[ Page 77 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The following Bill was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

On the motion of Mr. D. Barrett, Bill (No. 8) intituled An Act Respecting a Guaranteed Income for Senior Citizens.

THRONE DEBATE

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): We're highly honoured today to have the Honourable John Turner, the Federal Minister of Justice, with us on the floor of the Legislature. He's here with his officials discussing important questions regarding Canada's situation, especially the Constitution. I ask all Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to give the Honourable Federal Minister a warm welcome.

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): I, too, would like to join in the welcome that has been given to the Honourable John Turner because in his early Parliamentary days he was associated with the Resource Department of the Canadian Council as Resource Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Speech from the Throne, thus far, has centred on two main topics — unemployment and the quality of the environment. I intend to deal with each of these topics briefly this afternoon. First, I think I'll deal with what I consider to be the most important example of the employment opportunities which exist here in the Province of British Columbia. It's my belief that, in this shrinking world in which we live, people should concentrate on doing those things well, for which they possess natural advantages and which cannot be met by others. In this way, there is a good chance, I think, for all to share an improved standard of living, wherever they happen to live. Against this philosophy, there is that other proposition expounded that, in the division of job opportunities, each country should become self-sufficient in the provision of goods, regardless of the economic consequences. This is often reflected in proposals for secondary industry that we hear in this Province. In British Columbia, the efficient management of our timber resources provides the prime opportunity for job provision and for job specialization — all the way from unskilled service to technical specialization to professional application in the fields of biology, engineering, business management, marketing and research. One of our aims should be to provide a world centre for wood-based technologies. Such recognition has already been gained by engineering firms, some in Vancouver, which specialize in the design and construction of pulp and paper facilities. They are recognized, as many of you know, on a worldwide basis at the present time. But the same specialization presents particular problems, which must first be understood and then resolved through intelligent cooperation from all who are dependent upon this resource for their economic livelihood. Let me illustrate from the current statistics which depict the general conditions of the industry throughout this last year. Many in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, have already said that this last year is a year we would like to forget. But, in 1970, the cut established a new record: it was up 2.2 per cent on the 1969 returns at 1,890 million cubic feet cut. It was a little down from the estimate we had prepared sometime in November to be used in the Throne Speech. It didn't quite come to the 3 per cent up that we had estimated at that time. In other words, we had a record jump in 1969 and we met that this year and we even surpassed it. This is no mean feat under the industrial and market conditions which we face. Few people give credit that this maintenance of employment, which is not matched anywhere else in the industry, came as a direct result of the sustained-yield management policies of this Province. A continuing cut position with respect to timber availability depends upon recorded performance. Because of our difficulties with the market, consideration has been given to the implementation of a moratorium on cut, but such has not been granted to date. If it does become necessary to some degree, it will not provide for any stockpiling at all. Such a practice only accentuates the "off again, on again" job opportunities which used to be a feature of this industry.

But what has happened to these scaled logs? I indicated a moment ago that this last year we cut a record. Lumber production was down 4 per cent from 1969. Shingle production was down 12 per cent from 1969. Plywood production was down 6.5 per cent from 1969. Pulp production was down 7 per cent from 1969. Paper production was down 5.5 per cent from last year. The decline of these last two items, the two pulps that I've mentioned, was principally caused by industrial dispute, because the market for these products has been fair to good throughout the year and the demand also has been very good. The added cost of maintaining this production in an adverse year has been jointly met by the people in general and through Government, and by industry and its investors. The wage earners in the industry received increases. The small independent operators without adequate financial backing have been severely affected. Major companies have recorded severe declines or even losses during this last year. Under other systems, they would likely have closed, which is what happened to a great number of the industries in the Pacific Northwest south of the line. Remember, the total cut increased. Against this, the direct revenues from stumpage and royalties, based upon the actual market returns for logs and lumber, declined this year by 27 per cent, from a rounded figure of 89.5 million dollars in 1969 to a figure of 65 million dollars in 1970. Before anyone jumps to conclusions, it should be remembered that, even at this total, the returns are the second best in the history of our industry and they're still 20.7 per cent over and beyond 1968, which was then declared to be a good year. I offer this comment, particularly for the benefit of my friend sitting on the left, the Minister of Finance, who's not too pleased with our efforts this year. His costs keep rising and he naturally expects his revenues to do exactly the same. But under the circumstances, I think we had a fair year, if one forgets the cost of fire fighting, which is another expenditure made by the people, through Government, for the continuing benefit of the public resource owners, the industry and the workers. I could well add, also, that this plays a major part now in the preservation of our total environment.

The above analysis automatically poses two questions or it should do. First, how could the total lumber scale go up and the production of the various end products decline? There are two reasons: 1969, last year, 1.4 per cent of our total production was exported in the form of round logs. This was a year ago in our best year, 1969. This year, the

[ Page 78 ]

year into which we are going now, the figure against total production was 2.6 per cent. In other words, approximately one half of our increased cut this year over last year was exported. The balance has been stock-piled to the point that advances on inventory to allow for a continuing production are being viewed with increased concern. We have more lumber and plywood now on hand than we've had at any time in our recorded history.

The second question concerns the future prospects for marketing the present industry, plus this year's anticipated production. It can be speculatively answered in two ways. First, there is an indicated increased emphasis to be placed on home construction this year in the United States, Mr. Speaker. The responsible official, Mr. Romney, talked about a target of two million homes. The American National Association of Home Builders estimates 1.7 million homes. Even this second figure will be up 20 per cent on the actual number of homes in 1970 and the effect on demand and price of forest products in British Columbia will be almost instantaneous. The second matter of influence on price and activity will be our ability to sell plywood in new markets. Our close utilization policies are leading to dramatic increases in the production as well as the employment opportunities within this field. We have saturated the Canadian market, however, and tariff prevents effective sale of this product in the United States' market. We must sell our product on other markets and we sell a product which is used primarily for structural purposes. We do not compete in the manufacture of thin, decorative veneers, but we are world leaders in producing structural grades of plywood materials and, as an aside, the largest structural plywood plant in the whole world, at the present time, is located at Quesnel.

We must open the European market through a concentrated sales effort, or overproduction at home will lead to a general decline in the comparative production of this labour consumptive section of our industry and will keep the price of the product too low for a return on investment. In the last year, at least three proposed plants have delayed plans for construction, awaiting some clarification of the market problem. It is agreed, a product flow, without an economic and continuing market is to invite financial suicide and serious people dislocation. This has happened in other parts of Canada.

This is a specialized secondary industry in the woods industry; it requires a special input, at the present time, in sales energy, which will come, I suppose, from people in general. For the first time, if we're getting involved with workers and others, I would think, because of the increased ability for jobs and profitable jobs, that there is a place also for involvement in advertising in the new markets which might be undertaken by the industries, the workers and the Government, all together to ensure an increasing demand for that material. There is an overall involvement with everybody and I think that, unless we all get into it, the job's not going to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I have four matters involving policy decisions this afternoon. As I deal with each at the appropriate time, when the new policy matter is there, I hope that each Member is able to grasp the particular significance of the item under discussion.

The first has to do with land tenure. In the 1970 Session of the Legislature, a new Land Act was passed with one section incorporating the new policy that Crown Grants of Provincial land should be issued only to Canadian citizens. This was a further step in land control procedures which had already incorporated a number of progressive policy decisions. These have been accepted across Canada as an indication of advanced administrative action towards ensuring that the public retain a vital interest in this most important resource. For example, policies may be listed as follows: (1) The prohibition of the sale of land which gives its highest economic return in the growth of a forest crop. (2) The retention of prime recreational land around all water courses for public use. (3) Leasehold tenure only on land around water courses which has not been initially retained for public use. This means that if the need develops in future years, such would revert to the full public use without cost at all. (4) The retention for use on a performance basis of all Crown grazing land. (5) The alienation of larger tracts of land for agricultural and other uses, on a lease-develop-purchase basis to ensure that Crown lands are not being held merely for speculative gain. (6) Nonarable land is not alienated on a permanent basis unless it is required for a specific use which does not require such soil qualities. Even with these procedures, there has been nothing to prevent the sale of land owned by Canadians to anyone who might wish to purchase, regardless of nationality. Many large holdings have changed hands on this basis. It has been an accepted privilege for any Canadian to be able to own his own home and a given acreage of land for his immediate use. This concept has been extended in recent years by action of this Legislature, in passing the Strata Titles Act, which as allowed for ownership of a living area without an individual's exclusive right to a piece of land.

Another fundamental policy change is being advocated now to help control the permanent tenure situation as referred to a few moments ago — wherein it was impossible to stop a Canadian acting as an agent and then transferring title of his recently acquired Crown land. It is proposed that, in future, large land holdings should be alienated under the basis of leasehold only. I will repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because it is a fundamental change in policy. It is proposed that, in future, large land holdings should be alienated on the basis of leasehold only. No decision has yet been made on the size of the land area surrounding the home and other capital structures, which might be purchased outright with the issuance of a Crown Grant. The same decision will have to be made concerning industrial undertakings, although many of these are now operated under this lease and partial purchase system as a matter of straight administrative procedure.

May I emphasize now, Mr. Speaker, that it is not suggested that an individual's home would be subject to such restrictions; however, it would mean that large acreages would not be permanently alienated from Crown control and when considered with the six mentioned policies now in force, danger in the future of the public losing a vital interest in this resource would be minimal, indeed. No Province in Canada can now compare with our procedures in this regard and the action now recommended would be a further step in the retention of our Canadian identity. The reaction to this announcement will play some part in determining the acreage allowance which should be considered proper in the allowance of future Crown Grants.

One word, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of ecological reserves. In 1967, in Canada, certain groups, determined to set aside ecological reserves across this country for the purpose of scientific investigation in this province — groups from the universities, Government resource departments, and other interested persons — have been making field examinations for selected areas for ecological reserves. One of the

[ Page 79 ]

reasons for establishing these reserves is to provide very small workshop areas for scientific research and educational purposes associated with our environment. In addition, the reserves also serve to set aside examples of natural ecosystems within the Province and preserve rare or endangered plants and animals in their native habitat. These reserves are not necessarily intended to provide recreational sites but are specific for the purposes for which I have mentioned. To date, my Department has set aside 26 of these ecological reserves on its records, covering a wide variety of locations throughout the Province. A further 14 (and the top of the world is not a situation of this kind) that have been suggested by the Committee are in the process of being checked by the Environmental and Land Use Committee with respect to legal status and other matters which will be adjudged in the near future.

The Committee has indicated that it will probably require another five years to complete the programme of field work, at which time it is anticipated that, over the Province as a whole, there may be a hundred or so of these spots, at various elevations as we go up the hillsides, and at various climatic regions in the interior and in the dry belt, the coast and coastal forests, in the north, in the Kootenays, the Okanagan, the Queen Charlotte's, Vancouver Island, which will give a complete pattern area for study of the ecological circumstances of this Province. I'd like to give particular praise to Dr. V.J. Krajina of the University of British Columbia, who has spent a great deal of time on this particular aspect.

The second major policy decision-making this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, concerns activities of the Environmental and Land Use Committee. Those charged with the responsibility in the field of environmental control have been trying to establish the best administrative vehicle to carry out the tasks which have been assumed. In most cases, the theoretical approaches have not proved to be practical in application. Broadly speaking, there have been two general administrative approaches. One envisions a control centre, which would set standards and police the results. We've heard some debate on this matter during the current sitting of the House. The other would concern the administration of the various resource departments. Within recent months British Columbia has assumed a role of experimental leadership in Canada in this latter field, and I'm willing to admit that this has come about through trying to work with the problems and not through some development of some theoretical master plan of procedure. I prefer myself the pragmatic approach — simply, does it work? During this last year, the Land Use Committee was established, as has been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It may seem strange at this time in history, Mr. Speaker, to state that this is the first time in Canada that an attempt has been made to bring together all of the responsible administrative areas and agencies within the Provincial administration to assist in the development of co-ordinated Crown land use policies. Now, the policy directives require that senior administrative officers must think, not only in terms of their own needs for land, but also take into consideration the requirements for multiple or balanced land use of all other departments. An example of the direct outcome of this approach has been the insistence that recreational needs, for example, be taken into consideration in the management of all forest land and not merely limited to those sections which are labelled as recreational areas or parks.

A second example involves an area approach concept which includes the administrators from Regional Districts, Natural Resource Departments, Department of Highways, and representatives of industry. This second general approach and pilot scheme was instituted in the north end of Vancouver Island, where it was possible to plan use prior to any intensive development. Other study areas have centred from Quesnel north to Prince George, and then west to Smithers and the whole of the East Kootenays. In these latter situations, land classification has been involved with work done under the Canada Land Inventory agreements by the Federal Government and they have assisted with the compilation of the basic data.

It's not my purpose this afternoon to outline the work and achievements of the Cabinet Land Use Committee but merely to show how its development has been related to a major change in policy insofar as environmental quality maintenance and pollution control are concerned. Confusion has persisted, Mr. Speaker, in the public mind between the responsibilities of the Pollution Control Board and the Director of the Pollution Control Branch of the Water Resources Service. Both these institutions operate under the provisions of the Pollution Control Act and carry out Government policy. The Pollution Control Board, under its Chairman, has the authority to set standards and broad pollution control requirements and the Board also is a first appeal tribunal from decisions made by the Director of the Pollution Control Branch. The Pollution Control Director and his Branch administer the Pollution Control Act by receiving and considering applications for permits and administering the permits once they are issued. Neither the Pollution Control Board nor the Pollution Control Branch has the power to establish basic policies outside of the Pollution Control Act. It is this aspect of the work which will concern my important announcement this afternoon.

The original constitution of the Pollution Control Board membership took into consideration the various resource departments and the other agencies, such as Health, that had a direct concern with the administration of pollution controls. Outside representation was added. The practical development of policy involved assessing available knowledge on each problem and trying to indicate a possible means of application. There are still large gaps in the technical field either at the measurement level or at the control end. Some of the effects of this have been illustrated through debates which have already taken place in this House. The very able speeches made in moving and seconding the Speech from the Throne dealt with aspects of pollution control. Insofar as mercury is concerned, for example, it is of special interest to know that only very recently has there been instrumentation developed to even measure the presence of this material in living matter in the very small amounts in which it happens to be found. It's very, very recently that this has been developed. As a consequence, the mercury content of nearly everything is now being recorded for the first time. Within the last week, Members may have noticed that some of the highest readings in Ontario have been recorded in fish caught in wilderness areas, where the only access is by plane and where industrial and human activity has been absolutely nil. The field of practical research of such new contaminants has only been scratched. As a matter of fact, we are only beginning to find out what should be researched on some kind of priority basis.

In discussions at the university level, I have heard it argued that nothing should proceed until all the scientific evidence is available on which decisions may be made. When

[ Page 80 ]

one asks us how this can be accomplished in a practical manner, there is absolutely no answer. The most effective way to find out will be to learn through doing, on a carefully controlled basis, and then make this evidence available to others for their guidance as well as our own. This discussion is not designed, Mr. Speaker, to be exhaustive in the control field, but merely to show the manner in which the development of administrative procedures takes place. The Utah Mines Development on the north end of Vancouver Island shall serve but as an example.

When the problems of effective effluent control were placed before the Director of the Pollution Control Branch, they already had received the attention of most of the competent, industrial expertise that was available in this Province and elsewhere. The Director advertised the fact that the application for a permit had been received and many persons, at that time, and many groups responded, although, I believe, none, even at that stage, could offer real assistance to him in evaluating the problem which was before him. To supplement the study taking place within the Pollution Control Branch, the matter of application was assigned to the B.C. Research Council for report. When the Council report was received the recommendations and other information were circulated to all persons and groups that had originally expressed concern with this development. Four of these responded. They were invited to present their case at a public hearing at the site of the project. Opposition was expressed by other people that they were not permitted to make a presentation. Some of these appealed to the Pollution Control Board concerning the decision of the Director and they were heard. Even at that point, they declined to submit any evidence which could assist in evaluating the problems of effluent control. The approach being made, Mr. Speaker, by these objectors was one of general policy and not of fact. But it still had some merit. By law, the Director must proceed on the basis of available facts and he is not permitted to decide upon basic Government policy. The confusion associated with his desire to assemble practical and scientific data and not opinion took the first two days to resolve at the forest industry hearing, which took place at the University of British Columbia this last summer. The Director of Pollution Control has no responsibility for handling the political or industrial planning approach to pollution control problems. The basic planning aspect was originally designed to be handled by the Board but now this approach does not appear to accept the total environmental and development responsibility or to meet the need. The total implications of such major decision-making appear to be far more important and should involve Government policy at the highest Cabinet level. Such a burden cannot be placed upon the shoulders of one man or upon a group that does not speak with the total authority of Government. In the final analysis, democratic processes cannot be circumvented in the resolution of vital decisions which affect the social, economic and ecological development of this Province. The Cabinet must assume full responsibility.

The activities of the Land Use Committee, through the individual resource departments and policy decisions of the Pollution Control Board and/or the Director, have had one basic common objective. All were directed at the establishment and maintenance of a quality environment. Decisions were inter-related because, under certain circumstances, effective controls could not be instituted without taking the broader look at land use surrounding the area of concern. If decisions were taken unilaterally by resource departments, compounded trouble could and would result.

Another fact became evident. Unless effective policies of total land use became incorporated in the administrative procedures of each individual department, the policing action assigned to the Pollution Control Act administration could be likened to closing the barn door after the animals had escaped. This is a basic matter, fundamental in administrative action, which is bothering administrators in Canada, United States and Europe at the present time, and we hear it argued backwards and forward. Matters in dispute concerning the Utah Mines Products near Port Hardy seem to emphasize this dilemma. It has become apparent that, at an early stage of a major industrial planning, a decision will have to be reached concerning the ability of the local environment to accommodate the proposed industry without substantial harm. Once this decision has been made, detailed planning and preparation for the development could be commenced and the technical application of the pollution control requirements could be handled by the pollution control authorities, and these men would not be faced with the fundamental political decision as to whether such a project should even be considered for that locality.

The above conclusion led to the recommendation which was outlined in the Speech from the Throne that the Land Use Committee be changed in name and function to the Environmental and Land Use Committee with expanded representation and responsibility. This is the strongest committee of Government and its representation encompasses the resource managers and human disciplines which, in total, control the quality of the environment. You can readily see, Mr. Speaker, that this approach to control is directly opposite to that advocated by those who propose an environment department that is concerned with regulations and policing. Unless there is involvement with the total administration of a resource, at all times, effective and constantly improving management in harmony with environmental requirements will not result. Such a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is now being reached by responsible administrators in various parts of the world. During this last summer, the Swiss Government, for example, sent a senior official across this country to interview those responsible for pollution control. It was his opinion that our approach in British Columbia would lead to the most effective results. He had not been able to find a practical means of administrative control unless there were direct involvement by all agencies which could affect the quality of the environment. In this case, he emphasized that theory and practice did not coincide because the policing approach did appear more logical until you tried to make it work. This was the reason for his trip and why it was financed.

The Federal Government would appear to be arriving at this same answer, although the method of achievement might be somewhat different. The recent decision to establish a branch concerned with environment has resulted in the transfer of many departmental functions of resource-related branches to this new ministry. We have been in almost constant communication with them as the difficulties are being sorted out. At the present stage, I am convinced that our approach is the most efficient and effective but time alone will provide the answer. Suffice to say, that the original policing concept has been abandoned in favour of direct involvement and cooperation by the agencies with responsibility for administration.

Another fundamental problem faces the Government. There is a growing group of people in this land who are

[ Page 81 ]

opposed to any type of development which would modify the environment in any way. They are dedicated to maintaining land and water areas in their natural state and reject the idea that resources should be used for the benefit of man. As a consequence, they will oppose every application for resource development. As an example, in the western United States, at the present time, the Sierra Club is opposing practically every sale of timber offered by the Federal Forest Service, and placing injunctions to prevent any action thereafter. On the other extreme, we had the recent demonstration at the opening of this Legislature where people demanded that an increasing number of jobs be made available for productive employment.

This Province is one of the richest natural resource areas in the world and we have the responsibility for developing these materials for the general benefit of our people, both from the standpoint of jobs and the standpoint of Provincial revenue. The Government must take the responsibility for the decisions that are made in this regard and their decisions must be evaluated in a democratic way in the ballot box at election time. Your Social Credit Government is prepared to accept the challenge and, in this regard, my remarks this afternoon can be summarized in the following points: (1) The Environmental and Land Use Committee will be charged with the responsibility for deciding whether the environment, in a given situation, can absorb the wastes that will develop from a proposed enterprise without real detriment. This will be a general assessment, based upon independent evaluation, and after a public hearing and recommendations from the Cabinet as a whole. (2) Once the basic political decision has been made to proceed, the Pollution Control Act administration shall be responsible for the implementation of controls to approved standards. The composition of the Pollution Control Board shall be modified to reflect the basic technical decisions which have to be made. Ministerial representation shall be concentrated at the Environmental and Land Use Committee level and not at the Pollution Control Board level as at the present time. The Director of the Pollution Control Branch of our Water Resources Department will continue to administer the Act as provided in the Pollution Control Act.

The next matter of basic policy, Mr. Speaker, concerns waterborne debris and beach clean-up. It involves a submission to the Forestry Committee. The problem of debris control in coastal waters has been receiving intensive study by a task force of the Forest Service for several months and the report has just been received. Possibly, I should review briefly the present procedures and the problems presented, and then very briefly touch on the possible solutions suggested by the report, which will be referred to the Committee. The Forest Act and regulations were changed in 1967 to allow for salvage of all material and portions of beach after public advertising had provided time for the original owners to claim logs which bear their timber marks. The success of this programme has been very limited; it did salvage and make useful some high grade logs, but removal of the lower grade material was uneconomic and was left on the beaches.

The current interest in pollution has compounded the debris disposal problem. In the last year, for example, the burning of wood material taken from the waters in Vancouver Harbour has been prohibited by the Federal Government. The waste material has been piled up on available open areas until that manner of handling has now become an even greater problem. A study undertaken by the B.C. Research Council, on behalf of the various Harbour Boards, shows much of the debris on the lower coast comes down the Fraser River and could possibly be controlled by diversion booms up river, but this diversion only delays the problem. The Forest Service investigation found, on information presently available, that the Fraser River debris would cover at least 200 acres a year if diverted into sloughs and tightly packed. A method of disposal still has to be found after it has been diverted. Salvage and beachcombed logs of marketable value in the inside passage are sold through a nonprofit organization known as Gulf Log Salvage. They pick up about five million cubic feet a year of material and this is only about a quarter of the material that's lost by industry. After Gulf Log Salvage's costs are deducted and the appropriate stumpage and royalty charge have been paid, the sale value of marked logs is divided, on a percentage basis set out by the regulations, between the log salvage permitee and the person who has the timber marked. With no-mark-visible logs, with some exceptions, the owner's portion is pooled and later divided among mark-holders on the basis of the proportion of marked logs which have been handled by the Salvage Bureau. On the basis of the last two years, one was good and the other was relatively poor, the no-mark-visible fund distributed to owners approximately five hundred thousand dollars.

I believe that, if a full-scale programme is organized to free coastal waters of floating debris, this should be subsidized from public funds as little as possible. This means that any money that is received from the handling of driftwood should be used to defray the cost of disposing the unmerchantable material and of subsidizing the removal of the lower value material from the beaches. Possibly, the no-mark-visible fund should be diverted for this purpose. Possibly, even, the proceeds of marked logs should also assist. I am, of course, not considering logs recovered under recognized spill procedures which follow a storm situation.

The Forest Service report indicates that the bulk of the loss is in hemlock and balsam, particularly in the small diameters and deadheads; it further indicates that flat rafts show the greatest loss in transit but that bundle booms and barges add greatly to the loss of break-up or dumping. Possible changes in log transportation seem to be overdue.

Ultimate disposal of waste would seem to be a combination of reselling merchantable material recovered and the increased use of chipping facilities, hopefully provided by private sources for low-grade material. Still lower quality material could be processed for hog fuel and new incineration methods would indicate this can be done without increasing air pollution. As I mentioned above, it would seem reasonable that the higher grade material salvaged should subsidize the recovery and disposal of the lower grade material. I believe the very important subject of debris prevention and disposal should be referred to the Forestry Committee for study and report, and a resolution to this effect will be submitted to the House shortly. This will allow a complete review by all interested people. I'm issuing the indication at this time so that there will be ample notice for people to both ready their material and give thought to the problem.

My last matter of detail happens to concern Cypress Bowl. A brief resume of the situation which now exists at Cypress Bowl would be of interest to Members of the Legislature. During the Session last year, it was reported that the ownership of the shares of Alpine Outdoor Recreation would have to be assumed by a group that could be approved by Government. At the end of the original deadline to report

[ Page 82 ]

progress on the transaction at the end of May, indication was given that negotiations were proceeding, Mr. Speaker, with groups that could prove to be acceptable. Several groups were interviewed but it became apparent that none of these could finance the obligations which would be imposed. A deadline to conclude financial control was set for the end of the year and, when this date passed, the Government moved to establish an on-going policy for the area. The original feasibility for the development was carried out in late 1962 and early 1963. Eight months of study had gone into the proposal, including meetings with various groups and persons at the municipal level in West Vancouver, before there had been an approach made to the Government. An assurance of the practicability of the scheme, both from the standpoint of finance and development, was given at the initial presentation and this was not challenged. The subsequent public hearing on the project, which took place prior to development of the community plan by the municipality, did not reveal the expected return on investment and the ability to proceed was, again, not challenged.

In due course, the original developers realized that they could not fulfill their obligations to the municipality and to the Crown without substantial investment of capital which they did not have at their disposal, and this led to the arrangement that was made between Alpine Outdoor Recreation Limited and the Benguet interests. Each of the parties that has since desired to occupy the Benguet position…. I am sure that if the Honourable Member for Vancouver East has all these documentations, there's going to be ample opportunity for him in Court to provide all the evidence that he happens to have. We'll watch it with great interest.

Each of the parties that has since desired to occupy the Benguet position has indicated that it is not possible to secure a return on capital if the planned development must be carried out according to the specified agreement. The chief stumbling blocks were listed as the provision of access and adequate parking, plus the installation of the lift facilities as required by the agreement. There was also the separate problem of the refund to Benguet to cover their investment. It was emphasized that, if the Crown assumed the responsibility for the access, it would be possible to secure the required financial backing. I repeat, it was emphasized that, if the Crown assumed the responsibility of access and maintenance, it would then be possible to secure the required financial backing. The Government reviewed the situation. In so doing, the first-hand experience gained at Mt. Seymour and at Manning Park proved of value. The return on investments of several private winter recreational areas in the Pacific Northwest was reviewed and it became apparent that, unless some concession were allowed for property development to supplement the financial return from the recreational facilities, Cypress Bowl could not be financed adequately. If the Crown were to build the road and maintain such access and the parking lot, feasibility was possible, that is, returns could be expected to pay for and maintain the lifts and the other recreational facilities that would be provided. The natural decision, then, became apparent, that if the public were to invest heavily to ensure development, public control of the facilities should be maintained. With this in mind, the planned programme for Mt. Seymour was reviewed and it became apparent that money expended at Cypress Bowl would bring a better people-use ratio because of the suitability of the terrain. My colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, will deal with this matter in some detail when he speaks to this House tomorrow afternoon, since this falls within his departmental responsibilities.

Criticism has been expressed concerning the clearing which is being carried out…. (interruption) If you've got the evidence up here and any professional reputation which you can put forward, I wish you would present it. Criticism has been expressed, and you're doing it this afternoon, concerning the clearing which is being carried out on the slopes at Cypress. The Forest Service was prepared to go and plant up, as recommended by responsible ski slope developers. However, the advice received was that the clearing for a high density type of development was good except for a couple of small areas. This proved to be a reiteration of the advice which had already been given to West Vancouver authorities by independent expert consultants.

Ever since 1963, every step taken to develop Cypress Bowl has followed general and particular recommendations from the Municipality of West Vancouver. Despite this fact, most of the criticism for the proposal has been directed at the Government, generally, and my own Department of Lands and Forests, in particular. Much of the additional expense incurred has been associated with the provision of an access route which was designed to open up municipally owned land and property at virtually no expense to the local residents. The proposed project was most difficult to finance with the limited access proposed in the first instance. With the requirement for the major Hollyburn road route, the task proved to be absolutely impossible. Much of the assets which Benguet claims to still have is in this road, which is now only partly developed.

Against this background of information, which brings the situation up to the present, I am authorized to indicate future Government action: (1) Forthwith, the Department of Highways is proceeding to locate a road of good standard access to the Cypress Bowl Recreational Area, with parking facilities. Action will commence on that almost immediately. (2) The area will be kept under public control and will be administered by the Department of Recreation and Conservation. No private development of either area or facilities will take place. (3) A high density, winter/summer recreational area is projected. (4) Action will proceed this year and should prove an added boost to the employment close to metropolitan Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, that ends the four matters with which I was dealing this afternoon. (interruption) Who is paying Mr. Benguet? I'll answer that one. Nobody is paying Benguet because the Crown is, in no way, obligated to Benguet. Thank you for the question. The Crown never has been obligated except in the mind of the honourable Member. Nobody gets the residential development, because there is none. You were told this afternoon it was a park and your immediate question is who gets the residential development. You haven't even the responsibility to sit in this Legislature and listen when it's placed. Because nobody puts residential into a park situation. And you are just leading as you're going. Mr. Speaker, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to take my place in this Throne debate. I listened with interest to what the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources had to say.

[ Page 83 ]

He opened his speech by telling us he didn't know what he was going to say and then he proceeded to read a fairly lengthy speech. If he didn't know what he was going to say and there was a speech, who wrote it? I'm sorry I haven't got a typed script to hand out.

I was particularly interested in his closing remarks about Cypress Bowl, because what the Minister finished up saying and proposing and outlining, as Government policy, was exactly what the present Leader of the Opposition asked you to do five years ago. Public development of a public park and you, Mr. Minister, sat there and gave us that lecture you give us every time. "You don't know what you're talking about, you just don't understand. If you would sit and listen. Standing in the way of progress. Sand in the gears." For five years we have listened to this and at the end of the road, Mr. Minister, you stand up there as if you've had a vision. No confession of guilt, no apology to the Leader of the Opposition for the things you have said to him over the years, that he was telling absolute falsehoods, that it wasn't true, and you finish up having to accept the position that he advocated.

When I heard your statement a month or so ago, about the Order-in-Council, pointing out that the Order-in-Council of 1969 wasn't really legal because it had never been proclaimed or advertised or gazetted, does that mean that the trees that were cut down in Cypress Bowl were cut down illegally? Will the attitude you've taken put the trees back in? Will it restore the environment before it was gouged, scraped and pushed. Of course not. We welcome your belated statement that we are now going to have a public park, publicly developed. I think perhaps we should name that park after some restoration work is done, Barrett Park.

Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia for reading the Throne Speech under such trying circumstances. I thought he did an excellent job, especially considering the poor material with which he had to work.

I have gone through the Throne Speech very carefully. As you notice I have every section named, underlining certain lines. I'm going to be my usual quiet, reticent self today, so just sit back.

It's a problem to know where to start. There's so much that should be said and so much that should be done. I'm going to start with my constituency, first of all. It's been a busy year in Cowichan-Malahat. We had a visit from the Premier, the Minister of Public Works was there, one of our gracious lady Ministers was there, the Minister of Trade and Industry was there, the Minister of Education has been into Cowichan-Malahat. Cowichan-Malahat is becoming one of the most popular places in British Columbia.

You will notice the Throne Speech mentions the fact that the first section of the Lake Cowichan road has finally been opened and that the new Provincial Building in Duncan has been opened. In the paper the other day, in the "10 Years Ago" column, I read a piece where it said: "A meeting between the Duncan-Cowichan Chamber of Commerce delegates and three Provincial Ministers, the Honourable P.A. Gaglardi, Highways, the Honourable E.C. Westwood, Recreation, Conservation and Transport, and the Honourable W.N. Chant got a semi-promise from Gaglardi that the Lake Cowichan highway would soon be started." That was 10 years ago and we got a semi-promise. I don't know what a semi-promise is, but that's what we got.

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago in this House, there was an outstanding Member from Cowichan representing the constituency. He was asking for a new Provincial building and, as you know, the Opposition is not allowed to increase expenditures but it is allowed to reduce expenditures. You'll be interested, Mr. Speaker, that there was something on the estimates to provide a 100 thousand-dollar Provincial building for Prince Rupert. The Member from Cowichan, fifty years ago, stood up and moved that that sum of 100 thousand dollars be reduced by 25 thousand dollars in order to provide a new Provincial building for the Cowichan district and the city of Duncan.

The motion was defeated and Prince Rupert got its Courthouse and its new Provincial building and we had to wait through thirty years of Liberal, Conservative and Coalition and almost twenty years of Social Credit before we finally got the Provincial building. Now, it is open and I'm very happy about that.

The Premier announced, when he was opening a Provincial building, that he's going to be calling for tenders for the final section of the Lake Cowichan road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty years from now.

MR. STRACHAN: No, the advertising is out and I think tenders closed yesterday. While I was at the opening of the section of the Lake Cowichan road, one of the people from Lake Cowichan gave me a bumper strip and it says, "I am fighting for a new Lake Cowichan road." This was one of the community efforts to try to draw public attention to the need for that particular highway. At the opening of the new building and after the Premier had announced we were going to get the final section of the Lake Cowichan road, someone said to me, "Well, what are you going to do now? You've got your new Provincial building, you've got the Lake Cowichan road." For a few brief seconds it made me feel like Alexander — no more roads to conquer. But then I had a look around and I prepared a partial list of the kind of things I'm going to be raising in this Legislature in this Session, and in succeeding Sessions, during the short term that's left to this Government, until all of them are accomplished, because as I said, "There is still so much do be done."

First of all, I want to see immediate action on the extended care units to the Cowichan District Hospital. A year ago, I discussed this with the Minister of Health and I was led to believe that there weren't any real barriers in the way and we could expect action in that regard. This is urgent and I suggest to the Minister that he get moving and be a little more understanding, just a little more agreeable, with the Duncan Hospital Board so that we can get that extended care unit going immediately.

Next I want to see proper psychiatric service in Duncan and the Ladysmith area. This is referred to in the Speech from the Throne. We have a situation in Duncan where the local people have provided the facilities and where we are waiting for some help from the Provincial Government to provide the personnel. A week or so ago when the Premier announced that the books were open and we could hire 1,100 more civil servants to fill the jobs, he said that they hadn't been filled during the last 12 months because there was no need to fill them — the need wasn't there. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely untrue. There was the need for the psychiatric personnel, not only in this constituency but all over the Province. The facilities were there and we were promised that personnel would be provided and they were not.

I want to see the pre-school dental clinic in Lake

[ Page 84 ]

Cowichan. I want to see an adequate number of health inspectors for the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit, because, again, a year ago, I was promised by the Minister of Health that additional inspectors would be available. It is a pretty important field, this field of public health, and I have the clippings where the Minister indicated to a meeting, which I arranged with the members of the Central Vancouver Island Board of Health, that we would get these inspectors. When you look at the work that has been put on the inspection service of the Department of Public Health, then you realize why it is important and was important that the Minister should have filled those jobs a year ago, not only in that district but in other districts throughout the Province. We find that the public health inspectors, according to the report, are involved in so many areas of public protection that it's nothing short of criminal to leave these public health inspection posts unfilled and, for the Premier to say there was no need to fill the jobs, is a travesty of the truth.

What is their function? Food premises to inspect in all areas of the district, eating and drinking, food processing plants, food stores, slaughterhouses, shell food plants. All of which I have in my constituency. Two inspectors short. Industrial camps, I have industrial camps in my constituency, the facilities of which are supposed to be inspected regularly to see that the men living in these camps have adequate health protection. They are supposed to inspect hospitals, boarding homes, and I have a number of boarding homes in my constituency. So have other people. All of you have heard complaints about some of the health standards in these boarding homes. This is a job of the public health inspector. Why weren't these jobs filled? The Finance Minister said that they weren't needed but that wasn't true. Kindergartens, summer camps, housing, tourist accommodation, barber shops, beauty parlours, fur farms, livestock, poultry farms, pollution control, bacteriological, chemicals, disease investigation, industrial health visits, site inspections of subdivisions; all part of the job of a public health inspector. We were promised two more. In the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit we are thousands and thousands of inspections behind and this is a Government that is supposed to be looking after people, that says we are moving into a new era, that we have taken care of the material requirements. In the year, with thousands of people unemployed, 1,100 vacant jobs, including many in the health service, these jobs were not done. Waste disposal, garbage dumps, industrial waste, private garbage; in the field of recreation, parks and beaches, restrooms; with regard to sewage, sewage out-falls in plants, private sewage disposal, plumbing. They are supposed to make sanitary surveys, supposed to inspect our schools, inspect our private water supplies, public water supplies, swimming pools. With this long list, we were promised two more public health inspectors in the Vancouver Island Health Unit last year and we didn't get them. I'm standing here asking for them, right now because it's too important a field to be left to the whims of the Minister of Finance in his attempts to keep the lid on, when he has a 64 million-dollar surplus.

Next, I want a survey of the whole coast of Vancouver Island within my constituency, from Mill Bay right up to Ladysmith Harbour. It should probably go right up to Nanaimo and right up the coast, but I'm speaking for Cowichan-Malahat. I want that survey to determine what pollution is taking place, whether it's industrial, commercial or individual. I want that survey this year and I want action taken to prevent any further pollution of the waters of Central Vancouver Island.

I want the development of the Cottonwood Creek campsite and a clean-up of the debris on Lake Cowichan. A few years ago, I had some correspondence and discussions with the Minister about the debris on Lake Cowichan, and I have to say that the companies involved were very cooperative and did help us clean up at least some of that debris. But I was on Lake Cowichan several times this year with my little boat and it's just too dangerous to be allowed to remain the way it is.

I want to see the Department of Highways build a car ramp for the Kuper Island Ferry. This is essential. It is in the Indian Reserve but there are absolutely no facilities for them to get a car on or off that Island. I want a larger ferry for Thetis and Kuper Islands because, with the view to integrating the young Indian people into our school system, more and more of the young Indian children from the residential school are being taken to the Chemainus School. The ferry is completely inadequate, especially in the winter months. There are no waiting facilities; they have to stand outside in all kinds of weather. The little room that's on the ferry will not hold the number of students that are involved so they have to stand outside on the deck, irrespective of the weather. So that's a must — a much larger ferry for Kuper and Thetis Islands.

Next I want a natural gas pipeline from the mainland to Vancouver Island. I think it's time the people on Vancouver Island had an opportunity to participate in the use of this great natural resource of this Province. It belongs to the people of Vancouver Island, too. Rather than spending much of our time trying to find markets south of the border so we can sell it down there at a price less than we charge the people of British Columbia, I want the Government right now to offer a prize, a prize of a quarter of a million dollars for the engineering firm that will produce a suitable piping system to get that natural gas from the mainland to Vancouver Island. If we can get men on the moon, surely, we can get natural gas to Vancouver Island.

Next, I want action on flood control for Lake Cowichan and the Cowichan Valley. You know what happens. Every few years, we have a flood situation develop. I have a picture of an outboard going up the main street of Lake Cowichan a couple of years ago. At the time, there's always a big free-for-all and the Minister gets very excited, and we get people up from his Department, and reports are made — and that's the last we hear of it. We have been fortunate that there has been no flood this year. There was no flood last year. But I want action, this year, on control of the flood situation for Lake Cowichan and the Cowichan Valley, I'm not leaving roads out of it altogether. I want the Cedar Road resurfaced. It's 20 years since it was surfaced. I want a new road to Crofton, that narrow, completely hazardous road that is impossible to walk on safely. There's a railway crossing on that road that is against every law in the country. That road must be attended to.

I want to improve the educational system in this Province. I want to see the finance formula for regional colleges changed. I want to start on that promise made by the Minister last year that the Island Highway would be improved or, at least, a real start on the three lanes you promised. There is an increasing number of accidents on that Island Highway and I predict there will be more unless there is immediate action.

I want the Health Sciences Centre of the University of British Columbia to be allowed to do the job it was supposed

[ Page 85 ]

to do. Do you remember this was developed with great fanfare? What happened to that Health Sciences Centre? This was proposed as a 60-bed hospital. It was supposed to be the model for all the hospitals of British Columbia, a pilot plant in which they were supposed to try all the procedures and methods and develop the best ways of bringing good health services to our people. It has a 100 per cent occupancy rate but the financial allowance is completely inadequate to let them do the job that they were supposed to do in the Health Sciences Centre.

There has been no action taken yet to develop the facilities for the care of the adolescents' and child psychiatric unit that was supposed to be part of the Health Sciences Centre of the University of British Columbia. I suggest that that has to be attended to.

I want to see the cuts that were made on the medicare scheme for the para-medical services restored. That's a must in this Session.

I want the welfare load taken right off the back of the municipal taxpayers and, finally, and as I say this is only a partial list, there's lots to do yet. Let's not sit in smug majority over there and think there's nothing left to be done. I want the taxation load taken off the backs of the farmers of British Columbia.

I'd like to make a few more comments on the Speech of the Throne. The Speech made some reference to housing. The Annual Report of the Department of Social Welfare last year tells us the situation. I will just read you two paragraphs, especially as it relates to the native Indians. It says: "These people are facing a critical housing shortage as well as problems in adaptation to a new cultural way of life. It is becoming more and more apparent that total health, education and welfare services to Indians will have to be assumed by the Provincial Government in order to attack some of the basic causes of social problems and to implement some preventive programmes." This is your own Social Welfare report a year ago. If there were a dedication to humanity, there should have been some reference to this in the Speech from the Throne.

Housing remains one of the most critical problems within the region, Region 1, Vancouver Island, my area. Homeownership is now out of reach of many wage earners and impossible for social allowance recipients. We require additional subsidized housing. Possible solutions include a reduction of interest rates on mortgages, and the Provincial Government and municipalities developing fully serviced building lots for sale to the general public at a reasonable cost to reduce the present speculatory, inflationary costs of land.

The above suggestions could not only create more housing for all economic levels of society but could help to create necessary employment.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the those Ministers over there ever read the Annual Reports of their people in the field, or do they just sit there with their smug majority and think that they, "blah, let the thing go." These are your own people, who come face to face with the needs and wants of society. There's nothing in the Throne Speech to indicate that you've even read that Report, let alone are prepared to do anything about it.

I listened to the Minister talking about the lumber industry in British Columbia and how the Minister of Finance was upset with the returns. I'm upset with the returns, too. I'm upset at this statement here about housing being beyond the reach of so many of our people. Do you know why the housing is beyond the reach of so many of our people?

Because we can't afford to buy our own lumber. We're getting robbed two ways. One, we are not getting an adequate return to the Crown for the resource. Then when we go to buy it, after having given it away, it's the most ridiculous price. Do you know what I did, Mr. Speaker? I was fixing up a room in my basement and I went up to a local building supply house (it's owned by a subsidiary of the Great National Land of which my friend from Nanaimo is the president) to buy some spruce shelving. I bought some spruce shelving. It was knotty, it was warped, but it was the best I could afford. Do you know how much it was? 47 cents a lineal foot. That's $470 a thousand feet board measure — for knotty, warped spruce. Is it any wonder we can't afford to build houses? Yet, I pick up the timber sales report for each month and I find…what do we get? We get about $7 a thousand feet for it. Now, the average worker in the lumber industry produces about 3,000 feet per day, that's an average right through from the logger until it is put on the car. Let us say, the average logger gets $30 a day for 3,000 feet. That's about $10 a thousand feet in actual wages. We get $7 stumpage, that's $17. Now, surely, it doesn't take the difference between $17 and $470 to get one thousand feet of lumber from the mills to Nanaimo.

AN HON. MEMBER: You forgot the overhead.

MR. STRACHAN: I forgot the overhead, maybe so. While I have this sheet in my hand, the Member from Vancouver East referred sometime ago to the difference in return to the Crown, when there is competition, and 95 per cent of them are not by competition. There's one here, right on Vancouver Island, where, it's for some fir, the appraised price was $12.30. That was the price the forest industry thought would be a fair charge to make for that. The upset price was $10.80 but, because there was a little competition, do you know what it sold for? $31.00 a thousand, almost three times the upset price placed on it by the Forest Service.

Think of what that would do when you go over the page and find that here's a situation where somebody got three million feet of spruce and the stumpage to the Crown was $4.50 per hundred cubic feet. If you go to the interior, it's about half of that in stumpage returns to the Crown. So, as I say, we are getting robbed two ways. Both in our returns to the Crown and the fantastic price that we cannot afford to pay to build houses for our people.

Again, we go to the Speech from the Throne and we find some reference to the economic situation and we find the Government pleading to Ottawa for something to do with incentive grants. A Minister over there said, "We don't believe in hot-house industry, we don't believe in hot-house industry." They want incentive grants, however. This is only an indication of the sheer confusion that reigns over there. This Government doesn't know where it is going nor what its policy is.

We take this matter of this proposed nuclear plant on Vancouver Island, the nuclear reactor. Why do you think I said I wanted a natural gas pipeline over here? I don't want any nuclear plant built on Vancouver Island unless there is an absolute assurance, absolute, absolute. Without question. And let me tell you, Mr. Minister, I am not prepared to accept the word of that Minister, that Minister there, that it is absolutely safe and sound and secure. We had these assurances before, and I'll come to them a little later. You know, Mr. Speaker, it was funny. First of all, the Premier started off by announcing he had asked Ottawa to participate

[ Page 86 ]

in the proposed construction of a nuclear power generating plant on Southern Vancouver Island. Then he had some second thoughts and he decided, "Well, no." He realized there were some problems attached to it, but then Dr. Shrum says, "Oh, yes, it's going to go ahead." Of course, we've had the recent experience of Dr. Shrum moving into the district, inviting individuals to come and talk quietly with him, and their message is that we've got to be very careful and speak softly until we've got the people coming our way.

As I say, they don't know where they are going. The Premier says, "Yes," Shrum says, "Yes," the Premier says, "No," Shrum says, "Yes," but the product and the campaign has started and, as far as I'm concerned, and I agree with the Council of North Cowichan, we don't want any atomic plant in there until it's absolutely proven. Rather than have the atomic plant, I want a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island.

In what other ways does the Government not know where it is going? We have the Minister of Recreation and Conservation telling us that B.C. cannot control or ban DDT unilaterally. Then we have the Minister of Agriculture saying, "Announcing a virtual ban on the use of DDT." Kiernan tells why B.C. won't slap a ban on DDT. "Virtual DDT ban order for B.C." There are two stories. Then, of course, we come to that hydra-headed monster — the sale of water to the United States. Shrum says, "Yes, we can sell water to the United States," Bennett says, "No, we are not going to sell water to the United States." Kiernan says, "Yes, we are going to sell water to the United States."

All of this indicates very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that this Government can't be trusted and that's the message the people of British Columbia are beginning to get. It can't be trusted; it has demonstrated that time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne refers to the difficult year of 1970. I agree that it was a difficult year in many ways. In many ways it was the responsibility, on default, of this Government. In some cases, it was the actions of the trade union movement. In many cases, it was the actions of the employers. But what concerned me as much as anything last summer was what happened right here on Vancouver Island, where there is a cement plant. A cement plant that wasn't struck, wasn't locked out, was in true production, stockpiling its production. We had carpenters and construction workers on Vancouver Island ready, willing and able to work. There were jobs that required doing and that cement company refused to sell cement to the contractors who were in a position to use it. I went to see the manager of that plant and I explained the situation to him, that there was no strike or lockout in his plant, that there were construction workers and construction companies with jobs to do, so why wouldn't he sell them cement. He told me that he was under instructions from Vancouver. I asked him to justify this action and he told me that his principals were of the opinion that by shutting down the cement market tightly, they could bring things to a head. I reminded that gentleman that we have laws in this Province that affect the workers of this Province. The workers of this Province are not allowed to indulge in a secondary boycott. It's against the law, as far as the workers are concerned. But there are two kinds of law in this Province; there is one for the workers and there is one for management. Here was management involved in a secondary boycott — no law against it, no matter what damage it was doing to Vancouver Island, no matter what jobs were available and could have been going ahead. Collusion between the major employers in British Columbia was the cause of the trouble last year.

Incidentally, while I'm speaking of this situation, the Minister of Labour, when he was speaking last night, castigated the Leader of the Liberal Party because he had said, "There were 2,900,000 people out of work last year." He pooh-poohed it and he gave another figure. (interruption) Man-hours. Why didn't he pick on his friend over here. He said it was 3,000,000. You said there were only 2,900,000. The Member from Columbia River said there were 3,000,000 but he didn't mention that. Evidentally you two have been reading the same report and the Minister hasn't read that particular report.

Mr. Speaker, this is Centennial Year and I have just been speaking about the problems we had in the field of labour-management relations last year. It's interesting to know that one hundred years ago when, as someone said (I think it was the Member from Columbia River), we only had ten thousand white citizens in British Columbia, the miners in Ladysmith were on strike. In 1871, the miners in Ladysmith were on strike. But there is a closer parallel than that there were some workers on strike a hundred years ago. Let me read to you the notice that was put out by the miners: "The miners, blacksmiths, labourers and others in the employ of the Vancouver Coal Company of Nanaimo wish to notify the public that, in consequence of having received notice of reduction of their wages of 10 per cent, notwithstanding previous reductions which they have patiently submitted to time after time, now find it impossible to continue to work in consequence of the high price of provisions. All men of the above classes are therefore notified that work is suspended at present."

At a general meeting of the men, it was unanimously resolved to use all moral and legal means to assert their rights. The statement by the Government of the day, having heard that statement as to the attitude of the men, was the following proclamation: "Whereas it has been brought to the notice of the Government that threats tending to breaches of the peace have been made and anonymous notices have been addressed to persons in the employment of the Vancouver Island Company, tending to create fear of life and property, this is, therefore, to notify to whom it may concern, that all persons found using threats, resorting to force, or otherwise illegally interfering with those who desire to continue in pursuit of their lawful occupations, will be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law, and that any outrage to life or property will be punished with promptitude and severity." The men had said that they were going to observe every moral and legal means and the Government made that statement.

But something else happened. They sent a gunboat up because, "There had been observed a disposition to insubordination on the part of some of the miners, the miners on strike having been holding meetings and sending deputations to the manager." This was insubordination, "So send the gunboat up." "HMS Boxer is expected up about the end of the present week with a view to preventing disorder." A hundred years ago. As I say, the more things change, the more they remain the same. The attitudes of the Governments we have had, have always been a major part of the responsibility for any problems, troubles, upsets or violence that have erupted in the Province of British Columbia.

In the Speech from the Throne, mention is made of the improvement of total environment. On January 21, the day this House opened, it was reported that the Utah Mining Company had been given a permit to dump nine million

[ Page 87 ]

gallons of tailings into Rupert Sound. I listened to the Minister and his outline of what has happened. Do you know we've been through this before. Buttle Lake. We had exactly the same kind of talk from the Minister, all the Ministers, from the Government, with regard to Buttle Lake that we are getting about the future and about the Utah Mining. (interruption) Here is a press release dated January 22, of this year. "The Fish and Wildlife Branch, concerned about the concentrations of heavy metals found in some lakes in British Columbia and anxious to keep the public informed about their observations, has announced the compilation of a report based on their surveillance programme. By way of background, it is pointed out that heavy metals such as lead, copper, zinc and mercury, can be toxic, particularly to fish at relatively low concentration."

Do you remember what was said in the legislative hearings when we were talking about granting Western Mines a permit? "Oh, no, there's going to be nothing like that. This is just going to be little pieces of rock dribbling down into the bottom of the lake, that can't hurt you, that can't hurt the fish." That was the story and the Minister there knows it. I'd like to review the whole Buttle Lake–Strathcona Park thing, because there is nothing that gets that Minister more upset than to be reminded of his shortcomings in that particular effort. I heard him on television a week or so ago, and he was very unctuous. He would say, "You have three choices," and he enunciated the three choices. He forgot the fourth choice which is the one he always takes. "Give them more claims if they haven't got enough already," which is exactly what he did in Buttle Lake. "If they haven't got enough to make a mine, give them more." That was the fourth choice that you forgot to mention in that television interview, Mr. Minister. Now we find that in Buttle Lake the mine tailings are suspected of fish contamination, there's going to be a joint probe into the Buttle Lake ore content and all the rest of it. All because this Government has adopted a certain policy and it's always been their policy. I'll tell you why the Government has adopted that policy. There are two reasons and the first reason lies with the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines. The letter which they sent to that Minister there, the Honourable W.K. Kiernan, on March 6, 1965, I'm going to read it again, just in case some of the newer Members may not know where some of the orders come from, where the direction comes from, where the attitudes come from: "Dear Mr. Kiernan: In recent years briefs have been submitted to you reviewing the job value of the mining industry to this Province, the very small area of land involved in mining, the public use of mine access roads, and the other arguments for permitting mining in Provincial parks. Rather than repeat the details of these submissions, the following summarizes the position of this Camber." Then they go on, "In doing this, it should be recognized that unrestricted prospecting and exploration is the lifeblood of the mining industry." Unrestricted, don't forget, these are their words, "unrestricted prospecting exploration is the lifeblood of the mining industry. It is impossible to predict where new mines might be found. Geological conditions in all British Columbia are favourable but they are complex, and even the most skilled of geologists are unable to define areas that either have or have not new mining possibilities. This is to say that given sections of the Province cannot be set aside as parkland without accepting the loss of new mining opportunities and the employment that goes with them. In like manner, any Park Act such as the one now proposed, which beclouds the right to prospect and explore and, in the event of discovery, to develop a new mine, will have this same stifling effect."

Of course, that, basically, is the policy that has been adopted by this Government. The Minister will get up tomorrow and say, "We have defined Class A parks; we have defined Class B parks. You must have a permit to do this or that." This Minister has shown himself willing, without conscience, to change the classification of a park and change the boundaries of a park in order to meet the demands of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines. That's why this Government can't be trusted to preserve the heritage for the people of British Columbia. This is where you get your policy, this is where you get your orders and you can camouflage it all you want. The evidence is in, Mr. Minister. (interruption)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STRACHAN: If that were the answer that it was to create jobs he might have some substance. He might have some meagre iota of substance to the reprehensible position he has taken. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that's not the real reason. (interruption) Just a minute. I suggested recently to an official of the Department of Mines and Resources that there might be a good case for leaving some ore where it is until nonpolluting techniques for its extraction are found. "We are discussing the Utah Mines project," he said and pointed out that, in fifty years or so, there will probably be substitutes for copper, making it unnecessary to mine the stuff at all. "How lovely," I said, "so if we just wait patiently we can have the things we want to make with copper and keep the land unspoiled and the water unpolluted." "But the ore would then lose its value," my informant pointed out, "so we must mine it and sell it now."

I have said in this House, Mr. Minister, that there may come a time when it's necessary to mine in parks, either because of a crisis or a world situation but, until that time comes, until that crisis or world situation makes it necessary, I don't think we should adopt as a policy digging as fast as we can every piece of ore and cutting as fast as we can every tree and damming as fast as we can every single river.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wind up by making some reference to the occurrences here on opening day. I listened to the remarks from the Member from Columbia River and if ever I heard a hymn of hate, it was the remarks of that Member that day. It's obvious that he has inside him some kind of poison that makes him detest and hate the working people of British Columbia. It's obvious from the way he attacked the workers of this Province. I'll use his own words…. (interruption) It was obvious from that hymn of hate that he hates the young people and he hates the workers. Now, Mr. Speaker, as a socialist…. (interruption)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I don't believe that the Member is using the choicest parliamentary terms and I think that he could show a little more respect for the Members of this House.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I accept your suggestion. I want to remind you and the Members of this House of the things that the Member from Columbia River said the other day, the things he said about me, about this group, about those with whom we are associated and the only words I can find are the words that he himself used to describe the incident, "despicable, despicable." Mr. Speaker, as a socialist,

[ Page 88 ]

I dislike and detest violence. In the past, I have had no compunction and if you want to go and look at the record you'll find that in 1962 I made a public statement against violence, when there was violence on the picket line. I was critical of those who were involved in that. Built in as being a part of socialism is an antipathy towards violence: international violence, national violence, local violence or personal violence. I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that we have a Minister in this House who endorses violence and endorses disturbances in the street, and I refer to the former Minister of Highways now this apology for a Minister of Social Rehabilitation. What did he say about that television broadcast of the construction workers wading into the peace demonstrators? I'll tell you what he said. He said, "It was the best television programme I have seen for a long time. It did my heart good." This was violence in the streets and the Minister endorsed it. I repute it, I'm against it, I oppose it and so does every Member in this House. He endorsed violence in the streets at a time when reasonable people are trying to find ways of avoiding violence in the streets and he said that it did his heart good to see one group attacking another violently in the streets of New York. The best television programme he ever saw he said…. (interruption) A Christian Minister, a Christian Minister advocating and endorsing violence in the streets and then that man down there has the colossal gall to stand up and say what he said here.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I decided to stay in politics was because I realized that the next 10 years would be troublesome, would have real problems and would be a challenge to each and everyone of us. Mr. Speaker, I want to preserve a democratic system. There are forces that would destroy it. There are forces that perhaps, unwittingly, are destroying it. Here's a report by the Economic Council of Canada. It talks about poverty and it talks about the part poverty plays in developing human attitudes. It points out the fact that most of us get an occasional glimpse of poverty through a car window, a television show, a Saturday Supplement article; these may be the only manifestations of it which touch many a middle-class consciousness. Yet the figures, even the conservative, rather tentative estimates in this chapter, show indisputably that poverty is there, almost everywhere in Canada, on a larger scale than most Canadians suspect. Earlier, it talks about the persistence of poverty at a time when the bulk of Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world and it names that poverty as a national disgrace. And it is a national disgrace. Later on, it talks about the pockets of poverty and it makes a very succinct comment on the kind of economic attitudes that you people over there adopt, that trickle down the theory of economics and its says, "In other areas, however, where poverty occurs more in the form of pockets, antipoverty policies should have a more distinct character of their own. The trickle-down effects of national and regional growth and development policies do not constitute an adequate solution to the problem of poverty." This is one of the reasons that we're in a upsetting period and I say that, perhaps, some of you are unwittingly causes of the problems that face us today.

The other thing that creates unrest and, again, I say the Government perhaps unwittingly contributes towards this, is when it denies information to the people. There has been a growing tendency on the part of all Governments, not just this Government, and I include the Federal Government, to deny information to the people. But right in this Province, when a reporter asks a B.C. surveyor of taxes how many U.S. citizens are buying land through tax sales he is informed that the department records are not open to the public. Department records as to how many Americans are buying tax sale land are not open to the public? Utterly ridiculous. This is the kind of thing that undermines a basic belief in a democratic system, when we have governments that refuse information to the people, when they close the doors. This is what makes people question, it's what makes people take to the streets. With the prodigious growth of Government, it becomes more difficult to keep track of what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, in my years in this House, we've seen things that only came to our attention long after the fact, because the doors were closed. Government secrecy is often a denial of the public right to know. The public cannot be expected to dialogue meaningfully if it is refused the information which it should have. The democratic process can only survive if true and complete information is readily available to the public all the time. You erase out of the minds of the people of this Province the adequacy of democracy and their belief in it, when you refuse the Opposition Members in the Public Accounts Committee to do certain things, when we are refused access to the public accounts of Crown Corporations, such as the PGE and the B.C. Hydro, public information that should be available that is barred to the duly elected members of a democratic electoral system. What does that do to people out there looking at our system? Does this restore or renew their faith in, uphold their faith in it? I suggest to you, that if you want the democratic system to survive, you'd better get off that fat majority and change some of your attitudes. I believe in a democratic society, not because it's the most efficient, but because it's the most moral. The Minister of Agriculture says, "Communism is coming." I certainly hope not but our kind of society has been pushing people toward the same kind of mass man that any bureaucracy creates and desires. We are slaves to a technology that is wasteful, soulless and, at times, terrifying. There is a system, operating with power, authority and prestige and money to offer, and every child is taught that. He is taught how to survive, how to make it in the system. Our schools are geared to that kind of teaching. Our schools prepare them for college and graduate programmes, in diplomas and jobs and success and that's part of the problem we're facing all over North America today. Power, authority, prestige and money are the values. We wonder why our youths are restless and dissatisfied. I think it is time, we here, the people of my generation, took our share of the blame. How did the conditions arise which have led segments of our youth to act as they do? Was it youth who permitted the breakdown of parental leadership? Who failed to give youth the practical love that is a necessary human relationship? Who was it turned from moral and spiritual values into a wild quest for material possessions? Was it the youth? The people who have been able to accumulate the largest amount of material possessions become our heroes under the ethics and the values that you people sponsored. Who is it that controls the film industry and the TV stations that propagate hate, violence and degeneracy? Is it the youth? Not on your life. It's the establishment and because there's a buck in it, that's it. I picked up a piece the other day and I find that the tobacco manufacturers are afraid their profits from cigarettes will go down so they are now surveying the market for marijuana, when it becomes legal. You know, there's a buck in it. Was it youth, was it our young people who have refused to face up to the existence of race injustice, economic

[ Page 89 ]

inequality and environmental pollution? Or was it our generation that did these things? Was it our young people who, time after time, have led it in the bloody wars? I don't think so. It was always the establishment, the older generation, those who hold the reins of power are responsible and the course of history will hold us responsible. There is only one revolution I support — the revolution that has as its objective the perfectability of a free society. I hope to keep that revolution marching forward.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this debate and take my place in it and particularly to offer congratulations and be a supporter of a Government which introduced measures such as we saw enunciated today by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. It's also quite a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise in this debate because I now have surpassed the record of longevity of the last Member who represented Revelstoke-Slocan. In fact, because Revelstoke-Slocan which was created under redistribution and only came into being in time for the 1966 election, I now equal the record of the Member who was the Member before the last Member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I assure the Opposition that this riding, now that it is on the Government side of the House, a great section of which had been in the Opposition for twenty-five years, intends to stay on this side supporting this Government as long as it's in office, which will be for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, it's been interesting to hear some of the previous speakers in the debate. The Member for Yale Lillooet yesterday said that the policy of this Government, among other things, is to sock it to the poor and sock it to the rich. I'll tell you that the policy of the Social Credit Party is to sock it to the NDP and we look forward to doing it again, next time. But the Member for Yale-Lillooet also said, and I'm not going to get into this in detail, that this Government is in the pocket of the insurance companies. Well, I'll tell you who's into my pocket, it's the Member for Kootenay. Just after this House rose last year we were having dinner, my wife and I and friends, in the Kootenay Hotel at Trail. We were having spaghetti and meatballs and it was on April 17 just prior to the spring meeting of the Association of Kootenay and Boundary municipalities and the Member for Kootenay and his wife were having dinner there as well and kindly joined us. They had started their meal, they joined us afterwards and engaged in some very agreeable and interesting conversation. Then the Member for Kootenay and his wife left. The waitress wondered who the gentleman was and so I said, "Well, I know him, he visited at our table." I would just thank you for having such a minimal meal that evening, Mr. Member for Kootenay, because your tab came to only $5.00, I was pleased to pay it and to prove I did I will ask the Member for Cariboo to send it over to you. (interruption) He didn't have his ballpoint to sign the tab.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on the speech of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Leader of the Liberal Party, but I think there were four of us and only two of you, Mr. Member for Kootenay, and that bill is for five. But, to use one of the favourite terms employed by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, there wasn't very much to comment upon. However, he is still fighting the election of 1969 all over again and we on this side, of course, are always pleased to fight that one over again. He gave some figures, the Leader of the Party, against which 80 per cent of the people of this Province voted at the last election, and somehow he suggested that this Party received a majority of the seats, 70 per cent of the seats with only 40 per cent of the popular vote. Why wasn't he up in arms instead of congratulating the new Premier of Quebec, because there they only got 66 per cent of the seats with 45 per cent of the vote?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate both the mover and seconder of the Throne Speech for the very fine speeches they delivered. We in Revelstoke-Slocan were particularly pleased that the Member for Columbia River who borders on us was chosen for the job of moving that Speech. But I would be remiss if I didn't also offer my congratulations, of course, to the Leader of her Majesty's Official Opposition, who was officially confirmed in that position last summer. You know there was somewhat of a similarity between the way he received that post officially and a minor baseball game that was played in by my then seven-year-old son around the same time. Young Graham came home from a baseball game one evening and he said, "Dad," he said, "I got on base three times." Naturally I was quite proud and I said, "Well, Graham, how did you do it?" He said, "Oh, I got hit here, here and here and so I got on three times." So it is with the NDP, Mr. Speaker. The NDP Leader is quite proud, and rightly so, of being chosen Leader but he is the Leader today because his Party has been, and leaders have been, clobbered time and time again by the voters of this Province and they will continue to be so. Some of them, such as the speaker who preceded me today, have even been clobbered by their own legislative supporters.

Some speakers from the side opposite have tried to indicate that life is quite peaceful and serene in that group and maybe they suggest that the election by acclamation of their Leader would appear to indicate this. In actual fact, I'd like to read from a story which appeared last November in the Vancouver Sun. The headline on it was, "Barrett out to Show who Wears the Pants" and the kicker under, "Fuse Under NDP — B.C. Fed. Marriage Bed". The article by the Sun's labour reporter went on and I'll quote it very briefly: "It is hard to tell whether the noise under the marriage bed of the New Democratic Party and the B.C. Federation of Labour — what with all the ruckus going on — is the tick-ticking of a time bomb or the sizzling of a long, slow fuse. Barrett moved into the bedroom just over a year ago and has already had more open fights — ones that the neighbours can hear — than half a dozen previous Socialist Party leaders." What was the leader of that party referring to? He was referring to the alliance between the NDP and organized labour in this Province, a marriage at which apparently no minister had been present and which he wanted annulled. But the NDP Leader by acclamation did he really want a divorce or an annullment, or did he just really want to set up the appearance of separate housekeeping? It would appear the latter was the case, Mr. Speaker, because in a Vancouver Province article of around the same time and I'll quote it just briefly: "B.C. Fed.'s secretary-treasurer, Ray Haynes, told more than 400 B.C. Federation of Labour convention delegates that NDP Leader Dave Barrett once suggested to him he should contrive a public verbal fight against the NDP to show how independent his Party was of the Federation." Haynes said that it happened on April 10, 1969, the day after Berger defeated Bob Williams, John Conway and Barrett for the Party leadership. Haynes goes on and the article quotes: "I was approached by Dave Barrett and he suggested to me that I should connive a public fight

[ Page 90 ]

with Tom Berger to show that labour and the NDP are not synonymous. I thought he wasn't serious, but he pushed me and I finally told him there was no way I'd ever do it."

So there it is, Mr. Speaker, as we saw and as was illustrated in that speech by the Member for Atlin yesterday, the NDP and the B.C. Federation of Labour are still living together in sin and all the NDP Leader, by acclamation wants to do, for all of his protestations to the contrary, is to pull the bedroom blinds down a little bit so that the public won't really see those smiles of delight on the faces of the NDP hierarchy.

Mr. Speaker, this year we are celebrating the Centennial of British Columbia's one hundred years in Confederation and I would like to briefly commend all associated with the planning for this Centennial celebration, especially its general chairman, Mr. Laurie Wallace. The fantastic planning and the preliminary work which has gone into early arrangements for this celebration, without a shadow of a doubt, prove what a tremendous success it will be.

I have 12 Centennial committees in my riding and if all of them want the Member in attendance for only one function during the coming summer then this is going to be an even busier summer than usual. However, these committees all have very enthusiastic chairmen and dedicated members and the very worthwhile projects in which they will be engaged range from a new swimming pool, through restoration of an historic hiking trail, to construction of several additions to community halls, as well as the building of a skating rink.

But Centennial Year is more than just a year for the erection of monuments, Mr. Speaker. It is also a time for the proper recognition of people who have served not only this Province and Canada well, but also their own regions as well. It is my pleasure to disclose at this time that today I sent a letter to the Board of Governors of Selkirk College, the regional college serving the West Kootenays and Boundary country, suggesting that the very fine library at Selkirk College be renamed "The H.W. Herridge Library," to honour that fine parliamentarian and gentleman. Herbert W. Herridge has had one of the most distinguished parliamentary careers in the history of Canada and, I think, it would be most fitting if special recognition in this Centennial Year could take the form I have suggested. I won't outline in detail Mr. Herridge's political career at this time. Suffice to say, I have done that in my letter to Selkirk College and copies of that letter have been made available to the press. I might say, however, that I have personal knowledge of Mr. Herridge's continued great interest in public affairs and issues. Almost without fail, when I make myself available to constituents at Nakusp, Mr. Herridge calls on me with a prepared list of items of interest to him and we spend a very enjoyable half hour or 45 minutes discussing them. I had planned on calling in on Mr. Herridge at his home just a couple of weeks ago before the Session started; however, snowstorm-blizzard conditions closed the road and, as you know, he lives a little way out of Nakusp and I had to return home from Revelstoke via the Okanagan. I had a letter from him shortly thereafter and just to indicate to the Members of the House that he still keeps his fine sense of humour and so forth, he says, that, after I wrote him my apologies for not showing up, that, "We were all disappointed. My wife had cooked a lunch for you and insisted I change from mackinaw to a business suit." Certainly, that sounds like Mr. Herridge.

Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers in this debate have already pointed out, this Province in 1970 went through one of its toughest years, economy-wise, of all the years in which this Government has been entrusted with the confidence of the people.

For all that, however, the Revelstoke-Slocan riding had some especially noteworthy events. A tremendous new $3 million, 50-bed hospital was opened in December at Revelstoke, while construction was started on a new hospital at Kaslo. It is of interest to note, Mr. Speaker, that of the seven bids which were received for that Kaslo hospital, two of them were below the estimates and one of them was only $1,000 above the estimates.

My riding is one in which roads are particularly important and we were all pleased, Mr. Minister of Highways, through you, Mr. Speaker, that a good sum of money was made available for a substantial day-labour programme on Highway 23 north of Nakusp, which was carried out from early May through to about mid-November. However, I would like to repeat in this House the continuous representations I have made to the Minister of Highways regarding a contract on Highway 23 between Halfway River and Galena Bay and the most important need for construction of an eastern access into Revelstoke involving the building of a large overpass across the CPR tracks. Both these large projects, as well as some smaller ones, such as a new bridge at New Denver, are very important to my riding and I hope that before too much longer the Minister of Highways will have some news on them.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Delta, the Member for Columbia River and the Minister of Commercial Transport have stated, either in this Chamber or outside of it, their outright opposition, or at least their serious concern, regarding the proposed slurry-coal pipeline being proposed by Cascade Pipeline Ltd. to convey East Kootenay coal the 490-odd miles from Sparwood in the East Kootenays to Roberts Bank. Under this proposal, the coal would be ground into fine powder and it would be flushed through the pipeline suspended in water and then reconstituted at the Roberts Bank end. Now, major concern has centred around the pollution problem anticipated at the receiving end, with the discharge of such a large amount of suspected polluted water.

Mr. A.F. Joplin, who is vice-president of Cascade and a director of planning and development for the CPR which owns Cascade, has been quoted as saying that the pipeline would be of a size sufficient to move from 8 to 12 million tons of coal a year. At 12 million tons, he says, about 2.4 billion gallons of water from the East Kootenay region would be moved to the lower mainland area, where the company would hope to sell some or all of this discharge water for industrial purposes. Some would even find its way to Japan, depending on how efficient the reconstituting process was in drying out the slurry. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak for a sizable body of public opinion in the Kootenay area when I say to the CPR: "Keep your cotton pickin' fingers off our water!" Last December, this Government announced higher fees and rentals for water used for industrial, mining and waterworks purposes as part of an increased philosophical emphasis, taking into account the greatly increased value of water as a resource. But that fee and rental schedule, as far as I can see in my study of it, doesn't take into account consumptive use of water such as is proposed here by the CPR.

B.C.'s pulp mills, under the new fee schedule, will be paying somewhere between five and ten thousand dollars a year for the use of water, with close to 100 per cent of it being returned directly into, or very near, the source of

[ Page 91 ]

supply. With the Cascade proposal, we see this 2.4 billion gallons of water being moved across the entire Province. Then this private company hopes to sell this water to other private companies as a commodity much like any other commodity. I suspect some very serious problems in obtaining this amount of water to begin with, Mr. Speaker. The most logical source of supply is the Elk River and its tributary system, and B.C. Hydro which took over the power distribution system generating plants in the East Kootenays would likely object very strenuously to another license of any size being granted unless it received assurances that its hydro-electric generating capacity would not be affected.

There could also be problems under the Columbia River Treaty, whereby both Canada and the United States have undertaken to not make diversions except for consumptive purposes, although possibly the interpretation put on "consumptive purposes" is broad enough to allow the taking of such a large amount of water.

I would urge the Government, in any consideration it might give the Cascade project, to bear strongly in mind the fact that this water will not be returned after its use to its place of origin but rather will be transported some five hundred miles; to also bear in mind that the CPR proposes to sell this water as a commodity bearing a price tag; and to keep in mind that the quantity of water being discussed at this stage is sufficient to supply all the needs of two Kelownas, three Nelsons or two Trails. If the rate charged pulp mills, which I repeat just use the water and then return it to nearby sources, were applied to this proposal, the CPR would pay only $1,300 a year and this fee would be the same if the rate charged for washing coal were followed. I don't believe any Kootenay water, a great Kootenay resource, should be transported in this way. But if it is, then the fees should reflect the fact that the water isn't just being rented to be used, but is being bought and intended to be sold.

Mr. Speaker, the last subject I propose to deal with this afternoon. An American, Henry Ward Beecher, once wrote: "A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself." About six years ago at noon on February 15, 1965, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, crowds gathered to watch as the Canadian Red Ensign was lowered and the new Maple Leaf Flag was hoisted in its place for the first time. Speaking then, the Speaker of the Senate commented: "The flag stands for the unity of the Nation and unequivocally speaks for all the citizens of Canada regardless of their race, language, creed or opinion."

Mr. Speaker, flags are emblems of identity for men to rally around. They are symbols of their loyalty to a cause. In a national sense, a country's flag is a symbol of unity and is the symbol of the love of its citizens for their country. With respect to Provincial and territorial flags, they reflect the pride and love of Canadians in a Province for their Province and, of course, to men who fought under a flag and saw their fellow men die beside them, a flag can be both sacred and spiritual. Yet, for all this, there are no official statutes in Canada governing the display of the flag or its desecration. There are rules of etiquette which have been adopted from international usage, and procedures which have been followed over the years, but there is nothing mandatory in law that requires Canadians to treat their flags with dignity and respect. We have no Federal laws dealing with flag desecration or misuse. What this country needs are some flag veneration laws.

In Vancouver, this past summer, at the Beatty Street Armoury, transient youth superimposed the clenched fist over our Maple Leaf Flag on the building there. Last Thursday, one of the flags that hangs from the wall in the rotunda just outside this Chamber was pulled down and hurled to the floor below. With things like this taking place, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that the Royal Canadian Air Force Association at its Twentieth Annual Convention last fall in St. John's, Newfoundland, passed a resolution urging the Federal Government "…to enact legislation to prevent commercial use of the Canadian Flag and to make wilful desecration of the Canadian Flag a criminal offence"?

I have even heard, and I want to assure the House that I don't have personal, first-hand knowledge of this, but I do have it on very good authority, that one young lady — maybe I had better not call her a lady — a female taking part in the demonstration at Blaine, Washington, in May of last year even had the Canadian Flag made into underwear. I have seen the Canadian Flag used as a shade under a fluorescent light fixture; late last summer, in a community in the West Kootenays, a bunch of rabble-rousing young adults created havoc outside an RCMP Detachment building. Do you know what some of the members of that mob did, Mr. Speaker? They urinated on the Canadian Flag. What was the result of this? Nothing. The flag was wet when it was retrieved by the RCMP, and a friend of mine, a radio reporter, was able to say that he had seen two or three of the leaders of these hooligans huddled around the flag, but he was unable to testify that he actually saw anyone wetting it. If he had actually seen them, Mr. Speaker, so that he could swear to the fact in Court, the police would have had to content themselves with some charge, such as public mischief, or damaging public property, since no flag veneration laws exist.

I would ask this Government, Mr. Speaker, and this afternoon we had the Minister of Justice for Canada as a guest on the floor of the House, to determine if a Provincial statute can't be drafted prohibiting any form of desecration or misuse of the Maple Leaf, the Canadian Red Ensign, the Union Jack and the British Columbia Flag, with very stiff penalties provided, if the law is broken. Further, I would like to see the Government give consideration to the establishment of a Flag Day, such as that held in the United States on June 14 of each year, when business places and ordinary citizens are encouraged to fly their flags. Perhaps such a day could be tied in with July 1, or with a special British Columbia day, such as has been suggested by the Second Member for Vancouver South.

Our citizens, each and every one of us, owe respect to our flags as a mark of loyalty to our country and as an indication of the honour and esteem in which we hold Canada and our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, it has been very pleasant during the first few days of the Session to find the House in such a friendly mood with such a universal spirit of goodwill.

I'd like to add my small contribution to this good humour and fellowship by sharing with all the Members in the House the words and music of that famous folk song, "Skagit Valley Forever." Last October, the well-known composer, Melvina Reynolds, author of the folk song, "Little Boxes," and many others, visited Vancouver and heard from a local radio personality the story of the Skagit Valley. As a result, she composed the song which is now being passed around. I

[ Page 92 ]

would very much like to sing it for you, Mr. Members, or at least, perhaps have our group sing it. Any takers? Out of concern for Mr. Speaker's tape recording equipment and the difficulties of transposing the tune into the permanent House record we've decided we should avoid this. However, I do have a tape recording of the song being sung by Mrs. Reynolds and I would be delighted to play it for any Member who would care to visit our Caucus Room later. I might add that Mrs. Reynolds was kind enough to turn over the rights to use her song to the Ross Committee.

Mr. Speaker, first, last summer, and then, again, last week, the people of British Columbia received two major engineering reports on transportation the implementation of which would have a lasting effect on the life style of the lower mainland, in fact, on the whole of British Columbia, because well over one half of the people of B.C. now live on the lower mainland. The first report was the Vancouver Regional Rapid Transit Study, commissioned jointly by the regional district and the Provincial Government through B.C. Hydro. This report proposed a $300 million rapid transit system for the regional district. The second report, commissioned by the Federal Government through the National Harbours Board, outlined plans for a new crossing, either bridge or tunnel, of Burrard Inlet — the cost nearly $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, because both of these projects affect so greatly the future of Vancouver, of the North Shore and my own riding of North Vancouver–Capilano, I feel responsible to make a few comments. It seems to me most unfortunate that both these projects have already had a long history of political bickering. As politicians on every level of Government try to take advantage for themselves, any chance of progress towards construction of these projects or resolution of the problem seems to become less and less. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as personally favouring the tunnel for Burrard Inlet. If we can build the tunnel for only 5 per cent more than the bridge and keep it out of sight, under instead of over the inlet, this seems more preferable to me. Second, it would seem to me very foolish to build either project without full co-ordination with the other and without full control of all the elements that go into a metropolitan transportation system. These include major highways, freeways, rapid transit and parking. Without control of all these elements in the regional district, no part of the system will be successful and chaotic traffic and parking conditions would be the only result.

I suggest, therefore, that an overall Lower Mainland or, perhaps, Vancouver Regional District Transportation Authority must be set up to be given control and responsibility for all these items, including both the proposed Burrard crossing and the proposed rapid transit system, as well as the others mentioned. The financial difficulty is a major one but the facts of life are there for all to see. The traffic and transportation problems must be solved; they're going to get worse not better and they are not going to go away. We now have the basic needed information. All the municipalities concerned belong to the regional district and, clearly, this is a problem requiring at least a regional approach. Neither tunnel nor freeway nor rapid transit should be built in isolation from the other. Parking must be included in the package. The Provincial Government must be involved, because across the North Shore comes traffic from and to the ferries from Vancouver Island and from all over the lower mainland from Squamish and, perhaps, soon from the interior of B.C. Of course, North Vancouver is the freight terminus of the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. The Federal Government must be involved because these problems of the cities are simply too large to be handled without some Federal help, because the National Harbours Board is concerned with the port of Vancouver and because the Trans-Canada Highway is also involved. So, Mr. Speaker, before each politician at each political level goes charging off into the sunset, uttering sneers and jeers and threats, I suggest it is time for the politicians, for once, to get together, to do some hard planning and bargaining and to get on with the job that must be done. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with his personal knowledge of all the parties concerned, with his well-known enthusiasm for the regional concept might well be the catalyst that would bring together the three levels of Government to make the necessary arrangements, compromises and decisions. The lower mainland of British Columbia needs rapid transit and it needs controlled traffic flow into and around the city of Vancouver. Only a truly cooperative effort, such as I have suggested, will make it possible.

Similar to most of you in this House, I have become increasingly alarmed over the many ways in which our environment is threatened. There should be no need, at this point, to engage in a long presentation of many examples. They are forcibly brought to our attention every time we turn on television or look at a newspaper. In spite of all we have seen and heard, I wonder if we are really aware of the full implications of what is often called "the environmental crisis." I'm not reassured by the promises of this Government to give B.C. the greatest ecological climate in the world. Just saying it, won't make it so, and there is little in the past record of this Government to indicate a willingness to do really very much more than talk about effective pollution control. As you examine these environmental problems, such as the Skagit Valley, you become more aware of the deeper implications of the specific problems. Why, for instance, should this beautiful valley, whether in Canada or the United States, be forfeited to provide electric power to light more neon signs, drive electric lawn movers, run machines or to build supersonic jet transports?

Look at our ideal of the Canadian way of life; the essence is a belief in growth. Our Premier frequently boasts that B.C. is one of the fastest growing regions on the continent. Every Chamber of Commerce is bent on making its community into the fastest growing city in the country. Bay Street and Howe Street are dedicated in their search for growth. Businessmen spend their lives in pursuit of annual increases in sales, assets and profit. Housewives yearn for bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger salary cheques. The one National goal that everyone agrees on is an ever-growing Gross National Product. Each jump in the National output has been treated as a triumph, and each fall as a set back. We're convinced that, with a growing GNP and a corresponding rise in the standard of living, most of our economic and social ills will be looked after. A lesson I've begun to learn is that nonstop growth just isn't possible for Canadians, or anybody else, for we live in what we must recognize as a tight ecological system, a small planet with a strictly limited supply of everything, including air, water and places to dump sewage. If man insists on constant growth within the system in elastic walls, something has to pop. Already most of the habitable parts of our continent are overpopulated, not so helplessly overcrowded as Asia, but well beyond the limits that would make the good life attainable for everybody. Stewart Udahl, who is a former U.S. Secretary to the Interior, now a practicing consulting

[ Page 93 ]

ecologist, has estimated that the optimum population of the United States would be about one hundred million or just half of what it presently is, yet, growth of another one hundred million is predicted within the next thirty years. In British Columbia, people, less enthusiastic than our Premier about the prospects of growth for the sake of growth, are questioning whether or not our Province should become the California of Canada and whether Vancouver wishes to emulate Los Angeles.

Last August, the Premier proudly pointed out that B.C. has the fastest growing population in North America. "We're growing faster than anyone — not only the Provinces of Canada, but all the States as well," he said. There is every indication that such unplanned growth is straining public and private resources in fields ranging from job opportunities to housing, from transit to pollution, from education to health services and law enforcement.

Until recently, only philosophers, conservationists and academics dared to question the proposition that economic progress automatically fosters human progress. Now, however, we are hearing from hard-headed businessmen, such as Bob Dorsey who is the President of Gulf Oil, who, in a recent speech to students at the Columbia Graduate School of Business entitled, "A Challenge to the Idea that Economic Growth is Good," declared that emphasis must be given to the quality of our environment even if it does reduce somewhat our consumption of goods and services. I somehow doubt that this is quite what the Government had in mind when, in the Speech from the Throne, it stated, "The main and most important policy of this Government is directed to the improvement of the total environment." The actions of this Government clearly demonstrate that our resource policies are simply to chop it down, dig it up and ship it out as fast as possible as if there were no tomorrow. If congestion, pollution and decimated mountain sides and valleys are the consequences, well, they seem to be saying, "That's the price of progress." It's been calculated that, at current rates of exploitation, known world reserves for petroleum, uranium, lead, zinc and tin will be used up before the end of this century and that nickel, molybdenum, tungsten and copper will have been depleted long before the end of the next century. These estimates do not provide for the increased rate of use demanded by an expanding economy, nor do they provide for industrialization of the developing countries. Custodians of our own Province — a rich treasure house of resources — I submit that we have a responsibility to the rest of mankind to conserve these nonrenewable assets so that they will continue to be available for our essential future needs. We must resist the temptation to squander them now for merely short-term gain. A Washington State Supreme Court decision reads: "An unwritten contract between the dead, the living and the unborn requires that we leave the unborn something more than debts and depleted natural resources."

The flooding of the Skagit Valley to provide extra hydro-electric power for Seattle will be stopped, but it's just one battle in the war against energy producers in their continuing quest for more power at the expense of the environment. We already know the problems that will soon be facing B.C. Hydro to develop enough power to meet the apparent needs of British Columbia. Instead of constantly seeking new means to create more electrical energy we should perhaps be looking for ways to reduce our energy needs. As Governor Dan Evans of Washington State said recently, "Instead of forever advertising for people to use more power, maybe it's time to look at what we're doing. I would suggest, " said Governor Evans, "more research, how to do things with less rather than more electrical energy. I believe there is a waste of electrical energy. We need to know what conservation could do to reduce or eliminate power shortages by the late 1970's." Clearly, there is no harmless way to meet the demands of power with a rising population, with rising living standards. Every additional kilowatt levies some tax on the environment. As ecologist Barry Commoner says, "There is no free lunch." Naturally, I'm not going to suggest a sudden halt to the economic and industrial growth of British Columbia. Our population is already in excess of our ability to meet its needs of employment, housing and education, health and social services. We have a lot of catching up to do before we're able to meet the basic needs of the people that are here now. We must somehow encourage the right kind of growth, the kind that will alleviate the problems while making sure we don't kill the golden goose. There is much that we can do to enhance the quality of life in British Columbia. Not only must we reduce the backlog of existing pollution control problems, as suggested in the Speech from the Throne, but we must also chart a new course for the future. More sophisticated air filters and sewage treatment plants are only part of the answer. They're just a cosmetic on the surface. The key is better planning and a conscious, thoughtful choice of the options open to us. We need to decide what kind of society we wish to live in and act accordingly, not just be carried along willy-nilly in pursuit of our updated concepts of progress. We can make better use of the new technological tools at our disposal, such as the computer. Already, the Institute of Resource Ecology at UBC has shown worldwide leadership by preparing a comprehensive computer model off one part of British Columbia, the Gulf Islands. This model enables us to see the probable future consequences of an infinite number of actions. A similar model is now being prepared for the City of Vancouver. Why not make a computer model of all of British Columbia, then we would have an opportunity to look at the actions and probable reactions before they take place, not afterwards? We have the skills and the knowledge of the people here in British Columbia, right now, to take this step. Why don't we do it?

Well, so much for a philosophy that will sound incredible to many people, especially those on the Government side of this House. These matters require to be discussed and debated in many forms by many people and there will gradually develop a consensus of the public that will support the ideas of one of the most distinguished citizens of this Province, Roderick Haig Brown. He's been saying much the same thing for quite some time now. In 1963, he wrote, "We need a new type of man, an individual more humane, less competitive, better informed, more tolerant and more generous in thought and action."

Mr. Speaker, I proposed a year ago that B.C. needed a single Department of Environmental Management. Since then, the U.S. Government has set up a National Environmental Council; Washington State has established a Department of Ecology; and the Canadian Federal Government is just now establishing a Department of Environment. Alberta has such a Department, so do many other States and Provinces. I am saddened that B.C. still plugs along with simply a Land Use Committee, now with a new name, and even though the Minister of Health is to be allowed back on it this year, we're playing around with our future and our children's future. We're playing with fire. Surely, the

[ Page 94 ]

Province in Canada that, above all others, has the most advantages, the finest climate, the most magnificent scenery and surroundings, deserves to be properly protected and cherished against the ravages of man. As long as I continue in this House I will continue to call for a Provincial Department of Environmental Management just as the majority of Members on all sides of this House have said they would support. Just about everybody but the Cabinet agrees with that. Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of environmental problems around British Columbia and I'll be raising some of them later in the Session. I want now to get back to the Skagit Valley.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources failed to refer to this valley in his talk this afternoon. The fight to save the Skagit Valley has become known from coast to coast in Canada and across the United States as symbolic of the struggle between those who wish to preserve the natural ecological balance and those who believe the priorities of power must come first; between those who place great value on the long-term protection of our recreational and wildlife resources and those who consider short-term, economic benefits as the most important. I'm not going to debate now the reasons why many thousands of Canadians and Americans believe we must preserve the Skagit Valley on both sides of the border. But I do want to bring you up to date on the story and make sure there are no misunderstandings of the facts. The basic facts are these: (1) The International Joint Commission, which was established under the authority of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, held its hearings in Seattle in 1941 and 1942, and, in 1942, issued an Order of Approval. There is no denying the fact that the Government of British Columbia that day raised no objection and the Order of Approval, therefore, said in effect that Seattle could raise Ross Dam subject to the condition that: "The Ross Dam shall not be raised beyond the height at which the water impounded by it would reach British Columbia unless and until a binding agreement has been entered into between the city of Seattle and the Government of British Columbia, providing for indemnifying British Columbia and private interest in British Columbia for any injury that may be sustained by reasons of the city's operations in the Skagit River." Note that there was nothing in that Order that said B.C. was obligated to sign such an agreement. Second, in 1947, the B.C. Legislature passed the Skagit Valley Lands Act which said, "T'he city of Seattle is authorized to cause Lot 1103, Yale District, to be flooded under such conditions and restrictions as may be decided by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It shall not come into effect until the city of Seattle has paid to the Province such sum of money as compensation for damages as may be agreed upon between the city and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." Again, there is nothing in this Act which says that B.C. had to allow the valley to be flooded. B.C. was to decide the conditions and restrictions. Third, just before the Social Credit Government came to power in 1952, there is no denying the fact…. (interruption) As I said, you're getting all the facts. There is no denying the fact that the Government of that day was about to close a deal with Seattle, but the fact remains that it was not consummated and I give the Social Credit Government of 1952 full credit for holding up what would have been a very bad deal — worse than the one they finally did make. Fourth, from 1954 to 1966, there were annual interim agreements, each for one year only, to allow a small amount of flooding just at the boundary. Five, finally on January 10, 1967, the famous $5.50 per acre per year contract for 99 years was signed by the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources and the Mayor of Seattle.

So, Mr. Speaker, the important point to note is that there was no compulsion on this Government to sign. They could have put it off forever and continued with annual interim agreements or even refused those, or they could have raised the ante to any amount they desired no matter how high. In fact, Mr. John Nelson, the manager of Seattle City Light, was asked on television if he did not think it was rather a poor deal for British Columbia. His answer was that Seattle had simply given B.C. what had been asked. There has been no denial by the Minister of this public statement. (interruption) It was on television and it has been spoken and quoted in the papers a great many times.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of time last Session discussing the ecological and recreational reasons for not flooding the Skagit Valley. May I summarize these now in one brief statement? I'm not very worried as to whether my grandson will have any difficulty finding flat, recreational water near Vancouver for swimming, boating, etc. There is Howe Sound and Georgia Strait, Cultus Lake, and Harrison and Chilliwack and many others, but I am concerned that it might be impossible for my grandson or your grandchildren to find in the lower mainland of British Columbia any kind of beautiful meandering trout stream, such as the Skagit River is today, with its wildlife and its potential for an international park. To many people the compelling argument, the one that really indicts this Government, is the economic one. Seattle City Light has clearly stated in the application, now filed with the Federal Power Commission in Washington, D.C., over the objections of Mayor Wes Uhlman of Seattle, that the net annual savings to Seattle compared to the next cheapest source of power is $1,000,000 per year. For this Seattle pays B.C. $35,000 per year. I want to emphasize this point, Mr. Speaker — the Government of British Columbia did not have to sign this contract on those terms, but it did. A year ago, the Government paid little attention when I and my friend, the Honourable Member from Yale-Lillooet, first raised the Skagit story in this House. They paid a little more attention when I told the House last February that the Minister for Lands and Forests was not only selling the Skagit Valley away but he also had the timber up for grabs, years before it would be necessary. It would have been half cut down by now. The day after I told that story to the House, Mr. Speaker, the Minister cancelled the timber sales. The public outcry finally began to impress the Government. Last fall, the Premier stated that his Government would not do anything to cancel or change the deal, but if someone else could he wouldn't object. As a matter of fact, even the Social Credit Convention last fall took a straw vote, which was against the flooding. The Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, has been trying to find a way out of the problem that has been handed to them by the Provincial Government. I want to publicly give full marks to the Honourable Jack Davis, Minister for the Environment, for the efforts he has made and is making. Now that his Department has been enlarged, all such matters have been referred to him and he will be solely responsible in consultation with his colleagues.

There have been a great many obvious problems and there has been much talk about the use of the International River Improvements Act, but there are certain difficulties in the application of that Act to this situation. At the same time, the Federal Government is concerned, and rightly so, about the strength and stability of the International Joint

[ Page 95 ]

Commission which is a useful and very important organization in Canada's relations with its large neighbour to the south — along five thousand miles of border that is crossed by many international lakes, rivers and waterways. As I am sure all Members are aware, the Honourable Jack Davis has recently been in Washington, D.C., in consultation with the American State Department officials on this matter and I expect we will hear more about this as time goes on.

The fact is that our Federal Government has been working to get something done, which the Provincial Government has failed to even try. It's a pity that our Provincial Government could not have been more active and interested. I have said repeatedly that there is every reason to believe there are ways around this situation, that Seattle and British Columbia could find a way to get together. For men of goodwill there is always a way but, unfortunately, our Provincial Government has been content to sit back and let others carry the ball.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to tell you that others have been carrying the ball and I don't believe the Skagit Valley will ever be flooded. First of all, there are many hearings scheduled with a great many routes open for appeal. I'm advised that these hearings could drag on for as long as eight or nine years in the United States. For instance, Seattle's application to the Federal Power Commission has again been held up until Seattle City Light supplies a statement on the ecological effects of the flooding, which is a requirement of the American Federal Council on Ecological Quality. In the near future, perhaps in late March, the Washington State Ecological Commission will hold public hearings. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I want to praise the Minister of Recreation and Conservation for allowing his technical people in the person of Doctor Jim Hatter, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, and some of his staff, to present an excellent report to the Seattle City Council hearings last spring. I hope the Minister will again permit his Department to present its views to the Washington State Department of Ecology. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, of another means whereby the Provincial Government can take action, now to halt this flooding. As I said at the beginning, the International Joint Commission owes its existence to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. What I am about to explain is complicated and highly technical in the legal sense, but I assure you that I have had advice on this matter from a number of lawyers, one of whom is a recognized and leading authority on international law. (interruption)

I wouldn't trust these fellows. (laughter)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw that statement. (laughter)

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. Let me read one paragraph from Article 8 of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. "In cases involving the elevation of the natural level of waters on either side of the line as a result of the construction or maintenance on the other side of remedial or protective works or dams or other obstructions in boundary waters or in waters flowing therefrom or in waters below the boundary and rivers flowing across the boundary, the Commission shall require, as a condition of its approval thereof, that suitable and adequate provision approved by it be made for the protection and indemnity of all interests on the other side of the line." The important words here are, "shall require." This is mandatory, there is no room for discretion on the part of the International Joint Commission, and there is no power given to the Commission by the Treaty to delegate its authority, which is precisely what it did in the particular case of the Skagit Valley. The IJC….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. BROUSSON: …the IJC, Mr. Speaker, in its Order of Approval, in effect, said to Seattle and B.C., "This flooding is O.K. but you two go away and make your own arrangements and agreements." The Treaty does not give the IJC authority to delegate its authority in this way and the Treaty does, on the other hand, say that the IJC shall require that suitable provision be made toward the indemnity." So it may be argued, Mr. Speaker, that, for this reason, the Order of Approval is invalid. There is a further point, perhaps even more important. Article 8 says that "The Commission shall require as a condition of its approval thereof that suitable and adequate provision approved by it be made for the protection and indemnity of all interests." The important words here are, "approved by it." Mr. Speaker, I have received today the following letter dated January 22, 1971, from Mr. McCallum, who is assistant to the chairman and legal advisor of the International Joint Commission in Ottawa: "I have your letter of January 18^th concerning the special agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the city of Seattle with regard to flooding in the Skagit Valley. The Commission was informed of the temporary agreement signed in June, 1954 and a copy of the agreement was provided for our records. The agreement was considered by the Commission at its next meeting and was attached as an appendix to the record of that meeting. Similarly, the Commission received copies of the ensuing annual agreements as they were entered into and took note of them for purposes of its Order of Approval. The agreement of January 10, 1967 [this was the final agreement] was considered by the Commission at a meeting on April 4, 1967, when it formerly noted that the conditions of the Order of Approval had been met by the signing of the said binding agreement, and proceeded to establish the International Skagit River Board of Control in accordance with the said Order."

Since receiving this letter, I have spoken to Mr. McCallum on the telephone. He has confirmed to me that the agreement between Seattle and British Columbia, while having been received and noted by the IJC, has been neither approved nor disapproved and yet, as I just read to you from the Treaty, it specifically states that, "The provision for protection and indemnity must be approved by the Commission." Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion, and the opinion of the eminent legal authorities whom I consulted, that the Order of Approval must be invalid, and the agreement between B.C. and Seattle is also invalid at this time. Mr. Speaker, I call now on the Attorney-General, as the chief law officer of this Province, to review this matter thoroughly.

B.C. must not proceed further with any action under this agreement. B.C. should accept no further payments from Seattle. Seattle should be held up for many further studies, surveys, work in the valley. The people of British Columbia can clearly expect that their Government must take immediate action to protect the rights of this Province and the Skagit Valley, until this legal matter is settled. Mr. Speaker, may I say it once more? The Skagit Valley will not be turned into a mud pond for the Coca-Cola coolers of Seattle, U.S.A.

[ Page 96 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, some day I may get to make a speech at some time other than 5:30, but I suppose that will be…. (interruption) They like to put me on at this time because I never speak for very long and I won't disappoint you tonight.

A point of interest to all, I think, would be a news item just recently which indicated that the NDP have now moved their headquarters away from the former headquarters they shared with the B.C. Federation of Labour into an address which is 1881 East Hastings Street. We want to welcome them and, incidentally, 1881 East Hastings Street, Vancouver, is the former quarters of the Finnish Bethel Tabernacle Mission. I think this is obviously a sincere effort on their part to improve their image and I wish them luck.

We have touched on various aspects, Mr. Speaker, of the Throne Speech and I wish to mention briefly three items which interested me. One of them is the reference in the Speech to the judicial council which is to deal with the efforts to reduce delay and inconvenience in the Courts. I would be interested to see what this might indicate. Another item which interested me and has not been mentioned heretofore is the indication, on page 7 of the standardization of housing and building regulations. Also, I think we should stress the fact that, during the past year, as mentioned in the Throne Speech, there has been quite a change made in the regulations governing our social allowance rates with regard to the exemption for outside income. This is a matter which various Members have advocated before and I'm very pleased to see this happen. Mr. Speaker, yesterday's debate on unemployment, I think, was a good thing. The reason I say that is that it does bring into focus, and is helping to bring into focus, the importance of unemployment and the fact that we should always be thinking in this Legislature of policies to encourage industry in the Province and not to discourage it. After all, employment is created strictly by the individual businessman and his small company feeling the urge to come into this Province to develop an enterprise, to hire one person, to hire two, to hire ten and this is what employment needs. He needs to have an atmosphere to encourage this and when we think in terms of legislation for consumer protection, for pollution controls, for taxes, etc., we should always be keeping this unemployment problem in mind.

Mr. Speaker, during the last Session, I spoke on the subject of auto pollution and I'd like to deal briefly with that subject once again. At that time, I called for legislation for the Province of British Columbia to make emission control devices mandatory on all new automobiles sold in this Province.

Later, during the last Session, I was very pleased to see this new law pass and also the accompanying regulations which were adopted by Order-in-Council in September of last year. In effect, these regulations say that every type of motor vehicle manufactured after January 1, 1971, for which a B.C. motor-vehicle license is required, shall have installed in it emission control equipment to comply with our requirements. I would like to commend our Government and the Ministers responsible for taking this action; in fact, we are one of the first Provinces in Canada to adopt these regulations and I am sure they will bear fruit in the future.

Further improvements in emission devices are forthcoming. Following the passage recently of the United States Clean Air Act, American factories will soon be phasing in more sophisticated control systems and authorities are now confident that, compared with pre-emission device car models, we can expect by the year 1975 that hydro carbons will be reduced by 95 per cent, that carbon monoxide will be reduced by 86 per cent and oxides of nitrogen will be down by 83 per cent. Also, with the use of lead-free gasoline, we will have a major further reduction in the emission of particulate matter from the exhaust stream. In fact, Mr. Ed Cole, President of General Motors, recently said, "We believe that by the year 1975 emission control systems will remove the automobile as a significant factor in the Nation's air pollution problem." Mr. Speaker, most factories in North America now have available emission control kits for used cars and it strikes me that we should be studying means of making these mandatory and checked in our annual vehicle inspections. Also, testing equipment, very sophisticated testing equipment, is becoming available for the purpose of testing vehicles for their emissions on sight. I know that the Motor-Vehicle Branch is watching this very closely, with the hopes of acquiring this kind of equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you would be very unhappy if I did not mention two or three items from our constituency. First of all, I would like to commend the Minister of Education for his approval of the new Lord Strathcona School addition. Aside from several new classrooms and a new library, this new addition includes a full-size community gymnasium as well as other facilities to be used by the Strathcona community, including lounges for adults and teenagers, plus a games room. Strathcona is one of the oldest schools in Vancouver. I believe it was built in 1907 and it is surrounded by a very old and somewhat rundown residential section. Lately the population has increased quickly, due to new Government housing projects and, for this reason, I can't think of an area in Vancouver which is in greater need of community facilities than this one. So, on behalf of the residents of Strathcona, I thank the Minister for approving this school addition. The people of Strathcona area are also anxious to organize a rehabilitation plan for the present homes and buildings. Discussions have taken place with the three levels of Government and consultants have made a plan for the area.

This proposal recommends a series of grants and low interest loans for rehabilitation of living units, based on a scale which includes the financial resources of the owner and the number of people living in a unit. It also suggests establishment of a rehabilitation centre within the community, staffed by technical consultants and lay people to direct the programme and dispense financial and technical assistance. This report is now in the hands of Vancouver City Council for a decision. Of course, it is likely this will result in some kind of sharing proposal. I would urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs to cooperate in any way possible to get this plan started. Rehabilitation is not only feasible but desirable and appropriate in the Strathcona area, and with proper assistance from senior Governments, could become one of Vancouver's most attractive and interesting areas.

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to urge our Minister of Municipal Affairs to speed the approval of plans for the proposed eight million dollar community centre and senior citizens' high-rise apartment in Vancouver's West End. We are all aware of the great need for low-cost accommodation for senior citizens and, since the closing of Gordon Neighbourhood House, Vancouver's West End also needs, very badly, a community centre. The recent growth in apartment living has

[ Page 97 ]

made this situation even more acute. This project, which will include 525 apartments for low income senior citizens, as well as a two million dollar community centre, is believed to be unique in North America. Most important, it will provide badly needed accommodation for elderly people in the area where they prefer to live. So I do hope this centre will get started while I am still young enough to make use of the community facilities and not old enough to become eligible for one of the apartments.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to issue a vicious attack on the lawyers in the House and this matter deals with the matter of legal fees in our Courts. Why is it that a plaintiff who pursues an action in Court and who receives a judgement in favour of his claim, is not able to recover his complete legal expense? I think most people who pursue a Court action assume they will recover the cost of a lawyer if they are successful and this is simply not the case. As a matter of fact, the difference between the legal fees allowed by our Courts as compared to the minimum legal fees suggested by the Law Society is about 50 per cent. In other words, the Court schedule of tariffs, known as the "Litigants Party and Party Tariff of Cost," is only about 40 to 50 per cent of market value. I believe this is wrong because it encourages a defendant's lawyer to offer a reduced out of Court settlement, knowing that the plaintiff will settle out of Court. This is known as "legal blackmail." Let me give you an example. In August, 1969, my son was involved in an accident with another car. The other car was completely at fault, having turned in front of his, and the damage to our car was about $1,300. I use this case because it happened to my own son and I am familiar with all of the details. The insurance company representing the other owner was State Farm Insurance Company and, after delaying for over a year and although completely in the wrong, offered to settle for 75 per cent or about $1,000. This left my son to absorb something over $300 and, by a strange coincidence, he discovered that if he hired a lawyer and took the other man to Court and was 100 per cent successful, he would still have to absorb a balance of $300 in legal fees. (interruption) Because he was so sure the accident was not his fault and because he didn't think this offer was fair, he did hire a lawyer and initiate a Court action in August of 1970, one year later. As it happens, the case was set for early January of this year, but State Farm Insurance finally settled the matter out of Court in the full amount of $1,328 — just five days before the case came up and eighteen months after the date of the accident. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you this case is one of many which takes place in auto insurance claims and illustrates the need to have the Court schedule of allowable legal fees more in tune with the amount actually charged by lawyers. This deficiency obviously promotes the type of "legal blackmail" which I have just illustrated. Unfortunately, it also permits an insurance company to take particular advantage of a person who has been involved in an accident through no fault of his own but who would be tempted to accept a settlement out of Court because he does not have the funds necessary for a lawyer. I would strongly urge the Attorney-General to institute a review of the schedule of legal fees as used by our Courts.

Further, on the subject of Courts, we have spoken before in this House on…. (interruption) Oh, you mean out of Court? The lawyer was about $250 but the lawyer's cost to go to Court, for a day in Court including all preparation, my friend, as you well know, is about $700. (interruption) That's correct. That's the prescribed…. (interruption) He settled out of Court and what I am pointing out is the discrepancy between the fees charged by the Court and the fees charged by lawyers.

In relation to the Small Debts Court, I would also like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to a problem in our Small Debts Court, particularly in the city of Vancouver. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, our Small Debts Courts now handle all claims up to $500; however, I understand that there is still a considerable waiting period to get a case before the Court. Right now it would take you from two to three months to get a case cleared in the Small Debts Court in Vancouver. This waiting period has been aggravated, of course, by the increase from the $200 limit to the $500 limit and also by the increase in numbers of landlord and tenant cases. Nevertheless, I think that something could be done to improve this service and the quickest way to do this would be to provide one or two more Courtrooms. We now have three judges and only two Courtrooms. So I would urge the Attorney-General to look into this matter with a view to reducing this waiting period.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn your attention to the subject of urban transportation and, particularly, deal with the need for a rapid transit system in Vancouver. Rapid transit is getting to be like "motherhood." I can't think of anyone who is not in favour of it. Anyone here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. WOLFE: During the recent civic election in Vancouver, rapid transit received a good deal of attention and every one of the 58 or more aldermanic candidates jumped on the transit band wagon. In fact, one candidate, who wasn't successful, promised to start construction on the new rapid transit system the day after he was elected. The Deleuw Cather study which was commissioned jointly by the regional district and the Provincial Government, came up with the following significant recommendations: (a) that there is a role for rapid transit in the Vancouver area in the next twenty years; (b) that the population of the Vancouver area will be two million by the year 2000; (c) that we should build a two-stage network involving twenty-four miles of track and costing about three hundred million dollars; and (d) that this would be only part of a balanced transportation system to function under a single agency or authority. The report stressed that a Regional Transportation Authority should be established as a first step. I think, this should be done as soon as possible. Last year, I introduced a Private Bill to establish a Greater Vancouver Regional Transportation Authority. Recently, the Regional District Board considered the possibility of taking on urban transportation as one of its functions. I am sorry to say they decided against this possibility for the time being. Because we can't afford to lose any more time in getting this project underway, I would like to see the Provincial Government go ahead and establish such a Regional Transportation Authority, in order to set up tile administrative body to govern and plan this project.

As far as the Provincial Government is concerned, we have certainly shown our willingness to support rapid transit in Vancouver. Our Government has made a commitment to pay 37½ per cent of the 300 million dollar cost and proposes that the Federal Government put up a similar amount. Even our Official Opposition might agree this is a worthwhile gesture, although I know it's hard for them.

The replies from the Federal Government haven't exactly

[ Page 98 ]

been deafening, although Arthur Laing came through about as expected. I believe he said that there was no way the Federal Government could assist in our rapid transit project. Well, we've heard that answer before. Hasn't Mr. Laing heard about the new Federal Ministry for Urban Affairs? (interruption)

Has he not? I thought this new department had been set up to help out in big city problems. Well, this is a good place to start. If our large Canadian cities have any problems at all, transportation is certainly one of them. The Federal Government is long overdue in providing any kind of a transportation policy. I hope the Federal Government will face this challenge and assume their proper share of such a major undertaking. What we need is a formula for all major interurban transportation projects, say 37½ per cent Federal, 37½ per cent Provincial, and 25 per cent local. After all, the rapid transit system is only part of the job ahead of us. Meanwhile, I trust that the Provincial Government will see fit to establish the required Regional Transportation Authority in the near future. It's an important step, Mr. Speaker, to get the system under way.

On the subject of the First Narrows Crossing, which my friend opposite has mentioned, I, too, would like to say that, I think, there has been too much criticism of this proposal and, when you consider the number of years it has been planned and under consideration; that we should back it and support it. It's not as badly needed in my view right today as rapid transit is but, in the course of the next ten years, most certainly it will be. After all, we have to find some way of getting these three Liberals on the North Shore over to their jobs every day. In any event, it has had several studies and the Harbour Authority has just completed a four million dollar-report and I think that we should support it. I am in favour of the fact that we should be planning for a First Narrows Crossing and, particularly in view of the fact that, in the very near future, the by-pass access for Vancouver is going to become vitally important to the downtown area of Vancouver. This is an important part of this project even more so than the crossing, to provide these routes around the downtown area of Vancouver. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Hon. W.N. Chant presented the Minister of Public Works Report for the fiscal year 1969/70.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.