[ Page 263 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I know that all the Members in the House are very familiar with the Kinsmen organisation and the wonderful work that they do, particularly at this moment with the Marching Mothers. We have in the House today four representatives from the Kinsmen organisation, the Canadian Association. The Governor of British Columbia, Mr. Ken Leaney, Deputy Governor, Mr. Ray Rogers, Mr. Randy Dillon, and with us the President of the Canadian Association from Ontario, Mr. Bill Watson.

I know that the Members will join me in welcoming them and congratulating them on their excellent work.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Would the Honourable Member tell us where they are sitting in the gallery?

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's Gallery.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the first sitting after today:

Bill No. 8 intituled An Act to Amend the Court of Appeal Act.

Bill No. 7 intituled An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, as I take my place in this debate I am glad that all the Members or most of them that can be are present. I wish to comment on something that I think will be important to them all. We have new quarters in these buildings for which we are truly grateful but I noticed that there has been another change in accommodating the Members which I view with great regret.

I draw the attention of the Honourable the Minister of Public Works to the signs that have suddenly appeared along the driveway approaching this building: "M.L.A. Parking Only." I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a backward step. I think that it would be a proper approach into our second century if we were to remove all vehicles from the front of this building. We have beautiful grounds, we have a beautiful building day and night and to find that this view of these grounds and this building are cluttered by all kind of and sizes and shapes of motor vehicles is, I suggest, in this year of 1972 a backward step.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, as I look around at some of the Members align="center" I think that a couple blocks walk wouldn't do any of them any harm. I don't go so far as to extend those remarks to the Honourable Premier, I think that a man in his position is entitled to some special attention as far as parking his car is concerned.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But I do think, Mr. Speaker, that with the disappearance of the snow and the coming of fine weather again it would be proper, as crocuses begin to bloom in Victoria, that those signs disappear. I'm against cars in front of the buildings. I can see that in a matter of a few months we'll have oil and brake fluid and everything dripped all over the roads and what could be a vast improvement has been lost to us.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker — which I'm sure the Honourable Minister will act upon immediately — I would like to direct to the Members' attention a couple of items which I think are significant for purposes of this debate.

Two of the Members who have already spoken, I refer to the Honourable Minister without Portfolio from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) and to the Honourable Member from South Peace (Mr. Marshall) have directed their attention to the plight of the agricultural community in this province, and I join with them. I regret very much that the time available to the Minister of Agriculture yesterday in his opening debate could not have been spent in reviewing matters which are under his responsibility and those problems which require urgent resolution.

The Minister said in his speech to the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association in January of this year that a farmer has the most desirable environment in which to live. I think there are many in the chamber who would agree with that statement. I certainly do. But I am concerned that with increasing urbanisation and with a lack of attention to policies for agriculture on behalf of the government the environment for the farmer is slowly shrinking.

More and more of our agricultural lands close to the urbanised areas are being withdrawn from agricultural production and I think this is a retrograde step. The Minister himself on occasion has pointed out that if we ever find ourselves in the situation where we must rely entirely upon foreign countries, foreign jurisdictions for our supply of food stuffs, then we are indeed in a dangerous position.

Now there are some who say well, if that ever occurred we'd just go back into agricultural production. Some have even said that we can restore to agriculture easily those areas which have already been devoted for intensive urban use.

To those people, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there is more to the operation of our agricultural community than just the existence of land. You've got to have farmers in order to farm. When you destroy the opportunity that our farming communities have to engage profitably and productively in their enterprise, and when they leave that enterprise, then to win them back into that field is a task which I suspect will find little success.

We must provide a proper substantial base for the agricultural community of this province and we must sustain it. It is the responsibility of the government — indeed the responsibility of the two Members that are having a conversation this very moment — the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance — to see that this is done.

[ Page 264 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: They never do …

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Because in the same speech, Mr. Speaker, given by the Minister in January he said: "The greatest problem facing this industry at this particular time is of course the terrific increase and the threat of increase of cheap imports from areas where wages are low and costs are low."

AN HON. MEMBER: The greatest problem is the Minister.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. The greatest problem facing agriculture in the Province of British Columbia today is the Minister and his government — because they continue to ignore the plight of the farmer and the farming community. And they ignore it at their peril, I submit to them.

Mr. Speaker, there are things which should have appeared in the opening speech read by His Honour the LieutenantGovernor — things which the Minister of Agriculture insisted should be in that opening speech. But they were absent. He's let the farmer down again.

I suggest that in this year, 1972, with the propensity of the Minister of Finance for the establishment of funds of various kinds for various purposes, that he regrets the oversight on the part of the Minister of Agriculture in the opening speech and tomorrow, when he brings down his budget, that he announce the establishment of an agricultural lands trust, a perpetual fund of $100 million to be used for the acquisition of lands which are in danger of disappearing from agricultural use and retention of agricultural land presently in use and the restoration to agricultural use of lands which have been diverted to other uses, and to adopt as part of the programme accompanying that fund a policy whereby those lands will be leased to the farming community for use in the production of food stuffs.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to listen to the Honourable Lady Minister who comes from an agricultural community who has so little understanding of the opportunities which can be made available to farmers if they can avoid the tremendous capital costs of providing themselves with land.

We are not attempting to wipe out the small farmer, we are attempting to sustain the small farmer, and the farmer's son and the farmer's son's son. Generation after generation; so that we have a subsisting agricultural community, not one which is divorced entirely from the production of foodstuffs, not one which is cut up into 10-acre pony farms for the rich. We want producing farms, not an escape valve for the wealthy — a tax haven for them. That's not the kind of operation we want in this province. That certainly is not state ownership. Yes, it is a green belt …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have some order, please?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it supplies a matter in which to fulfill the concern which was so aptly expressed by the Member from Delta (Mr. Wenman) and I congratulate him on standing up and telling his own government where they are failing and where they continue to fail.

As well as this aspect, I would have hoped that the Minister of Agriculture could have seen that in the opening speech the establishment of a food council which was recommended by the agricultural committee after careful and lengthy examination into the problems affecting the producers last year.

In a unanimous report filed with this House the committee recommended that the authority and jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture be expanded to include not only matters relating to the production of foodstuff, but also to the distribution and marketing thereof.

A very careful examination was made. The Minister himself expressed himself to the committee along these lines. And yet here we come — one year later, another year lost — without a mention of enabling his department to do the job that needs to be done, of ensuring that we have food production, food marketing, food distribution in this province which ensures for the consumer the opportunity to purchase foodstuffs at a fair price, and at fair return to the farmers. Silence, is all that we have from the Minister in this regard.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there was no mention of continuing burden of tax that the agricultural community continues to bear. And I would hope that the Minister of Finance tomorrow might also consider it wise to establish a farm production grant system, similar to that which he already provided for the home-owners, in the Province of British Columbia.

As a home-owner you are entitled to a grant made of your taxes just by owning and living in your home. I suggest that farmers are prepared to go farther than that. And would say to this government we will maintain standards of production but if we maintain those standards of production which the Department of Agriculture would fix, then may we at least have some relief from the crushing burden of real property which is placed upon us — in many cases by this very government, not by local government.

Another area that the Minister of Finance should consider is a relief to the farming community from the impact of succession duty. This was bad enough before, but with the regrettable action on the part of the federal government of applying a capital gains tax in respect of the succession to farm lands, the farming community — the rancher — is now faced with a double burden.

And, Mr. Speaker, the farmers and ranchers in this province except in rare instance are not men of means so that on their deaths other assets may be used to pay the duties and the capital gains tax. What will result, Mr. Speaker, is the forced sale of the family farm in order to pay the duties exacted by this government and the tax that will be exacted by the federal government. Taxing them right out of existence.

Now, this could be alleviated, Mr. Speaker, within the responsibilities of this government, by giving an exemption in respective succession duties for those farm lands which are passed on to the family of the deceased farmer and which will continue to be used in the farm community — continue to be productive units. It will provide them with that relief. And this is within the power of this government.

At the same time I would urge the Minister of Agriculture and all of the government, and I would join with them, in continuing to press the federal government for changes in the unfortunate legislation which will have such a terrible burden upon our farming community.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in things that this government must do — to bring under control bulldozer prospectors of this province, who without notice to the farmer, to the rancher — the person who is interested in the grazing lands of our province — have the right to go upon lands with the

[ Page 265 ]

bulldozer, scar it up, walk away, without having to remedy the damage that has been done, the damage to animals and the destruction of valuable grazing land.

This is within the control, of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Mines, who sits on his left, and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources who sits just in front of him. And why these three Ministers can't get together and resolve this simple problem is beyond my understanding.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, I've talked to cattlemens' organisations who have raised this with the Minister. And the answer that they tell me they get from the Minister is that he's in favour — that somehow or other the Premier is to blame. Well, I can scarcely countenance that, Mr. Speaker, when I consider what the attitude of the Premier is as expressed by him in the Press.

On November 18, a Thursday, there appeared in the Victoria Colonist a report of a statement made by the Premier when he flew back into Vancouver from Ottawa, following a federal-provincial conference.

You know, he got on the plane in Ottawa and he flew over this vast land over all that prairie farmland and he made a survey. And what did he say? "Bennett said he was sick at heart to see farms being abandoned on the prairies and towns being boarded up. He said: 'It's not healthy to be driving these people and owners from the Maritimes into the slums of the cities when a negative tax would keep them in their homes'."

Mr. Speaker, it's not healthy to drive the farmers from the farms in British Columbia into the city slums either, by the negative policies of this provincial government. And when are they going to change?

The Minister of Agriculture is aware of the problems which face the farmers. He's aware of the imperative need for solutions. And yet somehow or other he's been completely ineffective in the task of convincing his colleagues in the cabinet of that need in bringing before this House measures which will provide the solutions.

Mr. Speaker, it's not enough for the Minister of Agriculture to be the friend of the farmers. He's got to be their champion too. Because that is the only way the farmer is going to survive in the province. We must have a solution to the dilemma which all those years of inaction on the part of this government have brought to the farmers.

Mr. Speaker, we had an interesting discussion contribution in this debate from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williston) the other day. As usual the Minister acquitted himself with distinction — he always delivers a carefully-worded, carefully-prepared address.

But it appears that the insatiable appetite of this government to push back the frontiers, and to bask in the flowery praise received as empire builders has lead it into a trap which has consequences for those who have followed the government's lead — and serious and tragic consequences for this province as well.

The government in this respect, Mr. Speaker, has been trapped into believing that bigness is beauty. And I think that they perhaps now are coming to realise that big is bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Vancouver Centre is.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It may appear that bigness is beautiful to the Press agents who write the stories for this government. But it's not the case as the record is now proving.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the carefully-prepared statements from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources were really a confession of that failure. A failure which stemmed from a lack of study, a lack of careful planning of the expansion into north central British Columbia and the application of existing rigid inflexible rules and regulations from the forest service applied on universal basis.

The Minister in his remarks said that this industry is not simply a number of large impersonal corporations, but rather provides an ideal economic base from which flow numerous job opportunities, community stability and the potential for enhancing certain intangible values as well as the obvious tangible ones.

Well we've had an instance of the fate of large impersonal corporations, and their impact upon this province. On Wednesday of this week, February 2, it was announced in a banner story in the business finance pages of the Vancouver Province "$60 Million Forest Loss Cited." It tells of the financial tragedy which has befallen the operation of Bulkley Valley Forest Industries Ltd. Losses of $60 million in one operation. An operation which has a saw mill that has not produced near its capacity, and judged by some forest observers to need major revision before it can.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh it's easy to blame some of the errors on the part of the owners, and the engineers who designed the plant. It's true it was bad engineering. But where was the Minister and his department when these decisions were being made? Was no examination being made into them? Was no care being taken to see what kind of organisation, and what kind of facilities would be used in the winning of the forest resource?

And what did the Minister say when contacted about this particular problem? He said: "There was concern in the government because of the investment that had been made in the community of Houston, not only by this company but by those who had committed money and debt in new homes, commercial ventures and schools."

And this is the industry which the Minister said, and as I read a few moments ago, that provides an ideal economic base from which flow numerous job opportunities, community stability. I wonder what kind of community stability there is today in Houston?

It's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia's image is so bad as the Minister himself remarked in his address. But he quoted in his address: "I think that British Columbia is an investor's nightmare." This is the attitude of the investment community. You were caught between an aggressive union, and an ingressive government which is constantly trying to get more money for its trees. And again British Columbia is a cemetery of company earnings. I don't know how else to describe it.

No, the experience, Mr. Speaker, at Houston will not go far to improving that image. It is not going to provide any other way to describe it unless rapid, thoughtful changes of policy are announced by this government and undertaken forthwith.

The Minister also said — and I draw your attention to the impact that this has not only on the company and companies operating in this field, but on the community as well. What the Minister said is true: "The people of the province have a direct interest in the profitability of operations." And again he said it is for this reason that interest has been taken in this

[ Page 266 ]

matter of profit for the first time at the administrative level. For the first time, the forest service has suddenly decided that profit is important to the proper management of the forest resource. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that to this Minister that at least would have been obvious long, long ago. Without profit there can be no success, and without success then the government has failed in the discharge of its responsibility in this most vital area.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister that one of the troubles which affects the north central British Columbia area, and which has affected Bulkley Valley — and by the way, Mr. Speaker, at this moment I might wonder if Bulkley Valley is not the first of two or perhaps three of such financial disasters that will be reported shortly.

We already know that Columbia Cellulose at its Prince Rupert operation is losing something in the neighbourhood of $1 million a month. How long that company can sustain that kind of loss must be a great concern to the Minister. And if Columbia Cellulose is having a problem, how long before Eurocan will follow?

But one of the things that the Minister forgot when they moved into north central British Columbia was the value which the independent intermediate and small-size operator had in the efficient functioning — the efficient integration of the forest industry. And I'm surprised that he forgot that. Because in his remarks the other day he said: "If one were to stand back now, and take an overview of the central interior wood processing situation," — now this is not Bulkley Valley but the central interior wood processing situation — "we would find the largest group of efficient close-utilisation sawmills to be found anywhere in the world today." And he went on to say: "As long as the successful continue to predominate we will continue to make progress."

Certainly we have the example in the central interior. I suppose that the Quesnel area is one of the outstanding examples of the integration of the forest industry — not only by function, but also by size. We have sawmilling, plywood, and we'll shortly have a pulp operation functioning in that area.

We have the majors involved in the pulp, and the plywood and the sawmill. But we also have the intermediate and small operators engaged in that area. With a timber resource made available to them by the people of this province. And they integrate in size as well as in function.

This is entirely lacking in decisions made by the government when moving into the area of north central British Columbia.

And why was it done? I think the Minister owes us an explanation of why that experience of which he speaks so proudly in the central interior of the province was not also carried on into north central British Columbia. Indeed not only was the experience not carried on, but Bulkley Valley itself, as well as getting an allocation of timber from the Crown, acquired the timber rights of the other independent operators in the area. They're out of business. When those small and intermediate independent operators move out of business you lose a real strength in the communities that those small independent operators can produce.

The strength in the Quesnel area is that you have operators there who have grown up in the industry. The owners live in the community and they have a real sense of responsibility to their employees and to the community. That is lacking when we seek to allow large corporate enterprise to take over our forest resources and to operate exclusively.

There is a very great distinction between the decision which is made by the owner-managed operation — before he shuts down his plant and puts 50 or 100 of his fellow citizens out of work — and the decision which is taken in a boardroom in New York or London or Copenhagen to do the same thing.

The decisions are entirely different. Different factors are taken into account.

One of the factors that the owner-operator, the small intermediate operator, takes into account is the stability of his own community. This must be continued. This is one of the positive plusses that we get from the Crown management of the timber resources in this province.

The Minister — and I won't quote his remarks because I don't have them noted — but the Minister was careful to point out, and I agree with him, that we must look not only at the direct benefit which comes from the wood operation but we must look at the continuing benefits through the entire community, due to the sustained growth and livelihood of that enterprise.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to overcome the bad image that we have earned because of the Bulkley Valley experience, if we are going to avoid .making further mistakes as this government pushes farther north in this province, even beyond north central British Columbia, that policy must be radically altered to encourage for every incentive as its means to provide a proper balance in the forest industry.

It's true that this policy must take into account transport. I am aware of the difficulties that are faced by the operators in the north central portion of British Columbia with regard to transportation. They do not have the P.G.E. They have the C.N.R. The C.N.R. Is run as a railroad or attempted to. It makes its only profits from operations of the railroad whereas this government with the Crown corporation under its control is able to encourage policy decisions in the P.G.E. which can assist to sustain the forest resource industry.

I'm not suggesting that that is an improper rule for the P.G.E., but it makes a difference — a very direct, a very great difference. But one, Mr. Speaker, that could not have escaped the Minister when the decision was made to move into the Bulkley-Skeena area in North Central B.C.

Another factor which must betaken into account is that of wood quality. There is no question that there is decadence in some areas of the Skeena. Decadence which makes the functioning of close utilisation extremely difficult, and I suggest that to apply the rigid inflexible rules of close utilisation in the Skeena area is indeed not close utilisation but excessive utilisation — excessive utilisation to the detriment of the enterprise.

We must also take into account the available labour force. The skills which are lacking in many of the people labour force in that area.

Lastly I think that the Minister must take into account the availability of financing for the intermediate and small operators who must be encouraged to go back into the north central B.C. area and help to sustain this economy and for the communities which will be built around them.

This can be done by immediately making available to independent operators a wood supply which will in turn enable them to go and raise the kind of financing that is essential in order to provide a modern mill of even intermediate size.

Mr. Speaker, when we're speaking of the intermediate operator these days we're speaking of an operation in the

[ Page 267 ]

nature of $2-3 million. That's the kind of capital investment that goes into intermediate operations in this day and age. It's a lot of money. Indeed it might be possible for the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to exert himself in this area and to really wonder whether or not there shouldn't be some incentive from his department directed to small and intermediate operators who will go into this area and establish themselves.

The use of incentives and the implementation of these policies, I suggest, is not a subsidy, but is a realistic recognition of the obstacles which confront the operator in the profitable management of the forest resource which the people own but are prepared to allocate to those operators.

The Minister well knows that at the forest industry it is not within the classification of a hot-house industry which requires constant infusions of government aid. On the contrary, the proven record of the forest industry in other areas of the province based upon the Minister's own figures shows that the industry is the mainstay of the provincial economy. The Minister must also recognise that careful nurturing is essential, if past records are to be sustained. The government is the custodian — the trustee, if you like, of the people's forest resources.

The experience in north central British Columbia raises serious doubts in my mind as to the competency of the government to discharge its responsibilities in this most important role. It has stumbled on its march to the new frontier. What should have been positive growth has turned into a rescue operation. With this record what can further advances in the north expect?

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will turn to one final matter which also raises doubts in my mind as to the competency of this government.

Throughout the speech and in previous speeches in previous sessions we have heard Members of the Opposition speak about the age and the arrogance of this government. I'd like to suggest, Mr. Speaker that the young don't have any stranglehold on competency.

That's the true measure. Not age. Not arrogance. Or lack of it. But whether or not the government by its records is competent to administer the affairs of this province, to give to the people the returns that they are entitled to expect.

I think that one of the areas where the lack of competency, the failure of the government, is most clearly shown is in the administration of those institutions established in this Legislature by the representatives of the people of the province, but now administered by this government — through all of its years maladministered.

I speak of the land registry system. I speak of the provincial court system. I speak of the court registry system. The Registrar of Companies office, the Superintendent of Insurance who administers insurance, real estates, Collection Agents Licensing Act, the Mortgage Brokers Act.

By the way, Mr. Speaker in this regard what has happened to the Mortgage Brokers Act? That legislation which was going to prove such a boon to the small borrower in this province? To protect him from the ravages of lenders.

When are we going to proclaim part two, and really provide them with the protection? Nothing has been done. In the securities field, in the Public Utilities Commission, and in the Coroner's office — these are institutions which are the direct responsibility of this government to administer.

We are a society, Mr. Speaker, which is based upon law and the rule of law. May it always be so. But the way in which this government has maladministered the institutions under its responsibility raises grave doubts as to whether the laws which are passed in this assembly are really producing for the people the results which were intended by this assembly.

It stems entirely from the failure to give these institutions the support which they need to do the job. We find a couple of classic examples. The Public Utilities Commission — and I don't want to go into the details — has already been discussed in earlier debate in this House. How it has badly handled the matter of cemetery trust funds.

I know the reason why. The Attorney General knows the reason why. Because they haven't got the staff to do the job. So how does the government react, Mr. Speaker? They pass an order-in-council saying that you don't any more have to be concerned with the trust fund. You don't pass them in court any more, in public view. You handle them somehow or other in the P.U.C. Itself.

Also being discussed is the matter of Kaiser Resources Limited and the opportunities which present themselves to insiders to make what would appear to be improper profits on the purchase and disposal of shares.

This isn't supposed to happen under the laws passed in this province in 1967. I remember when the then Attorney General — how I wish we had him now — how the then Attorney General stood in his place and told this House that from the passage of that Act that no longer would insiders, people with inside knowledge, be able to use that knowledge for their own personal knowledge.

But go today to the Securities Commission and find out what kind of records are maintained in respect of insider reports. They don't have the staff. They're not published.

What Member of this assembly has seen a published report of insiders' dealings in shares? They don't exist — don't exist because they don't have the staff.

Well, I don't want to bring up Common Wealth Trust because the record of this government in dealing with matters of serious trust nature is extremely bad. The company's office report was filed by the Attorney General last night. We have nearly 8,000 incorporations this year — a 24 per cent increase over the previous year. This office is now administrating 84,000 plus companies, societies and cooperatives.

Now the corporate institution, Mr. Speaker, is a valuable one in our society. But it is also one which is capable of abuse, and has been used and abused. We must have, within the institutions which this government administers, the people who can properly assess what passes before them. We don't have it. We don't have it because of niggardlyness on the part of this government.

I have made a review of the staff in all of the areas I have mentioned and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to find that for less than $1 million — about 1/15th of 1 per cent, 1/15th of 1 per cent of the budget of this province — we could double and in some cases treble the senior administrative staff members of each of these divisions. We could equip them to do the job we expect them to do as legislators. We've said so, in the legislation that's passed. Permit them to discharge their responsibilities.

Because Mr. Speaker, I know these people. They are responsible individuals, dedicated to their job, but prevented from doing their job by this government. It's a disgrace. If you can't administer these institutions then is it any wonder that those other institutions with which this government must deal — institutions from our society, our medical profession, our teachers, the labour union — how can this government deal with those institutions when it can't even

[ Page 268 ]

run the ones which are its direct responsibility?

In this regard I want to mention one last matter which is of great concern to me — and why it has not been of grave concern to the Attorney General I will never know.

A year ago the Member from Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) stood in his place and talked about an incident which had occurred in his constituency, wherein a member of a police force was involved in a tragic accident. Questions were raised about the kind of inquest that was held.

We all know what happened. The Attorney General finally, after many, many months moved and a new inquest was convened under the auspices of the supervisory coroner of this province. We have now had a second one, where a death has occurred and a member of a police force has been involved.

Aside altogether from the manner in which the inquest was held, Mr. Speaker, every time one of these instances arises the members of the police forces who discharge their responsibility in this province are brought in line for serious criticism which is not justified.

Why has the Attorney General not seen fit after the first instance to require, as a rule, that when any member of any police force is engaged in a fatality an inquest is to be held? When any member of the government service is involved in a fatality an inquest is to be held. Why do they not provide that the supervisory coroner shall be instructed forthwith to convene the inquest, and to conduct it to its conclusion? Then we have assurance of fairness.

I'm not suggesting that the local coroners aren't fair but it removes all doubt when you bring someone of a senior nature to take the responsibilities in such a grave matter. We take steps which then retain the respect which police officers and members of the government service are entitled to have in those communities in which they are obliged to carry out their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding may I say that it has been an enjoyable debate all these days. From my point of view. I suspect that I have learned more from what has not been said, by the Members opposite, than from the remarks that they have uttered here. It is what they have left out that is of great interest to me.

The first Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) last night pointed out the line in the throne speech which was of such interest to him, and I thank him for doing so. Because I too think it is the most important line in this opening speech. And I quote again: "We have much to be thankful for in British Columbia, and we look forward to the coming year with renewed vigor and a sense of challenge."

Mr. Speaker, that's what's wrong with this government. It is looking forward to the coming year. The Honourable the Member from Shuswap (Mr. Jefcoat) when he rose in this chamber and seconded the motion which we are now debating, drew to the attention of Hon. Members the rapidity of change with which we are currently faced.

Mr. Speaker, we can't look to this coming year. It is scarcely satisfactory if we look forward to the balance of this decade. We should be considering in this chamber today, and the government should have before us what it considered is proper for British Columbia in the 1980's. Because each day, Mr. Speaker, we have as visitors to this chamber those people who will be the citizens of 1980. It is for them that we must start to move now.

We are not. This opening speech takes them into an account not one bit. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, above all else that we will oppose this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, the throne speech two weeks ago proved to be an empty statement. You know, Mr. Speaker, I could not help comparing it with the throne speech from the Mother of Parliament, the British Parliament, I believe it was November 12.

And in that throne speech it states that among measures referred to in the Queen's Speech, and this is the important thing, it outlined the government's policies, and programmes for the coming session. And then it goes on to list legislation after legislation, which was to be introduced. What a comparison to the empty statement that we were presented with two weeks ago.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, ever since then we've been subjected to equally empty statements from the government Ministers, who have been striving, striving to reply in the vacuum created by the innocuous material of the throne speech.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the most strident, outrageous example of this was the speech given by the Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) who gave a non-speech. He gave a speech Mr. Speaker, in which he did not once mention his own department, or its policies — except I understand out in the corridor after he left the floor. You know, Mr. Speaker, by his actions that evening this Minister showed complete contempt towards this Legislature, and our parliamentary conditions. And I hold the Premier of this province responsible for allowing such a performance to take place.

In his excellent book "Future Shock" Alvin Toffler analyses the rapidly changing environment in which we are all living today. The most rapidly changing environment. to which man has ever been exposed. And his book argues very forcefully that unless man quickly learns to control the rate of change, not only in his personal affairs, but in society at large, we are doomed to a massive adaptational breakdown.

I was particularly interested in the section of the book which discusses the roles which future governments, and governments of today, must play if we are to avoid this massive breakdown.

For example — and I'd like to list some of the points: Governments must give a clarification of important and long-range social goals. That is, focus must be on long-range goals rather than immediate programmes alone. There must be a democratisation of the way in which governments arrive at these goals. In other words the citizens of today and the future must be wired into the system. And new links must be forged between government and citizens. And there must be new ties with tomorrow. But above all, Mr. Speaker, governments must be accountable. Power must always be accountable and responsible.

You know, Mr. Speaker, although I am not an advocate of a "grading system," I find it necessary today to grade the Social Credit government of British Columbia on the points that I have just outlined and after all, this government belongs to the old school so I think we can apply the grading system too.

The Social Credit government of British Columbia fails completely in measuring up to these vital and essential goals which any government today must have as their policy.

I have come to the conclusion after witnessing this government in action for six years here in the House, that it

[ Page 269 ]

is not only heading for a massive breakdown itself, but the tragedy is that if this government is not removed from power it will also face the citizens of our province with a massive breakdown too — economically and socially.

And I say this, Mr. Speaker, because this government across from us is a government of the past. It's a government that has no vision of the future. A government which simply reacts to issues. It's a government Mr. Speaker, which suffers from myopia. It has an instinct to think only about immediate returns and immediate consequences.

Each of the New Democratic Party Members during the last two weeks, during this debate, have pointed out this myopia and they have recommended needed new flexible policies in many and varied areas in this debate.

The Leader of our Party in his opening speech outlined the very fruitful, meaningful discussions which he alone initiated with the State of Washington on environmental programmes.

You know, it's interesting that almost every government Minister has commented on this trip. Obviously they realise the importance of this trip and they realise their own negligence in this area.

But, Mr. Speaker, why didn't this government initiate such talks as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition did? Why didn't they initiate these talks themselves years ago? And I'm not talking about officials getting together. I am talking about the politicians, the representatives of two regions which have many problems in common.

AN HON. MEMBER: They go to Hawaii.

MRS. DAILLY: People were amazed down there at the reaction. For the first time they had an opportunity to discuss, sit down and really discuss common problems with politicians from another country. But unfortunately although this government has not seen fit to take this action — very unfortunate although still not too late — there's much to be done.

Many more discussions should take place on joint policies, particularly regarding environmental policies. But the tragedy is that because this government through past inaction did not take action — particularly on the matter of the oil tankers — we are now faced with the accomplished fact. Because according to reports which we heard from Senators in Washington the oil lobbyists have won and all we can do now (and this is what one Senator told us) is to be prepared to cope with oil spillage.

And you know, with the very inadequate standards of oil tanker construction today this means that we in British Columbia are now faced with inescapable and continuing devastation of our beautiful coastline. And what has this government done to stop this? What have they done as a government?

You know, Mr. Speaker, the constituency of BurnabyNorth which I represent has been subjected to industrial vomit filling our skies from oil refineries for too many years. And the provincial government alone have had the sole responsibility for industrial air pollution ever since taking office and it has done nothing in those years to protect the citizens of Burnaby and elsewhere.

This January by cabinet order, the Greater Vancouver Regional District now does have the authority to regulate air pollution, and of course with the authority goes the responsibility to raise the money. Hopefully, we may now see some action against the pollutants.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that once again that we are going to find a very heavy hand of this centralised government impeding the necessary steps to stop the polluters.

I'd like to quote from a clipping of the Vancouver Sun from January 25, which is headed: "Cabinet Passes Defective Order on Air Pollution, say Regional Board."

The provincial cabinet order giving the Greater Vancouver Regional District authority to regulate air pollution has turned out to be defective. District spokesmen say that because of a legal slip the order fails to require the operators of heating plants, restaurants, or commercial incinerators to report what pollutants they are emitting into the air, or even to apply for permits. Frank Burnell, the district's director of operations, said that the defective clause had been brought to the attention of the province's Municipal Affairs Department by the regional district's lawyer before it went to cabinet. Apparently his suggestion was overlooked.

You know Mr. Speaker, the regional district applied for the cabinet order, or the letter patent, last April. And finally after local mayors and alderman complained the province was dragging its feet on a turnover of authority over air pollution the order was issued at the end of December.

You know, isn't it ironic Mr. Speaker, that we can see the cabinet producing orders in council, day after day very quickly on other matters, but when it comes to the matter of handing over the authority for air pollution they have dragged their feet. Why?

Mr. Burnell went on to say that the Province — and this is most interesting, that is the cabinet … decided to keep close control by making further cabinet approval necessary before any air pollution bylaw passed by the regional District's directors can come into effect. "In other words," said the district chairman of the pollution committee," it appears the government is afraid of what the Regional District may do …"

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that if action is not forthcoming on air pollution that I will make it quite clear to the citizens of North Burnaby who is responsible. I will make it quite clear to the citizens of North Burnaby that this is a government which has consistently put the interests of large corporations ahead of the interests of its citizens.

During this debate our Members have all expressed their very grave concern with the ailing economy of this province, and the result of high unemployment. Here again we have been given no blueprint from the government or from its ministers on how the economy of this province is to be revived.

The Department of Industrial Trade and Development has been severely criticised for their inertia in this area — and not only by the official Opposition, but also by some of its own government back benchers.

Our Members have pointed out over and over again many areas where revenues from our natural resources could be increased through royalties. But the only policy which this government appears to espouse to cure the ailing economy of British Columbia is the very policy which the federal Liberal government tried and failed — and that policy is to fight inflation by creating unemployment.

This provincial policy, Mr. Speaker, is very evident in education and finance legislation which has been produced by this government, legislation which is restricting school board budgets to such a degree that personnel and teachers are having to be dropped from the roll. We are increasing the

[ Page 270 ]

amount of unemployed teachers, teachers' aides and other personnel in this province, all because of the policy of a government, which strangely enough always complained about the economic policies of the federal Liberals.

We hear that every day, for every excuse when they can't figure. out an answer, and here we have the irony of the Social Credit government of British Columbia following in the disastrous economic footsteps of the federal Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, our Members have pointed out the major weakness of the government's economic policy over the years and again during this session — a policy which is based on the exploitation and export of our natural resources in the raw state. An unbalanced economy which is not developing secondary or other industries.

I was pleased the other day to hear the Honourable second Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who stressed the importance of the tourism industry to our province. And I heartily agree with her. However, I would like to ask the Honourable Member to please use her influence with her cabinet and government to prevent the desecration of our beautiful province by her own government's policies re the, exploitation of our natural resources without proper environmental control.

Mr. Speaker, if this is not done how can we eventually advertise "come to beautiful British Columbia."? This was so evident to our caucus when we took our trip throughout the province. The most beautiful place one could travel through in the world; until suddenly you come upon a pulp mill and the emissions from that pulp mill completely obliterate the scenery and we know what they've done to the streams and the rivers surrounding it.

I again implore and ask the Honourable Member who stresses tourism; do something about those policies of your government which are destroying the province.

Mr. Speaker, we must have properly planned, carefully integrated management. We hear this from the Honourable Members over there, particularly the Minister of Forestry. However, to date we have really not seen any real will on the part of that government to put integrated resource principles into action. Surely a government today must plan for the future. The most important thing of all is that any government planning for the future must at all times weigh the question of damage to wildlife, to the environment and to the aesthetic values against the costs and benefits of resource developments.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to discuss the inadequacies of this government in coping with many of the social problems in our province today.

Here again, we have evidence of a myopic government in action. You know we have heard much discussion these last two weeks on the drug problem. From all Members, almost every Member. The Honourable Member from Burnaby Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) made an excellent constructive contribution to this debate. But in contrast, the second Member from Little Mountain attacks the problem from the wrong end.

You know, a scientific analysis for the reasons of drug taking may be helpful, but surely the government should be devoting its studies, not to the results of drug taking, but to the underlying social diseases which cause drug taking?

Here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote what I consider was an excellent article from the Children's Aid Society. The Children's Aid Society is against glue sniffing and against the sale of glue for sniffing. Everyone in this chamber is, but the society doesn't think either is an offence.

Glue sniffing is a serious problem, but making criminals of kids who engage in self-destructive behaviour, solves nothing.

I heard a Member yesterday, I think it was the Member from Vancouver South, say "the stupid glue sniffing." We tend to say that kids who sniff glue are problems. They are not a problem, they have a problem, Mr. Speaker. Glue sniffing, child beating, delinquency, all these problems are symptoms of the inequities in our society.

You know, it is useless to treat the symptoms and to completely ignore the underlying social diseases. I never hear a discussion on this level from our Members across the way. You know, the report went on to say that some of the diseases, of course we know, are lack of jobs, lack of proper housing, and lack of recreation and community life facilities in public housing projects.

It does not end with the poor. The problems are grossest for poor people, but every one suffers from obvious ways in which our society is misorganised. Kids who aren't poor are irresponsible about drugs. They see their parents using drugs of all sorts. They see them at work at jobs that do not satisfy them. They hear their parents talking about sharing and then they see them balk at giving up luxuries when other children are without birthday parties and bathing suits.

The Children's Aid Society wants money, they want money for a preventive budget. This is what is needed today, we must get into the field of prevention of these social diseases which are causing the drug taking and the drug problem. Surely then, Mr. Speaker, the government must devote all its energies to the prevention of social diseases, that's where your energies and your money and your budget should go. The same applies to abortion and birth control.

The Honourable Member from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) for the last two years in the House, has discussed the sterilisation and vasectomies and she has considered it to be exceedingly brave to even mention those words in the House. Who else would do so? I am mentioning them today. Other Members have, Mr. Speaker. No one's afraid to discuss those words, it's sheer nonsense. What we're concerned about is what's been done about it.

I want to ask the Honourable Member, through you Mr. Speaker, what has she done about family planning, in the Province of British Columbia.

I once recall being at a meeting when I heard the lady Minister from the North Okanagan once say in justifying her position as a Minister without Portfolio, that she was there so she could exert influence on the cabinet.

I now ask this lady Minister, Mr. Speaker, to use her influence, use her influence to increase aid to the Family Planning Association. Use it so that the general public can become far better informed regarding various birth control measures than it is at present.

For goodness sake let's stop being so coy about putting this literature into our school systems. The students in our school systems are crying out for information. People may be shocked at the idea that birth control literature should go into schools, but fortunately there are progressive boards that have faced up to the fact that it is needed.

I do think that perhaps the best answer is to increase the Family Planning Association budget and not let them just sit in their offices any more. They admit themselves the only way to disseminate birth control information is to get out in the neighbourhood with that information but they must have government support to do it.

Mr. Speaker, the whole area of health care in this province

[ Page 271 ]

also needs a blueprint and our Members on this side of the House will be discussing this in detail in further debates. Here again, there was nothing in the throne debate to give encouragement in this area.

Yes, we've heard great praise heaped on the special-care homes for the aged. But, we had laid on our desks the formula to provide these special-care homes. We were told that this was a great pioneer thing that was being done in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I contend that the day is long past for construction of such homes to rest on local initiative. This is the government's responsibility. I do not buy this line that we always hear from the Opposition; let's have community involvement. It's good for the community to become involved. We can have community involvement but first of all set your priorities — and the aged people in this province need health care.

What about prescription drugs? What about prescription drugs for our low-income groups, the working poor, and the senior citizens? You must all know the cases — we are accused of going through tragic cases in this House, but you must be all exposed to them. Senior citizens who have their whole supplement wiped out in trying to pay for drugs, for the ones who do not fit in under the drug qualification.

Yesterday we heard the Premier of this province is the greatest, compassionate leader who has ever been in this province. If this Premier is so compassionate, Mr. Speaker, why has he not taken his fat surplusses, stop sitting on them and ease the suffering of the people in this province?

We listened to the Minister of Education the other night with considerable disappointment. Even though we know he could not discuss anything pertinent to Bill 3, it certainly did not restrict him from discussing or outlining for us the future of education in this province. Again, no philosophic statement from the Minister of Education. The Minister mentioned briefly preparing our young people who will be the leaders of our society in the year 2000. His preparation includes an announcement about the changing to the metric system. An announcement of accreditation changes.

Mr. Speaker, we want more than this from the Minister of Education. I sincerely hope that he will elaborate on this during the educational estimates of the budget, for I consider it vitally important and I certainly am prepared and so will other members here, in our Opposition party, we will be prepared to discuss this during the educational estimates.

One of the most important issues facing our society today and facing our students and our schools is how are we going to prepare them for this completely new society that they are moving into which is changing every day. These are the questions that we want to see the Minister devote himself to.

I would like to conclude on two subjects which I feel very, very strongly about, and in which I again feel this government has failed miserably.

First one is regarding the care of our young girls and people who have been put in corrective insitutions. I am referring here specifically to Willingdon School for Girls. May I say I was most pleased yesterday to hear the Member from Burrard who spoke on Brannan Lake and I believe stated that he would like to see it eventually phased out for regional group centres and I completely agree with him.

Willingdon Girls' School — you know, I recall the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs saying earlier during his speech, almost chastising the members of the Opposition for even discussing such things as what happens in Willingdon. He says: "I don't want to hear about these things." Mr. Minister, I intend to discuss the Willingdon Girls' School here today and now. For I believe that as a Member of the Legislature, it's my duty to bring it to the attention of this House.

It's been brought to the attention many times by the Honourable Leader but it must be brought again, the situation which now exists at the Willingdon School for Girls. I hope the Minister of Welfare is listening for, Mr. Speaker, I understand that since becoming Minister of Welfare or Social Rehabilitation or whatever it is, he has not been inside the Willingdon Girls' School. I do wish he would stay to listen to the comments on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the plane's leaving.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I call on the government to close down the Willingdon Girls' School. This school is obsolete in concept entirely. It supposedly is supposed to be a place of correction. We are all aware that the government said that there are no longer any correctional homes, all we have now are treatment centres.

I wish some of the Members would take a trip to that home. I know some have, and what I'm frankly amazed at is that their reaction has not been stronger. I ask you, what would you call a large institution with a high wire fence surrounding it, an institution which has a policy of locking girls in their rooms at night and where in 1972 we still see a solitary confinement room with a mattress on the floor, open toilet, — five rooms. You're right, the Hon. Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) accompanied me and he was absolutely shocked.

We saw these solitary confinement rooms, locked doors with even a hole in the top of them — what for? — to pass food through and to observe the disturbed young girl who is put in there. I don't think even in the prisons of Kentucky or Alabama or Tennessee would you see such rooms existing today.

Would you, Mr. Speaker, call this a correctional institution or a treatment centre? It's neither, it's just a holding centre, that's all it is. How many Members in this House have or have had 13-year-old daughters, how would you feel if you knew that your daughter was placed in such an institution? As a matter of fact, how many of us in this room would like to go to bed every night and have a key, a door lock behind us? This is what happens to the girls at the Willingdon Girls' Home.

When I questioned the supervisor on why the locked doors, I was told the girls themselves have asked for it. Mr. Speaker, I then talked to girls who were graduates of the place and frankly this is not the story I heard from them.

I am not saying that the supervisor was not being honest with me, perhaps some girls did, but it's the very fact that they have to lock the doors because of inadequate supervision that is the point here. Should girls be subjected to this?

Another question I ask you, as our Member from New Westminster brought up … You know, really, Mr. Speaker, I hear a Member in this House laughing during this discussion. That is why we get nowhere with this government when we try to discuss things.

We will remember this, we'll remember this when we're discussing the Willingdon Girls' Home. I am not using the Willingdon Girls' Home for any election platform. I am using it for the sake of the girls in that school. This has been brought up every year. The atmosphere, if you walked into that room, Madam Member, and saw what these girls are exposed to, surely you would have to speak out but I doubt

[ Page 272 ]

you would.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere at Willingdon is oppressive and I have been through it. It has no respect for a girl's individuality or sensitivity. I reiterate, I am not blaming the staff or the supervisor. As a matter of a fact when that monster of a place — and I'm talking about it physically here — when it was built, the present supervisor recommended that small regional centres would be preferable. She recommended this, a woman who had worked with young girls.

She was completely ignored. Once again this government in its arrogance or plain stupidity proceeded to ignore the wishes of people who are knowledgeable in the field. Because of the large area the institution covers and because of the lack of trained staff, this Willingdon Girls' Home is just nothing more than a holding centre, that's all.

Certainly it has a beautiful swimming pool, and I'm sure the other members will go on platforms and extol the beautiful swimming pool and the gymnasium which is larger than any gym I've seen in any elementary school. That is not the point. These young girls don't care about a swimming pool or a gym. These girls want people who will relate to them. Who will sit down with them in small groups and help them with their problems.

Understanding is what these girls want — 58 girls in this massive institution. I call upon the government to turn that institution over to the senior citizens of Burnaby. Excellent living quarters for them. There are small cottages, there are kitchens where their food could be made and taken to them. I'm sure they could well make use of the large recreational centre.

But the girls who have been sent to Willingdon have been sent there as a last resort. No one knows what to do with them. What a concession for this government, after all these years. What are we doing? We're isolating these girls from the community. These girls need an opportunity to have that isolation repaired, back in communities themselves.

I'd also like the House to know — and I know the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Hon. Mrs. Dawson) is particularily interested in this — approximately 25 per cent of the girls at Willingdon are native Indians. Can you imagine the added isolation these girls must feel in such an institution right in an urban centre? Oh, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that some action will be taken by the government and the Minister on this home. The Minister is responsible. This situation must not be allowed to continue.

Finally I'd like to turn your attention, Mr. Speaker, to a subject which I have been very dismayed to see has not been discussed in this debate by any Member of the House — even by the four lady government Members. That's the whole matter of the state o£ the women in this province.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I called upon the government to set up a government committee under a Minister to study the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. There has been no action on this. I appreciate the fact that there are changes coming in the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, but Mr. Speaker, there are well over 30 recommendations in that report which apply provincially. Why is the government not at least studying these recommendations? Why are the lady Members or one of the male Members not taking up this cause? I don't care who does it. Do it.

Do you realise that in this province we still have outright cases of sex discrimination in payment for work and promotion? It's right in our own government departments. The Minister of Labour is well aware of it. For sex discrimination does exist in provincial government departments and I know he will deny it. However, I hope we will have an opportunity during the questions and answers of the labour estimates to go back onto this subject of discrimination in our own government departments.

Mr. Speaker, I must repeat again what I've said year after year in this House since I came here. It's the government's responsibility to set the example. Set it in government. Set it in your departments. Set it on the floor of this House. So again for the sixth time of asking: Where are the girl pages?

Why should girls be denied an educational experience such as this? Although I know some people would question the experience, at least it would prepare these young people hopefully for some interest in politics.

Last year I recall what the Hon. Premier said when I brought up the matter of can we not have girl pages as well as boy pages. The Hon. Premier called across the floor to me: "What would they wear?" Well, Mr. Premier I had a picture taken especially for you. I am going to send it over to you now.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: It is a picture of a page girl in Washington. You asked me what did they wear? I think their costume is very nice. They also have page-girls in Manitoba and Ontario, and I do hope you will consider it.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): That comes under the office of Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, Mr. Speaker …

AN HON. MEMBER: Say the word, say the word.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker …

AN HON. MEMBER: Just press the button.

MRS. DAILLY: The Hon. Premier did show an interest last year. I thought perhaps he might influence the Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm always interested in girls. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MRS. DAILLY: I just want to point out to the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, I took it up with the Speaker personally last year. But we still have no girls.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I took it up with him too.

MRS. DAILLY: Did you too? I appreciate your help very much.

MR. DOWDING: If you can't even accomplish that, you might as well pack it up. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 273 ]

MRS. DAILLY: You know, Mr. Speaker, I shall be speaking again in further speeches in this session on the status of women. But I would like to conclude by pressing on two very vital things.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Have I got the Member's leave?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Which is the page-girl?

MRS. DAILLY: Oh, thank you, Mr. Premier. I hope you're not intending to demote me to a page-girl, Mr. Premier. (Laughter).

However, there are two things which I really would like to stress and there are so many areas in the status commission which must be stressed in this House. But in particular I'd like to see government action in the area day-care centres. Mr. Speaker, I'm so tired from hearing from the Member again from North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) when she speaks to women's groups on day-care centres. Her main answer is we mustn't have government-run day-care centres. Evasion, evasion, evasion. I say get to work. Get to work and give some leadership. That's what we want from you.

I would also like to see, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a separate child care board, separated from the other Community Care Act which includes, I believe senior citizens. Let's show the rest of Canada that British Columbia can give the leadership and the establishment of day-care centres.

I also feel that there are many, many things about the Human Rights Commission Act which I have been going over that really need correction if we are going to really prevent discrimination in this province and I hope this to produce amendments on this Act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned before the lack of wiring people into the system. Speaking of the status of women, let me tell this government that the women's groups springing up across our province are very quickly learning to wire themselves into the system. The government has not moved on these matters, even with the four government lady Members. So the women's groups are on the move. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that women make up over 50 per cent of the population of this province.

All over the province, Mr. Speaker, groups are springing up. They're springing up with a multiplicity of problems. You know these groups are finally taking collective action to try and prod this tired old government into change. They have found they have to do this, Mr. Speaker, because they have found this government has become increasingly arrogant, non-accountable, and using its great powers in very dangerous dictatorial ways.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is a great change in the land. The old master hand of the Premier is slipping. It's slipping because of heavy-handed undemocratic decrees and policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Arrogance.

MRS. DAILLY: The people of this province are uniting. They are uniting against the government. They are uniting against the government which has no vision, no accountabilities, and can no longer provide for the new society. Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to vote in favour of the throne speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): I'd like to straighten out a bit of misinformation. I hope the last speaker was more accurate on the rest of her statements than she was on the statement about me not being at Willingdon School.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

HON. MR. GAGLARDI: Because I want to inform her and the House that I have been and was at Willingdon School.

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

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation, Conservation and Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, in having the privilege of winding up this throne debate on behalf of the government you do inherit a few advantages. You have first of all the opportunity to sit back and try and distill the wisdom and the essence from the remarks of the various Members in this House and in the process of this distillation I come to the conclusion that while this government is not always right this government is on the right track.

Of the two Members that spoke today, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Member says we are taxing the forest industry user too hard. The N.D.P. says we're not getting enough money from them. So I suppose we must be just about in the right position on the middle of the road. The Liberals don't know where they are quite frankly, but that's their problem. Not ours.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: I think also it was interesting to have observed that while the Member from Cowichan–Malahat (Mr. Strachan) says that this Social Credit government will leave the country bankrupt the lady Member who just sat down accuses us of sitting on our fat surplusses. Now, Mr. Speaker, you can't be bankrupt and sit on a fat surplus at the same time. There are many things that are possible but that isn't one of them. However, Mr. Speaker, this is not unusual. They're so confused over there that they don't know the difference between a surplus and a deficit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Now let us come to the question of the throne speech. But first of all, the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has reared his head and I ought to give him a modicum of attention.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: That will become very clear to you in due course. Don't rush me. I've waited a long time for this opportunity. But I do really think that the Hon. Member deserves the Oscar for the masterly nothing statement of this session, I believe, in reporting his efforts at international relations and I commend him for it. Perhaps he'll have a little less anti-Americanism in this House from here on in from

[ Page 274 ]

that side. I commend him for his effort.

I think it was well that he went down there but I just want to remind him of one of the statements he made in this House with all the pomp of a real international ambassador.

The Hon. Member said among other things that arose from this great interchange across the border was an agreement to consider holding public forums on questions of general interest. An agreement to consider to hold public forums. If that isn't a nothing statement I don't know what is. Because if you analyse it, they didn't agree to do anything. They agreed to consider.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Mr. Member, Mr. Member, just while we're on this platitudinous statement, just while we're on this statement, I thought this really took the cake: "We need a non-polluting steel mill and copper mill in B.C." Amen! Don't you suppose some of the best technical, scientific brains in the whole world have been looking for ways and means of producing steel and copper without pollution? If the Hon. Member was even halfway up-to-date on what the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has been doing, he would know that he has been pushing the most enlightened research in relation to a non-polluting copper smelter that is available anywhere in the world.

If it is possible to build this on an economic scale this will be the kind of copper smelter we will have in B.C. If you want to know one more fact the reason we don't have a copper smelter in British Columbia at this moment is because we do not believe that built on present standards they can produce copper and still abide by our nonpollution requirements. So when those Members are passing all these vague ideas around …

AN HON. MEMBER: Vague? They're not vague.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Platitudinous — everybody is looking for a non-polluting steel mill, copper mill and pulp mill. But in the meantime as a forestry province we have to convert what would otherwise be tremendous volumes of waste material into pulp. If there is such a thing as a non-pollutant pulp mill found tomorrow, we will be the first to adopt it here in British Columbia.

We're getting closer. The tremendous improvement between the mills that were built 20 and 25 years ago and the mills that are being built today is very observable right here in this province. We don't suggest for one moment that we've reached perfection. Because we haven't. But we are as close to perfection in the Province of British Columbia with our new pulp mills as anyone on this globe has come to this date.

I think also that when we're talking about this very broad question of environment we should realise that there are some rather practical things that we can do in terms of protecting the quality of the environment.

I had placed on Members' desks today a little report on our project S.A.M. It's nothing spectacular. But it's a basic proposition that deals with a basic problem in terms and with means that are available to us right now.

I'm sure that we are the first government on the North American continent to take this kind of direct practical action to solve this kind of a problem.

We've had some success and some difficulties in relation to the Litter Act. But certainly we have materially improved the situation in relation to the cans and bottles being scattered around the country.

I simply want to advise you at this time that in relation to the Litter Act — those sections dealing with bottles and cans — a legal loop-hole was found during the course of the summer. The fact that it was found somewhat weakens the intent of the Act and I will be recommending to you ways and means to restore the Act to its original intent and I just want to assure the public and industry exactly what our intent is.

There's no great changes — we're simply maintaining the principle that we established. The principle is simply this. If you sell these commodities you must refund the empty containers. There is no other practical method by which the system can function.

Certainly this very broad question of ecology could be the subject of a five hour address and you would not come close to covering all the facets. But since our Hon. Premier, the Minister of Finance, has some resolutions to place before you today I believe, and in view of the fact that the two previous speakers stayed within the hour which they had said they would do, I too will stay within the hour and conclude my remarks before ten minutes to five, whether I'm finished or not.

I found it rather interesting as we were going through the debate, Mr. Speaker, to have repeatedly raised this question of secondary industry. Now I think everyone as a matter of principle is in favour of secondary industry, especially clean secondary industry. That's just like motherhood, everybody can be in favour of it. But I think we also want to recognise the nature of the time and place that we occupy in the world today — the nature of our economy and why our economy is the way it is.

We have either the highest or the next to highest wage scale in Canada. I believe one month Ontario moves a little ahead of us and the next month we move ahead of them.

We have also one of the most difficult areas of land mass in the world to manage in terms of roads and bridges and other services. We have a good resource base and that resource base if we handle it wisely gives us the natural advantage by which we cannot only manage a rather difficult geographic area but also maintain this high standard of living for most of the people in the province.

It has a further factor to it. Because it is from this resource base, this 100,000 basic jobs, that many of the other 700,000 jobs spring. Take away that resource base and frankly the whole economy of this province would collapse with very severe repercussions on the national economy.

I suggest to you that you stop and think about that because when you are looking at the butcher shop, these chain stores, the bakery shops, the drug store, the service station, the hotels — take a look at how much of that really comes from that original resource dollar — the original generator, of the whole economic train from which this government, the municipal and national governments extract as a portion of the productivity the means with which they provide the services for all of the people not only of this province but of Canada.

So while it is excellent to seek out those secondary and tertiary industries that can add to the economic base of this province, we should not overlook the fact that if we are going to artificially create hot-house industry for the sake of creating work, we better understand that we may have to hand-feed those hot-house industries in perpetuity or watch them go under.

I think this is something we're inclined to overlook from

[ Page 275 ]

time to time because it's all very well to say: "Well, we shouldn't be importing this" or "we shouldn't be importing that." Now if we are prepared to accept the wage standard that in some cases exists in countries we're importing from, undoubtedly we could produce those commodities right here.

But I say to you, and you will agree, that we have a better wage standard and we want to maintain and improve that standard and we will do it where we have a natural advantage.

Now your secondary industries are coming but they in turn are coming where they have some natural advantages going for them — for example, the manufacturing of aluminum pipe for irrigation and a wide variety of other services. It's a natural now because aluminum is refined in British Columbia and in many parts of the province we have a high demand for aluminum irrigation pipes. So, it is a natural. We are not dependent on manufacturing and shipping it thousands of miles away.

Now this is the type of thing that I describe as a secondary industry with a natural advantage. So when you get into the field where we have no natural advantage you are hard pushed because you have only a limited trading area available to you.

If you had a much larger trading area, a much larger volume potential, then you can move into the economy of mass production but if you are producing at a limited volume for a limited market you will not get the economies inherent in mass-production and long-run, so you must either receive a substantially higher price for your production or go broke in the process of producing.

Now those are very simple economic laws and all the shaking of the heads and negative thinking upon the part of the Opposition do not change simple economic laws.

There are a couple of other matters that have been talked about a bit during these debates, some of them rather superficially, I thought. I thought the leader of the Liberal Party was perhaps better informed on the basic facts of the conversion of energy than he seems to be by conversion of energy. I mean, while I agree that it's quite possible, quite practical, to serve all of our future electrical need by using natural gas as a fuel — I think you will find that that was the statement, that we had plenty of natural gas and we could produce all our future electricity from natural gas as a fuel …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Well, if that wasn't what he said, then it sounded like what he said.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: That's what it was reported as, so perhaps we could correct it because I was sure. The Hon. Leader knows as well as I do that in the conversion of energy from one kind to another there is always a high loss of that energy unit and to convert natural gas to electricity and then use the electricity for heating except under very unusual conditions would be very poor utilisation of our energy resource. Because your …

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: This is a matter that comes under the control of the National Energy Board, I believe, and before we get too excited about that we should just remember that when the original export order was approved that was the only basis for the pipeline from the Peace River country down to the southwest corner of the province where most of the population still lives.

It was only the basis of that export order that provided any kind of an economic load for that pipeline and no one at that time would have built a pipeline without some semblance of a load for the pipeline to carry.

Now we should remember that. We should remember that because we should be fair and objective about our assessment of facts. I think another pipeline that is of some considerable interest at the moment is the possibility of getting natural gas over to Vancouver Island.

Well, we all know Vancouver Island is an energy-short area. There are a few possible Hydro projects still on the island but I don't think anyone would seriously want to push their development — first of all they would be rather disruptive of the island's ecology and secondly they wouldn't produce very much power in return for that disruption. So, the island as it moves into the future will have to have some new energy source.

Now it is also fairly apparent from our experience in operating an air-mix gas plant in Victoria that there is no way you can really give service and encourage expansion if you're depending on an air mix plant to provide the raw materials that you distribute.

By air-mix I simply mean propane butane mixed with air at a central plant and distributed through a pipe system. So it would be desirable to certainly bring natural gas to Vancouver Island and I would bring back to the memory of the older Members the fact that in 1959, a company known as Magna Pipeline was given a certificate to build a pipeline from the mainland to Vancouver Island and Magna's certificate was conditional — it only became operable upon actually placing an order for the pipeline.

They placed an order with the Callendar Cable Company of Great Britain, an order for two lines about 4 in. in inside diameter to operate at 1,500 pounds pressure to the square inch and roughly 24 miles long. You'll recall that, and they spent with the Callendar Cable Company $2 or $3 million at least in building a pipeline and then found it wouldn't work. That was what they told us but I suspect it was something deeper than that too …

But the thing is this, Callendar Cable Company, which is a very responsible British corporation, bought their way out of their contract with Magna to supply that pipe, as I recall, paying penalties of a couple of millions of dollars because they said: "Frankly, if we can build it at all we can't complete it and deliver it on time and our penalty clauses are so severe we are better off to buy our way out of the contract."

Now at that time the general question of gas to Vancouver Island by pipeline died for the simple reason that nobody was going to grab onto something that had already cost a reputable company several million dollars and they couldn't hack it.

Later on and I'm sure many of you heard the report, there were various off-the-record proposals coming forward. Well, you can solve this problem by: "Don't try to build across here where it is so wide and where it's so deep and where the contours are so rough, go farther up, go up north 150 miles where the straits are narrower and the contours are better and cross your pipeline up there."

Well, that only made sense if you were coming down, say, from Williams Lake to the coast at an entirely new location

[ Page 276 ]

and the argument again was offered that such a route was feasible and that it might well be desirable because a pipeline is something like a railroad — it tends to open up a new part of country simply by supplying an economical energy source in that part of the country.

It was also argued, and with some merit, that it had another advantage. We know that we are dependent in Vancouver and all the lower Fraser Valley on a source of natural gas that originates 600 miles away and is dependent upon a single pipeline through the Coquihalla Pass for our supply of that energy.

If we lose that line, while it would be possible to get some gas from the United States because we are inter-connected, if you lost it in the winter they are also at the point where they are hard pressed to meet their demands, and your supply would be at best pretty thin.

Now, let's face it, we have almost 200,000 customers on that gas pipeline between the lower mainland and a few customers over here in Victoria so the idea that you come by a entirely new route — that you take advantage of the narrower northern crossing and come across to Vancouver Island — seems to have on the surface of it at least quite a bit going for it, because eventually if you come down that way for one thing you don't have to loop the line through the Coquihalla Pass which you will have to do if you place a substantial load on the existing gas pipeline. You're going to have to loop it, and if you are looping it through what is admittedly sometimes a dangerous slide area, would you be better off to bring your second line on an entirely different route? And then some day in the future, if you want to really consolidate your position and you can do it from an engineering standpoint, tie your north line — your Vancouver Island line — back to the mainland in this general area and you now have two routes from which if you can't serve your total load at least in the event that you'll have lost one line you can serve the essential load.

Let's face it, when the weather goes down to 28 degrees and 25 degrees and 20 degrees and you are dependent solely on that gas furnace in the basement to keep you warm, you're not going to be either happy or enthusiastic if the fire goes out and there is nothing coming through the line to keep it going. So you do have a responsibility to look at these facts.

Now all the government is concerned with is simply this. To get gas to Vancouver Island, to get it to the island by the best route — not just on the short-term view but on the long-term view as well, to get it there with the least possible cost and to guarantee the security of supply as near as it is possible.

Now, of course, practically everybody you speak to is an expert on this subject until you confront them with the question.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: The whole question really boils down to this. When so many people say they have so many good ideas the only way is to put all those ideas in front of a commission, give them proper cross-examination, make them verify their economic and engineering proposals and from that surely if there is a best route it should emerge.

It may emerge that it is not economic or practical because bear in mind, the volume of gas that you can use on the island will depend on the price you are charging for that gas and whether it is economical to build the line or not, conversely, will depend upon the volume of gas you can put through it. So it may not be economical.

There again, the question of using gas to generate electric energy on Vancouver Island has to hinge on the price of the gas because if the price of the gas is too high you can't afford to use it for electrical generation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about nuclear power?

HON. MR. KIERNAN: That I think is another very broad subject and I'm not going to get into nuclear energy this afternoon because I think to deal with it even in a casual manner you've got to devote at least an hour to it. And I followed the original research at Calder Hall and Shreveport. I have had the opportunity to talk to some rather expert people in this field and all I'm going to say is this.

We in this province are not obliged to go to nuclear energy at this time because we have many other energy sources available to us. Now there are other areas where they don't have those alternatives, and they are going to nuclear energy because they don't have the alternatives.

I have seen enough transpire in this last decade to convince me that there are still quite a few bugs to work out of this nuclear thing. So I say no … So I simply say …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Well, the Honourable leader of the Liberal Party accused me a little earlier of not listening. The Hon. Member is not listening. I simply say that we are not obliged to use nuclear energy at this time because we have many other energy sources available to us. Do you agree? Do you agree we have many energy sources available?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNON: I like my friend the leader of the Liberal Party. He has such a simple direct approach to everything. You're either for it, or against it. And if you're against it, well it doesn't matter whether there's any reason for that or not — it's just black and white. I don't know what kind of a world he lives in but hasn't he discovered there are various shades in between?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never-never-land.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: What will emerge in terms of the gas pipeline will depend, I think, what some of the best engineering and economic brains can put forward as a solution.

Certainly we've got some good engineers in Hydro, and we've got access to some pretty fair economic brains and some pretty fair consulting engineering brains as well. But we don't claim for one minute that we have the last word over there, on a problem of this nature.

So our position simply is we will enter this competition, if you wish, on the same footing as everybody else, and we expect that whoever has the best proposition is going to come out as the successful contender. If it is economical at all to build a pipeline for our gas to Vancouver Island.

Now I think, Mr. Speaker, we're running pretty well on in time, and I'd like to deal with another subject that has had somewhat casual mention in this House, and I'd like to prevail on your time for a few moments to indicate to you that in my opinion it deserves much more than the casual

[ Page 277 ]

attention it has received so far.

It's the question of flood control in the lower Fraser Valley. Having sat as the Member for one of the constituencies in the Fraser Valley now for 20 years I think I speak with some knowledge of the situation.

I also feel that I have a very direct responsibility on behalf of my constituents and every person in that lower Fraser Valley to put the facts as I know them on the table.

Now, some people may disagree with the facts as I present them, but if they have a different set of facts to present then by all means — God bless them, they should present them. But it really boils down to this, and for the gentlemen of the media there will be notes available. If I happen to leave out a little bit in my remarks it is simply because I feel freer speaking verbatim.

In 1948 we had a pretty rough flood over there. It did a lot of damage, and after that flood a good many millions of dollars were spent putting the dykes back in shape and try to rehabilitate the people that were pushed out of their homes, things were mucked up pretty badly.

If you recall we lost both railway lines, we lost both highways, we lost all communication other than by air, or boat with the interior of the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Yes, I was there, Charlie … Now, as a result of this '48 flood, a joint board was set up between the provincial and federal government known as the Fraser River Board. And they worked on this problem of how do you control the flooding of the Fraser, in the most effective manner.

Now, after about five years of pretty intensive engineering work, and I have all the reports here, they came up with what are really two basic recommendations. They said: "Improve your dykes — but you can't rely solely on the dykes to protect you. You have got to be able to store somewhere on that river system about 12 million acre-feet of water, so that when you get a really high water year you can hold back a minimum of 12 million acre-feet. Now you can either store it or divert it but get 12 million acre-feet out of that river system."

And they said: "Here are a number of projects including diverting the McGregor River into the Peace River which will give you 4 million acre-feet of diversion."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Well, they felt a flood level without any storage on the river, would give you a level at Mission of 26 feet or a little above 26 feet. Well, now we were in real trouble in '48 at 23 feet. The dykes were improved after '48. And I think we can stand 24 feet at Mission. But bear in mind when you start pushing up to that 26 feet you're getting pretty high up the scale, you're getting into a lot of water. The water volumes were roughly of this dimension.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: They can't really. Because while a 100-year flood could be expected to occur once in 100 years, they could reoccur twice in two years. You can't guarantee the intervals.

Now 1894 was the worst flood they could identify, simply by bench marks up at Yale and things of that nature. It was roughly 20 per cent bigger than the flood of 1948, and they said: "Don't take that as your final criteria because there's no guarantee that you couldn't have a bigger flood than 1894. After all that Fraser River drains 90,000 square miles — it drains one quarter of the Province of British Columbia. Your maximum cubic feet a second at Hope in 1894 was estimated to be 620,000 cubic feet per second. Which is roughly 3,600,000 gallons per second. Now your 1948 flood was of the order of 530 or 540,000 cubic feet a second."

Now they said in effect: "You pull that flood crest down below 400,000 cubic feet per second. Improve the dykes to the standards we are recommending, they are pretty safe." And in order to store the water they said: "Here are a number of projects that can be done with minimum damage to the salmon fisheries. Yes, it'll flood valley floors, it'll take up several thousand acres. But these projects will give you the minimum water storage capability that we believe you need. And some of them can generate some electrical energy which will help pay for the cost of the work."

Now, this was in the neighbourhood at that time in '63 estimated to be in excess of $400 million, and they said: "There are some works that we haven't included in these costs." So I think at that time even the estimates would properly be in excess of $400 million.

Now, there's a few things wrong with it. For one thing the diversion of the McGregor has potential for quite a fishery problem in that you are diverting a Pacific drainage basin — or part of it — into an Arctic drainage basin, and you've got different fish species, in your Arctic drainage basin than you have in your Pacific drainage basin.

Now, I don't think there is any way that you can 100 per cent guarantee that you can tie these two drainage basins together for interchange of water without some risk of getting your fish species out of the Peace River system, into the Fraser River system. So that is one problem that quite frankly some of our people have expressed concern about.

The other one that is of direct concern to me is that the storages recommended would knock out several of the falls in Wells Grey Park. It would store on Clearwater Lake, Agar Lake, and Hobson Lake and quite frankly it wouldn't leave that park anything like the way it is today. No matter how tidily you did the job.

Now, in the background and appearing several times and then fading away has been the talk about the Moran dam. The site would be about 20 miles above Lillooet. Now there are reports, and the preliminary report of the Fraser River Board indicate a whole variety of projects that might be done.

But they refer to the Moran dam in these general terms and say it would store in excess of 9 million acre-feet. It would generate a generous amount of power, and it would give you all the flood control you need to protect the Fraser Valley.

It would also take out a lot or perhaps all of those salmon runs that spawn above the Moran dam site, but this would not affect to any noticable degree your spawning runs on the Thompson River system which takes off at Lytton rather than above Lillooet.

Now those are the things that are in the background on this Moran question. But no one has ever done the engineering to settle the question whether you could build a dam at Moran or not. So until you determine whether you can build a dam the whole thing is pretty academic.

[ Page 278 ]

But if you find that that question is answered yes, then I think we must have all the facts on the table — not only the implications for the fish run, the ecological damage as weighed against the ecological damage of these other five or six reservoirs. What the power costs would be, what the construction costs would be, whether or not in fact it would guarantee the flood-proofing of the lower Fraser Valley.

Only when we have all of these facts are we in a position to make an intelligent judgment. Because we are going to have to make a decision right here, we're going to have to make a decision to flood-proof that Fraser Valley one way or another.

Because we're not talking about some little local dyking district. We're talking about 230 miles of dykes, we're talking about 170,000 acres of land, and we're talking about the whole area. Because flood those areas and you disrupt the whole of the lower Fraser Valley, you're talking about the area where half the people of the province live.

So this question has got to be resolved and it's got to be resolved in a permanent way. Because while there were very large numbers of people and livestock displaced in '48. The situation since then, with the population more than doubling in the area …

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you prevent it?

HON. MR KIERNAN: Now that is, a real intelligent question. I think you ought to perhaps go to the top of the class. After all, the history of that valley is founded upon people moving in, dyking out the waters and setting up their homes, communities and farms. There's after all half the people of the province that live in that half of one per cent of British Columbia. And every acre out there is valuable and if you don't believe so go out and try and buy an acre.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, I've heard this beautiful nonsense that the farmers are just as happy if the river floods, because it puts all this good silt on their farms and makes the crops grow. Well, my goodness, if we wanted the place to flood, we wouldn't have built the ruddy dykes in the first place. And of all the stupid arguments I've heard that really has to take the cake.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: All I'm really saying is this, that we want all of the facts. We're going to have to make a decision and 100 years ago, or even 80 years ago, you could have decided perhaps to keep everybody out of the Fraser Valley but you can't turn back the clock in that fashion now.

What I am saying to the Hon. Member is this. We had more people in that flood area in '48 than twice the number of constituents that he represents in his riding.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): You've got a lot more now.

HON. MR KIERNAN: I'll say we have. And so the answer is to flood-proof the Fraser Valley and just on the …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: Yes I know, but sometimes that water is pretty cold and muddy. But the other factor is we are going ahead with the dyking work. One district at least has completed all its dyking work under the federal provincial agreement. But while the board estimated that dyking work can be done for about $4 million in 1963, it looks now with the improvements they've made to the plans, and improvements to the internal drainage, and tackling such things as the Serpentine project it looks as though the total bill just in the Fraser Valley could go close to $80 million. The Serpentine project alone is now past the $1,500 an acre mark. And yet if you do it at a much lesser level than that you are better off to have left it alone and just leave it to flood. Because unless you do it right, really you shouldn't do it at all.

All I'm saying about the Moran is simply this — we should have all the facts on the table because no matter what we do we're going to have to flood some valleys somewhere in order to protect that Fraser Valley, we're going to have to store some water.

Let's make our decision in full knowledge of all of the facts, and not just some of them. And that's really why I was little aggravated because all I was emphasising was flood control was not being considered in relation to Moran and yet in my opinion if Moran is ever built it should only be built because of flood control.

We have enough power sources as far as the other purposes are concerned. Certainly if you build it for flood control you're going to recover as much of your cost as you can from electrical generation. That makes sense. I expect the decision will be made in the way the decisions are finally made. Right in the political arena. Because after all, we're elected to make these decisions and we have to make them.

We may not always agree on the decisions we're making but nevertheless, certainly, that's the job. That's the job we're elected to do. If you don't want to make decisions well then you shouldn't seek election.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker there will be ample opportunity to discuss matters of interest on a broad variety of subjects as we move through the next six, eight, 10 weeks of this session. But I thought I might close on a note of where I believe our society is going and what society really expects from government.

Society does not expect government to either do its thinking for it or continually hold its hand. Society expects government to do those things that society can only effectively do through its government. I do not think you build a strong and healthy society by trying to solve everybody's problems for them. That people have to make their own best efforts and then be given help if with their own best efforts they cannot solve their problems.

But I do not subscribe, and this government does not subscribe, to the idea that government should have all the answers for everybody because people have to be encouraged to think and work and strive for themselves.

Only those that find they cannot make it on their own should then be as a matter of public policy assisted by the government to help people to help themselves. We should accept that we are not all wise and that the situation changes day to day and we assess the situation with what good knowledge we have been given and try in our time in our own right in all humility and — Mr. Member from Yale — without heaping acrimony or evil intent of purpose on anyone to

[ Page 279 ]

solve the problems of society.

For I respect your opinion and I respect your integrity. Please respect mine and the integrity of this government. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question before the House is that we, Her Majesty's most judicial and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly of British Columbia in session assembled beg leave to thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-35

NAYS-17

PAIR:

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Hon. Attorney General that this House will at the next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply granted to Her Majesty, and this order have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Hon. Attorney General that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

HON. MR BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this being private members' day I would call Motion No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2. The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there was a question raised earlier this year, first by a newspaper report, that some omissions had occurred in the printed recording of the debates that we had received some months after the debates had taken place.

Upon checking our own notes and other records that came to our attention we found that indeed there had been some discrepancies in the recording of the debates and that certain comments had been made in particular in exchange between the Premier and myself.

The earliest opportunity we had to bring this to the House's attention was, of course, on opening day. At that time an amendment to the motion was ruled out of order because we did not give notice of motion and of course it would be impossible to give notice of motion because the House had just met.

The records indicate, Mr. Speaker, as I quote from the Victoria Times of November 17, that an exchange that took place between myself and the Premier on March 23 had been omitted and it should have been included on page 766 of Hansard Mr. Speaker, the exchange went as follows: This is what has been omitted according to the newspaper article:

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker may I humbly submit obviously nothing stops the Premier speaking any time he wants. He breaks the rules of this House by jumping up when he doesn't have the floor, by interrupting when he doesn't have the right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't understand the rules of the House. He makes his Press conference here in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: He breaks the rules and he sits down and smiles about it. You know, Mr. Chairman, we see the Premier abusing the House time and time again.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, no! We know who gets thrown out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! We're on the second …

MR. BARRETT: We know who's got the authority.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: You want to threaten to throw me out again? You run the House that way? Threatening members. Threatening to silence them. Threatening them all the time.

This statement is followed by the Speaker's printed comment about not wanting to threaten anybody. Questioned about editing the proceedings, the Speaker is alleged to have said in the paper: "Nothing was taken out of the text. Nor was anything added to the text."

It goes on to say that the Speaker later said he checked a typescript of the debate of March 23 and found a section had been omitted because it was considered an interruption and not related to the bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, my point is that we too have a copy of the original transcript, the typescript of this exchange and the

[ Page 280 ]

point is who is to determine when Hansard is to be edited? It cannot be truly considered an accurate record of the debate if any item whatsoever is taken out of those recordings. It is dangerous in my opinion that this record be allowed to continue its dissemination throughout the Province of British Columbia with deletions made.

Anyone can fairly make an evaluation of why those deletions were made if in fact the deletions have been made. It is a fair comment — because this particular deletion was made — it is a fair comment that it was made to protect the image of the Premier.

It can be made fairly, Mr. Speaker, it can be made fairly because anyone who wishes to may interpret for any reason whatsoever why anything was omitted and no Member, the Premier included, should be placed in that position in this House.

Any Member who speaks should clearly understand that he is responsible for what he said. Every Member who speaks takes the opportunity for speaking for his constituents and his personal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I am not ashamed of anything I have ever said in this House and I want every word that I utter to be recorded fairly so that people outside of this province who pay for us to be here expect us to say, to state exactly how we feel, on any issue at any time and in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, no one has the right to add or subtract or change in any way any statement made by any Member here while it's being recorded under the limited Hansard that we have in this House.

Mr. Speaker, any editing, any changes leave charges open. Not only to the Premier but to myself and every single Member of the House.

I take full responsibility for any words that I utter in this House and no one in my opinion other than the total House itself can decide what should or should not go in the records because that's the debate that has to take place here in the House by the elected Members of the House — not by any other person or any other conditions.

Mr. Speaker it is the intention of this motion that the 1971 Record of Debates be corrected to correspond with the electronic tapes of the proceedings and I suggest for the preservation of any confidence at all by the public in the Members of this House that this motion pass, that those past records be corrected and in the future a House committee, a permanent House committee be established to insure that there is no further editing of any speeches under any circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction anywhere that is able to record the every word as the Leader of the Opposition would have this chamber record every word that is spoken in the chamber, every interruption. Certainly, it doesn't happen in the Mother of Parliaments, it doesn't happen in the House of Commons in this country and the Honourable Members full well know — know full well, I'd like to change that one so that it makes sense. The Honourable Members know full well that in Ottawa they receive the transcripts and they are able to correct it because in the transcriptions there may be errors made in terms of the words that are said.

I notice in many of my statements, it appears in the transcripts as "and" when it should be "in"; these sort of corrections are made everywhere. Furthermore it's impossible, I suggest, it's impossible for every interruption …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Now, how can anyone record the words that are being said at this precise moment, Mr. Speaker, and have them record it? It is impossible. And this is what's wrong with the N.D.P. In this province. They came up with all these theories and they're not workable, they're not feasible. And they know it's not feasible and we've proven it here today.

I would, however, now that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition has made a specific reference to a specific debate which he indicates has not been recorded properly and he referred to a specific page of Hansard, page 766, I do want the opportunity to check that matter and compare as the Leader of the Opposition has done and therefore I move the adjournment of this debate at this time.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-34

NAYS-17

PAIR:

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 4, the Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker I think Motion No. 4 is self-explanatory — that a special committee be appointed to review the policy governing the classification of motion picture films prior to the display within the province and to make recommendations to the House for any revision thereof deemed to be in the public interest. That the special committee appointed under standing order 68 be instructed to prepare and report with all convenient speed a list of

[ Page 281 ]

Members to compose a special committee appointed by this resolution, and that the special committee appointed by this resolution be empowered to send for persons, papers, films and records and to hear any representation that this special committee deems in its discretion necessary. Moved by myself and seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Education.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR PETERSON: We're following the procedure the Honourable the former Leader of the Opposition well knows, starting at the beginning of the motions and then going down through the list, respecting as we always do private Members' day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recall to the Honourable Members that in 1970 — I can't recall whether it was on a private Members' day or not — the Motion Pictures Act was amended. Well we had many that year, just as many that year as we have had in previous sessions and in fact, many more. But the Motion Pictures Act was amended, modernised in many respects, providing for classification of motion pictures in the Province of British Columbia.

There has been some experience now in the operation of the new legislation, the types of classifications that are provided for. There are those who feel and who have suggested that there be broader classifications or new classifications of film.

I'm sure too that there are those who have received submissions in the past as I have had of more restrictions on the kinds of films that are being shown, the decline in quality of the films as relates to greater violence or this sort of thing. So that there are complaints on the kinds of films that are shown and as well the numbers in the various categories that are available — a common complaint, not sufficient films of good entertainment for children and for families.

The purpose of this resolution is to review the situation as it is at the moment. Not to refer to a select standing committee but to give each of the parties represented in this House an opportunity to select those who they wish to serve on such a committee that would be interested in this particular area. Hence, we are asking for a special committee to be appointed to make a review, to recommend whether legislative change or changes in policy that might be made in terms of the classification of films and the fulfilment of the duties that are prescribed under the Motion Pictures Act. I therefore move the resolution standing in my name on the order paper.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:02 p.m.