[ Page 5 ]

The House met at 3 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a statement regarding an important matter.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, namely the oil spill at Alert Bay. I'd like to report, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier spoke to the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis, asking him for a report on action taken by his department regarding the spill. Mr. Davis informed him that the Ministry of Environment has the responsibility of identifying the areas of spill, setting the priorities of the clean-up of the spill and co-ordination of the overall strategy of clean-up.

Mr. Davis stated that the Ministry of Transport will provide the equipment and personnel necessary as requested by the Department of the Environment and as of this moment booms, three slick-lickers, and three transport vessels are either on site, or on way to Alert Bay. The three transport vessels left the Victoria area yesterday afternoon for the spill site.

At the moment of this spill a fisheries patrol vessel happened to be on site and immediately requested experts on tides, currents and wind to set up the programme of action with respect to the spill.

Mr. Davis went on to say that over-flight information by Ministry of Transport planes is being coordinated by his department. He advised us that Mr. Bob McClaren of the Department of the Environment is the co-ordinator for action on the spill. As Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, I ordered my staff to charter a plane so that provincial departmental people would be on site as well. The plane left this morning — Mr. Roland Rocchini of the Pollution Control Board, and Mr. Don Gough of the Commercial Fisheries Branch. The MLA for the area, Ms. Karen Sanford, is also on site with our staff. Mr. Rocchini will be staying over the weekend and will be giving a direct report to myself later today. Ms. Sanford will be back today and will provide me with a verbal report this evening.

We have also asked the environmental consulting firm of Howard Paish and Associates to have their staff independently evaluate the situation and the actions taken today. Mr. Ross Peterson and Mr. Bob Sherwood of that firm are also in the area right now and will be reporting back to us shortly as well as preparing a full written report on the matter.

It may be recalled by Members of the House that a full report was prepared by that firm in April of 1972 for Environment Canada entitled "The West Coast Oil Threat In Perspective" which included numerous recommendations.

Members may also recall that it was announced in Washington State that a special House committee will be formed to review these matters during the session. It is the intent of the Government to refer the reports received from our staff and our consultants to the House committee along with the earlier recommendations that were made to the federal government in order to assess the adequacy of existing arrangements. The committee will of course be asked to call witnesses so a thorough review can be made and that we can be assured that the best course of action possible will be taken in the future.

I'd like to also report, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. McClaren of Environment Canada has just called us in the last few minutes and advised us that they have everything they need. If they need anything further they will contact us later today.

I might indicate also that Governor Evans has been contacted and we're expecting some information from the governor shortly with respect to the possibility of help should that be necessary, and Environment Canada indicates that that is necessary.

I understand from the Hon. Attorney General that charges have also been laid under the Canada Shipping Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member. The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would ask that the House extend a courtesy of statements by leave to the Leaders.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House Leader for the official Opposition.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in as far as the official Opposition is concerned we are most pleased and support the action that is being taken by the Government. On this the position of the official Opposition is well known — we're opposed to the transportation of large tankers down the west coast of British Columbia. We will maintain this until it can be proven that it is safe to move oil — we would prefer to see it move by pipeline, We are concerned definitely for the little village of Alert Bay, which was one of the first ones to make any effort to clean up their foreshore, their beach area, and develop it. We would urge the

[ Page 6 ]

provincial government and Treasury Board to give immediate consideration to assistance to restore the land area, the foreshore area — to the assistance going to the village of Alert Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Liberal leader.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the departure from procedure which has permitted the statement by the Minister and comments by Opposition leaders.

The question, Mr. Speaker, that comes to mind first is that we essentially have here a report delivered by the provincial Minister from the federal Minister of the Environment. And we welcome that report; we are glad that it has taken place. We are glad apparently that difficulties which previously surrounded discussions between the Premier and the Minister of the Environment are now apparently at an end and communication lines are once more open. I trust that the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, Water and tourism and various other things (Hon. Mr. Williams) that escape my mind at the moment — has that been changed? Oh, very good. Anyway the general grab-bag Minister that he is, is in close cooperation with Ottawa on this matter.

The statement he has made, however, raises some questions in our minds.

First, he did refer to the fact that the federal department would be co-ordinating — and I understand from his general statement that the provincial government's intention is to leave the federal Department of Environment in control — not only under the areas that are by legal definition under federal jurisdiction but also the on-shore areas which are, again by legal definition, under provincial jurisdiction. It's a point which I feel could be elaborated on and if departures from our previous practices in this House are permitted, I will be putting forward a motion for question periods by unanimous consent so that I can question him on this issue, in a few more minutes.

Nevertheless it did indicate to me that, despite the spill, the bilge-cleanings which wound up on Chesterman Beach I believe — a fact reported to this House by the former Social Credit Member, Dr. McDiarmid, from that area. Despite the Long Beach spill, the Van Lene spill not far from that area — despite the Cherry Point spill where the Hon. Provincial Secretary spoke at lengths about provincial government failure to establish depots of equipment which could be used, we appear to have had very little done since that time.

We are once more simply in the position of leaving it entirely for the federal government to do from the Minister's statement. No objection to this procedure, Mr. Speaker, provided that it is clearly understood — and if the people of British Columbia are not given this "after you, Alphonse" routine, whereby one government defers to the other or blames the other in cases of this nature.

I trust that the Minister, if we are permitted to have questioning in a few minutes, will make clear to this House and to the people of British Columbia what are the institutional arrangements that have been set up by this new Government — which was so critical of the previous Government — to deal with problems of this nature. Because from what he has said so far we are apparently still acting on an adhoc basis. And apparently nothing has been done in the last few months provincially to put on site equipment that could be used for cleanup and equipment that could be used for restoring the area to its previous state.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I will be proposing in short order a motion which will require unanimous consent which would allow us to question the Minister on this point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. House leader for the Conservative Party.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I would welcome the prompt action taken by the Government. In passing I certainly would like to say how much I appreciate the fact that matters of important business from day to day can be dealt with in the fashion we are now dealing with it. In previous times, when I have been here, there usually was a procedural wrangle before we even got to the subject. Therefore I think that today's example of being able to talk about something about which we are all concerned right at this moment is most welcome.

I think it points out one other very important fact that we really don't need to wait and see what will happen when tankers many times the size of the one which struck a rock on this occasion start to come down our shores. So this incident is very timely in refuting the argument I've heard that "of course by the time we get the bigger tankers they are more sophisticated and they are this and they're that and the next thing."

I don't think any of us should be in any doubt any longer about the inevitability of spills when tankers are passing down our coast. So it's happening now. We don't have to argue about for or against bigger tankers. It's proven that it is happening now.

Therefore on that basis my personal feeling and the party feeling always has been that we're rather looking at this issue with sort of blinkers on in a sense — that we're either for or against Alaska oil. As far as the Conservative Party is concerned, we are for safer international navigation. And if this is happening with relatively small tankers, it will just be 10 times worse with bigger tankers.

[ Page 7 ]

Therefore the key, and certainly the point of view I would like to express today, is that the evidence of provincial-federal cooperation, which this Government I am happy to see has demonstrated, should immediately push for national and international stringency in regard to shipping regulations, communications with shore and between ship and shore, and several other of the vital safeguards that are much more likely to prevent spills.

But I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that this party is grateful for the prompt action of this Government and for the welcome evidence of provincial-federal cooperation. I would regret if this House at this time now degenerated into a debate of trying to spell out in minute detail, which I don't think is available, as to who does what when. I think that if the spirit of cooperation exists as it does, we are obviously in a formative period where the provincial and federal governments have an understanding and can communicate. And I think we should exhibit a reasonable measure of patience to see what can be forthcoming from this cooperation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on the same basis of leave, I have just received notice that Governor Dan Evans has sent a radio-telephone message to my office. As a result of our initiation of contact with the governor, the governor has stated that he will place all equipment that is at the hands of the State of Washington at the disposal of either the Government of Canada or the Province of British Columbia; that he will wait for the call for that equipment for the people either on-site or anyone else that the Government of Canada or the Province of British Columbia delegates to make that request.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon, Members' leave of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer): that the House respectfully request the Hon. Speaker to permit, before the orders of the day, a period not exceeding 25 minutes duration for oral questions by Members, commencing today and continuing until the Speaker shall report pursuant to the provisions of the Legislative Procedures and Practices Inquiries Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the Legislature, I think with the Hon. Member's concurrence, passed the Legislative Procedures and Practices Inquiry Act. Under the Act, Mr. Speaker, you shall report to the assembly within 15 days of the commencement of each session on the matter raised by the Hon. Member, including the matter of oral questions — which are the best kind.

I think that we should follow the procedure the Legislature has laid out, and I think the Hon. Member should. I hope that report will come in very speedily and we will very shortly have the rules formulated whereby we can have an oral question period in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was asking for unanimous consent of the House; not arguing the Act….

Interjection by an Hon. Member. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. But the Attorney General's remarks seem to indicate that we should wait, Mr. Speaker. I would like, with deference, to point out to him that already today we have departed from the rules of the House, as suggested by the Hon. Mr. Williams, a matter….

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. We departed, Mr. Member, from the rules of the House by unanimous consent, and when I asked if there was any objection to your proposal, it was obvious you were not getting the unanimous consent — at least from the Attorney General.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, for a vote?

MR. SPEAKER: You want me to? All right. I will ask, will the House give unanimous consent to the proposal of the Liberal leader? I hear some no's. And therefore, the next order of business.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: How can you have a division on that? Unless your hearing aid isn't working. (Laughter.) The Hon. House Leader of the Opposition.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I would like to have the House join with me today in welcoming the first group of students, which I am very proud of, from the Sunshine Valley over at Grand Forks in my constituency, the best constituency in B.C. They are here today in full number and with their chaperons, Mr. Gumley, Mrs. Glanville, Mrs. Flanagan, and I would like very much

[ Page 8 ]

to have the House join with me in welcoming these students on their first trip to Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming to the gallery a man who preceded me as the leader of the CCF and as the Leader of the Opposition in this House, the husband of the Member for Vancouver South, Mr. Arnold Webster.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make welcome to the gallery, the Mayor of Langley City, His Worship Mayor Bob Duckworth.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome an old timer up in the gallery this afternoon, Pasquale Misiano from Merritt. He has campaigned consistently over the past 40 years for the philosophies of democratic socialism in this province…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: …he lost his job in Powell River in 1933 when he was elected the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, please. May I say this to Hon. Members. It may become more important, if we ever come to a question period in this House — but it is important that your statements be confined to the guest that you are wishing to be introduced and that you confine it to non-political statements, or I'll have to do something to curtail them.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), that the following address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: We, her Majesty's most dutiful 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.

It is a pleasure and an honour to be the first Member to speak at the second session of the 30th Parliament of this and to move the address thanking His Honour for his gracious speech of yesterday.

It is particularly worthy to comment that His Honour has graciously agreed to stay on in office, in spite of the personal reasons which would argue in favour of his retirement.

I am sure that all Members of this House join me in recognition of the personal sacrifice being made by His Honour in the service of Her Majesty the Queen, and the people of the Province of British Columbia.

I would like, at this time, to draw attention to the honour which has been bestowed on the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) by the United Nations. The Hon. Member has been presented with a fellowship in recognition of her pioneering work in the field of women's rights.

The high level of expectation referred to by His Honour yesterday is felt not only by the people of this province, but by many people in Canada, and even throughout the world.

The mandate given by the people to the New Democratic Party was unique in North America. For the first time, a democratic socialist government was given the right to govern an economically sound province. The results of the first session of this thirtieth Legislative Assembly show that the levels of expectation were well founded, and that the new levels of social dignity were, in fact, within our grasp.

The Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act reaffirmed the trust that the pensioners of this province had placed in the New Democratic Party, but the effects of that Act went on to form one of the major issues in the recent federal election. The recent Speech from the Throne by His Excellency, the Governor-General in Ottawa, indicated that the spin-off of last fall's legislation will lead to increases in the basic pension, as well as in war veterans' pensions for all Canada. It is hoped that minimum income assistance for pensioners is but one step toward a guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians, and that the present federal-provincial ministerial talks on social assistance will pave the way toward the day when economic security is guaranteed, and individual initiative is rewarded by a comprehensive plan for social assistance.

His Honour's call for a government automobile insurance plan will be hailed by most as a worthy plan long overdue. For some, the plan will mean a considerable saving, but while most of us anticipate a plateau in the ever-rising cost of auto insurance, the

[ Page 9 ]

real benefit will be found in the quality of service and delivery of benefits. The present no-fault plan in British Columbia restricts the $50 per week disability benefits to those who have worked for six or more months of the 12 months preceding their accident. There is no such restriction in Saskatchewan or Manitoba. There is no appreciable difference in the premiums for no-fault, only in the benefits.

My riding, and this entire province, are full of automobile insurance victims. It is unfortunate that these people have been the victims in an automobile insurance accident, but the foreign controlled insurance industry has often done more to compound the misery, than to comfort and aid the victim. The multiplicity of insurance companies has led to inconsistency in settling claims.

For a poor pensioner who has his pick-up truck flattened by a roof in a windstorm, there is no benefit for an act of God, but for a prosperous businessman, the same accident with the same roof is covered through comprehensive insurance by a different company. I would hope that the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) will consider very carefully the extension of the no-fault principle, so that it will no longer be possible for a carpenter to lose two-thirds of a court award to medical costs and legal expense, when he loses the use of his working arm.

Mr. Speaker, the victims of automobile insurance have high expectations. They hope that never again will someone be subjected to the delays, the threats, the uncertainty, and the inadequate compensation for permanent injuries, that they themselves have suffered.

Perhaps it was with a mind to these people that Mr. Sylvan Liepzic a prominent Winnipeg auto insurance agent and manager, was prompted to make three very incisive observations concerning Manitoba's auto pact. He first said that the worst feature of the plan was that it was a government monopoly. He then said that it was the best plan in North America. He finally concluded that it was doubtful if such a plan could ever come into existence, except under a government monopoly.

It is to be hoped that the government in its wisdom may soon embark on a voluntary portable group life insurance plan. At present there is a large group of people covered under the terms of their employment by a reasonably-priced group life plan. But many people can only ensure the security of their families with expensive individual plans in which the first few years' premiums are largely swallowed by commissions. The savings of these people are invested to a large extent in non-productive but high-profit endeavours, such as the property industry. Through interlocking directorships with the property developers, the building equipment companies, finance companies, and other property related interests, such companies as North American Life Assurance Company are able in effect to make their client a multiple consumer of mortgages, housing, property and property insurance. It is also in the best interests of the property industry to control the supply, the demand of land, hence their strong representations to influence the zoning and building regulations and maintain the cost of property at a high level.

I too have high expectations. I am asking this government which has done so much in just five months of office to seriously consider auto insurance as the first step into the insurance field. I would hope for a life insurance plan which would be voluntary, portable and available to all persons in their employable years. Not only would many people be able to realize the saving in providing for their security but the premiums could be invested in land banks and housing in order to attack the insurance property industry complex on two fronts, by providing competitive low-cost property and housing, and by reducing the capital and power of this parasitic enterprise.

The property industry is vulnerable on another front. Its avoidance of tax through depreciations depends upon continued growth. By arresting the growth of the property industry the people may well again regain much of what was lost to collection of long overdue taxes and property.

The time has come when the control over the fundamental needs of security and shelter were returned to the people of the province. One might wonder that I could start talking about life insurance and digress upon the property industry. I must talk of them in the same breath because they are the same business, the same directors with the same interests — and those interests are not the security of their policyholders. It is then in the spirit of both fulfilment and a herald of things to come that I anticipate the announcement of an automobile insurance plan.

I greet with special enthusiasm the message that the government-administered pension plans will be improved. While the existing plans for those still working and looking forward to retirement could always stand improvement I would urge that the needs of those presently retired on fixed pensions are worthy of urgent attention. The sacrifice of these people during their years in providing for retirement becomes ravaged day by day by the effects of inflation.

I would urge that some consideration be given to these people and that provision be made in the future for regular pension adjustments to offset inflation.

Of special interest to the rural people of this province will be the Ambulance Services Act. The granting by referendum to a regional district the power to provide ambulance services by no means

[ Page 10 ]

ensures that the district can with the best of intentions provide a reasonable standard of service. It is hoped that paramedical competence be a prerequisite for the operation of an ambulance.

The need for air ambulance service in the North is another important issue. One can only estimate the lives that are annually lost for lack of adequate ambulance service and intensive care facilities in our intermediate-size hospitals, but the expectation of the people is for higher quality in medical service.

The expectations of the people of the New Democratic Party in government are perhaps great because of their long record in Opposition. In my riding of Nelson-Creston there has been a tradition of personal contact built up by the NDP federal members for Kootenay West, Herbert W. Herridge and Randolph Harding, who were also former Members of this House. It is said that Mr. Herridge used to take two days to travel the 1½ hour drive from Creston to Kootenay Bay.

Mr. Herridge, who didn't drive, would travel by a combination of hitchhiking, buses and walking and stopped at many homes along the way. His reputation for advocacy stretched far beyond his riding, and he was often called upon to help people from other provinces.

Mr. Harding increased his support to 55 per cent in the last federal election, largely as a result of his availability to the people and his genuine concern for and his ability to help people. Mr. Harding travels by Land Rover and makes himself available to the people of the most remote areas in Kootenay West.

Openness has been the style of the NDP and the volume of letters, phone calls received by its elected representatives since August 30 is a measure of the public expectation. Another trademark of the New Democratic Party and the socialist tradition has been its ability to champion unpopular causes and to create public consciousness such that the once unpopular causes become universally acceptable.

Such things as child labour laws, women's suffrage and old age pensions first proposed by the pre-CCF socialist pioneers. In more recent times our Premier, as an Opposition Member, was a voice crying in the wilderness against the mis-management of land at Cypress Bowl. But he revealed fact after fact, and then even the most reactionary elements were forced to admit in time that he was right, and were moved to ask why wasn't the Government doing something about it?

The New Democratic Party in general, and notably Tommy Douglas, spoke against and marched against the war in Vietnam, when the public as a whole felt that it was better dead than Red, and no price in the death and suffering of Vietnamese men, women and children was too great to spend to stop the spread of communism in southeast Asia. I shared then the fears of spreading communism and owe a personal debt to those who opposed the war from the beginning on the greater truth that there is no justification for the Vietnam war.

His Honour has commended the across-the-border talks regarding environmental concerns. There can be no higher governmental priority than the environmental crisis. We are told that the present growth of demand for energy resources cannot continue at an exponential rate. There are many definitions of the exponential function, but the most simple one is that an exponential function is something that doubles at a predictable rate.

If the demand for electricity doubles every 10 years, that means we will have to duplicate the output of all the existing generators in order to meet the demand 10 years hence. It also means that, if we are to rely on hydroelectric power until half of our rivers are dammed, we will have just 10 years until all our rivers are dammed and we are forced to look for other sources.

Ontario already has harnessed most of its hydroelectric potential. Its combined production of fossil fueled and nuclear-powered thermal plants already out produces hydro power. For those still dedicated to the unlimited growth ethic, the challenge is to re-discover fossil fuel reserves at an exponential rate. But the predicted life expectancy of the fossil fuels is being constantly revised downwards. The proportions of the problem are now having visible effect in the United States where an oil crisis is right now.

One cannot expect too much from nuclear power. While it is true that 20-inch fuel bundle of uranium dioxide pellets inside zirconium rods can produce as much electricity as 25 coal cars, the reserves of nuclear fuels are subject to the same limits as fossil fuels. In spite of these limitations, I feel that nuclear power should be given serious consideration as an alternative to damming more rivers, or building more fossil fuel plants.

If nuclear power is being attacked, it's being attacked for the wrong reasons. One of the chief fears is that the nuclear reactors will greatly increase the normal background radiation which naturally exists and pre-dates man and man's technology. The medical use of radioactive materials will have doubled the background radiation sometime in the 1980s. No one has called for a halt to medical use of radio-active isotopes, x-rays and cobalt treatments. All projected installations of nuclear plants into the next century would not increase the background level by 10 per cent.

The interior of this province is being scarred by unsightly power line rights of way, which cut through farms and valleys and through beautiful wilderness areas. In my riding B.C. Hydro is paralleling the existing West Kootenay Power and Light Company right of way and creating a 200-foot corridor, which leaves precious little land in some, of our narrow

[ Page 11 ]

valley bottoms which must also provide for trains and highways.

Herbicide sprays that are used to clear these blights on the landscape are a further argument toward nuclear power, which can be placed on site. We express great fear of oil spills from super tankers and pipelines, and these fears have a good basis in fact.

Fuel used in the Pickering, Ontario nuclear plant is nonradioactive and the spent fuels, while highly radioactive, can be safely disposed of and do not appreciably add to the background level of radiation which I previously have mentioned.

There has been a great deal of research done on the pathology of radiation. Otherwise how could the medical profession proliferate the widespread use of radioactive materials. We are just becoming aware of the medical effects of the by-products of petrochemicals. Nitrous-oxide levels and trace metals present a much more uncertain menace than the by-products of nuclear reactors.

I would urge all environmentalists to reassess their position on nuclear power. It may well be that least damaging alternative for the short-term power needs.

I'm not an advocate for nuclear power, but I am asking that we search for rational data in an issue clouded by emotion and prejudice. Most importantly, I am mindful of the predictions of the Club of Rome and the limits to growth. It is on this issue that the House must surely be divided between democratic socialist philosophy and the profit-motivated, unlimited growth syndrome.

The ethic that shows signs of uniting the three Opposition parties is the pursuit of profits and unlimited growth. We are charged with a dual role of producing jobs and growth in the short run, and to limiting growth and the use of our natural resources in the not-so-long run.

For those who await the 11th hour, the energy crisis in the United States indicates that the time is now 11:30. We must take a great hand in processing our own resources. While everyone is willing to concede the electronics field to Japan, a Canadian designed and produced electronic calculator is leading the domestic market.

We must throw away the philosophies of the past. We can no longer locate pollution-free industries such as universities solely on the basis of demographic criteria. We must expand criteria to include economic and sociological studies. We have studied the biological and economic value of game management, but have we ever evaluated the sociological importance of maintaining wilderness areas.

I greet the announcement of 1,000 new jobs in the Civil Service, and I'm surprised that the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) has labeled this a pork barrel. I would have thought that, with his role in supporting the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, he would be more familiar with pork barrels. Every one of those 10,000 jobs will be handled through the Civil Service Commission.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. NICOLSON: One thousand, I stand corrected. People and all-terrain vehicles are required to police the All-Terrain Vehicles Act, which his Government introduced. The world-renowned game management area of the East and West Kootenays has only one game biologist and one technical assistant to cover a vast terrain.

The previous Government failed to provide the people as it failed to provide the equipment. Conservation officers were expected to police four-wheel drive trucks and Skidoos with standard pickups and snow shoes. The same story can be related to all too many Civil Service departments. We want to utilize the skills and offer fulfilment to our unemployed, well-educated young people and give them a share in fulfilling the high expectations of the people of this province.

Yes, the New Democratic Party will use its balance of power in Ottawa as the people expect it to. We will not let the Liberals attack unemployment by attacking the unemployed. We, the back bench of the New Democratic Party, will support the programme of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor because we respect the efforts of our comrades who preceded us in this House, and without whose efforts this party could not have gained the confidence of the people. We will work hard to fulfill the high expectations and retain that trust.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): It is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise to second the motion thanking His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor for his very erudite, informative and brief Speech from the Throne. I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to thank the government caucus for choosing the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard to participate in this singular honour and, for myself, to thank the people of Vancouver-Burrard for choosing me to represent them. I welcome this opportunity to publicly say, "thank you, Vancouver-Burrard."

AN HON. MEMBER: You're welcome.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) in thanking the Lieutenant-Governor for so unselfishly agreeing to stay on and serve this province, despite his already extraordinary service and to say a special

[ Page 12 ]

thank you to Mrs. Nicholson, who so graciously permitted him to do so.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Nicholson has not been enjoying the best of health and her decision to support the Lieutenant-Governor in carrying on this arduous task demonstrates the strength and grace of this very remarkable lady.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome you, the senior Clerk, the Clerks and all my colleagues to this, the first maxi-session of the Legislature with the socialist hordes at the helm.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that at last perhaps, peace will have come to that troubled land of Vietnam — that perhaps now those strong and gentle people can look at their skies without seeing bombs raining down upon them. That perhaps now they can look at their children without seeing them disfigured by napalm burns. And that perhaps by some miracle, grass and trees and green leaves will grow again in that ravaged land.

The editorial pundits, Mr. Speaker, say that this is not necessarily so. They say that the negotiated peace is an incomplete and uneasy one. I pray God that they are wrong because if ever a people deserved the peace, the people of Vietnam and indeed throughout all of southeast Asia have earned it.

And so with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to ask all peoples and their governments everywhere to do whatever they can to ensure that after more than 20 years of strife, the people of southeast Asia will have peace now.

Already, Mr. Speaker, in the short five months since this Government has been in power, we have seen our Premier, remarkable person that he is, and his Government succeed in thawing the very frigid relationships which previously existed between this province and the rest of the world. We have seen the Premier extend his hand across the border and offer to cooperate with our neighbours to the south and to the north and talk of ways in which together we could work to protect our coast line from the fouling and pollution which is even at this minute threatening to destroy the beautiful environment which we now enjoy. In this single gesture, Mr. Speaker, this Government has demonstrated its recognition that we are a part of the whole, that neither our coast line nor theirs can be protected in isolation and that indeed such protection must be done in harmony together rather than with recrimination.

As you might have noticed, Mr. Speaker, this province is once again on speaking terms with the federal government. (Laughter). And although disagreements still exist and voices do get shrill from time to time, at least dialogue has been re-introduced between these two levels of government, a situation which had not existed over the past many years and which indeed led many of us to fear for the cohesion of this country during the tenure of that last repressive regime which was laid to rest on August 30 in the year of our Lord 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! (Laughter).

MS. BROWN: And from the people of Vancouver, with its brand new, shiny city council, a sigh of relief goes up, Mr. Speaker, that for the time being at least all is now sweetness and light. Their mayor visits us, we visit their mayor and always there are smiles. And who knows, Mr. Speaker, if that council succeeds in avoiding the pitfalls of its predecessor and if it can learn something from its relationship with us, perhaps this sweetness and light may so envelop the land that by the simple process of osmosis we may end up with an NDP city council in Vancouver after all.

I have spent some time on the subject of improved relationships between this province and its former antagonists because I feel that this was a priority hurdle successfully breached from which we can draw strength in preparing for the other hurdles ahead of us. The lessons learned and the expertise developed during this period of learning to re-establish contact will stand us in good stead in the years ahead. It will also serve to demonstrate to those with high expectations and hopes throughout the province that the cleaning up of the mess left by 20 years of an arrogant and uncaring regime has been draining energies which otherwise could have been spent implementing programmes promised to them in our campaign of 1972.

But the May session and the period after are behind. Although some of the mess still remains, the implementing of our promises will go on. That is why, despite the pressure of the big guns of the automobile insurance megalopoly and their friends, government automobile insurance will come. For the experts among us, Mr. Speaker, who may state that there is no such word as "megalopoly" I would like to assure them that they are quite right. (Laughter). But private automobile insurance is so much more than a monopoly that all dictionaries failed to produced a word which could ably describe it, so I was forced to coin one myself.

My personal feeling is, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation should not be called "government car insurance" at all, but really should be called "the people's car insurance" because that is what it is — designed for the people, owned and operated by them, it will truly be their insurance, not ours. The people know this. They knew it, Mr. Speaker, when they voted on August 30 and they know it now.

Recently, on a free-time television broadcast, I spoke about car insurance and the fact that legislation, when revealed to the House, would prove to be the best possible for all the driving public. Following that broadcast, Mr. Speaker, my mail bulged with letters — all of them stating complete support for the

[ Page 13 ]

Government on this issue and agreeing that the private insurance companies could even now still demonstrate their concern for the people of this province in a tangible way — by returning to them the millions of dollars which they collected in excess premiums during the two years 1970-1972 and which was at least $7 per person for all of the hundreds of thousands of drivers insured by them.

Contrary to propaganda, Mr. Speaker, there will be no wholesale dismissal of workers when this plan is introduced. How do I know this, Mr. Speaker? Because I know that we are a government concerned about increased employment. We want to ensure that people who can work have work and that is why legislation is being introduced in this sitting which, in the civil service alone as the Lieutenant-Governor told us, will create 1,000 new jobs. This Government, Mr. Speaker, does not regard employment as a privilege to be reserved for a chosen few. It believes that it is everyone's right and I know that our legislation will demonstrate that we have seriously addressed ourselves to removing the spectre of unemployment, which is not just stalking this province, incidentally, but throughout this entire land.

This Government, Mr. Speaker, is also aware that this planet is in clear and imminent danger of drowning in its own filth. It is aware, Mr. Speaker, that drastic measures will be called for to deal with the pollution which currently exists and to ensure the prevention of future irresponsible acts on the part of polluters. It is wrestling, I know, with the whole question of growth, Mr. Speaker, and with the whole question of the exploitation of resources for the benefit of the few and with the question of the exploitation of lumber resources at the expense of spawning salmon or the exploitation of minerals at the expense of the landscape and the balance of nature.

A scientist writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 1971 said that the only animals necessary for human survival are the bacteria which reside in our body, and that indeed if all other forms of animal life disappeared from this planet, man would continue to survive as long as these bacteria survived. Man is a predator, Mr. Speaker, and when I use "man" I mean woman too. (Laughter). Man is a predator, Mr. Speaker, and over the years he has proven to be a polluter and a destroyer. But it is the opinion of this Government that man exists on this earth not to pollute and ravage it, but to live in harmony with the other creatures who share the environment with us. It is the opinion of this Government, Mr. Speaker, that the day must never come when only man and his bacteria survive.

This Government is determined to embark on a course which will see an end to the dumping of raw sewage and industrial waste into our rivers and streams, an end to the belching of foul and odorous effluent into our air, an end to the ravaging of our countryside and the usurping of our farmlands in the name of progress. This Government must and will work for the end of the wanton destruction of our animals and birds for fun and profit.

It must and will work for an end to the strangulation of our cities by the automobile and unchecked urban sprawl. And an end to the sacrifice of our ancient and traditional buildings which would see the beautiful and graceful Christ Church Cathedral torn down by the high priests of steel and glass.

And that is why, Mr. Speaker, this Government is determined and must insist that before embarking on any major project, be it a port in Squamish, a ferry terminal in Iona, a land development scheme anywhere, that an environmental impact study be done and that we be guided by the decision of the results of these studies.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, this is Human Rights Year, and surely this Government has chosen a most tangible way in which to commemorate this auspicious occasion. By introducing a bill of rights at this time, the Government is reaffirming its belief in the equality of all people, as well as its commitment to ensure that all people, regardless of their race, sex, age, political affiliation, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, cultural inheritance or whatever — whatever their difference to any other people may be, they will be treated with equality and dignity by the laws and the government and the people of this province.

I am indeed proud and happy, Mr. Speaker, to be identified with the government which is introducing this bill, and I hope that, unlike the last administration, it is not planning on exempting itself from the bill's jurisdiction. I am indeed proud and happy, Mr. Speaker, to be identified with a province in which this bill of rights will become law.

Concern for one's fellow man is nothing new to this country of course, Mr. Speaker. For more than 100 years people of different cultures, different races and different religions have always come to these shores in search of dignity and peace, and they have always found what they were seeking here. And it is my fervent hope, Mr. Speaker, that this will never change, and that we will resist any temptation to close our gates to future immigrants, remembering that with the possible exception of the native peoples we all are, or our ancestors were, immigrants to this land.

For myself, Mr. Speaker, I will always remember that during those tragic days of slavery in the United States, slaves always knew that if they could escape to Canada they would find a haven here. I will always remember, Mr. Speaker, that all across this country, from Halifax to Victoria, there were stops on the underground railroad supported by women and men of goodwill. I will always remember, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 14 ]

that great and honourable gentleman, Governor James Douglas, who welcomed to this city in 1858 freed black women and men fleeing the terrible fugitive slave law of the United States. A law which allowed freed slaves, if recaptured, to be returned to their masters. And a law which led to the State of California itself considering to introduce slavery.

These black people sailed into Victoria harbour — this same Victoria harbour, Mr. Speaker — aboard the Brother Jonathan, a ship in whose memory, Mr. Speaker, our youngest son has been named. And they were welcomed on their arrival by the people of this great city.

And so, Mr. Speaker, it is with joy that I grasp this opportunity to say to you and to all Canadians, on behalf of my ancestors and on behalf of the ancestors of many black people who still live among you, thank you.

I thank you on behalf of the Starks and the Alexanders and the Ramseys. I thank you on behalf of that magnificent fisherman Deas, for whom that tunnel in Richmond was first named, and on behalf of the Robinsons and the Gibbs and Joe Fortas, and the many others whose names I have never known.

It was said of me, Mr. Speaker, and of the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), that we were the first black people ever elected to government in this province. But did you know, Mr. Speaker, that here, in this City of Victoria, in the year 1866, Mr. Mifflin Gibbs, a black man of considerable stature, was elected by the people of this city to serve on their council as alderman? And part of that time he was the president of that council.

And did you know, Mr. Speaker, that the first military force in this province was the Victoria Pioneer Rifle Corps, a corps of black soldiers which was formed in 1860 when it appeared that the colony might be threatened by invasion from the United States? So you see, Mr. Speaker, you all are part of our history and we all are part of yours. And may we never forget that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not so naive as to think that the hopes and dreams embodied in any bill will be realized once that bill is introduced. The introduction of a bill of rights, Mr. Speaker, is not the end; indeed it is just the beginning. To ensure the equality of all, Mr. Speaker, we must introduce, for a while at least, special measures to ensure the catching up of those groups in our society who have fallen behind because of the inequalities which until now have existed in it.

You see, Mr. Speaker, life is like a long distance race, and like all long distance races it is run on a curved track. A curved track, Mr. Speaker, with a straight line as a starting line, and I am sure you will agree that this is most unfair. And always, Mr. Speaker, the inside lanes have gone to the white middle and upper class male in our society.

And so, Mr. Speaker, if the dream of this bill is to be realized by the women of this province, and by the poor and by the other minority groups who have traditionally drawn the outside lanes of the track in this race, the starting line will have to be staggered. And the further from the inside track that one is running, Mr. Speaker, the greater will be the need for the starting line to be staggered.

And if this Government is serious in its wish that all people should enjoy equality, Mr. Speaker, then those sections of the population which have been treated unequally in the past must have special measures designed for them for a period, at least until they too are equal.

A human rights Act is a beautiful thing. A bill of rights is a magnificent thing. They are always welcome. But by themselves, Mr. Speaker, they are never enough. No human rights Act, no bill of rights will ever be enough. And that is what the women — that 52 per cent of our population who have been disadvantaged, discriminated against and oppressed — are saying, when they say to you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, that they would like a Ministry of Women's Rights. That is what Sylva Gelber, the Director of the Ontario Women's Bureau was saying, Mr. Speaker, when she referred to women as the "underemployed, underpaid third of the labour force." And that is what the female dietary aides at Riverview Hospital and the striking women of Sandringham Hospital are saying. They are the experts of underemployment and they are the experts of underpay.

And those women who have chosen to remain at home and raise and nurture their families, that is what they are saying when they speak of insecurity, Mr. Speaker. That is what the women of the University of British Columbia — that bastion of higher learning and humanitarian thought — are saying when they publish statistics that show that, despite equal qualifications, few of them are ever permitted to attain the higher ranks of the academic departments. And that also is what the women of U.B.C. are saying when they publish statistics that show that we are educating fewer women than men and that we are educating them less.

And this is what the working women in British Columbia are saying when they ask why there are so few women in the upper echelon of the civil service of this province, and why there are so many women on welfare, and why there are so many women between the ages of 55 and 65 existing below the poverty line.

This, Mr. Speaker, is what the native peoples are saying when they have their starvation sit-ins pleading for control over their own affairs. And this is what Fred House, their leader, was saying when he said: "We do not want to be treated as special people, but we are people with special problems." And this is

[ Page 15 ]

what the Association of Non-Status Indians was saying. Again I quote, "One fact which is clear is that traditional government agencies and services using line authority and bureaucratic organization, although successful in promoting certain kinds of technological progress, have been less successful in meeting human needs; and, in particular, have been unsuccessful in meeting the needs of the Non-Status Indians of British Columbia and in promoting their social and economic development. The gap between "White" society and people of Indian ancestry has, in fact, widened, and, as a society, we seem to be faced with a marked increase in the numbers of people of Indian ancestry alienated from the large social system."

This is what the youth are saying, Mr. Speaker, when they ask for a greater voice in decisions affecting their destiny. And this is what the poor are saying when they ask for more opportunity to participate in the prosperity of this land. They're not asking for handouts, Mr. Speaker, but for an end to the attitude that poverty is a crime and that they, because they are poor, should be punished. And for an end to paternalistic exploitation and to the erosion of their dignity as human beings.

What better time than now, Mr. Speaker; what better Government than this, to right those wrongs.

And so it is with feeling of hope and anticipation that I enter this second session of this thirtieth Parliament because I am aware that we are about to witness the staggering of the starting line of the long distance race for all people who have chosen to make this beautiful and magnificent province their home. And I am especially heartened, Mr. Speaker, to learn from the speech of the Lieutenant-Governor that my Government is not going to try to go it alone; that my Government, in recognizing the magnitude of the challenges ahead of us and mindful of its role as the peoples' Government, will call upon and tap the special skills and talents of people from all walks of life who are willing to and can help it with its tasks.

We are the people's government, Mr. Speaker, and I for one look forward to getting the people of this province into the act whenever there is need for their wisdom. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's been a serene afternoon full of harmony and goodwill and it would seem to me a little inappropriate to launch upon an attack at this particular time. So in a spirit of harmony and goodwill, I'll move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:20 p.m.