[ Page 203 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to stand and take my place in the debate on the Speech from the Throne today, and also for having the opportunity to once again represent the people from North Okanagan. As most of you know, I feel that their needs and aspirations can best be tended to by working with the various departments involved and also with my various colleagues. So, I don't intend to speak directly on the constituency of the North Okanagan today, other than to say that it is still the most beautiful place to live. We still preserve the basic qualities of life and we intend to. I would like to invite you all to western Canada's largest winter carnival in February. Are you coming?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the conversation and the presentations of the Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party, the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I know that he always looks forward to this day, to find out what nice things I have to say about him. I want to assure him that, during the last few years, I have watched him with great interest and listened very carefully to a number of things he has said. I must acknowledge he has a very agile mind and that he is certainly a man of high standard education, better than most people in British Columbia. But I've noticed that he's always hunting. In 1968, he was wandering along the beaches of British Columbia hunting for his identity and hunting for his place in British Columbia and hunting for a new life for British Columbia. I was pleased to see, when I saw him on television not long before this Session began, that he said, "I have found what I am looking for. I have found a Liberal, scientific life for British Columbia." He said that he had found his whole new purpose, that he had found a whole new philosophy for British Columbia, he had found a whole new, Liberal financing programme, a new environment, a new economy, new recreation pursuits, in fact, a new life for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, while he was designing this new life for British Columbians, he was also designing and hunting for other new lives. He was the scientific, Liberal architect for a great new toy for the children of Vancouver. He went a'hunting again, this time for the narwhal, and he said, "Not only will we have this new toy for our amusement, but the narwhal will have a new life, it will have better shelter, it will have better food, it will have a better climate than in the Atlantic. In fact, the narwhal will have a better life with him than with nature."

Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened to that narwhal? In its new, Liberal life, it died — in its new, scientific, Liberal life. However, I admire his hunting instincts and he's been hunting for a new life. He hunted for a new life for the narwhal. I also feel that I should comment on the fact that, periodically, he likes to stop the Ministers without Portfolio (interruption). Well, that's the question, Mr. Member. He votes closure on their debates, he calls them dollies, at times. He personally reshuffles things, in fact, he states that, really, he is not terribly fond of a place for women over 40, and, periodically, he shoots them out of the Cabinet. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not a hunter but those of my friends who are hunters tell me that the shooter shoots for two reasons: the first is from desire, and the second is from fear (laughter).

However, Mr. Speaker, we have had two excellent speeches during this Session of the Legislature regarding our first citizens of the Province and we had one two years ago from the Honourable Member from Alberni.

In this one hundredth year of British Columbia's time in Confederation, our time within the life of Canada's Federation, I would like to draw from two concepts of our first citizens and their tenets in life. One is the term, nittle mooshen, which I'm sure the Honourable Member from Atlin will know. It's the Indian term for crossing over a creek. No matter how wide the stream, the banks almost touch and they are strong and they will carry weight and it's easy to cross. That's the term nittle mooshen.

The second tenet is that the basic philosophy that the Indians have had in Canada for the family is a place in this family for everyone, whether young or old. Whether there was disagreement and whether anyone happened to approve of the way in which that family lived, there has been a strong thread of family strength and a strong family philosophy. We've been inundated in this Legislature with talks of the generation gap. Only last Thursday during a debate on the Speech from the Throne, the former NDP Leader and the Honourable Member from Cowichan-Malahat, I would suggest, viciously, berated his own generation and he, really, viciously, laid at the feet of his generation all the ills of the world. All the bills of the world, Mr. Speaker. Not one word of credit to a generation which, in my humble opinion, and I'm not a member of that generation, has contributed much to our society. He implied that they have made no contribution and these are the people, some who are now dead, who fought wars, so that we had the right to stand up in this House and say the things we say. People who lost sons and husbands, people who fought through the wilderness, endured hardships and people who have passed down to us the basics for many of the pleasures and comforts that we enjoy today — the scientific advancements and the medical advancements. I would suggest, that his suggestion that only the youth have the answer and the implication that he made that all other people and ideas are obsolete, is wrong. Such actions and such a tirade only serve to create and enhance an unwarranted generation gap.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, we should take this Indian word, nittle mooshen, and follow the first citizens' basic tenet, "No matter how wide the stream." With the ideas and the variety of life styles of youth today, we have to bring strong banks closer together. We must call it the family unit, and we should and must cross over and cross back in this one hundredth year, or nittle mooshen in Centennial Year. There must be the right and the place for all ages in the family unit and this should be paramount in the principles of the legislation and social customs that we develop in British Columbia and Canada.

America's families are in trouble, trouble so deep and pervasive as to threaten the future of our Nation and this was declared by a major report in December, 1970, by the American Conference on Children. Today, we see that anthropologists and intellectuals are gaining headlines by asking, "Can the family survive?"

A small number of people, swinging adults or rebelling students, perhaps, people living in communes and individuals who want to indulge in relatively free physical relationships,

[ Page 204 ]

are calling to question the very meaning and the very structure of the stable family unit as it is in our society. Some are even ridiculing it. This attempt to degenerate the family in its role extends far beyond the rooms of the home and the pages of the paper, but it overlooks the all-important fact that history shows that no society and no culture has ever survived following family deterioration. It overlooks the fact that with the liberalization of the laws, the crushing emphasis today on everyone doing his own thing, and the exploitation of youth and their natural exuberance, their rebellion and, frankly, their love of being different, by the intellectual and the press… But, in this kaleidoscope of action, two major points have been lost. The first is that laws are made for the guidance of man and the control of fools and broad laws can only be of value to society if there are equal emphasis and public acceptance of the fact that legal relaxation requires greater individual responsibility and greater group responsibility. Secondly, that, basically, it has been the broad family unit, its responsibilities and its needs that have brought stability to society, that have brought progress to society, and that have enforced the social conscience on society. I'll grant you that it was the individual fellow who was doing his own thing, which lead to the original discovery and exploration of British Columbia; however, once it was discovered, he, who was doing his own thing, went on and. did his own thing. It was the men, the women and the children that were called upon to give this outpost of British Columbia meaning and reason to stabilize and to build the outpost. It was the family that developed, through necessity, trade, and economic progress.

The evolution of our laws and structures were for the protection of the individuals and the individual family. Culture, itself, generally springs from the family and family activities and, certainly, individual discipline and control resulted from consideration of other members within the family and, then, in turn, other members of the community and, in turn, the Nation.

In downgrading and, virtually, trying to destroy the concept of individual responsibility and the family unit, we are virtually starting out to destroy our own society and to destroy ourselves. There are four ways in which we can respond. We can divide all our assets equally among the people of British Columbia; we can relax all our laws; we can be free from any responsibility and sit back in our socialist haven and just have fun and accept the results; or we can do what some are doing, and opt out. These people are actively fleeing the family concept, they are actively fleeing the need for responsibility, and they are doing their own thing. They roam the country and they bed down anywhere and, generally, they live off the society that they despise.

There is another alternative and that is to form communes, and, generally, as you know, these fall into two types. There is the fragmented, rather squalid existence, without law and, at times, leading to violent death. In these, there is a breakdown in health through poor nutrition. Social, disease and alcohol and drug usage lead to child neglect and to individual breakdown. We also see, on examination of these communes, great evidence of exploitations of the weak by the strong and there is a parasitic demand on the other members of the working society, not to mention the great depletion of our natural resources in the form of wood and wildlife for their own survival and the resulting pollution problem.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind helping people in communes. I don't mind working with them, but I rather object to getting letters from them telling me how I am abrogating my social responsibility to pollution and pollution control, and then go out and see them and find there is nary a place to stand, walk or sit that isn't mutilated by pollution.

The other type of commune, which, while less socially destructive to an individual and, I think, to our society, on examination, reveals the creation of a rather narrow, age graded, class, homogeneous society. This is, in fact, what they are condemning. They have, perhaps, even greater flaws than our present society because the newer communities don't have older people and they don't have an integration of varied interests and an integration of varied responsibilities. There's evidence of a very highly developed sense of property rights within themselves and the whole commune, in itself, becomes closed to anyone but themselves or closed to anyone but an accepted few. Again, while they are isolating themselves from constructive contribution to the life in British Columbia, they continue to make what amounts to parasitic demands on the structure of our society. They may deliver their own babies at home, but they certainly demand structured medical care and structured facilities to tend to their postpartum hemorrhages, to tend to their gall bladder operations or their heart attacks or their ever-needed social penicillin. They make demands on society for the production of certain foods which they can't grow themselves, for transportation when they leave the commune and, again, on the natural woods and resources for their heat and their existence. They, too, Mr. Speaker, do and will become major pollution problems, while demanding that others assume the responsibilities and the costs for overall environmental management.

I have visited with, and I'm sure other members have, and talked with some of these people of these communes. I, certainly, have made my decision. I feel that youth, today, as fine as they are, and they are fine, but no more than the youth of other generations have they got all the answers. The opting outers, well, it may answer their own problems and I don't deny them this right. But, certainly, they do not have the ready solution to society's problems. In this Centennial Year, as we reflect over the past one hundred years of our history, the accomplishments and the shortcomings of previous generations, I think it wise that we, who are helping to mould the future, whether we're legislators or students, home-makers, judges or architects, must be guided by the lessons of history and we must look carefully at the vacuum in the so-called answers which are put forth today.

I believe that we must all re-emphasize the family unit and the place for all ages in the family. I would suggest that no Government in Canada has done more for, or places greater emphasis on, the family, its social and moral needs than is reflected in the underlying principles and in the legislation of this Government and in the Speech from the Throne.

You should take the home-owner grant as an example. The total investment of the Provincial Government homeowner grant, for one year, and that year is 1969, was $54,817,369, and the total amount to date, since its inception, up to March 31, 1970, is $386,745,144. The honourable Member says, "wow." I hope that that is in respect to the fact that this money, sir, is generated from the labours of less than two million people in British Columbia. By sound management, this money is turned back to the people of British Columbia to help older people, to help people, sir, who aren't in the high-income bracket, stay in

[ Page 205 ]

their own homes and have a home of their own.

I'd like to state, along with this, that this is a human programme and it doesn't segregate people. The worker gets the same advantage as the non-worker. A man who goes out and puts his money into his home and saves his money is not penalized. This home-owner grant applies to everyone and I believe that that is the principle of the democratic process (interruption). Yes, everyone should own their own home or their own part of the Province. If they don't choose to, then it shouldn't be because of money, it should be a matter of their life style.

I think the home acquisition grant is very important in family development. As you know, it's a $1,000 outright gift for new homes and a $500 grant for older homes. Just in the grants of a $1,000 per home and $500 per home, it has cost, or has been given back to the people of British Columbia, $24 million since it started. This is to emphasize, particularly, the opportunity for young people or old people who haven't ever had a home, to own their own home and to own part of British Columbia, and to realize that, in ownership, comes pride. In ownership, comes health and, in ownership, comes ability and, in ownership, comes family unity. In the second mortgage loan programme, which is an alternate plan to the home acquisition grant, there have been $28 million spent since it started. But it's not only a matter of money, Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of principle and the Strata Title Act doesn't cost the taxpayer any money. But it does allow people who don't choose to own a home or a piece of land to own part of a major complex in their own names, so that, in fact, they do have a home.

There are other programmes, senior citizen housing, and elderly citizen friendship centre, the hospital programme, all programmes which help to strengthen families and help them to make the family life free from unnecessary stress and worry and help to leave the individual family free to help itself as it sees fit and as its abilities allow.

Now, there's been quite a lot of comment from across the floor and I assume that in the Speech from the Throne we hear great reference to the benefits to people, among whom are women and I would like, particularly, to ask the honourable Members of the Liberal Party if they agree with the much talked about report that for women there should be insurances, such as sickness benefits and disability pensions, maternity benefits, and widows' pensions, maternity grants, certainly day care centres, the problem of the support or maintenance of unmarried mothers of children. I see agreement. Unemployment assistance measures in Canada must be designed as constructively as possible, in relation to public employment projects. There is not an opportunity for women to take part as fully as they should in our universities and I see general agreement and I'm glad I do, because I would suggest that the report that I'm reading from was a report commissioned by the Federal Government for postwar problems of women in 1943. I commend this to you, not because everything hasn't been, implemented, because this Government has long said that the value of a Royal Commission may not necessarily have been in every recommendation put into the letter of the law but, in fact, it arouses public interest and often stirs the public in the right direction without the need for legislation.

So I respect this report and I respect the intent of the Government that brought it in. I don't condemn them for not getting everything accomplished. I do commend them for doing another report. But I would point out to the Members who have been so critical of out Government, which has not always accepted every commission, letter and word perfectly, that their own Government realizes, in part, the intent of these reports (interruption).

Well, the reason is that our Royal Commissions are so effective that they bring about the necessary changes in attitude, without legislation, and we don't believe in over-legislation. That side of the House, Mr. Speaker, would legislate you out of bed in the morning and to bed at night and probably a few other things. That is the socialist philosophy, the strong arm of Socialism. We believe in the freedom of the individual and I see the Honourable Leader of the NDP becomes petrified when he thinks of the strong arm of Socialism.

However, I would like to turn my attention further to family life and this report, if shelved tomorrow, in direct recommendation has already had an irreversible effect on family life in British Columbia and in Canada. The reaction of the people to this report will, certainly, greatly influence legislation and will influence our family life.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are too many discussions going on in the House. In all fairness to the speaker, order.

MRS. JORDAN: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that never before has there been so much discussion about men's and women's rights and, really, never have the women of British Columbia and Canada, whether they champion this report, holus-bolus, before they've read it, or whether they seriously study and question the recommendations, whether they question its philosophy, and in fact, it is special treatment that it advocates rather than equal partnership… Does this report, in fact, actually advocate inhibiting legislation and is the philosophy of the report constructive, or is the philosophy of this report detrimental to the family and to our Canadian way of life? These are the questions, I think, that must be answered in the future, not today, because, certainly, no one understands this report fully, or its implications, and I would add, certainly, not the Member from New Westminster, as my colleague pointed out.

In referring back to the principles that are outlined in the Speech from the Throne in relation to the family, I would suggest that the first place in which we must strengthen family life and equal partnership for women is the Income Tax Act. This act recognizes, or I suggest, this act must recognize that $250 a year basic exemption for a child is not sufficient, that the basic exemption must be raised and not completely removed as suggested in this report, that a $500 tax payment from the Federal Government, or from any level of Government, Mr. Speaker, to women who have children, is unbelievable. What a paternalistic attitude! It's another Department of Indian Affairs. If the Federal Government, the Liberal Government, adopts this attitude on tax policy, I suggest they are merely changing the so-called chattel mortgage from the hands of the husband to the hands of the Government or the State. If the mother stays at home and doesn't work, under this recommendation, she is virtually the ward of a State. If she is childless, she is discriminated against and, if a woman goes to work, then the Federal chattel mortgage, or the dollar grant, is taxed right out of the family hands.

There must be incentive, Mr. Speaker, for the women of British Columbia and Canadian women to fill an independent role within the family unit. The way to allow men and women equal status and equal opportunity is to make the full legitimate cost of housekeepers, home-makers, baby-sitters

[ Page 206 ]

fully income tax deductible. The $500 tax deduction for housekeepers and baby-sitters proposed in the White Paper, I suggest, is nothing more than a flushing action to flush out low income and elderly people and students who baby-sit to earn extra income. And, that this is the greedy hand of the Revenue Department in Ottawa. It gives no recognition to the fact that these elderly figures provide a grandparent figure in the family unit which, today, because of its nomadic existence, is sadly lacking. It means that the working mother is discriminated against for working by making her family responsibility and her take-home dollar pay a penalty. If a working woman or a man needs or wants a housekeeper or a baby-sitter, he or she should be able to assume the rightful position of employer, with legal tax deductions and legal responsibilities.

Such an exemption is either valid or it's not valid. If it's under the income tax, there should be no half-way measure and it can't be, as the White Paper proposes, half if and half not.

At a time of high unemployment, Mr. Speaker, a stroke of the Federal Government pen, creating this income tax exemption could provide thousands of new jobs with better pay. The stroke of a Federal Government pen on the Income Tax Act, would make home-making, baby-sitting, recognized vocations and the highly respected positions that they are and should be. Most important, it will strengthen and broaden the family unit — the home — by keeping the children in the home and introducing a new figure and a new interest as well as relieving the working woman who chooses to have a career from the double duty of work outside and work at home. This income tax deduction puts the family income earners on an equal footing. This tax exemption should be extended, I suggest, to any home where the mother has a housekeeper or baby-sitter and it shouldn't matter whether her housekeeper or baby-sitter is needed because of gainful employment, perhaps, because of enjoying some social activities and some freedom from the home, or because of her volunteer community work.

Another area where I believe that the stroke of the pen of the Federal Government on the Income Tax Act could be amended to provide employment opportunities and in an area that affects the family, is in the simple area of gardening, or as the aesthetics call it, landscaping. If a regular gardening service around the home was made income tax deductible, as it is for industry, it would create hundreds of new jobs, particularly for elderly and low-income people and for students, as well as for those people with less skills than the rest. In fact, it is the students and the elderly and the low-income who are having difficulty finding jobs at this period of high unemployment.

The youth of today want to be with nature, this is one of their cries and many people, who don't have great technical skills or who can't undertake prolonged periods of training, have a natural skill and a natural affinity for the soil. I suggest that gardening should be a recognized vocation and could provide instant jobs in British Columbia. I believe that gardening alone would provide 50,000 jobs and I believe that the proposal to make housekeepers' and home-makers' income tax deductible would provide another 50,000 jobs. In case anybody from the Opposition likes to say, "Well, that's fine to advocate the Federal Government do something, but what are we doing?" You've heard of many announcements in this House of what the Provincial Government is doing in releasing funds to create employment. I would like to announce, today, that, in the North Okanagan, the Courthouse—Law Courts Park will go to tender, not as a winter works project, as the Leader of the Opposition so brilliantly allowed, because if he knew anything about economics he'd know that construction of that type of a park at this time of year would be highly costly, and would not be able to proceed with the amount of manpower that will suffice in the spring and summer. Also there will be new highways and maintenance programmes and these will go to tender also. The reason this project has been selected is because, while the initial cost and capital cost is considerable, most of the cost is in the labour not in the materials, and it will provide a great number of job opportunities for people in the North Okanagan.

I'd like to speak for a moment about day care centres. I, frankly, believe that there is a place in our society and in British Columbia for day care centres but as an adjunct to family living. Where it is a matter of financial need for working or for stay-at-home mothers, I believe that these should be supplemented or paid for as now in British Columbia, but with a broader Federal-Provincial sharing programme. The fees of those not in need should be income tax deductible. The capital cost of day care centres should be on a formula, I believe, of one quarter Federal, one quarter Provincial, one quarter local, all grants, and one quarter financed under CMHC long-term, low-interest loans. The reason for the one quarter local is that, I believe, there should be local interest groups in conjunction with these day care centres. They should be established in heavily populated areas and, as my colleague from Vancouver–Little Mountain has said, in mid- and low-income areas and in conjunction with housing in these areas. Rather than the State provide this, I believe that industry should be encouraged to establish day care centres in industrial parks. The cost and the care should be part of the wage negotiation between the employees, whether they are male or female, and the employers. Shopping centres should be encouraged to include day care centres for employees, male or female, as well as for shoppers. All day care centres, where possible, should be administered by a professional but staffed by vocationally trained and nonprofessional males and females. We must not overlook the value of interested parents or grandparents who would like to take time in these centres. The centre should be within walking location of the majority of the employees, whether it's in an industrial park, a factory, a major department store or a shopping centre, in order that the parents of the children in the day care centre can be encouraged to have lunch with their children, if possible, have their coffee break with their children, so that, in fact, we are not building an isolated, artificial family unit away from the home. We are recognizing that people can enjoy an occupation and still have constant contact with their families.

I would suggest, by no stretch of the imagination, should day care centres be the large, do-it-now, state-operated, compulsory, bureaucratic, impersonal monsters that are so often advocated in this House by the NDP. In the words of the Honourable First Member from Burnaby, while I appreciate her interest in this area and I appreciate that you have your problems within your Party, I find it difficult to help you realize that people want to be free. People do not want to be involved in the State-operated day care centres, which you have been advocating and which is reflected by the homes in England, where families are separated. I suggest that there is no question that day care centres should never, ever, become wholly tax supported, hide-away centres for children, leaving British Columbia with State-reared children

[ Page 207 ]

rather than with family-reared children.

Mr. Speaker, another point of concern to those interested in the families of British Columbia and Canada are the changes in the character of today's family. This is a character change brought about by many developments: the increased growth in the metropolitan areas, the common and increasing corporate or vocation transfer, the convenience of the automobile, the tendency of our architects and planners to segregate the children from the parents, and the midgeneration from the elderly generation. In the less complicated and urbanized days, the average family was an extended family or a kinship family. This, simply, means that the parents and the children were surrounded by relatives, aunts, uncles, grandparents and, if the relatives didn't live in the same household or in the same block, it was down the street on the different farms. Today's life style change has left the typical family isolated and it is called the so-called nuclear family: a mother, a father, and children and, sometimes, less, and, frequently, they are located miles from the home of the nearest relative. As interfamily contacts become less and the increased contact with the community has become more formal and segmented, people will have to turn more to the family as a source of the affection and security that we all crave and all need. But this instant demand for affection, without the supporting structure of age variance and interest variance and interfamily culture and religious support, is found very much wanting and leaves a vacuum in the lives of our children and in the lives of our parents and in the lives of the grandparents.

I think that individuals should not be shielded from the realities of life, whether they be good or bad, by the state or by the temporary life styles. All of us, particularly children, need to be in close contact with the world of different kinds of people, whether it's at work, whether it's people suffering, or whether it's people at play. How can a child, or anyone, for that matter, build up a broad sense of values in his activities if they only involve one age group? Certainly, how can a child appreciate the scope of human emotion or leisure time, if his sole contact is with his immediate gang and peers, instead of simple activities, such as fishing with his uncle, or climbing on his grandfather's knee, or whiling away some time with an older generation, and people who have found the secret of inner peace and who have found a real value in life?

I suggest it is a ridiculous notion, that the NDP constantly propose, that children, or parents, for that matter, need to be protected from the experience of seeing anyone in pain, or anyone who is old, or, for that matter, anyone who may not smell nice. I think it's an emotional loss not to have shared in a multi-age-group Christmas or family gathering. I wonder how anyone could develop a deep…you are certainly rising to the bait, I must suggest, honourable Member. How can you have a deep and basic sense of values if you haven't experienced responsibilities and if you don't know what pain or sadness is?

With the knowledge of this family isolation and the present obvious, emotional need of the single-parent family, and the lonely, elderly citizen, and the unemployed, I suggest that, in 1971, every family in British Columbia should choose a family buddy from those less fortunate than themselves and in different age groups. We should draw these families into our daily activities and to share our recreational time. All service clubs should quietly find families of lonely people who are in need, not just at Christmas time, Mr. Speaker, but year round. They should be prepared to share some of their comforts and personalities and their energies with them.

Government calls on youth groups to adopt elderly citizens and youth groups should help elderly citizens and adopt them and help them with chores of simple things, such as painting their homes, their gardening, their shopping, and that they should spend some leisure time with them, walking or talking, and that youth groups should undertake and help handicapped people, take them for walks, work with them on their hobbies, and that low-income people should be invited to their homes and their sports activities. Let's negate the dire predictions of the pundits. We can, certainly, make Centennial Year the start of a new family by emphasizing a buddy family year (interruption). I'm amazed that the honourable Members of the Opposition can think that family life is a matter to be jested about (interruption). Hilarious.

I think that we can not only make British Columbia beautiful British Columbia, but it can be the family Province in the family of Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, these aren't the only answers but, I suggest, that they are some of the challenges for family life in British Columbia and that they are some of the sound and practical answers. There are other matters, such as family planning, and money management which I would like to speak about in later debates. I had hoped to talk about the Okanagan basin joint study, in order to enlighten the honourable Members from the other side, who constantly confuse and misquote this, but I shall save that for another Debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and fellow Members. It does appear to be Ladies' Day, this afternoon, with all apologies to the honourable Member who is coming up later.

In all seriousness, I would like to say that I do think that in this Legislature in British Columbia, we can be proud of the fact that, out of the whole of Canada, I believe, that there are only twelve women Members of the Legislature, and this House has five. Mind you, it's unfortunate that it is distributed the way it is, but we can't do anything about that, Mr. Speaker. I'm still very, very pleased and very proud, when one goes across Canada, to be able to point out that at least the people of the Province of British Columbia do not show quite the same discrimination as they do in other areas.

Mr. Speaker, it is most interesting to take my place in the Throne Speech debate, particularly at this stage of the debate. The mover of the Throne Speech, the Member from Columbia River, I'm sorry, opened the debate by espousing the Spiro Agnew technique, which holds that vilification of one group, Mr. Speaker, has the power to spur another group to action which he deems favourable. This is a very nasty premise, that differs not at all from the youth who spits in the face of authority and screams obscenities.

May I say, that more and more of our citizens are becoming fed up with this old type of political insult and invective. If we, as politicians, are concerned with disenchantment by many of our citizens with our combat here in the Legislature, and many of our citizens are beginning to consider out combat irrelevant, it is speeches, such as the Member from Columbia River and the approval of his fellow Members, which is contributing to this disenchantment. The fact that other Members of the Government have carried on similar old-style political attacks during this week, simply underlines the fact that this Government has no under

[ Page 208 ]

standing of the vast problems confronting us today (interruption), or, perhaps, even worse, they may understand but, in their smugness and in their arrogance, they simply no longer care.

Certainly, yesterday… (interruption) I'm coming to you, Mr. Member, in a moment. Certainly, yesterday, the Member from Vancouver East documented vividly the smugness and arrogance and the lack of concern which this Government has today for the people of British Columbia. The interesting thing I found was that, last night, during the most eloquent speech, the Member from Vancouver Centre, I must admit gave a most eloquent delivery, but it was interesting to note that, usually, he's very vocal in attacking the Member from Vancouver East but, last night, he was strangely silent. As a matter of fact he resorted to the old-type political insult and invective which I have been referring to, he simply had to smear, personally, the Leader of the Opposition interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. The Member either makes a Point of Order or takes his seat. Proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm glad to get you on your feet, Mr. Member, because I was hoping we might get something out of you that we didn't get last night.

You know, Mr. Speaker, no Government today can afford the luxury of simply responding to problems, they must anticipate problems. Yet, we have Government in British Columbia which is always announcing plans for action next year on the problems which we faced last year. I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the voters today are looking for a new breed of politicians. They are looking for politicians who care about the needs of our citizens and not just pretend to care. However, until there are some very basic changes in our electoral system, the advent of a host of new, concerned politicians remains but a dream. I'm referring, specifically, to the great need in this Legislature, and in Legislatures across the country, for limitation on campaign expenditures and some kind of public financing of election campaigns. Let's just look again…and I know this has been brought up in the House before, but I think the public of British Columbia must be continually reminded of the situation that exists in this Province. Let's look at the expenditures listed for our last Provincial election. Social Credit, $526,815; this came from the official returns. New Democratic Party, $79,363; Liberal Party, $156,876. Now, what does this show, Mr. Speaker? This shows that the New Democratic Party was outspent eight to one by the Social Credit Party.

This simply means that no matter how good an organizing job we do, how good our candidates are, how strong they are, how strong our issues are, we have great difficulty in making our case against the kind of money that's being spent.

Legislation limiting campaign funds and lifting the veils of secrecy on contributors is essential to ensure the true democratic process in this Province, for limitation on campaign expenditures would eliminate the possibility of any special interest groups buying an election for any party. Mr. Speaker, we, in this Party, accept this principle. I'm challenging the Government. Do you accept this principle? If you do accept this challenge, you will bring in legislation this Session to change the Electoral Act in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that a politician must be constantly questioning and seeking answers. That's why I would like to relate the rest of my speech, today, to the question asked by George Wald, a Nobel Prize winner. Once he asked, in a very touching speech, and this was his question. "Is it good for children? Are hydrogen bombs, whether American, Russian, Chinese good for children? Are polluted skies and streams good for children? Is hunger good for children?" Any of you Members of the Legislature who watched the programme I did last Sunday night, Weekend, I don't think anybody would have any difficulty answering the question on whether bombs are good for children. I think that was one of the most tragic documentaries I have ever seen. It was a documentary which showed what has happened to the children in Vietnam since this war started. There was a 9-year-old girl with both legs blown off and one arm. That was only one example. A war like this has to be stopped and, yet, we, even our Canadian Government is doing very little to stop this war. I just hope that the people in the United States saw this picture and they might question, seriously, spending their tax dollar to maim children.

Mr. Speaker, I have related this question, "Is it good for children?" to the policies of this Government because, I say, that many of the policies or the lack of policies of this Government are not good for children in this Province. I'd like to start off with the area of health care. Is it good for children to be denied the right to proper dental care? Yet this is the situation in British Columbia today. All of you in this Legislature must know of cases where parents in the low-income bracket and, now, it's even becoming the middle-income bracket, cannot even afford to take their children to the dentist for proper care. Is this good for children? I call on this Government to implement dental care into our medicare programme. It is the only answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: If Manitoba can do it, we can do it.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. Is it good for children to be born, Mr. Speaker, with some form of mental retardation or deformity because of slow Provincial Government action? Yet, without pressure from concerned people, such as doctors, nurses and other citizens, we had that very situation last summer in this Province, when the Minister of Health was planning to implement only a limited vaccination programme to prevent pregnant women contracting German measles.

I have a whole file of clippings here, which shows the very sad, sad story and the very slow, slow action of this Government in that vital area last summer. I don't want to take the time to read them all to the House but, just for an example, early July, 1970: "Health Minister Loffmark said the public might be better advised to get measles vaccine through their own doctor or druggist, at their own cost, rather than expect any massive Government supply of vaccine." He suggests that you can take a family to get vaccine for less than a bottle of Scotch. That was one of his first statements we heard from the Minister. How does that help the child? Then we had another article: "The Greater Vancouver Association of B.C. Social Workers urged Premier Bennett to lay aside any political or jurisdictional consideration to ensure the people of this Province are protected from the suffering and heartbreak which will result unless such a programme is put into immediate effect." All Mr. Loffmark indicated at the, time was that there would be little or no change in their current limited programme.

Dr. Fred Bryans, Head of the Gynaecology Department at the University of B.C. said, "There is an obvious need for immunization, but the best way to immunize children…." This is when they were discussing the pros and cons. Then he went on to say, "Several months ago, we, the B.C. Medical

[ Page 209 ]

Association, submitted a brief to Mr. Loffmark on the whole situation, and the real need for a programme, because we knew an epidemic was coming. But, at that time, it was turned down. The only reason he has made the announcement that the Government is embarking on a limited programme is that he has been pressured." Finally we have a situation, today, fortunately, through the help of concerned and interested citizens, where we did manage to have a massive immunization programme. But, without pressure on the Government, we would not have had this programme. Imagine a Government sitting back on a vital issue like this. Yet, this is what we had in this Province this summer from this Government (interruption). Right. With a $64 million surplus, they were quibbling over the sum of $500,000 for vaccination, which would prevent a child from spending his life in an institution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then we get a lecture on family life.

MRS. DAILLY: Is it good, Mr. Speaker, for children to be brought up in homes where the parents are constantly near the brink of exhaustion, trying to cope with the care of retarded and physically handicapped children? We have documentations throughout the last few years of groups of women getting together. It's pathetic, really, to read about it. They don't know where to put their handicapped child so they are trying to form groups of their own, societies of their own, so that they can have a rest and get some help.

I call on the Government to even look at their neighbouring Province of Alberta and see what they have done in the field of establishing facilities for the physically handicapped. It's time to get working in this area, it's time to stop leaving it up to local initiative.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be subjected to pollution, which is obviously injurious to their health? Just several months ago, at a conference in Ottawa, air pollution was the major subject. I would like to quote from this article, in which this doctor said, Dr. David Bates of McGill University, stated, "Air pollution in major Canadian cities is affecting the lungs of young children and, possibly, increasing the chances of serious chest trouble in later years." He said he based his claim on two studies of children and air pollution conducted in Montreal and the United Kingdom. He said the six-year U.K. study, involving 4,000 youngsters, found infections in the lower chest system and they were four times more common in children from high pollution areas compared to low pollution areas. "The three-year Montreal study of several hundred children found no connection between the incidence of asthma and pollution," Dr. Bates said, "but it did find a positive link between pollution and a mild form of bronchitis." Dr. Bates added, "Current pollution readings in large Canadian cities — Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver — indicated that children under two years of age were suffering this increased burden of disease."

Mr. Speaker, the area in which I live, North Burnaby, and where I reside, on either side of our home there are two refineries, one Shell, one Standard. They are belching out pollution every day. We do know that Shell has made an attempt to cut down on pollution. We haven't too much information from the other refinery. I recall reading, a while ago, in the paper, where an American ecologist was taken for a trip up our local mountains, where he could have a good view of the lower mainland. He looked over at the area where I live and said, "My God, it looks like Dante's Inferno." He said, "Do the people who live there realize that they are slowly dying."

AN HON. MEMBER: Aren't we all?

MRS. DAILLY: Well, perhaps you are not concerned about the speed at which you die, but I am. The point is that when local councils try to combat these large refineries they are met by highly technical staffs from the refineries, who have volumes and volumes of material and technical knowledge to throw at the local council. Surely, it's the Provincial Government's responsibility to help provide the cost of monitoring so that, at least, we can find out what we are really up against here, and, secondly, to provide the technical data in support of the claims of the people in Burnaby that they are slowly dying because of this pollution.

We need help from the Provincial Government but what is this Government doing? Its policy? This Government's policies in fighting pollution are mainly words, words, words, and always the handy device, Mr. Minister, of tossing much of the financial responsibility for antipollution measures on the regional and municipal districts of the Province, which are already overburdened with trying to cope with the everyday cost of services, not only to property, but to people.

You know this simply means, this inaction on the Provincial Government's part, over these many years, on pollution, it simply means that this Government is placing a price tag on the health of the children in this Province. We look forward, Mr. Speaker, to the Budget Speech on Friday with hopes that we will find some concrete policies which will point the way to an all-out war on pollution by this Government.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to question: Is it good for children to be denied proper nutrition because of the high cost of food? Yet this situation exists in many, many families in British Columbia today. As a matter of fact, in a recent article in the Victoria Times, there was a most interesting comparison between the food prices in the city of Toronto and the city of Victoria. Some of these comparisons showed that all meat costs in Victoria were higher than in the city of Toronto, all meat prices. The only thing that you could get cheaper in the city of Victoria than you could in Toronto were cake mixes. Combined with these high food costs, Mr. Speaker, there was a recent article in the Daily Colonist, which points out that the average Victoria breadwinner earned a weekly wage of $115.47, last July — the average Victoria worker. The average wage for the Province, at large, is not only significantly higher but the gap keeps widening. For instance, in 1968, the Provincial average wage was $16.78 higher than the Victoria average. The difference was $18.88 in 1969, and $21.12 last year.

Now, in light of these figures, I hope that the Members of the Legislature will note, Mr. Speaker, this city, which has the lowest average wages, is a town of civil servants who are denied the right to collective bargaining and are still subjected to one of the highest standards of living in this continent. Cost-wise. Also, equally tragic, Victoria has an exceedingly high percentage of senior citizens who, too, are caught in the grip of the unfettered rise in prices in their city.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be subjected to crowded, substandard living conditions (interruption)? Well, you know, Mr. Minister if you want to quibble over my phraseology and grammar, it really points out that you have no basic concern with the issues I'm trying to bring out

[ Page 210 ]

(interruption). I want to ask again.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be subjected to crowded, substandard living conditions? Yet, the tragic fact is that far too many children in British Columbia today are living under these conditions because this Government continues, and we heard this repeated in the last Member's speech, continues, and if I may use the expression, to be hung-up on private ownership. All we hear is that the individual should have his own home. It doesn't matter if, because of this philosophy, thousands of children are being denied proper housing.

Yesterday, I was very pleased, though, to hear one of the Government Members, the Member, I believe, from Vancouver-Burrard, point out the great need for more low-rental public housing in this Province. You know our record in British Columbia re public housing is disgraceful. Forty-five hundred units, I believe, in spite of the excellent cost-sharing established by the Federal Government. It has not been made use of. However, I must part company with the Honourable Member from Vancouver-Burrard, when he seemed to put the emphasis on the cities and the municipalities moving in this area, because the first action, I say, and have said in the past Sessions, must come from the Provincial Government. They are the ones who should get moving and give some active leadership to the municipalities and regional districts in the whole area of low-cost price public housing.

Not only is leadership lacking but, for those districts which are sincerely attempting to move into low-rental housing they are met by stalling tactics from the Provincial Government. I would hope that the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, during the estimates or when he speaks, will tell us why there was such a delay, in fact, I don't even know if they've received it yet, in the delivering of the letters patent to the Lower Mainland Housing Authority. I know, in our own district, there's nothing but delay, delay, delay, in trying to get their low-rental housing units going. The delay was not from the Federal Government, it was from the Provincial Government. I can just hope, Mr. Speaker, that this budget on Friday will point out that this Government is finally aware of the need for low-cost housing and we will see more money put into that section of the budget.

Mr. Speaker, is it good for children to be denied an adequate learning environment in many areas in this Province because of Government legislation which, literally, freezes school boards into a position in preparing their annual budget, a position where they have difficulty maintaining essential services, let alone expansion into new areas, which are vital to meet the need of today's children?

I certainly intend, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on today's crisis in education in future debates. I saw the Honourable Minister shaking his head, but I don't know if he saw the Daily Colonist this morning. I was saving this for later, Mr. Minister, but, when I saw you shaking your head, I suggest you check this. It was in this morning's Colonist and the headline is: "Filthy rooms, Teacher Lack, Follow Referendum Defeat." Filthy schoolrooms, stinking offices, small children walking along busy and dangerous roads, a music teacher with a near-intolerable work load, increasing class sizes and shrinking programmes. That's the picture painted of Nanaimo School District in a Special Learning Commission's Report to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and it was blamed entirely on the loss of the referendum. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there will be far more examples of what this formula has done to our children in this Province later on in future debates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nanaimo doesn't have any representation here anyway.

MRS. DAILLY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education to call the Standing Committee on Education and Social Welfare to meet to discuss in detail the effect of Bill 86 on our educational system, for once, giving trustees, teachers, parents, students and concerned citizens of this Province an opportunity to meet with an all-Party house committee on the vital subject of education. An opportunity, by the way, Mr. Speaker, which has been denied them ever since the Social Credit Party came to power.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note that, in 1948, for the first time, education was included in one of the Standing Committees. It was added to the then Social Welfare Committee and this move was instigated by the former CCF House Leader, Harold Winch. But, even more interesting, is the fact that in those days of that bad old Coalition Government, the Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education actually met and held meetings and made reports, without having the matter referred to it by the House.

Let me read to you from the Legislative Journal of March 24, 1950. It is very interesting to note, as an aside, that it starts off, "Madam Speaker," and ends, "Tilly Jean Rolston, Chairman." Actually, Women's Lib was further ahead in 1950 than it is today. I'm talking about women holding positions of importance in this House. "Madam Speaker: Your Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education begs leave to report as follows: As nothing was referred to this Committee by the House, it went ahead and held four meetings during the course of the Session. Dr. Marian Sherman addressed the meeting on mental health, child delinquency and adult education. Colonel Fairey from the Department of Education spoke on new methods of education and gave an account on the school system." Now there's more to the report but I won't go on any longer. All of which is, "Respectfully submitted, Tilly Jean Rolston, Chairman." We even have the minutes here of that actual meeting if any Member would like to read them.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Coalition.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, the bad old days of the Coalition. You know, Mr. Speaker, this ridiculous practice of standing house committees meeting and adjourning the same day for the entire Session because no matter has been referred to them by the House, only came into force when the present Government took office. Yes, they even had Opposition Members able to hold a position as a secretary in a committee, and this would be unheard of under the present administration.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that tomorrow, when these standing committees are called, that we intend to make this point again and much more strongly. That's a commitment. Mr. Speaker, the one area, of course, is the public account. Why shouldn't an Opposition Member hold that position, if it is done everywhere else, in every other jurisdiction? (Interruption.) The chairman.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the last point I wish to make today is to question whether it is good for children to be brought up in a society which discriminates against a very large section of that society, simply on the basis of sex. Which leads me into a discussion on a very fine document,

[ Page 211 ]

which was already referred to by the past speaker, the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada, a report which I hope all Members of the Legislature will read.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. No way.

MRS. DAILLY: The remark from the Honourable Minister, "No way", you know, it's attitudes like that, Mr. Minister, that will not only lose you the leadership but have created the attitude against women that exists today in this Province.

I found it most interesting to listen to the Honourable Member from North Okanagan. I was delighted to see her in attendance, also, at the seminar on the Royal Status, which was held all day Saturday in Vancouver, at which the chairman, Mrs. Anne Bird, spoke to us and we had discussion groups. But, after listening to the honourable Member, I really wonder if she and I had attended the same meeting, because we certainly didn't get the same interpretation of some of the recommendations out of it, at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture us about family life. Down there is where they need it.

MRS. DAILLY: It was most heartening to those of us who have been speaking in this House on necessary changes in the status of Canadian women for a number of years to see this fine document produced. Because it is a fine document, it's a lengthy one and, perhaps, that's why it throws you off, Mr. Minister. I certainly don't intend to go into all the aspects, Mr. Minister, of that document, today. However, I would, for the information of Members who have not read it, just like to list some basic positions because I sincerely feel that the Honourable Member from North Okanagan misinterpreted some of the recommendations of this commission.

One basic position they take and this is it as it says in the book. "The Commission is not concerned to keep married women in the house or to chase them out of it." It argues that women should have the right to choose whether or not they will take outside employment. Society, though, should establish the conditions which will make it possible to exercise this free choice without incurring heavy penalties. All women involved in public life know that they do face penalties, which men do not face because of the attitudes which exist in our society today. Women, as well as men, vary widely in their abilities, attitudes and drives and, to the greatest degree possible, they should have the opportunity to develop according to their individual bent. Women must actively resist the social forces that would fit them into a preconceived mould. To you, Mr. Minister of Education, through you, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer, specifically, to school textbooks which, certainly, have kept women in a preconceived mould. If you run through the whole school textbook spectrum, you will see that whenever they are referring to occupations they have the little girl stereotyped into the nurse and teacher but the boy always into the business world, management, technical world. I do think our very school textbooks are continuing on this attitude and I hope this is something we can discuss later.

Again, I must make my point as I do every year. Where are the girl page boys? To the new page boys, let me say we are not trying to eliminate you but we would like some girls along with you here. Why shouldn't they share the experience? You know, it's in the National interest. Let's have a vote. I discussed this with the Speaker of the House last year and had hoped, perhaps, we might have a few girls on the Floor this year but, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any change made.

Another basic position the Royal Commission report takes is that it's in the National interest to develop and make full use of the skills and abilities of women. I believe the report cost well over two million dollars and I think it was well worth it, compared to what this Government has spent on commission reports, that nothing has come out of.

The community, the employer, and women themselves have a responsibility to see that this is done. Here, once again, as I have in past speeches, I ask this Government to set the example by considering women for appointment to Government commissions, advisory bodies, etc., and, particularly, investigating the promoting procedures in the Civil Service, to ensure that capable women have equal opportunities. And this is where I had hoped…the Member from North Okanagan referred mainly to what should be done in changes Federally. I was very disappointed that she doesn't see there are over 30 recommendations which apply Provincially and can take place by legislation in this House.

The Commission does not support the principle of special treatment for women. Equality of opportunity, of treatment, and status is the goal. However, I do disagree with them on this point. I notice the Honourable Member from Little Mountain nodding her head and I think she and I agree on this point, because the commission report recommends, "Special treatment in some fields will be necessary for awhile to erase the present gross imbalances of women in areas." They specifically recommend that two women from every Province be placed on the Senate. Firstly, I believe the Senate is obsolete, anyway, but I don't know why they have to even mention the Senate. Aside from that, the basic principle here is that, in my belief, this is tokenism and I don't believe in any form of tokenism in appointments.

Another basic position of the report is that women should share equally, and I think this is the final one I'm bringing up…and I think there are so many of the men, who don't realize this. Another basic position of the report is that women should share equally with men the responsibilities of society as well as its privileges.

Mr. Speaker, in later debates and presentation of private Members' bills, I'll refer in more detail to some recommendations of the report, which should be acted on at the Provincial level. At this time, however, I would wish to first call upon the Government to establish an implementation committee, headed by a Cabinet Minister, to study the status report in depth, with a view to recommending Government action in areas of the report which come under Provincial jurisdiction. I was most disappointed that the past speaker did not bring this up. I was hoping she would because she was at the conference and this is one of the points that was stressed.

Mr. Speaker, I opened my speech today with the question, "Is it good for children?" In conclusion, therefore, I would also like to urge the Government to implement immediately one other very strong recommendation from the status report and that is the establishment of a Provincial Child Care Board, this Board to be responsible for the establishment and the supervision of day care centres and other child care programmes. I want to comment here on the remarks made by the last speaker, regarding day care centres. I don't think she's been listening to my speeches because, at

[ Page 212 ]

no time, did I advocate State-controlled day care centres. I have simply suggested that this Government get moving and take the initiative and see that there are more day care centres established and not leave it up to local initiative. But, again, we had this honourable Minister saying, "We want local initiative in establishment of day care centres." If we wait for that local initiative for the first step, we are not going to get the required day care centres we need. We are not getting leadership in this and, again, I ask you to seriously consider establishing an overall Child Care Board, so that you can really get to work in this Province, find out the areas where there are no day care centres, and there are many still, Mr. Minister, and do something about it.

I also believe that there should be cost-sharing and it is available through the Federal Government. Let's make use of it and get this off the ground (interruption). The main point there is, before a day care centre can get started, you insist that it must start from a local group. I have seen the hard struggle that groups, particularly I know of, of unmarried women who tried to get a day care centre going, but they simply do not have the initial capital. You need to provide the initial capital to get it going.

Mr. Speaker, I'm emphasizing this Child Care Board because, in conclusion, I would like to say that if we are truly concerned with the future well-being of the children of this Province, our future citizens, it is essential to provide the best possible early learning environment for them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. AGNES KRIPPS (Vancouver South): It is my honour, Mr. Speaker, to once again take my place in this debate on the Throne Speech and to represent, along with the Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, the greatest constituency in our Province, Vancouver South. I know that today is Ladies' Day, even if the Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Seymour who follows me, has "Lib." beside his name and I presume that stands for Women's Lib. I guess it's time for a haircut.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the motion that is now under debate. Both the Honourable Member for Columbia and the Honourable Member for Oak Bay deserve top marks for excellent addresses. As for the Opposition parties, well, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the Throne Speech debate is a time when Members of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Party, as small as it may be, add up all their grievances, real and imaginary, and they come to this Chamber well armed to criticize the actions of the Government. That's understandable, that's what they are supposed to do. But, Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that, at least, some of their criticism would have been interlaced with some constructive proposals and suggestions. Criticism just for the sake of criticism doesn't contribute anything towards good sound policies and legislation. May I point out to the Honourable Member from New Westminster, I can't see him in his seat, so would you please pass the message, that self-styled defender of women's rights, that the Province of British Columbia, with five women elected, has the most women M.L.A.s of all Provinces in Canada. I would also point out that the Province of British Columbia contributed the only woman Member to the House of Commons in Ottawa, a former British Columbia M.L.A. and now the Member of Parliament for Kingsway, Mrs. Grace MacInnis. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia leads in all areas, including women's rights.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring to the attention of this Assembly, the date of March 24. That, in this 1971 Centennial Year, marks the fiftieth anniversary of the appointment of Mrs. Mary Ellen Smith, the first woman to have been elected to the B.C. Legislature as a Minister without Portfolio in the Liberal Government of Premier John Hart. This appointment was the first one of its kind in the world and, once again, it happened in British Columbia.

I also wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the British Columbia Centennial Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Laurie J. Wallace, and all the local Centennial Committees throughout the Province which are working so enthusiastically on Centennial programmes and projects at this time.

Mr. Speaker, in this Centennial Year, I would hope that all British Columbians will commemorate, with appropriate events, the one hundredth anniversary of ' the birth of Canada's great painter and writer of native Indian ancestry, Emily Carr, who was born in British Columbia, in particular Victoria, on December 13, 1871. I would like to suggest, at this time, that all Members of this Legislative Assembly, regardless of our political affiliation, as individual M.L.A.s, unite our efforts and work together in a spirit of friendship, goodwill, mutual respect and understanding so that we might undertake our own M.L.A. Centennial project. In this respect, I would suggest that the project could be a Centennial mini-park in the neighbourhood of the birthplace of Emily Carr, here in Victoria. I would further suggest that this Centennial mini-park be named Kanaka, the Indian word meaning meeting place.

Mr. Speaker, I also think that, in this Centennial Year, it is most fitting for us to pause and reflect for a moment upon the enormous contribution made by our pioneers, who, through their tireless efforts, devotion and dedication, opened up a rugged, untamed country and pushed back the frontiers to expose the rich natural wealth of this Province. Their’s was a challenging life, a hard life, a life of sweat and tears and of backbreaking labour and, in spite of the many obstacles and untold hardships with which they were faced, they willingly poured all their human resources into the lifestream of the Province's endeavour.

It is to these pioneers that I wish to pay special tribute in this Centennial year. I would further suggest that we erect a plaque, with an appropriate inscription "In Honour of Our Pioneers". This plaque should be placed on one of the walls surrounding this Legislative Chamber, where it will serve as a constant reminder to all who enter these buildings that, indeed, in this B.C. Centennial Year, citizens remember with kind thoughts the efforts of our pioneers. The accomplishments of our pioneers give us confidence to continue building a great country upon the solid foundations they have laid.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw the attention of this House to the fact that one of my constituents, Miss Marion Young Marshall, will be celebrating her one hundredth birthday on February 27 of this year. She is, in fact, older than British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people of British Columbia took forward to the visit of Her Majesty the Queen and members of the Royal Family. I hope the Royal Family will have an opportunity to see many of the various aspects of life in British Columbia and its diverse regions. I hope all British Columbians will do everything possible to make their

[ Page 213 ]

visit an enjoyable and memorable one.

Mr. Speaker, I consider our Sovereign to be a symbol of Canadian unity and I look forward, as I am sure all British Columbians do, to that great opportunity of showing our respect and the honour that we have for the Royal Family, as individuals, and for the responsibilities they hold in relation to the democratic form of government that we enjoy.

Monsieur le Speaker, quelle que soit notre origine ethnique, quelle que soit notre langue, quelle que soit notre passe historique, nous constatons que le symbole de la souverainete joue un role important dans l'unification du Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I note in the Throne Speech that the main and foremost policy of our Government is and I quote, "… directed to the improvement of the total environment of its citizens, to the end that they shall enjoy the best ecological climate in the world." I also note in the same Speech, that "Protection of the natural environment has become one of the most important challenges of the decade."

It is with these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to bring to the attention of this Assembly the fact that the Atlantic Richfield Oil Company is building, just 12 miles south of the Canadian border at Cherry Point, a huge refinery for Alaskan crude oil. I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this large refinery is not just being planned, it is actually under construction, now. I understand that the Atlantic Richfield Company has already ordered three 125,000-ton tankers to run the shuttle between Valdez, Alaska, and Cherry Point. As a starter, some of these tankers will carry as much as 40 million…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Might I point out to the honourable Member Resolution number 4 on the Order Paper? The Member is anticipating the resolution.

MRS. KRIPPS: Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Mr. Speaker. That means I can't give what I propose? I have a concrete proposal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I think the Member should best save that for debate on that resolution.

MRS. KRIPPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, in relation to you bringing this to my attention, I think the idea of Jack Davis suggesting a pipeline through Canada is for the birds. Who are we to dictate to the United States how they are going to deliver the oil? The fact of the matter is we have to be prepared, and we have to be prepared not for one oil refinery, but for twenty. I would, therefore, suggest, Mr. Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm afraid the Member is anticipating the motion and should move on to the next subject.

MRS. KRIPPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall carry on with my proposal when the resolution comes up.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that British Columbia has no protection against the use of possible toxic chemicals to disperse oil. According to Dr. Schachter, Deputy Director of the United Nations Institute of Training and Research, "Dispersants are sometimes more toxic to marine life than the oil they disperse."

I would, therefore, suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our Government request the Federal Government authorities to enact legislation that would ban the use of toxic chemicals in oil dispersion in Canadian waters until such time as we are assured of their safety (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The resolution deals with transportation. She is quite in order.

MRS. KRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, another area of concern to me is the high cost of prescription drugs and, in the best interest of the public who should, I believe, receive quality treatment at the lowest possible prices, I wish to discuss this subject and offer some positive suggestions that would make it possible to reduce the cost of prescription drugs at the consumer level.

As a prelude to my concern to the high cost of prescription drugs, I think it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to become familiar with the nomenclature of drugs. Drugs constitute a group of fine chemicals, that is, therapeutically active ingredients, which can be clearly defined by standard chemical names following standard chemical nomenclature, for example, sodium bicarbonate.

These follow the ordinary rules of chemistry which describe chemical compounds; however, as the synthesis of chemicals grew in number, the chemical names attached to the new compounds became more and more unwieldy. For example, 7-chloro-2 (methyloamino)-5-phenyl-3H, 4benzodiazepine-4-oxide hydrochloride. Hence, a consequent introduction of a peculiar pharmaceutical nomenclature became necessary to overcome this particular problem. The chemical name still remains the standard of reference for the particular identity of the drug but, because of the difficulties involved in expressing the true chemical name, the one that I just now rattled off for you, in a manner understandable by those less informed than organic chemists, a system of "recognized names" was developed.

The new recognized name of a drug is selected when it is introduced by an official organization or is designated as such in official drug publications, such as the British Pharmacopoeia, the United States Pharmacopoeia, or the International Pharmocopeia of the World Health Organization. In Canada, the new name becomes the "proper" name, or, in other jurisdictions, the "approved" name, or, even, indeed, the "international nonproprietary" name.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the honourable Members of this Assembly to note that in most schools of pharmacy and medicine, the generic name of a drug is taught to students as the "recognized" or "proper" name of the particular drug and, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would also like them to note that drugs purchased by hospitals and other Government purchasing agencies are ordered by their generic names through a tender system known as the Canadian Government Specifications Board Standards for Manufacture, Control and Distribution of Drugs (74GHI).

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the fact that the generic name may be used by anybody. It is not the exclusive property of any one particular drug manufacturing company or any country. However, Mr. Speaker, it became very clear, at an early date, to drug manufacturing companies that considerable advantage might be attained if a still more simplified designation for drugs could be found, especially for commercial and marketing purposes. Accordingly, drug manufacturers designated a particular generic drug under a brand name or a proprietary name which was registered as a trademark in that country or countries where the drug was sold. The brand name designates the particular manufacturer

[ Page 214 ]

who, through strenuous promotional activity, introduced a system of marketing where drugs would be, and usually are, referred to by their brand name as a particular product of an identifiable manufacturer. The brand name chosen is an euphonious-sounding one, usually involving few syllables and is a name more readily retained in the physician's mind because of its simplicity. However, I wish to emphasize the fact that every brand name continues to have its corresponding generic name. For example: brand name, Librium, the generic equivalent is Chlordiazepoxide; brand name, Valium, generic equivalent is diazepam; brand name, Miltown, generic equivalent is meprobramate; brand name, P50, generic equivalent is penicillin, 500,000 international units; brand name, Diuril, generic equivalent is chlorothiazide; brand name, 292, which is one that everyone in here knows, generic equivalent is acetylsalicylic acid, phenacetin, caffeine citrate, codeine phosphate, grains one half.

It should be remembered that it is still the generic name that is published in the official pharmocopoeias and formularies. Unlike the generic names, which may be used by any drug manufacturer, the brand name is the exclusive property of the particular drug manufacturers with whom the product is identified. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, brand name drugs are generally more expensive, sometimes a lot more expensive, than their generic equivalents. For example, let us take an anticholinergic drug, brand name, pro-banthine, 15 mgm, would cost the pharmacist approximately $44 per 1,000 tablets, yet its generic equivalent, propanthelene bromide, 15 mgm, would cost the pharmacist approximately $8.40 per 1,000 tablets. The brand name is over five times more expensive. Let's take another example. One of the psychotherapeutic agents, brand name, Librium, 10 mgm, would cost the pharmacist approximately $45 per 1,000 capsules, yet, its generic equivalent, chlordiazepoxide, 10 mgm, would cost the pharmacist approximately $9.60 per 1,000 tablets. Let's take another example. One of the tranquilizers, brand name, Largactil, 35 mgm, would cost the pharmacist approximately $5.93 per 100 tablets, yet, its generic equivalent chlorpromozine hydrochloride, 25 mgm, would cost the pharmacist 80 cents per 100 tablets.

It is quite obvious that at the manufacturers' level, brand name prescription drugs are considerably higher in price than their generic counterparts. This price discrepancy exists, not only in the prescription drug field but also in over-the counter drugs. For example: brand name, Aspirin, 5 grains, would retail for approximately $1.73 for 200 tablets, yet, its generic equivalent, acetylsalicylic acid, 5 grains, would retail for approximately 79 cents for 200 tablets.

Being a cautious man, the busy doctor prescribes those drugs he has heard of, read of and has some knowledge of, drugs manufactured by a company known to him, usually a large brand name manufacturing firm, with detail men in the field carrying out a very expensive promotional and advertising scheme. These vigorous activities by the drug manufacturing companies are not directed to the final consumer but, in the main, to the doctor who does all the prescribing. The doctor chooses the drug product, writes out the prescription and the pharmacist fills the prescription, usually a brand name. The consumer of the drug has no choice of purchase at all. The doctor is the key person who has the most control over the purchase of the drug product. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this high cost of producing the brand name drugs at the manufacturers' level is a factor that bears a direct influence on drug prices at the consumer level.

I wish to say a few words about quality and safety. This is of paramount importance to the public. Assurance of a high level of quality and safety of drugs is of prime importance to the public interest. A brand name product, with its own specified patent, a trademark, has nothing whatever to do with quality. It is true that the large drug manufacturing companies, through their excessive advertising and promotions, would have us believe that only a brand-name, trademarked drug, carries the assurance of high quality and safety. But honourable Members, this is simply not the case. Assurance of equality depends first on the integrity of the particular manufacturer and, second, upon the controls exercised by the Federal Food and Drug Directorate. The patent itself confers no guarantee of quality, nor is it an essential commodity of quality. There is no evidence whatever that drugs, which have never been patented, or on which patents have expired, are any less safe than patented drugs.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Food and Drug Directorate, which is the regulatory body of the food and drug industry, has the function of protecting the consumer. against frauds and hazards to health in the sale of foods, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices. It is, therefore, the duty of this body to protect the public against unsafe drugs. So that the public may be assured that such protection is being given, Mr. Speaker, all manufacturers, brand or generic, must abide by the Federal food and drug regulations as set forth by the Federal Government.

With regard to the drug manufacturing industry, Mr. Speaker, in order that the public may be assured of such protection, before a generic or brand name product is put on the market, the manufacturer has to satisfy the Federal Food and Drug Directorate in all areas of the drug product's activity, as outlined in the manufacturing facilities and controls section of the Federal food and drug regulations. This section states that, "No manufacturer shall sell a drug in dosage form, unless the drug has been prepared, manufactured, preserved, packaged, processed, stored, labelled and tested under suitable conditions. The Quality Control Department of the Food and Drug Directorate has the same standards for the manufacture of both the brand name and the generic drugs.

The Federal Guide for Manufacturers, brand or generic, states that the Quality Control Department are people, "…who ensure that the final product possesses all the desired characteristics of identity, purity, potency, safety, uniformity. efficacy and stability, within established levels, that meet all legal, professional and company standards." This means we get the same quality control of the drugs whether they are brand name or generic.

According to the Federal Food and Drug Directorate, the regulatory body of the drug manufacturing industry, in their opinion, based on testing they perform, generic named drugs and brand name drugs are equally safe. To assist smaller generic producers to compete with the large brand name drug manufacturers, the Federal Government launched a loan programme in 1969 to help the generic firms rationalize some of their common activities, merge and expand, in general, actions to increase their productivity.

Mr. Speaker, the brand name manufacturer takes every step to protect his exclusive position, by his brand name promotion and advertising, knowing very well that the busy physician, after repeated promotional activities, whether it be brainwashing through extensive advertising or through the detail men, will become indoctrinated to prescribe brand name drug products.

[ Page 215 ]

Ordinarily, the busy physician is not price-conscious when he is prescribing medication. Very often, he may not even know what the drugs cost and he may or may not realize that there are lower cost alternatives on the market.

Mr. Speaker, although brand name manufacturers try to defend the height of their prices by reference to the vast sums of money spent on research in the interest of advancing the cause of health and medical science, which, I agree is a very worthy cause, may I, Mr. Speaker, point out to the honourable Members that in terms of the drug manufacturers' sales dollar, as reported by 41 members of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association for Canada, in 1964, only 7 per cent was spent for research and development of all kinds, while their sales promotion expenses accounted for 30 per cent of their sales dollar. That is, 30 cents of every dollar goes on advertising and promotion of the brand name drug. This is four times as much spent on sales promotion of the brand name, rather than on its research. Mr. Speaker, this fact, alone, should explain the high pressure salesmanship, the brainwashing being done by the brand name manufacturer for use of his particular product; therefore, I believe, that when a doctor prescribes a brand name product, the patient, in this case, the consumer, has to pay a substantially higher price for the medication when, in fact, a generic equivalent could have been used at a substantial saving. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that wider use of generic name drugs by hospitals and government agencies, such as those paying for welfare recipient prescriptions, would result in a substantial saving for the taxpayer.

According to the Pharmacy Act of British Columbia, if a doctor prescribes a particular brand name drug, under no circumstances may a pharmacist select another brand name product or its generic equivalent, even if the patient could make a tremendous saving on the cost of the prescription without any loss of therapy.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I would urge our Government to bring in legislation that would permit the pharmacist to make a product selection and, thereby, give the consumer quality treatment with a choice of price. I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the pharmacist's responsibility, in such a circumstance, would be limited to product selection only, not drug selection. The medication is, and must remain, the physician's responsibility and prerogative. My proposal of product selection does not constitute an infringement on the physician's prerogative to choose the brand he wishes, for he will still maintain his right to insist, if he wishes, on a particular brand by merely putting on the prescription the letters, "NS," or "No Substitute" or by designating the name of the manufacturing company.

As a responsible professional man, the pharmacist's product selection will be based on his knowledge of the ability of a manufacturer to produce a quality product, and the pharmacist's knowledge, in this respect, is the equal of the physician's, for both receive their knowledge from the same sources. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed legislation will not only enable the pharmacist to make a product selection in the interests of the consumer, but it will foster the greatest possible degree of competition, consistent with the highest standards of health care and physical safety. Such legislation would be an honest attempt by the Government of British Columbia to provide a mechanism for lower prescription drug prices.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of this House and, in particular, that of the Attorney-General, to the article in the Vancouver Sun, dated February 1, 1971, namely, "Marriage Racket Cracked."

Mr. Speaker, this racket involves approximately three hundred East Indian men. These individuals will be dealt with in a Court of Law; however, I do regret to hear that the East Indian community, with whom I have a very close association, received such adverse publicity, because, Mr. Speaker, the members of the East Indian community are exemplary Canadian citizens.

The new Sikh Temple, the largest one of its kind in the world, is in my constituency. It is a great landmark, a cultural, educational, religious and recreational complex, and, I know, from my direct association with these people, that they would want me to express their feelings of hurt and regret.

Under our present Canadian immigration laws, if a visitor wishes to apply for "landed immigrant" status, he requires 50 points out of 100. These points are based on his age, education, personal assessment, training, type of work, availability of work (presently at zero), and demand in the area. However, if he marries a Canadian-born girl, the point system is immediately nullified and he qualifies for landed immigrant status. Upon receiving a marriage document, the couple proceeds immediately to the Immigration Department to apply for their landed immigrant status. After receiving this status, they immediately apply for a divorce, or an annulment, and/or welfare. Mr. Speaker, I understand the same plan of marriage convenience operates in Vancouver and, in particular, West Vancouver, for the American draft dodgers.

In this marriage of convenience, where a would-be Canadian citizen makes a mockery of our Canadian law, that type of person should not be permitted to become a Canadian citizen. That type of person is undesirable in Canada and I would, therefore, suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General make strong representation to the Department of Immigration that necessary amendments be made to our immigration laws.

Mr. Speaker, during the past week…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are too many conversations going on in this House.

MRS. KRIPPS: During the past week, I have listened to honourable Members in this House express their concern and views on the current unemployment crisis and, I, too, want to add my concern to this matter; however, I believe, concern is not enough. As responsible legislators, our concern must be followed by immediate action and a positive, constructive approach to the whole situation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, galloping inflation was considered a National emergency and a series of programmes, the merits of which I do not wish to discuss at this time, were initiated by the Federal Government to curb inflation.

As a result of this deliberately planned programme of restraint, another crisis was created — that of staggering unemployment, to the tune of $38,000, of which 70,000 are in British Columbia. According to some economists, as well as the Federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Honourable Otto Lang, this situation is going to get worse, rather than better.

Mr. Speaker, my figures are based on the latest available Dominion Bureau of Statistics of December, 1970, prior to the issuance of' the secret memorandum of this year, dated January 18, to all Manpower offices, to play down the unemployment figures which, I understand, are now

[ Page 216 ]

756,000, secretly, unemployed.

At this point, it doesn't really matter whether the figures are 538,000 or 756,000 unemployed. The fact of the matter is, that the unemployment situation is massive and this crisis is as great as, if not greater, than the war on inflation. These people are all victims of a deliberate Federal plan to curb inflation. I don't think it is fair, Mr. Speaker, that these suffering human beings should pay the full price to satisfy the interests of Trudeau's "just society." This is a Canadian tragedy and, as responsible Canadian citizens, it is our National duty to compensate victims of the battle of inflation. To help them now is both a challenge and an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployed are not interested in excuses. They don't really care who created this crisis or why they are paying the full price. These unemployed want jobs, and they want them right now, like, today, or better still, yesterday. The Federal Government knew before it launched its anti-inflationary programme that there would be massive unemployment. The fact of the matter is, they knew two years ago that there would be unemployment, because they were deliberately planning it, they were deliberately creating it, they were the chief architects of this master plan. Mr. Speaker, they were extremely successful in their efforts. I give them full credit for their success. No one will deny the fact that the Federal Government succeeded in creating this staggering unemployment. But what I cannot comprehend, Mr. Speaker, is why a Government, knowing that there would be unemployment, made no provision whatsoever, made no plans to take care of these victims of the battle of inflation. The only comprehensive policy I heard from Trudeau was the famous words of wisdom, "Take it or lump it."

Let's face the facts, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government made a mistake. It overcooled the economy. In fact, it practically froze it. I would, therefore, suggest, Mr. Speaker, since the Federal Government was instrumental in creating this National crisis, that it takes the bull by the horns and immediately declares the unemployment crisis a state of National emergency. If there ever was a time, Mr. Speaker, when we should place human values over material things, it is now.

I would further suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government launch an immediate public works programme, at all levels of Government, with all the necessary incentives, such as preferred interest rates, bonuses and any other such benefits that might be needed, to start these projects going immediately.

I would also suggest a drastic reduction of interest rates to get the wheels of business and industry rolling again and, for those who may not be fortunate enough to be absorbed into the labour force immediately, I would suggest an extension and increase in the unemployment insurance benefits.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we must not lose sight of long-range programmes to create new business and industry which, in turn, will provide more jobs. In a free and democratic society, we are capable of maintaining an atmosphere of stability and confidence so that people with capital could establish an industry, develop an enterprise and, thus, provide more jobs. As in the past, I am confident the British Columbia Government will continue to stimulate, expand and manage our economy in a manner that will maintain high levels of employment.

However, Mr. Speaker, I also believe it is time for us to help ourselves by creating our own industry, out of our own natural resources, with our own people and our own money.

As Canadians, we must begin to invest in our own country. I don't think that we should continue to depend on foreign investment forever. Mr. Speaker, it is time to think and act Canadian.

British Columbians have always been fired by the pioneering spirit in the development of our resources and in economic progress and, it is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I would propose that we establish a British Columbia Development Corporation for the purpose of developing a long-range programme of profitable primary and secondary industry, with Government participation and an opportunity for the people of British Columbia to invest in their own Province.

With these thoughts in mind, Mr. Speaker, let us go forth into the second century of our Province with faith, courage, vision and confidence, to build together a greater British Columbia and a prosperous and united Canadian Nation. I thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you. Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all it is a privilege to be among such charming company this afternoon? I appreciate my hair is a little longer this year and I thought the Government Whip had become somewhat confused but I notice, none the less, gentlemen, that the male shall have the last word, today, as well.

Mr. Speaker, may I spend some time, first of all, commenting on some of the points that have been raised during the course of this debate? Before I forget, I would like to make reference to a situation in which the honourable Member, who spoke prior to myself, found herself this afternoon, dealing with rules of this House. I propose some change. Right away, I would like to mention to Members that one change I would propose immediately is that I do not believe that any Member, even with the best of intentions, should be in a position to cut off debate on an issue that, in my opinion, is more critical than anything we face today in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome those who are here in the Chamber, unfortunately, the attendance has not been the best this afternoon, but all is not lost. We'll be able to read about it six months from now, which, of course, is too late to make corrections in our Hansard and points out the shortcomings of the system that we began last year. I really must complain, on behalf of one of my constituents, who I quoted in this House last year, a charming, elderly lady who is a senior citizen. I made reference to the budget she must live on. The Hansard I received some time ago, instead of mentioning that her budget did not contain graphs, indicated that the dear lady's budget did not contain "grass." I really take some objection to this, on her behalf, but I understand that is not the only error and, perhaps, things will be better this year.

Mr. Speaker, amongst other things that have been mentioned during this debate, we've had the proposal from the Member from Revelstoke, I believe, that we should pass laws making it an offense to desecrate our flag. I wish to go on record, first of all, that I am unalterably opposed to sending the Minister of Public Works to jail and, of course, that Member has only been with us two years. But, if anybody has ever desecrated the flag of Canada, it has been that Member in this Chamber. All of which points out, Mr.

[ Page 217 ]

Speaker, that honour is something that is earned and respect is hard won and no amount of legislation, in my opinion, will ever change that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Member from Dewdney, who I'm happy to see is in his place, made reference to our Prime Minister's recent jaunt around the world and his attendance at the Prime Ministers' Conference. When we had the Leadership Convention of our Party, I think it is known in this House, that I was not one of those who supported our present Prime Minister. I was happy to offer my support to the Honourable John Turner; however, I have had reason during this past year to change my opinion of our Prime Minister and, I think, he has done some things of which we can be most proud.

Amongst those, Mr. Speaker, is his performance at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and I found the remarks from the Member of Dewdney, yesterday, absolutely incredible. They certainly are not in keeping with the remarks of literally hundreds of foreign commentators and well spoken and well respected newsmen from all countries of the Commonwealth, who have credited the Prime Minister with being the man who avoided the showdown on the Commonwealth and the South African arms issue. Mr. Speaker, the Member did not even quote the Prime Minister correctly. In alleging that the Prime Minister was advocating breaking up the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister was speaking to a group of Indian students. What he said was, that, if Britain went ahead with its plan to send arms to South Africa, he felt that the black nations in Africa would withdraw from the Commonwealth and, with the feeling in America these days, he expected Canada would be forced to follow — but that he would regret this action.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it did that Member credit what he said in this House yesterday. The Member, who has his seat beside me, unfortunately, is not here, but I would like to add my support to a proposal he made yesterday — that hunting in this Province should be abolished. I think the day has long gone when we can justify the arming of a brave human being with the most high-powered rifle, as being some kind of sport.

AN HON. MEMBER: Save a few lives, Barrie.

MR. CLARK: It would, indeed, do that, Mr. Member. It would, of course, save lives.

Mr. Speaker, there has been mention of the proposed third crossing of Burrard Inlet in this debate and well it should be mentioned. The young of our Province and of our land today say of we politicians that we talk and talk and talk and do very little. Mr. Speaker, we may have another one of those opportunities to prove what they say. The malcontents of our society say that we never accomplish those things which we advocate. We, sometimes, in fact, argue ourselves into chaos. Mr. Speaker, I propose that, in regard to the third crossing of Burrard Inlet, this Government and the Federal Government, jointly undertake to guarantee the costs of this construction, the exact proportion of which can be agreed upon as it is being built. This is a procedure, Mr. Minister, which works very well on labour disputes, on those issues that can remain unresolved. In my opinion, every report and study into this crossing has recommended its necessity and there is no excuse, while two senior Governments argue with each other, that this crossing be not built. It would be a great spurt to our economy and I would propose this is one way of getting it started.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the seconder of the motion we are debating. I agree with what the Member from Oak Bay had to say in this debate about a subject that we discussed at some length last year, namely, abortion. But his discussion, I think, raised some questions that have been in my mind during the year, questions which, I feet must be posed to the Minister of Health and must be answered by him.

The first question, in connection with abortion and the new Federal law as it is being applied in this Province, is what has he done and what will he do to encourage the Federal Government to eliminate all reference to abortion from the Criminal Code? What has he done? What will he do?

The second question. What has he done and what will he do to offset the demands on operating facilities, as a result of the increased demands for this operation? Should operating rooms be opened longer hours? Should more beds be devoted to surgery? In my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, in Lions Gate Hospital, I am informed that 36 more beds are required to make full use of the operating facilities that are currently there, which strikes me as being very odd, considering that we are supposed to have such a long waiting list and that that waiting list is because of unavailable operating facilities.

The third question, I believe, the Minister must answer. What has he done and what will he do to encourage fairness to those who reside in areas where there are fewer than three doctors? During this past summer, I wrote the hospitals of this Province, asking them what their policy was regarding this subject. It became very evident that the hospitals in the metropolitan area had taken action in accordance with the Criminal Code, but that the hospitals in the rural sections of the Province were not in a position to do so because of the requirements of that code. In fact, it wasn't equal rights before the law, because the woman seeking an abortion was required to leave home in order to obtain one in many sections of this Province. I would ask the Minister what is he doing or what has he done to alleviate that situation?

Mr. Speaker, the fourth question I would ask him is a difficult one. But, because it is difficult, it does not mean he is justified in dodging it. The question is: what is his policy and what is the policy of this Government regarding those hospitals supported from the public purse, which are operated by religious orders, and which, as a result, have not set up abortion committees? I appreciate that it is an extremely awkward question but that is one of the responsibilities of Government. I think the people of this Province have a right to know the policy of that Minister and this Government.

Mr. Speaker, turning to another subject. We left this Chamber, I think, last year, in high hopes of some reformation to our liquor laws. I think some of us did but perhaps our naivete was showing. Unfortunately, while we wait, the bureaucrats bungled. We had a delightful situation during the summer. The Liquor Control Board brought in regulations affecting clubs in Vancouver, which were absolutely unbelievable. It would have forced the clubs out of business overnight. The Member for Vancouver Centre, the first Member, not present at the moment, came to the rescue. I congratulate that Member. We ribbed him about it a little earlier but I congratulate him. He did come over and managed to talk some reason into the Liquor Control Board and the regulations were changed. But while we were waiting, Mr. Speaker, for a change in our liquor laws, what was the Liquor Control Board doing? Amongst other things they were writing letters. To give the Members some idea, here's a

[ Page 218 ]

letter, to a well-known gentleman in this Province, who has reason to be associated, or in association, with the board from time to time. "It has been reported to this office that your firm has endeavoured to assist in the littering of the Province by the distribution of 10,000 tin buttons, bearing your likeness, as shown on your beer labels. Would you kindly advise this office as to why you have distributed these buttons in contravention of the advertising section of the Government Liquor Act?" My, we were pleased they were on their job. It was addressed, as you have probably guessed, to the Tartan Breweries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not Uncle Ben!

MR. CLARK: Uncle Ben replied, as only he can, Mr. Speaker, and he said to Mr. Woodland, the executive assistant of the Liquor Control Board, on December 8, 1970. "At first reading I was tempted to treat your letter with the contempt that it deserved and commit it to the refuse can; however, on second thought, I felt I should set the record straight on several points and will, therefore, make the following comments." I don't intend to read them all to the House. But he does point out: "Firstly, the subject buttons were not purchased, paid for or distributed by Uncle Ben's Tartan Breweries Ltd. They represent my personal effort in the campaign against litter and were ordered and paid for by myself from my own funds."

He had something else to say. He said, "Finally, I take exception to your harassing, antagonistic, obstructionistic attitude to my firm and to myself. It seems to me you are constantly on the lookout for some excuse to rap my knuckles." This is the letter to the Liquor Control Board. Oh, there are other things in the letter, too, Mr. Speaker.

For example, Mr. Ginter, the writer of this letter, says, "Don't you think that it's about time that you began to give my competitors equal treatment and direct some of your investigative activities and threats to firms, such as Capozzi's, as well as other wineries, who, I am informed, still brazenly violate the Act by sponsoring wine and cheese parties, giving discounts or even free samples of wines? Why are we not allowed to sponsor these wine and cheese parties, with the same immunity as is apparently enjoyed by our competitors?" All kinds of interesting things in this letter, Mr. Speaker.

But the point that Mr. Ginter makes and, I think, he makes it very well, is in a postscript to his letter, in which he says, "I think it would be a lot more helpful to the people of this Province if you would devote some of your time and energy in persuading the Government to implement the recommendations of the British Columbia Liquor Enquiry Commission, which was very costly and which contained many good points, instead of harassing me." I support Mr. Ginter in that.

Mr. Speaker, we have had debate in the House…

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you file the letter?

MR. CLARK: I'd be happy to file the letter, yes. There has been debate, Mr. Speaker, during the past few days, about some items which, although they were not in the Throne Speech, are important to this Province. They are items mentioned by our Ministers. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation, to be precise, has announced plans, and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, as well, for the development of Cypress Bowl. While I don't intend to dwell on the Cypress Bowl aspect of this, Mount Seymour is in my constituency, as you know, and I wish to inform the Minister that I agree with his plan to complete the present development on Mount Seymour and then move on to Cypress Bowl. I do so because I believe that he is absolutely accurate when he suggests that the expense of opening up the balance of the mountain is far in excess of what the expense would be in Cypress Bowl, due to the terrain. But what will he leave behind? I would suggest that the Members should pay attention for just a moment, because I believe the Minister left the impression that, within a matter of months, we would be donning our skis and gliding down the slopes of Cypress Bowl.

Don't you believe it, Mr. Speaker. If the record of this Government on Mount Seymour is any indication of how they are going to move on Cypress Bowl, I'll be too old to ski in that particular recreation area (interruption). I hope I am. It's one of the more enjoyable sports.

Mr. Speaker, in the last year of which we have record, namely, 1969, this Government spent less money in the development of Mount Seymour than in any year since 1966. There has been no effort at all to complete Mount Seymour. Every year I have placed on the Order Paper, questions as to the maintenance costs, salary spent and the capital improvements to Mount Seymour. Simple addition will show and prove by the Government's own figures that, in 1969, they spent less than they did in 1966. Indeed, they have spent less every year. The road remains unpaved. You had to close the mountain, finally, to tobogganers and those who would like to sleigh down the slopes because you haven't developed any. You said it was dangerous and came out as the great protector. Really, what you should have done, is groomed some of the hills so that they were safe for toboggan runs or sleigh runs. There are no developed trails, Mr. Speaker, in Mount Seymour, despite what the Minister might have said about the grand trails in that mountain. It is, in fact, dangerous at certain spots. It's possible to wander off what trail there is and, within ten yards, fall into a chasm that would lead only to your death.

We have asked repeatedly for funds to be expended in marking the trails in Mount Seymour and they have not been devoted to it, at ail. Now, the Minister has admitted there is inadequate signing and I would hesitate to be so pointed as to suggest that the responsibility for the deaths on that mountain lies with this Government. If they don't lie with this Government, where do they lie, Mr. Speaker? Without exception, the deaths have been caused by people getting lost on that mountain. We are not talking about a mountain somewhere in the middle of British Columbia, that is remote. We are talking about a mountain in the middle of a city. It has the worst roads of any ski resort in this area. It has a chalet built by the Province of British Columbia, in which skiers are not even allowed to eat lunches. It is an incredible development. There are no other cities in this area, Mr. Speaker, with an asset such as Mount Seymour, where young children can go and learn to ski. Yet, the facts and statistics prove that this Government has, in no way, given priority to the development of this asset.

So, Mr. Speaker, to those who intend to plan ski trips to Cypress Bowl, don't hold your breath. Don't expect to ski on Cypress for a while and, to the absent Minister, I would ask please that he completes what he set out to do on Mount Seymour before he moves on to Cypress Bowl.

Mr. Speaker, there has been and there should be, great discussion on pollution in this debate. This is supposed to be

[ Page 219 ]

the big year of the pollution fight. Of course, if you read last year's Speech from the Throne, last year was, too. At the same…

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk, talk, talk.

MR. CLARK: The talk, talk, talk, is in your Throne Speech, Mr. Minister. How about some action, action, action? At the same time, Mr. Speaker, that the Government says this is the big year for the pollution fight, their agencies have authorized a mine to dump 9.3 million gallons of mill waste daily into Rupert Inlet. That's action. At the same time that we read the fine words of the Throne Speech, Buttle Lake is producing fish that are contaminated. What does the Government really say, Mr. Speaker, that they are going to do, as far as pollution is concerned? Hang on to your seats. The big move is that they are going to add the Minister of Health to the Land Use Committee. Now, Mr. Speaker, you will pardon me if that doesn't fill me with overwhelming confidence.

May I ask the Premier's attention, Mr. Speaker, and your own, to an article from the Everett Herald, Washington, June 5, 1970, which I think tells the story that we face in a rather humourous way. Perhaps, in parable fashion. I think it clearly illustrates what we are facing and what this Government has not realized. It's an interview. I make my living interviewing, Mr. Speaker, maybe that's why I enjoy this story.

This is an interview with, presumably, a radio commentator or a television commentator, and a dinosaur. It begins with the interviewer saying, "Good morning, sir, you are a dinosaur?" "Yes. I'm a brontosaurus myself. I come from a long line of brontosauri. We've lived here in this swamp for 140 million years. It's a lovely place, don't you think?" "Very. I see that you eat those succulent looking reeds that grow up on the shallows." "Yes, they are the only thing I really care for." "But I see, sir, that, when you move about, you seem to trample more reeds under foot than you eat." "Well, when you weigh in at 50 tons…" "But aren't you concerned, sir, about destroying your food supply?" "Not at all, young man, there has always been plenty of reeds to eat and there always will be, even though the swamp is a bit shallower." "Shallower?" "When I was a lad, it came up to my shoulders. Now it's up to my hips. I suppose that's what got the young ones all stirred up, that and the change in climate." "The climate's changed, sir?" "Yes, it's much less humid than it was when I was a boy. You know, it's not the coolness that bothers you it's the lack of humidity." "You said, sir, that the young were stirred up?" "Oh, just a few wild-eyed radicals. They are going around shouting, 'The swamp's drying up, the swamp's drying up.' Sheer nonsense, there's always been a swamp, and there always will be a swamp. No swamp! It's impossible for the saurian mind to concede. They have a plan of action, nothing practical. They want us all to learn to eat those leaves growing on the bank. Leaves, mind you, can't abide the. stuff, doesn't set well, don't you know." "But, if, just by chance, the swamp is drying up…" "I'm not about to change my ways, young man, reed eating was good enough for my grandfather a billion times removed and it is certainly good enough for me." "But, sir, you agree that the world is changing and yet you say that you will make no attempt to adapt to these new conditions. Aren't you afraid that you will become extinct?" "Extinct? Are you out of your mind, young man? There always have been dinosaurs and there always will be dinosaurs. After you've been ruling the world for 140 million years, there's one thing you know in your bones." "What's that, sir?" "The good Lord created the planet solely for the enjoyment of us dinosaurs."

Mr. Speaker, as I reread the Throne Speech, watch the point. As I reread the Throne Speech this morning, Mr. Speaker, I drove around the waterfront here in Victoria and, as I had read the fine sounding words on the fight we are going to launch on pollution, I drove to what I believe is called Clover Point. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, when you consider the fine sounding words in the Throne Speech, also consider the words that are printed on the signs at Clover Point in this city. "Warning! Beach Unsafe — Water Polluted." If you take credit for the words in the Speech from the Throne, you must also accept the responsibility for the words on Clover Point.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the addition of the Minister of Health to the Land Use Committee does not fill me with overwhelming confidence because this is the Minister who, during this past year, vied with the Minister of Rehabilitation for the honour of being the number one disaster of the year. Mr. Speaker, remember how "disaster man" attacked the measles vaccination programme, as my colleague down the way pointed out earlier? First, he looked the other way, then he wanted Ottawa to pay. Then it was to be a Centennial project, do you remember that one? And then "disaster man" agreed that, perhaps, it was a problem after all. Is that the type of leadership we can expect with this Minister's addition to the Land Use Committee? Then "disaster man" descended on Pearson Hospital, do you remember that one, Mr. Speaker? That was where he said, "Due to staff shortage, patients who can't get out of bed by themselves won't be dressed." That's the best, Mr. Speaker, the "disaster man" can come up with by way of an answer. Is that the type of leadership that you intend to bring to the Land Use Committee?

Mr. Speaker, his own words condemn him. He admits his own problem. But, then, Mr. Speaker, this Minister who is going to save us from pollution, this "disaster man" struck again. He struck when he waged his personal attack on a British Columbia doctor. Remember that one? Dr. Regehr. In Kamloops. Is that how you pronounce his name? I'm sorry if it's not. The allegations on this one, Mr. Speaker, are so serious that, if they are true, in my opinion, this Minister, with all deference, must resign. If they are not true, then he must explain that to this House. John Harwood, the chairman of the Clearwater Hospital Board, had something to say about this Minister during this past year. He said, "Mr. Loffmark spoke very harshly to our doctor concerning his actions in the battle to get a hospital for the Clearwater area. Loffmark is alleged to have accused Regehr of playing politics and, if he didn't stop, the Minister was going to look into the doctor's medical competency and see about lifting his license."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh. Shame.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): I hope the Member will refrain from making any further comments on this point until I have had an opportunity to file in the House, the letters and correspondence on the subject. I think that this touches upon the dignity of an individual Member of this House and upon questions of libel and slander. I would ask the Member to do me the kindness of looking at the correspondence in this matter. I think it explains all the points that he has brought up.

[ Page 220 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, order. Will the Member proceed?

MR. CLARK: This Minister has had some time to explain his action in this case. His action in this case was so serious that Dr. Frank Murdoch, the president of the Kamloops Medical Association, said, "There is no question as to Dr. Regehr's qualifications and ability," and that should be read into the record, too. "He is a member of our association and fully checked out by the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons, the licensing organization." Mr. Speaker, the words in the next quotation do not allow me to repeat them in this House. John Harwood, chairman of the Clearwater Hospital Board, said, "I don't think that anyone has to take the kind of treatment and suspicion that was cast on Dr. Regehr," and I agree with John Harwood. This is just another reason, Mr. Speaker, why I am not overwhelmed with confidence that this Minister will be joining the Land Use Committee.

I mentioned Utah Mines earlier and there's a story in that connection that may involve just small things, that illustrate an attitude, too. I received a phone call, during the year, Mr. Speaker, from workers at the Utah Mining site. Their concern was that as they developed this site, they were infringing on the habitat of a family of beavers. The men wanted the beavers moved, which is understandable. I told them to go to the Wildlife Branch, here, in the Province, whereupon I was informed by the company — and this can all be confirmed — that the Wildlife Branch had informed Utah Mining that they could not move the beavers. I phoned the Wildlife Branch, myself, and I can give the Minister the names of the people I talked to — outside the House — I don't want to mention them in the House. I was given assurances, as an M.L.A., Mr. Speaker, that the Wildlife Branch would act and remove the beavers. But it didn't occur. Nothing happened and the bulldozers Proceeded to infringe upon the habitat of this wildlife. So, I told the story on my radio programme and urged the public to put pressure on this company. I was still of the impression, Mr. Speaker, that the company was not making any real effort to remove the beavers. Eventually, the company informed me they had again contacted the Wildlife Branch, been told that they would be assisted, but that no help had arrived. To the credit of the company, they hired a private trapper, finally, and those beavers that, at that time, were alive — most of them had been killed by this time — were moved successfully.

I tell the story to raise a point: Is this the attitude that we can expect from that Department when it comes to the preservation of our wildlife threatened by pollution? Is this an illustration of the action behind the words from the Speech from the Throne?

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the Minister of Health Services had competed for the honour of "disaster man" with the Minister of Rehabilitation. It was close. The Minister of Rehabilitation was the man, who, through his Department, and he must accept the blame, although, probably, the decision was taken at another level, Mr. Speaker, through his Department, we had tax increases in the municipalities of this Province, almost without exception. Let me tell the story of my own municipality, just as a point.

The district of North Vancouver, last year, their local share for welfare costs was 95 cents per capita per month. The district budgeted for a per capita cost of one dollar. Towards the end of the year, the district was told that their share would be $1.15 per month per capita. A 15 per cent increase! Overnight, the district had to find $71,000. One municipality, and let the Members remember, Mr. Speaker, that this type of expense — $71,000 in this form — is not collected on a per capita basis, it's collected only from property owners.

The answer we get when I have raised this in the past is that, "You don't consider the home-owner grants," which leads me to another point. I don't know how widespread it was. I'll be quite frank and say I didn't check, but, in the district, that municipality received its home-owner grants late this year. The one-month delay cost them $13,000 in interest, paid for by the local taxpayers, home-owners, only. Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs was approached about this and what did he have to say? He had such heartening words, "Oh, those gloom and doom municipalities." The Minister of Rehabilitation said, "You won't get a change in the formula. There's no use talking about it." Wise words from the Minister in favour of violence.

What happened on the tax roll, Mr. Speaker, when you include all Government grants of every form? This past year was a perfect year for a comparison of tax rates because, I think, for the first time since I've been a Member, all municipalities were making their situation public. They were talking about it because they were mad. So, it was relatively easy to find the result. The Minister of Finance, the Premier, in discussions with the press, hinted late last year that we might have a tax increase. Mr. Speaker, we had a tax increase last year. In Vancouver, it was $19.30 on an average home; in North Vancouver City, it was $50; New Westminster, $30; Coquitlam, $60; Port Coquitlam, $45; Delta, $15; Richmond, $20. All the facts are clearly before the Members, this year — there was a tax increase in British Columbia in 1970. It was on the municipal tax roll and no one can deny it.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard discussion in this debate of the Centennial. One hundred years of progress and, Mr. Speaker, let's consider those we will honour with Centennial medals. The speaker before me dealt at length on this subject. We will have ceremonies in all our ridings this year, we'll have receptions and the elderly people of the Province, our pioneers, will come up, and we will say, "We are proud of you, we owe so much to you, we couldn't have done it without you — but don't get sick!"

Mr. Speaker, for another year, the nursing home rates in my constituency and, indeed, around the Province, are $450 per month for a nursing home for these people we honour in this Centennial Year. We honour responsibility. We say to our young people, "Be responsible. Save for a rainy day." The policies of this Government, Mr. Speaker, in five months can take away the savings of an elderly couple. What kind of an example is that? You force them to spend their life savings and, when you add to this the lack of senior citizens' housing, I am tempted, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that our Centennial celebrations are hypocritical.

How can we celebrate a Centennial that honours our senior citizens, when they are the worst treated people in the Province? What kind of Centennial is that? This should be our Centennial project, Mr. Speaker. I can think of no better Centennial project. The project should be adequate housing and medical care for all those we honour. There's a project for us. We may very well wish to dedicate blocks of land for parks. Mr. Speaker, a Centennial project that would be remembered by this, and by every generation of British Columbians, would be the resolve of this Government to accept the responsibility to provide adequate medical care to these, our pioneers, and chronic care should be included, in its entirety, in the B.C. Hospital Insurance Service.

[ Page 221 ]

While we are at it, Mr. Speaker, for the fifth year of asking, you will save money, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has been so outspoken, is the man that could get the credit, if you brought about the changes whereby senior citizens in this Province could continue to live out their years in their own homes, without being forced out by municipal taxation. So, for the fifth year of asking. You know it's possible. You know it's practical, whereby senior citizens on fixed incomes could live out their lives in their own homes, without going into nursing homes — costly nursing homes — if you were to assist them at the municipal tax level. While we are at it, Mr. Speaker, and we are talking of those we honour in our Centennial — a very simple thing. Give them the bus passes, without encumbrance. Give them all a bus pass.

There are a lot of Centennial projects, Mr. Speaker, that we could propose. Last year, in this House, I drew to the Members' attention an article which was entitled, "Does Anyone Care about Mary?" You will recall, it was a story of a girl in Seattle who was 18. She was criminally assaulted, her hands were slashed, she suffered severed tendons in her hands, black eye, internal injuries and unbelievable psychological damage. The assaulter was sent to prison. He will be trained, he will be given medical care, he will be given room and board and clothed. He can take a college degree, if he wishes. But what has Mary faced, since? She has faced the medical expenses from this attack and she was the innocent victim of the crime. The medical expenses, alone, are almost overwhelming.

Consider, Mr. Speaker, the elderly woman clubbed over the head for her purse, consider the nurses, who were attacked on their way home from work in the city of Vancouver, consider a young child, attacked by a mentally disturbed adult. There is nothing in the Speech, again, this year, for those people. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Attorney-General has, in his hands, a recommendation from the Uniformity Conference, which recommends the actual legislation that this House should introduce on compensation for the victims of crime. They have drawn up the Act for you, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker. Another Centennial project that, I think, ranks above parks — and it's not in the Throne Speech.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about unemployment, during this debate, and the number one cry from the opposite side of the House has been, "Blame Ottawa." Mr. Speaker, I want to make myself very clear on this point. As I understand the political philosophies of the various parties in this country, I am proud to call myself a Liberal. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to, at this time, in this House, disassociate myself from and disavow the policy of the Federal Liberal Government in creating unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, this action by the Federal Government of this country could very well be its Waterloo. Mr. Speaker, having said that and said it as clearly as I can, I cannot accept from across the way this innocent cry of, "Blame Ottawa." If Ottawa is guilty, Mr. Speaker, then so is the Government of British Columbia for failing to manage the economy to produce full employment. You've got the job and you muffed it.

Mr. Speaker, can anyone on that side of the House truthfully say that there were no work-producing projects that could have been started in this Province in the past twelve months? Can anyone say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. We were told to cut back.

MR. CLARK: You are guilty of doing nothing and, all you can say is, "It's Ottawa's fault." Mr. Speaker, if Ottawa is to blame for its part in this, and I believe it is, then you are to blame for your inaction to do anything about it in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, while we are talking about unemployment and its primary causes, there have been many here who have suggested that the primary cause is the lack of liquid capital. I think that is true. But, Mr. Speaker, on the world scene, in my opinion, we will never have full employment as long as we devote such a large percentage of our economy to the killing of our fellow man.

For those who don't understand what that has to do with us, you deserve to really sit down and take a look at what's happening. The capital that would normally be invested in secondary industry and in the work-producing projects to alleviate unemployment is right now going into destructive purposes of warfare. It's happening all over the world.

What has that got to do with B.C.? Again, I hear, Mr. Speaker, "Blame Ottawa." It's a matter of every individual's conscience in this House and I'm against killing and I'm against spending money to kill. I do believe that we can blame a lot of our unemployment on the fact that we are devoting such a large percentage of our capital to armaments. While we are talking about that aspect of the subject, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to disassociate myself from the Federal Government action of thinking they can solve unemployment by putting our youth into militia camps.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to this debate and the Member who has just spoken from Columbia River, I also wish to condemn the hate I've heard in this Chamber. We are told society has always had to have a group to hate — Christians, Jews, Hippies, draft dodgers. Surely as legislators, Mr. Speaker, we must resist this urge to hate and, even more tragic than the shouted obscenities from the gallery of this Chamber on Opening Day, was the vast gulf that existed between those up there and those of us down here.

Mr. Speaker, we're not listening to each other. We're not even speaking to each other. While they are protesting the failings of our society and economic system, what were we doing? We were playing our appointed roles in a meaningless charade.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not appointed, we're elected.

MR. CLARK: We were playing our appointed roles, Mr. Speaker, in a meaningless charade. While it was traditional, Opening Day was a waste of time, and I mean no disrespect to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I'm talking about our rules and procedures. We are in this debate…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CLARK: debating not what was in the Throne Speech. We are debating ministerial announcements that have occurred since the Throne Speech. It was a waste of time and that is the tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, there has been much civil disobedience, this past year, in our Province. We must ask ourselves, why it is so? We must be prepared to stand up for and act upon the legitimate demands of the discontented and, Mr. Speaker, we must be prepared to condemn unreasonable demands. We must be prepared to condemn those who would capitalize on this unrest, be they anarchists or be they Mayor Campbell.

[ Page 222 ]

Mr. Speaker, I do condemn Mayor Campbell for capitalizing on this in the city of Vancouver.

I recall, during the discussions that followed the English Bay disturbance, when many of us in the public media, Mr. Speaker, many of us, were involved in public debate with the Mayor. Jack Webster, Jack Wasserman, Allan Fotheringham, myself and many others — people involved in the public media (interruption). Listen to what I've got to say, Mr. Member, before you blather on.

Mr. Speaker, I phoned the Mayor that day, privately. I phoned the Mayor and I said, "Mr. Mayor, we have had one riot. May I ask that you convene a meeting this afternoon in your office of yourself, myself and any others who have been making public statements on this and that we, as adults, sit down and try to cool it?" Mr. Speaker, as a member of the media, I know this can work. It is the technique that has been used during Hallowe'en and it has been successful. The Mayor went out from his Chamber and issued even more inflammatory statements and we did have another riot.

Mr. Speaker, we must be prepared to deal with people as individuals and not as groups. Draft dodgers — I've heard them mentioned in this debate, too. As the Member of Esquimalt mentioned them, and others, I thought of a mother…(interruption)…who did call me. On my hot line, if you want to call it that, Mr. Premier (interruption).

That's right. Thank you, Mr. Premier. A mother called me, Mr. Speaker, on this day. We had been debating for about an hour and a half and people had been calling in saying, "We ought to deport the draft dodgers, we want to build a brick wall, we don't want to let them in," and all the remarks we've been hearing. A mother called. She was the mother of a draft dodger and she called in to describe her son and a situation he had faced. A small town in the United States, average family, church-going family (interruption). She was in Vancouver when she called me. She described how her son, with a very troubled conscience, came to her and her husband about his draft notice. They went to their minister and their friends and, finally, the son, in all conscience, decided he could not accept his draft notice and, instead, he had to face the loss of respect of his fellow students, in many cases, of many of the leading adults in the community. He was the first in the small town to leave. The newspaper editorially attacked him, and he came to Canada. The mother's point to me was, "Thank goodness, there is a country where a man, by conscience, may find a haven."

I tell this story, Mr. Speaker, only to illustrate that if we are going to talk about draft dodgers, let's talk about them as people not groups, because they are people. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we would have the courage to be disavowed by all our friends and make that decision. Because, remember, Mr. Speaker, when these young lads come to our country they cannot return. Ever. That is a decision that is surely hard to make.

Mr. Speaker, the habit of generalizing has been one of the really backward trends, I believe, in this generation. Because he is right 90 per cent of the time, he must be right the other 10 per cent; because he's old does not mean everything he says is wise; because he's young doesn't mean everything he says is right. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm scared for our system. I believe we are bogged down in tradition and, when tradition stands in the way of constructive change, we must be prepared to toss tradition aside.

In many respects, Mr. Speaker, the parliaments in the free world are not working. In many respects, this Parliament is not working. Mr. Speaker, all men's votes are not equal in British Columbia. All the public business is not public in British Columbia. The people do not have a say in vital decisions affecting their lives in British Columbia. In this Chamber, we are swimming around in the largest bathtub in the Province. We believe what we are saying here is so important that we forget to listen to what the people outside are saying. Even on election platforms, Mr. Speaker, we don't determine to explain the alternatives. We go out to win votes at almost any cost. If you cannot admit that about yourself…(interruption).

Mr. Speaker, if we don't cure the patient, he will die and be tossed aside. The stability of the democratic system in the world has been challenged this past year. The record of parliamentary governments has not been good; they have been overthrown.

Mr. Speaker, I once more urge the Government to establish a committee to examine our entire rules and procedures of Parliament here in British Columbia. I have suggested before, Mr. Speaker, that we should give the press the right to televise our debates. I go a step further. I now believe, with some hopes that it might bring this Parliament closer to the people, that we should demand television coverage of our debates. We should see to it that they are on television, always. I am not guaranteeing good ratings but people would be able to see their democratically elected Government in action. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should demand that all cablevision carry the debates of this Assembly, as well (interruption). I have done that.

Mr. Speaker, we have, in a way, destroyed ourselves and what we stand for in this Chamber. I think of the way we all prerecord our debates and, with all deference to my friends in the press gallery, it may be convenient to them. But, in my humble opinion, as one Member, I would urge other Members to stop this business of pre-taping their debates. This is where the people must be heard — not in some television studio in another part of this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, the Members know full well about which I am talking and my colleagues in the gallery know full well the temptation of putting into news what you have, rather than what's news. This is the real danger of what we are contributing to in this House.

There are such ironies in our society, Mr. Speaker, — and I won't be long now — I know we all want an early supper. There are such ironies in our society, some important and some unimportant. While Isy's may advertise all-black girlie shows in downtown Vancouver and clubs feature topless wrestling, the RCMP, disguised as beachcombers, raid Wreck Beach for nude bathers.

Mr. Speaker, while we honour our elderly during Centennial Year, those same elderly are allowed to suffer more than any group in our society. While we condemn violence, we all are prepared to make political capital out of it from time to time. While we can prepare and organize a destructive war, Mr., Speaker, we devote little effort to planning for disaster relief, such as occurred this past year in Pakistan. If only we would devote as much effort to planning relief of our fellow human beings as we do to war, this would be a far greater world.

I sent a note to the Minister of Recreation earlier this Session, because I was impressed with what he said and I would like to read three lines of that Minister's statement again, "Should you wish to be positive about this world of ours and in spite of obvious hazards, it's a wonderful world, many opportunities are presented. Above all, let us not be the purveyors of distrust and fear by wrongfully attributing

[ Page 223 ]

false motives and intentions to people, to people in situations, 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."

Mr. Speaker, I fully support those words. I challenge the Members to live by them, all of us, this Session. If we want respect as politicians and if we want respect for our political system, then we, the elected, must be prepared to rise above our petty political differences and prejudices and do the people's business. Thank you.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson (Attorney-General) presented the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia Report on Limitations, Part I — Abolition of Prescriptions.

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.