[ Page 585 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable I.P. Dawson, Bill (No. 35) intituled Hearing-aid Regulation Act 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.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): It is a privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to apologize to the House for giving false information to the House on Tuesday last. I told the House and gave the House information about transit operations which were proved false by the filing of the answer of the Premier on Wednesday, February 24, the day after the transit debate was concluded and Vote 83 was passed. I said that the deficit of transit operations in the urban areas was increasing. In fact, it was decreasing by $500,000, or half a million dollars, in the period 1969 to 1970. I further, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, and I have my authority here, wish to ask that you exercise your authority and expunge the resolution on Vote 83 as an abuse of the privileges of the House, that the House should be given the information the day after that important vote was passed. I refer to May, 17th edition, page 42, "The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity." What has happened, Mr. Speaker, in providing this information, after the votes have gone through, is an abuse of the rights of the Members of this Parliament.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MACDONALD: It is a matter of privilege and I feel that we have seen an exercise of high, contumelious disrespect for the traditions of Parliament and fair play. I ask that the resolution on Vote 83 be expunged and that that matter be taken back to the House at an appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): The Premier, the Minister of Finance, cannot be blamed for lack of knowledge, lack of study and lack of realization by the honourable Member on what's happened to the transit rates in this Province. If the honourable Member, who represents a Vancouver constituency, didn't realize that during the year period there had been quite a large increase in the rate charged, up to 25 cents, then that's his mistake. Any person with common sense, Mr. Speaker, would know that with increased rates, the loss would be reduced (interruption). Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member should resign his seat (interruptions).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this information we got was at variance with the only statements we had, which were of Chairman Shrum. I say that this House has been abused and deceived and we passed that resolution on Vote 83 based on false information. I ask it be expunged from our records.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The House is discussing the matter of privilege but I think this does not give the right to the Member to say that the House has been deceived. It's not a parliamentary expression. I know it wasn't intended and I wish he would withdraw the word "deceived." (Interruption.) One moment.

MR. MACDONALD: That's not the point, Mr. Speaker. That information was in the hands of the Government (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The questions were on the Order Paper for a long time and the Government deliberately withheld that information from the Members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wish the Member would take back the words "deceived" and "deliberately withheld."

MR. MACDONALD: All right…deceived, deliberately withheld.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I asked you to withdraw that. It is imputing improper motives to another Member or to one side of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: I say the House has been abused, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw the word "deceived."

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I think that the Chair has a function to determine whether or not a bona fide point of privilege has been raised. On the information that's before me and the authority quoted by the Member, I have not had the opportunity, of course, to research the subject. I would like to do so privately and to enquire closely into the claim that has been made, at which time I hope to bring something before the House.

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

The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill 12 intituled Accelerated Park Development Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill that would put into the hands of the Department of Recreation and Conservation a limit of some $15 million for parks development in this Province. It relates, in my opinion, directly to some comments that I made during the Throne Debate where I suggested that funds be provided from general revenue to create jobs in this Province that would be related to the control of our environment and the restoration of streams and forests, and the development of parks.

I'm pleased to see this figure here and I anticipate that the Government will indeed act to create employment in the

[ Page 586 ]

Parks Branch. What really remains at this point, I imagine, will be the matter of priority. Each of us, representing as we do specific geographic areas of the Province of British Columbia, determine our own priorities, based on opinions and attitudes directly related to our own geographic area. It would be too much for every Member to stand up and speak for other sections of the Province rather than his own. But in this instance, I want to make an appeal that is related to the role that I have played in this House in the development of parks policy. At least, in my opinion, I've played some role. The Minister might think it was critical but nonetheless I felt it was a positive contribution.

I would ask that a great deal of the funds allocated under this particular section be directed towards Cypress Bowl and Seymour Park. The reason that I state this is that — and I'm not saying, exclusively, I want to make that very clear — both Cypress Bowl and Seymour Park are close to the lower mainland area, with the heaviest density of population. The park facilities in the lower mainland area are already overtaxed in terms of public use. Our heaviest concentrations of unemployment are in the lower mainland area and that's not to say that the problem elsewhere should be diminished — it's a very severe problem. But on top of that, we have access to seasonally-adjusted unemployment, as our Prime Minister tells about, with university students being also available.

What I am interested in doing is trying to impress upon this Government to direct as much money as possible to catch up, especially in Cypress Bowl, for the time that we've lost. I don't intend to spend any great deal of time here on the history of Cypress Bowl but I want to point out that that land was acquired in 1944 for park purposes. It was never developed as a park because there was a watershed reserve on it. But we did, indeed, trade away other land, other forests, to acquire this park. All through the controversy, from 1965 to 1971, when the Government, in its wisdom, wished private enterprise had developed the park and we, in our wisdom, were opposed to that approach to parks development, that problem, after a bitter fight of some six years, has been resolved. I say, with some humility, resolved to our point of view with much satisfaction. It is gratefully and happily going to be a public park, owned and controlled by the people of British Columbia — a great victory for the people of British Columbia.

Now that we have it… (interruption). Mr. Member, that's a most disquieting remark. The Member, who has just said to me not to be too sure, has completely thrown me off my pace because, if there is any suggestion at all that this Government is planning to allow private developers back into Cypress Bowl, I have not seen that indication from the Government. I hope that the Member is just being suspicious.

I have learned over my six-year fight over this particular park to be doubtful about the Government, and now that the Government has admitted its mistake, I would not think that it would go back into the same trap again. I don't think the Minister wants to go through those fires again. I'm sure that it's going to remain a public park. I'm hopeful that it's going to remain a public park. We have six years to make up.

The original promoters went into this park and made close to a quarter of a million dollars in logging. The money has gone south. The last we heard, in trying to trace the shareholders' location, was the Dominican Republic. I hope that the funds that are in the Dominican Republic will be used to develop parks down there. I'm sure that the owners of those funds would feel some sense of obligation to those of us in British Columbia who have made these funds available to them. If any of us should ever happen to go to the Dominican Republic, maybe, we'll find a little plaque in memory of the trees from Cypress Bowl.

There has been a mess created in there because of the unwillingness of two Cabinet Ministers to check up closely on what was going on. Now we must clean up that mess and it's going to cost a great deal of money to do that. I make an appeal to the Minister to see that a large amount of these funds is focused on Cypress Bowl.

The other appeal that I wish to make is in concert with my colleague, the Member from Dewdney. I'm sure that he will get up and agree with me that a share of this money should be focused on what was formerly Garibaldi Park, now known, I think, as Golden Ears Park. I'm not sure that's the name. It was a tragic mistake to split the park. It lost its identity as Garibaldi Park and some people don't know where Golden Ears Park is. Suffice to say, that some people fought the split in that park but, nonetheless, it took place. I have heard that there is some attempt to relog old timber berths in that park and I hope that the Minister will tell us that that, indeed, will not be the case, that no old timber berths in Golden Ears Park, formerly Garibaldi Park, the south end, will be allowed to be logged.

Mr. Speaker, the parks policy of this Government has not been very good. We were told by the Minister, when he spoke, that they had created 134 new parks. Now the way that this Government creates parks, Mr. Speaker, costs us very dearly. At one time, in 1956, we had over nine million square acres of parkland. Now we've got just over six million square acres of parkland. The Minister tells us we have created 134 new parks. That approach to creating parks, Mr. Speaker, is very expensive, indeed. The last time I figured it out, it came out to a cost of 27,000 acres per park to create a new park. We lost 27,000 acres every time we created a new one. The Minister, when he draws his boundaries, costs us more acres than he's adding on to the park system.

I make an appeal to the Minister to focus the money on those two parks in particular. I think the whole $15 million could be spent in six months if the Minister were truly allowed to have his way. I think that the amount of work that should be done in other parks of this Province is also very, very pressing, to absorb the funds.

The last park I wish to mention is Tweedsmuir Park. The battle, I understand, is over that I've had with the Minister about the possibility of mining in that park. That battle was lost by me, Mr. Speaker, and I hate to admit it but it was lost. You see, what was done was there were mining claims in the park and, when I complained about those mining claims, the boundaries of the park were redrawn and the mining claims were put outside the park, so I no longer had any complaint to make. It was no longer part of the park. But what's left of Tweedsmuir Park?

The clean-up that should be done in Ootsa Lake, I know the Member from Omineca will get up and make a great plea for the clean-up of Ootsa Lake. On behalf of the beavers in Ootsa Lake, I know that he will give us an emotional appeal because he has not forgotten his identity as to how and why he came to this House — when he made the appeal for the beavers in Ootsa Lake. It's too bad that the beavers aren't on the voters list, today. They might have a longer memory than the people in your area. Anyway, I want to suggest to the Minister that Ootsa Lake needs to be protected. It needs to be cleared. Some of the funds should be directed there.

[ Page 587 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you're being sarcastic.

MR. BARRETT: I am not being sarcastic, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think that's kindly of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to suggest such a thing. Even though, after a five-year fight over Cypress Bowl and winning, I couldn't be sarcastic. I think all good things flow, eventually, from this Government. It takes a little while. It takes $250,000 stashed in a bank in the Dominican Republic and no trees in Cypress Bowl to get them to smarten up. It takes a few mining claims in Tweedsmuir Park and a redrawn boundary to get them to smarten up. It takes placing the Member from Omineca in the Cabinet to smarten him up and forget the beavers. I'm not being sarcastic, Mr. Speaker. I'm just a humble country boy trying to figure out what this big Government is doing to the parks. As a humble country boy, who owns just two suits and comes over here to fight on behalf of the people, Mr. Speaker, I won't allow myself to become sarcastic. I won't allow myself to become disillusioned. I won't allow myself to believe that this Government would do anything other than fight for the parks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the Minister of Recreation and Conservation announce that he's created 134 new parks and it only cost us about three million square acres, I don't want to be…three million acres, not square…I don't want to be sarcastic about that. I don't want to be sarcastic but I ask him, please, we can't afford to have any more new parks created. At the rate you're going we won't have any parkland left.

Now if I may be allowed to continue without interruption, because I have faith that some little red light is shining through that dense thicket across there towards the necessity of developing a better parks policy in this Province. This is the only Government in North America that goes into a park and says that we've got to cut down the trees so we can see the view. This is the only Government that I know of that develops a philosophy that they can do things better than nature. I'm suggesting that they now have a responsibility to improve on nature and to clean up the mess, clean up the mess you've made through industrial waste in our parkland in this Province.

The last area I intend to mention is Buttle Lake — Buttle Lake, that jewel that has been lost to the ravages of Western Mines (interruption). My good acquaintance from Campbell River, you're safe as long as you drink the water down here. You can snicker all you want about the Campbell River water, while you represent them down here, but I tell you that the "gold dust twins" haven't been drinking that water from Buttle Lake, everyday. I remember when the Minister stood in this House and said, "I'll drink that water regularly out of that lake. That park will not be damaged." Now science tells us that the lead and copper content of that water is very dangerous (interruption).

You know, Mr. Speaker, Magistrate Roderick Haig-Brown, who is a well-known… (interruption). I didn't quote him as a scientist. He's no longer a magistrate? He's free, now, to really have a swing at you. He's a judge. You know, Mr. Speaker, no matter what you say about it, I'll stake Roderick Haig-Brown up against the Minister of Recreation and Conservation anytime, anytime. Roderick Haig-Brown should not be disparaged by any Member of this House. He is a great conservationist and a great citizen of the Province of British Columbia. He has stated very clearly his dismay at the damage done to Buttle Lake by the Western Mines and the other areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, I sit down, confident with the feeling that, after all the mistakes this Government has made, after all the bad experiences it has had by the private promoters in all of these parks, that the Minister will announce, today, that through these funds, he will no longer have the excuse to stand up when we ask for parks protection and parks development, he will no longer have the excuse to say that, "We can't take this money out of general revenue. If the Member got his way where would we get all the money from?" Some of the money is here, now, thank goodness. Let us hope that, as long as we're here in this House, long or short, that we never hear the Minister of Recreation and Conservation get up in the House, again, and say private enterprise can do it better — it can't and it won't. Parks are for people, not for profit, and I hope you've learned that lesson.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has maintained his standing as a completely unreliable source of factual information. You're wrong so often I'm only going to deal with two points, because there are things of much greater importance to deal with. First of all, the mineral claims referred to in Tweedsmuir Park were never taken out of the park. They're still in the class B section of the park, today. Class B… (interruption). No, that's your problem, because I have talked to you on, at least, two occasions. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can get it across to the Member (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: May we have some order, please?

MR. KIERNAN: On at least three occasions, Mr. Speaker, in the discussions you and I have had, we have talked about nature conservancies, about class B parks, about class A parks, about class C parks. I have spelled it out in written detail, not only for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, because you learn very quickly, but for some of the Members who learn rather slowly. I'm going to repeat it at the risk of being a little repetitious.

A nature conservancy area is an inviolate wilderness area established for the purposes of primarily preserving the ecology of the Province. The nature conservancy area established in Tweedsmuir Park of 625,000 acres was an upgrading of that portion of a class B park to the superior class A status. The mineral claims are still in the class B section of the park as they historically were. I have a suspicion, at times, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable Members don't want information; otherwise, they wouldn't keep up this continuous chatter, chatter, chatter (interruption). If you would stop your tongue for a moment and use your ears for a change, you would learn something besides your own misinformation (interruption). No, I just find it a little tedious, Mr. Member, when we discuss these things in a factual manner in the House and then Members go out in the country… I don't know, either they haven't heard or they haven't listened, because what we have clearly defined here is not what some of them report when they go out throughout the Province. Of course, that is their privilege. My friend, you have a one-track mind. The Province is much, much bigger and much, much more diverse than one single track.

[ Page 588 ]

Just on the question of Tweedsmuir Park, it is still in excess of two million acres, of which over 800,000 acres have been upgraded to nature conservancy status. It was set up originally as a class B multiple-use park, back in the 1920's. We are progressively upgrading the status of select areas and I wish you would get that clear in your mind, just for once. I have also informed this House, Mr. Speaker, that I would not sanction the establishment of any more class B parks. Why? Because once you hang a park status on it, people assume that it is to be a fully protected area and, historically, the class B parks were multiple-use areas and the only thing that was, historically, precluded by the class B status, was the outright sale of the land within the class B areas. There is a complete record of that, historically. I don't know why some people deliberately seek to misinform the public unless they are in ignorance themselves (interruption). No, I take that back. I don't think they deliberately mislead, they just have a great inability to understand. I think there's one other point and this is just another classic example. As I recall the honourable Member's remarks about lead and copper in Buttle Lake, they have reached very dangerous levels.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's correct.

MR. KIERNAN: That's your statement. I suggest you find a responsible chemist or scientist who will verify that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's have your Health Department do a test right now.

MR. KIERNAN: I have the reports. Again, Mr. Speaker, we're being subjected to hearsay and not facts.

That is as far as I intend to stray from Bill 12. I only did so because we got into, I think, a rather general discussion on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, and there were a couple of points there I just felt I could not overlook. It is this continual misunderstanding that tends to be reported as though it were the substance of the parks programme and the very many positive, useful and excellent things that have taken place within that programme are almost entirely overlooked. When I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been one new park in this Province for every month since the Department of Recreation was formed in 1957, that is a fact and no one can refute it. I suggest to any honourable Member that he zero in on any single park in this report and stand up and say he would not have established that park.

Now, my friend is greatly bemused with acres. First, they were square acres. Then he realized that there's no such thing as a square acre in ordinary terminology and in B.C. you don't find many square acres because a lot of them are standing up on end. It's a square mile, my friend (interruption). My friend loves to come back to square miles.

Does he, for example, recognize the fact that one single park in the Province of British Columbia is larger than the Province of Prince Edward Island? (Interruption.) Yes, but you're such poor learners. Your memories are so bad I have to remind you.

I think it can be agreed, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one who is going to put their finger on any park, any of those 279 parks, and say that they're not well worth having in our park system. Certainly some are superior to others. Certainly some have greater values to recommend them than others. You could say, with a great deal of certainty, that there is not, really, any part of British Columbia that doesn't have park qualities, in one measure or another. It's a remarkable Province we live in, Mr. Speaker, and you could justifiably argue that, virtually, every square mile of British Columbia is suitable for park purposes.

There are, in fact, 279 Provincial parks. We are discussing Bill No. 12, and I suppose the formal term is debating, and we are looking at the proposal to appropriate, for accelerated park development, the sum of $15 million. We will presently be to the estimates of the department and, at that time, we will be dealing with the regular park vote of about $5 million so that the $15 million is roughly three times the equivalent of our annual operational parks vote. Certainly this offers tremendous opportunities for the Government and particularly the Parks Branch, not only to carry out some of the projects that have been on the design table for some time, but also to enter into some new projects with a great deal of confidence that the funds are there to carry them through to completion in a workmanlike, very efficient and satisfactory manner.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the basic merit of this particular bill, because some of the projects in the Province are of rather major dimensions and, in planning your development, it is of great advantage to know that the funds have been provided to carry the project along as fast as it is practical from a physical standpoint to do so, and to carry it to the point of completion where it becomes an integral part of the park system.

One of the parks that has had some attention, during this Session, and properly so — Mount Seymour, which is very heavily used because of its proximity to the urban area, has basically had two problem situations in its make-up. One is the road and the other is the lack of an adequate trail system. We propose, under this vote, to completely rebuild all of the unbuilt portions of that road this year. We propose to allocate not exceeding $100,000 for a trail system on Seymour Mountain Park. In order to facilitate the road programme, we plan to close the road to Seymour from about May 15 until September 15. By that time it should be totally rebuilt, under the direction of the Highway Department, on those four miles where we have, quite frankly, carried on only a patching-up operation over the last several years.

We propose, also, within the general framework of this programme, to provide between now, the time of the passage of this bill, and the authorization of the funds, to provide not less than a thousand new jobs of which 600 will be specifically reserved for university students.

We will, in addition, make a major expansion at Alouette Lake, providing additional campsites and an additional road to an entirely new campsite area up the lake.

We will make substantial additions to Manning Park because it is of universal use right across the southern half of this Province.

We propose to move to the first phase of Cypress Bowl, and the engineering advice I have to date is that we should not expect to be skiing in Cypress Bowl, with lift facilities, until the winter of 1972-73.

We propose, in addition to these general observations, to add to the park campsite units available throughout the Province not less than 800 and not more than 1,000 additional campsite units.

While we will be directing some of our major projects, obviously, to the lower mainland region, we certainly will be taking further action for development both on Vancouver Island and through all parts of the southern, central and

[ Page 589 ]

northern interior of our Province. We are gearing up, now, in the full confidence that this programme will be authorized by this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have given instructions to the Langford workshop, where they manufacture our tables and fireplaces, that they are to recruit an additional 20 people within the next three weeks and they are to be prepared by April 1 to double their output of tables and similar facilities. They advise me that they can accommodate all this within the existing equipment and facilities. We will be drawing these people primarily from the ranks of the unemployed. We will continue through April to draw from, primarily, the ranks of the unemployed in expanding our basic staff for this programme. As soon as the students come out of university, we will be able to place them at various operations that are already functional.

Major operations will be at Mount Seymour, Alouette Lake, Cypress Bowl… we think it can be a commuting proposition where we draw people from the city in the morning and return them to the city at night. Manning Park will be an at-site camp operation. There are two or three other locations in the Province where we have the fundamental sectors of an at-site camp. We can expand those. We will have some operations in fly camps, temporary camps under canvas. We intend to draw most of our cooks from the Nanaimo trade school, as they are available, and some of our heavy equipment operators from the other trade schools throughout the Province, as these people become available. In all, I'm sure it will be a very successful programme and, while I am not in a position to give you detail by detail, area by area, what the total programme will be at this time, I assure you that we will distribute the funds and the development as fairly as we can throughout the Province, recognizing that with 1,100,000 people in the Fraser Valley and with the great need that exists in the periphery to the Fraser Valley, it is properly entitled to a substantial share of the development.

When we meet one year hence, I think we will all be able to took with considerable satisfaction on the fact that we have provided this fund for a very worthwhile purpose, not only to add substantially to our recreational facilities throughout the Province, but, also, and this is equally important, to provide summer opportunity for at least 600 students from our university and at least another 400 people off the present unemployed roles.

With this kind of a programme, Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that you can't put this many people to work without, in turn, the fact that they are working causing other people to go to work. You will have a fair amount of generative effect. We are already seeing some effect in that we have sent design to some local architectural firms and this is already tending to stimulate the activities in their offices. I would think, while we are looking at a basic thousand jobs, directly created by this programme, there would be a minimum of another thousand jobs indirectly created because some of these projects, of course, will be going out as tendered projects and they will, of course, have their own work staff in operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's over and above.

MR. KIERNAN: Yes, that should be over and above the thousand whom we will employ directly.

I want to clarify the point, Mr. Speaker, that I am, of course, supporting the passage of the bill. I thank the Minister of Finance for the opportunity to accept this challenge because this is going to be of a great deal of satisfaction to me, personally, and I'm sure it will be of satisfaction to every Member of this House.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Before I start to speak, I'll make my position very clear, too. I, too, am supporting this legislation. As I listened to the Minister of Finance introducing the bill, he made reference to the fact that it was not the intention of the Government to have this legislation passed for this fund and, then, leave it unspent. I welcomed that statement but there was also an inference there that, in the past, the Government has allocated funds and passed the legislation and, then, left them unspent. I welcomed the statement from the Premier, when he introduced the legislation, that this wasn't going to be one of those cases (interruption).

Oh, no. I just quoted the Premier's words. That's all I did. Just quoted his words and, of course, we could quote chapter and verse as to where the inference was borne out in the past.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcomed the outline of the programme given to us by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He justified the expenditure of the major amount of this money on the lower mainland because of the fact that there are 1.1 million people in that area. When the Minister of Finance was introducing the legislation, he said that there was need to spend additional sums in recreation because British Columbia's population was growing four times as fast as the rest of Canada. I would remind this House, again, and the Minister of Finance and, especially, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, that the population of Vancouver Island is growing five times as fast as the rest of the population of British Columbia. That's the figures, the last figures, I have of two years ago. The population of Vancouver Island expanded at five times the Provincial average.

I'm suggesting that you have to look to where the growth areas are when you're providing the recreational facilities. While, in passing, you mentioned that there would be some work in the Kootenays and the interior, in the north and Vancouver Island, there was no elaboration of the kind of work or the amount of work that would be done there.

I want to tell you what we're up against on Vancouver Island in the real lack of facilities. Even after the real busy tourist season was over, my wife and I took a trailer to one of the parks on Lake Cowichan. Across in the next trailer camp was a family from California, a man and his wife, and they were on Vancouver Island for three days. They said that, next year, they were coming back to spend a whole month on Vancouver Island. There's a multiplication of ten, just for that one family to come back here. What they tell the people in California, when they get back down there, about Vancouver Island…you could imagine the multiplier effect of that situation. So I would suggest that you make a careful re-examination of your allocation of the fund and, especially, on the Lake Cowichan park area, the present Gordon campsite and the development of the other campsites around that particular lake.

One other factor — you mentioned the new jobs being created under this particular work, the 600 reserved for the university students and the other 400 you expect. I know that, later on, in your estimates, you have my favourite vote,

[ Page 590 ]

the youth training programme. It hasn't gone up a penny. It's still $275,000 this year, the same as it was last year. I suggest that, on Vancouver Island…we heard the Mayor of Nanaimo outline the youth and drug problem in Nanaimo. We know that in every community on Vancouver Island there is the same problem. I suggest that, by taking a substantial part of this $15 million, you could create, not a few hundred, but you could put several thousands of our young people in the high school age groups to work under the youth training programme procedure around the parks of Vancouver Island and elsewhere, for that matter, for this two-month period when they're out of school. The money spent in that way would, I think, not only create jobs, not only enlarge the parks, but it might be the means of preventing several hundreds of our young people from starting up the wrong trail in this two-month period when it's so very difficult for the young people in the high-school-age group to have anything else to do except hang around the town, especially in a year like this, when it's almost impossible for some one in the high-school-age group, 16 to 18, to find anything to do. One million dollars of this allocated toward this youth training programme, to that age group would, I think, make a return to the Province as a whole, many, many times greater than with the other provisions. So I would ask you, Mr. Minister, to give that some extra special consideration, that you do make a place in this programme for the high-school group that are, now, in a limited number, 150 or whatever it happens to be, under the youth training programme.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I think the announcement and the reading of this bill is a clear indication of the programme and the thrust that the new ideas of recreation are taking. Certainly the statement by the Minister that a great portion of this will be spent in the lower mainland is very welcome news to all of us who represent those ridings.

I am, however, concerned with some of the comments in relationship to the development of the areas, themselves. The Minister spoke and discussed Seymour and he indicated that there were just a few shortcomings on Seymour Mountain. I must, Mr. Minister, disagree with you. Seymour has a great number of limitations and a great number of problems, that stem from our own handling of a particular phase of it.

I would, Mr. Minister, start out by stating very emphatically that your department in regard to the development of parks and campsites does a fantastic job. But just as emphatically, Mr. Minister, in regards to skiing and to the winter sports, as such, I must just as emphatically state that it does not do an excellent job. When I heard the Member from Coquitlam, the Leader of the Opposition, just blankly state that we should, in these parks, have no private enterprise or no private developers and, then, at the same time, state that private developers have indicated that they are not capable in this Province of putting together fine recreational areas, I think that just has to be an unbelievably inaccurate statement. One only has to examine two significant areas — firstly, Whistler Mountain, which has been one of the finest developments anywhere in North America and, secondly, Grouse Mountain, which, in itself, is probably one of the finest ski areas located next to any major city. The reason I point this out, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister, within this bill, is that I would hope that the $15 million you have would be spent to develop the park and the campsite possibilities, for example, in Cypress Park. But, turn over the ski lifts…because, firstly, and I'll say this, as a skier, I still believe that it is essentially a relatively luxury sport and I do not believe that Government money should be spent to put in ski lifts. I think that Government money should be spent to put in the low-cost development areas where people can go and toboggan, can utilize the winter aspects (interruption). It's true — 90 per cent. Tell me the major areas that are developed anywhere in Washington, Oregon, Utah, tell me any of the ones that are developed in Utah, Oregon, California, back to Maine…one out of five…(interruption). Mount Baker is still…the single part of it is there. I'll point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the development and maintenance of the lift portions, for example,…I will give you, Mr. Minister, if you wish, ten criticisms of what we are doing wrong at Seymour. For example, we are utilizing rope tows for beginners, which are the most dangerous type of tow, the most difficult to handle. They are completely impractical, and even if you use a rope tow we should be using the kind that have a handle on them, which they have developed now, that beginning skiers can handle with a certain amount of ease. Secondly, you have… (interruption). They have the kind that you can hang on to, with the handle, which is a fairly simple tow to handle, whereas the type that we have is placed, for example, between the main cut of trees. If anyone falls off, there is just no way you can get up through there, because, as part of your policy, you're trying to maintain the trees, so you put the lift up between the middle with a gouge down the centre. Anytime anyone falls, there is absolutely no way they can clear the track — so, like every 15 minutes, with beginning skiers, you are closing off that particular run. My point in bringing this up is that we only have a limited number of dollars. There are people who are capable and are prepared to operate the lift facility. Don't believe that this is any great bonanza that you're giving away because if you examine the facilities that you have and the dollars that are coming in, I am sure, Mr. Minister, you would be one of the first to agree that the tow portion, whether it's in Manning Park or any of the other places that you operate, is a losing proposition. Is that not correct — in the dollar return for your commitment there? (Interruption.)

Oh, the question of whether the development of…I'm talking about putting in facilities that people can utilize and putting in the limited facilities that we should be doing. I'm talking about this. You can afford to go up Grouse Mountain. That's where you ski. You don't ski Seymour. You've got your cabin up on Grouse, sitting up on the top. You pay your $6 to go up there, because you're wealthy enough to afford it. I'm talking… (interruption).

No. This is what I'm saying. We should be building the low-cost operations and we should be developing those. When you're talking about people who try to bring a family up and have to pay the $6 toll fees, which we charge at the other areas, we should be providing this as our service, and turn the deluxe facilities over to those people who will put those in. They will operate them better and they will do a better job. All we have to do is look around at the particular areas to see the comparison of the type of job that's been done. Ask any skier, ask anyone who goes to the mountain, if you don't believe me. Ask the people who go to the mountains where the better job is being done. Is it being done by those people, the private developers, or is it being done by the Government operation? In every case they'll tell you (interruption). I'll

[ Page 591 ]

tell you one thing, your Government in Manitoba they haven't even found out about skiing down there yet. One of these days they may even build a mountain.

Mr. Speaker, I think the important part of what we're getting at here is that the utilization of these dollars should be a combination of Government and private developer. The utilization to make the dollar. We talked about the snowball effect by taking and developing the recreational possibilities of Cypress Bowl, by building the campsites, by building the giant areas which are there for people to use, the hiking trails — this aspect of it, and turning and saying to developers if you will commit the very large numbers of millions of dollars that will be required to put in the tows, this $15 million will not just build Cypress, it should build Cypress and it should build additional areas up in the Pemberton area. It could be used to build areas on Long Beach and up into the Salmon Arm area. Instead of talking about the 600 to 1,000 new campsites, with the extra dollars we could have available through this, Mr. Minister, we could be building 2,000 campsites. I would hope that, somehow, a meld and a blend of the two forces in our society, both the Government and the private developer, would be put together in the spending of this $15 million.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Rossland-Trail): On behalf of the students of the Province I'd like to thank the Minister of Finance for this, I think, pretty inspirational programme. It's almost an Operation Bootstrap form of programme and I hope that the Federal Government will look at this sort of scheme in other Provinces and for British Columbia, as well. It seems to me that they should be looking for this type of project which will provide jobs for students and not buy buses to carry them around the country. The students of today need jobs. Whenever I've been to the universities and to the colleges of the Province, the students are very fearful of jobs not being made available for them this summer. I think that this is a way that we can show that this is a form of project where this Provincial Government is making jobs available for the students of British Columbia.

I'd like to also suggest to my colleague, when we're talking about jobs being made available for students, that you utilize some of the student services themselves. At the universities they have student placement officers and these students, I think, would be able to discern which of the students among them really do require the jobs. I don't think necessarily the students with the highest marks should be getting the jobs, or those coming from the better families, or with some pull or drag, should be given the jobs. The students who really do require work badly, I think they should be given preference. This idea came to me from the students at Selkirk College. I was just there two weeks ago, speaking to the students at Selkirk College and they asked me, if it were possible, they would like to have a say in it and they, among themselves, would be able to determine which of their students needed the work the most.

Incidentally, in the riding, we've got another very difficult problem in that the major employer for our area is Cominco. Cominco has historically made work available for students of the Rossland-Trail area and in Kimberley and other places but this year they will be shutting down their plants for one month, which means that not a single student in our area is going to get employment through Cominco. We will be in a particularly bad plight in our area. The Government has promised, upon the flooding of the Arrow Lakes, with the construction of the High Arrow Dam, that they would be building a major marine park at Syringa Creek, as you well know, Mr. Minister. You have done a considerable amount of work this last year but there's a considerable amount of work still to be done. I would recommend to you that, to help the students of the area, you work through Selkirk College. If you find out which students really require the work the most, that you put some of these students to work as soon as possible at Syringa Creek Park. The water will be coming up in May and June and much of the work that has to be done should be started as soon as possible. I would really recommend to you that you give these students some consideration.

I'm very thankful that this project has been suggested by the Minister of Finance and outlined by the Minister of Recreation today that they are giving the greatest number of jobs that will be made available to the students of the Province, for which I thank the Premier and the Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this bill and the proposals that have been outlined by the Minister. Similar to many of you in this House, I'm somewhat of a connoisseur of park sites and make use of them as often as I can. I like skiing in the winter and I like travelling and boating in the summer and going to all the campsites that we have. I also like going to other countries and seeing their campsites and comparing what they're doing with what we do. I found very interesting the Government regulation in Europe of campsites and the standards that they have particularly in places such as France, where the standards are very high and the facilities are very good in every camp, whether it's a municipal one, or whether it's a regional one, that is a state park, or whether it is indeed a private one.

One suggestion I have to make to the Minister, in practical terms, and one that would meet the greatest complaint many travellers and tourists and citizens have, is the question of toilet facilities or washing facilities in many of the smaller parks. I would suggest to him that we have the vocational school and we have the workshops at Haney Correctional Institute and Oakalla where they're doing fibreglass work… Some places that I've seen have portable or mobile types of trailers that contain the necessary toilet and showers, heating units and all the pipes and everything ready to hook onto a water supply and to a sewage system at the particular parksite. In the winter they haul these in, just like on a trailer, to a central storage place, such as you have at Langford here, or you can bring them into the nearest public works yard. The advantage of this is that you eliminate the biggest problem of pilferage, of vandalism, that occurs when the parks are not in use. When you have attendants in these parks, and if you pay a modest fee, to which no one objects, to have that attendant, you can eliminate the destruction that is sometimes done by visiting vandals and you get the facilities that make this one of the most significant Provinces in North America — if you have those facilities. They'll be spoken of all over the country. That's how, in my opinion, you should do it. Mobile units that you move out to the areas where they're needed, after you set up a sewage system and a water system and possibly an electric system, if necessary,

[ Page 592 ]

but that isn't necessary. Certainly, the water is.

I listened, in almost disbelief, at the First Member for Vancouver Centre, in effect, saying that a public park system should be a picking ground for private promoters, that the one facility, that he admitted is the hardest to provide at a profit, should be handed over to private developers to exploit at a profit, which means that you're developing ski grounds for the carriage trade, even if the carriages are on skis. That's the carriage trade that he's defending and that he's supporting and that he wants the facilities for. I'd like to see the kids in the east end of the cities up there skiing. We should have the old pro-rec programmes. They would help (interruption). We haven't got pro-rec. No, no. I know all about it. I know what we have now, but I'd like to see the young people given a break on some of these privately-owned mountains, such as Grouse, where the rate they have to pay is too much for them unless they have wealthy parents. Even the season pass is too much. For anyone to suggest that parks and ski grounds should be in private hands, I think, is really asking for an exclusive type of recreational society and not for all the public.

I would suggest also that the Minister should give serious thought to what's happening at Powder Mountain. I think that the whole problem should be reviewed just as they've been forced to review the Cypress Bowl situation. In view of the nature of the people involved, the way the development seems to be principally a logging operation, it's time that the Government looked into that with a view to including it in future plans of development for skiing in the lower mainland.

Also, I'd like more information from the Minister…perhaps, I can get it from the Minister of Lands, later in his estimates as to what the situation is at Garibaldi, where a development started there and has come to a halt. Quite a bit of private money was put into it. It appears that nothing's going ahead there. I'm wondering what the Government can do about acquiring that site, if it's not going to be gone ahead by private capital, and whether the Government has any knowledge of the potential, in terms of recreation, of that particular site. I hope we can get some information from the Minister of Lands, primarily, and, secondly, from the Minister of Recreation.

I would like to see these mountains developed publicly because the experiences of the U.S. National Parks Service is probably the best beacon for us to look at. The way they develop their ski grounds, and I'm thinking of some I've visited, such as Schweitzer Basin, which are really beautiful ski grounds, wonderfully kept, wonderfully built, with adequate lifts that keep ahead of the demand sufficiently. You don't have to stand there and queue up for two hours to get a ride.

I would like to see some of this money in this development go to Burnaby Lake to the regional park, if it's nothing else but a grant, because of the plans that New Westminster and Burnaby are making for the Canada Games. I'd like to see also not only university students being invited to participate in this work, but I'd like to see them mixed with the unemployed-employable youths that are presently in need of jobs so that they can mix with university boys and girls and perhaps gain something from their mutual experience working together in the parks. I do hope that the Minister will not just make an exclusive club, even if it is for university students who are in need, but bring in some of the unemployed-employable youths who are presently desperately looking for work in the city of Vancouver and elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just commenting briefly, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Recreation both have said that they were going to be sure to remember the university students when these employment opportunities came up. I might remind them not to stop at the universities. We do have some very fine vocational and technical schools and the graduates from the technical schools need jobs in the summer just as much. In fact, these graduates will bring special skills to the occupation, to the work in the parks, that will be very valuable. I hope that he certainly will look there for applications.

When the Minister of Finance introduced this bill, I was surprised to see that so many Members of the Legislature missed the subtlety of his introduction of a new and visionary park policy. I certainly spotted it and I know the Minister is waiting for his estimates to expand on it further. Of course, the policy that I'm referring to was that the Premier didn't stop talking about parks in the narrow, traditional sense, he also mentioned the word "open space." He talked a little bit about the parks, then he talked a little bit about open space and, then, in fact, he even went and talked about apple farmers in the Okanagan. I was pleased to see that he is now looking at that new visionary concept that he saw as Premier, as an M.L.A. for the area of agricultural parkland.

I want to compliment the Minister of Finance on recognizing that and I look forward to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation expanding on this new and better policy. I'm pleased to see that a large percentage of the money is being spent in relationship to population. Of course, I might want to remind you that the big population growth is, of course, in Delta, at 20 per cent a year, so I would remind you we do have some needs to the south, as well as on the North Shore of Vancouver (interruption).

Well, we can name quite a few. We can start with the railway out of White Rock or we can go around the corner to Boundary Bay. We can talk about a wildlife waterfowl refuge in Mud Bay. We could talk about a marina site or boatlaunching to the south of the ferry slip — all these park purposes. We haven't even mentioned Burns Bog and now that I'm thinking of it, I'll have to probably mention this again. We're happy to have the garbage from Vancouver dumped out in Delta but unfortunately this garbage, I think they call it sanitary land-fill, pardon me,…unfortunately they're filling in the Burns Bog Park with sanitary land-fill. This is most unfortunate and I think we're going to have to take some action to stop that pretty soon, too. However, the point that I want the Minister to answer is in his estimates. He won't be able to answer, at this moment, but I hope that he will, at that time, consider the many needs of the parks in the Delta constituency and, above all, this new expanded concept of parks, open space, farmland called agricultural parkland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that all sides of the House are welcoming this Accelerated Park Development Act. I welcome it, too, not only for the fact that my constituency is being singled out for some major assistance…

[ Page 593 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How'd you do it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, as I've already spoken in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I don't take any credit for this. No Member should.

The fact that it is an Accelerated Park Development Act is one which should give us some concern and should indicate the need for caution in approving the expenditure under this act. It is given all the earmarks, by the Honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation, of being a make-work project and, while there is not one Member who would not support policies which will reduce the number of our unemployed, I hasten to urge the Minister to ensure that we're not going to make mistakes which we will, in the future, regret.

Of particular interest is the matter of the development of Cypress Bowl. He announced this afternoon that they would be proceeding immediately with the first phase of this project. Now, the first phase has not been defined. It's obvious that the first and essential phase of development for Cypress Bowl is the location of a road and that's a matter of straight engineering, in which the Minister of Municipal Affairs will have great interest. I'm concerned about the development of the recreational facilities within that Bowl. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if the department, in designing the development in Cypress Bowl, uses any of the proposals which have heretofore been laid out by the private developers who were in that area, the Department will be making a tragic mistake. All of the experience that has been brought to bear upon this particular area, Cypress Bowl, indicates quite clearly that the recreational design which was being followed, in that instance, was one to encourage the removal of timber. Enquiries into what has been done and in the following of the plans of the developers indicates quite clearly that as much as three times as much acreage was being devoted to ski trails as is proper in the circumstances. Two and a half to three times as much acreage was being devoted to the parking of vehicles than is proper in such circumstances.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in approaching this particular development, with the large financial obligation that it entails, as large as $5 million in the final analysis, and the large and continuing annual operating burden that this win produce, creates a situation where the department would be well advised, at this stage, to take one short step backwards and look at Cypress Bowl very, very carefully. I think this is an instance when the department would be well advised to seek from recreational consultants, within the Province and without, the design of Cypress Bowl so that we don't make the mistakes which could be made if we rush into the large expenditure that the development of Cypress Bowl will require. If the Department does this, Mr. Speaker, it will do other things as well, which will have a long-lasting significance to the department and to this Province.

The Member from Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned the problem at Powder Mountain. One of the reasons that we have the problem at Powder Mountain is that there is not, in the Government service, any individual or group of individuals sufficiently skilled in the design of winter recreational areas to tell the Government and its departments of the mistakes that are being made at Powder Mountain. Therefore, if we take the opportunity of using the monies under this act, and the Cypress Bowl example, to employ consultants, who, themselves, will serve to educate, through experience, the members of the Department of Recreation and Conservation, then the experience gained in that single exercise can be repeated again and again and again in areas, such as Powder Mountain and the other six or seven opportunities that there are for similar, exciting winter recreation developments — up through the Pemberton Valley, into Lillooet Glacier and beyond. There can be real lasting significance for the money which is being spent. Cypress Bowl can become the test tube of this Government's ability to engineer, to design and to construct recreational developments which will be a matter of pride to the people of this Province and an attraction to those who can come to this Province and use those facilities.

I find that I must agree with some of the comments made by the First Member from Vancouver Centre. There is, while this study is being made into the proper development of Cypress Bowl, also being created the opportunity of finding how best Government and private developers may work together to the benefit, not only of the developer, but of the general public as well. It can be done and this act will give us the wherewithal to investigate and to ensure that we don't make the mistakes which can be made out of pump-priming, crash-programme approaches to park development.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I'd first of all say to my honourable friend who just sat down, that if he's scared of mistakes the best solution to that is to do nothing at all. I say, if you're scared of making mistakes, the best thing is to do nothing at all, then there's no danger of making mistakes. I don't think we should ever be in that position in developing this Province, whether it be parks or anything else, that we are ever scared of making an odd mistake because we're all bound to. In speaking… (interruption). I don't want to make a million dollar one, either.

In speaking in support of this bill, I wouldn't want the Members of this House to be misled by the information given by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke early this afternoon. For his information, I'm sorry he's not here, the beaver are doing better than they ever did. I might say that there are at least a hundred times more beaver in the Tweedsmuir Park area than there were when the lake was flooded, when I was first elected in 1952. I would say that…the Leader of the Opposition said he'd be very concerned if those beavers voted. I say, if they could, they'd all vote for me (interruption). You know that shows how little you understand about wildlife. The beavers I was worried about were those that were below the dam. The ones I'm talking about now are those in the lake, which really is the same thing as what the beaver does himself. He builds his dam so he can live in the lake above the dam and multiply. My friend from Atlin could give you a short course on this and I wish he would. You might understand the problem.

Another thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that the Leader of the Opposition told a tale of doom and gloom. I don't think he has ever seen the area. But I would point out that Bond Bros. Sawmills took out of the Ootsa Lake flood area this year over two million feet of real sound timber that's been under water now for over 20 years. Provided that lumber prices go up, there's no question that this year they'll take out between 10 and 20 million feet of timber that's been under water all this time. I've seen some of the timber and it's just as sound as it was when it went under. I think every encouragement that we can should be given to

[ Page 594 ]

this company and the Minister of Lands and Forests is doing everything possible to try and help it make a success of this venture. I went out to take a look at their programme and it was interesting to see how they were clipping these trees off 60 and 70 feet underwater and they were even, in some cases, sending divers down with underwater power saws. They'd cut the tree off at the bottom and get a rope on it and bring it up. They were doing this at the rate of one tree every three minutes and they were covering quite a considerable area of the flood area of the Ootsa circle. Now the floatation of these logs, of course, is a problem. They aren't quite as smart as our friends, the beavers…they solve that one…but they do have a problem floating these logs to their sawmills. They seem to be overcoming this by a raft that they pull the logs up on and away they go. I would say for their first year, it was really quite a successful operation. I'm very pleased to see it is, because I wouldn't want this House to be misled that all was doom and gloom in the Tweedsmuir Park area.

I would suggest that Members, such as the Leader of the Opposition, should come to the areas, such as Ootsa Lake and Tweedsmuir Park, because we always like to see city slickers come to these northern areas and get an education on exactly what does happen out in the wilds of this Province. I would further point out that Tweedsmuir Park is nearly two and a half million acres. It's not Stanley Park, as some Members would think it is, and there's an awful lot of area beside Tweedsmuir Park. In the riding of Omineca, alone, there's 57,000 square miles and 60,000 square miles in the riding of my friend from Atlin. Practically the total of this area, plus a lot of yours, the total of this really is park area. I don't think there's any argument that it's anything different from park area and very unlikely will be anything different in the years ahead. Providing that those dreamers from the lower mainland don't get carried away with themselves too much, similar to the Leader this afternoon, that this northern half of the Province will develop very rapidly. I think, in another 50 years from now, I would hope that we could be very proud of the development of the northern section of this Province, with communications and modern communities that can be built up. I would say on top of this, no matter what we do, and I would agree that we have to watch at all times to see that development is more or less orderly, but I would say that it will still remain the best recreational area in the world. Another thing we want to remember that, even though it will remain the best recreational area, even if it's outside park areas, we'll still be able to take our minerals and timber and still maintain a very desirable recreational area in the northern half of this Province.

I would point out to the Members in this House that the average mine covers an area about the size of the average farm, for instance, Granisle and Endako, which employ a lot of people and are quite rich mines. The area involved is still less than the average farm and when you're dealing with an area, such as where my friend from Atlin comes from, or my own, where you have over 100,000 square miles of territory, the area of one little mine, about 1,000 acres at the very outside…you can hardly spot it when you fly over, it's such a small area. I would hope that we won't get carried away with emotionalism that one mine in an area as large as Atlin is going to ruin the whole Atlin riding.

I'm very enthusiastic about the future of the northern part of this Province and I hope all Members will have an opportunity to visit this area because I think it does us all good to visit other areas of our Province (interruption). I just finished telling you about that. The beavers are doing far better than they were and there are a hundred times more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed when I listened to the list of expenditures that the Minister put forward earlier on in that I didn't hear any mention of the regional park districts. I think if there's one way in which we can get a multiplier effect going, it would be to increase the amount of money that the Provincial Government gives to the regional park districts, specifically, the most important regional park district, if one takes into account the proximity to the central city of the Province, Vancouver, and, of course, the proximity of that regional district and the coverage of that regional district in terms of the numbers of unemployed. I think it's safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that, when the good people who reside in my constituency and the surrounding areas — and I look forward to some support on this from the Member from Langley — when our people see a bill go through this House expending $15 million on park development and, yet, still remain frozen in terms of values of their house that they can't trade, they can't sell, they can't build, they can't improve, they can't do anything. When they see a bill for $15 million go through and remain in that position I think they must obviously feel put out and ignored.

The facts of the matter are, and I think I've been through this in some, small detail before, is that there's now apparently been an incredible waste of money in that regional district. The enquiry that was held by the Regional Park Authority into the conduct of the administration of that district is now partially public knowledge. The part that is not public knowledge lies on the desk of the Attorney-General and I shall make no comment about that. Nevertheless, the people who are involved must feel that they should be able to look to this Government for some aid and some assistance.

The situation that has now developed is that the park area has been looked at again and has been split up into three categories — one of extremely low priority, one of medium priority and one of high priority. Unfortunately, the houses that are involved, and they're good, solid houses, they're worth a lot on the market, are in all three areas. What it means to Mr. and Mrs. North Surrey who live in that area, is that their land has been classed as a park. Nobody will buy it. They can't sell it and they're stuck with it. No negotiations can take place in many, many ways because of the shambles that the administration is in. Ten per cent of this bill, in that area, would clean up the next five years of purchases, 10 per cent of the money in this bill. Remember they could go to the Regional Park Authority which serves a million people, and that's not a bad ratio, frankly, 10 per cent. I agree that there are other mainland areas involved and I'm glad about that. I want to put it clearly to the Minister that he's got to look at this Fraser-Burrard Regional District and help it out. It's obvious that they can't help themselves out. They've already expended their next year's budget, by virtue of the agreements they signed. They found some recalcitrant members in the surrounding communities who will not join the district. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should look forward to the Government making it mandatory for municipalities within the Fraser-Burrard Regional District to join that district and pay their fair share, pay their way, pay their mill rate.

[ Page 595 ]

It's obvious that the situation that has occurred in the last three years has put an intolerable burden on the people who live in that area. It's obvious, too, that with the limitations that are in the act of not allowing the Regional Park Authority to make agreements that last longer than five years, that the mathematical formula, the lines and curves of expenditure and income that you could draw on a graph, just don't ever meet. They just don't ever meet. The city of Vancouver, in my opinion, has played a dog-in-the-manger attitude on this and we had the most incredible statement from an alderman of that city who said, "Why should we be in this and buy parks for other municipalities?" I think, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to vote for this bill, even though I'm going to have a hard job of explaining it away to the people in the Tynehead, and I know my friend in Langley is going to have a hard time explaining to the people in the Campbell River Park area, that we surely should expect some assistance when $15 million, and I refer to the bill itself, "…amounts not exceeding in total the sum of $15 million for the purpose of creating or improving parks in the Province." We should use some of this money not just to create a park, not just to improve a park but to help people who, by virtue of the authority that this Legislature has vested in another body, to help them get out of the complete ice jam, the frozen-in situation that they find themselves in today. I sincerely hope that the Minister will think seriously about sweetening the pot in terms of the money that goes into the Fraser-Burrard Regional District.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I want to thank the Minister for his announcement that money will be spent in the Alouette area on the Golden Ears Park. This is very high use, with upwards of 300,000 people making use of it. To give you an idea of the proportionate size, this is from an area where 25,000 people in Maple Ridge live. It is the people of the entire Fraser Valley that make use of it and we're very happy that we live in the area where this park is established. There is one suggestion I would like to make to the Minister, an important suggestion, one that I have not made directly to him before and that is that this would be an appropriate time to build a small piece of road within the park which would circumvent the University of British Columbia's forest area. It is a very short piece of road — about half a mile in length — and would allow passage of automobiles to the foot of the Golden Ears Mountain.

Now, there are many trails up these mountains but the fact that the University of British Columbia's area traverses the road that gets there, it's impossible for anyone to drive through to this area. The University of British Columbia rightly closes this off because they have many experiments going on there, extensive experiments, that would be damaged and many things could happen that would deteriorate their work. But a small road around this area would connect up with an existing road to the foot of the Golden Ears Mountain. At this area that I suggest is a very fine level area and we have a public-spirited contractor in that area who said he would personally bulldoze about two acres of parking land there, free of charge, for the department if you'll put the connecting link in. I thought it was a very fine gesture. I never offered it to you before but I do it now. I offer it to you on his behalf. He'll make a parking area up there if you'll put in the road. I think it would cost a very little bit, $30 or $40,000. That's a little bit the way you call money, so I suggest it to you.

One other little thing and that is the Alouette Lake, itself. This beautiful park, attended by upwards of 300,000 people each year, finds itself going to a lake where the lake is pretty nearly nonexistent. Last year, the draw-down of B.C. Hydro just removed the take almost out of sight. I say to you that Hydro may need the power but I'm sure and certain that the little bit of power between a full take and an empty lake isn't going to do that much for them, Mr. Minister, and that you kindly, with your power and eminence, see to it that they keep that lake up to a medium level. I know that you want to do it and I think it's time the foot was put down on them and see that it's done.

One other thing, I've hoped and prayed for water to be delivered from this lake down the Alouette. I thank the Minister responsible that water has been let down and the river has been refreshed and it is being returned to its normal self…but for one thing. It's spotty and you can never depend on it. I would like some act or some water rights procedure put into effect where a definite amount of water must be released down the Alouette River. This is a very beautiful river. It's a beauty spot of the whole Lower Fraser Valley. It's a lovely spot and the reason why this river should be damaged to its present state, although it is improving, is hard to explain. I realize it's not the fault of this Government. That river was blocked off in 1927 by a former Government and steps are being taken and the river is being restored. All I ask now is one further step — a guaranteed amount of water during the hot times of the year, say from April to the end of August or September. A little bit of water, 30 or 40 cubic feet per second would amount to very little. With those few remarks, I thank the Minister. Now let's let the order pass.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite brief. I do think that the Minister, who will be responsible for spending the money or allocating the money, the funds, made available by Bill No. 12, would have some difficulty reconciling a sensible decision to disburse the money in the various areas of park development from the comments that have been made in this House this afternoon. He might conclude that we are almost exclusively a winter playground. Now, we are fortunate in that we have winter sports and, of course, the coastal range and the Rockies and so on, and the high lands that make that possible. It does attract tourists but I think that we should recognize, also, that the densely populated area is in the coastal plain. Seventy-five per cent of the tourists that pour their dollars into British Columbia surely must come in the months from say May to September.

I believe the Minister would agree with that. You can tell, Mr. Speaker, the type of sports activity that people are interested in by observing the equipment they carry on their cars in the winter time. You see the skis, of course, very prominently displayed. In many months, when you go into the Siskiyous and so on, in California, you see the same equipment, but the people who visit British Columbia in May to September are mostly pulling campers and they are pulling small boats. We're very fortunate in the fact that we have some beautiful interior lakes. We have on the coast our magnificent salt water, the Gulf of Georgia, areas like theSunshine Coast, the magnificent stretch of water extending from say below Ganges and East Point up to the Nanaimo

[ Page 596 ]

area and beyond, the Seymour Narrows area and so on. I'm not speaking only for those people, who have larger cruising boats, who are fewer in number, but I'm speaking for the thousands of people who have smaller boats that they wish to use from launching sites in the lakes and in the salt water.

I would hope that the Minister would spend a few of these dollars in improving the shoreside parks, the camping areas that exist and can be created on theSun shine Coast of Vancouver Island and, in many cases, on very beautiful, quite undeveloped areas on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Having said that, I do want to urge the Minister to take a good look at the whole, in conjunction with seaside parks at the whole marine moorage area where our American visitors, with their boats from Puget Sound and so on come in in increasing numbers. They could be improved and the shoreside facilities could be improved. I would think that would come within the scope of the monies available.

I do want to, in addition, commend the Member for Surrey in referring to the unfortunate situation that exists with respect particularly to the Tynehead area, in connection with the regional park development plan. This has been most unfortunate. It is true also that people have been improperly, in my opinion, and unfairly inconvenienced by the fact that the monies did not appear to be available to finally consummate the deals that were apparently intended to take place to acquire a specifically allocated regional park area. Apparently, as a part of either the reluctance to make the decisions to spend the money, or the fact that the funds were not available, people have been in limbo. They couldn't relocate because the cash was not available from the sale of the land but, at the same time, it was clearly indicated by the action of all the authorities, local and Provincial, that that land was earmarked for a regional park and would, at some time, be acquired. Therefore, their ability to trade and sell in the normal manner was inhibited and made impossible in fact. In closing, Mr. Speaker, so that it will not be forgotten, I do say to my friend, the Minister, through you, do not forget the seaside, shoreside activities, because we have the finest salt water and fresh water that one will ever find anywhere and they are becoming an increasing attraction for thousands of people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, through you, to the Minister, I would like and hope that the Minister will follow through on the announcement made in this House last year to greatly increase the acreage set aside up in Skagit Valley as a park reserve. I certainly hope that he will consider developing a portion of this because, through the discussion that has gone on in this Legislature, we have unwittingly given considerable publicity to that valley and many, many more people are going up in there now than ever before. There's certainly need for sanitary facilities, park benches and, accommodation for people to park their trailers and set up their tents.

The lake on the way up to the Skagit, Silver Lake, Silverhope Creek, also can stand expanding. This is one of the finest recreational areas in the lower mainland and, with the terrific population that we have experienced in the lower mainland, I feel that we have a great responsibility to help develop both Silverhope Creek and the Skagit Valley. So I'm calling on the Minister, my neighbour from Chilliwack, to give very serious consideration to spending at least some of the interest of this $15 million in the Skagit Valley.

We have a spot a little further up the Canyon, now, called Hells Gate and recently a development group has been given permission to develop an aerial tramway so that tourists from near and far can cross over Hells Gate and look down to this narrow chasm and see the boiling waters. Now this, no doubt, will attract many, many people from the lower mainland and from many parts of the world. With this in mind, I'd like to have the Minister recall one of our first visits. Shortly after I was elected to the Assembly and attended my first Session, I drew the Minister's attention to the need in the Fraser Canyon for more campsites and facilities where people who are pulling trailers particularly people pulling trailers, and tenters, too, could pull off and spend the night or spend a day or two in the beautiful Fraser Canyon. Well, at that time the Minister said, Mr. Speaker, that if I could find some flat land…flat land is very hard to come by in the Canyon…but I took him seriously. I got out the maps, looked around and, as I drove the Canyon, I found quite a flat area adjacent to the Alexander Bridge, where we had had a picnic site, but the biggest part of the picnic site had been destroyed when Highway 1 was rebuilt. There are some 320 acres in all. We have a park reserve on a portion of it. The Department of Highways has a gravel reserve on another portion. I hope the Minister will now go ahead and develop this reserve. If I can catch his ear, I'll give him permission to call it Kiernan Campsite but he'll probably have to spell that, just as my friend from Kelowna, instead of having a K, you'll have to have a C. You can call it Ciernan Campsite.

I'll also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that with this great development up in Hells Gate and now that we have beautiful British Columbia, we call that Heaven's Gate, leading into Yale-Lillooet riding.

I think these are good, constructive proposals, when we have this kind of money to spend, not a great deal spread over the Province, but, even if a small percentage were spent at this time, we could develop the Ciernan Campsite at Alexander Bridge. This is pretty well a half way point between Vancouver and the interior. People pulling trailers from Vancouver up into the interior, or coming through from Calgary down through the Canyon, this is a first-class place to stop over, pull the trailer off, make camp and spend the night. With the increased pressure that we are creating, by allowing entrepreneurs to develop the Hells Gate scenic tramway, I believe we have a responsibility to develop a campsite in the immediate or adjacent area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, this has been an excellent debate so far. Everybody is dipping his hand into the barrel for a little tidbit of pork. I got up so late in the debate I'm not sure there's anything left in the bottom of the barrel.

There's one thing I wanted to say before all the money gets spent, in a general way, and that is I think there is some significance in the fact that this total sum of $15 million for the purpose of creating or improving parks in the Province.

I'd like to go into a little more depth on the suggestion that was first put up by the Member from Surrey and that is that I think it's pretty obvious that, in a year of high unemployment, one of the things that prompted this bill, in the first place, was the question of trying to provide employment. The Minister has indicated to us, in speaking to the bill, that 600 students will get jobs, that other projects

[ Page 597 ]

will be let on contract and this will permeate throughout the whole of the economy as a pump-primer.

I want to suggest to him that there's one further way that he could do this, to tremendous advantage, I think. If he were to take somewhere between a third to a fifth of this Budget and make it available, specifically, to cities or regional districts, as a percentage towards money which they would spend, i.e., "We'll give you say 30 per cent of this project, of the money for it, but we want to have some control over it. We want to have certain criteria that you must fulfill, i.e., you must provide such a proportion of say labour to equipment. We don't want this all to go into caterpillar tractors." There is a lot of work in parks that can be done or should be done with actual labour and if we establish these criteria, it would, also, I think, perhaps give a more general distribution of work throughout the Province because we have got hopefully regional parks in many areas of the Province. The Minister might find that he's escaping from the criticism that all the money is being spent for the lower mainland or, "We didn't get any of this in our constituency."

The other problem is, that when he's going to hire 600 students, I think, in terms of if I had anything to do with it, one of the real problems is in providing supervisory staff for the students, to make sure that the camps are conducted on a reasonably high level. I think, here again, that the local area has a better idea as far as this is concerned, in terms of knowing the personnel who are good, who work with children, perhaps teachers in the summertime, and this sort of thing, who are known locally but might not otherwise be known to the Parks Department. I think that there's a good chance, if he's careful with his criteria, of spreading this money throughout the Province and, in fact, getting perhaps another two thirds of the work accomplished with this money. I would like the Minister to think about this a little while, because I think that it's valid, in terms of trying to create jobs which, I think, is one of the principal functions of this particular Act.

The other thing that I'm going to suggest is of a more parochial nature and that is that the Minister knows, in fairly recent times, there has been a most spectacular cave discovered in the Alberni constituency and that is the Euclataws Cave. I'd like to commend the Minister for his action in sealing off this cave so that it doesn't go the way of the Home Lake Caves, where vandals have been able to come in and completely destroy the ecology of the cave — the stalagmites and stalactites and the beautiful formations. You know, it almost reminds me in a way, somewhat like the ladies who love to have lamps in the living room but the cellophane is still on them. You know, it's all very well to have a cave and lock it up but then the people who really want to see it and have an interest in it find difficulty in doing so. Insofar as this is Centennial Year, I think that as many people in the Province of British Columbia as possible should get a chance to have a look at this magnificent find. I would like to suggest to the Minister that, on an experimental basis, he hire perhaps three or four geology students from the university and have them with a supervisor in charge of this cave say with a fly camp with a tent there and that he allow small groups of three to five people to go in with a guide under the proper condition and that, in fact, they pay a fee, which might support the wages of these students, for going through this particular cave in the summer. I don't think perhaps the demand will be all that great but I think that there could be some demand, particularly if we make it known. I think that this would be a great thing as a Centennial project to let people who are particularly interested have a look at this in a year which they might not otherwise do and would also provide employment for students.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): (Beginning of speech not recorded) …Island, just on the door step of Nanaimo. If there is anything extra left over, even a paltry sum of $30,000 would just sort of brighten up the place a little bit and get us ready for when we do our big operation on that beautiful island which is one of the most beautiful islands in the Gulf of Georgia. In the years to come, its true potential as a tourist attraction will be proven. I would just like to mention, too, that… (interruption). The City of Nanaimo paid for it. We're still paying off on the bond issue but we don't mind that because we know the Government's going to play the game with us, as they have done over the years (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NEY: Well, I see they have been spending money for the last few years there and last year they increased the moorage facilities and I understand they're going to do it again this year. I would like to say that the facilities which have been reasonably well kept up over the years are now ready for a proper maintenance job. One other little item on this is the fact that, if we could have this work done out of this money, it will be able to create a few jobs at the local level for us. We don't want all our boys to have to go to the mainland to work in the parks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Just in case there is some money left of this $15 million, I would like to bring up a matter that I've talked about many times in the House and that is in connection with Seymour Park. I'm certainly very happy, and I'm sure all the people of the lower mainland will be happy, to know that you're going to improve conditions there and make it available to more people. As you know, nearly every Sunday, on a fine day in the winter, you'll hear statements over the radio saying stay away from Seymour Park, because it's plugged tight, they won't let any more people up.

Now, from the standpoint of summer camping grounds, you have an admirable area to the west of Seymour Mountain and taking in the Seymour Creek Valley. As you know, this is held by the Greater Vancouver Water Board and it was intended many years ago to use this for water storage. However, the dam on the Seymour has been built about eleven miles up from the Keith Road but the area is closed to the general public. You can't get in there even to walk or to fish in the creek without a special individual permit. I think this is purely a dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of the Greater Vancouver Water Board and I think that it is entirely feasible that the Department of Recreation and Conservation take this area over, below the dam, and utilize it for a park area. This is a very desirable site. It's thoroughly undeveloped and I don't think it would cost a great deal of money, in any way, to merely make it open to the general public. It's a

[ Page 598 ]

wonderful place to take kiddies, and something which is very badly needed in the lower mainland area is a place where a family can take its children and feel safe, within just a day's outing from the city centre. This fulfils all those requirements. It's only ten miles away from the city. It's an area which is already held by a Governmental body and I would urgently ask you to consider this, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think that there is a more beneficial area within the lower mainland than Seymour Creek Valley. I certainly hope that you'll take a good look at this and see if you can't do something about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have a problem in the Skeena riding. I know that now that money is available development will be made on the park that was donated to the Government by Alcan. However, when we had the slide at Lakelse Lake, where 96 campsites went out in the lake at one time, and took with it a lot of fairly mature timber and left these trees standing in the lake, forming little islands, it was a real hazard. At that particular time, the Department of Highways let a contract and they went in and cleared out all these obstacles. They had to be cut ten feet under water level and the whole lake was swept and it was clear. An excellent job was done but I'd just like to bring attention to the Minister that now some of these roots and trees have loosened from the debris that went in with it and now we have trees again floating in the lake. I was wondering if it is the responsibility of this department to have this cleared again or would this be Highways Department? It's not a big project. I think that perhaps there wouldn't be more than 20 trees that need to be removed or cut down to the 10 foot level again, but it shouldn't be left the way it is because it's a very dangerous situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm in favour of parks in the same way that I'm in favour of motherhood.

Bill 12 read a second time and placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 11 intituled Special Funds Appropriation Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, after that last debate, I'm not sure where I stand in this bill. It's the Special Funds Appropriation Act. The last one was the Accelerated Park Development Act. Both these bills are taking specific sums of money for specific purposes. In introducing this bill, the Minister didn't give the same assurance that he gave with the preceding bill that this bill wouldn't just be passed and then the money lie unused. He didn't give us that assurance with regard to the Special Funds Appropriation Act (interruption).

Yes, the interest. At 7 per cent, that comes to $1,750,000, with regard to the $25 million set aside for the Drug, Alcohol, and Cigarette Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund. That's a long name for this particular piece of legislation. There are actually principles involved in this bill. One is an extension of the funds required by the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and, like the Member for Oak Bay, who says he's in favour of motherhood and parks, I'm in favour of home acquisition and if there's more money required to make this possible then certainly we're going to support that particular section.

The other principle has to do with the providing of monies to make the…actually, the second principle is to stabilize the Crop Insurance Stabilization Fund, because it was in danger of losing its stability because of the claims that were being made on it due to a very bad crop year. This is the Crop Insurance Stabilization Fund. Once again, we are in favour of that particular section. It's always been a problem in the Province of British Columbia to evolve an adequate crop insurance plan — one, because of the diversity of agriculture in the Province of British Columbia and, secondly, because of the fact that, in many areas of agricultural endeavour, the size of the crop and the few number of people involved in the raising of that crop are simply too small to evolve a full insurance plan. After many years, we did get into the crop insurance plan. This is a plan, as I recollect, that is in co-operation with the Federal Government and we have no alternative but to support that particular section. That principle is involved in this bill, also.

The third principle is the main section of the bill, the one that refers to the $25 million being set aside in a perpetual fund in the Provincial Treasury to be called the Drug, Alcohol, and Cigarette Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund. Now, it says the Minister may, at such times and in such amounts as he considers requisite or advisable, take this interest and apply it toward this particular function. The estimates for this year still allow certain amounts of money for both the help that's given towards those groups that are fighting narcotic addiction and alcoholism in the Province of British Columbia. We have the assurance that they will remain in that fund, for this year, anyway. Knowing the history of this Government, I'm not sure that, in next year's Budget, they'll still be there as long as this fund is in operation (interruption). That's not really a harsh criticism. It's merely the benefit of years of experience in this House that I… (interruption) it's not cynical. It's a factual observation based on historically accurate, recorded facts. There's no other way to look at it. No, sir (interruption). I trust any person once. When they let me down, from then on I don't trust them anymore (interruption). No, sir. I trust any person once. When they let me down — no more. I used to believe everything the former Minister of Highways said, you see. Then I got to a point where I… Not through cynicism, just through a little observation I had made over the years.

When the Minister of Finance, was introducing this bill he made a statement that reflected an attitude. He said this money will stay in this fund and be used for this purpose forever — forever. This means that he doesn't expect to be able to evolve any kind of solution to the problem of alcohol, cigarette or drug addiction. Otherwise, he wouldn't have made that dedication in his speech — that it will stay in this fund forever. He doesn't have too much trust in human nature. Semantics — on the Premier's part (interruption).

Well, semantics is the meaning of words, the study of the meaning of words. A chap by the name of Girsdansky was the first man who wrote an authoritative journal on

[ Page 599 ]

semantics. Then he was followed by Hayakawa who wrote Language in Action, in 1940, which is also a book worthwhile reading. There's a number of other books I can quote you on semantics, if you want me to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill No. 11? (Interruption.)

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. The only comment that I'm going to make, Mr. Speaker, on this Drug, Alcohol, and Cigarette Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund is the fact that I agree that all three should be put together in examining factors developing in our society, attitudes displayed in our society and divisions arising in our society. While the members of the middle-age, middle-class group in society tend to look down their noses at young people who have gone towards drug addiction, out of hand, the young people find themselves condemned by this generation. The young people look at our generation. They look at our addiction to cigarettes, alcohol, tranquilizers, pep pills and all the long list of items that can be classified as drugs of one kind or another and, then, they say, "How can you possibly question our attitudes or our actions when, you, in your generation, are participating in these other fields of addiction?"

I think I can agree that they should be classified together. I hope this fund won't have to be a perpetual fund, because it will mean that our solution to the use of the money will not have accomplished its objective, namely the control and elimination of drug, alcohol and cigarettes as a problem in our society.

While speaking on this, Mr. Speaker, I was on an open line programme, a couple or three weeks ago. Someone shot the question at me, did I think it was right that in the Province of British Columbia, the radio and television stations should be denied access to $600 million worth of television and radio advertising for cigarettes and tobacco? I said, "Yes, I think it's right they should be denied that." The lady said, "Well, how can you possibly take this position, when they're doing it across the line? It's directed into this Province, why shouldn't this Province have part of that?" I said that the fact that we're losing this money doesn't make it right. I'm actually opposed to any form of cigarette or alcohol advertising in the newspapers, on the radio or on television. I simply would like to see the Premier at his next Federal-Provincial Conference do what he can to have that kind of advertising eliminated from every section of the media (interruption).

They are pushers, yes. They're pushers of alcohol and cigarettes. Of course, while we're speaking of this advertising, this is part of what this fund is going to have to try to overcome. This fund is going to have to try to overcome the completely wrong impressions that are left in the minds of so many people by the kind of advertising that you find in most of the magazines. I don't happen to have one of the magazines here, but you'll find that the ads, especially with regard to the liquor advertising, relate their particular commodity either towards sex or towards a particularly enjoyable kind of high-standard living. This is the sort of advertising that I deplore on any and every occasion, because it's the sort of perversion of advertising that does the whole advertising field real harm because it's for the buck, regardless of its impact on society. I object to that very strenuously and that's why I'm quite prepared to support anything this House can do to eliminate all liquor or cigarette advertising in every field of the media.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in connection with this bill, which is going to create a sum of money useful for combatting cigarettes and their effect and, also, drugs, I would like to draw attention to one aspect of this and that is the proposed cure of drug addiction. This is something which apparently governments have utterly failed to cure over the past years.

In spite of the fact that millions of dollars have been spent in research and the studies of various kinds and treatment of various kinds, it's very hard to find a place where addicts can be treated and cured. The Federal Government in British Columbia, over recent years, has spent many millions of dollars in its Matsqui institution, which was intended to be a place which would take people away from drug addiction and put them back into a normal life. To the best of my knowledge, after several years and an untold amount of money, they can't point to one individual coming out of that institution as being cured of drug addiction.

There is, however, a ray of hope, for what it's worth, in another type of training which has been available for the last 12 years within the Vancouver area. I've had a chance to observe the treatment that has taken place, along with the Honourable Member for Langley, and we have reason to believe, and I think it can be documented, that many patients at this centre have been completely cured and have returned to earning a living, many of them in different walks of life. This Government has been, I think, very wise in offering some support to this small organization in order to help them carry on. In spite of that, I am told, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, that the people in connection with this Batley institute have spent $100,000 of their own money in order to help addicts in this area. There is no doubt that they have helped them. They have helped some to a point where, in the last year in a treatment of 40 people, 15 or 20 of them are completely off drugs and three quarters of them are back earning their own living and supporting their families.

This is the kind of news that you just do not hear very often, Mr. Speaker. I don't know of any Government institution and, notwithstanding what has been done with the Narcotics Foundation, they are not in a position to point a finger at anyone that they have cured of drug addiction. It's a most unfortunate situation but, nevertheless, what are you going to do when you're faced with facts like this? This small institution I'm talking about, which has been handled almost entirely through the ability and the persuasiveness of one little woman, has been able to achieve results which so many other organizations have completely failed to do, in spite of unlimited money to work with.

I would beg the Government to do what they can, if necessary, to investigate, to assure themselves of what is being done with this organization and, if the facts that I have outlined here today are correct and addicts are able to be helped to a point of getting back into the stream of society without the use of narcotics, then I think we should go over backwards and help them in every way possible to train people who can carry on the work that has been started by this small institution. It's a very important thing, Mr. Speaker. I only hope that the Government will take a very good look at this opportunity that they have.

[ Page 600 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister for Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill, apart from the work towards which funds under this act are to be directed, all of which have, I think, been expressed from time to time in terms of the debate in the House, as being a very effective way of tackling these special programmes in the area of drug, alcohol and cigarettes, last year, it was necessary for a lot of reasons to do quite a bit of canvassing of the financial markets in both Canada and the United States on behalf of municipalities and in particular the Municipal Financing Authority.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no single, financial programme of the Provincial Government which is met with more envy across Canada than this particular way of financing, not only the activities under these funds, but the manner in which these funds are invested. Last year, as many of you know, many municipalities in Canada certainly almost all of them, with the exception of New Brunswick which has a different way of raising capital for both hospital construction and school financing…but, then, on the other side of the coin, they have no say, Mr. Speaker, in the amount that the Government says they have to repay in the way of capital. In the other Provinces, as we were examining the market, it was not unusual to run into situations where the local authority in Manitoba, in Ontario, in Quebec, were in the market and were required to put up the entire capital cost of a hospital project or a school project at a time when the market rate in the so-called free market was, in some instances, over 10 per cent. I recall very well one issue, on behalf of a school district in the Province of Quebec, where the effective rate was 10.42 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think you can understand…

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus the commissions and everything else.

MR. CAMPBELL: Plus the commissions and all of the legal advertisements that were involved with that issue. That was not a unique situation by any stretch of the imagination. Even in the rich Province, or the theoretically-rich Province of Ontario, the so-called "have" Province, many local issues last year for the local share of school costs and the local share of hospital costs were well up in the wrong side of the 9 per cent interest mark — 9.87 I recall, in one instance, 9.92, in another one. In some cases, over 10 because, in those Provinces, Mr. Speaker, the local share and, in some instances, the entire capital cost of the hospital has to be raised by the local authority.

In other words, in some Provinces the local share will be raised on the market, in other Provinces the entire capital cost of the project is required to be raised by the local authority and, then, the Provincial Government will repay, in part, the schedule of repayments involved. Now, Mr. Speaker, how much better and how much more sensible is an approach to finance which, apart from doing these things in the area of drug addiction and alcohol rehabilitation, and in the projects which are coming forward under the First Citizens' Fund, and the projects under the Centennial Sports Fund and the Cultural Fund, how much better it is that these funds can be made available to the local authority at rates which have ranged, since 1968, 6.61 per cent — the highest reached was 8.33 per cent and, of course, it's sliding down today — 7.85 per cent was the most recent issue for school financing. It is lower today, Mr. Speaker. In British Columbia hospital districts, the minimum was 6.66 per cent and the maximum again was 8.33, with the most recent issue 8.14. On top of that, when we're considering those percentages on the long-term debt of the school districts and the hospital districts, that is being 100 per cent the responsibility of the Provincial Financing Authority to pick up the total capital required for the school project and the hospital project.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, of all the things which this Government has done financially, I say again nowhere…perhaps, from the Members opposite and in the Liberal Party, who perhaps don't understand…that it's better to pay 7 than 10 or maybe 6.5 than 10.4. Why they have that point of view I wouldn't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: …twenty five or thirty years.

MR. CAMPBELL: For twenty years. I say this, that the rest of Canada at Government level and at local Government level look with a great deal of envy on this financial programme in British Columbia. You had better believe it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I think there are few problems in our society today which constitute a greater worry to a larger number of people than the drug and alcohol problem. In terms of parents, in particular, there are fewer subjects I've come across more often than the worry associated with the use of drugs by children in school at what appears to be a decreasing age.

As far as alcohol and cigarettes are concerned, I think one or two brief figures should be mentioned to bring home to the House the dimension of the problem with which the Government is attempting to deal. A recent editorial in one of our newspapers suggests that the United States plans to spend $75 million in the next three years. The statistics for British Columbia show that we have 31,000 alcoholics, who constitute something in the order of 2 1/2 per cent of our population over the age of 20. This is simply stating the number of alcoholics but we should not disregard the tremendous problems to the families and dependents and employers and associates of the alcoholic. In regard to cigarettes and alcohol, in particular, the Honourable Member from Cowichan-Malahat questioned the use of the word "perpetual." I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to be realistic, that alcohol and cigarettes are somewhat like original sin, they will always be with us. I would submit that, with all the best of intentions in the world, the aim of this programme must be basically one of education, in the hopes that we can bring about the intelligent use of alcohol and cigarettes in our midst rather than fruitlessly chase a goal that is just not attainable. I would not adopt the same philosophy in regard to the use of drugs perhaps although, through the centuries, drug addiction has been with us also.

The question of cigarette use as a cause of disease, I think should also go on the record. Frequently, when I speak about the evils of smoking, it seems to be thought that I'm talking about the moral aspect, which, in fact, as far as I know, I never have done. The most detailed and accurate and scientific study of the effects of smoking was carried out by the United States Public Health Service, with their first report in 1967 and supplements each year. The statistics are impressive enough that they deserve mentioning. If you take

[ Page 601 ]

young men, who smoke two packets of cigarettes a day, the statistics show that, on the average, you can knock eight years off their life expectancy. For a young man who smokes one pack a day, their life expectancy is down by four years (interruption). They don't quote three packs, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't plan to drown the House in statistics. I'm merely trying to point out that this was a very well-documented and well-conducted study on a scientific basis, analyzed statistically, so that for it to be suggested that it has not been proven is, really, if I may use a word that I haven't used this year, yet, is rubbish. The incidence of lung cancer is hardly debatable, either, and even in British Columbia alone the figures between 1958 and 1968 show the death rate from lung cancer to have doubled. In 1968, 537 persons in this Province died from lung cancer.

The other two diseases that are particularly related to smoking, which it is well-established, are the increased incidence of coronary artery disease which, unfortunately, frequently, picks off a young man in the prime of his life, and bronchitis and emphysema.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill very strongly, I think it's worth mentioning that one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Liquor suggested that funds be made available. In passing, I think it is worth noting that this, in fact, whether it's under one label or another, is meeting that suggestion.

Some mention was made by one of the other Members of the trends that are used in advertising to try to encourage the use of liquor and cigarettes. I think perhaps you've all read but it's just worth mentioning that, in Britain, they are attempting to use the same influences in a negative way. In other words, the attractiveness of the female to the male may be somewhat diminished if the person concerned has the stale smell of cigarette smoke in her hair, or if a man is coughing all over his sweetheart and if he has something of the unpleasant stain of brown on his teeth. It's suggested that some of the advertising in Britain might be used in this negative fashion and I think it's a good idea. I think advertising, however, always seems to go overboard. They claim that, in Britain, smoking impairs a man's sexual prowess and I would like to see the documentation. I don't think it exists (interruption).

I like things to be proven, Mr. Member. I'm not aware of any literature in any articles in the medical literature, anywhere in the world, that says smoking impairs a man's prowess (interruption). That hasn't been proved either.

Mr. Speaker, in strongly supporting the use of this money, I think, and I would like to touch on the comments of another Member, that we must be flexible and we must show some innovations, because we must be honest with ourselves in this society. As the Member pointed out, up until this stage, we really have had relatively little success, although I would hesitate to say we have had no success in the programmes which have already been instituted. This is not, in any way, meant to detract from the efforts of the Narcotics Foundation or the Alcoholism Foundation. Before spending large sums of money, I think we must be frank and admit that results along the lines of treatment in the past have been disappointing and, for this reason, I would plead with the Government that, before they take any positive step in the setting up of programmes, they should avail themselves of research work done in other parts of the world particularly in Europe, and look at this different method which the Member from Vancouver-Burrard merely touched upon. This method adopted by a well trained psychiatric social worker in Vancouver, who has had experience in Britain, emphasizes that you cannot isolate a man's addiction to a drug or alcohol from the rest of his life and that, in fact, one has to study the habits of the whole person. Again, with due respect to the Narcotics Foundation, I think there are various ways in which it is wrong in its approach to the patient. The evidence that has been brought to me, and from what I have been told by persons in contact with the Foundation, suggest that there is too much of the penal, moralizing attitude to the effect that the Foundation apparently reserves the right to report addicts to the police. In some form of treatment we use a drug called methadone and apparently there have been instances where the addict's access to the methadone has been threatened if he will not agree to have his name made available to the police. The Foundation, I think, is also on record as suggesting that all addicts should be registered. Now, I believe that this is well intended but this approach has not worked in the past. It has not worked in other countries. I would submit that it's stupid to go on pouring more money into the same type of programme which has failed in the past.

This lady, who has the clinic in North Vancouver, talked to me in some detail and one or two of the points I'll just mention briefly. She points out the tremendous value and this, I believe, proves the point of my whole argument, that anonymity is a pillar in the treatment of alcohol and drug addiction. It is to this extent that this clinic has an unlisted phone number. It does not advertise and a tremendous effort is made to prevent the congregating or the association of many drug addicts in a group, repeatedly, day after day. It becomes a habit that, if they associate together, they seem to have much less tendency to break the habit. She has found that a discreet, anonymous, quiet approach to the problem, involving an overall appraisal of the patient's total habits, rather than simply their drug or alcohol habit, has led to, as the Member from Vancouver-Burrard pointed out, has led to some very definite improvement, even in the patients who cannot be considered as complete cures.

One or two points have been made by the Narcotics Foundation and, in case I'm considered to be critical of them, I merely wish to say that I'm trying to bring out ideas that will improve the performance of any centre or any programme and not to knock or play down the efforts that have been made. I have read from the 1970 Report of the Alcoholism Foundation, for example, that their experience was that approximately 65 per cent of alcoholics who receive treatment do improve to some extent, so that it would be unfair to suggest that they do not have some success. I'm merely trying to point out that I think this success could be much improved.

The final point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that, in repeating that I don't think we can cure this problem, prevention and education must be the absolute basis and foundation for utilizing this money. I would strongly suggest that education must start in the secondary schools or perhaps even sooner. You cannot educate people unless you have educators, people trained in the lines I've suggested, with both knowledge of the most recent research methods and the experience of these methods in other countries and people with a sympathetic attitude, who do not wish particularly to penalize or moralize about the patient's problem. In this, in the same way, I would hope that the medical profession could become more deeply involved because I have to confess that, in my own experience, most of us, while we have the good intentions of lending our help to drug addicts, in many

[ Page 602 ]

ways, are almost as ignorant as the man in the street. There has to this date been demonstrated no specific pattern in a person's, either physical or mental, makeup which helps you to recognize him as a potential addict or to treat him effectively, once he is an addict. I think that, for this reason, one of the recommendations of the Narcotics Foundation was to the effect that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe methadone and that methadone should only be available through the Narcotics Foundation (interruption). Was this not one of the recommendations? (Interruption.) Well, I'm just trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Narcotics Foundation, probably…it may not be a good idea but I think their reason for putting it forward was that many doctors, either out of inadequate knowledge of the problem or because of other reasons, make the methadone too readily available without proper supervision. At any rate, I would suggest that, while the money is extremely useful and the interest will be a sizable sum, I would repeat that, although we can make progress, we cannot make it in the methods we have tried up to this point and that, unless we delve into the research and educational facets of what we are taking on, our results will be no better even if you poured a hundred million into the fund. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I just have a very few comments on this and I intend to be very brief. First of all, I want to agree with some of the comments made by the previous speaker. I think that the Minister of Health has shown some imagination in dealing with these kinds of problems in that he has shown a flexibility and understanding to listen to new approaches and new ideas. I commend the Minister of Health for that. So often it is the role of the politician to only take an approach through the accepted agencies, such as the Narcotic Addiction Foundation and the accepted medical establishments. In this particular field, if there were ever a need to gamble, it's right here — through the private agencies which are willing to break new ground.

Mr. Speaker, if this money, which is really a limited amount to deal with the problem, in my opinion, is going to be used to the best advantage, over 50 per cent should go to preventative services, such as educational material. I buy that. But there are daring experiments going on and Mrs. Batley's case is one of them, Mrs. Batley who has been doing a treatment that is essentially a Pavlovian treatment.

Now, my friend, you mentioned the medical profession. I hate to make generalized statements but I tell you, in my opinion, in many instances the medical profession has been the greatest barrier to breaking new ground for treatment of drug addicts than any other single group. I find that doctors are totally reluctant and I buy this business of ignorance. Some of them are ignorant but many of them are totally reluctant to even begin to treat a drug addict. You can't blame them — there are problems in treating a drug addict. If you start a practice of treating drug addicts, your office becomes full of them and they chase away your other patients. No one wants to sit next to a drug addict who's starting to dry out and who has not taken care of himself physically. It could even be a nuisance in a doctor's waiting room.

There have been one or two doctors and I'll name one. Dr. Varnam, for one, who have risked sacrificing their whole careers because, for one reason or another, they've become interested in the problem of addicts. For these doctors, their medical profession becomes a life of harassment and that's a fact. They are subject to harassment from the RCMP, not deliberately, but the RCMP have a job to look upon the use of drugs, especially the hard drugs as heroin, as criminal offenses and they must, in performing their duties, pursue the offender even to the doctor's office. There have been unseemly situations, where drug users have been accosted in doctors' waiting rooms and, then, the doctor, himself, has become suspect. No doctor wants to be placed in that position. If some of these funds were given as a cash grant to one or two doctors, who are prepared to take a year or two out of practice and work with addicts and do research on their own, then, that would be a good expenditure of those funds. If some of these funds could go to Mrs. Batley and people like her, who are willing to break out of the North American commitment of Freudian psychology… Freud didn't know everything but he knew a lot more than some of the psychiatrists who are practicing today who have only been trained in one way of thought. As a result, the whole Pavlovian method that Mrs. Batley is using, in terms of reducing the patient back to childhood and bring them up through life again, is washed out by the medical profession. Mrs. Batley and people like her who are willing to experiment are pushed aside by the medical establishment and by the social worker establishment and by the psychologist establishment. If these funds can be channelled to people like Dr. Varnam, Mrs. Batley and other individuals or groups, who come directly to the Minister and lay in front of him an experimental plan, then, I say that I get the feeling that this House would be willing to back the Minister in giving funds to some of these experimental groups.

Mr. Minister, you have shown some spirit in this regard in taking on the Federal Government who has, in this particular field, been reluctant to experiment. The other problem with the medical profession that I must mention, in passing, is that so often we get the picture that the drug user is a violent criminal, or a desperado, or anything else. Really, the drug user is not the dangerous criminal. The drug peddler is the dangerous criminal and it is those people who live off the spoils of the sale of drugs who are the dangerous social offenders in our community. There is the other drug user, who is the quiet, nonobserved drug addict, that is, the professional person who has access to drugs and, through the process or experience of his work actually becomes a drug addict. It is a tragic thing that a number of doctors are addicts and a number of nurses are addicts and, because of the secrecy surrounding the nature of their access to drugs, it is difficult for us to provide treatment to those people before they really become lost. Beyond that, moralizing is the worst thing I think you can do. To stand up and invoke the word of some kind of punishment after life because someone has been drinking too much, smoking too much or using drugs is to create an unnecessary amount of guilt in a person who has already got enough problems without carrying another load, Mr. Speaker. One of the worst things we can do is be judgemental. I recall an emotional debate in this House on the LSD Bill that caught almost every single Member in this House at a time of hysteria. The House got caught up on this particular bill and rushed it through as a political device, only to find that the bill, as the Member from Burnaby warned, was not quite legal. We're past that stage, all of us are past that stage and I'm glad for it.

I just hope that the Minister will go into the dark comers of these problems with the feeling that there are some of us

[ Page 603 ]

in this House who will back him 100 per cent if he's willing to take those chances. The Member from Langley and some of us who went over and saw what Mrs. Batley was doing, we've had a lot of time to do some thinking. I, for one, I won't speak for anyone else, but I, for one, am prepared to go on the public platform and back up any experiment, if it has been properly presented to the Minister, because I think that's our role as legislators. I hope that the funds available, through this bill, will be used in that way by the Minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Health.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): During the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, there has been a number of references made to the health consequences of overindulgence in respect of alcohol and so on. It is hardly necessary for me to say more than the statistics leave very little doubt today that, among the major killers, alcohol, tobacco and excesses in respect of food are probably the most significant items in our way of life.

In our mental institutions, particularly among the male patients, the history of acute alcoholism, as an incidence of mental disease, runs anywhere from 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the patient population. Respiratory diseases, having their origin in the excessive use of tobacco, of course, rate very, very highly, too. It's interesting, furthermore, to observe the experience in places, like India and through the Middle East, where there is a relatively low incidence of alcohol but a correspondingly high use of marijuana and where, in the Western world, alcohol is in common use, a quarter to one half the patient population in our mental institutions record histories of alcoholism. The reverse situations apply to the Middle East and India, where a quarter to one half the inmates of mental institutions in that part of the world record histories of marijuana use.

I think if we had to start at the beginning in this country, we'd have to recognize that the use of alcohol and tobacco could be condemned with just as much vigour as we have applied in condemning the use of marijuana. Now, in this act that we're debating, there's some reference to words, such as education, prevention and rehabilitation. Undoubtedly, this is the sort of thing that is of particular concern to this Province, if we recall that a little more than one half of the heroin addiction population in Canada can be found within an area of about five or six square miles in one part of Vancouver. With that kind of a background and that kind of a record in one of our major cities, I think there are two or three things that we can and must do.

Not very long ago, I mentioned in the House, and I believe also reported through the press, that the Government was prepared to authorize and finance, in the conventional way, a hospital operating under a hospital society, which we termed the Greater Vancouver District Hospital. The planning for this hospital and the method of financing had long been established prior to the introduction of this bill. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the prospects for developing this hospital are, in no way, tied to this bill that we're considering now because it was the intention of the Government that the capital to provide for the construction of this hospital to which I referred, we hoped to find through a cost-sharing between the Province of British Columbia, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the city of Vancouver. The operating costs for the same we anticipate will be funded in the normal way through the British Columbia hospital insurance service. It may well be that the hospital society can find other things to do in this area in the field of rehabilitation and undoubtedly they will be encouraged to apply to the Minister of Finance, with a view to finding some money out of this fund for the same purpose. I emphasize that the prospects for the hospital are well established without the necessity of resorting to this fund.

Now, the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition referred by name to Mrs. Batley and he touched briefly on the Narcotic Addiction Foundation, but I don't recall him having said anything about Matsqui. I thought I might begin by dealing with the… (interruption). At least, on this occasion. Now he was very mild in his comments in respect of the Narcotic Addiction Foundation and I don't doubt that had it occurred to him to say something, again, about Matsqui, that he might have been highly critical, for the reason that probably there is no example, at least in Western Canada, of what can only be termed a shocking waste of public money than the investment, that foolhardy investment, in Matsqui as a rehabilitation programme.

There seems to be no one around who can find very much to say that will justify the multimillion dollar expenditure in respect of capital and the equally large expenditure in respect of operating costs with, so far as we can discover, very, very little in the way of tangible results. If you look at the figures that are involved, Mr. Speaker, $10 million in respect of capital, and, as I say very little in the way of measurable, tangible results, and compare that with the $12,000 a year, which we found originally in the Department of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Minister of Finance,…

AN HON. MEMBER: For Mrs. Batley.

MR. LOFFMARK: Yes, for Mrs. Batley. (Interruption.) Well, no I'm not, because I must admit that the Comptroller-General and I spend a good part of a day discussing the rationale upon which we could make a payment to Mrs. Batley through the Department of Trade and Commerce. I won't explain it although I'm sure that the honourable Members, who participated in the Public Accounts Committee, when they came to look at this item looked at it with a very considerable amount of charity, However, we have since changed the modus operandi and the payments are now made through the Department of the Provincial Secretary. However, what has been said in this House about Mrs. Batley is true and, in a number of instances, I think the speakers could have gone further.

Let me tell you a little bit about my part in it. I, along with other Members of this House, had a chance to observe the functions of this rehabilitation centre and, last year, we were able to identify somewhere between 30 and 40 patients who measure up to all the standards of successful rehabilitation. They are working and there is no evidence that they are using drugs. That's the only thing that matters. Nothing else really matters. How she does it, of course, should be a matter of learning on our part. I don't think that we ourselves owe Mrs. Batley, or anyone else, any kindness if we try to fit her and her method of treatment into the preconceived notions that other people have on this subject. I think that some day somebody is going to write up the story of how Mrs. Batley, over a period of years, has ploughed thousands upon thousands of her own money into this programme. I must say that it was with real regret that, last year, after we had recommended to the Federal Government in respect of

[ Page 604 ]

research grants, that the application for her was turned down (interruption). That's right and the town fool got $3,000.

This year, we have again applied on behalf of Mrs. Batley for a grant which is in the neighbourhood of $20,000 to $30,000 and I feel so strongly about this, Mr. Speaker, that out of all of the applications for research that have gone into Ottawa, I have written to the Honourable Mr. Munro and told him that if Mrs. Batley does not get a grant this year I was going to withdraw every other approval for grants in this Province, and that she was going to go to the top of the list, the top of the list.

Something has been said about the necessity for having an educational programme. It's the hope of the Government that the Department of Education will have an opportunity, through these funds, to develop the kind of programme that is so useful in persuading young people that it's smart to be square. I think we should really look at one of the aspects that was brought up by the Honourable Member from Oak Bay. He referred to the new direction in which advertising is going to give wide appeal to those people who find that it is honourable and intelligent to refrain from using alcohol, drugs and tobacco and so on. I think, Mr. Speaker, the time has come when governments should speak out a little more forcefully and a little more directly. I intend to do that now. Just as the pusher of heroin and all of the other damaging drugs, with which you're so familiar, have been and deservedly must be condemned because of the antisocial activity and the antisocial results that are involved in that activity… They are condemned and they deserve to be condemned but, in all honesty, and looking at ourselves objectively, the pushing of alcohol and the pushing of tobacco falls, in principle, in the same category. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's time that Governments examined very closely our laws as they relate to advertising for alcohol and tobacco.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. LOFFMARK: If we're going to spend money rehabilitating, if we're going to spend money on education and prevention, then, it doesn't make sense to be subsidizing death, through income tax deductions and through revenue derived from this kind of advertising. It's pushing, pushing, pushing, and nothing more.

I'm going to say, on behalf of the Government today, that the Government of British Columbia is studying this matter of advertising with respect to tobacco and alcohol in deadly earnest, Mr. Speaker. On that, I'll say no more. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I want to associate myself with many of the remarks of the Minister of Health, who just sat down. For a time, I thought that he was on another bill, in our book, on cigarette advertising, that he was about to support that bill, but that will come up for discussion very soon I expect. On Private Members' Day.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself, as well, with the remarks many Members have made today about the need to spend more money on educating people against the abuse of drugs and alcohol. That's why I'm going to support votes 200 and 201 in our estimate book, because these votes traditionally have been for that purpose. They're there for that purpose now and if the Government wishes to increase the amounts allocated in the proper budgetary estimates for these purposes, they'll get no stronger supporter in the House than myself.

I want to talk about some of the broader principles that are involved in this legislation, because we're setting up perpetual funds, here, in the amount in this bill of $50 million from tax surplus, monies we have already paid to the Government in our taxes but where we have not yet had the direct benefits of those taxes. If these monies are to be used, as the Minister of Finance suggested, and as the Minister of Municipal Affairs suggested, that we would take the tax surplus and make it available for loans to local boards to build schools and hospitals, then, we're entering into a principle which I cannot accept and which we, in the Provincial Liberal Party, will not accept. What we're doing is taking the people's own tax money and lending it back to them at interest. It's like me taxing anyone here in this House a dollar for services but providing only 80 cents worth of services and then taking the remaining 20 cents and lending it back at interest so I could have my own money loaned back to me to pay for the services that weren't supplied. There's enough money from tax surplus in this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, to pay off the total hospital debt in British Columbia. We could pay for every last hospital on which any debt exists because, according to our public accounts, the guaranteed debt by the Provincial Government for hospitals is about $42 1/2 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's just part of it. You can't even read the book.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there was no hesitation in paying off the total debt for the bridges in this Province. When it came to paying off the total debt of the bridge for the Minister of Recreation and Conservation at Agassiz, for the Minister of Finance at Kelowna, for the Minister of Highways at Nelson, there was no hesitation in taking the tax surplus and eliminating those debts altogether.

When it came time to pay off the debt of the B.C. Ferries, no hesitation at all with that but, when it comes to hospitals, no, we can't afford to pay off that debt. What we do is take the money and create these funds, ignore the estimates where these grants… (interruption). Well, I'd like to say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, build more hospitals — fine.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it's for.

MR. McGEER: Give it to them. It's their money. Give it to them (interruption). Well, if we want to do research and some people suggest that there's enough money in this fund to build a health sciences centre at the University of British Columbia, enough in what's being put aside for the drug abuse part of this alone because they helped resource this fund, Mr. Speaker — the Order-in-Council of the Federal Government, recently put through, will pay half the cost of that new complex — to supply the other $25,000,000.

The amount of money that we're putting aside for these funds is greater than that we will achieve through all the tax increases that have been put through this year. Is it worth that? (interruption.) Fine, I think that's excellent. Why not give it to them because you collected it from them. It's their tax money. It's not as though we were short of cash in this Province. Look at all the other funds. You're lending it to them, Mr. Minister, their tax money at interest — and it isn't the first time it's been done (interruption).

[ Page 605 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Certainly we're against the bill. You know, Mr. Speaker, all these people who were speaking so much in favour of taking some of the surplus funds that we have and using that, now, to build parks, by the time the Minister of Recreation and Conservation had finished speaking about all the good that he was going to do, I even saw a tear coming out of the Premier's eye. I only say that these are things that have been provided for in Budgets we've already suggested to the House. They should have been done a year ago, instead of collecting these huge tax surpluses. All we're doing with these tax surpluses it seems, Mr. Speaker, is to lend them back to the people who paid the taxes, in the first place, at interest.

Mr. Speaker, there are some Members who suggest they'd like to have the debate adjourned. I'd be quite prepared to do that until the next sitting of the House if the Government wishes to accept.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the honourable Member moving adjournment of the debate?

MR. McGEER: No, I just asked if the Government wished to accept this (interruption). Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, I'd like at least to get a glimmer of understanding from the Members on that side of the House, who've had the wool pulled over their eyes for years, as to what's been happening with the tax money of the people of this Province and why it hasn't been used for the purposes for which those taxes were paid. If there's anything more important than to have money for education against drug abuse and alcohol abuse, it's to have facilities built for the treatment of people who already have disease. The Minister of Health well knows how far behind we are in hospital construction in this Province, unable, Mr. Speaker, to get hospitals built in communities, such as Clearwater, when it's quite evident that the tax money to do that job has already been paid; unable, Mr. Speaker, after 20 years of a medical school in the Province of Columbia, unable to build a proper teaching and research hospital. These are some of the things which, for all the taxes the people have paid, and in British Columbia they pay more taxes per capita than any other Province in this Nation, more taxes per capita… Just look at the Budget, divide it by the number of people in the Province. These are the taxes that are being paid (interruptions).

Could I have some order, Mr. Speaker, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I don't know who the Minister of Recreation and Conservation thinks pays the taxes in this Province but it isn't the Minister of Finance, any more than any other individual. These taxes are paid for by the people and they should go directly back to services for those people, within our ability to provide them. Mr. Speaker, too much of what has happened in these past few years has been to take the people's money, their forced savings, and channel it into the B.C. Hydro and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. McGEER: Oh, no. The Minister of Industrial Development groans. "It's painful," says the Minister without Portfolio and, yet, of $1.5 billion worth of trust funds, Mr. Speaker, that this Province handles on behalf of the people, over a billion dollars of that has gone into the B.C. Hydro. That has been the people's savings and their tax money and this is how it's been used. Each year, as we go by, we have more of these funds created, which indirectly is the way that we're financing the expansion of our hydro-electric development, when public utilities all over North America are able to do this without taking the savings and the taxes of the people. It's been done at enormous social cost because, if there's a single reason why we aren't able to guarantee municipal funds in this Province and we've got some municipal councillors here, some former mayors, like the Member from Cariboo, former councillor, like the Member from Oak Bay, a mayor, now, who's having trouble, no doubt, paying off the debt of Newcastle Park… These are all things which bear on municipal finance and, in the old days, Mr. Speaker, it was possible for the Provincial Government to guarantee municipal bonds. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, today, who should be standing behind the municipalities of this Province, was describing about the tremendous interest rate that had to be paid by school boards and hospital boards in other parts of Canada and quoted those interest rates and, yet, who pays the highest interest rates in British Columbia now? It's the cities and municipalities, isn't it, Mr. Minister? Because there's no Provincial guarantee at all on their bond. They can't get the kind of interest rates that the B.C. Hydro get. The Canada Pension Plan money, Mr. Speaker, that in other Provinces goes to support the municipalities, here it all goes to Hydro. So, what do we do when it comes to finding some finances for the schools and hospitals of the Province? Do we use the Canada Pension Plan money? No. What we do is take the tax surpluses, take the people's money and we lend that back to them at interest. In order to sugarcoat the pill, we take things that should be covered in estimates, like our votes 200 and 201 and say, "Well, they'll be the beneficiaries of the fund." Mr. Speaker, what we've had is a monstrous scheme to pull the wool over the people's eyes, to make them feel that somehow people are getting extra for things like alcoholic treatment, or abuse of drugs, or other things like the First Citizens' Fund, which was set up and the money no longer provided for under vote 194, as it used to be. That fund, the interest on it, that isn't being spent. The first citizens aren't benefiting to the full extent of that fund. It's larger than when it was established. It has $27 million worth of cash in it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable Member must get back to the provisions of this bill.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's not possible. You see, this particular fund, in isolation from all the others,… what has happened to these other funds is exactly what's going to happen to this fund. It's going to have cash in it just the same way, rather short-term paper of our banks and trust companies, just the way all the other funds have. When these trust companies and banks wish to redeem the parity bonds of the B.C. Hydro, it will contain those parity bonds. When it comes to getting a job done, like the Minister of Recreation and Conservation says he's going to do in parks, we just can't seem to get it done. So we sit, with these huge amounts of capital funds lying there not being used for social purposes, when the needs of British Columbia are enormous. Mr. Speaker, it's because we need to use these funds, now, we need to create employment. We need to catch up on the

[ Page 606 ]

enormous backlog… (interruptions).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, there, the noise from the other side was so great I almost began adopting the Government's policy, a policy of keeping enormous amounts of short-term notes in the funds which have been created before, and of which this one will become a partner, has created unemployment in British Columbia.

Just today, we saw one Minister announce, by taking some of this cash and putting it to work building parks, how many jobs it would create. He told us it would be 2,000, perhaps even more. Think what would happen if we were to multiply that again by several-fold, by not creating funds like this and instead getting on with the public works in this Province. How much higher our employment would be, how many more genuine jobs we would have in British Columbia and how far ahead our social progress would be. That's why we can't support this bill, Mr. Speaker (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Langley. Order, please.

MR. VOGEL: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Resolved, That the House at its rising, do stand adjourned until 2 o'clock p.m. on Monday next.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, a message has come in again from the Vancouver General Hospital to the effect that the secretary of Mr. Merilees, the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard, has called to say he's much brighter and doing very well. While he's not permitted to talk as yet, he is communicating by means of notes and they seem to be very, very enthusiastic that his voice will be completely unaffected (applause).

The House adjourned at 5:33 p.m.