1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 143 ]

FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, once again I

have the opportunity of bringing pleasure and joy to your heart by

announcing that we have in the gallery 33 students from that great high

school in Lake Cowichan along with their teacher Mr. Douglas, and I

would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

say that in the gallery this afternoon we have the Mayor of Mission

City and his party and I request the House to give them welcome.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to

welcome with me some students from William Beagle School in Surrey who

are in the Legislative precincts and enjoying their extremely

well-organised activities today. Two of them are with us in the gallery.

MR. H.J. MERILEES (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, it's my

honour to introduce in the gallery today visiting us the Mayor of the

District of North Vancouver, Mayor Ronald Andrews, who is heading a

delegation of the Greater Vancouver Regional District visiting with us

today, who are with him in the gallery. Mayor Evors of New Westminster

is with them. Mayor Andrews has recently been re-elected chairman of

the Greater Vancouver Regional District and I ask the members to give a

cordial welcome to his group.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

it's as always a pleasure to stand here representing the people of the

North-Okanagan and to take my place in the throne debate.

With the furor and the fun of last evening's debate I had almost

forgotten that I was to be the source of wit and wisdom this afternoon.

But I think, like many members, after an evening like last night one

often goes home and tries to sort out the pearls of wisdom from the

pearls of something else and I happened to come across a poem in a

letter from my family and I thought you might like to share it because

it tickled my humour last night. It's entitled "Darwin's Mistake."

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,

Discussing things as they were said to be.

Said one to the other, "Now listen you two

There's a certain rumor that can't be true.

That man descended from our noble race

The very idea is a disgrace.

No monkey ever deserted his wife,

Starved her babies or ruined her life

And you've never known a mother monk

To leave her babies with others to bunk

Or pass them on from one to another

Till they scarcely know who is their mother.

And another thing you'll never see

A monk build a fence around a coconut tree

and let the coconuts go to waste

Forbidding all other monks to taste.

If I put a fence around this tree

Starvation would force you to steal from me.

Where there is another thing a monk

won't do

Go out at night and get on a stew,

And use a gun or club or knife

To take some other monkey's life.

Yes, man descended,

the ornery cuss.

But brother he didn't descend from us.

I'd like to also take this opportunity to welcome my colleague in

the cabinet and as you will notice he is going to be well in tune with

the three lady Ministers standing in front of him and quite ready to

pull his shirt tails should he not always agree to our requests.

I enjoyed the earlier parts of the debate, particularly from the

Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and I really don't

want to be hard on him because I think he had a very difficult row to

hoe and it's becoming increasingly evident. But it is amazing, the

effort that the N.D.P. leader is putting into erasing his long standing

career of anti-Americanism. I thought I would just bring one or two

little notes to your attention because I wouldn't want to have him feel

that I was glancing at him sideways.

In an

article on Saturday from the paper in 1968 it says about the Leader of the Opposition:

New Democrat David Barrett of Coquitlam who often

jumped in where celestial beings fear to wade dragged the United Empire

Loyalists into legislative debate one day this week and he said they

were draft dodgers nearly 200 years ago. Mr. Barrett, like most

Socialist M.L.A.'s doesn't seem to think much of Uncle Sam, even though

he was largely educated for nine years I believe in the land of the

free and the home of the brave.

But this is supported by the opinion of another column speaking of the same N.D.P. leader.

Mr. Barrett fell all over himself from praise of de

Cosmos. Indeed, Mr. Barrett called him the saviour of Vancouver Island.

His perspiration moistened his brow as he contemplated that Vancouver

Island might possibly have been American. "Yes," sighed Mr. Barrett, in

effect, "without good old Amor, indeed Vancouver Island might have been

American." Apparently to Mr. Barrett this would be a tragedy of the

first magnitude. It would be terrible, terrible, according to Mr.

Barrett.

Apparently, though, he didn't say why and this is what is interesting. To quote the columnist:

People like Mr. Barrett intimate that people in the

U.S. are not as free as we are in Canada. That they don't have as much

democracy and justice and all that sort of thing. Yet they never say

why and I wonder why they don't go into detail. They just yell how

awful it would be to be an American and let it go at that. I go 20

miles over the water from here to Port Angeles and see people there

happy, healthy, prosperous, quite content to be Americans. It is

interesting to note that the Americans in Point Roberts want to remain

Americans. I guess Mr. Barrett just can't understand that.

He is acting, and I must admit the members of his party seem to be

acting, as if they have just discovered Washington and Oregon, our

neighboring states. Much has gone on the

[ Page 144 ]

record to tell him that this side of the House have

known them for a long time and the cooperative relationship that has

existed.

But I thought that he would like to know, not only has British

Columbia been a very staunch advocate and supporter of good

international relationships with all free countries, but that this

government has been for 10 years cooperating with various departments

in the United States, Washington and Oregon and that we have great

relationship with the Pacific Northwest Travel Association. We combine

our efforts in advertising, we have cooperative tourist promotion and

I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition would be pleased to know

that America was discovered some time ago.

I've listened with interest to the comments that the deputy leader

of the Opposition made, the Hon. lady Member from Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly)

and combining my thoughts on this with the remarks that were made by

the news media when they were in Washington, I think the only thing we

could do is label her kindly as a lady "the soft pink silent deputy."

Although I couldn't really blame her after some of the debate last

night from the Hon. Member from Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley). I see he

is not in his place today, but I was pleased although I saw that the

Hon. lady Member had signed the Watkins Manifesto — the Radical

Socialist document brought out in Canada — she had some difficulty

defending this member's views on insurance. But what is disturbing, and

quoting again from the news media, is an announcement made by the

Leader of the Opposition that: "William Harley, Yale-Lillooet, will be

prepared to initiate our car insurance programme for the next session."

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Hon. lady Minister must not reflect on a vote already taken by the House in this session.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to turn to more serious matters in this debate, Mr.

Speaker. There is no question that the people of the North Okanagan

through me will be supporting this motion.

I was very pleased to see that along with continued emphasis on

conservation — which is of great interest to the Okanagan and other

parts of the province — and great emphasis on the effort to simplify

the law and see that justice is done, that there is more emphasis than

ever on the family in our province and country today.

This has been a long record of this government in evolving the form

legislation which benefits the family which, as you all know, I have

long talked about as being the very core of a stable and worthwhile

society.

In that area, Mr. Speaker, there is great emphasis on hospitals and

I was very pleased to see that in 1971 that there were 13 hospital

construction programmes completed with over 700 new hospital beds, that

there are 25 more projects under construction throughout the province

today, and this will add 1,799 beds.

It is in this area that I would first like to concentrate and I

think this might be of interest to other members who represent

non-metropolitan areas.

In the area of ever-expanding family health service we initiated a

pilot project of a family mobile dental trailer. It was started this

year to provide not only greater public access, it has proved

successful and it is showing every indication of becoming financially

independent. This is important.

The service started through cooperation between the provincial

government health branch — who provided a grant in aid for the trailer,

dental equipment, hired the staff — and participating communities who

raised a nominal capital contribution towards the cost of the trailer

through their councils and local service clubs.

The object of the programme was to see if the already existing

dental health programme which was in the schools could be made more

efficient and effective. It had become cumbersome because it was

usually situated in the schools on a temporary basis and it was

becoming costly to the regional health board and the school board.

It also tended to spend more time with younger children, and while

there is a need there we wanted to reach older children. Again, while

the service was available to adults we wanted to have more adults

utilise it. We wanted to serve areas where there were no resident

dentists and we wanted to do this with the minimal cost to the user.

But we did also wish to see if it could be self-supporting.

The unit is a specially designed 22-foot dental trailer and contains

modern air-powered dental equipment complete with an X-ray machine,

autoclave, heating and air conditioning equipment, water tanks and

water-holding tanks.

It is staffed by a fully licensed dentist — and I might add a most

attractive chair assistant — and he travels about the participating

communities staying anywhere from 4-6 weeks depending on the demand.

Appointments are handled through the schools, through the regional health board, and through the generosity of the local media.

I would suggest that although more time is needed to assess this

programme and its effectiveness and the evidence that it is showing to

meet the needs of people and still be self-supporting, so far it has

proved very, very well received and as I mentioned before it's

successful financially. The dentist is happy, the chair assistant is

happy — and I don't think there is a relationship there — and the

patients are getting the service that they need. Mr. Speaker, you will

be pleased to know that this programme has had the full cooperation and

support of the Dental Association of British Columbia.

Speaking of other programmes started, I looked up somewhat in

surprise last evening when the Honourable Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney)

stated so emphatically his opposition to sterilisation as a means of

family planning and that instead of sterilising in family planning we

should put these objects on display as tourist attractions, but I

settled down when I realised he was referring to pigeons and not to

people.

I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that five

years ago the then Minister of Health agreed to a complete review of

the question of male and female sterilisation as a means of family

planning.

I spoke of this at great length on the floor of this House three

years ago and I want to bring you up-to-date on what has happened.

The review at that time revealed that there were no actual laws in

Canada or British Columbia against sterilisation of male or female as a

means of family planning. But there was a wide gap between the thinking

of the people and what might be called the medical service elite, as

well as the hesitancy because of, I believe, imagined social taboos on

the part of public representatives to speak on this subject.

There was also a reluctance on the part of the medical society of

Canada and thus of British Columbia to sanction this procedure because

there was no precedent in the courts

[ Page 145 ]

and they feared that their insurance would not be protective of the doctors.

The second problem which forced most British Columbia patients to

cross the border for permanent family planning was the attitude of many

British Columbia hospitals' boards as well as some of the doctors who

rather chose to sweep this subject under the carpet. There also was and

still is a very valid religious view on this subject, both in some

hospitals and with patients. This rightly maintains its position today

and it will always maintain its position in British Columbia.

The most significant factor in favour of the procedure was that

there was no sound medical reason to suggest that this procedure was

not in fact safe and acceptable. Surgically it offered minimal risk and

in a vast majority of cases there was no religious or emotional

opposition to it.

Following that detailed presentation in this House and with help of

many ladies' organisations in British Columbia and the news media and

some doctors, we were able to persuade the British Columbia Medical

Association to endorse this position and present it to the Canadian

Medical Association and it was at that time the Canadian Medical

Association reversed its position and accepted this as a medical

procedure.

With the help of my colleague, the present Honourable Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Loffmark), we asked medical administrators, hospital

administrators and boards and nurses to review their stand and to

encourage the practice of this procedure in the hospitals.

I'm pleased to advise this House, Mr. Speaker, that in British

Columbia today — with the exception of religous hospitals, and views

which I again maintain must be respected — there are few if any

regional disparities for this procedure whether male or female, married

or single.

There is no compulsion, but all the hospitals allow the procedure.

It is accepted by the British Columbia medical plan and the decision of

this type of family planning is between the patient and the doctor,

although where there is marriage the husband's consent is requested.

But there is provision also for a review board should the doctor or

the patient wish to take advantage of this opportunity. And I would

suggest that this should always be maintained for the protection of

either the patient or the doctor where requested.

The British Columbia and Canadian Medical Associations now support

the procedure. The procedure itself you will be pleased to know, Mr.

Speaker, has become greatly simplified especially for women and it's

now frequently no more than a 10 to 15 minute operation requiring 24

hours in hospital, although it must be pointed out that there are times

when it could require longer.

The frequency of the procedure in British Columbia has risen sharply

in males, from 906 in 1969 to an estimated 3,000 before this year is

through and in females where there is even a more significant rise from

2,000 to a possible 5,000 to 6,000 this year. To date post-operative

complications are less than 5 per cent and there have been no reports

to our knowledge of mortality.

Such figures, Mr. Speaker, present not only a vast saving in medical

costs and valuable medical time and talent but an even more important

step in the strengthening of thousands of homes and the family unit in

British Columbia, a placing of women on an equal footing with men,

married or single, in the area of family planning. It was a major

reversal in social attitudes based on facts and with little fanfare,

Mr. Speaker, and with no serious repercussions. And I would draw to

your attention that to my knowledge not one member of the Opposition of

this House spoke in favour of this programme.

Speaking of families Mr. Speaker, and in reference to the Speech

from the Throne, I can't help but recall having lunch — and the

Honourable Leader of the Opposition will know that a respected leader

of their party was there — with the Speaker of the House from India, a

Doctor Dhilon.

We were having a most interesting chat about common problems between

North American society and India when he found out that I was involved

in a family planning programme in British Columbia and also recreation,

he smiled and said: "Ahh, that is good government planning. We have

found in India that we must raise the standard of living and increase

the recreational facilities and potential for people and that way we

will help solve our family planning problem."

In this discussion on families I think it would be remiss not to

include an area of recreation and leisurology, and for this reason I

want to talk for a few minutes about the Snowmobile. And I wish to

suggest that since that wheezing machine, rather a delightful monster,

emerged on the scene in Canada and in British Columbia the traditional

response of most politicians and professional recreationists has

largely been to either ignore the machine or to attempt to legislate it

out of existence.

I think that it is safe to say that snowmobilers have been accused

of every vice from wholesale slaughter of wintering wild animals to

perhaps outrageous wilderness seduction of spinster conservationists.

Without any doubt, Mr. Speaker, the machine has its monstrous side,

and this is where sound legislation, regulations and compatible

land-use policies for recreation is absolutely necessary now and here

in British Columbia. One can't ignore the role that should be played by

both the federal and provincial government, which should be one of

cooperation between the two levels of government, and there is no

question in my mind that eventually provincial land areas and federal

land areas will be involved in the recreation with this sport.

I'd like to assure Hon. Members of this House that this spritely and

practical machine has far too much to offer the everyday person to just

give up and disappear as those people often seem to think it should.

It's almost treated as the illegitimate child of recreation and I

would suggest that it deserves better and its use and the protection of

people and our environment through this machine or with this machine

deserves consideration in this House. Just to analyse the situation,

the machine, and the apparent conflicts that there are we see an area

of advantages. The purchasing of the machine involves a very limited

capital investment, minimal operating costs, and unless you want to

swing with every change it has a long life.

It offers an unlimited spectrum of outdoor winter recreation and fun

and involvement in this wide variety of interests that this world

offers us. It opens up a vast avenue for photography and if any of you

have been over a mountain in the winter time, no matter how cold it is,

how the wind is blowing, and seeing the magnificent sculpture that

nature provides, you'll know what I mean.

It also offers a great opportunity for nature study and study of the

flora and fauna that does appear in the winter time to people who up

until this time couldn't possibly have enjoyed this pastime. It offers

an opportunity for winter fun and recreation for people who are in less

than perfect physical condition. It offers this opportunity to people

who

[ Page 146 ]

have physical handicaps and it certainly offers an

opportunity for the family unit from grandmother to almost babies to

take place in winter recreation which they couldn't do until this time.

The tourist potential with this machine is vast and I would suggest the subject not to be included today because of its scope.

But there is also to be considered a very vital and practical use

for this machine. Today approximately 66,000 of them are used on farms,

in forestry, and in wildlife management, and in water and in

environmental research, not to mention search and rescue and this was

very evident just one week ago.

Properly regulated, these machines are simple to use and are

extremely versatile and on the whole they are safe. In the inclusion of

its advantages I'd like to point out that the machine appeals to a wide

cross

section of economic interests in Canada and in British Columbia.

Figures reveal that skilled labourers makeup approximately 295,000

machine owners, unskilled interests own approximately 50,000,

professionals 133,000, people involved in some aspect of manufacturing

215,000, and it appears that 70,000 are owned by salesmen — even though

they're not allowed on the roads — 32,000 are owned by clerks and

20,000 are owned by retired people over the age of 65.

Now obviously we must dwell on the disadvantages and the first one,

of course, is noise. The second, I would suggest, is damage caused by

abuse but this is not a situation peculiar to snowmobilers, we have it

in many fields — uncontrolled activities which involve land trespass

and water-shed pollution, irresponsible use of the machine. But this as

with many other aspects of recreation can be dangerous, no more so or

no less, and it certainly can if not used properly conflict with

natural intersts, and it can if abused too much be fatal.

Speed in many instances seems to be the problem and I understand

from one of my colleagues in the House that he has figures to show that

of the fatalities the deaths of 35 per cent of these people were

related to speed and I would suggest that if you have to drive at 90

miles an hour in order to enjoy a snowmobile you belong on the race

track, not in the recreational field.

I think what is needed, Mr. Speaker, without affecting the sound

principles of our British Columbia park policy which I believe the

House unanimously agrees with, is that planning for the use of

snowmobiles is essential. We have to have one person co-ordinate this

activity and they should be in the Department of Recreation and

Conservation — not as a part of the parks branch but working closely

with the parks branch in order to examine the feasibility of

establishing areas of Crown land which would be suitable for snowmobile

activity.

Whether some of these areas should or should not be within specified

sections of provincial parks I think is a matter that only very serious

study can answer. This director should evolve a cooperative policy in

liaison with the multi-land use committee and with the Department of

Commercial Transport for regulations, and most importantly with the

Department of Lands Forests and Water Resources.

It's very easy to stand and say that 95 per cent of the province is

available to snowmobilers. But, Mr. Speaker, this is where the conflict

arises. There is not 95 per cent of the province available for

snowmobilers and people trespass through farmers' land, through

industrial land, onto school grounds, into parks because they don't

have anywhere to snowmobile safely and this is a very, very acute

problem. In the lower mainland where there are many snowmobiles owned

by families, there is just nowhere to go. Surely when one looks at the

mountains and the recreational areas one must accept a study to see

that they also have their fair place in the recreational field.

Conflict arises through the use of logging roads without permission,

when logs are being hauled and people are out snowmobiling and they

don't know the other is there. I don't condone this action and this is

why I suggest there must be this type of co-ordination.

I think we must study these areas to see that the park philosophy of

avoidance of over-use or congestion is encouraged and that they should

encourage an appreciation and wonderment for nature.

I believe that there should be permanent registration of these

vehicles. It should be mandatory to have a driver training programme

which should be the responsibility of the industry and could be well

managed through the retail outlets or through local driver training

schools. But the regulation should be evolved by the government.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there will be great

cooperation in this area of recreation from the industry itself, from

the snowmobile associations in British Columbia and from the people who

don't want to belong to an association but do want to enjoy this

recreation. There should be this response from the government. There

are approximately 20,000 snowmobiles owned in British Columbia today,

and 80 per cent of these are believed to be fully involved with family

use. Only 5 per cent involve racing. And I would add that in this area

racing has become very well controlled and safety conscious.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn for a moment to the subject of

agriculture which is of great interest not only to the people in the

Okanagan Valley, but I would suggest to a number of Hon. Members in the

non-metropolitan areas of the Province of British Columbia.

One could almost suggest that this subject is the staff of life and

I don't suggest that in jest. It has long been a major way of living in

British Columbia, and agriculture has, even though most of us will fail

to recognise it, played a major environmental role in our lives. It has

played a major role in scenic attractions in British Columbia, and in

enhancing our already natural wonders.

It has certainly been the impetus of economic development in many

areas of British Columbia particularly the Okanagan Valley. The valley

I would suggest would not be at its stage of development and enjoyment

at this time had it not been for agriculture.

I spoke in detail on this subject last year, and it is on the record

so I won't repeat the problems. But what I do want to make something

clear to Hon. Members of this House — and I'm really quite interested

to see that the Honourable Liberal Members of the House have their back

to this subject, when in fact it is the Liberal policy of this country

that has put agriculture into such a disadvantage position.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I, and I would

suggest all Hon. Members on this side of the House do not in any way

subscribe to the federal Liberal government's so-called cheap food

policy. It is literally a blind eye and it can't see out the other.

It is impressive the way the federal Liberal members have

ricochetted around this country and around this province damning and

condemning the Americans and American control of this country. Yet they

have in fact deliberately married an annihilation farm policy, and they

are trying to

[ Page 147 ]

give birth to cooperative farms in Canada, state owned, and absolutely do away with the independent farmer.

I would ask — and it is unfortunate again that this Liberal Member

is not present when agriculture is being discussed — where is the great

Liberal free enterprise system that the Honourable second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey defended so vigorously last night? Well, it's

typical of the Liberals, they're never in the right seat when we have

an agricultural problem — you're talking about nationalism.

Referring to this Liberal Member's vigorous defence of the free

enterprise system, I would suggest that what he defended by the actions

of the government was a Liberal corporate enterprise system. What this

Social Credit government, and what Hon. Members on this side of the

House, believe in is an individual enterprise system where the

individual family have the right to have some money to spend in their

pocket, and where they have the right to possession of their land, and

where they have the right to build and defend their own markets and

where they in fact have the right within the confines of reasonable

society to be their own master.

With the cooperation of this government — and I would suggest that

there is not another government in Canada that can match the record of

this government for cooperation and assistance to the agricultural

industry — this industry in British Columbia through these combined

efforts exercised the right that I mentioned. Through their own efforts

and with legislation enacted by this government they built their own

industry, their own markets, both abroad and domestically. And the

federal Liberal government, that the people in this House who are

absent from their seats today represent has literally eroded away these

markets over the last four years.

If the federal government chose, if those Hon. Members choose to

negotiate our quality products then they must be prepared to offer

effective support for them.

Apart from the federal government attitude the most serious problem

facing British Columbia agriculture today is the importation of cheap

foods from either countries which have government subsidisation or

where labour and production cost are low.

It is the federal government that allowed political barriers to be

drawn up where our markets already existed. It was the federal Liberal

government that allowed government subsidised fruits on consignment in

Vancouver last year, when our own resources were here and we could have

served the people. And it was the federal Liberal government — and I'm

glad the Hon. Member is paying attention — it was the federal Liberal

government which allowed imported fruit concentrates to come into the

country in the east, put Canadian labels on them be sold to the

American market and then they stood up proudly, those Liberals and

said: "We're the greatest exporters of fruit concentrates in North

America." And that is the attitude, and that is the bungling of the

federal Liberal government.

And I would suggest the Hon. Member learns that the loss of our

domestic markets which will happen if this policy of the federal

government continues is even more serious that the loss of our

international markets. Because without the domestic market agriculture

cannot survive.

While this same Liberal government with its free enterprise policy

was putting $2 million, I'm sorry to say, into the private company of

the Premier of Quebec's father-in-law, they didn't have one cent for

the fruit growers in the Okanagan Valley.

The industrial incentive programme which they initiated in the

Okanagan Valley, which now has a 40 per cent failure rate, didn't have

one cent for agriculture. Yet agriculture had proved that it could

survive on its own, that its problems today were brought about by the

federal Liberal policy. But not one cent.

Then we hear the Honourable Prime Minister of Canada stand up and

talk about equality and sharing and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell

you that when our warehouses are bulging with fruit, and when there are

nutritionally-ailing Canadian Eskimos in the Arctic and where they

subsidise the importation of pop and candy, and where things like

cherries and apples are treated like gold. What's the cost to ship a

box of apples from the Okanagan Valley to Cambridge Bay? Four dollars…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, if the Hon. Member doesn't know where Cambridge

Bay is he'd better learn a little bit more about Canada. That was a Liberal

Member by the way.

Four dollars for the cost of the apples, the packaging and placing

of it on the airport, $22 a box freight, and that is the cheapest

freight we could get. We tried to negotiate with an airline that has a

charter but is under somewhat of an area of suspicion with the

transport commission who would have given us a cheaper rate and they

wouldn't sanction it.

So that it came to $26 a box before it was distributed from

Cambridge Bay to all the outlying areas. And the return to the producer

Mr. Speaker, was $1.50 if he was lucky. And of that $22 went into

freight, a subsidised freight company, subsidised by the federal

government.

I would like to suggest that the federal government does not have

the moral right to impose this archaic attitude on the people of Canada.

Today scientists and people, young people, and old people, are

talking about making this a better land and preserving our environment.

You just have to look through every magazine to get reasonable support

for this attitude. They are asking for a return to the earth, and if we

leave ourselves in the position where we can't support ourselves by

producing our own food and feed our own people in Canada and British

Columbia, if we let the vertical integration of foreign-owned companies

— or in British Columbia for that matter of eastern-owned companies,

because I see little more honour in being owned by Bay Street, than I

do by being owned by Wall Street — if we let this do away with our

agricultural production and our agricultural industry, we won't have

any way of protecting ourselves in the event of a national emergency.

We know from only a week ago how quickly communications and

transportations can be cut off, and when we no longer can produce our

own food we won't have cheap imports because we won't be in a position

to bargain, and you should know when you can't bargain you always lose.

I would suggest very strongly that we have to set about supporting

my colleague the Hon. Minister of Agriculture — who has the support of

the agriculture industry in this province, and who now has gained the

support of most of the provinces in Canada — to ask the federal

government, to insist that the federal Liberals change their policy and

reassess it, make it more realistic, and make it oriented to the

national survival of this country.

We also have to be practical and in British Columbia we have to launch a "Buy British Columbia" campaign. We have

[ Page 148 ]

always in this government promoted British Columbia

products, but always within the context of Canadianism, and I certainly

have subscribed to this. But I must assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the

time has come — and there is no intent to affect nationalism — but the

time has come when we must encourage housewives, consumers of all

types, to buy British Columbia produced products, and I suggest we

start in agriculture.

We must educate the consumer to realise that a penny saved today by

that cheap food policy is not a penny earned, and it is not two

pennies, one penny, half a penny saved in two years from now, or five

years from now, or ten years from now. It is in fact open licence to a

much much more expensive food policy.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we must face up to this as British

Columbians and as Members of this House, and I would like to see

unanimous support from Hon. Members of this House, for the Minister's

policy which is advocated by all of us. And just in case, I would

mention…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: There are so many comments coming from the Liberals

and so few of them present. Just to prove that I do know what I'm talking about

and that the Liberals are not aware of what's going on I will quote one of

their own Members — a Liberal Member of Parliament who has represented

an agricultural area for four years, who has been petitioned, who has been

visited in Ottawa, who has visited the area he represents on occasion. And

he said, in September, 1971: "Oh dear, I was not aware of the gravity

of the situation. But I assure you I will try and have a team of federal government

specialists come to the Okanagan soon to discuss the growers' problems first

hand."

And this Mr. Speaker, is after all the personal contact with this

Liberal Member and a number of federal teams of specialists coming to

the Okanagan.

So I assure the Hon. Members of the Opposition that they must

support this policy. And if we don't we'll all in British Columbia lose

economically, and we are all going to lose spiritually. That to me is

extremely important. We will lose our environment and we will confine

ourselves to organisations, and lovely well-planted costly green areas,

and certainly we'll still have our mountains but that's nothing here.

It might well be a step ahead in other countries where they haven't got

the natural advantages. But it's not what we can build out of our

province if we adopt a reasonable and agricultural policy

Mr. Speaker, provincially the cooperation has been excellent, and I

would suggest that the provincial government, now that the Hon. Member

has asked, should examine very closely the rural electrification

programme, and see if in fact it should not be expanded where we can

see a need for agricultural development — where there is a good farmer

with the potential on his farm and the ability within himself to make

it productive in a system.

I told the Hon. Member before, if he had been listening, what the provincial government could do.

I would like to just close with a poem. I am waxing poetic today.

The Honourable Member of the Liberal Party, I believe it was from North

Vancouver, last night got up as he does every session of the

Legislature and waxed very eloquently about peace.

I don't mind this, I'm with him. What I do object to is his feeling

and impression that he has a prerogative on these sentiments. And I

would like, Mr. Speaker, to read a poem which was written by a

14-year-old boy. I think that it represents the feelings of nearly

every Canadian, and certainly every Hon. Member of this House. It's

very stark, and I have had the opportunity to speak to this boy, we had

a long conversation the night that he wrote this. He wrote it after the

conversation, and I would share it with you because as I say I believe

it's how we all feel. It's called: "Car poor, plane war."

And the sleet fell, and the mud flew,

And the car skidded, and the blood spewed,

And God said, "Let the mud fly."

And the car skid, and my child died.

But better him die in a car,

And let him die poor,

Than to die in a plane

Shot

down in a war.

I believe that all Hon. Members of this House are here with very

deep ideals and that no one has a prerogative on sincerity or virtue

and that all of us want British Columbia and Canada to be a better

place for our children and future generations to live. We're all here,

Mr. Speaker, based on the principles of man's humanity to man. Thank

you.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I don't want to upset the quiet tenor of this debate.

A nice afternoon with the new quarters, Mr. Speaker, which everyone

recognised, has so immeasurably improved the quality of Hon. Members'

speeches. I plan, perhaps, just to shift my brain into neutral and let

my tongue wag.

HON. MR. PETERSON: That would be an improvement.

MR. MACDONALD: I may make passing reference to the fact that

the Hon. Attorney General of British Columbia is breaking the laws of

the Province of British Columbia — a passing reference. He's a

leadership candidate, doing well trying for the ethnic vote. The Hon.

Attorney General should be congratulated, you know. He reduced the

price of Scotch by 5 cents. Then he spoiled it all by scaring all the

Scotsmen from wearing the kilt for fear of being picked up as being

bottomless! (Laughter).

He attacks the Leader of the Opposition, "that meddler," for doing

what the government should have done itself a long time ago. Didn't

attack the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) the other day for having a

joint conference with the Americans. Another meddler, I suppose.

I'd like to say that the Leader of the Opposition is being attacked

by some Honourable Members opposite because he's effective. Because

they're afraid of him.

He represents a new style of politics in British Columbia. Yes he

does, and he's a fighter; a man who has won the confidence on this side

of the House, confidence throughout the New Democratic Party and we'll

win the confidence of the people of British Columbia. Those Hon.

Members can attack him and no doubt they will, as a pinko, or whatever

it may be. But we have confidence that the Leader of the Opposition is

going to be the Premier.

He's growing with his job. I don't know about the Hon. Attorney

General because he has drastically failed the people of the province

and particularly Vancouver in this matter of glue sniffing.

[ Page 149 ]

I'm not going to say very much about it because so much has been

said, but it's obvious as anybody in this room sitting here that

criminal offences are being committed in the City of Vancouver and have

been, particularly over the past six months, when a store owner sells a

potential sniffing glue or nail polish to a minor, along with a plastic

bag, that is a plain case of contributing to juvenile delinquency as

you will ever take to court.

There hasn't been one prosecution. It is an abdication of duty and

responsibility that the Attorney General should come into this House

and make infinite excuses and send a wire to Ottawa on a matter of that

importance to the health and indeed possibly the life, and mental

sanity of the young people.

I would think that delinquency is broadly defined. Really if a

storekeeper sells that kind of nail polish to a youngster, in those

circumstances, surely that is contributing to juvenile delinquency.

With no inquiry? With a plastic bag?

I think that the Hon. Attorney General should take a look at the

case of Mr. Brian Redkin, from the point of view of civil liberties.

Here he is. I know he said that he was a B.C. Company and he wasn't

really. I mean, this Wesco is not a B.C. company.

I know that on the other subject — and I am talking about the rights

of employment of British Columbians, right now, I'm not talking about

insurance — I know in the other debate I may have said something about

this company creaming, and that others were. It may take heart for me

to say what I'm saying now, the next day. Nevertheless, when a British

Columbian is prematurely dismissed, for as he says, pledging better

rates for the people of the province, then there should be laws in this

province to insure that he gets proper termination notice.

Now Common Law does something for him, but we have never had the

legislation such as they've had in Manitoba, where the ordinary person

of the province is entitled to notice, unless he is dismissed for just

cause. In spite of what the Hon. Attorney General feels on this

subject, I hope he'll take it seriously. When an American company to

aggrandise their profits, by wire can peremptorily dismiss a man, as a

result of his public activities, we've got to consider in terms of

civil liberties and we've got to consider, just a little bit, in terms

of the independence of this province.

You know the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell)

is present and I want to say a word or two on the subject of public

transit, but not too much at this time. The second Member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Wolfe) not the lady member who preceded me, said that we're

the only ones who talk about peace. But I'm sure we'll have a war and

peace speech from that member a little later. We usually do.

But the second Member from Vancouver-Centre, made a serious charge,

which I believe was true, against the Hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs. He said, Mr. Speaker, that that minister when he offered for

the government to put up 37 1/2 per cent of the cost of a

transportation system for the lower mainland, said that that had been

only communicated to the Press and that over a whole year, there had

been one attempt at a meeting with transport minister Jamieson and the

municipal minister, Andras.

Now if that's the record of this government on a pressing matter and

if the Hon. Minister has any correspondence on this thing, he should

table it in the House.

Has the Hon. Minister — and I put it to him — has he at least

communicated by letter this offer to Ottawa? Because the second member

said he's just released it to the press and tried to set up one

meeting. A whole year has gone by and what we said from the beginning

is true today, that this is just a smoke screen. This is just stalling.

That 37 1/2 per cent offer is the cheapest offer since, if I can recall correctly,

W.C. Fields offered to take his little chickadee to see the next earthquake.

(Laughter).

The Hon. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, knows perfectly well

that for a long period of time — I should wait until he takes his seat

— the federal government has not intervened and will not intervene in

urban transportation and the ball is in his court and has been his

court and this government has failed miserably.

Let's take the United States. The federal government participates

and the state government participates. Let's take Ontario. Where the

provincial government has shown leadership in this field. Here all of

the leadership has come from the bottom, from the municipalities, from

the regional district. The missing link in the transportation system

has been the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: All of the leadership candidates are speaking

up, except the other one who's not been named. The candidate who dare

not speak his name. Who is running very well, I may say, at the present

time.

Unless, Mr. Speaker, at this session of the Legislature, we take

leadership in the field of urban transportation in the lower mainland,

we will have lost another year and we've lost plenty of years under

this government of rural myopia, we will lose another year. This

government should be prepared to bring in the enabling legislation to

enable the transfer to the regional district and the funding — look at

California.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be anti-American.

MR. MACDONALD: Look at California where even governor Reagan

has appropriated and set aside for urban transportation 2 cents of the

gasoline tax.

Yes, funds have to be allocated and provided by this government to

fund that thing. This is where the problem starts in this Province of

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you in favour of B.A.R.T.?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not talking about B.A.R.T., I'm

talking about the leadership of the State of California, under a

Republican administration in providing necessary highway funds and

allocating a good portion of them to public transportation.

While we are dying of traffic strangulation and pollution and

converting our cities into parking lots other jurisdictions like

Ontario and California are taking a lead which is sadly lacking here,

and will be sadly lacking under the Hon. Minister — that Rip Van

Winkle, who has slept on this 37 1/2 per cent thing now for a whole

year. Has he got letters? Has he got an exchange of correspondence with

the transport minister? If so will he table them in the House? Or was

that purely an empty gesture?

Turning to another subject, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the screen of

silence and secrecy that the Hon. Attorney General draws over the

activities of his department. Yes, I think he is

[ Page 150 ]

breaking the law. He knows the laws better than I

do. There is the Attorney General's Act,

section 5: "The Attorney

General shall make a report to the Lieutenant-Governor of the conduct

of the department. Which report shall be laid before the legislative

assembly."

The Attorney General has never done that. That's been on the book

since 1899. There has been a report from liquor control, the racing

commission, the corrections but the Attorney General's department has a

whole range of activities and there has never been, as required by that

section, which the Attorney General is clearly breaking, a report from

his department.

That same Act says, "he shall see that the administration of public

affairs is in accordance with the law." Well let's have that report.

They have passed legislation, Mr. Speaker, the Securities Act

for example, where the veil of secrecy has been drawn down. No report

from the securities commission, as required to be made from the

Legislature, but the Attorney General is supposed to report. That's

part of his range of duties. He never does and he never will, unless he

is required by public opinion in this Legislature to do so.

The whole administration of the Securities Act

is clouded in secrecy. The inquiries take place. There are reports to

the commission, there are reports, say on medicare, or on Canadian help

to the Attorney General. Never publicised. The securities commission

meets in secret meetings, here is evidence: "We'll give written reasons

for judgment, not to the public but only at the request of a party if

that party asks for it." So the whole thing is shrouded and the

investors of British Columbia and of Canada suffer accordingly. Because

secrecy benefits no one, but an administration that wants to hide its

incompetence.

Let's take one case. It's been mentioned in this House but I would

like to show just what a breach of the law has taken place here, and

how this will be one more item that will go down into the Attorney

General's garborator and disappear from public view. Yet there has been

a clear breach of the Act in the case of Kaiser Resources. Where the

sections of the Securities Act

clearly constitute these, what was it, 36 officers and directors of

Kaiser Resources with whom this government made a deal. Whom this

government selected to yard B.C. coal to Japan. That's performance.

That's what Mel Watkins would call performance. No pinkos there!

Section 106 of the Securities Act

says that insiders, "shall within 10 days of the month file with the

commission a report on their direct or indirect beneficial ownership of

securities of the corporation and any changes." That was not done,

because of the few documents that were made public in the company's

records, that's one that is supposed to be made public.

The Kaiser directors did not, as they were required by law to do,

file their own share-holdings when after the period when they purchased

their shares, which was March, 1970, they purchased as insiders — as

insiders necessarily having confidential information of the state of

the mining operation in the Kootenays — as insiders who watched those

shares rise to around 22 from 12, who knew and must have known that the

impending trouble was on its way. And who then unloaded those shares to

the Canadian investing public in breach of this law.

And who was hurt? It was the Canadian investing public. These people

that were said to initially provide an investment opportunity for

Canadians — this was the announcement when they made the issue, to

provide an investment opportunity for Canadians — they did not say that

these Canadians would be sheared like lambs, in good part as a result

of the trading of insiders.

This kind of activity, which is clearly in breach, in my submission, of 106 and 107 of the Securities Act

should be subject to prosecution. There should be a public hearing. If

the average fellow in this province is prosecuted pretty regularly — and he is — then if it is a white-collar offence the Attorney General

ought to give equal attention to it.

The practice of fringe-benefits on a confidential basis in the

subsidiary companies of multinational corporations, according to Edgar

F. Kaiser, is quite common.

He said stock fringe benefits in foreign-owned subsidiaries are common practice.

How many other cases are there like this, I would ask the Hon.

Attorney General, where reports are not filed, contrary to the

prospectus, contrary I would hope to the terms on which he brought

Kaiser into the province, and contrary to the law? There should be

prosecution.

Now, I want to turn to some other government reports. You know, the

other body, the Public Utilities Commission, under

section 65 — which

was passed, I suppose, long before the days of this government — is

required to make a report to the Legislature of its conduct and

decisions and findings throughout the year.

Indeed, it does make a report as required by law. It goes into

detail: somebody in Trail is complaining about water service or

something of that kind. But when it comes to the major things what do

we find?

In this report we find in short that the Legislature is being

misled, Mr. Speaker. I have here the 1970 report and the other reports.

It is rather interesting, you know, in a period when in the cemetery

business — the burial business, I should make it broader than that — where there are not only operating businesses but trust funds of

substantial proportion, that there should be a

section 1n these reports

referring to transfer of ownership and not a word is mentioned in this

full and frank report to the Legislature of the wholesale

Americanisation of the funeral industry in B.C. In the last few years.

It's the whole trend with the sole exception of the Memorial

Society, and I put it that way, is towards fancy prices. Fancy caskets

and fancy embalming and spiraling costs has gone on and here we have

under transfer of ownership a little bit of reporting on, oh, a

Doukhobor cemetery there or something of that kind. And that was not a

full and frank disclosure to the Legislature.

I know it was share transfer but surely if they are reporting and

doing their job that kind of thing should have been called to our

attention. Instead of that this prices spiral it's getting so all a

person could do pretty well today is will your body to the university,

except for the Memorial Society. In any case, everybody, they say,

should go to college. (Laughter). But let us look at these reports in

some other particulars. Now take this sentence from the 1970 report of

the commission: "During the year work continued on the care fund

accounts of Victory Memorial Gardens Ltd."

That's all it says. You wouldn't expect from reading that little

innocent sentence that the trust funds had been dipped into. You

wouldn't suspect that Victory Memorial had to put together the South

Side Company of other funeral directors and hold hearings and then

shove the memorial society aside and sell this new group the cemetery

and give them a crematorium so that from the profits of that possibly

the

[ Page 151 ]

defalcations in the trust funds could be made up.

You wouldn't think that there had been at this time contrary to law

a $250,000 mortgage placed upon the cemetery of Victory Memorial near

White Rock. You know, Mr. Speaker, you're not supposed to mortgage a

cemetery.

Now then what do you do even apart from the foreclosure

difficulties…? (Laughter). Who do you serve in a case like that?

(Laughter). Where do you serve the paper? But with its eyes wide open

knowing these things, obligated by the Legislature under

section 65 to

give an account to this Legislature they write a sentence like that.

It's been the same for the last three years.

"During the year work continued on the care fund accounts of Victory Memorial Gardens Ltd."

AN HON. MEMBER: They sure worked that out!

MR. MACDONALD: You know, Mr. Speaker, when a lawyer dips into

his trust funds it's either "over the road" or "over the border."

(Laughter). But in these two cases I'm talking about, in each case the

commission covers it up, fails to report to the Legislature, buries its

own mistakes and negligence and incompetence in not looking for those

reports to come in as required by law.

And awards them a crematorium, to try and make it up. That's what

happened in Victory Memorial Gardens. That's what happened in Colwood.

There's no question about the regulations. I'm not going to read

them in detail here but they constitute trust funds, for the upkeep of

cemeteries, they're trust just as much as any other trust money.

Supposed to be invested in a trust company, segregated, and there is

supposed to be a public passing of those accounts every five years.

I've simplified it a little bit.

Victory Memorial failed to pass its accounts within the five years.

The P.U.C. didn't do anything about that. You'd think at least they

could diary the thing because they had lots of trouble with that thing

a way back in the days of Henry Angus when they were really bringing in

good regulations.

They did nothing about it. Colwood — with Mr. Robert Hagle and

related companies in default — after a lot of trouble you'd think

they'd watch — in default of filing his trust accounts with the court,

in default of reporting to the Public Utilities Commission, having

dipped into those trust accounts, having not been prosecuted. What does

the Public Utilities Commission do about that? They give them a

crematorium. In the report dealing with the whole Colwood matter, it

says this:

Colwood burial park near Victoria came under the management of Colwood Improvement Co. Ltd. In 1970.

and a little further down…

A temporary waiver of part of the requirements of the care fund regulations for Colwood Cemetery Company, Greencrest and Cedar,

those are related…

was continued in 1970 due to the situation of the companies concerned.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that says nothing about the Colwood Trust Funds

being put under trusteeship. That says nothing about a trustee being

appointed who is a retired banker. That the trust funds were short by

$42,000 — that all of this was known at the time the Legislature met

last year when we had a debate and the Attorney General said he might

look into the matter.

This kind of a report is misleading, a cover up, burying the

incompetence and the negligence of the Public Utilities Commission

itself. It is in contempt of the Legislature.

Of course, in the Colwood case they held the usual hearing at

Nanaimo, shoved off the Memorial Society again into a corner, had some

fancy thing about some land being worth $350 so that they had a low

bid, and instead they made the wages of sin in this case the award of a

crematorium, which they had done before. They hoped that out of that

crematorium profit there may be enough to make up the deficiency

someday in the trust funds.

Who's being creamed? I don't attack the members of the Public

Utilities Commission as persons, because they have had distinguished

careers in the Province of British Columbia. But I say they should be

pensioned off, and that's true. I don't say that in a derogatory manner

but these are long retired deputy civil servants and a long-defeated

Socred cabinet minister and that has been a quality that could of an

element that has been in too short supply. Just one or two, I know

that. I know these boards are crying for that kind of applicant, you

know. Really bushy-tailed.

But I say that the Public Utilities Commission must lift the veil of

secrecy over these things and the Public Utilities Commission must go,

entirely reconstituted and made into an aggressive, independent

scrutinising body that can begin to protect the interests of the people

of this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to say something about the natural gas

pipeline, and I'm talking about the real story. You know, if you look

at that tangled scheme, that tangled web of events and try to make

sense out of it, at first it boggles the mind.

Yet if you look at it long enough you can see that it boils down to

a very simple thing that has taken place. It boils down to this — that

when West Coast Transmission has a cold the Premier sneezes. When the

Premier sneezes, the Public Utilties Commission says "gezundheit." I

introduce this as what I think as new material and that is this.

The two Hydro directors are sitting there, Mr. Speaker, and they

know this, they authorise it, when B.C. Hydro gave its evidence at the

National Energy Board to the federal cabinet, the evidence stated this:

it said that with respect to the extension of natural gas to Vancouver

Island, it was stated to be dependent upon a favourable price

relationship of competing fuels on the island.

West Coast maintained that would occur by 1975-76 while Hydro

expected service would be feasible by 1973-74. B.C. Hydro also

suggested that it rather than West Coast would provide the connection

to Vancouver Island.

Now, that must have been authorised by the directors of the B.C.

Hydro who are now deserting the chairman and deserting the people of

B.C. In support of the private pipelines.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1969, was that?

MR. MACDONALD: That was in 1969.

AN HON. MEMBER: We approved the order in council.

MR. MACDONALD: On that basis we had this kind of a situation

which the Hon. Members know pretty well, so I won't go into it in any

great detail. But you had a clear case

[ Page 152 ]

of the public interest being served by B.C. Hydro

being allowed to proceed. The rates would be without profit. The rates

would be lower because of the route for one thing. But principally

because of the increase in load. The load factor. Because they have a

contract with West Coast Transmission for $400 million cubic feet a day

up to that. They have gas for the island. As the volume is shipped to

the island the price B.C. Hydro pays decreases and West Coast doesn't

like that.

It would be publicly owned and Canadian. I may be getting ahead of

myself in my material but I think we know the story pretty well. Why

did Premier Bennett come out with his terms of proposals, I think of

last April, which were tailormade for the Malaspina Gas Company? My

friend here says Malaspina is named because it says in Spanish, "bad

back." (Laughter). Malaspina, bad back invertebrate government.

(Laughter). The perfect combination. Why was West Coast Transmission

which holds so many IOU's, political IOU's of this government — oh,

remember the 1960 election where the headlines on the last day of the

C.C.F. victory were "Who cost the province 10,000 jobs? says Frank

McMahon." For 19 years this government has been like a mother to the

West Coast Transmission Company, and that relationship still exists

today. And the Malaspina Company was merely a front company. They

didn't have the money or the engineers to make a bid of that kind Mr.

Ekman now announces….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is he?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Ekman — bon vivant. (Laughter). The Premier's speech writer, the Premier's jester, voyageur, taster. (Laughter).

My Hon. friend from Cariboo said last night, as widely reported,

that the Hydro didn't have the experience. There were people like

Malaspina. (Laughter). And indeed I suppose that you could say that Mr.

Ekman had good pipeline connections. (Laughter). He's been the pipeline

between the industry and the Premier's office for years.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Oh, Danny Boy…

MR. MACDONALD: And when they called for the pipeline bids, was

it not natural that — Oh, Danny Boy the pipes, the pipes are calling.

(Laughter). He had the experience, he'd worked for Mr. Bennett and he'd

worked for Mr. McMahon. Two masters but with a single thought. It's so

beautiful.

But what did these great watchdogs of the public interests — our two

Hydro directors — do about it? They must have authorised Hydro to give

that evidence in 1969 and yet the Premier came out of his office and

did the other thing and after it was done Resources Minister Williston,

the Hydro director, takes a far different view. If some other company

builds the line then Hydro will distribute the gas in Victoria where it

already distributes gas and in other areas where the successful bidder

doesn't want it distributed. Give the Hydro the poor areas.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I never said that. I deny it.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the Hon. Minister deny this, that after the bids

came out he said after these developments, "that as far as the government

is concerned Hydro always had the ability and the right to propose such a line

but didn't do so. Therefore the government had to invite proposals and this

woke up Hydro at the last moment"?

Did he say words to that effect?

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: And yet in 1969 he knew they had made this

proposal to the National Energy Board and when the bids were called he

wouldn't even see that the specifications were sent to B.C. Hydro. No,

no, they were determined these watchdogs, this government, to put the

hex on Hydro and get it out of the way and make sure that private

industry got this pipeline and strip it away from the scrutiny of the

national energy board. That's what this is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: To strip it away from the scrutiny because Mr.

Speaker, West Coast Transmission which used to sell gas across the line

at $0.22 and to the people of B.C. at $0.33 or $0.31 as a result of the

Liberal government in Ottawa — and not Honourable Members opposite — who have never had restrictions on gas export, never attempting to

control the price even as Alberta has done, because the Huntington line

also goes into the United States of America, has stepped in and

requires that the price to the Americans be not less than 105 per cent

of the price to the lower mainland. And what is going to happen, Mr.

Speaker with a private company — be it Malaspina and I don't believe it

is going to be Malaspina — or not, is that that will be taken away from

the scrutiny of the National Energy Board. That will be just a

provincial link. No controls, any price you want to charge, milk the

consumer…get away from that old National Energy Board. That's why the

Premier came out into the hall and called for bids and that's why they

tried to shunt Hydro aside.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got the terms of reference for this speech?

MR. MACDONALD: To quote the Hon. Minister of Resources again.

On October 28, 1971, "Resources Minister Williston on Thursday

contended that the P.U.C. decision was the right one." Now he's

referring to the decision, which had been made by the P.U.C., that

Malaspina had been selected by the government and was the prime

applicant and that everybody else would be interveners only.

Now that decision undermined again the integrity and the

independence of the Public Utilities Commission. The Premier had

sneezed and the board broke its Act because that Act clearly required

them certainly to hear any company that is referred to it by the

cabinet. But it requires them to hear all applicants for a public

franchise and not have a prime applicant and shunt the others off into

a corner. Yet the Hon. Minister of Resources supported that decision.

He said that decision was the right one.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I will. I will quote it again. That was on the prime applicant. I'm quote from the Vancouver Province "that the P.U.C. was the right one"

[ Page 153 ]

although he said it was not directed by the provincial government.

You don't have to direct it, you just sneeze.

Mr. Williston said, Province ,

October 28, 1971: "It would not be right to allow all the proposers to

come before the commission at once since not all had met the government

specifications."

Hydro would be out. They didn't even send them a copy of the

specifications. Well, he is a director. Why should these two directors

sit here, Mr. Speaker, and confess to the fact that they let the public

down in this important respect? The watchdog of the public interest — and I hope he continues to be — is not Honourable Ministers opposite,

it is Chairman Shrum who has shown some independence in this matter and

helped to stave off the give-away that was taking place, the neat

little transfer of the thing to Malaspina's hands — prime applicant,

let the others sit in a corner. Use the P.U.C. as a lightning rod so

that if there is any political criticism the lightning will fall there.

Receive the bids, open the bids and select your applicant after a

secret cabinet meeting. No light of day about that meeting, come out

into the hall and announce that you have selected the highest bidder

$97 million. No, no, this is British Columbia. (Laughter).

So they selected the highest bidder and the Malaspina Company is now

fading away. The ground rules have been completely changed before the

Public Utilities Commission as a result of political decisions made by

this government. West Coast Transmission through Kelly Gibson is trying

to throw water on the Hydro proposal by saying they can only service

the lower mainland. He has no right to make such a statement and the

price if Hydro builds the line, as perhaps I have said, will be subject

to the National Energy Board where it belongs.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say again that the Public Utilities Commission

has badly let down the people of this province. I say that the

government has done everything in its power to prevent the logical

effective thing taking place in the best interest of the people of

British Columbia — cheaper gas for Vancouver Island, cheaper gas

throughout the whole system, more jobs in British Columbia.

And, of course, the leading horse now is Pacific Northern. Malaspina

has faded into the sunset, but they never had the resources or the

engineering. Malaspina had the plans for the Powell River crossing

which West Coast Transmission had had prepared about 1964. But the

jobs, the engineering and planning jobs, should be British Columbia

jobs — and they will be with Hydro. And they will not be with these

private firms. Because the Canadian Bechtel Company has merely an

office here and the engineering and planning work will go to San

Francisco and we'll lose that employment.

Oh, you can say we're only talking about possibly 50 or 60 skilled

jobs in that particular field. But we're talking about jobs for British

Columbia. We're being lead wholly unnecessarily at a time when the line

could already be under construction by Hydro, looking toward their

forecast use of the gas in '73 — '74. Construction should have started.

We go through this charade, this farce of P.U.C. hearings when the

government will make the decision anyway. Unless public opinion and

this Legislature forces them to do otherwise they will undoubtedly

choose the one who receives the nod of the head from West Coast

Transmission.

The hearings will be expensive — Mr. Ekman says "$900,000 we have to

have to appear and have our plans before the P.U.C." I don't know how

he made his bid before he spent that money but that's what he says.

But it will be delay, bickering, politics when the simple solution

in the best interests of the consumers and the industry of British

Columbia is lying right there at hand. The solution is to build. The

solution is not to allow your pipelines, the sinews of your province,

to be controlled directly or indirectly by great utilities in the

United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the solution is to build now and to build the shortest route and to build it under public ownership without profit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to

address you once more to make my contribution to this debate. There

have been changes in the benches down in this corner that have been

referred to before. We lost a good seat-mate, we gained a good

Minister. We people are a philosophical breed, we private members. Some

people kindly refer to us as back-benchers. We say we win a few, lose a

few, and some are rained out. I just want on my part to extend the very

best wishes to our new minister in his delicate and difficult portfolio.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to talk too much about constituency

matters and I will be specifically referring to more things as we get

along, but I would like to begin with the good news that is prevalent

for the ferry riders — the people that ride the ferry between Haney and

Langley. It happens that the tolls on the Fort Langley — Albion ferry

will be removed on Febrary 15 next.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything to do with an election?

MR. VOGEL: No, no, nothing to do with that. Equal treatment

for all. I will refer to that now that the Hon. Member has introduced

that aspect. It didn't occur to me anybody would be cynical, Mr.

Speaker. I never anticipated that, I never anticipated that.

But my friend, the M.L.A. for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and I are both

grateful to the government and the Minister of Highways. Without

inserting a "however" I do want to say something else about it thought.

The removal of the tolls is fair and it is appropriate and certainly

it would never be suggested over there I don't think that with traffic

travelling free on the Pattullo Bridge — the new Mission Bridge to be

toll-free — why should the people between Langley and Dewdney have to

contribute a toll'' Why should they?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out two or three things that I'm sure

the Hon. Minister would appreciate having from the local point of view.

This particular ferry is not a tourist route, it's a working man's

route. The traffic flows from Dewdney in the morning, Haney, to the

industrial area in the well-developed commercial belt that exists in

the central valley from just east of Whalley to up towards the Matsqui

border.

This industrial belt is providing more and more jobs as I predicted

seven or eight years ago when I first came in the House. It will

increase. My prediction is that the central valley being the fastest

growing

section will contribute finally the greatest flow of traffic.

It should never be anticipated that the Albion — Rosedale ferry can

ever be eliminated. The Mission bridge will not eliminate that

crossing. The traffic will grow and grow and it

[ Page 154 ]

was necessary at

a public meeting just before I came to the House, to say publicly that

this service, because of the rapid increase in use, has become too

small and inadequate.

My plea to the Hon. Minister therefore is to replace the existing

facility with a 35-car ferry. I think we should anticipate that within

three to five years the traffic at that point is going to become very

difficult to handle by means of a ferry of any size. A bridge is going

to be required.

I think I am justified in saying that, Mr. Speaker, because when we

decided to build the Mission bridge as a result of a promise we had

made many years ago — and certainly should have kept — I suggested that

perhaps we could move the location of that bridge slightly more to the

west and serve the entire valley at that point between there and the

Pattullo bridge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I must make a comment on the throne speech and it

is necessary to say with the best will in the world that I have come to

have something less than reverential regard for this particular ritual.

I know it is necessary, it's a part of the formal structure upon

which consideration of the people's business is founded. But I don't

think it is necessary to devote two weeks in this way and I would

suggest first of all that we recognise without question that private

members require an opportunity to make a formal address, a constructive

report, and have an opportunity to present their own views on past and

future regulations, to make what contribution they can to the

management of the provincial affairs. We must never reduce that right

but perhaps we can move the speaking time that we devote to a more

useful vehicle.

When we get into the budget speech we're dealing with a precise

document that gives us figures, amounts to spend and suggest allocation

of expenditures in a definite way. Perhaps we could tidy up our formal

speeches by getting onto the budget more quickly, get down to

estimates, thereby get into legislation and the Hon. Members then would

be free to speak freely and get answers from the cabinet benches.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about putting estimates on the records?

MR. VOGEL: Well, I'd have to think about that one. I don't

find the throne speech to be dull, that's not the objection. It's just

imprecise. There isn't too much that you can deal with effectively. The

theme in this particular throne speech is good. We're talking about

jobs in the public domain and we're fortunate in being able to use the

B.C. Hydro, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway — soon to become the

British Columbia Railway — park and forest lands to create employment

in necessary work and productive work, not just making work.

But, you know, the thing that really intrigues me about the budget — and when I say it is imprecise I mean these things are a little

difficult to find but they're there — is the reference to the Pacific

Great Eastern Railway.

Now, the P.G.E. is the great planning tool of the north. The north

country is our frontier. I was digging around through last year's

budget and came across a map that I have referred to before — on page

That's great. There's the story of jobs, new frontiers and so on,

this wide belt, and what this referred to at that time and becomes more

significant today is the extension of the central prong from Fort St.

James to Dease Lake which is 420 miles and projected in this throne

speech.

This suggests to me that we will have there a belt 420 miles long and say

200 miles wide, because experience indicates that that can be reached by trail,

logging trail, logging road and mining trail and I would think that if we could

anticipate completion by 1974 we would have 5,000 primary jobs in that mineral-

and timber-rich area. If the old formula is acceptable that one primary job

produces four to five secondary jobs, it would support a population of 25,000

people.

Now, the idea of course would be to tap the resource wealth of the

north, build towns, build payrolls and build up the new frontier and I

believe we've got young people who will accept such a challenge.

I want to say a word about the great city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.

I hope my friends who directly represent that area, having

constituencies within its present border, won't misunderstand or resent

what I have to say. But I think there's a grave question to be asked

and I think the question is: "Can we save Vancouver?"

AN HON. MEMBER: From what?

MR. VOGEL: If you look around you will observe one startling

fact — that all over North America major cities are dying. They are

rotting and they are crumbling. You have to go east perhaps to see this

most graphically because the cities are older there and the

deteriorating factors have had longer to work.

The same thing can be seen to the south in a slightly different

context in terms of age and it is important to know why this is so. We

must ask ourselves the question: "Can we avoid the same fate?" I think

it's the responsibility of this provincial government to see that

Vancouver does not stagnate and decay for the same reasons.

The thing is, what is the threat? Well, the threat in my view is the

freeway concept that has been introduced through the projected third

crossing of the Burrard Inlet.

I'm against it as it is presently planned. I think it is a serious

mistake. I think that all the very real factors should be considered

and an appeal should be made to the young imaginitive people to

recognise what we are really doing in this concept.

I say to the probably over-generous city fathers of Vancouver in

this regard that I think they are being conned. I think they're being

hoodwinked.

You might say, as an MLA in rural Langley, why am I concerned? Well,

the Fraser Valley — all of it, properly viewed — is an extension of the

City of Vancouver. It will be apparent that that is so as far as

Chilliwack and perhaps taking in the whole coastal plain.

The automobile, related to the limited area of the city core, is the

instrument of strangulation. Now, I don't know why that should surprise

anybody. To keep Vancouver unique, great and beautiful, we should plan

to let people in — all that will come from everywhere and anywhere.

It's a great tourist city. Exert controls on the automobile. You don't

exert controls on the automobile by inviting every North Shore citizen

to dump his car in your limited city centre. Exactly the same thing

applies to the automobile driver from Langley, Surrey, or anywhere else.

One or two people in the car — an automobile say, my friend Ivan

Wolfe gave me this, averages 18 feet by 6 feet and I think that's 108

square feet — covers a lot of ground in terms of occupancy very quickly.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that people should be brought quickly and cheaply to the downtown core. There is nothing

[ Page 155 ]

new about that concept except we're talking about that and still

talking about letting them pour their cars into Vancouver and it

doesn't make any sense. One way to solve the problem, I suggest, is for

cars from everywhere to be routed to perimeter points. This has been

talked about before. I've spoken about it. I can remember the Hon.

Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) speaking about this two years

ago, I think it was. Plenty of easy-to-reach low-cost parking should be

provided and it should be provided now as a first step. If we do not

build freeways — and this North Shore concept is a freeway into the

city — we will face a crisis which is obviously approaching. You see it

every time you go downtown. It's hard to get in and it's hard to get

out.

That's not bad. I say it's good. Because out of this crisis will

come a sane solution and I don't think we'll get it any other way. I

think that's the history of democracy. A crisis is created, it becomes

obvious to the majority and we are permitted then to spend the money

and organise the vehicles through which we seek a solution.

The crisis of course, is the difficulty of movement of the increasing traffic in the downtown area.

The obvious solution, of course, is the thing that many able people

are studying — which is rapid transit. Modern transit, of course — in

whatever form you can organise, and I would suggest you start with

something that can be put together fairly quickly with the dollars that

are available — would recognise certain collecting points that show

pretty clearly by a study of the population distribution. One would

seem to be in East Hastings near 401, probably somewhere around

Exhibition Park and there is something going on there now.

Richmond is obvious, near the thru-way, the south end of the Oak

Street bridge. Central Park is another. We have Kingsway which lends

itself perhaps to some sort of a transit route and we have the B.C.

Hydro line and technicallyqualified people would do the planning and

the execution and so on.

But you need a well-managed and well-financed authority or it will never get off the ground.

I think we should create it now — at least in skeleton form. I think

that step number one is to divorce transit from the B.C. Hydro. I don't

think that the cost of running buses should appear on a utility bill. I

don't think that's good, tidy business management. I don't think it

should be dumped on the municipalities.

I, as an M.L.A. shouldn't say this is a problem and "why don't you

do something about it?" I don't think that at all. I don't think we can

afford as a province the cost of failure in this regard.

I would say for just what it's worth, for consideration, Mr.

Speaker, that perhaps we should create a separate Crown authority to do

this job the way we did say after the pattern of the ferry authorities,

to do the entire mainland transit job. An obvious objection might be

from somebody in the interior: "What about the rest of the province?"

and this is a darned good question.

I don't know just how you weigh the absolute equity in a thing like

this, but there are a great deal of precedents for give and take. For

instance, in the hydro distribution we all recognise that a rural

electrification is more expensive in terms of the number of

connections. We recognise that. Nobody suggests that they should be

restricted in terms of the costs.

But I say that it should be separated and identified in a

business-like way to get rid of the confusion of the utility producing

and distributing factor obligation responsibility and the matter of

transit.

It will cost money and a lot of money but it will be cheaper than

freeways in dollars, and a great deal cheaper, I think, in terms of

preservation of the primarily important cultural business and financial

centre of this great province — which Vancouver is, and will always

remain.

We have a unique situation. If you accept the concept that the

entire coastal plain is an extension of the City of Vancouver you are

talking about half the people that reside in this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious thing and just as

fundamentally important as the job we did when we went into the

interior with our tremendous highway system to open up the wealth that

was obviously going to pour into the coastal plain and the City of

Vancouver and the industrial centre of Langley and everywhere else, but

was to the benefit of all the people of this province.

It was the only way that you could provide economic liability for

the huge province for which we have governing responsibility. The thing

that really amazes me when this is happening and is so apparent, is

that nothing could be as costly as the destruction of that great city,

we know that. I don't have to emphasise that.

But the thing that really puzzles me is, where are the voices? Where

are all these environment people? You know they never heard of a Skagit

before three or four years ago, and a lot of people that talk about it

have never been there.

Where are all these environment people? They are living in Vancouver and they're seeing it destroyed and they never say a word.

Where are all the clean air lovers? You know, the people that want

to choke down industry and stop MacMillan Bloedel. Where are the clean

air people? Where are the modern planners, the trained people that say

they can create the finest? Let them speak now — and speak out loudly — and speak out soon.

There is no question at all about the freeways between large cities

and better freeways perhaps than we have today — because I don't know,

cars may be travelling 100 miles per hour in 20 years, or 150 or 200. I

don't know anything about that, that's a technical thing.

They will have to be constantly improved, but the freeway concept in

the perimeter of a growing city is destruction, strangulation and

death. And I don't think you can argue with me about that.

I want to say a word — and I hope this won't embarrass our new

Minister and I'm sure he could talk about it with more authority than

I — I want to say a word about the economic outlook as I see it.

I think that someone more influential and knowledgeable than myself

should have the courage to warn the people of this province that we are

rapidly hurrying towards control.

I think we are hurrying towards controls, I really do. And what is

the reason? Well, it always has to do with people. It doesn't have to

do with what a manufacturer wants or anything else. It always has to do

with people, and the great overriding fear that's abroad in this

country has to do with the shrinking value of the dollar.

We know that the settlements historically and in the last 12 months

have been phenomenally high. I had in my original notes over 7 per cent

and the Minister told me in a helpful aside a few minutes ago that they

were something like 8.1 per cent and I believe that that is an

indication of the current rate of acceleration.

[ Page 156 ]

Point number one in this business of acceleration of costs and

prices, and the shrinking value of the dollar, is that in good

management — and I am talking about management in the public sector as

well as the private sector, and we're supposed to be managers in the

public sector — good management requires some constant and dependable

values to deal with, or whatever you plan on as meaningless.

We have got a crazy situation where you have 8, 9, 10 per cent plus

acceleration of wages, which do not keep up with rising living costs.

So the housewife, when her husband wins a strike, goes out with a

new large pay cheque, after a long, lean period when there was no money

coming in, or very little. And she finds that it won't buy from the

shelves of the supermarket what the smaller pay cheque that she had

last year would purchase. So it is an intolerable situation.

But there's another reason other than that. It will not be decided

on theoretical, philosophical or ideological ground or argument between

you and me. It won't be decided that way. It'll come about by the

crunch of competitive necessity.

Our big powerful neighbour to the south, who sets the pattern for a

lot of the things we do — whether we like it or not — is really scared.

I know that the Hon. Members over there have been down there and talked

to them, and I have, I spent quite a bit of time down there over the

Christmas — New Year's holidays.

I moved around, and they on all sides are concerned about the lack

of constancy of the purchasing power of the buck. They will put in

controls because they realise if they don't, what we call the

competitive society will go down the drain, and any society that

follows it, if we have a break down for that reason, we will certainly

be a controlled society. Certainly couldn't be anything else. It never

has been.

I think that what we talk about, what we give lip service to our

free right to strikes and lockouts is simply a licence to destroy

ourselves. I don't think we're talking about anything that's meaningful

in the world of today at all.

The employer gives in to the blackmail of a strike and what does he

do? He just jacks up his prices. The public employer, the school board

or whatever, pays a higher rate and, jacks up the taxes or the utility

bill.

When the U.S. go for controls, prices and wages, we will follow suit

because our economics are tied together. They are our big market in

spite of all the chest thumping that has been done by the Donald

Gordon's and the Joe Greene's and we will follow along because there is

no other course.

There is only one other thing that I want to talk about and I am going to be very brief.

This business of self rule for native people, I think should have

the Minister who spoke about this the other day and who was involved in

the effort of a Indian Band of Northern Vancouver Island — Cape Mudge.

I think he should have encouragement and support. I am talking about

the Cape Mudge problem.

The move was initiated by Chief Lawrence Lewis, we all know that,

and it was strongly supported by the Hon. Minister. They had an

extremely favourable vote and we all know that. And I'm sure we were

delighted.

I was quite apprehensive when Chief Lewis threatened to resign, and he should

not have done so, and he did not. But I think what we should say about it is

this — that

the way to deal with minorities whether they are the Chinese population, that

have made such a contribution in Vancouver, or the Italian population that

are preponderantly situated in Hastings East, or the German population in the

central valley, or the French population in Quebec, the way to deal with minority

groups is to bring them into the main stream and treat everybody the same.

Let them participate in our democracy.

I say that that should apply to our native people. We should not

permit any situation that will leave these people in a ghetto-like

atmosphere — and a reserve is a ghetto and I think it's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, this is Friday afternoon. I shall reserve the other matters about which I wish to speak for another occasion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It has been an enjoyable afternoon and it is my privilege to

wind up the debate of this occasion. Maybe we should go home and call

it off. Don't tempt you, eh?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of that great community known as Saanich and

the Gulf Islands it is indeed my privilege and pleasure and opportunity

once more to address this great debating society that endeavours to

shape and form the course of history in the Province of British

Columbia for the next 100 years we trust. May it always be a Social

Credit government that takes opportunities like that.

I want to thank the Centennial Committee and the great work they did

in the area of Saanich and the Islands. The projects that have been

accomplished there that will go down in the history of the young people

to come as a mark that they really set the pace and showed that the

people appreciated what had been going on in this province for 100

years. We remember those who had gone before and look forward to a new

society that is on our door step today, and we want to thank the people

responsible — the Deputy Minister, the Chairman, Mr. Lawrie Wallace,

and others that took such a tremendous

part in the activities of this

centennial year.

I want also to thank the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Chant) and the government for after 19 years in this House they are

providing at last the facilities where we can not have the

obstructions, but the opportunities to carry out the work of the riding

with our people.

I have something to say about those facilities and decor that we

appreciate to a degree in this Legislature but, it has been my

contention that colours do play a great deal, or a great

part in a

person's life, and we know in this psychedelic age that colours have

meant a lot to young people and others. We know that it has an effect

upon their characteristics. The environment has a great effect, and I

did talk to people who are in the know on lighting, on colour on the

floor and I was informed by specialists that red has an injurious

effect on the eye sight, that it is very definite and very critical.

And I would say again that this red carpet is not good for eye sight

and this is on the submission of people who know the effects of colour

on the eye sight. And I know this that in my years in this Legislature

I've always had perfect eye sight and gradually as you come in here for

three months of the year, I do note the deterioration of the ability to

see and perceive at close range.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just that you're getting older.

MR. TISDALLE: So I'm glad we did something about the

[ Page 157 ]

lighting that's in here. But we do have something on this floor that

I don't think is good for us. I realise it was placed here so that we

wouldn't see the blood that was being spilled. But I think that can be

wiped up.

Now, there is just one other thing that I noticed here last week.

Again, assessing the noise factor, I'm not making noise this afternoon.

I'm speaking to you and I know you are listening. But the noise factor

is this, that out of 44 of those who are in rock bands that were tested

just recently, 41 had an impaired hearing problem.

Forty-four were tested. Noise inside of auditoriums — that's where

we hear the rock and roll and I go skating a great deal and I'm in the

area where this kind of music is used. I appreciate music but noise is

another factor, and I am concerned about our young people in our

schools and the attitude towards this kind of music is that the louder

it is somehow the better it is. So you can knock yourself out with it

eventually.

I know that a lot of young people, when I talk to them in prisons

and elsewhere — and I had not intended to enlarge on this — they've

told me that in listening to very loud rhythmic beats that they can get

into a semi-high or type of trance that they enjoy very much. Now, I

think that we should take a careful look at the proponents of this kind

of thing, that it is done with intent to capture the minds of our young

people with not really encouraging them to expand out in directions

that are healthful, rather to their detriment. And if people are losing

their hearing then we should do something about it. As well as the

sight.

There's been a lot said about this throne debate and in my

experience of years gone by, it has always been the same refrain by the

Opposition that this is only a kind of mock-up ceremony and that the

ceremony is unnecessary.

I want to disagree with that because I know that the parliamentary

system has to have a starting point the same as any ball game. Somebody

kicks the ball or somebody throws the first ball.

Now if the Opposition do seem at a loss after the throne speech is

read, it's because it's like a bull fight without the bull, until it's

the Opposition's turn Monday morning. I can appreciate their difficulty

of contesting such a debate.

Another thing they feel is that if all the things were to be

mentioned in the throne speech that we intend to do throughout the

session they would have a better opportunity for debate. Let's make it

clear that the government is not obligated in any way, shape or form to

do the thinking for the Opposition. That's their prerogative and they

should be prepared to oppose as well as once in a while propose.

It is interesting to note that the area of debate that we've had,

that the greatest issue, I think in the Canadian economy today, is the

labour issue or job opportunity. The Opposition to this day, in this

part of the debate has studiously avoided that issue. They've inserted

a factitious little motion here yesterday to delay the opportunity of

Members to get down to the throne speech and debate it properly. They

intruded into the debate with a motion that was irrelevant, that could

have been debated anywhere else. Even this afternoon, the first Member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about burial grounds and

other things that have very little to do with this particular

proposition that we are directing our attention to, and especially as

this government has directed its attention and a major part of our

debate to job opportunity.

I noticed that the C.B.C. is having a little of a work-to-rule, they

claim. Well at least that will do away with a lot of air pollution and

clean things up.

I want to say that in respect to one of the reporters who took the

throne speech apart and seemed to have some doubts as to its validity

of getting on with the people's business. He said it sidelined for two

weeks the activity of the people's business.

I can only think that he probably also lives on a deadend "street"

like the Opposition and can't really think without somebody promoting

their thoughts. I wish that our reporters would get into the business

of reporting what really takes place in the Legislature and the purpose

of it and helping the people to understand the system of debate rather

than covering it with their own unintentional remarks that have little

to do with democratic procedure.

Now, I was very interested in the activity in respect to the

constitutional conference that was being held here, the Canadian

constitutional conference. A lot of members, I am sure, would like to

have attended it. As an M.L.A. I sometimes think that when we talk

about second-class citizens, that's what we are considered to be. It's

hard to be recognised as a mere back-bencher and I'm not begrudging the

fact that there are more important positions than being a back-bencher.

But, I noted when I approached the security guard at the conference

— and there were plenty of them — that they immediately recognised me

and said: "No Tisdalle, you're not allowed in this company this

afternoon. This is for those who have been invited and have either

Press cards or so on."

So I didn't make any opposition to it, I walked back to my

automobile, picked up my note pad, my camera and my Press card and

walked back.

I showed my Press card and was immediately ushered into the

Conference area. A Francophone who could hardly speak my unintelligent

proceeded to fill out a Canadian constitutional conference card written

in French. I can't pronounce the British Columbia — it's in French

also. Even the "Conference constitutionelle" is all in French. The day

of the month is in French — I must say that everything was in French

except "John D. Tisdalle, representing the Millionaire Magazine." These

chamber and was able to hear the debate with the first class citizens

known as the reporters.

Now the Opposition felt that the throne debate ignored certain

impressive issues such as the Amchitka blast. Well it also ignored some

very important atomic blasts held by such countries as China. It didn't

mention that. Open-air ones. It didn't mention Russia.

I never hear the Opposition taking this measure to task, but it's

always something that affects our neighbourhood immediately to the

south that they seem to champion. I never hear them getting up and

saying: "Well, where are the people that Igor Gruzenko talked about?"

What about this man? Where is he today? He who sacrificed himself to

defend the things that we so-called cherish — our freedoms and

liberties. I had the privilege here last summer to talk to him on open

line.

When I was talking to him I asked him what happened to his

particular field of life. What was he doing now? I asked him how much

he was getting. He said: "Well, when I took five opportunities to file

my security material, eventually they told me, 'well, we'll send you

back passage-paid right to Russia. Just forget the whole thing and take

your papers with you."'

Well, he said, "that was a ticket to suicide. I might as well

[ Page 158 ]

not buy that one." But eventually he got asylum just when his door was almost being broken down, he said.

I said: "Well, what do you get now?" He said: "I get $200 a month

and I'm trying to get an increase." I asked him: "Why don't you take a

job?". He said: "Well to take a job would mean that I would perform a

set of duties at a set time," and he mentioned two men or friends that

had escaped and had done the same thing that he did, giving information

to the allies.

He said they were assassinated shortly on their doorsteps when

someone discovered the routine of their work. He said: "I have not been

able to do that. I feel that I would be taking an unfair risk to my

family and I am finding it very difficult to live on this amount."

I asked him: "What happened to some of the men you named? You

brought the information. You presented it. What happened to such men as

J. Lewis Gagnon?"

He said: "Oh yes, he left your country, went south to some South

American country." He named it — it's on the tape. He said: "Several

years later, three or four or five years later, I can't remember the

exact amount, he comes back to this country and is now Mr. Information

Canada at $40,000 a year. I still get $200 a month for protecting this

country."

I want to say today, in the ears of this assembly who believe that

we are here because such men decided that their duty to Canadians was

more important than a duty to the country which was trying to

subversively use Canadians, that we today have an opportunity — and I

am going to speak about opportunities a lot today.

We have an opportunity to reward such men that are really citizens

of this country but cannot take their rightful participation in

democracy because of the fear that hangs over their lives.

"Having", he said, "at least five times changed my name and living places and continually under protection."

The housekeeper who came to his house, phoned in after me on the

open line show and told him: "How delighted I am, to be able to hear

your voice. What a pleasure it is after knowing your family so closely."

I think today, and I wish I could move it from the Minister of

Finance's position or someplace, that we could say to this man: "We'll

reward you if the federal government cannot and is unable to. We will

reward you with a decent living if you are living in our province at

this time" — and not a welfare cheque, but an honorary cheque for an

honourable duty, to save Canada for Canadians and for democracy.

I have heard too much, Mr. Speaker, over the years, through the

Press and every other media and of the politicians, that extol and

exalt those who at one time and are today determined to overthrow this

kind of a life that we have of freedom to make our choice and to live

within the reigns of democracy. I don't tolerate it and neither do I

accept it. I think we pussy-footed around with the pinkos and the half

baked Socialists and all the rest of the bunch that want to use this

freedom we have to destroy this freedom.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old sick display.

MR. TISDALLE: That's the kind of sickness we have from over

there. Thank God it is not contagious. Thank God it is not contagious,

that there is something we can do about it in defending our freedom.

Well, the Amchitka blast. Everybody was leaving school. I asked

students who were 12 to 16 years old: "What is it, what are you doing

out of school?"

"Well, our chums were going and so we thought we should go too. Our

teacher incited us and said we should have a duty to protest the

thing." So they went down.

Then after it's all over we got those articles and letters in the

newspapers about the terrible loss of animal and especially bird life.

They were trying to count it. At that very date that they were trying

to count it, I thought of how many people enjoyed Colonel Saunders'

Kentucky Fried Chicken. Finger lickin' good.

You know, Saunders came on the air that very day — being interviewed

by, I think, David Frost — and he was opening up his new chicken

dinners over in Australia. "This means now," he said, "we are killing — ringing the necks of one million chickens a day."

Born to die, nobody I hear ever defends the lowly chicken. We get

some though, who defend the pigeons around here. I was just thinking

while my good friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) was defending the pigeons

yesterday, that the terrible disappointment of those male pigeons when

they find out those hens have been sitting on unfertile eggs all

summer. I think that they may take it out on the population and it

won't be just flying over you either.

I would like to talk about opportunities in the land of British

Columbia. Recently, addressing a Press club conference down in L.A.

that they asked me to do about six months ago, I spoke to influential

businessmen. That's right, and I talked about British Columbia, the

land of opportunity. We weren't selling it, we were asking them to come

and participate and live here and be part of the show.

When we talk about opportunity, I begin to think of the days when I

was a carpenter in the trade union movement here. In 1952 when they

went on strike I refused to carry a picket placard because I thought I

could use my time more beneficially to the development of our country.

I'm not one who believes that a weapon should be used in this time

of civilisation that is turned out of our universities. Men who know

where they're going to park before they get to the moon — when you

don't even know where you're going to park when you come downtown.

They know where they are going to land and park on the moon before

they get there. If we can turn out men with intelligence out of our

universities and institutions of learning like that, some way we should

be able to come to grips with this business of being able to settle our

differences without taking it out on all the people who do not sit at

the bargaining table.

Today we talk about sitting down and bargaining. Well, let me tell

you it's no bargain for the fellow that's not at the table when he sees

his plumber is going to get $2 or $3 an hour more than he's getting,

probably. It can only result in, as the Honourable Member who spoke

before me said, the continual revolving of this spiral of an

unnecessary type of inflation because we haven't been able to graduate

people who know how to deal with the cause and not the symptoms.

When I came to a low income project the other day, back in October — and I phoned the Minister, I haven't the diary here, but I wrote it in

the diary — I noted that the excavation was pretty well completed and

some of the apartments had their foundations in. It was a Central

Mortgage and Housing financing project for the lower-income people who

would be paying reasonable payments for a working person, a reasonable

mortgage, monthly mortgage and interest rate.

There was a man walking back and front of this non-union job with a picket placard — or was it a sandwich

[ Page 159 ]

board, pardon me.

It said in very bold black crayon "This is a non-union job. Unfair

to labour." So union trucks were avoiding it. People were shutting down.

This firm of young men who started some time ago on their own, began

to develop a good system of building apartments inexpensively for

low-income people and getting the work done, was now being prevented

from making their agreement with opportunity for others who needed to

put bread and butter on their tables.

So I said to the young man, "I belonged one time to the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Jointers…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Got thrown out for not paying your dues.

MR. TISDALLE: Sure I didn't go back to work because of the strike. I paid the dues. I paid the dues. There was $75. They got that.

So the individual said: "I don't belong to any union." I said: "Did

you ever belong to a union?" He said: "No. I never belonged to a union

in my life." I said: "Who hired you?" He said: "It's right down there

on the corner of Quadra, just a block away. You can go down to them,

it's the Union Hall. They hired me."

I said: "That's interesting. Why did you take the job? A non-union

man to picket a non-union job." He said: "It's better than welfare, I

thought." I said: "Are you from out of the country?" He didn't answer

that question.

So I said: "If you don't mind, I'm a member of the Press. I'd like

to phone the Press and let's have an interview." So he said: "Well,

maybe." So I went in and I phoned the Press, just a matter of 25 yards

away from my office. None of them would come. They said: "Oh well,

maybe." None showed up.

An hour later I walked over to the job after phoning all the media.

There

was none there and neither was the picket. I said to the contractor:

"What happened?" He said: "Well, he sure left in a hurry after you

left." All I want to draw the comparison here now is, here we have

"consenting adults." Consenting adults not given the privilege or the

rights that homosexuals are promised as "consenting adults" — that no

one's going to picket that show, whether it's labour or not. No one is

going to interfere with "consenting adults." The federal government

passes legislation to protect the rights of individuals on that score.

Why then does it mean that a person who wants to protect his livelihood

and take a job with someone else who consents to hire him — that that

type of consenting adult is less than important.

When it comes to legislation, you think it over. We talk about

rights and duties. He's the minister of Labour, he's not the Minister

for Trade Unions. He's not the Minister for any special group. He's a

Minister that looks after labour in general and it's time we recognised

that.

I'm for rights and opportunities for people but I think we need

creative skill. We have a federal government that's willing to pour out

millions of dollars for what they call innovation programmes.

One of them out here for young people is a replica that is similar

to the Prairie Schooners — out in Sooke area. Go out and see it.

They'll take another two years to finish it at least. Here it is

sitting out there, some day to be a prairie schooner to do something or

other across the country and come back again I suppose.

It's a commune I guess. I don't know but I've driven by it. It looks

like something that, I can't describe it — it would take a picture to

do it. It looks like they're doing a good job but it's with your money.

"Innovations for youth opportunities."

How many more of these things such as counting the garbage across

the countryside to find out how many pieces of garbage are per mile on

a highway? Did they pick it up? No. They said, they didn't pick it up.

They weren't paid for that. (Laughter).

You talk about laws that are queer. Not all the queers are laws but some…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. TISDALLE: You people are afraid. You're afraid of the

truth. You know, I can remember the Opposition, the N.D.P. for years

always kind of supporting people like Dr. Andy Cott and so on and the

Georgia Straight , we never hear them saying too much against that. One

person was fired in Saskatchewan because they tried to read the Georgia

Straight in a school.

And I'm telling you if I brought the Martlet into this place and

tried to read it with every four-letter word that was in last several

issues ago in the summer… I saved it and it burned up in my office

somehow or other.

If I was to read that article, if I read that editorial you would

rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, so many times that we wouldn't get

the afternoon speech over.

These are the people that are trying to shape the minds of our young people. Professional idiots. (Laughter).

As for the Georgia Straight , see what labour problems they are

having. They had a great blow-up. They locked one another out. There's

a lock out for you, Mr. Minister! The Georgia Straight locked one

another out the other day. I think you should investigate it.

But these people can't stand criticism, you see. You get that pinko

outfit and Socialists. They break up inside. They can't stand internal

criticism or observation. Now, that's not so over here. Sure, we have

somebody on this side who enjoyed a lot of freedom and liberty.

Then he decided that he wanted more freedom and liberty so he went

alone. He goes it alone. "Little Scott Wallace sat in a corner…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order…

MR. SPEAKER: I will bring the Hon. Member to order.

MR. TISDALLE: All right…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are referred to as "the Hon. Member from the constituency of… "

MR. TISDALLE: Right, right.

MR. SPEAKER: …and not by names.

MR. TISDALLE: Right, but I noticed that they refer to each other by first names and I was…

MR. SPEAKER: Not when I'm in the Chair. There will be nobody called by their first names.

MR. TISDALLE: That's right. That's good.

"…Seeking political cover. He looked to the right and he looked to the left, and he said "I'll either be one or the

[ Page 160 ]

other." (Laughter).

Then we have the perambulating man.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. TISDALLE: I would think that you need nursery rhymes

explained. But anyway, the man who classifies himself as the Leader of

the Opposition. He travels a lot and he's a great deal, you know, "He

travelled east, he travelled west throughout all the wide province his

muck was the best." (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us.

MR. TISDALLE: "He spread it real thin and he spread it real

thick but unfortunately he couldn't hardly make any of it stick." I'm

afraid the people have realised that.

We had a few talks about nuclear power. Well, I'll give you more.

When it comes to Trudeau as the Prime Minister of this country and I

understand today he's thinking of changing his Cabinet — maybe he

already has. Well you just imagine what's going to happen then when

Stanfield changes his underwear.

It doesn't really matter as long as you are going to…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member get down to some serious debate?

MR. TISDALLE: …as long as you're going to use the economic vehicle in Canada that is a wheelbarrow.

Now we did visit several of the areas of importance to this debate I

believe and one of them was the fish plant down near the Lummi Indians,

which is a reservation project with the help of the federal government

and the State of Washington.

We talked about nuclear energy and I noticed throughout the states,

especially on this west coast, that it's certainly the in power and it

has, I think, a great deal in favour of it. In fact I was pleased to

see the other day that the Mayor for North Saanich has indicated that

he approves and it should be some day felt on this island I presume

some day it will be.

But in respect to pollution I went around the site where they have

seven square miles of ocean captured in a coffer dam for the

aquaculture that the Indians themselves are handling now.

It started about three years ago. I spoke on this subject before but

now I have had a personal view of it and spent some six hours, I guess,

there.

We travelled the whole area with the truck, walked around, saw the

plant, saw everything and then went into the biology station and I was

really impressed with what can be done in the domesticating of fish.

Not for maybe completely the food reasons.

What they call a patrol officer patrols the outside — not the fences

like you do in cattle — but he patrols the outside of it. I don't know

whether he'd be a scuba diver, fisherman or what.

Anyway they had the project going to where now it had some 40 senior

Indians that were working for it and some 40 students. They have all of

the chemistry of the project being carried on with the eggs being

hatched and everything right there.

What impressed me not only was the way in which the natives were

involved and had taken over the project pretty well with the help of

senior officials, but that they had brought the senior members of the

family there.

The father and mother and the grandparents would come into the

school. Some stayed for classes. There was no thought about whether

these people had an education that was adequate to understand.

I asked the reason for this and they said: "Well, we want no problem

at home with the youngster finding that there is no interest there and

saying 'Grandad maybe knows best, that we should leave these fish where

they are and take the natural approach."'

The success story is very, very impressive. Not only would these

young people be enabled to learn the biology but learn the language

drawing the equipment. They were so good at drafting that they decided

to re-draft the equipment just as if it was all blue-printed ready for

manufacturing. It was because they are naturally talented in drawing

and drafting. I thought that out of the whole thing many, many benefits

were coming forth.

I would recommend to the Minister of Trade and Industrial

Development and the Minister of