1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 585 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders

of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): It is a privilege, Mr.

Speaker. I want to apologize to the House for giving false information

to the House on Tuesday last. I told the House and gave the House

information about transit operations which were proved false by the

filing of the answer of the Premier on Wednesday, February 24, the day

after the transit debate was concluded and Vote 83 was passed. I said

that the deficit of transit operations in the urban areas was

increasing. In fact, it was decreasing by $500,000, or half a million

dollars, in the period 1969 to 1970. I further, Mr. Speaker, as a

matter of privilege, and I have my authority here, wish to ask that you

exercise your authority and expunge the resolution on Vote 83 as an

abuse of the privileges of the House, that the House should be given

the information the day after that important vote was passed. I refer

to May , 17th edition, page

42, "The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely

necessary for the due execution of its powers.' They are enjoyed by

individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions

without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House

for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own

authority and dignity." What has happened, Mr. Speaker, in providing

this information, after the votes have gone through, is an abuse of the

rights of the Members of this Parliament.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MACDONALD: It is a matter of privilege and I feel that we

have seen an exercise of high, contumelious disrespect for the

traditions of Parliament and fair play. I ask that the resolution on

Vote 83 be expunged and that that matter be taken back to the House at

an appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): The Premier, the

Minister of Finance, cannot be blamed for lack of knowledge, lack of

study and lack of realization by the honourable Member on what's

happened to the transit rates in this Province. If the honourable

Member, who represents a Vancouver constituency, didn't realize that

during the year period there had been quite a large increase in the

rate charged, up to 25 cents, then that's his mistake. Any person with

common sense, Mr. Speaker, would know that with increased rates, the

loss would be reduced (interruption) . Mr. Speaker, the honourable Member should resign his seat (interruptions) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this information we got was at

variance with the only statements we had, which were of Chairman Shrum.

I say that this House has been abused and deceived and we passed that

resolution on Vote 83 based on false information. I ask it be expunged

from our records.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. The House is discussing the

matter of privilege but I think this does not give the right to the

Member to say that the House has been deceived. It's not a

parliamentary expression. I know it wasn't intended and I wish he would

withdraw the word "deceived." (Interruption.) One moment.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The questions were on the Order Paper for a

long time and the Government deliberately withheld that information

from the Members of this House.

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I think that the Chair has a

function to determine whether or not a bona fide point of privilege has

been raised. On the information that's before me and the authority

quoted by the Member, I have not had the opportunity, of course, to

research the subject. I would like to do so privately and to enquire

closely into the claim that has been made, at which time I hope to

bring something before the House.

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

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

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill that

would put into the hands of the Department of Recreation and

Conservation a limit of some $15 million for parks development in this

Province. It relates, in my opinion, directly to some comments that I

made during the Throne Debate where I suggested that funds be provided

from general revenue to create jobs in this Province that would be

related to the control of our environment and the restoration of

streams and forests, and the development of parks.

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

[ Page 586 ]

Parks Branch. What really remains at this point, I

imagine, will be the matter of priority. Each of us, representing as we

do specific geographic areas of the Province of British Columbia,

determine our own priorities, based on opinions and attitudes directly

related to our own geographic area. It would be too much for every

Member to stand up and speak for other sections of the Province rather

than his own. But in this instance, I want to make an appeal that is

related to the role that I have played in this House in the development

of parks policy. At least, in my opinion, I've played some role. The

Minister might think it was critical but nonetheless I felt it was a

positive contribution.

I would ask that a great deal of the funds allocated under this

particular

section be directed towards Cypress Bowl and Seymour Park.

The reason that I state this is that — and I'm not saying, exclusively,

I want to make that very clear — both Cypress Bowl and Seymour Park are

close to the lower mainland area, with the heaviest density of

population. The park facilities in the lower mainland area are already

overtaxed in terms of public use. Our heaviest concentrations of

unemployment are in the lower mainland area and that's not to say that

the problem elsewhere should be diminished — it's a very severe

problem. But on top of that, we have access to seasonally-adjusted

unemployment, as our Prime Minister tells about, with university

students being also available.

What I am interested in doing is trying to impress upon this

Government to direct as much money as possible to catch up, especially

in Cypress Bowl, for the time that we've lost. I don't intend to spend

any great deal of time here on the history of Cypress Bowl but I want

to point out that that land was acquired in 1944 for park purposes. It

was never developed as a park because there was a watershed reserve on

it. But we did, indeed, trade away other land, other forests, to

acquire this park. All through the controversy, from 1965 to 1971, when

the Government, in its wisdom, wished private enterprise had developed

the park and we, in our wisdom, were opposed to that approach to parks

development, that problem, after a bitter fight of some six years, has

been resolved. I say, with some humility, resolved to our point of view

with much satisfaction. It is gratefully and happily going to be a

public park, owned and controlled by the people of British Columbia — a

great victory for the people of British Columbia.

Now that we have it… (interruption) .

Mr. Member, that's a most disquieting remark. The Member, who has just

said to me not to be too sure, has completely thrown me off my pace

because, if there is any suggestion at all that this Government is

planning to allow private developers back into Cypress Bowl, I have not

seen that indication from the Government. I hope that the Member is

just being suspicious.

I have learned over my six-year fight over this particular park to

be doubtful about the Government, and now that the Government has

admitted its mistake, I would not think that it would go back into the

same trap again. I don't think the Minister wants to go through those

fires again. I'm sure that it's going to remain a public park. I'm

hopeful that it's going to remain a public park. We have six years to

make up.

The original promoters went into this park and made close to a

quarter of a million dollars in logging. The money has gone south. The

last we heard, in trying to trace the shareholders' location, was the

Dominican Republic. I hope that the funds that are in the Dominican

Republic will be used to develop parks down there. I'm sure that the

owners of those funds would feel some sense of obligation to those of

us in British Columbia who have made these funds available to them. If

any of us should ever happen to go to the Dominican Republic, maybe,

we'll find a little plaque in memory of the trees from Cypress Bowl.

There has been a mess created in there because of the unwillingness

of two Cabinet Ministers to check up closely on what was going on. Now

we must clean up that mess and it's going to cost a great deal of money

to do that. I make an appeal to the Minister to see that a large amount

of these funds is focused on Cypress Bowl.

The other appeal that I wish to make is in concert with my

colleague, the Member from Dewdney. I'm sure that he will get up and

agree with me that a share of this money should be focused on what was

formerly Garibaldi Park, now known, I think, as Golden Ears Park. I'm

not sure that's the name. It was a tragic mistake to split the park. It

lost its identity as Garibaldi Park and some people don't know where

Golden Ears Park is. Suffice to say, that some people fought the split

in that park but, nonetheless, it took place. I have heard that there

is some attempt to relog old timber berths in that park and I hope that

the Minister will tell us that that, indeed, will not be the case, that

no old timber berths in Golden Ears Park, formerly Garibaldi Park, the

south end, will be allowed to be logged.

Mr. Speaker, the parks policy of this Government has not been very

good. We were told by the Minister, when he spoke, that they had

created 134 new parks. Now the way that this Government creates parks,

Mr. Speaker, costs us very dearly. At one time, in 1956, we had over

nine million square acres of parkland. Now we've got just over six

million square acres of parkland. The Minister tells us we have created

134 new parks. That approach to creating parks, Mr. Speaker, is very

expensive, indeed. The last time I figured it out, it came out to a

cost of 27,000 acres per park to create a new park. We lost 27,000

acres every time we created a new one. The Minister, when he draws his

boundaries, costs us more acres than he's adding on to the park system.

I make an appeal to the Minister to focus the money on those two

parks in particular. I think the whole $15 million could be spent in

six months if the Minister were truly allowed to have his way. I think

that the amount of work that should be done in other parks of this

Province is also very, very pressing, to absorb the funds.

The last park I wish to mention is Tweedsmuir Park. The battle, I

understand, is over that I've had with the Minister about the

possibility of mining in that park. That battle was lost by me, Mr.

Speaker, and I hate to admit it but it was lost. You see, what was done

was there were mining claims in the park and, when I complained about

those mining claims, the boundaries of the park were redrawn and the

mining claims were put outside the park, so I no longer had any

complaint to make. It was no longer part of the park. But what's left

of Tweedsmuir Park?

The clean-up that should be done in Ootsa Lake, I know the Member

from Omineca will get up and make a great plea for the clean-up of

Ootsa Lake. On behalf of the beavers in Ootsa Lake, I know that he will

give us an emotional appeal because he has not forgotten his identity

as to how and why he came to this House — when he made the appeal for

the beavers in Ootsa Lake. It's too bad that the beavers aren't on the

voters list, today. They might have a longer memory than the people in

your area. Anyway, I want to suggest to the Minister that Ootsa Lake

needs to be protected. It needs to be cleared. Some of the funds should

be directed there.

[ Page 587 ]

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

MR. BARRETT: I am not being sarcastic, Mr. Speaker, and I

don't think that's kindly of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to

suggest such a thing. Even though, after a five-year fight over Cypress

Bowl and winning, I couldn't be sarcastic. I think all good things

flow, eventually, from this Government. It takes a little while. It

takes $250,000 stashed in a bank in the Dominican Republic and no trees

in Cypress Bowl to get them to smarten up. It takes a few mining claims

in Tweedsmuir Park and a redrawn boundary to get them to smarten up. It

takes placing the Member from Omineca in the Cabinet to smarten him up

and forget the beavers. I'm not being sarcastic, Mr. Speaker. I'm just

a humble country boy trying to figure out what this big Government is

doing to the parks. As a humble country boy, who owns just two suits

and comes over here to fight on behalf of the people, Mr. Speaker, I

won't allow myself to become sarcastic. I won't allow myself to become

disillusioned. I won't allow myself to believe that this Government

would do anything other than fight for the parks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

announce that he's created 134 new parks and it only cost us about

three million square acres, I don't want to be…three million acres,

not square…I don't want to be sarcastic about that. I don't want to

be sarcastic but I ask him, please, we can't afford to have any more

new parks created. At the rate you're going we won't have any parkland

left.

Now if I may be allowed to continue without interruption, because I

have faith that some little red light is shining through that dense

thicket across there towards the necessity of developing a better parks

policy in this Province. This is the only Government in North America

that goes into a park and says that we've got to cut down the trees so

we can see the view. This is the only Government that I know of that

develops a philosophy that they can do things better than nature. I'm

suggesting that they now have a responsibility to improve on nature and

to clean up the mess, clean up the mess you've made through industrial

waste in our parkland in this Province.

The last area I intend to mention is Buttle Lake — Buttle Lake, that jewel that has been lost to the ravages of Western Mines (interruption) .

My good acquaintance from Campbell River, you're safe as long as you

drink the water down here. You can snicker all you want about the

Campbell River water, while you represent them down here, but I tell

you that the "gold dust twins" haven't been drinking that water from

Buttle Lake, everyday. I remember when the Minister stood in this House

and said, "I'll drink that water regularly out of that lake. That park

will not be damaged." Now science tells us that the lead and copper

content of that water is very dangerous (interruption) .

You know, Mr. Speaker, Magistrate Roderick Haig-Brown, who is a well-known… (interruption) .

I didn't quote him as a scientist. He's no longer a magistrate? He's

free, now, to really have a swing at you. He's a judge. You know, Mr.

Speaker, no matter what you say about it, I'll stake Roderick

Haig-Brown up against the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

anytime, anytime. Roderick Haig-Brown should not be disparaged by any

Member of this House. He is a great conservationist and a great citizen

of the Province of British Columbia. He has stated very clearly his

dismay at the damage done to Buttle Lake by the Western Mines and the

other areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, I sit down, confident with the feeling that, after

all the mistakes this Government has made, after all the bad

experiences it has had by the private promoters in all of these parks,

that the Minister will announce, today, that through these funds, he

will no longer have the excuse to stand up when we ask for parks

protection and parks development, he will no longer have the excuse to

say that, "We can't take this money out of general revenue. If the

Member got his way where would we get all the money from?" Some of the

money is here, now, thank goodness. Let us hope that, as long as we're

here in this House, long or short, that we never hear the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation get up in the House, again, and say private

enterprise can do it better — it can't and it won't. Parks are for

people, not for profit, and I hope you've learned that lesson.

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

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to comment that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has

maintained his standing as a completely unreliable source of factual

information. You're wrong so often I'm only going to deal with two

points, because there are things of much greater importance to deal

with. First of all, the mineral claims referred to in Tweedsmuir Park

were never taken out of the park. They're still in the class B

section

of the park, today. Class B… (interruption) .

No, that's your problem, because I have talked to you on, at least, two

occasions. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can get it across to the Member (interruption) .

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

MR. KIERNAN: On at least three occasions, Mr. Speaker, in the

discussions you and I have had, we have talked about nature

conservancies, about class B parks, about class A parks, about class C

parks. I have spelled it out in written detail, not only for your

benefit, Mr. Speaker, because you learn very quickly, but for some of

the Members who learn rather slowly. I'm going to repeat it at the risk

of being a little repetitious.

A nature conservancy area is an inviolate wilderness area

established for the purposes of primarily preserving the ecology of the

Province. The nature conservancy area established in Tweedsmuir Park of

625,000 acres was an upgrading of that portion of a class B park to the

superior class A status. The mineral claims are still in the class B

section of the park as they historically were. I have a suspicion, at

times, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable Members don't want information;

otherwise, they wouldn't keep up this continuous chatter, chatter,

chatter (interruption) . If

you would stop your tongue for a moment and use your ears for a change,

you would learn something besides your own misinformation (interruption) .

No, I just find it a little tedious, Mr. Member, when we discuss these

things in a factual manner in the House and then Members go out in the

country… I don't know, either they haven't heard or they haven't

listened, because what we have clearly defined here is not what some of

them report when they go out throughout the Province. Of course, that

is their privilege. My friend, you have a one-track mind. The Province

is much, much bigger and much, much more diverse than one single track.

[ Page 588 ]

Just on the question of Tweedsmuir Park, it is still in excess of

two million acres, of which over 800,000 acres have been upgraded to

nature conservancy status. It was set up originally as a class B

multiple-use park, back in the 1920's. We are progressively upgrading

the status of select areas and I wish you would get that clear in your

mind, just for once. I have also informed this House, Mr. Speaker, that

I would not sanction the establishment of any more class B parks. Why?

Because once you hang a park status on it, people assume that it is to

be a fully protected area and, historically, the class B parks were

multiple-use areas and the only thing that was, historically, precluded

by the class B status, was the outright sale of the land within the

class B areas. There is a complete record of that, historically. I

don't know why some people deliberately seek to misinform the public

unless they are in ignorance themselves (interruption) .

No, I take that back. I don't think they deliberately mislead, they

just have a great inability to understand. I think there's one other

point and this is just another classic example. As I recall the

honourable Member's remarks about lead and copper in Buttle Lake, they

have reached very dangerous levels.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's correct.

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

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

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

That is as far as I intend to stray from Bill 12. I only did so

because we got into, I think, a rather general discussion on the part

of the Leader of the Opposition, and there were a couple of points

there I just felt I could not overlook. It is this continual

misunderstanding that tends to be reported as though it were the

substance of the parks programme and the very many positive, useful and

excellent things that have taken place within that programme are almost

entirely overlooked. When I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there has been

one new park in this Province for every month since the Department of

Recreation was formed in 1957, that is a fact and no one can refute it.

I suggest to any honourable Member that he zero in on any single park

in this report and stand up and say he would not have established that

park.

Now, my friend is greatly bemused with acres. First, they were

square acres. Then he realized that there's no such thing as a square

acre in ordinary terminology and in B.C. you don't find many square

acres because a lot of them are standing up on end. It's a square mile,

my friend (interruption) . My friend loves to come back to square miles.

Does he, for example, recognize the fact that one single park in the

Province of British Columbia is larger than the Province of Prince

Edward Island? (Interruption.) Yes, but you're such poor learners. Your memories are so bad I have to remind you.

I think it can be agreed, Mr. Speaker, that there is no one who is

going to put their finger on any park, any of those 279 parks, and say

that they're not well worth having in our park system. Certainly some

are superior to others. Certainly some have greater values to recommend

them than others. You could say, with a great deal of certainty, that

there is not, really, any part of British Columbia that doesn't have

park qualities, in one measure or another. It's a remarkable Province

we live in, Mr. Speaker, and you could justifiably argue that,

virtually, every square mile of British Columbia is suitable for park

purposes.

There are, in fact, 279 Provincial parks. We are discussing Bill No.

12, and I suppose the formal term is debating, and we are looking at

the proposal to appropriate, for accelerated park development, the sum

of $15 million. We will presently be to the estimates of the department

and, at that time, we will be dealing with the regular park vote of

about $5 million so that the $15 million is roughly three times the

equivalent of our annual operational parks vote. Certainly this offers

tremendous opportunities for the Government and particularly the Parks

Branch, not only to carry out some of the projects that have been on

the design table for some time, but also to enter into some new

projects with a great deal of confidence that the funds are there to

carry them through to completion in a workmanlike, very efficient and

satisfactory manner.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the basic merit of this particular bill,

because some of the projects in the Province are of rather major

dimensions and, in planning your development, it is of great advantage

to know that the funds have been provided to carry the project along as

fast as it is practical from a physical standpoint to do so, and to

carry it to the point of completion where it becomes an integral part

of the park system.

One of the parks that has had some attention, during this Session,

and properly so — Mount Seymour, which is very heavily used because of

its proximity to the urban area, has basically had two problem

situations in its make-up. One is the road and the other is the lack of

an adequate trail system. We propose, under this vote, to completely

rebuild all of the unbuilt portions of that road this year. We propose

to allocate not exceeding $100,000 for a trail system on Seymour

Mountain Park. In order to facilitate the road programme, we plan to

close the road to Seymour from about May 15 until September 15. By that

time it should be totally rebuilt, under the direction of the Highway

Department, on those four miles where we have, quite frankly, carried

on only a patching-up operation over the last several years.

We propose, also, within the general framework of this programme, to

provide between now, the time of the passage of this bill, and the

authorization of the funds, to provide not less than a thousand new

jobs of which 600 will be specifically reserved for university students.

We will, in addition, make a major expansion at Alouette Lake,

providing additional campsites and an additional road to an entirely

new campsite area up the lake.

We will make substantial additions to Manning Park because it is of

universal use right across the southern half of this Province.

We propose to move to the first phase of Cypress Bowl, and the

engineering advice I have to date is that we should not expect to be

skiing in Cypress Bowl, with lift facilities, until the winter of

1972-73.

We propose, in addition to these general observations, to add to the

park campsite units available throughout the Province not less than 800

and not more than 1,000 additional campsite units.

While we will be directing some of our major projects, obviously, to

the lower mainland region, we certainly will be taking further action

for development both on Vancouver Island and through all parts of the

southern, central and

[ Page 589 ]

northern interior of our Province. We are gearing

up, now, in the full confidence that this programme will be authorized

by this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have given instructions to the Langford workshop,

where they manufacture our tables and fireplaces, that they are to

recruit an additional 20 people within the next three weeks and they

are to be prepared by April 1 to double their output of tables and

similar facilities. They advise me that they can accommodate all this

within the existing equipment and facilities. We will be drawing these

people primarily from the ranks of the unemployed. We will continue

through April to draw from, primarily, the ranks of the unemployed in

expanding our basic staff for this programme. As soon as the students

come out of university, we will be able to place them at various

operations that are already functional.

Major operations will be at Mount Seymour, Alouette Lake, Cypress

Bowl… we think it can be a commuting proposition where we draw people

from the city in the morning and return them to the city at night.

Manning Park will be an at-site camp operation. There are two or three

other locations in the Province where we have the fundamental sectors

of an at-site camp. We can expand those. We will have some operations

in fly camps, temporary camps under canvas. We intend to draw most of

our cooks from the Nanaimo trade school, as they are available, and

some of our heavy equipment operators from the other trade schools

throughout the Province, as these people become available. In all, I'm

sure it will be a very successful programme and, while I am not in a

position to give you detail by detail, area by area, what the total

programme will be at this time, I assure you that we will distribute

the funds and the development as fairly as we can throughout the

Province, recognizing that with 1,100,000 people in the Fraser Valley

and with the great need that exists in the periphery to the Fraser

Valley, it is properly entitled to a substantial share of the

development.

When we meet one year hence, I think we will all be able to took

with considerable satisfaction on the fact that we have provided this

fund for a very worthwhile purpose, not only to add substantially to

our recreational facilities throughout the Province, but, also, and

this is equally important, to provide summer opportunity for at least

600 students from our university and at least another 400 people off

the present unemployed roles.

With this kind of a programme, Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize

that you can't put this many people to work without, in turn, the fact

that they are working causing other people to go to work. You will have

a fair amount of generative effect. We are already seeing some effect

in that we have sent design to some local architectural firms and this

is already tending to stimulate the activities in their offices. I

would think, while we are looking at a basic thousand jobs, directly

created by this programme, there would be a minimum of another thousand

jobs indirectly created because some of these projects, of course, will

be going out as tendered projects and they will, of course, have their

own work staff in operation.

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

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

I want to clarify the point, Mr. Speaker, that I am, of course,

supporting the passage of the bill. I thank the Minister of Finance for

the opportunity to accept this challenge because this is going to be of

a great deal of satisfaction to me, personally, and I'm sure it will be

of satisfaction to every Member of this House.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker. Before I start to speak, I'll make my position very

clear, too. I, too, am supporting this legislation. As I listened to

the Minister of Finance introducing the bill, he made reference to the

fact that it was not the intention of the Government to have this

legislation passed for this fund and, then, leave it unspent. I

welcomed that statement but there was also an inference there that, in

the past, the Government has allocated funds and passed the legislation

and, then, left them unspent. I welcomed the statement from the

Premier, when he introduced the legislation, that this wasn't going to

be one of those cases (interruption) .

Oh, no. I just quoted the Premier's words. That's all I did. Just

quoted his words and, of course, we could quote

chapter and verse as to

where the inference was borne out in the past.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcomed the outline of the

programme given to us by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

He justified the expenditure of the major amount of this money on the

lower mainland because of the fact that there are 1.1 million people in

that area. When the Minister of Finance was introducing the

legislation, he said that there was need to spend additional sums in

recreation because British Columbia's population was growing four times

as fast as the rest of Canada. I would remind this House, again, and

the Minister of Finance and, especially, the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation, that the population of Vancouver Island is growing five

times as fast as the rest of the population of British Columbia. That's

the figures, the last figures, I have of two years ago. The population

of Vancouver Island expanded at five times the Provincial average.

I'm suggesting that you have to look to where the growth areas are

when you're providing the recreational facilities. While, in passing,

you mentioned that there would be some work in the Kootenays and the

interior, in the north and Vancouver Island, there was no elaboration

of the kind of work or the amount of work that would be done there.

I want to tell you what we're up against on Vancouver Island in the

real lack of facilities. Even after the real busy tourist season was

over, my wife and I took a trailer to one of the parks on Lake

Cowichan. Across in the next trailer camp was a family from California,

a man and his wife, and they were on Vancouver Island for three days.

They said that, next year, they were coming back to spend a whole month

on Vancouver Island. There's a multiplication of ten, just for that one

family to come back here. What they tell the people in California, when

they get back down there, about Vancouver Island…you could imagine

the multiplier effect of that situation. So I would suggest that you

make a careful re-examination of your allocation of the fund and,

especially, on the Lake Cowichan park area, the present Gordon campsite

and the development of the other campsites around that particular lake.

One other factor — you mentioned the new jobs being created under

this particular work, the 600 reserved for the university students and

the other 400 you expect. I know that, later on, in your estimates, you

have my favourite vote,

[ Page 590 ]

the youth training programme. It hasn't gone up a

penny. It's still $275,000 this year, the same as it was last year. I

suggest that, on Vancouver Island…we heard the Mayor of Nanaimo

outline the youth and drug problem in Nanaimo. We know that in every

community on Vancouver Island there is the same problem. I suggest

that, by taking a substantial part of this $15 million, you could

create, not a few hundred, but you could put several thousands of our

young people in the high school age groups to work under the youth

training programme procedure around the parks of Vancouver Island and

elsewhere, for that matter, for this two-month period when they're out

of school. The money spent in that way would, I think, not only create

jobs, not only enlarge the parks, but it might be the means of

preventing several hundreds of our young people from starting up the

wrong trail in this two-month period when it's so very difficult for

the young people in the high-school-age group to have anything else to

do except hang around the town, especially in a year like this, when

it's almost impossible for some one in the high-school-age group, 16 to

18, to find anything to do. One million dollars of this allocated

toward this youth training programme, to that age group would, I think,

make a return to the Province as a whole, many, many times greater than

with the other provisions. So I would ask you, Mr. Minister, to give

that some extra special consideration, that you do make a place in this

programme for the high-school group that are, now, in a limited number,

150 or whatever it happens to be, under the youth training programme.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I think the

announcement and the reading of this bill is a clear indication of the

programme and the thrust that the new ideas of recreation are taking.

Certainly the statement by the Minister that a great portion of this

will be spent in the lower mainland is very welcome news to all of us

who represent those ridings.

I am, however, concerned with some of the comments in relationship

to the development of the areas, themselves. The Minister spoke and

discussed Seymour and he indicated that there were just a few

shortcomings on Seymour Mountain. I must, Mr. Minister, disagree with

you. Seymour has a great number of limitations and a great number of

problems, that stem from our own handling of a particular phase of it.

I would, Mr. Minister, start out by stating very emphatically that

your department in regard to the development of parks and campsites

does a fantastic job. But just as emphatically, Mr. Minister, in

regards to skiing and to the winter sports, as such, I must just as

emphatically state that it does not do an excellent job. When I heard

the Member from Coquitlam, the Leader of the Opposition, just blankly

state that we should, in these parks, have no private enterprise or no

private developers and, then, at the same time, state that private

developers have indicated that they are not capable in this Province of

putting together fine recreational areas, I think that just has to be

an unbelievably inaccurate statement. One only has to examine two

significant areas — firstly, Whistler Mountain, which has been one of

the finest developments anywhere in North America and, secondly, Grouse

Mountain, which, in itself, is probably one of the finest ski areas

located next to any major city. The reason I point this out, Mr.

Speaker, and to the Minister, within this bill, is that I would hope

that the $15 million you have would be spent to develop the park and

the campsite possibilities, for example, in Cypress Park. But, turn

over the ski lifts…because, firstly, and I'll say this, as a skier, I

still believe that it is essentially a relatively luxury sport and I do

not believe that Government money should be spent to put in ski lifts.

I think that Government money should be spent to put in the low-cost

development areas where people can go and toboggan, can utilize the

winter aspects (interruption) .

It's true — 90 per cent. Tell me the major areas that are developed

anywhere in Washington, Oregon, Utah, tell me any of the ones that are

developed in Utah, Oregon, California, back to Maine…one out of

five… (interruption) . Mount

Baker is still…the single part of it is there. I'll point out to you,

Mr. Speaker, that the development and maintenance of the lift portions,

for example,…I will give you, Mr. Minister, if you wish, ten

criticisms of what we are doing wrong at Seymour. For example, we are

utilizing rope tows for beginners, which are the most dangerous type of

tow, the most difficult to handle. They are completely impractical, and

even if you use a rope tow we should be using the kind that have a

handle on them, which they have developed now, that beginning skiers

can handle with a certain amount of ease. Secondly, you have… (interruption) .

They have the kind that you can hang on to, with the handle, which is a

fairly simple tow to handle,

whereas the type that we have is placed,

for example, between the main cut of trees. If anyone falls off, there

is just no way you can get up through there, because, as part of your

policy, you're trying to maintain the trees, so you put the lift up

between the middle with a gouge down the centre. Anytime anyone falls,

there is absolutely no way they can clear the track — so, like every 15

minutes, with beginning skiers, you are closing off that particular

run. My point in bringing this up is that we only have a limited number

of dollars. There are people who are capable and are prepared to

operate the lift facility. Don't believe that this is any great bonanza

that you're giving away because if you examine the facilities that you

have and the dollars that are coming in, I am sure, Mr. Minister, you

would be one of the first to agree that the tow portion, whether it's

in Manning Park or any of the other places that you operate, is a

losing proposition. Is that not correct — in the dollar return for your

commitment there? (Interruption.)

Oh, the question of whether the development of…I'm talking about

putting in facilities that people can utilize and putting in the

limited facilities that we should be doing. I'm talking about this. You

can afford to go up Grouse Mountain. That's where you ski. You don't

ski Seymour. You've got your cabin up on Grouse, sitting up on the top.

You pay your $6 to go up there, because you're wealthy enough to afford

it. I'm talking… (interruption) .

No. This is what I'm saying. We should be building the low-cost

operations and we should be developing those. When you're talking about

people who try to bring a family up and have to pay the $6 toll fees,

which we charge at the other areas, we should be providing this as our

service, and turn the deluxe facilities over to those people who will

put those in. They will operate them better and they will do a better

job. All we have to do is look around at the particular areas to see

the comparison of the type of job that's been done. Ask any skier, ask

anyone who goes to the mountain, if you don't believe me. Ask the

people who go to the mountains where the better job is being done. Is

it being done by those people, the private developers, or is it being

done by the Government operation? In every case they'll tell you (interruption) . I'll

[ Page 591 ]

tell you one thing, your Government in Manitoba

they haven't even found out about skiing down there yet. One of these

days they may even build a mountain.

Mr. Speaker, I think the important part of what we're getting at

here is that the utilization of these dollars should be a combination

of Government and private developer. The utilization to make the

dollar. We talked about the snowball effect by taking and developing

the recreational possibilities of Cypress Bowl, by building the

campsites, by building the giant areas which are there for people to

use, the hiking trails — this aspect of it, and turning and saying to

developers if you will commit the very large numbers of millions of

dollars that will be required to put in the tows, this $15 million will

not just build Cypress, it should build Cypress and it should build

additional areas up in the Pemberton area. It could be used to build

areas on Long Beach and up into the Salmon Arm area. Instead of talking

about the 600 to 1,000 new campsites, with the extra dollars we could

have available through this, Mr. Minister, we could be building 2,000

campsites. I would hope that, somehow, a meld and a blend of the two

forces in our society, both the Government and the private developer,

would be put together in the spending of this $15 million.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Rossland-Trail): On behalf of the

students of the Province I'd like to thank the Minister of Finance for

this, I think, pretty inspirational programme. It's almost an Operation

Bootstrap form of programme and I hope that the Federal Government will

look at this sort of scheme in other Provinces and for British

Columbia, as well. It seems to me that they should be looking for this

type of project which will provide jobs for students and not buy buses

to carry them around the country. The students of today need jobs.

Whenever I've been to the universities and to the colleges of the

Province, the students are very fearful of jobs not being made

available for them this summer. I think that this is a way that we can

show that this is a form of project where this Provincial Government is

making jobs available for the students of British Columbia.

I'd like to also suggest to my colleague, when we're talking about

jobs being made available for students, that you utilize some of the

student services themselves. At the universities they have student

placement officers and these students, I think, would be able to

discern which of the students among them really do require the jobs. I

don't think necessarily the students with the highest marks should be

getting the jobs, or those coming from the better families, or with

some pull or drag, should be given the jobs. The students who really do

require work badly, I think they should be given preference. This idea

came to me from the students at Selkirk College. I was just there two

weeks ago, speaking to the students at Selkirk College and they asked

me, if it were possible, they would like to have a say in it and they,

among themselves, would be able to determine which of their students

needed the work the most.

Incidentally, in the riding, we've got another very difficult

problem in that the major employer for our area is Cominco. Cominco has

historically made work available for students of the Rossland-Trail

area and in Kimberley and other places but this year they will be

shutting down their plants for one month, which means that not a single

student in our area is going to get employment through Cominco. We will

be in a particularly bad plight in our area. The Government has

promised, upon the flooding of the Arrow Lakes, with the construction

of the High Arrow Dam, that they would be building a major marine park

at Syringa Creek, as you well know, Mr. Minister. You have done a

considerable amount of work this last year but there's a considerable

amount of work still to be done. I would recommend to you that, to help

the students of the area, you work through Selkirk College. If you find

out which students really require the work the most, that you put some

of these students to work as soon as possible at Syringa Creek Park.

The water will be coming up in May and June and much of the work that

has to be done should be started as soon as possible. I would really

recommend to you that you give these students some consideration.

I'm very thankful that this project has been suggested by the

Minister of Finance and outlined by the Minister of Recreation today

that they are giving the greatest number of jobs that will be made

available to the students of the Province, for which I thank the

Premier and the Minister.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I certainly

welcome this bill and the proposals that have been outlined by the

Minister. Similar to many of you in this House, I'm somewhat of a

connoisseur of park sites and make use of them as often as I can. I

like skiing in the winter and I like travelling and boating in the

summer and going to all the campsites that we have. I also like going

to other countries and seeing their campsites and comparing what

they're doing with what we do. I found very interesting the Government

regulation in Europe of campsites and the standards that they have

particularly in places such as France, where the standards are very

high and the facilities are very good in every camp, whether it's a

municipal one, or whether it's a regional one, that is a state park, or

whether it is indeed a private one.

One suggestion I have to make to the Minister, in practical terms,

and one that would meet the greatest complaint many travellers and

tourists and citizens have, is the question of toilet facilities or

washing facilities in many of the smaller parks. I would suggest to him

that we have the vocational school and we have the workshops at Haney

Correctional Institute and Oakalla where they're doing fibreglass

work… Some places that I've seen have portable or mobile types of

trailers that contain the necessary toilet and showers, heating units

and all the pipes and everything ready to hook onto a water supply and

to a sewage system at the particular parksite. In the winter they haul

these in, just like on a trailer, to a central storage place, such as

you have at Langford here, or you can bring them into the nearest

public works yard. The advantage of this is that you eliminate the

biggest problem of pilferage, of vandalism, that occurs when the parks

are not in use. When you have attendants in these parks, and if you pay

a modest fee, to which no one objects, to have that attendant, you can

eliminate the destruction that is sometimes done by visiting vandals

and you get the facilities that make this one of the most significant

Provinces in North America — if you have those facilities. They'll be

spoken of all over the country. That's how, in my opinion, you should

do it. Mobile units that you move out to the areas where they're

needed, after you set up a sewage system and a water system and

possibly an electric system, if necessary,

[ Page 592 ]

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

I listened, in almost disbelief, at the First Member for Vancouver

Centre, in effect, saying that a public park system should be a picking

ground for private promoters, that the one facility, that he admitted

is the hardest to provide at a profit, should be handed over to private

developers to exploit at a profit, which means that you're developing

ski grounds for the carriage trade, even if the carriages are on skis.

That's the carriage trade that he's defending and that he's supporting

and that he wants the facilities for. I'd like to see the kids in the

east end of the cities up there skiing. We should have the old pro-rec

programmes. They would help (interruption) .

We haven't got pro-rec. No, no. I know all about it. I know what we

have now, but I'd like to see the young people given a break on some of

these privately-owned mountains, such as Grouse, where the rate they

have to pay is too much for them unless they have wealthy parents. Even

the season pass is too much. For anyone to suggest that parks and ski

grounds should be in private hands, I think, is really asking for an

exclusive type of recreational society and not for all the public.

I would suggest also that the Minister should give serious thought

to what's happening at Powder Mountain. I think that the whole problem

should be reviewed just as they've been forced to review the Cypress

Bowl situation. In view of the nature of the people involved, the way

the development seems to be principally a logging operation, it's time

that the Government looked into that with a view to including it in

future plans of development for skiing in the lower mainland.

Also, I'd like more information from the Minister…perhaps, I can

get it from the Minister of Lands, later in his estimates as to what

the situation is at Garibaldi, where a development started there and

has come to a halt. Quite a bit of private money was put into it. It

appears that nothing's going ahead there. I'm wondering what the

Government can do about acquiring that site, if it's not going to be

gone ahead by private capital, and whether the Government has any

knowledge of the potential, in terms of recreation, of that particular

site. I hope we can get some information from the Minister of Lands,

primarily, and, secondly, from the Minister of Recreation.

I would like to see these mountains developed publicly because the

experiences of the U.S. National Parks Service is probably the best

beacon for us to look at. The way they develop their ski grounds, and

I'm thinking of some I've visited, such as Schweitzer Basin, which are

really beautiful ski grounds, wonderfully kept, wonderfully built, with

adequate lifts that keep ahead of the demand sufficiently. You don't

have to stand there and queue up for two hours to get a ride.

I would like to see some of this money in this development go to

Burnaby Lake to the regional park, if it's nothing else but a grant,

because of the plans that New Westminster and Burnaby are making for

the Canada Games. I'd like to see also not only university students

being invited to participate in this work, but I'd like to see them

mixed with the unemployed-employable youths that are presently in need

of jobs so that they can mix with university boys and girls and perhaps

gain something from their mutual experience working together in the

parks. I do hope that the Minister will not just make an exclusive

club, even if it is for university students who are in need, but bring

in some of the unemployed-employable youths who are presently

desperately looking for work in the city of Vancouver and elsewhere.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just

commenting briefly, the Minister of Education and the Minister of

Recreation both have said that they were going to be sure to remember

the university students when these employment opportunities came up. I

might remind them not to stop at the universities. We do have some very

fine vocational and technical schools and the graduates from the

technical schools need jobs in the summer just as much. In fact, these

graduates will bring special skills to the occupation, to the work in

the parks, that will be very valuable. I hope that he certainly will

look there for applications.

When the Minister of Finance introduced this bill, I was surprised

to see that so many Members of the Legislature missed the subtlety of

his introduction of a new and visionary park policy. I certainly

spotted it and I know the Minister is waiting for his estimates to

expand on it further. Of course, the policy that I'm referring to was

that the Premier didn't stop talking about parks in the narrow,

traditional sense, he also mentioned the word "open space." He talked a

little bit about the parks, then he talked a little bit about open

space and, then, in fact, he even went and talked about apple farmers

in the Okanagan. I was pleased to see that he is now looking at that

new visionary concept that he saw as Premier, as an M.L.A. for the area

of agricultural parkland.

I want to compliment the Minister of Finance on recognizing that and

I look forward to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation expanding

on this new and better policy. I'm pleased to see that a large

percentage of the money is being spent in relationship to population.

Of course, I might want to remind you that the big population growth

is, of course, in Delta, at 20 per cent a year, so I would remind you

we do have some needs to the south, as well as on the North Shore of

Vancouver (interruption) .

Well, we can name quite a few. We can start with the railway out of

White Rock or we can go around the corner to Boundary Bay. We can talk

about a wildlife waterfowl refuge in Mud Bay. We could talk about a

marina site or boatlaunching to the south of the ferry slip — all these

park purposes. We haven't even mentioned Burns Bog and now that I'm

thinking of it, I'll have to probably mention this again. We're happy

to have the garbage from Vancouver dumped out in Delta but

unfortunately this garbage, I think they call it sanitary land-fill,

pardon me,…unfortunately they're filling in the Burns Bog Park with

sanitary land-fill. This is most unfortunate and I think we're going to

have to take some action to stop that pretty soon, too. However, the

point that I want the Minister to answer is in his estimates. He won't

be able to answer, at this moment, but I hope that he will, at that

time, consider the many needs of the parks in the Delta constituency

and, above all, this new expanded concept of parks, open space,

farmland called agricultural parkland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

[ Page 593 ]

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

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

The fact that it is an Accelerated Park Development Act

is one which should give us some concern and should indicate the need

for caution in approving the expenditure under this act. It is given

all the earmarks, by the Honourable Minister of Recreation and

Conservation, of being a make-work project and, while there is not one

Member who would not support policies which will reduce the number of

our unemployed, I hasten to urge the Minister to ensure that we're not

going to make mistakes which we will, in the future, regret.

Of particular interest is the matter of the development of Cypress

Bowl. He announced this afternoon that they would be proceeding

immediately with the first phase of this project. Now, the first phase

has not been defined. It's obvious that the first and essential phase

of development for Cypress Bowl is the location of a road and that's a

matter of straight engineering, in which the Minister of Municipal

Affairs will have great interest. I'm concerned about the development

of the recreational facilities within that Bowl. I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, if the department, in designing the development in Cypress

Bowl, uses any of the proposals which have heretofore been laid out by

the private developers who were in that area, the Department will be

making a tragic mistake. All of the experience that has been brought to

bear upon this particular area, Cypress Bowl, indicates quite clearly

that the recreational design which was being followed, in that

instance, was one to encourage the removal of timber. Enquiries into

what has been done and in the following of the plans of the developers

indicates quite clearly that as much as three times as much acreage was

being devoted to ski trails as is proper in the circumstances. Two and

a half to three times as much acreage was being devoted to the parking

of vehicles than is proper in such circumstances.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in approaching this particular

development, with the large financial obligation that it entails, as

large as $5 million in the final analysis, and the large and continuing

annual operating burden that this win produce, creates a situation

where the department would be well advised, at this stage, to take one

short step backwards and look at Cypress Bowl very, very carefully. I

think this is an instance when the department would be well advised to

seek from recreational consultants, within the Province and without,

the design of Cypress Bowl so that we don't make the mistakes which

could be made if we rush into the large expenditure that the

development of Cypress Bowl will require. If the Department does this,

Mr. Speaker, it will do other things as well, which will have a

long-lasting significance to the department and to this Province.

The Member from Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned the problem at Powder

Mountain. One of the reasons that we have the problem at Powder

Mountain is that there is not, in the Government service, any

individual or group of individuals sufficiently skilled in the design

of winter recreational areas to tell the Government and its departments

of the mistakes that are being made at Powder Mountain. Therefore, if

we take the opportunity of using the monies under this act, and the

Cypress Bowl example, to employ consultants, who, themselves, will

serve to educate, through experience, the members of the Department of

Recreation and Conservation, then the experience gained in that single

exercise can be repeated again and again and again in areas, such as

Powder Mountain and the other six or seven opportunities that there are

for similar, exciting winter recreation developments — up through the

Pemberton Valley, into Lillooet Glacier and beyond. There can be real

lasting significance for the money which is being spent. Cypress Bowl

can become the test tube of this Government's ability to engineer, to

design and to construct recreational developments which will be a

matter of pride to the people of this Province and an attraction to

those who can come to this Province and use those facilities.

I find that I must agree with some of the comments made by the First

Member from Vancouver Centre. There is, while this study is being made

into the proper development of Cypress Bowl, also being created the

opportunity of finding how best Government and private developers may

work together to the benefit, not only of the developer, but of the

general public as well. It can be done and this act will give us the

wherewithal to investigate and to ensure that we don't make the

mistakes which can be made out of pump-priming, crash-programme

approaches to park development.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I'd first of all

say to my honourable friend who just sat down, that if he's scared of

mistakes the best solution to that is to do nothing at all. I say, if

you're scared of making mistakes, the best thing is to do nothing at

all, then there's no danger of making mistakes. I don't think we should

ever be in that position in developing this Province, whether it be

parks or anything else, that we are ever scared of making an odd

mistake because we're all bound to. In speaking… (interruption) . I don't want to make a million dollar one, either.

In speaking in support of this bill, I wouldn't want the Members of

this House to be misled by the information given by the Leader of the

Opposition when he spoke early this afternoon. For his information, I'm

sorry he's not here, the beaver are doing better than they ever did. I

might say that there are at least a hundred times more beaver in the

Tweedsmuir Park area than there were when the lake was flooded, when I

was first elected in 1952. I would say that…the Leader of the

Opposition said he'd be very concerned if those beavers voted. I say,

if they could, they'd all vote for me (interruption) .

You know that shows how little you understand about wildlife. The

beavers I was worried about were those that were below the dam. The

ones I'm talking about now are those in the lake, which really is the

same thing as what the beaver does himself. He builds his dam so he can

live in the lake above the dam and multiply. My friend from Atlin could

give you a short course on this and I wish he would. You might

understand the problem.

Another thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House is

that the Leader of the Opposition told a tale of doom and gloom. I

don't think he has ever seen the area. But I would point out that Bond

Bros. Sawmills took out of the Ootsa Lake flood area this year over two

million feet of real sound timber that's been under water now for over

20 years. Provided that lumber prices go up, there's no question that

this year they'll take out between 10 and 20 million feet of timber

that's been under water all this time. I've seen some of the timber and

it's just as sound as it was when it went under. I think every

encouragement that we can should be given to

[ Page 594 ]

this company and the Minister of Lands and Forests

is doing everything possible to try and help it make a success of this

venture. I went out to take a look at their programme and it was

interesting to see how they were clipping these trees off 60 and 70

feet underwater and they were even, in some cases, sending divers down

with underwater power saws. They'd cut the tree off at the bottom and

get a rope on it and bring it up. They were doing this at the rate of

one tree every three minutes and they were covering quite a

considerable area of the flood area of the Ootsa circle. Now the

floatation of these logs, of course, is a problem. They aren't quite as

smart as our friends, the beavers…they solve that one…but they do

have a problem floating these logs to their sawmills. They seem to be

overcoming this by a raft that they pull the logs up on and away they

go. I would say for their first year, it was really quite a successful

operation. I'm very pleased to see it is, because I wouldn't want this

House to be misled that all was doom and gloom in the Tweedsmuir Park

area.

I would suggest that Members, such as the Leader of the Opposition,

should come to the areas, such as Ootsa Lake and Tweedsmuir Park,

because we always like to see city slickers come to these northern

areas and get an education on exactly what does happen out in the wilds

of this Province. I would further point out that Tweedsmuir Park is

nearly two and a half million acres. It's not Stanley Park, as some

Members would think it is, and there's an awful lot of area beside

Tweedsmuir Park. In the riding of Omineca, alone, there's 57,000 square

miles and 60,000 square miles in the riding of my friend from Atlin.

Practically the total of this area, plus a lot of yours, the total of

this really is park area. I don't think there's any argument that it's

anything different from park area and very unlikely will be anything

different in the years ahead. Providing that those dreamers from the

lower mainland don't get carried away with themselves too much, similar

to the Leader this afternoon, that this northern half of the Province

will develop very rapidly. I think, in another 50 years from now, I

would hope that we could be very proud of the development of the

northern

section of this Province, with communications and modern

communities that can be built up. I would say on top of this, no matter

what we do, and I would agree that we have to watch at all times to see

that development is more or less orderly, but I would say that it will

still remain the best recreational area in the world. Another thing we

want to remember that, even though it will remain the best recreational

area, even if it's outside park areas, we'll still be able to take our

minerals and timber and still maintain a very desirable recreational

area in the northern half of this Province.

I would point out to the Members in this House that the average mine

covers an area about the size of the average farm, for instance,

Granisle and Endako, which employ a lot of people and are quite rich

mines. The area involved is still less than the average farm and when

you're dealing with an area, such as where my friend from Atlin comes

from, or my own, where you have over 100,000 square miles of territory,

the area of one little mine, about 1,000 acres at the very

outside…you can hardly spot it when you fly over, it's such a small

area. I would hope that we won't get carried away with emotionalism

that one mine in an area as large as Atlin is going to ruin the whole

Atlin riding.

I'm very enthusiastic about the future of the northern part of this

Province and I hope all Members will have an opportunity to visit this

area because I think it does us all good to visit other areas of our

Province (interruption) . I just finished telling you about that. The beavers are doing far better than they were and there are a hundred times more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, I was a little

disappointed when I listened to the list of expenditures that the

Minister put forward earlier on in that I didn't hear any mention of

the regional park districts. I think if there's one way in which we can

get a multiplier effect going, it would be to increase the amount of

money that the Provincial Government gives to the regional park

districts, specifically, the most important regional park district, if

one takes into account the proximity to the central city of the

Province, Vancouver, and, of course, the proximity of that regional

district and the coverage of that regional district in terms of the

numbers of unemployed. I think it's safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that,

when the good people who reside in my constituency and the surrounding

areas — and I look forward to some support on this from the Member from

Langley — when our people see a bill go through this House expending

$15 million on park development and, yet, still remain frozen in terms

of values of their house that they can't trade, they can't sell, they

can't build, they can't improve, they can't do anything. When they see

a bill for $15 million go through and remain in that position I think

they must obviously feel put out and ignored.

The facts of the matter are, and I think I've been through this in

some, small detail before, is that there's now apparently been an

incredible waste of money in that regional district. The enquiry that

was held by the Regional Park Authority into the conduct of the

administration of that district is now partially public knowledge. The

part that is not public knowledge lies on the desk of the

Attorney-General and I shall make no comment about that. Nevertheless,

the people who are involved must feel that they should be able to look

to this Government for some aid and some assistance.

The situation that has now developed is that the park area has been

looked at again and has been split up into three categories — one of

extremely low priority, one of medium priority and one of high

priority. Unfortunately, the houses that are involved, and they're

good, solid houses, they're worth a lot on the market, are in all three

areas. What it means to Mr. and Mrs. North Surrey who live in that

area, is that their land has been classed as a park. Nobody will buy

it. They can't sell it and they're stuck with it. No negotiations can

take place in many, many ways because of the shambles that the

administration is in. Ten per cent of this bill, in that area, would

clean up the next five years of purchases, 10 per cent of the money in

this bill. Remember they could go to the Regional Park Authority which

serves a million people, and that's not a bad ratio, frankly, 10 per

cent. I agree that there are other mainland areas involved and I'm glad

about that. I want to put it clearly to the Minister that he's got to

look at this Fraser-Burrard Regional District and help it out. It's

obvious that they can't help themselves out. They've already expended

their next year's budget, by virtue of the agreements they signed. They

found some recalcitrant members in the surrounding communities who will

not join the district. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should look

forward to the Government making it mandatory for municipalities within

the Fraser-Burrard Regional District to join that district and pay

their fair share, pay their way, pay their mill rate.

[ Page 595 ]

It's obvious that the situation that has occurred in the last three

years has put an intolerable burden on the people who live in that

area. It's obvious, too, that with the limitations that are in the act

of not allowing the Regional Park Authority to make agreements that

last longer than five years, that the mathematical formula, the lines

and curves of expenditure and income that you could draw on a graph,

just don't ever meet. They just don't ever meet. The city of Vancouver,

in my opinion, has played a dog-in-the-manger attitude on this and we

had the most incredible statement from an alderman of that city who

said, "Why should we be in this and buy parks for other

municipalities?" I think, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to vote for this

bill, even though I'm going to have a hard job of explaining it away to

the people in the Tynehead, and I know my friend in Langley is going to

have a hard time explaining to the people in the Campbell River Park

area, that we surely should expect some assistance when $15 million,

and I refer to the bill itself, "…amounts not exceeding in total the

sum of $15 million for the purpose of creating or improving parks in

the Province." We should use some of this money not just to create a

park, not just to improve a park but to help people who, by virtue of

the authority that this Legislature has vested in another body, to help

them get out of the complete ice jam, the frozen-in situation that they

find themselves in today. I sincerely hope that the Minister will think

seriously about sweetening the pot in terms of the money that goes into

the Fraser-Burrard Regional District.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I want to thank the Minister for

his announcement that money will be spent in the Alouette area on the

Golden Ears Park. This is very high use, with upwards of 300,000 people

making use of it. To give you an idea of the proportionate size, this

is from an area where 25,000 people in Maple Ridge live. It is the

people of the entire Fraser Valley that make use of it and we're very

happy that we live in the area where this park is established. There is

one suggestion I would like to make to the Minister, an important

suggestion, one that I have not made directly to him before and that is

that this would be an appropriate time to build a small piece of road

within the park which would circumvent the University of British

Columbia's forest area. It is a very short piece of road — about half a

mile in length — and would allow passage of automobiles to the foot of

the Golden Ears Mountain.

Now, there are many trails up these mountains but the fact that the

University of British Columbia's area traverses the road that gets

there, it's impossible for anyone to drive through to this area. The

University of British Columbia rightly closes this off because they

have many experiments going on there, extensive experiments, that would

be damaged and many things could happen that would deteriorate their

work. But a small road around this area would connect up with an

existing road to the foot of the Golden Ears Mountain. At this area

that I suggest is a very fine level area and we have a public-spirited

contractor in that area who said he would personally bulldoze about two

acres of parking land there, free of charge, for the department if

you'll put the connecting link in. I thought it was a very fine

gesture. I never offered it to you before but I do it now. I offer it

to you on his behalf. He'll make a parking area up there if you'll put

in the road. I think it would cost a very little bit, $30 or $40,000.

That's a little bit the way you call money, so I suggest it to you.

One other little thing and that is the Alouette Lake, itself. This

beautiful park, attended by upwards of 300,000 people each year, finds

itself going to a lake where the lake is pretty nearly nonexistent.

Last year, the draw-down of B.C. Hydro just removed the take almost out

of sight. I say to you that Hydro may need the power but I'm sure and

certain that the little bit of power between a full take and an empty

lake isn't going to do that much for them, Mr. Minister, and that you

kindly, with your power and eminence, see to it that they keep that

lake up to a medium level. I know that you want to do it and I think

it's time the foot was put down on them and see that it's done.

One other thing, I've hoped and prayed for water to be delivered

from this lake down the Alouette. I thank the Minister responsible that

water has been let down and the river has been refreshed and it is

being returned to its normal self…but for one thing. It's spotty and

you can never depend on it. I would like some act or some water rights

procedure put into effect where a definite amount of water must be

released down the Alouette River. This is a very beautiful river. It's

a beauty spot of the whole Lower Fraser Valley. It's a lovely spot and

the reason why this river should be damaged to its present state,

although it is improving, is hard to explain. I realize it's not the

fault of this Government. That river was blocked off in 1927 by a

former Government and steps are being taken and the river is being

restored. All I ask now is one further step — a guaranteed amount of

water during the hot times of the year, say from April to the end of

August or September. A little bit of water, 30 or 40 cubic feet per

second would amount to very little. With those few remarks, I thank the

Minister. Now let's let the order pass.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I shall be quite

brief. I do think that the Minister, who will be responsible for

spending the money or allocating the money, the funds, made available

by Bill No. 12, would have some difficulty reconciling a sensible

decision to disburse the money in the various areas of park development

from the comments that have been made in this House this afternoon. He

might conclude that we are almost exclusively a winter playground. Now,

we are fortunate in that we have winter sports and, of course, the

coastal range and the Rockies and so on, and the high lands that make

that possible. It does attract tourists but I think that we should

recognize, also, that the densely populated area is in the coastal

plain. Seventy-five per cent of the tourists that pour their dollars

into British Columbia surely must come in the months from say May to

September.

I believe the Minister would agree with that. You can tell, Mr.

Speaker, the type of sports activity that people are interested in by

observing the equipment they carry on their cars in the winter time.

You see the skis, of course, very prominently displayed. In many

months, when you go into the Siskiyous and so on, in California, you

see the same equipment, but the people who visit British Columbia in

May to September are mostly pulling campers and they are pulling small

boats. We're very fortunate in the fact that we have some beautiful

interior lakes. We have on the coast our magnificent salt water, the

Gulf of Georgia, areas like theSunshine Coast, the magnificent stretch

of water extending from say below Ganges and East Point up to the

Nanaimo

[ Page 596 ]

area and beyond, the Seymour Narrows area and so

on. I'm not speaking only for those people, who have larger cruising

boats, who are fewer in number, but I'm speaking for the thousands of

people who have smaller boats that they wish to use from launching

sites in the lakes and in the salt water.

I would hope that the Minister would spend a few of these dollars in

improving the shoreside parks, the camping areas that exist and can be

created on theSun shine Coast of Vancouver Island and, in many cases,

on very beautiful, quite undeveloped areas on the west coast of

Vancouver Island.

Having said that, I do want to urge the Minister to take a good look

at the whole, in conjunction with seaside parks at the whole marine

moorage area where our American visitors, with their boats from Puget

Sound and so on come in in increasing numbers. They could be improved

and the shoreside facilities could be improved. I would think that

would come within the scope of the monies available.

I do want to, in addition, commend the Member for Surrey in

referring to the unfortunate situation that exists with respect

particularly to the Tynehead area, in connection with the regional park

development plan. This has been most unfortunate. It is true also that

people have been improperly, in my opinion, and unfairly inconvenienced

by the fact that the monies did not appear to be available to finally

consummate the deals that were apparently intended to take place to

acquire a specifically allocated regional park area. Apparently, as a

part of either the reluctance to make the decisions to spend the money,

or the fact that the funds were not available, people have been in

limbo. They couldn't relocate because the cash was not available from

the sale of the land but, at the same time, it was clearly indicated by

the action of all the authorities, local and Provincial, that that land

was earmarked for a regional park and would, at some time, be acquired.

Therefore, their ability to trade and sell in the normal manner was

inhibited and made impossible in fact. In closing, Mr. Speaker, so that

it will not be forgotten, I do say to my friend, the Minister, through

you, do not forget the seaside, shoreside activities, because we have

the finest salt water and fresh water that one will ever find anywhere

and they are becoming an increasing attraction for thousands of people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, through you,

to the Minister, I would like and hope that the Minister will follow

through on the announcement made in this House last year to greatly

increase the acreage set aside up in Skagit Valley as a park reserve. I

certainly hope that he will consider developing a portion of this

because, through the discussion that has gone on in this Legislature,

we have unwittingly given considerable publicity to that valley and

many, many more people are going up in there now than ever before.

There's certainly need for sanitary facilities, park benches and,

accommodation for people to park their trailers and set up their tents.

The lake on the way up to the Skagit, Silver Lake, Silverhope Creek,

also can stand expanding. This is one of the finest recreational areas

in the lower mainland and, with the terrific population that we have

experienced in the lower mainland, I feel that we have a great

responsibility to help develop both Silverhope Creek and the Skagit

Valley. So I'm calling on the Minister, my neighbour from Chilliwack,

to give very serious consideration to spending at least some of the

interest of this $15 million in the Skagit Valley.

We have a spot a little further up the Canyon, now, called Hells

Gate and recently a development group has been given permission to

develop an aerial tramway so that tourists from near and far can cross

over Hells Gate and look down to this narrow chasm and see the boiling

waters. Now this, no doubt, will attract many, many people from the

lower mainland and from many parts of the world. With this in mind, I'd

like to have the Minister recall one of our first visits. Shortly after

I was elected to the Assembly and attended my first Session, I drew the

Minister's attention to the need in the Fraser Canyon for more

campsites and facilities where people who are pulling trailers

particularly people pulling trailers, and tenters, too, could pull off

and spend the night or spend a day or two in the beautiful Fraser

Canyon. Well, at that time the Minister said, Mr. Speaker, that if I

could find some flat land…flat land is very hard to come by in the

Canyon…but I took him seriously. I got out the maps, looked around

and, as I drove the Canyon, I found quite a flat area adjacent to the

Alexander Bridge, where we had had a picnic site, but the biggest part

of the picnic site had been destroyed when Highway 1 was rebuilt. There

are some 320 acres in all. We have a park reserve on a portion of it.

The Department of Highways has a gravel reserve on another portion. I

hope the Minister will now go ahead and develop this reserve. If I can

catch his ear, I'll give him permission to call it Kiernan Campsite but

he'll probably have to spell that, just as my friend from Kelowna,

instead of having a K, you'll have to have a C. You can call it Ciernan

Campsite.

I'll also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that with this great development up

in Hells Gate and now that we have beautiful British Columbia, we call

that Heaven's Gate, leading into Yale-Lillooet riding.

I think these are good, constructive proposals, when we have this

kind of money to spend, not a great deal spread over the Province, but,

even if a small percentage were spent at this time, we could develop

the Ciernan Campsite at Alexander Bridge. This is pretty well a half

way point between Vancouver and the interior. People pulling trailers

from Vancouver up into the interior, or coming through from Calgary

down through the Canyon, this is a first-class place to stop over, pull

the trailer off, make camp and spend the night. With the increased

pressure that we are creating, by allowing entrepreneurs to develop the

Hells Gate scenic tramway, I believe we have a responsibility to

develop a campsite in the immediate or adjacent area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, this has been an

excellent debate so far. Everybody is dipping his hand into the barrel

for a little tidbit of pork. I got up so late in the debate I'm not

sure there's anything left in the bottom of the barrel.

There's one thing I wanted to say before all the money gets spent,

in a general way, and that is I think there is some significance in the

fact that this total sum of $15 million for the purpose of creating or

improving parks in the Province.

I'd like to go into a little more depth on the suggestion that was

first put up by the Member from Surrey and that is that I think it's

pretty obvious that, in a year of high unemployment, one of the things

that prompted this bill, in the first place, was the question of trying

to provide employment. The Minister has indicated to us, in speaking to

the bill, that 600 students will get jobs, that other projects

[ Page 597 ]

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

I want to suggest to him that there's one further way that he could

do this, to tremendous advantage, I think. If he were to take somewhere

between a third to a fifth of this Budget and make it available,

specifically, to cities or regional districts, as a percentage towards

money which they would spend, i.e. ,

"We'll give you say 30 per cent of this project, of the money for it,

but we want to have some control over it. We want to have certain

criteria that you must fulfill, i.e. ,

you must provide such a proportion of say labour to equipment. We don't

want this all to go into caterpillar tractors." There is a lot of work

in parks that can be done or should be done with actual labour and if

we establish these criteria, it would, also, I think, perhaps give a

more general distribution of work throughout the Province because we

have got hopefully regional parks in many areas of the Province. The

Minister might find that he's escaping from the criticism that all the

money is being spent for the lower mainland or, "We didn't get any of

this in our constituency."

The other problem is, that when he's going to hire 600 students, I

think, in terms of if I had anything to do with it, one of the real

problems is in providing supervisory staff for the students, to make

sure that the camps are conducted on a reasonably high level. I think,

here again, that the local area has a better idea as far as this is

concerned, in terms of knowing the personnel who are good, who work

with children, perhaps teachers in the summertime, and this sort of

thing, who are known locally but might not otherwise be known to the

Parks Department. I think that there's a good chance, if he's careful

with his criteria, of spreading this money throughout the Province and,

in fact, getting perhaps another two thirds of the work accomplished

with this money. I would like the Minister to think about this a little

while, because I think that it's valid, in terms of trying to create

jobs which, I think, is one of the principal functions of this

particular Act.

The other thing that I'm going to suggest is of a more parochial

nature and that is that the Minister knows, in fairly recent times,

there has been a most spectacular cave discovered in the Alberni

constituency and that is the Euclataws Cave. I'd like to commend the

Minister for his action in sealing off this cave so that it doesn't go

the way of the Home Lake Caves, where vandals have been able to come in

and completely destroy the ecology of the cave — the stalagmites and

stalactites and the beautiful formations. You know, it almost reminds

me in a way, somewhat like the ladies who love to have lamps in the

living room but the cellophane is still on them. You know, it's all

very well to have a cave and lock it up but then the people who really

want to see it and have an interest in it find difficulty in doing so.

Insofar as this is Centennial Year, I think that as many people in the

Province of British Columbia as possible should get a chance to have a

look at this magnificent find. I would like to suggest to the Minister

that, on an experimental basis, he hire perhaps three or four geology

students from the university and have them with a supervisor in charge

of this cave say with a fly camp with a tent there and that he allow

small groups of three to five people to go in with a guide under the

proper condition and that, in fact, they pay a fee, which might support

the wages of these students, for going through this particular cave in

the summer. I don't think perhaps the demand will be all that great but

I think that there could be some demand, particularly if we make it

known. I think that this would be a great thing as a Centennial project

to let people who are particularly interested have a look at this in a

year which they might not otherwise do and would also provide

employment for students.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): (Beginning of speech not recorded)

…Island, just on the door step of Nanaimo. If there is anything extra

left over, even a paltry sum of $30,000 would just sort of brighten up

the place a little bit and get us ready for when we do our big

operation on that beautiful island which is one of the most beautiful

islands in the Gulf of Georgia. In the years to come, its true

potential as a tourist attraction will be proven. I would just like to

mention, too, that… (interruption) .

The City of Nanaimo paid for it. We're still paying off on the bond

issue but we don't mind that because we know the Government's going to

play the game with us, as they have done over the years (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. NEY: Well, I see they have been spending money for the

last few years there and last year they increased the moorage

facilities and I understand they're going to do it again this year. I

would like to say that the facilities which have been reasonably well

kept up over the years are now ready for a proper maintenance job. One

other little item on this is the fact that, if we could have this work

done out of this money, it will be able to create a few jobs at the

local level for us. We don't want all our boys to have to go to the

mainland to work in the parks.

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

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Just in case there is some

money left of this $15 million, I would like to bring up a matter that

I've talked about many times in the House and that is in connection

with Seymour Park. I'm certainly very happy, and I'm sure all the

people of the lower mainland will be happy, to know that you're going

to improve conditions there and make it available to more people. As

you know, nearly every Sunday, on a fine day in the winter, you'll hear

statements over the radio saying stay away from Seymour Park, because

it's plugged tight, they won't let any more people up.

Now, from the standpoint of summer camping grounds, you have an

admirable area to the west of Seymour Mountain and taking in the

Seymour Creek Valley. As you know, this is held by the Greater

Vancouver Water Board and it was intended many years ago to use this

for water storage. However, the dam on the Seymour has been built about

eleven miles up from the Keith Road but the area is closed to the

general public. You can't get in there even to walk or to fish in the

creek without a special individual permit. I think this is purely a

dog-in-the-manger attitude on the part of the Greater Vancouver Water

Board and I think that it is entirely feasible that the Department of

Recreation and Conservation take this area over, below the dam, and

utilize it for a park area. This is a very desirable site. It's

thoroughly undeveloped and I don't think it would cost a great deal of

money, in any way, to merely make it open to the general public. It's a

[ Page 598 ]

wonderful place to take kiddies, and something

which is very badly needed in the lower mainland area is a place where

a family can take its children and feel safe, within just a day's

outing from the city centre. This fulfils all those requirements. It's

only ten miles away from the city. It's an area which is already held

by a Governmental body and I would urgently ask you to consider this,

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think that

there is a more beneficial area within the lower mainland than Seymour

Creek Valley. I certainly hope that you'll take a good look at this and

see if you can't do something about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have a problem in

the Skeena riding. I know that now that money is available development

will be made on the park that was donated to the Government by Alcan.

However, when we had the slide at Lakelse Lake, where 96 campsites went

out in the lake at one time, and took with it a lot of fairly mature

timber and left these trees standing in the lake, forming little

islands, it was a real hazard. At that particular time, the Department

of Highways let a contract and they went in and cleared out all these

obstacles. They had to be cut ten feet under water level and the whole

lake was swept and it was clear. An excellent job was done but I'd just

like to bring attention to the Minister that now some of these roots

and trees have loosened from the debris that went in with it and now we

have trees again floating in the lake. I was wondering if it is the

responsibility of this department to have this cleared again or would

this be Highways Department? It's not a big project. I think that

perhaps there wouldn't be more than 20 trees that need to be removed or

cut down to the 10 foot level again, but it shouldn't be left the way

it is because it's a very dangerous situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

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

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, after that last debate, I'm not sure where I stand in this bill. It's the Special Funds Appropriation Act . The last one was the Accelerated Park Development Act .

Both these bills are taking specific sums of money for specific

purposes. In introducing this bill, the Minister didn't give the same

assurance that he gave with the preceding bill that this bill wouldn't

just be passed and then the money lie unused. He didn't give us that

assurance with regard to the Special Funds Appropriation Act (interruption) .

Yes, the interest. At 7 per cent, that comes to $1,750,000, with

regard to the $25 million set aside for the Drug, Alcohol, and

Cigarette Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund. That's a long

name for this particular piece of legislation. There are actually

principles involved in this bill. One is an extension of the funds

required by the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and,

like the Member for Oak Bay, who says he's in favour of motherhood and

parks, I'm in favour of home acquisition and if there's more money

required to make this possible then certainly we're going to support

that particular section.

The other principle has to do with the providing of monies to make

the…actually, the second principle is to stabilize the Crop Insurance

Stabilization Fund, because it was in danger of losing its stability

because of the claims that were being made on it due to a very bad crop

year. This is the Crop Insurance Stabilization Fund. Once again, we are

in favour of that particular section. It's always been a problem in the

Province of British Columbia to evolve an adequate crop insurance plan

— one, because of the diversity of agriculture in the Province of

British Columbia and, secondly, because of the fact that, in many areas

of agricultural endeavour, the size of the crop and the few number of

people involved in the raising of that crop are simply too small to

evolve a full insurance plan. After many years, we did get into the

crop insurance plan. This is a plan, as I recollect, that is in

co-operation with the Federal Government and we have no alternative but

to support that particular section. That principle is involved in this

bill, also.

The third principle is the main

section of the bill, the one that

refers to the $25 million being set aside in a perpetual fund in the

Provincial Treasury to be called the Drug, Alcohol, and Cigarette

Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund. Now, it says the

Minister may, at such times and in such amounts as he considers

requisite or advisable, take this interest and apply it toward this

particular function. The estimates for this year still allow certain

amounts of money for both the help that's given towards those groups

that are fighting narcotic addiction and alcoholism in the Province of

British Columbia. We have the assurance that they will remain in that

fund, for this year, anyway. Knowing the history of this Government,

I'm not sure that, in next year's Budget, they'll still be there as

long as this fund is in operation (interruption) . That's not really a harsh criticism. It's merely the benefit of years of experience in this House that I… (interruption)

it's not cynical. It's a factual observation based on historically

accurate, recorded facts. There's no other way to look at it. No, sir (interruption) . I trust any person once. When they let me down, from then on I don't trust them anymore (interruption) .

No, sir. I trust any person once. When they let me down — no more. I

used to believe everything the former Minister of Highways said, you

see. Then I got to a point where I… Not through cynicism, just

through a little observation I had made over the years.

When the Minister of Finance, was introducing this bill he made a

statement that reflected an attitude. He said this money will stay in

this fund and be used for this purpose forever — forever. This means

that he doesn't expect to be able to evolve any kind of solution to the

problem of alcohol, cigarette or drug addiction. Otherwise, he wouldn't

have made that dedication in his speech — that it will stay in this

fund forever. He doesn't have too much trust in human nature. Semantics

— on the Premier's part (interruption) .

Well, semantics is the meaning of words, the study of the meaning of

words. A chap by the name of Girsdansky was the first man who wrote an

authoritative journal on

[ Page 599 ]

semantics. Then he was followed by Hayakawa who wrote Language in Action ,

in 1940, which is also a book worthwhile reading. There's a number of

other books I can quote you on semantics, if you want me to.

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

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. The only comment that I'm

going to make, Mr. Speaker, on this Drug, Alcohol, and Cigarette

Education, Prevention, and Rehabilitation Fund is the fact that I agree

that all three should be put together in examining factors developing

in our society, attitudes displayed in our society and divisions

arising in our society. While the members of the middle-age,

middle-class group in society tend to look down their noses at young

people who have gone towards drug addiction, out of hand, the young

people find themselves condemned by this generation. The young people

look at our generation. They look at our addiction to cigarettes,

alcohol, tranquilizers, pep pills and all the long list of items that

can be classified as drugs of one kind or another and, then, they say,

"How can you possibly question our attitudes or our actions when, you,

in your generation, are participating in these other fields of

addiction?"

I think I can agree that they should be classified together. I hope

this fund won't have to be a perpetual fund, because it will mean that

our solution to the use of the money will not have accomplished its

objective, namely the control and elimination of drug, alcohol and

cigarettes as a problem in our society.

While speaking on this, Mr. Speaker, I was on an open line

programme, a couple or three weeks ago. Someone shot the question at

me, did I think it was right that in the Province of British Columbia,

the radio and television stations should be denied access to $600

million worth of television and radio advertising for cigarettes and

tobacco? I said, "Yes, I think it's right they should be denied that."

The lady said, "Well, how can you possibly take this position, when

they're doing it across the line? It's directed into this Province, why

shouldn't this Province have part of that?" I said that the fact that

we're losing this money doesn't make it right. I'm actually opposed to

any form of cigarette or alcohol advertising in the newspapers, on the

radio or on television. I simply would like to see the Premier at his

next Federal-Provincial Conference do what he can to have that kind of

advertising eliminated from every

section of the media (interruption) .

They are pushers, yes. They're pushers of alcohol and cigarettes. Of

course, while we're speaking of this advertising, this is part of what

this fund is going to have to try to overcome. This fund is going to

have to try to overcome the completely wrong impressions that are left

in the minds of so many people by the kind of advertising that you find

in most of the magazines. I don't happen to have one of the magazines

here, but you'll find that the ads, especially with regard to the

liquor advertising, relate their particular commodity either towards

sex or towards a particularly enjoyable kind of high-standard living.

This is the sort of advertising that I deplore on any and every

occasion, because it's the sort of perversion of advertising that does

the whole advertising field real harm because it's for the buck,

regardless of its impact on society. I object to that very strenuously

and that's why I'm quite prepared to support anything this House can do

to eliminate all liquor or cigarette advertising in every field of the

media.

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

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in connection

with this bill, which is going to create a sum of money useful for

combatting cigarettes and their effect and, also, drugs, I would like

to draw attention to one aspect of this and that is the proposed cure

of drug addiction. This is something which apparently governments have

utterly failed to cure over the past years.

In spite of the fact that millions of dollars have been spent in

research and the studies of various kinds and treatment of various

kinds, it's very hard to find a place where addicts can be treated and

cured. The Federal Government in British Columbia, over recent years,

has spent many millions of dollars in its Matsqui institution, which

was intended to be a place which would take people away from drug

addiction and put them back into a normal life. To the best of my

knowledge, after several years and an untold amount of money, they

can't point to one individual coming out of that institution as being

cured of drug addiction.

There is, however, a ray of hope, for what it's worth, in another

type of training which has been available for the last 12 years within

the Vancouver area. I've had a chance to observe the treatment that has

taken place, along with the Honourable Member for Langley, and we have

reason to believe, and I think it can be documented, that many patients

at this centre have been completely cured and have returned to earning

a living, many of them in different walks of life. This Government has

been, I think, very wise in offering some support to this small

organization in order to help them carry on. In spite of that, I am

told, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, that the people in

connection with this Batley institute have spent $100,000 of their own

money in order to help addicts in this area. There is no doubt that

they have helped them. They have helped some to a point where, in the

last year in a treatment of 40 people, 15 or 20 of them are completely

off drugs and three quarters of them are back earning their own living

and supporting their families.

This is the kind of news that you just do not hear very often, Mr.

Speaker. I don't know of any Government institution and,

notwithstanding what has been done with the Narcotics Foundation, they

are not in a position to point a finger at anyone that they have cured

of drug addiction. It's a most unfortunate situation but, nevertheless,

what are you going to do when you're faced with facts like this? This

small institution I'm talking about, which has been handled almost

entirely through the ability and the persuasiveness of one little

woman, has been able to achieve results which so many other

organizations have completely failed to do, in spite of unlimited money

to work with.

I would beg the Government to do what they can, if necessary, to

investigate, to assure themselves of what is being done with this

organization and, if the facts that I have outlined here today are

correct and addicts are able to be helped to a point of getting back

into the stream of society without the use of narcotics, then I think

we should go over backwards and help them in every way possible to

train people who can carry on the work that has been started by this

small institution. It's a very important thing, Mr. Speaker. I only

hope that the Government will take a very good look at this opportunity

that they have.

[ Page 600 ]

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

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to

this bill, apart from the work towards which funds under this act are

to be directed, all of which have, I think, been expressed from time to

time in terms of the debate in the House, as being a very effective way

of tackling these special programmes in the area of drug, alcohol and

cigarettes, last year, it was necessary for a lot of reasons to do

quite a bit of canvassing of the financial markets in both Canada and

the United States on behalf of municipalities and in particular the

Municipal Financing Authority.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no single, financial

programme of the Provincial Government which is met with more envy

across Canada than this particular way of financing, not only the

activities under these funds, but the manner in which these funds are

invested. Last year, as many of you know, many municipalities in Canada

certainly almost all of them, with the exception of New Brunswick which

has a different way of raising capital for both hospital construction

and school financing…but, then, on the other side of the coin,

they have no say, Mr. Speaker, in the amount that the Government says

they have to repay in the way of capital. In the other Provinces, as we

were examining the market, it was not unusual to run into situations

where the local authority in Manitoba, in Ontario, in Quebec, were in

the market and were required to put up the entire capital cost of a

hospital project or a school project at a time when the market rate in

the so-called free market was, in some instances, over 10 per cent. I

recall very well one issue, on behalf of a school district in the

Province of Quebec, where the effective rate was 10.42 per cent. Now,

Mr. Speaker, I think you can understand…

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

MR. CAMPBELL: Plus the commissions and all of the legal

advertisements that were involved with that issue. That was not a

unique situation by any stretch of the imagination. Even in the rich

Province, or the theoretically-rich Province of Ontario, the so-called

"have" Province, many local issues last year for the local share of

school costs and the local share of hospital costs were well up in the

wrong side of the 9 per cent interest mark — 9.87 I recall, in one

instance, 9.92, in another one. In some cases, over 10 because, in

those Provinces, Mr. Speaker, the local share and, in some instances,

the entire capital cost of the hospital has to be raised by the local

authority.

In other words, in some Provinces the local share will be raised on

the market, in other Provinces the entire capital cost of the project

is required to be raised by the local authority and, then, the

Provincial Government will repay, in part, the

schedule of repayments

involved. Now, Mr. Speaker, how much better and how much more sensible

is an approach to finance which, apart from doing these things in the

area of drug addiction and alcohol rehabilitation, and in the projects

which are coming forward under the First Citizens' Fund, and the

projects under the Centennial Sports Fund and the Cultural Fund, how

much better it is that these funds can be made available to the local

authority at rates which have ranged, since 1968, 6.61 per cent — the

highest reached was 8.33 per cent and, of course, it's sliding down

today — 7.85 per cent was the most recent issue for school financing.

It is lower today, Mr. Speaker. In British Columbia hospital districts,

the minimum was 6.66 per cent and the maximum again was 8.33, with the

most recent issue 8.14. On top of that, when we're considering those

percentages on the long-term debt of the school districts and the

hospital districts, that is being 100 per cent the responsibility of

the Provincial Financing Authority to pick up the total capital

required for the school project and the hospital project.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, of all the things which this Government

has done financially, I say again nowhere…perhaps, from the

Members opposite and in the Liberal Party, who perhaps don't

understand…that it's better to pay 7 than 10 or maybe 6.5 than

10.4. Why they have that point of view I wouldn't know.

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

MR. CAMPBELL: For twenty years. I say this, that the rest of

Canada at Government level and at local Government level look with a

great deal of envy on this financial programme in British Columbia. You

had better believe it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I think there are

few problems in our society today which constitute a greater worry to a

larger number of people than the drug and alcohol problem. In terms of

parents, in particular, there are fewer subjects I've come across more

often than the worry associated with the use of drugs by children in

school at what appears to be a decreasing age.

As far as alcohol and cigarettes are concerned, I think one or two

brief figures should be mentioned to bring home to the House the

dimension of the problem with which the Government is attempting to

deal. A recent editorial in one of our newspapers suggests that the

United States plans to spend $75 million in the next three years. The

statistics for British Columbia show that we have 31,000 alcoholics,

who constitute something in the order of 2 1/2 per cent of our

population over the age of 20. This is simply stating the number of

alcoholics but we should not disregard the tremendous problems to the

families and dependents and employers and associates of the alcoholic.

In regard to cigarettes and alcohol, in particular, the Honourable

Member from Cowichan-Malahat questioned the use of the word

"perpetual." I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to be realistic, that

alcohol and cigarettes are somewhat like original sin, they will always

be with us. I would submit that, with all the best of intentions in the

world, the aim of this programme must be basically one of education, in

the hopes that we can bring about the intelligent use of alcohol and

cigarettes in our midst rather than fruitlessly chase a goal that is

just not attainable. I would not adopt the same philosophy in regard to

the use of drugs perhaps although, through the centuries, drug

addiction has been with us also.

The question of cigarette use as a cause of disease, I think should

also go on the record. Frequently, when I speak about the evils of

smoking, it seems to be thought that I'm talking about the moral

aspect, which, in fact, as far as I know, I never have done. The most

detailed and accurate and scientific study of the effects of smoking

was carried out by the United States Public Health Service, with their

first report in 1967 and supplements each year. The statistics are

impressive enough that they deserve mentioning. If you take

[ Page 601 ]

young men, who smoke two packets of cigarettes a

day, the statistics show that, on the average, you can knock eight

years off their life expectancy. For a young man who smokes one pack a

day, their life expectancy is down by four years (interruption) . They

don't quote three packs, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't

plan to drown the House in statistics. I'm merely trying to point out

that this was a very well-documented and well-conducted study on a

scientific basis, analyzed statistically, so that for it to be

suggested that it has not been proven is, really, if I may use a word

that I haven't used this year, yet, is rubbish. The incidence of lung

cancer is hardly debatable, either, and even in British Columbia alone

the figures between 1958 and 1968 show the death rate from lung cancer

to have doubled. In 1968, 537 persons in this Province died from lung

cancer.

The other two diseases that are particularly related to smoking,

which it is well-established, are the increased incidence of coronary

artery disease which, unfortunately, frequently, picks off a young man

in the prime of his life, and bronchitis and emphysema.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill very strongly, I think it's

worth mentioning that one of the recommendations of the Royal

Commission on Liquor suggested that funds be made available. In

passing, I think it is worth noting that this, in fact, whether it's

under one label or another, is meeting that suggestion.

Some mention was made by one of the other Members of the trends that

are used in advertising to try to encourage the use of liquor and

cigarettes. I think perhaps you've all read but it's just worth

mentioning that, in Britain, they are attempting to use the same

influences in a negative way. In other words, the attractiveness of the

female to the male may be somewhat diminished if the person concerned

has the stale smell of cigarette smoke in her hair, or if a man is

coughing all over his sweetheart and if he has something of the

unpleasant stain of brown on his teeth. It's suggested that some of the

advertising in Britain might be used in this negative fashion and I

think it's a good idea. I think advertising, however, always seems to

go overboard. They claim that, in Britain, smoking impairs a man's

sexual prowess and I would like to see the documentation. I don't think

it exists (interruption) .

I like things to be proven, Mr. Member. I'm not aware of any

literature in any articles in the medical literature, anywhere in the

world, that says smoking impairs a man's prowess (interruption) . That hasn't been proved either.

Mr. Speaker, in strongly supporting the use of this money, I think,

and I would like to touch on the comments of another Member, that we

must be flexible and we must show some innovations, because we must be

honest with ourselves in this society. As the Member pointed out, up

until this stage, we really have had relatively little success,

although I would hesitate to say we have had no success in the

programmes which have already been instituted. This is not, in any way,

meant to detract from the efforts of the Narcotics Foundation or the

Alcoholism Foundation. Before spending large sums of money, I think we

must be frank and admit that results along the lines of treatment in

the past have been disappointing and, for this reason, I would plead

with the Government that, before they take any positive step in the

setting up of programmes, they should avail themselves of research work

done in other parts of the world particularly in Europe, and look at

this different method which the Member from Vancouver-Burrard merely

touched upon. This method adopted by a well trained psychiatric social

worker in Vancouver, who has had experience in Britain, emphasizes that

you cannot isolate a man's addiction to a drug or alcohol from the rest

of his life and that, in fact, one has to study the habits of the whole

person. Again, with due respect to the Narcotics Foundation, I think

there are various ways in which it is wrong in its approach to the

patient. The evidence that has been brought to me, and from what I have

been told by persons in contact with the Foundation, suggest that there

is too much of the penal, moralizing attitude to the effect that the

Foundation apparently reserves the right to report addicts to the

police. In some form of treatment we use a drug called methadone and

apparently there have been instances where the addict's access to the

methadone has been threatened if he will not agree to have his name

made available to the police. The Foundation, I think, is also on

record as suggesting that all addicts should be registered. Now, I

believe that this is well intended but this approach has not worked in

the past. It has not worked in other countries. I would submit that

it's stupid to go on pouring more money into the same type of programme

which has failed in the past.

This lady, who has the clinic in North Vancouver, talked to me in

some detail and one or two of the points I'll just mention briefly. She

points out the tremendous value and this, I believe, proves the point

of my whole argument, that anonymity is a pillar in the treatment of

alcohol and drug addiction. It is to this extent that this clinic has

an unlisted phone number. It does not advertise and a tremendous effort

is made to prevent the congregating or the association of many drug

addicts in a group, repeatedly, day after day. It becomes a habit that,

if they associate together, they seem to have much less tendency to

break the hab