[ Page 263 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, since this is the first opportunity at this Parliament that I have had to address this Assembly, I must welcome you back to your position, both from your election for the office, and from your illness. We would have been very disappointed in the North Central region if we had lost the chief spokesman for our Highway 16 course, and we welcome you sincerely as a man who everyone acknowledges does a good job.

Well, I would like to also welcome the new members, since I haven't had the opportunity, and I only have one hope or one thought and that is that they think as much of us in due course, as we happen to be thinking of them at the present time. I don't think there's much chance, but I think they are outranking us at the present time. I think that the quality of debate, as has been mentioned by nearly everyone who has been in this Assembly for some time, has been heightened by the contributions of those who are newly elected to this Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have some consternation on my behalf, I've found some difficulty even within my own character, in the last few months. You know, I spent about 15 or 16 years on page 26 in the bottom right-hand corner of the press, and suddenly in this last year, to get front-page centre each day is almost a little bit too much to absorb. I can't stand the glamour of the situation of being right on this front line. Now that the leader of the Liberal group the other day told me that I wheel and deal behind closed doors, I got a little bit concerned when a woman reporter, of all things, this weekend really got me into trouble. She really did, you know, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, because these stories get written up the wrong way, when I come down that corridor in the morning and sneak down to get behind the doors, to do my double-dealing, and I sneak down and it's still dark and I turn the lights on at the far end of the corner, it's only because the Minister of Public Works has got the light switch at the far end of the corner, and I have to get down there before I can turn the lights on. I thought this was handled pretty nicely until this woman reporter interviewed my secretary and found out that she got there before 8 o'clock, and she said the Minister was there ahead of her, so you see you can't do anything in this life before some reporter or other has got you nailed.

AN HON. MEMBER: When does the light go on?

MR. WILLISTON: Well, they've been on now for 16 or 17 years, Mr. Member, I thought you knew that.

You know, the other day, Mr. Speaker, along with this new image, the member from Vancouver East indicated that I was going to gaol or I was heading for gaol, or something of this nature. I didn't hear very much about it but I got a lot of sympathy from the Premier when he found out about it. He said, "That's nothing, he's already been there this year," and that was true, you know.

I might as well confess all this afternoon, since it doesn't matter what you do you're in trouble. But I was in real trouble when I took a picture of this military installation which was a hospital and got grabbed and got landed in gaol along with my family and a few others, and it was quite an interesting occasion. I thought I better tell you a little more, because really, if the reporters tell this story the way it can be told, I'm going to be in real trouble. You know, when I headed off for the middle of Nigeria this Christmas, I was first of all in cahoots with Air Canada. You should know this because besides everything else I was packing, I had a great big microscope, and you're not supposed to carry this baggage business. But, along with some other medical things, I thought I was taking it over to a hospital, and I got in real trouble getting in through the Customs and so on, but I honestly thought I was taking it to a hospital.

When I got over there and got away back into the middle of Nigeria, I found out again, Mr. Speaker, that I was quite famous. You know I'd been wheeling-dealing in money and I'd made a large donation to a secondary school in the middle of Nigeria that I didn't know anything about. I was welcomed by the head man of the country, and bowed to and everything else. But if I told you I didn't really know why, it's just like any father, you know, there are certain loans you make through your life that you never think you are going to get back anyway. When you wake up one morning and you've found you've made a donation to a secondary school in the middle of Nigeria on your behalf, and that you've sent it along, and it was one of those old loans that showed up, you know you're really in a bit of trouble. Then he took me to dinner and this is what scares me a little. My wife was along but I'm afraid that the reporters wouldn't say this, because this head man, the Emir of Borgoo, the head man in the country, was very good to us. He even took us out to a very primitive African village that people don't get to these days, where they still wear loin cloths and not very much else, and have ivory in their lips and so on. But to be taken around, you know, as an individual, it didn't look very good since money had passed hands. He also had me to dinner along with my wife while we were there, and the food was so hot you could hardly eat it.

You know these doctors how they take statistics all the time when you go in, anybody that goes in to get treated takes statistics. If you think we have trouble with our women, you want to get over there, because when the doctor took statistics from the father he got a certain number of youngsters, and when he took the statistics from the four mothers he got a different number of youngsters, and I could just see the reporters reporting that after the Minister had visited the Emir of Borgoo, and they checked up on the family, they had that many more youngsters than he admitted to in the first place. Now if they had written this up in the press, Mr. Speaker, it could have made a real good story, but be that as it may, this bit of glamorous overlay that I have, I really can't live up to it, because I know my family and many others still think I'm a bit of a square, and there's not very much I can do about it, and I can't even here today.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the Budget which was presented so ably in this House on Friday afternoon. I thought I had better make it clear I was speaking about the Budget that had been presented on Friday instead of the budget that was presented on Monday, in case it had any difficulty. I think that the phone lines went a little dead on the weekend because the Prime Minister seemed to be on a little different budgetary approach than did the leader of the Liberal group from British Columbia,

[ Page 264 ]

because where he's going to get that $1,400,000,000 if the Prime Minister isn't going to squeeze up, I have no idea. But be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I always feel this debate is unbalanced. It's unbalanced because three of us here, the Minister of Finance, of Mines and Petroleum Resources, and myself, all attempt to gather as much revenue as the other 52 of you members wish to overspend, and you very often, or very seldom come up with practical suggestions as to how we are going to increase this amount of money, and it is difficult in British Columbia when you are a Province which depends for its economy upon exports, and experts too, that's right, maybe experts before exports.

Mr. Premier will recall that my first words to him when he sat down after delivering the Budget, was that it was better than I thought it would be. You cannot consider I think, Mr. Speaker, of a Provincial Budget in a vacuum. It must be related to the economic realities which face all Canadians at this time. I repeat, it is a good Budget, and I would predict that it will be the best Provincial Budget to come down in Canada this year, if one considers three essentials. Those three essentials, Mr. Speaker, are first, the anti-inflationary policies needed for the treatment of a bad case of economic diarrhea which we have at the present time; secondly, a Budget that fits the basic needs of people who are caught in a price squeeze and cannot react to better themselves. This is being done, increased payments, home-owners grants, things of that nature, and also the problems of those equipping themselves for service through education or those others who are attempting to establish a home unit under the most difficult financial capital limitations which face us today.

You know, the Government is often taunted, Mr. Speaker, to put its money where its mouth is, and this Budget. has done just that. The Budget, Mr. Speaker, has emphasized people's needs. As an aside, I might observe that the most serious omission from the standpoint of debate, must be the elimination of the year 1952, as a statistical base, and adopting instead 1960, a second Social Credit milestone year, when British Columbia's direct debt was paid off. The only real difference, Mr. Speaker, will be that instead of emphasizing when it all began, one can substitute why it is now all possible, because this Budget really shows in a positive way what can be done by an administration which has control of its monetary requirements for operational need without reference to the dictates of the financial institutions.

To me, a particular point of interest is not that the Budget met need and was balanced, but how it was balanced. A very quick analysis will show that since 1960 revenue in this Province has increased 3.16 times, and included in this expansion of revenue for the first time, and raised from a position of insignificance, were the Ferry revenues, for instance, which now amount to $25,000,000, and the miscellaneous interest which people often miss. Through good management the miscellaneous interest this year is estimated to be $13,000,000 of revenue, rather than expenditure.

But it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see where the money comes from. The revenue increases at or above this 3.16 times, were obtained from income tax, at 4.1 times which reflects the buoyancy of our economy and the wage level of our people. From Lands and Forests, 3.1 times; from minerals, 3.3 times; from sundry sales and services, just a minor amount, but 4 times; from Canada's share of joint programmes which are going up, 3.9 times, Mr. Speaker. And other provinces and local governments, a matter of only $17,000,000, but that went up actually 5.7 times. All of the other sources of revenue, your sales tax, your motor-vehicle tax, your car licences, everything, all other sources of revenue fail to keep pace with the average increase in the Province of British Columbia. This emphasizes dramatically for me, Mr. Speaker, our dependence upon the continued expansion of our resource-based industries to maintain our cash-flow which is allowed for the following increased expenditures in that same period since 1960. Education has gone up 5.4 times. It's gone from 18.5 per cent of our Budget to 31.5 per cent of our Budget. Health and Social Services has gone up 3.6 times, or in other words it's gone from 31.9 per cent to 35.7 per cent of our Budget, and taking the two of them together only, you've got 67 per cent of your Budget right there.

Against this, consider the expenditures on the economic pump primers in this Province. In natural resources, including agriculture, it's gone up 3.3 times, it's held its position, but it occupies only 7.2 per cent of the Budget in the Province of British Columbia. And highways, you want to know where the money came from, and now it has ferries linked with it. Since 1960 our expenditure in highways has gone up only twice and the percentage of the Budget has gone down from 21.9 to 13.7 per cent. People ask you where the money comes from and whether it's directed towards people. You should think, Mr. Speaker, on some of these things.

I would ask you also to remember the two Crown Corporations which have been equally responsible for the general development which has taken place, Hydro and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. They do not directly share in the general Provincial revenue that they happen to create, but they only gain operational revenues from the charges they have for their services.

The analyses I have made point directly to what I think was the most important page in the printed copy of the Budget Address, and that was Page 15. There's a map on Page 15 and that map highlights the basic programme for the 70's. Without the execution of such an expanding plan, our ability to meet the demand for increased essential social services in this next decade will be severely curtailed. The spectacular growth of the 60's, Mr. Speaker, was tied in to the developments in the geographic centre of the Province of British Columbia. There were important off-shoots all over, but a circle centred on Prince George, with a radius reaching Kamloops, Fort St. John and Prince Rupert, contains the bulk of the new economic action in this Province.

The resulting additional revenue gained from resource development in the form of direct assessments on timber, minerals, income tax, and sales tax, enabled the advances to be made to services which are provided for people. Such funds can only come from the profitable productive efforts of an expanding and increasingly efficient labour force. There must be areas serviced with communication and energy to enable free enterprise to invest with a chance for a profitable return. Present lending rates make this a real challenge, Mr. Speaker. If a capital gains tax is applied through tax reform, then the profit return on invested risk capital must be greater than the interest paid on non-risk investments. If this does not happen, the incentive to invest with risk will be destroyed, and our economy in this Province is going to stagnate. In such a situation British Columbia's development will be the most seriously affected in all of Canada. To keep up with our present commitments there must be a steady expansion in our productive capacity just to stand still. If we do not have additional school pupils, hospital patients, or welfare recipients, costs are still going to go up, and to meet the increasing demands for revenue created by large numbers

[ Page 265 ]

of additional services, dormant areas of our Province must be ready for development.

Our North offers, Mr. Speaker, an answer, and the announced plans for rail extension to Dease Lake opens up a second frontier to complement the activity at Fort Nelson. The Dease extension opens up large power reserves, vast mineralized areas and known productive forest lands. Our total sustained yield harvest of timber in this Province could be increased as much as one-third through this extension alone. Even with a start right now, the 70's will be well advanced before much more than initial action has been taken. This is a vast land about which we have little detailed information. It seems difficult to realize that the present developments in the Peace River were triggered by the action taken first in 1956 with the power, and then in 1958 with the rail, and that's 12 to 14 years ago.

There are some clouds on British Columbia's economic horizon which could affect the Provincial revenue during this year. Obvious areas for concern are the market for timber at prices which allow for profitable operation. At this time our comparative direct forest revenues are on the decline, Mr. Speaker. This relates to lumber prices which, on average, approximate those paid three years ago. Costs are going up, the prices are down. This directly affects the stumpage return on the sliding scale adjustment. Present plans to fight inflation in the United States have reduced capital funds available for house construction and there is no immediate relief in sight. Seventy per cent of our market is affected. Pending labour negotiations promise to be more difficult because of the market situation. Associated Crown ventures are seriously affected by any disruption in the forest industry. Both B.C. Hydro and the P.G.E. are dependent on continuous activity in the industry to reach their budgetary goals.

Kraft pulp prices are improving, as is the market demand. However, it will be another year before a noticeable benefit occurs. The dependence of the pulp industry on residuals from the saw mills is now more firmly established, so that a disruption of activity at any point in the timber manufacturing process tends to slow production on a wide front.

Labour and management associated with the forest industry must resolve their differences in a realistic and responsible manner if the Budget you are debating today is to provide the necessary revenues to provide the services and increased benefits which have been set forth, and I emphasize that fact. This is going to be one of the most serious years that we as a Province will face.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to spend one moment on my own constituency, because this will be one of the most significant years for transportation advance in the history of the whole north central region of the Province. Highway 16, Mr. Speaker, has acquired a new name along with its new status. Yellowhead 16 joins Prince George to McBride and so opens up the northern Trans-Provincial highway from Prince Rupert to the Alberta boundary. The Yellowhead splits at Tete Jaune Cache, with Number 5 going south to Kamloops. A new major junction point has been added to the highway system of this Province, and soon Tete Jaune Cache will be as well known as Cache Creek to the motoring public of this Province.

A brief report, Mr. Speaker, on the reservoirs about which the election was almost fought in our area. May I report that the activity on Lake Williston is moving ahead. There are now 50 tugs, 50 tugs working on Lake Williston. Many people would tell you, you can't even get on. There are 50 tugs working there gathering material at the present time, and all of the predictions concerning the ability to handle wood and to clear the reservoir are going even better than happen to have been anticipated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. WILLISTON: The Mica Reservoir is also on schedule and is being cleared and, Mr. Speaker, in this House and elsewhere, as an aside, this was an area of debate, and in the recent election — both Mica Reservoir and the Peace Reservoir are in my own riding, a large part — and in those two areas I received the highest percentage of votes I've ever had in my history. (Applause)

With the completion of Highway 16, or Yellowhead 16, the upper Fraser Valley has entered the mainstream of communication of British Columbia, and the rich river bottom land will provide agricultural produce in increasing amounts to the growing centres such as Prince George.

Also in that growth area, a brief report on the hospital situation. A review has proved to the satisfaction of Government — and remember now you have to prove to the satisfaction of Government — that an emergent need exists for additional hospital beds at Prince George, and a new hospital also to serve the instant town of McKenzie. Treasury Board has given approval to place a plebiscite totalling $6,090,000 to cover an additional 135-bed extension at Prince George and an 18-bed expandable unit at McKenzie, and we are very, very appreciative of this fact at the present time.

Before leaving my own constituency I can't help but say, Mr. Speaker, that we had an election there too, that the leaders of both parties stopped by, and I was the only one that got really special attention, because the manager of the bus stopped off to run against me. He had a tough time getting any time in to campaign, I would say, but the Liberal group in our area decided not to run a candidate, and so the bus lost its tour master and maybe that's why the predictions didn't come out just quite as well as they indicated as they were moving around the Province. I don't know. I don't know. When they lost the tour master they must have lost the magic touch that was associated with the prognostications that were coming out, or they lost their responsibility, I don't know which.

AN HON. MEMBER: They lost their way.

MR. WILLISTON: But the amusing thing, Mr. Speaker, that comes out of here, the Leader of the New Democratic Party spent a great deal of time in Prince George, he came to Prince George and set up the public meeting and in a presentation to the people — and do you get the headline in the press, which was really wonderful — he indicated that last year when he moved a vote of confidence in this House against myself, that I was so chagrined that I cried in the Legislature. So the banner across the top of the page was "Williston cried" and so he passed it out. They brought a fellow from New Westminster to run the campaign, and they said now in this public meeting, in this big public meeting, "get in there and hit him hard, hit him hard and break him down, and you'll get him right out in the public meeting." Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the goriest public meeting that was ever held in the history of Prince George in this last election, and it wasn't the present sitting member who was asking for any mercy from that group. As a matter of fact, when the strategists go in on a business of this kind,

[ Page 266 ]

as they did in that particular case, the one place you shouldn't talk to are a group of people who you've had for high school students over a great number of years, because when you tell them that you cried when somebody put the bee on you, or the bug under you, as they know me, that was the biggest joke that went around in the whole constituency. I want to tell you, since I got the highest vote I've ever had in my life after that many years of service, I was honoured by the attention that they paid me.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's not time this afternoon to stay at items of that kind. The history has been written. This debate has centred on many articles of my own responsibility and I plan to get to them this afternoon and deal with each one. First of all, it's on Cypress Bowl, and the Leader of the Opposition says Hooray. I have never yet dealt with this situation at Cypress Bowl here, and I intend to deal with it with some background this afternoon. I feel it's largely a waste of time, Mr. Speaker, but when the Official Opposition, both the Liberal group and the Official Opposition group, make it a vote of confidence at the time that the last debate was up, they must be taking the matter sufficiently seriously to fill in the background information.

Mr. Speaker, the development of Cypress Bowl for recreational use has been the subject of debate in this Legislature for the last five years. It is only within the last few months that it has added a "who done it" feature to give an air of mystery and intrigue completely out of keeping with either the facts or the administrative policy governing such development. Those who desire to confuse, select certain actions out of context and elaborate against a contrived background of supposition. Such situations may create best sellers of either books or newspapers, but they do little to establish responsible understanding. Let me illustrate, as briefly as possible, but it won't be very brief.

The Official Opposition first of all, Mr. Speaker, and has been doing for five years, contends that Cypress Bowl was a park, and that some formal action had to be taken to cancel such status before any development could proceed in that area. Very limited research would reveal the background of actual information, had they cared to look into it. Timber alienations had been issued over the area in 1908. These were referred to as the Heeps Licences. The timber was not of good quality and appraisal for removal indicated a loss would be sustained. With adequate advanced publicity and, Mr. Speaker, when you get taken you really get taken, with adequate advanced publicity the owner, who was Mr. Heeps of Los Angeles, the owner gave notice that he was going to start logging the stand and a start was actually made in 1938. There was a tremendous outcry along the whole North Shore against this action, and as a result, in 1939 Mr. James Sinclair was commissioned by the Government to prepare a report recommending or looking into future park developments in this general area, and he prepared his report, and I happen to have it here. In his report, Mr. Speaker, he referred to three separate projects, and they're well known. One was Hollyburn, which included Cypress Bowl, one was Grouse Mountain, and the other was Seymour.

Some interesting points right from his report, Mr. Speaker, right from the beginning, is that he indicated up there one of the problems that face everybody on the North Shore. He says the first necessity in the development of the whole North Shore area is to make available for all ages an easy access road up to the skiing area. So right from the very beginning, and he happened to be an owner on Hollyburn Ridge, he outlines it in here that he owned a cabin on Hollyburn Ridge and he could be taken as a little bit prejudiced at times, but he made and gave a very objective report. But access right from the beginning was Number One. Mr. Sinclair, in examining the area suggested that the Heeps Licences be logged, that the Heeps Licences be logged, as this would not detrimentally affect the potential for skiing. It is fair to indicate he thought that less than half of the timber had any value. The Government had hired Lloyd Rodgers, who many of you in this area know, he is from the Capilano Timber Co., a well known and respected forester. They can laugh about him, but I think in the industry Lloyd Rodgers stands miles high. He's a man, he's a man. To report on the timber, Mr. Speaker. He recommended that the owner be permitted, Mr. Rodgers recommended that the owner be permitted to log the licences, since he could only lose money and as a consequence would let the licences revert.

Despite both recommendations, the Forest Service was instructed to negotiate a trade, and to give you their words, not mine, Mr. Speaker, and to get back, that this was a contrived business in the first place. The report reads on page 19, "In the summer of 1938 Heeps announced that he intended to log the licences. Public feeling was immediately aroused by the thought that, the green slopes of Hollyburn Ridge would be despoiled." In Mr. Rodgers' report he indicated that they wouldn't be despoiled at all, but it's interesting to note that Mr. Rodgers prepared the cruise for the Government and he indicated that there were 29,300,000 feet of merchantable timber on the licences. Mr. Heeps contended there was 85,000,000 feet of merchantable timber on the licences at that time. Be that as it may, public pressure, and as Mr. Sinclair says even at that time on the bottom of page 20, "Despite this report (his report and Mr. Rodgers), certain groups with little knowledge of the mountains continued to agitate for the purchase or exchange of these timber limits," and to encourage this, Heeps proceeded with the construction of a very steep, very poor logging road and actually dragged out a few loads of shingle bolts by tractor and truck to indicate that he was making progress. The trade went on, Mr. Speaker, and the negotiation took about five years.

Out of this came a firm resolve of the permanent staff of the Forest Service never to get caught in one of these situations again, because in the trade it was determined finally to trade volume for volume, volume for volume, not quality for quality, but volume for volume and of this basic balsam, hemlock, decadent material, the trade was placed at 45,000,000 board feet. It was traded, this decadent material, for fir in the Sayward on Vancouver Island, the licences are still in good standing on Vancouver Island at the present time. This was in 1944 the trade was concluded. 55,000,000 board feet of timber has been taken from the licences, the licences are still in good standing, and are still being operated at the present time. Remember, Mr. Speaker, there was a five-year lapse in that period of time from when the negotiation started until it happened to be concluded in 1944. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, specific attention was paid to the Sinclair report, and I realized that the people in the N.D.P. have taken a stand on this matter, but they just have to go back through the records to find out exactly what happened.

In the three areas, and the maps are here, Mr. Speaker, the maps are here, one happens to deal with this area of Cypress Bowl and the Hollyburn Ridge, and it was one of the areas designated for a park purpose. If you can see across the way, the biggest area of this park land, if you look at the map, is

[ Page 267 ]

municipally owned by West Vancouver. The red is Provincial and the yellow is municipal. At the time when this was under discussion, there was no indication that the municipal lands, and it was advocated first of all that these be developed as a metropolitan park area, but there was no enthusiasm for a metropolitan development in the region as a whole. Which was point one. In point two, point two, Mr. Speaker, West Vancouver — and they are valuable lands on the upper levels of Hollyburn Ridge — never, either at this report time or after, indicated the desire to place those lands within the park area.

The other two areas were Seymour and Grouse. Both were in North Vancouver, and it was patently obvious that neither municipality could develop them because at this time they were both in receivership. Mr. Sinclair recommended that maybe if the Provincial Government were approached that they would develop Hollyburn, Grouse and Seymour because at the time, it was in the depression, we had our camps operating, and he thought that the boys who were working in camps could be taken up to Hollyburn, Grouse and Seymour and put to work at that time. But, be that as it may, his suggestions were not followed through nor were they acted upon by the municipalities concerned.

The Government, in receiving his report, did take action, because at this time they owned a Provincial park on Mt. Seymour, and if you go through the report, the only one where there was basic Provincial ownership established for the whole park, they accepted Mr. Sinclair's report as presented, and at that time developed Mt. Seymour into the present Provincial park and that became the Provincial park on the North Shore mountains. The rest of the park system there, as a matter of conscious policy, did not become a part of the Provincial park area. But even as that was going, the trade and the agitation for the trade so that it could be eventually incorporated at some time or other into a situation for a park in West Vancouver was pressed forward, and that trade, as I have indicated, took place. But as a matter of conscious policy the Government did not dedicate it as a park, for the simple reason that in dedicating it as a park it became or would become a Provincial responsibility in that area, and there was no indication from the municipality either of contributing their lands or of the municipality establishing the park or the metropolitan area establishing the park in their own guise. As a consequence, as a matter of conscious policy, that area was never, despite whatever the Leader of the Opposition and the member from Vancouver East says, that area was never, never has been designated as a park situation. Never has been. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to stay with this the whole afternoon, but I can show the Leader of the Opposition, I can show the Leader of the Opposition, the landed areas of the timber licences that were allowed to be reverted, that should have been in a park that were incorporated back into the municipal areas of West Vancouver, and Mr. Speaker…. I think I've taken more action in this regard, likely, than anyone else. Mr. Speaker, let's move, because the shouting interruptions, and things coming from the people cannot be substantiated in fact at any level.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe it should be a park, or don't you? I can see you don't want to deal with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WILLISTON: I'll deal with it in its entirety. You are going to be here for quite a while this afternoon, Mr. Member.

The remaining action taken on this project has followed administrative procedure and has resulted in a very restricted and sometimes difficult condition for implementation. There was an original proposal for development at Cypress Bowl placed before the Department of Lands, and Mr. Speaker, this afternoon for all members in the House, because of what you've heard in debate, follow the procedure through at least to that, and then debate on the evidence of action which has been taken.

They presented a proposal to the Department of Lands. Investigation was promised. Since much of the area came within the municipal boundaries of West Vancouver, a first rule was invoked. No approval to proceed would be allowed or even indicated until the municipal council had given its consent. In consultation with the Department of Municipal Affairs, it was determined that a community plan should be developed and this involved public hearings in West Vancouver, and, Mr. Speaker, I intend to file the community plan that was adopted as a first move in the development of Cypress Bowl, the community plan filed by West Vancouver dated August the 19th, 1965, and passed, on their instruction, through Order-in-Council. That was a start. This formal plan, which was adopted, was subject to recreational development to specific controls. Within this arrangement, access, parking lot, and slope clearing plans were presented and approved. And, Mr. Speaker, it's been intimated in this House — this will be filed — it's been intimated in this House that our department took unilateral action insofar as development on the Bowl is concerned. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From the time of the immediate clearance — and that's the file just on our approvals, Mr. Speaker, and from West Vancouver and their concurrence and their joint signings, and I'm placing this also in file before the Legislature this afternoon. But even at the start, on August the 11th, 1966, from the Corporation of the District of West Vancouver before anything started, the letter to my Assistant Deputy Minister stated, and referring to Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd., "The company sought and obtained the permission of the West Vancouver Municipal Council at a special meeting of the Council on August 1st, and at a regular meeting of the Council on August 9th, for the construction of the tote road through District Lots 1343, 1344, which lots are owned by the municipality. We have outlined this area in red on plan C dated May the 31st, 1966, of the submission. The approval tote road is shown in yellow," and if you'll follow the plan through, you'll find that on the basis of this tote road presentation, the Forest Service then issued the cutting rights on the tote road and policed them. The next area to be cut was the parking lot. It was presented, it was given at the same time, and it was policed. And Mr. Speaker, every action, every action that's been taken on Cypress Bowl, not one of them had been taken unilaterally. Not one action. It has had approval and, Mr. Speaker, the actual job which was carried out — I will admit the plans were presented, prepared by the company, approved and supervised, and the supervision by the Forest Service — and the Forest Service in their supervision carried out, and the reports came back that, on the basis of the presentation, a good job had been done by the peoples removing the timber from that area. In here are the prices paid for the timber, the timber licences which went from seven dollars a hundred cubic feet up to the last cutting permit which was at $14 a hundred cubic feet on the fir. The material is there, Mr. Speaker, step by step along the way.

[ Page 268 ]

But let's indicate one or two things which have changed. You remember first of all an outcry came concerning what was taking place on the hill, and West Vancouver asked us to stop action on the hill and we stopped action on the hill immediately. When that action was stopped, West Vancouver went and secured an independent appraisal of the work that was going on. It was carried out by Borgersen and Associates. Let me read one or two things which came from his report, and if anyone is interested in the whole of his report, you've been given just within the last few days ideas about avalanches and things of this nature, and the nature of the clearing that took place. But he says in his report, page 10, "It is pointed out that historically ski areas in the Puget Sound region have clear-cut slopes, and it is apparently the preference of many skiers for a wide open slope, and this preference has dictated policy in this respect," and he endorsed it. He indicates also — and we've had all kinds of information, Mr. Speaker, here about the nature of the clearing that's taken place thus far on Cypress Bowl — and these are from Mr. Borgersen's figures himself, and he happens to be an expert in this particular field.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the date of his report?

MR. WILLISTON: The date of his report is in late 1968.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not fully up to date.

MR. WILLISTON: Not at that time. No. That's right. But it's of interest to know that he pointed out for clear-cut areas. This is from his report that on Snoqualmie Summit they have 500 acres cleared, clear-cut, they expect to handle 5,000 skiers a day. On Ski Acres there is 300 acres, and they intend to handle 5,000 to 6,000 skiers a day. On Cypress Bowl there was 700 acres in total on the plan. At the present time at Cypress Bowl 599 acres have been covered but the planned density at Cypress Bowl is different than any on the Coast, and all you have to do is look last weekend at Seymour. The planned density at Cypress Bowl was for 14,000 to 18,000 skiers to be using the facilities at Cypress Bowl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't they cut poles as planned?

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the plan has been followed and there are enough pictures. We handed around some newspaper pictures here the other day which were not depictive of the runs and so on, I've got a complete set of the pictures as it is today, runs in the rest of the area, and I'll pass them around the building this afternoon and the members can see somewhat of what they happen to be talking about. But, Mr. Speaker, when you look at these pictures, what are some of the basic problems and the changes in the cost and so on. I'd ask you to look at this one just in particular because there are matters here that have to generally be resolved. When I first was made acquainted with the initial plan which had been approved, it showed a looped road, you'll be able to see it in this picture coming up from the bottom land. It would loop and go back to the bottom area, and that was approved at that time. Subsequently, after the Borgersen report and subsequent action and interest was taken, a brand new road was projected and put through which went right across the top of Hollyburn Ridge. You can see it being constructed in this picture right here, which opens up all the municipal area lands in West Vancouver at that spot, and then brings it down to the south. This particular access, coming in to this, charged against the development at the time, is one of the main reasons why this initial action — well, there just wasn't enough money in the whole proposition to get any of that work actually done. That road, which is opening up — that's right, all municipal, and that did not come within the Department of Lands and Forests for ratification, that came within the area of West Vancouver — was charged and required of these people and was not required of myself nor of my department. But because it was required of West Vancouver it was made a part of the plan and the objective of the plan as you see right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Ranger said the road went nowhere.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the plan was presented to us and it was not devised by the Ranger. The plan was presented to us by a professional forester, approved by West Vancouver, as you will see, and was carried out on that. I agree with the member from North Vancouver, because I was over the road, that the initial road was not a good road at that time, and there is no argument about that whatsoever. But that, and the improvement of that and so on, does not indicate any basic malpractice at any time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They just went into the good timber, that's what they did.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, they never went off timber, and it is statements like that that are completely irresponsible….

The total volume cut and removed to date off the licences, Mr. Speaker, is 3,899,073 cubic feet. Based on a detailed analysis of the scale bills, the area logged was an over-mature hemlock-balsam stand with 72 per cent of the hemlock classified on the basis of an actual scale as No. 3 grade, and we had our Leader of the Opposition saying about this prime timber and the gain and the profit was $500,000. 72 per cent of the hemlock classified No. 3 grade, 11.4 per cent as No. 4 or lumber rejects. Balsam is an ungraded species but it is in an area classified as being affected by balsam woolly aphids. Utilization was above average as indicated by the inspection reports, and a further indication of good utilization is the fact that 9.5 per cent of the volume removed was classified as lumber rejects.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just who is woolly?

MR. WILLISTON: The preparation of a detailed, comprehensive plan of development without assurance of final acceptance proved to be financially difficult for Alpine in the light of the problems with logging, access, the parking requirements which had gradually evolved. Our policy of reserve until plan approval, then lease, develop, purchase, really provides no collateral upon which finance can be raised on a project of this magnitude. Providing they were able to meet the requirements to be set forth for development, Alpine felt that they required paper documentation to ensure they could proceed under the community plan development conditions. They desired to document their right to prepare a plan within a given area that the capital structures would occupy. In this case, the reserve and the general leases

[ Page 269 ]

requested had exactly the same force, and they are referred to in both documents. They were not requested by the Department, Mr. Speaker, they were not requested by the Department, they were not negotiable action documents, they only delineated more precisely areas within the boundary of the community plan in which planning would take place and be presented for approval. The municipality was informed of the nature of the proposed leases during the period of negotiation. I was not, as indicated and my statements at the time were perfectly obvious, I was not aware that the leases had in fact been signed. Nor was I particularly interested since no development action could take place without my personal approval and this would not come until after detailed plans had been approved by the municipality in line with the requirements of the adopted community plan. When it was brought to my attention that the routine gazetting of the cancellation of the reserve had not taken place prior to signing the leases, I instructed that such action be withheld pending clarification of the situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who brought that…?

MR. WILLISTON: And that's where the — and the Leader of the Opposition was the man that mentioned that to me, Mr. Speaker. That's right.

To further spoil some of the real under-cover speculation about action which has taken place, may I summarize. It was always the understanding, Mr. Speaker, that certain capital structures would be a part of the project. That is ski lift facilities and all of their complexities. Ski service facilities, repairs, specialty shops, restaurant areas, a hotel development, and an alpine village type complex, and residential accommodation for the staff. Even these projects had not been approved in detail. Each of the approvals would require a subdivision of the land, and for the first time and after 35,000 subdivision clearances, I am finally being questioned on what a subdivision is, but be that as it may, each of the approvals would require a subdivision of the land to accommodate individual uses and because the Province would always retain ownership of the ski slopes, the parking lot, and other public areas. No blanket purchase, Mr. Speaker, no blanket purchase is allowed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a toll road?

MR. WILLISTON: Only those uses permitted by the municipality under its zoning by-laws and also subject to my approval would be allowed. This is set out in the lease document, and the member says a toll road. Fine and dandy, Mr. Speaker, let's deal with that right now. You are going up that mountain to ski. It is becoming a public venture. My colleague here has a road going up Mount Seymour at the present time. He spends over $100,000 on it on, snow clearance every year. He still — and not enough, that's right, not enough — he still, Mr. Speaker, requires a capital expenditure of upwards to $1,000,000 on the Seymour Road before he's even got a road going to Seymour, and people are here saying on the development put this up and the question comes whether you should charge a toll. Mr. Speaker, if you don't go there, and the rest of us who ski, whether you go up Island to Forbidden Plateau and you drive on the weekend 240 and 250 miles, if there is no other way except out of the public purse to put that road up onto Grouse — or up onto Cypress Bowl, then you are either going to go there or you are going to go all the way up the valley almost to Pemberton, take the hours and the drive, if you even take that at three cents a mile insofar as your car is concerned. That's right, it is worth the toll up there if no public body is going to put it up, and, Mr. Speaker, I have no qualms about that at all. And you're going to prepare a parking lot up there, when you get there, Mr. Speaker, for 5,000 cars and remove the snow that is from there. The people that use that and get that accommodation and don't have to drive and have it at their back door should pay for it. They should pay for it because there is not enough money for the recreational needs of the area unless the people….

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): You said it was going to be free four years ago when I raised the question.

MR. WILLISTON: That is right. Because of the road. That is absolutely right. Because of the road that was planned and put through at that time, and it was not the road that was opening up the whole of Hollyburn Ridge which you will see on these pictures that you see this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is Benguet still in the deal?

MR. WILLISTON: No — I am going to deal with the lease documents and Benguet and the rest of them, just hold yourself.

The second point — Mr. Borthwick did not negotiate the detailed lease documents. We have read from the press all over British Columbia and everything else concerning the matter. He did not negotiate them. He did sign them, but only following a complete review of the terms and the conditions by the Attorney-General's Department, and following the execution of the documents by the company who, through its solicitors, were well aware of the very stringent terms of the lease that required compliance with all municipal regulations and by-laws and the approval by myself before any development work could proceed, insofar as that area was concerned.

And, Mr. Speaker, the next big mystery which they trumpeted around the Province. The publication in the Gazette of the release of the leasehold areas in the reserve was not carried out immediately because the official responsible was on holiday and the leases were consequently signed before his return. This was an unfortunate administrative oversight but not calculated as one that was inferred, and certainly not one that was considered to be of great importance. And if somebody wishes to check the dates upon which the officer responsible was on his holidays this year, he can do so very, very easily, it's not a matter of great secrecy, intrigue, and all the things that are going on.

Representatives of the Bahamian Port Authority did inquire about provincial policy concerning the development of Crown lands. They did indicate they were interested in joining Alpine if a suitable arrangement were negotiated. This was done without further reference to Government. I was made aware of the actual nature of the new association through the press. I must admit I had never heard of Benguet before, nor did I know the background of his association with the Bahamian Port Authority. The so-called intrigue between Hydro bond sales, Allen and Company, and Cypress Bowl made a thrilling mystery reading even for myself, Mr. Speaker, and I had to get up in the morning to read the paper to see what other mystery I had been involved in overnight. Perhaps when I was supposed to be the central figure, I should have known something about the participants or what was going on. Mr. Speaker, there never has been a plan, despite what the Leader of the Opposition says or anybody

[ Page 270 ]

else….

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the Attorney-General say?

MR. WILLISTON: …Nor even a discussion of a plan of an intensive residential development on Cypress by myself or my department and I do not believe such a discussion has taken place with West Vancouver officials either. Independent feasibility studies based upon a supposition have no validity. I will tell you what happened — and this is again — and I said supposition has no validity, but the people themselves interested in development, without reference either to Alpine or to ourselves, made the investigation to which you are referring, and if you'd do just a little bit of research you could have found that out and found out who paid for it at the same time.

MR. BARRETT: Did Benguet have the engineer in there, the electrical engineer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Alpine?

MR. WILLISTON: The people making the feasibility study for them on the investment business was the responsibility.

MR. BARRETT: Well, who was that? Benguet or Alpine that ordered that?

MR. WILLISTON: If I said it here, it wasn't Alpine. That is what I say.

MR. BARRETT: You mean it was Benguet.

MR. WILLISTON: I am not saying. I say it was not Alpine, and it was not ourselves, and it had no official business.

I said there never has been a plan. The summary statement of the Cypress Bowl development was prepared on my request and did cover the essential details. The so-called suppressed letter which occupied this House for so long was referred to as the negotiation with Alpine and for proper understanding this must be read against the background of the community plan and the lease stipulations. Mr. Speaker, I would have been stupid, if I was suppressing anything. I instructed that the Leader of the Opposition be given every document….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh…. No…. Oh…. (shouting)

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the question, came through on Cypress Bowl as to whether documents and copies would be taken from the file. I indicated that the Leader of the Opposition was to get every copy of any letter that he wanted. (applause) I challenge you, Mr. Member, I challenge you on that business. You mystery boys that write fairy stories want to listen for just a little while.

The rest of the story, Mr. Speaker, is well known. The policy of the Government to protect the public interest in Cypress Bowl was defined in 1966 when two Orders-in-Council were passed, one reserving 3,700 acres for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public, and the other reserving 1,700 acres against alienation in which the development would take place. It was from this latter area that the over-all leases to provide the sites for capital works were provided. Basically, the concept provided for a large area of land to be used for public recreation and enjoyment and a limited area to be developed, subject to approval, to provide facilities to enable the public to enjoy those recreational facilities.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, and I asked the member from North Vancouver the other day and I promised to file these documents, but listen to just a few clauses out of the lease document indicating the action that was there. "No. 3. That this lease and all leases shall observe all the lawful by-laws, rules and regulations of every municipality or other authority which in any manner relate to or affect the Crown lands." And there is a community development plan over the specific lands in which they were interested and that applied right through the piece. Mr. Speaker, two or three other clauses, some of the things they had to provide besides the access, besides the four lifts by 1972, parking area for 5,000 cars by 1972, they had to clear and groom at least 450 acres of the slopes by 1972…. Coming, that's right. But the point I was making. "But whenever in accordance with the terms and conditions of this lease the lessee is obligated to construct or clear or groom or to cause to construct or clear or groom in any location outside the leasehold, the lessor will grant to the lessee seasonably from time to time all necessary permission and authority within its power to enable the lessee lawfully to perform all such obligations," and this was the clause enabling us, outside of the municipal boundary, to carry out his particular responsibilities which were not the responsibility of the municipality. "That the lessee shall not commence construction on the ground until such times as detailed engineering plans of the development proposed by the lessee have been submitted to and approved by the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, and the department has been supplied with an irrevocable clean letter of credit,"…and so on, "the performance and fulfilment bond and a guarantee of security authorized to carry on business in the Province of British Columbia." And this could only come, Mr. Speaker, after the approval under the community plan by the municipality of West Vancouver. Now I am filing, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the development plan, the leases.

What is the situation at the moment? At the moment action on the Ridge is stopped. It was stopped specifically at the request of the Municipality of West Vancouver. We argued whether we would remove some felled and bucked or not at the time before the stopping. The felled and bucked was removed, and at the request of West Vancouver today action on the hill is stopped. Insofar as Benguet is concerned, Alpine have received their letter, their letter states in unequivocal terms that Benguet has been determined not to be a satisfactory partner in the development of Cypress Bowl. That's the situation as it is. There has been no change in the letter. There has been no interchange even of correspondence since that letter was issued.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got the Attorney-General's report?

MR. WILLISTON: …and we have not, we have not got the Attorney-General's report, but it is a matter of policy in background at this stage taken by Government, that letter was

[ Page 271 ]

issued, and that letter still stands. In all fairness Mr. Speaker, I would think five to six months under difficult situations today, from the time that letter was issued, would be sufficient time for anyone to rearrange a capital financial situation to carry on till fulfilment of that project, if it is to proceed within that general framework.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're willing to live with Alpine.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, I've got to move. I have one very important announcement this afternoon which will affect many of you, two or three of you, and I wish to deal with two other matters before getting to it.

First of all, the Skagit River controversy, Mr. Speaker, and this too is fairly important due to the time that's been spent in this House. A brief history giving the background of the agreement to flood the Skagit River Valley seems to be necessary for members of the Legislature, as well as many other interested citizens in the Province of British Columbia. In October, 1926, the City of Seattle applied for permission to raise the level of the Skagit River at the Provincial boundary for the development of power. This application was made subsequently formally to the International Joint Commission on May 26th, 1941. At the hearing in September the then Minister of Lands presented a statement which read in part, "The Government of British Columbia does not oppose the application of the City of Seattle but submits that any approval given by the Commission should contain the following conditions:

1. That the applicant make suitable and adequate provision for the protection and indemnity of all interests in British Columbia that may be injured by the construction or operation of the works to be constructed.

2. That the Commission reserve jurisdiction to make a further order or orders with respect to the construction or operation of the said works.

The order of approval by the International Joint Commission was issued on the 27th of January, 1942. It provided: "(a.) adequate compensation to the Government and any private interests; (b.) flooding to the level of 1,725 feet; (c.) power to amend the consent to flood if conditions were violated; (d.) an engineering Board to check on the operation of the reservoir."

These are the facts now, Mr. Speaker, that have been avoided in the debate in this Legislature in the presentation of British Columbia. The Skagit Valley Land Act passed by this Legislature in 1947 ratified the order of the International Joint Commission. This Legislature has passed an Act, provision was made for a lump sum payment as compensation. The Journals of the House record, despite who you represent, that no debate took place, nor was there a division during the consideration of this Act. Negotiations took place with the City of Seattle over a prolonged period of time by the former administration. The British Columbia Government indicated… — now listen to this, Mr. Speaker, because a great number of members have had a great deal to say, and I was warned from south of the line that the American conservationists were going to try and stop the Skagit River development in British Columbia, because they didn't think they could do it at home. I thought this was a matter which made no sense, until I listened to some of the debate that's taken place in this House. Negotiations took place with the City of Seattle over a prolonged period of time. The British Columbia Government indicated that a sum of $255,508 would be acceptable and this was agreed to by Seattle on May 27, 1952. It is interesting to observe the break-down of this figure and note what it included.

AN HON. MEMBER: What date was that?

MR. WILLISTON: May 27, 1952. Lands and Forests — $66,183; Water Rentals — $50,000; Mining Roads — $75,000; Wildlife — $54,325; Trails — $10,000, making a total of $255,508. It's no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal group always think that we get taken in discussions with the Americans, for the simple reason that if you look at the discussions you will find that the original presentation by British Columbia was better than $400,000, and that the American presentation was about $250,000, and it ended at $255,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the Liberal Government.

MR. WILLISTON: This sum as compensation, Mr. Speaker, this sum "as compensation for any damage that may be caused to the Province or to any private interests — in lieu of rentals or other current charges or assessments of any kind — save the taxes on the land to be flooded," was numbered two on page 3 of the agreement that was proposed for final signing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You need help.

MR. WILLISTON: On August 28, 1952, the file indicates that all were satisfied with the agreement and that the necessary Order-in-Council would be prepared. The clearing instructions were set forth on September 8, 1952, and only an argument ensued as to whether stump heights should be two feet or 30 inches.

Shortly after this time a new Government became aware of the proposed agreement. Another problem had also developed which concerned the construction of the Libby project. In trying to determine a proper method for paying compensation for flooding, the "sharing" concept evolved, wherein the approach was drastically different from any that had been proposed up to that time, and was opposed strongly by the American side. Some pressure was brought to bear to ratify the agreement on the Skagit which had already been reached. The Libby project soon became a part of a much larger Columbia River joint development, and no action for compensation was taken pending the outcome of discussions which led to the Treaty. The principle of sharing which was adopted then, became the basis for the continuation of talks on compensation to be paid for the allowance to flood the Skagit which had been authorized by the legislation in 1947. Discussions leading to a new agreement, on completely different principles, were difficult, and took several years to finalize.

During this period of negotiation the City of Seattle made a token payment of $5,000 each year without prejudice to ensure their willingness to meet the conditions of the International Joint Commission Order. On January 10, 1967, agreement was reached between the City of Seattle and the Province of British Columbia on the compensation to be paid for flooding, together with other details concerning the preparation of the site. Fair-minded people, Mr. Speaker, think that a very commendable arrangement was reached, when considered against an unsigned agreement which had been approved by all persons responsible.

The details of the accord can be briefly stated, and I only

[ Page 272 ]

do so because it hasn't been done before:

Allowance to flood to the elevation of 1,725 feet. This height was established by U.J.C. order in 1942 and legislation in 1947.

An annual payment of $34,566.21 U.S. funds. This differed from the flat payment previously agreed. In addition — and, Mr. Speaker, it would only take a very modest amount of research to find — in addition, the Province has the right, with a year's notice, to take the value of payment in power at a price of 3.75 mills per kilowatt delivered at a load factor of not less than 65 per cent at no cost to the Province, and at some agreed point on the International Boundary…in 99 years, and it will reflect the increased devaluation of the power during that time.

The City of Seattle to delineate on the ground all boundaries necessary to contain the reservoir. This point was not covered in the original agreement.

The City to pay all taxes levied on the lands covered by the agreement, with the exception of Forest Protection Tax. This point was covered in the previous agreement.

The Province to retain ownership of all timber on the lands to be flooded, and this could be sold at any time. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the Province to retain ownership of all timber on the lands to be flooded and this could be sold at any time. When notice to flood is received, sales will be cancelled and the City of Seattle will pay stumpage and royalty on all mature timber remaining. In the original agreement, the lump sum payment placed ownership of all the timber with the City of Seattle.

The City is to provide a new road above the flood line, the length of the reservoir at no cost to the Province.

Any timber removed on the right-of-way to pay full stumpage and royalty.

If any land requires to be expropriated for right-of-way, action will be taken by the Province at the total cost to the City. This provision was not contained in the original lump-sum payment, and it is estimated that the cost of the roads and the bridges will exceed the total amount allowed in the original lump-sum payment which had been negotiated The City agrees to clear all forest growth and debris in the flood area to the extent directed by the Province. In the original agreement burning and felling of trees was to the specifications laid down by the Forest Service.

All labour employed on the project shall be restricted to residents of the Province. This point was not covered in the original agreement.

The Province agrees not to divert water from the Skagit River for the development of hydro-electric energy. Any consumptive use however, domestic, industrial, agricultural, or municipal is allowed. This point was not covered in the original agreement.

Debris disposal is allowed within British Columbia to the specification of the Forest Service. Collection and disposal of debris on a regular basis shall be perpetual. In the original agreement the City was expected to keep the reservoir reasonably clear of logs and debris.

The City agrees to indemnify and to save harmless the Province against any action, claim or damage resulting from activity related to preparation and/or operation of the reservoir. This point was not covered in the original agreement.

The Province reserves the right of access for any person to the land and water covered by the agreement and to such use and occupation of the area not inconsistent with the purpose of the reservoir. This point was not covered in the original agreement.

An arbitration arrangement was agreed to covering any matters which might be in dispute. This point was not covered in the original agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken time to detail the final agreement reached in 1967, since many persons are under the impression that such matters do not receive serious consideration. I am confident that a responsible agreement was reached, considering the limitations which had been imposed on our negotiators by statute and order, and I'm pretty proud of the agreement that was reached, which was actually brought up in 1952, and Mr. Speaker…this member has been in the Legislature much longer than I, and one of the prime rules which are difficult to do, is when some responsible legislators of years previous have entered into firm agreements as men of honour and agreement — those agreements are reached.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were in the Government, you were in the Government.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the Province might replace the loss of the electricity to the City of Seattle in place of allowing the flooding of the reservoir. One must understand this development allows for peaking power which might be used for short periods of not more than 25 per cent load factor. Simply stated, it can be used to cook your dinner, or supper, when there is a sudden peak surge on the line. It has little industrial use. It does enable the more efficient use of the other power in their system. We cannot replace this with thermal because such facilities provide base load from relatively continuous generation. Our own hydro generating units could not be efficiently geared to meet Seattle's peaks without serious interference with our own efficiency. All utilities are looking for additional peaking capacity which becomes even more valuable with the increased use of thermal generating equipment.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Province has secured an equitable settlement in return for making this land available. You will note that the agreement protects British Columbia against inflationary trends, by giving us an option of taking electrical energy instead of money in compensation. This energy has been computed to amount to 9¼ million kilowatt hours per year.

Furthermore, Ross Lake has already provided the people of the lower mainland, and we were talking here with first-class access to a beautiful man-made lake, and this will be greatly enhanced with the proposed development. My colleague has announced a continuing recreational plan for this area, and I predict, Mr. Speaker, it will be one of the most accessible, scenic and delightfully usable spots to be found anywhere in the lower mainland.

Mr. Whip, I promised to be down by 3:30, but I have two matters that I will deal with very briefly. One, the University Endowment Lands. The western tip of Point Grey peninsula is roughly divided into four zones. The foreshore is leased to the Vancouver Parks Board and borders the campus of the University of British Columbia, which forms a second area. The Endowment Lands are roughly divided into two sections. There is a developed area where lots have been alienated in fee simple and there are the undeveloped lands from which an endowment is contemplated.

Within the last few months the schools in the area have been incorporated into the Vancouver school system and negotiations are proceeding to bring a private real estate

[ Page 273 ]

development now being constructed on the former Jesuit holdings into the city.

Lands which have been alienated have not contributed funds to the endowment of the University, in fact there is a deficit in the original account. The area has actually received preferential treatment. There seems to be no practical way in which the area now developed could ever be made to endow the University and hence there is no valid reason why it should remain unorganized territory. At the same time these lands have enjoyed a tax advantage as compared to adjacent holdings within the City of Vancouver.

The efficient servicing of the lands as a separate administrative unit is a constant problem. Policing, fire protection, street maintenance, zoning, water and sewage services could all be melded with those of the city. At the present time there is no responsible, elected group to represent the residents. Problems are discussed with the ratepayers' organization which has served to good purpose under the circumstances.

The Provincial Government proposed that negotiations be opened with the City of Vancouver to incorporate into the city the developed Endowment Lands now held in fee simple. To this end, the current taxes will be set at a level roughly to approximate those paid by the city residents so that no difficulties will arise at the time of asset transfer. The undeveloped lands shall not be included in the amalgamation but shall await a decision on their development as to how best they might serve their purpose to endow the University.

This unusual administrative area was a creature of the British Columbia Legislature and for this reason the announcement of policy is made in this Assembly to allow for debate prior to a request that formal negotiations be instituted. The University now has literally 1,200 acres, plus its own campus of which I was not talking about this afternoon at all.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, and I won't deal with the one matter except of water resources, forestry, and other matters except to say this. There will be placed before the Legislature, in the relatively near future, an Act which will incorporate air pollution control within the Pollution Control Board, and thus bring soil, water and air pollution into the whole field of jurisdiction. Within the last two years, since the Pollution Control Act was passed, the flexing out of that department has been taking place and, Mr. Speaker, for the member still here, let me say that action has gone. For example, in your municipalities in British Columbia, on their pollution control in the last ten years, they have been expanding their services on the average of 25 per cent. In the last ten years they've added $160,000,000 in this field as against the total expenditure of $200,000,000, and when people spew and say that's nothing, it's almost exactly equal to what has been spent in the whole of the Province of Ontario with their population.

Mr. Speaker, when people say nothing is going on, some of you may take "Fortune" magazine, you may have the current edition which talks about the environment, a national mission for the 70's. If you look inside this recent edition that came a couple of days ago, you'll look inside and you'll see that industry starts the big clean-up and down on that page you'll see a sewage lagoon carried out, not a sewage lagoon, a lagoon associated with a pulp mill, with Crown Zellerbach, and the Federal Government in Oregon, where they're carrying on studies about the biological treatment of the effluent of that area, and they're spending jointly $800,000 to do this job.

Mr. Speaker, when people belittle actions of the Pollution Control Board and everything else, every single new pulp mill in British Columbia has a much more sophisticated system, has a much more sophisticated system than this already installed in the system. It doesn't cost anything like $800,000 — they cost between two and three million dollars to meet the requirements in the Province of British Columbia. People who take the stand that unless you prosecute somebody, something's not happening.

On the Island all of the mills, as my colleague indicated to you, will be under control and our date is 1971. The pilot project on this, if you go to take a look at it, is right now in the City of Alberni where MacMillan-Bloedel are just completing their plant. On the basis of the experiences gained with this plant, which is costing between three and four million dollars, any final adjustment to the requirements of the other mills will actually be made and be made at that time.

Mr. Speaker, we're making progress, real progress, and as a matter of fact, if the Liberal pipeline isn't too good to Ottawa, I was on the pipeline to Ottawa this morning twice, with Mr. Green this morning, and on two matters which are of general interest to the people in this House. The two matters were our concern. In the Provincial Government we're willing to co-operate, and there is quite a bit in my speech about the Canada Water Act, and pollution control, and things of this nature. We feel essentially that the Federal Government should do those things for which it has entire responsibility, for example, the sea coast where we've got troubles out in Nova Scotia at the moment, and harbour areas, in airports with the jets, in making trans-Canada regulations in areas where manufactured products have to move across boundary lines, they do it.

Speaking about that today before this address, speaking to the Honourable Joe Green, he indicates that they have trouble, they have trouble by making a unilateral decision in Ottawa, for example, about phosphates, because, as I indicated to him, it's absolutely crazy if each province gets out here and comes out with a separate set of instructions for phosphates, and he agrees. So he is contacting at the moment across Canada, and will be responsible for drawing a pilot Act designed towards the control of phosphates which can be passed in each Legislature in Canada, so that we have a uniform set of instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's real progress, and besides that he promised me, if possible — I gave him for your members here — I said, please have it back here by the 15th of March at the very latest and I'm sure, I'm sure this Legislature would give me permission to move it first, second and third times all in a day, if that happened to be necessary.

Mr. Speaker, on the second matter, and I will sit down just ten minutes late, a second matter of discussion today which I feel is going to get us all into trouble is if every province in Canada comes out with a different muffler control device that goes on to automobiles, we'll be in the greatest amount of confusion across Canada that you will ever see, and particularly in British Columbia where cars coming in on export from Germany, Japan and elsewhere are unloaded. We'll have to unload them in categories out here at the base, whether they're going to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, wherever they happen to go. And I pleaded with him again, like with phosphates, to come out again with a co-ordinated set of conditions which have to apply to exhaust treatment or effluent treatment of automobiles, and if so put those into an Act. If he can't do it universally, put it

[ Page 274 ]

into an Act and we'll do it across Canada on a uniform basis and action, I think, will go on that basis as well.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for occupying the House for this long this afternoon. I apologize to the other members of this House who await me. Thank you very much.

By leave of the House, the Hon. R.G. Williston tabled the following: Copy of Order in Council 2376, approving "Mountain Public Recreation and Natural Wilderness Area and Cypress Bowl Recreation Area Official Community Plan By-law No. 2044, 1965," leases of land made between the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, for the Province of British Columbia, and Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Limited, and copies of correspondence between The Corporation of the District of West Vancouver, Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Limited, and the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, with all the hollering that's been going on this afternoon, I didn't think there was any need for microphones.

I'd like to commend the Minister that has just sat down on his proposed amendments to the pollution control legislation, but in commending him I would like to also remind him that Tony Gargrave, when he was the member for Mackenzie, made similar proposals in 1965 and you, as the Minister in Government, voted against them, and so don't take all credit. We have, in the five years following, continued to propose this. We recognize that this is the job of an effective Opposition. We'll continue to try to be effective.

Now, I'd like to first just make reference, Mr. Speaker, to the B.C. Hydro subsidy that's in the Budget again this year, an equal amount as last year, $2,000,000. This has been a great help in rural British Columbia, it's been a great help in the riding of Yale-Lillooet which I have the privilege to represent. There are now areas along the Nicola Valley, in the Spences Bridge–Lytton-Lillooet area, that a few years ago were barren desert. Today, first-class soft fruits, peaches, apricots, watermelons, grapes of first-class quality, are grown in the Spences Bridge area. I believe we have or will have the earliest ripening peaches this summer. Anyone passing through Spences Bridge by July the 15th will be able to sample some of the best peaches that I've tasted anywhere, and it's in part due to the hydro subsidy that has made it possible to get rural electrification and water on to some of these slopes above the Nicola and the Thompson and Fraser Rivers.

This has also been a great help to the ranchers. In many places where there was no grass they're growing three crops. In some places there was one crop and they're growing three crops. This is putting modern technology to help the farmer and to help us raise our standard of living in British Columbia. So I commend the Government for at least maintaining the $2,000,000 subsidy, the same subsidy as we had last year.

While I'm feeling in a good mood I would also like to commend the second member for Vancouver Centre. When the member spoke during the Throne Speech he mentioned that when he came into this House he didn't have too much respect for the civil servants or the public servants that work for this Government, and I know many, many people, particularly men that have been in business all their life, have this feeling, and I say this in no manner of disparagement, but this is part of the attitude that is developed in modern society. In our acquisitive society we're to take our hats off to the man that can make a fast buck, and I'm not sure that this is at all right. I believe if we are going to move to an ever higher standard of living, both physically and spiritually, we have to have more and more people that are dedicated to serve, whether they are serving as politicians in public life or as public servants. And I commend the second member in that he did recognize that, through his association in this House and the civil service, he has changed his mind.

Now I believe that this does relate too with the subject that I'm going to deal with mainly this afternoon. I'm going to deal mainly with the monies that we are spending in the Budget for health care, Medicare and hospital services. If you will study or notice you will see that in our Budget alone we are increasing the allocation from 40 to 50 million dollars, or 25 per cent, and this is a major increase. The over-all increase is even greater than that, when we consider the Federal Budget.

Now I'd like to just say a word or two on the history of National Health in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The early socialists when they drew up the Regina Manifesto in 1933, had clause no. 8 — publicly to organize health, hospital and medical services. With the advance of medical science the maintenance of health population has become a function for which every civilized community should undertake responsibility. Health services should be made at least as freely available as educational services. The properly organized system of public health services, including medical and dental care which would stress prevention rather than cure, should be extended to all of our people, both rural and urban. This is an enterprise in which Dominion, Provincial and Municipal authorities, as well as the medical and dental professions, can well co-operate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-seven years later.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 37 years ago. And what has happened? Approximately 30 years ago the Medical Association in this Province, in an attempt to arrest preventative medicine and national health, organized the M.S.A., and what is the M.S.A.? The M.S.A., the Medical Services Association, is set up primarily to pay doctors’ bills.

When the Regina Manifesto was drawn up during the depression doctors were having a very bad time making a living. They were happy to get a municipal grant of two or three thousand dollars a year to be a municipal doctor in any part of Canada, but even though it was difficult for them to collect their bills they still did not accept the full medical picture from a preventative point of view, and National Health, from a socialist conception, means preventative health care, not just collecting money to pay doctor bills. Now in 1940 or in the early 40's the doctors organized M.S.A. simply to get people, while they were working, to pay into a fund so their bills could be paid should they be sick or unemployed. This was a first step, and I think it is commendable to that point, but when we look back we see that today we have National Health Insurance that is doing nothing more than merely collecting money from people and governments to pay doctors' bills. We have absolutely no control over the quality or the type of medical care that we receive, nor do we have any control over costs, and it is for this reason that I'm going to devote my time in the Budget address to dealing with some of the ways that we may be able to try and

[ Page 275 ]

control the costs and the quality of medical care that we're receiving in this Province and in this nation.

Yesterday in the Vancouver Province, or rather in the Victoria Times, I clipped an article concerning the high cost of Medicare in the United States, and it points out that while the American Medical Association was the fiercest foe of Medicare when the late President Kennedy was bringing in Medicare for the senior citizens, that six clinics are taking over $1,000,000 per clinic from the very limited Medicare plan in the United States, and the one clinic that is taking $1,700,000 is operated as a partner or has as a partner a Dr. Richard Wilbur, the second-highest staff member of the American Medical Association. So while they fought right to the bitter end

AN HON. MEMBER: Right to the bank doors.

MR. HARTLEY: and, as my friend says, to the bitter end so long as to end up at the bank door, they were prepared to go along from there. There was another clipping, "U.S. Medicare Faces Crisis." This is in The Province. The Province of yesterday, February 9th. "Washington. Warning that rising Medicare cost, over-charges and sloppy administration are aiming the government's health insurance programme towards bankruptcy, a Senate report Sunday called for fixed fees for participating doctors and other far-ranging, cost-cutting reforms. The report likely to land with explosive impact upon the medical profession, which opposes government fixed fees, said many doctors have inflated their incomes through Medicare." And that brings me to a statement that our Minister of Health made. In September, Dr. Loffmark made a statement that quite a few doctors had been making more than their fair payment under the Medical Services Act. This set off a chain of events. When the B.C. Medical Association met up at Harrison, they saw fit to pass a resolution that doctors' incomes would not be made public under the Public Bodies Disclosure Act. This, in turn….

MR. WALLACE: That wasn't the resolution that was passed at all….

MR. HARTLEY: What sort of rubbish is that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: (Comment not decipherable)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. If the member has a point of order he will rise in his place and so state. What is your point of order?

MR. WALLACE: The resolution was very different from what the member says….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Oak Bay for rising, at least he is listening and we are getting through to him. I hope he will stay in the House until I'm finished. I have the quotations here and if he would like to see them he's welcome to when I'm finished.

Now, following the resolution passed by the doctors at Harrison, the Cabinet passed an Order-in-Council whereby these funds would be disclosed, they would be disclosed, there has been some discussion, some controversy by the Minister in charge of Medicare, the Honourable Wesley Black, that this may or may not be done. Surely when public monies are being used, the public should be entitled to know what is being done with their money. There's another quote that took place up at Harrison or was made up at Harrison rather, by Dr. F.S. Hobbs. "Earlier in the Session members heard a warning from the chairman of the pattern of practice committee that the B.C.M.A. had better establish some disciplinary machinery to control doctors who charge too much, or else see the Government take over the job of disciplining." Now, despite what my friend says, there must have been some discussion and there must have been some problem, and I can tell him, I can tell him this, that three years ago the B.C.M.A. came to the various health services organizations in this Province and asked to have a disciplinary clause put in their by-laws, because at that time, three years ago, some doctors were reported to be earning over $100,000. I have no objection to anyone making whatever money they like, but I believe that when monies like this are being paid out of the public purse, we all have a right to know of the accounting. I have heard from other sources that in three years that figure has risen to closer to $200,000 a year.

Now, as indicated by Dr. Hobbs, the B.C. Medical Association has failed to act in this regard up until now. Not just since Medicare, but they have failed to help in assisting the various medical services plans discipline doctors that overbilled.

A few years ago one of the medical services plans had a plan whereby the patients paid the first call. This was a lower cost plan, and by patients paying the first call it cost less to operate the plan, and this plan operated quite successfully. One day a patient, or rather a beneficiary of the plan, phoned in and asked the health services group why they were being billed for eight first calls. The girl on the telephone said, "Well you phone and ask your doctor. He's billed us for several calls, and unless you pay the first call we can't pay him." So she phoned the doctor and the doctor said, "Look, you pay those eight first calls and I'll send you a cheque to cover them." So, we received a cheque, Photostated it, we Photostated the lady's cheque, the committee met, and I happened to be on the committee at that time, and for my part I said, "Well, put the man before the fraud squad and have them look into it." The committee decided to refer it to the B.C.M.A., and we haven't heard a thing since. This is why I say this and other examples, that B.C.M.A. have failed in the past, and they are failing today to discipline this misuse of public funds.

Now, why is the cost of Medicare skyrocketing in British Columbia, in Canada, and throughout United States, and I believe it is. There was a question placed on the Order Paper in the House of Commons on January 26th by Stanley Knowles, and according to this question, British Columbia received 21.7 million dollars for the first nine months of our operation. The next full year, 69/70, the current year, we are to receive $36,000,000, which is an increase of 25 per cent over the first year and next year they plan on paying us close to $50,000,000, 48.7 million dollars, which is an increase of 33 per cent over this year's monies that we will receive. Now, why is this? Because of Medicare have we more sickness, are people getting sick now because medical services are more available?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are getting better service.

[ Page 276 ]

MR. HARTLEY: Or, are we getting greater service, and I'll come to that very point, sir, I'll come to that very point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget that point.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, you remind me if I do. Very good answer. I have a good medical authority to quote on that. Or is it, that more use is being paid of the bill collecting agencies that we are providing? Because I'll remind you again, that's all we are doing. We're not developing preventative medicine. All we have done is extended the bill collection agencies, in some cases put them under one heading, as in Saskatchewan. In British Columbia, I believe, there are still nine.

Now, I have six points, Mr. Speaker, that I'll propose, that I feel are positive, constructive points that will greatly reduce the cost of both medical and hospital coverage in this Province, points that have been proven both in other parts of Canada and in the United States. The first one is that in British Columbia we should have one carrier. I believe there are nine now at the last check I was able to make. By having one carrier we only need one manager, one head office, one set of computers. It would be more, much more efficient. In the Hall Commission, and this was available, we discussed it in the House here long before we passed our Medicare Act, Mr. Justice Hall pointed out that a duplication or multiplication of carriers in Canada would cost the taxpayer an extra $200,000,000. So by this first point, one carrier, if this is applied across Canada, we could save more than the Federal share for the three western provinces. So I think this is a worthwhile suggestion.

Number two, I think we should do something about these monthly statements that some 600,000 householders throughout British Columbia receive. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance isn't here because I would like to ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, just what is the purpose of these statements that are mailed out to every home once a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the statements?

MR. HARTLEY: What are they? They list the doctor that has serviced you, the date and the amount that has been paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: They thought you wanted to know that.

MR. HARTLEY: No, if it is serving a purpose, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we would like to know, but what is the purpose that is being served?

MR. WALLACE: (Comment not decipherable)

MR. HARTLEY: Very good, Mr. Speaker, very good. I'm glad my friend has raised this point. If this is what it's supposed to be, then it should state right here, so that you can check if the computer has given you a correct record of the doctor visits and hospital calls that you have made. This should state right here, if that's what you want it for, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this possibly wasn't a big daddy political gimmick so people would look and say, "Well big daddy paid $68 for me, isn't that nice." Well, I think this can serve a purpose, but if it is going to serve a purpose it should be stated here that this account is sent to you to help you keep down the cost of Medicare by making certain that the computer has not made a mistake. Mark all your doctor's visits on the calendar, check your accounts each month, if there are mistakes let us know. Incidentally these statements were mailed to me by a senior citizen who'd had a visit with a doctor on the 4th of July, and the 4th of July account showed this, but here away along in December they received another bill for an office procedure. Now, the patient had been in the hospital, why there should be an office procedure, I don't know, I'm looking into this. With close to 100 different services it is hard to know. But I agree with the member, that these should be checked.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about that B.C.M.A. report?

MR. HARTLEY: Now, I would like to suggest a third point, Mr. Speaker, and that is that whether we have one medical carrier or several, that the billing patterns committee should be restored. When we started to pay the doctors out of the public purse, one of the things that they insisted was, the removal of the billing patterns committee in the private plans that would regularly cut back 35 per cent and more, sometimes, of doctors that were excessively billing the plan. Now the private plans had this type of committee, but the British Columbia Medical Plan and the plans operating under the Medical Care Commission have done away with this, since we've started to pay out of the public purse. Now, why was this done away with? When I first saw these reports coming in at board meetings I wondered what it was. I'd see a 30 to 40 per cent discount, so I said well how do you handle it. You discount this account. Is there a method of appeal for the doctors that you are questioning? And they say they never question.

Point number four, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should have a quality of medical care committee set up. The commission could hire a staff of public health officials and knowledgeable lay people to safeguard the quality of medical care. I think this is fundamental and is something that is working out very well in the co-op clinics, particularly in the United States. In California there was a Council of Health Plan alternatives that was set up to study the quality of medical care, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a portion of the report. The grading system is under the direction of Dr. Lester Breslow of the University of California, the former director of Public Health in California and immediate past president of the American Public Health Association. Dr. Moore said, "You might be interested to know that the preliminary experience with the grading system has revealed two striking facts. One, health insurance plans do not necessarily improve as the price increases. There is little correlation between costs and quality in the insurance plans we graded." So, Mr. Maverick from Oak Bay, this is an authority that studied all the direct service plans in California.

MR. WALLACE: That's the United States. This is Canada.

MR. HARTLEY: We have examples in Canada, too.

MR. WALLACE: Well, let's have a Canadian example.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. HARTLEY: "Fundamental to this evaluation procedure is a fiscal and medical audit. We are working actively with a number of hospitals, medical and dental groups in California to develop prepaid comprehensive group health

[ Page 277 ]

service programmes, using group health practices of professionals. Moore has said that the main task of the consumer is to get some measure of control over some substantial share of the capital that flows into the health care industry. He explained that he meant not only the public and private funds that support this facility construction, but the funds that go toward purchasing personal services. 'Unlike other suppliers of services or products, the health providers are assured of a virtually open-ended supply of money, paid with no questions asked and no holds barred,' he said. 'There are no public utility agencies examining books or reviewing price structures, and there is very little public accountability for how money is spent,' he added."

This goes back, Mr. Speaker, to the point I raised earlier, that the Cabinet have passed an Order-in-Council to bring this under the Public Disclosure Act. The various Hydro companies, the public utilities, all have to come under the public utilities, and surely there is no greater asset for any individual or any nation than health. There should be no greater public utility, and I think that we should act or see that that Order-in-Council is carried out, not just to embarrass anyone, but so that we can have a proper quality care control to study and decide if the quality of medical care that the people are receiving in this Province could be improved.

Dr. Moore continued. He drew an analogy with public education to illustrate the fragmentation of health services. He said, "Instead of going to a school and taking part in an organized programme of instruction, how would it be if we would have to shop all over town for a history teacher here, a math teacher there, and we could only get admitted to the gym through arrangements with our private basketball coach. To each of these instructors we would pay a fee, depending upon what the market would bear, out of which he would pay his own rent, hire his own staff, and develop his own income." Well, this is what, 100 years ago, progressive people had to argue for education. Now we are arguing it for health.

Despite overwhelming evidence that health professionals function better for themselves and their patients when they practise in teams or organized groups, they cling to the disarray of solo practice. I would like to quote Howard W. Ennes, Jr., Corporate Vice-President of Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. "There is considerable opinion today that prepaid group practice contains the possibility of bringing about improvements in the health care field, that it can result in a more efficient use of available manpower, that it can improve the access to care, and that it can thus minimize the inevitable increases in the over-all costs of the health care." This is from an executive of a private life insurance company. No doubt they have found that, through economic research, the co-op clinic, the community clinic, not only is less costly but it does provide a higher quality of care. There is a quote here from the New England Journal of Medicine, September 9, 1965, with regard to the outmoded fee-for-service system of operation. The New England Journal says this, "The insistence that the fee-for-service system has produced and continues to produce the best possible medical care for the individual patient in every walk of life and economic situation is, one must admit, anything but necessarily flattering. It carries with it implications that the physicians might falter in their dedicated care under any other method of payment."

MR. WALLACE: Rubbish. Rubbish.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I think I will just digress for a moment. This member has a favourite phrase "Rubbish!" But what did he have to contribute — what did the leader of the Social Credit party in this Province — their authority on health service? He proposed that we have a three dollar a day tax on the sick people. To me, Mr. Speaker, that's a very sick idea from a sick Government when it comes to building health services.

MR. WALLACE: I'll get to that tomorrow. Don't you worry.

MR. HARTLEY: You know, Mr. Speaker, this is pretty good. For 50 years progressives in Canada have been fighting to build ways whereby average people can get away from the threat of doctor bills. They have organized M.S.A. plans, C.U. and C. plans, various medical plans to pay doctor bills. Now we've got them under various taxing authorities so that the fear of doctor bills is virtually removed from people. So my ultra-conservative friend from the medical profession suggests that we should bring new bills, three dollars a day, which is $900 a year for a sick person, an old-age pensioner living in bed. Never satisfied to put millstones of debt around the working people of this Province. And, Mr. Speaker,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The proper way to refer to a member is to refer to him as the representative of his constituency. No one sits in this House in any other way.

MR. HARTLEY: And the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Oak Bay feels that the way we are going to cut down hospital costs is to have a deterrent fee, indicates the complete lack of health care policy of the Social Credit party.

Now, what is the basic premise in health care? The healthy shall pay for the sick. The strong shall help carry the weak. But no, he doesn't accept that, or he doesn't understand it. He said we will put dollar deterrents in their way, and as a doctor he should know that there is only one deterrent in a man going to a hospital. He is admitted by a doctor and he is discharged by a doctor, and if there are more people in the hospitals than should be there it is the responsibility of the medical association, and not the sick people that are in the hospitals. And when we see the men that are paid for supposedly practising health come up with ideas that are so far out, I think it is just another argument that we need a committee on quality of practice to see that we are still getting ever-improved medical care.

Point number five, is eliminate premiums. It is very costly to be mailing out 6,000 of these statements, or rather 600,000 of these statements each month, 12 months of the year. It is very expensive to be sending out runners for premiums and second and third notices, mailing out receipts. Place the premium on a direct levy as the Premier did and the Social Credit did under the B.C.H.I.S. I noticed yesterday and I was pleased to see the Premier smiling yesterday and reminding the House that they abolished the premiums under B.C.H.I.S. It was an unfair and a very inefficient system. I would suggest that we take similar action but on the basis of ability to pay. An income tax, a corporation tax, to handle Medicare in British Columbia. In this way we would be doing pioneering that I hope that other parts of Canada would soon follow.

Now my sixth point is the direct service clinics, co-op clinics. This would be really, of the six points I mentioned,

[ Page 278 ]

this is really the only point that moves us away from the old-fashioned sickness insurance that we used to refer to as health insurance, but it really is sickness insurance, Mr. Speaker, because we only pay our doctors when we are sick, and we would move into health services or preventative medicine. First, I think we should look at the question of dollars; the costs of hospital services are skyrocketing, the costs of medical services are skyrocketing, and I would like to ask four questions, so that as I develop the idea of co-op clinics, you can have these questions in mind and see if we answer them. One, why do hospitals grind to a halt on weekends? Two, why are so few tests taken from patients before they enter hospitals? Three, are there unnecessary services being provided? Four, are we making an efficient use of the medical services, that is the doctors and other facilities that are available? I would ask you to keep those in mind, and for the answer I would ask you to look at three co-operative clinics.

The first one is a co-op clinic in Sault Ste. Marie. It was organized in 1963 by the steelworkers, and was organized to provide a combined and a complete health service: medical services, surgical services, psychiatric services. therapy services, and so on, and so it has been operating now for five or six years. And they have found this, that while the province-wide patient day per 1,000 for the population of Ontario is 1,800, the patient days hospitalized by co-op clinic are 680, a little better than a third.

Now, we have a couple of these co-op clinics that were organized in Saskatchewan to try and provide services to the people when the doctors were on strike in 1961. And the Saskatoon clinic has a hospital patient day average of 650 hospital patient days per 1,000, as compared with the province-wide patient day average of 1,650 hospital patient days. And for the third example, I am going to just look south of the border. This is the oldest direct service plan that I am quoting, and it is the Group Health Co-op of Puget Sound, Seattle. They have been operating for approximately 23 years and their patient day average is 474 per 1,000. Now that compares in British Columbia and our patient day average in British Columbia is approximately 1,700 patient days per 1,000 people, or well over three times that of the Puget Sound clinic.

Now, last year, according to Public Accounts, in British Columbia we spent for B.C.H.I.S. $138,862,146. Now applying both costs against 474 patient day ratio, as compared to B.C.'s 1,700 patient ratio, it would reduce that figure of $138,000,000 to $43,000,000. Now, that is an absolutely fantastic saving, and yet this plan has been in operation longer than B.C.H.I.S., this Puget Sound plan has been in operation in Seattle longer than B.C.H.I.S. has been in operation in British Columbia. This provides a complete service, because in the United States they are not as fortunate as we in Canada are, in that they do not have the hospitalization plan on a national basis. They do not have a health service plan on a national basis, so that the poor people in Seattle, prior to 1947, were able to get a group of doctors that would work on a salary, they were able to buy a clinic from a doctor that was retiring, and they set up the first little preventative health plan on the Pacific Northwest. Some of them in the East had started many years earlier, and today the Puget Sound Group Health Plan, Group Health co-operatives, not only provide medical and surgical services, they provide optical services and they provide drugs to their patients.

They have reduced drug costs from 30 to 50 per cent, so much so that the Washington State Department of Welfare last year had the Puget Sound Co-op contract to supply all of their drugs for the welfare recipients in the State of Washington. Now if they can do this with one little example of co-operative enterprise in Seattle, I believe we can learn a little lesson from them, and that lesson simply, Mr. Speaker, could be this. Under our B.C. Purchasing Commission we buy drugs for our various hospitals, mental institutions, and so on, buy them in large quantities. I would suggest that this purchasing agency be expanded and explored so that wherever possible the drug committee of the purchasing agency would buy through a generic formulary, and make available these drugs to all the hospitals in the Province and to any private drug company. Take a look at the small druggists that have great difficulty in providing other than brand named expensive drugs. I believe if we took this one step it would do a great deal to lower drug costs for the people of this Province.

Now, I mentioned that in Saskatoon the co-op clinic only needs 650 patient beds per 1,000 as compared with the provincial average of 1,650. They need 1,000 less patient hospital days per 1,000 of the population. Now what does this mean in dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker? It means simply this, that if you applied that to each doctor, one doctor would mean a saving of $35,000 per year. Now for 10,000 doctors in Canada, that is $350,000,000 a year this type of plan, applied throughout Canada, could save for the public purse of Canada. A third of a million dollars, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Minister of Health, is far more than enough to pay for the total cost of all prescription drugs for every man, woman, and child in Canada. Excuse me — $350,000,000, a third of a billion. And at this point, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my learned friend from Oak Bay has left, but I would like to challenge the health research personnel of both the Provincial and Federal Governments, and the researchers of organized medicine in this Province and this nation, to prove these figures wrong.

Now the reasons for the high cost of medical services. The first one is the old-fashioned fee-for-service method that the American Medical Association demands that the Canadian doctors continue with. Now, piecework was discarded by the working men and women of this Province and nation many years ago, and yet the doctors still cling to this old-fashioned method of piecework. The more patients they push through each hour the more they earn. The more organs they remove the higher their income. The more sickness, the more income. Assembly line procedures. Just think, Mr. Speaker, how can we hope to get preventative health care when, if someone by magic alchemy could develop good health for all of the people of Canada under our outmoded fee-for-service system, the doctors would starve. They would be without income.

I would like to quote Dr. Sam Wolf in a study he has made on costs and types of operations that have been done in the Province of Saskatchewan. He says that we know that the fee-for-service system encourages doctors to undertake work that they are not best equipped for, and he gives the example that in Saskatchewan during 1967 the family doctor, not the surgeon, not the specialist, but the family doctor removed 73 per cent of all appendix, 34 per cent of all bowel obstructions, 55 per cent of all hernia repairs, 48 per cent of all breast tumor removals, 51 per cent of all varicose veins operations, 29 per cent of all womb removals, 45 per cent of all bunion removals. How many doctors would let anyone but a fully-trained, experienced, surgical specialist remove a womb or a bunion from a member of his family? The same

[ Page 279 ]

doctor says that in the large cities doctors often choose, not the fee-for-service doctors, but highly specialized salaried physicians in the University Hospitals. Doctors don't prefer the occasional operator, they want doctors who have detailed and frequent contact with the most serious complications, they want doctors that are fully in touch and knowledgeable of the most serious complications that may arise.

The fee-for-service may be forcing conscientious men out of the family field of medical services into a concentration of technical procedures. The fee-for-service is the greatest factor in skyrocketing medical costs. Dr. Wolf continues. A study of doctoral service shows all doctors working on a 45-hour week, and this is their earnings: doctors working a 45-hour week, the family doctor earned $28,500 a year, the psychiatrist $29,000 a year, the surgeon $70,000 a year and a radiologist $90,000 a year. He uses this as evidence to back up his statements that the fee-for-service is forcing doctors out of the popular family practice and going in to specialized techniques.

Now with regard to co-op clinics, if they are to accomplish nothing else, they will lead to sharply reduced hospital costs. They will reduce surgical rates, and they will free money for services that are now not available. Ontario has made a study of the Sault Ste. Marie Medical Clinic that I referred to, and because of the way they are providing far more service for less money, and they feel quality service, Ontario is now putting up $17,000,000 to start a programme of co-op clinics, and the pioneer in Ontario — the Sault — will be put on a capitation form of payments. Instead of being paid on fee-for-service, the Ontario Government will pay the Sault Ste. Marie X number of dollars a year to look after a person, and they will receive that money whether the person ever comes near the doctors or the hospital or not. This is the first step in Canada towards real preventative health care.

Now, the co-op clinic can also provide services that normally we just don't think of. Nursing home services, a family care service, psychiatric services and all these services, Mr. Speaker, available on a first-hand referral basis. What happens if any of our wives, while we are away from home, if we need a doctor, how do we go about selecting a doctor? Do we ask a friend? Do we turn to the yellow pages in the phone book? So if we had a co-op clinic here, you would go, and you would go before their diagnosticians, ask some questions and he would refer you to the family doctor, and that family doctor would be your doctor so long as you were here, so long as he was with the clinic. But anytime that he felt that he needed medical assistance, he would be absolutely free to refer you to whoever, in his opinion, he felt was the best qualified person in that field, because he's not in competition with him. Today, one of the problems that is causing high costs in hospital insurance is that there is terrific competition for our hospital beds, this terrific professional jealousy. One doctor likes to brag that he has more hospital beds in the hospital than another, and to keep those beds he has to keep them filled, he has to keep patients in there, and possibly keep patients in there longer than he normally would.

Now, I've given different points of advantage to co-op community clinic practice for the patients, for the beneficiary. But there are also, many, many good points for the doctors and all those associated with the clinic. The nurses, the para-medical assistants, there are many advantages that the average doctor just doesn't know about. From the life insurance actuarial point of view, the medical profession have the shortest life expectancy of any professional group in America. We are trying to help you. What will we do to lengthen the longevity of the medical practitioners? We will give them regular hours in a co-op clinic. That co-op clinic can be open 24 hours a day, so if you wake up in the middle of the night and the baby is sick, or the husband if his wife is sick you can phone, and there will always be someone there.

HON. P.J. JORDON (North Okanagan): Who's going to staff this?

MR. HARTLEY: It's staffed 24 hours a day on regular 8-hour shifts.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a possible recruit here.

MR. HARTLEY: We explained that some time ago, but apparently the honourable member from North Okanagan was not listening, she's just tuned in, and I hope she will speak on this very subject, from a professional point of view.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we are discussing the problem of people being thrown in gaol because of faulty car insurance policies, he sits there and obviously yawns, and shows boredom. Now, when we are fighting for a better health care for the people, this member from Kamloops gets up and attempts to ridicule us, and we are doing our best, as we have done, fighting for preventative medicine in Canada for 50 years, and we are going to go on fighting it, Mr. Member, long after you're not here, after I'm not here….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please address the Chair.

MR. HARTLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there are advantages for all those working in these co-op clinics. Regular hours, regular holidays with pay, regular time worked, with time off for post-graduate work, and refresher courses, proper and adequate pension plans, and with these regular hours, the doctors can live as normal family men, and can expect normal longevity. I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that within 10 years we will see clinics like this set up in British Columbia, and throughout Canada, and this will do more than anything else, more than any deterrent, it will raise the quality of the health of the Canadian people, and in doing that, it will raise the health of the doctors and the nurses and all concerned.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me try and summarize. In hospital insurance, and national medical care insurance through health centres, the skyrocketing costs of our hospital plans, the cost of unnecessary surgery, the cost of doctors competing one with the other, the cost of the undisciplined fee system, will not continue. In a consumer sponsored health service modern technology can be combined with compassion, and a one-door entry to the whole complex of health and health-related welfare services, can be provided. In such a centre, preventative medicine can be given at least equal time with traditional curative medicine. Doctors can and will be attracted to work in such centres.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. HUNTER B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I know I'm a bit late in getting around to addressing you and extending congratulations. I enjoyed the Throne Debate as a spectator, particularly the contributions of our newly-arrived members, and as the Leader of the Official

[ Page 280 ]

Opposition said yesterday, the congratulations from all of us being extended to them, is very sincere, because it was richly deserved.

I think that I should congratulate the Leader of the Opposition also, it's his first time in the House in his new responsibility, it was the first debate in which he led, and I think he did well, but, he did strike one unfortunate note, however. He was anxious, Mr. Speaker, for some reason that we should know and I can't think why, that one Haig-Brown hates British Columbia, but, and for this I am truly sorry, the Leader made quite a point of this….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. VOGEL: I think that in highlighting this kind of thing, that the Leader did not mean to infer that he hates British Columbia and was saying this indirectly. I don't think that at all, and I'm not suggesting that.

MR. D. BARRETT: He hates what this Government stands for.

MR. VOGEL: Right, that's what you said, and you said he hated British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: No…. No….

MR. VOGEL: Now, now, yes you did, let me make my statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the member please address the Chair?

MR. VOGEL: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I want to say this.

A man living the life of a country squire in a paradise like Vancouver Island should have something more constructive to offer us than that. I know he's a great supporter, and you like to quote him all the time, but it's time these things were nailed down, Mr. Speaker. I'm a little tired of this kind of stuff, and I'm sure of two things, first, that millions, literally millions of people would be very, very glad to change places with Mr. Haig-Brown, and many of those millions live in the socialist countries around the world, and secondly, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that this man is fortunate, he lives in a free country, our borders are not sealed, anyone is free to leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!…. Oh!…. he missed it.

MR. VOGEL: Right, he missed that, he missed that, but Mr. Leader, that was only an introductory remark.

I think, Mr. Leader, that the contribution of your second member for Vancouver East was something else again, quite something else again, and quite another matter. This member attacked, and there was no innuendo here, I think you will have to agree, there was no mistaking it, he attacked Robert Bonner, a former distinguished member of this House as Attorney-General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh….

MR. VOGEL: Right. He attacked the great Macmillan-Bloedel Company. He attacked the Chairman, Mr. J.V. Clyne, former Chief Justice and a highly respected jurist, but you know, something new has happened in this climate of invectives, something new and something very healthy. You know, these people had something to say in reply, these people had something to say in reply. Mr. Clyne sent the honourable member a wire, he sent the honourable member a wire, and I won't quote it all, I won't quote the preamble. You know where I found it, I found it in the Times of February 6th, and I won't quote it all, but he says, and I quote "The statement which you have made in the Legislature concerning MacMillan-Bloedel Limited that it deals in privileges with the Government is a contemptible attack on this company and its staff." Then he goes on, and he says that "Anyone who would make such a totally unsupported and irresponsible allegation against others under the protection of legislative immunity is a coward…"

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that what Haig-Brown says about you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait until you hear from Haig Brown.

MR.VOGEL: "…and unfit to be a member of the Legislature and to hold any other responsible office."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. VOGEL: I didn't hear you protesting when your honourable member was slandering these people the other day. You weren't a bit concerned at that time, you weren't a bit concerned at that time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the members please address the Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I object under the Rules of Order. A member of this House has no right in this House to attack a judge or anyone. You have no right to attack the Bench.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, what is he talking about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member please proceed. Order please!

MR. VOGEL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I've never heard a more feeble attempt at a point of order in my life, a more ridiculous attempt. Mr. Chairman, I know they don't want to hear this story because they know they're in deep trouble, and they are in deep trouble. Mr. Clyne calls the attack contemptible. He says, he says, Mr. Leader, he says that your member is a coward. He says your member is a coward. He says so in print.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh….

MR. VOGEL: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clyne has invited the honourable member to sue. He’s invited him to sue.

Now, we also heard from Mr. Robert Bonner. Mr. Bonner had something to say to the second member. This is the

[ Page 281 ]

Vancouver Province of February 6th, and he says, and I won't quote it all, "but he has deliberately and maliciously misled the House." There's something in the rules about that too, through you, Mr. Speaker. Something in the rules about that. He said you fabricated a monstrous lie. You fabricated a monstrous lie. Now, I'm just going to ask — Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker — I'm just going to ask the honourable Leader in his new responsibility if he is going to help to build a new image for his party, if he's going to help to be more responsible and get this House on a higher plane. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not going to deal with this any more, that the member has been openly and publicly challenged to prove the allegations that he has made. I would think that the honourable Leader would take him quietly aside and say, Mr. Member, now the time has come, you either put up or you shut up. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't blame them for being upset. I'd be upset too if I were a member of that caucus. I'd be extremely upset but I'd have something to say in your caucus to that member that put you in this position, and never mind all your blustering, never mind all your blustering.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please address the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Various shouted remarks).

MR. VOGEL: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, may I have a little order, please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. VOGEL: We're pressed for time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think a little respect for the rules of this House would behoove members to keep a little more silence and give the member the opportunity to make his speech.

MR. VOGEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member please proceed.

MR. VOGEL: I didn't mean to upset the honourable member who is involved in this dispute but, Mr. Speaker, just let me say this now, I'll change the subject very abruptly.

In a new Parliament it seems to be imperative to tell the thrilling story of your victory at the polls and I haven't got any heroic story to tell. As a matter of fact, after it was all over I wondered if I had any part in the cast at all. It seemed to me that I had played frankly a very minor role, and all I want to say here is that the cartoonists really tell it the best, concisely, and very much to the point, and I'm going to admit this on my part. You might not be able to recognize this little gem. It comes from the Vancouver Province, and it was two or three days after the election, I haven't got the date on it. But anyway, it's a football team and five dancing, prancing figures are carrying off their quarter-back in great jubilation, it looks as though they won. And the thing about this is it must be a family team, because they all bear a tremendous resemblance to one another, and the lilting caption is, "It was a team effort, my friend." And some team. I think the team consists of the one brilliant man as far as I was concerned.

Now I'd like to say one or two words, I'm not going to take too long, about the Fraser Valley, about the Fraser Valley, and I want first of all to advocate a new, modern water system in the Fraser Valley that will make water available to every park, and on both sides of the Fraser River. Surrey, Langley, and Matsqui were farming communities when I first went to that area and there's still a lot of farming, thank goodness, because it gives character and economic stability. But industry is coming to the Valley and industry brings people. I think that the target area for that kind of development, residential, urban development, is plainly marked from Cloverdale to Abbotsford. People are seeking elbow room and clean air and they're coming from the North Shore, they're coming from the crowded metropolitan area, and they're coming from other parts of Canada, Western Canada, on account of our climate.

Now you can't properly plan good residential areas without services. I think that although we want to talk about services generally, you've got to start somewhere, and the basic consideration is water supply. We have tried all kinds of things. We're tried the inter-municipal approach, because one or two of the municipalities have developed ground water systems — Abbotsford and Langley — it hasn't worked and nothing has happened. I advocate a new approach. We need a properly organized over-all authority to do the job, and we have one, we have one. All we need to do, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is extend the jurisdiction of the Greater Vancouver Water Board. We should, could extend the same authority to the Greater Vancouver Sewage System also, but I think in this particular discussion I would like to confine myself to the topic of water.

What about supply? Well, first of all, we can't indefinitely prolong the extension of mains from one source on the North Shore. That's a mistake. So we must seek a new supply. I think there is an excellent supply if you want to beef up the entire structure of water distribution, which would be cheaper, more logical, and better economic and social planning. There's an excellent source of supply on the North side, my friend from Dewdney might confirm this, in the Norris Creek or what is sometimes known as the Suicide Creek. It's excellent water, it's excellent water. It's near Mission, which is not ideal from the point of view of the present distribution of population, but will become more and more ideal as the development goes on and people move to the east from the metropolitan area.

On the south side of the Fraser, from Chilliwack and as far west as we want to go, right down to Langley, Cloverdale and as far as Point Roberts, we should use the resources of Chilliwack Lake and the Chilliwack River system. The Chilliwack River extends a long way. It has several strong tributaries, the Chipmunk Creek, Tamihi Creek, Luncheon Creek, and it will produce a lot of water.

The present supply available to the Vancouver Water District from the North Shore they tell me, their engineers tell me, will look after 3,000,000 people. The Norris Creek system is estimated to supply 1,000,000 people, and the Chilliwack River and Chilliwack Lake water system would supply two, so you've got three plus two plus one. You've got a guaranteed supply of good, clean water in the long haul for the 800 square miles of the lower mainland for 6,000,000 people, and I think that's pretty good business to do that. It wouldn't disturb the two presently existing ground water systems, one in Abbotsford and one in Langley. They would remain as they are, or they might even be developed simply because you want a back-up in case of emergency, and you

[ Page 282 ]

want a back-up in the dry, heavy-use period. But it would be a multi-municipal system under a single authority. It would be the authority that has been successful in supplying water for Greater Vancouver, Coquitlam, Delta, and Surrey, and I would strongly recommend that, Mr. Minister, and I think in this particular case it's vital.

Now, I've talked about increasing population and I just want to say one brief word about rapid transit. We talked about rapid transit last year in the metropolitan area. It's a big proposition. It's going to take a long, long time. But we can develop, in a sort of a home-grown way, some rapid transit in the Fraser Valley. Last year we started a commuter bus service from Chilliwack and Abbotsford going into the Vancouver area. It was a hard struggle because people didn't know whether it was going to continue and they were reluctant to sign on the line, but it has been successful, and I'm simply going to recommend, Mr. Speaker, that that service, by the same non-profit society, be extended through Langley and down into the Whalley area. The reason I mention it in the House is because it might be something that can be applied in other places. An important thing is this, it will be used along Highway 401, and I would ask the Minister to keep it in mind, as I think there will be requests that chunks of land available at these various interchanges might be used for pick-up and drop-off points, and for the storage of cars, for the storage of automobiles, and I would hope the Minister would lend a sympathetic ear if such requests are brought to him. Take a look at the thing through his engineers and see if something can be done to accommodate this type of thing. It takes cars off the road, it's safer, and it's a lot cheaper.

Now I just want to say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the extraordinary case of Mr. Walter Redel. Now I know this is another controversial thing, and the approach that I take to this thing, the way I feel about it might not strike a very sympathetic response in this House, but I'm going to say it anyway, because that's what I came here for. Here's a quiet, well-dressed man attending a convention, the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers. He's a senior B.C. civil servant, he's visiting the City of Quebec in an official capacity. He was walking in the streets on a quiet Sunday afternoon, he was set upon by two men, he was savagely pistol-whipped, as we know, he was taken to gaol, he was stripped naked and thrown into a cell. There was no questioning, no charges were laid. The police were not in uniform, they offered no identification, and they asked for no identification. Mr. Redel said the pair who attacked him so savagely did not speak English to him and while he speaks a little French, he says it is, not enough to carry on a conversation. He said, "I asked them to identify themselves but they didn't speak any English except for the single word 'police' and they didn't seem to understand English either, but they could sure swing a gun butt." Now, Mr. Redel said he attempted to speak French to them. The two just shook their heads and remained silent. Silent. And that was on a ten-minute ride to the gaol. They didn't ask him for any identification and his efforts to give them some indication of the type of man he was and his purpose in being there, said he, was ignored.

Now I know what's going to happen here. People are going to say, well this is a case of police brutality, it can happen anywhere, and cite a case that might have happened in Vancouver or New Westminster or Prince George or somewhere else. But I don't think that's the point in this particular case. I don't think that's the point. He couldn't interest them in checking into his identification. They wouldn't tell him what he was charged with, they wouldn't let him make a phone call, which I know is the normal custom. I've never heard of that refused. They're not plain policemen, Mr. Speaker, they're thugs, they're not plain policemen, and of course it's police brutality, but that's not the end of the matter, and pious editorials will be written about police making mistakes.

That's not really the problem here. The real problem is that the Quebec police could not speak English and didn't understand English. That's the real problem, and we're going to have more and more of that. Mr. Redel did not understand their French, and while he does speak a little French, the kind of French we all learned in school, nobody understands that unless they learned it in the same school and sat next to you, or something like that. But anyway, this is a brutal incident which dramatically emphasizes the fact that we are two Canadas, divided by a language barrier. That's the point I wanted to make. We're two Canadas, divided by a language barrier.

The Canadians should ask themselves in this connection, the fact that he was not interrogated, he wasn't permitted to make a telephone call, and so on, they should ask themselves, "What happened to good old habeas corpus, and a man's rights under the British law?" I say that all the rights and traditions that western Canadians cherish and which we thought was a part of our heritage, the Bill of Rights, all those things, all this fundamental stuff we give so much lip service to, it's down the drain, it's down the drain, and they went down the drain with the English language, that's what happened.

We have two Canadas, in fact, right now. That's the story here and we'd better get the message. Now, I know that people say we make all kinds of rationalizations. They say, well all right, look at Switzerland. Well, what about Switzerland? This was all right in a pastoral donkey-cart economy a hundred years ago, where people didn't go 20 miles away from home. But, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's just no good in the modern shrinking world of the jumbo jet, it's just no good. It won't work, and it's not working, and the two-language concept is a guarantee of a divided Canada, and we better believe it. Now I feel sorry for our Canadian brothers who live in the French origin in Quebec. I think to complete the story and to be perfectly honest and frank, put the blame where it belongs, I think their political and their spiritual leaders have led them up a blind alley. I really do, and they're headed for the ghetto, that's where they're headed for. It means second-class status.

The French Canadian, under the influence of the Language Bill of Quebec, will be a stranger beyond his own borders, Mr. Chairman, he'll be a stranger beyond his own borders. The western world will withdraw from the stifling parochial atmosphere that has been created there, and smart business will get out of the province, and that's nothing to rejoice about either. I'm not happy about that either, but this is a fact that's being ignored, it's being ignored by the median, it's being ignored by these people over there. They tell us fairy stories. The west will sooner or later have to realize that we have no voice in the Federal Government, that Canadian policy is tailored for the east or against the interest of all Canadians who live west of the Great Lakes, and that's a fact, too. The Redel incident dramatizes the fact of two Canadas, no communication. I say just simply look out, because the frightening fact of a deliberately divided country will become unmistakably obvious. The west is deeply

[ Page 283 ]

concerned, and I think they're going to indicate that concern more, and more, and more.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reduce the content of my contribution…but there has been much talk about pollution, and I would like to say one or two words on this subject from an angle that might be a little bit new. This generation is plagued with many horrors from the pollution point of view, and not one of the least is the syndrome of the oily beach. That applies particularly to those of us who live in the maritime setting of British Columbia and close to the water, the people that love the water, and everybody likes clean, sparkling beaches, and they like to think of British Columbia in that context. Now, Santa Barbara stirred us all up, it stirred us all up, but the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we have had oil spills, continuously for many, many years, and if you look at the record they run to several hundred each year, several hundred. There was the Torrey Canyon that broke up off the coast of southern England, and spilled I think it was 119,000 gallons of oil over the beaches of England and France and so on. But the thing that really got to us was the Santa Barbara incident. Now I know there were special circumstances there, they're on the San Andreas Fault, and all kinds of things could be said about it, but never mind. The oil went out of control, I think it was in January, 1969, and was out of control just 11 days and it covered a tremendous area of that salt water coast, and anything from 25 to 50 miles of beaches, depending on what reporter you believe.

Now, we need tougher laws, that's number one, we need tougher laws, and the onus has got to be on the polluter, the onus has got to be on the polluter. That's the kind of a law that we need. That's number one. We need better controls on drilling of oil and distribution routes by tankers, we people in British Columbia. In B.C. I think the first question to be settled and it's the very first, and it's the matter of jurisdiction. The Minister of Public Affairs spoke about this, and he's absolutely right. Other Ministers have spoken about it. It's a matter of jurisdiction. We have got to know, Mr. Speaker, who has the responsibility of enforcement and decision.

Now, I can say that I like to see the Gulf of Georgia protected. I spend as much time on the sailing waters of the Gulf of Georgia as anybody, I guess, in the Chamber, and I've got the full line of underwear to prove it. I know that we all want to see this. This is just a miraculous, tremendous, recreational resource, that's what it is, a tremendous recreational resource, I am sure there isn't an equal anywhere. But who do the people of British Columbia turn to for this protection, who do they turn to? Ottawa says they have jurisdiction. Ottawa, in my opinion, and this is just hammering the Feds. It's just two worlds. They live in the east 3,000 miles away. We'd probably be just the same if the east was ours and they had 2,000,000 savages out in the west that we never saw, and so on. Ottawa has demonstrated that their only interest is securing maximum revenue from our resources, maximum revenue from our resources. They talk this way but what is really happening, they're spending like mad. I picked this thing up the other day, and I was astonished. I heard these stories of firing civil servants, I heard these stories of cutting back on defence, I heard these stories of chopping off this and chopping off that, and what is happening, well I don't know. This paper says, "Federal spending is up $600,000,000 in an eight-month period," $600,000,000 and this is the Province, an excellent paper, dated January 10th, 1970.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ours is up $100,000,000.

MR. VOGEL: Yes, on a balanced budget, on a balanced budget.

Rule number one, Mr. Chairman, if you've got the money in the sock you can buy anything. Rule number two, if you put your hand in and there's nothing there, you got to show restraint. They talk about British Columbia contributing, and Alberta contributing, they're glad to dip into our resources and take the funds to subsidize other provinces.

Now, let's get back to this matter of protecting our coast line. Ottawa does claim jurisdiction, and I'm going to ask this question, Mr. Speaker, where did anybody get the idea that the Federal Government was the proper authority to protect us from pollution of our resources? The only off-shore drilling that's going on in Canada today is under the auspices of the Federal Government. They're drilling today and everybody knows of this, it's being reported continuously in the press. Number one, off Sable Island, number two, off the coast of Nova Scotia, I understand from the maps that the projected wells and the permits extend into the Bay of Fundy. I understand they're drilling in Lake Erie, an inland lake, and I'd have thought they'd had pollution enough without it. If the Government of Canada, in my view, and this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, wants good administrative control, responsive to the wishes of the people of an area, they should allocate resource control to the provinces. That's what they should do. What we need in this vast country, if the spending of our tax dollars makes any sense at all, is some sort of de-centralization of responsibility.

Now, regardless of whether any off-shore drilling is done in British Columbia, along this coastline, I think we will have an oil pollution problem to consider, to carefully consider from another source, and this is because a fleet of tankers will probably be passing our coastline carrying huge oil cargos. I stumbled on to this when I was down across the line just a few miles from my home, and there is a huge refinery being built there. There are four in the area, incidentally, and this is a new one. They told me that the first half of this installation was going to cost $100,000,000, and that as soon as they were completed they were going to start on the second half, and the total expenditure would be $225,000,000, and it's going to use a lot of oil. I asked where is it going to come from, and they said well, we don't know but the source, the origin will be Prudhoe Bay, which is on the Arctic rim, it's on the tidal flats in the Arctic rim. It will be pipelined from there to Valdez and from Valdez it will come down the Pacific coast by three huge tankers that are presently being built. Now these tankers are in excess of 100,000 dead weights each. You talk about oil, Mr. Speaker, if one of these things goes foul off a reef or something like that, you're really going to see something. The real question is, it isn't just a scare story, that's the way they ship oil, and to provide generating power for millions of people who want electricity, and so on.

Okay, but what I'm saying is this, who makes the decision as to whether those tankers go down the outside coast past Clo-oose and so on, or whether they come through the inside through Johnston Strait and finally past Point Grey and Point Roberts and into the American Islands? Who makes that decision? Now, is anyone going to ask us for an opinion, and will we have anything to decide? That's what I want to know. I think the Government of British Columbia should have a voice in these important decisions.

[ Page 284 ]

Now, I just want to say a word or two about the Budget, and I want to say this. The story of the Budget, in my opinion, the whole story of the Budget is on page 15. I wish every member had his little paper-bound copy of the Budget in front of him and would open up at page 15. Have you got it? All right, open it up. What does it say? What does it say? We know that the Budget has shown it's a huge Budget, $1,165,000,000, 14 per cent increase and so on. But everybody is asking for more and more and more, and the only way you are going to provide for these increasing demands and requests or aspirations or hopes of whatever you want to call it, it's a healthy normal thing, is to have a revenue source from whence they may come.

You know, I think I can say this very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I can remember when, 30 years ago, I think Central Park was about the centre of British Columbia, and Chilliwack was very, very remote. Some 20 odd years ago we made a hesitant penetration into what we regarded as the interior. All we were doing was getting out of the coastal plains, limping across the first little range of small mountains, and we built the Hope-Princeton Highway. Finally, and the year was in 1952 in November, we completed the Pacific Great Eastern Railway to Prince George, and immediately then, when that tremendous event occurred, and it was a tremendous event, we said we were in the northland and we weren't in the northland at all. We just finally got into the centre of this great Province. But this map on page 15, with the new Budget for this coming year, is the positive indication that now finally, after all this time, having laid the groundwork which has been laid, that we're going into the wealthy golden triangle of the north.

Now just look at this, honourable members, and I won't be long, just look at this. I mean we start at Chetwynd and we go up the right plank which is the eastern side past Williston Lake, through the Rocky Mountain Trench, and we come fairly close, we don't get to the border, but we come fairly close to Fort Nelson. Then when you look on the western side you go through a magnificently rich country from Fort St. James through Takla Lake, past Finlay Forks, and you go up to Dease Lake.

Now, anybody can get the information from the various Ministers involved and I'm just going to say this, that the timber wealth of this area is enormous, and for some reason or other there seems to be, according to all the reports, very, very little fire damage, very little fire damage. I don't know why this is. It's great country, it's fine terrain, and it's good building soil. For the railroads there is only one major river to cross, I think, if I remember the map rightly. Immediately you will have a tremendous increase in your forest potential, and I have some figures that I got from the Minister and I don't think I should take the time to read them tonight. I want to leave some time for another speaker. The forest wealth will probably exceed the wealth that can be taken by minerals for a short time and I predict that the mineral wealth could eventually surpass it and it's going to be enormous. So you've got one arm in the east, Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. In the western arm, Fort St. James to Dease Lake, mature, clean timber and much wealth underground. I say that the penetration of this golden triangle, the base of which goes from Prince George to Prince Rupert, and all the members here who represent that area, including the member from Atlin, Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena, should be very, very proud, because this is the story of the 1970's and it is going to guarantee a long procession of better and better Budgets for the years to come. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cariboo.

MR. ALEX V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, honourable members of the Legislature, I am very proud and happy to be a member of this Legislature. I am particularly proud to be the member for the Cariboo riding representing the Social Credit party. I have lived in the riding all my life and because of this I feel I will be able to present the problems and hopes of the people of this riding in an accurate manner. My late father represented the riding of Cariboo from 1909 to 1916. A mention of the last election at this time would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker. On the day in July last when the Honourable the Premier announced the election for August 27th, the Liberal candidate was on the radio the same day to announce to the voters that he represented the Liberal party and their new approach to politics. I considered this very interesting and thought possibly they would have something new. However, I was soon to be disillusioned, because who do you think came to the riding of Cariboo to campaign on behalf of the Liberal candidate? None other than Mrs. Murray, commonly referred to as Ma Murray. I could not understand what was new about Ma Murrray, Mr. Speaker, because she has been a colourful figure in Provincial politics for 40 or more years. She campaigned against my late father, I might add without success, 40 years ago, and I know she has campaigned against the Honourable the Premier for about as long, without success. Mr. Speaker, this was the new politics the Liberals used in the Cariboo in the last election. The leader of the Liberal party, the honourable first member for Vancouver–Point Grey, made a couple of trips through the Cariboo riding in his famous bus. As a matter of fact, I think Cariboo riding was the first one he entered, so we were highly honoured by being the first to be visited. On each occasion he announced they would win the Cariboo riding, as he did in so many other ridings. Mr. Speaker, in Cariboo we have some pollution, but not nearly as much as we had during the election campaign last year. The air was polluted with all types of statements by the Opposition parties, and the leader of the Liberal party went swimming in one of our large and beautiful lakes. The local people said at the time they hoped he had not polluted the lake.

The N.D.P. party campaigned very hard in the riding of Cariboo but the Cariboo would not buy the policies of socialism. The people of Cariboo are, in the majority, citizens who believe in the free enterprise system. They work hard, have initiative, and do not believe that the state can provide security from the cradle to the grave. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the various speakers since the Session began and also watched the voting. I am sure the citizens of our great Province would be shocked if they realized that the so-called free enterprise party of the Liberals almost always votes with socialist Opposition party.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable members of the Opposition side of the House are trying to create the impression that the Government operates as a steam roller Government and they are the poor little Opposition. When they preach this balderdash they insult the citizens of British Columbia, not the Government, because it was the wish of the voters, spoken in no uncertain terms last August, that this Government be given a strong mandate. This Government was elected last August on its record of achievement since 1952, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition parties made so many promises in the election that the people knew there was not any way

[ Page 285 ]

that they could be fulfilled and therefore rejected them. I predict that both Opposition parties will stay in Opposition for as long as they have already been there.

The Opposition will probably be completely eliminated from that side if we hear many more speeches like we heard from the second member from Vancouver East a short time ago. As the honourable member from Vancouver Centre stated, he is the master of smear. I have never heard a speech like that in my life, based on fiction. Mr. Bonner was an outstanding member of the House for 17 years, and I am proud that he was the member for Cariboo for a short time. While I do not have to defend Mi. Bonner, he is quite capable of defending himself, I do want the House to know how I felt about this terrible speech. I understand Mr. Bonner has replied to the honourable member for Vancouver East, and now I think the next move is up to him, the second member from Vancouver East. In other words, put up or shut up.

I believe I understood the honourable member from Burnaby North to say that this Government was elected with less than 50 per cent of the total vote. This is correct. But another observation upon analysis of the election could also be made. Of the 38 Social Credit members elected, 22 of them received more than 50 per cent of the votes in their riding. In other words, of the 38 members elected, almost 60 per cent of them received a majority of over 50 per cent. Let's take a look at the record of the 17 members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Only three, only three of the 17 elected Opposition members received 50 per cent or greater of the votes, or a percentage of 18 per cent of those that were elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which ones were they?

MR. FRASER: Right. Yes, the voters of British Columbia spoke most emphatically on August 27th.

The Budget that was delivered by the Honourable Minister of Finance last Friday, I thought, was remarkable in view of the tight money situation and all the problems existing in our nation. The Budget has an increase of 14 per cent in revenues over the past year without any increase in taxation. This is amazing when most other governments are increasing taxation to take care of deficits. This Budget emphasizes increased aid to people. The Budget certainly reflects the strength of the economy of our great Province of British Columbia.

I do not believe the citizens of the lower mainland realize the importance of the Pacific Great Eastern railroad to the over-all economy of the Province. It has been largely responsible for the opening up of the central and northern parts of our Province which have so many natural resources. Without the P.G.E. it was almost impossible to get the products of the interior to market. The expansion of the P.G.E. by this Government since 1952 will go down in history as one of their finest achievements. In 1952 the P.G.E. ran from Squamish to Quesnel and was laughed at by everybody. Several names were given to the railroad at that time that reflected how the people felt about it. It was called "Prince George Eventually," "Please Go Easy," and "Pigs Going East," and many more discourteous names. Now, with the railroad going from Vancouver to Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, and Fort St. James, it is no longer referred to as a joke. It is a railroad respected by all our citizens, well managed with an efficient staff, and the central and northern parts of this Province could not exist without it. It now hauls as large if not larger freight trains than the trans-continental railroads. These trains are loaded with goods from our timber, mining, and agricultural industries coming to market. I am pleased to see a further authorization of extensions to the line, as well as further capital to pay for these extensions. These funds will come back to the citizens of all B.C. many times.

While the P.G.E. must be given credit for much of the expansion in my riding of Cariboo as well as other central and northern ridings, the other Crown corporation which certainly should rank second would be the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Without an abundance of power, the natural resources of the interior could not be manufactured. Mr. Speaker, I know we cannot discuss hydro rates, but I think this House should know that B.C. Hydro has contributed immensely to the development of my riding of Cariboo as well as other interior ridings because they have made power available to industry. Without this power being available, we would not have the large developments in our forests and mines that we have today. This Government has had the foresight to push the expansion of the P.G.E. railroad and B.C. Hydro so that the interior of this Province would be opened up.

The leader of the Liberal party referred to the P.G.E. and B.C. Hydro yesterday as the "gold dust twins". I agree. They will return to our citizens nothing but gold. Prior to 1962 there were no pulp mills in this Province beyond the Gulf of Georgia. Since then many pulp mills have been established in the interior and many more are in various states of construction. Without the P.G.E. railroad and the B.C. Hydro, Mr. Speaker, none of this could have happened.

I was pleased to note in the Budget that increased per capita grants were given to our municipalities as well as an increase in the home-owners grant, and increased grants to school districts. Because of these increases, I see no reason why taxes in any municipality of this Province should increase in 1970. If they do, I am sure the voters will make the municipal councils account for their actions in the following municipal elections. I hope this Budget provides for financial assistance to municipalities that have to construct sewage treatment plants, where that assistance is desperately needed, so our communities can try to catch up with the pollution of our water.

I do not agree with the directive of the Pollution Control Board that all communities must have primary treatment plants by 1975. They should insist on nothing less than secondary treatment plants. While this will cost more, I am convinced the people of this Province are prepared to pay for it, and if the councils do not install at least secondary treatment plants, they will have to account for it to their people. While the municipalities are saying they cannot afford treatment plants, some of them are building indoor swimming pools and arenas. Mr. Speaker, I say to these communities that they have their priorities mixed up and they had better get them straightened out.

The largest problem our municipalities have in British Columbia is the availability of long-term capital. I know studies are going on now to establish a Regional Finance Authority. I feel this is the answer and I hope this Authority is established quickly because many communities are at a standstill on many badly needed projects due to the lack of long-term capital. I am aware that there is no municipal bond market at the present time, but this will not always be the case, so let's get this Authority set up at once so that we will have an attractive package when the bond market recovers, and I think it should. But as the honourable Minister of

[ Page 286 ]

Finance pointed out in his delivery of the Budget on Friday, the Province has been out of the bond market since September, 1967, so this should help the municipal position.

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Cariboo there are some problems that I would like to take this opportunity of pointing out to you. While this Government has done tremendously well with its road programme, I feel still more has to be done in a large riding such as Cariboo. Cariboo probably has more secondary road mileage within its boundaries than any other riding in British Columbia, and I feel the Department is not keeping up with the growth in riding in respect to the maintenance and reconstruction of the secondary roads. The Department of Highways is doing an excellent job with the money available, but not enough funds are provided. I would like to see more funds provided for reconstruction and maintenance of secondary roads, and I do not think these all should be supplied by the Department of Highways Vote.

In many rural areas of my riding of Cariboo we have secondary roads which are adequate to handle the local traffic, but overnight the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources awards timber companies new or increased quotas of timber, and all at once we have 20 or 30 logging trucks and trailers running on a 24-hour basis over these inadequate secondary roads. These secondary roads, Mr. Speaker, were never built for this type of vehicle, which averages 60 tons gross weight each. Naturally the roads fall apart, Mr. Speaker, at times so badly that they become impassable to the local people because of the large deep ruts these immense logging trucks cause on inadequate secondary roads.

I am not critical of the logging trucks because they pay their good share of licences, etc., but these roads have to be brought up to a better standard to accommodate them, and this costs money. The Department of Highways just cannot keep up, and I recommend that increased funds be supplied by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. He is the one who is reaping the benefit through increased stumpage from the additional logging activity. These funds should be given to the Department of Highways to spend. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that funds are available for work of this type, but very little in the way of funds is being acquired from the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. I recommend the Minister of Highways and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources set up a committee to investigate this, problem and see that better communication is established when new timber is awarded to bidders who have to haul it over poor secondary roads. After all, the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources have an inventory of our forests and may know when they are going to open up these areas.

Many roads in my riding of Cariboo need extensive work on them, but the road that seems to me to need the most, is the road from Williams Lake to Bella Coola, which goes through the lovely Chilcotin country in the Cariboo. I feel the time is long overdue, and a start on a better road in this area should be made. I realize that it's 300 miles long, but with talk of a pulp mill in Bella Coola, and other increased activity in the area in the fields of agriculture, mining, tourism, and timber, we as Government should start immediately on upgrading this road.

The honourable member from Nanaimo mentioned an increase should be made in gas tax to provide a four-lane highway for Vancouver Island, and the increase should apply only to Vancouver Island. I don't feel, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member went far enough, and I would recommend the gas tax be increased two cents per gallon throughout the Province. This would provide between $8,000,000 and $10,000,000 in increased revenue, and should be turned over to the Highways Department to speed up the improvement of all our roads. After all, Mr. Speaker, we now have the lowest gas tax in Canada, and by increasing it two cents per gallon we would still have the lowest gas tax in Canada. I am very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that due to the high rate of development in our Province, the Highways Department is unable to keep pace with this growth, due to the lack of funds.

While roads are a large problem in my riding of Cariboo, Mr. Speaker, so is rural electrification. This Government has done a wonderful job on the rural electrification in the past, and I note in the Budget under discussion, they have a further $2,000,000 to subsidize rural extensions this year. This is to be commended, but it is not enough. I understand that out of this Vote one community is chosen each year and given electricity. While this is excellent, I feel that $2,000,000 is inadequate, when possibly half of this amount is used to bring power to one community. All of the $2,000,000 subsidy should be spent on extending existing power lines.

Another item, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to advance, is the hours that Provincial Government offices throughout the Province are open. Most of them close from 12 noon to 1:10 p.m. for lunch. This I cannot understand, and it does work a hardship on our citizens because these offices are closed during the only time of the day that the working people have an opportunity to do business with the Government. This can be overcome, Mr. Speaker, at no cost to the Government. Just have the people that work in these offices stagger their lunch hours over a two-hour period instead of a one-hour period, like the rest of us have to. Most all businesses in the Province are open throughout the lunch hour, and I cannot see why the Government offices cannot be open as well, so that the Government would be able to give the citizens better service than is being done at the present time.

I would like to congratulate the Government on their continuing efforts to the restoration of Barkerville. They have done an excellent job and I am pleased they are to continue on this very successful project. Barkerville was the centre where gold was discovered in the 1860's and was, at that time, the largest community north of San Francisco. It was said that Vancouver, and you Vancouver members listen to this, it was said that Vancouver would never amount to anything, because it was too far from Barkerville. Over 100,000 visitors come to Barkerville every year, and this will greatly increase if the road is completed and paved. I hope that this will be achieved by 1971, our centennial on joining Canada.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope this House has noted that I only suggested one tax increase and that I did not propose any new Cabinet portfolios be created, Mr. Premier.

On Sunday, February 15th, there will be a programme on the national network of the C.B.C., starting at 5 p.m. This is a film taken by C.B.C. covering the longest cattle drive on the North American continent. The owner and operator of this cattle drive is well known in Canada. He is the famous Pan Phillips, about whom three books have been written, namely "Grass Beyond the Mountain," "Nothing Too Good For A Cowboy," and "The Cowboy Takes a Wife." As Mr. Phillips is a personal friend, and this film covers a large part of my riding, I recommend to all members that they watch it.

[ Page 287 ]

On the motion of Mr. Chabot, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House proceeded to the Order "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

Mr. Price presented the First Report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, as follows:

"Mr. Speaker: Your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:–

"That the Standing Orders have been complied with relating to the respective petitions for leave to introduce the following Private Bills:–

An Act to Amend the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company Act;

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter;

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company;

An Act Respecting Office Administrators;

An Act Respecting Yorkshire Trust Company; and

An Act Respecting Marine Surveyors.

"Your Committee recommends that the respective petitioners be allowed to proceed with the said Bills. All of which is respectfully submitted.

B. PRICE, Chairman."

The report was read and received and, by leave of the House, the Rules were suspended and the report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.

The House met at 8.30 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Columbia River.

MR. JAMES R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again a pleasure to rise in my place and speak on behalf of the people from the Columbia River constituency. You know, there's certain people not too long ago, not too many months ago, tried to replace me, and speaking on behalf of the people….

I wish, Mr. Speaker, there was a little law and order in this House, because this is my maiden speech of this Parliament…. this is my maiden speech for this Parliament. We listened this afternoon — and I am just going to make a passing reference to this, I could speak at great lengths — to an attack on my countrymen. We listened to the member from Langley here attack my homeland, but nevertheless seriously, Mr. Speaker, I was indeed surprised to read in the Victoria Colonist of January 15th of remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he presented his credentials and his right to be the leader of a political party in this Province. I was indeed surprised to see the type of comments this member had made, which presented his qualifications to lead a political party, because he indicated in that interview which spelled out his qualifications, he maintained that when he was a young boy, his job was selling soft tomatoes to the public…. (laughter). No, but really, I was indeed surprised, I was indeed shocked to hear this, because I've always taken this member to be the fighter for the consumer in this Province.

MR. BARRETT: My father never sold soft tomatoes!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently just last week to the member from Kootenay make certain allegations in this House about election irregularities, and contraventions to the Elections Act, and all I want to say is, anyone who lives in a glass house, shouldn't throw stones.

Mr. Speaker, seriously, I'm not going to point the finger at the member from Kootenay or any other particular riding in this House, but I think if any particular member who sits in this House, who contravened the Elections Act, on these sections that I'm going to indicate, feels a little guilty — well, he has a right to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Innuendo!

MR. CHABOT: The Elections Act, under section 68, gives every candidate or his official agent, the right to appoint a scrutineer or scrutineers at each polling booth, and in section 83 it goes on to talk about these particular scrutineers, that they must be sworn in to secrecy on Form 8E and it goes on to say that anyone who fails to do this can't possibly qualify as a scrutineer. But, one of the ridings of British Columbia, there was a new wrinkle put to scrutineering, and this was what they called an outside scrutineer, not the inside type of scrutineer, but the outside scrutineer, where people with card tables sat outside the booths, outside of the polling station, and the only conclusion I could come to was straight voter intimidation. And that's a violation of section 83 of the Elections Act, which took place in the Province of British Columbia.

One of the sections, section 165, makes specific reference to another form of violation that took place in one of the ridings in British Columbia, and that deals with undue influence. I'm not going to read the entire section, but I am going to read the pertinent point that has to do, "in any other manner, practices intimidation upon or against any person, in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting…is guilty of an offence against this Act, and is liable, upon summary conviction…." You know, there was an M.L.A. who sits in this House, who went into a particular poll in this Province and asked the people to vote for him, and then if they voted for him, then he would get them a beer parlour in that community. That's straight influence peddling and intimidation, and of course it is not my responsibility to point this out, I think this is the responsibility of the chief Electoral Officer and the candidate or the candidates concerned. But I think that before any member stands in this House and makes accusations against other candidates, I think he should weigh very cautiously what he is doing…. I'm just waiting, Mr. Speaker, for that particular member to get up and ask for some kind of liquor concession in this particular community.

Mr. Speaker, we heard criticism yesterday by the leader of the Liberal party about the formation of the various select standing committees in this House, and he suggested that a member of the Opposition party should be the chairman of a particular standing committee of this House, and at that particular time I looked to the Leader of the Opposition, I asked him if he agreed, and he said yes, all committees, all committees. That's what the Leader of the Opposition party had to say about select standing committees.

MR. D. E. SMITH: Well, he's changed his mind now, he

[ Page 288 ]

just wants Public Accounts.

MR. CHABOT: Well, let me tell you, Mr. Leader, that in the Province of Manitoba where they have a New Democratic Government they recently appointed a special committee to look into auto insurance, and who did they pick as the chairman of that committee? They certainly didn't pick a member of the Opposition party to be chairman. In fact they didn't even pick a backbencher of that Government to be the chairman, they picked a Cabinet Minister from the N.D.P.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh shame.

MR. CHABOT: And that's not all, and that's not all. Furthermore, to this chairmanship of this special select standing committee, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you who sat on that Committee to investigate insurance in the Province of Manitoba. The committee was made up of one political party, the N.D.P., no other representation on that — certainly N.D.P. Then they have the audacity and the gall to stand in this House and ask for special considerations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk about how many Insurance people were on it.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker — you made your speech yesterday, Mr. Leader, I didn't interrupt you.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to add my voice to the criticism that has already been made in this House today against the second member from Vancouver East. I think this is a most vicious and malicious attack against people who can't defend themselves. And not only is it malicious, it's strictly by innuendo, strictly by innuendo, using this Chamber, the immunity of this Chamber, this same member who has been labeled a coward, a coward on the outside of this House, and has been….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't want any reference made to any member in this Chamber.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I'm going to say this, Mr. Speaker, that the member hasn't seen fit to date to make those same accusations he made on the floor of this Chamber on the outside. And I watched him on television just last night say that he had researched and documented proof of these accusations, but he didn't repeat the accusation. And then I listened to him in this Chamber read from a classified ad of a newspaper as far as the valuation and the cost of a high-rise apartment owned by the former Attorney-General of this Province, and he was completely wrong, completely wrong. He stated that an apartment of 12 stories was worth $1,500,000 and he assumed that this was going to be his cost. He went on to say that his share, his 50 per cent deposit to mortgage, would be $263,000, and this is far from the truth because the former Attorney-General stated the facts in the press, and I think that it's terrible that the immunity of this House is abused in this way. I think that this type of action throws a complete cloud over this entire Chamber. It challenges the integrity of every member, and not just the member who made the statement, and I think that this is wrong. I was here, my friend and I hope we never, we never hear statements like that that have no documentation or no proof whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, last year I had the privilege of attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference on behalf of British Columbia and I want to just say a few words about this Conference, just a few words about this Conference. I think that the Conference was well attended by all Commonwealth nations. There were about 200….

AN HON. MEMBER: Any Opposition members there?

MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes, there were members of the Opposition there. The answer is yes — from Canada. (laughter) But Canada was, Mr. Speaker, Canada was well represented at this Conference. There were eight M.L.A.'s or Cabinet Ministers, there were four Members of Parliament, three Cabinet Ministers, and the delegation was ably headed by the Minister of Justice, John Turner. It was held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, and as well as the various members of the Commonwealth present, we had a committee from the United States there as observers, we had senior United States Senators, Senator Fulbright and two U.S. Congressmen, and I thought it was very interesting, some of the discussions that took place.

The Conference was broken up into a series of committees. There was the Committee of The Future of the Commonwealth, a Committee on The Future of Parliamentary Democracy, and a Committee on Youth in Revolt. Of course I was delegated, I was asked by Ottawa if I would participate in the discussion on The Future of Parliamentary Democracy. This is the confidence the National Government apparently has in me. (Applause) And you know that my sub-topic, which they asked me to speak on, was The Relationship of Government to Semi-Government Institutions, and you can be assured it was a free enterprise message I gave them there at that Commonwealth Conference and not a socialistic message.

But there were many, many very interesting discussions that took place in this particular committee, and I could speak at great length about the country of Guyana, which was ably represented on this particular committee by Mr. Jagan, about their border dispute, their trade problems with Cuba, and the interference from the United States. But one of the discussions that took place which was of real interest to me was a debate that took place between a Cabinet Minister of the Government of Sierra Leone, in this Parliamentary Democracy, and a member of the Opposition party of that country, and it was unfortunate that the dinner bell rang as we were getting to the height of this debate. But the Cabinet Minister for Sierra Leone was saying that there's no need for an army in his country, that there's no need, but the member of the Opposition party thought there was a need for an army in that country, and he said one of the reasons why we need an army in this country is because there comes a time that a political party has been in power too long. Now all I can say is, thank God there's no army in British Columbia. (laughter) Here's the Leader of the Opposition, been on the outside for 17 years and that's where he'll stay, that's where he'll stay.

But I want to say that Canada is highly respected, Canada is highly respected in the Commonwealth, especially among the emerging nations, because of the type of foreign aid that Canada gives to these countries without strings attached, low interest or interest free loans.

But I was rather amazed and appalled to hear that regarding the High Commissioner's dwelling in Port of Spain, that I had an opportunity of visiting his residence while I was there, the Canadian High Commissioner, and I found that the National Government is considering the erection of a home

[ Page 289 ]

worth about $250,000 in Port of Spain. I think that the present dwelling that the High Commissioner has in Port of Spain is adequate indeed, because the valuation would be, in my humble opinion, not being a real estate man, would be something in the neighbourhood, in comparative values here in Canada, something of 50 to 60 thousand dollars. And here they're considering a $250,000 structure, and I say that this is wrong, to superimpose this type of home in a country which is basically poverty-ridden, a country that has between 10 and 12 per cent unemployment, and I hope that Canada never goes ahead with this construction, because I think that this would have a tendency to strain our relations with this country.

I think that it served a very worthwhile purpose attending this Conference. I think these Conferences are very fruitful, that there is an exchange of ideas between Commonwealth nations, and I think that the Commonwealth has an important role to play. It represents one-quarter of the world's population and I think the Commonwealth can continue to play a very useful role in world affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about forestry now, and in connection with the selling of salvaged timber behind the Mica Dam. It wasn't too long ago there was one and possibly two sales put up of this timber, and this timber that is specifically designated is decadent cedar, and in the sale there was a special stipulation that all applicants for this material must have a special type of manufacturing equipment in order to qualify for the utilization of this material. I realize that there are several other operators within my constituency that could utilize this decadent cedar, probably not to the same degree that this new plant that has been built in Golden can do so, but what I want to do now is plead for the small loggers and the small sawmill operators in my area. If special sale provisions or provisos are going to be instituted for the removal of this non-renewable and non-quota bearing timber, then I think we have a marvelous opportunity of helping the small loggers in my area.

We have at the present time one sawmill that has been closed because of the lack of saw logs, and of course you have to realize that when I speak about small loggers as they're related to my particular area you can't possibly relate that to a small logger on the coast, because your small loggers on the coast are bigger than our big loggers in the East Kootenays. But this small sawmill which employed 35 people has now been closed because of no saw logs, and I'm sure we all realize that with no quota it's almost impossible to operate a sawmill, and he had been dependent upon private timber which for some unknown reason is no longer available to him. So his mill has been closed, which has resulted in the displacement or the unemployment of 35 people, and 35 people in my area is a lot of people, a lot of jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you get logs, how can you get logs?

MR. CHABOT: He's found it necessary at the present time, unless he wants to put his sawmill on the auction block, he's found it necessary to bid on some salvage material in the Flathead country in the Elko and the Fernie forestry districts, some of these, yes, some of the bug-infested material, because he's not prepared to sell his sawmill on the block, so this material, even though it's going to be at salvage rates, is going to be almost uneconomic because of the great distances — it's about 250 miles — to haul this material. But he's so anxious to try to operate his mill that he's willing to go this far to try to get these sales.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who has all the timber around there?

MR. CHABOT: Several other small operators in there with small quotas. But what I want to suggest at this time, as far as the clearing of the Mica Basin is concerned, any of the future sales, and I understand there are going to be many sales in this drainage basin this year in the clearing programme, what I want to suggest is that you make some of this material available, make some of this material available to some of the non-quota holders, some of the small quota holders, so that they have a chance to operate as well. Because I don't think that this material should be put up in large blocks where the small operator doesn't have the chance to bid on it. I realize that this is just a stop gap, but at least let's allow these mills to operate now on this salvage material and I think that in any sales put up, there should be certain specific sales put up where they're available to non-quota holders and to quota holders with a quota of 1,000,000 cubic allowable cut or less. Then if it's not available, I mean if they're not prepared to accept this timber, then let someone else who is prepared to go in there go in, take it all, even if it's the bigger operators in my area.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words now about land use and game management as it's related, not only to the East Kootenays, but to the East Kootenays in particular, because it is recognized as the most outstanding hunting country on the North American continent. There has been in the East Kootenays a conflict in varying degree between cattle and big game, and it has been severe with certain species. What I'm speaking about, it has been serious as far as Rocky Mountain big horn sheep is concerned, and I'm glad to see that the Government has taken action in this respect by acquiring some of these areas which are prime big horn sheep grazing areas.

But I think that we must make more intensive use of our land, more intensive use. We've seen forestry, through their close utilization policies, make more intensive use through the reforestation programmes and through intensive management. They have what I consider to be complete utilization of our forest land in the Province and good utilization as well, but I think that agriculture has lagged behind, and I think that we need more intensive use of the existing grazing lands within this Province. They must be improved, not only in the East Kootenays, but all over British Columbia. In the East Kootenays we have a particular problem, a particular conflict, although I think as far as elk and deer are concerned, it's very limited.

But I think what we really need is an accelerated programme of range improvement. This would have two-fold effect really, it would improve live-stock grazing in the summer time and improve grazing for big game in the winter. I think that we should not only consider this as a dual project, I think we're going to have to establish some of these key big game wild life grazing areas — they are well known by the biologists. No doubt they've been pinpointed by the Canada Land Inventories as well, and I think these should be set aside solely for big-game grazing, and not only should they be set aside, they should be improved as well.

I know that some conservationists and biologists might say there has been a serious conflict as far as elk and deer are concerned, but I really say not, there has been no serious conflict. I think that the conflict is very limited, and why I

[ Page 290 ]

say that is because of the dependable use records we now have through the Forest Service, through the grazing division of the Forest Service, because over-grazing today is not only detrimental to big game, it's detrimental to live-stock as well. The following year, if a rancher allows over-grazing, he finds that this individual from the grazing division comes in and tells him that he can have only so many animal unit months for grazing this year. So really, I don't see that there has been any over-use or any great abuse of our range land in the East Kootenays. Because in 1954, in the East Kootenays, there was 9,000 head of cattle on the land, and in 1968, just 14 years later, we now have 16,000 head. You'll find some conservationists going around saying we have 27,000 head, but this is an emotional subject, very emotional, and they use these figures to stir up emotion as well. What has happened to this increase, which I believe is about 72 per cent over 14 years, most of this grazing is now done up through the Carey Valley, in which biologists say that there is no conflict as far as winter grazing is concerned, and not only is it up the tributary valleys, it's also on private pasturage as well, so that the conflict is really limited as far as I'm concerned.

But despite this limited conflict, I think that our big game in the East Kootenays is becoming seriously depleted. With the ever-increasing pressure on hunting, with the ever-increasing number of people coming to hunt, you would think with the ever-increasing accessibility to what was formerly remote areas with the new mining roads, the new logging roads, you would think that our harvest would be increasing. But our harvest actually between 1968 and 1969 has decreased by 50 per cent, and I think this is a very drastic reduction in the harvest, which spells the depressed situation of our herds in the East Kootenays. I think that we must take action to preserve our remaining herds, we must allow these herds of elk, herds of deer, herds of moose, to build up again.

I was indeed surprised to hear the reaction of the Wildlife Branch when I made a proposal, and I'm not going to single out any particular individual as far as this is concerned, but I made a recommendation, never knowing that a particular Rod and Gun Club in my area had been pursuing the same subject. I advocated that the Department of Wildlife acquire some of the elk that are presently being slaughtered in the national parks, to replenish some of these depleted herds, to transplant them in other areas of British Columbia, if necessary, not only in the East Kootenays. But this particular individual I was speaking to said, "We don't need them, " and I say he's wrong.

They are available, because I have a letter here which deals with this very subject as far as the National Government's position is in this respect, and they go on to say, and I think it is very important that I read parts of this. This letter is addressed to a Federal Member of Parliament, and it's dated December 8th, 1969, it says the interest of this organization in the transfer of surplus animals from national parks to Provincial areas is certainly welcome, since this method of disposing of surplus game populations is preferred where practical arrangements can be made. A number of such transfers had been made in various national parks in the past. The usual arrangements provide for the national parks to undertake the trapping of the animals concerned, and to arrange for their being checked for disease. The recipient must assume responsibility for transportation arrangements from the trapping site to the point of release, and for any out-of-pocket expenses which may be incurred by the national parks administration, for example, the cost of any feed purchased for the animals while they are being held for shipment. Since the animals would be released on Provincial land, we also require assurance that the programme has been approved by the game authorities of the Province concerned.

At the moment there is no over-population in game animals in Kootenay National Park, but I believe that elk and possibly some mountain sheep could be provided from Banff National Park, where facilities for live trapping these animals exist. Now we have the approval of the national parks to transfer some of these game into some of the areas that need restocking, and I think that we should not allow this game to be slaughtered in the national parks, but moved into British Columbia at a minimal cost for the advantage of our big-game hunting in this Province.

I realize that the Minister has a responsibility to accept the advice from his professionals, he has a responsibility to accept the advice from his biologists, but I can't help but think that in some instances they can be wrong. A fine example of this was, I watched the TV programme here just a couple of weeks ago about the elephant whale, which scientists had predicted a few years ago, would become extinct within a few years. There was only 100 of these large elephant whales left in the Gulf of Mexico, and they said because of the breeding methods and the young were killed, that during the breeding period they were either crippled or suffocated or allowed to drown, and they predicted they would become completely extinct. Yet today, there's between 5,000 and 6,000 of these in the Gulf of Mexico, so they are not always right, the scientists and the biologists. In fact we had one gentleman, the leader of the Liberal party, predicted the sex of a whale, and when the whale died, he was dead wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: So was the whale.

MR. CHABOT: But what we need really is a joint forage improvement programme in the East Kootenays. We need more realistic bag limits, we shouldn't be allowed to harvest two deer, we shouldn't be allowed to harvest doe deer, we shouldn't be allowed to harvest cow elk until we have replenished our harvest, and I don't think we should turn down the opportunity of acquiring this, game that is being slaughtered in the National Parks.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to make a passing reference — I'll speak later on about pollution. But I think the member across the way here, the second member from Vancouver South, has spoken very appropriately as far as bottle pollution is concerned, but I think it is becoming a real threat to our way of life, not only within the Provincial parks, but on our Crown lands surrounding our lakes. We're seeing it more and more every year. Just last year was a prime example as far as my constituency is concerned, about the dumping of these disposable bottles and cans, but I am just going to say that I think the Government should approach these bottling plants with a view to discussing the problem with them, to see whether they are willing to help and combat this problem. Then if there is no response in that respect, then what I think the Government should do is appeal through ads in the press, to the integrity of the individuals, to refrain from buying these disposable bottles. If there is no way, and if these two approaches are not successful, then I would strongly urge the Government to introduce legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say a few words about the figures in the Budget now. I think that it is rather unfortunate that the Liberals of British Columbia were not

[ Page 291 ]

invited to the Liberal think-in at Harrison Hot Springs, because this was an opportunity for the little five, and I think it was the little six then, to speak on behalf of British Columbia. To put up the problems we're confronted with, the degree of unfair treatment we have in this Province from the National Government.

One specific case comes to mind, it has to do with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. All of the railways on new construction, line extensions, are given a grant. They are given assistance to the tune of $25,000 a month, but not the P.G.E., not the P.G.E. The P.G.E. moving from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, a distance of 250 miles, would amount to $6,250,000 of grant, and they are entitled to it. Furthermore, the extension into Fort St. James, plus all the other extensions in the past, up into Dease Lake, the millions of dollars that are rightfully due to British Columbia, and I say, because these line extensions are not only for the benefit of British Columbia, they are for the benefit of Canada as well, because they are going to generate revenue through the development of our natural resources to a greater degree for the National Government than for the Province of British Columbia. I think that this little Liberal group across the way should get on good terms with the Trudeau Government, and speak for once on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We'll give you the credit my friends, if you are able to do anything, we'll give you the credit. I'll be the first to stand in this House and say — there is a group that at last has stood up for British Columbia, and not against British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, last Session the N.D.P. had taken a sharp turn to the left, a sharp turn to the left, and it wasn't too long ago there was a bit of confusion about the leader of the N.D.P., and this Watkins manifesto whether he signed it or not, I wish somebody would clarify that point. I don't know whether he has taken a sharp turn to the left, but it is peculiar to me that we aren't hearing the same statements today in this Legislature or during the Session that we heard in the last Session. We heard a variety of proposals made in this House by the N.D.P. and I'm going to recite a few of them. There isn't enough time to recite all the Crown corporations they were going to institute in this Province, but they were going to take over the B.C. Telephone, number one. The now interim leader of the N.D.P. proposed a Crown corporation to take over Kaiser Coal. The member, the former leader — there's so many former leaders over there I can't keep track of them — but the former leader from Cowichan-Malahat proposed that we take over the natural gas transmission lines in this Province, and the member from smear, I mean…whoops. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, not the member from smear, I mean the second member from Vancouver East, he proposed the expropriation of the lands held by the Canadian Pacific Railway in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear!

MR. CHABOT: The former member from up-Island, from Nanaimo and the Island, proposed the take over of all the farmlands in the Fraser Valley, the farmlands on Vancouver Island as well, that they be rented back or leased out to the farmers, and then remember, the member talked about the takeover of the distribution of gas within this Province. They talked about the take over of the auto insurance companies in this Province. They talked about taking over the beer and wine manufacturing in this Province. But not a word this Session, not a word. I say they've taken a step to the right, and they stood still, and they are going to stand still or go down hill, I assure you that.

I was rather shocked by this Budget Mr. Speaker, seriously, Mr. Speaker, I was rather shocked by this Budget. I couldn't understand that in the post-election era that we would present a pre-election Budget. I think we have a responsibility that the Minister of Finance or the Premier of this Province stand up and tell us that there's not going to be an election this year.

MR. BARRETT: Leave well enough alone!

MR. CHABOT: But seriously, there have been many increases in expenditures, and I could go through the Budget and tell you all the fine points of the Budget tonight, but there isn't time. There has been an increase in the home owners grant from $150 to $160, supplementary allowances, and I'm going to repeat it, and I'll tell the people of British Columbia as well. You won't repeat it but I will, there have been social allowance increases, municipal per capita grant increases, provincial home acquisition grants expanded to include the second mortgages on old homes, and outright grants as well, greater increases to exemptions of succession duties, all being done with no increase in taxes. There is no other government in this country today, they're all envious of this type of government, of the type of fiscal policies we have in this Province, and you know, Mr. Speaker, I had my research assistant come up with some details here. As far as the average taxation structure is concerned in British Columbia, the gasoline tax in British Columbia is 13 cents, but if you take the national average it's 18.6 cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. CHABOT: Diesel tax average across Canada is 21.7 cents, in British Columbia 15 cents. Personal Income Tax would go up from 28 to 32.2 per cent. Corporation Income Tax would go up from 10 to 11.2 per cent. The Sales Tax would go up to 5.7 per cent plus cigarette taxes. I could go on and on about all these exemptions, about all these great dividends that the people of British Columbia are receiving.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a fabulous Budget, it's a great Budget, and I want to say tonight, that when the day comes for a vote on this Budget, that every intelligent member in this House will vote for it. It's a Budget that prepares us for the 70's. It's a Budget that gives us vivid life. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. FRANK CALDER (Atlin): The previous speaker, the honourable member for Columbia, talks big. (laughter) Of course he represents a big Government, too big of a Government, and I don't think this will be appreciated by the electorate in the Province because in my term of office I have been informed or told, not only by people whom I represent but in areas in the Province in which I have travelled, people do recognize that good government can only be if there's also a good Opposition. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House have represented a good Opposition to the extent that the Premier, the honourable Premier has adopted, not a few but a lot of programmes which this group on this side of the House has introduced on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have a change of pace this evening, because I believe that what I am going to say one day will be budgeted, and I think this is the proper time

[ Page 292 ]

in which to present the Indian case. I have been quite fair with my constituents ever since I entered this House. I've said this before, it has been very difficult for a native Indian to represent a riding, because I've had experience in the past in which I have presented the case of the Indian problem, and perhaps at times I have overdone it, to the extent that it hasn't been appreciated by my constituents. They say, "Frank, when are you going to talk about the white man's problem?" You know. I hope you can all appreciate the position I'm in. In this respect I have, in the past 21 years — four of which I was absent, from '56 to '60 — in which I have divided my subjects between the non-Indian problems and the Indian problem. But I try my best to convince my constituents that the Indian problem doesn't belong to the Indians, it belongs to Canadian society. In all the years that I've been in the House I think my constituents have realized this phase, and I think they can appreciate the reasons, they can appreciate the time that I've spent on the Indian problem, and so this evening, Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with the Indian problem.

It has been almost three years since I delivered an entire talk on Indian affairs in this Legislature. Now my silence in this period of time, three years, has not been due to any lack of Indian problems or to avoiding the initiative and participation in the Indian struggle for recognition, confrontations, equality, and justice, but to bear what they themselves have to say and do about the issues which they face today. I have in the past, and I would say maybe 10 years ago, 15 years ago, attended many important meetings of our Native people, and I have found in my experience that whenever I appear, quite a number of my Indian leader friends would say, "Well this is fine, Frank's here, now he can do the talking for us." I don't quite appreciate that fact, because it seems that I silence quite a number of our leaders in my appearance. I've also found this to be when some of the well known Indian leaders appear on the scene, some of the people with perhaps better ideas, just more or less keep silent. So this is the reason why, since major changes have been proposed to the Native Indians, have been placed before practically every tribe from coast to coast, I particularly want to see and hear the modern Indian leader speak out, participate, and it's gradually being realized, Mr. Chairman.

In recent years, even going beyond the three-year period in which I have never said too much about the Indian problem on the floor of this House, more and more Indian organizational leaders and village chief councillors have become directly involved in Federal and Provincial consultations on Indian affairs. Since the day of my own personal involvement in this field, I for one have urged the Indian young people to assume more active roles in the respective community affairs, and at every opportunity to participate in Indian consultations with any of the three levels of government, and their participation, Mr. Speaker, has become more noticeable in the past years, to the extent that they have expressed to the Government and to the general public, not only their views and advice, but in no uncertain terms their definite stand on many a current issue.

The Indian voice and full participation in Canadian public affairs are long overdue. Now that these are becoming a reality, naturally, I am keenly interested in the decisions reached by the Indian groups in this Province, and I'm also extremely interested in the decisions they may reach with respect to the subject which I wish to deal with this evening. To go back a little while, say to 1949, since I entered this House, I have brought to the attention, Mr. Speaker, of the Provincial Government the need to consider — and I'm going to name you a few of the subjects in which I spent the entire part of my talk on the floor of this House, and this has gone back since 1949, so actually I haven't said or spent too much time in a major talk on Indian affairs. But, these are some, and I want you to take note of these.

When I first entered this House I talked entirely — and I think there's only two members that sat here during the Coalition days, that's the honourable Premier himself, the member for Cranbrook, and myself — and I think they can recall when I talked upon the land pre-emption rights for the Native Indians of British Columbia. During the period that this Government appeared on the scene, up to now, I have spoken on these: the Provincial jurisdiction of Indian affairs, Provincial jurisdiction of education, Provincial jurisdiction of welfare, community and economic development on reserves, municipal status for reserves, and the abolition of reserves.

But, Mr. Speaker, I can recall the waning and the dying years of the Coalition Government, before which I would present my case to the best of my ability, in the hope that the Government would consider some of my proposals as possible answers to the Indian problem. The only response I would get would be a one-word repartee federal "When the Government backbenchers yelled the word "Federal" across the floor to me at that day, I assumed that they meant that what I said was out of order, that these subjects have no place in the Provincial Legislature and that I was wasting the time of the House. My personal assumption, Mr. Speaker, was that I embarrassed the Government of that day, and its Ottawa counterparts, for their legalized discrimination against Indians in the segregational policies as defined in the British North America Act and in the Indian Act.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to elaborate on any of these seven points that I have read out to you. I will briefly deal with one of them during the course of my talk. I only wish to say that the land pre-emption right was granted to the Indians of British Columbia in 1950. My motion on Provincial jurisdiction of Indian affairs was approved in principle by this Government some years ago, and in one of our tribal conventions a resolution was passed on municipal status for reserves and this, of course, corresponded with this Government's enactment a few months after our council had forwarded the resolution to the present Minister of Municipal Affairs. This Government has also entered the reserves by its participation in community and economic development on the Port Simpson Indian Reserve. So you see, Mr. Speaker, that up to now I am right on target, and I will also predict that I will remain on that target respecting my position on the Federal White Paper on new Indian policy which was introduced last year, and this is my subject this evening.

I would like to say here and now, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very touchy subject, and no doubt most of the members here are going to be queried by the local Indian tribes on this subject, and for gosh sakes I don't wish you people to take it as too touchy a subject, because I think it's very simple, there is a very simple solution to it. I mean we are elected legislators in British Columbia and I think the Indians are very keenly interested in taking a complete participation in the subject. They are going to be consulted and they will consult, and I think that in this subject the provincial governments, the ten provinces in Canada, are definitely involved in the subject. I have no fear any more of anybody yelling across the floor to me by this present Government and saying that this subject is "Federal" said earlier that one day this may be budgeted, and I say that this is the proper

[ Page 293 ]

time to state my own personal views on the subject. What I'm going to say tonight is strictly my own views, Mr. Chairman, and you can take it, you can take it or reject it. I know that many of the things I'm going to say are going to be rejected by my own people, but as we go along I hope you will abide with me.

Now, to reply to the White Paper on new Indian policy, Mr. Speaker. In the past few days we have heard so much about the White Paper on taxation, and any member here that has not heard about the White Paper, I'd just like to tell you now, that almost the same time the White Paper on taxation was introduced in the Federal House there was another known as the White Paper on new Indian policy. Well first, may I say here, that I did not rise in my place, Mr. Speaker, to tell you that I am going to support the Federal Government White Paper on Indian Policy, 1969. I am on my feet to tell you that I am gratified the Government has finally come out in support of what I have advocated for the last 21 years. The things that I have said in public, on the floor of this House, and on radio and television appearances.

Secondly, on this subject, I am the first to realize the Indian objections to the White Paper on New Indian Policy and to realize I am in the lion's den with but one tribe, my own tribe, that has approved of this in principle and also with a minority of Indian leaders in Canada. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I have made certain statements and issued charges in this House for which a certain section of society had wanted to scalp me, and on this Indian question I have no fear, Mr. Speaker, of any contradiction in the position which I am taking on the Government's White Paper on the New Indian Policy.

Now what is this New Indian Policy? Here are some points suggested by the Federal Government, and I'm going to give you a few quotations, and this comes from a resume of the White Paper. Here it is. "The Federal Government has finally made public its New Indian Policy. Indian Affairs Minister, John Chretien, in a statement made in the House of Commons on June 25th, announced these major policy decisions. (1) Full legal control of Indian Lands will be transferred to the Indian people. (2) The provinces will be asked to take over the same responsibilities for Indians that they have for other citizens in the Province. This would be accompanied by the transfer to the provinces of federal funds, normally Department phased out." End of quote.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us now read some of the statements of the Government on the New Indian Policy, and this actually appeared in the booklet which they passed out by the thousands, from coast to coast. Here are some of the excerpts, and these are quotations from the White Paper. "Because of history," pardon me, I think I'd better just say this. I have made certain remarks on the floor of the House, perhaps maybe unthinkable and people just didn't realize why I made these statements, and they were quite bold, and here are some of the bold statements which the Government in Ottawa has made. "Because of history, the Indians today are the subject of legal discrimination." This is the word of the Government. "They have grievances because of past understandings that have been broken or misunderstood; they do not have full control of their lands; and a higher proportion of the Indians than other Canadians suffer poverty, in all its debilitating forms." Another quote. "This system — special legislation, a special land system and separate administration for the Indian people — continues to be the basis of the present Indian policy, has carried with it serious human and physical as well as administrative disabilities." These are the words of the Government.

Another quote. "Reserves were usually excluded from development and many began to stand out as islands of poverty." You wouldn't dare say this to the Government several years ago, but these are their own quotations, the Government's own quotations. Another. "The policy of separation has become a burden," says the Government in Ottawa. Another quote. "The legal and administrative discrimination in the treatment of Indian people has not given them an equal chance of success." Another. "The economic base for many Indians is their reserve land, but the development of the reserves has lagged." Drastic statements. Another. "The tradition of Federal responsibility for Indian matters inhibited the development of a proper relationship between the provinces and the Indian people as citizens. The Indians remained largely a rural people, lacking both education and opportunity." End of quote. These came from the White Paper.

Mr. Speaker, what do these excerpts and others in this statement represent? Exactly what do these statements represent? To me they represent a knowledge of the existence of the Indian problem. After 103 years they have finally admitted they represent a knowledge of existence of the Indian problem. They represent a proof that for over 103 years there have been no real efforts to solve the problem. They represent a glowing admission of failure. They represent a lack of rehabilitative policy. They represent a lack of consultations with the Indian people when consultations were opportune and necessary.

Mr. Speaker, why, we ask ourselves, did the Federal Government now propose to issue full changes with respect to the following: the repeal of the Indian Act, the phase-out of the Indian Affairs Branch, the transfer of full legal control of the Indian lands to the Indian people, the Provincial jurisdiction of Indian affairs, the procedures for the adjudication of Indian land claims, the provision of funds for the economic development of Indian reserves?

Mr. Speaker, is it because of the Federal Government's absolute failure to cope with the Indian problem? Is it because of its current lack of funds for general Government administration, including that of the Indian Department? Is it because of its embarrassment in the United Nations for not being able to contribute constructively in planning to rehabilitate the under-developed countries when it has not been able to clean up its own backyard? Is it because it plans to evade further constitutional responsibilities, existing obligations, and commitments? Is it because it plans to avoid the settlement of the Indian land claims?

Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions is yes, yes, yes. And I will not hesitate to charge the Federal Government is opting out from further administration of Indian Affairs because of these reasons. I also suggest that the Government White Paper on New Indian Policy was preconceived and in preparation prior to the consultations with the native Indians in Canada, and that the consultations were used as a means for the introduction of the White Paper. Mr. Speaker, anyone who has taken the time to study the Government basis for consultations known as, and I think that most of the members have been in receipt of these booklets, known as, "Choosing A Path," and another, "Consultations With The Indian People," those two booklets, may have detected, within the terms of reference to revise the Indian Act, the Government's direction towards Provincial jurisdiction. This was very clear to me in my personal studies of the two documents. I submit, therefore,

[ Page 294 ]

that if the Government was sincere in its consultations with the Indian people, it should have spelled out the terms of reference on Provincial jurisdiction. I submit too, Mr. Speaker, that had this been the case, the consultations may have developed into a constructive ball game, as I know that many Indian leaders have considered the question of Provincial jurisdiction.

Now, let's turn to the native Indians. What are the reasons for the Indian's protest against this policy, and I am going to have to quote from my previous talks on the reserves. The Government's statement on the New Indian Policy resulted in a country-wide Indian protest, mainly because the native Indians claimed the Provincial jurisdiction aspect was not part of the terms of reference for consultations, and believe me it wasn't even in it. It had everything else about the amendments to the Indian Act, but nothing about Provincial jurisdiction. But, when the White Paper came out, it proposed Provincial jurisdiction, something that the Indians were never consulted about, and this was perhaps the main reason why there was such a country-wide protest.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, with what I have said in previous talks concerning the conditions on reserves and the ill effects they have fostered — and I'm not going to repeat them because I've mentioned it several times on the floor of the House — you would think that the native Indians would jump at the opportunity to fully participate and to consent to changes for their own betterment. You would actually believe that they would jump at the idea for changes. The protest was due partly to the laxity in the terms of reference, and I think practically every native Indian from coast to coast would agree with that. I believe, however, that there is a more sensitive reason, Mr. Speaker, for the protest, and these sensitive reasons are based on fear, suspicion, and insecurity.

In my previous talks in this House, I referred to certain effects of the reservation system and special laws. Again no elaboration. You'll recall that I did say something about what the reserves breed. The reserves breed dependency, inferiority complex, destruction of initiative. I think any student would know that. I don't hesitate in repeating these time and time again, because in my own personal experience, and with interviews with people who have lived through the system, who will tell you exactly, and perhaps maybe give you those three headings.

But, we're talking about the reasons why Indians object, and we have to go deeper. Now, here is one major effect it has to any change in Government policy. And again, another quote from my previous presentations on the floor of this House. I quote. "From colonial days to the present time, the disruption of the social and economic way of life created a marked disturbance in the individual lives of the native Indians, because the increasing stresses produced much hostile, resentful and unconcerned reaction to any new government policies proposed for the development of new social and economic foundations for them, and from the geographic reserve separations, the lack of tribal co-operation and harmony results in the Indian values remaining a conflict, to the extent it becomes difficult for the native Indians to accept the white man's way of life. We may sum this up in noting that the majority of the past and modern native Indians lack the knowledge and labour skills which are required to earn a fair living, and because of these and other pertinent reasons they have become a frustrated and despondent people. Without respectable employment careers, they have lost their self respect, pride and the honour of their families and communities. This, it is plain to understand, contributes largely to their personal and their group insecurity." You have to go deep into this. You have to say, "Well, they have certain reasons," but in my book, Mr. Chairman, it goes quite deep, and this is it, and this is the end of the quotation that I made previously on the floor of this House. I'll say this, the only answer, Mr. Speaker, for the success of any government change from Federal to Provincial, and to secure Indian co-operation and harmony, needs a continual consultation with them, consultation and dialogue with the native Indians and with all the levels of Government.

Again I repeat, throughout these years I have stood for Provincial jurisdiction of Indian affairs. I have no fear in stating these. The abolition of the term "reserve", municipal status for reserves, individual Indian title to real property on reserves, Indian community administration of Indian funds, community and economic development on reserves, self-government on reserves, repeal of the Indian Act and of the Department of Indian Affairs. It is understood that many of these cannot be realized and achieved unless the Government decided to free the native Indians from bondage. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Government White Paper on the New Indian Policy represents a release from paternal care, a release from prison. Many a time I've termed the reserves concentration camps and I don't, I wouldn't, change my views. Of freedom from restraint, of freedom from military control, of freedom from Canada's black holes of iniquities. The Government announcement represents an emancipation for the native Indians in Canada. Listen to this. "After the native Indians themselves, for years, have been condemning the Indian Act and the Indian Affairs Branch for all the administrative flaws and for the cause of poverty, the Government statement should be a cause for Indian celebration."

Way before consultations were realized the Indian was already protesting. Believe me, I know this. The native Indians should consider a statement on New Indian Policy a victory, after the many years of protest against the dictatorial administration of — and in quotation, you'll forgive me — "of those damned Indian Agents." I've heard this since I was a little boy, I've heard this since I was a young fellow, and I still hear it, but I'm going to come back to this.

Earlier I said I was going to come back with one subject, and here it is. This has to do with Provincial jurisdiction. Let's look at it. The future of the native Indians can depend upon a closer formal alliance, Mr. Speaker, with their respective provinces. I'm going to go back to the statement. Many conditions are bringing the native Indians and the Provincial authorities together in practical matters. Let's consider some of them.

Number one. We have certain reasons why we have to consider Provincial jurisdiction, and here is one of them. The British North America Act vests to the Provinces the authority over lands, forestry, mines, water resources, education, health, hospital services, municipal affairs, highways, fish and wildlife, recreation and conservation, liquor laws, law and order, administration of justice, social welfare, marriage act, property and civil rights, incorporation of companies, agriculture, trap lines, and so forth.

Mr. Speaker, in this day and age I cannot understand why the native Indian people should remain under separate and stagnant laws when they can benefit from the Provincial laws under which they rightfully belong. Just like you do. They are the only ones now that are under these separate laws. Everybody else, every citizen in Canada comes under these

[ Page 295 ]

Provincial laws, and this privilege of belonging to the Province and to benefit from their laws has been denied to the native Indian for over 103 years.

Number two. On this Provincial jurisdiction, let's look at organization. The trend to urban areas is due to the native Indian's struggle for survival. And believe it, Mr. Speaker, in order to make a decent living, many native Indians, under economic circumstances, find that they have to move out of their reserves for employment. For the purpose of higher education and for better school facilities for their children, many native Indians move to urban areas to seek employment. The native Indian youth, and I have talked to many, and who are the backbone of the native Indians of tomorrow, are just plain fed up with the segregational, colonizational, and regimentational aspect of the reserve system. Many native Indians who are determined to do things for themselves and their families, to become independent, to stand on their own two feet have become urbanized. And Mr. Speaker, these urbanized native Indians, who number in the thousands throughout Canada, are most cognizant and concerned about Provincial jurisdiction because of their increasing reliance upon the Provincial authorities. You just step off the reserve and you become under the Provincial law, and the urbanization trend is still on, and the native Indians have accepted this, these Provincial jurisdictional laws.

Number Three. Provincial franchise has given the native Indians a strong and active voice in the affairs of their respective provinces. They've entered politics, they're very much engaged in it, and they are free to enter it. The native Indians in British Columbia have actually been elected. Two native Indians, I should say, in British Columbia have actually been elected, have entered Parliament, and one of them is speaking today. The other, a good friend of mine, is a Liberal member in Ottawa. To put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker, I advocate Provincial jurisdiction because I am convinced that one day that is exactly how it is going to be, and I am not one, Mr. Speaker, to deny the future generation of native Indians their rightful place under the sun.

Let's look at municipal status. The proposal for municipal status does not mean the abolition of the reserve boundaries as we know them today, and I think the Minister can point this out to anyone who may be interested to accept municipal status. By the way, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, I am hopeful of the outcome of the vote at Cape Mudge. The Indians have their eyes focused at what may happen at Cape Mudge, and I can say this, if it is favourable, one of my own villages in the Nass River may be the next one. I do hope that the vote in Cape Mudge will be favourable. I know that the young people there are really considering the adoption of this municipal status. The municipal status proposal merely involves the definition of reserves. The majority of native Indians, I know, would welcome self-government upon reserves, but this word "reserve" is a term only if no money is made available for its administration. The native Indians pay taxes with the exception of land tax, but their share of the tax dollar for municipal improvements and benefits does not return to the reserves. It would, however, if the reserves had municipal status definition, and I think I'm correct in that. Now, I just read a few minutes ago that the Federal Government has stated that in the transfer of jurisdiction that they would continue to pay their sums of money, but only the Provincial would administer. I am hopeful that they mean every word they said in the announcement.

Now let me say this, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. With the allocation of Federal administrative funds to the provinces, as indicated in the White Paper, plus tax returns from the provinces, I believe that sufficient funds will be available for a sound operation of self-government upon Indian reserves. You know, the native Indians have been talking about self-government, but what's the good of self-government if they have no money. The way things are going now, if there was a policy written out for them, and it said, "Here is your self-government," I would assume that the Indians would continue to get down on their knees and beg Ottawa for money to administer that self-government. This is why I buy the municipal status, because their own tax dollar is coming back, and this will assist in administering their own affairs.

On the policy, Mr. Speaker, because I support a long-term rehabilitative programme, I sympathize with all provinces in Canada as the switch goes ahead. The provinces, particularly this Province, are given the big chore of doing what the Federal Government has failed to do. And I have faith in the provinces, because I think I'm one that understands what the British North America Act is all about, and the provinces for years have been exercising their duties under the B.N.A. Act, and so I have no other, I have to say this. I have faith in the provinces because they have the authority and experience in performing their duties as set forth in the B.N.A. Act and again, if there is this switch, the programme must be rehabilitative. He provinces should not accept a transfer of the present Indian Act bureaucracy. The Provincial Government should develop its own constructive rehabilitative programme, and if it ever comes to that stage, I don't think we should have an Indian Act in the Province. Perhaps we may have an Act for the Rehabilitation of Indians, for X number of years.

Mr. Speaker, any Provincial Government programme must include a full participation, and this is one of the things I would like to say this evening, must include the full participation and consultations with the native Indian people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. CALDER: Indian initiative in this regard is most important, because for years they have not taken part in the new legislation, and in any new legislation they must take part. Any new legislation for the Indian people must first of all receive the Indians' consent. Their consent and participation are absolutely necessary in their co-operative and administrative responsibilities to achieve self-government, self-determination, independence, and adaptation to new conditions.

To achieve success in the programme there must also be a co-operation from the three levels of Government. The programme must include selective appointments of officers, who are well versed and trained as economists, sociologists, and anthropologists. We don't want anyone applying just for the sake of a job. They must be people who would, and say for a period of X number of years, perform duties to rehabilitate the Indians until the day comes that they are able to stand on their own two feet. You're not going to have the switch performed overnight. In the period of rehabilitation, Mr. Speaker, the native Indians must be allowed sufficient time and opportunity to adjust into the social, economic, and educational life of the country. I say for 100 years of confinement and neglect there must be 100 years of government-sponsored programme for Indian rehabilitation.

[ Page 296 ]

The Indian leader himself, what part is he going to take? Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, Indian leaders must be of sober mind when they negotiate and plan for the Indians’ future. I hear too much, and I'm speaking through you, not to the legislators but to the Indian people of the Province, through you, Mr. Speaker. I've heard too often rumours that the Indian delegates have been going to these official conferences under the influence of liquor, I've seen it, I've heard about it from some of the top Indian leaders, and many an Indian leader does not appreciate that. I certainly don't. I think the Minister can verify this, because I didn't appreciate it when he appeared in Kamloops, and I think he can verify this, and I don't think the Minister appreciated it either. I certainly didn't when I saw the video tape of this actually happening. I don't believe this is a proper base for sincere consultations and, Mr. Speaker, I for one do not wish to abide by the decisions reached by such polluted situations.

Decisions reached today should not be defined for the present generations. Indian decisions reached should be for the present and the future Indian generations. Mr. Speaker, should Indian decisions reached today be detrimental to our future Indian generations or to be a barrier to Indian progress, I do not wish to be a part of it, and I will not appreciate my son's son standing over my grave condemning me for my lack of foresight, and this is how important it is that the consultations are taking place today. I think the native Indian leaders have become too parochial in thinking about themselves, and I think this whole plan, and it's going to be a major decision, Mr. Speaker. This is why I say the Indians should be of a sober mind because their decisions are going to reach into a hundred years. I have no son, but this is a statement. My son's son's son may be a doctor 100 years from now, may be a scientist, a lawyer, he may be the next guy to step on Mars, and I don't want him to stand over my grave and say, "Well, you so and so, 100 years ago you barred my progress."

Mr. Speaker, I support the White Paper in principle. The idea is sound. I support it for this reason, and this I have told to many an Indian leader if they can just grasp the idea. The White Paper was a statement. Didn't have any complete data with it. Didn't tell us exactly what laws were going to be changed. I want to see more of this White Paper, and in one convention in the north we approved it in principle for one reason, we approved of it in principle. We want to see the Government lay their cards on the table. I want to see the blueprint of exactly what is involved in the White Paper. There is nothing wrong with supporting the White Paper, and I hope the native people can realize this. When the cards are on the table, and if I see that it is detrimental to the Indian cause, then the Indian people can object to it if they wish. Or they can accept it, if it appears favourable. But they're not going to do that, they are objecting against it quite wildly.

A very close friend of mine wrote a book called "The Unjust Society." He writes very well. He's a young man, and I hope he has a great future as a writer and, as I say, he's a friend of mine, he's been my guest in this House. But "'The Unjust Society" book is a deliberate condemnation against the White Paper, and it is one of the major influences against a lot of Indians in this country to go against the White Paper Policy. It's not given the rank-and-file people a chance to even look at it. If some great leader says it's wrong, it's wrong. I've read the book and, like I say, he writes a good hand, but I certainly don't appreciate the fact that it comes right out and says, "Thou shalt not accept." This part I don't appreciate one bit.

Now, how about the Provincial and the Federal negotiations which are presently going on. Mr. J.V. Boys, a former commissioner in this Province, he's now the liaison between the Provincial and the Federal Government. I don't even know what he's doing….

AN HON. MEMBER: Neither do we.

MR.CALDER: …You don't?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CALDER: …Well, this is jake. He doesn't know, I don't know, but he's there. And do you know, now that you have made that comment, I don't know what he's being paid for. You know, the Indians are not consulted, and yet if we're going to have some harmony in the transfer, if it ever comes to be, in this one area this should be Indian consultation. Here is a person engaged by the Federal, and I don't know if he has even dropped into your office, Mr. Minister, but you say that you don't know what he is there for. I certainly would like to know what he is there for, but I know that he's there, I'm told to negotiate as a matter of fact. In the House of Commons it has been said of his position and his doings, are a secret mission, and the Indians would like to know what he is doing. Like I say, if these negotiations are without Indian consultations, it can only result in Indian resentment and, of course, disharmony. I would advise that this Government urge the Federal Government, if that negotiation is going on to include, Mr. Chairman, Indian participation.

To speak generally, I think the torch of responsibility and initiative and self-determination, self-government, has been thrown to the native Indians in Canada. The questions are, are the Indians prepared to catch the torch, or do they want to catch it? I think the answer to these and others remain to be seen. If the Indians wish to retain the sanctuaries of the reserves, and the paternalism of government, it will be their right to reject the torch. If they wish to accept the challenge for recognition, opportunity, equality, and justice, Mr. Speaker, it too, will be their right to accept the torch.

I believe that our native Indian people, being a definite part of the labour force and citizenship, are capable and prepared to contribute to the social, economic, and cultural growth of our country, and to share in its resources. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful for wisdom that I know is within our native Indian people, in their final judgment of this New Indian Policy. I say that the Indians are the jury, and only they can decide on a new Magna Carta for themselves in this country. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. BURT CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a great pleasure to sit in this House and hear a speech such as we just heard from the member for Atlin. We can't all agree with everything that he has said, but he has certainly given us all food for thought, and he has shown that one doesn't have to pound one's chest or bang one's desk or wave one's arms about in the air to certainly be effective and to present a view point that deserves to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak in this Budget Debate, I would like to first of all make just a few brief comments

[ Page 297 ]

about the dismal attempts of both the N.D.P. House Leader and the Liberal leader yesterday to comment on the subject. Certainly the way that they shied away from discussing the Budget as such, said far more eloquently than could words, the great difficulty they have in attempting to tear apart this aggressive and commendable document that helps start this decade of the 70's off in such great fashion. Certainly the comments of the N.D.P. House Leader proved that should the sorry day ever arise in this Province, that we should ever elect an N.D.P. Government, and I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, and surely it will be despondency and not prosperity that will be right around the corner. As for the Liberal leader and what he grandly announced as his second Liberal budget, the only way, incidentally, he is going to get to present one, there must be general agreement on both sides of this House, and in all three parties, that his personal budget wasn't that much to begin with, and he continued building it into nothing as he went along.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the N.D.P. House Leader yesterday as he announced that he was going to be introducing either a motion or a Bill in this Legislature, increasing the waiting period for those prospective brides and grooms to six weeks from the time they can get a marriage licence. Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should pay attention to this proposal, because it comes from a party with plenty of experience of bad marriages. After all, that party has been the bridesmaid and never the bride with the B.C. electorate for all the years it has been in force in this Province, and the first member for Vancouver East recently confessed publicly, in this Chamber, that his party's unhappy marriage with the Union bosses is headed for the divorce courts.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal only very briefly with a limited number of subjects in this particular debate, many of them brought to mind by remarks raised by members of all other parties.

First of all I would like to comment on the remarks of the leader of the Liberal party, who made much of the fact that spectators in the public gallery are unable to take notes on what is said here, and who further suggested that not only should they be allowed to take notes, but they should be allowed to tape-record the deliberations of this Chamber as well. Now the first member from Point Grey obviously needs a refresher course in parliamentary history, Mr. Speaker. The taking of notes in the public galleries is a prohibition arising from a long-standing and historical courtesy to the press. There has always been the fear, and I suggest that it is still quite valid today, that if there were not a separate and distinct Press Gallery, then there would be no room for the public in the public galleries, but rather representatives of all the media would perhaps be occupying most or all of the seats. Under the present and historical procedure, the press must decide amongst itself who will represent the various media there, and ensure that the larger public outside is indicated. If the Liberal leader is sincere in his viewpoint, then I would suggest two things to him, that he first of all make representation to Ottawa, not only on the matter of allowing tape-recording of debates from the public galleries, but also that they allow T.V. cameras into the Chamber and out in the public corridors as well, where they will no longer allow them to interview the members and the Cabinet as they leave, and something that is allowed to be done here. And as well, the Liberal leader might discuss with the executive of this Press Gallery this very same matter.

Now there have been several suggestions, and we heard them again tonight, that it is time perhaps for the Elections Act to be reviewed and amended. While fully in agreement with the need for a review, Mr. Speaker, I would personally express the hope that this would perhaps await the second Session of this present Parliament. I, for one, have many ideas and suggestions, as I know that other members do as well, but because of the particularly heavy load of constituency business, not only since the election, but as a direct consequence of it, when literally scores of people came to all of us, I'm sure, with problems during it, well I don't think we've all had the necessary time to summarize our ideas for improvement, and to properly present them and make constructive suggestions.

Now there have also been suggestions, Mr. Speaker, for a separate department for Environmental Control. When I spoke in the Throne Speech debate, I noted that the Union of B.C. Municipalities was not alone when it reported to the Cabinet in December what it regarded as differences of opinion on authority between Government departments. But I would agree with the Minister of Recreation, that a special department for Pollution Control is not the answer. Pollution control affects too many Government departments to be under one authority, Mr. Speaker. You simply could not have one Minister totally responsible and give him sole responsibility in this field. His staff members, and even the Minister himself, could not be inquiring into the various departments and then dictating certain courses of action. Far better, and far more effective, would be an expansion of the present Cabinet committee of Ministers who are concerned with environment, an expansion into a slightly larger coordinating committee of the various departments concerned, where problems can be identified, possible solutions suggested, the full far-reaching results of any action better appreciated, and priorities established.

You know, during the debate and the discussions in this Chamber, we have heard repeated references, and we heard them again today, from the Opposition benches about the size of this Government's majority, one member going so far as to describe it as a massive elephantine majority. Yesterday the N.D.P. House Leader made reference to some alleged fear that is supposed to be abroad in this Province that this Government is out to destroy the Opposition. I suspect, as the member for Cariboo did earlier today, this is part of the Opposition strategy to try and create this false climate. That is the reason the Opposition is being so quick to request the recording of divisions, to try and document the record of Government supporters helping to conduct the necessary business of this House, and to somehow make out that this is wrong. But, Mr. Speaker, as the first member for Vancouver Centre asked, "Who put this majority in?" The people did. They picked the members, they gave this Government the mandate to govern, because they had full faith in its ability to govern both wisely and well. I do not go along with the false reasoning that both Opposition parties are trying to foster, that because they lost a few members last December, democracy in this Province is in danger. August the 27th. No government anywhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker, has such an anti-government press as has this little Social Credit Government, and I sometimes think that the press is a more constructive and an effective critic of this Government's policies and action than is the Opposition, even when the Opposition had more members than it has today. While it has lost members, Mr. Speaker, it has not lost its more effective debaters. As a follower of the debates of this Legislature through the newspapers for many years, the names I was

[ Page 298 ]

familiar with in the ranks of that party are still the names who are getting the press today.

There was a speech from the N.D.P. In that election, Mr. Speaker, and one from the Liberals, but as a columnist in The Western Miner pointed out, 22 Opposition members cannot pull a Government down any more than 16 can, and in the September issue, they comment, the columnist in question said, "I believe that 16 should be able to criticize just as effectively, and get just as many unanswerable arguments into print, as 22 can. They can even make just as much mere noise, if that is what is required. The chance of a really gifted critic appearing in a group of 22 is just as remote as in a group of 16." There is, of course, one notable exception already pointed out by the member for North Peace, and that exception, of course, is the former leader of the N.D.P. who is no longer with us, the member from Vancouver-Burrard. You will recall perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in my maiden speech, in the Throne Speech debate, I remarked on the job that the present House Leader has received because of Mr. Berger's defeat. I predicted outside of this House just after it, that the next leader of the N.D.P., when it holds its leadership convention in June — the second within a year — that the new leader would be the second member for Vancouver East. Mr. N.D.P. House Leader, after hearing the second member from Vancouver East speak on Tuesday of last week, I say to you, there may be others in the field with the present House Leader of the N.D.P., but they're most certainly not in his class. The second member for Vancouver East obviously hasn't quite reached the age, something like a six-year-old, where throwing dirt is no longer a sign of social acceptance.

Mr. Speaker, there is a subject affecting my riding of Revelstoke-Slocan that I would like to raise at this time, and I am pleased that the Minister of Health is in the House, a matter on which I have spoken from the public platform in nearly every election in which I have been a candidate. There are parts of my riding, in fact many areas throughout the whole of British Columbia, that do not have enough doctors or dentists. The reasons are two-fold. I don't think there are enough doctors and dentists and this is compounded by the desire of so many in the medical profession to concentrate in and around Vancouver and the lower mainland and, as my friend says, to get into politics. I would like to see both this Government and the medical and dental associations tackle with the problem. For the Government's part, I would like to see it investigate the possibility of paying special grants to medical students to assist them with their university medical studies. In return for these grants the students, upon graduation as doctors or dentists, would be required to set up practices in part of the Province that are in need of their services. In fact, consideration might also be given to special loans to these new doctors and dentists at prevailing rates of interest to enable them to purchase the necessary equipment and establish proper offices in this areas.

There is already precedent, Mr. Speaker, for grants to medical students that are contingent on agreement to practise in certain areas for a stated number of years, because such grants have been in effect for a number of years now in the Provinces of Ontario and Newfoundland. As for the Medical and Dental Associations, I think they should do quite a bit to help, too. What I have suggested is a Government measure which would take a period of time requiring possibly the awaiting of students to complete all of their medical education, once such a plan would go into effect. I would suggest that the doctors and dentists of this Province could almost immediately establish a fund for which they would all be assessed. This fund would then be dispersed to doctors willing to go into communities where there are not presently doctors or dentists, and would be used to subsidize a living allowance, or as a subsidy for a guaranteed income. These suggestions would help to ultimately make medical and dental attention available to all our citizens, Mr. Speaker. Let's not allow any of our residents to be second-class citizens in a medical sense.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal in this House recently about how the development of the Columbia River system was a sell-out to the Americans, and for a good many years Revelstoke-Slocan stood up in this House and was on the negative side of that question and of that issue, and I think for once the positive side should be presented here. We have heard charges that the projects aren't paying for themselves, and that they generate no electrical power, but let's just look back briefly. First of all, the Federal Government did not offer to put up any money for that project but, instead, offered only to loan us half the money necessary for the development of the Columbia River at going rates of interest plus one-eighth of one per cent. Well, the Premier of this Province said this wasn't good enough. He said he would pre-sell our share of the downstream benefit power, that is, our share of the power generated on the American side of the Columbia from water stored on our side for five mills.

Where were those critics of last week and of the past few days then, Mr. Speaker? They weren't making constructive suggestions. They weren't calling on the Federal Government to make an outright grant of half the cost of the Columbia project, such as the Federal Government did for the South Saskatchewan project. They weren't calling on the Federal Government to make low-interest loans such as are made by the Federal Government in the United States through such agencies as the Tennessee Valley Authority. No, Mr. Speaker, they weren't doing anything constructive. Rather they were busy telling the press and anybody else that would listen that the Premier couldn't get his five mill asking price. This action of the Opposition parties and that of our Federal politicians in the national news media, didn't make this Government's job any easier. It was like trying to haggle with a car dealer about the price of a car while your wife and friends stand around telling the salesman that he can get more out of you.

. Now these very same people who said the Premier couldn't get five mills are saying he should have got more — what hypocrisy, what hypocrisy! But the Premier of this Province got his way because it was the right way and these dams have gone ahead.

While Mica will be a great dam and power producer, Mr. Speaker, some 2,000,000 horsepower, contrary to what those on the other side of this House tried to tell us last week, Arrow and Duncan dams are power producers too, except that their generating capacity is located a little further down stream, down the Columbia River. Because every bucket of water that is stored on this side of the River becomes a bucket of electrical power when it passes through the generating capacity of the dams on the American reaches of the Columbia River. The Americans were to get half the power, the power from half that bucket of water, and we were to get the power from the other half bucket of water. And we sold them our share of the power from each bucket of water in order to finance these projects.

I don't deny that these costs have escalated, and that they are costing a great deal more than we expected, but let us remember two very important things. First, that had we

[ Page 299 ]

borrowed half of the money necessary from the Federal Government at the going rate of interest plus one-eighth of one per cent, and borrowed the rest elsewhere on our own, we would have had no financial assistance from the United States to help with these projects. Remember also, that it has been calculated that in the second 30-year period of this Treaty that they will yield an estimated $300,000,000 in additional benefits. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, costs have escalated on those projects, but as I asked my constituents during the election, and particularly the construction workers at Mica Dam, what would have the N.D.P. done to hold costs down? Would it have paid less for the properties that were affected by these projects? Would it not have blacktopped the new roads that have been built, if it had rebuilt them at all? Would it have frozen wages, the single largest factor in the escalation of costs?

AN HON. MEMBER: Very likely, very likely.

MR. BURT CAMPBELL: And the people gave their answer loud and clear on the 27th of August. They reputed the N.D.P., the No Dam Party.

Mr. Speaker, the target date for the completion of Mica Dam, as the speech from the Throne mentioned, is April 1st, 1973. However, I am informed that the contractor had his own schedule which may release the project date a whole year earlier, by April 1st, 1972. However, the contractor is a bit behind on his own schedule, and depending upon the amount of equipment which he puts on the project this year will be an important factor in deciding the actual completion date. There is expected to be a maximum work force on the dam of 1,500 people this year plus an additional 100 men employed in debris control above the dam site. I understand from the Chairman of the B.C. Hydro, Dr. Shrum, that the machining of Mica will likely take place in the period between 1973 and 1977, with first power flowing in 1977. Besides the installation of generating capacity, Mr. Speaker, the acquiring of rights-of-way, and the building of transmission lines must take place, and all this is expected to take place in this period, the five-year period following 1973. Then there are two other dams to be built in the immediate Revelstoke area, Downey Creek and Revelstoke Canyon, projects that will likely come in the late 70's or the early 80's.

Mr. Speaker, in bringing my comments this evening to a close, I would like to deal very briefly, as other speakers from the Government side of the House have today, with certain allegations made by the second member from Vancouver East in this House last week about individuals outside of this Chamber. The second member for Vancouver East also made allegations about individuals who sit in this House, Mr. Speaker, but they are well able to repute them in this Chamber and have done so. First of all, I want to associate myself with the comments of the first member for Vancouver Centre and the member for Cariboo and others who have commented on the despicable innuendo and smear techniques used.

In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the debates of this House are now recorded and are to be transcribed, I believe that it is very important that those people who are subjected to such vicious and unsupported allegations should have the opportunity of having their side of such a cock-and-bull story placed on the permanent record. Prejudice, Mr. Speaker, is a great time-saver. It allows for the formation of opinions without having to get the facts, and so it was with the second member for Vancouver East. What were those statements, and the refuting of them that were made outside of this House by Mr. Bonner and others, as quoted in the issue of the Vancouver Province on Friday, February 6th? Mr. Bonner was quoted, and I put these on the record because, when all we relied on was newspaper reporting we knew that people going through the news reports would see them all. But in future years they may just go to our form of Hansard which we shall have, and only find one side of the story on the record.

Mr. Bonner says the project was financed by $60,000 cash from his family corporation and $60,000 from Mr. Fouks' family corporation, plus $675,000 mortgage at 6-3/4 per cent interest, for a total cost of just over $800,000, including some minor charges. "The apartment, in operation since 1966," said Mr. Bonner, "has by no stretch of the imagination doubled in value." He says that he has had no dealings with Jack Diamond. He says it was an arm's-length transaction by a third party, and as far as Mr. Bonner was concerned the selection of property was based on availability.He says the West End was looked at, the North Shore was looked at, and Kerrisdale was looked at, and the particular property in question was available. The contractor, George Biely Construction, found the site. Mr. Fouks dealt with the contractor, and Mr. Bonner did not. Mr. Biely has since reminded Mr. Bonner that at the time the property was acquired he, that is the other gentleman, had no knowledge that Mr. Bonner was involved, nor did the vendor.

Mr. Bonner says it was an arm's-length transaction. At no time before or since, or at any time, did he discuss the matter with Mr. Diamond, and he says that is categorical. He says that he would say of the statements in respect of the value attributed to the property and the financing, and in respect of any suggestion that he was dealing with Jack Diamond, he would say that such statements are deliberate lies. He then goes on….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. I should remind the honourable member that he must not do indirectly what he cannot do directly, and if there is further of those quotations within that editorial would you please discontinue.

MR. BURT CAMPBELL: Yes, I was going to jump over the next two Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Bonner said that he had raised the $60,000 investment through a loan from his bank, the Bank of Commerce, and he said that most of it is still owing. Biely, who was President of Biely Construction, confirmed Mr. Bonner's statement that he found the apartment site and that all of his business dealings in connection with the property were with Fouks and not Bonner. "I never knew Mr. Bonner was involved until a couple of months after we had started construction," he told the Province. Biely also branded the estimated value of the property of $1,500,000 today as being "completely out." He agreed with Mr. Bonner's statement that the cost of the project was just over $800,000, and he estimated its market value today would be no more than $900,000, based on an estimated five to ten per cent increase in value over the past five years.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the diarrhea of words which flowed into the record from the second member for Vancouver East showed a complete constipation of thought on his part, and I would agree with the member for Cariboo that he should put up or shut up.

On the motion of the Hon. D.L. Brothers, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 10:51 p.m.