[ 29020200019.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 19 ]

MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand in my place two years in a row as the Leader of the Opposition, speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I thought I would mention that, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I can't match the record of the Premier but two in a row is pretty good going, considering the past history that we've had. But no matter the problems we've had, Mr. Speaker, ours are over and we have that vicarious pleasure of watching the games that are going on on that side about succession, which I personally hope won't be a matter they will have to deal with for a long, long time. But when the time comes, our problems will look like a Sunday school picnic compared to the things we know are going on over there. Who hired the last PR man and the kind of things that emanate from that?

Mr. Speaker, this is Centennial Year, the first Session of the British Columbia Legislature after coming into the Confederation in January, 1872 and, of course, the Honourable the Minister of Health related some of the experiences of the activities of Members in Centennial Year. One was the Shmockey activity. I was asked to play and for a number of reasons I turned down the invitation — 205 reasons — but I have accepted another invitation on behalf of a number of Members in this House who cross party lines. The Minister of Highways, the Member for Vancouver East and a number of others of us in this House have an advantage over the rest of the Members in that we were graduates of Britannia High School and, on behalf of the Members of this House who graduated from Britannia, I am going to be playing in a rugby game on February 20. That means that everything I have to say this Session must be put in before February 20. In any event I look forward to that activity and I have been at the training table upstairs already in preparation for that event and I expect to do my best. This running away with the ball is a confusion as to where the ball is. Anyway, be that as it may, that is my contribution to the Centennial Year in terms of athletics.

I just wanted to bring to the House's attention, I hate to do this because I don't like to embarrass the Government Party, Mr. Speaker, you know that's not my want. I don't like to point out that there are really no firsts in this Province but I want to quote from the Throne Speech of the First Legislative Session in 1872 and it says that, in part: "…A full statement of all monies received and expended subsequent to the union of this Province with the Dominion, together with the estimates of the probable revenue for the current year, and of the expenditure proposed to be incurred during that period, the latter of which is based upon the strictest economy comparable with efficient administration of our affairs and due attention to the requirements of the country, will be laid before you early in the Session." That's a hundred years ago; it sounds like today, but the next line is the grabber. "Free from debt and with considerable accumulated funds at your disposal I am confident that through your judgement and prudence the financial resources of the Province,…" etc. So you're not alone, Mr. Premier, we were debt free, really, in those days and there is no mention in here at all about contingent liabilities, not a bit, but I guess it's taken us a hundred years to acquire the contingent liabilities.

During the past year, while we were here in this House, a television crew was doing a television show on the Leader of the Opposition and because cameras were not allowed in the House, Mr. Speaker, they had an artist sitting in the gallery doing some sketches and some very, very interesting drawings of Members of the House. I have them on loan, permanent loan from the crew that did that programme. Some of the pictures I have had framed; the others are in my office and if the Members are interested they are more than welcome to come down and see them. I brought one that I had framed to the House today — this is a very good series of sketches of the Premier. I had it framed and I am giving it to the Premier. Well, Mr. Member, not only is it going around in circles but one of the most appropriate sketches is a picture of his back. The view was taken from the Opposition benches, obviously, but in any event I think it is an excellent series of drawings of the Premier and I hope the Premier will be able to use this, possibly in his office. I think it is very, very well done and I think he's captured you very well. There is no charge for the frame, Mr. Premier, it was done in the Government carpentry shop.

The only other bit of comment that I have is that I want to talk quite a bit about the tour I had. During the great debate in Canada about the War Measures Act and the Temporary Measures Act which the Creditistes and the New Democrats voted against in the Federal House, there was an emotional outburst by the Attorney-General of this Province that brought forward an Order-in-Council and the Order-in-Council declared that, as public policy, no person teaching or instructing our youth in educational institutions receiving Government support shall continue in the employment of the educational institution if they advocate the policies of La Fronte de Liberation de Quebec or the overthrow of democratically elected governments by violent means. Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of discussion around civil rights and the use of politics at a time like this by the Attorney-General. I was up at Terrace at the time and I was fortunate enough to receive a copy of a press release issued by the Teachers' Association, the branch up in that area, which supported the Attorney-General's position. The teachers, one group of teachers, did support the Attorney-General's position and I thought I should bring you, verbatim the press release that was issued at that time. The Head of the School Board is a Mr. Lee; he's the Chairman of the School Board, and the President of the Skeena-Cassiar District Teachers' Association is a Mr. John Chen Wing, and I'll read for you the press release that Mr. John Chen Wing issued. It is entitled: "Teachers' President Supports Chairman Lee." "Mr. John Chen Wing, President of the Skeena-Cassiar District Teachers' Association, commented today on Chairman Lee's recent statement regarding the Provincial Government's Order-in-Council about teachers: 'I agree wholeheartedly with Chairman Lee. However,' he said, 'the Order-in-Council does not go far enough, it should be extended to include school trustees, school janitors, school nurses and school bus drivers.' He commented, 'While there is no proof as yet that any trustees in B.C. are FLQ sympathizers, in these troubled times one cannot be too careful."' — I thought it was an appropriate response to the really silly Order-in-Council promulgated by the Attorney-General of this Province at a time of severe crisis in Canada, and it's really interesting that,

[ 29020200020.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 20 ]

after his years as Minister of Education, he wouldn't have enough faith in the common sense of the teachers of this Province and that he would lower the dignity of the Executive Chamber by bringing in this kind of Order-in-Council. We would have expected something better.

Mr. Speaker, I did visit almost all the areas of British Columbia as well as maintain contact here in Victoria through my office. Some of the areas that I visited will be referred to today. The previous speaker was suggesting that M.L.A.s weren't on the job. I want to tell you that everywhere I travelled I found evidence that all the elected M.L.A.s of all parties generally were on the job. I don't think that it is worthwhile for a Member to come in this House and say that so-and-so isn't doing such-and-such, because there is too much of the feeling abroad that M.L.A.s aren't working all year round. Regardless of party, Mr. Speaker, it's been my experience that most M.L.A.s are putting in 12 and 14 hours a day working on the job. That's how they've been able to survive here in this House and some, of course, have been able to survive beyond reason. Be that as it may, I even was welcomed in the north by the M.L.A. from that area, and I appreciated it very, very much. He attended my meeting and that made two of us there, but it was very hospitable of him to be there and I did appreciate it.

The Throne Speech, Mr. Chairman, was compiled essentially, in my opinion, by civil servants. With no apologies, I point out that it had to be compiled by civil servants because the Government wasn't around to write it. It's very difficult to get mail up from Palm Springs or over from Hawaii and, as a result, those people were left in Africa, where there are no problems — South Africa, where there are just no problems. An incredible statement from the Minister of Social — whatever it is — no problems in South Africa — the Commonwealth just about broke up over South Africa, but he saw no problems there. At any rate, the civil servants did write the Speech and left out a number of things that I think are very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we tried to discuss immediately was the problem of unemployment. I am going to make very brief reference to some statistics at this point and then I will come back to them later on. In November, 1970, these are the last figures that I was able to obtain from the Canada Manpower Department, there were 76,000 unemployed in British Columbia. Since that time, we understand, there has been quite an increase. In November, 1969, there were 48,000 unemployed in British Columbia, almost a doubling of unemployed in one year, Mr. Speaker. There is another significant figure that I wish to share with the House at this point and then leave for a few moments. In 1965, the number of unemployed in British Columbia was 25,000 and only 7,000 of that group were in the age group between 14 and 24. Now we have the situation of 76,000 unemployed with 31,000 in the age group of 14 to 24. We have a situation where, in 1965, about 30 per cent of the unemployed was in the age group of 14 to 24 and now it is over 45 per cent. That age group represents, Mr. Speaker, not people who have yet planted deep roots into the kind of social structure that our society is made up of, generally unmarried, generally better trained and generally with a higher level of or a lower level of frustration tolerance about unemployment. This age group does not have the same kind of investment in our society that an older unemployed worker has. This age group is generally idealistic, easily frustrated, short-term in the kind of goals it expects and is conditioned very heavily by a society that equates success with having a job, earning money, driving a car and being relatively freewheeling in our society. When you frustrate those ambitions that, legitimately or otherwise, have been instilled in the young people of this country, Mr. Speaker, you have a potentially explosive situation. You must remember that even in the Throne Speech itself, on page 5, there is an ironic reference to this very point when the Throne Speech says: "…During the past decade it became obvious to my Government that there would be a great demand in modern society for technically-trained people, and that facilities should be constructed in which students could obtain a type of training of benefit to themselves and to the communities in which they live. It becomes increasingly more apparent that, in order to obtain employment in the resource-based industries of our Province, workmen would require special skills and expert training…." Not when you export the raw materials — somebody else has the jobs, not us. When you export coal and iron ore and whole logs, you don't need a highly trained work force being frustrated at this end and it is a mistake to say as you say in here that they need the special skills and expert training unless there is some planning for jobs at the end of the training. "…My Government, therefore, embarked on an ambitious programme of diversifying our post-secondary education facilities. During the past year, the wisdom of this policy was proven by the large number of students who received their training in our vocational schools and colleges and who, in consequence, are now qualified to take their place in the industrial development of our Province…." There are no jobs for them, Mr. Premier. There are a thousand university graduates out there in whom we have invested literally tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to train and they are now walking the streets looking for jobs, and this Government gets upset because, as an example of their frustration, they came to this House. Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about that later on. But I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the very system that we are committed to on that side of the House and on this side of the House is being challenged in North America in a way that has never been challenged before and to give glib, unthinking, foolish political statements about the behaviour in this House last Thursday will bring about the destruction of this system a lot faster than having some sensible, rational discussion around the real problems that we face in this Province. Mr. Speaker, If it were my son or my daughter that put in four years in high school and two years in a vocational school and did all those things that they were told to do — don't drop out, stay in school, behave yourself, conform, get an education — and then they graduated and they weren't given a job, I could understand their frustration in not having employment. If I were a married man on the breadline with three or four children waiting at home for Daddy, the provider, to come home with a pay cheque and a wife who is out working as a waitress or earning minimal increment to supplement the family's income, then if you don't understand the frustration of that kind of situation, you are simply not fit to govern any more. You went through the last Provincial election campaign with a slogan: "Take home pay with Bennett, strike pay with Berger" and, Mr. Speaker, there has been no pay for the working people of this Province who had invested faith in this Government as we are told constantly by Members on that side of the House. Constantly, we are told: "Look at us, we represent working-class ridings. They have rejected a New Democratic Party and they have voted for the Social Credit." They did, indeed, and what have you done for

[ 29020200021.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 21 ]

them? Because of the behaviour of a small, irrational group of people, which is symptomatic of a greater social problem in British Columbia, you condemn out-of-hand the bulk of the people who came here to demonstrate because of the need for jobs. Many of those people who were out there voted for this Government in the last election and it is an incredible kind of performance that we saw.

Mr. Speaker, what about those who are working? One of the classic examples of the kind of limited income that people can bring in while they are earning in British Columbia is the Sandringham Hospital — just up the street. Last September, that hospital became a bargaining unit of CUPE and they went out on strike because they wanted living wages — they were earning $1.50 an hour. How do you expect to raise a family on $1.50 an hour? They were told by the corporation that runs the Sandringham Hospital that they have to understand that the hospital was in business to make a profit and the hospital is indeed in business to make a profit. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation because of the lack of chronic care facilities promised by this Government time and time again. We find large private investors dealing in human misery by making profits out of private hospitals, while people who have paid taxes in this Province do without the service. I think even the Member from Oak Bay had some comments about that. Yesterday, he said we should bring in the churches. Bring in the churches and reduce the concept of care in British Columbia back to charity! Not only did he suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we charge the sick five dollars a day but he said that the Church should be playing a role, a significant role, in this particular strike. I would like to read to the House the comment of a leading religious figure in Victoria who attempted to mediate in this dispute because of his concern for the patients and concern for the families who are affected by this strike. I quote from the Victoria Times of December 17, 1970: "The rector of St. Andrews Cathedral said Wednesday in his offer to act as mediator in the Sandringham Private Hospital strike he was rudely rebuffed by two officials of the National Nursing Homes Limited. Monseignor Michael O'Connell told the Victoria Labour Council that Sandringham management is more interested in exploiting 'dear old Granny' than in the welfare of its workers. O'Connell, representing the Greater Victoria Council of Churches, was in Vancouver Monday for a meeting with Neil Cook, President of the National Nursing Homes Association, and Official Donald Dewar, Cook and Dewar, apparently questioned his right as a church official to be involved." The attitude of these nursing home owners, Mr. Speaker, is "mind your own business" and to go on from there I quote the Monseignor. He said, "One thing that annoyed me very much was that 'dear old Granny' was mentioned about 10 times and I would submit that anyone who doesn't care about Judy walking the picket line doesn't have much concern for Granny either." O'Connell said the dispute was brought about by irresponsible and unenlightened self-interest and capitalists. That's the Church speaking and it is able to see clearly what the problem is in terms of after-care for chronically ill people in nursing homes. For a Member to stand here as he does, representing an area from Victoria, being aware of this situation and giving a pious call for the churches when the churches have already taken a position and have been rebuffed for that position, Mr. Speaker, I tell you I don't think he's been doing his homework. What we need, and we need now, is a responsible public hospital programme regarding total care for all citizens of British Columbia as the need arises, and if we'd get on with the preventative services that have been neglected by the Minister of Health, even to the point that that Member recognizes, we would have been saving money along the way as well as, incidentally, saving some people from the suffering that is going on. I suggest that if the Minister of Labour, now freshly back, would pay some attention to that particular problem, we might be able to set some better standards.

Just a last word about the National Homes Limited that owns the Sandringham Hospital. Just to disabuse anyone of the attitude or the feeling that this company is in business for its goodwill, let me read you some facts about the National Nursing Homes Limited. There are a total of 62 doctors who are shareholders, including eight from British Columbia. A drug company is also a shareholder — Belvedere Drugs Limited, Alberta. The annual report indicates a record year for the company, with gross revenue 40 per cent greater than for the previous year. Net income for these private hospitals that can't afford to pay more to their employees in 1969 was $111,205, net income for 1970 was $605,371, an increase of half a million dollars in one year, but not enough money to increase the wages of the people who must attend the sick. Five hundred and twenty-one beds were added during the year and the company attracted and generated 10 million dollars in new capital. The company revenue, in total, was 4.8 million dollars. Paid to the directors and senior officers as salaries was $103,000. The company has nine nursing homes and four private hospitals in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. This is a lucrative investment industry. "Soak the sick, soak the elderly and keep the workers' wages down low and we'll make ourselves a handsome profit." Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the Church has already taken a position and the Church has said that this is immoral. I couldn't agree with the Victoria Council of Churches any more than that, Mr. Speaker, any more than that (interruption). The irony of that, Mr. Member, in charging the sick $450 a month or more, is that those people who have been consciously aware of their responsibilities as citizens and have put money aside for a rainy day, those people who have never been a burden on the taxpayers as welfare recipients, who have worked hard all their lives accumulating a small pool of funds, find themselves sick, go into a private home, are ineligible for welfare and they lose all of their private savings. And the irony is that someone who has spent as he went along, maybe could have saved something but didn't, and then needs the care, is immediately able to receive social assistance. It punishes those people who have been what we call, or you call, responsible citizens and that's the double irony of that particular thing.

Mr. Speaker, during the tour that I made through British Columbia, I visited many, many places for the first time in my political life. There are some areas of British Columbia where, after I left, I wasn't welcome in terms of coming back again, but I'll have more to say about that later this Session. I want to… (interruption). Mr. Premier, I could make some reference to the happening on opening day related to that remark, but I won't. I want to spend a little time going over some of the areas that I visited and pointing out some of the things that I saw and some of the concerns that I have because of what is happening in this Province. You can't see? That's a terrible admission for Government Members (laughter). I can't hold the thing up throughout the whole thing but I will try to give you some idea; I will give you a verbal description. I had a friend of mine do it and it was very, very kind of him to spend the time. Yes, I expect a bill, even though he's my friend. I expect the bill to be quite

[ 29020200022.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 22 ]

substantial. The first area that I want to talk about is the Elk Valley. It is in the Rocky Mountain trench in the lower part here of British Columbia. It is blanketed by coal permits, Kaiser and Fording are already in operation, and many are poised to go again. More big game species are in that area than in East Africa. Mining operations are concentrated on winter range of wildlife and Kaiser has not been able to live up to its promise for reclamation of that area. Growing conditions are more severe in that area than in any others. In spite of laws, much tougher laws in the Appalachians, there has been no attempt to even have tough laws here in British Columbia. We have a very weak Bill and it is generally being ignored by the Kaiser Corporation. Remember, while this is going on we receive no direct royalties from Kaiser. We're shipping this coal to Japan; the first 15-year contract signed by Kaiser allows us to ship the coal to Japan without a five cents royalty. Last year I introduced a Bill in this House, Mr. Speaker, that would have put a one dollar a ton surcharge on every ton of coal leaving British Columbia for export. Last year, we exported some 12 million tons of coal which would have collected 12 million dollars. The Member is concerned about the export of coal, Mr. Speaker. If you're crying for Kaiser, Mr. Member, let me tell you that I have no sympathy for Kaiser messing up our beautiful Province without any direct return to this Province of ours except, Mr. Speaker, for the few jobs that come out of Revelstoke and the constituency of Revelstoke-Slocan. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we witnessed an attempt to even rob those few jobs from British Columbia by this Government appealing to the Federal Transport Commission to allow the export of Canadian coal over American railroads so that American workers can have jobs. And then we have the Member from Revelstoke-Slocan piously saying that he agrees with this. Aren't you fighting for the railroad workers in your constituency, through you, Mr. Speaker? Not at all, not at all. They are more interested in providing jobs for Americans rather than for Canadians who receive very little benefits from the whole coal deal in that area. In the Flathead Valley, another magnificent wilderness area, another right here, Mr. Member, if you will take a look, right down here, the Flathead Valley. You haven't been up there recently but they'd like to see you up there. Added to the Elk and Fording Valleys and the Livingstone and Kananaskis Valleys in Alberta, it adds up to the potential despoilation of an enormous area of the southwest of Alberta and British Columbia. The Kootenay River Valley, the next main valley from the Elk, is the Rocky Mountain trench and the best part of it, the southernmost area drained by the Kootenay River, will be flooded for 40 miles north of the United States border by Libby Dam in Montana, one of the Columbia Treaty Dams. Ranches, farms and wildlife are affected. British Columbia gets nothing for the destruction of the valley which will be mud-swept for miles when the water is drawn down. That's in the Kootenay River Valley, Mr. Member. In Kimberley, the pollution of the Mark Creek and St. Mary River must be the most blatant pollution in British Columbia. That's close to where you come from, Mr. Member. These streams have been destroyed by Cominco and nothing has been done. There is a rumour that something may be done now because the U.S. Corps of Engineers doesn't want this material pouring into its Libby impoundment. The only previous action taken by Cominco on pollution control was because of the legal suit by the United States. What about the M.L.A. from that area, is he fighting on behalf of some kind of better pollution control? What is the return? The Skookumchuck pulp mill, it was to be pollution free, due to new processes which were subsequently announced as failures, and the evidence of pollution can now be seen far downstream. The magnificient Rocky Mountain trench is stage by stage being destroyed because nothing is being done to protect those things that have been taken away. It cannot be argued that it's being done in the name of economic development.

I had last year's Throne Speech here somewhere and I was going to quote. Here it is, right here. This was the Throne Speech given a year ago January in this House and I quote: "I am pleased to note that the water-pollution problems have been solved in all the new pulp installations." That's what they said last year in this House and "…will soon be remedied in the older mills." Just a year ago that's what they said. "…Intensive research continues to resolve the problem of kraft-mill odour. Tax incentives offered by my Government covering the installation of all nonproductive equipment installed only for pollution control has assisted with the tremendous improvement which has already been recorded." Mr. Chairman, there has been no improvement recorded in the past year. The Skookumchuck mill was to be the mill that was talked about in your Throne Speech last year and the Skookumchuck River has been poisoned by the effluent of that mill. You are not even telling us about it this year in the Throne Speech. You've forgotten what you said one year ago. You know, Mr. Member, I think your Throne Speech is all mixed up. Of course, we have to promise, it's always good for a promise (interruption). I'm coming to Buttle Lake, my friend, and we'll talk about some of your statements about that particular area. Then we move over, Mr. Chairman, up to Duncan Lake. The Duncan River flows into the Kootenay Lake from the north end; the river was dammed under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty. The dam generates no power and is for storage only. A public lookout was established to overlook the dam site in the new impoundment. Around the comer from the lookout the beginnings of a lake 35 miles long stretch away to the north. The timber stands dead. The lake was never cleared. Money was provided in the Treaty to do this clearing but instead it was spent building a forest access road up the valley. This road will be used by one private company, Kootenay Forest Products of Nelson, who have vast timber holdings in the upper Duncan. This firm will run trucks with 12 ft. wide bunks on the road and it is planning to build a huge causeway on the top end of the Kootenay Lake to act as a log dump and booming ground. When that happens the public will be locked out of the road for which they paid the bill. Those trees stand there dead as a monument to the statements made time and time again by the Minister of Lands and Forests that we'll clean out every one of these areas. They've left a trail of devastation throughout the whole area. The question of flood control on Duncan Lake is really a matter to be concerned with. We were told that the control flow out of that dam would allow flood control. Residents are still farming on the flats between the dam and Kootenay Lake at a distance of about 12 miles. The erratic action of the river, caused by its being controlled instead of running off on a normal process, has caused severe erosion of the land. One farmer has lost 100 acres, another around 20, still others have lost lesser amounts but stand to lose more. Their complaints to B.C. Hydro have fallen on deaf ears. The erosion results from the following situation: Normally, the Kootenay Lake is high in the spring; this is the time the Duncan River usually runs off the snow pack. Now the water

[ 29020200023.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 23 ]

is contained behind the dam. Kootenay Lake is very low when the dam is pulled and, as a result, the river reaches greatly increased velocity since there is no high water. It is now a local joke that this dam was built as a flood control dam according to Hydro. Why won't they answer the farmers who have complained? Why isn't there a reply from B.C. Hydro to the people who live in that area? In terms of Nelson, the west arm of the Kootenay Lake is badly polluted — the Member from Nelson-Creston knows that. Nelson sewage has been a principal contributor but the thousands of residents all along the shoreline have only septic tanks to rely on, and seepage into the mainstream would seem inevitable. The bathing beach in Nelson was open to the public last year, after being closed a year earlier. It was a cool summer. It was closed the year before for health reasons. The residents are terrified of plans to build a pulp mill on the west arm just above Nelson and I know that we will hear from the Member from Nelson-Creston as to his position on this proposed pulp mill. This would dump its effluent into Kootenay Lake. The Kootenay Lake is known as one of the cleanest and most beautiful fresh water lakes in British Columbia. I don't know if the Attorney-General has been up there, right down in this area here. At the outbreak of the Kootenay River at Balfour, the lake is relatively clean. Downstream from this outlet, between Balfour and Nelson, the water gets increasingly more polluted, mostly from sewage. At present, the only industry dumping effluent into Kootenay Lake is the Blue Bell Mine owned by Cominco but this operation is stopping within a few months and presumably the pollution will then come to an end. But the plans of the Kootenay Forest Products, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, for a booming ground in the north end of the lake is certain to cause a serious bark and turpidity problem. This will also disrupt one of the choicest swimming areas and I don't know what planning is being done in that regard. The Mica Dam (interruption)…the swimming area, Mr. Member, is back on the west arm of the Kootenay Lake. That's where the swimming was closed for a year. The Mica Dam, the key structure in the Columbia River Treaty, will create a lake 130 miles long. Apart from the shoreline within sight of the dam itself, the reservoir is not being cleared, again, another man-made lake in British Columbia filled with dead trees, but rather highgrading of the best timber is being carried out on part of the reservoir area. The reservoir would be worthless for recreational purposes, with tributaries such as the Wood River, which lead to some of the finest alpine country in the Canadian Rockies destined to become impenetrable, log choked inlets. The management of the reservoir has been condemned by conservationists and by professional foresters, as well as people in the community of Golden. The Arrow Reservoir, the Okanagan Lake, I want to skip over some of this because there is a great deal of detail that has been gathered during my visit throughout the area.

I want to talk a bit about the Okanagan Lake. The lake is seriously threatened by pollution, according to the Medical Health Officer in the area, Dr. David Clark. Since 1955, over 700 tons of DDT have been dumped onto the orchards. Residues have found their way into the lake and water courses. Fish over two pounds are too heavily contaminated for human consumption. The sewage treatment plants of Kelowna, Vernon and Penticton are the best in the Province and are far better than the Provincial Government's maximum standards, but only half the people in the whole valley have the benefit of sewers. The water in the lake is extremely vulnerable. The lake is a relic from the Ice Age and if it were emptied now it would never fill again. Biologists of the Provincial Game Department estimate that it takes 50 years to change the water in the lake. Industries in Kelowna have been major polluters for years. Sunlight Products dumps its production effluent into Brants Creek which flows into Okanagan Lake and it is so full of sugars and hot liquids it smokes and steams in the winter, and in summer it smells like a sewer. Even though, Mr. Speaker, the towns have constructed excellent sewage disposal facilities, the Government has not seen fit to control the industrial polluters in that area. The Government has come up with a proposal, that it is gently pushing, to have a diversion from the Shuswap area to flush out the Okanagan Lake. Dr. Clark, I think it was, described this as an attempt to look upon the Okanagan Lake as a toilet bowl and have the Shuswap flush it out. It cannot be done. The Member is right, it cannot be done. And yet, Mr. Speaker, we have not had a clear-cut statement from this Government that they are opposed to the Shuswap diversion. The Member from Shuswap stands on both feet on both sides of the issue and we have no idea, if this diversion did take place, of what kind of lasting damage would be done to the Adams River salmon run. There is a pattern right across this Province, Mr. Speaker, of despoilation because of a lack of planning or a lack of understanding of the effect of unplanned development that has taken place under this Government. The Fraser River, Mr. Chairman, is the largest salmon-producing river in the world. These salmon runs are now threatened by the threat of a power dam on the Fraser River. We see that the Chamber of Commerce up the valley has flown a kite about the Moran Dam and I don't know if it's the Government's intention to make a move to create an atmosphere for the Moran Dam, but there is no adequate research on the damage that would be caused by that dam being built. We move over very quickly, Mr. Chairman, to the Strait of Georgia and it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to see the kind of fight that goes on between this Government and the Federal Government over the Strait of Georgia. We have the Minister of Recreation and Conservation taking the position that this Government has the right to drill for oil. It's the only Recreation and Conservation Department I know that thinks that oil derricks have a more aesthetic value than trees, Mr. Chairman. The argument is that, and I give credit to the Federal Minister, Mr. Davis, for taking the position (interruption). No, he hasn't forgotten that experience. With the oil spills that we are witnessing now on both coasts of the United States, we find statements from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation leaving us with a feeling that they would be more than anxious to start oil drilling in the Georgia Strait if the Federal Government would mind its own business.

Then we come, of course, to Buttle Lake. Now I remember those debates, Mr. Chairman, I remember when the Member from Cowichan-Malahat got up and had some very tough exchanges with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the M.L.A. from that area. At that time we had demonstrations, too; we had committees coming down from the Campbell River area protesting the dumping of Western Mines effluent into Buttle Lake and we were told, Mr. Speaker, that there was nothing to worry about, nothing to worry about, that everything would be taken care of. The Minister of Municipal Affairs said that if there were technical evidence of pollution he would be the first to man the barricades. He's still here today. "He's leaden-footed," says the Member behind me.

[ 29020200024.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 24 ]

The other Member says, "We have now a biologist's report indicating dangerously high levels of copper and lead in the fish of Buttle Lake." Conservation Minister, Ken Kiernan, said that he would stand and drink the water off the surface any day of the week. It's good for his health that he didn't keep his promise. Then the last statement of all, like King Canute, the Resource Minister, Mr. Williston said, "The lake will not be allowed to be polluted." It is polluted, my friend, and you're the M.L.A. from that area and you've been away from it for some time so you can't be blamed for the pollution. But it has been polluted by Western Mines, Mr. Speaker, and I want to point out that when we receive these pious statements from Ministers assuring this House that there will be no pollution, there is an admission that they don't know what they are talking about. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would never call a Minister of the Parliament a liar, never. Not only is it against the rules but I don't think any Minister of the Crown would tell a lie. But, Mr. Speaker, what is maybe observable are statements made in ignorance, not on the philosophy as expounded by the former Minister of Highways when he sat in this House and said, "When I tell a lie it is only because I think I am telling the truth." We heard that one from the Member from Kamloops. But I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, for responsible Ministers of the Crown to stand up and attempt to assure this House that no pollution will take place — "I will man the barricades" or "I will drink the water from the lake" — just three years ago and to find out that the lake has been poisoned consistently since the Pollution Control Board allowed them to dump their effluent in the lake, we have no faith whatsoever in the veracity of any one of those Ministers' statements about pollution, none whatsoever. How can we be expected to believe them, with the evidence that is forthcoming and then on top of that, Mr. Speaker, we get a Throne Speech the very day that the Pollution Control Board has announced that they are going to allow Utah Mines to dump their effluent into Rupert Inlet? Does anyone doubt that, Mr. Speaker? Was Utah Mines nervously twitching their hands wondering whether or not the Pollution Board was going to turn them down? Just to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that Utah Mines would not get unduly upset that the Pollution Control Board might turn them down, there were 150 applicants to speak to the Pollution Control Board and only four were allowed to speak. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Pollution Control Board's behaviour on issuing the permit to pollute the Utah Mines reminds one of the Damon Runyan description of the dice game. Very fair, my friend. Damon Runyan's description of a dice game with Harry the Horse and a few other members standing around playing dice, Mr. Speaker, when along came Big Julie. That's right, Mr. Member, you are very familiar with your Damon Runyan. Into the room stepped Big Julie, he scooped up the dice and put them in a hat. Big Julie was the local enforcer and Big Julie shook the dice in a hat and called out, "seven," and he took the money and no one dared to look in the hat, Mr. Speaker. They accepted Big Julie's word. Then he rolled a six. But it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that there are more experts on Damon Runyan's methods than I, because this Government, Mr. Chairman, has been playing the Big Julie role with the dice, Mr. Speaker. There they are, Big Julies, through the Pollution Control Board. "We've looked in, there's no pollution, you can have the permit," and they shake the dice again. We look in and we say people are being emotional — they want to look in the hat. Well, of course, they didn't wait for the permit, they knew very well what Big Julie was going to shake up in those dice, Mr. Speaker. They knew very well that they weren't spending 12 to 14 million dollars for nothing. And the Member from Oak Bay yesterday said we have to learn to live with it; we have to learn to live with Big Julie? Yes, Mr. Member, you are quite right, we have to learn to die with it.

I for one find the statements in the Throne Speech about the ecological control that is being developed in the Province of British Columbia nothing more than an insult, and I quote: "A broad approach to the general matter of ecological balance to the environment has been made through the Land Use Committee, chaired by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, and comprised of the Ministers of Agriculture, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Municipal Affairs, and Recreation and Conservation." They are all in on the crap game, Mr. Speaker. "Arrangements are now being made to bring an even broader scope of opinion and advice to the vital question of environmental management by the Province by the inclusion on the Committee of the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance." Now they are bringing in the Minister of Health. Why was he cut out of the Buttle Lake study in the first place? We asked questions in this House of the former Minister of Health if, indeed, a health study had been done in the Buttle Lake area by the Department of Health and we were told, "We don't know." To this day, we have never had an answer from the responsible Minister in this House as to whether or not an independent study of the potential effluent damage to Buttle Lake was ever done by the Health Department. There is some question that the Health Department actually did do a study in that area and reported that the effluent could be damaging to human health and that the Health Committee was disbanded. Now we're told in last week's Throne Speech that the Health Department will be called back in — into the Land Use Committee. What is the use of all this development, Mr. Speaker, if human beings' health is being endangered? It's all very well that we can make all kinds of comments about the silly statements, especially by the Minister of Municipal Affairs manning the barricades. It is all very well for us to say he can get the lead out. It is all very well for us to make other humourous comments, but I challenge the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to go on a daily diet of Buttle Lake water right now, not a one-shot drink of 24D like Dr. Shrum who has no fears of becoming pregnant. But I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Water Resources, have now added the Minister of Health to the Committee and what power will he have? We don't question the sincerity or the competence of the Minister of Health. We know that he has not been permitted to do his job and he has to carry the can of responsibility for the wild statements and promises of his Cabinet colleagues. He even had to admit that the Clearwater promise would not be delivered. The Minister of Social Welfare, Rehabilitation and Improvement, and Business Men's Alliance, an expert on Africa, promised the hospital and the poor Minister of Health had to announce that it couldn't be built. The Premier promised it, too. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the whole Pollution Control Board should be dispensed with. I suggest to you that the Land Use Committee should be dispensed with and the whole matter of pollution control should be turned over to the Department of Health to assure the citizens of British Columbia that no development is taking place that endangers their health, or their children's health, or any one else's in the community. And I would like to hear a report from the Minister giving some assurance that the people who live in

[ 29020200025.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 25 ]

these areas are not endangered in terms of their health.

The last area I will refer to briefly, Mr. Speaker, is the Williston Lake area and the Prince Rupert Mill where effluent has been known to spill from that mill and where a charge was actually laid. We have a panorama, Mr. Speaker, of the Province of British Columbia being misused by a Government that believes its own statements piously given in this House. Evidence has piled up that there has been no sensible planning on the development of the resources of this Province and, in their attempts to do what they think is best in terms of development, they have not thought of the basic security of the health of the citizens of this Province. Mr. Chairman, if you want proof of their philosophy then I quote from a speech by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to the Social Credit ladies and I quote. "B.C. has a responsibility not only to Canada and North America but to the world in general. We have to be good stewards for the resources over which we have control but to deny other people a share of our resources is not only economically unwise but socially and politically unacceptable. I think it is morally wrong," Kiernan told the annual meeting of the Women's Auxiliary of the B.C. Social Credit League. "Unless this world lives on a basis of morality it can't live very long at all. It is an attitude of such selfishness that it could not help but turn other people against us." If this world doesn't live in morality we can't live at all. I suppose his statements on Buttle Lake were in that category. Mr. Speaker, I challenge this Government to take one of its famous second looks as to what is going on in this Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the tourist industry represents one of the major industries in this Province. The Throne Speech alludes to the fact that 470 million dollars were spent by tourists in this Province last year. I suggest that a more sensible management of our Province would call for an immediate programme of reclamation projects throughout the Province of British Columbia. There are literally tens of thousands of young people, Mr. Speaker, who do not have jobs. Most of these young people are caught up in the ideological commitment towards preserving Mother Earth as it should be rather than despoiling it. A 3 per cent tax on all capital and improvement expenditures in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, would produce 25 to 30 million dollars immediately in this Province. Those funds could be turned over to employ young people on vast reclamation projects throughout this whole Province. The Member who sits as the Minister of Agriculture came to this House on the issue of preserving the Tweedsmuir Park area. He has forgotten Ootsa Lake, but Ootsa Lake was the beginning of unparalleled devastation by thoughtless and stupid development of this Province, with no planning or no commitment. Mr. Speaker, the unemployed of this Province would welcome the opportunity of cleaning up the mess and we could sell British Columbia on the concept of "Parks–British Columbia," a beacon for all of North America, where people could come and visit a Province that was clean, pure and protected. The side benefits, of course, would be a tremendous boost to our tourist economy and a fantastic, long-lasting commitment to heavy, labour-producing jobs in just maintaining this beautiful Province.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there have to be aggressive moves for reciprocal arrangements to receive the maximum benefits for the export of our raw material. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, what the point is in digging big holes in the ground to provide the Japanese with iron ore and coal through companies that are American-owned, with the profits going to multinational corporations in the United States and Great Britain? What kind of government can the people of British Columbia admire when a Minister stands up at his political convention and announces, "We must export because we have to be good neighbours." I suggest to you that being a good neighbour, Mr. Speaker, calls for some reciprocal rights. You say that the Opposition never has constructive ideas. You say that you've brought employment to British Columbia. You say that only you have led to this great development. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Government hasn't bargained one bit for reciprocal arrangements on the use of its raw material. I suggest to you that your Minister of Trade and Industrial Matters has done nothing to bring new business to British Columbia to provide jobs for the people in this Province. They are more interested in exporting materials. Do you think that the Japanese don't feel some obligation? If, indeed, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation says it's only a one-way obligation to Japan that we must provide them with the materials, have we never thought of asking the Japanese to reciprocate? Mr. Speaker, last November I wrote two Japanese corporations, as the Leader of the Opposition. I wrote the Datsun Motor Corporation and I wrote the Toyota Company and I'll read to you the letter that I wrote to the President of Toyota Motor Company (the same letter I sent to Datsun): "At the conclusion of this year, 1970, we in British Columbia have had an opportunity of observing the most successful sales record that your corporation has had in British Columbia and Canada. Your automobiles have been widely accepted by the Canadian public and have made a major impact on the Canadian market. There is little doubt that your sales will continue to increase. With this in mind we are also able to realize the fact that your automobile industry is partly dependent on the natural resources of the Province of British Columbia. The market that your industry has provided for our natural resources is an ever-growing one. We here in British Columbia, on the other hand, are in great need of secondary industry of our own. It would seem, therefore, that the concept of establishing an automobile assembly plant in British Columbia by your company would be feasible. Since your sales records indicate a constant market and your company depends on our natural resources to provide your automobiles, I would think there would be mutual advantage in your establishing an automobile assembly plant in British Columbia. I would appreciate hearing from you as to whether or not you have ever considered establishing an automobile assembly plant in British Columbia and, if this thought has occurred to you, would you be willing to enter negotiations with the proper authorities in British Columbia and implement the planning of an automobile assembly plant?"

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that, as Leader of the Opposition, I have been able to enter negotiations with the Datsun Corporation, which is considering putting an automobile plant in Quebec because there has been no aggressive tendency shown for British Columbia, and I will be meeting with their representative. But the Toyota Company has gone even further and I will read to you a letter that I have received today from the Vice-President of the Toyota Motor Corporation: "Dear Sir: Your letter of November 23, 1970, addressed to the President of the Toyota Motor Company, Limited, has been forwarded to my attention. Considering that the Canadian market is very important and that a still more important one has to be made in order to continue to expand the operation, I have interest in your

[ 29020200026.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 26 ]

proposal. Therefore, I would like to send our Toyota representative in Toronto, Mr. T. Fujiaka, to meet with you. As for the appointment, Mr. Fujiaka will contact you shortly." Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Trade and Industry is not too busy travelling, if he could spare a few moments, I invite him to the meeting. Mr. Speaker, we're interested in providing jobs out of the natural resources that belong to the people of British Columbia. Clean jobs, Mr. Speaker. The Minister himself is not showing any initiative. They've been to Japan before and they've all had steam baths. They would have been able to accomplish a lot more just by putting the case to the Japanese industrialists. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am looking forward to my meeting with this gentleman and I am hopeful that out of it an automobile assembly plant will be placed here in British Columbia to employ two to three hundred people assembling Japanese automobiles for sale on the Canadian market. That's the least we can do, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It's ironic that the Leader of the Opposition has to stand in the House and announce moves for industrial development of this Province, with a Government with 38 seats, with trade missions over to Japan, with a flock of Cabinet Ministers going over to Osaka to the World's Fair, coming back with promises, promises, promises, when a little bit of aggressive action by a Member of this House can bring about what I hope will be the beginning of the establishment of an automobile assembly plant here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by just making a brief referral back to the opening day of this House. I will not comment on the statements by the Premier or by the Attorney-General. But let me tell you this. The President of the United States has announced that there must be a revolution in the United States to begin clearing up the problems they're faced with in that country, including unemployment, the lack of social security, cleaning up their environment and new goals for their society. The President of the United States is cognizant of the vast and rapid shifts of attitudes and feelings in North America. There is not a Member of this House who isn't committed to the democratic parliamentary system, but I'm telling you this, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, that whole system and its fabric is on test here in Canada and in British Columbia. Unless this Government, which has been given authority by the people of British Columbia, gets British Columbia moving again, we may be faced with the same problems they have in the United States and the role of the democratic socialist party in that context, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a meaningful alternative within the legislative system. Anybody who doesn't understand that and attacks the role of that party is attacking the system in a far more dangerous way than any small demonstration can. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we intend throughout this Session to lay before this House alternative ways of revenue gathering, alternative ways of developing this Province, and alternative ways of protecting the people of this Province. The Throne Speech is a tired, useless, hollow document produced by a Government that sits with 38 seats, that has forgotten the little man, and has forgotten the reason why it was elected in the first place.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have started off on a new Session of the Legislature and I'm certainly pleased to see the Government Members all present with their usual winter tans. They are all looking very fit and healthy this year. We're discussing a brand new Throne Speech today and when I listened to the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor present this Speech from the Throne last week, I thought perhaps the problem was that we couldn't hear the Speech from the Throne. There was so much din in the background that I thought maybe the reason why I didn't hear any new proposals from the Government was because they were lost in the noise in the background — people demanding jobs. But when the afternoon was over and I went out to read the Throne Speech, I found I had been mistaken on one count, Mr. Speaker. I thought we were gathered here to hear a Speech from the Throne, one of the long traditions as old as Parliament itself. But I found that, when I read the press accounts outside, instead we had a State-of-the-Union Address and I was able to read in the Victoria Times not only a full report on the State-of-the-Union message but the interpretation of it put forward by the Chief Executive, the President of this Province. It seems to me that the press must have been given advance copies of this Speech. It was an eight and one quarter-page State-of-the-Union message and it was a pretty partisan rehash of what the Government had done. There was only one sentence, Mr. Speaker, in that whole speech which dealt with the most important problem in this Province and, really, it was presented not as a challenge to the people of the Province for the coming year but just a justification and an apology for some of the Ministers who have been inconvenienced by the difficulties we have had in the past year. Of course, I refer to the Minister of Finance, whose revenues haven't been up to snuff; the Minister of Labour who has had just a few problems during the year; the Minister of Social Rehabilitation, who has found that he hasn't had enough money to pay all the welfare costs. The next sentence on page 8 reads this way: "Inflation, high unemployment, and the migration of individuals and families to British Columbia in search of employment and a better life were three socio-economic factors which contributed to sharply rising demands for social services and income maintenance to persons in need." Whole sections were missing from that Speech that should have been dealing with the underlying causes and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps one of the underlying reasons was on page 6 of the Speech. I want to quote from that: "My Government pursues a sound, modern system of personnel administration for the public service. It is deeply conscious of the high quality of its Civil Service and is appreciative of its loyal support." Just a month before, a story appeared on December 29 with the dateline, Victoria: "The Provincial Civil Service has been cut by 1,400 persons in the last year as a result of Premier Bennett's cost freeze. The staff cuts were brought about by a policy of filling only essential positions when employees retired or left their jobs for other reasons." Now, in January, we are treated to a report from the Premier that he was adding a thousand persons to the Civil Service, but what had happened, Mr. Speaker, was simply this: The Government discovered, after it had laid off 1,400 people, that the Civil Service simply couldn't operate and so the job reductions had to be limited to only 400. We're going to let a thousand people back on the payroll and that's how we're going to combat unemployment in this Province. The migratory Ministers of the Government, including our President, were away over Christmas vacation seeking a little warmth in the sun. Well, I think they should have stuck around, Mr. Speaker, because things were pretty hot in British Columbia. When the time

[ 29020200027.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 27 ]

came to prepare the State-of-the-Union message it seems there weren't enough people around to do the job, that it just wasn't possible for the Civil Service to come up with the kind of recommendations that would give some promise to the people during 1971. Now if this kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, represents "…a sound, modern system of personnel administration" for any business, let alone the public service, then Simon Legree with his whip would be the epitome of skill in modern industrial relations.

We heard a very nice, moving speech on Friday from the Member from Columbia River, a stirring second from the Member from Oak Bay but I think, Mr. Speaker, that these Members might have had just a phrase of apology in the motion they offered to the Lieutenant-Governor for some of the discourtesies that were that wonderful gentleman's unfortunate fate on opening day. I think it was carelessness rather than any deliberate attempt to secure political gain, but the Lieutenant-Governor was exposed to indignity. First of all, the Speech was distributed in advance of delivery so that not only were the contents of that Speech on the street before the Lieutenant-Governor had finished delivering his Address, but an interpretation by the President of the Union had been given, so one press report said, "…after the Speech." Here it is: "Bennett, in an interview after the Speech, admitted that it contained even less indication than usual of this Government's legislative program. He called it rather a State-of-the-Province Address." This was in the four-star edition of the Vancouver Sun, a paper that has a deadline of 12:30 in the afternoon. I would think it torture enough for the Lieutenant-Governor to have had to wade through that Speech, but to have it described as a State-of the-Province or a State-of-the-Union Address, something reserved for American Presidents, is a second indignity. I'm not blaming the Members of the Fourth Estate; it's their job to get out and get as much as they can from people who are willing to talk, even if they talk too much. But I think it is a discourtesy to Members of this Assembly as well as to the Lieutenant-Governor to have the contents of the Speech complete with interviews alleged to have been given after that Speech was delivered on the presses of this Province three hours before we met in the Assembly (interruption). I'm talking, Mr. Speaker, of course, about the message given by the Lieutenant-Governor, not the Premier nor President, but the Lieutenant-Governor, and the very least that could be done is to give that gentleman the courtesy of him giving the Speech first, unencumbered by interpretations by the President and by the kind of security precautions that would guarantee a dignified presentation. Any of you who had come over to demonstrate would naturally want to get in where the action was, and this is where the security precautions should have been the strictest. I'm pleased to note that the security precautions are here today, the Member from North Vancouver–Seymour is attempting to rival the First Member from Vancouver Centre on length of hair and he was stopped today as he came to take his seat. But you won't keep us out of the Chamber that way, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody, Mr. Speaker, is talking about pollution these days and so is the Government. The only trouble is that they are only talking about pollution, not doing something about it and, this year, once again, I see by the headline that went to press before the Speech was delivered: "Top priority pledged to B.C.'s environment. Throne Speech forecasts best ecological climate."

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. McGEER: Well, about three o'clock. We've had this stiff and continuing paper war on pollution for some time, and a series of devastating attacks has been launched in the Throne Speech in past years. In 1967, this is what we had: "With the onrush of industrial development in B.C., my Government has recognized as one of its cardinal responsibilities the preservation for all time of the blessings of clean air, pure water and fertile soil." The next year we lashed out again: "My Government is continuing to pursue vigorously its programme for the abatement of pollution in all its forms. You will be asked to consider amendments to further strengthen and expand the present Act." But, Mr. Speaker, the Government didn't rest on its laurels with that. Next year we came back again. "My Government is continuing to pursue vigorously its attack on pollution wherever it may occur in British Columbia, on land, on water or in the air." Now last year, and this was an exciting new dimension, the whir of computers were in it: "My Government will continue to work towards the protection and preservation of our total environment so that all our citizens may enjoy the beauties and wonders of our heritage as intended by nature. Reports will be made to the Legislature concerning the efforts and progress being made." Now, this year, a fifth consecutive attack: "The main and foremost policy of my Government is directed to the improvement of the total environment of its citizens, to the end that they shall all enjoy the best ecological climate in the world."

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has told us how British Columbia has the finest pollution control laws and the best environment in the world. Now, here's how we are going to attack it this year. There's another paragraph here: "A broad approach to the general matter of ecological balance of the environment has been made through the Land Use Committee, chaired by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, and comprised of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Recreation and Conservation. Not content with this "fearsome foursome," we are going to add a fifth battler this year and that's the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. That's enough to make anyone interested in ecology simply tremble in his boots, to have a formidable array like that. The Honourable Members will recall that it was just a year ago that the Minister of Health Services was drummed out of this select little group. And some of us, perhaps it was wrong, Mr. Speaker, but some of us thought it was because he might have been just a little zealous in the things he said. He stated there was going to be a clean-up in British Columbia and he sounded like he meant it. This was a little too much for the Minister of Municipal Affairs because that kind of thing posed a pretty serious threat. So, what was done at the last Session? We put it all into the more reliable hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. And as long as we have the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources handling the problems of pollution, we all know we don't need to give another thought to it. Anyway, I suppose this "fearsome foursome," which may become the "fighting five," is hoping the Minister of Health Services has learnt his lesson. But for the sake of the people of British Columbia I hope he hasn't, and that he still continues to be as unrepentant about cleanliness as he was when he got turfed off that committee.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to pass over to the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance a picture,

[ 29020200028.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 28 ]

and I'm going to do it by way of the benches up here. If you would pass it over to the Minister, I'd appreciate it. It demonstrates something. I never thought that I would have to raise this question in our Legislative Assembly. I never thought we would come to this.

Always in the past when I've talked about pollution, I've maintained that the number one priority is to deal with the cleanliness of our water. I've usually concentrated on our beaches and recreational areas, saying, "We have to keep these clean because we bathe in them." But I never thought that I would have to raise the subject of our drinking water. I thought it would get across to this select committee, somehow, that if we are going to combat pollution we ought to be able to get a drink of clean water. I think that there is quite a lot of alkali in it and a few other things, because what that picture shows is some cattle about to defecate in the Naramata water supply. The Naramata water supply, Mr. Speaker, provides flush plumbing for about 75 head of cattle. Now, this is a fact and has something to do with bovine faecal matter. The amount produced by a cow is roughly 16 times as much as that produced by a human and, no doubt, that's the origin of that well-known nonparliamentary expression. Certainly, it describes the content of the drinking water for the people of Naramata. Now, 75 head of cattle would be the equivalent of about one thousand people using the water supply as an outdoor privy, or, I suppose, if the streams are running down into the collecting basin, it would be like a flush toilet, Now this has all been brought to the attention of that fearless battler against pollution, the Minister of Lands and Forests. Before quoting what the protector of our environment has to say on this question, I'd like to quote first what the Medical Health Officer of the area has to say about it: "Faecal coliform levels: From the results collected to date, there are strong indications that heavy contamination is entering the water supply below the storage dam areas. Faecal coliform levels of 240 per 100 mills, were recorded in two samples at the lower settling pond." He goes on to say: "It is recognized by water quality authorities, that raw, untreated water containing more than 50 coli parts per 100 mills should receive additional treatment over and above simple chlorination. Viruses may be present in the ratio of a hundred-to-one in the untreated water. That could indicate a public health problem, for which at the moment there is no yardstick to measure. Chlorine in the amount used for the destruction of pathogenic bacteria will not destroy viruses."

The Water Irrigation Authority for the area had this to say: "We have installed three chlorinators at considerable cost to our taxpayers, but like all mechanical devices they are not foolproof and we have actually experienced failures for short periods, even though they are inspected and serviced daily. When you are dealing with coliform counts of the levels indicated in our sample reports, this could be extremely dangerous."

What were these coli point counts? Well, at the south chlorinator, this is as it's taken into the water supply, 924 per hundred mills; at the north chlorinator, 865; at the settling pond, 900. Now, as you move up to higher and higher elevations, the coliform counts go down. At the 4,300 ft. level at the Naramata Dam, 31.6; at Big Meadow Dam, 5,300 ft. down to 1.13. So there is little doubt that the cattle using the water reservoir to deposit their cow pies — I believe that's the term — are contaminating the water supply for a whole town in British Columbia. You can imagine the outcry if there were a thousand people scrambling over the wire fence at the Cleveland Dam in Vancouver and using the lake behind there as an outdoor privy. But if they did, the coliform counts wouldn't be nearly as high as they are at Naramata because, of course, there's a huge lake there where the faecal matter would get very well diluted. The Health Officer for the area estimates 3,000 tons of faecal matter have been dropped in the drainage district in recent years. That would fill a pretty big privy. Three thousand tons — that's a lot of bovine faecal matter.

What does the Minister in charge of pollution have to say about this? This is what he writes on December 17 and all these facts have been brought out publicly, at union boards of health meetings, all during the past year or two. He says this, and I'm quoting the Minister of Lands and Forests: "With reference to bacterial contamination, the results of tests just received by my Department, although indicating a consistently high coliform level at the intake, are variable at higher elevations on Crown Range and are not consistent with livestock distribution in that area. They do not indicate that the removal of stock from Crown Range, with the resulting loss of from six to eight tons of beef production annually, would itself solve the problem of contamination." Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason why I draw this letter to the attention of the House is because there is gross contamination of a water supply for a large town in the Okanagan. The problem is one not restricted to that irrigation district, because there are a score of others in that valley with similar problems.

What I'm trying to say to the Members of this House is that our values are so warped and twisted that we would sooner contaminate water supplies with bovine faecal matter than give up from six to eight tons of beef production a year. Now, how wrong can your priorities be in this Province, and what more condemning evidence could ever be brought before an Assembly than that we are prepared to sit back and allow faecal matter in our water supplies, rather than interfere, in any way, with industrial development in the Province? And when you are prepared to do that with a water supply you don't care about lakes for swimming, or forests or recreational areas of any kind, or the fish, or the wildlife, or anything else, except those things which produce dollars for the Government. That's the attitude about ecology in this Province — those five pathetic Ministers, every one of them anxious to pollute the Province. Take the Minister of Health this time. Don't fire him from that group; listen to what he has to say. I would suggest further, Mr. Speaker, that this particular matter of contamination of water supplies in this Province should be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare of this Assembly. I want to call witnesses and investigate, in great detail, the matter of our drinking water supply throughout the Province and, in turn, the disposal of human and animal waste.

This problem exists because the Minister of Lands and Forests gives Crown grazing permits to cattle so that they can wander all through our watersheds and use them as flush toilets. That's stupidity. Quite apart from carefully watched standards, how, when you are prepared to do that kind of thing and, in private, write these kind of asinine letters, can you have the gall to appear before this Assembly, year after year, with these pious and empty pronouncements about the environment? It is beyond my powers of conception. What a Government!

Mr. Speaker, there was one part of the Throne Speech which interested me and that was the suggestion that we would consider amendments to the Provincial Elections Act.

[ 29020200029.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 29 ]

We have had quite a few demonstrations in British Columbia and a lot of them had their source in the belief that the Government, the people that are elected, are out of touch with reality, at least they are out of touch with the concerns of the people and, I think, as far as matters of pollution are concerned, nothing could be more obvious. But perhaps one reason is the degree to which this Legislative Assembly fails to reflect the distribution of people in this Province. There is nothing approaching equality of a vote and when that's the situation, perhaps it isn't surprising that the Members who are elected don't represent the concerns of the citizens. My vote in this Legislative Assembly can be cancelled by a member who got only 4 per cent as many votes. What that means is that people in some ridings of this Province have an electoral power 25 times greater than people in other parts. We can't alter that. A vote should not be unequal in a democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: But it is. It is.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it is, and that's required by law. You don't find anywhere in the Federal Government this business of 25 times the value of one vote in one constituency versus one vote in another. It's the value of a man's vote. Senate has nothing to do with votes. I'm against the Senate, anyway. I want redistribution in this Province and have it redistributed fairly, with some philosophy about what a man's vote should be worth. You tell me why one man's vote should be worth 25 times another man's vote. Why? Well, I don't believe trees or acres should be represented by any one in this Assembly, only people. As long as votes in this Assembly are equal then the votes of the people who put us here should be equal. Justify why one man's vote should be worth more than another. Well, I think we should do more than just redistribute this Assembly and that's to go back to the good old-fashioned system of the plebiscite. I think if some of the people of this Province, who are demonstrating angrily against the lack of response of the elected Members, were given an opportunity, just now and again, to express their opinions on certain matters, then perhaps we'd remove the cause of some of these ugly incidents of civil disobedience. We saw evidence enough of that last Thursday. And, again, we not only have the problem in this Province of one man's vote being worth as much as 25 times another man's vote, we have the disruption of fair representation by the warping of party standings in the House. You Government Members control 70 per cent of the votes in the House, with your 38 seats, but you don't have a majority of the people supporting you at the polls, never have had, never will have. There are more people against you than are for you. You had 46 per cent; the Official Opposition here, 34 per cent of the vote and only 22 per cent of the seats; the Liberals, 20 per cent of the votes, and 9 per cent of the seats. So we don't have, in the way the Assembly votes are distributed, a fair representation of the party position.

Now, here's what I suggest, Mr. Speaker, and that's that we should go back to the old preferential ballot and, in this way, each member who is elected would ultimately have a majority of the people in his own constituency behind him. I know when Social Credit came to power, they eliminated this system. The Premier said it was too complicated. It wasn't too complicated to get him in there, but once he got there it was too complicated to keep it. I don't think it's too complicated, Mr. Speaker, I think that most people who can vote in this Province are able to count to four or five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Various shouted remarks.)

MR. McGEER: I think so. Yes, the Member put his finger on it. It was needed only once for Social Credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Various shouted remarks.)

MR. McGEER: It's a good one. I think it might be a good idea to get Social Credit out of power, but that's an opinion. The important thing, however, is that with the preferential ballot, in the final analysis at least you know one thing, and that is that the man who finally takes his seat has obtained the support of more than 50 per cent of the people in his riding. Now, at the same time we produce this preferential ballot system and redistribution of seats, we should set up a system whereby citizens of this Province who want a question decided by all the people will have a chance by obtaining a sufficient number of signatures to have that question placed on a ballot. I want to suggest the kind of things that, where they are put to the plebiscite, might lead to a lot more satisfaction on the part of the governed as to the motives and judgement of those who govern.

I'd like to suggest the following — Sunday sports. What's wrong with having a Provincial plebiscite on Sunday sports? You know, we used to have plebiscites in this Province. We had one on liquor laws at one time. That's how prohibition ended. All these terrific profits you reap on the liquor stores, that's traced back to a plebiscite. Daylight saving time, that was a matter of plebiscite, too.

Why not let the people of this Province say whether they want Sunday sports? Why not have them say, through a plebiscite, whether they'd like beer and wine sold in supermarkets? Break the liquor racket in the Province; this is something that has to be gone into sooner or later in the Province (interruption).

Yes, I am. Are you in favour of it? It's too convenient the way it is, isn't it? Other matters might be decided by plebiscite. Labour is complaining about anti-labour legislation. Why not put whether or not there should be check-offs for union dues to a Provincial plebiscite? What's wrong with that? Why not put whether or not there should be secondary picketing allowed? Put that to plebiscite, or whether there should be compulsory arbitration; we could put that to plebiscite. Whether the cities in municipalities of this Province should get a larger share of the tax revenue; we could put that to plebiscite. For my part, I would be willing to see all of these questions tested by plebiscite — whether they are moral matters, financial matters, labour matters or matters dealing with the treatment of our cities. And I would be willing to abide by their decisions, as well. How many parties in this Legislature would be prepared to do the same? Why not let the public have its say? We do, on the matter of schools and hospitals, money matters in cities; why not on these moral questions that, in the House, we duck year after year, with the feeble guise that the public doesn't want it.

You know we had this radical change, Mr. Speaker, this State-of-the-Union message by the new President of British Columbia. Well, I think, the least we should be entitled to, if we are going to have these dramatic shifts to the American system, is a debate on the matter of the Canadian Constitution, because this has never taken place in this House and the view that was presented to the Nation at the Federal-provincial Conference wasn't the view of this Legislative Assembly. It was the view of the Social Credit Party only.

[ 29020200030.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 30 ]

That's why, Mr. Speaker, I was one who appeared before the Joint Committee on the Constitution, because I felt it essential that the rest of the Nation not be left with the impression that the bigoted message brought by British Columbia to that Conference represented the feeling of all the Members of the Legislature or all the people of British Columbia. We want more than the prejudices of the people who sit on the right hand side of the House. And I'll repeat again that the Provincial Liberal Party in British Columbia is quite prepared to discuss the extent to which linguistic rights should be embodied in a Bill of Rights within the Constitution. We will not accept a categorical rejection of the principle of protection of language rights in that Bill and in that Constitution.

The new Constitution for Canada simply cannot be a vehicle for the brokerage of power between the various levels of Government. What that Constitution must be, is a vehicle for the humble citizen. It should enshrine his inalienable rights, his privileges, his protections. This is what I found most offensive about the brief presented by Social Credit to that February, 1969, Conference. But here's what you had to say, you and your Government: "The first implication of an entrenched Bill of Rights is that it amounts to a restriction of legislative supremacy which has been the underlying philosophy of our parliamentary system. Moreover, such a restriction on legislative supremacy would to a greater extent be at the expense of Provincial jurisdiction rather than the Federal jurisdiction." Now, you've shown what's on your mind — not the humble citizen but your Government and its powers. That's not what a Constitution should be about.

We, in the Liberal party, categorically reject the concept that Government is master and that the people are merely chattels. And we should say among the rights which every citizen should have, regardless of where he may live in Canada, should be the right to sue the Government. How about that, Mr. Attorney-General, is that wrong? Without the consent of the Crown, whether the Crown be represented by the Federal or Provincial or municipal jurisdiction. I don't need to remind the Members of this Assembly that that inalienable right does not belong to British Columbia.

The new Constitution, Mr. Speaker, should provide for a mandatory Hansard, so that what the elected members say can be faithfully transmitted to the electors they serve. And we are servants, not masters. And if a citizen, Mr. Speaker, wishes to stand up in our legislative galleries, as many are this afternoon, and take notes of what I say or what anybody else says, that should be his privilege because we are his servants. I don't know whether the people in the galleries realize it or not, but in British Columbia today they are not allowed to take out pencil and paper because it is a violation of rules set down by the Government who thinks it is the master.

I don't see any point at all, Mr. Speaker, in trying to encourage an informed citizenry about public affairs, when the people who sit in this Chamber are so hypocritical that they are afraid to print the words that are said and afraid to have the public sit in the galleries and take them down themselves.

If modern times, Mr. Speaker, make it possible for the electronic media to take the proceedings of this House through radio and television into the homes of every citizen in the Province, who are we to prevent that? How does it serve democracy? Sealing off this Chamber where public business is conducted from the very people whom we serve.

I think the new Constitution should have in it provisions protecting the individual against invasions of privacy. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that that would include Provincial judges. They are entitled to as much privacy as any other citizen. I don't know if the Attorney-General agrees with that or not, but he asks what rights, and I would include those. There are a number of legal rights of individuals with respect to civil and criminal law which require protection by embodiment in the Constitution. I'm not going to go over them all because they are contained in the Bill of Rights that was former Prime Minister Diefenbaker's greatest contribution.

I only want to emphasize that the new Constitution must recognize that however we may divide or apportion Government authority or responsibility, the Government serves the citizen. And the citizen is not divisible to the convenience of governments, no matter how long they may sit at conferences and decide who should have what power over them.

The first Member from Vancouver Centre mentioned the Senate and I think Senate reform is long overdue. I say, make it elective or abolish it. Nobody could pretend that the Senate is fair. I certainly wouldn't (interruption). You know, Mr. Speaker, a little while ago I visited the Senate and one of the guards at the gate suggested that maybe I was looking at my future home. I said, "No, my future home is in Victoria, where we are going to produce a Constitution that will serve for a hundred years," and which will have, Mr. Speaker, embodied in it the kind of civil rights that this arrogant group that's in power today persistently denies the citizens (interruption). Are you against invasions of privacy, Mr. Attorney-General? Are you against the citizens suing the Crown without permission of the Crown? Yes, of course, you are. Look at what you do. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no higher act of statesmanship could be undertaken by the elected representatives of our day than to proclaim a Constitution, whose nature would be an inspiration to the nations of the world and which would leave no doubt that Canadian citizenship is the most prized possession on earth. We don't have that today. Despite the splendid words of this Government, on all occasions, particularly on the State-of the-Union Addresses, the deeds aren't always that splendid, and I want to give you an example which touches on little people, human rights and the Constitution.

There's a saying, you know, "that a man's home is his castle," and it presumes that, in his own domain, he can be king, with his faithful queen. Well, Mr. Speaker, a man cannot be king in his castle in British Columbia, not if Chairman Shrum wants that castle, or if the Provincial Cabinet wants that castle, because the Presidential rulers will say whether or not that man's castle is his own. Now just occasionally, Mr. Speaker, some lowly and humble citizens fight back and the people hear about them very briefly, but they all get trampled, sooner or later, and then they disappear from sight. But each time we have one of these episodes, it should remind us of the cruelty of absolute power and the inhumanity of civil laws in the hands of an arrogant old Government that believes a Bill of Rights entrenched in the Constitution is wrong, because it interferes with legislative supremacy. Well, that's where we differ in philosophy, because we believe it's the citizen who is important and that the elected people are servants and not rulers.

Now, the story I want to tell you about today is perhaps one you've heard before and, certainly, you should know the gentleman who is involved, because he's one of yours, a Social Crediter, P.A. Codyre. You've heard of him. He owns a modest little home; it's on four acres of land. It's out on Munn Road. I visited it the other day. It sits on a little knoll

[ 29020200031.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 31 ]

and there are trees all around and, just behind that property, there's some vacant land. Everything was lovely out there on Munn Road, until the B.C. Hydro came along and somebody in the Engineering Department made a decision that he'd like to run a transmission line through Codyre's property. Well, just like ominous signs of an occupation, right outside the kitchen window of the Codyre's property today, you'll see that little triangle with the flag hanging down and that symbol, if it's hung on your property, means it's "Game over, buddy, because you've got to get out."

You never get to discuss, in this Province, whether or not that property is needed. That isn't the rule of the legislative supremacy game. The rule is, "We'll pay you what we think it's worth, and if you don't like it we'll appoint an arbitrator." "No, no," he said, "I don't want any money for my property, I just want to stay there because I like it." I know that's a pretty funny attitude, that a man is so attached to his property and his little castle that he can't be bought off. He's the first one to admit that no citizen can stand in the way of progress, but he points out that 46 acres of vacant land lie right behind his property, and I've been and tramped over that vacant land and it does exist. But it doesn't do him a bit of good to argue that the vacant land should be used for that transmission line and that it would be just as good as his own land. Yet Chairman Shrum makes the decision that he wants that property, because in this Province you never argue that the land is needed. All you do is argue over the price. If you can believe it, when Shrum was asked why he needed that property, his reply was, "If the route were changed, it would cause visual pollution because the poles would zig-zag." Bennett said, "Arbitration has worked well in B.C. expropriation cases," but Codyre says that he and the other residents are fighting for a principle. People are no longer going to tolerate the expropriation of their land unnecessarily. What is involved is a matter of principle. Whether your home, or my home, or anyone else's home, is safe from arbitrary and unnecessary occupation, because of Orders-in Council passed behind those green oak Cabinet doors. Other techniques that are used are simple: pressure — and it always works — you knock off a few. In this case, one of the people sold, they've all sold except Codyre now. "I feel as long as B.C. Hydro offers a fair price, there's not much sense holding out," he said. "Let's face it, Hydro isn't going to let five people hold them up." Codyre's answer: "So what, if I lose this battle, every little poor soul in B.C. is done."

Shrum came to see him but, as he pointed out, Shrum's mind was made up. He just wanted to see a curiosity, a man who had enough spunk to fight the B.C. Hydro. Well, today, the Hydro crews are moving freely around Codyre's property. They've given him a cheque, which he has not cashed and, I think, Mr. Speaker, the way things are today, we should all be thankful for the Pat Codyres of this Province, because if the little man is to have any rights at all and any protection at all, it will be because there are just a few individuals who won't sell out, who believe in a principle and who won't bend to the temptations of money.

We've got to have new expropriation laws in this Province. A man's home is his castle, and it shouldn't be taken unless it can be proved that no other reasonable alternative exists. The value of that property should not be just the market value of the property, what someone else is willing to pay for it, but what it would cost that man to find something which would mean as much to him, plus his resettlement costs. And, above all, there must be guaranteed access to the Courts. You people on that side strut because of your piece of paper entitled The Human Rights Act. Well, that's only a piece of paper. The real accomplishment will come when the public has some protection against you, against the depredations of the master servants, and those are the Crown Corporations. We need deeds and not words and it doesn't just apply to the matter of human rights.

In 1969, Mr. Speaker, we had fear preached to us in British Columbia. That was fear preached by the Premier. He talked about those godless, socialist Marxists, the fear of a godless party, that had amongst its ranks of candidates, no less than three ordained ministers, and from that Goebbels-like statement, we proceeded to preach another fear, an economic fear. How many remember that slogan, "It'll be take home pay with Bennett or strike pay with Berger." That was 1969, when we were preaching fear but, now, Mr. Speaker, the poor public of British Columbia has the worst of both worlds. They've got both Bennett and strike pay and, I think, if we'd summed up the State-of-the-Union Address on Thursday, we could have done it with one word — striking — because that described British Columbia in 1970. That's the story of British Columbia, the good life Province, in the year one thousand, nine hundred and seventy, A.D. We had people on strike, the first day of 1970; we had people on strike the last day of 1970; and we had people on strike every day in between. We have had people on strike in 1971 every day so far. But not only did we have people on strike, we also had people locked out, and not only were they locked out, but we had people whose jobs completely vanished. They vanished because of the strikes and lockouts and the way these removed from the essential services, materials and all the other things that are carried in a balanced economy. The toll that was taken last year was colossal and, because we had people on strike and people locked out, this Province fell so far short of its potential last year, it almost staggers the imagination. The economy was shaken right to its roots. New projects were postponed, and necessary works didn't proceed, and new jobs that should have been created, weren't created. What was the total during 1970? 2,900,000 man-days lost. That wasn't in the report of the good life in the State-of-the-Union Address. We just overlooked that little point. That figure is so large in its meaning of want, and misery, and poverty, and wastefulness, that it's almost meaningless. You have to look for other comparisons to get a grasp of how much. Over 23,000,000 man-hours of work lost and that's the direct effect of it. How much is this? Well, it's the equivalent of over 11,000 people out of work for a full year, just in the man-days lost through these strikes and lockouts. That's the direct effect, but if you use a factor, which most people do, of the multiplying of one job upon another, then these 11,600 become closer to 30,000 for a full year.

We had, in British Columbia, during 1970, nearly 45 per cent of all the man-days lost in the Nation and across the Nation it was a bad year. While this was going on, month by month, the unemployment was going up. Over 70,000 in the month of December. The major contributor to that rise in unemployment was the consequence of this 2,900,000 man-days of work lost. Do you know how many 70,000 are, that are unemployed today? That's the equivalent of all the working people in Victoria, and Esquimalt, and Saanich, and Duncan, and all the people on the lower part of Vancouver Island put together. That's the number of people who are out of work in British Columbia today. What are you doing about it? Well, you know, those who defend the Provincial Government policies have tried to suggest that all of this is

[ 29020200032.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 32 ]

because of Federal Government policies — best statement of the Session (interruption). Sure, and so are your deputy ministers, and so is your Minister of Labour (interruption).

Well, Mr. Speaker, a year ago in this House, I warned of the consequences of that example, and who started it? The Government right here, because 1970 commenced as the year of the big grab. Oh, yes, you're the people that campaigned on the slogan, "Take home pay with Bennett or strike pay with Berger," and when you'd preached, it worked. Oh, yes, it worked. Then you began to preach with strength, asking for labour and management to be cautious, not to take too much, to be careful with their demands. Then what happened? Why, we got to the House and found that the B.C. Hydro, with the encouragement of the Provincial Government, was bouncing its rates up by 20 per cent. You know, in a moment of truth, the Chairman of the B.C. Hydro told us that, for political reasons, the true cost of the Hydro projects had been disguised from the public. But the end result of this most ill-timed price increase and, I say, it was the worst-timed price increase in British Columbia's history, the little people of the Province were hit hard. In some cases, for those on minimum rates, their hydro bills were doubled. Others got off with 20 per cent increase, but the big industries got off almost scot-free. That wasn't equity; that wasn't sound leadership; that was grab. Then came the grab by the M.L.A.s, anxious for their cut and somehow thinking that the others wouldn't want the same. I warned the Legislature then, to hoots of derision, that these were going to be ruinous policies. Now, look what's happened since. The storm signals were up then and we were the ones that ran up the flag.

Just how did this last year compare with previous years? I want to read you the statistics of this Government that's so proud of its labour relations. "In 1960, there were 35,848 man-days lost. In 1961, there were 34,659 man-days lost. In 1962, 32,987. In 1963, 24,956. In 1964, 181,784. In 1965, 104,000. Now the Government really began to brag about its labour relations policies and all the wonderful things it had done to bring about peace in this Province. But, in 1966, that figure was 272,922. In 1967, 327,272. Up again in '68, 406,729. That was the year you brought in the Mediation Commission. '69, the Mediation Commission now in full swing, up again, 406,645. And now we come to this year, 1970. When we came here a year ago, in January, 7,100 man-days lost. Then the Hydro increase came through, 22,980. Then the increase to the M.L.A.s came through, 33,690, and then we prorogued and the others began to seek their share. In April, it was 436,500. In May, 640,000. In June, 724,000. In that one month, our man-days lost were almost twice as great as any previous year in the decade. In July, 634,000. In August, 189,700. In September, 135,240. Then, with the winds of winter whistling, October, 50,230; November, 16,680; and in December, 16,680. So, even when the dust had settled and the wounded are all over the Province, still in one month, half as many man-days lost as in most years of the decade. In January of this year, just to this date in January, more man-days have already been lost than in January and February put together last year. Well, what does this mean in terms of jobs, because there is a direct relation between the two? 61,000 unemployed in January; 57,000 in February; 59,000 in March; 58,000 in April. Then, as summer came, and as our unemployment normally dwindles to a fraction, we go up to 72,000. June, our peak working month, 87,000. July, 76,000; August, 64,000; September, 58,000; October, 69,000; November, 76,000; and, in December, despite the Christmas rush, still 70,000. What do we expect for the months ahead? I hope I am wrong but I'm afraid it will begin to climb again.

When you examine the root causes of this, you find that there's more than greed in Government example involved in what took place. There was weak and spineless leadership and that has been the basic fault. That and an inexcusable ineptitude. These were the disputes that caused the trouble and there were seven of them. The first, and most important, was the Construction Labour Relations Association versus the Construction Trade Union. This was the main event and it was fought to a knock-out finish. Who were involved? The plumbers, the carpenters, the labourers, the bricklayers, the bricklayers' helpers, the heat and frost insulators, the operating engineers, the cement masons, the tunnel and rock workers, and the Teamsters. Thirty thousand workmen affected. The strike ran from April 14 to July 27. There were 2,160,000, I stand corrected, lockouts; 2,160,000 man-days lost; a payroll loss of $88,500,000; and the estimated loss to the economy ranged between 250 and 488 million dollars. That dispute, Mr. Speaker, was under Provincial jurisdiction.

The second event, and this was one I came to learn a little bit about, was between the pulp and paper workers, versus the Pulp and Paper Industrial Relations Bureau. That one went from July 24 to September 29, affecting 3,908 men; 190,000 man-days lost; a payroll loss of 8.1 million dollars; the loss to the economy estimated at 60 million dollars. Total loss, 68.1 million dollars. And you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Government wasn't doing anything and the cost of this unnecessary strike began to mount, I agreed to act as a mediator because no one was doing the job. And the Member from Columbia River has the colossal gall to suggest in this House that this was some kind of a settlement that inevitably had to come about. If that were the case, why didn't the Attorney-General and Labour Minister settle it on Day One? Why did it have to run from July 24 to September 29, if this is what the Member from Columbia River thinks was the situation? Then we had the United Steel Workers versus the aluminum Company of Canada at Kitimat, and that went from July 14 to October 27; 1,998 men, and 150,000 lost man-days. The payroll loss there was 6.5 million dollars; the loss to the company was 45.2 million dollars. Another 51.8 million dollars down the drain. Once more, Provincial jurisdiction.

The fourth largest event was one with which the guests in the gallery will be very familiar. That was Pacific Press versus the five printing trade unions. The total time lost, 80,000 man-days; a payroll loss, 2.5 million dollars; direct revenue, another 7.5 million dollars; for a total loss of 10 million dollars. This dispute was under Provincial jurisdiction. Well, the next was the cement industry. Ocean Cement, Lafarge Concrete and Metro Concrete versus the Teamsters. That battle lasted from April 3 to July 20; 650 men out of work; 50,000 man-days were lost for a payroll loss of 1.6 million dollars. The economic loss was 16.6 million dollars. This dispute was under Provincial jurisdiction.

The sixth dispute, in rank of damage done, was that between the B.C. Towboat Owners and the Merchant Services Guild. That one ran from May 3 to June 15. It affected 1,200 men and this dispute resulted in 37,000 lost man-days. The seventh dispute was that affecting the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Canada Post Office (interruption). I don't have a value. We got the values from the Mediation Commission for the others. The next was the Post Office and the man-days of work here that were lost were somewhere

[ 29020200033.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 33 ]

between 25 and 30 thousand. That dispute was under Federal jurisdiction, too.

Now, the point I want to make about all of these matters, Mr. Speaker, is that if you take all those disputes that were under Provincial jurisdiction, they account for over 97 per cent of all the lost time, and those disputes under Federal jurisdiction amounted to 2 per cent. Less than 60,000 man-days lost through the main disputes under Federal jurisdiction, and over 2 million man-days lost in those under Provincial jurisdiction. And this is what we have coming out of Victoria. Think, my good friends, these speakers come from your own Mediation Commission. Here's what the Deputy Minister of Labour has to say in the face of these statistics: "The Federal Government is more to blame for the time lost in B.C. due to strikes and lockouts than the Provincial Government, Deputy Minister of Labour Sands said in a speech to the B.C. Road Builders. I should hasten to point out that much of the time loss which occurred in the Province was not its responsibility in such disputes as the longshoring, towboat and postal strikes, which come under Federal jurisdiction." Now, I don't know what he thought about the other 97 per cent of the time lost, whether he felt that he had some responsibility and the Minister of Labour had some responsibility, or not. Here's what the Minister of Labour had to say in his New Year's message: "1970 was a year which saw a number of favourable developments. In particular, the persistent rise in the cost of living tapered off somewhat, and labour income is estimated to be nearly 10 per cent higher than in the previous year." What about all those people who had these millions and millions of dollars lost through strikes and lockouts, and the 76,000 unemployed? "Realizing the seriousness of the situation, that the amount of damage that had been done to our economy early in the year by the towboat strike which came under Federal jurisdiction, the Provincial Government did all in its power to assist the parties to resolve their difficulties without work stoppages. To this end, a highly flexible approach was adopted and different procedures were used to meet varying circumstances." I think that's a description, Mr. Speaker, of a rubber backbone, because all its flexible approach did was to lead us to over 30 times as many man-days lost in Provincial jurisdiction as what we encountered in those other two main disputes which, too, demanded further action than was received. The consequence of it all, of course, has been that our unemployment rate here has been double that of the Nation — a disgraceful statistic that we've rarely had to face and, because of the dreadful consequences, we've been suggesting now positive actions that the Government could undertake to get the people who have been harmed by these spineless policies back to work again.

During the past month and a half I have put forward a practical suggestion per day for putting people in British Columbia to work and these are some of them: one is to start work on Cypress Bowl. There is no reason why it couldn't be done now if the Minister of Lands and Forests could disentangle himself from the gambling interests of the Bahamas. The Government has endorsed a proposal to build the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame. A fine proposal, let's go ahead with this as a Centennial project. The plans are ready. I'm sure Honourable Members in this House will all be standing up suggesting specific roadwork that should be done and I'd like to suggest some for the constituency of Point Grey. I think there was something like 16 dollars spent on roads in Point Grey last year. But I asked the Minister of Highways to complete the 16th Avenue Road from Blanca to the central area of UBC and he said that "it wasn't important." Just on the other side of the constituency, the Government built a beautiful four-lane stretch of road out to the Shaughnessy Golf Course and there it ended. One wonders whether that stretch of road wasn't put there for the benefit of the golf championship that was being held there that year.

I like, I must say, Mr. Speaker, many of the things that the Minister of Health Services has done this past year. He seems to have got hospitals moving despite all the difficulties that seem to have greeted every Cabinet Minister in his attempts to get budgets. I know they've been a problem to the Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation because he's had to pick up the bits that the Minister of Labour has let fall onto his lap. But there are still long waiting lists in our hospitals, as the Member from Oak Bay pointed out in his seconding speech. One of the new problems that's occurred is the tremendous demand for abortions which now tie up hospital beds and operating theatres. We need to have under hospital jurisdiction special abortion clinics built to take care of this new load. No doubt, we will hear from the Members from the north and I know the Member from South Peace River will be talking about the Court House and the Provincial Government Building at Dawson Creek which were promised many years ago. Well, if we had perhaps some more aggressive Membership this promise might have been fulfilled, but the city contributed that land many years ago and it stood vacant, despite firm promises from the Government. Then there's that poor little community of Clearwater, the one that the Minister of Highways promised would have a hospital. Do you remember that promise, Mr. Minister? There was a promise that there would be a hospital at Port Hardy and at least we got one there before the doctor left, but in Clearwater, no hospital. No hospital, no doctor, and I just suggest to the public of British Columbia they had better not test the curves on that stretch of road, not until we get this little public works underway. Well, I suppose the Member doesn't think I know what I'm talking about either, but he left the town. Why would a doctor stay in a town without a hospital? Why would a carpenter go to work without any tools? Well, certainly, there was no shortage of jobs in any constituency. The Minister of Recreation knows full well how desperately needed the widening of Route 401 is between Hope and Rosedale. We always get the slow tour through that constituency as we wind down through the traffic. "They're going to fix it up." It seems to me we've heard that one before. At Powell River, we've got lots of work we can do there by widening Marine Drive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. MeGEER: You don't want any work done in your constituency? Well, that's an interesting report we can take back, that you don't want the work done. That's an interesting view, perhaps that's why nothing is being done.

I see that the Minister of Education has left, but it's been a long time since the Minister of Highways promised that the people of that district, that is now in the Minister of Highways' riding, would get their proper highway brought up to trans-Canada standards. You remember when you went through the area and said to wait a while and we'll put that northern one through, then we'll build that southern trans-Provincial up to the same standard? That promise has been pretty slow coming through. Surely all the engineering studies have been done and if they have to go ahead, why not now and put all these unemployed people to work?

[ 29020200034.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 34 ]

We do have an influential Member, of course, in West Vancouver and the widening of the Upper Levels Highway, I understand, will finally take place — more credit to a hard-working local Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen million dollars. If you had built it a year ago, when you promised it, you would have saved a million bucks.

MR. McGEER: Well, you don't have any difficulty ferreting out promises that have been made by the Government on the matter of highways. What is really more difficult to find out is why these things haven't been done. There was a time when the jewel in the Social Credit crown was the highways of the Province and now all we have is more and more complaints from people as the foot-dragging goes on in Victoria. I think that we not only need a little more action from the Government in highways, particularly at times like this, but we could have a little more action from the Crown Corporations, as well, because you know there are all kinds of hydro lines that need to be buried, strung like rats' nests all over Vancouver and Victoria.

If we've got nothing else to do, maybe we ought to get on with tackling some of the pollution problems in the Province. I'm sure that the Minister without Portfolio, from Vernon, North Okanagan, I'm talking about Vernon and all those plywood fences in downtown Vernon where that park was promised. Do you remember that, Mr. Minister? No reason why we shouldn't go ahead with that park in downtown Vernon. Good local Membership would perhaps have got something when the economy of the Province is slow. I'm sure that Mr. Speaker, although he can't say so, would love to have a ferry slip put into the Government ferry slip for the Queen Charlotte Islands, so that isolated people could get more than one visit with the Lieutenant-Governor every three years or whenever the elections come along. We suggested that Burnaby Lake should be rehabilitated for a rowing course in the Summer Festival of Sports. I'm sure that some of the Members here would be very pleased to see the child psychiatric facilities go ahead. Ministers without Portfolio have made this a particular project, to try to get child psychiatric facilities in British Columbia and I heartily support their efforts; I only wish they had been successful. But, again, the plans there have been waiting since 1967. I think our municipalities could use some help. You know, when the Government couldn't think of anything to do and the Federal Government made its 35 million-dollar loan available, who was it said, "Why that's a joke?" That was the Minister of Welfare, the Minister of Rehabilitation. Not interested in jobs which that money would produce, not interested. "We'll lend them the money," he says, "we'll lend them the money." Then the Premier thought better of it, didn't he? He thought it over and the next day he said, "We'll take that money after all." Then they invited proposals from the municipal governments around the Province, and what's the next announcement? They couldn't go ahead with all the suggestions they got because it was double the 35 million dollars that were made available, which just shows you what is waiting in the way of works projects in this Province. Here we have that ridiculous situation of people wanting work, possessing skills.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): You had better stay out of that.

MR. McGEER: You said that you would lend the Federal Government the money.

The question the people of British Columbia want to know is where is the take home pay you promised? Where is the take home pay you promised in that 1969 election? Well, I still recoil from that State-of-the-Union Speech, so much self-praise and not one word of genuine concern for the unemployed, not one. I think probably those rose-coloured glasses are getting as dark as burgundy and as Bobby Burns would say, and it's his day coming up, "Oh, would some power gie us to see ourselves as others see us." What we need is no tin-cup begging from Ottawa, as the Minister of Industrial Development provided, but rather a programme for the people of the Province. Oh, yes, all he wanted was more incentive areas from Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. McGEER: You heard him, oh, yes. The same Minister that stood up in this House and said, "We don't want any hothouse industries in this Province." As soon as we left this Legislature and he'd given the Premier's line, off he is running with his palm out to Ottawa asking for the kinds of incentives that have been recommended by us in this House year after year. What we require in this Province is proper leadership; what we've had is the kind of leadership that's chalked up surpluses, it's taken money out of circulation, boosted the Hydro rates, boosted M.L.A.s pay, slashed the Civil Service and fiddled while jobs went up in flames in the private sector. I'm fed up with that kind of leadership, even if the Member from Richmond thinks that is sound leadership (interruption).

I can tell you this, I don't think our problem is deadbeats in British Columbia, as the Minister of Social Rehabilitation said. I think the average working man, given fair and reasonable treatment, is going to work hard at building up our economy but our leadership is weak, it is confused, because this summer when all that trouble started not only were wages and prices up for negotiation but the laws of B.C. were up as well. No Government can afford to negotiate its own laws with any power group. As soon as this happens, the Government forfeits its position of leadership. The Government was pushed around by the power groups of this Province this past summer and it was the Minister of Labour who led the retreat. Bill 33 didn't work; it didn't work because the Government didn't have the guts to make it work. It wasn't a good Bill, we didn't vote for it but if there's a time when the Legislature should be supreme, it's when the pressure groups of the Province attempt to push it around (interruption).

No, but what I do say is that, when we have a crisis on our hands and when the economy is being torn asunder, that is the time to call the Legislature together to deal with the situation. That's what Premier Thatcher did in Saskatchewan. Bill 33 isn't a good law but it's the only law that we have and I ask this: "Who's going to believe in any legislation in the labour field that Social Credit passes now, who's going to believe it?" "We killed Bill 33," says Haynes. "The construction dispute agreement means the end of Bill 33 and the threat of compulsion in settling future labour-management disputes," Ray Haynes, Secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour claimed yesterday. Every British Columbian was hurt by every single one of the major disputes this past year. No one gained and anyone who thinks he may have gained as a result of a settlement he struggled hard to achieve has to

[ 29020200035.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 35 ]

reckon how much he lost as a result of the other disputes in which he played no direct part. Everyone grabbed at the throat of the golden goose and it started to gasp. There is always a limit to how fast an economy can expand and any group, be it management or labour, that tries to take more than its share from this expansion is guilty of gouging. If we let one industry or one union get away with gouging, we're only inviting everyone else to try to do the same and it's this philosophy of gouge or be gouged that tore at the roots of the British Columbia economy in 1970.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the private enterprise theory.

MR. McGEER: No, it's the philosophy of the Government that precipitated this unprecedented rash and I think that what we require is some strong leadership to set the philosophy straight. That's why the government must always lead and never negotiate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's right (interruption).

MR. McGEER: Yes, that's right, and I'm sure that was the cry of pain from one of the unemployed in this Province. One of the people that won't have a job unless we have the kind of Government that's going to take a hold of this economy. What we've got in the Province today is the impossible situation of an Attorney-General and a Labour Minister holding down the same Portfolio. The job of the Attorney-General is to enforce the laws of the Province, unpalatable as they may be to some, but the role of the Labour Minister is to mediate and negotiate, to try to get settlements, to bring peace between parties. Now what happens when there is a conflict of interest between the two? How can the public be served when the man who's supposed to enforce the laws suddenly becomes the negotiator and deals in those laws with the power groups. It's an impossible conflict of interest and, when the crunch came, the Attorney-General cast aside that hat and put on the hat of the Labour Minister and that's why the President of the B.C. Federation of Labour said, "We've defeated Bill 33," and this is why the Government will never have any credibility with its labour legislation.

Labour declared war on Bill 33; they proclaimed they beat Bill 33. Contrast this with what happened in two other Provinces that weren't afraid to move. These were the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Quebec. No hesitation there, no 2,100,000 man-days of work lost in those Provinces, because when the difficulties came and they were similar in the construction industry in these other Provinces, there was no hesitation on the part of the Leaders of those Governments to call together the Members of the Legislature to impose a settlement, and that got the people back to work with only a fraction of the damage that was done in this Province. Thatcher said that because of the crisis in the state of the Provincial economy, the Government intends to make the 6 per cent figure stick. Earlier this year, the Government announced a 20 million-dollar public works programme to shore up the sagging construction industry. Thatcher has said that any contractor who signs for more than 6 per cent this year will not be given Government work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Do you agree with that?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I do. One must set forth guidelines and order both sides to stick to the guidelines. If they're unwilling, then you must call a Special Session of the Legislature and make them abide by the guidelines, but that takes some guts. A Liberal Government in British Columbia would have handled this crisis far differently and we would have shown some leadership, the kind that was shown in Saskatchewan and Quebec. I say that the Province's labour relations policies are totally wrong. If B.C. is ever to achieve its potential, we've got to have a new script, one that will replace this ritualistic soap opera of confrontation, which has passed for our negotiating procedure. The Government's role is to stay on top and to lead. It can never negotiate its own labour laws. Allowing labour to push the Government around on Bill 33 was completely unforgivable, even if you grant labour's objection to Bill 33. Labour departments may mediate but to mediate, by definition, means to be neutral, midway between two disputes. I say this, labour and management have got to accept guidelines, and we need a Provincial Economic Council to establish guidelines and both industry and labour must have a voice in such a Council. Bargaining can no longer be allowed to follow the arbitrary system and bowl aside the public interest in the ensuing brawl. There have to be restrictions and the guidelines should be those restrictions. Those who would not accept this approach should be the subject of special attention by the Legislature.

The only reason why anyone would want to stay out of a system that is designed to further the public interest and protect the rights of the little people who have been the innocent victims up until now, the only reason for staying out, would be if they thought they could gain a special advantage by doing so. The history of labour-management negotiations clearly shows that one group's special gain is everyone else's loss. Unions in B.C. are powerful today because the people have extended them the rights to check-off and a compulsory membership. A Government could easily end this system, if the public became sufficiently fed up. Industry has its privileges, too. It should be very grateful. Remember, we had a lockout. But industry has exclusive domains in this Province for logging and mining. They use and develop resources that belong to the people and these privileges also could be suspended. I'm convinced that it is much better for a Government truly dedicated to the free enterprise system to revoke those privileges rather than permit them to be abused by either party and, in the process, have the public interest flaunted, because the public's other alternative is Socialism. What we believe in is the public interest — first, foremost and always, but what we've got to have in B.C. is an effective system of guidelines and an effective system of negotiation.

We have the B.C. Mediation Commission but it is useless. Look first at the man-days lost, that's a pretty sorry record and look at the way the prestige and authority of the Government were undercut, labour claiming a victory over Bill 33 — and they were right? We haven't had jobs, prosperity, security, any of those things from what went on this summer; what we've had is unemployment, poverty and misery and hostility and suspicion. More than that, the Mediation Commission hasn't produced any useful research statistics. There's no approach being made to set guidelines for the future. They haven't even scratched the surface of what a man is really worth, but that's fundamental to the setting of any guidelines. The prospects for British Columbia and international markets hasn't been touched but those are all, or rather they should be, vital functions. We've got to have an Economic Council; we've got to have answers to

[ 29020200036.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 36 ]

some of these questions; we've got to have these groups working on a rational basis with mutually accepted facts; we've got to have this instead of the present system, which is based entirely on muscle power and hostility. You know, the dinosaurs became stronger and stronger, larger and larger, in ancient times, but then their tiny brains failed them and they couldn't adjust to the changing times. That's what I feel, Mr. Speaker, about our current industrial relations in British Columbia. Look at the record, worse every single year of this past decade, staggering losses this past year.

What we want is an Economic Council that can give us just a little bit of cerebral content in our projections for the future, better forecasting — if you like — an industrial brain. Secondly, whether anyone likes it or not, there must be restraints on the kinds of demands that can be considered legitimate for the bargaining process. We can't keep granting more and more power to unions or to management, if these groups use their power to blackmail society. Thirdly, a system of resolving disputes superior to that built around our beleaguered Mediation Commission has got to be found. I've suggested labour courts but I'm open to other suggestions. I do say this, that the public of British Columbia is being put on the rack, both economically and politically and, on one crank, we've got Social Credit pulling to the right with management on their side and, on the other handle, we've got the Socialists with labour cranking from the other direction, and the public has to be taken off the rack before it gets pulled apart. You can't build a society on class warfare or on greed or avarice or on the ruthless ambition of the few. It's got to be built on co-operation and common sense and the willingness of everyone to accept adjustments for the common good. That which is excessive can't be accepted by the Government. If labour and management cannot make their points to each other without calling for a sacrificial offering from the innocent public, they must be required to make their point to a third party who will decide where the best answer lies. I wouldn't hesitate to make that third party this Legislative Assembly.

When we in the Liberal Party opposed Bill 33, we could see this industrial warfare coming. We opposed the Bill on the basis that the Cabinet alone should not make the decision to invoke the compulsory arbitration section. We said it should belong to the Legislative Assembly, and when that procedure was taken in two other Provinces during this past summer the results were good and the people were spared the kind of agony that we have had in British Columbia. These are the things that Liberals would do, either create something better than the Mediation Commission or, failing that, back up the Mediation Commission and the laws of the Province as laid down by the Legislature. B.C. didn't need in 1970 the kind of war that was fought and we still don't need that kind of war. Nothing has been solved by what went on this past summer. All the problems that hung over our shoulders before these prolonged negotiations and the staggering hours of man-days of work lost, all those problems hang over our shoulders still, and there are more added to them, because labour now knows it can push the Government around. Labour now knows that in the crunch the Government won't stand behind its own laws. What's going to happen in the next round of negotiations, if we don't have a Government with a little more backbone? Labour will defy the Government again, just like they're defying it today and labour will win again. What's more it will be a Pyrrhic victory because it won't bring the prosperity that these unions that grasp for too much seem to think will be theirs if they can only get that settlement. It will bring what happened this year — unemployment and lay-offs, poverty and misery, and that's not good enough for British Columbia in the future. We're going to have changes only when we have a Government with enough backbone to straighten out the industrial relations in this Province; that's willing to stay on top and lead; that's willing to exert its authority over any power group and never back down; and when it has to be in a dispute, be in between, but when it has to be on top and impose a settlement, to do that, too. That's what you failed to do this summer. That's why the position is so woefully weak for the future of this Province.

The war that we should have fought in B.C. was an assault on unemployment, an all-out battle for industrial and commercial growth and you need more than that in 1971, because we've got to bring a balance to the industrial climate of British Columbia. We've got working men and women who have the skills, there's know-how in the Province, but people with skills and know-how are out of work when jobs that are in the Provincial jurisdiction are lying waiting to be done. What foolishness, I turn to the genuine Social Crediters over there, what foolishness it is to have men with skill, there and there, men with skills, jobs that need to be done and they are idle, receiving welfare and unemployment insurance. What kind of management is that? How can any of you justify it? What's the matter with this Throne Speech that it doesn't have an aggressive programme for British Columbia that will take these people off the breadline and get them working at these jobs that desperately need to be done. The Social Crediters, least of all, should say that lack of money stands in the way. You don't believe in that. You believe in issuing credit until you can get the people working and the production evened out. Fine, go ahead, and put your theories to work but, in Heaven's name, pull British Columbia out of the slough that it's in.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wish to move Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): I would like to move an amendment to Motion No. 1, moved by myself, seconded by the First Member for Vancouver East, that Motion No. 1 standing on the Orders of the Day be amended by deleting from the last line thereof the word, "adjournment," and substituting therefore the figures, " 11 p.m." (Interruption.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: My reasons for moving the amendment are that over the years the problem of night sittings, of late night sittings, has plagued this House many times. One of the problems was that when we come back at eight o'clock for the evening sitting, as to when we are going to adjourn is left up to whoever is in charge of the House. But in the afternoon we made a definite time limit from two till six o'clock. Now, why shouldn't there be a time limit on the evening sitting? We're only asking for it from 8 to 11 p.m. and, if necessary, at any time that you need to carry on after the 11 p.m. time, then the House would say. Permission would have to be granted by the House to carry on after 11 p.m. Now, this is

[ 29020200037.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 37 ]

done in most parliaments and there is no reason why it shouldn't be done in this Legislature, for the simple reason that Members would come here with the idea that eleven o'clock will be the quitting time. But when you go over eleven o'clock under the present system and you get up to twelve or one o'clock, then you create problems for the Members and for the House. This is what caused a lot of the trouble in the past years and sometimes it's been a little bit bitter. I think that the people of the Province of British Columbia deserve better than legislation away late into the night — legislation by exhaustion. I think the people of British Columbia who pay us to come here and legislate for the Province expect that we would keep decent hours and that we would not expect the Members of the Legislative Assembly to be sitting here at any hour of the night dealing with legislation which is very important to people of British Columbia. I, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, would like to tell him that if he accepts this motion today it will be a nice birthday present for me tomorrow.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, one of the abuses to which this House has been subjected throughout the years is that large, huge-spending departments, such as the Department of Rehabilitation, or Welfare as it then was, have been opened up in the wee hours of the morning or at midnight. The whole subject of forestry, I remember, coming along at 11:30 or twelve o'clock, for this Legislature to vote the expenditure of millions of dollars of the peoples' money in the wee hours of the morning. Now, that's an abuse of the parliamentary process, that means that the Government does not want these huge expenditures to receive the scrutiny they should have; that means the Government wants to hide away as much as possible from the eye of publicity upon their spending and upon their activity. It's nothing more than a hope that this Government can camouflage its activities from public scrutiny and from publicity. Now, if the Premier, Mr. Speaker, would give us assurance, I'd feel better about this even if he wouldn't accept the motion. If he would give us assurance that the Departments of Government are not going to be called late at night, or in the evening as they have been in the past. I remember the present Leader of the Opposition having to get up and tackle the huge expenditures of the Welfare Department at 11:30 at night or two o'clock in the morning because the Government must have had something to hide. That's why. Why else? Why try to slip past the expenditure of all these millions in the wee hours of the morning? We want some proper assurances that this House can legislate, that there can be real public scrutiny of the activities of this Government through the long 12 months, because if ever there were a Government that needed scrutiny by this Opposition and by the public of the Province of British Columbia, it is that little Government over there.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Honourable Members, to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of the Province, we'll agree with what the Honourable Member suggested. We will not accept the amendment, we will give the assurance that there will not be many sittings after eleven o'clock at night unless we have filibustering, with tedious repetition and so forth.

There will be no discussions late at night if there have not been preliminary, prior discussions on one or two sittings before that. There will be no rushing through, bringing up one important Department at two o'clock in the morning and rushing it through in that sitting. I give that assurance.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. Order, please.

MR. D. BARRETT: We must let the motion stand now. Regrettably, the Premier had moved the House a small way to some kind of agreement and then regrettably put in the business about the filibuster and the stalls. That has never been, that has never been… (interruption). Mr. Speaker, that accusation is a direct accusation against the Speaker of this House because the rules prevent that from happening. When the Leader of the Government attacks the Speaker of the House by saying that the rules have not been obeyed, and when the Leader of the Government intimates that the Speaker bows to his will, then we have serious trouble in this House. I suggest to you that it has been a grave error on the Premier's part to announce in the House today that the Speaker had not been allowed to perform his function and give the rules as written in the procedures. Standing Order 43 allows the Speaker to limit the debate. So I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in your protection, we intend to pursue this Motion to uphold the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. May we have some order, please? I appreciate the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition coming to my defense but I simply point out that the consideration of estimates is done in the Committee, when Mr. Speaker is not in the Chair and not in the House. The Honourable the Member for Cowichan-Malahat. Order, please.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, we're still concerned about you, Sir, because time after time because of the time that the House was kept here in estimates we've had to keep you up waiting to be called in so that the House could adjourn and just in case the House had to be quieted because tempers were getting a little short at two, three or four o'clock in the morning. I lost my temper once, I recollect, when the Mining Department estimates were called at 3:30 a.m. But I got to my feet to welcome the Premier's statement about repetitious speeches because this means that for the first time in 19 years we're not going to have to listen time and again to that Speech of the Premier's, where he leans away over — 1963, 1966, 1969, you know. I have heard that Speech so often I could probably give it better than the Premier can. I simply want to thank the Premier for his promise and his words will be remembered.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would ask that the Premier perhaps reconsider his opposition to this amendment. One of the difficulties that the House has and which I think prolongs the debate is because the Members do not know what will happen on any evening, certainly, as we approach the late hours. Every Party and every Caucus in this House has a Whip when one wishes to interfere with the order of business which may be selected by the Government Leader but, surely, between the Whips at

[ 29020200038.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 38 ]

their meetings it can be indicated whether or not the progress of business is satisfactory to the Government Leader and we will know in advance whether we will have late sittings. The difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is not one of individuals or needs of yourself, Sir, but of the business which must be done here. How one can plan to debate responsibly matters which come before this House from time to time without knowing whether the sittings will go on late or not is virtually impossible. It would appear to be run by caprice, and the business of this House, the business of the people of British Columbia, is too important to be run by caprice. This kind of comment is just the very thing that encourages the Honourable the Premier to refuse this amendment. You've been in this House too long, Sir. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier perhaps reconsider his opposition. If he finds that the Whips and the various Caucuses are not co-operating, then we will be the first to know. But rather than ask him for assurances, he should be asking us for assurances and, as Chairman of the Liberal Caucus, I am prepared to give him my assurance that we will not do anything to frustrate the proper conduct of the peoples' business. But, if we are kept here until late in the morning, then one can give no assurances, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the amendment? The amendment reads that: "Motion No. 1 standing on the Orders of the Day be amended by deleting from the last line thereof the word, 'adjournment' and substituting therefore the figures, '11 p.m.'"

The amendment to Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper was negatived on the following division: —

YEAS — 15

Messieurs

NAYS — 36

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

The motion was agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.