1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of




Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 143 ]


The House met at 2:00 p.m.


MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, once again I have the opportunity of bringing pleasure and joy to your heart by announcing that we have in the gallery 33 students from that great high school in Lake Cowichan along with their teacher Mr. Douglas, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to say that in the gallery this afternoon we have the Mayor of Mission City and his party and I request the House to give them welcome.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome with me some students from William Beagle School in Surrey who are in the Legislative precincts and enjoying their extremely well-organised activities today. Two of them are with us in the gallery.

MR. H.J. MERILEES (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, it's my honour to introduce in the gallery today visiting us the Mayor of the District of North Vancouver, Mayor Ronald Andrews, who is heading a delegation of the Greater Vancouver Regional District visiting with us today, who are with him in the gallery. Mayor Evors of New Westminster is with them. Mayor Andrews has recently been re-elected chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and I ask the members to give a cordial welcome to his group.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.


MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, it's as always a pleasure to stand here representing the people of the North-Okanagan and to take my place in the throne debate.

With the furor and the fun of last evening's debate I had almost forgotten that I was to be the source of wit and wisdom this afternoon. But I think, like many members, after an evening like last night one often goes home and tries to sort out the pearls of wisdom from the pearls of something else and I happened to come across a poem in a letter from my family and I thought you might like to share it because it tickled my humour last night. It's entitled "Darwin's Mistake."

Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they were said to be.
Said one to the other, "Now listen you two
There's a certain rumor that can't be true.
That man descended from our noble race
The very idea is a disgrace.
No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies or ruined her life
And you've never known a mother monk
To leave her babies with others to bunk
Or pass them on from one to another
Till they scarcely know who is their mother.
And another thing you'll never see -
A monk build a fence around a coconut tree
and let the coconuts go to waste
Forbidding all other monks to taste.
If I put a fence around this tree
Starvation would force you to steal from me.
Where there is another thing a monk won't do
Go out at night and get on a stew,
And use a gun or club or knife
To take some other monkey's life.
Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss.
But brother he didn't descend from us.

I'd like to also take this opportunity to welcome my colleague in the cabinet and as you will notice he is going to be well in tune with the three lady Ministers standing in front of him and quite ready to pull his shirt tails should he not always agree to our requests.

I enjoyed the earlier parts of the debate, particularly from the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and I really don't want to be hard on him because I think he had a very difficult row to hoe and it's becoming increasingly evident. But it is amazing, the effort that the N.D.P. leader is putting into erasing his long standing career of anti-Americanism. I thought I would just bring one or two little notes to your attention because I wouldn't want to have him feel that I was glancing at him sideways.

In an article on Saturday from the paper in 1968 it says about the Leader of the Opposition:

New Democrat David Barrett of Coquitlam who often jumped in where celestial beings fear to wade dragged the United Empire Loyalists into legislative debate one day this week and he said they were draft dodgers nearly 200 years ago. Mr. Barrett, like most Socialist M.L.A.'s doesn't seem to think much of Uncle Sam, even though he was largely educated for nine years I believe in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

But this is supported by the opinion of another column speaking of the same N.D.P. leader.

Mr. Barrett fell all over himself from praise of de Cosmos. Indeed, Mr. Barrett called him the saviour of Vancouver Island. His perspiration moistened his brow as he contemplated that Vancouver Island might possibly have been American. "Yes," sighed Mr. Barrett, in effect, "without good old Amor, indeed Vancouver Island might have been American." Apparently to Mr. Barrett this would be a tragedy of the first magnitude. It would be terrible, terrible, according to Mr. Barrett.

Apparently, though, he didn't say why and this is what is interesting. To quote the columnist:

People like Mr. Barrett intimate that people in the U.S. are not as free as we are in Canada. That they don't have as much democracy and justice and all that sort of thing. Yet they never say why and I wonder why they don't go into detail. They just yell how awful it would be to be an American and let it go at that. I go 20 miles over the water from here to Port Angeles and see people there happy, healthy, prosperous, quite content to be Americans. It is interesting to note that the Americans in Point Roberts want to remain Americans. I guess Mr. Barrett just can't understand that.

He is acting, and I must admit the members of his party seem to be acting, as if they have just discovered Washington and Oregon, our neighboring states. Much has gone on the

[ Page 144 ]

record to tell him that this side of the House have known them for a long time and the cooperative relationship that has existed.

But I thought that he would like to know, not only has British Columbia been a very staunch advocate and supporter of good international relationships with all free countries, but that this government has been for 10 years cooperating with various departments in the United States, Washington and Oregon and that we have great relationship with the Pacific Northwest Travel Association. We combine our efforts in advertising, we have cooperative tourist promotion and I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition would be pleased to know that America was discovered some time ago.

I've listened with interest to the comments that the deputy leader of the Opposition made, the Hon. lady Member from Burnaby (Mrs. Dailly) and combining my thoughts on this with the remarks that were made by the news media when they were in Washington, I think the only thing we could do is label her kindly as a lady "the soft pink silent deputy." Although I couldn't really blame her after some of the debate last night from the Hon. Member from Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley). I see he is not in his place today, but I was pleased although I saw that the Hon. lady Member had signed the Watkins Manifesto — the Radical Socialist document brought out in Canada — she had some difficulty defending this member's views on insurance. But what is disturbing, and quoting again from the news media, is an announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition that: "William Harley, Yale-Lillooet, will be prepared to initiate our car insurance programme for the next session."

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Hon. lady Minister must not reflect on a vote already taken by the House in this session.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to turn to more serious matters in this debate, Mr. Speaker. There is no question that the people of the North Okanagan through me will be supporting this motion.

I was very pleased to see that along with continued emphasis on conservation — which is of great interest to the Okanagan and other parts of the province — and great emphasis on the effort to simplify the law and see that justice is done, that there is more emphasis than ever on the family in our province and country today.

This has been a long record of this government in evolving the form legislation which benefits the family which, as you all know, I have long talked about as being the very core of a stable and worthwhile society.

In that area, Mr. Speaker, there is great emphasis on hospitals and I was very pleased to see that in 1971 that there were 13 hospital construction programmes completed with over 700 new hospital beds, that there are 25 more projects under construction throughout the province today, and this will add 1,799 beds.

It is in this area that I would first like to concentrate and I think this might be of interest to other members who represent non-metropolitan areas.

In the area of ever-expanding family health service we initiated a pilot project of a family mobile dental trailer. It was started this year to provide not only greater public access, it has proved successful and it is showing every indication of becoming financially independent. This is important.

The service started through cooperation between the provincial government health branch — who provided a grant in aid for the trailer, dental equipment, hired the staff — and participating communities who raised a nominal capital contribution towards the cost of the trailer through their councils and local service clubs.

The object of the programme was to see if the already existing dental health programme which was in the schools could be made more efficient and effective. It had become cumbersome because it was usually situated in the schools on a temporary basis and it was becoming costly to the regional health board and the school board.

It also tended to spend more time with younger children, and while there is a need there we wanted to reach older children. Again, while the service was available to adults we wanted to have more adults utilise it. We wanted to serve areas where there were no resident dentists and we wanted to do this with the minimal cost to the user. But we did also wish to see if it could be self-supporting.

The unit is a specially designed 22-foot dental trailer and contains modern air-powered dental equipment complete with an X-ray machine, autoclave, heating and air conditioning equipment, water tanks and water-holding tanks.

It is staffed by a fully licensed dentist — and I might add a most attractive chair assistant — and he travels about the participating communities staying anywhere from 4-6 weeks depending on the demand.

Appointments are handled through the schools, through the regional health board, and through the generosity of the local media.

I would suggest that although more time is needed to assess this programme and its effectiveness and the evidence that it is showing to meet the needs of people and still be self-supporting, so far it has proved very, very well received and as I mentioned before it's successful financially. The dentist is happy, the chair assistant is happy — and I don't think there is a relationship there — and the patients are getting the service that they need. Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know that this programme has had the full cooperation and support of the Dental Association of British Columbia.

Speaking of other programmes started, I looked up somewhat in surprise last evening when the Honourable Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) stated so emphatically his opposition to sterilisation as a means of family planning and that instead of sterilising in family planning we should put these objects on display as tourist attractions, but I settled down when I realised he was referring to pigeons and not to people.

I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that five years ago the then Minister of Health agreed to a complete review of the question of male and female sterilisation as a means of family planning.

I spoke of this at great length on the floor of this House three years ago and I want to bring you up-to-date on what has happened.

The review at that time revealed that there were no actual laws in Canada or British Columbia against sterilisation of male or female as a means of family planning. But there was a wide gap between the thinking of the people and what might be called the medical service elite, as well as the hesitancy because of, I believe, imagined social taboos on the part of public representatives to speak on this subject.

There was also a reluctance on the part of the medical society of Canada and thus of British Columbia to sanction this procedure because there was no precedent in the courts

[ Page 145 ]

and they feared that their insurance would not be protective of the doctors.

The second problem which forced most British Columbia patients to cross the border for permanent family planning was the attitude of many British Columbia hospitals' boards as well as some of the doctors who rather chose to sweep this subject under the carpet. There also was and still is a very valid religious view on this subject, both in some hospitals and with patients. This rightly maintains its position today and it will always maintain its position in British Columbia.

The most significant factor in favour of the procedure was that there was no sound medical reason to suggest that this procedure was not in fact safe and acceptable. Surgically it offered minimal risk and in a vast majority of cases there was no religious or emotional opposition to it.

Following that detailed presentation in this House and with help of many ladies' organisations in British Columbia and the news media and some doctors, we were able to persuade the British Columbia Medical Association to endorse this position and present it to the Canadian Medical Association and it was at that time the Canadian Medical Association reversed its position and accepted this as a medical procedure.

With the help of my colleague, the present Honourable Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Loffmark), we asked medical administrators, hospital administrators and boards and nurses to review their stand and to encourage the practice of this procedure in the hospitals.

I'm pleased to advise this House, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia today — with the exception of religous hospitals, and views which I again maintain must be respected — there are few if any regional disparities for this procedure whether male or female, married or single.

There is no compulsion, but all the hospitals allow the procedure. It is accepted by the British Columbia medical plan and the decision of this type of family planning is between the patient and the doctor, although where there is marriage the husband's consent is requested.

But there is provision also for a review board should the doctor or the patient wish to take advantage of this opportunity. And I would suggest that this should always be maintained for the protection of either the patient or the doctor where requested.

The British Columbia and Canadian Medical Associations now support the procedure. The procedure itself you will be pleased to know, Mr. Speaker, has become greatly simplified especially for women and it's now frequently no more than a 10 to 15 minute operation requiring 24 hours in hospital, although it must be pointed out that there are times when it could require longer.

The frequency of the procedure in British Columbia has risen sharply in males, from 906 in 1969 to an estimated 3,000 before this year is through and in females where there is even a more significant rise from 2,000 to a possible 5,000 to 6,000 this year. To date post-operative complications are less than 5 per cent and there have been no reports to our knowledge of mortality.

Such figures, Mr. Speaker, present not only a vast saving in medical costs and valuable medical time and talent but an even more important step in the strengthening of thousands of homes and the family unit in British Columbia, a placing of women on an equal footing with men, married or single, in the area of family planning. It was a major reversal in social attitudes based on facts and with little fanfare, Mr. Speaker, and with no serious repercussions. And I would draw to your attention that to my knowledge not one member of the Opposition of this House spoke in favour of this programme.

Speaking of families Mr. Speaker, and in reference to the Speech from the Throne, I can't help but recall having lunch — and the Honourable Leader of the Opposition will know that a respected leader of their party was there — with the Speaker of the House from India, a Doctor Dhilon.

We were having a most interesting chat about common problems between North American society and India when he found out that I was involved in a family planning programme in British Columbia and also recreation, he smiled and said: "Ahh, that is good government planning. We have found in India that we must raise the standard of living and increase the recreational facilities and potential for people and that way we will help solve our family planning problem."

In this discussion on families I think it would be remiss not to include an area of recreation and leisurology, and for this reason I want to talk for a few minutes about the Snowmobile. And I wish to suggest that since that wheezing machine, rather a delightful monster, emerged on the scene in Canada and in British Columbia the traditional response of most politicians and professional recreationists has largely been to either ignore the machine or to attempt to legislate it out of existence.

I think that it is safe to say that snowmobilers have been accused of every vice from wholesale slaughter of wintering wild animals to perhaps outrageous wilderness seduction of spinster conservationists.

Without any doubt, Mr. Speaker, the machine has its monstrous side, and this is where sound legislation, regulations and compatible land-use policies for recreation is absolutely necessary now and here in British Columbia. One can't ignore the role that should be played by both the federal and provincial government, which should be one of cooperation between the two levels of government, and there is no question in my mind that eventually provincial land areas and federal land areas will be involved in the recreation with this sport.

I'd like to assure Hon. Members of this House that this spritely and practical machine has far too much to offer the everyday person to just give up and disappear as those people often seem to think it should.

It's almost treated as the illegitimate child of recreation and I would suggest that it deserves better and its use and the protection of people and our environment through this machine or with this machine deserves consideration in this House. Just to analyse the situation, the machine, and the apparent conflicts that there are we see an area of advantages. The purchasing of the machine involves a very limited capital investment, minimal operating costs, and unless you want to swing with every change it has a long life.

It offers an unlimited spectrum of outdoor winter recreation and fun and involvement in this wide variety of interests that this world offers us. It opens up a vast avenue for photography and if any of you have been over a mountain in the winter time, no matter how cold it is, how the wind is blowing, and seeing the magnificent sculpture that nature provides, you'll know what I mean.

It also offers a great opportunity for nature study and study of the flora and fauna that does appear in the winter time to people who up until this time couldn't possibly have enjoyed this pastime. It offers an opportunity for winter fun and recreation for people who are in less than perfect physical condition. It offers this opportunity to people who

[ Page 146 ]

have physical handicaps and it certainly offers an opportunity for the family unit from grandmother to almost babies to take place in winter recreation which they couldn't do until this time.

The tourist potential with this machine is vast and I would suggest the subject not to be included today because of its scope.

But there is also to be considered a very vital and practical use for this machine. Today approximately 66,000 of them are used on farms, in forestry, and in wildlife management, and in water and in environmental research, not to mention search and rescue and this was very evident just one week ago.

Properly regulated, these machines are simple to use and are extremely versatile and on the whole they are safe. In the inclusion of its advantages I'd like to point out that the machine appeals to a wide cross section of economic interests in Canada and in British Columbia. Figures reveal that skilled labourers makeup approximately 295,000 machine owners, unskilled interests own approximately 50,000, professionals 133,000, people involved in some aspect of manufacturing 215,000, and it appears that 70,000 are owned by salesmen — even though they're not allowed on the roads — 32,000 are owned by clerks and 20,000 are owned by retired people over the age of 65.

Now obviously we must dwell on the disadvantages and the first one, of course, is noise. The second, I would suggest, is damage caused by abuse but this is not a situation peculiar to snowmobilers, we have it in many fields — uncontrolled activities which involve land trespass and water-shed pollution, irresponsible use of the machine. But this as with many other aspects of recreation can be dangerous, no more so or no less, and it certainly can if not used properly conflict with natural intersts, and it can if abused too much be fatal.

Speed in many instances seems to be the problem and I understand from one of my colleagues in the House that he has figures to show that of the fatalities the deaths of 35 per cent of these people were related to speed and I would suggest that if you have to drive at 90 miles an hour in order to enjoy a snowmobile you belong on the race track, not in the recreational field.

I think what is needed, Mr. Speaker, without affecting the sound principles of our British Columbia park policy which I believe the House unanimously agrees with, is that planning for the use of snowmobiles is essential. We have to have one person co-ordinate this activity and they should be in the Department of Recreation and Conservation — not as a part of the parks branch but working closely with the parks branch in order to examine the feasibility of establishing areas of Crown land which would be suitable for snowmobile activity.

Whether some of these areas should or should not be within specified sections of provincial parks I think is a matter that only very serious study can answer. This director should evolve a cooperative policy in liaison with the multi-land use committee and with the Department of Commercial Transport for regulations, and most importantly with the Department of Lands Forests and Water Resources.

It's very easy to stand and say that 95 per cent of the province is available to snowmobilers. But, Mr. Speaker, this is where the conflict arises. There is not 95 per cent of the province available for snowmobilers and people trespass through farmers' land, through industrial land, onto school grounds, into parks because they don't have anywhere to snowmobile safely and this is a very, very acute problem. In the lower mainland where there are many snowmobiles owned by families, there is just nowhere to go. Surely when one looks at the mountains and the recreational areas one must accept a study to see that they also have their fair place in the recreational field.

Conflict arises through the use of logging roads without permission, when logs are being hauled and people are out snowmobiling and they don't know the other is there. I don't condone this action and this is why I suggest there must be this type of co-ordination.

I think we must study these areas to see that the park philosophy of avoidance of over-use or congestion is encouraged and that they should encourage an appreciation and wonderment for nature.

I believe that there should be permanent registration of these vehicles. It should be mandatory to have a driver training programme which should be the responsibility of the industry and could be well managed through the retail outlets or through local driver training schools. But the regulation should be evolved by the government.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there will be great cooperation in this area of recreation from the industry itself, from the snowmobile associations in British Columbia and from the people who don't want to belong to an association but do want to enjoy this recreation. There should be this response from the government. There are approximately 20,000 snowmobiles owned in British Columbia today, and 80 per cent of these are believed to be fully involved with family use. Only 5 per cent involve racing. And I would add that in this area racing has become very well controlled and safety conscious.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn for a moment to the subject of agriculture which is of great interest not only to the people in the Okanagan Valley, but I would suggest to a number of Hon. Members in the non-metropolitan areas of the Province of British Columbia.

One could almost suggest that this subject is the staff of life and I don't suggest that in jest. It has long been a major way of living in British Columbia, and agriculture has, even though most of us will fail to recognise it, played a major environmental role in our lives. It has played a major role in scenic attractions in British Columbia, and in enhancing our already natural wonders.

It has certainly been the impetus of economic development in many areas of British Columbia particularly the Okanagan Valley. The valley I would suggest would not be at its stage of development and enjoyment at this time had it not been for agriculture.

I spoke in detail on this subject last year, and it is on the record so I won't repeat the problems. But what I do want to make something clear to Hon. Members of this House — and I'm really quite interested to see that the Honourable Liberal Members of the House have their back to this subject, when in fact it is the Liberal policy of this country that has put agriculture into such a disadvantage position.

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I, and I would suggest all Hon. Members on this side of the House do not in any way subscribe to the federal Liberal government's so-called cheap food policy. It is literally a blind eye and it can't see out the other.

It is impressive the way the federal Liberal members have ricochetted around this country and around this province damning and condemning the Americans and American control of this country. Yet they have in fact deliberately married an annihilation farm policy, and they are trying to

[ Page 147 ]

give birth to cooperative farms in Canada, state owned, and absolutely do away with the independent farmer.

I would ask — and it is unfortunate again that this Liberal Member is not present when agriculture is being discussed — where is the great Liberal free enterprise system that the Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey defended so vigorously last night? Well, it's typical of the Liberals, they're never in the right seat when we have an agricultural problem — you're talking about nationalism.

Referring to this Liberal Member's vigorous defence of the free enterprise system, I would suggest that what he defended by the actions of the government was a Liberal corporate enterprise system. What this Social Credit government, and what Hon. Members on this side of the House, believe in is an individual enterprise system where the individual family have the right to have some money to spend in their pocket, and where they have the right to possession of their land, and where they have the right to build and defend their own markets and where they in fact have the right within the confines of reasonable society to be their own master.

With the cooperation of this government — and I would suggest that there is not another government in Canada that can match the record of this government for cooperation and assistance to the agricultural industry — this industry in British Columbia through these combined efforts exercised the right that I mentioned. Through their own efforts and with legislation enacted by this government they built their own industry, their own markets, both abroad and domestically. And the federal Liberal government, that the people in this House who are absent from their seats today represent has literally eroded away these markets over the last four years.

If the federal government chose, if those Hon. Members choose to negotiate our quality products then they must be prepared to offer effective support for them.

Apart from the federal government attitude the most serious problem facing British Columbia agriculture today is the importation of cheap foods from either countries which have government subsidisation or where labour and production cost are low.

It is the federal government that allowed political barriers to be drawn up where our markets already existed. It was the federal Liberal government that allowed government subsidised fruits on consignment in Vancouver last year, when our own resources were here and we could have served the people. And it was the federal Liberal government — and I'm glad the Hon. Member is paying attention — it was the federal Liberal government which allowed imported fruit concentrates to come into the country in the east, put Canadian labels on them be sold to the American market and then they stood up proudly, those Liberals and said: "We're the greatest exporters of fruit concentrates in North America." And that is the attitude, and that is the bungling of the federal Liberal government.

And I would suggest the Hon. Member learns that the loss of our domestic markets which will happen if this policy of the federal government continues is even more serious that the loss of our international markets. Because without the domestic market agriculture cannot survive.

While this same Liberal government with its free enterprise policy was putting $2 million, I'm sorry to say, into the private company of the Premier of Quebec's father-in-law, they didn't have one cent for the fruit growers in the Okanagan Valley.

The industrial incentive programme which they initiated in the Okanagan Valley, which now has a 40 per cent failure rate, didn't have one cent for agriculture. Yet agriculture had proved that it could survive on its own, that its problems today were brought about by the federal Liberal policy. But not one cent.

Then we hear the Honourable Prime Minister of Canada stand up and talk about equality and sharing and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell you that when our warehouses are bulging with fruit, and when there are nutritionally-ailing Canadian Eskimos in the Arctic and where they subsidise the importation of pop and candy, and where things like cherries and apples are treated like gold. What's the cost to ship a box of apples from the Okanagan Valley to Cambridge Bay? Four dollars…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, if the Hon. Member doesn't know where Cambridge Bay is he'd better learn a little bit more about Canada. That was a Liberal Member by the way.

Four dollars for the cost of the apples, the packaging and placing of it on the airport, $22 a box freight, and that is the cheapest freight we could get. We tried to negotiate with an airline that has a charter but is under somewhat of an area of suspicion with the transport commission who would have given us a cheaper rate and they wouldn't sanction it.

So that it came to $26 a box before it was distributed from Cambridge Bay to all the outlying areas. And the return to the producer Mr. Speaker, was $1.50 if he was lucky. And of that $22 went into freight, a subsidised freight company, subsidised by the federal government.

I would like to suggest that the federal government does not have the moral right to impose this archaic attitude on the people of Canada.

Today scientists and people, young people, and old people, are talking about making this a better land and preserving our environment. You just have to look through every magazine to get reasonable support for this attitude. They are asking for a return to the earth, and if we leave ourselves in the position where we can't support ourselves by producing our own food and feed our own people in Canada and British Columbia, if we let the vertical integration of foreign-owned companies — or in British Columbia for that matter of eastern-owned companies, because I see little more honour in being owned by Bay Street, than I do by being owned by Wall Street — if we let this do away with our agricultural production and our agricultural industry, we won't have any way of protecting ourselves in the event of a national emergency.

We know from only a week ago how quickly communications and transportations can be cut off, and when we no longer can produce our own food we won't have cheap imports because we won't be in a position to bargain, and you should know when you can't bargain you always lose.

I would suggest very strongly that we have to set about supporting my colleague the Hon. Minister of Agriculture — who has the support of the agriculture industry in this province, and who now has gained the support of most of the provinces in Canada — to ask the federal government, to insist that the federal Liberals change their policy and reassess it, make it more realistic, and make it oriented to the national survival of this country.

We also have to be practical and in British Columbia we have to launch a "Buy British Columbia" campaign. We have

[ Page 148 ]

always in this government promoted British Columbia products, but always within the context of Canadianism, and I certainly have subscribed to this. But I must assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come — and there is no intent to affect nationalism — but the time has come when we must encourage housewives, consumers of all types, to buy British Columbia produced products, and I suggest we start in agriculture.

We must educate the consumer to realise that a penny saved today by that cheap food policy is not a penny earned, and it is not two pennies, one penny, half a penny saved in two years from now, or five years from now, or ten years from now. It is in fact open licence to a much much more expensive food policy.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we must face up to this as British Columbians and as Members of this House, and I would like to see unanimous support from Hon. Members of this House, for the Minister's policy which is advocated by all of us. And just in case, I would mention…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: There are so many comments coming from the Liberals and so few of them present. Just to prove that I do know what I'm talking about and that the Liberals are not aware of what's going on I will quote one of their own Members — a Liberal Member of Parliament who has represented an agricultural area for four years, who has been petitioned, who has been visited in Ottawa, who has visited the area he represents on occasion. And he said, in September, 1971: "Oh dear, I was not aware of the gravity of the situation. But I assure you I will try and have a team of federal government specialists come to the Okanagan soon to discuss the growers' problems first hand."

And this Mr. Speaker, is after all the personal contact with this Liberal Member and a number of federal teams of specialists coming to the Okanagan.

So I assure the Hon. Members of the Opposition that they must support this policy. And if we don't we'll all in British Columbia lose economically, and we are all going to lose spiritually. That to me is extremely important. We will lose our environment and we will confine ourselves to organisations, and lovely well-planted costly green areas, and certainly we'll still have our mountains but that's nothing here. It might well be a step ahead in other countries where they haven't got the natural advantages. But it's not what we can build out of our province if we adopt a reasonable and agricultural policy

Mr. Speaker, provincially the cooperation has been excellent, and I would suggest that the provincial government, now that the Hon. Member has asked, should examine very closely the rural electrification programme, and see if in fact it should not be expanded where we can see a need for agricultural development — where there is a good farmer with the potential on his farm and the ability within himself to make it productive in a system.

I told the Hon. Member before, if he had been listening, what the provincial government could do.

I would like to just close with a poem. I am waxing poetic today. The Honourable Member of the Liberal Party, I believe it was from North Vancouver, last night got up as he does every session of the Legislature and waxed very eloquently about peace.

I don't mind this, I'm with him. What I do object to is his feeling and impression that he has a prerogative on these sentiments. And I would like, Mr. Speaker, to read a poem which was written by a 14-year-old boy. I think that it represents the feelings of nearly every Canadian, and certainly every Hon. Member of this House. It's very stark, and I have had the opportunity to speak to this boy, we had a long conversation the night that he wrote this. He wrote it after the conversation, and I would share it with you because as I say I believe it's how we all feel. It's called: "Car poor, plane war."

And the sleet fell, and the mud flew,
And the car skidded, and the blood spewed,
And God said, "Let the mud fly."
And the car skid, and my child died.
But better him die in a car,
And let him die poor,
Than to die in a plane
Shot down in a war.

I believe that all Hon. Members of this House are here with very deep ideals and that no one has a prerogative on sincerity or virtue and that all of us want British Columbia and Canada to be a better place for our children and future generations to live. We're all here, Mr. Speaker, based on the principles of man's humanity to man. Thank you.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I don't want to upset the quiet tenor of this debate.

A nice afternoon with the new quarters, Mr. Speaker, which everyone recognised, has so immeasurably improved the quality of Hon. Members' speeches. I plan, perhaps, just to shift my brain into neutral and let my tongue wag.

HON. MR. PETERSON: That would be an improvement.

MR. MACDONALD: I may make passing reference to the fact that the Hon. Attorney General of British Columbia is breaking the laws of the Province of British Columbia — a passing reference. He's a leadership candidate, doing well trying for the ethnic vote. The Hon. Attorney General should be congratulated, you know. He reduced the price of Scotch by 5 cents. Then he spoiled it all by scaring all the Scotsmen from wearing the kilt for fear of being picked up as being bottomless! (Laughter).

He attacks the Leader of the Opposition, "that meddler," for doing what the government should have done itself a long time ago. Didn't attack the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) the other day for having a joint conference with the Americans. Another meddler, I suppose.

I'd like to say that the Leader of the Opposition is being attacked by some Honourable Members opposite because he's effective. Because they're afraid of him.

He represents a new style of politics in British Columbia. Yes he does, and he's a fighter; a man who has won the confidence on this side of the House, confidence throughout the New Democratic Party and we'll win the confidence of the people of British Columbia. Those Hon. Members can attack him and no doubt they will, as a pinko, or whatever it may be. But we have confidence that the Leader of the Opposition is going to be the Premier.

He's growing with his job. I don't know about the Hon. Attorney General because he has drastically failed the people of the province and particularly Vancouver in this matter of glue sniffing.

[ Page 149 ]

I'm not going to say very much about it because so much has been said, but it's obvious as anybody in this room sitting here that criminal offences are being committed in the City of Vancouver and have been, particularly over the past six months, when a store owner sells a potential sniffing glue or nail polish to a minor, along with a plastic bag, that is a plain case of contributing to juvenile delinquency as you will ever take to court.

There hasn't been one prosecution. It is an abdication of duty and responsibility that the Attorney General should come into this House and make infinite excuses and send a wire to Ottawa on a matter of that importance to the health and indeed possibly the life, and mental sanity of the young people.

I would think that delinquency is broadly defined. Really if a storekeeper sells that kind of nail polish to a youngster, in those circumstances, surely that is contributing to juvenile delinquency. With no inquiry? With a plastic bag?

I think that the Hon. Attorney General should take a look at the case of Mr. Brian Redkin, from the point of view of civil liberties. Here he is. I know he said that he was a B.C. Company and he wasn't really. I mean, this Wesco is not a B.C. company.

I know that on the other subject — and I am talking about the rights of employment of British Columbians, right now, I'm not talking about insurance — I know in the other debate I may have said something about this company creaming, and that others were. It may take heart for me to say what I'm saying now, the next day. Nevertheless, when a British Columbian is prematurely dismissed, for as he says, pledging better rates for the people of the province, then there should be laws in this province to insure that he gets proper termination notice.

Now Common Law does something for him, but we have never had the legislation such as they've had in Manitoba, where the ordinary person of the province is entitled to notice, unless he is dismissed for just cause. In spite of what the Hon. Attorney General feels on this subject, I hope he'll take it seriously. When an American company to aggrandise their profits, by wire can peremptorily dismiss a man, as a result of his public activities, we've got to consider in terms of civil liberties and we've got to consider, just a little bit, in terms of the independence of this province.

You know the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) is present and I want to say a word or two on the subject of public transit, but not too much at this time. The second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Wolfe) not the lady member who preceded me, said that we're the only ones who talk about peace. But I'm sure we'll have a war and peace speech from that member a little later. We usually do.

But the second Member from Vancouver-Centre, made a serious charge, which I believe was true, against the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said, Mr. Speaker, that that minister when he offered for the government to put up 37 1/2 per cent of the cost of a transportation system for the lower mainland, said that that had been only communicated to the Press and that over a whole year, there had been one attempt at a meeting with transport minister Jamieson and the municipal minister, Andras.

Now if that's the record of this government on a pressing matter and if the Hon. Minister has any correspondence on this thing, he should table it in the House.

Has the Hon. Minister — and I put it to him — has he at least communicated by letter this offer to Ottawa? Because the second member said he's just released it to the press and tried to set up one meeting. A whole year has gone by and what we said from the beginning is true today, that this is just a smoke screen. This is just stalling.

That 37 1/2 per cent offer is the cheapest offer since, if I can recall correctly, W.C. Fields offered to take his little chickadee to see the next earthquake. (Laughter).

The Hon. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, knows perfectly well that for a long period of time — I should wait until he takes his seat — the federal government has not intervened and will not intervene in urban transportation and the ball is in his court and has been his court and this government has failed miserably.

Let's take the United States. The federal government participates and the state government participates. Let's take Ontario. Where the provincial government has shown leadership in this field. Here all of the leadership has come from the bottom, from the municipalities, from the regional district. The missing link in the transportation system has been the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: All of the leadership candidates are speaking up, except the other one who's not been named. The candidate who dare not speak his name. Who is running very well, I may say, at the present time.

Unless, Mr. Speaker, at this session of the Legislature, we take leadership in the field of urban transportation in the lower mainland, we will have lost another year and we've lost plenty of years under this government of rural myopia, we will lose another year. This government should be prepared to bring in the enabling legislation to enable the transfer to the regional district and the funding — look at California.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be anti-American.

MR. MACDONALD: Look at California where even governor Reagan has appropriated and set aside for urban transportation 2 cents of the gasoline tax.

Yes, funds have to be allocated and provided by this government to fund that thing. This is where the problem starts in this Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you in favour of B.A.R.T.?

MR. MACDONALD: No, I'm not talking about B.A.R.T., I'm talking about the leadership of the State of California, under a Republican administration in providing necessary highway funds and allocating a good portion of them to public transportation.

While we are dying of traffic strangulation and pollution and converting our cities into parking lots other jurisdictions like Ontario and California are taking a lead which is sadly lacking here, and will be sadly lacking under the Hon. Minister — that Rip Van Winkle, who has slept on this 37 1/2 per cent thing now for a whole year. Has he got letters? Has he got an exchange of correspondence with the transport minister? If so will he table them in the House? Or was that purely an empty gesture?

Turning to another subject, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the screen of silence and secrecy that the Hon. Attorney General draws over the activities of his department. Yes, I think he is

[ Page 150 ]

breaking the law. He knows the laws better than I do. There is the Attorney General's Act, section 5: "The Attorney General shall make a report to the Lieutenant-Governor of the conduct of the department. Which report shall be laid before the legislative assembly."

The Attorney General has never done that. That's been on the book since 1899. There has been a report from liquor control, the racing commission, the corrections but the Attorney General's department has a whole range of activities and there has never been, as required by that section, which the Attorney General is clearly breaking, a report from his department.

That same Act says, "he shall see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law." Well let's have that report.

They have passed legislation, Mr. Speaker, the Securities Act for example, where the veil of secrecy has been drawn down. No report from the securities commission, as required to be made from the Legislature, but the Attorney General is supposed to report. That's part of his range of duties. He never does and he never will, unless he is required by public opinion in this Legislature to do so.

The whole administration of the Securities Act is clouded in secrecy. The inquiries take place. There are reports to the commission, there are reports, say on medicare, or on Canadian help to the Attorney General. Never publicised. The securities commission meets in secret meetings, here is evidence: "We'll give written reasons for judgment, not to the public but only at the request of a party if that party asks for it." So the whole thing is shrouded and the investors of British Columbia and of Canada suffer accordingly. Because secrecy benefits no one, but an administration that wants to hide its incompetence.

Let's take one case. It's been mentioned in this House but I would like to show just what a breach of the law has taken place here, and how this will be one more item that will go down into the Attorney General's garborator and disappear from public view. Yet there has been a clear breach of the Act in the case of Kaiser Resources. Where the sections of the Securities Act clearly constitute these, what was it, 36 officers and directors of Kaiser Resources with whom this government made a deal. Whom this government selected to yard B.C. coal to Japan. That's performance. That's what Mel Watkins would call performance. No pinkos there!

Section 106 of the Securities Act says that insiders, "shall within 10 days of the month file with the commission a report on their direct or indirect beneficial ownership of securities of the corporation and any changes." That was not done, because of the few documents that were made public in the company's records, that's one that is supposed to be made public.

The Kaiser directors did not, as they were required by law to do, file their own share-holdings when after the period when they purchased their shares, which was March, 1970, they purchased as insiders — as insiders necessarily having confidential information of the state of the mining operation in the Kootenays — as insiders who watched those shares rise to around 22 from 12, who knew and must have known that the impending trouble was on its way. And who then unloaded those shares to the Canadian investing public in breach of this law.

And who was hurt? It was the Canadian investing public. These people that were said to initially provide an investment opportunity for Canadians — this was the announcement when they made the issue, to provide an investment opportunity for Canadians — they did not say that these Canadians would be sheared like lambs, in good part as a result of the trading of insiders.

This kind of activity, which is clearly in breach, in my submission, of 106 and 107 of the Securities Act should be subject to prosecution. There should be a public hearing. If the average fellow in this province is prosecuted pretty regularly — and he is — then if it is a white-collar offence the Attorney General ought to give equal attention to it.

The practice of fringe-benefits on a confidential basis in the subsidiary companies of multinational corporations, according to Edgar F. Kaiser, is quite common.

He said stock fringe benefits in foreign-owned subsidiaries are common practice.

How many other cases are there like this, I would ask the Hon. Attorney General, where reports are not filed, contrary to the prospectus, contrary I would hope to the terms on which he brought Kaiser into the province, and contrary to the law? There should be prosecution.

Now, I want to turn to some other government reports. You know, the other body, the Public Utilities Commission, under section 65 — which was passed, I suppose, long before the days of this government — is required to make a report to the Legislature of its conduct and decisions and findings throughout the year.

Indeed, it does make a report as required by law. It goes into detail: somebody in Trail is complaining about water service or something of that kind. But when it comes to the major things what do we find?

In this report we find in short that the Legislature is being misled, Mr. Speaker. I have here the 1970 report and the other reports. It is rather interesting, you know, in a period when in the cemetery business — the burial business, I should make it broader than that — where there are not only operating businesses but trust funds of substantial proportion, that there should be a section 1n these reports referring to transfer of ownership and not a word is mentioned in this full and frank report to the Legislature of the wholesale Americanisation of the funeral industry in B.C. In the last few years.

It's the whole trend with the sole exception of the Memorial Society, and I put it that way, is towards fancy prices. Fancy caskets and fancy embalming and spiraling costs has gone on and here we have under transfer of ownership a little bit of reporting on, oh, a Doukhobor cemetery there or something of that kind. And that was not a full and frank disclosure to the Legislature.

I know it was share transfer but surely if they are reporting and doing their job that kind of thing should have been called to our attention. Instead of that this prices spiral it's getting so all a person could do pretty well today is will your body to the university, except for the Memorial Society. In any case, everybody, they say, should go to college. (Laughter). But let us look at these reports in some other particulars. Now take this sentence from the 1970 report of the commission: "During the year work continued on the care fund accounts of Victory Memorial Gardens Ltd."

That's all it says. You wouldn't expect from reading that little innocent sentence that the trust funds had been dipped into. You wouldn't suspect that Victory Memorial had to put together the South Side Company of other funeral directors and hold hearings and then shove the memorial society aside and sell this new group the cemetery and give them a crematorium so that from the profits of that possibly the

[ Page 151 ]

defalcations in the trust funds could be made up.

You wouldn't think that there had been at this time contrary to law a $250,000 mortgage placed upon the cemetery of Victory Memorial near White Rock. You know, Mr. Speaker, you're not supposed to mortgage a cemetery.

Now then what do you do even apart from the foreclosure difficulties…? (Laughter). Who do you serve in a case like that? (Laughter). Where do you serve the paper? But with its eyes wide open knowing these things, obligated by the Legislature under section 65 to give an account to this Legislature they write a sentence like that. It's been the same for the last three years.

"During the year work continued on the care fund accounts of Victory Memorial Gardens Ltd."

AN HON. MEMBER: They sure worked that out!

MR. MACDONALD: You know, Mr. Speaker, when a lawyer dips into his trust funds it's either "over the road" or "over the border." (Laughter). But in these two cases I'm talking about, in each case the commission covers it up, fails to report to the Legislature, buries its own mistakes and negligence and incompetence in not looking for those reports to come in as required by law.

And awards them a crematorium, to try and make it up. That's what happened in Victory Memorial Gardens. That's what happened in Colwood.

There's no question about the regulations. I'm not going to read them in detail here but they constitute trust funds, for the upkeep of cemeteries, they're trust just as much as any other trust money. Supposed to be invested in a trust company, segregated, and there is supposed to be a public passing of those accounts every five years. I've simplified it a little bit.

Victory Memorial failed to pass its accounts within the five years. The P.U.C. didn't do anything about that. You'd think at least they could diary the thing because they had lots of trouble with that thing a way back in the days of Henry Angus when they were really bringing in good regulations.

They did nothing about it. Colwood — with Mr. Robert Hagle and related companies in default — after a lot of trouble you'd think they'd watch — in default of filing his trust accounts with the court, in default of reporting to the Public Utilities Commission, having dipped into those trust accounts, having not been prosecuted. What does the Public Utilities Commission do about that? They give them a crematorium. In the report dealing with the whole Colwood matter, it says this:

Colwood burial park near Victoria came under the management of Colwood Improvement Co. Ltd. In 1970.

and a little further down…

A temporary waiver of part of the requirements of the care fund regulations for Colwood Cemetery Company, Greencrest and Cedar,

those are related…

was continued in 1970 due to the situation of the companies concerned.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that says nothing about the Colwood Trust Funds being put under trusteeship. That says nothing about a trustee being appointed who is a retired banker. That the trust funds were short by $42,000 — that all of this was known at the time the Legislature met last year when we had a debate and the Attorney General said he might look into the matter.

This kind of a report is misleading, a cover up, burying the incompetence and the negligence of the Public Utilities Commission itself. It is in contempt of the Legislature.

Of course, in the Colwood case they held the usual hearing at Nanaimo, shoved off the Memorial Society again into a corner, had some fancy thing about some land being worth $350 so that they had a low bid, and instead they made the wages of sin in this case the award of a crematorium, which they had done before. They hoped that out of that crematorium profit there may be enough to make up the deficiency someday in the trust funds.

Who's being creamed? I don't attack the members of the Public Utilities Commission as persons, because they have had distinguished careers in the Province of British Columbia. But I say they should be pensioned off, and that's true. I don't say that in a derogatory manner but these are long retired deputy civil servants and a long-defeated Socred cabinet minister and that has been a quality that could of an element that has been in too short supply. Just one or two, I know that. I know these boards are crying for that kind of applicant, you know. Really bushy-tailed.

But I say that the Public Utilities Commission must lift the veil of secrecy over these things and the Public Utilities Commission must go, entirely reconstituted and made into an aggressive, independent scrutinising body that can begin to protect the interests of the people of this province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to say something about the natural gas pipeline, and I'm talking about the real story. You know, if you look at that tangled scheme, that tangled web of events and try to make sense out of it, at first it boggles the mind.

Yet if you look at it long enough you can see that it boils down to a very simple thing that has taken place. It boils down to this — that when West Coast Transmission has a cold the Premier sneezes. When the Premier sneezes, the Public Utilties Commission says "gezundheit." I introduce this as what I think as new material and that is this.

The two Hydro directors are sitting there, Mr. Speaker, and they know this, they authorise it, when B.C. Hydro gave its evidence at the National Energy Board to the federal cabinet, the evidence stated this: it said that with respect to the extension of natural gas to Vancouver Island, it was stated to be dependent upon a favourable price relationship of competing fuels on the island.

West Coast maintained that would occur by 1975-76 while Hydro expected service would be feasible by 1973-74. B.C. Hydro also suggested that it rather than West Coast would provide the connection to Vancouver Island.

Now, that must have been authorised by the directors of the B.C. Hydro who are now deserting the chairman and deserting the people of B.C. In support of the private pipelines.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1969, was that?

MR. MACDONALD: That was in 1969.

AN HON. MEMBER: We approved the order in council.

MR. MACDONALD: On that basis we had this kind of a situation which the Hon. Members know pretty well, so I won't go into it in any great detail. But you had a clear case

[ Page 152 ]

of the public interest being served by B.C. Hydro being allowed to proceed. The rates would be without profit. The rates would be lower because of the route for one thing. But principally because of the increase in load. The load factor. Because they have a contract with West Coast Transmission for $400 million cubic feet a day up to that. They have gas for the island. As the volume is shipped to the island the price B.C. Hydro pays decreases and West Coast doesn't like that.

It would be publicly owned and Canadian. I may be getting ahead of myself in my material but I think we know the story pretty well. Why did Premier Bennett come out with his terms of proposals, I think of last April, which were tailormade for the Malaspina Gas Company? My friend here says Malaspina is named because it says in Spanish, "bad back." (Laughter). Malaspina, bad back invertebrate government. (Laughter). The perfect combination. Why was West Coast Transmission which holds so many IOU's, political IOU's of this government — oh, remember the 1960 election where the headlines on the last day of the C.C.F. victory were "Who cost the province 10,000 jobs? says Frank McMahon." For 19 years this government has been like a mother to the West Coast Transmission Company, and that relationship still exists today. And the Malaspina Company was merely a front company. They didn't have the money or the engineers to make a bid of that kind Mr. Ekman now announces….

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is he?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Ekman — bon vivant. (Laughter). The Premier's speech writer, the Premier's jester, voyageur, taster. (Laughter).

My Hon. friend from Cariboo said last night, as widely reported, that the Hydro didn't have the experience. There were people like Malaspina. (Laughter). And indeed I suppose that you could say that Mr. Ekman had good pipeline connections. (Laughter). He's been the pipeline between the industry and the Premier's office for years.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Oh, Danny Boy…

MR. MACDONALD: And when they called for the pipeline bids, was it not natural that — Oh, Danny Boy the pipes, the pipes are calling. (Laughter). He had the experience, he'd worked for Mr. Bennett and he'd worked for Mr. McMahon. Two masters but with a single thought. It's so beautiful.

But what did these great watchdogs of the public interests — our two Hydro directors — do about it? They must have authorised Hydro to give that evidence in 1969 and yet the Premier came out of his office and did the other thing and after it was done Resources Minister Williston, the Hydro director, takes a far different view. If some other company builds the line then Hydro will distribute the gas in Victoria where it already distributes gas and in other areas where the successful bidder doesn't want it distributed. Give the Hydro the poor areas.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I never said that. I deny it.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the Hon. Minister deny this, that after the bids came out he said after these developments, "that as far as the government is concerned Hydro always had the ability and the right to propose such a line but didn't do so. Therefore the government had to invite proposals and this woke up Hydro at the last moment"? Did he say words to that effect?


MR. MACDONALD: And yet in 1969 he knew they had made this proposal to the National Energy Board and when the bids were called he wouldn't even see that the specifications were sent to B.C. Hydro. No, no, they were determined these watchdogs, this government, to put the hex on Hydro and get it out of the way and make sure that private industry got this pipeline and strip it away from the scrutiny of the national energy board. That's what this is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: To strip it away from the scrutiny because Mr. Speaker, West Coast Transmission which used to sell gas across the line at $0.22 and to the people of B.C. at $0.33 or $0.31 as a result of the Liberal government in Ottawa — and not Honourable Members opposite — who have never had restrictions on gas export, never attempting to control the price even as Alberta has done, because the Huntington line also goes into the United States of America, has stepped in and requires that the price to the Americans be not less than 105 per cent of the price to the lower mainland. And what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker with a private company — be it Malaspina and I don't believe it is going to be Malaspina — or not, is that that will be taken away from the scrutiny of the National Energy Board. That will be just a provincial link. No controls, any price you want to charge, milk the consumer…get away from that old National Energy Board. That's why the Premier came out into the hall and called for bids and that's why they tried to shunt Hydro aside.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got the terms of reference for this speech?

MR. MACDONALD: To quote the Hon. Minister of Resources again. On October 28, 1971, "Resources Minister Williston on Thursday contended that the P.U.C. decision was the right one." Now he's referring to the decision, which had been made by the P.U.C., that Malaspina had been selected by the government and was the prime applicant and that everybody else would be interveners only.

Now that decision undermined again the integrity and the independence of the Public Utilities Commission. The Premier had sneezed and the board broke its Act because that Act clearly required them certainly to hear any company that is referred to it by the cabinet. But it requires them to hear all applicants for a public franchise and not have a prime applicant and shunt the others off into a corner. Yet the Hon. Minister of Resources supported that decision. He said that decision was the right one.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I will. I will quote it again. That was on the prime applicant. I'm quote from the Vancouver Province "that the P.U.C. was the right one"

[ Page 153 ]

although he said it was not directed by the provincial government.

You don't have to direct it, you just sneeze.

Mr. Williston said, Province, October 28, 1971: "It would not be right to allow all the proposers to come before the commission at once since not all had met the government specifications."

Hydro would be out. They didn't even send them a copy of the specifications. Well, he is a director. Why should these two directors sit here, Mr. Speaker, and confess to the fact that they let the public down in this important respect? The watchdog of the public interest — and I hope he continues to be — is not Honourable Ministers opposite, it is Chairman Shrum who has shown some independence in this matter and helped to stave off the give-away that was taking place, the neat little transfer of the thing to Malaspina's hands — prime applicant, let the others sit in a corner. Use the P.U.C. as a lightning rod so that if there is any political criticism the lightning will fall there. Receive the bids, open the bids and select your applicant after a secret cabinet meeting. No light of day about that meeting, come out into the hall and announce that you have selected the highest bidder $97 million. No, no, this is British Columbia. (Laughter).

So they selected the highest bidder and the Malaspina Company is now fading away. The ground rules have been completely changed before the Public Utilities Commission as a result of political decisions made by this government. West Coast Transmission through Kelly Gibson is trying to throw water on the Hydro proposal by saying they can only service the lower mainland. He has no right to make such a statement and the price if Hydro builds the line, as perhaps I have said, will be subject to the National Energy Board where it belongs.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say again that the Public Utilities Commission has badly let down the people of this province. I say that the government has done everything in its power to prevent the logical effective thing taking place in the best interest of the people of British Columbia — cheaper gas for Vancouver Island, cheaper gas throughout the whole system, more jobs in British Columbia.

And, of course, the leading horse now is Pacific Northern. Malaspina has faded into the sunset, but they never had the resources or the engineering. Malaspina had the plans for the Powell River crossing which West Coast Transmission had had prepared about 1964. But the jobs, the engineering and planning jobs, should be British Columbia jobs — and they will be with Hydro. And they will not be with these private firms. Because the Canadian Bechtel Company has merely an office here and the engineering and planning work will go to San Francisco and we'll lose that employment.

Oh, you can say we're only talking about possibly 50 or 60 skilled jobs in that particular field. But we're talking about jobs for British Columbia. We're being lead wholly unnecessarily at a time when the line could already be under construction by Hydro, looking toward their forecast use of the gas in '73 — '74. Construction should have started.

We go through this charade, this farce of P.U.C. hearings when the government will make the decision anyway. Unless public opinion and this Legislature forces them to do otherwise they will undoubtedly choose the one who receives the nod of the head from West Coast Transmission.

The hearings will be expensive — Mr. Ekman says "$900,000 we have to have to appear and have our plans before the P.U.C." I don't know how he made his bid before he spent that money but that's what he says.

But it will be delay, bickering, politics when the simple solution in the best interests of the consumers and the industry of British Columbia is lying right there at hand. The solution is to build. The solution is not to allow your pipelines, the sinews of your province, to be controlled directly or indirectly by great utilities in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, the solution is to build now and to build the shortest route and to build it under public ownership without profit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to address you once more to make my contribution to this debate. There have been changes in the benches down in this corner that have been referred to before. We lost a good seat-mate, we gained a good Minister. We people are a philosophical breed, we private members. Some people kindly refer to us as back-benchers. We say we win a few, lose a few, and some are rained out. I just want on my part to extend the very best wishes to our new minister in his delicate and difficult portfolio.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to talk too much about constituency matters and I will be specifically referring to more things as we get along, but I would like to begin with the good news that is prevalent for the ferry riders — the people that ride the ferry between Haney and Langley. It happens that the tolls on the Fort Langley — Albion ferry will be removed on Febrary 15 next.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything to do with an election?

MR. VOGEL: No, no, nothing to do with that. Equal treatment for all. I will refer to that now that the Hon. Member has introduced that aspect. It didn't occur to me anybody would be cynical, Mr. Speaker. I never anticipated that, I never anticipated that.

But my friend, the M.L.A. for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) and I are both grateful to the government and the Minister of Highways. Without inserting a "however" I do want to say something else about it thought.

The removal of the tolls is fair and it is appropriate and certainly it would never be suggested over there I don't think that with traffic travelling free on the Pattullo Bridge — the new Mission Bridge to be toll-free — why should the people between Langley and Dewdney have to contribute a toll'' Why should they?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out two or three things that I'm sure the Hon. Minister would appreciate having from the local point of view. This particular ferry is not a tourist route, it's a working man's route. The traffic flows from Dewdney in the morning, Haney, to the industrial area in the well-developed commercial belt that exists in the central valley from just east of Whalley to up towards the Matsqui border.

This industrial belt is providing more and more jobs as I predicted seven or eight years ago when I first came in the House. It will increase. My prediction is that the central valley being the fastest growing section will contribute finally the greatest flow of traffic.

It should never be anticipated that the Albion — Rosedale ferry can ever be eliminated. The Mission bridge will not eliminate that crossing. The traffic will grow and grow and it

[ Page 154 ]

was necessary at a public meeting just before I came to the House, to say publicly that this service, because of the rapid increase in use, has become too small and inadequate.

My plea to the Hon. Minister therefore is to replace the existing facility with a 35-car ferry. I think we should anticipate that within three to five years the traffic at that point is going to become very difficult to handle by means of a ferry of any size. A bridge is going to be required.

I think I am justified in saying that, Mr. Speaker, because when we decided to build the Mission bridge as a result of a promise we had made many years ago — and certainly should have kept — I suggested that perhaps we could move the location of that bridge slightly more to the west and serve the entire valley at that point between there and the Pattullo bridge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I must make a comment on the throne speech and it is necessary to say with the best will in the world that I have come to have something less than reverential regard for this particular ritual.

I know it is necessary, it's a part of the formal structure upon which consideration of the people's business is founded. But I don't think it is necessary to devote two weeks in this way and I would suggest first of all that we recognise without question that private members require an opportunity to make a formal address, a constructive report, and have an opportunity to present their own views on past and future regulations, to make what contribution they can to the management of the provincial affairs. We must never reduce that right but perhaps we can move the speaking time that we devote to a more useful vehicle.

When we get into the budget speech we're dealing with a precise document that gives us figures, amounts to spend and suggest allocation of expenditures in a definite way. Perhaps we could tidy up our formal speeches by getting onto the budget more quickly, get down to estimates, thereby get into legislation and the Hon. Members then would be free to speak freely and get answers from the cabinet benches.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about putting estimates on the records?

MR. VOGEL: Well, I'd have to think about that one. I don't find the throne speech to be dull, that's not the objection. It's just imprecise. There isn't too much that you can deal with effectively. The theme in this particular throne speech is good. We're talking about jobs in the public domain and we're fortunate in being able to use the B.C. Hydro, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway — soon to become the British Columbia Railway — park and forest lands to create employment in necessary work and productive work, not just making work.

But, you know, the thing that really intrigues me about the budget — and when I say it is imprecise I mean these things are a little difficult to find but they're there — is the reference to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

Now, the P.G.E. is the great planning tool of the north. The north country is our frontier. I was digging around through last year's budget and came across a map that I have referred to before — on page 13.

That's great. There's the story of jobs, new frontiers and so on, this wide belt, and what this referred to at that time and becomes more significant today is the extension of the central prong from Fort St. James to Dease Lake which is 420 miles and projected in this throne speech.

This suggests to me that we will have there a belt 420 miles long and say 200 miles wide, because experience indicates that that can be reached by trail, logging trail, logging road and mining trail and I would think that if we could anticipate completion by 1974 we would have 5,000 primary jobs in that mineral- and timber-rich area. If the old formula is acceptable that one primary job produces four to five secondary jobs, it would support a population of 25,000 people.

Now, the idea of course would be to tap the resource wealth of the north, build towns, build payrolls and build up the new frontier and I believe we've got young people who will accept such a challenge.

I want to say a word about the great city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. I hope my friends who directly represent that area, having constituencies within its present border, won't misunderstand or resent what I have to say. But I think there's a grave question to be asked and I think the question is: "Can we save Vancouver?"

AN HON. MEMBER: From what?

MR. VOGEL: If you look around you will observe one startling fact — that all over North America major cities are dying. They are rotting and they are crumbling. You have to go east perhaps to see this most graphically because the cities are older there and the deteriorating factors have had longer to work.

The same thing can be seen to the south in a slightly different context in terms of age and it is important to know why this is so. We must ask ourselves the question: "Can we avoid the same fate?" I think it's the responsibility of this provincial government to see that Vancouver does not stagnate and decay for the same reasons.

The thing is, what is the threat? Well, the threat in my view is the freeway concept that has been introduced through the projected third crossing of the Burrard Inlet.

I'm against it as it is presently planned. I think it is a serious mistake. I think that all the very real factors should be considered and an appeal should be made to the young imaginitive people to recognise what we are really doing in this concept.

I say to the probably over-generous city fathers of Vancouver in this regard that I think they are being conned. I think they're being hoodwinked.

You might say, as an MLA in rural Langley, why am I concerned? Well, the Fraser Valley — all of it, properly viewed — is an extension of the City of Vancouver. It will be apparent that that is so as far as Chilliwack and perhaps taking in the whole coastal plain.

The automobile, related to the limited area of the city core, is the instrument of strangulation. Now, I don't know why that should surprise anybody. To keep Vancouver unique, great and beautiful, we should plan to let people in — all that will come from everywhere and anywhere. It's a great tourist city. Exert controls on the automobile. You don't exert controls on the automobile by inviting every North Shore citizen to dump his car in your limited city centre. Exactly the same thing applies to the automobile driver from Langley, Surrey, or anywhere else.

One or two people in the car — an automobile say, my friend Ivan Wolfe gave me this, averages 18 feet by 6 feet and I think that's 108 square feet — covers a lot of ground in terms of occupancy very quickly.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that people should be brought quickly and cheaply to the downtown core. There is nothing

[ Page 155 ]

new about that concept except we're talking about that and still talking about letting them pour their cars into Vancouver and it doesn't make any sense. One way to solve the problem, I suggest, is for cars from everywhere to be routed to perimeter points. This has been talked about before. I've spoken about it. I can remember the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) speaking about this two years ago, I think it was. Plenty of easy-to-reach low-cost parking should be provided and it should be provided now as a first step. If we do not build freeways — and this North Shore concept is a freeway into the city — we will face a crisis which is obviously approaching. You see it every time you go downtown. It's hard to get in and it's hard to get out.

That's not bad. I say it's good. Because out of this crisis will come a sane solution and I don't think we'll get it any other way. I think that's the history of democracy. A crisis is created, it becomes obvious to the majority and we are permitted then to spend the money and organise the vehicles through which we seek a solution.

The crisis of course, is the difficulty of movement of the increasing traffic in the downtown area.

The obvious solution, of course, is the thing that many able people are studying — which is rapid transit. Modern transit, of course — in whatever form you can organise, and I would suggest you start with something that can be put together fairly quickly with the dollars that are available — would recognise certain collecting points that show pretty clearly by a study of the population distribution. One would seem to be in East Hastings near 401, probably somewhere around Exhibition Park and there is something going on there now.

Richmond is obvious, near the thru-way, the south end of the Oak Street bridge. Central Park is another. We have Kingsway which lends itself perhaps to some sort of a transit route and we have the B.C. Hydro line and technicallyqualified people would do the planning and the execution and so on.

But you need a well-managed and well-financed authority or it will never get off the ground.

I think we should create it now — at least in skeleton form. I think that step number one is to divorce transit from the B.C. Hydro. I don't think that the cost of running buses should appear on a utility bill. I don't think that's good, tidy business management. I don't think it should be dumped on the municipalities.

I, as an M.L.A. shouldn't say this is a problem and "why don't you do something about it?" I don't think that at all. I don't think we can afford as a province the cost of failure in this regard.

I would say for just what it's worth, for consideration, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we should create a separate Crown authority to do this job the way we did say after the pattern of the ferry authorities, to do the entire mainland transit job. An obvious objection might be from somebody in the interior: "What about the rest of the province?" and this is a darned good question.

I don't know just how you weigh the absolute equity in a thing like this, but there are a great deal of precedents for give and take. For instance, in the hydro distribution we all recognise that a rural electrification is more expensive in terms of the number of connections. We recognise that. Nobody suggests that they should be restricted in terms of the costs.

But I say that it should be separated and identified in a business-like way to get rid of the confusion of the utility producing and distributing factor obligation responsibility and the matter of transit.

It will cost money and a lot of money but it will be cheaper than freeways in dollars, and a great deal cheaper, I think, in terms of preservation of the primarily important cultural business and financial centre of this great province — which Vancouver is, and will always remain.

We have a unique situation. If you accept the concept that the entire coastal plain is an extension of the City of Vancouver you are talking about half the people that reside in this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious thing and just as fundamentally important as the job we did when we went into the interior with our tremendous highway system to open up the wealth that was obviously going to pour into the coastal plain and the City of Vancouver and the industrial centre of Langley and everywhere else, but was to the benefit of all the people of this province.

It was the only way that you could provide economic liability for the huge province for which we have governing responsibility. The thing that really amazes me when this is happening and is so apparent, is that nothing could be as costly as the destruction of that great city, we know that. I don't have to emphasise that.

But the thing that really puzzles me is, where are the voices? Where are all these environment people? You know they never heard of a Skagit before three or four years ago, and a lot of people that talk about it have never been there.

Where are all these environment people? They are living in Vancouver and they're seeing it destroyed and they never say a word.

Where are all the clean air lovers? You know, the people that want to choke down industry and stop MacMillan Bloedel. Where are the clean air people? Where are the modern planners, the trained people that say they can create the finest? Let them speak now — and speak out loudly — and speak out soon.

There is no question at all about the freeways between large cities and better freeways perhaps than we have today — because I don't know, cars may be travelling 100 miles per hour in 20 years, or 150 or 200. I don't know anything about that, that's a technical thing.

They will have to be constantly improved, but the freeway concept in the perimeter of a growing city is destruction, strangulation and death. And I don't think you can argue with me about that.

I want to say a word — and I hope this won't embarrass our new Minister and I'm sure he could talk about it with more authority than I — I want to say a word about the economic outlook as I see it.

I think that someone more influential and knowledgeable than myself should have the courage to warn the people of this province that we are rapidly hurrying towards control.

I think we are hurrying towards controls, I really do. And what is the reason? Well, it always has to do with people. It doesn't have to do with what a manufacturer wants or anything else. It always has to do with people, and the great overriding fear that's abroad in this country has to do with the shrinking value of the dollar.

We know that the settlements historically and in the last 12 months have been phenomenally high. I had in my original notes over 7 per cent and the Minister told me in a helpful aside a few minutes ago that they were something like 8.1 per cent and I believe that that is an indication of the current rate of acceleration.

[ Page 156 ]

Point number one in this business of acceleration of costs and prices, and the shrinking value of the dollar, is that in good management — and I am talking about management in the public sector as well as the private sector, and we're supposed to be managers in the public sector — good management requires some constant and dependable values to deal with, or whatever you plan on as meaningless.

We have got a crazy situation where you have 8, 9, 10 per cent plus acceleration of wages, which do not keep up with rising living costs.

So the housewife, when her husband wins a strike, goes out with a new large pay cheque, after a long, lean period when there was no money coming in, or very little. And she finds that it won't buy from the shelves of the supermarket what the smaller pay cheque that she had last year would purchase. So it is an intolerable situation.

But there's another reason other than that. It will not be decided on theoretical, philosophical or ideological ground or argument between you and me. It won't be decided that way. It'll come about by the crunch of competitive necessity.

Our big powerful neighbour to the south, who sets the pattern for a lot of the things we do — whether we like it or not — is really scared. I know that the Hon. Members over there have been down there and talked to them, and I have, I spent quite a bit of time down there over the Christmas — New Year's holidays.

I moved around, and they on all sides are concerned about the lack of constancy of the purchasing power of the buck. They will put in controls because they realise if they don't, what we call the competitive society will go down the drain, and any society that follows it, if we have a break down for that reason, we will certainly be a controlled society. Certainly couldn't be anything else. It never has been.

I think that what we talk about, what we give lip service to our free right to strikes and lockouts is simply a licence to destroy ourselves. I don't think we're talking about anything that's meaningful in the world of today at all.

The employer gives in to the blackmail of a strike and what does he do? He just jacks up his prices. The public employer, the school board or whatever, pays a higher rate and, jacks up the taxes or the utility bill.

When the U.S. go for controls, prices and wages, we will follow suit because our economics are tied together. They are our big market in spite of all the chest thumping that has been done by the Donald Gordon's and the Joe Greene's and we will follow along because there is no other course.

There is only one other thing that I want to talk about and I am going to be very brief.

This business of self rule for native people, I think should have the Minister who spoke about this the other day and who was involved in the effort of a Indian Band of Northern Vancouver Island — Cape Mudge. I think he should have encouragement and support. I am talking about the Cape Mudge problem.

The move was initiated by Chief Lawrence Lewis, we all know that, and it was strongly supported by the Hon. Minister. They had an extremely favourable vote and we all know that. And I'm sure we were delighted.

I was quite apprehensive when Chief Lewis threatened to resign, and he should not have done so, and he did not. But I think what we should say about it is this — that the way to deal with minorities whether they are the Chinese population, that have made such a contribution in Vancouver, or the Italian population that are preponderantly situated in Hastings East, or the German population in the central valley, or the French population in Quebec, the way to deal with minority groups is to bring them into the main stream and treat everybody the same. Let them participate in our democracy.

I say that that should apply to our native people. We should not permit any situation that will leave these people in a ghetto-like atmosphere — and a reserve is a ghetto and I think it's wrong.

Mr. Speaker, this is Friday afternoon. I shall reserve the other matters about which I wish to speak for another occasion.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been an enjoyable afternoon and it is my privilege to wind up the debate of this occasion. Maybe we should go home and call it off. Don't tempt you, eh?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of that great community known as Saanich and the Gulf Islands it is indeed my privilege and pleasure and opportunity once more to address this great debating society that endeavours to shape and form the course of history in the Province of British Columbia for the next 100 years we trust. May it always be a Social Credit government that takes opportunities like that.

I want to thank the Centennial Committee and the great work they did in the area of Saanich and the Islands. The projects that have been accomplished there that will go down in the history of the young people to come as a mark that they really set the pace and showed that the people appreciated what had been going on in this province for 100 years. We remember those who had gone before and look forward to a new society that is on our door step today, and we want to thank the people responsible — the Deputy Minister, the Chairman, Mr. Lawrie Wallace, and others that took such a tremendous part in the activities of this centennial year.

I want also to thank the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Chant) and the government for after 19 years in this House they are providing at last the facilities where we can not have the obstructions, but the opportunities to carry out the work of the riding with our people.

I have something to say about those facilities and decor that we appreciate to a degree in this Legislature but, it has been my contention that colours do play a great deal, or a great part in a person's life, and we know in this psychedelic age that colours have meant a lot to young people and others. We know that it has an effect upon their characteristics. The environment has a great effect, and I did talk to people who are in the know on lighting, on colour on the floor and I was informed by specialists that red has an injurious effect on the eye sight, that it is very definite and very critical. And I would say again that this red carpet is not good for eye sight and this is on the submission of people who know the effects of colour on the eye sight. And I know this that in my years in this Legislature I've always had perfect eye sight and gradually as you come in here for three months of the year, I do note the deterioration of the ability to see and perceive at close range.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just that you're getting older.

MR. TISDALLE: So I'm glad we did something about the

[ Page 157 ]

lighting that's in here. But we do have something on this floor that I don't think is good for us. I realise it was placed here so that we wouldn't see the blood that was being spilled. But I think that can be wiped up.

Now, there is just one other thing that I noticed here last week. Again, assessing the noise factor, I'm not making noise this afternoon. I'm speaking to you and I know you are listening. But the noise factor is this, that out of 44 of those who are in rock bands that were tested just recently, 41 had an impaired hearing problem.

Forty-four were tested. Noise inside of auditoriums — that's where we hear the rock and roll and I go skating a great deal and I'm in the area where this kind of music is used. I appreciate music but noise is another factor, and I am concerned about our young people in our schools and the attitude towards this kind of music is that the louder it is somehow the better it is. So you can knock yourself out with it eventually.

I know that a lot of young people, when I talk to them in prisons and elsewhere — and I had not intended to enlarge on this — they've told me that in listening to very loud rhythmic beats that they can get into a semi-high or type of trance that they enjoy very much. Now, I think that we should take a careful look at the proponents of this kind of thing, that it is done with intent to capture the minds of our young people with not really encouraging them to expand out in directions that are healthful, rather to their detriment. And if people are losing their hearing then we should do something about it. As well as the sight.

There's been a lot said about this throne debate and in my experience of years gone by, it has always been the same refrain by the Opposition that this is only a kind of mock-up ceremony and that the ceremony is unnecessary.

I want to disagree with that because I know that the parliamentary system has to have a starting point the same as any ball game. Somebody kicks the ball or somebody throws the first ball.

Now if the Opposition do seem at a loss after the throne speech is read, it's because it's like a bull fight without the bull, until it's the Opposition's turn Monday morning. I can appreciate their difficulty of contesting such a debate.

Another thing they feel is that if all the things were to be mentioned in the throne speech that we intend to do throughout the session they would have a better opportunity for debate. Let's make it clear that the government is not obligated in any way, shape or form to do the thinking for the Opposition. That's their prerogative and they should be prepared to oppose as well as once in a while propose.

It is interesting to note that the area of debate that we've had, that the greatest issue, I think in the Canadian economy today, is the labour issue or job opportunity. The Opposition to this day, in this part of the debate has studiously avoided that issue. They've inserted a factitious little motion here yesterday to delay the opportunity of Members to get down to the throne speech and debate it properly. They intruded into the debate with a motion that was irrelevant, that could have been debated anywhere else. Even this afternoon, the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about burial grounds and other things that have very little to do with this particular proposition that we are directing our attention to, and especially as this government has directed its attention and a major part of our debate to job opportunity.

I noticed that the C.B.C. is having a little of a work-to-rule, they claim. Well at least that will do away with a lot of air pollution and clean things up.

I want to say that in respect to one of the reporters who took the throne speech apart and seemed to have some doubts as to its validity of getting on with the people's business. He said it sidelined for two weeks the activity of the people's business.

I can only think that he probably also lives on a deadend "street" like the Opposition and can't really think without somebody promoting their thoughts. I wish that our reporters would get into the business of reporting what really takes place in the Legislature and the purpose of it and helping the people to understand the system of debate rather than covering it with their own unintentional remarks that have little to do with democratic procedure.

Now, I was very interested in the activity in respect to the constitutional conference that was being held here, the Canadian constitutional conference. A lot of members, I am sure, would like to have attended it. As an M.L.A. I sometimes think that when we talk about second-class citizens, that's what we are considered to be. It's hard to be recognised as a mere back-bencher and I'm not begrudging the fact that there are more important positions than being a back-bencher.

But, I noted when I approached the security guard at the conference — and there were plenty of them — that they immediately recognised me and said: "No Tisdalle, you're not allowed in this company this afternoon. This is for those who have been invited and have either Press cards or so on."

So I didn't make any opposition to it, I walked back to my automobile, picked up my note pad, my camera and my Press card and walked back.

I showed my Press card and was immediately ushered into the Conference area. A Francophone who could hardly speak my unintelligent English didn't say anything to me but looked at the Press card and proceeded to fill out a Canadian constitutional conference card written in French. I can't pronounce the British Columbia — it's in French also. Even the "Conference constitutionelle" is all in French. The day of the month is in French — I must say that everything was in French except "John D. Tisdalle, representing the Millionaire Magazine." These were the only words that were in English. I moved into this august chamber and was able to hear the debate with the first class citizens known as the reporters.

Now the Opposition felt that the throne debate ignored certain impressive issues such as the Amchitka blast. Well it also ignored some very important atomic blasts held by such countries as China. It didn't mention that. Open-air ones. It didn't mention Russia.

I never hear the Opposition taking this measure to task, but it's always something that affects our neighbourhood immediately to the south that they seem to champion. I never hear them getting up and saying: "Well, where are the people that Igor Gruzenko talked about?"

What about this man? Where is he today? He who sacrificed himself to defend the things that we so-called cherish — our freedoms and liberties. I had the privilege here last summer to talk to him on open line.

When I was talking to him I asked him what happened to his particular field of life. What was he doing now? I asked him how much he was getting. He said: "Well, when I took five opportunities to file my security material, eventually they told me, 'well, we'll send you back passage-paid right to Russia. Just forget the whole thing and take your papers with you."'

Well, he said, "that was a ticket to suicide. I might as well

[ Page 158 ]

not buy that one." But eventually he got asylum just when his door was almost being broken down, he said.

I said: "Well, what do you get now?" He said: "I get $200 a month and I'm trying to get an increase." I asked him: "Why don't you take a job?". He said: "Well to take a job would mean that I would perform a set of duties at a set time," and he mentioned two men or friends that had escaped and had done the same thing that he did, giving information to the allies.

He said they were assassinated shortly on their doorsteps when someone discovered the routine of their work. He said: "I have not been able to do that. I feel that I would be taking an unfair risk to my family and I am finding it very difficult to live on this amount."

I asked him: "What happened to some of the men you named? You brought the information. You presented it. What happened to such men as J. Lewis Gagnon?"

He said: "Oh yes, he left your country, went south to some South American country." He named it — it's on the tape. He said: "Several years later, three or four or five years later, I can't remember the exact amount, he comes back to this country and is now Mr. Information Canada at $40,000 a year. I still get $200 a month for protecting this country."

I want to say today, in the ears of this assembly who believe that we are here because such men decided that their duty to Canadians was more important than a duty to the country which was trying to subversively use Canadians, that we today have an opportunity — and I am going to speak about opportunities a lot today.

We have an opportunity to reward such men that are really citizens of this country but cannot take their rightful participation in democracy because of the fear that hangs over their lives.

"Having", he said, "at least five times changed my name and living places and continually under protection."

The housekeeper who came to his house, phoned in after me on the open line show and told him: "How delighted I am, to be able to hear your voice. What a pleasure it is after knowing your family so closely."

I think today, and I wish I could move it from the Minister of Finance's position or someplace, that we could say to this man: "We'll reward you if the federal government cannot and is unable to. We will reward you with a decent living if you are living in our province at this time" — and not a welfare cheque, but an honorary cheque for an honourable duty, to save Canada for Canadians and for democracy.

I have heard too much, Mr. Speaker, over the years, through the Press and every other media and of the politicians, that extol and exalt those who at one time and are today determined to overthrow this kind of a life that we have of freedom to make our choice and to live within the reigns of democracy. I don't tolerate it and neither do I accept it. I think we pussy-footed around with the pinkos and the half baked Socialists and all the rest of the bunch that want to use this freedom we have to destroy this freedom.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old sick display.

MR. TISDALLE: That's the kind of sickness we have from over there. Thank God it is not contagious. Thank God it is not contagious, that there is something we can do about it in defending our freedom.

Well, the Amchitka blast. Everybody was leaving school. I asked students who were 12 to 16 years old: "What is it, what are you doing out of school?"

"Well, our chums were going and so we thought we should go too. Our teacher incited us and said we should have a duty to protest the thing." So they went down.

Then after it's all over we got those articles and letters in the newspapers about the terrible loss of animal and especially bird life. They were trying to count it. At that very date that they were trying to count it, I thought of how many people enjoyed Colonel Saunders' Kentucky Fried Chicken. Finger lickin' good.

You know, Saunders came on the air that very day — being interviewed by, I think, David Frost — and he was opening up his new chicken dinners over in Australia. "This means now," he said, "we are killing — ringing the necks of one million chickens a day."

Born to die, nobody I hear ever defends the lowly chicken. We get some though, who defend the pigeons around here. I was just thinking while my good friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) was defending the pigeons yesterday, that the terrible disappointment of those male pigeons when they find out those hens have been sitting on unfertile eggs all summer. I think that they may take it out on the population and it won't be just flying over you either.

I would like to talk about opportunities in the land of British Columbia. Recently, addressing a Press club conference down in L.A. that they asked me to do about six months ago, I spoke to influential businessmen. That's right, and I talked about British Columbia, the land of opportunity. We weren't selling it, we were asking them to come and participate and live here and be part of the show.

When we talk about opportunity, I begin to think of the days when I was a carpenter in the trade union movement here. In 1952 when they went on strike I refused to carry a picket placard because I thought I could use my time more beneficially to the development of our country.

I'm not one who believes that a weapon should be used in this time of civilisation that is turned out of our universities. Men who know where they're going to park before they get to the moon — when you don't even know where you're going to park when you come downtown.

They know where they are going to land and park on the moon before they get there. If we can turn out men with intelligence out of our universities and institutions of learning like that, some way we should be able to come to grips with this business of being able to settle our differences without taking it out on all the people who do not sit at the bargaining table.

Today we talk about sitting down and bargaining. Well, let me tell you it's no bargain for the fellow that's not at the table when he sees his plumber is going to get $2 or $3 an hour more than he's getting, probably. It can only result in, as the Honourable Member who spoke before me said, the continual revolving of this spiral of an unnecessary type of inflation because we haven't been able to graduate people who know how to deal with the cause and not the symptoms.

When I came to a low income project the other day, back in October — and I phoned the Minister, I haven't the diary here, but I wrote it in the diary — I noted that the excavation was pretty well completed and some of the apartments had their foundations in. It was a Central Mortgage and Housing financing project for the lower-income people who would be paying reasonable payments for a working person, a reasonable mortgage, monthly mortgage and interest rate.

There was a man walking back and front of this non-union job with a picket placard — or was it a sandwich

[ Page 159 ]

board, pardon me.

It said in very bold black crayon "This is a non-union job. Unfair to labour." So union trucks were avoiding it. People were shutting down.

This firm of young men who started some time ago on their own, began to develop a good system of building apartments inexpensively for low-income people and getting the work done, was now being prevented from making their agreement with opportunity for others who needed to put bread and butter on their tables.

So I said to the young man, "I belonged one time to the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Jointers…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Got thrown out for not paying your dues.

MR. TISDALLE: Sure I didn't go back to work because of the strike. I paid the dues. I paid the dues. There was $75. They got that.

So the individual said: "I don't belong to any union." I said: "Did you ever belong to a union?" He said: "No. I never belonged to a union in my life." I said: "Who hired you?" He said: "It's right down there on the corner of Quadra, just a block away. You can go down to them, it's the Union Hall. They hired me."

I said: "That's interesting. Why did you take the job? A non-union man to picket a non-union job." He said: "It's better than welfare, I thought." I said: "Are you from out of the country?" He didn't answer that question.

So I said: "If you don't mind, I'm a member of the Press. I'd like to phone the Press and let's have an interview." So he said: "Well, maybe." So I went in and I phoned the Press, just a matter of 25 yards away from my office. None of them would come. They said: "Oh well, maybe." None showed up.

An hour later I walked over to the job after phoning all the media. There was none there and neither was the picket. I said to the contractor: "What happened?" He said: "Well, he sure left in a hurry after you left." All I want to draw the comparison here now is, here we have "consenting adults." Consenting adults not given the privilege or the rights that homosexuals are promised as "consenting adults" — that no one's going to picket that show, whether it's labour or not. No one is going to interfere with "consenting adults." The federal government passes legislation to protect the rights of individuals on that score. Why then does it mean that a person who wants to protect his livelihood and take a job with someone else who consents to hire him — that that type of consenting adult is less than important.

When it comes to legislation, you think it over. We talk about rights and duties. He's the minister of Labour, he's not the Minister for Trade Unions. He's not the Minister for any special group. He's a Minister that looks after labour in general and it's time we recognised that.

I'm for rights and opportunities for people but I think we need creative skill. We have a federal government that's willing to pour out millions of dollars for what they call innovation programmes.

One of them out here for young people is a replica that is similar to the Prairie Schooners — out in Sooke area. Go out and see it. They'll take another two years to finish it at least. Here it is sitting out there, some day to be a prairie schooner to do something or other across the country and come back again I suppose.

It's a commune I guess. I don't know but I've driven by it. It looks like something that, I can't describe it — it would take a picture to do it. It looks like they're doing a good job but it's with your money. "Innovations for youth opportunities."

How many more of these things such as counting the garbage across the countryside to find out how many pieces of garbage are per mile on a highway? Did they pick it up? No. They said, they didn't pick it up. They weren't paid for that. (Laughter).

You talk about laws that are queer. Not all the queers are laws but some…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. TISDALLE: You people are afraid. You're afraid of the truth. You know, I can remember the Opposition, the N.D.P. for years always kind of supporting people like Dr. Andy Cott and so on and the Georgia Straight, we never hear them saying too much against that. One person was fired in Saskatchewan because they tried to read the Georgia Straight in a school.

And I'm telling you if I brought the Martlet into this place and tried to read it with every four-letter word that was in last several issues ago in the summer… I saved it and it burned up in my office somehow or other.

If I was to read that article, if I read that editorial you would rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, so many times that we wouldn't get the afternoon speech over.

These are the people that are trying to shape the minds of our young people. Professional idiots. (Laughter).

As for the Georgia Straight, see what labour problems they are having. They had a great blow-up. They locked one another out. There's a lock out for you, Mr. Minister! The Georgia Straight locked one another out the other day. I think you should investigate it.

But these people can't stand criticism, you see. You get that pinko outfit and Socialists. They break up inside. They can't stand internal criticism or observation. Now, that's not so over here. Sure, we have somebody on this side who enjoyed a lot of freedom and liberty.

Then he decided that he wanted more freedom and liberty so he went alone. He goes it alone. "Little Scott Wallace sat in a corner…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Order, order…

MR. SPEAKER: I will bring the Hon. Member to order.

MR. TISDALLE: All right…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are referred to as "the Hon. Member from the constituency of… "

MR. TISDALLE: Right, right.

MR. SPEAKER: …and not by names.

MR. TISDALLE: Right, but I noticed that they refer to each other by first names and I was…

MR. SPEAKER: Not when I'm in the Chair. There will be nobody called by their first names.

MR. TISDALLE: That's right. That's good.

"…Seeking political cover. He looked to the right and he looked to the left, and he said "I'll either be one or the

[ Page 160 ]

other." (Laughter).

Then we have the perambulating man.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. TISDALLE: I would think that you need nursery rhymes explained. But anyway, the man who classifies himself as the Leader of the Opposition. He travels a lot and he's a great deal, you know, "He travelled east, he travelled west throughout all the wide province his muck was the best." (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us.

MR. TISDALLE: "He spread it real thin and he spread it real thick but unfortunately he couldn't hardly make any of it stick." I'm afraid the people have realised that.

We had a few talks about nuclear power. Well, I'll give you more. When it comes to Trudeau as the Prime Minister of this country and I understand today he's thinking of changing his Cabinet — maybe he already has. Well you just imagine what's going to happen then when Stanfield changes his underwear.

It doesn't really matter as long as you are going to…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member get down to some serious debate?

MR. TISDALLE: …as long as you're going to use the economic vehicle in Canada that is a wheelbarrow.

Now we did visit several of the areas of importance to this debate I believe and one of them was the fish plant down near the Lummi Indians, which is a reservation project with the help of the federal government and the State of Washington.

We talked about nuclear energy and I noticed throughout the states, especially on this west coast, that it's certainly the in power and it has, I think, a great deal in favour of it. In fact I was pleased to see the other day that the Mayor for North Saanich has indicated that he approves and it should be some day felt on this island I presume some day it will be.

But in respect to pollution I went around the site where they have seven square miles of ocean captured in a coffer dam for the aquaculture that the Indians themselves are handling now.

It started about three years ago. I spoke on this subject before but now I have had a personal view of it and spent some six hours, I guess, there.

We travelled the whole area with the truck, walked around, saw the plant, saw everything and then went into the biology station and I was really impressed with what can be done in the domesticating of fish. Not for maybe completely the food reasons.

What they call a patrol officer patrols the outside — not the fences like you do in cattle — but he patrols the outside of it. I don't know whether he'd be a scuba diver, fisherman or what.

Anyway they had the project going to where now it had some 40 senior Indians that were working for it and some 40 students. They have all of the chemistry of the project being carried on with the eggs being hatched and everything right there.

What impressed me not only was the way in which the natives were involved and had taken over the project pretty well with the help of senior officials, but that they had brought the senior members of the family there.

The father and mother and the grandparents would come into the school. Some stayed for classes. There was no thought about whether these people had an education that was adequate to understand.

I asked the reason for this and they said: "Well, we want no problem at home with the youngster finding that there is no interest there and saying 'Grandad maybe knows best, that we should leave these fish where they are and take the natural approach."'

The success story is very, very impressive. Not only would these young people be enabled to learn the biology but learn the language performance — the English and the math. There were some of the boys drawing the equipment. They were so good at drafting that they decided to re-draft the equipment just as if it was all blue-printed ready for manufacturing. It was because they are naturally talented in drawing and drafting. I thought that out of the whole thing many, many benefits were coming forth.

I would recommend to the Minister of Trade and Industrial Development and the Minister of Agriculture that now that the throne speech makes mention than an extension of A.R.D.A. benefits are to be made with the province, we should look very seriously at imitating or copying.

After all, the greatest copyist to pretty well beat us in every line of manufacturing today is Japan and there is no regrets or should there be any embarrassment to copy.

These biologists and chemists said: "We would be glad to help you in any phase that you decide to start".

It was interesting also to note that the growth of the fish which has been started by Professor Dr. Donaldson — the hybrid type — had improved from such a low estate of, say, laying around 800 eggs to now producing at least 19,000 to 21,000.

They were providing a table fish that was very acceptable for the restaurant trade. Another aspect that came up was that we may not have to go into such an elaborate confinement of waters. They have proven now that they could capture those fish and put them in cages and tow them to pasture if you please. You could tow them to the environment. The day may come when we could see our fish from the rivers being towed out to their place of fodder and feeding and then being brought back again. There wouldn't be any fish rustlers I hope out there.

We should be able to copy a lot from that and help our native citizens. Our native citizens are most interested in this kind of culture, and aquaculture is something we should move into. With a shoreline of thousands and thousands of miles we have every opportunity available to do this on a worthwhile basis and I recommend it.

One of the gentlemen there had been a commercial fisherman. He said to me: "I quit the job and took over this as superintendent." He told me that the last time he was up in the Massitusis Inlet, with a seiner catching haddock — I think it was a seiner, I'm not sure whether they catch haddock by seine or by hook and line; some fishermen would like to maybe correct me — anyway, it was a large vessel and he went up into the area where seven nations had fished it out. He said they had scraped the bottom completely clean.

This was a feeding area where the haddock go too. It's one of their favourite habitats. They fish there for these very easily.

He said: "We loaded up in about five days but we noticed that the fish were sour." He said the area had been scraped so bare in the bottom that the ecology had been disturbed and

[ Page 161 ]

there was no evolution of the plant life versus the animal life or the fish life and the shellfish.

Everything had been taken up and disturbed and he said: "When we got down here to unload our commercial load there was 90,000 lb. of haddock that had to be thrown away because it was sour." He said: "When you put a knife into it it actually stank."

So I think there should be concern not only for the environment and ecology for the land but what our international nations are doing with our fisheries that we think belong to everybody but really do not.

The Liberals have tried to make a lot of hay out of bucking and fighting on a political basis in Ottawa, especially the member here, in respect to pollution and the tankers coming down this west coast. Now it sounds like very good reasoning. There's an awful lot of noise been made over it, attempts at court cases in the United States. But I began to ask questions about how does eastern Canada get its oil?

It certainly doesn't get it from western Canada, Montreal and all those cities, the great populations of millions down there. They get their oil from a pipeline in the south-east corner of Nova Scotia — somewhere in there I think it is, with huge refineries. Their tankers come up all the way up that New England coast past Manhattan and have been doing it for years to supply eastern Canada.

That's why I began to wonder why there was no Liberal support from the M.P.'s and the eastern coast for what the Member for the Liberals was doing out here.

I thought that if the United States were to oppose Venezualan and other foreign oil going up their east coast the way we're opposing their shipment from their own country to their own country here, that eastern Canada would not be paying 54 cents a gallon for gasoline. They'd have to get it from Alberta and Western Canada and they would be paying probably $1.50 for gasoline.

So let's begin to use some sense that if we believe that our ecology is important, let's use the same sound reasoning from the east and let's see what the Americans would have to say about the protection of their eastern beautiful sandy beaches and shorelines there too.

I only want to be fair. I think we must know whether the arguments are the same for both and if they aren't then we begin to question what the argument is about. It would appear to be purely political and that's all.

Now with the Pat Bay Highway we want to say to the government that after about five years we are pleased to see the advancement in the service. But we do have to look at some of the difficulties we are building into it for the motorist.

I realise the Minister of Highways has done a tremendous job in the face of heavy traffic that's moving all the time on that highway. We can't possibly have everything completed at once. But I would ask that the Minister give very serious consideration to the overpass at the McTavish airport road.

That intersection is built for disaster and not for safety. No matter what we do there on a level crossing we are certainly going to have more problems than we wish to see.

When it comes to Island View Road there should have been a slow-down lane to the right and I've written the Minister regarding this.

I am surprised that light standards, many stop light standards, all go in before we recognise that we have built in a problem of safety into the highway. That is a major turn-off there, to Butchart Gardens — tens of thousands of people turn right and they have to slow down in the very lane of traffic that is 60 miles an hour. It's also the major intersection for gravel trucks going to the Butler Brothers' gravel pits on Keating. It's the only way you can get there, really, the direct route and the gravel trucks that I have noticed come to almost a stop while there is 60 mile-an-hour traffic piling up behind even with a green light. They will be able to turn right, so the traffic following behind thinks the light is green watching way ahead — there's no amber light on — and suddenly you have trucks that slow down very quickly when they are loaded, turning right in front of the 60 mile-an-hour traffic.

We believe that some of these things could be fixed or remedied before accidents happen and we trust that some consideration and another look at these unsafe features will be taken.

The automobile today is unsafe at any price, it doesn't matter what you pay for it, when it has to meet conditions like that — the back end of a truck. It doesn't matter how much you paid for your car.

I would like to talk about safety otherwise. I noticed that in reports from the major areas they noticed that in checking-out the death fatalities on the highways in certain areas of the United States — and they have been taking alcohol tests in fatalities of drivers — they have come to the statistics that prove that over 73 per cent of the fatalities on their highways in this particular area are the direct result of alcohol.

Alcohol is a killer and anything that the Hon. Minister can do to make the motorists, the drivers, and those who ride in our automobiles, aware of it then the safer will become our roads. That's what I think all of us are interested in.

I wanted to talk about tenure. The university tenure will be coming up in the committee on health, welfare and education, but I do want to say something about educational television.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what we need in here right now.

MR. TISDALLE: Right, that's what you have.

The cost of our universities, especially the colleges, are going up and as it says in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer — which copied some of the news from London, England —

Britain's revolutionary open university moves into second year of mass education claiming staggering success and almost twice as many students as its first year. Official estimates to establish an ordinary university cost $85 million, the open university cost only $10 million and students pay $360 a year for three years of tuition.

I think we can cut our educational costs if we really want to. I think that we can bring education to the people instead of bussing them so far, too. I believe that educational television could do an awful lot to reduce the over population in our schools, that it could do an awful lot to bring the best teachers to the students instead of trying to bus the students to the teacher.

They said that by 1972 there were 36,000 students registered in that open university. The university does not expect them all to stick out the year, indeed all students must register in May if they intend to keep on studying, but the figure of 36,000 is almost double the 19,000 enrolled last year. The university has added courses in education and technology to its original four subjects — art, maths, sciences, and social sciences. Students can take one or two courses at a time.

[ Page 162 ]

Now, someone says well, this is putting on to the market new students out of universities and they haven't got a job. Oh, that's the benefit of this type of education. The people that are taking this course have already got their job so we're not dumping on to the market people who are jobless but rather they are already employed and improving their education.

I think this is a fine way to build job opportunities and to improve our people where they too can make another contribution to a changing society.

When we look of education costs we should need such men as Walter Donald of the greater Victoria School Board finance committee. He said during an interview:

I think the time has come when it has to be done. If present rates of increase and the board's education spending continue unchecked the total bill can be expected to double about every seven years. As trustee I think we have a moral and social obligation to protect the taxpayer from that kind of inflation.

I believe that we should talk sense instead of trying to throw political issues into the air like the Opposition want to do about the restraint on educational spending. After all, the Minister of Education when he brings in a formula such as the 108 versus the 110 per cent, he is not saving the government he is saving taxpayers from higher taxes. I don't think it is anything more than politics when we try to create the impression that the government is to blame for somehow impairing the trustees in operation of the schools. It's rather a protection of the taxpayers who have been overburdened with the educational costs. Again that's why I believe in educational television.

I'd like to talk about prevention and improvement for our young people rather than detention, rather than trying to undermine the society by applauding, or not even that, maybe just associating that drugs are here and in our schools. We try to emphasise it rather than curtail it.

I often think that the Press could do a lot more too in advertising good youngsters and what they're doing. I noticed in the Columbia while I was in Vancouver, Washington that they dedicate one page of their whole paper once a week to all the high-school students. They call it "High Times." It's the finest page, I think, in their newspaper almost, for news on what young people are doing.

There's nothing about some of the escapades that we see all over the front page about our young people but it is certainly an interesting feature.

I would recommend to the newspapers that they begin to pick up ideas like this, and project them so that our young people can learn journalism, that they can learn many things about newspaper work that will set them in good when they come into maybe public life, as far as that goes.

One man that has done a tremendous job, probably more than any other single man that I have ever met, to oppose juvenile delinquency and to improve a young people of a nation is a man that has been respected over the years by many people. I had the privilege of sitting down and talking to him about this particular programme.

With our programme today, geared for the fighting of drugs, alcohol and tobacco, I found that this man had developed the most amazing ability to communicate with young people even though today he is probably near 60 years old. He's none other than Archie Moore who developed a programme for boys. After working so many years with Boy Scouts he thought there was some way you might stimulate the desire of young people to achieve through loyalty, through honour and being able to defend themselves.

He went into communities where vandalism was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7,500 to $8,000 a month — windows and everything else in the area where there was a construction project were being broken and houses were being broken into and plumbing destroyed.

In six weeks the police themselves and the mayor of one city welcomed him to the tune that he had decreased the juvenile delinquency vandalism to $45 a month.

His programme is ABC for boys, I would recommend that we bring him in to our country here, our province, and have a talk with him and let him show us how he can stimulate the enthusiasm of young people to do well in their community. As he said: "If a bigot can mislead people, then I can lead people, and guide people."

I believe that we need this kind of positive thinking in our schools. This man has gone into many, many high schools and started his programme for ABC for boys — Any Boy Can.

Archie Moore surely knows the truth of that statement when he came out of reform school at the age of 16 years old and out of the ghettos and became the greatest athlete, probably, in the world out-stripping even Babe Ruth because of his 136 knock-outs, in his career and fighting to the age of somewhere around 47 years old.

I recommend that anybody reading this book will believe that any boy or any girl can be saved for our society and make a worthwhile contribution.

I believe the programme should be instituted in our schools. When I was there Archie was already being requested to go to a college and put his programme into effect in a college and I think that we could do it here on the high school level. I certainly recommend that we command interest in the opportunities of this country by using men such as this.

We're hiring supervisors to distribute our funds. I'm a little concerned that we get into the business of giving our dollars like welfare without a real hard-core programme of how to prevent crime and prevent juvenile delinquency and prevent those anti-social characteristics that all of us are concerned about developing in our young people. I would recommend that we have such a man in this community.

I want to thank the Minister of Hospitals and Health for Glendale Hospital. I hope that it will be staffed very shortly and be in production so that we will be able to move as quickly as possible all those patients that are over in Woodlands and Tranquil that their parents have had to suffer so long the agony of taking off time and being away from their jobs and the expense of going over and then leaving their youngsters to see them maybe once or twice a year.

I trust that the organisation of the different facilities and staff will be made as quickly as possible and that we will be on with the job.

I noticed that in a recent article in the newspapers that there was some suggestion that there might be a change in the hospital status for Central Saanich, and the community for extended care. I would ask that the Hon. Minister not change his plans, in respect to that. I believe that the programme and the planning has been delayed long enough over many obstacles in the past to make any change of mind now would probably delay the project to where it would take as long as it did to build Glendale Hospital — that was too long.

There are people in need of those facilities now and I hope and trust that the project will be into the ground and the bulldozers will be in there and will be getting on with the project as quickly as possible. The suggestion in the news-

[ Page 163 ]

papers that there might be a change of ideas on it — it says here — I haven't got the article in front of me but there was…

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): No problem there.

MR. TISDALLE: You're not making any changes there? Good. Because there was an article in the paper that there was, maybe, a reconsideration being given to that particular facility. Glad to hear the Hon. Minister say that. I want to assure the people in the area that this is true.

Hon. Mrs. Dawson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on what word does the Minister rise? He's not asked for leave of the House to bring in a message.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not required to introduce a bill from His Honour. It's a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.


The administrator transmits herewith a bill intitled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House January 28, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 3 intitled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act.

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 3 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.