[ Page 83 ]

FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.N. CHANT (1st - Victoria): Thank you. Mr. Speaker, once again we are gathered together to transact the affairs of the great Province of British Columbia, and I also want to express my pleasure in seeing you again in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and we know that from past experience you will fulfil the purposes and functions of the Chair with the proper decorum and certainly in the best keeping of the traditions of this House. Also, at this time I would like to welcome the new members to the House, one and all, a new experience for you, I am sure indeed you will find it a very interesting experience. The old saying is still very, very true that it is quite different when you are inside looking out than outside looking in, and this applies to the Legislature also.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been inside a long time.

MR. CHANT: The responsibilities of office bring about often times a different renewed viewpoint in regard to how things and matters can be accomplished. Also, Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the speeches of the mover and the seconder in particular. These are the two most difficult speeches to make in the House, in my opinion. You have to break the ice so to speak, and in view of the fact that they did, I am sure, great credit both to themselves, to the House and to the party which they represent, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of the small section of the Social Credit members on the opposite side of the House, but not in opposition to the Government, while they may appear small in numbers to the Opposition, I want to assure everyone that they will accomplish a great deal more in promoting the best interests and helping along with the good government of this Province, than what the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want them to get contaminated, do you.

MR. CHANT: Well I'm quite sure, Mr. Speaker, there isn't much danger of contamination, not as far as we're concerned. Whatever they're worried about is something of their problem, not ours. Mr. Speaker, there is evidence, though, in the results of our last election in the Province that in some instances it is quite possible that the pen is more potent than the pencil. I'll just leave it at that comment. You take your own viewpoint. Thank you. We will show, instead of having a Liberal sextuplet, we've now got the Liberal quintuplets, and I've no doubt that they will try their utmost to represent the government down in Ottawa and their policies. However, Mr. Speaker, I'll have more to say about that a little later on.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say and, you might say, a short report to make in regard to the Department of Public Works. Mr. Speaker, you have the Annual Report of the Department of Public Works before you and the honourable members of the House. Although this covers the fiscal year '68 and '69 it becomes readily apparent from a perusal of it that the work of the Department is increasing very rapidly, and I might add that the period of time between the March of this last year and the present has seen the pace accelerated correspondingly. At the present time our design commission has some 75 projects at various stages of design, while our construction division has 175 projects in various stages of construction and completion.

I was particularly impressed during the delivery of the Speech from the Throne with the number of times mention was made of Government measures in which the Department, although not specifically mentioned, had played a major role. For instance, the improvements which have been made to the lighting and sound system in this Chamber. I know that we can one and all be heard quite clearly and distinctly irrespective of the pitch and tone of voice, and this was not always possible before this installation was brought in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back the past. (laughter)

MR.CHANT: …and also it allows a tape recording, and these were carried out under the supervision of the staff in the Department of Public Works, and I want to give them credit for having given a great deal of thought and study and they had a deadline to meet, Mr. Speaker, which was not easy to come by. Deadlines are always difficult, particularly when it involves planning and obtaining materials and equipment and so forth, but they made the deadline and there is a whole lot of equipment and connections under this carpet which are not visual.

Over 1,000 accommodations for elderly citizens, as mentioned on page 6, came about after the Department of Public Works staff members had examined and given constructive criticism of the plan. The stocking of lakes — the hatchery-raised fish, as mentioned, brings in the Department of Public Works also. We designed and built the Kootenay Hatchery and are now doing preliminary investigations and studies for suitable water supplies for another hatchery. There has been rapid progress in the construction of new vocational schools as mentioned on page 8, and substantial additions to others. These schools are playing an increasingly important role in training of skilled people for the commercial and industrial development going on in this Province, and our Department is proud of its part in designing and building these schools. You will note also, Mr. Speaker, the reference to the Motor Vehicle Testing Station, on page 9. Here again the Department played a major part, and so it goes. British Columbia Youth Development Centre at Woodlands School, Replacement Centre at Maillardville and a number of others. All these and others and many more occupy the attention of the Department of Public Works staff. Much of what we do is taken for granted. However, the fact that a smooth function is achieved is our satisfaction.

I should make mention, Mr. Speaker, of the reference on page 7 to the British Columbia Building. Planning is proceeding in an orderly and competent manner. This is a very large undertaking, and while much has been done more remains to be done. As you've learned, the principal consultants have been appointed. I'm pleased to inform you that the Management Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of Public Works has seen fit to recommend, and the Policy Committee composed of Mrs. McCarthy the honourable Member for Vancouver Little Mountain, and also the Honourable the Attorney-General and myself, as a committee have seen fit to accept that British Columbia expertise is sufficiently experienced

[ Page 84 ]

and competent to handle this project. This building, with a floor area estimated at approximately 2,000,000 square feet and which will accommodate a population of upwards of about 8,000 workers, is a challenge to all of us. The architectural and engineering professions of British Columbia are meeting this challenge and will mature and thus be prepared to meet future challenges and undertake other projects possibly of the same size, whatever they may be. At the present time the programme is engaging our attention. This, said so easily, is a complex matter. It is basically a comprehensive analysis of functions and space requirements for all users, taking into consideration the period from now up to the turn of the century. We are a Government that looks ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another monument.

MR. CHANT: We have to plan — well, that's what you're lacking in, of course — we have to plan for the future. All ancillary and support facilities requiring programming — these are derived in part from data gained while studying the various occupant organizations and in part from projections into the future. These include such things as data processing and computer centre, communication centre, mail centre, food services, commercial services, truck and service access, vertical transportation for freight and people….

AN HON. MEMBER: Political climbers.

MR. CHANT: Vertical is — you know the meanings, my good friend — and it isn't down, like you have experienced recently. ….and vertical transportation for people and freight and even the garbage and paper disposal becomes a major item in a building of this size.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because it's too big.

MR. CHANT: …. In a project of this size and complexity it is essential that everyone concerned work from the same set of facts and requirements. The programme must not overlap or duplicate. The architects, the engineers, the Government and the major occupants must co-ordinate to work from a single base. Research and programming must be well done — this is not one of the rapid processes. It is painstaking but its proper execution will result in saving several per cent of the construction and operating costs, and this project will proceed in an orderly manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh when, when, when, when?

MR. CHANT: It's going ahead now, Mr. Speaker. It's progressing, Mr. Speaker, it's progressing.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Government that doesn't believe in centralization.

MR. CHANT: So, Mr. Speaker, while the honourable members are trying to find a little fun out of this, and so forth, nevertheless we are proceeding and going ahead with a building which I am sure the people of British Columbia will indeed be proud of.

AN HON. MEMBER: What will be the year of pride?

MR. CHANT: Well these things come when you don't expect them, that's your worry. Yes, they got it, Mr. Speaker.

There is one point I omitted, Mr. Speaker, which I intended to mention also, and that was the building programme not only throughout the Province, which is the largest that we've ever had, but right in the capital city of British Columbia, in Victoria, in which the electors of this City, and I appreciated it very much, saw fit to elect my colleague and myself again with a good strong majority, greater, greater than ever, which speaks well for the Government policy and its administration. After all, this speaks louder than Opposition's criticism.

The capital city of Victoria has under way and completed — nearing completion — in recent years the museum complex, the Eric Martin Institute, the Glendale Institute for Retarded Children, and also the Victoria Vocational School. Now these four projects when completed, some of them are finished, others are in process and getting along quite well, and the Vocational School will be added to in capacity, its capacity will be added to as required. But these projects have cost in the neighbourhood of almost $30,000,000 and this is no mean undertaking in the capital city.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes when buildings are planned and undertaken the public doesn't realize the amount of detail and planning that has to go into public buildings, and the tremendous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes, and even while they are under construction, the multitude of materials and equipment that has to go into them. I want to repeat again, Mr. Speaker, as I have previously in this House, that we have been successful in the Department in constructing buildings and not having nearly as much extras involved as is usually found in private trade and business, and I again want to give credit to my Department Staff in having reached this point, because at one time in the history of the Province it was considered normal to have ten and twenty per cent extras on buildings. We've managed to keep them down to around two and three per cent, and some of these are highly technical buildings like the science building that we planned and built for the Victoria University. Mr. Speaker, we live in an era of rapid change and evolution — this on a scale unknown in human history. Evolution is change and change is evolution, you can relate them together. Possibly you don't know the difference, Mr. Member. We might take a little time when we're not in the House and I can explain it to you. Change and evolution are health — the aspects of healthy living. Young people, middle-aged people and the older people are all acutely aware of this. Now on occasion some younger people, because of inexperience, temporarily think they are more acutely aware of these problems than older people. This is not so. Older persons have experienced the ever-changing facts of life and been a part and parcel of it, and still are, and have contributed to the changes, and are still contributing. Mr. Speaker, an inescapable fact of life is that the young people of today will very soon become the older people of tomorrow. This is the…. (laughter) Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, maybe some of the honourable members have forgotten when they were young already — I haven't.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were old all your life.

MR. CHANT: Possibly you have short memories which you should give a little exercise to.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's better the second time around.

[ Page 85 ]

MR. CHANT: Yes, we can remember very well as younger people we thought we had all the answers — I did also when I was a young person.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why you were Social Credit.

MR. CHANT: Yes, and it's a better answer than anything you ever had.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the challenge today is for all of us, whether older or younger or middle aged, the challenge is to use our brains — this is the challenge. This is the challenge that we are faced with and, along with that, common sense to ever work for, and promote healthy change in our affairs — not immaturely resorting to blind destruction of ourselves and surroundings. This is not the direction to go. Therefore, when we have criticism let us have constructive criticism, and this from all age levels. Oh you better look happy, Mr. Member from Cowichan-Newcastle — don't look so downcast. Let us have constructive criticism from all age levels, including yours, dear friend, including yours. The opportunity and scope was never greater in recorded human history. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think to solve many of our problems, if the human race had the good sense to open the door rather than trying to smash it down it would attain much better results. Let us not destroy to build. Let us build. Mr. Speaker, we are a part and parcel of the past and tradition — we cannot escape it, and there's a great amount of that past which is good. Some of us need adapting and changing to our modern-day times.

You know, Mr. Speaker, history is replete with numerous examples of civilizations and nations rising to high eminence and then diminishing. A fact of history — it even happens in industry — I just point out one little simile, as many of you possibly know. If you don't, I'll repeat it. As a younger person and even at the present time, there's something that has always intrigued me all my life and that is motive power. In fact I don't mind telling you about my first tractor back in 1917. My father thought I was very foolish when I did this. Now remember, back in that time and shortly after, there was a make of tractor on the market known as the Rumley Oil Pull. Now it was a very successful machine in its time, but you know what happened. They thought they had topped the design and the development in that field and they sat back and didn't keep up with the times, and it was only a matter of a relatively few years — ten or fifteen years — until the machines were out of date and they were absorbed by another company. Yes, this is what happens if we don't move ahead with the times and at this point, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say God forbid that we ever move backward with Socialism.

With the dim beginnings and concepts of the dim beginnings of human history at this time, Mr. Speaker, democracy and free enterprise has risen to great heights. It has risen to great heights, and it is because of democracy, the concept of democracy and free enterprise, even with its mistakes, that we have attained a great deal of the eminence and good conditions which we now enjoy not only in our Province but in many parts of the world today. Nevertheless, there are problems which still remain to be solved and always will be. We find a condition today existing in our affairs where money power dominates the economy of the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go….

MR. CHANT: Yes, and you'd be wise to listen because this is something very pertinent at the present time, Mr. Speaker, and something that involves all of us, and which doesn't require silly replies to enlighten people. It requires some deep thinking, possibly deeper than some of you have gone into. When I say that monetary power dominates the world I simply mean this, that monetary power rides in the saddle, while the production of goods and services is compelled to watch and be subservient. This condition has to be reversed to bring about a proper norm and balance in our economy. If you're going to build a good building you must first put a solid foundation under the building. This is essential.

We know the fluctuations that are taking place in our economy today in many fields and also in the monetary mechanism. Things are not in a sound condition. Therefore it's wise to look to the foundation, and for the benefit of our Liberal friends and the Opposition, I will ask them to give heed to the Honourable Mackenzie King's statement back in '35 — it's fundamental. "Until you restore to government" — that would be the Bank of Canada in so far as Canada is concerned — "the control and issue of money and credit, and it's recognized as its foremost and most sacred responsibility all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and Democracy are idle and futile." In other words, your governments become the instruments of money power unless this is vested, and the power to monetize is the key to money power, and the power to monetize belongs to the Federal Government, and it has been let out to private banking, and Mackenzie King said it must be restored to our central bank as a government function. This is basic…. and trying to apply a cure to the symptoms of the problem will not cure the problem. The building is cracking around the windows and in the walls and floors because of a poor foundation. You can forever and a day keep patching it up, oh yes it will help out and temporarily get you by, but it isn't dealing with the problem. This is what we are faced with today, Mr. Speaker, and the honourable member over here, he doesn't know what he is talking about anyways….

AN HON. MEMBER: He never has….

MR. CHANT: ….so Mr. Speaker, this is the field, and while I know it is not in Provincial jurisdiction, and I say it should not be either, it is a Federal Government responsibility. But instead of being led down the path into Fabian socialism like it's happening, I'm afraid, in Ottawa today it's all too evident — these are steps which should be taken to keep our free enterprise and democratic system and way of life alive and give it a chance to live, move and have its being. After all, this is a statement that many Social Crediters have made and it stands good now, and will in the future. "Whatever is physically possible and desirable can, should and must be made financially possible."

As long as the Federal Government follows the path it is following today, we will have to confine ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to policies that emanate there because we are law-abiding and we will follow policies as they exist in the country, because we are law abiding. No use, Mr. Speaker, to offer the people of the country a choice between inflation and deflation. That is not a cure. You still have the disease.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to accept either one of these as a solution to your problems. There is the middle way, the intelligent way — not to bring the economy to a smash stop like it's talked of today. Oh, you have to have a whole lot of unemployment and so forth like that and slow down, because of the foolish suggestions that we had too much money, when every mother's son was running around wondering how

[ Page 86 ]

he could pay his bills. This is what happened — you know it. There is this needed, and that needed and one other needed, and there is the physical capacity to do it but still we're told that insofar as the monetary mechanism is concerned, it's not financially possible. Now the over-all Social Credit concept says, the monetary system can serve humanity and industry in a free enterprise economy in a manner that makes these things intelligently and physically possible. Well…. (don't ask silly questions, be intelligent for a change, after all, any ten-year old child could give you an answer to that). You build them when the facilities are available and the means are possible to do it, and the need is there.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that I have pretty well used up the time that I have anticipated, and I am not going to continue for a long time, because this subject can take a great deal of time if you want to go into it in depth and I have no intention of doing that at the present time, but I do want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that Canada today is standing at the cross roads in Federal Government. We have evidence of changes and policies taking place which I think are not healthy for our country, are very unhealthy. Mr. Speaker, these policies have been enunciated and are being followed by the present government in Ottawa.

First of all, we have the significance of our heritage and traditions removed from our flag, the next we have the Queen's portrait being removed or taken from our currency. Then we have a multiplication of high-priced advisors advising the Prime Minister of Canada, and following that we have Benson's White Paper, which is not a paper of taxation but a paper of confiscation…. (applause)…. and I would say as sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, if these policies are put into effect, you're headed into a socialist republic. I'm afraid it's being done with plan, intent and purpose. It's not just incidental. I'm sorry to say this. I don't think it is incidental. I think it's being done with intent and the old saying is very true — you can always tell the way the wind blows by the way the straw bends. Any of you that know agriculture, and agriculture is in difficulty today, I am not going to deal with that, but….

AN HON. MEMBER: That is profound!

MR. CHANT: ….but, yes it is, it's quite profound if you don't realize it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former leader is not a Republican.

MR. CHANT: ….truth is truth, it doesn't make any difference how old it is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say this, that Social Credit offers the people, not only of British Columbia but of Canada, a better way, a sensible way, an intelligent way of life that fits the facts and needs of life, and we have it Mr. Speaker, right in the Province of British Columbia, within the limits of our jurisdiction. British Columbia has set an extremely good example to the rest of Canada and to North America, and credit to where credit is due. Our Minister of Finance in British Columbia has no peer in North America. In spite of obstacles placed in his way, his record of foresight and success has not been equalled in any of our lifetimes…and, Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech is but a brief outline of what has been accomplished in this Province, plus a quick look at the future by a Government which puts people first, and I recommend. Mr. Speaker, to every member of this House, that be gives it his unstinted support. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise as a new member for New Westminster. First let me say that I am also mindful of in whose footsteps I follow. The former member, Rae Eddie, gave a real account of himself on behalf of his constituency and, indeed, his constituents. My work, Mr. Speaker, will be to try to do my best to carry on as Rae would want for the best interests of our people, our Province and New Westminster, the Royal City. Prior to leaving the Royal City, I spoke to Rae Eddie and he asked me to extend his best regards to all his old friends and colleagues in the House.

By the way, he referred to this area as overseas…. (laughter)…. If I understand him correctly, it would seem to me that one place is isolated from the other, and that therefore the term overseas is appropriate. In New Westminster we were reminded of a move that occurred in 1868, when the Legislative Council moved to Victoria, leaving the first capital, New Westminster, to its own devices. Little did our forefathers think that over a hundred years later a policy of isolation would be renewed. In any case, being the hub of the Province, we pay our respects to the newer areas, and we do hope that you will, from time to time, remember from whence you came.

Our city has been a service-oriented area in this Province and we are proud of our role. The contribution of the people of New Westminster to the good and welfare of the Province has been an enviable record. We ask at this time, why the Government tends not to return the favour? An example of this treatment of our constituency by the Government and the Department of Municipal Affairs can be seen in Connaught Heights. Connaught Heights district, originally known as DL170, was absorbed by New Westminster after assurances by what we thought were people responsible for Government decisions, that assistance in upgrading services in that area would be forthcoming. We amalgamated, and we learned that neglect of the old district was to be perpetuated. We felt able to carry our end of the load, and now we find that our share is 100 per cent.

In bringing this to the attention of these assembled, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we can expect to get some help for sewers, sidewalks, and roads. Following which, we will forgive and forget those promises we feel were broken. History has proven that nothing is gained by double standards and treatment of people, whether it be geographical or on a basis of religion or race. Let this Government, then, deliberate on New Westminster, this corner of its Province. "Amalgamate and save." I got that quote from the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. We ask — save what?

In New Westminster, as is the case elsewhere, the school finance formula is working a hardship. Because of the age of our district, we have a very high percentage of senior and highly-qualified teachers. We have taken a great deal of pride in building an excellent teaching force. Naturally, our costs per teaching unit is uncontrollably high. We are being penalized by a system that is patently unfair. A system of this sort, where the teaching units are allowed to go to a certain limit — and our teachers are all well paid because of the fact that they are highly-qualified — as far as we are concerned has hurt us, not helped us. Now, a great many

[ Page 87 ]

people in New Westminster and these are young people I'm talking about, have been impaired. This resource — and young people, after all, are our most important resource — must not be neglected any longer. Now recent declarations regarding education have been ignored by the very people who made them. What are the citizens to think? Does this Government not care, or is it broke? If it doesn't care — why, and if it's broke — how?

Maybe I could read you a small quote from the Vancouver Sun, clipped on July 9th, 1969. At this time the Vancouver Sun wrote, and this is dealing with this matter of why we vote, "Provincial contingent liabilities and guaranteed debt increased by 120 million to a total of 2.1 billion of the total fiscal year ending last March the 31st. Three of the Province's Crown Corporations showed substantial increases in their borrowing, according to the B.C. Financial and Economic Review for the period. B.C. Hydro's debt increased by 85.1 million in the twelve-month period"…. and so on and on it goes until it gets down to the end and it says, "The indebtedness of the seven municipal organizations whose borrowing is guaranteed by the government, was reduced however, during this period." I think that this might be significant, if we think of it in the context of where is the money going.

Going back into history, you'll find that the Royal Columbian Hospital is one of the two original hospitals in this Province. The service to humanity provided by this institution has been nothing short of great. For years the people of New Westminster kept their hospital up as best they could, not only for their own use, but for the people in the surrounding areas. I have one or two historical pictures, Mr. Speaker, and these are history because it's a 1912 hospital at this point. There is another shot, Mr. Speaker, of this particular hospital. Now I have many more, but I won't deal with them for a moment. The Royal Columbian, is still our most important life-saving institution. The obvious devotion of the staff goes without saying, working as they do in undesirable surroundings, the least that we can say in describing the place and its condition. Upgrading, Mr. Speaker, must be the order of the day….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!

MR. COCKE: ….The Honourable the Prime Minister said, I believe, on one occasion a short time ago in parliament, "Let's take British Columbia into the 70's." I would ask those assembled to let's take New Westminster out of 1912. I understand from the former speaker that $30,000,000 has been spent in the capital city. Let's spend a few dollars in New Westminster to take it out of an archaic time.

Now, back in 1954, the annual report that is on file in this library, reads in part, and I quote, "Steps are also being initiated for a long range programme of planning for the hospitals, keeping in mind the need for replacement of all facilities and the provision of new ones to keep pace with the growth of the area and the ever changing aspects in development in the field of medicine." Let's just for a moment, if you don't mind, review the pictures that I showed you a moment ago. Here's one, here's another. In a ward such as this, three weeks ago, the leg of a bed fell through the floor. This is our hospital in the golden age of 1970.

I would ask my colleague if he would call a page and possibly send one or two of these pictures over to the Honourable the Minister of Health, and this is a picture that I'm sure hasn't changed since 1912. It was taken now, but it is still the same thing.

Now this hospital accepts 20 per cent of the emergencies for the Province. These emergencies come from Vancouver east to Hope. How can our Government refuse to move in in an area as obvious and so vital? The value of the Columbian has been proved over and over, not only in its accessibility, as proven by the number of emergency cases. Of course the speed of getting to a hospital predicates this whole thing, but it is also the excellent care afforded by a devoted staff. The tradition goes back a long way. In 1886 when Vancouver burned, the people brought their injured to the Royal Columbian through the bush of Burnaby, now the only thing that is holding our hospital down is the bush of confusion resulting from bureaucracy.

Prior to February the 10th, 1967, when the Premier announced the setting up of Regional Hospital Districts throughout the Province, New Westminster carried the load of the hospital for over a hundred years. Now the Regional District, the South East Planning Group, the Honourable the Minister of Health, are all involved. What do we have? The greatest game of catch the hot potatoes that we have ever seen. To transport the correspondence and the minutes of meetings, I'm perfectly sure, you'd require a mighty vehicle.

I can give you a short summary of some of the things that have happened since 1967, but I would like you to bear in mind that in 1964 our district, New Westminster, in cooperation with surrounding areas, did a study and began making a move toward building. But then we thought that the day of dawning was February 10th, 1967, and this, I think, is a significant date, because at last we felt we were going to move and move ahead. In May of 1967 a modular unit programme was referred to B.C.H.I.S. and the then the Honourable Minister of Health concurred with our proposal to construct a new hospital with a maximum of 684 beds subject, of course, to the concurrence of the Vancouver Regional Hospital District at that time. However, the feasibility study that was conducted by the architects in June at the insistence of B.C.H.I.S. seemed not to get too much of a play. In July we had suggested immediate expansion needs and these seemed to be acceptable, but in August nothing much happened again except the fact that maybe we would be allocated money from the $51,000,000 that would come from the by-law if it was passed. We continued to pursue this modular unit planning.

I can go on into November of '67 and February of '68, getting involved with different committees and different groups all the time. You see this is the trouble with bureaucracy, nobody can really make a decision without everybody making the decision at the same time, and it's almost impossible to get everybody to make the decision at the same time. So in March of '68 we once again requested approval of a modular unit programme, a year later, and on and on it goes. On June the l2th we asked again and on and on, until in September of that year we even sent a Special Delivery over to Victoria and asked again. On September the 26th he said well it's half o.k. providing we can meet certain budget conditions, and that was still in '68, but nothing happened.

I'll go right down here to July the 10th where they suggested that a letter was sent to the Greater Vancouver Regional District explaining the revised increased cost estimates from, you know, the $2,000,000 to $2,500,000. I suggest one of the reasons for that great increase was the

[ Page 88 ]

delay in all of this time that had been taken up. On August 4th, however, we were told that we could conduct a study again, a $50,000 study. It was outlined that we could do this and I thought that that was rather timely. That August 4th, 1969. The study was completed in October, and everything seemed to be o.k. but, unfortunately, on October 15th when we sent it over here to Victoria nothing happened again because, I believe, that somewhere along the line there is another road block and that's to do with financing. Between May of '67 when a programme for modular units was proposed, pretty well everyone involved in the negotiations has given approval, but not all at the same time. so now the approval is being withheld. I believe, because of a preconstruction budget between the Government and Royal Columbian Hospital and the difference is 96 staff people. 96 staff people is difference. Well, I am quite sure that the Royal Columbian Hospital is not that incompetent that they can't come closer, if, in fact, it were a realistic budget. This to me looks like somewhat of a stall.

Now what do we face? Firstly, living with an inadequate facility and, secondly, I think we are providing a fire hazard to all concerned. The 1912 wing is an old frame building, and don't kid yourself about that brick facade out in the front. That wing is a source of real concern to the staff as well, as I am sure, to the civic officials. If it were not for the fact that it is a lifesaving institution, I am sure that the fire Marshall would have closed it long ago. How long can we wait?

Our hope was that we would not have to go through another summer without our modular unit, and maybe we won't have to in any event, with the possibility that we might have to close it. You know that the heat of the summer at that hospital is something to witness. I have been down there in the summertime when they have been hosing off that old building and, particularly, the children's ward. The children's ward is in the old wing and they hose it down to keep these children cool, and I think that this is disgraceful.

We face another problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is the problem of losing accreditation. This means that the important function of teaching both doctors and nurses would have to cease, and this would further deteriorate an already sick health service in our Province. In this past month we lost our deep therapy service. Now the people in our general area, and it's a big area, serving a lot of people, have to go to Vancouver for this treatment. What happens to the doctor-patient relationship under these circumstances? The deep therapy treatment that was afforded the community and surrounding communities was very much appreciated by all the citizens, particularly those involved. But B.C.H.I.S. did not recognize the need of it being there. The feeling of the responsible officials in this hospital is that it should not have been suspended, that it should have been conserved and expanded.

Let me add that the Premier said in this House, in response to a question from the member from Surrey, that the special position of referral hospitals — and the Columbian is one — would be acknowledged and never be allowed to deteriorate. I am sure the member asks, as I do, what happened to this promise? This is an ad that appeared in practically all the papers in the lower mainland on October 3rd, 1967, and it says "Royal Columbian" — this is an ad for people to vote for a by-law — "vote tomorrow, yes October 4th." The by-law says, "Major expansion, temporary accommodation during demolition of the older unit, renovation of new area, new building property, plans and development for 250 beds." That's Royal Columbian. Really and truly, we wonder just what has happened to that particular situation, because the people voted over 90 per cent in favour of that by-law.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two and a half years ago!

MR. COCKE: In mediaeval times, Mr. Speaker, man dumped his garbage on the streets and his effluent in the fields. Now we feel we have improved our lot by dumping garbage in isolated areas, but to rid our immediate proximity of the remainder of our waste we use our rivers as sewers.

Could a river be more abused than the mighty Fraser? By the way, it's not nearly as mighty as most of us think. It's wide, but it's not deep right across, the channels are very narrow, that is the deep channels. From Hope to the mouth the gradient is almost nonexistent, in other words, Hope is just a few feet above sea level. Tides push that river back and forth all the way up beyond Mission. It's estimated that a dump made at flood tide at New Westminster takes about 48 hours to clear the mouth of the Fraser. Now that's a dump made at flood tide. Is it any wonder it is becoming a stagnant mess? This fall, the shores for the first time in history were green with algae. Could anything be more indicative of impending disaster, or do we need to wait until it's too late?

The Fraser River in our locality is designated as one of the most polluted areas in the whole province of British Columbia. Let New Westminster take the lead, we are told. We ask how. We ask why. This is the responsibility of the whole community, and the leadership and assistance has to come from the Provincial Government.

If there is any thought in this House that there is an exaggeration here, I would ask you to drop down to the fishing docks in Queensboro when the boats are coming in. Take a look at their nets and what's in them. I might also add that you can smell the nets with no trouble. They give off the odour of a million outhouses. A trip along the Fraser is something that all of us should take from time to time. I did this just before Christmas in a fishing boat that was well equipped, thank heavens, because there are so many deadheads around. But during that trip along the Fraser I saw the outfalls, I saw what disgraceful use we are making of that water, and to tell you the truth it made me sick.

One of the outfalls that I think is probably most indicative of the problem that we are creating is that safe outfall that was built in the middle of the river, and you can find it if you take the intersection of River Road and the Great Northern Railway, and if you go out beyond that to the middle of the river you will find an outfall, and that outfall is supposed to safely dispose of effluent from North Surrey and from North Delta. Now this effluent is not being taken care of, because a short while ago they were doing some sand removal near the shore and they found that they were getting almost all effluent rather than sand in their dredging.

Now, a member in this House spoke about our tourist industry. I suggest that we should be very careful about our tourist industry that is worth $350,000,000 — if it's dollars standing in our way — and also a fishing industry that's worth another $100,000,000, because if we are poisoning our Province we are certainly not going to attract tourists.

Speaking, Mr. Speaker, of fishermen, they're afraid of their livelihood and they are concerned about the future food supply of this Province. This $100,000,000 industry is sick, and the only salvation is a water standard that must not be violated.

[ Page 89 ]

I note with interest in the Throne Speech that we are talking in terms now of doing something about pollution. I certainly hope we are, but I do hope that it's not like the municipalities' primary treatment by 1975 situation. Our own plant is likely to be located on Annacis Island. 93,000,000 gallons per day of double chlorinated effluent from New Westminster, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, and all the other municipalities should do a real job on the baby salmon on their way to sea to grow up. We depend on those fish coming back, but if we kill them on their way downstream, logic says that they won't be back. Fish cannot survive in our chlorinated drinking water, therefore it would seem that the cards would be stacked against them. Primary treatment cannot be the answer. Let's take a trip to Iona Island and see the effluent coming out. Look at the shore in the area. I recall the beaches when they were sandy, and now they are a weed-infested mess. To compound the mistake by making Annacis another disaster would not be in our best interests. To say the least. The fishermen are also concerned about one other form of pollution, and that is the irresponsible dumping of 4,000,000 board feet of logs at a time in the Fraser River channels just below Annacis Island. The effect of this dump must not be minimized. There are over 100,000,000 board feet of logs dumped every year, and I am told it is a growing amount. When dumping such a heavy load and such a large volume, naturally there are tons and tons of bark, branches and other junk set free in the River. Most of the heavy hemlock bark sinks to the bottom and the junk causes its usual effect. The river at this point has two bottoms. The natural one and an unnatural one. The poison set free from this great quantity of hemlock being dumped at one time and all the agitation, I am sure is detrimental to fish life in that water. It would seem that industry should be called upon to dump elsewhere.

Is there no relief for the poor old Fraser River? You know I went over this dumping ground with a boat that had very adequate echo-sounding equipment on it, and you could see, actually see, the two bottoms. It would seem to me, judging from the indicator on the echo-sounder, that it was almost a fathom or more of junk and sludge at the bottom of the river. This organic material, even if it's not poisonous, certainly does nothing to help the Fraser River maintain its life. One of the fishermen told me that he was fishing not too long ago and watched the barge after it had dumped its logs, and that barge is so big that it has a bulldozer on board, watched that bulldozer on board even sweep off all the junk into the Fraser rather than going out to sea as they usually do. I don't think they should dump it either place, but particularly not in fresh water. Now I recognize that this is not the fault of the Government or anybody else, but it's certainly the fault of irresponsible people that are doing a job in there, and I do hope that we look at this in a strong manner in the future. When looking at what we are doing to our Province in terms of pollution, I cannot help but think what the Psalmists said in Psalm 18 when he said, "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork." I say that much of His handiwork has been undone by thoughtless people and reluctant governments, and the responsibility of this Government is suspect, despite the aura of responsibility that seems to be in evidence.

Our Government should work with its people, not just its friends. The whole Assembly should be organized into committees from time to time and travel the length and breadth of the Province, seeking answers from any and all people. We, here, are not all-knowing — why not tap the knowledge that surrounds us? We should really listen. It would be very interesting, and we would be developing a whole new resource if we did. Let's plug into these people. While we are listening, let's pay particular attention to what youth is telling us. Having been involved in youth leadership for some time and youth activities, I feel that there is an honest concern coming from our young people, and it's time we listened. The world that is ours today, is theirs tomorrow, and nothing we can do to conserve their world would be too much.

At present, I believe, our growth is being stunted by lack of investment capital and I'm sure that I get instant accord across the floor. Why, otherwise, would we submit to the terms that are presently our lot? The supposed fact that Canadians, and particularly B.C. Canadians are conservative is a fallacy. We do not have the vehicle by which they can invest if they wished to. The private sector in Canada, as a whole, has failed in this respect. The private sector has failed to even a greater extent in British Columbia. The Federal Liberals set up a capital investment fund, called the Canadian Development Corporation, because it was a good idea. It would appear that the good idea, in their opinion, was to set it up, but use it was obviously beyond them. In B.C. we should immediately set up a corporation of this sort to attract pension funds and other savings that could be channeled into our own economy. This would be an alternative to channeling them to Bay Street, Wall Street and heaven only knows where else. Seeing, as I have, the millions of dollars in pensions and savings funds being channeled away, I cannot help but think that we must act in a way to develop our own economy.

Walter Gordon, a well know Liberal, was noted for his concern over a take-over of our economy. We in B.C. are in double jeopardy. The decisions pertinent to our development are made outside and often in the East by people who are passing on instructions from the South, or directly from outside the country. The decisions taken are not necessarily in the best interest, and as history has taught, oftentimes they are not in our own interests at all. With courage, we could, to a greater extent, become masters of our own destiny.

Another great concern I have is regarding the conduct of an election. Irresponsible charges, such as "godless socialist" and other completely false statements, make me apprehensive about the future. This, for an example, was a charge leveled against me and many other of my faith in our party. I don't have to tell you we have an abundance of active church members and ministers actively involved in our party. For my part, I have been active in both church and party for years, and naturally feel a great deal of resentment.

I feel that statements made, which are misleading, are not conf-med to charges leveled at people. Steps should be taken to outlaw incorrect statements which could have a relevant effect on the outcome of an election, such as a statement as this, which occurred on August 26th, I believe, that was election eve, it says "Tenants to receive Rent Grant."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. COCKE: Now no word of this was mentioned in the Throne Speech. "Social Credit Government Home-Owners Grant will be extended to apartment tenants, probably starting next July." In any event it appeared, and there was a great hue and cry in my constituency. As a matter of fact, many who had been former Social Credit supporters, came to

[ Page 90 ]

me and said, "We have to vote for you now….

I would also suggest that it is against the law to take straw votes, and I'm not suggesting that I know where this straw vote came from, but it was passed around in our constituency during the election. That, again, should be something that we take firm steps on.

Mr. Speaker, the work of government is to create a climate where a human can grow and realize his potential in the best sense of the word "human". This goes for our native Indians, organized labour, unorganized labour, students, tenants, for urban and rural — poor. To stop at less, would be to fail. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it is again an honour and a privilege to rise in my place on behalf of the people of Esquimalt and take my place in this Throne Speech Debate. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his re-election to that responsibility. I know very often some of us as individuals may disagree with certain decisions that one another may make. However, there is a certain decorum, there is a certain tradition in the Speakership of the House, and I believe that our Speaker has well shouldered his responsibility and deserves the respect of all members of the Legislature.

I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder on their splendid addresses to this Legislature, and I'm certain that they will have much to contribute to this Legislature in the years ahead. The new members, all of them that have spoken so far, have presented themselves ably, and as I look back over a past nineteen Sessions, I believe that the new members have shown a tremendous capability, much greater than we have ever seen in any Legislature before. We welcome them and I am sure, as older members, we will give them every assistance and advice should they care to seek it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech, one of the first paragraphs deals with the debate that took place some 100 years ago in the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island. I would like to make this point because the member preceding me said something about coming back home to New Westminster. I want to remind him that 100 years ago, when the members of the Assembly here on Vancouver Island began to deliberate to make their decision, there were three choices they were considering. One was to remain a Crown Colony as Newfoundland chose to do at that time, the second was to join as a State of the Union in the United States, and the third was to join with the mainland into the Province of British Columbia and then into Confederation.

However, if you want to check the archives, you will find that their deliberations were loud and long, and when they finally made their decision, it was by a one-vote margin. But their decision was influenced by three promises made to the people of Vancouver Island. The first was that the transcontinental railway from sea to sea was going to terminate on Vancouver Island. This, of course, was never kept, and in the year 1900 the government of that day, of course, went back to Ottawa and asked for certain considerations because of the nonfulfillment of this promise to the people on Vancouver Island. At that time they were pledged they would have a ferry service from south of the Fraser River to a point near to Victoria on Vancouver Island. Of course, it took sixty years with the normal type of action we have come to expect from Ottawa, and we had to put it in ourselves — even though the areas on the East Coast enjoy government-subsidized ferry services run by the Federal Government for those people.

The second, of course, recognized the tie then of the area to the United States, and it was a promise for twice-weekly passenger and mail service to Olympia, Washington, and a weekly steamer service to San Francisco. That, of course, has become somewhat obsolete and I'm not going to deal with that at this time.

However, the third, and the reason that I mention this is because, to my amazement, one of the newspapers in Victoria seems to want to stir up the issue of whether or not the capital should be here in Victoria. The third promise was that the capital of British Columbia would be in Victoria. This is the only promise of those that influenced the people of the Vancouver Island at that time to join with the Mainland into Confederation that has been kept, and I hope that we have the decency at least to leave that to the people of Vancouver Island. I might say, if anyone has any doubt as to feasibility of the capital being located in Victoria, if you look at the structures elsewhere in the world you find that that principle has been applied and it would be ridiculous to place the capital into a big-city environment. I believe that it is well located and that there should be no doubt about leaving that concession to the people of the Island.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other items in the Throne Speech mentions the extension of the benefits of home ownership and the home-owner grant and further legislation to assist in the purchase of homes already in existence. While this is a partial remedy, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have not applied ourselves sufficiently to protect what has been happening in the field of home ownership. Because, traditionally, over the years N.H.A. was providing capital for home ownership and I think Mr. Hellyer found out quite decisively that the dream of over 85 per cent of the people in Canada is to own their own home on their own little piece of ground.

However, we have the ridiculous situation today that under N.H.A. regulations, you have to get to the $8,500 income level in order to qualify for a $15,000 mortgage. If you are lucky enough, at 25 years of age to qualify, you will not only have to pay over $40,000 for that $15,000 over the term of the mortgage, but you will be eligible to collect the old age pension the day you make your last payment. It is somewhat awkward and difficult to try and find remedies, and even though we did a year or so ago provide the $1,000 home acquisition grant, we have to ask ourselves, what good was that grant when, within the next two and a half months, federal interest rates increased the price of the average home between two and one half to three thousand dollars?

I think that it behooves us as representatives of the people of our Province, and particularly the young people, who are frustrated because of the things that face them, not to always cry "separatist", as we hear from the Opposition every time that someone says there's something wrong with our national structure in the fiscal and economic fields. But I think we should as one voice say that the interest rates, particularly as they apply to the provision of homes, of capital for schools, hospitals, sewage treatment, pollution control, and the rest of it there's absolute usury to see the interest rates that are being; imposed upon us by the national government and the Bank of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with a few more items of the Throne Speech, I have a few complaints as well as commendations. We are pleased to see that the ferry the Queen of Esquimalt

[ Page 91 ]

has worked out very satisfactorily, as it has been lengthened. I am pleased to see some of the other vessels stretched as well, but there's been one stretch job that I'm a little bit concerned about and that is some of the prices on the menus on the ferries in the last year, and I'm afraid that if we see some more stretch jobs in some of the menu prices we may have to call in the Consumer Affairs people in order to have a look at it. One of the nice parts about our ferry service has been that you could eat while you ride.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a recommendation from B.C. Hydro for an increase in the electricity rates. I have been interested to watch the figures that have been bandied about and, of course, it's all very nice to compare some cities in British Columbia with some cities in the rest of Canada without taking into consideration that your tax dollar and mine helped to provide half the cost of the South Saskatchewan Dam. Your tax dollar and mine are helping to subsidize the Nelson River project in Manitoba. Your tax dollar and mind are helping to subsidize the nuclear plants that have been constructed and are being constructed in Ontario, and your dollars and mine have helped to subsidize the dam in New Brunswick as well. And again, again we hear a buzz from the Opposition. Instead of saying as a united voice as the representatives of the people of British Columbia that this is rank discrimination, as soon as some member has the gumption to stand up and say something about it we hear, "Oh you're a separatist". No, we're not separatists, we just believe in fair treatment right across the board.

The amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, is that in comparing rates they're quick to pick out Seattle in the State of Washington, but they don't tell you what the national average is in the United States where the bulk of their installations were not only put in years ago when costs were lower, where the installations were put in with national subsidization, and where the installations were put in with capital that was provided at two per cent interest rates. However, the national average as published a year ago now in the United States, their average monthly cost of 500 kilowatts throughout the United States, and this is only in the cities of over 2,500 population and does not reflect a rural rate, $10.37 for 500 kilowatts, whereas ours is $9.50 for 500 kilowatts plus the sales tax. However, if you take into consideration the eight per cent premium on the U.S. dollar we find that their rate comes to $11.20 approximately for 500 kilowatts compared to the $9.50 plus tax in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: …we have water power, and plenty of that, though, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BRUCH: That's right, we have water power, someone says across the way, but we have just brought on line the first basic low-cost hydro development in British Columbia. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced, as I look at the Hydro statements, that if the Opposition and the Federal Government had not held up the Columbia River project for four years we could have not only built it at the lower cost that then prevailed, but we could have gone through without a power rate increase being necessitated.

But under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the Government that because we have been talking in terms of guidelines, of increases of six or seven per cent, that perhaps we should pare down the 15 per cent proposal just a little and then remove the sales tax on residential electricity as well, because certainly we can no longer say that this is a luxury, this is one of the prime necessities, I believe if we can pare down 15 per cent somewhat, take off the five per cent on residential electricity, we can keep the increase within the six to seven per cent range at this time.

Mr. Speaker, there is reference in the Throne Speech about the growing labour force, about new jobs being provided, and on labour conditions in general, and I would like to just make a few observations. I think it is very regrettable to see the B.C. Federation of Labour almost browbeating the unions not to follow through with the legislation of this Province and appear before the Mediation Commission, because they are in effect saying, "We are citizens separate, we want laws to apply to everyone else, but we will choose what laws we will abide by."

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you for labour?

MR. BRUCH: Absolutely. But I don't think some of the labour officials are for labour, they are instead playing a political game instead of representing the best interests of the working people of this Province. I think it is time that all citizens of British Columbia at least gave the legislation and the procedures a proper try, instead of taking the approach that they have taken in months gone by and even in recent days.

There are just two proposals that I would like to ask the Minister of Labour to take into consideration, and they mainly concern the bus drivers in the Province. First of all, on the Vancouver-Victoria run there's always a bus provided if there are extra passengers. However, on the Vancouver Nanaimo run this is not the case and they allow five people to stand. It is on the basis of the regulation that says that if the trip is less than one-half hour in duration, then they are permitted to stand so many passengers. However, anyone who has taken that bus trip along the north shore with the way they have to weave in and out, and particularly if you get into rough traffic, I think it is time that we took a little different look at that particular situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Widen the highway.

MR. BRUCH: Widening the highway is not going to solve the problem and you have to perhaps weave in between lanes. It still presents quite a problem when the passengers have to stand for the duration of the trip, because when you get into the terminal the bus has to wait for the ferry and those people have to stand, very often well over the half hour limit.

The other is, with our increasing tourist trade there are, of course, much greater use made of bus sightseeing facilities in the Province, and this is as it should be. However, there is a problem arising that when the bus driver has to fight the heavy traffic, has to try and pick out the landmarks, and has to try and entertain the passengers as well, that they have a real problem. The problem is now somewhat being compounded because their minor accident rate increases by about 300 per cent in the summer months. It is being compounded by the point system and many of the drivers could be in real difficulty, really through no fault of their own, because they are trying to, and they normally do an excellent job of trying to tell the tourists of the splendid wonders that we have here in British Columbia. I think that they should install a tape deck with some of the spiel played to the passengers, or else in summer we should perhaps hire some of the university students to give the running commentary along the tour and leave the driver to take good

[ Page 92 ]

aim at the traffic situations that face him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, certainly much has been said about pollution control, and of course in my constituency it's really in the wind right now. There's a lot of controversy going on and, first of all, I want to say that there have been some statements made by the Greater Victoria health authorities that I must disagree with, because there has been an obvious approach to try and force the unorganized areas into the sewerage system. There have been approvals of some facilities in the unorganized territories that should never have been approved. With the regulations, for example, in the Colwood Langford area saying that you cannot build any apartments, still the Health Officer approved a so-called auto court with 40 units, and the ground in that area cannot possibly carry the sewage in a septic tank properly. I believe that if care had been taken not to allow some of these units to operate and if, secondly, some type of regulation had been laid out for the regulation and the maintenance of septic tanks, we could solve some of these problems without having to go into the expense of sewage structure.

However, Mr. Speaker, we're being bombarded on all sides by the experts with the solution to the pollution of our environment, and I again want to take issue, because I am very much afraid that some of the things that are being proposed are not going to be feasible, and it is my personal belief that our present methods of collecting and treating the sewage will be obsolete within ten years time. First of all we have to look at the root cause of the problem. The reason we have pollution here today is because nature's cycle has been broken. We cannot continue to pour in the sterilizers, the detergents, and all the chemicals that are being put into our effluent and expect nature to continue to survive and keep our lakes, rivers and countryside clean.

We had a perfect example out in the Langford area about eight years ago. There were two contributing factors, one was a potato grower who was pouring the fertilizer on the land and the other was the housewife pouring the dishwashing liquid into the kitchen sink. When you went to swim in Langford Lake you came out almost like the little green giant. However, when number one, the potato grower, stopped growing potatoes and the housewife stopped using detergent, within two years time that lake was back into operation and back into useful structure.

It amazes me that we start thinking in terms and talking in terms as the only solution to our problem being more treatment, and tertiary treatment of our sewage. In fact, I think if we followed the experts and we put the settling ponds for tertiary treatment for the sewage here in Greater Victoria we'd have to cover half the Saanich Peninsula in settling ponds, and in Vancouver I suppose we'd have to take half of the Fraser Valley in order to give tertiary treatment, as they are now recommending, to the sewage structure.

I believe that we have to do one of two things. I thought it a little ridiculous a few weeks ago when I watched a television programme on C.B.C., we saw all the evils of the use of detergents, and then saw the Federal Minister get up and say, "Well, I think somewhere municipalities and Provincial Governments are going to have to find enough money in order to put in the filtering plants to filter the detergents out of the sewage before it gets to lakes and rivers." When the question was raised later on as to what this might cost, there was a figure bandied about of some 30 billion dollars. Well I say that it would be much simpler and much better sense to turn around and ban detergents than to have to put the people of Canada to that expense. There are a lot of people who are bandying about that they want something done about pollution control, but I'm afraid that if you asked the average housewife if she had to choose between whiter white in her wash and a clean environment, I'm afraid that environment would come in second place. I think….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no.

MR. BRUCH: ….we as individual citizens have to take a close look as individuals as well, because it is not just industry that is polluting, it is the individual that is one of the worst pollutants that exist.

I was surprised too, when the Minister of Recreation and Conservation put a new trail into one of the little parks on the south end of Vancouver Island, and within two months time the conservationists were howling that we should put somebody in there to walk behind and pick up the chocolate bar wrappers and the rest of it, I think it's time that we as individuals looked at our own responsibility in regard to pollution as well.

But I want to make one further suggestion, that if we cannot ban the use of detergents in total, then I believe that we should go into a crash programme of research into perfecting methods of burning our sewage, of using a treatment, preferably natural gas, in sewage disposal. Such units are being used in many parts of the United States. They are mainly using oil, however, which I believe will cause too much of an air pollution problem, or electricity, and there is a problem there of a little more smell and probably more leftover refuse. However, I believe that if we really did proper research on the utilization of gas-burning, that it would not only solve the problem that detergents would be burnt out, it would also solve the problem that we would be reducing much of our waste right at source. It would also solve another problem that the conservationists are concerned about, because today it's almost impossible to go into some areas surrounding our cities and expect to put in sewer lines through the rock out-cropping that exists, but if we used a burning method we could put housing into some of the marginal land and save our open spaces, our farmland and our green areas. I think now is the time that we are approaching a realization by the population that something has to be done, it is time that we did some very extensive and quick research to try and find another solution before we go into the obsolete methods of treating our waste.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see the completion of the Vocational School here in Greater Victoria, because the vocational training structure is providing a very useful function. Today it is not only the individual students who are realizing the respectability of vocational training, but with what has been happening at some of our universities, many employers are finding it far preferable to reach out and take a graduate of our vocational institutes rather than take some of our students with a university degree. I think, too, that the taxpayers of my area are becoming quite concerned with the so-called attitudes of some of our professors in our universities. They are coming to the point where they don't like to be called upon to provide the dollars to have these professors teach revolt when they should be teaching some responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be specific….

MR. BRUCH: I am being specific. Mr. Speaker, the core

[ Page 93 ]

of professionalism is that the profession polices itself and what I am saying is that if the profession is unable to police itself then they don't deserve to be called a profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just plain, ordinary smear.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, let me say that what some of the universities are doing is far worse than smear. I am accepting my responsibility to voice the opinions of the electors of my constituency.

Mr. Speaker, there's one other problem that has become somewhat serious. I notice mention in the Throne Speech that there are some changes going to be made regarding the handling of juveniles in this Province. However, whether it is because of the legislation or an attitude of enforcement we have had some terrorization by teenagers that I believe has to stop, and I would like to see a little better enforcement rather than the shrugging of shoulders.

Mr. Speaker it has been a privilege to take my place in this Debate an I look forward to the Budget and the further expansion and development of our Province and of the opportunities that our abundance can provide.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FRANK NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be here today to bring you greetings from the constituency of Nanaimo, the jewel of the West, the sun porch of Canada, and the bathtub capital of the world.

I hope you like these little cans of high quality food which are on your table today — clam chowder, oyster chowder, smoked salmon, smoked oysters and a piscatorial delight here for epicureans and connoisseurs, it has a fragrant and elegant aroma, it's delicious, it's sweet, it's tender — it's called Cahudas — Cahudas. British Columbia Cahudas — in the common vernacular, dogfish — a new industry in Nanaimo.

While we're on the oceanways, I would like to say to you today, that with Centennial Year coming shortly I'd like to inform you that in that particular year we expect to see plunging into these nine-foot waves, 32 miles across the Straits of Georgia from Nanaimo to Vancouver, the greatest armada the world has ever seen — 10,000 ships, rafts, destroyers, kayaks, canoes, accompanied by at least 500 bathtubs, once again to prove that British Columbia leads the world in bathtub technology. I say to you today, when you go back to your constituency please invite all the noble and audacious bathtubbers of your constituency to join this great Centennial armada.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll send you 500 hippies.

MR. NEY: Very well. And now, while we're discussing the ocean I would like to say a few words further about our ferry system and, in particular, the Horseshoe Bay–Nanaimo run which contributes approximately 25 per cent of the passengers that ride the huge B.C. ferry fleet, and also 25 per cent of the revenue. This traffic is increasing at a rate of approximately ten per cent per annum, that's a million people a year, which means by 1980 this traffic will reach probably two million passengers a year.

A constituency has to plan for the future and in Nanaimo today we are wondering whether the plans of the Government will be for an expanded modern terminal in Nanaimo to handle the big jumbo ferries of the future, or whether the Government proposes at a cost of approximately four times more, probably around $20,000,000, a bridge across Dodds Narrows to Gabriola Island, and a fast shuttle service to Vancouver. There are other visionary plans where the bridges go right through the Gulf Islands across Salt Spring Island into Victoria. But we'd like to have some idea now. The Government should decide. I'm not an engineer nor an economist but I'm open-minded in the matter, particularly when I look at the old C.P.R. dock in Nanaimo which, when it was built at the cost of approximately $5,000,000, the most modern of its type in North America, ten years later was obsolete.

We also realize that the R.N.4 hovercraft which cost four or five million dollars, I think, and carry 100 cars and 300 passengers is a new mode of transportation. There are so many ramifications when you start thinking of transport, but I say that the time has come now when the Government should start planning the next step, because we are fast approaching the crossroad.

While I'm on the question of transportation I might add that in my journeys from Nanaimo to Victoria it is evident to me that the time is approaching when the Government should also consider a four lane highway — Victoria to Campbell River — 170 miles. Vancouver Island contributes one-third of the tourist economy of British Columbia to this Province, and in the summer particularly the congestion on this highway is becoming more and more acute.

The geography of this Island follows most traffic down one highway. Now I recognize that a project of this type would be an extensive one and would suggest initially that a series of passing lanes be considered throughout the highway, and this would not be that expensive, and it would do a lot of good. Today we're having more and more of these small trailers travelling, not just on the Vancouver Island, but right across the Province. They're slowing down traffic. If we could get the passing lanes and let the fast traffic carry through we'd get rid of a lot of these frustrations. But, if the Government decides to accelerate plans for a four-lane highway, possibly a one cent tax increase per gallon gasoline on Vancouver Island could be considered and make this a self-liquidating proposition.

Roads are not the only method of transportation. The dayliner service on Vancouver Island is a matter of concern to our citizens. We should take a long look at the day after tomorrow and face the fact that we are expanding at such a rapid rate that in no time at all Vancouver Island will be faced with more than just a traffic jam. Tourist activity will probably double in the next 12 years on the Island. We should also remember proper transportation will attract the tourist dollar. People will undoubtedly require a commuter service. Many isolated areas will be better served with such a service. Today we have a vaudeville show going on. The dayliner goes from the market place in Victoria to the north of the Island every day and returns to the market place at night. The schedule should be reversed and times executed that would meet public convenience. It is the impression of many that the E and N Railway is deliberately creating a type of service that is bound to put it out of business. The E and N Railway is morally and possibly even legally obligated to improve this service in a normal business manner. The present initiative displayed is a farce.

The Throne Speech has mentioned about increased social assistance. In this respect I would like to point out that the problem has been brought up at U.B.C.M. with regard to pensioners who have lived in their homes for many years and have been caught in the inflationary spiral where old age

[ Page 94 ]

pensions are simply not keeping up with the cost of living. There are many cases of hardship in this Province, and where the dignity and pride of fine citizens is being injured by the heavy hand of inflation. I believe the time has now come where the Government should consider supplemental homeowner grants in the cases of hardship, and I have in my hand here now a tax document which by a different method in Britain gives similar benefits to pensioners who are financially distressed. I might say this too, I don't think it would cost the Government that much money, because there aren't that many in that category of the higher priced homes, because we do have a $150 homeowner grant.

Another little point here is that it's all very well for the Federal Government to be concerned with taking the Queen off our paper money and off our postage stamps and consider changes to our Commonwealth medals, banning of American television, government newspaper councils and even discussion of a republic. Now the most destructive socialist document of all, the White Paper, is to bring even further money to the Federal Government, an experiment that would probably change the whole economic and social climate of our country and make it another ism nation. The point I want to get here is, that according to the Canadian Tax Foundation the take of taxes expressed a percentage of gross national product by the Federal Government in 1926 of 7.6 per cent. The Provincial Government in those days was 3 per cent and the local government 6.3 per cent. In 1968 the Federal Government has increased this percentage to 17 per cent, provincial 10.9 per cent, but the local government is down to 5.1 per cent. In other words, the take by senior governments has increased from 10.6 per cent to 27.9 per cent, while the local government has been reduced.

Now I'm going to hit the Federal Government on this more than anyone, because the provinces in Canada in the past year have had a deficit of $270,000,000. It was $552,000,000 a year before, and it's all very well to say that we can go back and borrow money, there's the bond market. There is no bond market, and to raise taxes is not palatable. I say with the Federal Government in all likelihood having a $500,000,000 surplus this coming year, we ought to take a hard look at things. I respectfully submit that the local government today is becoming the forgotten child in the three levels of government. The Federal Government has already taken the biggest share of taxes and, by the White Paper they're going to take even more. The only good thing about this White Paper is that it's going to boost the Immigration quota, because that's the only way they're going to have enough income tax inspectors to service the White Paper.

The average municipality in Canada is finding that with the cost to run and service the city increasing approximately 10 per cent per annum, that municipal taxation is reaching a point where it is becoming an almost unbearable burden to taxpayers. Property tax, the largest source of locally raised revenue at the municipal level, is less responsible to economic growth than the revenue source of senior government. Until there is a shift of responsibility to these governments, or an increase in transfer revenues from the senior levels of government, and particularly the Federal Government it will be increasingly difficult to maintain or improve the quality of local environment and, I may add, that the problem is not unique to Canada, it's the same problem facing the United States today.

I hope that at the Inter-Provincial Conferences later this year this problem facing the municipalities will receive due consideration. Good government starts at the civic level, and I say that Federal Government must pay more attention to the problems at the grass roots instead of new ideologies which are leaving many parts of our country stunned. The goose that lays the golden egg is losing its steam at the local level. One other thing I would like to add here, I don't think it would be a bad idea if they had the presidents of all these provincial associations and municipal associations present at some of these Inter-Provincial Conferences, because we're losing touch with each other and the municipal governments are most frustrated that they just can't get to the root of the problem. But remember those ratios — they're factual.

Now let's talk about specific things, because I'm trying to say that at the municipal level we need more tax money. I'll give you an instance. The mobile home market will soon have an impact on this Province similar to that in the U.S.A. where 20 per cent of the housing market is now mobile homes. Many municipalities do not welcome mobile homes and trailers because, unless they are permanently established, they are not taxable. Consequently lower-priced housing has difficulty locating. Could not legislation be considered to tax the trailers at approximately one and a half per cent per annum of value in a similar fashion as is now being done in the U.S.A. and 64 per cent of this tax returned to the School Boards to assist them with their rapidly increasing costs?

Now I'm going to say a word or two about our dairy farming on Vancouver Island, and I want to tell you that the farms and the dairy industries on Vancouver Island are not becoming decadent and they aren't becoming fed up. They're coming up with new packaging methods, exciting technology, beautiful packaging — here we have the new type of milk bottle on Vancouver Island, unbreakable, undrippable, untippable, unsinkable — nutritious, fresh, creamy, clean Vancouver Island milk.

Now here is something else we have, we have the raw pack, the cream pack for the restaurant trade. These aren't the three-cornered type like you get on the mainland and delivered to Vancouver Centre, these are non-squirtable and they're produced on Vancouver Island. On Vancouver Island in the dairy business we have the good life, the round life and the best life. In the dairy business, for those people who don't like to use milk with their mixer, like the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, we have orange juice, in every type of package conceivable. We still have milk the old-fashioned way, too.

Now, you wonder why we have any problems. I'll tell you why we're having problems. Milk is being shipped in carton form to Vancouver Island in ever-increasing volume by chain stores owning and operating their own dairies in Vancouver. This is creating a surplus situation for the producers on Vancouver Island, and this is lowering their financial returns. It is not possible for Island-operated dairies to service this business because it is in the nature of a captive market. Locally owned stores are purchasing their dairy products locally, and finding the range, quality, and price available to them exceptionally good. They are completely happy with the local product, and the consumer is completely happy as well. The problem is that an ever-increasing volume of business is being done by the international chain stores that own dairy plants in Vancouver, and it's going to get worse.

You probably know that the dairy business on Vancouver Island amounts to $12,000,000 annually in sales. I am talking about the retail level now. This gives the economy of the Island a boost of at least $30,000,000 a year when one considers the servicing sector. There is no question here of

[ Page 95 ]

any price increase to Island consumers at all, because the figures show that the dairy plants here on the Island are operating as efficiently as plants in any other locality. Farmers are being paid the same as Vancouver for food milk, and labour agreements are similar. The solution is that we require the milk produced in a Milk Board Area be used before the milk supplies by an outside area and this, as pointed out earlier, would not cause price increases to consumers. The Government of British Columbia is making an effort to develop business and agriculture all over the Province, for which it is to be commended. The milk situation here on the Island is one which is going slightly contrary to this policy due to this captive market situation. The policy I am recommending is being carried out successfully by the Milk Control Agencies in the Provinces of Alberta and Ontario. I had a five pound bag they even carry milk in, but I didn't want it filled up because I'm saving my energies for the rest of the Session.

Now, in closing, I'd like to state that Vancouver Island with approximately one-seventh of the people of British Columbia produces approximately one-third of its tourist wealth as well as one-third of its forest wealth. There are few geographic areas in the world that has the tourist potential of Vancouver Island. I think it is very interesting to note that the recently-retired chief director of tourism for the Federal Government, when he chose to retire two or three months ago, he chose Nanaimo, the sun porch of Canada, for his happy days.

Now this Government has made a magnificent effort in encouraging tourism during the past two decades. The Industrial Development Bank and our lending institutions have made a great contribution to the development and improvement of our tourist facilities, and such improvements should always have high priority. Many tourist operators, anxious to make improvements, are reluctant to refinance at today's high rates. There is a real opportunity to help the tourist industry today by creating tourist improvement loans for the secondary market financing. There is nothing more discouraging to a tourist or a community than run-down facilities, and this also damages the image of British Columbia, and it is a fact today that many small operators are having difficulty in getting long-term financing improvement loans in the secondary money market.

Actually, these people are creating money in the primary market foutis. There is nothing like tourism to buoy up the economy of an area. Creation of a financing authority for small improvement loans structured to fit the secondary market would reap benefits for the tourists, the entrepreneur, and the Province all in one go, and the investment would be self-liquidating.

Vancouver Island merits dedicated attention to our environment. Beautification and pollution control probably gives greater returns per dollar invested than any other form of initiative. As an example of the emergency science of survival, it is a weakness of our civilization that the bald eagles surrounding the Great Lakes, the rivers of Eastern Canada and the U.S.A., have now virtually been exterminated by man's indiscriminate use of pesticides. Alaska and British Columbia are the last havens of these magnificent birds, and I think this, in itself, indicates that British Columbia certainly as far as the provinces of Canada are concerned is leading the way in pollution control. However, there is still much to be done. We'll go along with that, and I say let's start by banning D.D.T. as they have done in other parts of North America, and then start out on other pesticides, sorting outsome of these other pesticides. Mother nature still has a lot going her way.

Now I would just like to finish up by telling you that today Nanaimo is the third port in British Columbia. It is booming ahead, and our lumber shipments in the last seven years have increased in the Port of Nanaimo by 265 per cent. Last year 399,000,000 board measure, and it's going to be more. We have just completed a $3,000,000 mill and there will be even more timber going out this coming year. This is a great thing for our economy. They have dredged the water down now to 42 feet and very soon it will be going deeper, and the great ocean cargo boats will be able to come into the Port of Nanaimo. I might add at the same time that pulp shipments have doubled to 300,000 tons in the last six years. Nanaimo will continue to play an integral part in the economy of British Columbia as a transportation and service centre, hub of a huge forestry and fishing area, and fast becoming a tourist Mecca. Keeping pace with this growth rate of four times the national average and an average earning wage approximately tenth highest in the nation. Quo vadis, Mr. Speaker, horizons unlimited.

On the motion of the Hon. Isabel Dawson, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. LESLIE R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to prepare the list of members of the Select Standing Committees. With leave of the House, in view of the fact that the report has been approved by all parties in the House, I would ask that the report be taken as read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? So ordered.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. ROBERT M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I am not going to object to leave being granted, I just wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 19 of Standing Orders. I say I am not going to withhold permission, because this must go through as quickly as possible, but I would like to draw your attention to page 19 of Standing Orders with regard to the operation of the Committees which this particular resolution will set up. It outlines the duties of the Committee and it outlines the procedures that the Committees are supposed to use. I refer you to the bottom of the page, section 72 of Standing Orders, which says, "No witness shall be summoned to attend before any Committee of the House save at the instance of the Chairman or a certificate shall first have been filed with the Chairman of such Committee, by some member thereof…."

Now, in past years in Committee, we have found on occasion that Chairmen of the Committees have been interpreting this in a manner that led to some disagreement in the Committee. I would like your opinion, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not you agree with this wording, that there are two ways in which a witness may be summoned inherent in section 72 of the Standing Orders. One, by the Chairman or,

[ Page 96 ]

two, by a member of the Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me say that the Speaker agrees entirely with all the Standing Orders, but that the interpretation of those Standing Orders within the Committee must rest with the Committee Chairman, as the honourable member, I am sure, knows.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, is there any way, if there is a disagreement within the Committee, that we can ask your help, permission, guidance and decision? I just don't think it's right that the Committee should find itself embroiled in what is essentially a semantic argument, and I think that part of your duty as Speaker, in my humble opinion, should be to help the Committee in this way by giving us a ruling. I am quite sure it would prevent future developments and rancour and anger and disagreement within the Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me say to the honourable member that I think his point is well raised because I know of some of the difficulty that has taken place. Nevertheless, it is not the function of the Speaker to take away in any way the responsibilities and functions of the Chairmen of the respective Committees. May I say, however, that I will take the matter under advisement, look carefully into the parliamentary law in this case, and if there is anything that I can bring into the House as a direction, I most certainly will.

Are you ready for the Question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded No. The motion is carried.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Resolution number four on the Order Paper. I move, seconded by the Honourable W.K. Kiernan, "That a Special Committee be named by those responsible for listing Select Standing Committees of this House, to consider whether

(1) section 14 of chapter 20 of the Statutes of British Columbia, 1969, which provides inter alia that no action shall be brought against any person for recovery of damages to property occasioned in an accident involving a motor-vehicle exceeding $250 and costs, should be proclaimed in force or amended and, if so, to what extent;

(2) the accident benefits described in the Second Schedule to the Insurance Act should apply to a motor carrier as defined in the Motor Carrier Act;

(3) automobile insurance premiums in British Columbia, including the premium charged for the accident benefits, are commensurate with the risks assumed;

and report their recommendations to this House.

"This Special Committee, when named, shall have the power to send for persons, papers, and records, and hear such representations as may, in their discretion, appear necessary."

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

The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. DAVID BARRETT(Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we will not oppose the resolution. We are not even going to amend it, but we must express at this point our disappointment. It is not being expanded as completely as it was in the past, and I would like some clarification from the Minister as to whether or not this Committee is going to be strictly limited to the exact wording of this motion, or if the other attendant factors relating to previous Committees on this matter will be allowed to be discussed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the terms of reference in this case are quite explicit. The honourable members who were present in the previous Session of the last Parliament will recall that on that occasion the Committee was struck to examine all the implications of the Royal Commission Report that had been presented to the House at the beginning of the Session, and then the legislation was introduced following both the Royal Commission Report and the Report of the Special Committee. Now, of course, this is confined to the three areas that are referred to in the report. Each item of the terms of reference, I think, are broad in themselves in those areas to have a full study and a full enquiry, whether it's in terms of limitation of the right of action for property damage, which comes under point number one, or under number three of determining whether the premiums charged by the insurance companies today in the Province of British Columbia are commensurate with the risks that they have assumed. But in specific answer to the Leader of the Opposition, this Committee is not intended to embrace the very broad and general area of study that was involved in the last Committee in the previous Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister closed the debate, and there can be no further discussion. You've heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded No. The motion is carried.

The House adjourned at 4:23 p.m.