keep ahead of the scientific problems and changes in our

environment. This Government has proven to be a government of foresight

and innovation because when it saw the need a few years ago to

establish a Department of Recreation and Conservation, the first on

this continent, what did they do? They established the Department, and

I am sure that this Government can see today the need to co-ordinate

the various pollution control measures that we have in this Province

under a separate Department of Environmental Control.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to close here in just a moment, but I think

that I must bring up one point which I was certainly remiss in not

bringing up a little earlier, but I am amazed, when a Session is about

to begin in British Columbia, at the type of scurrying that takes place

amongst the leaders of the opposing political parties and their

members. You know, one would think that once this House is prorogued

they cast aside their responsibilities until just before the next

election. They cast aside their responsibilities and then all of a

sudden they get their official notice that we're going to have a

Session and what do they do? They immediately start running their ads

to get the Provincial Coat of Arms of British Columbia, Office of the

Official Opposition. They start telling people, "Bring us briefs, we're

desperate, we don't know what to do, but we want to criticize." They

don't only do that, they also band together a little group and they

call in a photographer. And they say, "Let's run down to Riverview,

bring a reporter, too, it's important. We've got to take pictures,

we've got to make the press, we've got to show the people we're doing

something on their behalf." I have no objections to this type of

approach, but at least do it on the year off, at least do it not just

before a Session. Then after they leave Riverview and they've had their

pictures taken, saying how deplorable the situation is at Riverview,

they ask the photographer and the reporter, "Come on down to Oakalla,

we'll tell you about the horse barns, maybe you can take a picture of

those, too." Is that what they call facing up to their public

responsibility?

The Liberal Party, not too long ago, the Leader of the Liberal

Party, stated that, "We're going to have 23 days, all fire and action!

We want your briefs, we want to know what to say as far as criticizing

this Government. We're going to have real action; everyday we're going

to have press releases and, we hope, pictures, too." Do you know what

this reminds me of, Mr. Speaker? It reminds me of the 100 days of

action of the Pearson Government. That was 100 days of sheer futility

for the people of this country, that's what that was. I don't know, I

think that these people have been put into this high office of

responsibility of leaders of political parties within this Province,

and they must face up to those responsibilities as well. They have

failed to do so. It's unfortunate that the Leader of the Liberal Party

is not here today because I'd like to question him as to how often he

has come to Victoria to speak on behalf of concerned British

Columbians? Has he come to Victoria once a week? Has he come twice?

Twice a month? Has he come once a month? Has he come semiannually? Or

has he come not at all? I think that the Leader of the Liberal Party has

completely abdicated his responsibilities as a leader. He doesn't have

time, it's unfortunate, because he's gone back to his university, I

understand, and he doesn't have time. But I think that it's terrible

that someone would take a position of responsibility and not devote the

time that is necessary on behalf of British Columbians, because the

people of British Columbia are asking questions today. They want to

know, where these leaders are. They want to see the leaders out in the

countryside, they don't only want to see them at election time or just

a few days before a Session.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, in British Columbia we have experienced

difficulties in the past year. But I am seriously convinced that we can

be optimistic for the future. As we have the policies, we have the

people, and we have the perseverance to continue to make this the

greatest province in the Dominion of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it is a great

pleasure for me to second the motion of the Honourable Member for

Columbia River. I doubt if I can match his histrionics, but I would

suggest that if we have a Frenchman moving and a Scotsman seconding,

then the matter of

[ Page 13 ]

national unity is in good shape.

It must be admitted that when the Honourable Premier phoned me and

asked me to fill this role, it would not be an exaggeration to say that

I was taken aback. It should also be made plain that the Honourable

Premier quickly told me, although he, as Leader of the Government, was

asking me to make this speech, that this need not restrict my remarks.

I would not wish to disappoint the Premier in this regard. That I have

been asked to speak, however, in this role, should surely prove how

wrong the contention frequently is that there is no room for

differences of opinion in the Social Credit Party. No political party

can survive, let alone flourish, unless there is some diversity of

thinking among its members, if not on basic policy, at least on the

methods by which the policy is implemented. I believe that out of

diversity comes direction and out of direction develops action. And

whatever the learned or less than learned members may think, the last

18 years have shown that this Government believes in action, and I like

to think of the very apt statement that has been made to the effect

that this Government has awakened the sleeping giant. At this point,

briefly, I should say to those who have questioned my loyalty to the

Social Credit Party, I would suggest that if I have been critical at

times, the reason is very simple: that occasionally a change of

direction is called for, or possibly one might feel that certain

obligations remain unmet. But the primary function of the backbencher,

in my view, is not to orate in flowery language about the achievements

of the past, which are there for everyone to see, but to suggest

different ways in which policies may be even better, by which our

legislation might also be more productive than it has been in the past.

I would state, however, that I feel that my loyalty to the people has

precedence over my loyalty to any political party. Since my election, I

have tried to keep the faith with the people of Oak Bay, and I don't

propose to deviate from that policy. It is in this spirit, Mr. Speaker,

that I wish to reply to the Throne Speech.

The Honourable Member from Columbia River has touched on many of the

points in regard to pollution which I had planned to make. But I feel

that we must recognize the three fundamentals that we are discussing,

namely: ecology, economy and employment. Those three are most

intimately related one to the other and I feel that, since politicians

should influence public opinion and should most strongly be influenced

by public opinion, we must take note of the fact that there is no

subject, perhaps of any around the world, which has drawn more comment

from the public in the last decade than the environment. It is a global

problem as was pointed out, and it matters little in whose waters the

contaminated fish are found. The result is the same, that people in

this Province, or in this Nation, or in this world, will suffer. The

people who eat the fish will suffer, the people who depend on the

fishing for their employment will find themselves unemployed and the

economy without a market will also suffer damage. But fortunately

people in every corner of the globe are becoming aware of the

environmental problem and are demanding that Governments and their

policies for the development of industry and the utilization of natural

resources, that these policies should include more strings and

safeguards than have applied in the past. Mention is made in the Throne

Speech of measures demanded of new industries and I would praise this

recommendation. But I would suggest, also, that safeguards, as in any

other sphere of our human activity, have to be applied with a balanced

view of their effects on the economy and unemployment, and the decision

should not be made amid hysteria and ignorance. The definition of the required safeguards must rest upon valid

reliable data, which have been obtained from appropriate study and

research and which, if applied to the particular type of contamination,

will control it at reasonable costs and with minimal disruption to the

workers and the economy.

At this point, I would like to comment on the most recent

controversial decision regarding Utah Mining, because in my personal

view, this represents, on this day in 1971, the kind of decision with

which we are faced within the limitations of our scientific knowledge.

We have to face the fact that we have unemployment and that the

creation of jobs is our number one problem. So, on the one hand, we

have this grave situation where jobs are required and, on the other

hand, we have a mine which is planning to go into production, where we

have to balance the allowable degree of pollution. Now, we could tell

the mine to close down and there would be no new jobs, or we could let

the mine run wild and do what it wanted with its effluent, and we would

be equally guilty of forgetting the true and overall needs of society.

I personally feel that the decision of the Utah Mining was a very

sensible, reasonable compromise. Let's face it, life is a compromise

and this is the very kind of compromise which we will have to face

again, again and again in trying to hit a balance between pollution and

the needs of the economy and the needs of the unemployed. The important

thing about the Utah decision is that Government can move in as a

result of the monitoring findings at any time and demand that other

methods be used. The monitoring will be done by an independent body and

if, at any time, it is felt that that monitoring shows a point of

safety which spells danger to the environment to a substantial degree,

that the degree of pollution can be brought to a halt. On the other

hand, I think both sides of the argument and even SPEC people have

admitted that, in the present state of scientific knowledge, nobody,

just nobody, really can completely know exactly what the dangers are

and, therefore, I would submit that some such compromise situation

helps the economy. Furthermore, it provides us with the very type of

scientific information which will be useful in the future, and useful

far beyond the boundaries of British Columbia.

Another example which I would like to consider is the question of

the use of nuclear power to produce electricity. This is a

controversial issue, which again I would plead with Government and with

public to listen to in a rational, factual manner. It is true that

there are dangers in nuclear power plants. The dangers are two in

number. You do have minimal amounts of radiation from these plants.

Here, again, I would suggest that we listen and read the voice of those

people who have had experience of plants over the last 10 years.

Scientists of the Atomic Energy Commission in the United States admit

there is minimal radiation but it is, in scientific fact, little more

than the natural radiation of the earth around us.

The second danger is of the nuclear accident in the plant, which

would be a very serious matter. But again, Mr. Speaker, we have to

weigh the known advantages against the potential risk, and the most

recent statement is from no less a person than Dr. Ralph Lapp, who is

one of the world authorities on atomic energy. Dr. Lapp has said that

"….the order of magnitude of the danger of nuclear accident is that

it may occur once in 100 years if you have 100 plants in your country."

I would submit that we do not try to deny that the risk exists, but I

would submit that we keep in mind the very substantial, well-known

advantages which can flow from this

[ Page 14 ]

type of generated power and set it against the minimal risk that

I've tried to describe, and I've tried to quote authorities who know

what they are talking about.

The other element of danger, which has been discussed at some

lengths, is the thermal effluent, so-called, the water leaving the

plant is at an elevated temperature and this is rather interesting. A

columnist for the Toronto Telegram , by the name of Tiny Bennett — and

with a name like Tiny, how could he be a friend of the Premier's? He

has found that the best 100 yards of fishing in the whole of the

Toronto region is just off the Lakeview Nuclear Power Plant in Toronto.

Some other examples I would just mention are that the Commonwealth

Edison Cooling Lake, for the one million-dollar kilowatt Kincaid

Station, is being developed by the State of Illinois for recreation and

the Montrose Lake in Missouri, which is a cooling water reservoir for

the Kansas City Power and Light Company, has excellent fishing and duck

shooting.

Again, to try to stick very much to what I consider are the kind of

authorities we should listen to; at the recent meeting of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Beall, Director of the

Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, outlined a method whereby

heated effluent could be used to grow vegetables, and to raise poultry,

fish and pigs, in controlled environments within a mile of the

generating plants. Such a scheme, he stated, could provide these

requirements for a city of just under 400,000 people. He also pointed

out that other savings could be brought about by recycling the waste

from the animals to the plant, and also the waste from the plant being

used to sustain the development of the animals.

Another example is the Hinkley Point Power Station at Bridgewater in

England. I would like to emphasize that I've read of examples from all

corners of the world; there are nuclear plants in every industrial

nation in the world. One of the reasons that Japan has come anywhere

close to meeting its electrical needs, and we all know how its industry

has flourished, is that Japan probably has the most per head of the

population of the greatest amount of nuclear power–generated

electricity in the world. But I was quoting an example in England

where, with the heated effluent, they are bringing shrimps to maturity

in 18 months when, in the cold waters of the Bristol Channel nearby,

the shrimps take four to five years to mature. And since Britain

imports 12 million-dollars worth of shrimp annually, the use of power

plant effluent is a very relevant point. And this, incidentally, revels

in the name of "Aquaculture" and I understand that in the eastern

countries of Europe, where more than two million tons of fish are

produced annually, this is also being utilized.

The vital point, perhaps, which I'm labouring too long and too hard,

is that consideration of the possibility of pollution must be viewed

from a wide front, with all the available information and all the data

of research at hand, and with an awareness that, although there are

apparent snags, very often through scientific ingenuity and

technological advances we can turn those disadvantages to very, very,

substantial advantages. Scores of research projects into the thermal

effects are underway in all the major countries and I would suggest

that the Government, and I am sure it is doing this, is remaining up to

date in being informed about the results of this research. But I would

repeat that I think opposition to this particular asset, the nuclear

power plant, let us have it based on facts, let us have it based on

information which has been documented and, if there is to be debate,

let us debate the facts, not the hysteria.

The Director of Atomic Energy of Canada recently visited British

Columbia and I understand he offered the advice and guidance of his

department in carrying out a feasibility study in relation to this

proposal. If the Provincial Government should request the assistance of

the Federal Government, the role of the Atomic Energy Commission would

be purely advisory, with scientists and technical staff from British

Columbia carrying out the actual investigative work. I would urge this

Government to approach the Federal Government and with open arms ask

for the assistance of the Atomic Energy Commission that we may reach a

decision on this controversial point. For a fundamental reason, I've

tried to make clear that research, facts and figures and scientific

data are what we require most.

The need for an environmental research centre in British Columbia is

urgent. I would strongly support the proposal first put forward, Mr.

Speaker, by the Honourable Minister for Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources, that the Provincial Government request that the Federal

Government allocate a substantial sum of money from the B.C. Centennial

Grant to set up the research centre. The essential purpose of the

centre would be to conduct research into the differing natures, the

differing forms of pollution, and to monitor degrees of pollution and

their response to our attempts to control it. While we all desire to

control pollution, it makes only sound common sense to institute the

most effective means at the most economical cost. This, I say, can be

achieved only if we start off with facts — facts and figures, obtained

from sound research conducted by trained personnel.

Since the subject of preservation of the environment is so immense

and enlarging so rapidly, the availability of information is crucial.

For this reason, the proposal by a committee of 100 concerned citizens

in Victoria for an Environment Information Centre I consider worthy of

this Government's support and consideration. The purpose would be to

maintain files on the sources of information and to publish lists of

information sources, such as fact sheets of environmental data,

up-to-date reports, such as the continuing information on thermal

effluent and, in general, make the public aware of the environmental

services offered by existing agencies.

The Citizens Committee, I think it should be made clear, would make

no value judgements, but would be strictly objective in providing

information whereby citizens might become better informed and better

able to form their own opinions on the problems at hand.

The Committee has submitted a brief to the Federal Government

requesting money be made available from the Centennial Grant to

establish this centre. Mr. Speaker, at this time of anniversary in our

history where, as has been pointed out, preservation of the very air we

breathe is our major challenge, the creation of these two centres — the

research centre, and the information centre — would be a tremendous

initial step towards understanding the precise nature of many forms of

pollution and towards controlling them in an economical and scientific

manner. If neither proposal is met with a favourable response by the

Federal Government I would hope that the Provincial Government would

proceed with the research centres on its own, by financing them and

that it would make some financial subsidy to the Environment 100

Project at this crucial stage of its early development.

I must admit that I'm appalled, and I can't use any other word, I am

appalled to read in press reports that the Federal Government is about

to allocate 2.5 million dollars of the

[ Page 15 ]

Centennial Grant to the museum at U.B.C. for the display of Indian

artifacts and other anthropological exhibits. Such a dry as dust,

useless, sterile expenditure of a large sum of money must give our

native Indians cold comfort and it must depress still further their

faint hope that Government is really aware of their plight and

sympathetic to their betterment. With a standard of life far below that

of the non-Indian, with deplorable morbidity and mortality figures for

both infants and adults, and with inadequate housing, who can blame our

native Indians if they feel disillusioned, utterly downcast, to learn

that the legislators in Ottawa consider the enlargement of a museum

more desirable than some living, human project to a people in need?

Bricks and mortar and the relics of the past — I consider that a

pitiful and pathetic monument to our anniversary, when the real

challenge is to commemorate in a very human way by offering help and

hope to this minority, whose fate has hardly been a happy one in

Confederation.

Finally, on pollution, I would like to repeat, and I'm afraid I will

be repeating myself as the Session goes on, since many of the

suggestions about which I have very strong convictions appear to be not

included in the Throne Speech. And my first repetition is to repeat my

opinion that the matter of pollution control is of such an expense and

involves so many departments that I cannot be persuaded that the Land

Use Committee will meet the need. I feel that if this Government is to

meet its grave and urgent responsibility in pollution control, it can

be done only in a co-ordinated, effective and economical manner if a

separate Department of Environmental Control is created.

It is another obvious and undeniable fact that effective methods of

pollution control will cost money, lots of money. Whether this be in

controlling industrial pollution and thereby increasing the price of

the product, or whether it be in building sewage treatment plants which

will increase municipal taxes, or whether it consists of making

pollution control devices mandatory on automobiles, I support this. And

this Government has done this very thing. The point I'm hoping to make

is that these are all valid aims of Government, but they will cost

money. A simple enquiry regarding 1971 automobiles suggests that the

cost of the pollution control device approaches $100. More interesting

is the fact that the gasoline which no longer contains lead will be

three cents a gallon more expensive than regular gasoline. These are

financial facts of life and I think that politicians must be completely

honest with the public in pointing out that effective pollution control

will cost a great deal of money and will, in my opinion, inevitably

lower our present material standard of living in order to gain a better

environment.

Pollution cannot be considered apart from the problem of population,

however, since the population explosion has created many of the

pollution problems. One of the greatest scientific figures of the

Western world is Sir Peter Medawar, Nobel Prize winner in medicine and

a scientist-philosopher, who has some rare insight of the needs of the

human race and, while he believes that acceptable methods of birth

control will be found to control the problem, he makes the very

pertinent point that we must learn to live a slightly different way

from the manner to which we are now accustomed. He feels that the

emphasis today on production, consumption and waste, which is something

of a profligate nature and excessive and seems to be our entire goal,

must be replaced by a more frugal approach which involves recycling of

our resources and some forethought beyond the next year or two. Growth

has been fundamental to our idea of human progress: growth in

population, growth in production, growth in consumption. But the sad

fact is that the earth is finite and fragile and to believe that the

curve of economic growth can go on upwards forever at an accelerating

rate is, in my view, the current equivalent of believing that the earth

is flat. We must cease to worship the false god of Gross National

Product and turn our immediate attention to the economical use and

reuse of our resources.

With the world population increasing at the rate of 139 human beings

per minute, or 72 million per year, the current population of the world

will double in 30 years. The importance and urgency of controlling the

population is enormous and I would suggest that to date we, as a

Government, have been somewhat tardy in educating the public about the

problem and in making birth control advice and methods of contraception

readily available. The time is now to start on an energetic programme

of education in the schools and continuing to direct a programme at the

adults of child-bearing age. I would submit that the Public Health

Branch of the Department of Health be given this task, along with the

necessary financing, to hold regular clinics in every part of the

Province, where advice as well as medication and appliances should be

made available to the individual. Continuing education should be

directed through the use of all the communication media.

A local clinic exists in Victoria, using voluntary personnel, and

this is meeting with considerable success, inasmuch that those seeking

advice are on the increase. And these same persons, I am told by one of

the physicians, express the view that they feel able to attend such a

clinic, when they would not feel able to attend at the doctor's office.

Since effective contraception and the availability of sterilization

operations decreases the need for such destructive and distasteful

operations as abortion, I would hope that the Government will adopt a

programme along the lines I have suggested.

I feel that in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, there should be some

discussion on the political philosophy of the Government, the political

philosophy of the Government which offers the legislative programme,

and the philosophy of the Opposition Parties criticizing the programme,

because these basic principles, I submit, help the electorate to

understand the direction in which Government is moving, and also help

the electorate to determine the differences between the Government and

the Opposition, as well as the stand of individual members.

My personal political philosophy is really very simple — to the

effect that Government shall not do for the individual what the

individual can readily do for himself. Conversely, Government has the

over-riding responsibility to protect the rights of the individual and

to provide assistance for the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled and

the deprived. But it is certainly no function of Government to provide

financial assistance to people who do not require it.

The individual is the keystone of society and that individuality

must never be suppressed or ignored by the State, unless there is some

valid evidence that the greater good of the majority is threatened. And

at all levels in this Government, in this country, we have too much

government and we have too many laws and, as a result, the individual

frequently has his freedom eroded and his independence stifled.

I would like to quote an example where the heavy hand of Government,

under the nom de plume , Crown Corporation, can enter one's property

without one's permission, and expropriate the individual's property at

an unrealistic price, making a mockery of his freedom and abusing his

civil rights.

[ Page 16 ]

A man's home is no longer his castle under the expropriation

procedures of this Province. Cases have been brought to my attention

with reference to the actions of B.C. Hydro, where the customary

procedure is for B.C. Hydro, the taker, to offer a price far below

market value. In this situation, the individual owner not only endures

the stress and strain of knowing that he is to be ejected from his home

against his wishes but he faces considerable costs if he attempts,

before a three-man arbitration committee, to obtain a fairer price for

his property. The individual is inexperienced and has limited financial

means,

whereas he faces a powerful Crown Corporation, a creature of

Government, with experience of expropriation and substantial financial

and legal assets, with which to face arbitration. Is it any wonder that

in this very unequal confrontation of adversaries, the little man, John

Q. Public, decides reluctantly and bitterly to take the price that is

offered, rather than contest the unequal battle fraught with the

prospects of high legal costs? The individual in today's society must

feel a little bit like David facing Goliath, except that in today's

world the individual has no effective slingshot. When the city of

Vancouver is on record as stating that the costs involved in a disputed

compensation case are excessive, one can readily appreciate the

apprehension of the small property owner faced with expropriation.

I think it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we should recall that a

Royal Commission, with Mr. J.V. Clyne as the sole Commissioner, was set

up in 1961, and the purpose of the Commission was to examine existing

legislation and procedures and to make recommendations.

After two years of deliberation and extensive research of similar

laws in England and the United States, the recommendations were quite

clear-cut and unequivocal. The Report emphasizes that expropriation of

land raises the important question of civil rights and, while the

American land owner has the written assurance in the Constitution,

which entitles him to fair compensation and due process of law, the

Canadian has no such written protection of his civil rights. The

Legislative Assembly in each Canadian province, under the B.N.A. Act,

decides what his civil rights are. The Clyne Report also points out

that the expropriation law in British Columbia is based on the Land

Clauses Act of England of 1845, and that, since that time, different

pieces of legislation have been scattered through some 28 provincial

public statutes. I would like to quote the pertinent paragraph from the

Clyne Report: "In the public interest and to achieve uniformity and the

elimination of injustices, I have come to the conclusion that it is

desirable, subject to possible minor exceptions, to repeal all existing

expropriation legislation in British Columbia and, in its place, enact

a statute governing expropriation."

Several basic principles are incorporated in this new statute: that

the compensation will be based on the market value of the land, with

additional compensation for disturbance, severance and injurious

affection; before land is entered upon for preliminary surveys, notice

shall be given to the owner, and separate provision made for all damage

caused by such entry; the two parties should be left free to negotiate

a voluntary purchase, but should negotiations fail, the taker shall be

required to inform the owners of their legal rights; and, the most

important point of all, Mr. Speaker, where negotiations fail, the

compensation will be decided by

summary procedure in the Supreme Court

of British Columbia, or in the County Courts, since only the Courts can

assure the determination of compensation disputes by persons who are

impartial, trained in the law and who enjoy full public confidence. The

Courts will be given full discretion in the matter of costs.

It should be noted that, in the B.N.A. Act,

section 92, Subsection

14, power is given to this Province to create an additional superior

court judgeship, if the volume of work makes this desirable. Now, I

understand, Mr. Speaker, that at this time the Court is lacking several

judges in number — I understand three or four — and, at the present

time, any application to be heard in the Courts waits a minimum of nine

months. I see the Attorney-General grinning, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he's

questioning my figures. Judges, I may add, do not sit in the months of

July and August, and this practice seems to me to be the relic of a

by-gone era, a time when the tempo and needs of society followed a more

leisurely pace. I am most happy that the Throne Speech mentioned the

intent of Government to speed up the wheels of justice and I would

assume that the intent is to appoint more judges. While you're at it, I

hope, Mr. Speaker, that an ombudsman might also be appointed.

To return to the Clyne Report for just a moment, it is also

recommended that before the expropriation is finalized a probable award

from the takers should be made available to the owner, but not in any

way prejudice the owner's subsequent right to question the probable

amount. While there is no mention in the Throne Speech of the

Government's intention to bring in expropriation legislation, it is my

earnest plea that such legislation be introduced this Session. I am not

a betting man, but I would hope that this does not fall on deaf cars. I

feel that such progressive legislation would recognize and safeguard

the civil rights of the individual. It is the suppression of such

rights which serves to alienate many members of society from the

established order, and it is the suppression of civil rights which

stimulate protest movements, civil disobedience and worse. While the

individual frequently has his freedom curtailed, there is also much

evidence, in my opinion, to show that his self-reliance is undermined

by many of our political actions today. Excessive Federal taxation,

used in large measure to finance social services which the individual,

in many cases, should have the freedom and responsibility to finance

for himself, dulls his initiative and corrodes his independence. The

human creature, being of the nature he is, shows scant appreciation and

even less respect or sense of value for benefits which have apparently

been provided free by the State.

It is my sorry opinion, that Governments, including the Social

Credit Government, have made the mistake of assuming that, because some

individuals deservedly require help from the State, all individuals

require help. This theory of universality is quite false and

impractical. It often has the ludicrous effect of giving financial

assistance to people who do not really require it, while denying

adequate help to others who are in very great need. It has been so with

the family allowances, where the same financial amount is paid to the

parents of children; whether the parents earned $300 per month, or

$3,000 per month, the financial payment is the same. The recent Federal

decision to grade the family allowances according to income and to deny

it to parents earning more than $10,000 per year to me makes sound

common sense from both the fiscal and social point of view. Social

justice will never be attained by assisting every member of society to

the same degree. The same mistake has been made in this Province in

regard to the financing of hospital costs, and I have to register my

sad disappointment that the Throne Speech contains no mention of

Government plans to review and redirect the financing of hospitals, when

[ Page 17 ]

their soaring costs are a major problem to Governments all across Canada.

From a time some 20 years ago, when the iniquitous situation existed

whereby hospital bills could bring financial ruin to a family or

individual, we have moved to the equally undesirable situation where,

despite soaring hospital costs, the individual need give little or no

thought to the actual cost of hospital care and, as a result, he is a

less responsible citizen. While wages on the average have tripled since

1952, hospital costs in a 12-year period, between '57 and '69, have more

than quadrupled. The daily operating cost of a bed in the Royal Jubilee

Hospital is $53 and yet the average working man who earns from four to

five dollars per hour pays one dollar per day as his direct

contribution. To me, this makes neither fiscal nor social common sense.

It is my strong personal conviction, and I hope you'll listen

carefully, Mr. Member, so that I won't be misunderstood as I was the

last time, that, provided Government protects welfare and low-income

groups against increased payment, no person would suffer significant

financial hardship if, up to a maximum of 30 days, he were to pay five

dollars per day for his hospital care. The original principle that

every citizen should help to finance hospital costs so that the

minority who actually require hospitalization should not suffer

financial hardship, was eminently sound. I'm completely in agreement

with that principle. The mistake has been made in pursuing this

principle too far and removing a substantial measure of responsibility

from the individual, by having the State pay for the individual costs

which the individual could reasonably pay for himself and, while we

must strive for the ultimate efficiency and economy in the operation of

hospitals, there are many reasons why costs must inevitably continue to

rise.

With a new approach to the matter of sterilization and abortion,

there is need for increased facilities to perform these operations. I

would like to quote some figures from the Royal Jubilee Hospital. In

the year between January and November, 1970, some 602 male

sterilizations were carried out and 337 female sterilizations. This is

a very substantial increase in an operation which was done relatively

rarely prior to 1970. With heart disease and blood vessel disease, a

major killer in our society and a major cause of disability, and with

increased availability of surgical techniques which were not available

even two or three years ago, the need for more facilities and, alas,

more expensive facilities, can only escalate. Hospital staffs have

negotiated a sizable increase in income and nurses are now working a

37 1/2-hour week. You cannot do this in a service, such as a hospital,

without meeting or facing inevitable rise of costs. The hospital is not

a place like a factory, where you can increase productivity. You have X

number of sick people requiring the care which modern science and

technology can provide. If the patient is not made to contribute a more

realistic fraction of the total cost, or if Government makes no

increase in general taxation to cope with rising hospital costs, I

think the people of British Columbia should be made well aware that

there is only one alternative, and this must be a gradual deterioration

in the quality and scope of hospital care, with little chance that

hospitals will be able to provide the range of new and improved

treatments which scientific and medical research continue to make

possible.

I have previously suggested that a tax on cigarettes and tobacco

would raise substantial revenue, and I repeat this very positive

suggestion in the belief that it would work a hardship on no one, and

might indeed improve the health of those who choose to give up smoking

and limit their own personal pollution.

While the Government has gone too far in assisting acute and

extended care patients by charging only one dollar per day, a tragic,

crying need exists for financial help to those unfortunate sick, whose

illness comes into neither category but who require what is called

"intermediate care" provided in nursing homes and private hospitals.

The monthly costs, including drugs, can easily come to $400 or $500 per

month, and where a husband or wife requires such care, the healthy

partner has the anxiety of seeing the family savings rapidly disappear,

until both patient and partner have to turn to welfare for their

survival. Is this the fate which should befall citizens late in life,

when they require intermediate care? And this does not only apply, Mr.

Speaker, to the elderly. I am well aware of a high school teacher with

a family who is getting into more and more debt all the time, because

of the unfortunate illness of his wife. Because of a lack of extended

care beds in this and other communities, many patients who qualify for

extended care have no choice but to seek care in a nursing home, where

they have to meet the total financial expense themselves. It would seem

only fair and I would request or submit to Government, it would seem

only fair that, if they qualify for extended care, the Government

should at least assist in the payment of their nursing home bills,

while the extended care beds are being built.

While I am critical of the methods used, I wish to be fair and state

that the Government has developed an excellent programme of hospital

insurance and medicare coverage, which realizes, in large measure, the

initial aim of saving patients from crippling hospital and medical

costs. I am merely criticizing some of the methods which I think could

be improved for the betterment of all, and I am merely saying that

there does exist a serious gap in coverage in regard to intermediate

care, which, really, when you are in practice, when you see this man to

man, works a very severe and distressing hardship on many people.

Because of the expensive nature of all levels of hospital care and

because of the need for some Government subsidy to the individual, and

because of the deep human suffering involved, I do not feel that

hospitals are either a suitable or desirable form of private

investment, where the primary motive of operating a hospital is to make

a financial gain. I would plead for the Government to provide at the

earliest possible date some financial help to intermediate care

patients and to provide some financial incentives to nonprofit

organizations, and I think particularly of the Church. The churches

have a golden opportunity to put into practice what we so often hear

from the pulpit, that they're no longer just preaching, that they're

acting, and that they're doing things, and I think that if there ever

were an opportunity for the churches to step forward as nonprofit

organizations and provide a much needed scope of facility, namely the

intermediate care, the time to do that is now.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel I have no alternative but to bring

before the House the matter of the Provincial Government's difficulty

in coping with the very unsatisfactory legislation regarding abortion.

The Federal legislation, incorporated in

section 237 of the Criminal

Code, and I would wish to quote, states, "….that an abortion can

be performed by a qualified medical practitioner in an accredited

hospital if, in the view of the abortion committee of the hospital,

continuation of the pregnancy would, or would be likely to, endanger

the life or health of the patient." Now the words, "would" or "would be

likely to endanger the life or health," allow such a wide

[ Page 18 ]

interpretation of the patient's physical and mental condition and of

the justification for abortion, that, within the meaning of these

words, it is perfectly reasonable to submit that if a pregnant woman

simply does not want the pregnancy, she will be mentally disturbed and

her health will be endangered. In other words, by simply not wanting

the pregnancy, she qualifies for abortion. In effect, we have in this

country, abortion on demand ( interruption ). No, it's abortion on demand

today, and I'll try and explain to you why this is so wrong. At least,

if you want abortion on demand, say so, but don't hide it in a lot of

window dressing and a lot of qualifying convictions which really mean

nothing. Two serious consequences have developed as a result and I'll

try to clarify the point which the Honourable Member has raised.

In the first place, the Government cannot apply this law equitably

to all women who apply for it across the Province because, in the first

place, there have to be three doctors on the committee, and the law

states that not any one of these doctors can perform the abortion.

Therefore, right off the bat, in small towns with only three or four

doctors, the patients cannot have the abortion, not at least in their

hometown.

Secondly, there is no regulation which makes it mandatory for even

larger hospitals to set up an abortion committee and, therefore, a

patient, a female person, in a larger centre where there is no such

abortion committee, is also denied access to something which is

guaranteed by law, at least, not guaranteed, but something to which she

is entitled, if she so wishes, and remain within the law. A great

demand, of course, is being thrown on the facilities of those hospitals

which do have abortion committees and, therefore, I submit that,

because of the manner in which the Federal Government has chosen to

write the legislation, the Provincial Government is unable to apply the

law equally and fairly to all females who wish to use it. Furthermore,

the legislation has failed to define any terms of reference for the

abortion committee and, as a result, the doctors on the abortion

committee are just a bunch of rubber stamps. And I'll try to clarify

that point. If a doctor submits an application to the committee stating

that he believes that the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would

be likely to, endanger the life or health of the mother, what are the

doctors on the committee supposed to do? They don't know the patient,

they don't see the patient. Are they in any position to question the

validity of the application? Of course not and, conversely, if the

doctor felt that it would not endanger her health, he wouldn't have

applied in the first place. So that it really is very foolish to have

abortion committees, which would appear to give some degree of

screening effect or some degree of clinical judgement by the doctors on

the committee, when, in point of fact, the committee is a rubber stamp.

The second serious consequence of the legislation is that, whether

it was intended or not, we do in fact have abortion on demand, and this

has created a very sudden and substantial requirement for additional

hospital beds and facilities, and at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, where

I serve on the abortion committee, the number of abortions being

requested and performed increases steadily. We had 67 abortions

performed at the Royal Jubilee Hospital in December, including 14 on

Christmas Eve. Even if the demand were to level off, the hospital

cannot cope with this demand, unless additional beds and facilities are

made available and, of course, this must inevitably involve additional

financing. I have no reason to doubt that the same need exists at all

hospitals which have set up abortion committees. It should be made

clear, also, that because of the present demand on already existing

facilities — again, I speak for the Royal Jubilee Hospital, not for it,

but of my knowledge as to what goes on there — we have cancelled or

postponed the surgery of patients waiting for elective surgery in order

to cope with the demand for abortion. Already in this Province, we have

an ever-increasing waiting list for patients with serious cardiac

disease requiring cardiac surgery and, once again, the demand and the

need to provide beds to carry out abortions seem to be given some

greater consideration than the need of the cardiac patient. I would

submit that it is a most urgent responsibility of the Provincial

Government to provide these necessary facilities and financing to meet

its obligation in the situation created by the changes to the Criminal

Code, and I would make the request that we also set about immediately

providing an extension of cardiac surgery facilities in order to reduce

the waiting time to an accessible level of perhaps a few weeks.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the Government

of this Province make the following proposals to the Federal Government

regarding abortion: (1) that abortion shall be retained in the Criminal

Code as a criminal offense only when performed by a person other than a

qualified medical practitioner; (2) that abortion committees in

hospitals be abolished; and (3) that all legal abortions continue to be

performed only in accredited hospitals. Under these proposals, the

decision regarding the performing of an abortion would rest between the

patient and her doctor, where it belongs, and standards of care would

be preserved by continuing to perform all abortions in accredited

hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many vital issues with which governments

have to struggle. I hope I have not bored the audience by trying to put

forward a few constructive suggestions.

On the motion of Mr. Barrett, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.