The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, in the Ladies' Gallery today we have the President of Rebec Assembly of British Columbia, Mrs. Marie Prior, of Kelowna. I'm sure the Members would wish to welcome her here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, there are today almost 300 visitors to the legislative precincts from Surrey. First, Mr. Speaker, there's a joint delegation which came to see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brothers) today. I think first the Surrey school board and the Surrey Schoolteachers' Association, Mrs. McClurg, Mrs. Weremchuk, Mr. Schmidt, from the school board, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Powlick from the teachers' association. I'd like the House to welcome them together with 155 school teachers from the Surrey school district a large group of pupils from Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary School and a large group from Royal Heights School.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Industrial Development Trade and Commerce.

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, we have in the Ladies' Gallery today eight ladies of the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary and give them a good hearing today so they'll know exactly how democracy works.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, it's not very often I get a chance to get up at the beginning of a sitting and announce anybody from my area but I have two schoolteachers, Mr. Ian Weatherly, from Cranbrook, and Mr. Ted Dabour from Kimberley representing the schoolteachers down here and they're in the gallery and I hope that you will look after them.

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

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Highways): Well, Mr. Speaker, it isn't very often that I have the opportunity of making introductions of people in the gallery.

All of us have been acquainted with the civil service for many, many years. Those who are active partners with civil service in government know the loyalty of these people and there's two such ladies in the gallery.

This is the first time to the best of my knowledge that they have had an opportunity of seeing parliamentarians at work in parliament as private citizens. Without reflection on anyone else I want to tell you that these two ladies are two of the great secretaries of government, in the person of Mrs. Hymar, Tommy Myard's former secretary and indeed the great Mary Taylor, my former secretary.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I have the honour to present a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act, and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House February 18, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 39, Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act. On the recommendation of the committee, bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver East.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny, shortly called The Sunshine Law.

Motion approved. Bill No. 41, An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, it's nice to have an opportunity for once to speak at 2:00. There's a little larger size of House than perhaps I've been used to in the past. I would consider that this might be my maiden speech at 2:00 and I'm sure the Members of this House will treat it in that way.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: They're here in spirit. They're coming, don't worry.

Mr. Speaker, in North Vancouver we don't want to be outdone by the Member for Burrard who last year distributed to this House a record of the Kitsilano Boys' Band and we're very happy today to have given each member a record called "Adventures in Music" by the North Vancouver Youth Band under the baton of Arthur Smith. I should say that this band has played in many parts of the world. In 1965 when they played in Prince George the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources made the comment in thanking them at that time that it was the finest performance in 25 years. They have played at the Calgary Stampede, Expo in Montreal, Parliament Hill, Expo in Japan, and a special concert in Disneyland.

In 1968 at the Canada National Exhibition in Toronto they won an unprecedented five first place awards which was an outstanding record. Incidently, one of the awards they

[ Page 610 ]

won that particular week at the C.N.E. was one for deportment and conduct. That award was received by the band major at that time and four years later is now Alderman Brian Terrace of the City of North Vancouver.

I'd like to read, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the District of North Vancouver addressed to the Hon. Brice Mackasey, Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

On November 9, 1971 the District of North Vancouver made application under the federal-provincial employment loans programme for the clearing, improvement, and development of recreation and pleasure parks.

An approval was received from Ottawa on November 15 for these works.

However, from December 8 to February 7, British Columbia experienced its worst winter weather conditions since 1936. Thus preventing the districts as well as many other municipalities from proceeding with proposed construction projects. With the loss of 315 man-days for the 100 per cent labourer and 253 man-days for the 75 per cent worker it will now be virtually impossible to complete all the scheduled work by May 31.

Accordingly it is respectfully requested that the deadline for completion be extended from May 31 to perhaps July 31 in order that the persons employed under this programme may obtain the full employment benefit that was intended by the legislation.

I have sent today, Mr. Speaker, a telegram to the Hon. Brice Mackasey reading as follows:

I HEREBY SUPPORT LETTER YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER REQUESTING EXTENSION OF MAY 31 COMPLETION DEADLINE TO JULY 31 UNDER FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL EMPLOYMENT LOANS PROGRAMME BECAUSE OF TWO WORST WINTER MONTHS IN 35 YEARS. I REGRET THAT EVEN BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA SOMETIMES HAS BAD WEATHER. I HOPE YOU CAN MEET THIS REASONABLE REQUEST.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs might send a similar telegram on behalf of other municipalities in British Columbia whom I'm sure are going to have similar problems. I'll send a copy of this telegram to the Minister.

The budget debate's been interesting, Mr. Speaker. I think there have been many good ideas put forward from all sides of the House. There's been much discussion of nudity, public morals, the Member from Richmond (Mr. LeCours) had a family-approved research programme and I've been endeavouring to obtain a similar family-approved programme. So far my family has not seen fit to approve this particular project. We heard, I think, a vintage speech from the Member for Cowichan (Mr. Strachan). Last night I thought we heard a vintage speech by the Member for Saanich (Mr. Tisdalle).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come off it. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: This House is reflected in what the Press says about it. So, I thought you might be interested in hearing one day's headlines from the Vancouver Province of February 9. "Control Land Profits." "Pollution Spending." "Give-Away by Socreds Ridiculed." "Annouces Air Clean Up." "Scrooge Behind Budget." "Great Budget." "Moralising by Cabinet Worries Public." "M.L.A.'s Get Blood and Sex Job."

AN HON MEMBER: What?

MR. BROUSSON: Speaking of the Press, Mr. Speaker, we've had a recent controversy over government withdrawal of advertising from certain newspapers.

My colleague, the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) spoke of this. Perhaps I could quote from the Victoria Times of February 17:

Alan Williams told the Legislature Peterson's threat to withdraw government advertising from the Times indicates the Socreds use their ads to reward newspapers. Williams based his charge on a statement Peterson made Tuesday which said the Times was irresponsible in publishing a tobacco ad and that this should in no way be rewarded by the government.

"The key word here is 'reward'," said Williams. "I always thought we were a province that understood the rule of law but the government is using the people's money for its own political purpose."

The Attorney General finally agreed that he had used the word "rewarded" but he didn't withdraw it.

The next day, also in the Victoria Times of February 17, I have a quotation from the president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Union who said that Peterson's response "opens the door to government leverage over the media generally in any case where the government feels itself unduly provoked."

That's the situation, Mr. Speaker, in the Social Credit Province of British Columbia in 1972. Let me tell you what another Social Credit government did a few years ago about this kind of situation.

I want to quote to you from Bill 9, An Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information. The preamble says: "Whereas it is expedient and in the public interest that the newspapers published in the province should furnish to the people of the province statements made by the authority of the government of the province as to the true and exact objects of the policy of the government…."

The Act goes on to define the word "chairman."

"Chairman" means the chairman of the board constituted by the Alberta Social Credit Act…

Section 3. Every person who is the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper published in the province shall when required to do so by the chairman publish in that newspaper any statement furnished by the chairman which has for its object the correction or amplification of any statement relating to any policy or activity of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear," the Member says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you favour that?

MR. BROUSSON: The Act goes on:

Every such statement shall have written upon it a certificate in the following words: "The foregoing statement is published by the direction of the chairman of the Social Credit Board."

Section 4. Every person who is the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper shall upon being required so to do by the chairman in writing within 24 hours after the delivery of such requirements make a return in writing setting out every source from which any information emanated as to any statement contained in any issue of the newspaper.

[ Page 611 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what happened to that.

MR. BROUSSON: Won't kill you.

In case of the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper has been guilty of any contravention in any of the provisions of this Act the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may by order prohibit the publication of such newspaper, either for a definite time or until further order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Social Credit bill. He said "hear hear."

AN HON. MEMBER: He said it as a joke.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, the year was 1937. The province was Alberta. The government was Social Credit. The Minister of Agriculture in that government was the Hon. William Chant. That government had a seven-member Opposition. Five Liberals by coincidence, two Conservatives, and 56 Social Credit.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: That's what happens, Mr. Speaker, when a so-called little Social Credit government becomes a big Social Credit government.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: What did the Supreme Court of Canada say about this?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: This is the Supreme Court of Canada: The legislation now under consideration manifestly places in the hands of the chairman of the Social Credit Commission autocratic powers.

They went on to say:

It seems to me that the Alberta legislature by the retrograde bill is attempting to revive the old theory of the crime of seditious libel by enacting penalties, confiscation of space in newspapers and prohibitions for actions and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that include advertising?

MR. BROUSSON: Of course. You know better than to ask that question.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada — and thank God we have a supreme court of the country of Canada — ruled the bill ultra vires.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only thing that stopped them.

MR. BROUSSON: How did the Social Credit government of Alberta of that day defend the bill? And remember these are the great leaders that Social Credit speaks of in such hallowed terms.

The then Provincial Secretary, Ernest Manning, asked a meeting of the Alberta Bible Institute: "Why should the government allow an overwhelming majority of the people to be tricked by wrong reports?" Premier Aberhart said himself that "the Press should have some form of discipline to remove its weaknesses and to restore its freedom from the clutches of financial, political, commercial organisations."

AN HON. MEMBER: Ghosts are flying through this chamber.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, come back to 1972. Social Credit government of British Columbia — same party — we've even got one re-cycled Alberta Social Credit Cabinet Minister. The same kind of approaches to the Press as now when our Attorney General talks of rewarding or withholding rewards.

Mr. Speaker, there is a law in British Columbia. We have courts. If the law is broken, let the Attorney General have recourse to the courts, and not start withholding government favours. The government has already withheld its advertising from two newspapers and ironically enough, those ads withheld are those that the Minister of Education spoke of so proudly in this House this week on drugs and alcohol. The Minister says these ads are so badly needed and they're going to help our young people yet, he now withholds them as a punishment to the newspapers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame, shame.

MR. BROUSSON: Not only this, Mr. Speaker, the government now has begun to limit the circulation of the offending newspapers. It takes them off the government news stands of the B.C. ferries. Will the next step be for the Attorney General to order the circulations stopped of any newspaper that offends him? Shades of Social Credit 1937!

Mr. Speaker, I think it's fortunate that B.C. at least has a little more active Opposition than there was in Alberta in 1937.

Mr. Speaker, the Burrard crossing continues to be a matter of some controversy. I have no intention of going through all the arguments today. My position is well known and I'm not going to start waffling around like some politicians. However, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke of the crossing the other day in this House, I heard someone from the N.D.P. call out: "Supporting the Burrard crossing is like sinking the Skagit." Mr. Speaker, I'll yield to no one in my concern for the environment. And if any one has tried to sink the Skagit it was the N.D.P. when they stayed away from the I.J.C. hearings last June as a cheap political trick to make up for not having done their homework.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome the call for public hearings, and I for one am prepared to attend and speak at them, as long as they are responsibly organised and handled. My colleague the Member from West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), will speak at a public meeting in West Vancouver March 2, and I will do the same on March 6, in North Vancouver.

Some of the critics are quite correct when they make the point that many of the decisions, in fact all of the decisions, regarding this crossing have been political ones taken very often in isolation. And there has not been much opportunity for the public to express really informed opinions. That's the reason so much of the opposition is emotional and ill informed, and that's the reason I welcome a series of responsible public hearings.

[ Page 612 ]

What is so apparent now, is that the provincial government has failed miserably to give the leadership that has been needed to solve the transportation problems of the lower mainland. On all sides of this House in recent years we've heard calls for some kind of lower mainland regional transport authority, called by many different names. But that was the principle behind it, to provide the co-ordinated planning, and the integrated approach necessary to get the job done.

But the government has not acted and has instead made only meaningless political gestures such as the snap offer to pay the share of a cost of a heavy rapid-transit system if the federal government matched it.

The predictable result of course is the kind of public gut reaction at the present time, reaching instinctively for an overall solution it knows is needed but does not have the means to find.

Let me discuss just one phase of the overall problem, which seems to me to be completely neglected and misunderstood, and that is parking in the central business district of Vancouver.

Vancouver has more downtown parking spaces than any comparable North American City — per capita I'm saying of course. Here are some representative figures of cities that are comparable to Vancouver, 1,000 of metro population.

Vancouver has 30, Dallas 16.5, Atlanta 15.5, Houston, Texas 15.5, St. Louis 14.6, Toronto 9.5, — one-third of Vancouver's — San Diego 8, Pittsburgh only 6, per 1,000 of the metropolitan area and those cities are 1 to 3 million in size.

The downtown parking corporation has over 2,300 spaces. All three of the major department stores 500 or 600 each. And all of these spaces, totalling over 4,000, are rented at a rate structure that's approximately 15 cents for the first hour, 25 cents for most succeeding hours. And I'm oversimplifying there, it isn't quite that simple.

Every large building downtown has floors and floors of parking. In fact while the city has no parking bylaw for downtown, its standing policy of the planning department is to make sure that the developer provides the number of spaces the city wants or it has trouble getting its development permit.

Just this week Mayor Tom Campbell was commenting on the 55-storey B.C. Building and he said the only thing he didn't like about it, it didn't have enough parking spaces. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's going to have 600 spaces. The city would like to see it, under their normal guidlines, have something of the order of 2,000 spaces.

Surely under these circumstances of easy cheap parking combined with a woefully inadequate transit system we're going to have traffic congestion. As long as you and I or anybody else can drive downtown easily, find cheap parking, we're going to drive our cars right downtown.

Therefore any solution to the traffic problem must include control of parking even as it upgrades the transit system, and even as it includes better highway connections whether these be across Burrard Inlet or anywhere else. And so we have the situation of the regional district working on a light rapid-transit system in isolation, while Vancouver City continues to insist on more cheap parking downtown in isolation, and all three levels of government — federal, provincial and municipal — apparently are each continuing to pursue separate and isolated policies to do with the Burrard crossing.

I repeat the Provincial Government has woefully neglected its responsibility in this field, which affects the entire lower mainland and more the interior as so many people on both sides of the House have said in these last few weeks. I call again for the provincial government to fulfil its proper role, provide not only necessary financial assistance, but even more important the leadership necessary to solve this major regional transportation problem.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session, both the leader of the Liberal Party and myself spoke about possible problems to do with the Kootenay Canal power project. We explained the concern we have, based on calculations done by a respected and eminent consulting engineer, one who was known around the world even 25 years ago when I worked in his plant as a student electrical engineer at U.B.C.

He said: "There will be a shortage of water." Even the Minister hinted at that. It's going to be a 500,000 kilowatt plant. But Francis Bartholomew says that much of the time only 130,000 kilowatts will be available and sometimes as little as 60,000 or 70,000.

Last night one of the twin Ministers for Hydro submitted a report on behalf of his directorship of that Crown corporation. From the point of view of the shareholders it was to say the least a woefully inadequate report. When he spoke of the Kootenay Canal project his answers were a complete failure. He talked vaguely about an integrated system, but there was obviously no depth of background or understanding to what he was saying. And there were no specific figures and answers to the figures we had quoted.

If you can get 500,000 kilowatts for $130 million that's $260 per kilowatt installed and that's O.K. If you can get most of the time only 130,000 kw that's $1,000 per available kilowatt and that's terrible.

We've only a limited amount of information and we don't know the details, but we do know enough to be suspicious and concerned and to ask questions. And it's not good enough for that Minister to wave his arms and shout at us, and try to calm out concern by saying in effect that "father knows best" — not to worry.

We asked the honourable electrical Minister last night while he spoke if everything was so great back at the Kootenay Canal why couldn't they let the City of Nelson have that little bit of water it needs? Only 2 per cent of the total amount, licensed to B.C. Hydro at the Kootenay Canal. He didn't answer.

Perhaps the Honourable Minister of Highways, the Member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Black) will explain about the Kootenay Canal and why Nelson cannot have their little bit of water and power, when he speaks later today.

Mr. Speaker, ski developments, timber, real estate seem to have come synonymous with scandal in recent years in British Columbia. We've had Cypress Bowl, and then despite all the storm warnings Powder Mountain turned out to be a fiasco, as the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), detailed so well this week.

I want to discuss today another story which might have some problems about which there are many questions which should be asked. I want to be clear. I am not in any way hinting at any scandal, at least outside the government. This is Brent Mountain, sometimes called Snow Mountain just West of Surnmerland and North of Apex in the Okanagan.

This is an area much favoured by many people for a park, because of its special beauties, fine alpine meadows and other unique ecological features. It's an area which the parks branch thought should have become class A park ever since 1966.

[ Page 613 ]

Let me read you some of the comments that the parks branch staff have made about this area in the last six years. Mr. McWilliams, director in 1966:

In view of your comment regarding intended development of commercial skiing on Brent Mountain we're contacting the chief forester to ask that any applications of such development be held in abeyance, until the parks proposal has been fully explored. We are encouraged in our own efforts by the continued interest and provision in natural area parks in the Okanagan Valley.

In 1968 a letter from Mr. McWilliams again.

Last summer a considerable amount of time was spent in the Okanagan Valley in a reconnaissance of Okanagan alpine areas. Approximately 20 mountains were examined and one of the most highly-recommended for parks purposes was Brent Mountain.

November 16, 1968, Mr. Ahrens, director of the parks branch:

In regard to Brent Mountain we can assure you that we are still most interested in this alpine area even though we have not yet been able to give it park status. We have, however, requested that the Department of Mines reserve the proposed park area from the recording of mineral claims, in order that land use conflict with this proposed park will remain at a minimum.

1969, signed by the Honourable Ray Williston, Minister:

A temporary map reserve has been placed on our records covering certain lands in this area pending completion of the investigation with the parks branch.

1969, — Ken Kiernan the Minister signs:

We'd like to assure you that we are still keenly interested in the creation of such a park. The conflict between grazing interests and those who want park status for this mountain is still an important issue, but we hope it will soon be resolved.

1970 Mr. Ahrens, director of the parks branch:

We regret that the alpine area concerned has not yet been given class A park status but we'd like to assure you that our interest in it has not diminished. We consider that in addition to the recreational value of the summits of Brent and Sheep Rock Mountains which are very scenic and lend themselves to height there is high ecological value to the flora and fauna there. In our opinion a class A park is the most suitable means of protecting these values, and park status therefore is what we will continue to recommend for Brent and Sheep Rock Mountains.

That was September 1970. Now, we are at December 22, 1970. A letter from the Honourable Ray Williston, Minister:

I would advise that a search of departmental records does not reveal any pending application to lease. As of this date I'm not aware of the final deliberations of the parks branch. However, if it's decided to establish a class A park in the area my department will cooperate fully.

January 4, 1971, just over one year ago. A letter signed from Mr. Ahrens, director of the parks branch:

Please be advised that this department is hopeful that an area on Brent Mountain will be established as a provincial park. You may be assured that we would strongly recommend against ski development within this park proposal. In this respect we have received co-operation of the forest service in the past.

Four days later, January 8, 1971 also signed by Mr. Ahrens:

This type of photograph is needed to substantiate (he's written to ask for some photographs) our case that this alpine area is adjacent to a major tourist and recreation region and not located in some remote and inaccessible portion of the forest. We are attempting to show that the Brent Mountain and alpine area is likely to receive regular visitation and that this use places a high value in the area as parkland.

So things seemed to be going pretty well, although slowly to say the least. That's 1966 to January 1971. Then suddenly a change took place, Mr. Speaker, after five years of dalliance with this idea of a park a new factor arrived in the person of a company called Allstar Holdings Ltd. All of a sudden we seemed to have a change of direction of approximately 180 degrees. Let me read some more letters. This one a little further along one month and a half…five weeks later from the last letter I read, still signed by Mr. Ahrens, the director of the parks branch. February 25, 1971.

Our branch is still pursuing class A park status of the Brent and Sheep Rock Mountain areas. The details of the proposed ski development were recently forwarded to our office for comment. You will be pleased to note that we've recommended to the regional district of Okanagan Similkameen against this development.

March 15, a month later again, this time it's signed by the Honourable Ray Williston, the Minister of Lands Forests and Water Resources.

This application, (and he refers to the application of a special use permit by All Star Holdings) is presently being reviewed by the Forest Service, and you may be assured it will be given a most careful scrutiny. Any decision will be based on a full assessment of the many factors which need to be considered in deciding the best use of the area concerned. It will include a review of submissions made by other parties in relation to the application. A parks branch proposal for a park will be a necessary part of the study.

Seven days later, a letter from Mr. Ahrens, director of the parks branch again:

Progress is being made in having this area declared a provincial park. Please be assured that the necessary precautions will be taken to protect the alpine area from commercial developments.

Well, as we jump along a little bit now, that was the end of March, we move along to July 2, and I think the dates become especially interesting here now, Mr. Speaker. We should carefully note the dates of these letters. July 2 last, 1971, signed by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Frank Richter:

The matter of Brent Mountain and Sheep Rock area being established as a class A park has been before the environmental and land use committee, and it was considered that the best use for this area, would be that under a multiple use concept which could be established by a map reserve or under recreational status.

That's July 2. He says it's time we get something settled. Then July 22, the Honourable Ken Kiernan writes or signs this letter, that was three weeks later from the first one:

Representatives from the following government agencies have undertaken a joint examination of the Brent Apex mountain area: forest service, land branch, wildlife branch and parks branch. Individual agency reports and recommendations are being completed. Until these recommendations have been reviewed we're unable to advise publicly the ramifications of the resource use conflict.

That was three weeks afterwards. Then on July 23, signed by the Honourable Ray Williston, referring to the recommendation of the parks branch for a class A park.

[ Page 614 ]

While they did originally propose a class A park, it's my understanding that the recommendations resulting from the joint field trip in June have not yet been finalised.

Now we're on to July 29. The Honourable Ken Kiernan again:

At the present time a report is being assembled as a result of a joint study. It's possible this report will be submitted to the environment and land use committee to be used as a basis of decision.

And he goes on to explain that.

And 27 days before on July 2 the other Minister over in Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Richter) says:

The matter of Brent Mountain has been before the environment and land use committee and was considered that the best use would be a multiple-use concept.

Really, after all of these studies were going on, it had long before already been decided. Apparently the environment and land use committee had met earlier and made a decision. Brent Mountain was to become a ski development. We're unable to find out exactly on what evidence this decision has been made because so far we've been unable to get detailed copies of these reports. There are no public hearings, there are no reasons given, just the issuing of special use permit No. 6858.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: The Minister was quoted, it was a Vancouver Sun story, last August dateline:

The Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests, Minister Ray Williston, said he was confused by the conflicting demands and left the decision to local people.

"I didn't know honestly what to do so I went back to the Board of Trade and council in Summerland, "

Williston said in an interview at that time.

Well, all of a sudden we find a new device being used. I don't find this anywhere in the legislation covering this situation but here we have this new device, a local liaison committee being set up by the Minister, supposedly to keep an eye on the development and report back to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This committee is a group of well-known and respected citizens of Summerland. I don't want to make any criticism of it only I've got a good deal of sympathy for them for the difficult position in which they're placed by the Minister and by the government.

The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, (Mr. L.A. Williams), pointed out on Wednesday of this week that the Department of Lands and Forests didn't seem to have enough qualified, responsible people in the department to handle the kind of problems that are arising in this new and sophisticated era of land-use decisions. This seems to be borne out by the use of a local liaison committee. Certainly responsible people, but people without experience in any expertise in this field. They're serving merely as unpaid good citizens, shouldering responsibilities that rightfully belong to the Minister and his professional staff.

Who is the developer about which we are talking? It's a firm called All Star Holdings Ltd. of Kelowna. Its directors are respected citizens and businessmen of that area and I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to put any slur or make any criticism of what they're doing. They apparently want to develop an idea and they want to make a profit and I have no intention of criticising that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: That's the amount of the lease, $283 a year.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I like to ski too. The family and I spent most of the Christmas holidays skiing all through the Okanagan, from Manning Park to Silver Star. From my personal observation, I wouldn't feel that ski developments in the Okanagan are exactly a get-rich-quick deal right now. The Okanagan already has ski resorts at Baldy, Apex, Last Mountain, Big White, Tillicum, Silver Star and Todd Mountain at Kamloops.

Available snow in the area around Brent doesn't seem to be ideal compared to some of the others. For example, Big White on an average has two-and-a-half times as much snow as the Brent area. Silver Star has an average of four times as much and I am advised that there are other alternate areas to the north that could be developed for skiing with better snow conditions and when there is a better market for this kind of skiing. On top of this we already have evidence that the parks branch, the professional people in the parks branch, thought that Brent mountain was a unique and suitable area for a class A provincial park.

Have we made a mistake? What should it be? A park, or a ski resort, or both? We don't know, because the evidence is not available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shall I get the report?

MR. BROUSSON: There have been no public hearings. All the requests for information to the forest service are referred to the liaison committee. They don't know. The liaison committee is just a local committee of laymen trying to fulfil a responsibility thrust upon them, not equipped to answer for the government — nor should they have to.

Then there's the second problem. The public of British Columbia, I would hope, have learned a bitter lesson about proposed ski developments after Cypress Bowl and Powder Mountain.

You had better get a performance bond first. The Minister said no one again will ever be able to get into this kind of development without a performance bond.

Vancouver Province, January 20, of this year:

Provincial lands director Walter Redel said the new policy is to ensure developers are serious about making good on recreation development promises. The Crown is going to insist on either an irrevocable letter of credit from a bank or a posting of a cash performance bond, said Redel. An example, he said, was on a $750,000 plan, the government would likely ask for a 50 per cent guarantee.

Great words. But only last fall, the Minister decided that in the case of All Star Holdings a performance bond was unnecessary.

Let me offer two more items of evidence. This plan was drawn in early 1971. It says, "Brent Mountain recreations, drawn by the Okanagan Planning and Engineering Company Limited, development proposal." It shows on it plans for the various tee bars and chair lifts. As a matter of fact one of the tee bars goes right across, down into a creek bottom and up on the other side, not really very good ski planning.

There is quite a large area on one side of the plan that says, "housing, housing, housing, housing, condominiums,

[ Page 615 ]

housing, commercial motels, stores." I am quite aware that this plan is not presently in effect and that the forest service say: "Oh, that plan was never approved, not acceptable." But the fact remains, early in 1971, the parks branch was saying, "we want a class A park." The other part of the government was looking at plans of this kind and considering a ski development.

Now, I have another document here which is the Memorandum of Association of All Star Holdings Limited, the Province of British Columbia Companies Act. This is dated, December 15, 1969 and as of yesterday, this document had not been amended with the registrar of companies. The objects for which the company is established are:

A. To purchase, lease, take in exchange or otherwise acquire lands and real estate and any right, title or interest therein, any buildings, erections, or structures thereon, and to construct, erect and operate hotels, restaurants, garages, apartment houses, motels, auto-courts, revenue housing and other property and other like purposes…I'll skip all the details.

B. To carry on the business of motel, hotel, auto-court, apartment house, garage, licensed public house, lounge, dining room, dining lounge, cocktail lounge, coffee bar, light refreshments…on and on.

Down near the end here, it says "and of amusement, entertainment, recreation and education, of meeting places and facilities and of ticket agents and general merchandise."

I don't criticise these objectives in any way. But it is clear that the major thrust of this company is in real estate development, including all kinds of commercial projects. I'm advised by lawyers that actually, All Star Holdings Ltd. with these objectives — and they have no other objectives — cannot legally be developing a ski resort under these articles. The only words that come close are "amusement, entertainment and recreation," after a whole page of discussing real estate and commercial objectives.

It's pretty hard to know really what the decision ought to be. Considering that apparently there are questionable snow conditions, considering the strongly expressed wishes of the parks branch, considering the competitive skiing situation in the Okanagan, considering the availability of alternate ski areas, considering all of these factors, surely we would question — has the government made the right decision?

I ask the Minister for four things. First — let us have public meetings not private meetings on Brent mountain and other similar situations. Two — stick to the announced policy of performance bonds to insure that the people of British Columbia get what they bargain for. Three — call a public hearing now on Brent mountain and clear the air. Four — if the decision for a ski development is confirmed, insist on the policy of calling for a performance bond for the development.

I want to discuss one more topic, Mr. Speaker, and that's the West Coast National Park in the Nitinat triangle. Not with the objective of criticising anyone, rather to offer some ideas and a point of view which I think should be expressed in this House.

I visited the area last year very briefly. I discussed the Nitinat here at that time. At that time I urged careful consideration of the proposals of the conservationists. Since then I have visited further and discussed the situation with many people and I now have a good deal more information. First let us set the scene.

Phase one — the Long Beach area. It's pretty well set and was officially opened last summer by Princess Anne. I'm concerned at this time only with phase three. The life-boat trail and the proposed Nitinat triangle addition to it.

The first part of the controversy is regarding how wide the buffer zone of the life-boat trail should be. I said last year that I didn't think this would be much of a problem and I still feel that way. The exact width is not of major importance. No arbitrary distance inland can be the best answer. I believe each section of the trail must be looked at separately and I'm quite sure the national parks people, the B.C. parks people and the forestry service can arrive at a reasonable agreement on this.

Just to make it easier to discuss this, I've got some maps which I'll ask the attendants to distribute so that you can refresh your memories in this area.

The triangle is a more difficult decision to make. The conservation interests started off on the wrong foot about a year ago, by suggesting the entire triangle should be reserved for a national park. To this exaggerated proposal the forest industry reacted in predictable fashion, being very upset and concerned by the loss of this very large area for forest production.

I think it's only fair to say that some of the reaction was equally extreme and exaggerated. My concern today is to try and get a better perspective on the whole situation.

First of all let us remember that this is the first time, we've had an opportunity for a national park on the west coast of Canada. There are many British Columbians that have never been in a national park because the nearest is in the Rocky Mountains. National parks are, quoting from the federal Act that sets them up, "dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment" and are to be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. If we're going to have a west coast national park, let's make sure it's first class.

I'm sure British Columbians would want any contributions that we make to the national park system to be nothing except the very best that we could offer. The original proposal involved taking over 60,000 acres away from the forest industry. That was too much and I make no effort to justify that. I suggest now that the park boundaries be approximately as shown in red on the map that is being distributed at the present time.

This area involves only 13,400 acres of which only 10,700 is productive, the rest is lake, river and so on. It includes a complete watershed area, the Hobiton, Squalicum and Tsusiat lakes and rivers, with the boundary running along the high ridges surrounding the valley so that in the bottom of the watershed, in the lake or river area, you would look up and all around you, you would see a bowl of forest. You would see no logging whatsoever in that watershed. It is a natural complete system with many ecological, scientific, scenic and recreational features to make it a very desirable and essential park. The west coast park.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'll tell you about that, Mr. Member. This is an area that will provide canoeing and hiking, the equal of no other part of British Columbia except the Bowron lakes. Although smaller and shorter than Bowron of course.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 616 ]

MR. BROUSSON: Yes, I'll come to that. Only a three or four hour drive from Victoria and with access a good part of the year.

AN HON. MEMBER: By a logging road.

MR. BROUSSON: Right. I take nothing away from the forest industry, Mr. Member, I'm not trying to. This is a fine example of the coastal climax forest that has taken perhaps thousands of years to evolve. Its evolution started when the area was either laid waste by fire or disaster or perhaps left behind by the receding ice shields. From this beginning has come a succession through pioneer plants to the present coastal forest.

The effect of clear cutting within such a forest is to push the ecological succession back about 500 years and the effect of continued, sustained-yield cutting would be to cycle the forest within an 80 or 100 year period rather than the whole period of the climax succession. Thus, once this climax forest is cut, we will never again, in areas managed for multiple-use forestry, see the same climax forest repeated, unless we chose to set areas aside and let them slowly revert to the old cycle.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Coming to that. Glad to see you've done a little homework, Mr. Member. Further, the forester is working on the sustained yield pattern to change the type of forest and instead of the trees which presently make up the climax forest we will see the planting and growth of commercially-important species only.

The forester sometimes uses the word decadent or "green slum" with reference to the climax coastal forest of the island to try to give the impression this is something that is decaying, something that it would almost be of service to remove.

The facts are this climax forest offers a tremendous richness of experience to the visitor. It is not a single age forest as will be the planted forest. It is a multi-age forest. As individual trees reach great age and collapse the small hole that they create within the canopy immediately brings back a spark of growth to many different types of plants. Thus within the climax forest you may find virtually every age and size of tree and the understorey in the climax forest is exceptionally rich in mosses, berries, fungi, all of the other varied growth that are so rarely seen in a second growth forest.

So we can begin to see that there cannot be multiple use of this kind of area and still retain its original features. For the recreationist the attractive area of the Nitinat is the area with the big trees. Yet this is the very area the forest industry will be after first.

The foresters make much of the fact that the decadent forest will be replaced with a young, vital, vibrant forest. The fact is that this second growth forest while green is virtually inpenetrable. The second growth forest is of little use for recreation until it's 25 to 35 years of age, which will be one-third or one-half the cycle of the sustained growth cycle within the Nitinat.

In addition, despite what has been said by the Member for Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid) the virgin forest that exists today is relatively easy to travel through. Second growth forest is encumbered under foot by the slow decaying remnants of the logging slash. Thus it can be safely said that the renewed forest of the sustained yield programme is eliminated from recreation for a good part of its cycle. The forest industry talks about 1/79th only being used for logging. That is not true.

During the time in which it is usable it still does not have all the attractions of the virgin forest of today. So despite what the Member from Alberni says about getting in with axes and saws the Hobiton-Tsusiat area is not an impenetrable jungle.

Sure, close to the sea, around the perimeters of the lakes there is a belt of trees wherein the understorey is very thick. Salmonberry and salal succeeded in making penetration very difficult. But once past this perimeter belt the trees are wider spaced. Progress is easy.

Incidently, the national parks people have been preparing plans for that very thing. It's been stated that climax forests do exist elsewhere on Vancouver Island — particularly within Strathcona Park. This is quite true. Primarily in the — I can't pronounce this — the Moyeha area on the west side of the island. But access to this river valley is exceptionally difficult, involving crossing over a 5,000 foot pass from the east side if approach is to be made by land.

The beauty of the Nitinat is that the forest exists beside the rivers and the lakes. This combination makes it almost ideal to explore for recreation.

Of course, access from the City of Victoria and the mainland is very easy. Local citizens and visitors will come to see what remains of the great forests. The great trees of our coastal forests are one of our most important tourist assets. Yet in the Hobiton-Tsusiat watershed we stand close to allowing them to be eliminated.

Actually, when you come right down to it, the HobitonTsusiat area is not all that big and important to the forest industry. Only 10,700 productive acres. Not much more than B.C. Forest Products cuts right now each year. So that on an 80 year cycle the Hobiton would provide only about 1 per cent of B.C. Forest Products' annual cut each year. Hardly significant to the productivity of the processing plants now in existence.

Despite all the talk of jobs this would involve only about 50 jobs which as yet don't even exist. The park itself is going to provide more jobs than that in the long run. I believe that this complete Hobiton-Tsusiat area watershed should be included in the west coast national parks. I believe the National Parks Service wants it. I believe the B.C. parks branch agrees. Let us try to persuade the B.C. Forest Service to co-operate.

The Minister spoke recently about the desirability of more close utilisation of the forests of Vancouver Island. I venture to say that this alone would go a long way to replace the wood that might be lost in the Nitinat. It's been said that more fibre is being wasted on the east coast of Vancouver Island than grows annually in the Nitinat.

There's another possibility. Within the public sustained yield units are a number of inadequately-stocked lands, areas that have been logged off but have never grown back into production, These are not included in any present forest service inventories. They're not committed to anyone. These presently non-productive areas could be replanted and perhaps a trade worked out with B.C. Forest Products.

I believe there are several compromises of this kind possible. I believe also that the federal national parks service might be persuaded and is interested in assisting some of these negotiations with cash. In fact, the national parks service is tremendously enthusiastic about the west coast national park and, they want to develop a park that will be

[ Page 617 ]

the finest of its kind in the world. I think we should give them a chance.

Let me through this House, appeal to the forest industry of British Columbia. They've shown a great fear of this particular park development. I believe they feel that a so-called defeat by the Sierra Club on the Nitinat would be a dangerous precedent in British Columbia. Why be afraid of the Sierra Club, considering their responsible positions which they have taken on this park? Was someone defeated when Yosemite was set aside? Or the Redwoods of California? Or the North Cascades National Forest? Or the Grand Canyon? These were not defeats. They were victories for mankind.

I think the forest industry could earn great applause from all British Columbians if they would try to work out a compromise such as I have suggested and help establish the kind of national park that we would all really want. This could be a victory for all of us. Multiple use is fine but it won't work everywhere for everything. I urge the forest service, the land use committee and the forest industry to try to work it out. Generations to come will be grateful to you.

Mr. Speaker, when we come to the estimates of the forestry department or the recreation department perhaps we can arrange to have some slides and pictures of the area to show you which I hope will be a little better organised than we had last time.

Now, to conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to disassociate myself from the remarks of the Prime Minister of Canada last weekend with reference to the Premier of British Columbia.

However, I would also like to clearly and equally disassociate myself from many past insulting remarks and distasteful comments from the Social Credit Members of this House with reference to the Prime Minister of Canada and the federal government of our country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one personal insult to the Prime Minister.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: I would rather not use the words in this House again. Because this is a "holier-than-thou" kind of government.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BROUSSON: I think everyone in this House knows some of the words I'm talking about. This is a holier-than-thou kind of government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: If the Attorney General says it, it must be gospel truth, with the exact implications and connotations he gives it, to be religiously believed by the faithful. If the Premier says it it must be accepted because it comes from the Premier himself. He's plugged in. Regardless of the sin, the extravagance, the scandal, if you win the next election the democratic process has wiped the slate clean. Even if Members of the Cabinet are sent to jail it doesn't matter. If you win the next election the people have spoken. The ballot box pays all debts. All must be forgiven and forgotten…

AN HON. MEMBER: That holier-than-thou approach.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: That's the attitude of this government, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney General and others would have us believe that all is sinful and wicked in Ottawa. Everything Ottawa has done is wrong. The other evening we heard several Members blame Ottawa as the main cause for the financial difficulties of our senior citizens.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who else? Who else?

MR. BROUSSON: Because of inflation. Of course, inflation hurt our senior citizens. It's hurt you. It's hurt me.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: But is it fair to place all the blame for the inflation on Ottawa?

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, let me read a story from the Montreal Gazette of January 11, 1972 datelined London, England.

Canada won the economic Oscar for 1971 for best all-round performance from the Financial Times of London yesterday. The Lombard currency, banking and financial column by Gordon Tether makes the selection of such awards each year. This very prestigious column said Canada won the affluent group Oscar for having achieved fast growth alongside an unusually low rate of inflation, simultaneously contending with the back-lash of the U.S. dollar crisis in exceptionally competent fashion. Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at is a comparison with what Canada has done and the rest of the world. Of course, I'm not satisfied with our results, but I say it's wrong to try to out Canada in a light of being the worst. Canada wins the Oscar as the best.

Item. Equalisation payments, Mr. Speaker, are spoken of by the Attorney General and other Members as if they were the major thing wrong with confederation. I hold no brief for everything done in the name of equalisation but I believe that we in bounteous British Columbia should help our less fortunate neighbours.

AN HON. MEMBER: State your opinion. State your opinion.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm sure there could be improvements in the federal grant system. But let's put the whole matter in perspective. The grand total of equalisation payments in the entire country to seven provinces is only six per cent of the total federal budget for 1971-72. Six per cent. That's all you're talking about.

The Attorney General and others try to leave the impression that British Columbia has never received a dime from the federal government for highways or ferries.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: No, but you left an impression. You tried to leave an impression and that's the point. Let's look at some facts, Mr. Speaker. British Columbia has received from

[ Page 618 ]

Ottawa about $125 million for the Trans-Canada Highway. Over 15 per cent of the total amount contributed by the federal government across the country to the Trans-Canada Highway has come to British Columbia. That's about twice the amount given to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba put together.

Interjction by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm glad you pointed that out, Mr. Member, because of course highways in British Columbia should cost more. I suppose these larger amounts, Mr. Speaker, could be a kind of equalisation payment in the highways field.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't they pay for the Upper Levels Highway?

MR. BROUSSON: I know there's been a disagreement about sharing the costs of the Second Narrows and parts of the Upper Levels but there's been at least some verbal agreements between the Premier and Ottawa on this, Mr. Speaker, and I support the Premier in his rightful requests for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Send the money to the nearest bank.

MR. BROUSSON: Other federal moneys spent on highways and B.C. in recent years included, Mr. Speaker, $7.5 million on the Cassiar-Stewart highway, $7.7 million on the Yellowhead route through Jasper, $4.1 million on roads in national parks in B.C., and $44.7 million,100 per cent of the cost, on the Revelstoke-Glacier-Yoho highway.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: All of those are important highways to British Columbia. Let's look at the ferry situation, Mr. Speaker. From 1962 to 1970 the provincial government of British Columbia built 18 vessels that received federal subsidies. You didn't mention this the other day, Mr. Attorney General.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Total costs of these vessels was $41.4 million and the federal government contributed $15.1 million — over 36 per cent of the construction costs of the Bennett Navy was contributed by the federal government. The "Queen of Esquimalt," for instance, cost $3.6 million and the federal subsidy in that case was $1.45 million or 40 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have they contributed to out airports?

AN HON. MEMBER: We had to get rid of our airports.

MR. BROUSSON: Shall I answer that? (Laughter). Over the past three years, Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I've been in this House, I've been shocked by the many varieties of separatist speeches I've heard from the Social Credit Party. I was shocked at the empty British Columbia chair on occasion at the federal-provincial conference.

I know there are east-west differences. As a businessman I've been personally trying for over 20 years to break through the Bay Street curtain. Right at this very moment my own company has a serious problem because some businessmen in Montreal don't properly understand the problems of shipping merchandise to British Columbia.

But we keep talking to them. We visit them, we offer goodwill and friendship and bit by bit they learn because they too are Canadians at heart. They too have goodwill toward us. Some of us at least, Mr. Speaker, have a deep love for our country, Canada, for all of our Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Hear, hear!

MR. BROUSSON: Some of us felt ashamed when just a few years ago we saw the empty chair at the federal-provincial conference. The empty chair belonged to British Columbia. Some of us felt a twinge of shame and perhaps envy this week when we read the statesman-like comments of Premier Davis of Ontario. Ontario is determined that whatever the political climate or the heat of the moment we will not willingly allow Quebec to be isolated in the context of federal-provincial relations to appear to stand alone without friend or ally in the continuing discussions and negotiations with the federal government.

Certainly Mr. Speaker, some of us can applaud the Attorney General when he quotes the late Ross Thatcher: "Just for once listen to the west." I agree with that but we will not applaud the Premier or the Attorney General or anyone else in this government who continues these insane attacks on the unity of Canada. We will not applaud. We will fight back.

Mr. Speaker, so that there be no misunderstanding we in the Liberal Party will vote against the budget. Now you know where we stand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, my pleasure once again to take my place in this debate on behalf of the large constituency of Atlin, on behalf of all the residents, pioneers, people who are moving northwards to take part in the building of the north. On their behalf, I'm happy to be on my feet. On their behalf as well, I'd like to register my protest in this continual federal-provincial squabble in the persons of the Prime Minister of our country and the Premier Of OUT province. It seems that there is no end to this and it certainly disturbs me very much, and no doubt it has disturbed a great many people throughout our country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trudeau's fault?

MR. CALDER: They are both to blame for this. They are both to blame. I say again that a great number of people are disturbed and mainly because the people know that they are the victims of the two-man fight that we have witnessed in the past several years in Canada.

Politically our Premier has stood up in this House and outside this House and proclaimed one Canada. He's spoken of Canadian unity. Likewise the Prime Minister of Canada has said the same thing. The great Canadian unity is to be achieved and yet these two people are continually at each other's throats and certainly not doing one bit of  good for themselves or to the people of this country.

Now he has brought up the question of serving notice that

[ Page 619 ]

they will change the federal revenue-sharing scheme in court.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CALDER: This of course, is the rebuttal to a term that was applied to the Premier by the head of our government in Canada. So now we hear our Premier talking about equalisation. Well, Mr. Speaker, who is the Premier to talk about equalisation? Just who is he, talking about equalisation? Because there's so much inequality in this province, particularly in the north, that the Premier if he's going to preach equality then he should practice it in his own backyard. He should practice it in the north.

Who has borne out all this inequality, Mr. Speaker? Who has brought it out? In the past three years and particularly since the Premier's been teasing the public with an election, the backbenchers for the last several days have been mentioning inequality. Actually, my speech is going to be based on the criticisms of the back benches in the last few weeks of debate being critical of government policy because nothing has been done in the north.

I say again the Premier should clean up his own backyard before he makes any charges, either in public or in court. There's been some pretty strong things said about bilingualism and every aspect of it. There'll be no stop to this either. To me this is separatist talk.

You know, I have a suit against this government, the decision is yet to come down and it has to do with who is the actual or aboriginal owner of this country. I don't know if the court decision is going to be favourable to the Indian people in this province, but in the government's criticism of bilingualism and the aspects of it I think maybe one way I can walk in and grab my own country back is if you people decided to go back to the plains of Abraham and shoot it out to the finish. At least I don't have to wait for the court decision. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Volunteers, volunteers! Go get'em general!

MR. CALDER: Before I start going into some of these inequalities, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to also take my position with respect to the Alaska highway and I notice some of my northern colleagues are not in their seats. But nevertheless, I will state my position because we all read the other day the remarks of President Nixon, and I read from the Vancouver Province:

U.S. Abandons Plan to Help Rebuild Highway in Canada. President Nixon told Congress Tuesday that the U.S. government has abandoned plans to join Canada in reconstruction of the Alaska Highway between Dawson Creek and the Alaska border and so forth.

I would imagine this would include paving. In recent months we have heard many people that are interested in this whole system up north requesting the paving of the highway. No doubt President Nixon has heard some of the criticism coming forth from the State of Alaska. But let me just review for a moment the value of this highway.

As most of us know, the construction of the Alaska Highway accrued from the wartime period. It was the military road. Even though now it's a public highway and they're reconstructing it here and there to make it a public highway, it still has this military aspect. They're still fortifying some sections of the north. We still see vans going through the highway and therefore I maintain that it still retains the military aspect.

It's a link to Alaska. You might say it is the second trail of '98. Because the. plans were fruitful in '39, you can always say that it is the trail of '39.

It has an economic value, Mr. Speaker, because it's a supply link to the State of Alaska. I must say a very busy one.

There is paving in the State of Alaska on this highway but none in Canada. Canada has not really taken part. Again, B.C. has said that Canada has the responsibility for this although they have mentioned once or twice that there's a possibility of paving within the borders of British Columbia.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is an Indian in the woodpile and it's in the matter of the construction of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway. I must say, for your information, and this I've been told very recently by the department, that there's only 15 miles to before the completion of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway.

When I spent some time this past year in the far north part of my riding and in the Yukon, and hearing people who travel the highway, most of them Alaskans, I was quite surprised how much knowledge they have of this Stewart-Watson Lake highway. They tell me that it is right near completion. Of course, they didn't know that I was the Member for the area, and that they had their eyes focussed on the near completion of this highway.

They even told me that it's 1,000 miles shorter than going through the Alaska highway. It is 1,000 miles shorter because to them this completion of the road is a short cut between the State of Alaska and the State of Washington.

This is very true because once they close the gap, Mr. Speaker, we will have witnessed the completion of a Pacific Coast Highway. It is the shortest link.

In this respect, I maintain that almost overnight, if the government opens this highway, that at least 40 or 50 per cent of the business of the Alaska Highway will be coming through this new route.

On this basis — and this is what I heard, the past summer and fall in my trip up north — the Alaskans would rather see this highway paved than the Alaska Highway.

I'm quite sincere in my request, Mr. Speaker, that this government consider the paving of this particular road. I think something else that has to be considered, it will be an international road and therefore expenditure of a major paving and construction should be borne by the State of Alaska, the Government of Canada, and the Government of British Columbia. I think this has to be considered because I can see a giant of an artery in this road and we all know that there's a second gap to be closed and that's the one that connects with Hazelton.

If you look at a global map you'll see that it's almost a straight line from Whitehorse to the State of Washington.

So much for my position on the Alaska Highway. I hope the Hon. Members that are neighbours of mine in the north are not too upset over this, but this is what I see.

Mr. Speaker, this question of the route from Alaska to the State of Washington by oil tankers is another concern that I think concerns the government and everybody in this province. Particularly the fishing industry and the Department of Transport and everybody else interested in this.

We read about the possibilities of spills. We just don't know how to go about solving this situation. I think the only thing to do is get prepared for it. The scientists believe that we can't avoid any spills and as the government we must find

[ Page 620 ]

ways and means of protecting the coast.

I'm at this time going to put my 25 cents worth in for a couple of Victorians who believe they have developed a machine that can remove oil from atop water. I've seen movies of this, although oil was not used. I noticed that, and I think the forest industries would be particularly interested in this, they can remove chips and sawdust off the face of the water.

They are going to further experiment with the use of oil, although they're going to have to see the authorities about this because they find it's illegal to go and spill oil anywhere and try. If the experiment doesn't work then they're caught with the oil on the water.

I am rather disappointed of the results of their first visit to one or two departments here. They weren't too happy about the reception and with the response that they received. They require a small amount of funds to go ahead with their experiment. They believe that this actually works and like I say, I've seen the movies and I'm very impressed over these, even though I'm a layman. I have the diagrams and everything here. If some of the Members wish to have copies, I'd be only delighted to give them some of the copies.

These two boys are scientists in their own way. They know what they're talking about and certainly I believe that they're dedicated to this work and that the government should listen to it.

In this matter of protection, this is where the government should take a position of when they encounter or meet people of this calibre with the knowledge that they have in not only promoting but to actually set forth an invention that works, that this government should take a stand by encouraging people and providing grants to the extent that you might even consider providing the facilities.

These two gentlemen have gone, I believe, to the research board and they have impressed a lot of people that they have shown this mechanism to. In the matter of these two gentlemen I would believe that they should be there rather than turn it over to other scientists to work because there are some people who just go and grab the message that these two gentlemen provided.

So, I leave this with you, Mr. Speaker. As I say I will pass the writings and the diagrams to the proper departments because I would like to know the position of the government. Like I say these two boys have gone to certain departments and they've received a rather poor reception. But they're not disheartened. They are going to continue to see, perhaps, industries and get them interested and perhaps get a little fund. These boys require funds and I'm on my feet pleading that they be provided with such a fund.

Again I would like to speak on behalf of the same two gentlemen. This has to do with the discussion of powers we've had in quite a number of years.

Member after Member has stood up this particular session on account of possible damming of the Moran dam on the Fraser River. Of course, we've heard many critics over this. I have said quite a bit about salmon versus Hydro. People have brought up the question of the flooding of valuable lakeshore lands when you create a reservoir. Likewise with the valuable timber that has not been cut and of course, has gone to waste.

We've read and seen pictures of the debris-polluted reservoirs and the government has received several criticisms in quite a number of years over this question. Of course, our scenic beauty in many respects has been destroyed.

Then we hear debaters come forward with natural gas distribution, one of which is now under discussion — one that is to be distributed to Vancouver Island. All this is a costly business. We hear about the diesel units — where there is no Hydro. power then they substitute diesel, quite a lot of it in the rural electrification area. Again it's costly to the extent that the government has had to subsidise quite a number of communities in this rural electrification. Now we hear debates about the nuclear power and many are in doubt with respect to pollution. Some say it will produce pollution, some don't. And so the debates will race on for several more years before perhaps this government will actually consider nuclear power.

Not too many of us have heard or read about water diffusion as a source of energy. And these two gentlemen have also come forward — and this I am told has really impressed people that are really scientifically minded. There is quite a number of people that have come forward with this type of source of energy and maybe a lot have not quite taken to it, but these two gentlemen believe there is actually a way of extracting electricity from compressed water.

Well, I'm a layman so I'm not going to continue with this. Again I've asked permission if I can pass on their brief and this I will do perhaps next week.

Again they require funds for this, it's not much but they'd like to continue their work in a hope that they will hit upon something that will provide absolutely a clean source of energy. There's no pollution in this respect, and I certainly hope that the government will consider if these two gentlemen go back to them again, to encourage their work, provide a grant and what's required.

So there are two possibly great inventions — one solves oil-spill pollution, one prevents pollution. And I think we should be interested enough to provide these gentlemen with some action and interest.

Mr. Speaker, on September 8 of last year a motion was filed in the House of Commons in which a copy of the Stanbury Field report was requested. This enquiry or report began, I believe, as far back as 1965 and people who are members of this research and investigation on taxation on Indian reserves comprised people from the federal government or the federal civil service, from the provincial government and from the municipalities — three levels of government, and the federal agreed to file this, only if the province agreed.

The motion was that there be laid before this House a copy of the Stanbury Fields report. And again a good many chapters have to do with the taxation on the Indian reserves. And on the order paper in Ottawa was an order that the House do issue a copy of the Stanbury Fields report. "This motion was accepted on September 8, 1971 subject to provincial concurrence. We have been informed that the Province of British Columbia will not concur with the tabling of this report."

I think this is a very sad state of affairs. When the Indians in the last several years have been requesting a complete consultation before anything is done with the reserves, in all aspects of the reserve life and legal aspects with it. And here this government has refused to agree with the federal government that such a report be tabled.

At the end of this day, Mr. Speaker, I will be putting such a motion on orders of the day. But I'm very much concerned over this refusal. Because I understand this report has been completed, and a thorough investigation was made relating to taxation. It's interesting too, don't ever believe that any money accrues from Indian land. I think up to now this province has received almost $1 million, up to '67 it was

[ Page 621 ]

pretty close to $1 million that they received from Indian reservations.

I'd like to see this report because in it — we don't have to guess what's in the report. We know that studies will have to be made on whether or not the reserves can be taxed. Right now it appears to me it will relate to the municipal status. They may be very lenient with people who then would own lots on the reserve if that village takes municipal status. But that village also owns a great number of reserves upon which no one lives, there's timber and everything else on it. I'm just wondering if this will automatically revert back to the provinces, and such things as that.

I'm interested to know what the report said about Indian bands that lease land to non-Indians and just how come, say, the City of Vancouver can take about 50 per cent of the tax returns, the village 50 and yet there has been nothing settled in courts as to certain things that the Indians want, as provided in the Indian Act.

This is a very serious thing, that we are not able to see this report. There's a great many interpretations we are told that was made in the report and we would like to see that. The income of Indians who perhaps if they allowed a logging company for instance to get aboard the reserve, and the Indian band allows that company to cut on the reserve and if the Indian who lives in the company bunk house and earns money we are told he is subject to taxation. We'd like to know about that, Mr. Speaker.

I could list, Mr. Speaker, a lot of headings on a document which I have, which I'm still guessing whether or not there are chapters belonging to this report. There's no way that I could find out. But this happened to be in the same period that that report was being made and I think I have a fairly good guess as to this report.

I am just wondering who else has such a document. If there are other people who were mailed such a thing then I don't see why the government should hold back the tabling of this report. Just to close my remarks on this Stanbury Fields report, there are not too many Indian leaders that know about the committee that was appointed to study this whole question of reserve taxation. It only came to light when a certain motel was subject to provincial tax when the Indians themselves decided to construct a motel on the reservation at Spences Bridge.

Of course, when these people decided to borrow money to complete the project we found that that money that came from the bank was subject to taxation. That money became Indian and whereas the principals involved in this case were not taxed, the borrowing powers were taxed and therefore that motel was taxed.

I don't believe this has gone to court. But here again we're interested to find just what this report says about it. Lands that are leased to municipalities in which an Indian reserve is located adjacent to that municipality — how does the taxation work in this respect? And because of the Indian request today that they be fully consulted with what's to be done with the social and economic progress, and particularly what's to be done with reserves, I believe that this report should be filed and I think the Indians should know all about the property upon which they live.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here listening to all the speakers and I believe everyone has taken a chance to speak in this debate. And if everyone on that side said that this is a good budget, then I didn't expect that anybody on that side would ever be critical.

I jotted down as Members spoke about the road development programme and I'm mainly speaking about the north. I found by a telephone call just yesterday and just before I walked into this Legislature today that the western part of the 72 mile that goes into Telegraph Creek has had so much snow that the town of Telegraph Creek is completely isolated.

I phoned the department about this and the Department of Highways immediately phoned north and they managed to get the fuel truck through and so they were able to provide power for the radio telephone. People were just running out of fuel and that truck actually arrived in time.

But they were using a little bit of equipment, the highways representative up at Dease Lake was using a little HD5. They had been trying to get rid of this little machine for several years because it just isn't powerful enough to remove that heavy snowfall through that area.

People in Glenora at the present time are isolated, and no doubt other places. We are told by the highways department that they couldn't provide enough machinery, and this is my beef today, that there is just no equipment in a lot of these roads, not only on the Telegraph Creek road, but available roads throughout the north haven't got highway equipment to help keep those roads open. This would be the criticism of the other northern Members, Mr. Speaker, and I say that there should be more money funded into the north in the road development programmes.

We hear about medical attention again on the other side. And for years I have been bringing this to the attention of the government — the lack of medical attention in the far north, in going through community after community in the north, Mr. Speaker, not only in my riding but in others that the doctors only visit periodically and sometimes they don't.

I think this is a sad state of affairs when this government couldn't provide this type of attention to the far north. This is one of the reasons for years that I have been asking for an air ambulance service because I figure this is the only other step that if any one was to need transportation or someone was hurt, certainly this is one way of getting them to the hospitals.

Dental care as well has been brought up on the floor of this House and again they tell us that they have periodic visits throughout the north and I find that sometimes this is not the case. Again this is the reason why I have requested quite a number of times for a mobile dental clinic to look after northern areas.

We talk about rural electrification. And again it has been presented on the floor of this House by several Members. Now let's give you an example before I go on with the rest of these items. On this rural electrification we have been asking for one for Telegraph Creek but several years ago one was provided in Atlin and I think, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read you the statistics that I've got for the town of Atlin and then I hope this will give a picture of what this government does with rural electrification.

This is for a town of Atlin as compared to 11 towns which the government helps in a form of subsidisation, and I will name these 11 towns — there's Stewart, Anaheim Lake, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Fort Nelson, McBride, Massett, Port Clements, Valemont, Barkerville and Wells. And then on a

[ Page 622 ]

separate column on another zone area (of course these 11 towns are under what they call a rate zone 2).

Now under rate zone 3 they have the little town of Atlin. There's a real government supply system here, Mr. Speaker, and I'd ask that the Members take note of the residential rates for these 11 towns that I have mentioned. The first 600 kilowatt hour is at 3 cents per kilowatt hour, then you go right across and compare that to what they charge Atlin. In the town of Atlin the first 600 kilowatt hours at 3 cents per kilowatt hours — exactly the same.

You go to 11 towns, it says the next 2,400 kilowatt hours at 1.1 per kilowatt hour. You go over to the town of Atlin it's exactly the same, only it's the next 3,000 kilowatt hours at 1.1 per kilowatt hour. Then all additional kilowatt hours at 2 ½ cents per kilowatt hour and this is where the fun starts, this is residential rates.

In Atlin it is at 5 cents per kilowatt hour. For the 11 towns the minimum bill is $4 exactly the same as Atlin.

Now we come to the commercial rates — these are the people who are investing in a country that needs building. I wouldn't say these people are rich people, they are people that want to become residents in the north and build up a business. And here's what the B.C. Hydro has for the town of Atlin as compared to these 11 towns. The first 200 kilowatt hours at 4 cents per hour. In the town of Atlin the first 200 kilowatt hours at 15 cents per kilowatt hour. Then you go to the 11 towns, next 1,800 kilowatt hours at 3 cents per kilowatt hour. In the town of Atlin, it says the next 400 kilowatt hours at 10 cents per kilowatt hour. For the 11 towns all additional kilowatt hours at 2.6 per kilowatt hour and in Atlin it's 7.5 per kilowatt hour. The minimum bill for two months in the 11 towns is $5, in Atlin it's $10.

Now when I checked with the authorities on this I found that they arrived at the power provided — and this was under a subsidisation in Atlin and they're no different from any other 11 of these towns, Mr. Speaker — we find that power provided in Atlin is being charged three times greater than the rates listed for the 11 other communities named.

So this is Hydro providing rural electrification in the north and I'm just wondering how people, who I wouldn't say were wealthy people, are trying to set up a business and help build the north and then you provide this exorbitant rate to them. It's just unheard of. This government is certainly not providing the incentive for the people to pioneer that northern country.

When I questioned B.C. Hydro as to why there are such high rates in the town of Atlin they said well it's due to remoteness. It's due to the high cost of diesel fuel, it's due to the high cost of diesel fuel shipments, it's due to the high cost of plant operation and due to the high cost of repairs.

But the town of Atlin is like the other towns. It's being subsidised and I say this, that regardless of these points that B.C. Hydro raised, I think there should be an equality when it comes to providing diesel fuel to small communities such as these 12 communities. They should be all the same at equal rates. I don't see why they have to charge extra under this subsidisation policy of the government, why they should charge extra for communities that are located a little further north.

Now I'm very much afraid about asking for power rates for Telegraph Creek because it might be worse. It's even more remote. Yet it's one of the things the doctors are critical about in the town of Telegraph Creek. Here again, we are talking about what has been brought up on the floor of the House by Members on the other side, stating that there's inequalities with respect to this budget and this is what we're talking about. I'm giving you some detailed information.

We're trying to get lights for Telegraph Creek because the doctors at Terrace and White Horse who visit the town of Telegraph Creek are quite annoyed at the eye soreness of the school children who have to read and study under candle light or oil lamps. This is not my accusation, this is coming from the doctors in White Horse and Terrace.

I think in this day and age when you're doling out money as if it were prize money, you don't even provide money for such people that are in need of extra funds so that they can have better facilities.

Administration is another point. In quite a number of communities that I visit I get the request that I should stand on my feet on the floor of this House and ask for government agency offices in the north. We require such an office at Cassiar. We require it in other places in the north because there are such great distances that people are unable to go all the way to a certain place where there is an administration building of this government for their car licences, their motor vehicle business or to get licences for hunting, fishing — of this sort. Particularly if they are going to lay claims, mineral claims, they have to go all the way to these other places, maybe the only place in the whole area. They have to go. It's just not fair, Mr. Speaker, that this has to happen.

As far as the whole north is concerned, this is one of my main criticisms with the budget, because there are just no extra funds going to services at all. I'm speaking of claim recordings and everything else throughout the north that is considered a mineral belt. There are no increases there.

The lack of law and order — with the amount of people that are moving into the area there is more work for the R.C.M.P. and certainly these people are not there for bookkeeping. They're not bookkeepers. They're supposed to be out in the field. But again there's no money. All we're told is that there's lack of staff. I don't think it's good enough.

We heard from one of the Members — I'm still quoting from that side of the House — who has been critical of the budget. At the opening day everybody applauded this. It's just too good to be true and yet in the last two weeks we've been hearing criticisms about the lack of money allocations to certain areas in this province. As a matter of fact I thank the back-benchers. So I can list them as they said.

The other day one of them said: "There's no incentive to attract secondary industries in the north." Of course one of the back-benchers was accusing the Minister of this lack of action. This is a serious situation. We need this incentive.

Just the other day my neighbour brought up the equalisation of educational grants for northern students. Of course this is an old debate. We've heard this for years and years. My area is particularly involved in this respect and we certainly hope that the government at this time will consider setting out a policy by which they can assist northern students that want to receive higher education in the lower mainland. This again we're asking.

We heard about — on the other side — the lack of nursing home care. That there is no nursing home for the aged in the north or north of Terrace. We heard from the other side "no facilities for chronically ill pioneers of the north." Well many of our boys on this side for years have been talking about this. I can remember Ernie Winch at times bringing such a thing up and your own side has told the public that there is a complete neglect, not only in the north but in other areas of this province.

We heard one of our southern Members — I don't know if

[ Page 623 ]

he's been to the north, but no doubt he's concerned about our problems, so he's a good Member. The headlines after his speech said: "Study of The North Urged." Very good. We certainly need a committee or an organisation of the governments, a tribunal to make a thorough study as to the whole question of northern development.

My leader, the Honourable Member for Coquitlam, (Mr. Barrett), just received a wire and this has to do with the north. I will read you this wire.
DAVE BARRETT, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS,
VICTORIA, B.C. REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE RE
DISCONTINUATION OF FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS
AND SERVICE IN PEACE RIVER AREA, RESULTING
IN DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS TO MOST PEACE AREA
FARMERS. SIGNED LOCAL 806, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION.

There you are, just a fact there that tells you that the north is in need of help and this government has not provided it in this budget and it's a very sad thing.

I would just like to say, as I said in my opening remarks, who is this Premier to talk about equalisation? To challenge the government in the east about equalisation when he hasn't even cleaned up his own back yard? There's inequalities in the north and everywhere. I say that he's got to have a clean sheet before he can charge anybody else with inequalities.

In concluding my remarks, and I think that most Members will expect me to say this, we are not going to vote for the budget.

The Hon. Premier just walked in. I've been quoting the criticisms of all the back-benchers and this is only what I'm providing. There are just no incentives provided in the budget for the whole north and I'm very critical of the whole thing because other Members have charged the Premier and the government of playing politics with money allocations and to me it's doling our funds to the people as if this was a special Social Credit prize money. I don't think this is good at all.

As far as I'm concerned, this budget has removed the spirit of the Klondike in the north. It has removed the spirit of '98. I just read you an example of people who have to pay exorbitant rates in power. They are very much concerned that they are not able to go ahead with what they had to do in the north.

Having said these things, I and my colleagues will be voting against this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Provincial Secretary, the Minister of Highways.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I'm glad that you properly introduced me because I want to say that I am the Provincial Secretary. I am the Minister of Highways. I am a Canadian, and I am in favour of a great many things. "Ou est les liberals?" Where are the Liberals? Oh, there he is. Well that's about all that will be left next time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They know that they're insecure.

MR. BLACK: I'm not too sure they do. I always look forward to this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, because I try to become a sort of a self-styled adjudicator on what has taken place in the previous debate and in the debate which is now closing. I usually have some awards and unfortunately some of those recipients of those awards are not here. However, just to give them time, sometimes we in the House become so forgetful of the people who serve us — these delightful young boys who are pages, the Hansard girls, and I noticed that certainly the male population of the House have certainly noticed them.

However, it always concerns me in this debate as the years have gone by how the character of it has changed. I said on a previous occasion that while Hansard maybe is a good thing, and I'm not going to debate that, I certainly have noticed as a personal observation how excellent speakers in this House have resorted to reading almost everything that they have.

I don't think that that does anything for the character of this House. Why some of these people who are endowed with the knowledge of the English language and the opportunity and the power to deliver their addresses without reading it, I'm blamed if I know.

However, that's a personal thing and some people like to have all the sentences grammatically correct, every word weighed and this sort of thing. I again think that takes away from the character of the House. It has long been my opinion, and I know it's shared by many on both sides, one does not have to be a professor of English or indeed a graduate of any university to take his place in this place.

AN HON. MEMBER: He must have been here last night.

HON. MR. BLACK: However, if these gentlemen aren't going to be here I can't help that, it's on with the awards anyway.

Now today one of the first awards I was going to make is because one of our distinguished members who I have facetiously over the years referred to as John the Baptist, I brought in one of these change of name forms, because he flooded this place with potatoes. I was going to call him Spud but after last night I tore it up. He's still John the Baptist as far as I'm concerned. (Laughter). I've already told my wife Helen that we won't be going to church on Sunday.

Also, I want to mention another gentleman that doesn't get mentioned and I want to mention Bob McConnell of the Press. He's been here the last couple of years and I'm sure we all like Bob. He did a tremendous job of good sportsmanship at Schmockey Night and, believe me, if there's any person who knows that if the goal post or is the goal tender to be his best friend, it's certainly Bob.

Also I should say this too, because perhaps this is the first time I think probably it was that the president of the gallery was invited to the state dinner. An unfortunate thing, as you know, happened there, as far as the Lieutenant-Governor is concerned, and it must have been a terrific temptation for Bob not to get on the blower and have some big Press release or other. To his great credit, he certainly did nothing of that kind.

Now to the actual awards situation. First of all I want to digress a minute to say that we have a lost and found department and I want to see that these things are attended to. We found a former Member's marbles in our caucus room. I would like to return them to him. In the proper bag. I'm told by experts that the name on the bag is Wallace in Gaelic.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the only one on your side that has marbles. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BLACK: Well, we shall see about that. Too bad that he lost them. Of course, secondly, now that he is in another place, I want to present him with a left handed baseball mitt to play left field with.

I haven't a clue where they are, Mr Speaker. Would you

[ Page 624 ]

give this to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) please?

AN HON. MEMBER: He can pick up his marbles and go home.

HON. MR. BLACK: I counted them, it said 101. Next one I would like to give is that for many years we have been entertained in this House by the great budget maker, the first Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). This time it sounded to me like listening to Lawrence Welk's orchestra, you know, "Old Bubbles in the Wine." So I brought him Lawrence Welk's record. At the same time — I'll have more to say about that later — I've got a bottle of Geritol for those tired Liberals and their tired blood. (Laughter).

Now we get into the more serious aspects. It seems to me that a certain Member — would you give this to Dr. McGeer please? — someone said: "There's something the matter with parliament because of all the playacting." I should remind that Honourable gentleman that in the party that he now sits in is probably one of the greatest playactors that have ever come into Canadian politics in the person of John Diefenbaker. So perhaps you could espouse a little playacting too but sometimes you might say: "Well what are you doing adjudicating these things?" I'm adjudicating this because it is a fact — and you can check it out — that I was the first person to teach drama in the high schools of British Columbia as an accredited course. So I think I know a wee bit about it.

Now the best act, for the best act award, in my opinion, was won by none other than the Member for Cowichan (Mr. Strachan). It was at the time when he made the Barrymores look like amateurs, and it was at the time when we had a nonconfidence motion in the House and I have never seen anything short of Captain Bligh that would exhibit such righteous indignation. It was a terrific act. So would you see that my friend from Cowichan-Malahat gets that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that empty?

HON. MR. BLACK. Just wait a minute, you can take this to another fellow if you don't mind. This one is that in this political business if you ever lose your sense of humour you might as well go stick your head in the sand. Forget it. Now, there's one person who has got it, there's one. Just look at that. See, like Jimmy Durante says, "Everybody tries to get into the act." He wasn't content with that, he wants a supporting role too, I want a friend, the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to get this — you didn't hear me, Mr. Speaker. This goes to Alex Macdonald — for his display of humour with the second reading of Bill No. 2.

Secondly, he's not here, but you can give this to the Liberal Member who is not here. This has to do with the best debate that I heard. It was during a certain evening when we were talking about another nonconfidence motion and automobile insurance come up and he took one Member for Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) through the hamburger machine. (Laughter). We'll give him the award for the best debate.

The last one though is one I really enjoy. He hasn't quite made professional yet but he's coming close. He did this through two debates.

Just think back when your dear old mother was telling you about Little Red Riding Hood, how Little Red Riding Hood with her basket of goodies tripped through the woods picking flowers on her way to her grandmama's.

The Leader of the Opposition I thought did a tremendous job. I got him a Little Red Riding Hood. (Laughter). Because I'm told by certain Members who ought to know that he's a man of many parts and has many costumes.

Now he could hardly have that without the basket of goodies and I've got that too. (Laughter). Will you take the little basket? (Laughter). Can't you see they are full of eggs — just like his promises, there's nothing in them. (Laughter). And so if you would pass that to my friend. Don't let it get lost, either.

Now I got to tell the House a little joke, Mr. Speaker. The story of the Red Riding Hood costume. I tried to get one at a reasonable price. (Laughter). I had to wind up renting this one and it cost me $1.50 but if Barrett doesn't give it back to me, it costs me $30. (Laughter). He isn't going to — I'm not going to let him get off the hook for that. I get that back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have I got something for you, baby…(Laughter).

HON. MR. BLACK: Just try it, you'll be sued. Then I thought another thing worth mentioning was the other day, my friend the Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) was on his feet and you people all know the famous triple play in baseball — Tinker to Evers to Chance — I tell you there was something happened faster than that when the Honourable Phil said: "The Premier is right many times, most of the time, all of the time." (Laughter).

MR. BARRETT: I'm going to see my grandmother. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BLACK: That's pretty tough eating for a wolf. That's right. This is the year of the rat and the Chinese have already said to us "Gung hay fat choi" — Happy New Year — and it seems only appropriate that we should mention that great philosopher, Confucius.

Confucius as you know said many things. He was a man of great wisdom. One thing he did say that was applicable to politicians was "One picture worth a thousand words." He also said "Politician who carry hatchet wind up with same in own skull." So I thought I'd have that and just show it around. If it sort of fits I perhaps had better let it drop there. (Laughter).

As I said Leo, don't get sore, you got one last year, (Laughter).

These, Mr. Speaker, are not done on my part to offend anybody, far from it. Just to say we shouldn't lose our sense of humour in this place. We have a right to have our own fun. Goodness knows, we're criticised for many other things. People in the gallery because we pound our desks rather than applaud, they don't understand why that's done. Nevertheless, we have to have our own little fun.

I think it is only right…Tried the Geritol already, eh? I haven't seen you smile all day. (Laughter). Good. I think it's only right and proper that I should start my remarks today relative to Nelson-Creston.

First of all I don't think it's any news to anybody that it is a beautiful part of the country. In speaking of the Kootenays it is a part of that great part of the country and is indeed beautiful. But my colleagues, regardless of what party they're from, will have to admit that the jewel of the Kootenays are the people who live there.

These good people can't live on scenery or on beauty, admitted that it helps. I want to bring up a matter that was

[ Page 625 ]

brought up in debate by the leader of the Liberal Party and by one of his colleagues from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson). That was in dealing with the Kootenay Canal — remarks like: "Where is the Member? What is the Member doing?" and this sort of thing.

Now I would think that probably since the last election when the famous bus trip took place and famous lectures were delivered to persuade anybody they could get — and I mean that in the right context — to carry their flag — when that speech was made this was about the first time he'd been there — but of course he's already to criticise somebody else.

Now, where was the Member? Where does the Member stand? I want to tell you where the Member stands. Far as I am concerned, I took an oath of office and I intend to abide by it at all times. Now, as far as the Kootenay Canal is concerned and the position of the mayor and council and indeed the citizens of that town, I support what is right not necessarily who is right.

Last Saturday I flew to Nelson but it was so overcast, couldn't get down in either Castlegar or Nelson so we had to return. My colleague, the Minister of Lands and Forests and I will do exactly the same thing tomorrow, exactly the same thing. I hope the weather is such that we can get down.

To do what? To negotiate and discuss this matter of Nelson's position relative to the Kootenay Canal and relative to their future.

I want to tell the Member opposite from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that we don't need his putting this problem into the political arena. We don't need it. Because if the Member is playing politics with this I want to tell him and I'm sure I speak for my Member opposite that when an election is called I can tell him right now without making any predictions that his Members won't win, that's for sure. Because if they could win some of his big names would come out from underneath the rocks and seek candidacy because some of his people wouldn't accept any type of nomination unless they could win. So they won't come.

I'm quite well aware of where he got this information from. I'm quite well aware why he interjected it in here. Because, Mr. Speaker, it is nothing but just cheap politics. That's all it is.

Alright, what is my position? My position is exactly this. I've never had to do this in 20 years of standing in this place. Again I repeat I want to do what is right. Be sure and copy it down. Get it all down. That's important.

I want to know what will be the return to the people against their loss. How much will be required of the system if shut down? What will be the return if the proper amount is invested at a reasonable interest rate to bring compensation from the investments for those losses that that city will undoubtedly suffer? Because anybody that knows anything about it at all knows perfectly well that the City of Nelson has subsidised other things from the profits accruing from their hydro situation.

If negotiation breaks down, I hope that is not so, but if it does I would like to recommend or hope that we could have an independent arbitration. I've worked with this government long enough to know perfectly well that the government will declare, and I haven't lost any hope as far as that is concerned. I will be there to discuss the thing with the Mayor, the weather be willing, and I hope we can get down.

I want to say a couple of other things relative to it. The Liberals have made a great play about the Kootenays and what they're going to do. You know the Kootenays position over a period of many years because of the Liberals. Had it not been for the southern transprovincial highway being built by this administration with the support of many people, the people of the Kootenays would still be spending their money and making their purchases in Spokane rather than in British Columbia.

So it can be fairly said that the people of the Kootenays helped build the City of Spokane, no question about it.

After the southern transprovincial having been built then Spokane is going economically downhill. I don't say that because the Canadians aren't buying there to the extent that they were but I happen to know that in one department store where there used to be 2,600 credit accounts, there is now something like 22 as of about a month ago.

So this will give you some rough idea of where it's going and that certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the Liberals because they helped to create that position. There are 22 individual ones, that's correct.

Then we heard, because I knew he was in the Kootenays, about "let's widen the southern transprovincial to TransCanada standards." I know exactly where that comes from and I don't mind telling you that comes right straight from Maurice Klinkhammer, Mayor of Cranbrook. I've heard that song so many times.

Sure, and my friend opposite will be the first to agree with me for all intents and purposes Cranbrook, as far as their old patterns are concerned, are almost complete so therefore they're looking somewhere else, rather than support say Kimberley or other people within that riding, no they go out onto this. The amount of money that would be required to do that would just be out of this world when that money has to be spent and fairly spent in other parts of the country.

Let's look at the Creston to Salmo and the bridge at Nelson, All you have to do is to go into this library right at the back of us not more than 100 feet away and you'll discover that the Liberal politicians over the years played the Creston to Salmo versus the Nelson bridge. In order to win one set of votes they promised the bridge at Nelson. In order to win the other set they promised the other, and they did this at different times to keep it divided and they didn't do anything until this government came along and did the smart thing and built them simultaneously.

I want to say something else not particularly related to this bridge or to this debate and one thing that concerns me very, very much. I only want to touch upon it lightly and it only brought it to mind by a chance remark of one of the Liberal Members, I believe, in talking about drug abuse.

I don't think there's any more distressing thing than the drug abuse that is taking place in our province. I don't think there's anything more distressing. I doubt very much if there is one single M.L.A. who has not had a distressed parent say: "What can you do to help me with my son, my daughter?" or something of that sort. It's very sad. Someone said: "Don't bother with the parents who are sitting watching TV." Mr. Speaker, that's the very person to bother with. Because the majority of parents, the first flash is to blame it on somebody else, blame it on to somebody else.

I remember a case recently of a couple who had one daughter, an only child. They discovered at age 17 the girl was on heroin and yet they didn't know that. You sometimes wonder, does a mother ever look into the dresser drawers? Does a mother ever turn the mattress? This sort of thing. Besides I know that particular family. They were all too busy going to somebody's cocktail party, or some concert somewhere and all this sort of thing and poor kid: "Here's $3. Go

[ Page 626 ]

and get a milkshake and a hamburger."

But once that first shock has taken place, then these people want to know all about it. I'm not going to bore you with a long speech but I belong to the Kiwanis Organisation. You'd be wise to look at their last monthly and it tells the parents in a very good ad what to look for to find out whether their child is on heroin, or on drugs.

In this problem that we have to deal with in drug abuse — fine, we have to concentrate on the user, we certainly do. There's no question about that. But we certainly have to inform the parents of their responsibility and what they may have to look for in terms of looking after their own children.

I think, Mr. Minister of Education, that in your advertising programme, of course to get to the users but of course get to the parent as well because they are extremely concerned, they are clueless when it comes to looking for the sign. A simple thing like sitting across the table from a boy or girl every morning and not even noticing dilated pupils. And that sort of thing.

This is an amazing thing to me, and I say it on behalf of Nelson-Creston because I don't know what the percentage is, but I know there are drug users there, I know there are drug users in Creston, and I'd make a reasonable guess that they are in every other town too.

It's just a fact of life. You talk to some of these high school kids once you get their confidence, they can tell you where they get the marijuana. They know where to get it, they know where to get booze. They know all about it, they know where to get it. And the problem the parents have I can only thank God that our kids have grown up and this was never a problem.

But I'm not stupid enough to say "it can't happen to me." Or, "it can't happen in our family," because indeed I hope it happens in no one's family, but sometimes these things have a way of reaching out and touching us all.

We are in the budget debate and I have a great many things to say to you today, and I want to be reasonable about the time. No doubt about it whatsoever I wonder sometimes and great numbers of us have been here although we hear a good deal about parliament in 1952 there were only six perhaps seven people that were here in 1952.

Now one of the most interesting little documents to read in your spare time is the late Byron Johnson's 1952 budget. It's a very interesting document. There you will discover on page 29 that not only…

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: Yes you did, you read parts. I'm going to read other parts. That Mr. Johnson on page 29 informed the Legislature at that time that he was going into the money markets to borrow $28,350,000. And over on page 48 in relation to debt reduction that we've all been talking about something we take for granted now. So it's wise to refresh your memories to what that debt was. I'm not going to read it all.

There you find the P.G.E. with a debt of in round figures some $31 million. Highways and bridges $101 million, whereas today we pay them all out of currency.

University of B.C. $10 million and again I'm not going to read them all, but believe it or not there are $7.4 million for unemployment relief in the hungry thirties. This has all been eliminated and all one has to do is to turn to the latest budget that was before you two weeks ago and you'll see that not only has this administration reduced that debt, but it has built up the assets as well.

This government has given to the people of this province performance and not politics. I can point to every item in that budget and I'm not going to enumerate it for the second time, and say to you as they say on the TV. ad "now that's performance." At times in the budget because government has to look beyond the end of its nose, it has to look into five, 10, 15, 20 years from now and if somebody said during the debate perhaps through the years but they have to look ahead and they have to plan ahead. And it seems that the public demand for services are insatiable. No government anywhere could do it all, no government anywhere.

Simple matters like roads — there will never be an end to people's desires for roads, and they should have them because this province isn't going to progress without them. My friend from Atlin (Mr. Calder) a moment or so ago was trying to indicate that this government had forgotten the north, when the reverse is quite true. Because the facts of life are they have made the north — they have not made the north as they would desire it, but Rome wasn't built in a day and all these things cannot be done in a day. There are times when we have to have restraint. We just have to have restraint.

Sometimes we who are Ministers facetiously say when it comes treasury board time: "Well, why don't we let Education and the Health boys and the Welfare boys go first and then we'll sit back and argue about who gets the rest." Now that may be facetious, but it's nevertheless true. Why? Because the health care package, if I may include welfare in that too, and education, those costs are soaring at tremendous rates and if we don't do something about it then there isn't going to be any money for anything else if we went hog wild.

We have to be very mindful that we do have to cut costs. Every last one of us has had to face that in our homes from time to time. Every last one of us had had to face that. Our Minister of Finance has been astute to build up reserves that could be used in time. And he's had nothing but criticism as the result of that. Sometimes all you have to do right at the moment because other jurisdictions are sitting in their Legislature, their budget will either have come down, or will be coming down. And if you think we're badly off or this is not a good budget, then make those comparisons.

Just on this debt, and goodness knows the Social Credit Party have been laughed at, sneered at, ridiculed because of debt reduction and we heard a lot of that during this debate, Mr. Speaker. But the Proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we do have these reserves, we don't have to pay off debts, either principal or interests, and we do have that money to go into the public service.

I have been very mindful of this and I'd like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that in keeping with the government's declared objectives of restraining undue expenditures and controlling inflationary pressures on the economy in the public sector I'll shortly be introducing a bill into this House for this specific purpose.

The bill will be an amendment to the Constitution Act. And whereas in the past the salaries of the executive council and of the Members of the legislative assembly and the officers of the legislative assembly have been increased by a bill introduced and passed by the Members themselves this amendment will provide that these increases will in the future be dependent upon and related to the increases declared and fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be applicable and permissible in the whole of the public service.

There's a further stipulation written into this bill that

[ Page 627 ]

where the proposed increases and the salaries, indemnities and special allowances exceed the amount fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the increase will not be effective until it is approved by a plebiscite of all the electors in the province taken in accordance with the rules set out in the pertinent section of the bill.

The majority vote required to approve the increase is the same that is required under the Public Schools Act. You can't say one thing and do another.

During this debate — and I'm not quarrelling with this because that's a normal procedure that Opposition Members have a right to present non-confidence motions, it's all part of the procedure, it's all part of the game if you will, Mr. Speaker — several things have been said from time to time relative to elderly citizens. At another time I mentioned some of the programme that had been developed for elderly citizens of this province in terms of elderly citizens housing.

We entertain the idea, as opposed to propositions being presented from the Opposition, that the government do it all. We have found it extremely successful that sponsoring organisations albeit religious organisations, service clubs, ethnic groups et cetera, sponsor these type of organisations. And under that aegis these have been extremely successful.

Even this morning at the executive council an order-in-council was developed for our 35 per cent of the share for the B.C. Baptist Foundation of Vancouver in the sum of $787,000.

Further, Mr. Speaker, you have heard from other members of the executive council and other Members on this side of the government policy relative to special care. I want to make the announcement in a moment or so relative to the very first one that we want to develop in the province.

As I said, we are great admirers of those people that help themselves and are anxious to help those that help themselves. When I go back, certainly that was the principle — and I mean this kindly — of "old man Winch." He wanted people to help themselves and this has been developed ever since. So the first one for these goes to the Lions Paraplegic Lodge Society in Vancouver in the sum of $110,000. I think if there is any organisation that I admire greatly it is these ladies and gentlemen who travel around on wheelchairs and who are paraplegic and indeed some of them are quadriplegic. But for the grace of God I might have been a paraplegic and these people will do something for you if you meet them.

They have never been to these buildings asking for anything. Never, because they want to do it themselves. They're people that go out and try to get jobs for people who are handicapped, these are the people who try to bring the person who has lost hope, who has been crippled for one reason or the other, automobile accidents mostly — although not always — and bring them back into the economic stream and give them something to live for and they have found jobs for hundreds of them. We should do more of this type of thing, and indeed your government intends to do exactly that.

I wonder how long it is since the Members have been into this type of home. Someone here mentioned my own mother was in one and I know other Members have parents and relatives in this type of home and these are wonderful places for them. Relative to the special care homes, those that we have on the book right now — the Mennonite Benevolent Society of Abbotsford will soon be in this field, the New Vista Society at Burnaby, the Rotary Club of Kimberley, Peace River Haven at Pouce Coupe, Penticton Lions Club, Action Housing in Burnaby, Evergreen Baptist at White Rock, the New Westminster Kiwanis, German-Canadian Benevolent Society, and the Penticton Retirement Service.

If you total all these up…I didn't bore you by reading the number of beds in some of them, for instance, New Vista is 292 beds, Action Housing, Burnaby, potential is 292 beds, New Westminster Kiwanis is 176 beds. I don't want to mislead the House in saying that these will be exclusively for special care because that's not the fact at all. But they will be an ancillary service to existing facilities.

To say that this administration has done nothing for the elderly is, of course, fallacious. We have done a tremendous amount for them. Perhaps one could ask is there any end to what you can do for them? But I think in balancing the government's financial capabilities, that we have done everything we can for them at the time and they have not been forgotten in terms of what we will do for them in the future.

I want to say a word about the civil service and say another order-in-council was passed today having to do with the vacation leave of civil servants. The Civil Service Commission recommended to us that the vacation leave be revised to provide for five weeks vacation or 25 working days after 25 years of service.

Let me say a word about centennial. I'm sure all British Columbians have been the butts of many jokes saying: "When are you going to have the next centennial?" If it were left to my decision I tell you I'd try to find a way to find another one. Because they do many things. They bring our own people together to build worthwhile projects. We have swimming pools, libraries and gymnasiums et cetera, that will be of lasting use to the particular communities that have developed them.

I would be very remiss indeed if I did not say a word about my own deputy Minister Lawrie Wallace who was head of the centennial committee. He's had a mighty tough job, a great many people have been critical of him. They are always critical of those people who try to do something. But more have given him praise than criticism. He's done a tremendous job and earned our thanks for the great work that he did.

During the course of debate from time to time we talk about pensions. Well, of course everybody knows there are several types of pension. The pension over which we have jurisdiction are contributory plans. And at the last session you know perfectly well that we co-ordinated as near as is humanly possible in terms of various types of thinking in terms of pension, to bring better pensions to a great many people. And if my memory serves me rightly some 8,000 people had better pensions as of the result of the amendment that this Legislature passed last time. So all I'm saying here is, that every facet of society is attempted to be served by this government.

We all know in this House that the next debate, if that's what it is, is concerned with estimates and which all Members of the House see fit to ask the Minister questions and ask for various reports in terms of their responsibilities and as all Members know those are outlined by both this, that and the next thing.

I would like to talk for a minute about medicare. I have no doubt that at the time the estimates are before us, Mr. Speaker, that a good deal will be said about medicare.

This House will recall that a year or so ago I suggested to this House that the federal administration would make an attempt to pull out of medicare, to opt out. Believe me, I say to you, you'd better watch that situation over the next little while. My colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Loffmark) mentioned it the other day when we were talking

[ Page 628 ]

about the federal's new proposal relating medicate to G.N.P. or the Gross National Product. That was presented to the Prime Ministers of the various provinces who turned it down. It was presented to the Ministers of Health who turned it down.

Only the second move was made, and that is they sweetened the pot by throwing in some $640 million-odd if my memory serves me correctly, calling it a thrust fund.

But I suggest, like my friend the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) that it will be our responsibility to read the fine print. To use the words of the new leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland, who is a good personal friend of mine — he was then Minister of Health — his words to Mr. Munro were "This is a cop-out" and I quote him directly.

So when we talk about medicate let's have it in its proper perspective. In my humble opinion there is no greater social legislation on the books today than medicate. I repeat again that at election time and this sort of thing, if political parties use auction sale tactics in respect to medicate then you're going to wind up like Britain with nothing, absolutely nothing. You'll kill the goose that laid the golden egg. A lot of these benefits one hears about are very desirable, very desirable. But whether or not the people of this province or indeed any other province will be able to bear that kind of a burden, I know not. But I guess it will not be able to handle it.

I've said before and I say again, talk to somebody knowledgeable about the British scheme. Talk about it. There were Members in this House who are not here any more — particularly one, Mr. Levy — who saw the whole thing, who knew what we were talking about and knows that now prepaid medicine is rising out of the ashes of British medicare. That is a fact and is not fiction.

We have wonderful legislation here. We have a wonderful service to the people. So think it out and think it wisely.

During this debate, mention has been made of clinics. Let me say I or the government is not opposed to clinics. But, or to use the famous word, "however," let's have a care. Let's make sure we know what we're doing before we go merrily off and develop some of these clinics and group practices without knowing all about it.

I have done exactly what I have said I would in the last session. As far as our group is concerned we went to Permanente down in the States in company with the medical profession. They went to Sault Ste. Marie and we'll be going to others as well.

I have to be honest. As far as I am concerned personally there are some facets of it that are very critical. There are other facets of it that I am not too sure how desirable they really are. But that's not the point anyway. If clinics are going to be developed then certainly all of us in British Columbia want them to be the best in terms of service to our people.

I want to say a word about the medical profession. As far as I'm concerned I've had a wonderful relationship with them. That is not to say that I have agreed with them all the time nor indeed they with me. Not at all.

But we have talked. We have discussed. Sometimes we get angry with one another — certainly we do. But that esprit de corps, that co-operativeness that is necessary in developing this scheme goes forward.

We have problems, we've got problems. Right at the moment every Member of this Legislature knows that we're dealing with the problem of government and the medical profession. When that problem becomes solved, and it's going to take some time, then there's certainly the problem of the patient or the user if you like or the client, call it anything you like. There is the problem.

There's always the implication that somebody is abusing the plan. I want to tell you honestly, Mr. Speaker there are people who are abusing the plan, period.

AN HON. MEMBER: It wouldn't be a plan if it wasn't being abused some place.

HON. MR. BLACK: We have a relationship now and certain orders-in-council were developed. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to tell you something. The reason for those orders-in-council was the shock treatment, My particular facet in dealing with the medical profession was on laboratories. And I can say with every degree of honesty I asked the medical profession time without number over a period of two-and-a half years to do something about it. They did little or nothing. They were slower than anything imaginable. However, they're not quite so slow now.

Yes, we had differences of opinion, we certainly did. But out of it all is coming some common sense. Because it is all very well to say there are stinkers and that sort of thing in the medical profession. I personally don't accept that. In all facets of society there are those who do not play the game, certainly there are. There are some in the medical profession but I say very quickly it's a small percentage.

The medical profession wants to deal with those people and deal with them sternly and as a consequence of the committee that is set up to explore these laboratories the medical profession has chosen their own people with my approval.

I want to tell you they are fine men. They have the courage of their convictions and they don't give a hoot whose toes they tramp on either. They don't give a hoot whose toes they tramp on because they have the sincerity of purpose to solve the problems.

At first those doctors were harassed by their own people. They certainly were — there's no question about that. They were disturbed and worried about it because I'm sure the doctors present in the House will have to admit that the medical profession is certainly an emotional lot. There's no question about that. They get all up-tight.

Last week their own medical profession told them to let their conscience be their guide and they couldn't have made anybody happier. As far as I am concerned, they're doing an excellent job and there's certain questions on the order paper which will be answered and answered truthfully. But to try to tell this House that all the problems relative to laboratories have been solved, that's false. That's false. We are taking steps and they'll be well on the way.

One of the most serious problems we face is the problem of the vested interest. I've taken the attitude that if it's an ethical problem with the doctors then the doctors should solve that within their own conclaves and through their own ethical committee. If it's a problem of patterns of practice then the doctors should deal with that too, because I'm certainly unqualified to even pass an opinion.

But the doctors know that as far as the government is concerned, I'm not going to tolerate any shilly-shallying nor am I going to tolerate the whitewash brush. If an individual turns out to be guilty of one thing then he'll have to pay the same as everybody else. Because the fair-minded doctor does not think he's any holy cow in our society. He doesn't think

[ Page 629 ]

so at all. There may be the odd one but I've never met too many of them.

I say to the House — and there'll be plenty of time to debate this at another time — that we've come a long way and we've come a thorny path. There are many side roads to the discussion and to the solving of this tremendous problem. But I'm a great believer that common sense prevails. I don't want anybody in this House to go away and think that because we in this province have problems from time to time with the medical profession, do not think that this is the only province in Canada that has those problems.

I wanted to say a good deal about highways today. I will shorten it up considerably, but I want to say this, that I think every Member of the House should be fairly known. Someone else, my friend from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) mentioned it during his discourse that we've had the worst winter conditions since 1937. That is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1935.

HON. MR. BLACK: 1935 was it? Fine. These winter conditions have been terrible and in your various ridings there are going to be pot-hole conditions. There's going to be road break-ups and this sort of thing. So be prepared for that type of criticism. I can only say as far as the Department of Highways is concerned, we'll try to alleviate those conditions just as quickly as we can.

I think too you should be aware — or you are aware — that on the Fraser Canyon due to the severe winter conditions and those tunnels and so on there was some rather bad situations where individuals were trapped in the tunnels and so on.

I guess that's the reason we're all in politics. We have faith in people. Apart from the highway crews who were out night and day sometimes without sleep or meals to try and alleviate that, the public of this province have been generous enough to write in many, many letters commending the highway department. Believe me, they deserve that commendation.

But I wanted to mention the Hope search and rescue group which is a volunteer, non-profit organisation. They did a tremendous job. They volunteered. They weren't asked and today the executive council in order to help them out with the programmes that they have and the good work that they're doing passed an order-in-council giving them a gratuity of $1,000. They're voluntary, they don't want money or anything like that but they've done a tremendous job and this is the least we can do for them.

I wanted to mention some more before I sit down relative to the Trans-Canada Highway. A good deal in this House has been said about it, but most that has been said is completely erroneous. We heard a statement today from the Liberal Member who wound up this debate dealing with the percentages paid by the federal government. I want to tell you the percentage paid in this province by the federal government was 44 per cent. What he did is neglect to subtract presumably the National Parks roads which they had to pay all themselves.

Now, let's look at this situation calmly. We're not fools. Here we are in Canada today and have got one Trans-Canada Highway. That's all we've got.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: Alright. The federal government — yes you're always defending them and this sort of thing. I tell you, I went for a simple request. Number 1, alright, call it Trans-Canada if you will, it certainly was at that time. We asked the federal government to share with us in extending that to the north end of Vancouver Island. We got the "go jump in the take" technique, is what we got.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that why you took the signs down?

HON. MR. BLACK: I'll tell you why I took the signs down. Always leave it to you, boy. You stick your neck right out and get a piece taken right off the end of it. Always do it. I want to tell you as long as you're leading the Liberal Party, my friend, my seat will be safe and so will many, many more around here.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BLACK: Just the other day I read in the paper that the eastern politicians were reluctant to see the type of money that western Canada is having. That statement come from Jack Davis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a fact?

HON. MR. BLACK: It is a fact. I'm going to make a suggestion to you that when the next federal election comes up I don't care what party the candidate represents — ask that candidate in the federal election are you going to represent British Columbia? If the answer is "no," vote for somebody else.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: Because I can tell you apart from very few instances, have we got help from any federal Members? I'll have to be fair and tell you one was certainly Ray Perrault, no question about that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: In connection with the going down on that incentive programme, I'll tell you that's a real joke. Spend $500 or $600 of the people's money to fly down there and be in a hotel room to try to persuade them to help you. Unless you're a Liberal Member you haven't got a chance and it's very doubtful if you ever get to see the Minister to start with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't you?

HON. MR. BLACK: No. My friend and I were there and we got the big "no" too. We have been sending bills on the Trans-Canada to the federal government and they've totalled $3,856,000…

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they pay them?

HON. MR. BLACK: …and also $22,196,000 on the Second Narrows bridge. The amount of money we've received, Mr. Speaker, is zilch. Nothing, nothing, nothing.

In the Trans-Canada agreement — alright it can be argued "you signed it therefore you have to live up to the agreement" — but…

[ Page 630 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: …alright. Alright, no conditions or no credit was given to British Columbia in terms of the type of terrain we have to traverse. None. No breaks were given to British Columbia because of weather conditions. During the time from the signing of the original agreement to the time it terminated British Columbia and indeed along with other provinces faced tidy recessions. Difficult tight money period, we all know that here. We didn't get credit for that at all, nothing whatsoever. Yet all are saying that Ottawa's the bad boys.

I am the president of the Roads Transportation Association Canada and I'm again this year. I've had the opportunity to go to these other jurisdictions. I know every Minister personally and when I see the type of equipment they're got and what we've got it's pathetic. We've got sardine cans. They've got the latest stuff. Why? So there's no Trans-Canada agreement, but they have other agreements which provide a federal assistance for those roads.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: This business of nattering at Ottawa all the time isn't because we want to. I don't go down to Ottawa and sit in the Prime Minister's office, which I haven't, and insult the man. I certainly don't. I didn't vote for him but I have to recognise he's the Prime Minister of Canada and as such I respect him but all British Columbia has ever asked for is a square and a fair deal. Up to this point we haven't got it.

I want to say one other thing because I promised a friend of mine I'd do this. In the development of the highways of British Columbia, one of my friends opposite, the first Member from Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merilees) had something to do with the beautification of our highways and has been very interested over a period of time about the aesthetics in relation to our highways.

As our highways unfold over the next few years with the help of that Member we are giving priority to those aesthetics.

Now Mr. Speaker, I've covered in a broad sort of way some of the facets of my department. It couldn't be all done or I'd be here until 12 o'clock tonight but we have now come to the time when I must ask you to put the motion. I think everyone or most people have declared themselves in relation to that vote. As far as I see it, Mr. Speaker, there is no point in delaying that vote. I therefore suggest to you, sir, that you do put that motion now. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that, Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply. Are you ready for question?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS-35

NAYS-16

House in committee of supply. The committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Second reading of Bill No. 3.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 3. The Honourable the Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this Bill No. 3, I would like to inform the Members of the Legislature that there are a number of amendments, there are three major changes, one to do with the finance formula, one to do with a method of settling teachers' salaries and one to do with teachers' tenure.

Now any of the other amendments in the Act, I'll be pleased to discuss during the committee stage of the bill. But talking about these three major areas of amendment in Bill No. 3, first of all I'd like to refer to the educational finance formula.

I'd like to quote from the 7th annual report of Economic Council of Canada. In this a statement appears:

If the costs of education and health services continue to rise at the rate that they have for the past five years, 9 per cent per year real growth not counting inflation, they threaten to absorb the whole of the Gross National Product by the end of the century.

During the last three years I've been visiting boards and' I've attended annual meetings of the School Trustees' Association and I've been reading this warning as loudly and as clearly as I can to them — that if we do not presently have a crisis in educational costs it will surely shortly be upon us.

The Honourable Members of the Legislature are very well aware that the taxpayers of the province are becoming increasingly alarmed about the escalating costs of educational services. You're also aware that the taxpayers are very concerned and they're showing great resentment about the annual increase on taxes on their properties. I'll have more to say about that later on.

In 1968, the finance formula was first brought into operation in British Columbia when the then Minister of Education, my colleague the now Attorney General Mr. Peterson, stated that when circumstances warranted

[ Page 631 ]

adjustments, the finance formula would be adjusted accordingly. And over the years intervening we have made major adjustments in this formula,

One of the adjustments we've made is to allow additional costs to school boards for special classes. Another amendment we made just last year was where we allowed school boards additional costs to defray transportation. Another amendment we made last fall in the finance formula was to provide supplementary grants to school districts that were suffering abnormal student population growths, for example, Delta and Kelowna, because there was an unjust burden going on to the local taxpayer because of an abnormal growth of student population.

Now the major objectives in this finance formula are three-fold. First it provides a vehicle or a method whereby the government can share with the school districts the cost of education. It will grow from time to time. It allows us to share the largest possible volume of operating expenses.

Secondly it makes an adequate provision each year for the cost increases in the school districts and also makes adequate provision for student population growth in the district.

The idea of the basic education programme is to allow each school district to have a superior level of education opportunity regardless of where people may be in any part of this great province of ours.

Notwithstanding this, it recognises that a school board can have excess spending or surplus spending over and above this basic educational programme. However, this excess spending above the basic programme is all at the local taxpayers' cost. Up to now each board has been allowed to budget above the basic programme by an amount of 10 per cent to establish the kind of a programme that a school board may wish to have in their district.

And in addition to this additional 10 per cent the board could go beyond that again if they wished. But the only thing was that we felt that at a certain point the taxpayers' approval should be asked because everything above the basic programme has to be paid by the local taxpayers.

So we did say that if a board went beyond 10 per cent over the basic programme they would have to go to the local taxpayer for his consent. We took a very careful look at the matter and we found that the idea originally was that the board should try to budget as close as they could to the basic programme. It was never the idea that they should try to drive their costs up to the 10 per cent level above the basic programme.

Study revealed to us that whereas in 1968 the majority of the school boards in the province — that is having large budgets, $3 million or more — were budgeting well below the 110 per cent factor in 1971, those very same boards were budgeting at the 110 per cent factor.

In other words instead of 110 per cent factor being considered as a reasonable normal ceiling for operating expense budgeting, it is now being considered as a minimum floor for budget structuring. This caused great inflation to take place.

If all the school districts in the province were to budget at each year in a level up to 110 per cent of the cost of the basic education programme, education costs in British Columbia will double approximately every six years. In other words, if the costs are allowed to escalate at this rate, six years from now the school districts' budget will amount to approximately $600 million.

Now I have provided some charts for you which I will pass out when I've concluded, but you will note in chart No. 4 where we have drawn a chart for you showing the education budgets for school boards starting in 1956. The compound annual rate from that time up to now has been 12.74 per cent. If the curve continues at this rate, you'll note by the year 1976 it will reach $600 million, double what it is today. And by the year 1980, only a few years from now, it will be over $1 billion. That's the total school board budgeting. That's our grants plus the total budget, public school budgeting.

So I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Members of the Legislature that some definite controls must be placed on the spending of the school boards.

In my address to the school trustees during their convention last October, I advised them that I intended to bring this form of amendment to the Legislature. I gave them fair notice. I told them as early as October 4 that this kind of legislation would be coming forth. So any board that comes along now and says that they haven't been given adequate notice, I gave them the notice at the earliest possible moment.

I also advised the school boards of the province that I would try to get the legislation on the floor as soon as possible. It was the second government bill and it was the first major government bill on the floor at the earliest possible moment.

The concern over the alarming costs of education is by no means confined to British Columbia. It exists in every jurisdiction in Canada and throughout the United States. Incidently I should tell you that last October, when I made this announcement, several members of the Opposition were there at the time, the school trustees sighed a visible sigh of relief because they thought I'd be reducing the formula from 110 per cent to 106 per cent. Instead, it is at 108 per cent and there's a question as to whether or not we will be amending it from time to time and if that were so we would be putting an arbitrary amount in the legislation instead of a specific amount. We would leave it up to regulations. Instead we have put 108 per cent in there, and it cannot be changed again without coming to you for your permission.

May I tell you this? This legislation shows that this formula is the fairest formula in operation in Canada. Alberta has adopted our finance formula but they have a figure of 106 per cent.

We have also done a study and you heard yesterday the Minister of Health tell you what was happening to health costs. You heard the Provincial Secretary today tell you about the rising medicare costs and you've heard the Minister of Social Welfare talk about welfare costs.

We've done a study in British Columbia which shows that if we can hold the education, health, and welfare costs under reasonable control and under existing trends and if you take the presently best possible increase in provincial revenue, by the year 1980 health, welfare and education will take up as much as the provincial budget or the province can possibly generate in the way of revenue. I've also prepared a chart for you so you'll be able to notice this.

You will note that from the year 1960 up to date, up to 1971, that health, education, and social services have gone up at an average rate of 15 per cent, whereas the total provincial revenue has gone up at an average rate of 10 per cent. You'll note as well that in the years 1969, 1970, 1971, it showed a slight decline but we're continuing it up at an anticipated rate. This graph will show that by the year 1980, health, welfare, and education will take all the resources this province can possibly generate in the way of revenue. There

[ Page 632 ]

would be no money left over for my friend, the Minister of Highways, (Hon. Mr. Black), my friend the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources, (Hon. Mr. Williston), and that's why I'm telling the Members of this Legislature that we are in a crisis condition in education costs today and steps will have to be taken to bring these rapidly rising costs under control.

This chart shows in British Columbia precisely the same warning that the Economic Council of Canada has given to all of us in Canada. In the Province of Ontario they are cutting back drastically on educational costs. You may have noticed that our neighbouring Province of Alberta today shows a deficit of $185 million and they are having difficulty with education costs. In the United States more than half of all the requests for increased spending have been rejected by taxpayers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blackboard jungle.

HON. MR. BROTHERS: There is an article entitled; "The financial crisis for public schools" which appeared in the November 8 issue of the News and World Report and it clearly indicates the alarm about rising education costs in every state of the union.

The interest to the Members of the Legislature that I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition and his group were down in Washington educational formula because they wouldn't want to have that adopted in British Columbia.

In Washington, the lowest per-pupil spending is $434 in one district and the highest is $3,406 so there is a disparity of 685 per cent in Washington from district to district. I note also with a great deal of interest that in this article — Sidney P. Marlon Junior, the U.S. Commissioner of Education recommends a system that will allow each state to establish a base amount that every school in the state must receive for each pupil to ensure an adequate level of education.

Now doesn't that sound familiar? That's precisely what we have here. He said, Mr. Marchand would allow communities to raise additional funds presumably through such devices as property taxes, if they wanted to spend more money on their school systems. Doesn't that sound familiar? That's precisely what our formula is.

Then he goes on to say limits would be set on the amount of extra spending. Now isn't that familiar? That's precisely what we have here. In other words I'm telling you that we adopted a formula in 1968 which is precisely the same as the U.S. Commissioner of Education is now recommending for the United States. We're four years ahead of the United States on this.

In recent months there have been several instances where uncontrolled education spending in the United States has had disastrous results. I can recall when I made my talk to the school trustees' convention in October of last year that there are several complete school systems shutting down in the United States because they had run out of money — in a very, very rich country. In Washington State as well — may I say that the Opposition say that we are very penurious in our grants — in Washington State the grants equate to $365 per pupil, yet in British Columbia in spite of an increase of 46,000 pupils in our public schools from 1968 to 1971, the cost of our basic education programme for 1971 equates not to $365 per pupil but $620 per pupil as compared with $479 per pupil in 1968.

The finance formula is based on the number of students in the school district. It's based on the number of units. As the units climb in a school district, so as well as the amount per unit climbing, the total grant climbs.

I should point out that in 1968 the value for every unit was $11,200. In 1969 it was $11,960; in 1970 it was $12,990; in 1971 in was $14,030 and it has been increased this year to $15,190. That's an increase for every school unit of 8.29 per cent in each teaching unit. Every teaching unit in the province receives $15,190, that's the basic programme.

In other words, if a school district such as Surrey wants to spend 8.91 per cent this year over and above the basic programme, they are lifting their programme by 8.29 per cent which we're giving the increase plus the addition 8.91 per cent. In other words they lifted their programme by 17 per cent over last year.

I opened my remarks by saying that taxpayers in the province are becoming increasingly alarmed. Over the years the previous Minister of Education and I have said that we have no intention whatsoever of providing school boards of this province with a blank cheque. That's apparently what they're asking for. The more I learn about the problems existing elsewhere in the financing of education, the more I'm convinced that we have in British Columbia the most equitable system to be found on the continent for financing our public school system.

Our formula provides automatically each year more money to meet the added costs of education arising from growth in pupil population and normal cost increases for goods and services. We're assured that regardless of where a pupil lives in this province, he has the same opportunity to a good education as any other pupil anywhere else. Indeed the formula is flexible, designed to take care of the needs of a growing province.

I don't have to go too far away to talk about educational costs approaching a crisis. January 23, the school trustee, Walter Donald, from the Greater Victoria School District, who is the finance committee chairman, said we're in a near-crisis situation as far as financing education is concerned. That's the message we've got to get through, he said. "If the present rates of increase and the boards' educational spending continue unchecked, the total bill can be expected to double about every seven years." He said further: "I have yet to meet the home-owner who's looking forward to the doubling of his taxes in seven years." But more seriously, how many people on fixed incomes just can't afford these sort of increases? How many people are going to have to give up their homes because of them?

Also in Burnaby I noticed that the chairman of the board said that from 1966 in Burnaby to 1971 the costs of education in the school district have increased from $11,766,000 to $22 million which expressed in a percentage equals 88.64 per cent in just a period of five years, off-set by a relatively small increase in pupil population.

In conclusion on this part of my address I would just like to say this: my responsibility as Minister of Education extends to the students of the public school system, it extends to the parents, the teachers, the boards of school trustees and the taxpayers of the province — my responsibility is to get as much money as possible for the education programmes of the province. It is also my responsibility to see that these moneys are well spent. It's part of my duty and I must do my utmost to insure that the system will continue to receive the support of the taxpayers.

I'm just saying, Mr. Speaker, that unless controls are placed on these rapidly-rising costs of education, the taxpayer will revolt and it would occur in our province as it has occurred in the United States that our educational

[ Page 633 ]

programme could come to a halt and I think that this amendment in the Act is therefore required. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Constitution Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House February 18, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 37. On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.