[ Page 63 ]

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon there are five representatives of our First Citizens' Advisory Committee, Mr. Bill Mussell who is representing the B.C. Union of Chiefs, Mr. Wilbur Campbell who is representing the B.C. North American Indian Brotherhood, Mrs. Genevieve Mussell who is representing the B.C. Native Women's Society, Mrs. Rose Charlie who is representing the B.C. Home-makers Association and Mrs. Anne Hause who is representing the B.C. Association of Non-status Indians.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Second Member for Vancouver-Centre.

MR. E. M. WOLFE (Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Speaker, in our gallery today are some distinguished representatives from the University of British Columbia and their alumni association. I am referring to Mrs. Field, first vice-president of the alumni, Dean Phillip White, Dean of Commerce and Business Administration and Dr. Robert Cubisec, president of their faculty association. I would ask Hon. Members to welcome them please.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I think of one word to describe the jist of the throne debate which has taken place to date. Along the way we find that practically every submission has had something to do with need, work, welfare — things of this general relationship.

I think in the final analysis one could say that they have all had something to do with the general field of productivity and the productivity of the individual.

Unless this is maintained, in the Province of British Columbia, then all of these other things we talk about must stand as mere words because they cannot be accomplished without productivity and constant work upon the part of all people generally.

Therefore, having specific responsibilities in this field, insofar as the working economy of the province of British Columbia is concerned, the main jist of my debate this afternoon is going to deal with forest economy and the understanding of the forest economy which is presently going through a very critical phase in this province.

However, before I deal with that topic, there are one or two things I wish to say about the debate which has already taken place and answer one or two policy matters which have been brought up by various members, particularly those in the Opposition.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, just at noon today just before I went up to lunch, Mr. Matsushida came to the office. He is the senior representative in British Columbia for the Mitsubishi company and sits on the board and is the senior manager for the Japanese people in the Crestbrook Mill at Skookumchuck. He is just on his way back from his Christmas leave in Japan.

While he was there, the board of the company determined that the second stage of the Crestbrook Mill should go forward and they have authorised that construction to proceed. That will amount to something.

In the light of circumstances at the moment and what I say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, this indicates a maximum, a real maximum of encouragement in the industry, and an indication of the faith of some people in the future of the pulp and paper industry upon world markets.

The addition will be in the nature of better than 400 tons to the present capacity, and will bring into balance, all of the residual chip supplies in the East Kootenays area. This includes wastes. It will employ additional people both in the forest, in the mill, direct relationship without the expanding multiplier of better than between 150 and 200 people totally and will give a real thrust to the east Kootenay economy and certainly it was welcome news to start my address there this afternoon.

As the Premier indicated, that is an indirect assessment. I will deal with later today, the real multiplier in the forest industry needs to be understood by people in the province generally because whether we realise it or not, the total economy of this province on the multiplier aspect depends fundamentally on the employment which takes place in the prime industry, in the forest industry in this province. I can give you some startling examples of that fact as the afternoon wears along.

First of all, I would like to deal with one or two matters raised by the Leader of the Liberal group in his debate in the House the other day. Some of them had to do with general policy of government, general policy as it relates to the future insofar as energy supplies are concerned.

I thought insofar as the policy statement is concerned I would reiterate what the position of the British Columbia government happens to be at the present time and then deal with two specific matters of which he was speaking.

He urged this House the other day very strongly that we should stop our dependency upon hydro-electric power in the province of British Columbia at the present time and spend increasing time on nuclear power and the development of nuclear power in the province.

He ridiculed the stands fundamentally taken by the Premier that we should depend upon hydro-electric energy insofar as development was concerned.

May I just state, fundamentally, the position at the moment and I'll allow the debate in the House to pick it up from there.

At the present time, in the province of British Columbia, without ecological disturbance to which the member was referring, before we consider brand new and absolute new sources of energy in the province if we take the additional energy there is at Kemano — and we're not talking about the Nanaca Lake diversion, we are talking about the flood reservoir at the present elevation and level that we have there without further disturbance to the ecology — we're somewhere in the neighborhood of 750,000 to 800,000 kilowatts of power right there at the present time.

In the Peace River area, without disturbance to the ecology whatsoever, we have the site one project which is

[ Page 64 ]

better than 750,000 kilowatts down river on the Peace. We have the basic transmission lines both into the Peace River and we have them into the Kitimat-Kemano area — or will have within the next year.

With the Columbia River we already now are working on the Mica Creek project without further disruption to the basic ecology at all.

We have two plants downstream from there at Downie Creek and Revelstoke, high Revelstoke — between Mica Creek and the town of Revelstoke — at the present time which could be brought onto line and which use the controlled water from behind Mica Creek. We have further plans on installation of capacity on stream at Arrow.

We've got the Canal plants to which we have made reference. We've got the Seven Mile plant above Wanetta at the present time and the total of these plans will approximately double the total generation that we have in the province of British Columbia at the moment.

The Hon. Member urged it. This is the kind of economy, Mr. Speaker, we get from the Liberal group. They urge us to go to gas or nuclear power at the present time. The electric energy from those plants will never be cheaper than it is at the present time, if we install the capital structure as soon as possible. Because we do not have to depend in future on as escalating cost of fuel or replacements. The sooner our capital structure is in place to make use of those energy values the better we're going to be in British Columbia and for the next decade.

For the next decade. If anybody argues that isn't the sensible plan to be followed in the Province of British Columbia then he hasn't considered the economic facts of life one iota. That's the programme.

Eventually we're going to have to move on. That's perfectly evident. Whether we go to further hydro-electric plants in the north like the Liard and the Iskit and so on will be determined at that time. But this is the immediate future. If we come to nuclear the answer isn't there today as he would indicate to you yesterday. I'm not taking the time, but even as late ago as Business Week magazine on July 8, 1972, indicated the tremendous problem they are having in the nuclear field and even with these high-speed reactors and the things of that nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: July 8, 1971?

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Beg your pardon, I'm sorry. It's January 8. Okay, that's better. Thank you. January 8, 1972, and this is from the office of science and technology in the United States. You'll find if you read it, that they have not resolved the problem. They have put 90 per cent in the nuclear field and they admit today that their answers are going to have to be found, not only in that field but in other fields at the moment.

We in British Columbia at the present time have the largest source of hydro-electric energy on the North American continent ready to be used. We know the technology now. Why anyone should urge us into the speculative field of nuclear energy at this time until the problems are resolved I will never know. But that is some of the precise recommendations we get from the Liberal planning at the moment.

There are two other matters, Mr. Speaker, of which the Honourable Member spoke. With respect, Mr. Speaker, and I give him the greatest deference in this, I don't think he did the research on either one of these topics that he does for his own work in the university. I say that because he is held in respect there and the basis of his presentation in the House here the other day would indicate he did not follow the same fundamental research into presentation of the facts before this House.

First of all, I wish to deal with the Canal project of which he spoke to us the last day. First of all, I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is no longer going to be possible in the future to drive down that road between Castlegar and Nelson and park beside the road and see that very wonderful display of wasted water going down the river. That is one of the most expensive displays that people can look at and if that's the cost we're going to pay for wasted water tumbling down between rocks, that kind of economics does not prevail insofar as I am concerned.

Next, he dealt with a petition of the City of Nelson, Mr. Speaker. Let everybody in this House — this is serious — understand the situation insofar as the City of Nelson and you as individuals, as co-owners of public power in British Columbia are concerned, and assess the situation.

First of all, the total river there has a capacity — and I apologise for the statistics, you can't do it any other way — of 14,228 cubic feet per second. That's on the flow that has existed on the Kootenay River between Nelson and Castlegar. In the licensing the first 1,400 cubic feet has gone to the Cominco company or Consolidated Mining and Smelting. The next 1,428 cubic feet per second went to the City of Nelson. And the remaining 11,400 cubic feet per second went to Cominco or the Upper Bonnington plant which is there.

You can follow this historically from the very small plant that was started by the company and then the city, and then the larger plants by the company that in total utilised the water that was in the river.

The plant at Nelson — and this is some of the confusion — has a capacity of 10,000 kilowatts. The amount of 1,428 cubic feet per second of water will generate only 6,900 kilowatts. In other words it will generate just about seven-tenths of the capacity of the plant.

For the last few years the City of Nelson has encroached upon Cominco's licence for the 11,400 cubic feet per second to run their plant up to the capacity of 10,000 kilowatts, and this is an over rating over the namesake capacity of their plant at the present time. So obviously the city needed to purchase additional power over the years and it has purchased it from the Cominco company on a very attractive contract.

Cominco never exercised the total of their licence under this arrangement until 1971 — until it became apparent that any excess water would be taken in the canal under regulation and put through the new canals plant.

In 1971 Cominco informed the city that they could no longer use the 714 cubic feet per second of water which they had been doing, after the canal plant had been built at that time. The city of course needs that 1,714 cubic feet. And since the water had all been used they came to us and asked us for a licence to take from the regulated flow behind Libby and Duncan an additional 714 cubic feet…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: They've been taking the regulated flow of this that was regulated behind the Upper Bonnington works.

[ Page 65 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, unless the Honourable Member understands the licence capacity…he was the first person to indicate that even at the rate he indicated the river did not have that capacity to come. How you can licence that which you haven't got I wouldn't know. There are certain times in the river that it hasn't got that capacity to come.

But be that as it may Mr. Speaker, his argument that we take 714 cubic feet of your water which belongs to you as the people now, divert it to the relatively small head in the older plant of the City of Nelson — rather than carrying it in the canal and dropping it through the head of 260 ft. to generate power which it would do in the public interest — is the problem. And it's also efficiency of an old plant versus a new plant.

Now, we've offered the city the 714 cubic feet per second until a new plant is constructed. But this isn't the only problem. Within the foreseeable future, which the Honourable Member didn't mention, Cominco will not have power to sell. The Cominco Company will not have excess power to sell, therefore Nelson will either have to build a thermal plant, or Nelson will have to purchase power elsewhere.

The policy of B.C. Hydro is that it…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: That's right, it does not wholesale power. And so B.C. Hydro has made that offer to the City of Nelson, if they so wish, to purchase the plant upon an independent evaluation. If as the Honourable Member argued the other day — and it's your asset here as the people — if that 714 cubic feet per second which with that doesn't meet the needs of Nelson were taken and placed in as a firm licence behind the plant, the capital evaluation of that plant with 2,142 cubic feet per second as against 1,428 feet per second would automatically mean that from a resource of the people that had been given in the first place, to which they did not have an entitlement.

Now, Mr. Speaker that is what has been placed to us by the Liberal group, and by the Honourable Member from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and if that's his economics and his basis I think it should be exposed for what it is in the public interest generally.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members are all going to need to know this. Because the City of Nelson owns 38 acres of land, and the 38 acres of land straddle the route of the canal and the access, they have thus far refused to deal on any kind of a negotiated basis with Hydro, unless they get firm rights to 714 cubic feet per second. Now, someone say, why didn't they do this…?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: The people may say, why didn't they do this is in the past? And the reason must be fairly obvious. They were using the water without licence. They had the power over all those years to complain about Cominco because in their resource policy you either use that which you have, or you have the right to complain that the other people did not use it.

Over the years that they have been using it they had the right at any time to complain about Cominco not using it, and go to the comptroller of water rights on that basis for an extraction from the Cominco license. They never did — fairly obviously, Mr. Speaker — because of the difficulties inherent there that they were buying all of the additional power that they needed. And the City of Nelson required the back-up supply of power and generation that could come to them from the Cominco system.

Mr. Speaker, this is the situation. It's your money and the people's money in British Columbia and that's the situation at the moment. I am willing to debate this factor as long as it happens to go.

There are one or two other matters. The Hon. Member gave us a great diatribe on the ecological situation. For the most part, that canal has a 100 foot bank of trees, and you'll never ever see the canal in the first instance. In the second place even if you can see it the aesthetic areas about it are going to be an asset rather than the debit he gave you. Hydro has already moved the bridge up so it does not in any way esthetically act as a detriment at the South Slocan or to those residents. They've already moved their spoil area so it does not affect any other aspect, at the cost of $400,000. Mr. Speaker, I contend that when the Honourable Member waved his hands about disaster and ecology he just didn't know what he was talking about, and he was drawing a complete red herring towards Hon. Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, over and above this when they talk this day on ecology I just wish they would follow through one or two days and be consistent. They tell us all about the consistency of the Liberal people, they tell us of this consistency and what they're worried about within the last few days Mr. Speaker. But if you could see upon this map that I have in front of me — and this is a general indication — while they're talking to us about tankers, while they're talking about going up and down the Pacific Coast and the dangers to our ecology of what might happen, those two black spots, one on Banks Island and one behind Queen Charlotte Islands are within the last 10 days where the licences have been let by the federal government to Petsocar Development Limited of Calgary, Alberta — the 1.4 million acres along the shores of Banks Island and south of the Queen Charlotte Islands for oil exploration in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Now, we either talk one way, or we talk the other. And to finish this on one item.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Those are not licences that anybody else has had.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order.

HON. MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, they say, what are you going to do about it? They don't even indicate to British Columbia the action they've taken any more above it. That had to be dragged out independently and was not made a part of ready information in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, one other matter, because the afternoon is going along and I promised the other speakers that I won't delay them. But this also bothers me somewhat.

First of all we've dealt with the matters on the Skagit, and

[ Page 66 ]

I just want to deal with two aspects of that this afternoon.

First of all to make sure that everybody realises one factor — that in the 1942 direction of the International Joint Commission to the Government of British Columbia — which not only guides me but put the whole platform under the negotiation which took place — the indication was that British Columbia was to be indemnified for any injury that might be sustained by reason of the City of Seattle's operation on the Skagit River. By any direct injury that British Columbia might sustain.

I review with that in the consideration of some of the things that have been said here. We were compensated for direct injury. As you recall as a result of the outburst in British Columbia on the Skagit — and this was something that I never initiated and took — you'll remember that the federal government charged the International Joint Commission to make a report on the environmental and ecological consequences in Canada of raising the Ross Lake, and the Skagit Valley to the elevation of 1,725 and this report was delivered on December 17, 1971.

I have the official Press release that accompanied this report which would indicate to people what the synopsis inside this report happened to be.

The first paragraph had to do with where the area happened to be. The second paragraph had to do with thanking the people that took part. The third part was a reiteration of the statistics on the flooding, of which we all knew. The fourth paragraph had to do with flood losses, in the area. The fifth then had to do with the reluctance of the committee to make unequivocally specific statements concerning mitigation measures because of the limited time that there was to discuss it.

But they indicated that there was some basic cause for concern and it should be given greater attention. And this was reiterated by the Canadian government presentation and it was indicated they would give strong consideration to this. And to make absolutely sure these measures had been followed.

But, Mr. Speaker, really we were left, as we were given yesterday, something like Powder Mountain where it is "an ecological disaster" to clear a roadway up from the area of the road up to Callaghan Lake.

It was "an ecological disaster" to clear the road to the specifications set back by the Department of Highways. That's what has been done and in the words of the Liberal leader that's "an ecological disaster." That's what's been cleared out, plus one subdivision in the general area there, at the present time. And that is "an ecological disaster" in his terminology which in some place got off the rails.

Mr. Speaker, take the Press release or anything you've seen on page 28 in that documentation that was put out by the International Joint Commission. What did they say? They said:

The present characteristics of the environment would be changed, but the new environment would retain many of the former characteristics. Those who appreciate and use the valley in its present state would inevitably suffer somewhat, although other people would find the new environment at least as pleasant. Measured either by the amount of use or weighed by dollar values, the overall impact of changes in the total environment is not significantly large.

Now, Mr. Speaker when you paint this as a disaster, when you paint the report as substantiating a disaster, all I say, is that people quote the reports that people sign their names to and the stand that they happen to take and that they do not have basic political implications.

I do not stand behind the Skagit situation at the moment. There, as I say, it was brought to me.

The second thing that the Honourable Member talked about was some kind of a financial arrangement that my predecessor had entered into with the City of Seattle. We refused to sign actually a lump sum payment. And that's absolutely true. We refused. It was presented by the former government and we refused to sign it. The final agreement in essence did exactly what the Honourable Member said. It took half the power it translated it into dollars, but it could be taken back.

It also provided for the road costs, the timber costs, and other things that were in the original lump sum payment. And over and above that it gave double the return to the Province of British Columbia.

Under the circumstance, and after having twice been before the international commission for non-compliance with the order of the international commission, I'm not in any way proud of the arrangement which we are assessed into. But I am not unhappy with the final arrangement which happened to have come about. And when you get pitchforked into something by a group which the Hon. Member represents and then hoisted on the petard in this Legislature for being blamed of that kind of a proposition, Mr. Speaker, it makes absolutely no common sense.

As I promised, Mr. Speaker, the important part of my address this afternoon has to do with the understanding of the forest industry, the wood industry, in the Province of British Columbia. I'm staying fairly close for the next few minutes to my notes because this is one of the more important presentations in its implications as we're moving now, insofar as the job picture and the rest of the purposes that are concerned in British Columbia.

I'll debate it but I'll stay close to my notes so that other people can have them if they so desire.

For many reasons I think that it's important that I deliver a state of the industry address relating to forestry this afternoon. It could be termed a detailed report on the wood revolution.

It seems to me that there has been a failure to communicate adequately both with members of this Legislature and the public in general, and I accept the criticism.

As a consequence there has been some lack of understanding of the problems being faced by this most important segment of our industrial economy.

For purposes of debate — and I'm happy about this, Mr. Speaker — the N.D.P. Opposition is now in a position to counter the presentation that I will make this afternoon with information that should be readily available to them through two other provincial governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Both are faced with problems somewhat similar to our own.

The prime difference in resolution revolves about the free enterprise approach as opposed to that advocated by those who advance the merits of Socialism, and this is a pretty clear-cut situation. Even so, they are finding assistance from experienced free-enterprisers in British Columbia to get out of their difficulties.

There is merit in reviewing the position of the forest industry which as such affects the economy of Canada in general and the Province of British Columbia in particular.

This industry is not simply a number of large, impersonal

[ Page 67 ]

corporations, as we are sometimes lead to believe, but rather provides an ideal economic base from which flow numerous job opportunities, community stability and the potential for enhancing certain intangible values as well as the obvious tangible ones of which we all know.

In amplifying this latter statement it is a simple exercise to identify the direct benefits of a resource-based industry whether we do so in terms of wages, employment, exports, tax revenue or in some other direct way. However, much of the benefit stream is indirect and therefore hidden from the casual observer, even though it may far outweigh any apparent direct benefit. Thus, the majority of the economic benefits from a logging operation or of a pulp mill in the northern interior, believe it or not, are realised as some distance from the primary activity. This is not so true of a secondary manufacturing plant located in an urban community.

It is this failure to appreciate the significance of indirect benefits which has resulted in defective regional development policies in Canada during the last 10 years. Priorities have been assigned far too often to secondary manufacturer in the naive belief that it will prosper independently of a strong primary base sector. Typical hothouse economic situations result which fail through lack of continuing need and strong support.

Before I give some specific illustrations, Mr. Speaker, may I say that last year — as you well know — we tried to present this point of view to leading officials in the federal government whereby money should be expended to assist in extending the development of northern communities to provide a basic job base that would radiate down through the whole of the province of British Columbia.

We did not receive anything in the way of direct support, so far as that is concerned, even though we took them, led them and so on. It's my honest belief — and I'll say it this afternoon — that if you were today to take a development project financed basically at the community level, there's no area in British Columbia that would return jobs and opportunities greater than some development at the present time at Bella Coola. It would radiate back in wood processing, it would radiate back in road construction, it would radiate back in forestry, in every instance, the permutations and combinations of such a situation.

We tried to sell that basic business idea fundamentally to the federal government and it was not accepted. Well, let's look at the industry. Direct employment at the moment, employs 77,000 people or only about 9.7 per cent of the labour force. I'm talking about the basis of this industry and yet the salaries and the wages in the wood related manufacturing industries about $438 million or 47.5 per cent of the total of all the manufacturing in the province of British Columbia.

On the primary base, if logging wages were added, the total is $600 million or 65 per cent of the total. The values adding in manufacture amount to $834 million or 47.8 per cent of the total value of all manufactured goods in the province of British Columbia.

The selling value of factory shipments amounts to $1.9 billion or 48.8 per cent of the total. The wood base that British Columbia exports amounts to $1.23 billion or 62.3 per cent of the total for the province. Railway car loading — just as an aside — in the millions of tons amount to 12.9 per cent or 67.5 per cent of the total recorded for the province as a whole.

I'm just giving these, Mr. Speaker — and the information all comes from Information Canada — to indicate that when they say that 50 cents out of every industrial dollar in the province of British Columbia is some way related to forestry — that is a true statement.

It is not my purpose this afternoon to bore you with statistical material, but merely to provide evidence that it is to everyone's advantage to keep this industry in as economically healthy and growing a condition as is possible.

For a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acquaint you with the physical base of this industry in the province and to describe the veritable revolution in wood handling and processing that is taking place at the present time. If I'm not contradicted by somebody from Russia, who would have to provide evidence that is not now available to me, I can state without equivocation that British Columbia has the largest publicly-owned sustained-yield managed forest in the whole world today.

This simply means that the annual cut of timber being extracted from any given area of the province can be perpetuated forever. We hear about people talking about taking off the mountain tops when it's all finished — it indicates a lack of even knowledge with this House. We'll never be cut out. The land is retained for forest use, that is it will never be cut out.

The annual sustained yield cut is measured in two ways; in the world of yesterday our wood economy was based upon the cut of saw logs measured and managed on an intermediate utilisation base, referred to colloquially as an IU cut.

This meant that diameter of the usable tree was measured at breast height — it was measured at breast height because that was the height from time immemorial the logger cut the tree down. It was measured at breast height about 3 1/2 feet from the ground and all the sound logs had to be harvested with an inside bark diameter of 13 down to a top diameter of 8 in. In the interior, the specified bottom diameter was 11 in. or 2 in. less than on the coast.

About 10 years ago your Social Credit government introduced the policy of close utilisation and for you people on the coast and the interior the impact is what you really should understand if you have any interest in this aspect at all.

This means that all trees with a base diameter of 8 in., one foot from the ground, down to a top of 4 in. must be harvested from the land. At the same time every log must be barked and all the residuals must be chipped.

Over and beyond this, all trees with at least 50 per cent sound wood must be taken from the forest. This includes chunks and broken stems. The effect on the annual cut that can be taken from the forest means that in the five forest districts 3.4 times as much wood can be harvested under CU provisions on an annual basis as opposed to IU cut. I should not have to shout the economic impact of such a policy and yet there is great difficulty, and I repeat there is great difficulty, in having this adopted on the coast outside of the larger tree farm licences. However, there are problems and I'll discuss them later.

It is now becoming a recognised fact that the foresters only require the use of given acre of forest land for two or three years out of the average 90 years in the crop rotation period. All they want is two to three years. For the other 87 years or so the multiple use aspects come to the fore — such as recreational needs, watershed preservation, wildlife habitat and so forth.

Such uses can be much more beneficial in a well-managed healthy forest situation and in the future — let's face it, Mr.

[ Page 68 ]

Speaker — British Columbia will have the largest perpetual green belt area for public administration to be found anywhere in the world.

What are the effects of the new policies seen in action? First the historic one, for administration and ready reference the forest industry has always been roughly divided into two operational areas — and get this point this afternoon because it too is important — the coast and the interior.

Up until about a decade ago when new cut policies were introduced the coast out-produced the interior by as much 80-20 on a percentage division. The total annual cut from the forest has been steadily increasing and will continue to do so for many years to come.

This year the scaled volume will be just short of 2 billion cubic feet, this year is a record year. It's up 64.5 million cubic feet more than last year, which was also a record.

But, look at the analysis of the cut. The analysis of this cut is one of the factors that requires understanding by all who are taking some interest in this industry, in and out of the Legislature may I say.

The Prince Rupert district (coast) increased its cut very slightly, it almost stayed even. It increased less that 300,000 cubic feet. The Vancouver district, on the coast, decreased its cut last year by 15.6 million cubic feet.

The interior units increased their cut by 79.7 million cubic feet and the greater part of this lift Mr. Speaker, came from the operators who were serviced by the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and resulted from the beneficial policies of that railway. The transportation and service policies which have been instituted by this facility have paid back tremendous dividends to the provincial economy and the people of the province of British Columbia.

It is admitted that the service now rendered has only served to increase demand and the railway is still in some trouble in meeting total need. However, the comparison of recent economic development adjacent to the P.G.E. as compared to the Canadian National Railway across north-central British Columbia displays the direct result of beneficial policies far more vividly than any words that I can say here this afternoon.

The C.N.R.-served part of British Columbia cannot develop its potential in an economic way unless the provincial railway secures either running rights or full operation of that section of the Canadian National Railway from Prince George to Prince Rupert. We said that before and Mr. Speaker, we say it again. You know, I don't have to emphasise on the side this afternoon the three of my greater problem areas at the present time have to do with the situation at Columbia Cellulose in Prince Rupert, Bulkley Valley at Houston and to a lesser degree Eurocan at Kitimat. They're all in that general area of development on the C.N.R. And I want to tell you when things go wrong and don't go, if you want to get any kind of a multiplier of what the effect of the forest industry is and it goes wrong, go to those communities. Because my colleague behind me can tell you in that area in the central province — and the Leader of the Opposition likely can, as well — when some things went wrong that there's actually less, far less employment there today than there was five or six years ago. That is factual and if you want to see when it goes and when it doesn't go, you get the net effect.

Of even greater interest is the fact, Mr. Speaker, that 72 per cent of the total provincial cut this last year was on close utilisation.

Outside of the larger tree farm licenses on the coast there has only been a small implementation of such wood use there. The larger part of all interior cut is now on C.U. — which means that nearly every log is being barked and all residuals made into chips. I must admit that that 72 per cent figure even surprised myself. I did not realise that our policy progress in the interior had been so dramatic.

All types of wood conversion showed increases for 1971 over 1970 and all were relatively in the same proportion. This tends to emphasise the melding that takes place within a completely integrated forest industry. It may not surprise that lumber production was up by three-quarters of a billion board feet and plywood something less on a percentage basis — about 4 1/2 per cent.

In the face of world demand and market conditions I am sure that many would not realise that our production of both pulp and paper increased this last year — the former by 130,000 tons and the latter by 90,000 tons.

At this point there is great need for understanding on the part of all British Columbians and this, unless we understand it as a people, is going to be to our detriment in the months ahead. Because the situation in the pulp and paper field is not going to be easy for the next two to three years at the very least.

Even though production in the province increased last year, 11 mills carried out periodic shutdowns which removed 336,000 tons of pulp from the market — much more than the increase in the recorded production. This action was taken in a cooperative move throughout the western world to curtail production. Our mills that did not shut down worked from 80-85 per cent capacity to achieve the same result in so far as manual-manufactured product is concerned.

The mills without tied markets found themselves in even greater difficulty in moving their production away from the plant and some were forced to close more frequently because of their storage problems.

The normal world inventory of chemical pulp — Hon. Members should catch this point and it gives an indication of our problem — is about one million tons. The present inventory totals something more than 2.3 million tons — the highest since World War II and possibly the highest ever in our history. It is evident therefore that 1972 is not going to be an easy year. As a matter of fact, the situation might even be a little worse because three new mills come on line in this province during the coming summer. Two of them will be rated in capacity among the largest producers in the whole world. It is recognised that there might be some difficulty in reaching designed performance for some months and start-up might not accentuate the present problem too much. It can be anticipated though there will still be shut-downs for varying periods by the entire industry in the western world and the problems with older inefficient mills will increase. Many have already closed and others will be giving notice of their intention in the months ahead.

However, the British Columbia industry is relatively new. We have some of the most modern, efficient plants in the whole world. The pulp being produced meets the world's highest standards. In fact some of our interior pulps and papers stand alone in being regarded as the highest that's produced in the world today.

The unique character of our kraft pulps find them being used as additive pulps to upgrade fibres made from faster growing trees and other low-class materials. In other words, the burst, tear, and stretch characteristics which come from our slow-growth timber makes such pulp even more valuable than to roll into certain grades of paper. Our papers meet the

[ Page 69 ]

highest requirements for packaging and so can often be sold even in depressed market conditions.

I have heard some of my Socialist planners say that under their scheme of administration such a temporary situation of over-production would not be allowed to develop.

This may be true for it is my personal belief that the deadening hand of Socialism would not have brought the total benefits of the production and the use of the natural resource in the first place. What is needed right now is an understanding of the total situation so that our reactions in resolving the problems might be positive and so contribute to the best solutions possible.

Under the close-utilisation plan of operation all of the wood from the forest will be processed through a sawmill. Now, Mr. Speaker, although this doesn't sound revolutionary, what I'm saying right now insofar as the industry is concerned in British Columbia truly is.

Under the close-utilisation plan of operation — that's what we're on — all of the wood from the forest will be processed through a sawmill or some other type of prime use facility like a veneer plant. Whether you realise it or not this is a revolutionary policy. Whatever use values there are in the log should be removed, with the residues converted into chips and shipped to a pulp mill.

Even the logs with no other value than for conversion to chips would be handled in this manner.

In the final result there will be a balancing of the total pulp capacity with the total residual supply available. To accommodate market, a degree of flexibility would be built into the arrangement so that either lumber or pulp productions could be increased with limits according to the demand and financial return. Such an arrangement will benefit the provincial economy to the maximum.

The only remaining material that has to be dealt with is bark, sawdust, and shavings. The new pulp mills have been required to install double-hog facilities to convert such material into fuel that will be burned without smoke or particulate fall-out. The steam that is created is used for the generation of electricity and in the pulp-making process.

In one case this year, a surplus of electricity will be generated that cannot be used in the plant. That's at Kamloops. Agreement has been reached that it will be taken by B.C. Hydro and integrated into the utility system.

Strange to say, neither the steam nor the electricity will be cheap. But the pollution problems in the surrounding areas will have been eased substantially and with the greatest efficiency possible. One of the newest, remotely-located sawmills has already installed such a system with the steam being used in the dry kiln.

So much for the general plan. And the Hon. Member said: "so much for Social Credit." Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you I agree with him, I agree with him. So much for the general plan. What has been happening in practice? My immediate reference will be to the interior since that is where the advance has been made which has resulted in the rather dramatic statistics on production for the year that I have already quoted.

The development of efficient, economic sawmills to process close utilisation wood has been difficult and is only being recorded through the process of trial and error.

As a consequence, a number of practical men, working with locally-based equipment manufacturers, have secured results which have been illustrated on the balance sheets of some companies in a very positive way.

Some who have employed professional assistance that was not familiar with the problems or the wood types or the training of the labour force available or the economic size of such plants or the need to think in terms of lineal flow rather than board foot capacity, have constructed plants, that without material change, will become financial disasters.

In some cases the physical change in such plants will be most difficult and the problems created are very, very serious.

If one were to stand back now and take an over-view of the central interior wood processing situation, he would find the largest group of efficient, close-utilisation saw mills to be found anywhere in the world today. True, there are examples of more efficient plants to be found in other countries such as Sweden. However, I am talking about a group as a whole.

This does not happen to be my analysis of the situation, but was the view of a top American lumberman who was well-known throughout the world timber industry.

At the same time it must be acknowledged that there are other examples that do not fall within this generalised category. I sincerely wish that they did. As long as the successful continue to predominate, we will continue to make progress. That is one of the major strengths of the free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, a week Tuesday, I went north of Kamloops to a new mill at Davendy, which is likely one of the most modern mills to be found anywhere at the present time.

I just wish to say it was designed under a technician from Salmon Arm. It was built in half the time allowed them; it was built under the budget that was set forth for them. Every single piece of equipment, machinery in the plant, was made in the province of British Columbia. Every single piece that you will find that British Columbia manufactures today, are more efficient than can be found anywhere. Some people do not realise this fact.

When you talk about secondary industry the point I am trying to make this afternoon is the help the forest industry on an escalating basis provides the secondary industry. Those machinery people now, some of them, are exporting all over the North American continent.

Within the last decade, the pulp mill capacity has been designed to process chips as they become available. The planning appeared sound in spite of the F.A.O. projections. To those unfamiliar with the initials, I might add that they refer to the Food and Agricultural Organisation, a branch of the United Nations headquartered in Rome. This body has projected the world needs for fibre products in a fairly accurate, if somewhat conservative, manner.

Much of the planned production in the western world has been geared to the projections prepared by this organisation and I happen to have a copy of their statistical information right here.

Much of the planned production in the western world, as I said, has been based upon these reports. It is agreed that a quality fibre shortage will develop, although the timing has been set back due to unstable world conditions. This organisation could not foresee the present world monetary problems — the impact it has had on the world's trading nations — particularly those with whom we do business, in large measure — the United States, Japan and Great Britain.

Nor could the internal turmoil in the United States be predicted as such relates to the war in Vietnam with a negative reaction of the American people. The net effect on the economy has been depressing.

The move to chip production by the interior saw mills was as slow as the start up of the first pulp, as arrangements

[ Page 70 ]

had to be made for some round log chipping.

The initial installations, both for the manufacturer and for the handling of the chips, cost many millions of dollars and it is now doubtful if such a cost can ever be properly amortised through use.

The new pulp mills have no facilities installed for the handling of round wood whatsoever. This may surprise many members in this House. They have no facilities installed for handling round wood at all. All their raw material supply must come in the form of chips and for this reason it is imperative that there be a close co-ordination in the operation of the pulp and sawmill economies. On a large-scale basis, this is another revolutionary move.

The development of residual chip production by the sawmills has now reached the stage where there is a substantial surplus. This will be brought into balance this summer when the new pulp mills at Kamloops, Quesnel and Mackenzie come into operation.

The rapid build-up in the quantity of chips created a transportation problem for the P.G.E. which has still not been fully resolved. The direct losses to sawmills that have been forced to burn their chips have been substantial. I have the records of one Quesnel firm that burned $134,000 worth of chips from July to December, 1971.

It is anticipated that the loss will be substantially more than this again before the Quesnel pulp mill starts to stockpile in advance of production.

Pulp mills have already learned of the serious deterioration in chip quality which results from prolonged storage in large piles. This is something else that was learned on a trial-and-error basis as the interior pulp industry became established on the residual chip base.

Not only has there been a loss from the burning of chips but the problem of the actual burning has created complaints because of the smoke pollution and particulate fall-out that resulted.

I may say that I even had an irate Minister of Municipal Affairs phone me all the way from Quesnel, this summer, on a particularly bad day when they were burning their chips.

The period of wood use revolution has had a financial side which has not created too favourable an impression on some people in the investment world. Last May the Paper Trade Journal published an interview with some Wall Street investment dealers concerning prospects for loaning money in the pulp and paper field.

Someone from Vancouver sent me a copy anonymously and you will see why in a moment. First, I present an opinion of Mr. Lawrence Ross of Mitchell, Hutchins and Company:

I think that British Columbia is an investor's nightmare. You are caught between an aggressive union and an aggressive government which is constantly trying to get more money for its trees. Most of the trees up there are owned by the government.

Further, a presentation, by a Mr. Bruce Kirk from W.E. Hutton and Company states: "British Columbia is a cemetery of company earnings. I don't know how else to describe it."

I point this out, Mr. Speaker, because people sometimes — particularly the Opposition members — because of the advance it's been making at the present time, indicate that this is a very easy procedure and one from which tremendous sums of money happen to be made.

The points that are made are recognised and can be validated. The aspect missing, and this is the important one for all Hon. Members of the House, is that the investments that are now being made on policies, are to coincide with the necessary tie-in with a long-range economic raw material base and it must be rated on a long-term chance. That's what's going on at the moment.

Everyone must recognise this same fact, not only the people investing money — those that work in the industry and everything else.

It has been stated some of the many high-priced jobs that have been created may call for some time loss in the immediate future. The alternative however is no jobs, a greater waste of chips, a poorer use of the basic natural resource and a more uneconomic situation in the associated sawmills.

On balance — and, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of it — on balance, the net gain far out-weights the limited negative aspects that will prevail for a relatively short time into the future.

In the last six years, and I wish the members of the Opposition would get this sometimes when they are speaking about interest, in the last six years, eight new pulp mills have been operational in British Columbia.

All are now largely supplied with waste residuals in the form of chips. Not one of these plants has paid a single dollar in profit on the investment that has been made. These installations give a clear indication of the faith of their owners that, in the future — and we hope in the fairly near future — demand for product will return and the price will be such as to return a profit on that investment.

The three new mills that will come into production this year will add a further $250 million to the capital investment in this segment of our economy, and will provide the jobs as well.

One sometimes hears criticism, that industry does not carry a fair share of the social costs in communities directly related to the plant's activity. A check on only 11 representative forest companies between 1966 and 1970, showed that property, land and business taxes had increased an average of 51% to $29,243,000. That's into the social structure.

During this same period the return on capital investment for these firms varied from a high of 4.2 per cent in 1966 to a low of 1.1 per cent in our down year of 1970. I am well aware that in accounting one must understand the implication of the term, "return on capital investment." However, it is at this point that the investor and the government share in the return that have been termed as profit and unless the capital can be generated internally in the corporation, these figures do inhibit investment as indicated in the article which I quote. In which gives some indication of the faith in the future which I demonstrated in my announcements earlier this afternoon.

I present further evidence that wood-use revolutions can prove to be expensive unless the planning, the construction and the operation of the plants is efficient and specifically adapted to the complex pattern now being developed.

In 1971, six wood producing plants of which I am aware had a combined loss in operation in this province, of more than $50 million. Yet this was a year in which the market and the demand for lumber improved materially over 1970.

In almost every case the firms concerned are not pessimistic concerning the long term and are making changes in the operating plants involving further substantial capital expenditures. Now that timber production is based on an annual harvest, Mr. Speaker, similar to that found in agriculture, operators have adopted the attitude like the farmer that next year just has to be better.

I can say with some confidence that the revolution of

[ Page 71 ]

which I have been speaking in the interior is just about over. For the most part problems have been resolved or the methods of procedure have been devised.

Markets will still fluctuate from the standpoint of demand and price. Flexibility has been developed in wood handling which will allow these problems to be faced in a manner which will bring greater stability to the economy. I am sorry that I cannot say the same about the coast. We still face the most difficult problems in adapting the industry on the coast for the world of tomorrow.

Historically on the coast the economic returns from the pulp industry have been such that round logs could be processed for chips as a basic source of the raw furnish.

The sawmills and the veneer plants tended to high grade from the total supply of logs available since those that were left could always be used directly for pulp. Both sawmills and veneer plants were designed on the basis of lumber returned rather than volume of material processed.

Over the years this has worked well but the stands of readily-accessible, high-grade timber are gradually declining and as we move northward and higher up the slopes of the mountains new types of timber stands have to be cut. Such require a new type of plant for processing and new ways of handling and sorting the logs.

With the advent of close-utilisation in the interior, some firms on the coast decided to follow the lead that had been established up country by building mills to handle small logs.

Most of the additional wood under C.U. cut in the interior comes in the form of small logs, particularly those found in thick lodgepole pine stands.

Encouragement was given to the coastal action before it was realised, even by ourselves, that much of the additional wood available on the coast under C.U. management was not to be found in the form of small logs. Pockets of defect or partial decadence along with the small logs demanded a new type of mill to extract the firm wood values that were present in the logs together with more adequate means of chipping the residues which had increased in volume.

It is only now that the lineal footage mills are being developed to handle the C.U. material in volume here on the coast. Four known to me are presently in the advanced design or construction stage and a fifth firm indicated last week that such a mill would be built on the coast, this year.

The more chips that are developed, the less will be the market for logs which were formerly designated as pulp and so these, too, will have to be processed through a mill facility to take out all possible values. Unless this is done there is not sufficient value generated from the log to pay for taking the trees from the forest in the first place.

Up until the present time the introduction of the C.U. programme on the coast has suffered from the "chicken and the egg" problem. No one was willing to harvest the wood unless it could be sold to cover costs plus a fair profit. On the other hand no mills had been developed which could successfully handle this material in a profitable manner and so it could only be used for pulp. The revolution is now under way and many facets of the industry will be affected before one could say that these problems have been resolved.

There is going to have to be more dry-land sorting in the forest with the segregated wood shipped by barge to specific plants which can process the material in a profitable manner. The nature of some of this small, decadent wood means that it is not possible to boom and to sort in the water. The buoyancy of much of this wood is such that it would not support a man. Bundling will become far more common.

The traditional market for coast lumber has been has been rough-cut, green dimension and timbers. To a degree this will remain for this province has been one of the world's chief sources of this material. However, there will be a gradual change in part to the production of kiln-dried, precision-cut, planed and packaged material for specific use without further processing.

This is the form in which the bulk of the interior production is now sold on the United States market. However, much of the coast production is sold offshore and different requirements will have to be met.

It is of interest to observe that certain firms have already been established on the coast which reprocess green, roughcut lumber from the mills for specific use and for export. It may also be of interest to know that a surprising percentage of the structural lumber used in construction on the coast comes from the interior sawmills.

There is one serious competitive factor in the coast-interior relationship, and I would like also, Mr. Speaker — if some of the members have been a little dozy with this — to pay attention to this factor.

There is one serious competitive factor in the coast-interior relationship which has only recently come to the attention of management. It has been estimated that the production-employee ratio on the coast required to manufacture rough green lumber, varies from 1,000 to 1,400 board feet per man per day. In the interior the comparable volume is from 2,500 to 3,500 board feet of dried-planed lumber, per man per day. If the comparison were on a direct rough-green basis the difference would be appreciably more. This is one of the factors which has allowed interior operators to absorb their higher freight costs in business at the present time.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks on this topic, things are happening of great importance in this No. 1 industry and I doubt if the total impact is yet apparent even to those who are directly engaged in the day-to-day activities associated with the production from our forests.

Nearly all revolutions have a direct impact on the people at the site of the turmoil. In this case it is even more significant since the people are the owners of the basic resource and of the land on which this resource happens to grow. Within the last decade there has been a strong move towards the multiple use of our natural resources and in this case it has been reflected in new concerns for recreation, the preservation of wildlife, protection of watershed areas, new care taken to see that stream flows are not impeded.

Although revolutionary when viewed against pioneer activities, both industry and the public are in general accord concerning this approach to the future management of timber stands.

In fact the new breed of foresters can be termed the real new leaders in conservation in the Province of British Columbia. The additional costs imposed are still the subject of argument since they do affect the public's other interest and that relates to the sharing of revenue.

Within the last decade the approach to the sharing of revenues from the forest has also undergone a revolutionary change. With a guidance and direction from the forestry committee of this Legislature, it was decided to opt for stability and a higher level of wood use rather than uncontrolled bidding for timber cutting rights without concern for established communities and manufacturing arrangements.

Stability of operation could not be assured unless there was to be some continuity in the supply of logs to a

[ Page 72 ]

converging plant so that lumber and other products could be made.

The emphasis on stability was to mean that as many people as possible — and this is the policy base upon which you have been working, Mr. Speaker — should be employed and economic conditions should be controlled to ensure that the industry could remain competitive under varying market conditions.

This is accomplished in two ways. The public share of revenue return is based upon a system of sliding scale stumpages which increases with good markets and decreases when the selling price falls.

To ensure continued activity with employment as long as possible, the province takes a maximum drop with poor markets. This move is much more popular than is the opposite condition when the province takes the larger share of the increase when the market goes up.

With the imposition of the logging tax, which can be charged back in part against the income taxes paid by industry to the federal government, the people of the province have a direct interest in the profitability of operations. This factor and this is another part of the revolution, Mr. Speaker, has now been incorporated into the timber allocations of all who wish to increase their cutting rights through the use of close-utilisation wood.

The argument now is that if the wood cannot be handled in a profitable manner it should be directed to those operations that can do so and thus share with the people who own the resource a greater return of the revenue.

It is for this reason that an interest has been taken in this matter of profit for the first time at the administrative level and why I was able to speak earlier of some of the cost experiences of this last year.

It is also the reason that I am speaking on the subject today because such a policy concerns the productivity of the men employed. They have a stake in the whole operation which goes far beyond the collection of the paycheck.

Few people seem to be aware of this fundamental change in management policy. As time progresses a successful wood-based operation will have to reflect the maximum in contribution of both management and labour to ensure that the continued and expanded timber allocations are made. This factor is likely the most revolutionary change that has taken place in this period of change and is only now being given direct attention by the forest service.

To this end we have recently obtained the assistance of a forest economist so that decisions made will be soundly based. It is obvious that a continuous loss position without adequate indication of actions taken towards change will not be allowed to continue. Even if a position is being held for the future there is an obligation to perform to the maximum of efficiency today.

Let me flesh out the policy as I close, Mr. Speaker, with some financial statistics. As I have stated, the stumpage or fee paid for the right to cut standing timber owned by the Crown is on a sliding scale and relates directly to the selling price of the product and the cost of production.

It can be expected that provincial revenues will fluctuate accordingly. This gives one reason why funds can be and are established from time to time by government from the surplus account to meet some particular people's need in perpetuity and don't come from the source as mentioned by the Hon. Member from Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) the other day.

1970 was a poor year for the forest industry. Despite this fact the province posted a new record cut as I have said. People worked but returns suffered. A combination of negative circumstances prevailed. There was a relatively weak demand from a poor market paying a low price. Over and above this, the Canadian dollar was allowed to float and in so doing lowered the relative value of the American dollar which automatically decreased our returns, since from 80 to 85 per cent of our business is done in terms of United States currency whether or not the material is sold in the United States.

My comparisons are on the basis of the calendar year and not the fiscal year which does not end until March 31. The 1970 revenue from stumpage was about $65 million. This compared with a record 1969 return when from less timber volume the returns were about $89.5 million or about $25 million higher than they were in the lower year.

It may come as somewhat of a surprise to Hon. Members that 1971 revenues on a still higher volume of cut and on an improving market totalled $60.9 million down about $4.1 million even from last year.

There are two reasons for this fact. First, collections trail billing up to 60 days. Second, adjustments reflecting improved price are taken from actual audited returns and this tends to delay the change in charges by a further two to three months.

The beginning of 1971 reflected the low markets of 1970 and the real impact of change was not felt until this fall. Of interest is the fact that 20,775 stumpage upward adjustments have taken place within recent months. This figure was only exceeded once in our history and that was during the runaway market situation of 1969.

Officials now predict that by the end of this fiscal year our revenues will exceed those collected last year by about 15 per cent. When the market drops the same lag factor continues and industry complains about the high charges as against returns. An effort is being made to close the gap — both going up and coming down.

The upward return on revenue has been maintained through the decade. The 1968 calendar year recorded $53.8 million and 1967 — $41.9 million so Hon. Members can readily see the impact even of forest policies as we've been moving despite the general market situation which has taken place.

When taken with the payment of the logging tax it can be said that the people are securing a fair return and increasing return from the natural resource which they themselves own.

The receipts from the logging tax reflect economic conditions in the industry even more dramatically. It is still too early to get information for 1971 but the figures for the fiscal year 1970 are $23.9 million and for the fiscal year 1970-71 about half or $13.4 million which indicates the profitability of the year through which we happen to have gone.

Remember that despite this, Mr. Speaker, the be-all and end-all of policy is that people work throughout the whole entire period and produced a record cut even though the direct revenue position went down.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for the length of this presentation but I think it essential that legislators realise the impact of the policy changes which have taken place in our prime natural resource industry.

Problems have been compounded because the wood use changes have come at the same time as the requirement for operational modifications due to environmental concerns. Industry has reacted in a responsible manner but that which

[ Page 73 ]

can be done immediately will be tied in with the need to maintain employment, which is number one, while making essential changes in plant as well as in operating procedures.

Operators know and accept what they have to do. However they cannot respond without giving consideration to their competitive position on world markets which involves the ability to sell at a profit that which is produced. There is no "-ism" on earth yet devised that will allow a non-profitable enterprise to continue in production on a long-term basis and meet its obligations and they are the only kind of enterprises we want in the province of British Columbia. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to be back in this chamber, particularly representing New Westminster, wishing I was there to enjoy the good weather as opposed to the rather blizzardy, wintery conditions that you have in Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting yesterday to listen to the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Peterson) discussing our trip to Washington. As he got on with the trip, he began to realise the significance of it. He began to realise just how much of vacuum this government has created in leaving something like that wide open. He also began to realise that the man that sits across from him in this House made a very valuable contribution to B.C. and showed real leadership, Mr. Speaker.

I couldn't blame him for getting more and more upset as he went along with his speech and our condolences in that regard. But we're going to continue going around this province, with or without standing committees that should be activated at all times. We're going to be listening to what the people have to say. We'll try to communicate some of those thoughts to this government whenever we get an opportunity.

We noticed those lines that the Premier was feeding the Attorney General yesterday — the "pinkos" stuff. I don't even think that colours are of very much significance in this case. I think we could throw a few at the party across the way. Let's not.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources just finished a fine speech about our forest industry. Prior to that he made some observations about the question of the leader of the Liberal party and what he said with respect to oil exploratory leases, federal exploratory leases that have been granted.

Oh, great was his criticism of those terrible Liberals. I ask the government, Mr. Speaker, are they against those leases? Are they against those leases?

MR. R. A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Hansard, Hansard!

MR. COCKE: Have they informed the federal government if they are, that they are against those leases? A letter of protest should be sent, Mr. Speaker, right from this House. Right now. Last year on the order paper, may I refresh your memory? "Mr. Hall moves, seconded by Mr. Dowding that this House expresses to the federal government their deep misgivings over the ecological disaster which will engulf the coast of British Columbia following drilling or exploratory drilling for oil in our coastal waters and urge the prohibition of any such drilling by the appropriate authority."

Mr. Speaker, this government stood behind the constitution's skirts, if you will, on that resolution. Now is an opportunity for this government to really make their feelings clear — if they have any feelings on the matter at all. We certainly do. Put up or shut up!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hansard, Hansard — put it in the script.

MR. COCKE: No, that motion wasn't debated because it…

AN HON. MEMBER: It died a normal death.

MR. COCKE: That's right. It died a normal death.

AN HON. MEMBER: In this House it's normal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Normal Social Credit.

HON. J. R. CHABOT (Minister of Labour): Pinko, pinko!

AN HON. MEMBER: His colour bias is showing.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the question: Does this government really care about the unemployed?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: I ask the Hon. Minister of Labour, does the government really care about unemployed? You might feel that they do listening to the throne speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

MR. COCKE: Yes, you might feel that they do. We find words that are not borne out in action. That's the problem. Words like "fostering expansion of our industrial and commercial base." We find an increase in capital investment of 22 per cent but no commensurate increase in jobs, Mr. Speaker. No commensurate increase in jobs.

Where is the secondary industry of this province? What's been done about it? The growth of investment is highly significant if it doesn't produce a healthy economy. We have an economy that serves other masters, other than us. Those Hon. Members know them, Mr. Speaker, do they?

AN HON. MEMBER: General Food…

MR. COCKE: Very interesting. Mr. Speaker, our capital growth is a result of home-grown money.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Home-grown money, that's why we have our capital growth. There is an increase in the value of these foreign-owned investments, and that shows up. The profits left in the country, that's where you get the increase in that capital growth. Last year the outflow — and that real estate man probably knows — last year the outflow of capital was greater than the inflow. Yes. So where is your capital growth?

[ Page 74 ]

Just plain good planning would require that some of our visiting capital be put to work for our benefit. A top American State Senator recently told us we are not tough enough in this province. Right to our faces he said: "You're not tough enough up there." Yes, he as much as said that we have more resources that others want and we could make much better deals but we continually come off second best. We continually come off second best.

Yes, this was a representative of the Senate in the United States and he said it to our face. Of course, there are many people that would verify that even enough to satisfy that Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House have maintained that requirements or conditions should be set in dealing with foreign capital. The price of our wood should be jobs. The price of our minerals should be jobs, Mr. Speaker. The price of our power should be jobs. That magic word that we heard last session — jobs.

We haven't seen too much indication of any great plenty of jobs. Instead the Social Credit government is delighted in making a sale even though it does not serve the people's best interest. That's our problem. Mr. Speaker. This government goes on to talk about the creations of jobs that they've planned. At about this point, we find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker.

Where have they been during the past two years I want to know? Where have they been? Government agencies all over the province are understaffed. The Land Registry Office is a good example. What does Mr. Bellwood, who was the registrar who resigned, what did he say? Mr. Bellwood said that the registry office is chronically understaffed and overcrowded. Chronically understaffed and overcrowded. He said he resigns because repeated requests for more staff went unheeded by the Attorney General's department. This government that's so worried about jobs. Just worried about jobs.

Mr. Speaker, that was only one example of many offices in this province that are understaffed. Virtually all of them. They are running much behind in their work, in the Land Registry. People waiting for service are being unnecessarily inconvenienced. Those working are putting up with intolerable working conditions. The fact that senior officials have quit over the chaos speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. It speaks for itself. This is the depth of concern our government has over employment.

This group of "truly concerned" or whatever, individuals has made it necessary to cut staff in hospitals, by their edicts, and in the schools, Mr. Speaker, staff in schools. Interesting. I was in Riverview the other day. After 2 1/2 years I've been watching Riverside, the maximum security part of Riverview. In this last 2 1/2 years, in the depth of unemployment, what has been done? What progress has been made in renovating that area?

Not one particle. They still live in those intolerable conditions that I described in this house some two years ago. Identically the same. Absolute bedlam and no excuse for it in a time of unemployment, Mr. Speaker.

A government agency right now when we're in the depths of this unemployment.

"Union Fears Hydro To Cut Staffs." Well, why do they fear that? They brought in a firm of California efficiency experts, that's why. California efficiency experts. Knock'em-down, and carry-'em-out government.

MR. BARRETT: Ronnie Reagan's friends.

MR. COCKE: Ronnie Reagan's pals, from California, are up here to see to it that…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: That's what concern this government shows over employment.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Stop being objectionable, you're waking up your Members.

MR. COCKE: So, Mr. Speaker I say this: having cut staffs and having had a policy that was for unemployment as far as the government staffs are concerned, and their influence areas, they've aided and abetted Prime Minister Trudeau's stupid policy. That's what they've done. Throwing people out of work to cure inflation.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Trudeaucats.

MR. COCKE: The Trudeau copycats, right there.

The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) has been talking for two years, and we're still waiting for results about that. It would appear that the government is following the lead of the Alliance for Businessmen which is "talk is easier than action."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear an explanation from this government on their handling of situations where people were caught up in the red tape of the U.I.C. — that would be something to hear — when the federal government found that they couldn't handle a claim properly they asked for the provincial welfare help, and ours turned them down. What the Unemployment Insurance Commission wanted was a loan made to the claimant — we found out about it at Christmas time — A loan made to the claimants. Those loans, and those claimants that had made claims, were just lost in the shuffle. B.C. said no.

MR. DOWDING: Shame, shame.

MR. COCKE: If this government were truly concerned about the unemployed surely they could have honoured this request.

There is a credibility gap, Mr. Speaker. There's a credibility gap growing, and growing. The "take-home pay" slogan has to go down as the biggest joke played on the people of B.C. for some time. That was a joke. "Take-home pay" would have looked good to thousands out of work last Christmas, Mr. Speaker. Even a little help would have been better than nothing to those who couldn't even get their unemployment insurance last Christmas. "Take-home pay" — an empty promise from a hollow government Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: A hollow man, a hollow man.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, for many years the McGavin Toastmaster Company put bread in our mouths in this province. We paid well for their product. And in return they took bread out of the mouths of their own employees.

Here, I am not discussing the merits of them closing down their big operation in Vancouver last March, nor of their using a phony issue to bring about this end, nor of their tossing a large number of people into the unemployed role.

[ Page 75 ]

While this is hard to take from the business community it certainly has become regular practice in this province.

We are dealing with a situation where this employer used a badly set-up pension plan to his advantage and literally stole from his employees.

The pension plan was a non contributory-negotiated plan. A negotiated plan — get that, that's right. The employees accepted it as being a portion of their earnings. And that was the way it was understood. It was certainly charged out as a labour expense. We paid for it along with all the other expenses when we bought a loaf of bread.

The fact that an employer can see to it plans are designed in his favour is widely accepted. I know Mr. Speaker, I was there. To be so artful in so doing is a dubious honour, in my mind. The consultants and trustees prepared a plan that provided no vesting or paid-up benefits for people terminated under the age of 55. Nothing. Nothing for them under the age of 55.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the money?

MR. COCKE: When the plant closed down — and I'll explain to the Hon. Member in a moment — when the plant closed down only those over 55 could look forward to any recompense. Any other employee regardless of years of service or dedication walked away with a missed potential retirement income. Nothing.

A good example is a man aged 53 who worked 33 years for that firm and gets not one cent of pension credit. Not a nickel.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's free enterprise.

MR. COCKE: Needless to say that this man and dozens of others are incensed. They're mad. They feel robbed of a benefit they've been counting on. Their chance of building a pension elsewhere is either reduced or wiped out on account of their age, because they're too old to really build up a fund, I want to tell the Hon. Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the Minister of Labour doing about it?

MR. COCKE: There's no way for these people to redeem their loss, no way.

Mr. Speaker, I have this many letters on the subject. One of the employees got in touch with the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition and he put them in touch with me. I've discussed this matter on the telephone with some of these people, and they've written me letters.

The fact of the matter is they're very anxious. There should be rules in this province and I'll go on with that in a minute. But let me just give you an idea of what they're saying.

"In reference to the McGavin plan, I am 52 years old and have worked for McGavin's Bakery for 20 years. And on termination of the company, received no credits in any way from the pension fund. We took this pension plan in lieu of wages and I feel we should have received some benefit from it. If there is any help you can give us in this matter we would greatly appreciate it." Letter after letter, and every one of these letters, Mr. Speaker, has the same kind of story: "We expected a pension as a result of taking a little lower wages when the negotiations went on."

The Minister of Labour asked: "What union?" Teamster 189 I understand, according to this letter.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker I am bringing this to the highest chamber in this province. What's going on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let them eat bread — is that it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go through all these. Here's another one: "I am 53, being penalised for starting young, because now I haven't another chance."

Here's another one: "I am now a former McGavin employee. I started to work for this company in 1948 in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. I got a transfer to Vancouver in 1953. I was with them until March of 1971. I never looked for another job because I had good wages and a pension plan, things were rosey. Then boom, the bottom fell out. I am 47 years old, too young for McGavin's pension but too old to take up another trade so I must work for small wages. I would appreciate whatever you can do."

Mr. Speaker, this is bad news for this province. It's bad news for people. There are some 50 people — 48 I believe — with 810 years of service with this company.

Mr. Speaker, there is a way out. There are employees in this company in other provinces not faced with this kind of devastation. Now in answer to the Hon. Member, he's gone now so he won't mind if I tell the rest of you.

He wanted to know what happened to the money. The employees' loss is someone else's gain. The plan goes on. That plan was comprehensive. It covers some of the other McGavin subsidiaries. It pays for the liabilities for the few who qualify — members of Mother Hubbard and other areas in the company, bakeries which are, incidentally, part of the same McGavin empire. Ask anyone in the pension business…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who underwrote the plan?

MR. COCKE: I beg your pardon? It wasn't underwritten, it's a trusteed plan, Mr. Speaker. It is a trusteed plan set up by William Mercer and Associates.

The bakeries which are part of that empire are still involved in the plan. Ask anyone in the pension business. The employer is going to get off cheap for a long time to come. That's how it works. The employer only has to pay the amount required to provide for future benefits of those left. That's the way it works. The fund got rid of a large liability and that liability in this case was people, now the employer has a nice rest. He just sits back.

The money which normally belongs to those terminated employees is being used to pay the employer's present bill, and Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might even go into the gas pipeline business.

MR. COCKE: It could be, it could be.

The same plan covers employees in Alberta and Saskatchewan but there at least the employees have the protection within the law. There, any employee with 10 years in the plan or who is age 45 gets full proportionate credit for his service.

[ Page 76 ]

Obviously, we can't leave it to business to act in a responsible way Mr. Speaker. We must have legislation here to provide protection for the worker. Since this is only an isolated situation duplicated over and over it's obvious we can no longer leave protection of employees' rights to chance.

Now there are federal vesting rules with respect to employer-employee plans, but non-contributory plans are left out. It's up to the province to fill in that crack. Other provinces have. Let's us do it. Let no one else be bilked out of their pension Mr. Speaker. Let no one else arrive at retirement broke because of a misplaced trust held by an employee of his employer.

In the McGavin fiasco there are at least 48 men, as I said, holding the bag. These men represent over 800 years of service to this and that firm.

Mr. Speaker, I do ask that question: what's going to happen about pension plans in this province?

The Premier of the Province and the chairman of the B.C. Hydro have been carrying on a battle of the headlines. Whether this is a sham battle or an actual dispute is anyone's guess. Chairman Shrum seems to be in favour of atomic power — at least for some areas. The Premier has other ideas. One thing that worries me is that neither the Premier or Dr. Shrum seem indisposed to the Moran dam at Lillooet.

If we are prepared to increase our already astronomical debt, power could certainly be produced and the neon tubes could shine brighter and brighter. The case against the dam has been well documented. The increased power potential would be achieved by sacrificing a great proportion of the fishing industry, impairing the navigable portion of the Fraser and stopping the flow of silt to Delta.

The proponents of hydro power feel that economically it is worth a great sacrifice. They fail to realise that a rich food resource has more than an economic value. Food production is becoming more and more a vital necessity. No longer can concerned people sit on their hands while others go about deliberately destroying our food-producing potential.

We have capitulated to developers in the loss of much of our rich agricultural land and we must stop forthwith. We have capitulated to the power producers on the loss of valley-bottom land and fisheries and we must stop that forthwith. The Fraser must not be dammed at Moran or any other site, Mr. Speaker.

Those who try to comfort fishermen by saying that the Adams River run would not be impaired cannot substantiate that statement. There are at least two reasons to believe that the Adams River run would be devastated.

Despite the fact that the fish in the run divert and go up the Thompson they could be in water highly charged with nitrogen.

Fish kills below dams are well documented. The State of Washington lost 80 per cent of what was left of their Columbia River run because of the concentration of nitrogen in the water below the dams. Governor Evans says they are working hard on research to remedy the disasters. How much better it would have been if it had not been permitted to happen in the first place.

For those fish fortunate enough to survive the bends — which is what happens to fish under those circumstances, the same as what happens to a human being diving too far and coming up too quickly — there will be little natural protection afforded them in the then silt-free Fraser. The young fingerlings will be clearly visible to predators. The predators will multiply and could very well wipe out the salmon run.

Now, this government should go on record in opposition to damning the Fraser right now. They should go on record. Here is a resolution by the corporation of the City of New Westminster. They're on record, Mr. Speaker. They're on record and I'm sure that this province has a copy of it. If they haven't I'm certainly going to file this particular resolution with the clerk.

And the resolution says:

Be it further resolved that the New Westminster Council immediately notify the Provincial Government of our concern and state that we stand unalterably opposed to policies that lead to the conclusion that any responsible governmental body is in favour of the hydro-electric tampering with the ecology of the Fraser River and its fish carrying tributaries.

May it be further resolved that this council seek the support of the Federal Government of Canada and all other municipalities,

is the conclusion of this resolution.

They should promise the people of this province that power production will be more carefully thought of in the future. This government should give an undertaking to the fishermen that their important industry will not be impaired by a thoughtless plan. The government should immediately instruct Hydro to study alternative methods of power production.

Research and study are imperative at this time. Surely the people are getting impatient with a tired old government who moves from mistake to mistake.

Mr. Speaker, since there is a need for electrical power and it won't likely reverse, we should provide some leadership in providing alternative sources.

We have given United States access to a major portion of our present hydro power. We have also as Canadians seen to it that natural gas is piped into the U.S. in quantities that could produce a fantastic amount of electric power.

I believe we think of ourselves as dependent on these markets. But the truth of the matter is they are entirely dependent on us. It's interesting in this context that the State of Washington see their cheap power — which they produce as largely as a result of our exports — as a good chance to encourage industry. Well, industry that they have developed so far has not been job intensive according to the Governor.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's their unemployment rate?

MR. COCKE: About 16, 18, 20 per cent, maybe 50 per cent. But the fact of the matter is, they're suffering and have been suffering under the same illusion as this government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the un-American across the way speaks again.

The industry that they've developed has not been job-intensive — that's what they indicated. We had better therefore take our second look at this situation if our government is truly interested in real progress.

Since hydro power is damaging and atom power is possibly dangerous, it's a good time to look further ahead. Now, Mr. Speaker I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be

[ Page 77 ]

looking at all types of power development, but there is another source that we should be looking at very carefully and that's geothermal power. It's receiving more and more attention around the world. Even B.C. has token representation at conferences on the subject. We had to go out of the province to find that out, mind you. We found that out in Washington when we were there.

Geothermal power is non-polluting heat energy produced by the world's biggest nuclear plant, the earth itself. It is so great that if it were cooled 1°F at the centre of the earth, it would release enough energy to run all the power plants in existence in the world for 20 million years.

It is interesting to note just who are most determined to develop earth heat power. It's mostly private companies in the oil industry. They include such names as Union Oil, Sun Oil, Signal Oil, and they're not doing a great deal of advertising about this matter either, Mr. Speaker.

These companies look at it as a potential dollar producer. There are other names like Magma Thermal Earth Energy Inc. and Union Magma but where are the governments? Where are the governments on this question?

As is often the case, governments leave research and innovation to the private sector. They don't leave defense research to chance however. Our government in B.C. should show some leadership right now. Get people working on the whole idea of power production from geothermal sources.

We are on a geothermal belt that extends from Alaska through B.C., western U.S. and all the way down into central and south America. To follow the belt around the Pacific is to follow the so-called fiery rim of the Pacific. On this geothermal belt we have a real opportunity to use a resource to save a resource. I suggest that the government of B.C. invite Dr. Robert Rex to the province in order to secure his advice. He is a geologist from the University of…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's he from?

MR. COCKE: Can I finish? He is a geologist from the University of California at Riverside. I'm sure he is one of the best-informed authorities on geothermal power in North America.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you find that out when you went down to the states?

MR. COCKE: Dr. Robert Rex has been consulting with Mexico, as a matter of fact, in recent months. I'm sure therefore he would be willing to give us the benefit of his knowledge…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, will Hon. Members please address the Chair?

MR. COCKE: Right now with our obvious power shortage from past mistakes we could use a great deal of help, Mr. Speaker. Not the kind of help we're getting across there.

If the cost of geothermal power is as low as many claim we cannot afford to overlook this very important source, that's all.

In southern California Dr. Rex claims that the cost of geothermal heat for both electricity and desalinisation of water would only be about 1-2 cents per million British Thermal Units, whereas heat from nuclear sources would be 22 cents and coal and gas about 30 cents per million B.T.U. So, if you can get at it and if you can develop it, it's certainly worth researching for something that cheap and non-polluting as well.

In the throne speech the impression is left that hydro power is non-polluting — page 4, paragraph 8 and I won't quote it here. But that's what was implied, that hydro power is non-polluting.

In one sense it may be non-polluting Mr. Speaker, but it is certainly damaging and the loss of land and fishing is intolerable at this time.

Before more area is lost let's go on with some hard research into alternatives. The alternatives may not be geothermal for a while but there is too much evidence that there is too great a potential to ignore it.

Mr. Speaker, we're not indicating here either that you shouldn't machine what dams are already there, not at all. Those dams are there and so nothing is going to reverse that situation. We're suggesting research done for future needs.

At a United Nations conference in Pisa, Italy, on geothermal power there was presented 200 scientific reports. After the conference one of the officials said: "We used to think geothermal energy would only last for 40 years." He went on to say: "Now we think geothermal fields properly managed could go on forever."

The Russian report at that same conference said that the geothermal energy potential of the Soviet Union is greater than all sources put together. Considering Russia's huge reserves of coal, oil, gas and hydro, this report has staggering implications, to even the most dull-witted.

Despite the throne speech, production of power is the main source of environmental blight in this province — on this earth for that matter — if B.C. follows the United States' lead in using science to produce but not to conserve, Mr. Speaker.

We would think first in terms of preservation of the environment. If we did, science would be put to work in that way. We are the backwards child of this planet, Mr. Speaker, in our handling of our resources.

We don't wait with baited breath in B.C. In B.C. we have become accustomed to the Simon Legree attitude to ordinary people — but each year we hope to have some repentance and atonement for past sins, Mr. Speaker.

What a delightful surprise for the people of our province it would have been if the throne speech promised some real humanitarian changes in government agencies in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder which one, eh?

MR. COCKE: In regards to workmen's compensation we are told "new regulations will reflect the cooperative effort of labour, management and government officials who have drafted 255 new regulations and 520 revisions."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that another 255 new regulations and 520 revisions could just about make the Workmen's Compensation Board the most over-regulated and under-productive government bureaucracy in our province. The fine concept of compensating people for injuries sustained on the job has deteriorated into a game of poker with the board holding all the cards, Mr. Speaker. And I'll bring some documented evidence of cases to the attention of the Hon. Minister and House later in the session.

Meanwhile, despite rumors to the contrary workmen's compensation has deteriorated in its claims handling again.

[ Page 78 ]

Remember they improved for a while. For a time it seemed to improve under new leadership, but now claimants who have a claim that doesn't fit into the preconceived ideas of the board may as well go whistle in the dark.

Getting back to the throne speech and its relevancy, it surely loses touch with reality respecting municipalities. There is no trouble in the cities, towns and villages according to this hollow document. To quote: "The financial position of British Columbia's municipalities is unexcelled elsewhere anywhere in Canada." Loose talk like that, Mr. Speaker, just doesn't wash. That's what it says.

The municipalities are carrying the load in services to people far beyond their ability to tax in this province, Mr. Speaker. I have yet to talk to a civic official anywhere in this province that shares the government's sentiments.

Last year the Union of B.C. Municipalities indicated the books were cooked by the government. That's right. Their report showed that rather than being well treated by the senior government they were being shabbily treated.

To quote from their report presented May 15, 1971:

It can be concluded that as a result of provincial fiscal policies, increases in municipal revenues from the two primary sources — property taxation and grants — have been diverted to the support of services over which municipal governments have no control — education and social welfare. When measured in terms of the revenue allocation which prevailed in 1957, this diversion in revenue increases by 1968 amounted to $46,497,432. Even if the home-owners' grant could be considered as an offsetting revenue fact — which it cannot — the increase in this grant does not equal the extent of the diversion.

In terms of their capacity to support expanding municipal needs municipal governments in British Columbia in 1968 were in much worse position than they were in 1957.

When B.C. is supposed to be in such great shape what's their excuse? What's the government's excuse for putting the municipalities into this kind of position where they're worse off now than they were in 1957? Where is this progressive government?

Because of the brevity of the comment in the Speech from the Throne it was probably thought it would be discounted. We cannot discount it. This is government policy which is taxing our senior citizens out of their homes. That's what happening as a result of their policy — taxing our senior citizens out of their homes. It's a policy which sets one group in an intolerable position in that they are carrying more than their fair share of the load.

By placing the load on the little people, the Social Credit government helps its corporate friends in that as a result the corporations carry less than their fair share of the responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

I've spoken on another subject once or twice before in this House. I'd like to say a few words about it again. For months and months B.C. Hydro has played cat and mouse with New Westminster. Since December 29, 1969, until the present, Mr. Speaker, Hydro has been trying to confiscate a distribution system already owned by the people.

Hydro should welcome local involvement, Mr. Speaker, especially when it's traditional. New Westminster owns the facility and its people don't want it to be pilfered by almighty Hydro.

In a letter dated September 21, 1970, Chairman of Hydro Gordon Shrum wrote: "It is the firm policy of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority that it not supply electricity for resale by municipalities."

Shocking words from a government agency in my view, shocking words. All I have asked for the past two years is a reason for this policy, Mr. Speaker. No reason has been given New Westminster by Hydro, and no reason has been given New Westminster by this government. Obviously it's part of the big-handed authoritarian methods so often used by Hydro and the Social Credit government.

In 1904 B.C. Electric signed an agreement with New Westminster. The agreement was for 10 years certain and further 10 year periods at the option of the city. There was no limit on the duration of obligation of the company. Implicit in the agreement was power at reasonable rates compared to the rest of the lower mainland.

B.C. Electric, according to the agreement, would sell power to industrial users and New Westminster would sell power to the community. Hydro inherited the package but somehow unjustly feel privileged to deny the obligation. Both industrial and other consumers have been well served and there is no reason to change this system, Mr. Speaker, no reason whatsoever.

In forcing a change, Hydro has blackmailed the city. They refused to even discuss the extension of the contract. Every form of pressure has been used, including raising rates. The latest increase demanded a raise of 90 per cent which is sledge-hammer tactics to say the least.

Now, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williston) informed me that while Hydro would not supply power for re-sale, they would welcome New Westminster generating her own power. That's what he said. And every action since then by Hydro has been to place stumbling blocks in the way of any alternative except take over by Hydro. Now that's the inconsistency of the whole thing, Mr. Speaker. Where are they? Where is Dr. Shrum? Where is Hydro on this question of the difference between him and the Minister?

I call for the government to get back to square one on this issue and sign a reasonable contract at reasonable rates. Let New Westminster carry on with distributing power. Hydro is best equipped to provide power; we agree. New Westminster is equipped to distribute it and if other communities wish to do the same, let them do the same — including Nelson or anywhere else in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I have one other delightful little goodie here, I think. We could go down the line and I'd like to just enlarge just a little bit on what the Honourable First Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was talking about last year.

I'd like to do a little history on B.C. and what happened to them subsequently. They're going into Northwest Life. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the report in the throne debate that we have a committee reviewing companies in the security law, and that new legislation is under consideration, is very much welcome. And I'll tell you why I think it's welcome — because of some of the things that have happened in this province. We would hope that there will be committee hearings on the whole question. This province has been from a corporate standpoint a happy hunting ground for wheeler-dealers — a happy hunting ground.

Here's a short history of an infamous deal. Back in 1960 two men met and became interested in one another's objectives. The men were W. H. Walters of Seattle and M. Donald Easton, barrister of Vancouver. Now, I'm going to read you three letters that went between these two people. This is a letter from Mr. Easton of Suite 204, 525 Seymour Street, Vancouver, B.C. It's to Mr. W. H. Walters, 714 North 74th Street, Seattle 3, Washington.

[ Page 79 ]

Dear Wally:

Nice to hear that you arrived safe and sound back in Seattle after our foray in Bellingham. Colin and I are slowly recovering from the ordeal. The property we were discussing very briefly when we were in Bellingham consists of 5,800 acres of Crown granted timberland.

Remember this, this is Crown granted land to begin with, that they're talking about. They talk about all sorts of things.

The property is situated in the interior of British Columbia and is accessible by both water and rail. It's fully developed as regards roads and was last cruised in 1945. At the date of the cruise in 1945 there was something in excess of 32 million consisting of 52.4 per cent hemlock, 12.4 per cent cedar, 14.2 per cent fir, 19.3 per cent white pine, 1 per cent spruce and 0.7 per cent white birch. This property would make a nice tree farm area to be logged on a sustained yield basis as the rate of growth in the area is very good. One of the interesting aspects of Crown granted land is that the stumpage royalty payable is 50 cents for timber and a quarter of a cent per lineal foot per pole.

We're presently in the process of negotiating with the forest engineer toward having a recruise made of this area, as since the date of the last cruise, there has been timber removed. However, we hope that the rate of growth in the past 15 years has been sufficient to compensate for the timber removed. If you know of anyone that may be interested in acquiring such a block of Crown granted land, we would be interested in providing you with any necessary further information.

Don Easton.

That's letter number one. Letter number two, from the same person to the same person.

Dear Wally:

Re: Oil leasehold properties

I have now obtained a reasonable amount of information regarding availability of oil properties in northern British Columbia and I am wondering if you are still interested.

One rather interesting bit of information is that 50 per cent of all wells so far drilled in the particular area, have turned out to be producers of either oil or gas. There are many ways of approaching the classification of properties for drilling and if you are interested, it might be as well if you telephone me and we will arrange a suitable date to give you all the necessary information.

Letter number two. Letter number three — same person, same recipient.

Dear Wally:

Re: North West Life Assurance Co.

September 29, 1970

As a result of our telephone conversation on Monday last, I have now obtained information regarding availability of the above company. The company was incorporated by a private Act of the Legislative Assembly in the Province of British Columbia, March 2, 1956, and is presently actively engaged in the insurance business.

The company is capitalized at $1 million, divided into 40 thousand shares of $25 each. The objects for which the company is incorporated are for the sale of the following classes of insurance; accident insurance, life insurance and sickness insurance. The company is presently licensed to sell in the three classes of insurance and has a deposit with the superintendent of insurance of $56,000 in stocks and bonds. Out of the 40,000 share capital, 9,558 shares are issued which shares are only partly paid up and the amount paid on the issued shares is $86,936.30 and the remainder is subject to call.

The present directors of the company are not experienced insurance people and we understand would be very likely to sell their interest in their shares for the amount actually paid up. Although this company is limited in its objectives it has been carrying on business in the past few years and we would think it possible for a federal company to take over its assets and to obtain a federal life insurance licence and also broaden its objects.

I enclose for your information the report of the superintendent of insurance for 1958 pertaining to the company. If you are interested in proceeding further, kindly advise as soon as possible.

There is another company that may become available, but at the present time some interests in the east have an option until the end of October. This company is Canadian Western Insurance that is presently in voluntary liquidation but could be stopped at any time.

I am also enclosing the report of the superintendent of insurance for 1958. I might add that the acquisition of this company could involve less money. The superintendent of insurance would be quite anxious for this company to again be active in the insurance field.

Kind regards…

The same recipient — that was September 29, the other two were June 7 and 17, 1960. I might as well tell you where I get all this information. Mr. Walters is a very unhappy man and the Hon. Attorney General knows that and I just want to indicate where I get the information that I have.

This is a document that was given under seal, October 13, 1960. "Know all ye men by these presents that…" and then it names Mr. T.A. O'Connell, Mr. W. H. Walters…

Subject to that certain joint venture agreement entered into by and between T. A. O'Connell, C.C. Coon and W. H. Walters, dated October 1, 1960, that certain British Columbia Life and Casualty Company of Vancouver, B.C., organised after March 20, 1958, Percy Winterborn, President.

Said assignee is hereby authorised and empowered to institute any action which a signor might otherwise bring for the enforcement of the conclusion of the purchase of the above-mentioned company.

October, 1960. On December 3, 1960, "To whom it may concern," a little agreement. It showed the address and this is the only important thing here. First and foremost it shows that O'Connell, Walters and the bearer of this is Walters, who got these first letters from Mr. Easton. It shows the address as B.C. Life and Casualty, Suite 204, 525 Seymour Street, Vancouver, B.C. The same address that he had been having his correspondence on oil leases, Crown granted timber leases and whatever. You name it, B.C. has it for sale.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of climate that we live in. So far in 1960, I've named the people that were involved. Then in March, 1961, an H. S. Reed appears. There were others involved, mind you but these are the major figures in those early days of B.C. Life and Casualty.

September, 1961, Columbia Pacific Holdings set up with 5 million shares. Now that was set up as a vehicle to activate B.C. Life and Casualty, to put them to work. Mr. Coon, on behalf of the other shareholders, transferred all his shares in B.C. Life and Casualty to Columbia Pacific, and in return all shareholders were to get 1,250,000 shares.

[ Page 80 ]

But the transfer was never quite completed. Never quite. Charles F. Jensen was brought in, on the sales and development side. He was the promoter from down south. He was brought in for a short period in that same year. Later in '61, Mr. Walters and Mr. Easton travelled around the U.S., promoting the company and in this junket they picked up a David Anderson of San Francisco, an insurance man who became executive vice-president of B.C. Life and Casualty.

Now all I'm indicating here is that this kind of crazy proposition made itself into an octopus that had 37,000 people of British Columbia investing in it — 37,000 people really made into suckers because the history of this company and its future has always been blacker than the ace of spades.

AN HON. MEMBER: A provincial company!

MR. COCKE: Now, Anderson got a voting trust, mind you, of that 1,250,000 shares. He was the only individual that was given a specific allocation as far as we can find out from the files. How the rest of the 1,250,000 shares were allocated wasn't firmly settled at all.

Now, many administrative problems followed. Reed, in his promotion activity, promised many appointments to people in the United States and there is record of this. You know, they would appear as directors in this company. It was sort of an enticement to invest. This raised funds and it also raised a great many hackles down in the United States.

Some major investors at this time were Henry Mode of Los Angeles and Inch Brothers Construction and many, many small investors — from Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington and California.

In all this promotion of stock in this company, the American federal securities regulations were being broken, because the regulations are explicit in that they say you cannot raise money inter-state for a company whose principal business is out of the country. So they're breaking their own law.

They had a head office in B.C., but in this adventure, the only Canadian so far that I can see in the whole thing is Don Easton. Mind you Reed became a landed immigrant later in 1961.

Time went on and new names appeared, like Rodney Stookey, in 1963 — the first president of B.C. Life and Casualty — then in 1964 Columbia Beneficial Holding was formed by Reed and Stookey to whom Columbia Pacific stock had been transferred by Coon and others.

Goodbye past friends. This is the time that there were a lot of shaken-off people, who had been early investors. I am not suggesting I have any truck with any of these investors. I am just indicating the kind of company that attracted 37,000 people from B.C. to invest their money later on.

During late 1964 and in early '65 offerings were made to our public. Thousands and thousands of $5 shares to B.C. investors, that's what happened then, and then later life insurance was sold to the same group.

With a law suit impending later in 1969 things became a little bit difficult, and Mr. Reed quit at that time. Then finally came the N.W.L. take-over which was a memorable affair in Vancouver — most of us remember the headlines that occurred around that and Hon. Members on this side and the other side of the House, I am sure, have spoken on it from time to time.

Who profits? Who profits from this kind of activity, Mr. Speaker? A long line of leeches and bloodsuckers.

Who pays? It's our own unprotected people, Mr. Speaker. That's who pays for this sort of work. Poor old W. H. Walters is still sitting in the wings, Mr. Speaker, with a large file and a letter from a Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott tells him what he has to tell him. This is the Securities Commission, written May, 1971, to Mr. Walters:

Dear Sir:

Re: Columbia Pacific Holdings

We have completed our investigation of this matter and have checked all the various documents in the hands of your solicitor as well as certain documents in the hands of the Columbia Beneficial Holdings Ltd.

A careful review of the evidence does not disclose anything which would establish a prima facie case of breach, either of the Criminal Code or the Securities Act. It would appear that the shareholders of Columbia Pacific Holdings Limited have been treated shabbily by some of the directors, who, when Columbia Pacific Holdings Limited could not raise the necessary financing to develop British Columbia Life Insurance Company, obtained financing through other sources and it would appear decided to keep the benefits of that financing for themselves.

There are a number of similar cases based on somewhat similar situation and in them it has never been suggested that any criminal act has been committed. In fact in some of the instances the courts have ruled that even no civil wrong was done.

You must realise that there is a substantial distinction between a breach of duty and a criminal offence, and as stated we see no evidence that any criminal offence has been committed here. Accordingly we are closing our files.

O.K., and that's the way it is. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there were 37,000 shareholders in this country left out in the cold because of those kind of directors that were always attached to that company all the way through the years.

Where is the law to protect that little guy? Not only a weak law, but there's an understaffed commission in this province, Mr. Speaker — one lawyer and four investigators.

What happened when the Medicorps issue hit the pages? Nine days that whole commission met on that plan. Nine days with nothing else in front of them because they had no time and not enough staff.

It's common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that an illegal sale of shares in unlisted corporations is low on the priority list of the commission. It has to be because they only have so much that they can do. So it is a common occurrence in this province. There is very little protection for minority shareholders under present security laws so many of the wrongs are covered in court. You know the verdict: "Mistaken judgment." That's really what happens as a result of a lot of these cases.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Companies Act is only concerned that there is an opportunity for redress. It's a cover-up job. They don't really care in the Companies Act whether or not redress is effective. So we call for real changes in the Companies Act.

Here is one other point too and I think this is important. In B.C., as far as I can see, it's not criminal to break a voting trust. I think that's elementary, it should certainly be criminal. I think B.C. is vulnerable. It's "home sweet home" for the rip-off artist.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken a good deal of time this afternoon, and I haven't had an opportunity to speak on health and other issues but I certainly will in future debates.

[ Page 81 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here once again and I would like to begin by acknowledging a happy event during the year that has proven to be a very good event for British Columbia — and that was the appointment of the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot). I think that the Hon. Minister has handled his portfolio extremely well in the first year, and I wish him a cool head and all kinds of luck in '72 because he's going to need it. At any rate I think that is an excellent happening.

Today, I would like to begin by talking about Delta, because Delta is experiencing a very dynamic kind of growth at a rate of 119 per cent over five years. It continues to be the fastest-growing municipality in Canada and of course with this growth comes a multiplicity of problems. Firstly paramount among these is inter-municipal transportation.

You know, I think if you could write the history of Delta over the last 20 years, it would be very closely paralleling the history of the Department of Highways, because it was the opening of Deas tunnel — it was the building of the ferry slip, it was the improvement to Highway 10. Certainly highways have been an influential factor and even at that time, some 15 years ago, plans were made and they were made well. Also the development of the Queensborough bridge — all a first step to making another crossing of the Fraser River.

But it seems that these well-laid plans somehow in the last few years have disintegrated into some kind of confusion, because where is the Annacis Island crossing now?

When I was first elected I understood the Port Mann bridge was being built and the Knight Street bridge and the Annacis Island Bridge. But knowing how long it is taking to construct the Knight Street bridge — and I realise there are good technical reasons for this, settling of fill and so forth, and I know it is proceeding now — at any rate, seeing the length of time it takes to build a bridge and looking to the Third Narrows crossing for another little example, I know that we must start pulling that brief off the shelf. I would like the Hon. Minister to reach up among those cobwebs or wherever it is and pull down that Annacis Island crossing because I want to tell you the people in my area are concerned and have great need of that type of a crossing.

I would say to the Hon. Minister that I know it's a big job that he has throughout the province — there are so many roads we all need, so many bridges, so many highways — but I would hope that now he could come with me and come and drive down Scott Road to the Pattullo bridge.

I think the member from Surrey would agree that if you can get across it the Pattullo bridge is now carrying more traffic than it was when the Port Mann bridge opened.

Drive through the Massey tunnel and you realise that before we can even plan another Massey tunnel, it will be needed.

Ten years ago the department and it is that planning that led to the development of Delta. But somehow now it seems instead to be following development and I think that I would like to see that changed again.

It might well be said that the region is looking into the matter of transportation or the federal government should participate through the Urban Affairs Department. This is true. They should, and they are. But coupled with this action, we need an aggressive, visionary plan from the Hon. Minister and his highly-qualified and capable staff. I look forward to the next speech of the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Black) because I'm confident that he is fit and ready this year to bring forward such a proposal that has been waiting for so many months and years in the planning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why this year?

MR. WENMAN: Why this year? I would say that last year the Hon. Minister had a very heavy year with pensions, with the centennial year. He's had a lot of duties to occupy his time and he carried them out well. But I would hope that this year while his emphasis was on the pension issue, on the centennial issues last year, this year he will look towards bringing forward an excellent and aggressive plan, a visionary plan for at least the lower mainland.

I think the Hon. Minister's department is ready to act and is acting and give him even more and more enthusiastic support. They need a little extra push now, a little extra enthusiasm, and I think 1972 will be a good year for him and for the province of British Columbia relating to highways.

I hope, in fact, the Hon. Minister will show the same kind of aggressive and enthusiastic response to the building of an Annacis Island crossing, to a plan for the lower mainland area, as he showed when he responded to my actions last year. I want to congratulate the Hon. Minister on it. I think he responded as someone in his position must and I am very pleased that we now can once again get onto the causeway.

As a little token of a reminder, the Hon. Minister always gives presents too, I have two little presents for the Hon. Minister today. I have a little replica of a bulldozer here and behind the bulldozer I have a nice little boat that he can haul along and perhaps launch in the water.

I want to thank the Hon. Minister very much on behalf of the residents of Delta and Richmond for removing the barricades. It is appreciated, it's just a start.

You know, some times you wonder if your words are being heard over there and then you have to take a little action. But they are to some degree. But you know not only are they heard there I'm happy to say to the Leader of the second Opposition that they are even heard in Ottawa.

Ottawa has come forward and not only has our government let us onto the causeway once again, but Ottawa comes through. They said they will provide $15,000 to build a boat launching ramp anywhere we want in Delta. On top of that, they will pave three acres of parking, anywhere we want so we can get these little boat owners into the water. I want to compliment them on it and the only problem of course, is the location.

Now that they are so willing and ready I want to remind them they have a location, a beautiful location. They have a causeway too. It's called the Roberts Bank causeway and that would be an excellent place to put a boat launching facility. I'm sure that this year we're going to have access onto the Tsawwassen causeway. We're going to have a boat launching ramp off the Roberts Bank freeway and we're really going to have some action for the people of Delta.

I know that I do appreciate that and I hope that when the Hon. Minister is on the phone to Ottawa, he'll remind them that they do have a spot, they don't have to look further. They have a spot there.

They're claiming it's not in British Columbia, nor is it apparently in Delta, it is in some new country in some new province, somewhere in Canada or some other country, I don't know.

I asked the M.P. about that causeway and said to him: "Where is it? Is it in Delta?" Well now, he couldn't really say it was because the government hadn't taken a stand on that

[ Page 82 ]

and they'd said so far that it wasn't in British Columbia, it wasn't in Delta. I wonder what the name of the new country is going to be — or the new province, or the new municipality here.

At any rate, certainly I do appreciate the support that we have had from the Hon. Minister and you might expect that today I was going to attack him. But I want to assure him that I'm not because since that time he has given me an excellent response and we're beginning the widening of Highway 17 and I'm sure that he's going to look at Scott highway next. There is another long list that I will be discussing with him during his estimates and I'm sure we can get some good response there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WENMAN: That's right. I gave him the material to go to work there. He's got the bulldozer, then after he has spent a 12-hour day on the bulldozer, he can get out in his little boat, take it down and launch it. Be just great.

AN HON. MEMBER: He gets a power boat next time.

MR. WENMAN: Seriously though, in the lower mainland a major concern is that of transportation. Other areas in North America have recognised the problem and are acting on it and we have to some degree too. In Washington D.C., the sight of sleek, comfortable buses wheeling along past frustrating congested lines of automobile traffic is luring thousands of American commuters out of their cars and into buses.

In San Francisco, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system will provide 75 miles of exclusive right-of-ways, reducing commuter time and frustration drastically as it whisks along 130 feet below the surface of the bay.

In the Greater Vancouver area motorists in rush hour traffic lean on their horns in desperate frustration.

As I said, while I recognise that the region will probably prove to be the vehicle that will carry the transit authority through to completion, it is necessary that that vehicle is encouraged and nurtured and brought along.

That responsibility of encouragement I think should come from the provincial government. The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) has spoken on it to some degree but we need a bigger push than that. We need the Hon. Minister of Highways to stand up and have a vision about what kind of a transportation system we are going to get there and to get behind and start pushing.

We need the Hon: Minister of Commercial Transport (Hon. Mr. Richter) to do the same thing. We need the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to do the same thing. I know that the government can recognise when the people are expressing a need, and while some people say it is early in rapid transit I don't think it is too early. I think the time is now, the need is now, and people want it.

They want the words and the guidance and the encouragement of the provincial government to get on with the show in the dynamic way that roads have been produced in other parts of British Columbia, that transportation systems have been encouraged. We need the same thing in the lower mainland.

Five years ago, we might well have been too early to talk people from their cars and onto buses. In fact in my constituency, in the Tsawwassen area, we tried commuter buses several times and they failed. But I am happy to say that for the past two years they have been running successfully from Vancouver.

We have two buses running every morning, and that's just a start. The only thing that's holding it up from being three is that we can't get a third bus because the two have been gained from private enterprise and there are no more available. They come all the way from North Vancouver.

We would like the Pacific Stages or someone else — perhaps through Mr. Kelly's report on bus lines we will be able to do this through the regional district. But as I say we need an encouragement from the provincial government to get the ball rolling. Because they are being stymied — the bus itself is slow as a car because it doesn't have any right-of-ways to get to Vancouver quickly. It is moving in the same stream of traffic as the car.

I think these endeavours must be encouraged in several ways.

There must be control of private vehicle traffic and this should be accomplished through control of downtown parking rates. The authority in charge of the transit system should have the power to set a surcharge on all parking revenue sufficient to offset transit losses.

Here, I am already assuming that there will be a Regional Transit Authority that exists, that the structure is set up, because as the Hon. second Member from Vancouver (Mr. Wolfe) has suggested for so many years this is an obvious first step. This will have a tendency to raise parking rates in the downtown area which will result in more people utilising the transit system.

Transit fares can and should be maintained at a nominal level.

Perimeter parking should be negotiated with shopping centre owners, who could bear some of the proportion of the cost of these lots, as this will add to their business. I understand Ottawa has a situation like this.

The P.N.E. are working on it in Vancouver but we need encouragement from the provincial government.

Perhaps along many of the right-of-ways of our highways there is extra land purchased that was not needed because of a change of plan. I can think of one such area in Delta at the corner of 17th and Highway 10. Why couldn't that land be employed for parking areas to move a commuter bus from, if there is the co-operation that we need extended from the departments here?

Curb lanes for buses only, strictly enforced, or secondary routing of buses through streets main paralleling main arteries. If we can't provide on Granville Street an extra lane for buses, let's move over one block, remove some of the stop signs and give a through lane to bus traffic there. We must let those buses get into Vancouver quicker than cars.

Another aspect: we should provide parking downtown for vehicles of those who wish to ride the bus to town, and then drive the car to the office. Because after all, one of the problems is that we can get our people to the buses in the morning alright. But once they get downtown they won't walk that 10-15 minutes. So perhaps it would be more valuable to even have the parking downtown where they could get in their car and then travel to their office.

The obvious benefit from controlling private vehicle traffic is that large multi-million dollar expenditures on freeways could be lessened. Traffic pollution problems will be lessened.

Traffic transit rates at a nominal level would not cause hardships on those persons in our society who can least afford high rates — namely low-income people who lack their

[ Page 83 ]

own private vehicles. We wouldn't mind so much having the massive low-income person in Delta if he could get into Vancouver to go to work. But he can't afford to get there right now in a private car. This plan could be implemented at once — the basic bus plan and there is movement to do so. Again, encouragement is needed from the provincial government.

Each year in the Legislature, I have spoken regarding senior citizens and I have asked each year in a row that the government consider the possibility of allowing senior citizens to defer their property tax.

This idea is gaining in popularity, and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has recommended it and certain cities have suggested they might start as pilot projects.

I would like to see this happen in the very near future. One of the problems, of course, is establishing an initial capital fund and even if we couldn't allow them to defer all of their taxes perhaps we could start by allowing them to defer at least the increases for each year.

The guaranteed annual income plan we have been talking about for a long time. Perhaps we could start at the top. We have a type of guaranteed annual income already through pensions and so forth. Perhaps we could start at 50 or 55 and have a guaranteed annual income for all of those people and then lower it successively over five year periods.

A lot of people seem to get the impression that when you reach 65 you suddenly have no desire to live in a home. This is not true. Most people want more to live in their homes when they retire. They have time to go into their gardens, they have time to enjoy their homes that they have worked for all their lives. But they are being taxed out of their houses, and one way if we can't implement the deferred tax — or perhaps we should do that as well — is that we could give senior citizens who are attempting to maintain their homes, say, $20. If we are going to increase the grant, let's give $15 to the general population and $20 to senior citizens or $25. Give the senior citizens a little extra break.

One of the things I felt that was missing from the Speech from the Throne was an accent on senior citizens. It's true that we've met the housing demand largely in my constituency. We have three senior citizens' housing projects, each of which has vacancies. We've met that problem now we have to move into intermediary care. But how about those trying to exist in their own homes? So hopefully, an idea might be to give an extra $10 grant to the home-owner's grant to senior citizens.

Last year, the centennial year, a great year in British Columbia's history, we all became more aware that we were British Columbians. We became more aware that we were Canadians, of a Canadian identity. We built up a new kind of enthusiasm. A new kind of enthusiasm for our culture and our heritage and I would like to compliment the Premier once again on the cultural funds and so forth that have assisted in this line.

But today, I would like to suggest another fund. I would like to suggest that the British Columbia government establish a multi-cultural heritage fund. We all share this priceless heritage and their care and preservation is our pledge to future generations and our share in tomorrow.

Nothing can better serve to give us an awareness of this heritage than our pioneer buildings, artifacts and objects, historic sites, and places of natural beauty. In them can be found the romance and history of more than 100 years of British Columbia.

Yet the toll of neglect and decay and the inroads of industrial and urban expansion mounts with each and every year. It would be an irreplaceable loss and a source of regret to future generations if what remains of our inheritance were thoughtlessly allowed to disappear and be consumed from an advancing civilisation.

I would therefore propose that a $5 million "British Columbia Multi-cultural Heritage Fund" be established to secure examples of architecture and life styles of all the cultural heritages from the earliest native Indians to today's proud young Canadians.

I am stressing the word "multi-cultural" because I think it's important in British Columbia that we know we are all reminded — the great Attorney General would certainly know of tremendous Swedish families and I'm sure that the great Capozzis would know of some great Irish families, and the Premier, I'm sure, he would know of some great French families, some great French cultural areas that could be preserved and restored.

At any rate this is being done and this is the trend that is being experienced across North America. One example of that we saw in the southern United States. So many of the tremendous homes and of the civil war were decayed and destroyed and now they have been preserved in Savannah, Georgia and I think that that kind of thing is the type of thing we would want to do here.

As I said, throughout the province we've had individuals, individual organisations, individual cultures, the various ethnic groups have been forging ahead and trying to establish centres. Let us help them establish these centres and let us let their cultural contribution build as a part of our Canadianism and not be totally submerged, but be an accent of what Canadians are and what they stand for.

So I would hope that the government would give consideration for once again a British Columbia Multicultural Heritage Fund.

Another concern that I have, moving back again to my local area — not a local area because it is a local area for all of British Columbia. And I'd like to talk for a while about the Fraser sewer — or the Fraser River.

The noticeable year-by-year increase of domestic and industrial wastes poured into the waters of the lower Fraser River are a source of grave concern to the people of Delta and to the commercial fishermen who are dependent on the salmon of the Fraser River for the origin of their livelihood.

Those who are advocates of the use of the Fraser for waste disposal claim that the river's dilution factor is such that we should have no fear of detrimental effect on either health of persons who work on the water or for the survival of fish or the ecology of that river and the many fish that use that river travelling from river to sea.

It is also known that due to the very low gradient of the river's lower reaches the Fraser is subject to very great influence of the tides of the Georgia Strait. Strong reverse flows and tidal influences are noted for the greater part of the year as far upstream as the Vedder River.

In normal years reverse flows in lower reaches could be expected for approximately nine months in each year and in years of extremely low outflow volume, such as in 1969 and 1970, the period of tidal influence could be extended up to 10 months.

During the period of reverse flow when high tides of 14 ft. and over occur, together with south-easterly winds, waste material deposited at the site of the Gilbert Road outfall on the south arm of the Fraser River could be carried back upriver to and beyond the outfall of the proposed Annacis

[ Page 84 ]

Island sewage treatment plant.

The effluent discharged from the outfall of the Annacis Island sewage treatment plant on the same tide could reach Douglas Island at the entrance to the Pitt River. These lengthy reverse flows occur in this region not because of tidal influence of the Georgia Strait alone but because of the fact that Pitt Lake also acts as a storage basin, drawing water for the Fraser River through the connecting Pitt River.

At certain times of the year there are periods when the river's outflow volume at New Westminster is very little greater than that of the reverse flow volume. Consequently, waste materials discharged at this site could take up to two days to clear the mouth of the river.

It is a fallacy to state that the tides help to flush the river. In reality, they merely persist in keeping the effluent in the river, depositing it on the shores and river bottoms. Certainly with the magnitude of effluent, combined with the action of the tide, discharge from the river is also deposited on ocean shores.

There are fears that the building of the primary sewage treatment plant at Annacis Island serving the eastern half of Greater Vancouver region, Surrey, Burnaby, Pt. Coquitlam, Pt. Moody, New Westminster, Fraser Mills and Delta, would seriously affect the water quality of the south arm of the Fraser River.

The south arm of the Fraser River, while the situation is getting worse, is currently at a reasonable standard and we want to keep it there and take it and make it and improve it.

At present large numbers of small domestic effluent outfalls are located over many miles along the river. Under these conditions a certain degree of dilution takes place. However, with only one huge outfall discharging effluent collected from these various cities and municipalities we fear the receiving waters near and westward of the discharge point will further deteriorate to an extent where survival of our salmon species will be more difficult. For this reason it is imperative to move to secondary sewage treatment of the Fraser River now.

We want to move from primary treatment to secondary treatment. It's one thing to dilute the material by bringing it into the river at many outfalls, but if we gather it altogether at the Annacis Island even with primary treatment and dump it into the south arm of the Fraser River there's a fear that the Fraser River will be killed.

We don't mind being the garbage dump for Vancouver. Because we have the sanitary fill from all of Vancouver dumped into the bog in Delta. But it gets to be a little bit much when everybody wants to flush their toilets all over us down the Fraser River. And I think it's time that we moved now, to secondary sewage treatment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before it's too late!

MR. WENMAN: Right! While we are on the subject of the Fraser River and fishermen, I certainly recognise that the power survey being carried on in the province is not complete. But I would express the concern of the people of Delta from each and every organisation and individual that I have talked to — they have been opposed and concerned about the development of the Moran dam. And I think that when the report comes in we should look at it very carefully, and very quickly reject that idea.

Not just on the basis of damage to the fisheries industry, the ecology, the flooding and all these other items that are so often mentioned — in Delta we experienced in 1948 a great flood we don't want to take the chance of having that flooded again as the result of a dam being built. With a natural or man-made catastrophe — such as an earthquake or a war or this sort of thing — to build a dam immediately above a city of two to three million people by the year 2000 would be an extreme folly.

After all when we build a dam of that size and that magnitude we are in effect building that dam forever. Those dams last and go on and on and on. And forever, while hydro power is the power to use now, all indications are that while nuclear power may not be here at the moment now, in five or 10 or 15 or 20 years it will be in all probability…if it isn't now it will be. All signs point to this. There is a doubt, there are still many doubts.

So we're only talking in terms of five or 10 or 15 years, so with those years there is a very, very large resource and many other rivers in British Columbia — many other areas of British Columbia — to develop a temporary power supply, perhaps even further power from the Peace River dam. But I think it would be a very retrograde step, to be even thinking or moving in the direction of a Moran dam at this time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've been a Member now, this is my sixth session, and one of the most enthusiastic response I've had from the community is over the development of a community hospital.

In fact there's been such an enthusiasm that in the membership of our hospital auxiliary we have 200 members all out there working three or four nights a week raising money.

We've got another 650 members of the society and they're enthusiastic and they want that hospital now, of course, like everyone else.

Now, we have been very, very pleased with the development of the hospital so far. In Delta we have always tried to be most co-operative. Perhaps Hon. Members haven't heard about the squabbles over this, and squabbles over that because we've been able to resolve these quietly through a very kind of persuasive co-operation.

At any rate we have had a lot of patience with the growing pains of regional hospital districts. We were the first board incorporated. We are going to be the first hospital really to be built under this new kind of a structure. And it is rather painful on occasion.

But we have on other occasions received much and enthusiastic support. I'd just like to outline some of the steps because there may be Hon. Members here such as the Hon. Member for Coquitlam (Mr. Barrett) who may want to have an interest. There may be other areas that may want expansion in their hospital and they are going to have to deal through the same route.

However, the first step that was official, the first official publication, was on April, 1969. Dr. Purdy speaking in Delta said he strongly recommended that hospital sites be set aside as soon as possible. Way back in 1969 he was telling us we should get our hospital site established. In other words the hospital was going to be built.

On February 25, the hospital advisory board advised that a society needed to be organised and a site decided upon. Again the regional board is telling us, "get your society formed and get out there and get the site picked."

Again in '69, the government agreed. The Honourable Minister of Health agreed that a hospital society should be formed in Delta. And that was a significant action. Because by forming your society and giving your permission you are saying to the people of Delta, yes, we agree to form your

[ Page 85 ]

society a hospital is going to be built in Delta. And we appreciated that recognition from the provincial government way back in 1969. In 1970 the hospital society was formed and has grown to the proportions and the magnitudes of enthusiasm that I have suggested.

In 1971 the hospital society estimated that they would require about $10 million for 250 acute beds and 75 extended care beds.

July '71 the hospital society council and myself came to an agreement. This is a very rare thing. While in Coquitlam they were fighting over which and where the site would be and having ballots back and forth, in Delta we had an agreement — an agreement of the council, agreement of the hospital board, and agreement of myself. Complete local agreement. So with this agreement on the Arthur Drive site we have been and are most enthusiastic about its development.

And then a little later in '71 the regional hospital district and the provincial government B.C. Hospital Insurance Society agreed that all tests were complete on the site. It showed that the community's choice on the Arthur Drive site would be adequate from every economic and other points that could be conceived at this time.

And I am pleased to make an announcement today.

The Delta Community Hospital Board has made a decision. I'm pleased to say in the newspaper also we have a statement saying that a hospital would be built in Delta. I was so pleased. "Mr. Grierson of the Regional Hospital District announced yesterday. A new hospital will be built in Delta and Coquitlam." The regional district have given us their advice. Dr. Purdy of the advisory board has advised the regional district and the regional district has advised the Hon. Minister.

Now I think it is important to realise that the advisory board have looked at the situation. They have made an excellent report on the needs of hospitals in the area. They have advised the regional board…they have advised the provincial government that a hospital should be built in Delta.

We are very pleased with that advice and I hope Hon. Members will remember.

I hope that we will also remember that the regional hospital district and the advisory committee are not the Minister of Health. And they are making recommendations to the Minister of Health. The ball is now in his court and it's up to him to help decide on the priorities for the bylaws. We know for sure that in the next regional hospital district bylaw Delta will gain full construction costs and by 1975, as suggested by the regional hospital district, we will have a hospital in Delta. I am very, very pleased.

In fact we're so sure that the Hon. Minister's words will follow the advice of the regional hospital district that I am pleased to announce we have gone ahead and we have stepped out to help the provincial government, to help the regional district and we have secured a hospital site through a legal auction to purchase. Just to make sure the land is there, and it will be kept within a reasonable price range. Just to be certain, I am pleased to tell the government and to tell the regional district that we have the site, we are ready to go now. How about you?

As a matter of fact the site that we have chosen — the Arthur Drive site — the hospital board, the council, myself, the regional district have agreed it is at least equal to another site. With this agreement one of the things that we wanted to be sure to do was to preserve agricultural park land, so that we could have a place in the middle of this agricultural park land — a hospital which would have a most pastoral kind of theme around it. I understand in Victoria they have this kind of setting. Certainly this would be favourable to recuperating.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WENMAN: I couldn't tell you about the Clearwater situation. But I want to tell you that the priority of Delta is much higher because the population is growing at 119 per cent every five years. Now, that's just the starting of the acceleration. It's just starting by 27 per cent this year. So it's increasing even faster than that. Certainly it is needed.

With this increase of property you have just reminded me of another topic and that relates to one of my…

AN HON. MEMBER: The green belt?

MR. WENMAN: You got it. You got it. Right on. Now that shows you why he's a good Minister of Labour. He's right on there, really sharp.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member please address his remarks to the Chair?

MR. WENMAN: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know coming from that beautiful area of Prince Rupert how much you appreciate the greenery of the area, the open spaces that you have there, throughout your constituency. And we'd like to have some of this greenery maintained in the Delta area.

Open space can and must exist to provide relief from the urban social commercial and industrial jungle by offering free open land with greenery and flowers to replace the artificial frame and structure of an everyday city life.

A balance must be established and maintained between urban and rural land uses to give structure, shape and form to the city. Green wedges, ribbon of internal blocks of open space land must be reserved and preserved not last year, not next year, but now.

Winston Churchill said: "We shape our cities and our cities shape us." The current shape and lack of direction in the lower mainland of British Columbia is in a frightening stage of confusion and chaos developing in spite of rather than as a result of political leadership at all levels of government.

Municipalities have not been successful in holding open-space agricultural parkland. And regional districts are not going to be successful either. A whole new approach is essential.

The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Shelford) — another excellent minister of our government in his usual forthright manner looked at the problem. He saw the problem and he understood. And he knows that action must be taken now as well. And the Hon. Minister has suggested that the government might buy up the development rights. I would say this is at least a good start. Although I would have some reservation about the provincial government holding development rights.

I would say it's a good start and let's get at it now. I challenge the Hon. Minister to produce that legislation not next session, or the session after or the one after that, but this year. And I know it's difficult legislation to draw. But if it's so difficult to draw, draw it up in a skeleton form, give it

[ Page 86 ]

to your committee and we'll put some legislation around it that may work. At least it will be worth trying.

Half the people live in the lower mainland. The people that moved out to Delta, the people that are moving out to Surrey, to Langley, to Pitt Meadows, are moving out to get away from congestion and they want adequate and proper planning with greenery and green-belt interspersed throughout the development.

In fact, you know, I was very pleased to go through the library and find a quotation from a great British Columbian statesman. The author is from one of the local newspapers, but of course, the great statesman is the one and only Premier Bennett.

Now, what did our Premier say in I think it was 1946 — '46? Couldn't be. Oh, we would have it by now if it was '46. Must be the wrong date.

At any rate, it said: "Cities Encroaching On Farm Land Need For Expansion, Minister Says." This minister at this time was the Hon. Frank Putnam, and he said: "Cities are now spreading out so rapidly that they are encroaching on agricultural areas."

They were saying it in '46, they were right in '46. They are saying it in '71 and '72; they're right in '72. Now let's do something about it, if we recognise it.

And then who goes on to support this idea? W.A.C. Bennett, coalition member for South Okanagan. He reminded the Legislature that only 2 per cent of the land of British Columbia was arable. Well, that was his statement. At any rate, I remember hearing during the last session the Premier speaking on the apple orchards of Kelowna, the encroachment on them. I remember him speaking of parks, and that's why I know he supports this concept of agricultural parklands.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WENMAN: Get it in writing? Well I've got it in writing in the paper here. Now all we need is a firm commitment of support, and I look forward to the land-use committee.

We established a great piece of legislation last year called the Land-use Act. In fact I was really pleased to see as I came up the stairs there was an office there and it's got "Land-use committee" on the door, and they are starting to appoint staff.

They are starting to look at the problem. They are doing a survey. I was pleased that the Hon. Minister of Agriculture has recognised this problem in this case and has established an office and has taken a land inventory of the lower Fraser Valley.

I would just briefly like to conclude this section by once again quoting our great Premier W.A.C. Bennett, coalition member for South Okanagan, saying that only 2 per cent of the land of British Columbia is arable and needs protection.

I think that is a tremendous statement so I look forward to some action on that very, very soon. The time is moving along very quickly and I know another Hon. Member wants to speak. However there are just one or two other little items.

One. Like so many members of this Legislature, I have been concerned and tried to participate in the problems relating to nail polish remover, glue sniffing that has been talked about so much.

In fact I heard yesterday that "we are getting tired of it" and I hope we're getting tired of it to the point where we can forget it and we can get on with the other business of the House.

But I was interested to listen on television to the Hon. Ron Basford, the federal Minister of Consumer Affairs the other night. I was interested to hear him say that there was nothing he could do, because it wasn't in his jurisdiction — the municipalities and the province were the ones.

And I heard last week that the local council to their credit have started to take some action, saying that the provincial government, the Attorney General should act. I've heard the Attorney General say that the federal government should act. So we have gone the complete circle, and I agree with every one of them.

All levels of government should see the problem. When they see the problem, they should see that football and make a few scores by producing some kind of a solution to the problem. Now, there are solutions available at each and every level of government. Let none of us say it is not our responsibility. We have a responsibility and we must, as well as be concerned, be prepared to take action.

The federal government — we will start with them. The Hon. Minister seemed to have some concern and seemed to feel that he could do nothing. But that is one of the problems of the great bureaucracy today. We pass so many bills, we pass so much legislation that nobody — even the lawyers — knows all the legislation that we have. Because the Hon. Minister as he sat there and said he could do nothing wasn't aware of his own legislation.

In 1969 an Act to prohibit the advertising, sale and importation of hazardous products was passed. In that Act it said a few revealing things and the federal minister he could do nothing. But he has an Act that says:

An inspector may at any reasonable time enter any place where on reasonable grounds he believes any hazardous product is manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged, sold, stored, for sale and so forth.

He can also examine any product. He could open any product. He could examine the books and records relating to that product. He could seize the product or the substance. What could he do once he found that an offence was being committed? An offender is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1,000 or to imprisonment for six months or to fine and imprisonment both. For doing what? For selling, for offering for sale, exposing for sale or distributing. He could take action at any of those levels. The legislation even goes to outline what he could apply it to. "Household polishes and cleaning agents containing a petroleum distillate and chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons, glues for household and hobby craft use containing aromatic hydrocarbon solvents and ketone solvents. The legislation is here. The federal minister can act, and if the federal minister does not he is abrogating his responsibility as minister and the federal government are greatly to blame for the situation.

I would say at the municipal level, the municipality have taken their responsibility. They have dug, they had their lawyers go through and they are looking around and they're trying under their licensing department and congratulations to them.

If at the provincial level the Hon. Attorney General is certainly bound to be correct when he says we have no current laws to cover the situation. But if we haven't current laws what are we doing sitting here? That's what we're here for — to establish laws and I would say that even if the law is unworkable like our law on L.S.D. at least we must try. And we must through that trying show the people that we are concerned.

[ Page 87 ]

I think that we should establish a toxic solvent Act that would not permit the sale of these products to people under the age of 16. I have a list of the various products that are concerned and this could be written into the regulations.

The police in British Columbia see this happen on the streets. They're concerned but they're afraid to touch them because they feel the law is not currently adequate enough. The police need our help at this time to help solve this problem.

Not only that but we must go to another activities as well. It seems to me that when you get down to the bigger and the larger problems, certainly it goes back to the parents, back to our educational system. It seems to me that parents should know where their children are and be held more responsible for the actions of their children.

Perhaps we need the curfew not on the children but on their parents. It seems to me the Department of Education should re-examine excessive negative depressing and cynical values too often taught in schools through English and Social Studies curriculums. We must establish somehow in our schools and in our society more positive values, more positive and aggressive outlooks towards life. I would just like to hope that we can proceed with action and if a bill is not forthcoming I propose to submit a private member's bill that will be entitled Toxic Solvents Act.

I would conclude by this last statement. You know, it seems sometimes that in this business of being a representative it seems like all the time you're doing all the work and you wonder if anybody is listening. You really wonder and so I've done a little project to find out who really does all the work.

Who really does the work? The population of Canada is 22 million, but there are 7 million over 65 years of age leaving 15 million to do the work.

People under 21 total 10 million, leaving 5 million to do all the work. Two million government employees leave 3 million to do the work, with 500,000 in the armed forces it leaves 2,500,000 workers. Now deduct 1,250,000 provincial, municipal and city employees — this leaves 1,250,000 to do all the work. There are 250,000 people in hospitals, asylums, et cetera leaving 1 million people to do all the work. With 700,000 unemployed and 200,000 on welfare this leaves 100,000 to do all the work. Now it may interest you to know that there are 80,000 people out of the country at any one time and 19,998 people are in jail. This leaves only you and I to do all the work in Canada. I'm getting awfully tired of doing it all by myself so why won't the rest of you get with it?

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

MR. B. A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I know some members of the House are looking forward to the grand dinner this evening and I hope to be able to accommodate them with their patience and attention.

Mr. Speaker, during this past year, if I may address a few remarks to yourself, I had the opportunity to visit the State of Israel and was for a day the guest in the Israeli Knesset.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get the Attorney General's permission?

MR. CLARK: No I did not, no. I had forgotten that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I remember the former Attorney General who used to say he would complete his address with dispatch — unless of course, he was interrupted and with that suggestion I will continue.

Mr. Speaker, the Knesset in Israel is a very enthusiastic body of legislators and I was very impressed with it. But I thought you particularly would be interested in the fact that the Speaker of the Knesset fulfills his duties in an open neck sport shirt and short pants. I appreciate the climate is a little warmer but he certainly appeared to be comfortable, and I pass along his best wishes to you and his opinion of the dress of the House.

As a matter of fact, the general atmosphere of the Knesset was very informal and I was quite impressed with the atmosphere there.

They seemed very dedicated to their talk and, of course, they have very serious motivation which results in a great deal of concentration during the debate. They are debating topics which I think we can all understand are far more critical to them than perhaps some of the speeches we hear here.

But I was impressed with their determination and only wish that we could dispatch business as rapidly indeed, complete readings of bills in one day. The Hon. Member for Burnaby will be interested in a most informal question period that occurred every day with Ministers of the Crown being required to answer questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crown? What Crown?

MR. CLARK: Pardon me, Ministers of the Government, you're quite correct.

Dealing with the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, which is somewhat difficult and it's been made quite clear that this side of the House considers that there is very little to debate in that throne speech — and I won't belabour that point — even the Attorney General yesterday in telling us how exciting the throne speech was managed to utter his remarks with a smile.

It is virtually impossible to deal with that document in debate as an example of how we are going to launch ourselves into the second century.

I was particularly amused with the announcement in the throne speech that henceforth we will have a 30-minute tsunami warning, which I'm sure is encouraging to many. But having in my capacity as a newsman covered the Amchitka explosion of last year, I was somewhat startled to hear the 30-minute time period because I watched the equipment in Anchorage register tsunami warnings within 90 seconds of that particular explosion.

A look on the map will show that the distance was even greater than from here to Hawaii. So I'm not overwhelmed with confidence, Mr. Speaker, in the fact that we will have a 30-minute warning.

I'm not surprised, because I think it illustrates how this government has become too late and too slow. They have run out of ideas, Mr. Speaker, they are behind the times and they're ripe for defeat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over-ripe.

MR. CLARK: I wanted to wake them up. I think I did. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with the Vancouver

[ Page 88 ]

Province editorial that described the throne speech and its lack of content as the perversion of the political process. And I fully support that editorial comment.

Yesterday, as the Hon. Attorney General spoke, he attempted to fill the throne speech full of meaning. But in fact he devoted most of his time to replying to the leader of the Liberal party in his address to the throne speech which clearly illustrated to me that it wasn't until the leader of the Liberal party addressed his remarks to the throne speech that the Attorney General had anything to talk about.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: I was also amused as the Attorney General with a grandiose gesture took off his glasses and waved down the line and said: "Over there they are all like Don Quixote — they see evil everywhere."

The Hon. Attorney General doesn't even understand Don Quixote. He was the super optimist. Despite any evil he saw he continued to look for good. That's the difference between Hon. Members over there and us — optimism.

Once again, we see the Attorney General wrestling with a problem, and "if we've got another problem it must be Ottawa's fault." This was when he acknowledged that there was indeed a problem concerning glue-sniffing and solvent-sniffing.

The problem's been before him for some time. And I noticed he said in a rejoinder to the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition: "I'm here to govern, not you." Well, if the Hon. Attorney General's there to govern why hasn't he been doing something about this? And to suggest in a grand display of enthusiasm that he suddenly sent off a wire on Monday clearly illustrates that he wasn't concerned until Monday…

HON. MR. PETERSON: I haven't got an answer yet.

MR. CLARK: Oh, dear me, dear me! You haven't got an answer to your wire? Does that mean you don't know what to do until you get one? Because, Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the Hon. Attorney General gets his legal advice, but he's obviously short of it and we're prepared to help him out. Because if his legal department can't show him how he can deal with this now, we can. It's right in his Liquor Act.

You can deal with the sale and the public use of this particular substance.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: In the Liquor Act. Mr. Speaker, I note the Attorney General is shaking his head, but other provinces have taken this action. Alberta has taken the action. I've been in receipt of newspaper clippings for months now of convictions for using in a public place an intoxicating solvent. And if Alberta can do it surely British Columbia can do it. I even think it was Social Credit legislation. Don't they talk to each other? Or didn't the Hon. Attorney General talk to them?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I agree with Hon. Members, I don't care how you do it. I agree with the Hon. Member from Delta (Mr. Wenman). Federally, provincially, municipally — but do something, he is the Attorney General. One thing he could do, for example, right now.

HON. MR. PETERSON: You want to send them all to jail.

MR. CLARK: I'm going to deal with that. One thing he could do right now as Attorney General is to control the sale of these products at the municipal level through licensing. The municipal council could revoke through licensing. The municipal council could revoke the licences. And that is what Vancouver has done. Well, why hasn't he drafted a bylaw or instructed the municipal affairs department to draft a bylaw, send it to every municipality and urge its passing, immediately? Why not? He could have done it like that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: I was here and I listened and his answers were shallow, Mr. Speaker, he didn't deal with the very issue in his speech that he now mentions — and that is that you cannot legislate away the problem. There are children in this province having their lives ruined by this product now, and what has the government done by way of corrective action? Nothing! Where is the programme? Ask any parent in this province who has a child on this stuff what they find out if they call any of the offices in the community. Nothing…there is no direction from the Hon. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: …and no programmes.

MR. CLARK: Don't tell us blame Ottawa. Tell that to the parents whose children are on this stuff. And that's no excuse either to say: "What's wrong with the parents?" Let's deal with the children. I agree parents are irresponsible, they're as irresponsible as any of us. But once a child has been addicted to this stuff it's no use blaming the parents. That's not going to help the child any more.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned — while there was much laughter on that side of the House — that the throne speech presented by the leader of our group in the House, was the first example of subject capable of being debated. Since then many members have addressed themselves to those subjects.

Rapid transit: there was no mention of it in the throne speech. Into the new century when the municipalities of our country are facing this as a number one issue and have acknowledged it as such — yet there was no mention of it in the throne speech.

Where is the government's leadership on that issue? Are they speaking through the Hon. Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Wolfe) who was the first man on the government side to even refer to the problem?

I agree with what he said yesterday. The municipalities are more aware of this sort of problem than this government is.

What about the Burrard Inlet crossing? Oh, we'll blame Ottawa again for that one. But where is the provincial leadership regarding the third crossing of Burrard Inlet? There was no mention if it in the throne speech. This is a major crossing in our number one city. Is it so unimportant that it deserves no mention in the throne speech — whether it should go ahead or be cut back? It should be in the throne speech as to what government policy is.

Mr. Speaker, there was no mention in the throne speech of reform of this very assembly, despite the fact that the government knows from its own backbenchers that it's long

[ Page 89 ]

overdue. Only the Premier and his tired ministers are satisfied with the rules in this House. In my opinion the lack of mention of reform in the throne speech regarding our rules and the procedures in this assembly…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CLARK: …was in itself disrespect for the House and disrespect for Hon. Members of this House. That opening was a charade. The throne speech was an insult. Mr. Speaker, I tried to say last year and I say it again, what bothers me most about this is that if we are not prepared to reform ourselves the reform will take place in the streets. There is enough illustration of that around the world. And before those Hon. Members sit back and "ohh" and "ahh" they should just cast their minds back to last year in this province.

We should be the first to illustrate we're prepared to consider reform. Instead we sit back on rules and procedures dating from 1934.

Mr. Speaker, there was very little mention of labour policies of this government in the throne speech, some suggestion that we would be considering legislation. But the ultimate contempt for this House was surely the Minister of Labour bringing in the compulsory sections of our present labour legislation on the very day this House was meeting.

The prior Minister of Labour made it very clear in the previous session — we remember his remarks — that even though we disagreed with that bill he said we had his assurance that when the House was sitting, the House would deal with it. Yet the day before the Minister of Labour invoked the compulsory sections. Is he afraid to face this House with his actions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, he's afraid.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, as we face many labour contracts in this coming year…

AN HON. MEMBER: No way you'll face them.

MR. CLARK: We have every possible proof that the compulsion used by this government has increased tension as we predicted it would do and the Hon. Minister is not helping the situation with the action he took prior to the opening of this assembly.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CLARK: I wish to return, Mr. Speaker, to the visit I made to Amchitka earlier this year and my involvement in a campaign to make the public aware of the consequences of that particular action, an involvement that other members of this House joined me in. And I wish to make it quite clear that while I did not fear the consequences personally of the explosion I still strongly object on the basis this was an arms experiment and in my opinion arms experiments must cease and we have a responsibility to stand up and say so.

I'm appalled, Mr. Speaker, that there was no mention of that in the throne speech, no mention of the fact that a nation because of its size disregarded the feelings of the people of British Columbia. And a nation's size in my opinion does not justify irresponsible actions.

The only thing that happened in British Columbia from the government's point of view was their civil defense sirens all began to sound the day before. But nobody knew what it was for and ignored them anyway.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we are concerned about Amchitka — as many of us were — we should be totally alarmed over plans to ship oil along our coast. And in that regard I'm sorry the Hon. Minister who spoke earlier is not in his place because I wish to reply to some of the remarks he made.

He suggested for one thing that because oil drilling permits had been issued by the federal government that we had no right therefore to plead alarm over the shipment of oil down our coast.

What the Hon. Minister did not tell the House — and I repeat I'm sorry he is not in his place — what he did not tell the House in his pretty map he displayed before us was that there are many oil permits and sub-let permits in existence, both federal and provincial, and to the best of my knowledge none of those permits have been revoked provincially or federally.

He also did not mention, and this is the critical point, that last spring all permit holders under federal jurisdiction were advised that no drilling would take place because of an environmental study of possible effects of that drilling. No drilling permission has been given or that no drilling permission will be given. But the Hon. Minister didn't tell us that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER: He probably did so…

MR. CLARK: Oh, why don't you ask your own Minister why he hasn't revoked the permits your government issued in 1966?

But, Mr. Speaker, that I consider a red herring. Let's go to the issue. One ship disaster off the coast of British Columbia could spell the ruin of our coast and there was no mention of that threat in the throne speech. Now, where is the responsibility of leadership in this government? One must surely assume as a citizen of British Columbia that its government is not upset about the shipment of Alaska oil. Because surely if they were upset they would at least have mentioned it in the throne speech.

Where is the government action regarding the shipment of Alaska oil? As the Hon. Attorney General pointed out to us yesterday, they are the government so what are they doing about it? Nothing!

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of advertising in our province over the past year since we met. The leadership contenders have had their pictures in the paper. Those Hon. Members shouldn't get upset, all the objection is from the minister who didn't think to put his own picture in the paper. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't worry, he knew what he was doing.

MR. CLARK: Never mind, he's taking note.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait until next year…

MR. CLARK: Wait until next year.

[ Page 90 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers are going to really have it tough.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the motivation for the campaigns, I suspect, was political. But I would like to except from that the campaign of the Motor Vehicle Department and agree with the Hon. Attorney General yesterday. It was a good campaign, and as we move to this sort of campaign and I personally hope we do more of it. I would ask the House to consider one of the greatest dangers that could follow such a campaign and that is that we're talking about a lot of money in advertising and agencies place advertising. If you want to know what kind of dollars we're talking about look in the public accounts. Just under one agency like James Lovick — $774,000 plus. It doesn't take much arithmetic to work out the commission on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: They know how to spell Bennett.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, other jurisdictions have faced up to the problem of the possibility of government advertising being used as a straight bribe both at the agency level and at the media level. And I think the parliament of Britain have solved this issue and I would urge the Attorney General to consider it here before we face the problem. That is, an agency that accepts government business is not allowed to accept political business. A simple procedure.

In the British parliament the legislation clearly spells out to all advertising agencies "if you accept the campaign from a political party in an election you cannot accept government advertising campaign during the length of that government's stay in office." And I pass that on, I think it is a constructive suggestion because we're talking about a lot of dollars.

I wish now to deal with a subject in the throne speech that by its omission to me is the most glaring condemnation of the government.

There was nothing in the throne speech for that segment of our population which has been most affected by the increasing cost of living. And I'm referring to the elderly, the elderly on pensions and fixed income. There could have been lots of things in the throne speech for them.

The desperate need for chronic care, which in my riding still sees elderly people forced to pay $450, $500, $600 a month for nursing home care, the increasing desperate need for elderly residential homes — no mention in the throne speech.

No mention in the throne speech of the possibility of people on pensions at least having their drugs cost paid — even that is a minimum.

No mention in the throne speech about even the possibility of allowing them to ride free without complication on our provincial transportation systems — mainly the buses.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Members on that side appreciate how much a few dollars affects the budget of a senior citizen. To give an example, there are a group of senior citizens in the City of Vancouver right now who are facing a short food budget because B.C. Telephone Company insisted as they moved into one of the senior citizens' homes they all pay a $10 transfer fee. That's $10 off their food budget, Mr. Speaker, and that to them is a very, very serious situation. Nothing in the throne speech.

Nothing in the throne speech about expanding our medicare services at least to the elderly for hearing aids and batteries. The old age pensioner who has a hearing problem eats less and more poorly because of the cost of his hearing aid batteries. Thirty-five cents may not bother the Hon. Minister but he doesn't live on an old age pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: Neither do you…

MR. CLARK: The cost of a hearing aid battery can make the difference between a good and bad food budget and a good and bad meal for a pensioner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-two cents each.

MR. CLARK: And all we get from the backbenchers again is what the Hon. Attorney General preaches — blame Ottawa, blame Ottawa. But the Hon. Premier is not governing in Ottawa. He's governing here and he's got the power to do something about it right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Do something, do something.

MR. CLARK: They'll do nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Do something? You're not even governing here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CLARK: We've already heard more of the Premier's policies tonight than we got in the throne speech. I'm going to carry on. We might really learn something.

Mr. Speaker, there was nothing in the throne speech about the possibility of at least including prosthetic appliances for the elderly under medicare. The tragedy of seeing an elderly person who has a deformed limb for reasons of age or accident, who can't afford the corrective prosthetic appliance. Even that. No mention in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, the only encouraging thing I find for the elderly in the province, and it wasn't in the throne speech, but rather in the debates of other Hon. Members in this House, is the possibility that the concept of funding land taxes is catching one. But still the message hasn't got across there. This, with a very small amount of money, could have been in the throne speech and it would have provided a great deal of hope for the elderly.

Mr. Speaker, I give the House just one example for the sixth time as a member in the hope that the message will get through across there. They have the power right now to alleviate the tax burden on the senior citizen who owns his own home. I give you one piece of property in my constituency, for Hon. Members who aren't familiar with this. In the Lynn Valley area, this piece of property has never had a mortgage on it because the people who bought it and built there, saved first. The home was built in pieces as they had the money for it and now as a widow, the woman who owns this property owns her home outright. Yes, and she owns a piece of property that could be sub-divided into three lots and in our market, I would not deny that the value of the land has increased measurably…

HON. MR. BENNETT: What is the present value?

MR. CLARK: I'll tell the Hon. Premier. In our minds, in our values, the value has increased. But to this 84-year-old

[ Page 91 ]

woman, the only value that property has is, is that it is where she lived with her husband. That is where she wants to die, that is where she wants to tend her garden. She doesn't want to cut off a lot, she doesn't want to leave a big estate. The property is only valuable to her as the place where she lived for the last 40 years.

Just taking five years, Mr. Speaker. In 1967, the lands and improvements were worth $6,975 — and I am quoting here from the assessments notices of the district of North Vancouver. This is the assessed value. In 1968, $7,315; in 1969, $7,463; in 1970, $9,085; in 1971, $10,681; in 1972, the year we didn't have any tax increases in British Columbia, $15,823. An increase in five years of $8,848.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The market value?

MR. CLARK: This is the assessed value.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, what's the market value?

MR. CLARK: You can work out the market value. But, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the Hon. Premier doesn't understand. The 84-year-old lady is not interested in the market value. She wants to be able to live the rest of her life there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the market value of your property in Kelowna?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) has the ability to let that woman live there. He has the ability. All he has to do is set up a provincial fund, by which the municipalities enable people in this situation to charge their taxes against their property.

If only that had been in the throne speech. It wouldn't even cost the government very much money, because money would be coming in and out of that fund regularly.

Well, maybe the message is going across, because the first time I mentioned it in my first year in this House I well remember the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, shouting across: "Poppycock, it wouldn't work." It will work. The Union of B.C. Municipalities now agrees it will work. Your back-benchers say it will work. It's only the Municipal Affairs Department or the Ministry of Finance that's dragging the lead.

I note too, Mr. Speaker, that the Vancouver Province editorial of this week has picked up this very same idea and supported it and I would urge the government to once again consider that proposition.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn now to the question that was raised by the leader of the Liberal Party concerning energy development in the province. Another glaring hole in the throne speech. No clear-cut policy as to what this government's energy plans are. The Hon. Minister concerned, speaking earlier today, did have something to say about it but his answer seemed to me as I listened to be that the province would best benefit from the full utilisation of the power resources we were now developing.

Well, if that's what the Hon. Minister said, and I think it was, then I don't think he listened to what the leader of the Liberal Party had to say because that's exactly what the leader of the Liberal Party said. But it's the long range planning that we do not have from this government. But once again, Mr. Speaker, energy resources and their development are becoming matters of public discussion and concern. Once again policy decisions which this government has tried to keep in secrecy, are before the public.

The gas pipe-line debacle clearly demonstrates to what extent Hon. Ministers over there have lost hold of the reins. But the potentially disastrous consequences of the ill-considered policies are becoming clearly visible over the Moran dam issue. Not only have ministerial statements been utterly unclear and confusing but, one would suspect, purposely misleading. Yet this summer travellers along the Fraser Highway could see your exploratory workings, Mr. Speaker, but their purpose was concealed in meaningless statements.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the moment is not appropriate for me to ask the indulgence of the House to let me proceed on the understanding that I won't be long.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed, agreed.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, getting back to the Moran dam issue, the Premier has stated that no one on that side has advocated the Moran dam. That in itself would be a policy statement we'd welcome. Let's have the Hon. Minister clearly stand up and say: "I do not believe in the Moran dam."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Our policy very clearly states that the very feature of the government is that this government does not advocate it. You…

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against it?

MR. CLARK: While I would welcome the opportunity of back and forth debate, the Hon. Premier's words were very clear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CLARK: The Hon. Premier's words did not answer the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right, evasion again.

MR. CLARK: The Hon. Premier is not facing up to the people on this issue. The government is not facing up to the people on this issue. The least thing the throne speech could have said was yes or no on the Moran dam.

SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Yes or No? Yes or No? Yes or No?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If this House won't settle down, I'll settle it down by adjourning it.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; To resolve the issue I will cut my statements by three pages and challenge the government through its leading speaker tomorrow, a very able speaker, to stand up and declare government policy, yes or no on the Moran dam.

What we clearly want to hear is that it is the policy of the government of British Columbia not to build a dam at

[ Page 92 ]

Moran! Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Hon. Minister of Municipal of Affairs to make that statement tomorrow, and we will all welcome it, that the government will not build a dam at Moran. Unless that statement is made the Hon. Premier once again has been shown up as using double words in answering the people of British Columbia.

So we will wait with anticipation tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs rises. His first words should let us know what government policy is on the Moran. We won't worry, Mr. Speaker, that he's not the Hon. Minister of Resources. We're used to other ministers usurping roles all over the place so that won't bother us at all. Especially that Hon. Minister.

It's been another rough year in many ways around the world and while foreign policy is not in the purview of this parliament, we are elected to express the opinions of people in British Columbia.

I would like to state very clearly, once more, that if the world doesn't pretty soon learn to live together without the threat of force and the use of force, I don't know what the future of man is going to be. The war has spread in Vietnam, we have had a war in Pakistan, we have religious turmoil in Ireland. Frankly Mr. Speaker, in my opinion we, even though a small nation, have been unwilling to take the lead. Canadian jets were flown by Pakistani pilots in that war. They got there by the most devious methods.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who sold them?

MR. CLARK: The government of Canada sold them and I am condemning them for it.

In this past month, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada sold 20 jets to Venezuela and then they had the gall in their ministerial announcement to say that it would help the Canadian economy. These are matters of national policy, but we should do everything surely, within our power in this House too, to influence our national government to stop such folly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and I will save the rest of my remarks for the next debate.

HON. D. R. J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I didn't realise that I was being awaited with such eager anticipation. I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett presents the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company statement of accounts as of December 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.