[ Page 453 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Provincial Secretary and Minister of Highways.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): How sweet it is! Mr. Speaker, I always look forward to my turn in the barrel, my turn in the debate. This is one big barrel, Mr. Speaker, and the name of this debate, of course, is The Sermon on the Amount.

I want to first start out, Mr. Speaker, by saying what a pleasure it is to see you there because to me, at least, you represent kind, firm, judicious decisions in this particular House. You know, a great deal is said about the House and I sometimes wonder how many people, outside of the people that sit in it, really understand what it is all about. We facetiously say sometimes that this is a very exclusive club. Sometimes the membership comes high to come here, and sometimes the good people who come into the gallery and watch their representatives, sometimes don't understand the situation and it is very difficult for them to do it. Sometimes members of the House are criticized for using this or that ploy in terms of debate, but that is what political science is all about, and as they say in the vernacular, that's the name of the game. There are, of course, certain decorums and conduct with which one should pattern himself for this place and, Mr. Speaker, you are the representative of that dignity that should be part of this place.

At the same time, you know, there are perhaps people in the gallery that think we ought to walk around here and have sour-looking and long faces, and show our teeth at one another, and all this sort of thing, and I want to say that in this business if you ever lose your sense of humour, to again put it in the vernacular, you're long gone. I hope that as long as I am here, I never lose that sense of humour. I know that there are others opposite who have as keen or even a better sense of humour than I have.

However, I want to say everybody has been welcomed, and I share that welcome with everyone. But I don't think anybody has said anything about the silent service down here. The silent service, I don't know what we would do without them protecting us, particularly that young chap in the middle (applause). I want to say how much we appreciate the services of those young ladies who operate the tape and the sound system so that we can be better heard.

But, however, sometimes a little sadness comes into our ranks. It does indeed, because those chaps up there, I am telling you, you won't find a finer, more informed Press Gallery than what you find there, and that is not flattering them up or anything else (applause). But a little sadness comes in — and you'd think those fellows, they spend so much time running down those stairs, down there, getting on the telephone, on the teletype, and some sad things will come.

Now these two fellows had forgotten that I am not Minister of Welfare, and I have before me two applications for social assistance. The first one, from Young, Alexander. On the top is "Out of Province" and he has got, "I sure as hell am." Address: Press Gallery. Mailing Address: Not sure. Phone: Taken out. Have you been known by any other name? Many times. Reason for application: Won't print my stuff (laughter).

Then I have another one, though. Hunter, lain. Address: No permanent. Mailing Address: Unknown. Phone: Nearest. Have you been known by any other name? Not intentionally. Reason for application: I lost my Sun (laughter). I tell you doesn't that bring the tears to your eyes.

I want to tell you, social workers are the last fellows those fellows want, and I want to tell you that I'm going to send these back up to them and have them referred to the proper Department. Knowing both of them personally, as all of us do, I am sure that it's only going to take a short period of time before they're deadbeats, and so if you give this to the fellows in the Press Gallery we will refer it to the Businessmen's Alliance (laughter and applause).

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, today has always been known — I used to have Valentine's Day but I don't seem to get that any more — however, this is known as the W.D. Black Awards Day, and I have certain awards to make. You know, to be a successful politician, Mr. Speaker, you have to be a good debater, you have to know what you're talking about. I repeat, you have to know what you're talking about. Number two, you've got to have a bit of a flair for the actor, you've got to have some histrionic ability, and in this Session an old play is being reacted, and in this old play that's being reacted, we have some delightful actors in it. The name of the play is called, "David Slew Goliath." The actors in the play — of course, little David. I have here, if one of the pages would take it over for him, it's a stone — buy your own sling-shot and because of some of the little tricks that we have had lately, I've got another one for you. Just make sure you don't get it on your face, it's egg. But I want to get around to the real Academy Award people, which are the first member from Vancouver East and the member for Cowichan-Newcastle or Cowichan-Malahat. Good. You notice you can tell all the old hams, they stand up and bow to everything.

In any case, in any case — the spotlight hasn't gone on yet. These fellows that are putting this play on…. and did you notice the other one the other day? "Oh, I'm going to stand on my rights, I'm not going to leave, Mr. Speaker…." The name of that little play was to get that tiny little Sergeant-at-Arms of ours to march him out and then the photographers would be — oh, what a play! It was terrific. And the other fellow pounding the desk, throwing his arms around, and boy I felt sorry for one of our colleagues in this House, and that's my friend over there from Burnaby, and so hazardous has this place become that I got him a hard hat. (applause)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You'd better give that to the man that David was after (applause).

MR. BLACK: Well, that just proves how little my Scottish friend knows about the Book, because Goliath was not the general of the Philistines' army, and I want to tell you, the one he's after, there's about 35 of them to get here.

Now we had a little business about stacked deck, and I don't know anybody that's tried to stack the deck more….

MR. SPEAKER: Order (laughter).

MR. BLACK: I have a deck of cards, Mr. Speaker. It's used for playing games, and one of the nicest little game-players I've known is the N.D.P. member from North Vancouver–Capilano, and I really should have given him running shoes today to run back and forth and get all his beautiful strategy planned. I have another honours list. For my friend from

[ Page 454 ]

Kootenay, I have a razor blade for you so you can have another close shave.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's happened to my game?

MR. BLACK: It's illegal.

I have a calendar here which I will give to the member for Skeena, to show him that there are 30 days in June and not 31, and that's the only comment I want to make on his dissertations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say the N.D.P. member for North Vancouver-Capilano?,

MR. BLACK: My dear friend, I remember you when you were leader of the Liberal party. You're now in the N.D.P. camp and as far as I'm concerned you're all N.D.P. The N.D.P. won't have to worry about you too much, because within a short period of time there'll be two go to the Bench.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Senate?

MR. BLACK: Oh, none of them are quite old enough yet for the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted, first of all, to say that people in this House have their little fun too, and this might, I suppose, be lecture number one to the new interns. I think it's been said before that the members, particularly the new members of this House, have given an excellent account of themselves, and I include in that my friend from New Westminster as well. I think we'd all have to agree that certainly they displayed sincerity. You may not have agreed with what they said, but all of us would defend their right to say it. You know that they have good ideas. You know that they expressed them well and you know that in the years to come in this House they will be a force to be heard from here.

I don't want to take too much of your time but I do want to, Mr. Speaker, report on two responsibilities that are mine in connection with my portfolio. Firstly, I would like to report, if I may, on the Department of Highways, and tomorrow a complete rundown on the statistical data that is so important, particularly to rural M.L.A.'s, will be on your desks. There you, as M.L.A., will have an opportunity of assessing the position of your own constituency and then at the time that the Estimates of that Department are before the House you'll undoubtedly, on behalf of your constituents, have some observations to make. There, too, I want to say that you will see the progress that is being made in the Department of Highways and will become aware that there has been some reorganization within the Department of Highways, and we are attempting to keep the Department just as modern as it's possible to do.

Our engineers, the Government engineers, are as well or better informed than any certainly that I have met in Canada. I know some of you who had the excellent services of Mr. Elston in your area as the regional engineer will have been sorry to see him go from that post, but I can assure you that he is in a post in the Department of Highways contingent with his great capabilities in that of planning, and there he is. The Planning Department — naturally the Government does the planning, but it does take advice and counsel from those technically qualified to give it. Also, we have Mr. Martin. I personally was sorry to see him leave from my particular region, and Mr. Martin is now in charge of over-all maintenance as far as the Province is concerned. Some of you know him personally. Mr. Zapf still remains in the Location Branch, and I doubt if there's anyone who has the international reputation relative to location as Norm Zapf. Now I can't possibly mention everyone but I want to say to you that we're seriously considering, when we're able to obtain the right person for the job, because it's so important, to have greater and better co-ordination with those elected people at the local level, meaning the municipal councils. In times gone by, perhaps no one's fault, there has been a lack of co-ordination or lack of understanding relative to things engineering at the local level, and we're trying to abridge that gap.

Two, you will be aware by the — it looks voluminous and only because it's in mimeograph form — report on your constituency, that you will be able to assess what has been done. In the last fiscal year we have done more work than in any previous fiscal year in our history. Trans-Canada is all but complete and I might notify the House that the Trans-Canada Agreement is coming to a close. Nevertheless, the work of the Highway Department continues. Our people keep themselves informed of the best engineering advice there is anywhere in the world. You will notice in the brochure that you will have the latest in bridge designs not latest because we must have the firiest and the fanciest thing, not that at all, but the latest in engineering studies because it is serviceable, because it is economical, and because it's good engineering. You will see the new overpasses and flyovers, as they call them, are of a very modern design. You'll find in that report, too, a list of the contracts that have been let and those contracts that are presently being developed from the last fiscal year and will be continuing into the fiscal year that is just ahead of us after April 1st, and about which you will be expressing opinions during Estimate time.

I would draw to your attention, too, the ferry service, and the development of the ferry service is a very interesting one. You will begin to understand what it means by jumboizing a ferry or stretching it or elongating it and, as you know, one was finished and the other one is presently on the way and with the hope that this will be ready for public service in the summer months.

Also, and I think most important to this House, it would be well if you read the accident report. I think it saddens every citizen of this Province when we see these unfortunate accidents on highways, and there's always the tendency, certainly by newspaper reports at times, to infer that this curve wasn't right or the speed limit is too high, etc. Well, in some cases that may be true, but I would say that that is down to an absolute minimum, and if you will look at that report you will find that the greatest cause of accidents on our highways was again booze — booze — the chap that wants to mix booze and gasoline, and it's a sad situation. However, you will be heartened to notice that those figures, compared to the ones in the previous year, have lessened a little but certainly not enough. It is funny how all these traffic accidents are somebody else's fault except the nut behind the wheel, and you'll find that report most interesting. Also you'll be aware that our various research plants, soil testing, etc., are in full operation and are in the process of having some expansion. If you haven't seen that operation down the street here from this building, perhaps you should.

I want to say to you that in two years as Minister I have enjoyed the most excellent co-operation from the staff and I hope they from me, and the results of our labours are in your constituency and I'm aware that your constituents appreciate it. I also know that it's your job to ask for more and more

[ Page 455 ]

and more all the time, and I know full well that you understand that we are bound by the limits of money voted to us by the Assembly. However, we try to keep our thinking five years ahead so that we have some adequate planning and could be ready for any situation relative to the development of roads.

At the close of the Session this evening, Mr. Speaker, I shall be filing the Aircraft Log for scrutiny of the members and the press. Let me say that the co-operation of the Highways Department is open to all members of this Assembly. We'd be delighted to have you come to our offices so that we could hear your problems from you, and I'm sure that your problems will be dealt with in a fine manner. If the answer is no, you'll be told it, and that may well be the answer. However, we're delighted to hear you and have you become acquainted with those people who direct the technical aspects of the Highways Department.

Mr. Speaker, one report was placed on your desks as you came into the House on the first day. This other report will be on your desks tomorrow morning, or tomorrow sometime, and you'll have the opportunity to make those assessments that M.L.A.'s should properly make in terms of their own constituency.

May I change the subject, Mr. Speaker, to one that is very dear to my heart, in that I should like to say a word or two relative to medicare. In this debate I had the opportunity of listening to a fine dissertation from the member for Lillooet — Yale-Lillooet — (applause), and I appreciated his remarks. I certainly didn't agree with some of them. Others, of course I did. However, let me say that when we speak of medicare I want you to know, despite all those things political that have been said against it over the years in this House and on the hustings, that the fact that this medical plan is so successful has given lie to their criticism. Most people in the House know perfectly well that it was called tin cup medicare. You know perfectly well that the initial Bill was voted against in principle. You know perfectly well that we doctored up the votes, so the criticism said. You know perfectly well that remarks were made by the then Leader of the Opposition that you will never get 150,000. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as of today, 99 plus per cent of the entire population of British Columbia is either in the over-all plan or the…. (applause) 99 plus per cent, some failure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Socialism.

MR. BLACK: I want to tell you, if it was socialism why didn't you vote for it in the first place. Sharpen your sword a little better than that. Oh, sharpen your sword a little better than that. You never got to me at all.

The only people, the best of my knowledge, that are left out are those who do not join any type of medical plan because of religious beliefs or those who are wealthy enough to have some other type of insurance. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's great irony — it was implied in this House and elsewhere that the Government has sort of dreamed up a little nightmare of its own and that there had been no planning. Yet, I want to tell you that the Government spent just about 12 years studying this plan, and when we say we have the best in the world, I honestly believe that that is so. The irony of the situation is, it is my understanding from Ottawa that a delegation from Sweden — ever heard that name before? — a delegation from Sweden is coming to Canada to study the medical plan, and I understand from good authority in Ottawa, that one of the first places that they are going to come to study our operation is British Columbia. I repeat, some failure! We are extremely proud of it.

You might be interested to know the honourable member opposite from Yale-Lillooet was incorrect the other day, in talking about the seven, I believe he said, or nine carriers. The facts of life are that there are four, and one of those is being phased out. We have the British Columbia Medical Plan, we have the Canadian Pacific Employees Medical Plan with C.U. and C. and M.S.A., and the C.P.R. or the Canadian Pacific people are phasing into M.S.A. shortly. The teachers have phased in, and the Fraser Valley have phased in, and so, what it amounts to is, as far as individuals are concerned that's covered by the over-all plan, the B.C. Medical Plan.

The others which are involved in group contracts, be they as a result of collective agreements, are covered under those plans. Here's some figures you might be interested in. This refers to persons. The number of persons covered by the B.C. Medical Plan is 889,989, and the Canadian Pacific Employees Medical Association 26,594. Now you can see, obviously, why it's being phased in. The C.U. and C. 197,945, and you can phase into theirs another 11,230, and M.S.A. 944,545. As you know, the Federal Government employees are phasing in as well. You'd be interested to know that the number of persons covered by the 90 per cent subsidy are 470,292. Those receiving the 50 per cent subsidy are 91,423. There were some remarks made here relative to our operating costs. Obviously, operating costs are extremely important, and one of the reasons for the melding into as few plans as we possibly can, was to cut down on the operating expense. Some of these plans, like C.U. and C. and M.S.A., are fully automated and so we melded fully automated plans and it has cut our cost down and the figure is around five per cent. There isn't any medical plan in Canada that can boast those low operating figures of five per cent.

This plan belongs to all of us. It belongs to this Government, to this Legislature, to all the people, and I want to say to you that hardly a day goes by when our people are not invited down to the United States to deliver lectures, to be guest speakers, etc., in relation to our plan and how it works, and I want to say this, because sometimes we hear disparaging remarks relative to the medical profession. I have dealt with a good many groups in my life and I can honestly say that I never had better co-operation in terms of developing the type of agreement that we have and in terms of making this plan work, than I've had from the medical profession itself.

Some remark was made by my honourable friend opposite, and I know not in a critical vent but rather as a suggestion. But we've beat them to the punch in referring to this — this is the card that the individual receives. As part of the debate my friend opposite, my colleague from Oak Bay, said that is discipline, and indeed it is. Because I tell you, that every time a subscriber who is a taxpayer and one of the owners of the plan sees something on their form that is not true, believe me, they write to us and believe me it is checked, because the medical profession and the Government are equally concerned about abuse. They certainly are, and I can say when it comes to abuse, the medical profession's Pattern of Practice Committee has given us excellent co-operation. If there are any of their people who are out of line, believe me they deal with them, and so the people in the Province, including the medical profession, have taken the attitude this belongs to all of us, we are all part of it, and

[ Page 456 ]

they want to see it work, and at the moment it is working well.

It is true that we are providing benefits under our plan that are not shared in by the Federal administration, and perhaps that day will come. Those of you who are interested, the Federal Government has just put out a report, true it only goes to March 31st, 1969. Here is excellent reading for you which will give you comparative figures between other provinces. I'm not going to bore you today by reading those comparative figures, but if you take a look and read that report in light of your plan, of which you should be justly proud, then we'll have some basis for argument. This is an excellent plan, we're proud of it, and I want to give credit where it is due to those, in its formative years, that made it the type of plan that it was. Mr. Stewart, the medical doctors, the medical profession, and they have worked hard. I don't want to imply that I've always agreed with the doctors or they with me, because that would be totally erroneous, but we've always come to harmonious, amicable relations, and always come out with the right answers. Their agreement will be coming due and coming up for review this year, and I know that they're in the process of preparing their submissions for that.

There is a good deal I could say relative to the Provincial Secretary's Department. I want to take two or three minutes, however, Mr. Speaker, to say a word about the contributory pension plans. Unfortunately, in this House and elsewhere there are too few people who know very much about contributory pension plans, even those people who contribute. They never seem to become interested in their own affairs until about two or three years before they want to retire, and then they become awfully interested, whereas they should have become interested 20 years prior to that. And there are those in the broader community who think that a pension plan is the be all and the end all. I want to assure you from the experience I've had here that indeed it is not, and that one who is on contributory schemes should have outside equities to balance off the hedge against inflation, and because it is an extremely difficult thing to do, to build into pension plans a hedge against inflation.

In the pension plans that we, in this Legislature, have under our jurisdiction, the right thing has been done. We have reviewed them and the story of the development of the pension plans here has been better than any province of Canada. There is new thinking, however, in relation to pension plans. Relative to funding, which is the pool of funds which supplies and develops the pensions there are those, I think foolishly, who are opposed to any funding. I think that is foolish. There are those that regard pension funds as trust funds and insist on 100 per cent equity. Now that perhaps is just as foolish as the other, but certainly better funding has been the watch-word of the trustees of this fund, of all of these funds, I should properly say.

I want to reiterate what the second member for Burrard said in his presentation just recently in dealing with the Municipal Superannuation Act. I want you to understand that we, as legislators, have really no authority to amend or adjust that Act without the concurrence of the employers and the employees, and we act as trustees for the fund. Those who are not aware of how it works, if you will look in your Estimates under the Municipal Superannuation Act, you will see that we are now at the position, I believe, if my memory serves me rightly, of $75,000 or $70,000. That's the Government's paying off at the rate of or reducing, rather, by $5,000 each year, that's why it's $5,000 less in each succeeding year to pay off the certificates of loan. It is true that somewhere down the line, I don't want to go into it today, and perhaps might describe during the Estimates, that somewhere down the line certain groups of employees were left out in the cold, and some of you — I won't mention any names here — have been receiving letters from time to time from some of those people who were caught in that squeeze, and set up a device whereby these people can go and make themselves known and their point of view known to employers and employees. I'd have to say this, without being nasty about it, that down the line the employer and the employee were equally to blame for leaving these folks out. Those of you who are M.L.A.'s, you should do everything — and on all sides of the House, — to try to persuade those local jurisdictions if they can't take a second look at this sort of thing. There is a long story attached to it. I would be happy to tell anybody on a confidential basis how it all happened. I don't feel, because it involves personalities, that I want to do it here.

In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would be most remiss if I didn't say anything about Centennial '71. You know, we hear a good deal these days about Canadian unity and perhaps what we watch over television, what we listen to by radio, what we read in the news media, gives us some cause to wonder. We in this Legislature, all of us, have expressed ourselves at one time or another in terms of that Canadian unity, and we are all for Canadian unity. We will never have a better opportunity than in '71 to reaffirm our stand as being part of this great nation, Canada, because it does celebrate our one-hundredth year in Confederation. Our people are fun-loving people. You know, all work and no play makes Jack a very dull boy, and

AN HON. MEMBER: Author! Author!

MR. BLACK: I believe it was you …and our people have come to realize that the tourist dollar in their community is a very important dollar to their economy. I can say that by the experiences we have had with other celebrations, we've had no problem whatsoever in setting up boards of directors of well-informed people, reads like Who's Who in British Columbia, and it is a delightful situation to see people come to the fore and willing to help with this situation. In your community we would prefer, although it's not absolutely necessary, that the local community develop something of a lasting nature for the Centennial '71 project. The grant system has all been outlined to them, and we look forward to a tremendous celebration. We want not only to invite in '71 just our own Canadian people, but indeed people from everywhere else in the world, to show them the wonderful world of British Columbia.

While I am just mentioning that, I could not pledge, during a previous debate when one of my colleagues, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard suggested for the entrance, or at least the approaches to Vancouver from the International Border, that perhaps we ought to plant tulip bulbs, or daffodils, I should say — daffodils. I would have given him some today, only those daffodil bulbs should have been planted in the fall, as you well know. But nevertheless, we think it's an excellent idea and I know that the honourable member has gone to great pains to get the support of those people in one organization and another, and municipal people. We think it's an excellent idea. You have our moral support, honourable member, and not only that, you may have our tangible support when we have an opportunity of

[ Page 457 ]

surveying the whole situation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I opened this afternoon in a light, facetious mood and I want to end in that mood.

AN HON. MEMBER: I checked. The dealer would have had a straight flush.

MR. BLACK: I want to tell you, there are two jokers in it too, my boy. Two jokers. Sharpen your sword a little better on me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I checked the edges, too.

MR. BLACK: Did you! Well, hold them up to the light — you'll find them all marked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! We'll have order in the galleries. (Disturbance and commotion)

MR. BLACK: Well, I just have to remark that…. I tell you, a British Columbia audience is the best audience in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not sure who's in charge.

MR. BLACK: Before you, Mr. Chairman, in a matter of days really now, will be the opportunity to express yourself relative to a Budget, and that Budget is certainly comparable to anything there is anywhere in the world. Certainly, when you have a look at those budgets that are being presented almost currently by other provinces of Canada it stands out over and beyond. I sometimes wonder, perhaps people in the Gallery sometimes, or members of the press, add up the demands of the Opposition in terms of dollars, just add them up for one Budget alone, and I am sure that you would almost double the Budget by the time you get those costs added up. I also will have to say, despite all the bickering and the insults that we've had to take over the years, really we don't care. We've operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Province is in good financial shape. You do have a Budget that can stand the inflationary trends provided that everybody cooperates. I say to you, ladies and gentlemen, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the choice is easy, all you have to do is support it, and judging by the way some of you fellows are spending the money over there, I don't doubt for a moment that you will vote for the Budget.

Now I said, I started on a facetious mood and I am going to end on one. Because at times I sit awfully near this microphone, and you know what happens here every day, I have to at times help various parsons. The other day I had to help one, and one of my friends opposite named me "The Bishop." So I have a little story to tell you. It's short. This is the story of when His Holiness the Pope visited Boston — he never really did, but it's the story — and the whole church community of his faith were all agog. Everybody wanted to help him, everybody wanted to see him, everybody wanted to do something for him, and the Cardinal in that area co-ordinated the things and said, "We got to start with first things first. Pasqualli, you have been a bellhop in these hotels for almost 40 years, Guiseppe you've been about 30 years. Now you two fellows, the first thing you do is to get his gear up to his room on the twenty-second floor." They never realized he had so much equipment, and it took them goodness knows how long to get it up there, and when they got down to their little room downstairs Pasqualli said to Guiseppe, he said, "Gasep, you're givin' me my half of tip, please." And Guiseppe said, "Pasqualli, I'm not a getting any tip." "What you talking about?" "I'm not getting no tip, His Holiness is giving me nothing," he said. "Santa Maria," he said, "I belong da church of Roma for 65 years and my grandaddy 74, 80 years, and my greata-grandaddy 83 years, and His Holiness has given you no tip?" He said, "No, he give me nothing." He said, "I tella you what to do. You go uppa the twenty-second floor, and you say, 'Please Your Holiness, please give me tip for my friend Pasqualli and me.' " And away he goes, and he comes back in about seven minutes, and Pasqualli says, "Guiseppe, you gotta a tip?" He says, "Yes, I got tip." He says, "Givva me my haffa, please." And he says, "You really wanta your half?" He says, "Sure I wanta my half." He says, "There's your half." Mr. Speaker, as it's so appropriate for a bishop — bless you, my boy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the honourable the Minister of Highways for his blessing. I hope it will be in a more tangible form than justice in the House. I must say, with all respect, that I am forced by Standing Order 30 to remove the head adornment that he so kindly gave to me as soon as I stand up, but I hope to put it down at the end of my remarks, to put it on my head again. Now I'm….

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll need it.

MR. DOWDING: Yes, I'll need it. I'm going to say a few things that need to be said. First of all, it is obvious that the people in the galleries no longer know who the Government is. After the Minister had finished his remarks, the honest impression was that the Leader of the Opposition is running the affairs of British Columbia, and I think the least you could do is move over and let us on that side of the House.

Now there are some things that were said by the Minister that really took me aback. One of them, of course, was the fact that he seemed to think that the applause that he was getting when he first stood up had something to do with his personal accomplishments. But to the new members of the House, I want to remind them that the Minister who just spoke previously was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he never got that kind of applause then. Before that, he was the Minister of Health, and he never got that kind of applause then, far from it. Before that he was the Minister of Social Welfare, and he never got that kind of applause then either, and I can only attribute it to his office. Suddenly everyone has realized he's the Minister of Highways, and they are all waiting for the goodies in the Budget in the Highways Department, and it's so many roads to worry about.

Now I want to point out also, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has adopted a new policy and I welcome this policy. He has stated that henceforward there will be no lack of cooperation with the local officials throughout the Province. Well, if I ever heard an attack on the previous administration — that must be it, and it's true. In view of the fact that we have a new spirit of cooperation between this Government and the Department of Highways and local officials of municipalities, I want the Minister to know that we welcome that pronouncement, and the first thing I want him to consider is some cooperation with the Municipality of Burnaby. Now, there are two areas where there is shared

[ Page 458 ]

responsibility on highways in Burnaby. The first of those is the problem on Hastings Street in Burnaby, where the municipality for several years now has obtained the property needed to widen Hastings Street from the present narrowed portion that is causing considerable traffic problem. I hope and trust that now the Minister will perform the deeds for which his words were the author, and that they will cooperate with Burnaby to see that the new widened highways are paved along Hastings Street. The second thing I would like to see is that the Provincial Government will cooperate with Burnaby in regard to the relocation of Marine Drive. For those of you who know Vancouver, they will know that one of the real traffic hazards and pile-up of traffic occurs on Marine Drive, as soon as you get to Burnaby from Vancouver. Vancouver has agreed with Burnaby for many years to widen Marine Drive and relocate it down on the flats at Boundary Road, and Vancouver has done its part in widening Marine Drive right to Kerr Road. They're waiting for this Provincial Government and the municipalities, together in cooperation, to relocate Marine Drive and it is vitally needed at this time. So there again, we have a promise from the Minister of cooperation.

There was something else that struck me as strange in his speech, aside from the goodies he presented across the floor, and that was this question of the situation in regard to the Highways Department in its policies throughout the Province. He says that we must distribute the Highways Budget in such a way that the whole of the Province develops, but to a great extent he has neglected the urban areas in that consideration and I would like to see him give more thought to it. Earlier in this House I raised the question of traffic noise, which is becoming a most serious problem in urban areas, and he and his department had a vital place in suppressing that traffic noise by what they do in regard to the highways and the truck routes, particularly throughout urban areas.

Another thing he said that I thought was strange, he indicated that the Opposition did not support the Government's medicare programme, their original legislation. Well, for those of you who were not here at the time, I think you should be told that when the Government originally brought in its medicare programme it was so limited, it was with no regard for Federal participation, it could only be called tin cup medicare, and that's what we named it. That's right. And I want to tell you something else. We were the ones who proposed the scheme which is presently in effect….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh…. oh!

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I detect a note of incredulity. I detect some skepticism over there. Do I have to call upon witnesses who are no longer here in the House for an objective opinion about what happened in 1963? Can't I rely on these Ministers to nod their heads when I say that? What's happened here? Mr. Speaker, it's getting dangerous to recall these things without a tape, and it's too late now to have a tape recording of what happened in those days around 1963. However, I will stifle that incredulity immediately by calling on my first witness, and that's Eric Martin. Eric Martin, you remember him? Mr. Speaker, he was the Minister of Health of this Government.

MR. D. BARRETT: They even forgot to introduce him on Budget Day.

MR. DOWDING: No wonder they wanted to forget him on Budget Day. Here's what he said in 1963. This is in the Nanaimo Free Press. "Health Minister Eric Martin said Thursday night he is in favour of an all-inclusive medicare plan that would include everything from laboratory tests to home-nursing and mental health services." Now remember, at this time we had the tin cup medicare, not the socialist plan, not our plan. In fact, at that time they hadn't even implemented what they had proposed, Mr. Speaker, but it was tin cup what they were proposing. Now, anyway, Mr. Martin went on to say "He told an all-party September 30th election debate on medicare that he is in complete agreement with the New Democratic party on medicare, but he added he would like to see Federal participation in a much broader programme. He said, 'B.C. now is in a financial position to go it alone on the limited medicare programme proposed by the N.D.P., but I am looking for a much broader base of protection. I am working to have the Federal Government a partner.'" Then he goes on to say that, "In Victoria earlier Thursday, Premier Bennett told a press conference the only way a medicare plan would work is with Federal cooperation, and that the N.D.P. plan estimated by that party to cost $60,000,000, would actually cost five times as much." Imagine saying that, it wasn't true. Then Mr. Martin goes on to say, "I'm in complete agreement with the N.D.P. on medicare, only the plan must be all-inclusive." Now why, Mr. Speaker, should I have to call on a witness outside this House? Here the Ministers are. They were here then. Why do they have to laugh and scoff when they know that Mr. Martin was telling the truth? They've got convenient memories — convenient political memories. That's what it comes to.

MR. BARRETT: Even when he was in the gallery you forgot him. Shame!

MR. DOWDING: Now there is another thing. I listened the other day to the new member for Revelstoke-Slocan telling us all about the history of parliament. I certainly appreciated that lecture from him, because if there is anything members, particularly new members, should do it's to study the history of parliament to gain a respect for this august chamber and this institution. But you know, he really should have looked a little further. Of course, I rounded up all the books so that he couldn't get them, but when it comes….

AN HON. MEMBER: What member?

MR. DOWDING: ….the member from Revelstoke-Slocan…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh the new member? Oh!

MR. DOWDING: …and he told us about what he thought the history of why we don't allow the spectators to write notes in the gallery or report on what happens here, and how even the press was barred from the debates in the House, and there was no record to the House and, you know, he really didn't look into the subject. The fact of the matter is, that the principal reason why no note-taking was allowed in the parliament, and why there was no press allowed, and why there was no Hansard is simple — they were afraid of the power of the Crown. In fact, before the sixteenth century, before the Commons would meet to debate anything relating to the affairs of the state, they insisted on searching anyone who came into the Chamber and when they left the Chamber. Even members were not permitted to take notes out of the Chamber. Why? Because those notes might get to

[ Page 459 ]

the King, and that might incur the displeasure of the King. One good example of that was in 1641 where it was called a breach of privilege for a member to deliver out a copy or notes of anything that was brought into the House or propounded or agitated there. In the very next year, Sir Edward Dearing published a collection of speeches which he had made in the House. It was innocently done. Nevertheless, a resolution was solemnly passed by the House ordering the book to be publicly burned by the common hangman, and committed Dearing to the Tower. The reason, of course, was that they had, on several occasions, had their members reported to the King and two of them in particular were sent to gaol or sent to the Tower, and we have the notable cases of Pym and Hampton who earlier had suffered the displeasures of the King. This was the reason, really, why note-taking was not permitted in the galleries nor indeed the Press.

One of the most significant things that happened was in, I think, 1831 when the Chancellor was going through the corridors in parliament. Up until this time the press were not recognized as being there, and they used to have to sit or stand in the very back row of the Speaker's Gallery where it was dark and they couldn't see, and try to write by whatever means they could and sneak their notes out of the House. That particular year the Chancellor, by accident, brushed against a reporter and all his notes fell on the floor in the corridor all over the Chancellor. He picked them up, handed them to the reporter, and from that day on everything was changed, because that very day they opened up the Press Gallery, they provided seats for them where they could work, and that was the start of the reporting of the debates of Parliament by the press itself officially in the House. And it's something to remember, that traditions that are based on caution and common sense should only survive so long as the reasons exist for that caution.

It wasn't long, Mr. Speaker, before the people who were in the House of Commons began to like the sound of their names in print, and they were only too happy to have the press there, and I think it improved many of the debates, and you might say it's the same reason we had a Hansard, and I won't go into that at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the year?

MR. DOWDING: 1831, when they officially recognized the press in the Press Gallery, although they had been there for many years.

But one of the amusing things about it was Dr. Johnson, Samuel Johnson, who was employed as a parliamentary reporter for "The Gentlemen's Magazine," and his version of the debates made the oratorical reputation of some of the statesmen of the eighteenth century. "The eloquence of Greece and Rome is revived in the British Senate," said Voltaire. He had probably read some of Johnson's reports, and these reports were written by Johnson in a garret off the Strand, and he said, without ever having been down to the House of Commons, and possessed of no more material than the names of the speakers and a few notes supplied by a chap named Cave. Johnson also told Boswell that he took care that "The Whig dogs should not have the best of it," with all apologies to the Whigs here, a saying which explains the thing that greatly puzzled Sir Robert Walpole, the Whig. He said he had read professed debates of the House, "wherein all the wit, learning and argument appeared on one side, and on the other nothing was shown but was low, mean, and ridiculous," and yet, strange to say, the division had gone against the side which, according to the report, had reason and justice to support it. Just like this House. That book I was reading is, "The Pageant of Parliament" by McDonnaugh, and it's well worth reading. It has some interesting things about the history of parliament that I hope the new members will read, and some of the older ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a question period?

MR. DOWDING: Well, they have a question period, you know, in nearly every House of Commons and Legislature in the free world where there's a Commonwealth form of Parliament, except here. The strange thing is, the question period started in the House of Commons in Westminster at the time of the South Sea Bubble, and some member was looking for the promoters who had swindled thousands of people of millions of dollars, or pounds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Commonwealth Society.

MR. DOWDING: Just a minute, don't help me out. So it's a very strange thing about the history of the question period, because a member wanted to know what the Government had done about this promoter. He had fled overseas.

AN HON. MEMBER: To the Bahamas.

MR. DOWDING: No, not the Bahamas. So the strange thing, Mr. Speaker, is although the Government for many centuries had been opposed to any question period, suddenly they were converted overnight. They couldn't wait to answer the question to get themselves off the hook. And this happened in this House recently — last year. We had the Minister concerned, the Attorney-General, actually interrupting the debate, hurrying to tell us that he wasn't responsible for the Commonwealth mess, and reading out what the Government was doing about it, and I couldn't help but think, "Visions of 1807."

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): I had leave of the House.

MR. DOWDING: Yes you did. Yes you did, and you'll get leave of this side of the House any time you want to answer questions. Not just during your Estimates, but throughout the parliamentary session. Every day. We will never deny you leave to answer our questions.

Now some of the debate — I'm not going to deal with all the subjects of motherhood that the honourable the second member for Little Mountain did, and inside of, I would say, the space of three minutes, she covered every base. She talked about the flag, she talked about what the Federal Government was doing about the institution of the Crown, she talked about old age and motherhood, she talked about the fact that this is now a religious state in British Columbia, apparently, she talked about smoking. There was nothing that was left unsaid that I could possibly say in that field. So I'm going to go on to other more important subjects that she has missed.

Now I agreed, during this debate, with the honourable member for Richmond. He indicated that there should be a law passed by this House, a law that allows a person who is apprehended by the police immediate access to a telephone, and I agree 100 per cent. He cited one example of a mother

[ Page 460 ]

that was picked up, the police decided they weren't satisfied with her answers, they took her to a lock-up and then they held her there incommunicado all night. Another case recently that I know of was a young man from Seattle went shopping in Vancouver before Christmas. He had $200 on him, he went into a store, he bought some cuff links. He'd bought some cuff links at another jewelery place and he was buying a lot of them for his friends as fairly economical gifts — you know — $2, $3 cuff links. He had a bag of them and he bought some more. He was picked up, he was arrested, charged with shoplifting, sent down to the lock-up with the Vancouver City Police and he was kept there overnight, although he had enough money that he could have been brought before a Justice of the Peace and let out on bail immediately, because bail for that, generally speaking, would be about $50, $100 at the most. When the trial came up he was acquitted without even having to take the witness stand, but he was denied the right, all through that twenty hours that he spent incarcerated, of reaching a telephone, reaching his friends or his relatives or a lawyer. To me, I think that's despicable, absolutely despicable. It's the sort of thing that makes the citizen wonder what's the matter with the police, and there can be no logical explanation for it. That happened just before Christmas, November the 29th or thereabouts, and his trial was sometime in January, the first, week of January, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Report it to the Attorney-General now.

MR. DOWDING: I certainly will, yes I will. The thing that's disturbing about it was that this man had no reason to be locked up and kept locked up, and at least he should have had the right to reach somebody, and he was denied that right. He's back in Seattle, but it wasn't a particularly pleasant interlude in Canada for him, and in the United States, you know, you are by their Constitution given the right of access to counsel. They can't deny you that although they used to years ago, but today it's improved considerably there, and I hope it will be so in British Columbia. If it means that this House has to pass a law that, in effect, is punitive on police officers or gaolers who deny citizens that right, then pass it, pass it.

Now I didn't agree, I must say with all respect, to the statements that were made by the honourable the member for Esquimalt — I don't know whether I should put my hat on now or not — but I just wanted to say that it serves no useful purpose to use a tar brush on a whole community, and in the case that I am referring to it was his statements in regard to the affairs at Simon Fraser. He left the distinct impression in this House that all students must be blamed for the uprising that occurred there over a year ago, for the protests that arose there, and he was blaming also the professors at Simon Fraser. Then he went further, he went further, and tried to attribute some blame to this group.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ask the Speaker. He'll tell you.

MR. DOWDING: Now that can only constitute an attack without any foundation, without any proof, on a very large community of people, and to say a thing like that outside the House could have very serious repercussions for him, because he is suggesting that certain individuals were guilty of counselling a criminal offence. I'll tell you I, for one, when all this started at Simon Fraser, warned these young people not to do anything precipitous, not to involve themselves in any disobedience to the authority at Simon Fraser in regard to the plan that they apparently were invoking…. When this happened, after they were sitting in there and the Attorney-General was about to do something, when they were sitting in the offices there, some of the group that were not in there appealed to me to help these people. I said no, they are making a mistake, they should get out, they're only breaking the law. Now if you know differently, you say it, say it somewhere. I don't appreciate the member for Esquimalt who knows nothing about these things making these broad statements without any foundation or substance to them. In any case it is no way to solve the problems that exist.

We have taken this position, which I think is the right position, that it is not up to the members of this House to interfere in university affairs by any intervention. The reason is that we in this House have decided that the universities are independent, and I do not, for one, want this Government taking over the universities. I don't want those universities to be simply a creature of the Minister of Finance or any department of Government. I want them to be free universities, and that's why I restrained myself from any intervention in their internal affairs. I may come here and talk about necessary amendments to the University Act, and we all should think about them, but I don't think it's right to attribute any intervention on the part of members of this House where it doesn't exist. After all, we have decided that they will have their internal government, their internal government.

Now too often in this House there is a general condemnation of ideas. I heard it last night when the Minister of Public Works was talking. I defended him in this House. Somebody had said that he was old-fashioned. I disputed that. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you this, that no man is any older than the ideas that he espouses, and if anyone says to me that the Premier is getting on, I'll tell you this — he's a lot younger than some of the ideas around here I've heard over the years, a lot younger in his ideas.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what your Leader said.

MR. DOWDING: I make my own mind up. You, my friend, you my friend, you are used to being obedient to everything, aren't you? You have no ideas of your own, just what is given to you from the front bench. But I want to tell you that I was shocked and a little surprised to find that the Minister of Public Works was using as his Bible, Marx and the Communist Manifesto of 1848, because that has destroyed my theory about his ideas. Apparently there's something that everyone should know, that Major Douglas gained most of his ideas about economics from Marx, which I found surprising, and about capital. It's amazing, amazing. But somehow you and Marx separated on some of your ideas.

But when I hear the attack on ideas in this House by some of these members it reminds me of something that I read in, of all places, the Royal Bank of Canada monthly letter of January, 1970 — just issued. Yes, I want to read this to you. In this book, "The State versus Socrates," John D. Montgomery writes, "When the Athenians condemned Socrates to die because of his ideas, they placed themselves forever on trial." And they did. Then in this newsletter it goes on to set out the disputes, how Socrates never wrote anything that we have read directly, and he never caused anything, but he will live as long as the human race lives, and his ideas will live, and the things for which he stood and for

[ Page 461 ]

which he had to drink the hemlock, they live, long after we are gone. He put his truth down to the inevitable test of his life. Very few people in this society are prepared to do that on their ideas or their truths. You might say that the ideas of those who are so swift to condemn new ideas or new truths or prepared to reject and smear those who are different. "Those people," says the Royal Bank of Canada's letter, even in this advanced age, are driving through life with their windscreens so clouded with prejudice and bigotry, that they are dangerous drivers. Dangerous to others as well as to themselves. Moreover, they are seeing little of the beauties in life." (applause)

AN HON. MEMBER: I never thought I'd applaud the Royal Bank.

MR. DOWDING: The next thing I want to mention is the statements made by the Minister without Portfolio from North Okanagan. Now this Minister gave the impression to the House that the Mayor of Vernon, a very fine mayor with very fine ideas, that somehow he would welcome any kind of economic development in the Vernon area.

HON. PATRICIA J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): No, I didn't say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you sure did.

MR. DOWDING: Oh, yes, you did. You waved an ad — she waved an ad, Mr. Speaker, which indicated that any industry was welcome in Vernon. But I checked the Vernon News and I find that Mayor Helena, who is a good New Democrat, incidentally, according to the Minister, and the Vernon City Council opposed the building of a pulp mill in the Okanagan Valley. They can see no satisfactory solution for the disposal of pulp effluent, and none has been found, and no one has been able to devise any means for removing the stench or toxic pollutants from pulp mill fumes. The prospect of air and water pollution far outweigh any economic gain a pulp mill would bring to the Vernon area. Now the view they took and other people in Vernon take — and a great public uprising is involved in this — their view of that to improve their economy they believe in a careful development of their tourist resources and the preservation of the beauty of the Okanagan for everyone to enjoy. That is included in an editorial of The Vernon News, February 12th, and they are anxious to see Crown Zellerbach go somewhere else. Now, to show you the confusion of this Government and the Minister in charge of pollution, on the front page of The Vernon News of February 5th of this year, we have a statement from the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources which says, "Pulp Mill would be a boon, says Williston." Then read what he says, "In a telephone interview, Resource Minister Ray Williston personally favours a pulp mill in the North Okanagan. 'Quite frankly, my opinion in the final analysis is the opinion of the area,' he said. Then he said, 'I'm not saying a blinking thing.'" That's not unusual. Then he goes on, "But he felt that from the standpoint of economics and resource utilization pulp mill would be a boon to the area. The Minister stressed the main population centres would not be good locations for such a mill. 'Certainly you can't put it down in the Okanagan Valley itself along the lakeshore or they would stone you.'" They sure would. He would need this hat. "'It must be away from the dense business areas'" Now I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, he has just finished saying he is not saying a blinking thing, then read what he says here. He said, "'It must be away from the dense business areas,' he continued, suggesting around Enderby might be a good location. 'Such a site would allow people to live and do business in centres such as Salmon Arm, Vernon, and Armstrong, while still reaping the economic benefits, he felt. 'It can be put in without detrimental pollution in the area, but when I tell people that, they don't believe me.'" Well, now. Well, now. What kind of a statement is that?

HON. P.J. JORDAN: Point of order.

MR. DOWDING: It had better be.

MRS. JORDAN: The editor of our Vernon News is a card-carrying N.D.P. member too, and I was with the Minister when he said that, and he was misquoted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DOWDING: ….some of the things that we have had in the way of interruptions from that member. She stands up on the representation to this House — just a minute — representation of this House that she has a point of order, and when she stands up she knows she hasn't a point of order. Do you mean to say that that is a point of order? Then you must study the rules some more. Because I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, that is an abuse of the House, to say you have a point of order when you don't. I think somebody should talk to her about the rules.

But anyway, I want to point something out to the Minister that she had better fight against that pulp mill because it is going to destroy the finest tourist area in our Province, if it ever gets there. Whether it be in Enderby or in Armstrong, Shuswap or in Vernon, or anywhere in those valleys. Anybody who has flown over that area during the forest fire season will vouch for the fact that the effluent from a pulp mill or the fumes from a forest fire will float and permeate every valley in the central interior for miles and miles. I have been on flights over that area where a forest fire was 20 miles or 30 miles from Revelstoke, and you could see the smoke as you cross over the Shuswap Lake. It is incredible. With the inversion of the air in the summer particularly, you get floating through these valleys all the fumes and the stench from these pulp mills that will last there and build up and build up, until it will become a reeking stench pot all through the finest playground and tourist area in our Province. Anyone who is so foolish as to repeat what was done in Kamloops in regard to the location of a pulp mill is absolutely mad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your senior member just advocated one at Cowichan Bay.

MR. DOWDING: There is one there now. Not at Cowichan. Obviously, the member is not listening to the debate. The honourable the member for Cowichan-Malahat, Mr. Speaker, as you know — you were there, you remember — said that they didn't want it at Cowichan Bay, and here the honourable member turns it right around to the opposite. Incredible. There must be something about….

AN HON. MEMBER: ….between Cowichan Bay and Cowichan Lake.

MR. DOWDING: You know, Mr. Speaker, there must be

[ Page 462 ]

an inversion layer half way across the Chamber. Nothing seems to get through.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Hot air.

MR. DOWDING: There we have it. My protest at a pulp mill at Vernon is termed and labelled by the Minister of Welfare as hot air. But it isn't polluted. Well, now….

Mr. Speaker, this question of the whole of the problem of pollution control, the whole problem of pollution control…. I would like to get on with it when the Minister of Welfare is finished. One thing about the whole problem of pollution control and why we have this difficulty with Government and why local areas are in constant dread that decisions are going to be made in Victoria that affect the tourist industry, recreation, the beauty of some of our magnificent areas of British Columbia, is because this Government refuses to put pollution and environmental control under the chair of a Minister dedicated to protecting British Columbia. You insist on having the Departments of Agriculture, and of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, involved in decision-making as to the whole question of pollution control. The Minister of Lands and Forests has made it clear time after time that when it comes to decisions on pollution, the factory comes first. Pollution comes first if it means industry, and that is his attitude.

Now to compound the problem, we have this curious involved procedure called a Pollution Control Board, which is really the weirdest thing that has ever happened to British Columbia. When somebody wants to apply, on a question of any application on pollution, they have to apply to the Director of Pollution Control. He reviews the matter, sends it to the Departments of Agriculture, Health, Recreation and Conservation, and Water Resources, advertises in the local press, and if there are any objections there may be a public hearing held by the Pollution Control Board. The recommendations from these departments then go to the Director of Pollution Control, and then he makes a decision to refuse or grant permit. His decision may be appealed to the Pollution Control Board, and have possible public hearings. From there, there is provision for a further appeal provided by legislation.

Well, when you look at the matter, Mr. Speaker, you find that who is on the Pollution Control Board. Talk about a muddle — they have got the three main Ministers I referred to, three Ministers have joined it. They are the Minister of Lands and Forests, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and they are on the Cabinet's pollution control committee. Now they are to combine the actions of the Executive Council's pollution control committee with the Pollution Control Board to ensure co-ordination, in the public interest, of actions and responsibilities of those departments most directly concerned with pollution abatement. Can you imagine what happens when you have a meeting of that body with the Deputy Ministers? Are the civil servants going to over-rule the Ministers? What if they have a conflict on that Board? Who wins? Well, can you see a Deputy Minister out-voting a Minister, or in fact, departing from the decision of the Minister?

What this has done is thrown what should be administrative matters right into the field of politics within the Cabinet. That's what it's done. It is a very dangerous course. It's like they say about war — it is too dangerous to leave to the generals. That's why Harry Truman had to make some changes in Korea in 1951. But here you are — you put the generals in with the politicians in one bag and they are supposed to sort it out together, but the generals are under the politicians, and can you imagine appealing from that mixed bag if you were somebody who was affected by the determination of the Pollution Control Board? Why, it would be the biggest mess of politics you ever saw, the most dangerous thing that could have been conceived by this Government. Nothing objective about it. Nothing impartial about it. Nothing semi-judicial about it. It is a political bag with all sorts of countervailing forces, the worst of which is that Civil Service is forced to vote for or against decisions of their Ministers right in the same Board. I think it is ridiculous.

Who is on the Board? We have Mr. McKinnon of the Department of Forests, Chairman. Mr. Peck of the Department of Mines. Two representatives from Health and Recreation, and then Dr. MacKenzie from U.B.C. and Dr. Taylor, I believe, from the Health Department. Mr. McKinnon, I understand, resigned last year. So that in facing the problems of the 70's we've got a most peculiar instrument to try to protect British Columbians and I say it won't work. I say it is time that the Government took another look at what they are doing on the whole subject of pollution.

Now I want to raise, in that regard, another matter that has been discussed before in this House, and I am going to suggest that there are some new solutions to this problem of the Skagit Valley. I was under the impression, after listening to the honourable member for North Vancouver–Capilano in his impassioned plea to this Government to stop the flooding of Skagit Valley, and the destruction of that lower land that would lead to a flooding of over 6,000 acres, that is solely the responsibility of this Government, and this Government alone could stop it, other than the Federal power people in the United States. Well, I found a different solution to the problem that I am going to commend to the House and to the public in British Columbia.

First, let me outline the situation on the Skagit Valley and the present dam that exists there called the Ross Dam. The City of Seattle applied to the International Joint Commission in 1941 for approval to raise the Ross Dam on the Skagit River in the State of Washington by stages, so that it would ultimately impound the Skagit River water to a maximum elevation of 1,725 feet above mean sea level at the International Boundary. The International Joint Commission approved the application on January 27th, 1942. One of the conditions of the Commission's approval was that the Ross Dam would not be raised beyond the height at which the impounded water would flood British Columbia territory unless and until a binding agreement was entered into between the City of Seattle and the Government of British Columbia providing for the indemnification of British Columbia's interests. In 1954 the first of a series of interim agreements of this type between the City of Seattle and the Province of British Columbia was entered into, permitting the raising of the Ross Dam to the 1,600 foot level, which did not involve substantial flooding of Canadian land. Finally, on January 10th, 1967, the City and the Province concluded a long-term 99-year agreement impounding the Skagit River waters to a maximum elevation of 1,725 feet at the International Boundary, with the substantial flooding of Canadian land in the Skagit River area of British Columbia. Now that was the situation.

However, before construction of this project can begin, the City of Seattle is required to apply to two places. First, it

[ Page 463 ]

has to comply with American regulations, and in that regard it has to apply to the United States Federal Power Commission for either a new licence or an amendment to the existing licence to authorize the raising of the Ross Dam, with its consequential flooding of additional United States territory as well as Canadian lands. It is expected that the Federal Power Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings some time this year, and considerable time elapses between those hearings and the decision by the Federal Power Commission. So we have some time in regard to that application.

But here is something else that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano forgets. Under the International River Improvement Act which was passed by the Liberal Government back in 1955, I believe it was, that year they passed this Act, did Ottawa, which provides that no Province, or any other authority, could interfere with an international river without first applying for permission to the Federal Government.

Here we have the Liberals, Federally, with the legislative power to stop this right in its tracks today, and here we have the Liberal members of this House trying to tell us we have got to do something about it. Why haven't they been talking to Ottawa? Why haven't they been asking the public of British Columbia to direct their appeals to Mr. Greene in Ottawa? They've been trying to blame it on you. Yes, they've been trying to suggest that you have the responsibility in this matter, but you don't. You have no more responsibility on this now than you had on the Kaiser deal on the Columbia River at Arrow Lakes. You have no more responsibility. It's in the hands of the Federal Government. Before the City of Seattle can proceed to raise that dam, they must get the permission of the Federal Government, and particularly of the Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources.

I'm asking those members to get an assurance from Mr. Greene immediately. They know the folly of flooding that land, they told us of that folly. They have sent and distributed to us all sorts of petitions for the public to sign. We see us doomed to lose the Skagit Valley, a tragic and unnecessary loss unless we all act now. Well, I am calling on them to act now. I'm calling on them to get in touch with Mr. Greene and see that he stops it. I also ask this Government to get in touch with Mr. Greene, and ask him to stop it because, remember this, the City of Seattle still has to apply to the Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources for a permit or an exemption under the International River Improvement Act, by reason of the fact that the flooding will create a reservoir on Canadian territory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote the letter?

MR. DOWDING: Who wrote the letter? I was reading from a letter from the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, the Minister of External Affairs, dated February 13th, 1970.

Now it's very fortunate that Mr. Sharp has brought this whole thing into focus, and made it clear whose responsibility it is to protect the Skagit Valley, and I say for one, Mr. Speaker, that that valley should be protected. I can recall in this House hearing the former Attorney-General and Minister of Trade and Industry as he was, telling us about the growth of the lower mainland region and what the population would be there by the 1980's and the 1990's, and by 2000, the millions of people that would be flooding into that area and building in that area and living in apartments and highrises. If we have any sense we will reserve to those people and future generations, in fact just the next couple of decades, some of these precious recreational areas that are close to that region. If ever there is an area that will be used for recreation it will be the Skagit Valley if we preserve it, and I say we must preserve it.

Now, there is another question I'd like answered by the Minister of Recreation when he gets around to it, and that is something that I noticed in a newspaper in Kamloops, an article by George Smith on Divide Lake. In that article he suggests that Charles Mitchell, the Secretary of the Mining Association of B.C., stated that the proposal to drain Divide Lake was made to the industry by the Government, and I'd like him to tell us, when the time comes in his Estimates, if this is true. Whether this Government proposed the draining of Divide Lake and proposed that the industry drain it and pay them $50,000 to apply at Lac Le Jeune Park. If that is true, I think the House should have a full statement from the Minister on that subject, because far from it being an application, according to Mr. Mitchell, by the Bethlehem Copper interests to this Government, he's saying, in effect it was the reverse, and I'd like that cleared up in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. DOWDING: Now, I think we all welcome the return of the Premier from Ottawa and I think we also….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he return?

MR. DOWDING: Yes, he's back. He came in. He's back, but there is something that did sound a little perturbing about what he had to say when he got back, and that was that this Province is going through — this country, is the way I think he put it — is going through a recession. That we are in a recession.

AN HON. MEMBER: It didn't say that in the Budget.

MR. DOWDING: No, as a matter of fact you'd never know, from the Budget, that it was the same man talking, and I'll tell you something else, that his Budget in no way reflects the opinions that he expressed in Ottawa or that the Provincial Premiers and the Federal Prime Minister expressed in Ottawa.

When you look at this Budget the last thing you could say about it is that it is anti-inflationary. The expenditures are going to be up 14½ per cent. That certainly cannot be said to be anti-inflationary. When you look at the Bills that are before the House, and the authorized borrowing powers, you cannot suggest that part of the Budget is in any sense anti-inflationary. We have heard nothing, Mr. Speaker, from this Government about cutting back on some of the large capital projects that are not necessary at this time. I can understand and applaud a Government spending money during an inflationary period on essential services like schools and hospitals. That's essential, but it is a far different thing, Mr. Speaker, to talk about building a 50 or $60,000,000 building in Vancouver to the greater glory of the Premier at a time like this. Those are the expenditures where the line must be held, in my opinion, at this time.

Now, in looking at the reports from Ottawa, it appears that the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission want a voluntary price restraint pledged by industry, business, and the financial institutions, and apparently there have been matching promises by the Federal

[ Page 464 ]

and Provincial Governments to hold the cost-price line. Well, of course, you know right away our Budget ignores that. Next, they say that there must be a parallel performance by labour. Well, I don't think we'd quarrel with that, if business restricts itself and denies itself increases in prices, and in industry, in business, financial institutions. We would all agree that the whole economy should do the same.

But there is one thing you forget. If it's voluntary price restraint or voluntary profit restraint — would you rely on MacMillan Bloedel to do that, in the light of what they did last year, what they did to the people of British Columbia on the prices of lumber? I have still got here some of the statements about that lumber price rise. When the I.W.A. two years ago was commended in every newspaper editorial, and by many people in this House, for voluntary restraint on its wage contract two years ago, they were called statesmen. They were statesmen, and they did it on the understanding that business would show the same restraint. Did they? They did not.

Look at the item of February 19th, 1969, in the Province. "Lumber prices zoom up, up, up." Why? You know why. There was a shortage of logs, and there was heavy snow, and they took the public for the biggest ride you ever saw, and the prices went up. Just read the item. "An unprecedented log shortage. Spiraling prices for all types of lumber, and the possibility of cut-backs in home building and general construction in the next few weeks." That's a year ago. "That an unpromising situation faces B.C. as a result of the big winter freeze-up." In other words, it was a policy of the lumber giants in this Province to take advantage of the weather to stick it to the people, and they did it. They squeezed the economy for every nickel and dime and dollar they could get. That's good citizenship? Certainly not. Now…. The member defends that, he defends that. Do you disagree with the Premier and his cry for voluntary restraint, or do you side with the big companies?

But the fact of the matter is this, and this is what you always forget. When the I.W.A. or any other union goes in to sign a contract for two years, they are having to gamble that prices and rents and the economy is going to be the same two years from now as when they signed the contract, because they're committed to it. Business is never committed to it. Do you know any of these used car dealers in the House, who would agree to sell you a car two years from now at a price you set today? Not a bit of it. They don't know what's going to happen to steel. They don't know what's going to happen to their supplies and equipment. They have no idea.

It's all very well to talk about voluntary restraints, but when the trade union sits down at the table and bargains and signs a contract, that isn't voluntary any more, they sign an agreement they must stick to by law. Now, can you understand why the trade unions are reluctant to talk about voluntary restraint, with their experience of statesmanship two years ago? You thought they were wonderful then, and they were. They showed restraint, but what did those people they bargained with do? They practically ruined the trade union movement with the increases. The movement of prices, rents, everything's gone up 25 per cent in some areas. So no wonder they have been once bitten, twice shy.

Now, I want to point out that the Premier has stated, according to the Colonist today and according to Mr. Harry Young, the business editor, "Premier W.A.C. Bennett says more than half of Canada is already in a recession." I want to point out, also, that that point of view is certainly shown in the monthly economic letter from the First National City Bank of New York. In their February, 1970 issue, the first words in it say this, "There is no longer any doubt that the economy is slumping. It has been at least since October. The appropriate concern, rather, is over the duration of the decline and the vigour of the ultimate rebound in business. If the slide lasts through April or May economists, with their somewhat arbitrary definitions, will call it a recession." Do we see any mention of this in the Budget? Not a bit. We've heard of it from his meeting in Ottawa, and I say that the Budget Speech is singularly lacking in information about the opinions of the Premier about the state of the economy, and what he is saying in Ottawa is what he should have been saying here in this House.

Now the question is, how do we fight inflation when it is pretty obvious that you have to have some control over the economy or the decisions in the economy, to have any control over inflation? But you know, the way some people, particularly the Liberals in Ottawa, want to fight inflation is by unemployment. Massive doses of unemployment, and as late as January 15th….

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support that?

MR. DOWDING: Certainly not. As late as January 15th, the last report we have on unemployment figures shows the national average in Canada as over 6.3 per cent, but in B.C. it's over 7 per cent, over 7 per cent. Now, that was in January. What is it today? We'd like to know. I think it must be up from there.

Now, if you fight inflation by curtailing the economy and spending, you run into the problem of what you are going to curtail and who you are going to hurt. There are lots of people who believe in curtailing inflation, but they believe in doing it at the expense of the low income brackets in the society. They believe in doing it at the expense of the pensioners, the senior citizens, the war-time veterans, and people on fixed incomes, and they are the ones that are asked to tighten their belts.

Now, what has happened in Ottawa in the last two days? According to the press, the Provincial Premiers and the Federal Government have agreed to support the Prices and Incomes Commissioner's programme of restraint down the line. Well, that's voluntary restraint, that's not going to help. Any time the companies want to they can break that restraint, and will do so, don't kid yourself.

The second thing is they have not indicated anywhere a hold-back on profits or prices. As soon as Mr. Young and the commission announced in December that they were going to have these hearings, or rather these meetings and conferences with business, prices started popping up all over the place. Everybody ran around to see if they could get their prices up before they were told to restrain them. What a foolish way to try to solve the problems of the economy, to signal that kind of a warning that there might be some restraints, so that they can go in there fattened by their prices and their profits and say we're not hungry. But labour can't say that, nor can those on pensions, and those who are on fixed incomes. So that out of the Ottawa Conference of the Premiers, really, has come only a general resolution against sin, but no practical way to solve the problem to ensure that restraint exists.

Secondly, it says that the Premiers saw eye to eye on the necessity of taking action on pollution, but they came up with no answers on that. Then they supported rent restraints, rent restraints. What do they mean? Voluntary restraints? Or

[ Page 465 ]

do they mean some kind of legislation passed by the provinces to see that rents don't sky-rocket any further? They also wanted to tighten their taxing and spending belts.

They haven't done it in this Budget, Mr. Speaker. This Government hasn't done it in this Budget. The Minister of Finance has in no way tightened the belt — no way. Then it was advocated by the Premiers, including our Premier, and agreed upon, that they defer any increases in the consumer cost of such goods and services as cigarettes, gasoline, oil, liquor, and hydro power — hydro power. Apparently they had a debate in Ottawa on hydro power and on hydro rates, and the Premier agreed there should be restraint, according to this. Now this is their agreement. I call upon him to show that agreement in practice here in British Columbia — right now.

I suggest that the problem of inflation is not one that can be answered by pious hopes and pious pronouncements from Ottawa and, indeed, some of the worst authors of the inflationary period that this country has gone through are those people who are now calling for the restraints. The Economic Council of Canada, the Sixth Annual Review, made it clear and warned the Government of its dangerous course in these words: "Further fiscal and monetary restraint conceivably could result simply in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack, with no more than marginal effects on current rates of increase in prices and costs." The Council, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that since 1967 the Canadian economy has been operating with a significant margin of economic slack and, of course, the figure that we have now of 7 per cent or more of unemployment in British Columbia indicates that slack, and it's been constant throughout the winter. The Council points out that with the unemployment in the range of four per cent to five per cent, it is difficult to argue that excessive general demand pressure has contributed to inflationary conditions. But, you see, the Government at Ottawa has been pursuing this anti-inflationary policy on the wrong basis all the way through.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's time we examine the whole question in this House, and have the Premier, the Minister of Finance, certainly on the day of his Estimates, go into all the factors of what this Government can do to solve the problems of inflation that are perplexing all of Canada, and particularly those in British Columbia. We've seen some foolish ways of doing it. We've seen our country being turned over to American companies, to a stage that they make the primary decisions in every field of the economy. The Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, indicated just recently in a statement that we have lost the capacity to create economic growth in Canada, and thereby the ability to create jobs and to influence inflation, because we have only a 15 per cent marginal economy, which indicates to the extent to which we are dominated and controlled by economic decisions made in the United States. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, we cannot easily solve the problem of inflation. We don't control the economy any more. Not directly — those decisions are made in the United States.

A good example of the wrong way to solve the problem of inflation is what the Federal Government did in regard to the salmon industry in this Province. At the very time that our salmon return had dropped by half last year, what did they do? They fired half the biologists and cut down the number of salmon vessels that we were allowed to fish, and, in effect, put a stop on all that area of the economy. In the end, that policy will mean the fish-handling companies will do all the fishing and the small entrepreneur fishermen will be excluded. It's happening right now. The only way they solved this problem is to put the independent commercial fishermen out of business, and that's what they are doing on this coast, and that is a crisis I say, Mr. Speaker.

How can this Government in Ottawa, for example, how can it persuade the Canadian people that it can cope with the problems of inflation when it spends — just examples, $17,000,000 to refit the Bonaventure, $49,000,000 for that Hydrofoil experiment — remember that boat that kept turning up? — $49,000,000. $50,000,000, on the National Art Centre in Ottawa….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Expo deficit.

MR. DOWDING: Yes, there's the Expo deficit, a fantastic deficit. They gave $80,000,000 to the auto industry by forgiving them their debts on taxes. Those are just some examples of the wasteful extravagance of the Federal Government, and that's why I suggest that in this Budget we just review some of the items like that building in Vancouver costing $50,000,000, and I point out to the honourable Minister of Public Works that we need schools and hospitals in this Province more than we need that building.

Now I intend to talk further on this subject when it comes to the Minister of Finance Estimates, but I think I have indicated to you why this Budget falls far short of any understanding of the problem of inflation or any measures to combat that inflation. Far from doing anything that will solve the problem, this Government is contributing to galloping inflation by the kind of Budget it has produced in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I was a little concerned earlier this afternoon during the award ceremony of the Minister of Highways, because for a few moments I thought I was going to get an award. He named me as the N.D.P. member from North Vancouver–Capilano, but however, Mr. Speaker, he didn't send over an award. Now this strikes me as a little bit like some of the policies of the Department of that Minister, Mr. Speaker. I remember last summer he announced that there was going to be widening and improvement of the Upper Levels highway. But things went along and he failed to award the contract for that also, so I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this is the kind of award that this Minister normally sends out. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, he has some confusion about North Vancouver, so I thought that I would, perhaps, explain to him a little about the North Shore.

My riding extends, Mr. Speaker, from the shore of Burrard Inlet right up the hillside to Grouse Mountain. From the eastern boundary at Lonsdale to the western boundary of the Capilano River is only two miles, but despite the narrow width of this riding, it includes the municipal hall of the District of North Vancouver, and also the city hall of the City of North Vancouver. Now I don't want to comment on the city hall, Mr. Speaker — it's already been the subject of some heated controversy, and I don't think it could stand very much more of that kind of heat — but one of the thorniest problems in the North Shore in recent years has been the fact that on paper there are two North Vancouvers, but as far as most of the people of the North

[ Page 466 ]

Shore are concerned, there is only one. As you travel from one part of North Vancouver to another it is almost impossible to remember where you crossed from the City to the District or vice versa. The children go from playground to park and from school to school without very much concern as to which city hall their parents pay their taxes to.

There was a plebiscite in 1968 on amalgamation, and after much controversy it failed by a very narrow margin. It's easy to look back and blame this person or that, this organization or that of that failure, but that's pointless and a waste of time. Today, I believe, there is a new spirit of cooperation and a willingness to approach the problem again with a fresh start from both sides. People are saying that amalgamation is inevitable eventually, why don't we look at it again soon, and in the meantime maybe there are some other things we can do together.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are a good many things the two North Vancouvers do together right now. There's one very successful and excellent School District for all of North Vancouver. There is one successful and well run Metropolitan Health Unit, which also includes West Vancouver. Other programmes are jointly operated, such as social welfare, police, hospital, the dog pound, recreation centre, and so on. But unfortunately, many other administrative services are still separate, and an example is the fire department where amalgamation might save as much as $100,000 per year in this one phase alone. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell this House that next week the two councils of the City and District of North Vancouver are holding a joint dinner meeting to discuss the possible formation of a joint parks and recreation commission, or some similar form of organization. So I believe there's a good deal of good will and desire on all sides, and I hope that the mayors and councils and the others concerned will continue in this kind of search.

I want to tell both the mayors, as my good personal friends, that my personal Centennial project for North Vancouver for 1971 is to do everything I can to bring about amalgamation in that Centennial year (applause). I want to serve notice also, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the next step beyond the amalgamation of the North Vancouvers, is to consider a complete amalgamation of all the North Shore.

Mr. Speaker, my riding includes, not only both the North Vancouvers, but also a very small piece of West Vancouver near the mouth of the Capilano River, a small piece, but a very valuable one, perhaps valued as much as $100,000 per acre.

Another very important part of my riding is the reservation of the Squamish Indian Band, and I would like to tell you just a little of this fine Indian organization. The band has been formed from the amalgamation of a number of tribes of families, and today has about 1,100 members, with 26 different reserves in five different areas including Gibsons and Squamish, as well as West Vancouver and the District and City of North Vancouver. The Squamish band is one of the most advanced and best-organized Indian communities in British Columbia. In their modern administration building in North Vancouver they have a staff of 15, including a business manager, a social worker, community worker, a recreation director, receptionist, clerks and maintenance men. It's interesting to note that the beautiful silver spire, so familiar to people travelling Vancouver Harbour, is St. Paul's Church, which stands on the Mission Reserve of the Squamish Band in North Vancouver. The original structure was built over 100 years ago, and the present building was actually blessed on June 13, 1886, which was the day of the great Vancouver fire. Despite the existence of this well-organized and well-respected group of Indians, there has sometimes been an unfortunate lack of communication between the Squamish bands and the three North Shore councils, and I believe that a new era of cooperation and mutual understanding has now dawned.

Last December, we helped organize a one-day conference, which was attended by all the North Shore mayors and councils, representatives of the schools and parks boards, as well as the Squamish Indian Council. There was a frank and honest exchange of views, and I believe all parties understood and appreciated much better their mutual problems. It became abundantly clear that it was impossible to plan and develop one part of the North Shore without affecting many other parts.

One of the important results shown to us at that conference was the effect on the educational system of the integration of the Indian into our regular school programme. There are now 313 Indian children from all parts of British Columbia in the North Vancouver School District, just double the figure of a year ago. Specially interesting is the programme being developed at Carson Graham Senior Secondary School, where there are about 60 Indian students. The principal says the Indian students there have made a valuable and lasting contribution to the school's atmosphere and activity. He is very proud of them. In particular, Carson Graham is this year working on an experimental programme on Indian history, culture and anthropology. This is proving so successful that the result will next year be a complete year-long course of studies in Indian culture and history, very largely developed by the combined efforts of the Indians and the white pupils working together this year. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this programme can be offered to the Department of Education to be used elsewhere in the Province in the future.

Speaking of the British Columbia Indian, it is a strange thing to me that we must go to Montreal to see the great exhibition of that west coast Indian culture, that belongs to the University of British Columbia. The people of the Potlatch, exhibited at Montreal last summer, drew critical acclaim from all over the world. Time Magazine, among others, said, and I quote, "The turn of the century photographs in people of the Potlatch at Montreal's Man and His World are remarkable. Even so, they are little more than an introduction to an evocative exhibition of 5,000 artifacts of west coast Indian culture. Drawn from the anthropology museum of the University of British Columbia, the show is as stunning in its way as any of the art exhibitions at Expo two years ago. More remarkably, it is the first time that U.B.C.'s unique collection has emerged from a basement storage room. When this collection, now valued at something or the order of $10,000,000, returns to Vancouver, its only home is an inadequate storage room at U.B.C. and a meagre 60-foot showroom." Surely British Columbia can do better than that.

The Government has indicated its interest in Indian affairs by the establishment of a First Citizens' Fund. I mention this today, Mr. Speaker, because it would seem so fitting for the Squamish band, involved as they are in development plans for their valuable lands, leaders as they are in the re-establishment of Indians as important citizens of the society of British Columbia. It would seem especially fitting for this band to take the lead and develop plans for a cultural centre and museum that might become a world-famous centre of Indian Arts and Anthropology. I hope this band will think

[ Page 467 ]

about this, and I hope this Government will consider supporting such a programme, if the Indian band puts it forward.

Many people, Mr. Speaker, are aware that the Squamish Band Council has been doing a very extensive study on the potential development of their lands in North and West Vancouver. I think it is fair to say, while this study has not yet been released, the approach taken has been a very responsible one. Naturally, the Indians want to maximize the financial returns to themselves, but they are very much aware of the overall requirements of the community and the need for parks and recreation areas. In fact, one of the matters that needs to be settled very soon is the disposition of the so-called Indian cut-off lands, District Lot Number 5521, which lies across the mouth of the Capilano River. I would like to talk about these cut-off lands because the story is a fascinating piece of Canadian history, but inasmuch as they are currently the subject of a responsible and sincere negotiation between the Squamish band and various levels of Government, I don't want to pursue the matter further at this time.

The important point I want to emphasize to this House is the fact that with these developments on the North Shore, there is now a real spirit of cooperation developing between everyone concerned. In a recent West Vancouver council meeting it was proposed that a Joint Development Board be set up to review and discuss these matters, and to include representation from the Squamish Indian band as well as all of the municipal councils. I am sure that this kind of climate is going to encourage good development that will be to the best advantage of all parties concerned, the Indian band and all parts of the North Shore.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't rise in this debate again without referring to the Skagit Valley. In his speech last week the Minister of Lands was at some pains to justify himself in the matter of the Skagit Valley. The resultant trail of red herrings served only too clearly to demonstrate the Minister's scale of values and to prove our point that the Minister of Lands and Forests should not also be the chief Government spokesman on matters of environmental control. In the first place, the Minister dug up the old draft agreement from 1952, which provided for a lump sum payment by Seattle of only $255,000 and was generally most unsatisfactory. This agreement was never ratified by the Government, and thank God it was not. I congratulate the Government of that day for refusing to be pressured into signing such an improper agreement.

We must now consider the difference in public opinion between 1952 and 1967, and the very different scale of land and other values. It's all very well for the Minister to boast of the improvements in terms between 1952 and 1967. He mentioned pressure being brought to bear. I can't help wondering what pressure was brought to bear which finally persuaded him to sign in 1967. What finally persuaded the Government to agree after all the years of waiting and negotiating? The clear facts still remain that there was and is nothing in the original International Joint Commission Order of 1942, or in the Skagit Valley Act of 1947, or in the tentative draft of 1952, or in the interim agreement signed each year between '54 and '66, that forced the present Government to sign any agreement short of adequate compensation. In the public climate of the late 60's, adequate compensation would be beyond a dollar price tag, and that's the price the Government should have asked.

Under the pressure of the publicity we have brought to bear on this matter, Mr. Speaker, the Government has reacted by dedication of a Class A Park of 3,700 acres beside the 6,300 acres that they have agreed to be flooded. Thank goodness for this tiny sop thrown to the people of British Columbia by their Government. How much better if we were dedicating a Class A Park of say 15 by 30 miles — 300,000 acres — a great park bordering the international boundary and matching up to the great North Cascades National Park in Washington. This area could truly be one of North America's great international parks and wilderness areas. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have it on good authority that the officials of the United States Federal Park Service have approached B.C. park officials with a view of discussion of mutual cooperation and development of an international park area in the Cascades. It seems typical of our general attitude that our people gave the Americans a very cold shoulder, because we only seem to want to cooperate with them if we can sell them some water or make a deal over flooding or power.

Let it be very clear to everyone, and the Minister of Lands knows this as well as anyone in British Columbia, that a lake of the sort that would develop if Seattle were to flood the Skagit Valley — with muddy stump areas, murky shorelines that rise and fall with the power demands, cold, glacial-fed water — let it be clear that this sort of lake will be as nothing compared with the present flat valley bottom with the meandering Skagit River, its miles of spawning beds, its meadows, its campsites, home for hundreds of deer and black bear, beaver, a whole ecology of natural beauty and wild-life in a magnificent mountain valley.

The Minister was also at some pains to try and explain why British Columbia could not cooperate with Seattle on an alternate source of power. Now there are several ways of doing this, and the Minister as a director of B.C. Hydro, if you'll pardon the expression, Mr. Speaker, could easily find these out. Let me explain one in a little more detail. It is quite true, as the Minister explained, that Seattle says they want Ross Lake for peaking power. This is the reason the whole project is so ridiculous, because $320 capital cost per kilowatt for peak power at a 25 per cent load factor just does not make sense. There must be some other reason of which we are not aware, which Seattle and this Government are not telling us about. If Seattle is sincere in its desire for 140,000 kilowatts of peaking power, then let the B.C. Government suggest to Seattle that it build the best peak power plant of all, a gas turbine plant, near the load centre of Seattle, and let B.C. contract to supply natural gas to Seattle at a suitable rate. Seattle could build such a plant for about $80 per kilowatt, perhaps one-third or one-quarter of the amount projected for Ross Dam, and British Columbia would have an annual revenue in excess of $35,000 a year, and the Skagit Valley would not be flooded.

Incidentally, the Minister made a very big point in his speech over the fact that B.C. can take its rental payment in power at 3.75 mills per kilowatt hour, which is about 9 1/4 million kilowatt hours per year at a 65 per cent load factor. Now this is really a very small amount, Mr. Speaker. It would be produced by a plant of only 1,600 kilowatts or about one per cent of the size of the Ross project.

I want to take very strong issue with the Minister of Lands on another matter. In the House last week, if I can quote from the Vancouver Province, the Minister stated, "I was warned from south of the line that the American conservation interests were going to try to stop the Skagit in British Columbia because they didn't think they could do it at home, and I didn't believe that until I heard some of the

[ Page 468 ]

debates in this House." First, I think it's clear from the tone of this quotation what the Minister thinks of conservationists. Quite obviously in his eyes, and in the eyes of his friends who are power executives, across the border conservationists are a nuisance, they are obstructionists standing in the way of the power and other developments that have a much higher priority in their eyes.

This demonstrates the fundamental reason why we need a single Minister responsible for environmental management, responsible to stand for the wildlife and the river valleys, responsible to stand for the trees and the inlets, the pure air, the pure water and the good soil. How can the same Minister who is responsible for the development and expansion of our great forest industry also be the chief Government spokesman in matters of pollution, conservation, and environment? How can the same Minister who is responsible for development of our mining industries also be properly responsible for protection of our scenery and wildlife from strip-mining? The Minister of Lands, as he speaks of conservationists on both sides of the border, obviously agrees with the president of the Truck Loggers Association of British Columbia who said this past month in Vancouver, "The economy of this Province, the standard of living of its people and its employment, could be destroyed by the destruction of land use programmes now in operation," and he rated demands by conservationists as one of the major concerns facing his industry alongside inflation, productivity and labour relations. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many of us in British Columbia believe the problem is not the conservationists, but feel rather the major problem is the Minister himself.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I deeply resent the Minister's statement that I and my associates, in the defense of the Skagit Valley from the spoilers, are in some way being run by American interests. Let me assure you that my own first interest was aroused in British Columbia. Others of my group came to the same conclusion as my own as they became aware of the terrible tragedy that was threatened. When we made contact with the people of Seattle we were delighted to find we were not alone. The Seattle group were fighting their own battles where it must be won, with the Seattle City Council, and it was wonderful to exchange information and to assist each other. Incidentally, for many reasons, including both the high cost of Ross power and because of the magnificent recreational resources that are going to be flooded on the American side, the Seattle group feel very confident that they are going to win in their own hearings and public sessions. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and all my associates in the Ross Committee, we bitterly resent the implication from the Minister that the Americans are in some way behind us, and that the Americans are in some way directing what we do and say, and I demand a retraction and apology from the Minister for those remarks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the member from Burnaby-Edmonds made an interesting proposal and I certainly appreciate his support and his interest. I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that this Government was listening, because I have far worse and more shocking news to give the House today. I want to quote to you from the B.C. Gazette of February 5, 1970. "Timber Sale Licence A.0. 2263. Public auction will be held by the District Forester at Vancouver, British Columbia, not later than 10 a.m. on the sixth day of April, 1970, for the purchase of Licence A.0. 2263 to authorize the harvesting of not more than 15,911,000 cubic feet of timber. Three years will be allowed for removal of timber. Cutting permit, to be issued under authority of this Licence, will authorize cutting on Lot 1103, Yale Land District, in the vicinity of Ross Lake."

AN HON. MEMBER: Here it goes.

MR. BROUSSON: If this Timber Sale is proceeded with and the timber is cut, the ball game is over in the Skagit Valley of British Columbia, because Lot 1103 is the precise area planned to be flooded. We have a map, Mr. Speaker, which I'd be glad to show any of the members, that delineates the exact area of Lot 1103 on the Skagit River. Lot 1103 is the beautiful wide valley we've talked about that the Government is so anxious to turn into a stump ranch. Lot 1103 is the 6,000 acres we're going to rent to Seattle for $5.50 per acre per year.

If we allow this timber to be cut we've lost the ball game in Canada, while in the United States they're still in the first innings. Let me explain the difference in our time-table. You must first understand that the North Cascade Conservation Council, the Sierra Club, and the other conservation organizations, are totally committed to fight this project all the way to the very end. The City Council of Seattle will hold its public hearings in early March. If the Council should decide to proceed with Ross Dam despite these hearings, they will then apply to the Federal Power Commission in Washington in late March or early April. Hearings before the Federal Power Commission examiner will take a minimum of twelve months. If the examiner were to rule in favour of the project, an appeal would be made to the full Federal Power Commission, and minimum time for this appeal would be nine months. It is possible at this stage that the Federal Power Commission would require further internal reviews, which might take another year and a half. Should the Federal Power Commission finally issue the licence, recourse can then still be had to the Courts, which is a privilege we don't have in British Columbia. First, the Circuit Court, where a decision might take a year and a half. Next, an appeal can be made to the United States Supreme Court, and this procedure would take another 15 months or so.

So I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that a minimum, a minimum, of four years and probably more would pass assuming Seattle Power were to win each round in the hearings south of the American border. Now the time-table laid out by the consulting engineers for Seattle Power suggests a construction period of four more years. So actually a total time of eight years, at least, would elapse even if Seattle Power were to win at every step, and I don't believe they will.

What a tragedy if we were to de-flower the Skagit Valley, leave it naked and ravished, and then discover the Americans had changed their minds. Another Cypress Bowl — this time in the Skagit Valley.

Mr. Speaker, a woman cannot be a little pregnant, nor can a tree be just a little bit cut down, Mr. Speaker. I've received literally hundreds of letters from every part of British Columbia protesting the Skagit Valley flooding, and I would like to show you one or two of them, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read them all.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm going to read every one, word for word. Mr. Speaker, this one comes from the great city of Kelowna. It says, "We want the Skagit for a National or B.C.

[ Page 469 ]

Park. Keep up the good work and get Cece Bennett, my friend, on your side."

This one comes from Surrey, Mr. Speaker, and it reads, "Perhaps you can suggest that Mr. Bennett take a holiday in our Province instead of going to Europe, and suggest he take a fishing line and a young boy with him and go the silver Skagit River, then maybe he'll understand the inestimable value of our natural resources." This one comes from Port Coquitlam, "I have hunted and fished in that area. This is the most destructive and barbaric practice that is characteristic of this Government. If the callous and wanton destruction of this beautiful Province of B.C. does not stop, there will be no place left for people to enjoy unspoiled nature. I feel very strong about this, I could write page after page on this sort of thing. If you want to hang someone for this, I will pull the rope."

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for thousands of British Columbians when I appeal to the Minister, through you, to cancel this sale. Why is there any need for such indecent haste? Is it simply that a couple of million dollars cash is so important? Regardless of whose is the final responsibility, Seattle is eight years away from putting any more water into Ross Lake, even if they win all the way and I don't believe they will. It is only the first inning in Seattle, Mr. Speaker. Let's not finish the ball game in British Columbia yet. Cancel the Skagit Valley Timber Sale.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to be here today, and I would like to bring you a little news from the centre of the Island, to just tell you that today six mayors from Courtenay to Victoria met there, and for the Centennial Year we hope to revive the Dayliner as a main service on Vancouver Island to bring more life and fun to Vancouver Island during the Centennial Year.

I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance today on a progressive and sound Budget, with lots of steam still left in the base, and I think it is prudent at all times in any economy to always have a buffer in your Budget.

To our very worthy Liberal friends, who we enjoy being with on this side of the House, I would just like to say one thing. When I look at that $18,000,000,000 national debt, blessed are the young in heart, for they shall inherit the national debt. To our other Opposition friends who want more at no extra cost I only say, what the Government gives to the people, first they must take from the people, and the only other revenues that will be generated must come from our economy and its productivity.

Free enterprise has proved itself in the market place and in the standard of living we are having here in North America, and those who try to destroy business will destroy our way of life. I only say that, because there has been so much abuse thrown at the forestry industry during this Session, and I would just like to come to its defence here, because Nanaimo is the heart of a huge timber area and it means a lot to the people in our constituency. It provides employment for more than 80,000 people in B.C. — one-twelfth of the annual work force. Collective bargaining has achieved the highest wage scale of any forest industry in the world, and Nanaimo has become a major distribution centre for the entire Vancouver Island forest industry. One mill alone, Harmac, produces a payroll of $11,000,000 a year, and with all the other sectors of the economy that comes with it, it comes to many, many more millions of dollars. That is the sort of thing that gives us a good way of life, and when we look at the bread and butter on the table in the morning, these are the things we should try to remember.

Statements in the House that the forest industry does not pay sufficient taxes are erroneous. The fact is that the B.C. forest industry is already the highest taxed forest industry in North America, and since January, 1969, the effective tax rate has been 56 per cent compared with competitive U.S. companies with an effective tax rate of approximately 40 per cent. In 1968, the total direct tax bill to all levels of government in B.C. was $300,000,000, with $120,000,000 to the Federal Government, $30,000,000 to the municipalities, and $140,000,000 directly to the Government for stumpage, royalties, and fire protection, etc. In addition, the multiplier effect of the industry on wages, services, and supplies, resulted indirectly and directly in generating approximately one-half of the Provincial tax revenue that helps to give us the most vigorous economy in the country today.

Now, there are a few points that I would like to mention today. The Government should consider them and, if adopted, would not necessarily cost additional money to the treasury. With over half our population under 25 years of age, and a quarter of our population going to school, youth deserves vigilant attention and proper direction, and that's not just in British Columbia, that's all around the world. In this respect, the Government budgets a good proportion of its finances towards youth in the Province in education, recreation, courts, welfare and work. Now I am not naive enough to think that we don't need discipline and juvenile security, but I do think that more effort should be initiated on a community level towards prevention. It costs $10 a day to send a juvenile to Brannan Lake, and in 53 per cent of the cases the individual never returns to a correctional institute. Now, in Alberta and New York under the Division of Youth, and this is a preventative programme with these first-time offenders, they have had extraordinary success in that nine out of ten of those youths never return to a correctional institute.

Now to give an example of what a wrongly-directed child costs — 1968 — 332 boys, 15 to 17, were transferred from Juvenile to Adult Court, and ended up in adult Provincial gaols at an annual cost of about $5,300, a total cost of $1,750,000 that year.

A Division of Youth would be concerned with young people between the ages of 15 and 17, who are on the border-line between responsible productive lives and trouble. Under this programme, youth centres are established in order to prevent delinquency and crime, and in conjunction with such centres steps are also taken to working with other associations to bring up a far better programme than you get normally. In other words, when trouble appears, go in and help these young people to become contributing members to society rather than social outcasts.

It is a very simple programme. A preventative programme is basically established to start centres where these juveniles spend short stays in supervised residences of approximately 20 young people. The keynote is intensive counseling on a group basis under professional supervision, or in less serious cases the young people can actually live in their own homes under a study programme. Now these are kids that are in trouble. They can actually take this programme and live in their own homes. These young people are actually put to work on projects such as beautifying the Province, forestry camps, or work that is of benefit to the Province as a whole.

[ Page 470 ]

They can receive pay for this work, and these young people are placed in an environment where work is a normal pattern and habit of living. The community benefits, the young person benefits, the results are better, and with lower numbers appearing in court, the Province in the long term saves money. This has been proved. These are young people who are in trouble, and this is when you get them — the first time, right off the bat. Instead of committing them to Brannan Lake or somewhere, they would go to these homes and they would be put to work beautifying the Province at the same cost to the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you going to get the money?

MR. NEY: The establishment of a Social and Planning Commission to examine means of attaining such objectives — I think this will answer your question — by looking at youth and education, etc., summer programmes and so on, it would be the first step. Later a regional committee could be set up at various levels to explore the local needs.

This programme could be centered in many facets into a point where you'd go into Grade 5 and teach these kids the problems and evils of drug addiction, and extend it to the parents, too, because in this Province the parents and adults are woefully uninformed as to drugs at this very moment, and we certainly need more education in that respect.

AN HON. MEMBER: …uninformed about this Government.

MR. NEY: Now, while we are talking environment, — I don't want to talk on the horrors of pollution necessarily — but I would like to bring up two or three specific points where I think action should be initiated. Now in Nanaimo, where we have probably one of the best ferry services in the world, we are very happy and they are improving the facilities now at this very moment, we've got no grumbles.

But I would like to point out one little point, and it is a sore point because all bath-tubbers enjoy swimming in Departure Bay during the summer. Now the B.C. ferries on the Horseshoe Bay–Nanaimo run, like normal ships, drop sewage in the ocean, except the new jumbos which have holding tanks. Now in Nanaimo harbour, or in Departure Bay area, we have a problem. Now on your Swartz Bay–Victoria run you do have holding tanks in the jumbos. In Nanaimo Harbour, with the new docks and the turn-around time substantially longer, these ships now drop more sewage into Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay than previously.

The municipality has been asked to put a treatment centre in and it is going to cost about five or $6,000,000 and will take the sewage farther out into the ocean. There is no raw sewage in Nanaimo Harbour at this very moment. We can swim in our harbour. The coloform reading is .076, very appropriate for the Bathtub Capital of the World. We recognize that Nanaimo will eventually have jumbos — probably in two or three years — but in the meantime they are dropping this raw sewage into Departure Bay, and I submit that we should put holding tanks in the ferries now unless the economics are utterly impracticable. I haven't heard the economics nor have the people in Nanaimo, and I think there is something that should be investigated. If it is not practical money-wise, well then that's fine, but let's be told.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's still not fine.

MR. NEY: Another sore point in environment is the fact that auto-wrecking companies have a habit of piling their unsightly cars on highways with little regard for aesthetics. Some of these companies are quite responsible, keep clean yards and do their best, but others less responsible create a situation, which is ugly and unfair to the communities. Now legislation is needed to put some teeth in our laws so that this sort of thing can be controlled, and surely stiffer penalties should be placed on people who irresponsibly drive wrecked cars into our forests, into ditches and Crown lands, in order to save the five dollar fee to the wrecking companies. Not only is the population increasing, but the automobile population will double in the next ten years, the problem will become more acute, so let's hit it now and let's hit it hard.

Now, I am very glad to hear the member from Langley bring up the question of the dangers of oil tankers on routes going past Vancouver Island, and I would just like to point out one thing. The history of the world is and always will be that a percentage of ships will meet with disaster, and this is why it is unbelievable to me that they even allow tankers to go up into the Arctic Ocean, because sooner or later one of those tankers will hit the bottom, particularly on uncharted seas, and when it does you'll have a disaster that will take decades and decades to recover from.

Now the tanker that just sank off the East Coast was a mere 11,000 ton tanker, and these new 300,000 ton tankers, if shipwrecked on the West Coast, would bring disaster 30 times bigger, and I remind you that two large ships have broken up on the West Coast in the last two years. At the moment, only if the oil company is negligent is it held responsible for the damage. In California, since the Santa Barbara affair, the Americans have now brought in legislation making the oil company responsible, whether or not they are at fault, or whether it is an act of God, and this applies both to tankers and to drilling. Now, the thing is this — the Federal Government were thinking about this and they sort of put the idea in the back shed now for the time being. In Washington, new and tougher legislation has also been brought in for oil and gas pipelines.

I recognize that the ocean waters here are mainly considered to be territories for the Federal Government, but when the oil hits the land then it's Provincial territory. I submit that the identical legislation should be brought in here to give this Province the same protection that the Americans all of a sudden have felt necessary in their own country during the past year, and you can get the precedents right out of their Statutes. Sooner or later it is going to happen.

Now, while on this subject of petroleum products, I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that municipalities today are having to devote time and expense listening to the complaints of automotive retailers and the problems they are having with the oil companies. The Morrow Report makes the recommendations, but as a free enterpriser I do feel that the Government should not have to bring in legislation to ask the petroleum industry to look after its own affairs. In the City of Nanaimo alone, during the last 18 months, a half of the stations have changed ownership which certainly indicates an unhappy environment.

The petroleum companies should be encouraged to have a hard look at these many complaints and come up with a solution. It is unreasonable to expect that the Government, at any level, should have to spend hours and days trying to settle problems between the retailers and the suppliers. I note that some of the companies have modified their leases recently, but there is still a long way to go, and I say let 1970

[ Page 471 ]

be the year when the oil companies get together with the automotive retailers to come up with a set of Queensbury Rules and constructive ideas to settle their problems. Planners in government should not have to legislate this type of business. They have their own problems, and I want to bring one up right now.

The Municipal Act allows municipalities to issue development permits where the municipality has adopted an official community plan, and I am interested in this because at the municipal level, with costs going up about 10 per cent per annum, we need more taxes, and the only way we can get more taxes is by getting more development in our towns. The U.B.C.M., at their last convention, endorsed a resolution requesting an amendment to the Act which would enable municipalities to utilize the development permit feature without the necessity of adoption of an official community plan, and the City of Vancouver enjoys this privilege now. As far as plans are concerned, you can come down to our city hall and I can show you drawers and drawers of plans that have been drawn up in the past, because of some ideological idea at the time that was never implemented later on. Inquiries have determined that the adoption of official community plans have not been carried out in B.C. Municipalities as a general practice. Utilization of the development permit concept would provide flexibility in zoning changes and would be a most useful tool in encouraging development. All municipalities have a problem of limited financial resources, and anything which can encourage commercial development with a resulting increase in commercial assessment, should receive the support of the Government.

I would urge that the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs most seriously consider the submission of the U.B.C.M. supporting the amendment requested, which could be used to great advantage in municipalities throughout the Province. The cost of standing still is running away with the taxation dollars.

The third ranking resource in B.C. is fishing, and we are getting a little bit ecstatic in Nanaimo on this, and many of us now feel that legislation should be considered to giving it full department status. A definite need is a Ministry of Fisheries, to take the fisheries part at a Cabinet level along with the other resource Ministers. Forestry, mining, and industrialization, under Provincial jurisdiction, all can, under uncontrolled circumstances, have a deteriorating effect on the fisheries.

The inside waters of British Columbia are an enormous asset as a recreational resource to B.C. It is evident that sportsmen are not getting a fair allocation of the fishery resource here, due to probably the Federal Fisheries' preoccupation with commercial interests. A B.C. Department of Fisheries would be able to speak freely for the recreational uses of the resource, and under the B.N.A. Act we have the right to impose commercial and sports fishing licences. Now, owing to the Federal department's reluctance to impose a salt-water sports fishing licence, the Province should move in this regard by first forming a department, and then impose both sport and commercial licences to fund the department and initiate beneficial cost-sharing schemes with the Federal Government to enhance the resource.

There is little doubt that Provincial officers should be enforcing fishing laws in the Gulf of Georgia. It gives the Provincial Government a stronger say on the herring fishing in the Gulf of Georgia, and I'm saying that because there's a very strong case indicating that the Federal Government allowed the herring crop to be over-harvested in the Gulf of Georgia, which indirectly has an effect on all species. As a matter of fact at this very moment, as you know, herring fishing is banned in the Gulf of Georgia. There are many who feel that herring fishing should be banned forever in the Gulf of Georgia, because there is evidence that in some cases the take of salmon grilse has been as much as 20 per cent of the catch.

With a proper Provincial Ministry of Fisheries cooperating with the Federal Government, there could be a far better regulation of the fishing industry in B.C., and better communication with our commercial fishermen. The present system of getting by due to the good working relationships between the Provincial department and the branch civil service personnel and their Federal opposite numbers, cannot be relied upon to operate smoothly indefinitely. This Province is having tremendous growth, and the fisheries will need more and more attention, and this pertains to all classes of fishery. Good control will mean good fishing. A Minister of Fisheries might also initiate a programme to take advantage of the deep sea fishing off the west coast, now dominated by the Russians. Such a department could also explore and assist development of new merchandizing techniques in fish products. A very considerable amount of money at present is being lost to B.C. each year because there is no Provincial Department of Fisheries. Federal-Provincial cost-sharing schemes for fishery projects could be initiated on a much larger scale should B.C. have a Fisheries Minister. Besides, some Federal schemes for fishery development of late have appeared, to Provincial fishery officers, to have resulted in very little material benefit to the B.C. fisherman.

Now the people of Vancouver Island were delighted to hear that surveys have already started on a road to the north, and we certainly hope the Provincial Government will also accelerate construction of passing lanes on the highway between Victoria and Campbell River, commencing this year. Opening up the north country of Vancouver Island will mean much to its economy. It's a much overlooked resource and in the 1950's the mining resource on Vancouver Island was about $15,000,000 a year, in the past year this had jumped to about $39,000,000 and when the Utah mine gets going, if their figures bear out the productivity they are looking for, this will be another $75,000,000, which means that when that's in full production, the mining productivity on Vancouver Island will be about $115,000,000 a year, making it an integral part of the mining industry in British Columbia.

That's good news, but there's one bad part about it. With all this growth we're having in the mining industry on Vancouver Island at this present moment, there's one thing that we should remember, that the E. and N. lands have contributed very little to this mining wealth, notwithstanding the fact that they own one-third of the mining land on the Island. Now the reason they are not getting this productivity on their mining claims is the fact that they won't offer to prospectors a proper royalty formula such as the Crown gives. They have no guarantee of anything when they go in on those E. and N. lands. The E. and N. have had special tax privileges over the years, and I think that they are morally and possibly even legally obligated to create a happy mining climate on Vancouver Island. We should go about it and try to give them the proper encouragement to open up these lands and give a royalty formula identical to that given on Crown lands.

The last thing — then it will be all over. Communication is the market place of ideas and I just say this, that I think that

[ Page 472 ]

maybe we should consider in this House, maybe once a week or once every two weeks, allowing television right here in the House. I think it would bring the whole Province into the Legislature. A lot of people never have the time to come in here, they live all around the Province. I think it would perk things up all the way around the clock, maybe once every two weeks, and it's something that should be considered, in Centennial Year — I submit.

I'll wind 'er up now. Thanks to the great climate and magnificent scenery, plus the progressive and visionary assistance of a sound Government that has recognized the great potential of this Island, 1970 will give Vancouver Island the greatest year of prosperity and progress in its history. So as we walk into the next decade with our eyes cast ahead, Nanaimo constituency will indeed become the jewel of the west, the sun porch of Canada, and bathtub capital of the world.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.A. MARSHALL (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A statement by the honourable Premier Bennett, July 21st, 1969, in announcing a Provincial election for August 27th last, and commenting on the opinions of the general public, stated that, "Common to all the opinions and all the advice, it is the conviction that British Columbia has reached the most critical period of its entire history, a period in which the economic system that has served this Province so well during the past 17 years of unprecedented growth and prosperity, faces a challenge which cannot be ignored if this development is to continue."

In studying the Budget for 1970 it is one that will, to a large degree, meet this challenge, and I have noted with pleasure that it is this Government's intention to further open British Columbia's northland by improving road, rail, and power line communications, that it is this Government's intention to create employment — not discourage it — and that it recognizes the rampant inflation which our Government policies have been noted in this non-inflationary, completely balanced Budget.

We have all listened to the Opposition criticize policies of this Government, particularly listening to their uncanny hindsight when discussing hydro sales. I, like others, intended to discuss hydro, Mr. Speaker, particularly concerning rural electrification, but as has been ruled, I have withdrawn from my subject matter all references to hydro rates and capital financing.

I would, however, like to discuss pollution as it affects various types of hydro production and development of hydro sites. The Opposition, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, in other words, with their uncanny hindsight are saying that if we knew ten years ago what we know today we might have been able to make a better deal. These are the same people that opposed construction of the Peace Project. In 1959 the member from Cowichan-Malahat made it clear he didn't think the Peace Project was needed, and the Liberals were scathing in their comments and said, "We're not going to have an immediate development of the Peace because I think the Premier knows, as well as the other experts, that you can't have immediate and concurrent development of the Peace and the Columbia." If they have the same foresight as hindsight they may be able to see the new doors waiting to be opened. These are the doors that should concern us, not those through which we've passed along the way. The only Although my aim is to be constructive and not critical, I cannot help but note that the Opposition have appeared to be against aggressive development of our hydro sites, and I would like to point out a few comparisons for their consideration. Water power has traditionally been the main source of electric energy in Canada, and this is still true today. In 1968, over three-quarters of all generation came from hydro-electric sites. However, this proportion is now falling and will continue to do so, in spite of enormous hydro projects currently under construction. The availability of additional undeveloped hydro sites within economic reach of demand centres is now limited. Thermal power stations which employ fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas, or nuclear energy, will provide a growing proportion of Canada's electricity.

A recent study by the National Energy Board estimates that demand for electricity in Canada will grow on an average of six per cent through 1990. At that time it is forecast that hydro-electric facilities will generate only 44 per cent of total electricity requirements, while nuclear installation will provide 32 per cent, and other thermal plants 24 per cent. The choice amongst the various types of thermal generation depends largely on the costs involved. In general, nuclear installations have high fixed capital charges but low operating costs — mainly fuel — and since capital costs do riot rise proportionately with size, the trend of planning is towards very large units. Fossil fuel power stations, by contrast, have comparatively low capital costs and high fuel costs and are contributors to pollution. Because of high transportation costs, fossil fuels are relatively expensive. Nuclear reactors utilize heavy water, and a supply must be readily available. Heavy water at a cost of $20 to $30 a pound is an important part of the initial cost of a reactor. For example, a plant presently under construction in Canada requires 500 tons of heavy water, and the total outlay of this alone, will be in the region of $60,000,000. In addition, we have to consider pollution, the risk of emission of hydrogen sulphide from the heavy water plant itself, and thermal pollution when water is drawn from adjacent rivers and lakes for cooling purposes, as one return could affect the ecology of aquatic life.

Water power is still the chosen source of electric energy in Canada, and we in British Columbia have the availability of additional undeveloped hydro sites — the Stikine and the Liard and further developments on the mighty Peace downstream of the Bennett Dam, which I am confident this Government will develop and have in readiness when the demands and the needs are present. Since the construction of nuclear power stations requires enormous sums of capital, which has cast a shadow over their development, I call on our Government to exercise the same foresight in this planning as they did in the 60's, and continue hydro development in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in the first speech I made in this House there was reference made directing our Government to endorse the Canadian pipeline route from the north slope Alaskan oil developments. It was gratifying that this statement was so far-reaching as to read just five days following, that Canada could be in line for a $1,600,000,000 pipeline to handle the movement of crude. I'm not gullible enough to believe that my statement had everything to do with this comment coming from the Under-Secretary of State, Walter Hickel. But just in the event that it might have, particularly from the phone calls I have had today, and after listening to the irresponsible statements from the Federal Minister Otto Lang, I intend, as long as I sit in this House, and until the

[ Page 473 ]

problem is resolved, to use this position as a sounding-board to encourage this Government and our Federal Government to firstly, realize the seriousness of an ailing industry which I also have made reference to, our agricultural industry. Secondly, I want our Government to endeavour to research the correct medicine and give a positive cure.

I do this for two major reasons. Firstly, because our grain producers are faced today, as never before, with critical and imminent decisions regarding their plans for the future. Secondly, and just as prime a reason, the certainty of creeping socialism into one of our basic industries, which I hold in high regard.

Just as certainly as the red paper on taxation is creeping socialism, which will change not only the agricultural industry, but the whole social structure in Canada. Social Credit doctrines that do not bother the oligarchy are two forms of state control, are to me the reason I stand here today, representing 71 per cent majority of people in my constituency who share that feeling. They want their children, as I do, to have the right to attain a dream, however ambitious it might be…. I might point out to the honourable member from Cowichan-Malahat it is better to be thought foolish than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt…. They want their children, as I do, to have the — right to attain a dream, however ambitious it might be, to exercise our God-given free agency and free choice, not to be born into a world that protects them from cradle to grave, but removes the decisions, dreams, and initiatives from them. This paper removes the incentive for progress so predominant in the small businessman, who contributes more in employment, more in progressive thinking, than any other sector of our economy.

I would like to point out to particularly the Social Credit members in this House, that said Social Credit was supported in its conception by organized farmers who, with the belief in meeting their own needs, would be solving the problems of democracy for all. It was in rebellion against the same oligarchic tendencies as were the farmers, and since it spoke directly to townsmen as well as to farmers, it had a wider appeal. In other words, it did not want a government where the supreme power of the government was in the hands of a chosen few or a chosen class.

Our prairie provinces emerged from a colonial economic status to a quasi-colonial economy by reason of the political strength of the organized farmers. They obtained much from Federal Government through political pressure, especially from 1900 to 1912, but it was not evidence of their ability to prevail against central Canadian capital.

Mr. Speaker, history has repeated itself. The situation has changed little. The farmers now represent only 4 per cent of the population and they have no political power because they are no longer important to the purposes of the Dominion. It is no different now than in 1930, when the farmers were reduced to asking for relief instead of reform. The typical agricultural producer has been, from the beginning, an independent operator of an individual or family enterprise. With this desired independence it has not been conducive to the discovery of common ground to alleviate their problems, and they have let the Federal Government lead them down a mismanaged, misinformed path. However, now they have this common ground to exist or not to exist, and they are searching for a cause to rally around, and I hope in their desperation it will not be a socialist rally.

Still relating agricultural problems with Constitutional matters — although pollution, I think it matters now — I would point out that a new Constitution, it matters now — Mr. Trudeau has made it bluntly clear that he does not want a new Constitution, when he comments it will take ten years to re-write the Constitution of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh…come on, now.

MR. MARSHALL: We went from a fixed-wing aircraft to the moon in that time, Mr. Member.

I would like all of us to be cognizant of the facts and the reasons for the militancy of our grain crisis today, as I endeavoured to do in my last speech in this House, and you have heard the comments of the honourable Minister of Public Works yesterday in this regard.

Quebec has set the example, Quebec talked of separation and they receive $8,000,000 to probe bi-culturalism and bi-lingualism. If the Federal Government had spent one-half that money, $4,000,000, to aid the west by aggressive selling, we might not have a grain crisis. They wouldn't do this.

Or, if I may digress for just a moment, I gave some thought to the situation which happened to Mr. Redel, and I think that if they had spent one-half that same amount of money to teach the Quebec French to speak English, perhaps Mr. Redel wouldn't have suffered such a brutal beating. At this point. I would like to say however, in all fairness, that this same situation concerning Mr. Redel and the language barrier, could have happened in the west had Mr. Redel been a non-English speaking Canadian from Quebec. The sad part of this very unfortunate accident was the poor training and the brutality of the police themselves. But I hope in this House we do not have confrontations between French and English speaking people. These are all Canadians, even though we can be justified in the fact that it is equally important that the French learn English.

I have mentioned the $8,000,000 given Quebec. In addition, Quebec requested and got $150,000,000 from Ottawa for Expo. They got additional amounts of money, prior to the grain producers asking for subsidies. Also, $150,000,000, and the farmers again found themselves talking to deaf ears. We could go on and on listing tariff reductions and assistance provided the East, which they claim is the price of Confederation. I said earlier in this House, Mr. Speaker, that our Constitution should not be considered immortal, and I repeat it again, as much has been manifest as showing need for change.

You may wonder why I cite this Province as one that can be a leader in alleviating this grain crisis. First of all, this Province is unique in that we are the only Province in Canada that has a total market within its boundaries for all our grain grown. As the grain producer has cleared more land, put more under cultivation, our interior and lower mainland markets have increased proportionately, and our producers have enjoyed a good market. A good market, yes, but not a good price, because the price is still governed by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Secondly, we have another situation in this Province with regard to livestock production. The prices for finished beef are not high, not the price the producer receives. The cattle have been leaving this Province at a rampant rate of increase, approximately 10,000 a month, making a total of 122,698 cattle shipped out of this Province in 1969. Most of these cattle are shipped out as feeders, only to be returned to British Columbia for consumption. It is interesting to note that British Columbia produces two per cent of Canada's livestock production, but consumes 10 per cent, and yet

[ Page 474 ]

ships out of this Province 122,698 head annually. It is equally interesting to take a look at some Alberta statistics. Alberta produces 28 per cent and consumes only seven per cent. They have 21 per cent of their production for profitable export. Our B.C. industry is indeed a sick industry and it deserves and must have the support of our Government. I cannot be convinced that we cannot have economical farm units within our Province.

I have endeavoured, in my earlier speech, to show measures of alleviating these problems, and I would like to point out another example in their support, illustrating that caution against one-shot cures that defeat the alleged benefits by their very existence. In Manitoba they recently announced a new farm credit programme in establishing the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, giving a line of credit for long, intermediate and short-term borrowing up to a maximum of $100,000 for farmers to diversify. Incorporated in this plan is a grant structure of 20 per cent. On its face value, with subsidized interest, it looks very good, and probably was done for the benefit and sincere good of the producer. But it is interesting to note that since its inception the price on brood cows has risen almost exactly the amount of the grant. Once again, a lack of planning because they did not take into consideration the shortage of breeding stock.

The Federation of Agriculture has petitioned this Government to bring land taxation laws up to date, and I think we must listen to this plea. To tax a man based on his land holdings was a fair way to raise, revenue. It reflected his wealth and thus his ability to pay. But conditions have changed. Farm land cannot be considered as a measure of wealth, nor does it reflect the ability to pay. For people must pay for services to people, and land must pay only for services to that land. They have suggested to the Government that a farmer's house and the land on which it is situated should be taxed for educational purposes, but the rest of the farm land should be exempt, putting farmers on an equal footing with other home-owners in this Province. Deferred taxes tied to a stability earning factor or land resale basis could also be considered. If the fanners were enjoying a better than subsistence level of earning power, then there would be very little talk of western separation from Canada, and land taxes would not be a drain on their livelihood.

Farming is the only field of endeavour where an individual can make a living out of a losing proposition. In fact this is true, but now the proposed capital gains tax removes what little chance farmers could have for existence. Proposals to include capital gains as income in Canada in the future will affect the farmer when he sells his farm, when he sells livestock from a basic herd, and when he sells a depreciable asset such as a used combine or tractor. Under this proposed system, existing farms will be valued for capital gains tax purposes on valuation day, and value established will be deducted from any subsequent selling price. The years of conditioning applied to the public towards acceptance of this paper by the Federal Government, I can assure you, is not being bought by the farmer.

I would be very interested to know what stand the Opposition is going to take on the White Paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've heard.

MR. MARSHALL: I have. I have read very confused statements. The member from Cowichan-Malahat stated in the Vancouver Sun on February the 5th last that, "The White Paper proposals were good ideas and they should be supported, no matter who made them." Yet the Opposition party Leader, in the November 12th Province, stated that, "The whole concept of upward mobility is being negated by this new approach," and goes on to criticize every phase of the White Paper in this interview. They are, as usual, very confused in their thinking. No wonder that people preferred steak to hamburger or to Berger.

I must commend the B.C. Liberals on their stand against the White Paper. Quoting from the headlines in an article from the Daily Colonist, January 17th, 1970, "The B.C. Grits bombard White Paper." I hope they convey this message often to their Federal counterparts.

The Federal Government, I think, must be commended at least on requesting comments, and I hope they will soon get the message. The farmers' appeals are made primarily to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government adopts the attitude of wait and the problem will disappear. The problem will not disappear. The farmers are desperate.

You might recall that in 1958 a cow, fondly referred to as the "Honourable Maude," was derisively milked all over the steps of this Parliament and left there. The farmers went on and pounded on the hurriedly-locked brass gate so loudly that it could be heard inside the debate in this Chamber. They were persuaded to leave before they took a hacksaw to the gate. I wonder, if they do this in Ottawa, if they will be so easily persuaded to leave, because the farmers very vividly recall Prime Minister Trudeau's ill-fated statement, stated loud and clear, that, "I'm not here to sell your wheat." He's kept that promise. Also Otto Lang's statement last night on television — they'll remember that. They also remembered his statements to phase out one-third of the Canadian farmers over the next two years. This weeding out programme is wrong. Due to the high cost of money his weeding out programme is phasing out only the economical units, and the only farmer that can survive is the small entrepreneur who subsidizes his farm with outside income.

Using the best information available, it has been calculated that 42 per cent of all the economic activity in Canada is associated one way or another with the agricultural and food industry. Many segments of our society don't appreciate this fact. This is serious and unfortunate, both in providing the agricultural development help that the industry needs now, and for the improvement of our whole Canadian economy and level of living. Yet, there is no such thing as standing still. Not any more. If others are going forward while we stand still, or are content to react to their changes and not generate change ourselves, then we are falling back. If I appear to strongly criticize our Federal Government, it is only because they remind me of a baby, badly in need of a change.

When I consider the impact the digression effect has on this basic industry, I can only state there will come a time when this won't be a land of plenty. There are very few young people engaged in food production, they can make a better living elsewhere. There will come a time when the oat bag won't be full, nor will there be very many necks to hang it around. We must look at the consequences of our changing in the future, in assessing what the future may mean. The future is for those who plan for it.

The challenge I put out to the residents of British Columbia and Canada, Mr. Speaker, is this. Do you want food produced by many farmers on a high level of production operating at a reasonable profit mark-up, or do you want food produced by two or three corporate conglomerates who will charge whatever the traffic will bear?

[ Page 475 ]

Mr. Speaker, before closing I would like to comment on pollution as it relates to food production, as it seems a subject of major public interest and concern in British Columbia and in other areas of Canada. Control of pollution is still a great concern to us. I agree. You can no doubt recall when the experts said you couldn't pollute Lake Erie, yet today Lake Erie is a veritable cesspool, and if there are no additional pollutants put in this lake it will be 50 years before it is fit for consumption.

Pollution threatens man's very existence and is primarily a social problem. The people who are complaining the loudest about pollution should remember that if they didn't have such indiscriminate use of their detergents, household chemicals, automobiles, and would subject themselves to a general reduction in their standard of living that, in itself, would be major steps to combating pollution. We place our garbage in these containers and a truck takes it away. Our drainage and sewage disappear mysteriously into municipal sewage system and we forget it. We turn on our faucets and obtain reasonably clean water. Food and amenities are available to us. I agree that both industry and municipalities are often unconcerned with the effects of discharge once they depart the immediate vicinity. But we as individuals are equally guilty of the same unconcern.

Technology and integrating into our culture has developed many, if not the majority, of our problems today. Technology has developed detergents, fungicides, pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and many other chemicals contributing to pollution. Technology, the science of industrial and mechanical art, I firmly believe, is responsible for the attitudes of today's youth, our labour problems, our agricultural problems, and all pollution problems. Technology has provided us with newspaper headlines, and I quote, "The moon quivers in an earthly way," and I quiver when I read that Prime Minister Trudeau suggests that technology has advanced in genetics to where parents can pick everything from intelligence to plumbing in their children.

Technology developed mercury-based fungicides. About 80 per cent of crop land is seeded with mercury-based fungicides. Now mercury is considered a new pollution threat. In industry mercury is used in the manufacture of pulp, paper, chlorine, caustic soda and electric appliances.

Plant life, fish and birds can be infected by mercury waste discharged into a river or by mercury fumes in the air. The threat of cancer has been brought to the headlines with the presence of cyclamates found in much of our processed foods.

Technology evolved antibiotics. Yet, they too, are reported a possible hazard to human health. The British Government is moving now to restrict the use of antibiotics in livestock, and they found that in farm animals it could lead to the emergence in human beings of strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. In London they have banned penicillin and tetracyclines in animal feed.

Mr. Speaker, technology has developed nitrogen fertilizer, all the pesticides, herbicides, etc. which all may create a problem of contamination, but only with indiscriminate use of these compounds. My main point is this, Mr. Speaker, we hear of all the various types of possible pollutants, but I would caution the public against becoming too emotional, as was eloquently pointed out by the member from Oak Bay in relating the story of cyclamates. While it may be desirable, and even necessary, to emphasize the areas in which more effective pollution control programmes should be introduced, a balanced perspective would also seem to warrant equal widespread publicity. Technology developed these problems and technology will solve them as the pressures appear.

The challenge offered to this great Province of ours to be a leader in all of Canada can be met. Whether we are discussing power, White Paper reform, or one of the basic industries or Constitutional changes — we can be the leader. Confucius once said that, "Not all the darkness in the world can put out the light of one candle." Let us be that candle in the world of the 70's.

On the motion of the Hon. R.R, Loffmark, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

On the motion of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

Bill (No. 3) intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Treatment Plant Assistance Act was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill No. 1, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Contributory Negligence Act)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 1. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, the major new principle in this Bill is the provision which abolishes the legal doctrine of ultimate negligence or last clear chance, which I believe the second member for Point Grey was talking about in a rather humorous vein just the other day. When the Contributory Negligence Acts were passed in the various provinces, I think the understanding was that the question of who had the last clear chance to avoid the accident would be merely one of the factors that would be taken into consideration in apportioning the degree of negligence on each of the drivers. However, a body of case law has developed in some other jurisdictions in Canada which would also apply to this Province, that where a person has a last clear chance to avoid an accident, the principles of the Contributory Negligence Act do not apply and there is no recovery.

The classic case, I suppose would be where you are driving down the road on your own side of the road within the speed limit, all of this, and someone travelling at an excessive rate of speed, perhaps drunk, or anything else, on your side runs into you, and the judge finds that you had an opportunity to get off the road and avoid the accident. That's an extreme example, but that's really what this doctrine of ultimate negligence is about. It's been a principle that was studied for two years by the Commissioners of Uniformity of Legislation in Canada and they've made a recommendation and that recommendation is contained in this Bill which would eliminate the doctrine of ultimate negligence.

I would move the Bill be now read a second time.

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

The honourable the 2nd member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM: I hope that the Attorney-General will also mention the fact that the Bill, furthermore, dispenses with the section that formerly dealt with gratuitous

[ Page 476 ]

passengers, being the section that the Government came to light on last year, and it's a nice thing to see that you have finally concluded that. I appreciate it's a technical amendment, but I thought it would be a nice thing for you to mention it, Mr. Attorney-General, since we've been pleading for that for about four years in the House.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: I'm sorry that I didn't take more credit for it. I'll remember to do that elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion. All those in favour say aye. Contrary minded, no. The motion is carried.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Bill be referred to a Committee of the whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question? All those in favour say aye. Contrary minded, no. The motion is carried.

The House adjourned at 5.44 p.m.