[ Page 99 ]

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, whereupon Mr. Bruch, Deputy Speaker, took the chair pursuant to section 46 (2) of the Constitution Act.

THRONE DEBATE

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

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to take part in all of the debates in the House, but I think I especially appreciate this particular debate because it allows the Members a great deal of leeway to bring up almost any subject that they may possibly have on their minds.

Before going into the substance of my remarks today, there are a couple of comments that have passed in this House and a few observations, that I think it would be fair to suggest should be reviewed a little in the minds of the people offering them.

I think it has been quite clearly established that, in terms of creating employment opportunities for people, British Columbia in the last decade has produced those opportunities in terms of new jobs at twice the Canadian average. I think it is also observable that British Columbia has become, in fact, a magnet drawing people to it from all parts of Canada, because its population growth could not otherwise be justified or qualified. In other words, not only have we had quite a productive population within the Province, but we have drawn many new members of our society to this part of the world from other parts of Canada.

The Province is in no way able to limit and in no way desirous of limiting the number of people who come to the Province from other parts of Canada. At the same time, it is hardly a justifiable argument that the Province which, along with the rest of Canada, has been suffering the results of high interest rates, high interest rates that resulted from, in part at least, a predetermined policy on the part of the National Government, high interest rates predicted, encouraged and established in fact by that National Government, which not too many years ago declined and vetoed most vigorously British Columbia's substantial participation in the Bank of British Columbia, which would have given this Government some opportunity at least to in some measure alleviate the impact of high interest rates within the Province under present conditions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, neither the Liberal Party nor the National Government can have it both ways. They cannot, on one hand, vigorously assert as their sole prerogative the management of monetary policy for this country, embark on a deliberate programme of high interest rates, create the atmosphere and the climate that reduce the establishment of new industry and new job opportunities, and then have the Liberal Party come into this House, Mr. Speaker, and try to tell us that it is a Provincial responsibility when the end results of high interest rates were clearly indicated to the National Government by our Premier, and the results that followed from those interest rates were entirely predictable and the resulting unemployment is directly traceable in large measure to the fact that the new jobs have not been created, and the new jobs have not been created because of the lack of capital at reasonable rates. I don't think we find solutions to problems by trying to subscribe their origin to other than their natural sources.

I think another matter that deserves comment, Mr. Speaker, relates to the Skagit Valley and the Ross Dam. I want to make it quite clear that we do not wish to say anything that will in any way embarrass any negotiations that may or may not be taking place between the National Government and the Government of the United States. We certainly do not offer, at least at this time, any opinion on the fine legal points raised as to possible deficiencies in the procedures of the IJC or any other international agency sponsored by the National Government.

If I understand what the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano was proposing yesterday, however, it really boils down to a proposal that the terms and conditions imposed on the Skagit agreement be made so onerous that the company will not proceed. The total lack of ethics in such an approach leads me to believe his remarks were even more vague and obscure than they seemed. It is not too long ago that a very bitter war was fought because international agreements were not honoured. If the honourable Member is not prepared to consult his legally-trained colleagues on matters of law…

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't trust them.

MR. KIERNAN: …I would suggest he at least consult them on a matter of ethics. It's a very important point, Mr. Speaker, and this question of honouring international agreements is far more critical to the world today than some people seem to realize.

I would like to deal primarily, today, Mr. Speaker, with the overall parks programme in British Columbia and its implications in the changing society.

In the light of our magnificent potential for outdoor recreation, I think we are wise to look at the whole picture as we plan for the future and also to try to resolve the manner in which a high quality environment may be protected to the utmost and, at the same time, satisfy the ever-increasing needs of a rapidly rising population. Now those are the two basic propositions. If what I say today seems to be somewhat far-ranging, it is only because experience teaches one the inescapable fact that nothing occurs in splendid isolation and the course of human activity oft-times conditions the future far beyond anything earlier anticipated. Great strides in terms of a comprehensive parks programme have been made since the Department of Recreation and Conservation was established in 1957. At that time, there were 117 Provincial parks in the system; today, there are 279 Provincial parks, which works out to one new park a month for 13 years and you've got a few left over.

The Park Act passed by this Legislative Assembly in 1965 laid down specific policy concepts for the Provincial parks programme. Since that time, we have been working towards the realization of these concepts and, while a few situations still exist that are not consistent with park policy as laid down at that time, we are working to eliminate them and within this decade should complete that elimination of the inconsistencies as near as it is practical to do so.

Upon second reading of the Park Act in 1965, I drew to the attention of the House some of the historic inconsistencies that had existed in park policy. Now, for the benefit of the new Members and to refresh the memories of some who were here, I'd like to just briefly summarize that situation. If those areas of the Province set aside as Provincial

[ Page 100 ]

parks were in fact to be used only for recreational use and ecological preservation, obviously, no alienations of timber, mineral or land rights could be permitted within the park boundaries. Yet, historically, in relation to the Class A parks and the Class B parks, the large ones at least, not only had these alienations existed but, in fact, parks had been established over land already honeycombed with timber and mineral alienations and with apparently no intention whatsoever of extinguishing those existing alienations. Class B Provincial parks were actually established as multiple resource use areas and only the sale of the land itself was precluded by their Class B status.

While it was assumed in the public mind, at least, that Class A parks were to have a high degree of protection, this was not necessarily so. I cited at that time that Kokanee Glacier Park, which is near Nelson, was established in 1922 as a Class A park and had almost one-third of its 64,000 acres occupied by mineral claims at the time it was established. Many of those mineral claims were actually Crown granted at the time it was established. A great number of these mineral claims are in good standing to this day and, while there hasn't been a great deal of production from them, they nevertheless exist.

Within the law, there are only a few choices open to us. One is buy out the mineral claims and thus eliminate the problem. Two is cancel that portion of the park occupied by the mineral claims and eliminate the problem that way. Three, live with the situation in hopes that the mineral claims, upon further examination, will be dropped as being not worthy of further effort. Four, require the claim owner to prove mineral exists or, conversely, attempt to prove that the claims have been staked for other than mining purposes. We have used all four methods; none is entirely satisfactory. Buying out is generally too expensive. Excluding from the park boundaries is not necessarily the most satisfactory answer, although sometimes it is the only answer. Living with the situation really doesn't resolve anything, because you don't know when they are liable to proceed with development and requiring the owner of claims to prove that mineral exists, in itself, can be expensive and, quite often, it is still debatable after he has proved that mineralization, in fact, exists, to determine whether or not the mineralization is such that it can be economically mined at the present or at some future date.

Both one and two are clear-cut, three and four are uncertain, and none of them is entirely satisfactory. It should not be assumed from the foregoing that we are beset by such problems on every hand. The vast majority of our Provincial Parks has no alienation and none will be allowed. There are, however, some problem areas in larger parks, which must either be lived with or dealt with. A little later on I will offer some recommendations for the future in this regard.

The Regional Park Act, passed in 1965 — that was a busy year for parks — provided a new vehicle by which local Government could acquire an interest in park areas outside of the boundaries of the particular municipality, by joining together with other adjacent municipalities and contiguous unorganized territory. The regional park districts under the above statute, or the regional district under the Municipal Act served as the administrative instrument, depending upon which locally was felt to be the more appropriate. For the interest of the Members, through you, Mr. Speaker, I have prepared these notes and they will be available to them because they may be of some interest for them in discussions with their own municipal people.

Class B Provincial parks were and remain primarily parks of local interest, managed generally by local Parks Boards. Land titled to Class B parks, unless formerly transferred to other jurisdictions, is vested in the Crown Provincial. In the case of municipal parks, land title is usually vested in the local municipality and these parks are generally managed locally. For example, however, Stanley Park is a city park, the title is vested in the Government of Canada and the city has, I believe, a 99 year-lease on the site. So there are exceptions even in the case of clear title.

Class C parks have, on occasion, been transferred from the Provincial park system to both municipal and regional park districts, where these districts have been considered as the most appropriate vehicle for the administration of such parks. There will likely be further transfers of Class C parks in the future.

National parks within the Province to date have been confined to the Rocky Mountain region. These National parks, coupled with National parks in Alberta, which immediately adjoin Mount Robson Provincial and Hamber Provincial Park in British Columbia, form a solid block of park land in excess of four million acres astride the Rocky Mountain Range. A comprehensive look at parks in the Province must, therefore, take into consideration the park lands and park programmes of Federal, Provincial, regional and municipal Governments in order to appreciate the total programme in progress in the Province. To the above must be added Fort Steele, Barkerville and, now, Fort St. James. While such restorations are not funded directly through the Provincial parks vote, they are, nevertheless, major park attractions and represent substantial expenditures of Provincial funds. Nor should we overlook the park potential of the Creston Wildlife Management Area. This 16,000 acres of wet land dedicated primarily to enhancing the wild water fowl perpetuation has important park implications from the standpoint of nature study and related subjects. It is, however, not designated a park. It has its own statutes and it is not operated from any funds within the park vote. It is a joint project of the Provincial Government, through the Wildlife Branch; the Federal Government, through the Canadian Wildlife Service; British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, by grants in aid of capital development; Ducks Unlimited, and other agencies, which I think is indicative of the project's appeal when we consider the wide financial support it is now receiving.

Projects always require money and, while this is not the Budget Debate, since there appears to be some confusion in the public mind about what the Provincial Government is providing towards the acquisition, development and management of park lands, I would summarize the current fiscal year briefly (that's the year we are presently in): $3,356,000 in the Provincial Parks Branch vote; $400,000 in the Aid to Regional Parks vote; $500,000 provided for Acquisition of National Park Land (the West Coast park); $500,000 provided for historic sites' improvement, restoration and management, or a total of $4,756,000, of which slightly over one million is being spent in the current year in terms of acquiring parks property.

Operating expenses of Manning Park Lodge are not included in the foregoing. Manning Park Lodge is a commercial operation. It pays its own costs from the revenue received for food and room services and, if you added the cash flow of Manning Park Lodge to the foregoing, you would be adding approximately $300,000 to the vote. It pays its own way at the present time (interruption). No $300,000

[ Page 101 ]

gross (interruption). I'd have to check on that one, Mr. Member. I think it provided for additional facilities at Gibson Pass Ski Lift. But I'll check on it to be specific.

The idea of a West Coast National Park has been the subject of lengthy discussions and investigations for a number of years. Prior to Federal-Provincial negotiations, Long Beach had been reserved for park purposes, that is, the beach itself, and some Crown Provincial and privately-owned land had been assembled by the Province. The Federal Government also held a couple of thousand acres in terms of a National Defence Reserve and the Province had optioned additional key acreage in the area. It was logical, therefore, that we should, in our negotiations, direct the attention of the National Park Service to this part of the Province. The National Park Service agreed to make a serious study of the proposal and, in this, we were assisted by our Parks Planning Division. From this study came a confidential report setting forth the merits, not only of the Long Beach Area as we had originally discussed, but a greatly enlarged area of approximately 18,000 acres, contiguous to Long Beach. Two additional areas had also been included in the overall, tentative report. We had, in fact, the recommendation for not one, but three separate areas on the West Coast to be included in the National Park. They were now identified as phase one, two and three. Long Beach was Effingham Island and the Lifesaving Trail. The Long Beach Area, phase one, originally under discussion, when enlarged as a result of the project study, added to the proposal 17 miles of foreshore on the open Pacific for a total of 21 miles (equal to the distance of the water front from Oak Bay Marina to Sidney, by the way) and 17 miles of interior shoreline, together with a further 19,000 acres of park land, in all 35,800 acres, of which 22,000 acres are land and 13,000 acres roughly are water and foreshore.

As agreed to by our joint planning staff, phase one has as its key attraction Long Beach, plus all of the area on the West Coast extending from the south of Wya Point northwesterly to include Florencia Bay, Wickaninnish Bay, Long Beach, Schooner Cove, Portland Point and Point Cox, then generally easterly to include most of the foreshore of Grice and Indian Bays. The inland boundary on the south and east includes water frontage and back-up lands on Kennedy Lake, which provide fresh water swimming on an area roughly the size of Elk Lake.

Phase two consists of a group of islands lying in Barkley Sound commonly known as the Effingham group. Of the hundred islands or more in the group, at least 52 are large enough to warrant names. These islands and the water around them within the boundaries of the park, may be compared in size with the area of the municipality of West Vancouver or, it could be said, it is 22 times the area of Stanley Park, with the land mass of the islands being about 3 times the size of Stanley Park.

During the Spring Session of 1969, the West Coast National Park Act was passed to provide the legislative vehicle, not only for the designation of the general area but also to provide the authority to resolve the problems we felt we would encounter in putting such a parks programme together. The agreement was signed in the spring of 1970 and we commenced negotiations to purchase the numerous private properties. While this area has often been referred to as a largely uninhabited, prime, coastal wilderness and not likely to present many problems in land assembly, it should be noted that, of the 38 miles of waterfront and 35,000 acres of land and water now in the process of assembly for phase one, an area incidentally twice the size of the original project, there are 185 owners, involving 252 properties, whose businesses, resorts, residences and vacant or unimproved land are to be acquired. There was a sawmill to be relocated, forestry rights to be bought out and roads to be diverted.

Phase two, the Effingham Island Group does not appear to present major problems as there is, at present, little human activity there and only a few alienations are involved. To date, we have not negotiated to acquire any private interests presently in existence in the Effingham Islands Group.

Phase three, consists of the Lifesaving Trail, the boundaries of which have not yet been finally determined but, generally, the Trail commences at, and includes most of, the estuary of the Gordon River at the Head of Port San Juan, along the Coast northwest to include Owen Point, Carmen Point, Fashina Point, Cape Beale, a coastline of about 57 miles. Proposals are now being made to enlarge the programme far beyond protecting the historic trail, which was the original concept.

I have noted that phase one, the Long Beach area, has been expanded to more than double its original projected size. Barring some totally unforeseen problems, these increased boundaries have now been confirmed. We are now receiving proposals for a large expansion of phase three. While, no doubt, desirable from a park standpoint, these proposals require the most careful consideration and examination for it must be obvious that every expansion increases the cost of land assembly, increases the complexity of the negotiations, demands a broader scope of land use planning, and requires that the Government find replacement acreage for the additional portions proposed to be deleted from existing tree farm licenses. Additionally, with respect to phase three, in establishing a single purpose use on 57 miles of coastline from Cape Beale to Port San Juan, the question arises, in so doing, would we unwittingly be creating problems for future development of the West Coast hinterland behind the Lifesaving Trail. In our desire to provide the utmost possible protection for the trail and its environment, might we not frustrate interior developments requiring access to the ocean in the future? If access were subsequently provided, would this perhaps be a violation of the concept upon which the park was originally established? Bear in mind, also, that the combined coastline of phase one and phase three is equal to the distance from Vancouver to Hope.

These are serious questions for the type of problems we encounter and often arise because yesterday's planning was not property assessed against tomorrow's necessities. An example is our recent experience in being obliged to provide a corridor across Strathcona Park to permit land access to Gold River from the East Coast of Vancouver Island, since no practical land route to the community could other-wise be established.

A further important question, in view of the high level in unemployment: how much of our financial resources ought to be directed to property purchases when such purchases generally generate little immediate employment? Should we, in fact, be spending substantial sums on property purchases or should we concentrate the direction of the greatest possible amount of available funds to activities which create new jobs in the shortest possible time?

I leave these thoughts with you for, while we are most sympathetic to the ideas of further park expansion, as responsible legislators, it behoves us to take a longer look at the whole picture.

Mount Seymour Provincial Park, the most popular park in

[ Page 102 ]

the whole park system, and it is only a small park, it's only 8,000 acres, located about 12 miles from the City of Vancouver, is, in fact, in a continuous state of overcrowding through the winter weekends. Ski development here presents a myriad of problems. By nature, the park's rocky and broken terrain requires that we do extensive rock work every time we work on roads, parking lots or ski runs and the costs are, of course, proportionate to the conditions with which we have to deal.

Studies directed to accommodating more people in this area provided only two possible courses of action — one, extend the lift facilities over and beyond Mystery Peak to open up new ski areas. While this would improve the quality of the skiing, it would not increase our people capacity, unless we expanded in a massive way the parking lot and support facilities presently encompassed within the present service centre complex. For a number of reasons this would be undesirable and, in terms of the terrain, it would be impractical because we are crouched on a ridge, right there. Alternative two — construct an entirely new access route from about the microwave station location, south and east of the present area, bypassing De Pencier Bluff to the east and establishing a new base near De Pencier Lake. This would require, an initial survey indicated, about 5 million dollars to put together a viable complex and the road to the new location. From the foregoing, it must be concluded that except for slope and facility improvement and the obvious need for further reconstruction of the access road to the ski area, we have reached the limit of practical expansion in terms of winter sports use at Mount Seymour Provincial Park.

Two other factors related to the park warrant attention: the access road and the satellite trails which fan out from the centre complex. The access road to Mount Seymour is the subject of continuing complaints. Originally constructed to very low standards it snakes to 3,000 ft. from virtually sea level in about 8 miles, and, for the better part of the winter season, is subjected to spontaneous thaw-freeze cycles as well as to torrential rains and heavy snow. Parts of the road which have been rebuilt stand up to weather and traffic conditions quite well. The parts not rebuilt are, at times, hazardous. We do everything possible to keep the road passable through the winter months. It must be remembered there are stretches where 10 miles an hour or even less may be the prudent speed. Trails in the park, which fan out from the central complex, are notorious in that people using them tend to lose all sense of direction. Blaze orange and black signs and ribbon coloured markers have been strategically placed, within the last two weeks, along the trails as a temporary safety measure and, this coming summer, a connecting ring trail will be constructed in an effort to direct the trail buffs back to the central complex.

One of our problems with signing in Mount Seymour has been the unfortunate idea that some people have that signs are meant to be torn down and used for shovelling snow, sliding on as a toboggan or just generally bust up for the sheer heck of it. I don't know, short of steel and concrete, how we can establish a signing system that will resist the vandalistic stupidity of some people.

Trails in the park which fan out from the central complex are notorious because people do lose their sense of direction and we have provided this temporary signing programme. While blaze orange on black may be totally inconsistent with the nature aura of a park, that is the only kind of sign that has real visibility under bad haze conditions. Much of the park is rugged and wild and, to the uninitiated, dangerous.

The situation is further compounded by the foolhardy, the adventuresome, who go forth alone into such areas and, here, I cannot stress too strongly the advisability of the buddy system over the loner system. I say foolhardy, advisedly, for even the most experienced and knowledgeable mountaineer would seldom venture far afield in the wilderness for, if he were to suffer a fall or an injury, he would well run the risk of disappearing for all time, simply because nobody knew he was hurt or knew where he was. Well, we have continued to devote a substantial portion of our parks funds to this important park; we have also stopped the means of spreading the recreational load that originates with that very dense metropolitan area, the lower Fraser Valley and Greater Vancouver.

The Government has never believed that it was primarily its prerogative or responsibility to develop ski facilities within the Province. Recognizing the ever-increasing popularity of winter sports, however, we have tried to encourage a variety of organizations and people to develop winter sports facilities. These have been launched, managed and financed by many different groups throughout the Province. Some thrive. A few are struggling to survive and others have fallen by the wayside. Since 1968, the ski operation in Gibson Pass in Manning Park has been greatly expanded and, under the direct supervision of the Regional Park Superintendent, has become a very popular ski development. Armed with this experience, we are now in a position to take on the responsibility of another winter recreation development and, as my colleague, the Honourable Ray Williston, told you yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to take over the operation at Cypress Bowl. Any expenditure that we could make at Seymour would not produce, in terms of the dollars spent, as much recreational opportunity as the equivalent amount spent at Cypress Bowl. In other words, to go into the De Pencier Lake area would require a substantial expenditure and, on our projections, the equivalent expenditure in providing access and facilities in the Cypress Bowl area would produce a lot more usable recreational space. This will be a day use area. I don't foresee the need to establish any accommodation facilities other than for staff, that is, dwelling facilities. You will, of course, require a day lodge and a coffee shop and that kind of thing but, as far as the development we envisage is concerned, it would be very much along the line of what presently exists at Mount Seymour. It would not, I think, have the same limitations of terrain that we encounter at Mount Seymour.

I don't want to fool anybody that it won't be expensive to develop Cypress, it will. The most inexpensive development that we have had in the Province has been Gibson Pass in Manning Park. There the terrain is ideal, the weather conditions are just about ideal, and for the amount of money we have spent, we have had a very good development. Seymour is tremendously popular and, regardless of what else happens, it will always be popular because it is so close to the urban area. In terms of terrain, it is really bad, in terms of weather conditions it's less than ideal. It's the fact that it is so close that gives it its great popularity. I don't doubt that Cypress will be very much the same (interruption). We will own and operate the operation ourselves, totally (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Members please address the Chair?

MR. KIERNAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We were having

[ Page 103 ]

a little conversation and I know that that is quite improper. I want to turn to another subject now, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if some of the honourable Members would prefer to have their conversations in the coffee shop, so I can get this Speech wound up. The Ministers' Land Use Committee has been active during the year in terms of resolving specific land use problems and pursuing pilot projects of long-range implication. From our studies and deliberations to date, it is evident that only by integration of the planning activities of the several departments of Government involved can we produce a good land use programme. In some areas, multiple land use is not only desirable but necessary. There are instances, however, where land and water must be dedicated to single use. For example, nature conservancies, ecological preserves and intensively used recreation areas and our Provincial parks.

Multiple use, however, permits timber harvesting, hiking, hunting, fishing, livestock raising, riding trails. The list is endless. It has been observed by game management personnel that, in many areas, the climax forest growth gradually crowds out all ground cover and, with the resulting lack of forage, wildlife is forced out of that area. Within these areas, therefore, from a wildlife management standpoint, forest removal is not only desirable, it is absolutely essential. New park recommendations today are being received from many areas of the Province, sponsored by a wide variety of organizations and individuals. Some of these recommendations are well documented, supported by maps, photographs and a very comprehensive picture of the proposal.

In reviewing past and present programmes of park designation and development, we have, I think, highlighted some of the factors that we must take into consideration in the allocating and dedicating of Crown land to a single purpose. Costs of assembling privately owned parcels for parks purposes, either in conjunction with Crown land or without additions of Crown land, have been noted. If we look at these recommendations strictly from a park standpoint, all of the submissions have merit. I have not seen a single submission that did not have merit from a park standpoint that has been made to the Government over the last three or four years.

The real problem is one of selectivity, for most of the land mass of this Province has park-like qualities. If these recommended areas, most of which are substantial in size, are to be given park status, they must now be processed and evaluated by the technical committees and finally passed by the Ministers' Land Use Committee, prior to dedication for a single use purpose.

This, of necessity, is a very searching process but only by careful evaluation can we avoid creating real problems and unworkable land use conflicts. In the process of determining appropriate and compatible land use, one is led inevitably to consideration of the indirect effects of the use of land and to face the all-encompassing and fundamental problems related to ecology and environment.

This is a subject so complex as to permit only a few basic observations on this occasion. These are offered with the hopes that, in some small measure, they will contribute to a realistic evaluation of the material and knowledge available to us in order that research and action may be directed to the situations most critically in need of our special attention.

We are, in fact, making progress. Every mining company today is required to plan land reclamation as part of its mining operation and post a cash bond to ensure that reclamation will actually be carried out. Every pulp mill built in the last decade has been required to use the most effective methods for both air and water pollution control presently available and is committed to use more advanced methods as they are proven. Danger of pesticides, such as DDT, are now rigidly controlled by the Department of Agriculture and may be used only on prescription, if no safe alternative method exists. Bear in mind, however, that even if we succeed in totally eliminating the use of DDT in the Province of British Columbia and the surrounding areas, we will still have DDT present in our wildlife, especially in the migratory species, because DDT now permeates every corner of this globe, including the Arctic Circle.

The Litter Act has already heightened awareness of the need to control litter and has substantially reduced the number of no-deposit, no-return soft drink bottles in circulation. Quality standards for air, water and land are being progressively established and background studies are being completed so that we will know when and in what manner pollution is taking place. One cannot be long associated, however, with the work of biologists without becoming highly sensitive to the seriousness of the problems that man has unwittingly created in pursuit of affluence. Research and breakthroughs in the field of medicine have substantially negated the natural, biological controls of population growth and, by a matter of simple mathematical progression, all indications point to an increase in world population from approximately 3.2 billion today to 6.4 billion by the turn of the century.

This, in itself, represents a massive demand on world resources, far beyond anything we have so far witnessed. The standard of living has been raised for millions of people to a level undreamed of at the beginning of this century. Yet the existence of other millions, and their numbers are increasing at an alarming rate, is little better than that of their forbears in the Dark Ages. Unless we can bring a better balance to the living standard throughout the world, do we really think that world peace is capable of achievement? Modern technology is so highly developed that it is capable of producing a tremendous volume of goods. It has also developed the capability of total annihilation of society as we know it. Thoughtful people everywhere look with dread and anguish on two great nations who, metaphorically speaking, have their finger on the trigger of world destruction, in the form of the ICBM and the hydrogen warhead.

In searching for the answer to why this is so, set aside ideological arguments, step away from political platitudes, and one is face to face with the root cause of this dilemma — distrust, fear and their natural offspring, hatred. If gloom and doom are your cup of tea, here's a great bellyful for you and you may weep to your heart's content. Should you, however, wish to be positive about this world of ours and, in spite of the obvious hazards, it is a wonderful world, many opportunities are presented. Above all, let us not be the purveyors of distrust and fear by wrongfully attributing wrong motives and intentions to people and to situations by distorting or ignoring the facts. The greatest danger around us is not pollution, great as that danger may be, it is distrust, fear and hatred. We've replaced such negative forces with positive ones. We can reach solutions to even the most massive problems that confront mankind. These are times of rapid change, of great challenge, of great opportunity. Never in human history has mass survival been so dependent upon clear thinking, honest appraisals and wise judgements. I believe we are capable of meeting this challenge but only on the foundation of confidence, trust and positive action can

[ Page 104 ]

we hope to do so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to make it somewhat longer now because the Member from Vancouver Centre is encouraging me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the lead of the honourable Minister. He opened his remarks by talking in terms in the fact that the Provincial Government had no hand in this unemployment situation. I would just like to reiterate, however, that, in the course of the unemployment situation, the Government admittedly left one thousand places in the Civil Service not filled. This, of course, was validated by the Honourable Premier in making an announcement just before this Session, when he said that they would be filling the places of those thousand people that were out of jobs during the time when they should have had jobs.

One other little item that I think we should all be aware of. The Insurance committee, the new Insurance Board that is being set up by the Provincial Government is already hard at work, despite the fact that it hasn't met yet. I noticed two announcements in the paper. One an announcement by Byron Straight the only member of that board, I think, who is not a Government employee, indicating that the cost of insurance will rise again in spite of the fact that the cost of insurance has already risen around 12 per cent (interruption). No, I don't see his name. However, I think that it would be a far stronger board if we didn't have this kind of pronouncement at the outset, indicating to the insurance companies, "Go ahead, insurance companies, do your best to sock it to the public." That's precisely, it seems to me, what is going to happen.

The other pronouncement by that same actuary on January 28 was the whole matter of good drivers should pay for bad drivers. This is the suggestion that came before the committee last year and it may be a good one. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that good drivers should be looking at the Government for a little more control with respect to keeping bad drivers off the road, because insurance companies, surely, should not be making those kinds of decisions.

Mr. Speaker, recently a plywood fence went up in New Westminster and it signified a new wing for the Royal Columbian Hospital. We're delighted to see that plywood go up, despite the fact that they are only modular units, which are only temporary. The fact is we are going to have replaced in New Westminster the 1912 wing, that wing that I described in this House last year and many of you displayed some interest in. I would like to compliment the Government on following my advice on this matter and, certainly, I'd like to compliment the people of New Westminster, the doctors, the newspapers and all the other people who were so helpful in getting our story across, because that hospital is an important institution in the lower mainland.

Mr. Speaker, the price was somewhat high, however. The price for that hospital came with a new budget and that new budget demanded things such as staff cuts which, in turn, promoted less care. As a matter of fact, in some instances, it brought care down to the danger level. Mr. Speaker, the minister says, "Nonsense." I know a neighbour, in one instance, who went to that hospital, felt that she had had a fairly good operation but, unfortunately, she came up with an infection although the staff had really worked hard. I'm getting phone call after phone call with regard to that hospital and the fact is the staff cuts were prejudicial. Mr. Speaker, cutting costs is not only a problem at the Royal Columbian Hospital; 16 hospitals out of 104 in the Province said that they did not drop in quality of health care. Did not. Therefore, 88, Mr. Speaker, must have dropped in quality of health care. (I came here with the same cold I left with last year.) Prince George hospital, right now, provides 2.3 nursing hours per patient day and everybody agrees it should be 3.4 hours per patient day. There must be an alternative. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the alternative must come as a result of us reviewing our our whole matter of health care in the Province. Because New Westminster is the centre of a health care hodge-podge, we are extremely conscious of a lack of co-ordination. We have two major hospitals, a few private hospitals and a large school for the retarded, and are close to the huge Riverview-Valleyview complex. Naturally many of our citizens work with or are employed by these institutions. The fact that comes through, loud and clear, is lack of co-ordination. There is no evidence that the Government has long-range plans for bringing the delivery of health care into this Province into the twentieth century. The incredible temporary patching up of our old and inadequate health care facilities seems to be the most glaring example of penny-wise and pound-foolish policy ever exhibited. Health care should be considered just that. All the facets of health care and the delivery of those services should be properly co-ordinated under one minister and with one top ranking deputy to see to it that interdepartmental cooperation does take place. Included in this portfolio or department should be the Medical Services Commission, Mr. Speaker. No longer should we see doctors going in one direction, mental health in another. Public health and BCHIS are also at different tangents. With the kind of overview provided by capable people with research facilities, we could expect some real improvements in the delivery of health care.

One of the improvements which should emerge would be a greater concentration of preventative medicine. Presently 5 per cent of the health care budget is expended on public health. That 5 per cent includes public health research and preventative medicine. Mr. Speaker, that's patently ridiculous. Our aim should be toward a healthy society not a "wait until they are sick" route. The latter is so much more expensive, yet this is where we find ourselves. We have been conditioned to think that health care is administering to the sick. Surely, this fallacy must be removed. Saving a person from sickness is so much more effective than waiting to treat the sick man. If all efforts were co-ordinated, a great deal more emphasis could be placed on preventative health care and research, obviously.

Another change that could occur would be a move to encourage doctors to embark upon group practices. The encouragement could take many forms, including financial rewards to keep people well. The group clinics are producing. To see where the British Columbia population requires 1,769 days of hospital per thousand population and the Puget Sound group, which is a group hospital care, requires only 455 patient days, should tell us something. Every group plan that I have looked at has shown a real improvement over the generally accepted method of medical care. Just to further emphasize the problem, not only are we subject to that high requirement of acute care but, in addition, we require 243 extended care patient days per thousand population. Now these are charts from the Puget Sound Group care. Here's our exposure of 121,716 people and so, in this case, it's not a

[ Page 105 ]

small exposure, it's a large one. Out of this we see 455 patient days required. Mr. Speaker, I think that speaks for itself and it speaks for all group care practices.

Another benefit which could be gained by proper co-ordination, would be immediate expansion of extended care and intermediate care facilities. The Minister of Health admits that many expensive acute care beds are taken by people requiring a different level of service. Now the range of service in hospitals goes from very expensive, $150 to $200 per day, intensive care beds, to $50 and up, acute care beds. Then we get down to the extended care, $15 a day and up and then, I think, we can move into another area and think in terms of chronic care in the $8 category and, possibly, go down to $5 a day supervised boarding. Now, I think, this whole range of health care should be a part of the delivery system. Surely, it is time to provide facilities to suit needs. If the priority does become people, it's time to provide the type of services and facilities in this Province so that we cover the whole range.

What happens is, of course, the Federal Government cuts out at the extended care. They cut out at that $15 per day range and so, therefore, anything below that, despite the fact that it might save us money, is ignored; however, incorporating that might very well be an idea to place an awful lot more people under the care and still for no more cost. The Minister once said quantity is what he wanted. The savings made in providing care to meet needs would take the sting out of the Federal position as far as we are concerned, I feel assured.

It's been suggested that the dollar a day for those actually ill should be raised. The people on short stay are maintaining a home and often losing their income while they are ill. I won't look down the aisle but I think we all know where that's coming from, Mr. Speaker. It is time, I think, that we take a look at personal participation at the other end. Remember, it could be, however, that down at the other end of the scale where people are chronically ill or ill for the rest of their lives and they have an income, that we might require some more participation from that group. From those who can afford it, maybe three to four dollars a day, because the hospital becomes their home. I think everybody would agree, including them, that this is fair enough. But don't raise the rates at the other end of the spectrum because these people, of course, are losing so much already.

Now the subject of prescription drugs should be closely studied. The estimate now is that 30 per cent of the prescriptions go unfilled because people cannot afford medicine. We are probably admitting many seriously ill people to the hospitals just because they are unable to heed the advice of their doctors, financially. No doubt, the thoughtful approach in the future will be to see to it that prescription drugs become part of a health programme.

All these areas and many, many more could be part of an overall co-ordinated effort if Government would give the lead. This Government has run behind the needs of the people for so long, it is no wonder we find ourselves with critical problems in the delivery of health care services. Mr. Loffmark, the Minister of Health, told us last May 27 that we had two choices — quality or quantity, and he chose the latter. Under the circumstances, I would imagine he has no choice. But I would suggest that we can give quantity and quality if, in fact, we will streamline our health care programme, including getting the Medical Services Commission out of the Provincial Secretary's Department. I think what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is perpetrating a tremendous waste of money and it's time we took a real good look at this.

While I'm dealing with health for a moment, here's a thought that I think we could all take seriously — this matter of food and drugs. For years, we have known that there is a really bad situation as far as poisonings are concerned in this country. A recent report by the Federal Food and Drug Directorate indicates the likelihood of an increase in accidental poisonings from 41,722 in 1968 to over 50,000 in 1970. Now 75 per cent of all these accidental poisonings involve children under the age of five. It's been proven by tests both here and in the United States that these figures could be reduced three-fold if the use of child-proof drug containers were made mandatory. I think it's time the Department of Health is given the go ahead in this matter, Mr. Speaker. That is a very strong suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, in the B.C. Legislature, we share a great responsibility with the elected Members in the Federal Parliament and in the other Provincial Legislatures. In response to increasing demands from millions of Canadians who face discrimination daily, a Federal Royal Commission has called for sweeping legislative changes to eliminate injustices that have existed for generations. I refer, of course, to the discrimination in our country against women, to the attitudes and practices which have had the effect of relegating them to a subordinate position and have denied them the full range of rights and opportunities available to men in this country. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women has made its report and the years of study that have gone into the report establish clearly the wide range of ways in which our society discriminates against women. The injustices basically fall into four categories: inequality before the law, unfair distribution of social freedoms and responsibilities, and the widespread propagation of prejudicial written and visual material, and much of it comes from women.

Mr. Speaker, as I look across the way, I ask the Members to consider briefly some of the most basic examples in each of these categories and some of the steps that are required to eliminate these injustices. This is a serious matter. We all had better look ahead ten years, right now. For years we have imposed discriminatory conditions in our laws on women who marry. Most basic of these is the fact that we require, in various ways, that a woman assume her husband's surname. Did you ever think of that? Passport regulations, for example, require that a woman upon marrying, obtain a new passport bearing her husband's Surname. Even the distinction between Miss and Mrs., a distinction not applied to men is discriminatory. Our human rights legislation should guarantee the rights of a woman upon marriage to retain her own name and should prohibit on application or other forms any requirement that a woman use the prefix Miss or Mrs. The greatest single area in which women face discrimination and unjust prejudice, as we are finding in the back leagues and…(interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Order!

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we still say our human rights legislation should guarantee the right of a woman upon marriage to retain her own name and should prohibit on application or other forms any requirement that a woman use Miss or Mrs. Think about it, back there in the boondocks. The greatest single area in which women face discrimination and unjust treatment is in the employment conditions and opportunities (interruption). That's all right,

[ Page 106 ]

Mr. Speaker, I've got all afternoon. The normal business pattern is to consign and often confine women to the work areas of limited opportunities. They are the secretaries not the account executives; the filing clerks not the salesmen. It is true that women are promoted to senior positions but only by showing themselves to be markedly superior to junior male employees, junior male employees. The normal pattern in almost every business in this country is to find in offices half or more of the staff women, with few if any of the senior or managerial positions held by women. The wages and working conditions vary greatly. Often relatively junior male employees are paid more than experienced, knowledgeable and skilled secretaries, and everyone of us have seen that. The males often have greater movement and are treated within the office hierarchy as senior to women, irrespective of their relative lengths of service and responsibility. I know, Mr. Speaker, that some of the things that I am saying are not necessarily shared by all the people in my Party.

In the professions, Mr. Speaker, the same discrimination can be found, except in the traditionally female professions, such as nursing. Women are a very small minority and women are discouraged rather than encouraged from entering many professions. In spite of the efforts of trade unions, women are still the object of discrimination in industrial occupations. In organized industrial operations, unions have, in most cases, eliminated separate and inferior wage scales for women. In some cases, however, artificial job classifications are an indirect form of wage discrimination. In unorganized industrial operations, the practice is widespread. Unfortunately, even where unions have been able to win genuinely equal wage rates, the results have been that companies have simply stopped hiring women. The best example is to be found in the case of plywood plants, and most of us know the situations right now happening in B.C. At one time, there were separate wage rates and many people were employed in plywood plants. Since the IWA negotiated equal rates in organized plywood plants, companies have, in most instances, stopped hiring women and the number of women in the industry declined as women already in the industry retire or leave the industry. Even in the industries where women are the major portion of the work force, the foremen or supervisors are generally men, with few women being promoted to the supervisory positions.

To rectify this situation, rigorously enforced Government legislation is required. Some American States and recently the Government of Manitoba have introduced legislation which prohibits one of the most obvious methods of employment discrimination, the newspaper categorization of "Help Wanted, Men" and "Help Wanted, Women." Now, similar legislation is required in B.C. In view of the present inadequacies of enforcement of human rights legislation, it is essential that a Director of Women's Rights be appointed by the Government, and that this position be given authority and responsibility for vigorously speaking out and taking action against any form of discrimination against women.

To ensure that this is properly carried out, it is desirable to appoint a woman, who not only is dedicated to achieving and protecting full rights for women but is also known and respected in B.C., so that individual women encountering discrimination will know to whom to turn with their grievances. The third source of discrimination, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would you put in?

MR. COCKE: I know many who could handle it nicely. The third source of discrimination, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would you put in?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, does that man have the right to appoint this person? Otherwise, I'm not going to answer his question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member is not here to answer anybody's question but to address himself to the Chair.

MR. COCKE: The third source of discrimination is one of the most difficult to eliminate. Mr. Speaker, I'm doing exactly what the honourable Member before me did. I just want to make sure that I don't miss anything. Traditionally, our society has arbitrarily assigned responsibility for child care and home management to women. For generations, it was generally accepted that a woman's place was in the home. Such is no longer the case, whether we like it or not. Increasingly, women are demanding the opportunity to pursue other forms of work outside the home and there is no doubt that this demand will increase steadily in the years ahead. To satisfy these demands requires either that our society accept interchangeability of roles so that, in many cases, husbands will stay home and keep house, or that we adjust to the new situation created when both husband and wife work. It appears that the latter situation is the more likely and I suggest, therefore, that we consider various proposals which have been put forward and act to encourage and assist our society to make this adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, since we are digressing a little bit, right now, I'd like to make a suggestion. I have four children, all girls, pretty well grown up, and I've got a wife. In my house I see that those people are people and that they are equal people (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Here we go, back to Turkey Neck Bend. Changes are required, Mr. Speaker, to adjust to a situation…(interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Changes are required, Mr. Speaker, to adjust to a situation in which it is common for both husband and wife to work. In two ways. Our educational system must prepare children for the changed roles required in adulthood. In general, this means giving a new perspective to children. Traditionally, the family has been depicted as functioning with a clear division of responsibility. Father goes to work, mother stays home and keeps house. Girls have always been given a special training in home-making arts, while boys have normally not been given this training. As part of the new perspective, home-making must be presented as a shared responsibility, with boys as well as girls given training in domestic subjects and taught to expect to share these responsibilities. Texts must be revised to get away from the traditional, stereotyped differences between roles of men and women (interruption). Yes, I can cook, and make wine, too.

The second type of change required is to meet the needs of child care. Day care centres must become as much a community responsibility as public schools have become in this century. Day care centres must become our

[ Page 107 ]

responsibility. They might, in fact, be directly connected with the public school system or, alternatively, we might encourage the pattern which has developed in some countries of providing day care centres in conjunction with major businesses or industrial complexes. In either case, we must develop facilities that provide carefully trained men and women to operate day care centres. These changes are simply recognizing the needs of today and the developments which are obviously going to occur tomorrow.

The most difficult aspects of the problem of achieving equality for women is to overcome stereotypes which have been propagated for years by the media. An evening spent watching television or a careful look at any popular magazine will illustrate this problem. Women are shown as creatures who, because they are lost without men, must devote a major portion of their attention to winning or keeping them. From head to toe, a woman is urged to purchase a multitude of products, just to make sure she does not lose out. At the same time, she is continually shown as a housekeeper, who is sufficiently dull-witted that she invariably uses the wrong product until someone (usually a man) saves her from her own stupidity. While advertising is the worst culprit, the media carries other prejudicial material. Women are generally identified less by their own accomplishments than they are by their male associations. An example, which would have been amusing if it weren't so sad, could be found in the front-page story of the Vancouver Sun on the Report of the Royal Commission of the Status of Women. Referring to the Commission Chairman, Anne Francis, the reporter automatically added parenthetically that she was the wife of parliamentary correspondent, John Bird. It's no slight to Mr. Bird to suggest that, perhaps, Anne Francis is better known to the public than he is. Certainly, it could hardly be suggested that her husband constituted her principal qualifications to head a Royal Commission. And yet this goes on in the media. Editors, however, are, for the most part, men; most journalists are men; most radio commentators are men; and, as a result, it is highly surprising that the news of men's activities constitute a major portion of the hard news in the media.

Stories concerning women usually have a somewhat strange air as though they were dealing with a creature from another world. From sports to service clubs, men's news and activities are given prominence. As I've suggested, one of the keys is the male domination of the media. Obviously, therefore, one of the keys to rectify the situation is to ensure that women are involved in the media in greater numbers.

I recognize that, in this area of prejudice as in other areas of prejudice, few of the solutions can be achieved legislatively. The Government can, however, provide leadership and exert pressure to encourage change in the direction of equality.

I have not dealt with the issue that has come to be identified with the Women's Liberation Movement — our abortion laws. This is, of course, basically a subject for Federal legislation. I believe, however, that our Provincial Government must recognize that basic principle, that women have the sole right to determine what happens to their own bodies. I, therefore, urge the Government to take steps to accommodate the present demands for abortion. Present facilities are totally unable to cope with this situation. In concluding this appeal for action to eliminate the present inequities faced by women in our country, I would point to all male Members of the Legislature, and indeed to males everywhere, that we, who have for years benefited from our society's discrimination against women, have a moral obligation to devote considerable attention and energy to working toward conditions of real equality for women in our society.

Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not as I said at the outset, ten years from now we are not going to recognize this world. Twenty years from now, we might be getting a lot closer to the kind of equality I am talking about here (interruption). And what's wrong with that?

Mr. Speaker, the Province can't control interest rates but I think it's time we put pressure on the Federal Government to stop…. I'll put this right on to you, Mr. Attorney-General…. Government cannot control interest rates and it's time that we put pressure on the Federal Government to stop flagrant displays of usury in this Province. I have here a statement form showing a statement from a mortgage owner and this statement says that the man borrowed $7,200 on a second mortgage. He had to pay fees and bonuses of $958.70. He actually got out of the mortgage $6,241.30. Mr. Speaker, at the end of three years, well, thirty-three months, this man is down to the amount that he got. He paid $127.00 per month for three years to get down to the amount of money he originally got. This is terrible. It takes him five years to get down to $5,000. Five years after he's only borrowed $6,200. It's not the fault of the Government for not dealing with it, because they can't deal with it. This Government has been talking about inflation over the last few days. Let me tell you about inflation. Inflation is caused, in my view, by unearned income and capital gains. Unearned income and capital gains, and that's unearned income, Mr. Speaker, that's unearned income of the worst kind. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of thing that provokes wage demands. We are looking at it in the wrong way, when we keep blaming labour and keep hollering at Haynes and the rest. The fact of the matter is what is putting those people in those positions.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to wind up by having a few words to say, and I will have many more in other debates in the House, and I'd like to talk about something that is close to New Westminster's heart. My constituency has suffered through years of neglect from this Provincial Government and I think that is pretty well known throughout the country. We are embarking upon a massive and costly sewage disposal plant. This Government, that seems bent on clobbering municipalities, has pulled out of its bag of tricks, I think, a real low blow. New Westminster is to lose its contract to buy bulk power from B.C. Hydro. This Crown Corporation has decided to snatch $800,000 per year out of the pockets of the residents of New Westminster (interruption). Yes, I'm in favour of this, you just wait and see. This is no privilege, this is a traditional right. Don't tell me that stuff. A traditional right, Mr. Speaker. An absolute right. We should be accustomed to the Government welshing on their commitments to municipalities. We keep hoping for some pang of conscience to hit those in positions of power. But the B.C. Hydro is a creature of this Government and it's a giant creature. The policy, if indeed it is Government policy, that a municipality must not distribute power to its own citizens is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. Our history of distribution of power is long standing and was an outgrowth of community effort. Should a senior Government have the power to take away rights from a junior Government? No, I say, unless the people's interests are not served. They are served here and everybody in this House knows it. The fact of the matter is that it was a community effort that built our distribution service not the rest of the Province. New

[ Page 108 ]

Westminster built it. New Westminster is a child of this Government and it is being treated like an unwanted stepchild.

Now, B.C. Hydro sells bulk power to Puget Light and Power on an unreturnable basis. Yes, on an unreturnable basis and imagine favouring the people on the other side of the border to our own people here in British Columbia. You talk about an unwanted stepchild.

The action contemplated is aimed particularly at the senior citizens of New Westminster. People in the far west end of our city are still without sewers. Now, those are the people we adopted from the Provincial Government, for heaven's sake. Part of the area I described is the old DL 170 and it has not been helped by this Government as promised, so with the expenses they now face they really are going to have to dig deep into their resources. Many will be forced out of their homes. The loss of revenue from the distribution of power is too much for these citizens to face. Now the municipal government will be forced to act as a hatchet man, in order to keep the Provincial Government's hands clean. I intend to bring to the attention of every resident of New Westminster just who the real culprits are. It's the Government, with their fingers in the pie.

For the benefit of those who do not know the history of New Westminster's electrical power situation, I'd like to bring you up to date. New Westminster has been generating their own power, or had been generating their own power prior to 1904, when the B.C. Electric appealed to New Westminster to become a customer for bulk power. A fair and equitable agreement was reached, with New Westminster retaining its distribution system and B.C. Electric selling them bulk power. It was fair and equitable, not charity, not even a great bargain. It is not a bargain today. Many large industries in this Province and corporations doing business with this Province are able to buy bulk power cheaper from the same source as New Westminster. In other words, big industry here is paying less for their bulk power than New Westminster. We are not asking for anything particularly great. I would like to see our bill per kilowatt hour at Puget Lake. The chairman of Hydro, obviously, does not believe in honouring old agreements; the Finance Minister disclaims any responsibility to see that fair play is exercised in this area; the law of the jungle prevails — muscle over integrity. We are only 40,000 people in New Westminster, but let the Government be warned that we intend to fight this.

Mr. Speaker, we fought and won on the Royal Columbian Hospital and we intend to fight and win on this issue. If you have your own distribution system, well, of course, you should have the right to sell power. We've got our distribution system and it was a community effort that got it (interruption). Probably, that's what we'll have to do. In fact, we can't deal with Hydro. Why don't you say to Puget Power, "Produce your own power?" What are you talking about? We're a child of this Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Member address the Chair?

MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker, it comes back to one thing. I think that we can probably say that we're governed by guess and by folly. I hope to see you in other debates in this Session.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that after that last debate from the Honourable Member for New Westminster that women are still women, even though he tried very hard to make out that he didn't know the difference. That's how confusing the Royal Commission on Equality for Women is. You know, it must have been very difficult for him to know which was his mother or father. I was thinking of all the references that he gave us and he certainly must have had some substantial help in getting together this speech on suffrage for women. It seemed to me a little reminiscent of some background where it was coming from another country from which a lot of people tried to escape. Maybe it was an imported speech.

Mr. Speaker, before we begin the main part of our address this afternoon here in respect to the needs and the aspirations of the people of Saanich and the Islands, I would like to probably break in with…having followed the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He prompted my mind to recall that out on the Gulf Islands we hear a great deal about the restoration of those Islands to the Crown. Some of the Federal Members think that we should buy back all the Islands gradually and then put them all in the Crown. I would like to draw to a more reasonable conclusion and bring to the attention of the Minister that on Pender Island, Mayne Island and Saturna, there is not a Provincial Crown water front park, a park with water front. I think this in an opportune time, maybe, to put some action to our desires to afford some water front property on those Islands and I hope that it might be a Centennial project for the Department of Recreation and Conservation.

We've heard a good deal about rapid transit, too, and it might be appropriate at this moment — when so many people find that there is no transit at all, that it's not rapid, that it's standing still — to say a word on behalf of those people who rely implicitly and completely on bus transportation. I know that the machinery for settling disputes such as this has to take its course and grind out whatever kind of agreement can be reached but, it seems to me, that if there was going to be a strike, it certainly wouldn't have lasted very long if it had been held before Christmas. I wonder sometimes in the planning of a strike, if these things are taken into consideration. Probably the least discomfort was for the public and, therefore, it was felt they could arbitrate at another time that would be more convenient for the bus drivers or the bus system. I hope that, in not trying to come down heavily on employees or on management, that the negotiations will be rapidly brought to conclusion and that the people who do depend highly on bus transportation will be afforded it. I must say something in sympathy, though, with all those who want clean air and easy movement of traffic — it's certainly been a lot easier without the busses. Maybe it's time we had a new invention of some kind so that independent travel might be afforded without using mass media of transportation. Maybe we need a different type of automobile or propulsion and that will come in its time when individuals will probably take to semirelaxation from gravity and move in an altogether different form of motivation than we do today. Anything could happen in the science of invention that we have achieved by landing on planets, etc.

I would like to say in beginning my remarks to a Centennial Year — one hundred — how do we measure it? Some measure time by events. Others, and maybe more frequently, by the grouping of years. A quarter century, a decade. Our modern way of life gives us a constant measurement, Mr. Speaker, of thirty days and the bills come

[ Page 109 ]

in. Our natives used to use the moon as the regulator of time but now it is the landing field for astronauts. Man has never really been very far-sighted, anyway. Even with the advent of our long-range planners, ten years is a long distance to look into the future but, looking back, we have short memories, which sometimes is just as well. However, 1952 seems only a short step back into the memory to many here in this Legislature but a great memorial event took place then that shaped the future of British Columbia in such a remarkable way that it affected the history of all Canada, as well as this Province.

That far-flung western Province became an exploration and discovery expedition for tens of thousands of Canadians, as well as many from other parts of this world. The greatest long-range planner in the universe is its Creator and he handed this portion of His creation to us on a blue and green platter, edged with gold. Looking back one hundred years we talk about progress but it was all here before we came. Some talk about problems as though we had had one hundred years of problems. I believe that problems really are opportunities. These opportunities are best made use of when man takes into partnership, as well as consideration, the long-range planner of the universe. Man even sometimes talks about the retention of the ecology, the natural surroundings unspoiled by man, as though man were foreign to this earth. Yet he is part of the natural surroundings and man can best fit into the Master's plan when he recognizes there is a Master. The songwriter wrote:

The love of God is greater far than tongue or pen could ever tell;
It goes beyond the highest star and reaches to the lowest hill.
Could we with ink the ocean fill, were every stock on earth a quill, and every man a scribe by trade
To write the love of God above, would drain the ocean dry.
Nor could the scroll contain the whole, though stretched from sky to sky.

It might be, and it could be, an appropriate time to talk about the ecology of the human being, and how it has become so spoiled and polluted and decadent, misused and thrown away on the garbage heap of life, human debris. It might be an appropriate time to talk about it. Maybe we can fit it in another time, after we have grown tired of talking about the materialistic garbage dumps and the pollution that we have scattered across our countryside, which seems so over-important to us today while we neglect the weightier subjects of human ecology. There are many talents that I have noted come to light, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, and I'm not speaking about the ability to ignore each other. However, I am not proposing that I have any talent except a deep appreciation for the many good things that British Columbia has meant to me and still mean to me. So, in honour of this Centennial, I wish to present my brief resume of British Columbia. Dedicated to British Columbia, the beautiful. Before I do, I'd like to say that I appreciated very much the symbol of the flag that was seen decking all our desks when we came into the Legislature at the opening of this Session. I would suggest that it might be appropriate to start every Session that way, but using our own British Columbia flag here. They could be returned. Yes, I like to see them but maybe they could be laid down during the debates, because they do interfere with vision. But it is appropriate that we show to those who come into the Legislature that there is an honour and a loyalty and a pledge taken when we serve in this place and it does do honour to show our appreciation of that fact. I would also recommend to the Speaker that it would be helpful to those in the galleries and even to Members themselves, especially coming new into this House, that we might have our constituency either on the front of the desk or on the mike itself. I think it would be helpful. Now, this is my remark regarding a brief summary of British Columbia as I saw it in poetry.

The marking of time is a classic event
In the history of man it shows where he went
In science and fiction, in action and fame,
The makers of history are recorded by name.

The Cookes and Frasers, the Thompsons and kind,
The Vancouvers and Pembertons, let's keep them in mind.
Of heroes unsung many more could be found,
They've honoured B.C. though they're under its ground.

Through blood and by sweat and seldom by sword,
This Province its progress was soon to record.
A junior in politics and Confederation alike,
The "Trail" it would blaze and was not merely a hike.

Of Cariboo gold and pioneer strength
It's told in books of very great length,
We've Wells and Barkerville — from childhood to grave
They are part of the glory we're trying to save.

Of mountains and lakes and fish in the streams
We've more than the wildest of anyone's dreams.
Of timber in forests we can shout with the strong
And praise the Government, for to us they belong.

The mines in the mountains, the wheat on the plains,
The hydro in rivers and government trains,
Are a part of its glory, the half is not told,
For its oil and its gas are still to unfold.

Of shipping and dockyards we've still got a few
But shipping by air is filling the blue,
Of daffodils, tulips and Mum's not the word,
We can tell of our orchards, they're first, not second or third.

Of swimming a strait, or climbing a peak,
Don't travel afar if you've got itching feet.
At home on the range or sailing the sea
This Province has got it wherever you be.

A tunnel, a railroad, a bridge that is high,
You name it we've got it to "pie in the sky"
One hundred is old for you and for me
But it's only a child for good old B.C.

Come and see for yourself,
And when you come stand tall in the land,
Drink deeply of its beauty
And be thankful it all came from His hand.

These are my sentiments and I'm sure many of you could do better. British Columbia has many more years of history than a hundred years, and it's a great romance story recorded by many historians and writers and, no doubt, many more

[ Page 110 ]

books could be written about this Province of British Columbia. The document we are debating reviews a brief span of history, the Throne Speech, and forecasts a few things to come. Admittedly, it is a parliamentary, ritualistic performance, setting the stage for the less disciplined debate to follow but, admittedly, too, the Opposition's opening remarks belittling the Throne submission, are equally traditional in their condemnation. Of course, tradition does not necessarily mean that the debate has to be without substance or meaning; therefore, the traditional Throne Speech sets up the framework for all of the discussion that is to follow. Tradition has purpose and meaning as we respect it. There is a fraction and a factor in our generation which have — taken the words, "authority" and "establishment" and made them something dirty and blasphemous. They hate tradition. They urinate on loyalty and seem to have a philosophy of destruction — tear it down, burn it down and out of the ashes try to build something else. This belligerent attitude is certainly not in keeping with Centennial memories or pioneer respect. Denouncing authority, they demand authority. Loathing responsibility, they want responsibility. Demanding their freedom, they stifle the freedom of others. Shouting for People Power, they push others around. They talk about a dialogue, and they deny the representative of the Crown to speak, so that he can be heard in the assembly of democracy. I think the professor of the University of Montana, K. Ross Toole, summed it up on behalf of a great many of people of our day when he said: "I am a square, and I am sick of hippies, yippies, militants and nonsense. I am tired of being blamed, maimed, and contrite. I am tired of tolerance and the reaching out, which is always my function, for understanding. I am sick of the total irrationalities of the campus rebel, whose bearded visage, dirty hair and body odour and tactics, are childish but brutal, naive but dangerous, in the essence of arrogant tyranny, the tyranny of spoiled brats. The trouble is that that minority threatens to tyrannize the majority and take over. I dislike that minority; I am aghast that the majority takes it and allows itself to be used. As one fed-up member of the establishment which, by the way, is nothing but an euphemism to society, I say it's time to call a halt. We owe the younger generation what all older people have owed younger generations — love, protection to a point, and respect when they deserve it. We do not owe them our souls, our privacy, our whole lives and, above all, we do not owe them immunity from our mistakes or their own." Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General and to this House, I think too often we have excused the actions of our minority who stage things such as we saw in this House on Opening Day, as being a mere mistake, or the things that we experience and see in our universities — Simon Fraser, as another example, of passing them off as a mere mistake of youth. These are not childish overtures on the keyboard of life but they are deliberate plays to not only disrupt the order of events in the majority of lives but to destroy the well thought out plans of others who are dedicated to the loyalty and purpose of making Canada a better place to live in, and that is the majority of citizens and their undertakings. "Regarding these spoiled brats," he said, "they lack the common courtesy and regard for the opinions of others, and these are not merely the decorations on the piecrust of society. They are the heart of the pie and too many youngsters are egocentric boors. They will not listen and discuss. They will only shout down and throw rocks. Society has classically ostracized arrogance without the backing of demonstrable accomplishment." He continues: "Why then do we tolerate arrogant slobs, urinating on our beliefs and defiling our premises? It is not the police we need. Our generation and theirs, it is an expression of our disgust and disdain. Yet we do more than permit this behaviour, we dignify it with introspective flagellation." I endorse the professor's remarks, too, when he says that the worst of it is that we, speaking of their own profession and faculties in particular in a paroxysm of self-abnegation, go along and apologize as if we had personally created the ills of the world, and thus tend ourselves to chaos. We are the led, not the leaders, and we are fools. This sums up my opinion, too, of the men like Kirkby, the professor, and this Assembly. This democratic institution represents leadership and must take the responsibility for tolerating and condoning and backing off from using its leadership policies and possibilities, from allowing itself and its opinions to be trampled under, not by the Opposition, that's their policy to oppose and criticize, but by people in our democratic institutions who not only openly flaunt Canadian law and public accepted discipline, but recommend its destruction from the pedestals of learning institutes. Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools, recognizing their own authority only. We have far too many apologists for this group in high places. We warp our laws and our administration into a stigmatic contour to accommodate a crooked and a perverse generation of biased bigots.

At the conference in Montreal last year on crime and prevention, a senior police officer from Montreal accused Governments of handcuffing the police at the expense of protecting the law-abiding citizens. We have the results of that by the overall enforcement of the Emergency Powers Act, because we forbade and even handicapped the local administrational law to do its job property. Also we give encouragement to criminal activity and make things legal in the belief that it is somehow going to make them right. That's what the LeDain Report proposes when it comes to drugs, too. The officer's statements were carried across the country and should cause shame to come upon each one of the Provincial regimes which may have attempted to frame legislation weighted in favour of the law breakers. This brings me to the FLQ and the nasty episode, the Laportes and the Crosses, which from that day on, has been a heavy cross for all Canadians to bear. Who set the stage for this catastrophe? This highjacking of Canadians by foreign-trained espionage — the revolutionaries who got their fine points in the Cuban camps on how to destroy and take over a democratic government. Where does Canada fit in? Is she about to become the meat in the sandwich between two great world communist powers? In the name of recognizing Red China, at the same time dealing with Russia, and also with exchanging the, what they consider themselves to be, war prisoners, with Cuba, is Canada getting into a dangerous triangle that we are going to find ourselves the meat in the sandwich? Where does Canada fit in?

In the name of trade and commerce have we so soon, so quickly forgotten the Grozenkos and the many others that have followed since, as well as the Jews who are trying to escape from Russia with their very lives and are forced to spend the remaining years maybe of their lives in a country from which they wish to escape, and those in a prison? And we deal with these people who assassinate innocent people in Canada, with respect? Are you in favour of that? We allow them to hold us, the Canadian people, at ransom, hijack all of Canada, not just a plane. Deal with men who have been trained from the camps in Russia through Cuba in the

[ Page 111 ]

techniques of world revolutionaries? Who bred the viper? Who cultured it that stung our hand and poisoned our society? I am sure that most of our Canadian people know.

It is my opportunity to discuss with you this afternoon, this permissive society, the option on drugs, and all of the other things that have clouded the real issues of what is the trouble and why we are going in the direction that we are going. We only have to think of some of the people who pay the supreme price for an undisciplined society. We have the Beatles and others who have travelled over the continents today, some of them repudiating what they did with sorrow and with tears. Lennon repudiating and renouncing what he did as having missed the way. We have Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix committing suicide. We have others leaving notes behind them of the sorrow that they have, because they were led on a drug-abuse career, in the name of opting out of society. Then we have those who apologize for them and, in high places, make it easier to cast doubt upon the established principles that have led us this far in our hundred years so well. Even the institutions that we cherish here were to see the desecration of its former parliament at the will and whim of those who invaded its premises only to get excitement and to draw attention to their misdemeanour. I think that if there's any enforcement of law it should be in respect to what they attempted to do. I have with me remarks regarding those who were enticed into such actions when they joined the Students for Democratic Society. A young girl has this to say, "I got beaten up by some of the guys because I had killed a future revolutionary," she said, speaking of the abortion. "Others raise their kids in the movement, everyone helping out." These are the kind of ideas that we have that are being pressed to the front today, that life is cheap. Yet, when we come to our wars, we have many people who denounce the war as being a loss of life, which it is. We come to abortions and we seem to condone the idea that life is cheap, that you can start it and finish it anywhere along the line and you don't have to feel responsible.

I couldn't help but read in the report of the events in this Legislature when the Member for Oak Bay did a very admirable job of laying out the arguments, pro and con, for abortions on demand. Turning over, Mr. Speaker, just two pages, I saw in the same newspaper the great applaud and concern for the accomplishment that was announced that they had succeeded in doing away with abortions in cattle. Now, I just want to know, doesn't that cause you to wonder? Who are the cattle? Looking for easy ways out of destroying life, in one instance and, in the other way, among animals, we're looking for every way possible to sustain life so that there be no abortion, even by a natural method. Well, there are many who have done a great amount of research on this.

I recommend for the reading of anyone in this Legislature in respect to the use and abuse of drugs, a report by the late Honourable J. Elmer Blanchard, Attorney-General, and the Honourable Gordon Bennett, the Minister of Education and Justice, for Prince Edward Island, on the Commission of Enquiry into the Nonmedical Use of Drugs. They caption it by saying that a drug is guilty until proven innocent and they quote from the New England Medical Journal the various scientific and medical committees that have studied the matter and have come to a surprisingly unanimous conclusion, that marijuana should not be legalized for general consumption. Dr. F.W. Lundell, a professor of psychiatry at McGill University, is also quoted as saying, "Serious adverse reactions for users of marijuana do occur with greater frequency and severe consequences as suggested in the LeDain Interim Report. To legalize marijuana now could be disastrous in our present state of our society." I think that these men are timely in their warnings and the reason why I bring it to this House at this opportune time, is that there is a feeling going abroad by some that we're coming to the pinnacle of this experimentation in drugs, and that now is the time to go easy on it and to probably go soft on soft drugs. I want to say that this is no time to give up the vigilance, because we have reports that are continually coming in. Some young men, who have taken time off from school finish their courses by using correspondence and then using their spare time, have done thorough research, on a personal basis, in the drug use in the schools and high schools of this country and on this Island, in particular. Their facts were as they found them by talking to their peers with whom they had no difficulty in discussing them openly because they were well known to them. They do not include anybody else except the direct conversations as they were held between the students and themselves. The coverage is extensive and adequate enough to prove a trend. It shows that the use of some 15 drugs, which were canvassed by this young person, is on the increase, which is substantiated by the best reports that we have from across the country and the United States, too. They run parallel, so we know that there is accuracy in the review and I would say that copies of the summary are available on request from myself. I am going to read as it is reported in here. The teenagers have used the following drugs at least three times in six months. These estimates were taken from a period of nine months between April, 1970, and October, 1970, and we include the real soft drugs such as tobacco, which some are even including who argue for the easing up on laws regarding marijuana. Tobacco, 74 per cent; alcohol, 78 per cent; marijuana, 56 per cent, which runs very close to the averages taken elsewhere, so we find that this is quite accurate. Hashish, 49 per cent, in schools; some solvents, 4 per cent. It's interesting to note that solvents users opted out at about Grade 9. Amphetamines, 3 per cent; barbiturates, 38 per cent; mescaline, 13 per cent; STP, 2 per cent; DMT, 2 per cent; LSD, 11 per cent; MDA, 8 per cent; codeine, 1 per cent; demerol, 1 per cent; morphine, 2 per cent; speed, 6 per cent; and heroin, 3 per cent. This is the estimate of this young man on the major drugs that are presently being abused in the Greater Victoria area: Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, Central Saanich, North Saanich, Sidney, Langford, Colwood, Metchosin, View Royal and Sooke, approximately a population of 200,000. The most commonly used drugs were tobacco and alcohol and these are followed by marijuana, hashish, barbiturates, mescaline, LSD, MDA and speed. The least used were solvents: amphetamines, heroin, morphine, demerol, codeine and STP. He said that he found that about 25 per cent of the students have used marijuana and have stopped. With the other drugs, the proportion that has stopped was about half. The use of drugs is more common as students get older. The greater increase in drugs comes usually around Grade 9 and 10 level and upward.

I was amazed to sit in a group of businessmen the other day who said that they had come from a certain city and were going to parties that were 50 or 60 in number. They said it was common to find, appearing on the table amongst them after they all had had their round of drinks, from an unknown source, that they would usually break open a few joints of marijuana. He said no one seemed to know where they came from but usually the businessmen…I had an argument with him over what type of business and profes-

[ Page 112 ]

sional people would be there. He said, "Well, don't bring me into the open by name," and I said that I wouldn't but I do know the young man has a high position in the investment field in this city. He said, "In that city when we went to these meetings, some 50 or 60 or as high as 75 would be present. He said, "We never knew where it came from but we used it and it was common for people from the professions to be there, where half of them were nurses, many of them were teachers and other higher intellectual, educated groups." So, this is common use, and he said, "Well, what can you do about it? Isn't it time we just forgot the whole issue and allowed the thing to run wild?" I don't think you can, when you have all of the lives of those who are not capable of making a rational discretionary decision on this when they are youngsters, who are in an experimental stage. I think that we must do everything that we can according to the Federal Government to educate, to upgrade our information continually and to keep pace with the times and with the amount of research that is going on constantly in the human evaluation as to the effect of these things, bad or otherwise. He goes on to say that marijuana use was one hundred times higher among students from above-average districts than it was among middle-class and poor districts. Marijuana use, and drug use on the whole, is higher among average or below average students in schools. For example, the most logical to use drugs were students with E, D, C, C- and C+ ratings. Students who had drug users as friends were about 98 per cent more likely to use drugs than students who didn't have friends who used drugs. About 75 per cent of the students who have used drugs, have used more than one drug. This excludes barbiturates, tobacco and alcohol. About 25 per cent of the students who used drugs were involved with several drugs, such as marijuana, hashish, LSD, mescaline and MDA.

Now this isn't new, altogether; many other reports have come out that we've studied over the years. They are similar, but to think that this was provided by a young man in our community who comes from a very reliable family, which is well known in the circles of athletics and sports. This man took it upon himself because he felt the urgency of the situation, the near-brink disaster that he feels that many of our lives of our young people are at. If anything can be done to show that the bridge is out on a highway, then we should do it to warn traffic from going over the brink. This is what we are trying to do in reading from this young man's report today; not to vouch for its accuracy, not to agree completely with all of these figures, but he has done an admirable job, one that the committee in this House failed to do because, I was chairman of that committee, and we wanted to get on with not having a report that was too harsh on hashish, I believe. Today, I believe there are far too many who apologize for it. "I find it very clear," he says, "that the main security threat is to Canadians' unity." This is something important that he found in this thing. I read it into the annals of this country now with no apologies, because we've experienced, as Canadians, a threat against our way of Government. It was a real threat that caused all of Canada to come to its knees and bow to a few saboteurs and assassinators. For that reason, it's serious business that I'm dealing with. He says, "I find that the most important activities in the drug community are those directionalized from outside of Canada."

We have great problems being posed and created by sympathizers and adherents of the communist movement, which create problems in themselves. I read from an article about a girl, who said that the first thing she learned when she got into drugs was the teachings of communist leaders: Lenin, Marx and Mao Tse-Tung, and, with other girls, was taught to use firearms. That's an accurate report and I visited some of these people to talk to them, too. Canada is one of the greatest targets for subversive activities because it can be used as a base against the United States. The communist agents, sympathizers and adherents to their cause have so far been successful in penetrating and infiltrating some organizations in B.C. It is particularly important to realize that the communists, in their search for stooge agents, will make use of every means possible from compromise to individual weakness and blackmail. They have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to recruit stooge agents, supporters and adherents to their cause by using all kinds of individual weaknesses and one of them, of course, is the experimentation in drugs. The types of communist subversive activities in B.C. range from front organizations to all kinds of attempts to convert individuals in Government…I'll recognize that the words that I'm reading from here, and I'm proud of it, were written by a 19-year-old boy, with no help from anyone else, and the report was put in my hand a few days ago…individuals in Government, the universities, political groups or parties, the media, the unions and the police. The communists find it very easy to exaggerate and exploit all kinds of elements which would cause social unrest. The communist agents seem to conduct a certain amount of subversive activity through communist missions and illegal residents, individuals living here illegally under false names. I was amazed, walking into some of the homes that I have responsibility for rental and talking to the individuals. I said, "Well, you've just moved in. Where are you from?" "We're from Vancouver." I said, "Where were you from before that?" "Well, the girl I live with is from B.C. but I'm from California." Before I could walk away from that place a car drove up and a social worker got out and came in and took all the reports to give them something to live on.

I was down in the United States recently interviewing some of the press media and some of the politicians, too. I couldn't help but say to the press in a certain city, when he said, "What are your common problems with us down here?" I said, "Probably welfare. At one time we had a lot of people from your State who came up to our country looking for gold and they did a great job of helping to settle British Columbia. Now we have another kind of golddigger. He comes up for welfare and to escape his responsibilities to your country." He looked at me and he said, "Have you many of us?" I said, "I'm expecting a couple more shortly." He said "Who are they? How do you know?" I said, "I think they're a couple by the name of Fulbright and Kennedy." He turned pink and the little reporter, Nancy was her name, she started writing as quickly as possible. I said, "Nancy, send me the paper if that's in it because I think your editor who I'm talking to is going to censor it." I never did get the paper so I presume that it was censored.

This is the way I feel about people who come up here to escape their responsibilities in that country. I don't think that we did a favour, in some respects, to the Hungarians who have come into this country. Many of them have done a great job but they came away from a country that they disagreed with the type of Government in and maybe they exported the very ones who would return freedom to those countries. Maybe Czechoslovakia is another case in point. Maybe when we accept them and let them flee for their very lives, we are allowing them to export the very people who would return a

[ Page 113 ]

balance of freedom to those countries. If we continue to do the same in this country…under fear of similar situations here, then we would turn it over to those who are like the ones who assassinated Laporte. I certainly don't intend to abrogate my responsibilities when it comes to those fellows, the Roses and the Simards, and the Ferrons, who ran with the Rene Levesque group, and then arbitrate when men are in a tunnel to get them out. When the same men campaign for Levesque, you begin to wonder what kind of skullduggery and collusion goes on in the ranks of that kind. It's time that maybe we began to talk about it. We felt that these reports, somehow or other, can't be true. When you read your newspapers and see men's names appearing constantly, one after the other, in the different front organizations, in the different positions in democracy, and then we try to negotiate with that kind of people. How much further can we drive our police into failing to fulfill their administrative responsibilities? We make it difficult for them. Maybe, too, if there has been any brutality and cruelty amongst the police, it's been the fault of those in high positions who have failed to keep the high standard up for people who go into the ranks, because we've been noticing continually that the advice of some is to lower the standards and change the code. I don't think we can afford to do that. The young man says the communist agents seem to conduct a certain amount of subversive activity through communist missions, illegal residents, individuals living here legally under false names. There are communist subversive activities here in B.C. In the open and underground, which are usually stooges and sympathizers of all kinds. I notice this in talking to certain people who work in the area of the tramp and hippie and yippie and others. In talking to them and listening to them, giving advice to the young runaway, I've talked to a number of these kids who have vacated, opted out a home and ended up in some place that would give them harbour. Invariably, amongst certain elements, the tone is this. Accuse them of being a product of the society, that it's really not their fault and the system is to blame, and then move right in on the system and the establishment and deprecate it and call it dirty things. I've seen it in Council Chambers and I've listened to it on the streets. When I walked the streets of Montreal and St. Catherine's and everywhere and I saw that mass of humanity for five hours a night and contacted them and continually interviewed them as to what they thought the outcome was going to be of the disposition of Quebec with the FLQ on the rise, there was no hesitation from television producers in programming, and I have their names, to young students from Sir George William, to many who stood in my hotel lobby and in my room till one o'clock in the morning to talk about these things. On the streets, everyone that I spoke to of that teenage group, in the parks, not one ever said, "There will not be a revolt or a rebellion" or "There will not be any assassinations." Their remark to me was not "if" but "now, when?" And I said, "When do you think?" "it must be in 1970 because our plans will run out of steam if we don't fulfill our revolutions in 1970." Why the police and others in high places could not go down the streets and find it out just as easily as I did as I stayed in the hotel there, I cannot understand. Maybe it's because we have got to the place again of insensibility where anything goes. We read of death on our highways, in our institutions. A murder took place the other day, apparently, in one of our institutions for handicapped. It's in the newspapers and I hope it will be really and thoroughly investigated and somebody will be brought to time for that and there won't be an explanation to explain it away.

We have come to where the cheapness of life makes us insensible to our own safety…. I think of the death on our highways. There's a murderer loose on our highways that takes 50 per cent of all accidents: responsible for the fatalities, I should say 50 per cent of the fatalities in our accidents. We do very little about it; our effort as a Government in respect to curbing alcoholism is pathetic. It's pathetic and I don't care whether you agree with me or not. I believe that we've got to come down harder on helping and I believe that we should cause the breweries to be responsible for the rate of crime and the lives that are destroyed and the loss of employment, which is a very serious factor in our factories and in our industries. The breweries should be traced to their responsibility the same as we try to trace responsibility for an accident. If we can award a claim against an insurance company, we surely should be able to award a claim against the culprit in the accident. Many of our accidents are openly closed-shut-closed cases of the contribution of alcohol to it. I've had friends wiped out on the highways here, instantly killed by someone under the influence of alcohol; they can't be replaced. Yet we seem to become insensible to the terrible loss of life and property that is caused by this agent of death. Maybe it's because we all find ourselves some time or another vulnerable to it. Many of us, I shouldn't say all. Many of us find ourselves vulnerable to it. Many times I'm in good association and friendship and it's pledged upon you. It's very difficult to say no. I suppose a person feels that he's part of the go-around on it and he doesn't want to really condemn it. I could go on to read the report but I will not take the time. I think that we may be able to deal further with this young man's report at another time in the estimates of the Attorney-General. It is serious enough, though, to read into the record just to say, "Let's take cognizance of doing something about saving our young people's lives."

I noted that, in the report of the Attorney-General, the late Attorney-General, Mr. Blanchard, there was included an interesting section on an actual experiment with a person who drove an automobile after smoking a couple of joints of marijuana. The frightening thing about it is that the police, when they stopped the automobile, could find no detection of anything wrong with the person. Just prior to stopping it he had said on the tape recorder to the man next to him, "I'm driving this automobile while I'm upside down. I've got to stop because I cannot drive any further." So they pulled over to the side and that's when they were accosted by the traffic policemen, who investigating, wanted to know what was wrong and they just said they were changing drivers, and that's all. But then he began to drive again and commented about his upside down feeling that he had while driving the car. So the serious part in these accidents is that we are looking for a mechanical failure and really it's a loose nut behind the wheel — and we can't find it. There's no way of knowing. I think that's a serious enough charge that we should never, never legalize anything that cannot be detected in that sense when we are still using automobiles to get to and from our place and destinations. I could go on to the next, and next, and next. It is extremely sad and very, very important that we take a very close look at what has been said and do everything we can to not encourage the use of drugs.

Now, I want to speak for a moment about regionalism and green belts. Should farmers have a choice and, I believe that the farmers must retain their individual rights to their

[ Page 114 ]

property, to have a choice as to whether the Government is going to institute the responsibility of the municipality to legislate green belts in an area with the farmer being left in no position to really choose and without going to the problem of trying to displace or replace a council. I hope that in this Session, we will not see anything that will prejudice or jeopardize the position of the farmer in this respect. I do hope, however, that we will be able to see something that will help him in his position of higher taxes that he can do nothing about, and lower income as well — that we assist him, probably in further exemption of taxes on his farm land and also the buildings, at that time.

In respect to the Pat Bay Highway, I want to say we do appreciate, in the Saanich Peninsula and to all those tourists and fine people who come here to visit, that we are making great strides in assisting the people to have easier transportation. Problems of getting into the city have been very difficult. It took a long while to build a pyramid and I just hope that it doesn't take as long to build the Pat Bay Highway. A lot of people out there have had, not for the first time, a nip off their property, and after a while coming back and buying the remainder. We've seen a lot of second looks going on and I hope that if there's any second look to be taken it will be in respect to the merging of traffic at the intersections and also to the residents along the way, and that there will be a melding lane sufficient that people don't have to enter onto moving traffic of 50 to 60 miles an hour from a standing start. They must be given the opportunity to merge properly and I noticed that a lot of the access right-of-way does not provide for it at this time. I hope that this will be taken into consideration.

I would liked to have covered the facts on pollution. I think that the overemphasis of pollution can be very detrimental as a fear campaign amongst our industries and prevents a lot of jobs from taking place because of the fact that we're in such a state of flux of opinions as to what the detriments of pollution are that we can't move on with the development of our country and get the jobs going again. I think that it has also been indicated that the uncertainty in financial circles as to what the interest rate would do and what the Federal Government would do with the Benson situation has caused an awful lot of concern and cutting back in getting factories going and providing jobs.

I know that Canadians are beginning to consider once more that a change of men in Ottawa might change the policies. But let's make it clear. If you're going to use a wheelbarrow for an economic vehicle it makes little difference whether Trudeau is between the handlebars, or Tommy Douglas, or Stanfield, in or out of his underwear. It really won't matter because all they can do is wheel either a little or smaller or a bigger load. If the economic vehicle is going to be fixed and made to fit to the occasion of our age, then it's going to take some people who know what the cause is and not just haywire the symptoms up. The tinker-toy policies of Trudeau have destroyed confidence in the economy and, meanwhile, the emasculating knife of Benson has nearly scared the panty hose off a lot of businessmen. May the people of Canada never be forced to carry the Benson burden of proposed White Paper taxation. It is possible that the nation's economic ills are on the way to convalescence but if we are frightened any more by the White Paper statistics, and the Benson White Paper on unemployed, too, is another hair-raiser, then we'll have real problems on our doorstep from the Federal Government. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of addressing this Parliament this afternoon on behalf of the people of Saanich and the Islands.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've come a long way in the history of Parliament when you've developed a system for what happens when the Speaker elected in the House doesn't show up. I hope whatever is the reason for his absence today is of a minor nature and we welcome you in his high station. Back in 1648, they had the same problem and all they could think of to do was to adjourn the House until they could find him. He was, at that time, very sick because, as it happened, he'd been at a banquet the night before. Of course, nothing like that ever happens today. You know, the Throne Speech is no longer in vogue or in practice. As I stumbled over that interesting excerpt that we have in our library…you may not know it but we do have the Commons Journals of the year 1648 right here, preserved, right from the Mother of Parliaments. It's well worth looking at if you can figure out the difference between an "s" and an "f". Some of the members over there may not but, on the other hand, it was clear from the report on that day that Parliament wanted to know why the King had summonsed them there; I might add, he didn't give them very much reason for calling them together. That was the year he lost his head.

This is the year, Mr. Speaker, this Government has lost its head because, in the opening Speech that we examined and partly heard, it's evident that this Government no longer considers it its duty in the year A.D. 1971 to tell the Members of this House the cause of their being summonsed. Today, we can only speculate that the Government and the Premier of the Province believe in the State-of-the-Union address, a recounting of the past and no notions for the future. This Government is obviously in a state of disarray and demise, when it can no longer tell us why we are called to attend. When you realize that the great historic truth of Parliament, the great tradition, has been that before the King could find the money for his ships or his men or, in those days, his extravagances, it was necessary for the Commons to be summonsed to meet, and he put the best case he could upon his needs. No longer is that true in British Columbia. This is the year that marks the turning point both of the purpose of the opening Speech and the turning point of this Government. Very significant that they did it themselves. What insuperable arrogance is this, that they do not choose to disclose anywhere in the statement anything but the most innocuous of reasons or progress? When you think of the things that could be in an opening Speech for this Session on the historical occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of our entry into Confederation, what a dismal prospect they offer for the citizens of British Columbia in the opening Speech. All they do is substitute a different list of visitors to the Province. All they do is resummarize and rephrase the same old cants, and "can't," I suppose is the right word for this Government. The same old "can't do this" or "can't do that," the same old excuses on the subject of pollution, the same old excuses that they have always had on the problems of unemployment. Instead of turning their face towards the difficulties that must be solved, they keep looking towards the sunset as their sun declines and say to those who will still listen, "It was a beautiful day, wasn't it?" The sun is setting, in my opinion, when you see that kind of an opening Speech

[ Page 115 ]

on Opening Day.

I wanted to deal with one of the indications of how this Government has, in its own way, become a kind of Charles the First, in the way it has attempted to ignore the niceties of the democratic system. This relates to the constituency that I have the honour to represent and the municipality which surrounds the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds, the municipality of Burnaby, a very proud and historic area of the lower mainland, an area whose history goes right back to the gold rush days. Indeed, the first surveys that were made there were commenced when the Royal Engineers came to New Westminster and covered the area right over to Burrard Inlet. That municipality has now over one hundred and forty thousand citizens and it is a very progressive community that has led the lower mainland in many ways in pioneering. They have one unique quality besides their constant choice of representatives. They have another unique quality and that is that they like to make decisions themselves about what they want to do in their future. All they ask, being reasonable men and women, is that they be consulted and that these matters of their future be, so far as democracy permits, retained in their own hands. It was a stunning and arrogant trick for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to send them his decree like any petty Castro or any czar of the nineteenth century, that they, without consultation, were going to be changed in their constituency to a city, without prior negotiations, prior conferences, without considering the many factors that are involved in this great municipality that do affect their future (interruption).

I read the Statutes. The very fact that Henry VIII had a number of Statutes, which led to his disestablishment, didn't make them right. England paid for many years for that arrogance of Henry VIII. Mr. Speaker, the Statute empowers the Lieutenant-Governor in Council but it does not say that you do not negotiate, you do not confer, you do not treat with the citizens involved. In this respect, the Minister has shown a lamentable disregard for the courtesies of life in British Columbia in 1971. It was ironic to hear him say that although he has never had the temerity to do this particular act before with a major urban area, he had done this before to little villages. The 140,000 citizens of the greatest municipality, indeed, in Canada are not about to be described as another village. I think one of the important things that must be ironed out between the Minister and the municipality arises from the fact that Burnaby, in the location it is between the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet, has become a corridor for all the major Provincial highways leading out of the lower mainland. There's the Trans-Canada 401, a Provincial highway; there's Kingsway, a Provincial highway; there's the Canada Way, a Provincial highway; there's Lougheed, a Provincial highway; there's the Barnet Highway. All of these are major arteries that cross through the municipality severing it part from part. Hastings, the Barnet Highway, then you have Marine Drive as well. These highways and secondary highways, all of them are essential to the commerce and the future of the lower mainland. They're not municipal roads. They are there to serve the Province and they cut up and divide the municipalities. There must be a continuing responsibility by the Provincial Government for those highways. If the Minister simply passes his decree to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is it to be the intention of this Government that it will shirk its responsibility on these major highways? Is it going to treat it the way it has so long treated the city of Vancouver in regard to Kingsway, with a minor grant for its upkeep? These are the questions that should be discussed, not only, Mr. Speaker, in this House but with the responsible officials of the municipality of Burnaby. Those answers must be given before any further overt action is taken by this Government to convert the municipality over to the rather unhappy position of the city of Vancouver. For instance, look at all the questions that fall within Provincial jurisdiction in the area of Burnaby that have not been solved yet, despite the many promises of the Minister of Highways and its prior Minister.

With regard to the highway situation, for years now the Provincial Government has been promising to get ahead with the widening of Hastings Street and this is not yet done. It doesn't appear to be even yet in the books and it's a major problem on the northern stretch of Burnaby, the widening of Hastings Street. Does this mean, Mr. Minister, no longer will the Provincial Government carry forward with its promises? Are you going to break them and treat them as a scrap of paper? Does this mean that with regard to the relocation of Marine Drive, which is now becoming a very intensive highway used mainly by trucks between Vancouver and New Westminster, that that relocation that was started by the city of Vancouver to Kerr Road into a four-lane highway is going to stop and the Provincial Government is going to shrug its shoulders and its responsibilities? We want to know these answers before you so precipitously make decisions on your own that hurt a very large number of citizens in a very large municipality. We want to know if you're going to continue this foolish policy of allowing all the trucks in the lower mainland to churn their way up Canada Way, up that long hill, disturbing the residents all the way along. I'm sure the Minister, from his own speeches, would know the dangers of noise pollution. He would know that the noise of those trucks up the hill is shaking most of those houses to the foundations. It's becoming intolerable at night, and what is he doing about it? Did he make any plans to see that these powers, in the event they're transferred, include changes in highway jurisdiction? What are you doing about it, what are your plans? You don't even tell the people concerned what their fate is going to be. This is arrogance, high-handed.

Then with regard to the financial adjustments. There's quite a considerable difference in the cost to the citizens of Burnaby and what they would have to bear. If they are forced into city status against their will and without the proper planning and the timing to meet the needs, what arrangements are you making to see that they have adequate protection before such a move is envisioned? I might tell the Minister the citizens of Burnaby have dealt with this question when it was raised in the municipality and they were overwhelmingly opposed (interruption).

Not ten years ago, my goodness. It shows you're living so far in the past you don't know what's been happening for ten years. They dealt with this question. I only ask the Minister did he think up this little scheme himself? Did somebody put it in his ear? Did he have some requests from somebody? Does this amount to a new policy of cuffing around the junior Governments of British Columbia against their knowledge, against their will? If this isn't a new policy, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to name one major municipal area where he has applied this high-handed treatment. One (interruption). Fourteen villages. You heard that, Mr. Speaker. Fourteen villages he's done this to, because they were too small to fight. Mr. Speaker, before this kind of thing happens, before these arbitrary decrees are passed, surely, the Minister could explain why he proposes such a course. Surely, that's the democratic thing to do. I don't know why

[ Page 116 ]

they practice this arbitrary conduct. Is it some impelling sense of power? Is it greed for predominance? Mr. Speaker, it's really no use. You can't deal with the unashamed power, you know, that Lord Acton talked about. Here it is typified and personified right across from me, sitting there laughing and gloating at the abusive power. It's not a laughing matter, Mr. Minister.

While I'm dealing with the subject of the problems that have been created by the Provincial Government in Burnaby, I'd like to mention another promise of this Government that has been neglected and forgotten for years. In 1957, the then Attorney-General promised that Oakalla Prison Farm would be removed from Burnaby within ten years, that was 1957. He made that promise in this House. It has never happened and it appears unlikely to happen under this Government and under the present Attorney-General. I say that it's time that a few of these promises were kept by this Government that have been made to the citizens of Burnaby. No wonder you have trouble trying to win an election in Burnaby. No wonder you get rejected because you fail to live up to the promises you have made time after time. Time after time you've been rejected by citizens who are smart enough to realize where the true interests lie.

Then, again, we have Burnaby Lake. The Province has quite a large amount of ground around Burnaby Lake. We would like to see arrangements made with the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, particularly, this year, because of the proposals for the next games that New Westminster and Burnaby together have underwritten. We would like to see the Provincial Government contribute the land that borders Burnaby Lake, which is in their hands, towards a common park that will be dedicated to a wildlife sanctuary, to a nature park, for the benefit and recreation of the whole lower mainland. We'd like to see this. I'm not suggesting you name it after me, I'm not as egotistical as the Minister of Lands, although I will say this. If there's one park that should be named after a living person that is Barrett's park, Cypress Bowl. Despite all the slings and the arrows, despite all the frivolity, well may you laugh now. I just want to remind a few of the Members of a little ancient history that they seem conveniently to ignore, relating to this question. Just to show you how this honourable leader of ours is worthy of the respect and the thanks of every citizen of the lower mainland for a five-year fight, let me read this, Mr. Speaker. Here is a copy of The Citizen, North Vancouver, dated March 27, 1968, heading is "MLA off Base:" — "A Member of the Legislature from the wilds of Dewdey should check the facts before he infers that West Vancouver's council members are a bunch of hicks being taken in by city slickers." I put the question again to you, "Who was wrong, who was wrong?" A bunch of hicks being taken in by city slickers. Thank God, the city slickers from the Bahamas didn't make it. This editorial goes on: "Mr. Barrett continues to whine that the developers are pulling a fast one, that they are logging a bigger area than necessary but then he has been against the development for some time now. Forests Minister, Ray Williston, said he inspected the area and found nothing wrong. Reeve Alex Forst states flatly that all the logging being done is completely within the plan we drew up for this. Surely this should satisfy Mr. Barrett. He would not suggest that Liberal Reeve Forst would condone anything shaky. The trouble is nothing will satisfy MLA Barrett. He loves looking under rocks for imaginary evildoers." Now isn't that interesting, when you look back in retrospect? There are a lot of other people who made statements in those days. I think that they should be reminded occasionally of their folly.

In a paper called the Province…(interruption). I admit that they've changed a great deal in the years. They now believe in Women's Liberation in the Press Gallery, apparently. I commend them for that. In the March 20, 1965, Province, the editorial said, "We Won't Run out of Mountains." — "It is difficult to understand the loud concern of an NDP Member of the Legislature about private development of a resort area in the mountains of West Vancouver. With this in mind, it is foolish to clamour about giving away public resources to private development. Investors involved in the Hollyburn Ridge area development are not going to exclude the public. Private development of a few hundred acres of mountain doesn't prevent any Government from developing other mountain areas. Whatever happens in West Vancouver, we aren't going to run out of mountains for a long time." That was 1965. Of course, at that time, we had in the same chorus the Member for Burnaby-Seymour, who used to be a Member of this House, Mr. Perrault, who was attacking the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition on this point, saying what a wonderful deal it was. We had the then alderman for the municipality of West Vancouver, who sits here now in this House, who was attacking the honourable Member who protested at the Cypress Bowl give-away. Here we have November 20, 1968, "Liberal MLA Allan Williams," this is in the Province…(interruption).

Oh, yes, even more irresponsible of you. "Liberal MLA Allan Williams of West Vancouver jumped into the Cypress Bowl controversy Tuesday charging that the issue was being used as a political manoeuvre by the New Democratic Party." What was the political manoeuvre? They kept saying that it shouldn't be under private development, that the whole scheme was no good, that it should be a public park in the hands of this Government developed for public use by this Government. That's what they asked for. "Liberal MLA Allan Williams said a Member of the NDP is attempting to further personal political ambitions through repeated attacks on the project." Then, I suppose, you are going to apply the same rule to your honourable friend who is busy attacking the Skagit deal — furthering his own political end? But the Liberals in Ottawa approved the deal. What side are the Liberals on? If the Leader of the Opposition stands up for public parks and the preservation of Cypress Bowl for the public use by this Government, this honourable Member says that that's pure political propaganda that is for personal political gain. For five years he fought everyone, he stood alone and fought them all and he was right. There was only one thing wrong. If you had listened to him five years ago, you would have had $1,400,000 in the kitty to start the park off right, from the timber that was taken from the Cypress Bowl and squandered by the promoters and turned into money in Panama. What's the story on that $1,400,000? Well, let's took at it. Over $1,400,000 was the announced figure. Looking in the Province of September 12, 1970, on the front page, it states: "The agreement with Alpine also gave Mountain Timbers exclusive rights to use the road it constructed to remove the logs from adjacent areas for an indefinite period." No control, no control. They went wherever they pleased. "Other documents showed that. In the year ending October 31, 1968, Mountain Timbers which had been working in the Bowl under a previous agreement with Alpine realized a total of $1,123,479 from the sale of logs alone." One year. "In the next twelve months a further $529,642, was realized. These figures do not take into

[ Page 117 ]

account expenses and taxes." But, then, what did they do? Did they spend the money they received on the workmen, on the contractors, on the subcontractors, on the creditors? Not a bit of it. They were permitted by this Government's negligence to take the $420,000 advanced to a subsidiary of Benguet when it was turned over to Benguet. That $420,000 hit the bank one day and the next day it was in Panama. It didn't pay off the creditors who had done the work. It didn't pay off the contractors. What kind of a set-up were you allowing to be run?

Mountain Timbers went bankrupt and an accountant, who had been investigating the affairs of Mountain Timbers Limited, for more than three months back then in 1970, stated that most of the money received for the road work was paid out again to a Panamanian corporation which was a shareholder in the company. In other words, a shareholder of the company took the money, put it in his own pocket and packed off to Panama. One of the directors, by the name of Osborne, is busy packing up right now to leave for Australia (interruption). Has he gone? Oh, he came back again — he's now leaving again. This accountant for Harold Sigurdson, the trustee who's been appointed, he states: "The creditors, who appear to be out $446,000, have been told that this payment made to the Panamanian Corporation, gave preference to it over other creditors in anticipation of bankruptcy, and could be ruled fraudulent under the Bankruptcy Act." Now here's an act that he alleges is fraud, and what has this Government done about it? Have they stopped anyone from leaving town? Have they done anything to see that those who have done this are brought to account? Not a bit. It's a very strange thing, because this is not the way the Government acted in the Commonwealth Trust affair. The people involved there are now before the Courts and I won't comment on that. But, at least, after being prodded and pushed, they did something. It's very strange, because you must remember that these people are somehow closely related to the Grand Bahamas Corporation and the Benguet interests and there is a Mr. Wallace Groves, who is involved. He's now retired, I understand. But, last year, I raised in this House the question of Mr. Groves, who had been charged and who was being extradited by the Attorney-General of this Province. He was in New York State and it dealt with his obtaining $400,000 in exactly the same terms as I described the way in which the money was channelled out of Mountain Timbers to defraud creditors. He took all the money out of Sunshine Comstock Mines and I raised the question in this House. The Attorney-General cautioned me that there were proceedings in Court on this matter to bring this man Groves back to British Columbia and I find that the Attorney-General has muffed it, that the man got the $400,000. He's safe in New York. They made such a mess of the proceedings that he was able to get away without even facing a trial, with his $400,000 which he took from his shareholders of that particular mining property. I ask you, just what's going on in the Attorney-General's Department? How is it that this sort of thing can be repeated. How is it that a man can go scot-free back to the United States after taking $400,000 from the shareholders and being charged with theft by this Government? They don't even bring him back here and successfully prosecute him on the matter, or else have a trial at all. It's happening much too frequently in British Columbia with this Government. I say it's not too late to do something about these misdemeanors if the Attorney-General will act.

I want, on the same matter of the conduct of that Department, to point out to this House that last spring we passed an amendment to the Summary Convictions Act that made it an offense for a police officer to fail to allow a person arrested access to counsel at the earliest time practicable and, in any case, not later than 12 hours after his arrest. Just last Monday in the newspapers we have a Mr. Lawson, a citizen of the United States, an actor — his name is Ed Lawson. Members of this House were present on opening night of Othello. I saw you there and you saw that Mr. Lawson, who is an actor, as the attendant of Othello gave a very excellent performance. This man, who is living temporarily as a guest of Canada…you saw him, Mr. Minister, I'll remind you of him several times. This gentleman was walking down Davie Street when he was suddenly stopped by a police officer. He had ample identification; he's not required by law to show his identification (interruption). Yes, but he had ample proof of his identity; he had ample proof that he had a place to live. There was no cause for this particular arrest by the officer. It became evident, Mr. Speaker, when the case finally got to Court, when it was summarily thrown out because the prosecutor was aware there was no case. He says that he stayed in gaol from Sunday noon for nearly 30 hours without having the right to telephone a friend or to call a lawyer, in the drunk tank with accommodation for 12 people, but there were over 30 in that cage (interruption). I believe he said an extra 20 above the normal extent. Well, we won't argue whether it's 20 or 30 but, certainly, it was most unpleasant for a man who was innocent of any harm to this community. Were we just kidding when we passed that law last spring? Does that law mean anything? Is the Attorney-General going to charge the police officers responsible, those who detained this man and kept him in prison for 30 hours against his will without having the opportunity to even contact counsel? Is this Government going to take seriously that law that was passed, which makes it an offense for a police officer or gaoler to conduct himself illegally in this manner? Let's find out. Are you prepared, Mr. Attorney-General to charge the responsible officers for this breach of the law? Simple answer. It's almost self-evident that there's been a breach of the law. If you believe this man's story, and I see no reason to disbelieve him, it's prima facie. That's the case. What are you going to do about this? It seems to me you could be as zealous in this matter as you are in some other matters but, I hope, with more effect than the one I just related a minute ago, unfortunately, in your absence.

I would like an explanation now the Attorney-General is here, some time in the next couple of weeks, as to what happened to the Groves case and how the men that were being extradited in the Groves case failed to face the bar of justice in British Columbia. How did they get away with the $400,000 for which they were charged in theft? The Attorney-General can perhaps explain in precise detail how it is possible for men who are charged in this manner to get away and escape the law. I think we should have an explanation of that.

I would like further to know, as I've asked already, why it is that the accountants for the trustee in the Mountain Timbers case bankruptcy can say that they are defrauding the creditors of $400,000 by sending the money to a Panamanian Company and nothing has been done about it by your Department? These are some of the sequels to the Cypress Bowl story that we now see have to be cleaned up. You know, it's quite amusing when you think of the whole history of the Cypress Bowl that it should end up in this fashion. The irony of it is that the taxpayers of British

[ Page 118 ]

Columbia are going to have to foot a bill they would not have had to foot if it had been conducted properly from the beginning as a public project. The money that I was talking about that's gone out of the country; the timber that was sold by these promoters, who had no intention of developing a proper ski ground; the money that they got out of the logging — you see, they didn't pay the contractors, they just put the money into their pockets. When the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition raised this time after time in this House, what did we get from the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources? In the Province, March 23, 1968: "Williston replied that Barrett's charges were fairy tales. Williston added this is essentially a private enterprise operation. When the ski runs are installed behind Strachan Mountain, as planned, they will provide the longest and best ski run anywhere near a city." That's what he believed then in 1968.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said they were losing money and he was right.

MR. DOWDING: They sure were, all right. They're losing it to Panama. We had other examples of that. We had the Minister of Recreation and Conservation on the same line. He accused the honourable Member from jumping from peak to peak like a mountain goat. I don't know who's doing the jumping today but it isn't the Honourable Member for Coquitlam.

There's another matter I want to raise of some importance, I think, to this House and that is in regard to the announced intention of the insurance companies' practice in British Columbia as of today, to raise their rates 10 per cent on the average. I note by today's newspaper, one Victoria insurance writer reports: "1971 rates across the board may be 10 per cent higher than the industry had been led to expect last fall. New rates are effective from February 1." What kind of colossal gall have these insurance companies got? How little they think of the authority of this Legislature, how little they think of the Attorney-General in this Province, that they have the impudence to announce this rate increase at a time when the Government is talking about a new Board to control the insurance companies and their rates. I think it's incredible to read that they propose to do this just out of the blue. All of us, I suppose, have been hearing complaints about auto insurance from our constituents. I have one here I got today, from a Mr. Bettles in Burnaby. Part of it is worth reading, I think. Along with it he shows a cancellation notice. This cancellation notice is dated January 5, 1971. Cancellation by Safeco Insurance Company, General Insurance Company, First National Insurance Company, who insured his son. The premium was quite expensive and the only reason he had any problem at all in the beginning was he had three demerit points for going 27 miles an hour in a 20 mile-an-hour zone. I'll read part of his letter, because I think it shows you what is wrong with the Government auto insurance programme and why they're in no position to go on this basis of private insurance running the Province of British Columbia and its drivers. This gentleman's son, William, age 20, was notified by his insurance company that a surcharge of 50 per cent would be added to his premium and must be paid within five days or his policy would be cancelled. The cancellation with a return cheque was already in the mail and was received the next day January 6. Did you ever hear anything like that? Notified one day, and the cheque returned to him and cancellation the next day. Did they ever intend for him to pay the additional amount? Not a bit. "This policy was taken out November 14, 1970, and paid in advance for six months at the rate of $370 per year on a 1964 Acadian." What an insurance rate for a 20-year-old! "All particulars of his driving record of two and a half years were given at that time, including the only motor-vehicle infraction, the one I mentioned, a three demerit ticket for driving 27 miles an hour in a 20 mile-an-hour zone. My son contacted the insurance agent after this cancellation notice was received and was advised that First National and other car insurance companies classified his driving infraction in the same category as some of the more serious driving infractions and imposed a 50 per cent surcharge for three years. He has now taken out another policy with another car insurance company and we are afraid the same thing will happen again. Car insurance companies check with neighbours as to the type of person and their driving habits. If they contacted a neighbour who did not like the person a poor report could be given, which would possibly mean a cancellation of the policy and a higher premium." He goes on to say this and, I think, it's very pertinent: "Now that car insurance is compulsory and must be bought from private companies, not from the Government, I would like to know what protection our Provincial Government has provided us from unfair practices and increases from these private car insurance companies?" In an aside, I say, that you just don't get three demerit marks for going 27 miles an hour. You have a private organization, whose agents are now the police, collecting money for the insurance companies on every driving infraction. Why don't you make the insurance companies pay the policemen's salary — they are collectors for the insurance companies? Why should the citizens have to pay for the police force on traffic patrol now? They are profit makers for the insurance companies. This man asks a very sensible question, "Would it not be better for the people of this Province if the Provincial Government took over the compulsory car insurance business? The operating costs of the police force, whose duty it is to issue demerits for driving infractions, are borne mainly by the taxpayers of the Province. Since the demerit system was inaugurated, the police forces are as busy as ever attempting to promote safer driving but now there is not nearly as much money coming into the municipal and city coffers as there was prior to the inauguration of this demerit system. It seems to me, under this demerit system, that the police forces are working mainly for the financial benefit of the private insurance companies and not in the best interests of the driving public." I ask another question. Why does the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, bother having judges appointed to rule on traffic cases when he could set the insurance companies up, the private American insurance companies, set them up as Courts and all that, because they're exacting the fines, they're making the punishment, not this Government, not the Courts? Why don't you honour them with, at least, the dignity of the name of a Court — Safeco Court Incorporated?

They don't need judges, all they want are accountants and bill collectors. They look after the business of the Courts for the insurance company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's running this show, anyway?

AN HON. MEMBER: Corporate control, corporate control.

[ Page 119 ]

MR. DOWDING: What more happened to this young man? He made this tragic error of being ahead of a car that was driven by somebody who smashed into the rear of his car. He shouldn't have done that, that was bad, that's a no-no to drive in front of another car that bangs into you. You should be punished for that by our new "Insurance Court." What happened? That's the reason this young man is supposed to pay 50 per cent increase in his premium, because he was unfortunate enough to be ahead of another car that smashed into his rear. Under our old law in this Province, our Civil Court said that it was no offense, there was no liability, if you were smashed into from the rear, you were an innocent victim. You were't punished for being ahead of another car. But the new "Court" run by the insurance companies have fined this young man 50 per cent more on his premium for being so rash as to drive ahead of a faulty driver. An innocent boy is now being mulct by an insurance company so greedy for profit that they'll take any excuse to impose a further fine on the citizens of British Columbia, and you sit there and tolerate this and do nothing, do nothing. Have the decency at least, Mr. Attorney-General, to change the insurance companies into official Courts. Give them a seal to put up behind the president's desk saying they are a "Court." That's what you're doing without the betterment of law. If you're going to do it, if that is your policy, then, at least legalize your policy (interruption). Not mine, my friend, we believe in this Party that, if you're going to make insurance compulsory for every driver, it should be public auto insurance. Surely, it's clear now that it's the only answer. You heard the other day the complaints from one of the Members about the unsatisfactory response by these insurance companies, who are quite safe and content in their unrestricted control over every driver in the Province. They can ignore the pleas for settlements. They can ignore, for months on end, claimant after claimant, and if you think that the few that were told to you by the Member for Yale-Lillooet are not much of a catalogue, every lawyer in Vancouver could give you a list as long as your arm of what's happening with this new-found arrogance of the insurance companies aided and abetted and promoted by this Government and this Attorney-General. No wonder they can come out today in the paper with their announcement that right across the Board — 10 per cent increase. Who's to stop him? The Attorney-General? This Government?

I think it was a revelation, Mr. Speaker, what happened when the car industry was forced to put their cars on the line and head them towards a concrete wall at 5 miles per hour. We found out why our insurance premiums are so high, amongst other reasons, because the auto industry is free to build any kind of a car they want, with any kind of a burnper, so that in the end your premiums have to foot the bill for a car that can't touch a wall at 5 miles an hour without wrecking it to the tune of from $300 to $500. I might suggest it's time this Government started to impose auto safety standards in this Province that will, in some way, reduce the cost of auto accidents that the citizen has to pay out of his premium or out of his pocket.

There is one other matter that I feel I must, at this time, bring before the Premier of the Province. I'm trying to help him out in his constituency, Okanagan. It has come to my attention that, at this very time when the farmers in the Okanagan, the fruit growers of the Okanagan, are beating on the doors of Ottawa for help to do something about their apple crops…they're quite concerned, I'm sure the honourable Member knows that. It is a matter of great concern for the farmers of the Okanagan that they're unable to sell their fruit crops and, particularly, their apple crops. One would have thought that, due to the urgency of the situation and the lack of market and the need for sales by these apple growers of the Okanagan, that this Government would be concerned enough to buy its apples for its Provincial institutions from the Okanagan. Mr. Speaker, to my amazement, to my chagrin, I found that the Provincial institutions are actually buying apples in the State of Washington, when here we've got B.C. apples that should be in every Provincial institution. I'm going to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Health for him to investigate to see what can be done, and also with the Purchasing Department, so that this kind of practice does not continue, because after all I'm trying to help out the Member for South Okanagan (interruption). Well, I don't know whether he knows it. In fairness to the Premier, he may not know about this but I do think somewhere down the line of communication somebody has failed in this Government. When the Minister of Agriculture is putting ads to the tune of $75,000 telling people to buy B.C. apples and buy B.C. products and here our own Provincial institutions appear to be doing this…. I hope that something will be done to rectify that situation. Now, in view of the hour and the fact that we have another distinguished colleague across the Floor who will want some of the time available, I want to thank you all for your attention. I see you're all present. I hope next year there will be a better Throne Speech that we can talk about than the one we've had. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, 'twas a dream! A week ago today I found myself on top of the Buildings in the company of Captain Vancouver. We were looking over the demonstrations on the grounds below and he asked me who those people were and I said we referred to them as hippies and troublemakers hired by the Canadian Federation of Labour. He said, "As a Member can you tell me what these hippies are doing?" I said, "Yes, this is Government policy. It is what we call freedom and the rights of the individual." "If that is so," said Captain Vancouver, "after a hundred years it is obvious that the hippies in Canada are so clever that they have the politicians jumping through their hoop." "That's not all," I said. "Gerard Pelletier, the Secretary of State in Ottawa, has proposed that busses be provided to drive these people back and forth across Canada and also feed them at stopping points en route." Captain Vancouver shook his head and said, "If this is the case, he should have a special award. He is the only politician who can loop the loop as he goes through the hoop. It would seem to me," Captain Vancouver continued, "whatever these people are and whoever is giving them encouragement owes an apology to the veterans who have fought for this country in two wars."

Mr. Speaker, just for a moment I would like to speak about the Mediation Board. I feel the people who have criticized this Board are not knowledgeable and not familiar with the flexibility that there is in the Mediation Act. I would like to cite a case. We had a strike in Kitimat at Alcan this year and the duration was just over three months. When the strike was within a week of being three months old, I held a press conference and stated that if the strike were not settled within three months I was going to ask the Government to have the Mediation Board intervene to settle the

[ Page 120 ]

differences and get the people back to work. A vote was taken at this time and, although it was very close, 52.3 per cent voted to stay on strike. It was at this particular point, where the Leader of the Liberal Party appeared on the scene and offered his services as a mediator. It was turned down, Mr. Speaker, by the union, whose president told me and I quote, "We felt he was only out to make political hay and, furthermore, he did not have a suitable background to be of any help to us with our problem." Where did they go, Mr. Speaker? I am proud of the fact that the president of the union, United Steel Workers of America, and his negotiating committee came to my home and asked me, because the vote was so close, if I would request a mediator other than the Commission, because they thought if they could get back to the bargaining table again there was a possibility of settling the strike. I listened to them, Mr. Speaker, and, as a result, when a mediation officer appeared in Kitimat two days later, the strike was settled within three days. There was no compulsion, but there was the vehicle which brought the parties together in collective bargaining, the way it should have been done. I feel that many times you could even have a strike and after the plant is closed this can develop into a lockout and there is always a danger and the trouble and problem of bringing the people back to collective bargaining. When the Mediation Board is used and pressure brought to bear to bring the people back together, this is probably one of the best services that we get from this Commission. In this particular case, it was responsible for getting 2,400 men back on the job without further, undue delay.

We also had a visit this summer from the Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable Member from Coquitlam and he appeared in Terrace and made a visit to the Skeenaview Hospital that we have for the aged. He appeared on television and criticized the hospital and the workings of the people that were in it, accused them of being short-handed, in spite of the fact that there is an attendant for every four or five patients that are in the hospital. All this did, really, was raise the ire of the people in Terrace because we're very proud of this particular hospital in our area and it contributes an awful lot to our town. I was asked to appear on television and advise them what I thought of his remarks. So I had to tell them what I honestly thought. I said, "Up until two years ago, this particular Member had a very keen sense of humour and when he would speak in the House he would always put up a big show. As a matter of fact, " I said, "We commonly referred to him as the clown. But, " I said, "after the Member from Cowichan-Malahat retired as Leader there was such a shortage of material on that side of the House for a leader that he could see the possibility of becoming a Leader of the Opposition. So he changed his ways and dropped his clowning and was made Leader of the Opposition within one year." "So," they said, "what do you call him now?" "Well," I said, "you've seen him perform up here. Now we look on him as a professional belly-acher."

Now, Mr. Speaker, for many years, there's been no money spent in Skeena by the Public Works Department on construction and I have had the promise from the Minister, the First Member from Victoria, that the new Provincial building in Smithers was on the top of the priority list, second only to the building which was being built in Williams Lake. This building will be opened in March, I understand, and, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that I will be a sentinel to see that Smithers will be the first contract called for a Provincial building after the one is completed in Williams Lake. They have not been idle there, Mr. Speaker, they have arranged for the proper ground. I also understand that they have tentative approval on design and plans for the building and it is largely a question of releasing the funds by the Treasury Board. Smithers, centre of an agricultural area, has been hard hit by the closure of several mills to make way for the pulp mill complex that is now being developed in Houston. I would urge the Government to proceed this year with the building of the Provincial building in Smithers, which would provide much needed work for that area.

"Pollution," one of the most bandied words of 1970. Speaking on pollution, I believe that the clean-up of rivers should start at the source and headwaters, then follow the river downstream. What is the point, Mr. Speaker, of having a modern sewage disposal unit, such as they have in Quesnel, when the river is being polluted above them as it is in Prince George? In the north country, we are all concerned about the Morice River when, in winter, the discharge from the Houston Pulp and Paper complex will almost equal the total flow of the river. Every precaution must be taken to see that the steelhead fishing in this river, one of the world's finest, is not damaged from the effluent discharged by this mill.

I also feel that regional boards, which have pollution control of many areas outside the municipal boundaries, be given more authority and enforce it. Garbage and other waste materials should not be dumped along the road as you can see in so many areas of our Province. People should be compelled to put garbage in proper garbage dumps, carefully supervised in order to keep flies, mosquitoes and bacteria to a minimum.

Regarding the Highways Department, last year I was advised to announce the hardtopping contract from Hazelton to Carnaby, a distance of nine miles. Later, because of the state of our economy at that time this work did not proceed. I would hope that this year the Department would call tenders for this work to be completed.

Mr. Speaker, we have a difficult time in the north with bridges. They are a part of our communication system on Highway 16. The Skeena River Bridge is a bottleneck; it causes much inconvenience. It is a single lane so certain types of logging equipment is restricted; they can only haul at set hours of the day. There are many accidents on this bridge, luckily, none so far fatal. There is an urgency for a new bridge here. I ask the Government that a start be made this year to replace this old span, which has outlived its usefulness. The old structure may be safe, but three miles west of Terrace is the wooden Kalum River Bridge which is not safe. It has had a fire that closed it, stopping the hauling of logs, and tourists. I ask the Government to make a start on the building of the approaches for this bridge in order that it may be replaced at an early date.

I am very happy to announce that the Forests Branch have advised me that the steel and all-wood components including the glulam beams have been ordered for the Nass River crossing and that an early start will be made on this bridge in the spring. This is heartening news, Mr. Speaker. It will liberate the isolated people in the communities of Stewart and Alice Arm, and be responsible for the development of many new mining properties in the area as well as a big boost to employment and tourism which is so important to all of us.

The Bulkley River at Hazelton also needs a bridge. I must urge the Department of Highways to send in an engineering crew in order that they may locate the site and decide on design. This would provide temporary employment in this area.

[ Page 121 ]

The one point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, before I close, is that when money is held back in the southern part of the Province it actually causes only a little inconvenience, whereas, when it is held back in the north, it completely stops the progress which has been developing at a steady pace. People have moved in here to take part in the building of northern-central B.C. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, when priorities for the placement of Government contracts are considered, that they should remember that money spent in the north not only develops the area concerned but also creates many new jobs. Employment is necessary in our society in British Columbia today. It provides the bread and butter, clothing and necessities of the good life of our people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Hon. W.A.C. Bennett (Minister of Finance) presented the Sixteenth Annual Report of the Assessment Appeal Board for the year ended December 31, 1970.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson (Minister of Labour) presented the Department of Labour Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 1970. (In manuscript form.)

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.