1972 Legislative Session: 3rd 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 18, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 609 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

in the Ladies' Gallery today we have the President of Rebec Assembly of

British Columbia, Mrs. Marie Prior, of Kelowna. I'm sure the Members

would wish to welcome her here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, there are today almost 300

visitors to the legislative precincts from Surrey. First, Mr. Speaker,

there's a joint delegation which came to see the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brothers) today. I think first the Surrey school board and

the Surrey Schoolteachers' Association, Mrs. McClurg, Mrs. Weremchuk,

Mr. Schmidt, from the school board, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Powlick from

the teachers' association. I'd like the House to welcome them together

with 155 school teachers from the Surrey school district a large group

of pupils from Lord Tweedsmuir Secondary School and a large group from

Royal Heights School.

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

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, we have in the Ladies' Gallery today eight ladies of the

Social Credit Women's Auxiliary and give them a good hearing today so

they'll know exactly how democracy works.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, it's not very often

I get a chance to get up at the beginning of a sitting and announce

anybody from my area but I have two schoolteachers, Mr. Ian Weatherly,

from Cranbrook, and Mr. Ted Dabour from Kimberley representing the

schoolteachers down here and they're in the gallery and I hope that you

will look after them.

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

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

All of us have been acquainted with the civil service for many, many

years. Those who are active partners with civil service in government

know the loyalty of these people and there's two such ladies in the

gallery.

This is the first time to the best of my knowledge that they have

had an opportunity of seeing parliamentarians at work in parliament as

private citizens. Without reflection on anyone else I want to tell you

that these two ladies are two of the great secretaries of government,

in the person of Mrs. Hymar, Tommy Myard's former secretary and indeed

the great Mary Taylor, my former secretary.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER The Honourable the Premier.

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

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT ACT

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

House in committee on Bill No. 39, Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act.

On the recommendation of the committee, bill introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SCRUTINY

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled

An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny, shortly called The Sunshine Law.

Motion approved. Bill No. 41,

An Act to Provide for Public Scrutiny,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

it's nice to have an opportunity for once to speak at 2:00. There's a

little larger size of House than perhaps I've been used to in the past.

I would consider that this might be my maiden speech at 2:00 and I'm

sure the Members of this House will treat it in that way.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Mr. Speaker, in North Vancouver we don't want to be outdone by the

Member for Burrard who last year distributed to this House a record of

the Kitsilano Boys' Band and we're very happy today to have given each

member a record called "Adventures in Music" by the North Vancouver

Youth Band under the baton of Arthur Smith. I should say that this band

has played in many parts of the world. In 1965 when they played in

Prince George the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources made

the comment in thanking them at that time that it was the finest

performance in 25 years. They have played at the Calgary Stampede, Expo

in Montreal, Parliament Hill, Expo in Japan, and a special concert in

Disneyland.

In 1968 at the Canada National Exhibition in Toronto they won an

unprecedented five first place awards which was an outstanding record.

Incidently, one of the awards they

[ Page 610 ]

won that particular week at the C.N.E. was one for

deportment and conduct. That award was received by the band major at

that time and four years later is now Alderman Brian Terrace of the

City of North Vancouver.

I'd like to read, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the District of North

Vancouver addressed to the Hon. Brice Mackasey, Minister of Manpower

and Immigration.

On November 9, 1971 the District of North Vancouver

made application under the federal-provincial employment loans

programme for the clearing, improvement, and development of recreation

and pleasure parks.

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

However, from December 8 to February 7, British

Columbia experienced its worst winter weather conditions since 1936.

Thus preventing the districts as well as many other municipalities from

proceeding with proposed construction projects. With the loss of 315

man-days for the 100 per cent labourer and 253 man-days for the 75 per

cent worker it will now be virtually impossible to complete all the

scheduled work by May 31.

Accordingly it is respectfully requested that the

deadline for completion be extended from May 31 to perhaps July 31 in

order that the persons employed under this programme may obtain the

full employment benefit that was intended by the legislation.

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

I HEREBY SUPPORT LETTER YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE

DISTRICT OF NORTH VANCOUVER REQUESTING EXTENSION OF MAY 31 COMPLETION

DEADLINE TO JULY 31 UNDER FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL EMPLOYMENT LOANS PROGRAMME

BECAUSE OF TWO WORST WINTER MONTHS IN 35 YEARS. I REGRET THAT EVEN

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA SOMETIMES HAS BAD WEATHER. I HOPE YOU CAN

MEET THIS REASONABLE REQUEST.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the Minister of Municipal

Affairs might send a similar telegram on behalf of other municipalities

in British Columbia whom I'm sure are going to have similar problems.

I'll send a copy of this telegram to the Minister.

The budget debate's been interesting, Mr. Speaker. I think there

have been many good ideas put forward from all sides of the House.

There's been much discussion of nudity, public morals, the Member from

Richmond (Mr. LeCours) had a family-approved research programme and

I've been endeavouring to obtain a similar family-approved programme.

So far my family has not seen fit to approve this particular project.

We heard, I think, a vintage speech from the Member for Cowichan (Mr.

Strachan). Last night I thought we heard a vintage speech by the Member

for Saanich (Mr. Tisdalle).

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

MR. BROUSSON: This House is reflected in what the Press says

about it. So, I thought you might be interested in hearing one day's

headlines from the Vancouver Province of February 9. "Control

Land Profits." "Pollution Spending." "Give-Away by Socreds Ridiculed."

"Annouces Air Clean Up." "Scrooge Behind Budget." "Great Budget."

"Moralising by Cabinet Worries Public." "M.L.A.'s Get Blood and Sex

Job."

AN HON MEMBER: What?

MR. BROUSSON: Speaking of the Press, Mr. Speaker, we've had a

recent controversy over government withdrawal of advertising from

certain newspapers.

My colleague, the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) spoke of this. Perhaps I could quote from the Victoria Times of February 17:

Alan Williams told the Legislature Peterson's threat

to withdraw government advertising from the Times indicates the Socreds

use their ads to reward newspapers. Williams based his charge on a

statement Peterson made Tuesday which said the Times was irresponsible

in publishing a tobacco ad and that this should in no way be rewarded

by the government.

"The key word here is 'reward',"

said Williams. "I always thought we were a province that understood the

rule of law but the government is using the people's money for its own

political purpose."

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

The next day, also in the Victoria Times

of February 17, I have a quotation from the president of the B.C. Civil

Liberties Union who said that Peterson's response "opens the door to

government leverage over the media generally in any case where the

government feels itself unduly provoked."

That's the situation, Mr. Speaker, in the Social Credit Province of

British Columbia in 1972. Let me tell you what another Social Credit

government did a few years ago about this kind of situation.

I want to quote to you from Bill 9,

An Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information.

The

preamble says: "Whereas it is expedient and in the public interest

that the newspapers published in the province should furnish to the

people of the province statements made by the authority of the

government of the province as to the true and exact objects of the

policy of the government…."

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

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

Section 3. Every person who is the proprietor, editor,

publisher or manager of any newspaper published in the province shall

when required to do so by the chairman publish in that newspaper any

statement furnished by the chairman which has for its object the

correction or amplification of any statement relating to any policy or

activity of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you favour that?

MR. BROUSSON: The Act goes on:

Every such statement shall have written upon it a certificate in the

following words: "The foregoing statement is published by the direction

of the chairman of the Social Credit Board."

Section 4. Every person who is the proprietor, editor, publisher or

manager of any newspaper shall upon being required so to do by the

chairman in writing within 24 hours after the delivery of such

requirements make a return in writing setting out every source from

which any information emanated as to any statement contained in any

issue of the newspaper.

[ Page 611 ]

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

MR. BROUSSON: Won't kill you.

In case of the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any

newspaper has been guilty of any contravention in any of the provisions

of this Act the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may by order prohibit

the publication of such newspaper, either for a definite time or until

further order.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

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

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, the year was 1937. The province

was Alberta. The government was Social Credit. The Minister of

Agriculture in that government was the Hon. William Chant. That

government had a seven-member Opposition. Five Liberals by coincidence,

two Conservatives, and 56 Social Credit.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: This is the Supreme Court of Canada: The

legislation now under consideration manifestly places in the hands of

the chairman of the Social Credit Commission autocratic powers.

They went on to say:

It seems to me that the Alberta legislature by the retrograde bill

is attempting to revive the old theory of the crime of seditious libel

by enacting penalties, confiscation of space in newspapers and

prohibitions for actions and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does that include advertising?

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

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of

Canada — and thank God we have a supreme court of the country of Canada

— ruled the bill ultra vires.

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

MR. BROUSSON: How did the Social Credit government of Alberta

of that day defend the bill? And remember these are the great leaders

that Social Credit speaks of in such hallowed terms.

The then Provincial Secretary, Ernest Manning, asked a meeting of

the Alberta Bible Institute: "Why should the government allow an

overwhelming majority of the people to be tricked by wrong reports?"

Premier Aberhart said himself that "the Press should have some form of

discipline to remove its weaknesses and to restore its freedom from the

clutches of financial, political, commercial organisations."

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

MR. BROUSSON: Well, come back to 1972. Social Credit

government of British Columbia — same party — we've even got one

re-cycled Alberta Social Credit Cabinet Minister. The same kind of

approaches to the Press as now when our Attorney General talks of

rewarding or withholding rewards.

Mr. Speaker, there is a law in British Columbia. We have courts. If

the law is broken, let the Attorney General have recourse to the

courts, and not start withholding government favours. The government

has already withheld its advertising from two newspapers and ironically

enough, those ads withheld are those that the Minister of Education

spoke of so proudly in this House this week on drugs and alcohol. The

Minister says these ads are so badly needed and they're going to help

our young people yet, he now withholds them as a punishment to the

newspapers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame, shame.

MR. BROUSSON: Not only this, Mr. Speaker, the government now

has begun to limit the circulation of the offending newspapers. It

takes them off the government news stands of the B.C. ferries. Will the

next step be for the Attorney General to order the circulations stopped

of any newspaper that offends him? Shades of Social Credit 1937!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Burrard crossing continues to be a matter of some

controversy. I have no intention of going through all the arguments

today. My position is well known and I'm not going to start waffling

around like some politicians. However, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke of the

crossing the other day in this House, I heard someone from the N.D.P.

call out: "Supporting the Burrard crossing is like sinking the Skagit."

Mr. Speaker, I'll yield to no one in my concern for the environment.

And if any one has tried to sink the Skagit it was the N.D.P. when they

stayed away from the I.J.C. hearings last June as a cheap political

trick to make up for not having done their homework.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome the call for public

hearings, and I for one am prepared to attend and speak at them, as

long as they are responsibly organised and handled. My colleague the

Member from West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), will speak

at a public meeting in West Vancouver March 2, and I will do the same

on March 6, in North Vancouver.

Some of the critics are quite correct when they make the point that

many of the decisions, in fact all of the decisions, regarding this

crossing have been political ones taken very often in isolation. And

there has not been much opportunity for the public to express really

informed opinions. That's the reason so much of the opposition is

emotional and ill informed, and that's the reason I welcome a series of

responsible public hearings.

[ Page 612 ]

What is so apparent now, is that the provincial government has

failed miserably to give the leadership that has been needed to solve

the transportation problems of the lower mainland. On all sides of this

House in recent years we've heard calls for some kind of lower mainland

regional transport authority, called by many different names. But that

was the principle behind it, to provide the co-ordinated planning, and

the integrated approach necessary to get the job done.

But the government has not acted and has instead made only

meaningless political gestures such as the snap offer to pay the share

of a cost of a heavy rapid-transit system if the federal government

matched it.

The predictable result of course is the kind of public gut reaction

at the present time, reaching instinctively for an overall solution it

knows is needed but does not have the means to find.

Let me discuss just one phase of the overall problem, which seems to

me to be completely neglected and misunderstood, and that is parking in

the central business district of Vancouver.

Vancouver has more downtown parking spaces than any comparable North

American City — per capita I'm saying of course. Here are some

representative figures of cities that are comparable to Vancouver,

1,000 of metro population.

Vancouver has 30, Dallas 16.5, Atlanta 15.5, Houston, Texas 15.5,

St. Louis 14.6, Toronto 9.5, — one-third of Vancouver's — San Diego 8,

Pittsburgh only 6, per 1,000 of the metropolitan area and those cities

are 1 to 3 million in size.

The downtown parking corporation has over 2,300 spaces. All three of

the major department stores 500 or 600 each. And all of these spaces,

totalling over 4,000, are rented at a rate structure that's

approximately 15 cents for the first hour, 25 cents for most succeeding

hours. And I'm oversimplifying there, it isn't quite that simple.

Every large building downtown has floors and floors of parking. In

fact while the city has no parking bylaw for downtown, its standing

policy of the planning department is to make sure that the developer

provides the number of spaces the city wants or it has trouble getting

its development permit.

Just this week Mayor Tom Campbell was commenting on the 55-storey

B.C. Building and he said the only thing he didn't like about it, it

didn't have enough parking spaces. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's going to

have 600 spaces. The city would like to see it, under their normal

guidlines, have something of the order of 2,000 spaces.

Surely under these circumstances of easy cheap parking combined with

a woefully inadequate transit system we're going to have traffic

congestion. As long as you and I or anybody else can drive downtown

easily, find cheap parking, we're going to drive our cars right

downtown.

Therefore any solution to the traffic problem must include control

of parking even as it upgrades the transit system, and even as it

includes better highway connections whether these be across Burrard

Inlet or anywhere else. And so we have the situation of the regional

district working on a light rapid-transit system in isolation, while

Vancouver City continues to insist on more cheap parking downtown in

isolation, and all three levels of government — federal, provincial and

municipal — apparently are each continuing to pursue separate and

isolated policies to do with the Burrard crossing.

I repeat the Provincial Government has woefully neglected its

responsibility in this field, which affects the entire lower mainland

and more the interior as so many people on both sides of the House have

said in these last few weeks. I call again for the provincial

government to fulfil its proper role, provide not only necessary

financial assistance, but even more important the leadership necessary

to solve this major regional transportation problem.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this session, both the leader of the Liberal

Party and myself spoke about possible problems to do with the Kootenay

Canal power project. We explained the concern we have, based on

calculations done by a respected and eminent consulting engineer, one

who was known around the world even 25 years ago when I worked in his

plant as a student electrical engineer at U.B.C.

He said: "There will be a shortage of water." Even the Minister

hinted at that. It's going to be a 500,000 kilowatt plant. But Francis

Bartholomew says that much of the time only 130,000 kilowatts will be

available and sometimes as little as 60,000 or 70,000.

Last night one of the twin Ministers for Hydro submitted a report on

behalf of his directorship of that Crown corporation. From the point of

view of the shareholders it was to say the least a woefully inadequate

report. When he spoke of the Kootenay Canal project his answers were a

complete failure. He talked vaguely about an integrated system, but

there was obviously no depth of background or understanding to what he

was saying. And there were no specific figures and answers to the

figures we had quoted.

If you can get 500,000 kilowatts for $130 million that's $260 per

kilowatt installed and that's O.K. If you can get most of the time only

130,000 kw that's $1,000 per available kilowatt and that's terrible.

We've only a limited amount of information and we don't know the

details, but we do know enough to be suspicious and concerned and to

ask questions. And it's not good enough for that Minister to wave his

arms and shout at us, and try to calm out concern by saying in effect

that "father knows best" — not to worry.

We asked the honourable electrical Minister last night while he

spoke if everything was so great back at the Kootenay Canal why

couldn't they let the City of Nelson have that little bit of water it

needs? Only 2 per cent of the total amount, licensed to B.C. Hydro at

the Kootenay Canal. He didn't answer.

Perhaps the Honourable Minister of Highways, the Member for

Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Black) will explain about the Kootenay Canal

and why Nelson cannot have their little bit of water and power, when he

speaks later today.

Mr. Speaker, ski developments, timber, real estate seem to have come

synonymous with scandal in recent years in British Columbia. We've had

Cypress Bowl, and then despite all the storm warnings Powder Mountain

turned out to be a fiasco, as the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams), detailed so well this week.

I want to discuss today another story which might have some problems

about which there are many questions which should be asked. I want to

be clear. I am not in any way hinting at any scandal, at least outside

the government. This is Brent Mountain, sometimes called Snow Mountain

just West of Surnmerland and North of Apex in the Okanagan.

This is an area much favoured by many people for a park, because of

its special beauties, fine alpine meadows and other unique ecological

features. It's an area which the parks branch thought should have

become class A park ever since 1966.

[ Page 613 ]

Let me read you some of the comments that the parks branch staff

have made about this area in the last six years. Mr. McWilliams,

director in 1966:

In view of your comment regarding intended development

of commercial skiing on Brent Mountain we're contacting the chief

forester to ask that any applications of such development be held in

abeyance, until the parks proposal has been fully explored. We are

encouraged in our own efforts by the continued interest and provision

in natural area parks in the Okanagan Valley.

In 1968 a letter from Mr. McWilliams again.

Last summer a considerable amount of time was spent in

the Okanagan Valley in a reconnaissance of Okanagan alpine areas.

Approximately 20 mountains were examined and one of the most

highly-recommended for parks purposes was Brent Mountain.

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

In regard to Brent Mountain we can assure you that we

are still most interested in this alpine area even though we have not

yet been able to give it park status. We have, however, requested that

the Department of Mines reserve the proposed park area from the

recording of mineral claims, in order that land use conflict with this

proposed park will remain at a minimum.

1969, signed by the Honourable Ray Williston, Minister:

A temporary map reserve has been placed on our records

covering certain lands in this area pending completion of the

investigation with the parks branch.

1969, — Ken Kiernan the Minister signs:

We'd like to assure you that we are still keenly

interested in the creation of such a park. The conflict between grazing

interests and those who want park status for this mountain is still an

important issue, but we hope it will soon be resolved.

1970 Mr. Ahrens, director of the parks branch:

We regret that the alpine area concerned has not yet

been given class A park status but we'd like to assure you that our

interest in it has not diminished. We consider that in addition to the

recreational value of the summits of Brent and Sheep Rock Mountains

which are very scenic and lend themselves to height there is high

ecological value to the flora and fauna there. In our opinion a class A

park is the most suitable means of protecting these values, and park

status therefore is what we will continue to recommend for Brent and

Sheep Rock Mountains.

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

I would advise that a search of departmental records

does not reveal any pending application to lease. As of this date I'm

not aware of the final deliberations of the parks branch. However, if

it's decided to establish a class A park in the area my department will

cooperate fully.

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

Please be advised that this department is hopeful that

an area on Brent Mountain will be established as a provincial park. You

may be assured that we would strongly recommend against ski development

within this park proposal. In this respect we have received

co-operation of the forest service in the past.

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

This type of photograph is needed to substantiate

(he's written to ask for some photographs) our case that this alpine

area is adjacent to a major tourist and recreation region and not

located in some remote and inaccessible portion of the forest. We are

attempting to show that the Brent Mountain and alpine area is likely to

receive regular visitation and that this use places a high value in the

area as parkland.

So things seemed to be going pretty well, although slowly to say the

least. That's 1966 to January 1971. Then suddenly a change took place,

Mr. Speaker, after five years of dalliance with this idea of a park a

new factor arrived in the person of a company called Allstar Holdings

Ltd. All of a sudden we seemed to have a change of direction of

approximately 180 degrees. Let me read some more letters. This one a

little further along one month and a half…five weeks later from the

last letter I read, still signed by Mr. Ahrens, the director of the

parks branch. February 25, 1971.

Our branch is still pursuing class A park status of

the Brent and Sheep Rock Mountain areas. The details of the proposed

ski development were recently forwarded to our office for comment. You

will be pleased to note that we've recommended to the regional district

of Okanagan Similkameen against this development.

March 15, a month later again, this time it's signed by the

Honourable Ray Williston, the Minister of Lands Forests and Water

Resources.

This application, (and he refers to the application of

a special use permit by All Star Holdings) is presently being reviewed

by the Forest Service, and you may be assured it will be given a most

careful scrutiny. Any decision will be based on a full assessment of

the many factors which need to be considered in deciding the best use

of the area concerned. It will include a review of submissions made by

other parties in relation to the application. A parks branch proposal

for a park will be a necessary part of the study.

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

Progress is being made in having this area declared a

provincial park. Please be assured that the necessary precautions will

be taken to protect the alpine area from commercial developments.

Well, as we jump along a little bit now, that was the end of March,

we move along to July 2, and I think the dates become especially

interesting here now, Mr. Speaker. We should carefully note the dates

of these letters. July 2 last, 1971, signed by the Honourable Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Frank Richter:

The matter of Brent Mountain and Sheep Rock area being

established as a class A park has been before the environmental and

land use committee, and it was considered that the best use for this

area, would be that under a multiple use concept which could be

established by a map reserve or under recreational status.

That's July 2. He says it's time we get something settled. Then July

22, the Honourable Ken Kiernan writes or signs this letter, that was

three weeks later from the first one:

Representatives from the following government agencies

have undertaken a joint examination of the Brent Apex mountain area:

forest service, land branch, wildlife branch and parks branch.

Individual agency reports and recommendations are being completed.

Until these recommendations have been reviewed we're unable to advise

publicly the ramifications of the resource use conflict.

That was three weeks afterwards. Then on July 23, signed by the

Honourable Ray Williston, referring to the recommendation of the parks

branch for a class A park.

[ Page 614 ]

While they did originally propose a class A park, it's my

understanding that the recommendations resulting from the joint field

trip in June have not yet been finalised.

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

At the present time a report is being assembled as a

result of a joint study. It's possible this report will be submitted to

the environment and land use committee to be used as a basis of

decision.

And he goes on to explain that.

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

The matter of Brent Mountain has been before the

environment and land use committee and was considered that the best use

would be a multiple-use concept.

Really, after all of these studies were going on, it had long before

already been decided. Apparently the environment and land use committee

had met earlier and made a decision. Brent Mountain was to become a ski

development. We're unable to find out exactly on what evidence this

decision has been made because so far we've been unable to get detailed

copies of these reports. There are no public hearings, there are no

reasons given, just the issuing of special use permit No. 6858.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

The Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests, Minister

Ray Williston, said he was confused by the conflicting demands and left

the decision to local people.

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

Williston said in an interview at that time.

Well, all of a sudden we find a new device being used. I don't find

this anywhere in the legislation covering this situation but here we

have this new device, a local liaison committee being set up by the

Minister, supposedly to keep an eye on the development and report back

to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This committee

is a group of well-known and respected citizens of Summerland. I don't

want to make any criticism of it only I've got a good deal of sympathy

for them for the difficult position in which they're placed by the

Minister and by the government.

The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, (Mr. L.A.

Williams), pointed out on Wednesday of this week that the Department of

Lands and Forests didn't seem to have enough qualified, responsible

people in the department to handle the kind of problems that are

arising in this new and sophisticated era of land-use decisions. This

seems to be borne out by the use of a local liaison committee.

Certainly responsible people, but people without experience in any

expertise in this field. They're serving merely as unpaid good

citizens, shouldering responsibilities that rightfully belong to the

Minister and his professional staff.

Who is the developer about which we are talking? It's a firm called

All Star Holdings Ltd. of Kelowna. Its directors are respected citizens

and businessmen of that area and I want to make it clear that I'm not

trying to put any slur or make any criticism of what they're doing.

They apparently want to develop an idea and they want to make a profit

and I have no intention of criticising that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I like to ski too. The family and I spent most

of the Christmas holidays skiing all through the Okanagan, from Manning

Park to Silver Star. From my personal observation, I wouldn't feel that

ski developments in the Okanagan are exactly a get-rich-quick deal

right now. The Okanagan already has ski resorts at Baldy, Apex, Last

Mountain, Big White, Tillicum, Silver Star and Todd Mountain at

Kamloops.

Available snow in the area around Brent doesn't seem to be ideal

compared to some of the others. For example, Big White on an average

has two-and-a-half times as much snow as the Brent area. Silver Star

has an average of four times as much and I am advised that there are

other alternate areas to the north that could be developed for skiing

with better snow conditions and when there is a better market for this

kind of skiing. On top of this we already have evidence that the parks

branch, the professional people in the parks branch, thought that Brent

mountain was a unique and suitable area for a class A provincial park.

Have we made a mistake? What should it be? A park, or a ski resort,

or both? We don't know, because the evidence is not available.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shall I get the report?

MR. BROUSSON: There have been no public hearings. All the

requests for information to the forest service are referred to the

liaison committee. They don't know. The liaison committee is just a

local committee of laymen trying to fulfil a responsibility thrust upon

them, not equipped to answer for the government — nor should they have

to.

Then there's the second problem. The public of British Columbia, I

would hope, have learned a bitter lesson about proposed ski

developments after Cypress Bowl and Powder Mountain.

You had better get a performance bond first. The Minister said no

one again will ever be able to get into this kind of development

without a performance bond.

Vancouver Province , January 20, of this year:

Provincial lands director Walter Redel said the new

policy is to ensure developers are serious about making good on

recreation development promises. The Crown is going to insist on either

an irrevocable letter of credit from a bank or a posting of a cash

performance bond, said Redel. An example, he said, was on a $750,000

plan, the government would likely ask for a 50 per cent guarantee.

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

Let me offer two more items of evidence. This plan was drawn in

early 1971. It says, "Brent Mountain recreations, drawn by the Okanagan

Planning and Engineering Company Limited, development proposal." It

shows on it plans for the various tee bars and chair lifts. As a matter

of fact one of the tee bars goes right across, down into a creek bottom

and up on the other side, not really very good ski planning.

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

[ Page 615 ]

housing, commercial motels, stores." I am quite

aware that this plan is not presently in effect and that the forest

service say: "Oh, that plan was never approved, not acceptable." But

the fact remains, early in 1971, the parks branch was saying, "we want

a class A park." The other part of the government was looking at plans

of this kind and considering a ski development.

Now, I have another document here which is the Memorandum of

Association of All Star Holdings Limited, the Province of British

Columbia Companies Act. This is dated, December 15, 1969 and as of

yesterday, this document had not been amended with the registrar of

companies. The objects for which the company is established are:

A. To purchase, lease, take in exchange or otherwise

acquire lands and real estate and any right, title or interest therein,

any buildings, erections, or structures thereon, and to construct,

erect and operate hotels, restaurants, garages, apartment houses,

motels, auto-courts, revenue housing and other property and other like

purposes…I'll skip all the details.

B. To carry on the business of motel, hotel,

auto-court, apartment house, garage, licensed public house, lounge,

dining room, dining lounge, cocktail lounge, coffee bar, light

refreshments…on and on.

Down near the end here, it says "and of amusement, entertainment,

recreation and education, of meeting places and facilities and of

ticket agents and general merchandise."

I don't criticise these objectives in any way. But it is clear that

the major thrust of this company is in real estate development,

including all kinds of commercial projects. I'm advised by lawyers that

actually, All Star Holdings Ltd. with these objectives — and they have

no other objectives — cannot legally be developing a ski resort under

these articles. The only words that come close are "amusement,

entertainment and recreation," after a whole page of discussing real

estate and commercial objectives.

It's pretty hard to know really what the decision ought to be.

Considering that apparently there are questionable snow conditions,

considering the strongly expressed wishes of the parks branch,

considering the competitive skiing situation in the Okanagan,

considering the availability of alternate ski areas, considering all of

these factors, surely we would question — has the government made the

right decision?

I ask the Minister for four things. First — let us have public

meetings not private meetings on Brent mountain and other similar

situations. Two — stick to the announced policy of performance bonds to

insure that the people of British Columbia get what they bargain for.

Three — call a public hearing now on Brent mountain and clear the air.

Four — if the decision for a ski development is confirmed, insist on

the policy of calling for a performance bond for the development.

I want to discuss one more topic, Mr. Speaker, and that's the West

Coast National Park in the Nitinat triangle. Not with the objective of

criticising anyone, rather to offer some ideas and a point of view

which I think should be expressed in this House.

I visited the area last year very briefly. I discussed the Nitinat

here at that time. At that time I urged careful consideration of the

proposals of the conservationists. Since then I have visited further

and discussed the situation with many people and I now have a good deal

more information. First let us set the scene.

Phase one — the Long Beach area. It's pretty well set and was

officially opened last summer by Princess Anne. I'm concerned at this

time only with phase three. The life-boat trail and the proposed

Nitinat triangle addition to it.

The first part of the controversy is regarding how wide the buffer

zone of the life-boat trail should be. I said last year that I didn't

think this would be much of a problem and I still feel that way. The

exact width is not of major importance. No arbitrary distance inland

can be the best answer. I believe each

section of the trail must be

looked at separately and I'm quite sure the national parks people, the

B.C. parks people and the forestry service can arrive at a reasonable

agreement on this.

Just to make it easier to discuss this, I've got some maps which

I'll ask the attendants to distribute so that you can refresh your

memories in this area.

The triangle is a more difficult decision to make. The conservation

interests started off on the wrong foot about a year ago, by suggesting

the entire triangle should be reserved for a national park. To this

exaggerated proposal the forest industry reacted in predictable

fashion, being very upset and concerned by the loss of this very large

area for forest production.

I think it's only fair to say that some of the reaction was equally

extreme and exaggerated. My concern today is to try and get a better

perspective on the whole situation.

First of all let us remember that this is the first time, we've had

an opportunity for a national park on the west coast of Canada. There

are many British Columbians that have never been in a national park

because the nearest is in the Rocky Mountains. National parks are,

quoting from the federal Act that sets them up, "dedicated to the

people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment" and are to

be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. If we're going

to have a west coast national park, let's make sure it's first class.

I'm sure British Columbians would want any contributions that we

make to the national park system to be nothing except the very best

that we could offer. The original proposal involved taking over 60,000

acres away from the forest industry. That was too much and I make no

effort to justify that. I suggest now that the park boundaries be

approximately as shown in red on the map that is being distributed at

the present time.

This area involves only 13,400 acres of which only 10,700 is

productive, the rest is lake, river and so on. It includes a complete

watershed area, the Hobiton, Squalicum and Tsusiat lakes and rivers,

with the boundary running along the high ridges surrounding the valley

so that in the bottom of the watershed, in the lake or river area, you

would look up and all around you, you would see a bowl of forest. You

would see no logging whatsoever in that watershed. It is a natural

complete system with many ecological, scientific, scenic and

recreational features to make it a very desirable and essential park.

The west coast park.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'll tell you about that, Mr. Member. This is

an area that will provide canoeing and hiking, the equal of no other

part of British Columbia except the Bowron lakes. Although smaller and

shorter than Bowron of course.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

[ Page 616 ]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By a logging road.

MR. BROUSSON: Right. I take nothing away from the forest

industry, Mr. Member, I'm not trying to. This is a fine example of the

coastal climax forest that has taken perhaps thousands of years to

evolve. Its evolution started when the area was either laid waste by

fire or disaster or perhaps left behind by the receding ice shields.

From this beginning has come a succession through pioneer plants to the

present coastal forest.

The effect of clear cutting within such a forest is to push the

ecological succession back about 500 years and the effect of continued,

sustained-yield cutting would be to cycle the forest within an 80 or

100 year period rather than the whole period of the climax succession.

Thus, once this climax forest is cut, we will never again, in areas

managed for multiple-use forestry, see the same climax forest repeated,

unless we chose to set areas aside and let them slowly revert to the

old cycle.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Coming to that. Glad to see you've done a

little homework, Mr. Member. Further, the forester is working on the

sustained yield pattern to change the type of forest and instead of the

trees which presently make up the climax forest we will see the

planting and growth of commercially-important species only.

The forester sometimes uses the word decadent or "green slum" with

reference to the climax coastal forest of the island to try to give the

impression this is something that is decaying, something that it would

almost be of service to remove.

The facts are this climax forest offers a tremendous richness of

experience to the visitor. It is not a single age forest as will be the

planted forest. It is a multi-age forest. As individual trees reach

great age and collapse the small hole that they create within the

canopy immediately brings back a spark of growth to many different

types of plants. Thus within the climax forest you may find virtually

every age and size of tree and the understorey in the climax forest is

exceptionally rich in mosses, berries, fungi, all of the other varied

growth that are so rarely seen in a second growth forest.

So we can begin to see that there cannot be multiple use of this

kind of area and still retain its original features. For the

recreationist the attractive area of the Nitinat is the area with the

big trees. Yet this is the very area the forest industry will be after

first.

The foresters make much of the fact that the decadent forest will be

replaced with a young, vital, vibrant forest. The fact is that this

second growth forest while green is virtually inpenetrable. The second

growth forest is of little use for recreation until it's 25 to 35 years

of age, which will be one-third or one-half the cycle of the sustained

growth cycle within the Nitinat.

In addition, despite what has been said by the Member for Alberni

(Mr. McDiarmid) the virgin forest that exists today is relatively easy

to travel through. Second growth forest is encumbered under foot by the

slow decaying remnants of the logging slash. Thus it can be safely said

that the renewed forest of the sustained yield programme is eliminated

from recreation for a good part of its cycle. The forest industry talks

about 1/79th only being used for logging. That is not true.

During the time in which it is usable it still does not have all the

attractions of the virgin forest of today. So despite what the Member

from Alberni says about getting in with axes and saws the

Hobiton-Tsusiat area is not an impenetrable jungle.

Sure, close to the sea, around the perimeters of the lakes there is

a belt of trees wherein the understorey is very thick. Salmonberry and

salal succeeded in making penetration very difficult. But once past

this perimeter belt the trees are wider spaced. Progress is easy.

Incidently, the national parks people have been preparing plans for

that very thing. It's been stated that climax forests do exist

elsewhere on Vancouver Island — particularly within Strathcona Park.

This is quite true. Primarily in the — I can't pronounce this — the

Moyeha area on the west side of the island. But access to this river

valley is exceptionally difficult, involving crossing over a 5,000 foot

pass from the east side if approach is to be made by land.

The beauty of the Nitinat is that the forest exists beside the

rivers and the lakes. This combination makes it almost ideal to explore

for recreation.

Of course, access from the City of Victoria and the mainland is very

easy. Local citizens and visitors will come to see what remains of the

great forests. The great trees of our coastal forests are one of our

most important tourist assets. Yet in the Hobiton-Tsusiat watershed we

stand close to allowing them to be eliminated.

Actually, when you come right down to it, the HobitonTsusiat area is

not all that big and important to the forest industry. Only 10,700

productive acres. Not much more than B.C. Forest Products cuts right

now each year. So that on an 80 year cycle the Hobiton would provide

only about 1 per cent of B.C. Forest Products' annual cut each year.

Hardly significant to the productivity of the processing plants now in

existence.

Despite all the talk of jobs this would involve only about 50 jobs

which as yet don't even exist. The park itself is going to provide more

jobs than that in the long run. I believe that this complete

Hobiton-Tsusiat area watershed should be included in the west coast

national parks. I believe the National Parks Service wants it. I

believe the B.C. parks branch agrees. Let us try to persuade the B.C.

Forest Service to co-operate.

The Minister spoke recently about the desirability of more close

utilisation of the forests of Vancouver Island. I venture to say that

this alone would go a long way to replace the wood that might be lost

in the Nitinat. It's been said that more fibre is being wasted on the

east coast of Vancouver Island than grows annually in the Nitinat.

There's another possibility. Within the public sustained yield units

are a number of inadequately-stocked lands, areas that have been logged

off but have never grown back into production, These are not included

in any present forest service inventories. They're not committed to

anyone. These presently non-productive areas could be replanted and

perhaps a trade worked out with B.C. Forest Products.

I believe there are several compromises of this kind possible. I

believe also that the federal national parks service might be persuaded

and is interested in assisting some of these negotiations with cash. In

fact, the national parks service is tremendously enthusiastic about the

west coast national park and, they want to develop a park that will be

[ Page 617 ]

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

Let me through this House, appeal to the forest industry of British

Columbia. They've shown a great fear of this particular park

development. I believe they feel that a so-called defeat by the Sierra

Club on the Nitinat would be a dangerous precedent in British Columbia.

Why be afraid of the Sierra Club, considering their responsible

positions which they have taken on this park? Was someone defeated when

Yosemite was set aside? Or the Redwoods of California? Or the North

Cascades National Forest? Or the Grand Canyon? These were not defeats.

They were victories for mankind.

I think the forest industry could earn great applause from all

British Columbians if they would try to work out a compromise such as I

have suggested and help establish the kind of national park that we

would all really want. This could be a victory for all of us. Multiple

use is fine but it won't work everywhere for everything. I urge the

forest service, the land use committee and the forest industry to try

to work it out. Generations to come will be grateful to you.

Mr. Speaker, when we come to the estimates of the forestry

department or the recreation department perhaps we can arrange to have

some slides and pictures of the area to show you which I hope will be a

little better organised than we had last time.

Now, to conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to disassociate myself

from the remarks of the Prime Minister of Canada last weekend with

reference to the Premier of British Columbia.

However, I would also like to clearly and equally disassociate

myself from many past insulting remarks and distasteful comments from

the Social Credit Members of this House with reference to the Prime

Minister of Canada and the federal government of our country.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

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

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BROUSSON: I think everyone in this House knows some of

the words I'm talking about. This is a holier-than-thou kind of

government, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: If the Attorney General says it, it must be

gospel truth, with the exact implications and connotations he gives it,

to be religiously believed by the faithful. If the Premier says it it

must be accepted because it comes from the Premier himself. He's

plugged in. Regardless of the sin, the extravagance, the scandal, if

you win the next election the democratic process has wiped the slate

clean. Even if Members of the Cabinet are sent to jail it doesn't

matter. If you win the next election the people have spoken. The ballot

box pays all debts. All must be forgiven and forgotten…

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

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: That's the attitude of this government, Mr.

Speaker. The Attorney General and others would have us believe that all

is sinful and wicked in Ottawa. Everything Ottawa has done is wrong.

The other evening we heard several Members blame Ottawa as the main

cause for the financial difficulties of our senior citizens.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who else? Who else?

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

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

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

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

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

Canada won the economic Oscar for 1971 for best all-round performance from the Financial Times

of London yesterday. The Lombard currency, banking and financial column

by Gordon Tether makes the selection of such awards each year. This

very prestigious column said Canada won the affluent group Oscar for

having achieved fast growth alongside an unusually low rate of

inflation, simultaneously contending with the back-lash of the U.S.

dollar crisis in exceptionally competent fashion. Mr. Speaker, what we

have to look at is a comparison with what Canada has done and the rest

of the world. Of course, I'm not satisfied with our results, but I say

it's wrong to try to out Canada in a light of being the worst. Canada

wins the Oscar as the best.

Item. Equalisation payments, Mr. Speaker, are spoken of by the

Attorney General and other Members as if they were the major thing

wrong with confederation. I hold no brief for everything done in the

name of equalisation but I believe that we in bounteous British

Columbia should help our less fortunate neighbours.

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

MR. BROUSSON: I'm sure there could be improvements in the

federal grant system. But let's put the whole matter in perspective.

The grand total of equalisation payments in the entire country to seven

provinces is only six per cent of the total federal budget for 1971-72.

Six per cent. That's all you're talking about.

The Attorney General and others try to leave the impression that

British Columbia has never received a dime from the federal government

for highways or ferries.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: No, but you left an impression. You tried to

leave an impression and that's the point. Let's look at some facts, Mr.

Speaker. British Columbia has received from

[ Page 618 ]

Ottawa about $125 million for the Trans-Canada

Highway. Over 15 per cent of the total amount contributed by the

federal government across the country to the Trans-Canada Highway has

come to British Columbia. That's about twice the amount given to

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba put together.

Interjction by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm glad you pointed that out, Mr. Member,

because of course highways in British Columbia should cost more. I

suppose these larger amounts, Mr. Speaker, could be a kind of

equalisation payment in the highways field.

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

MR. BROUSSON: I know there's been a disagreement about

sharing the costs of the Second Narrows and parts of the Upper Levels

but there's been at least some verbal agreements between the Premier

and Ottawa on this, Mr. Speaker, and I support the Premier in his

rightful requests for that.

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

MR. BROUSSON: Other federal moneys spent on highways and B.C.

in recent years included, Mr. Speaker, $7.5 million on the

Cassiar-Stewart highway, $7.7 million on the Yellowhead route through

Jasper, $4.1 million on roads in national parks in B.C., and $44.7

million,100 per cent of the cost, on the Revelstoke-Glacier-Yoho

highway.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: All of those are important highways to British

Columbia. Let's look at the ferry situation, Mr. Speaker. From 1962 to

1970 the provincial government of British Columbia built 18 vessels

that received federal subsidies. You didn't mention this the other day,

Mr. Attorney General.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: Total costs of these vessels was $41.4 million

and the federal government contributed $15.1 million — over 36 per cent

of the construction costs of the Bennett Navy was contributed by the

federal government. The "Queen of Esquimalt," for instance, cost $3.6

million and the federal subsidy in that case was $1.45 million or 40

per cent.

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

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

MR. BROUSSON: Shall I answer that? (Laughter). Over the past

three years, Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I've been in this House,

I've been shocked by the many varieties of separatist speeches I've

heard from the Social Credit Party. I was shocked at the empty British

Columbia chair on occasion at the federal-provincial conference.

I know there are east-west differences. As a businessman I've been

personally trying for over 20 years to break through the Bay Street

curtain. Right at this very moment my own company has a serious problem

because some businessmen in Montreal don't properly understand the

problems of shipping merchandise to British Columbia.

But we keep talking to them. We visit them, we offer goodwill and

friendship and bit by bit they learn because they too are Canadians at

heart. They too have goodwill toward us. Some of us at least, Mr.

Speaker, have a deep love for our country, Canada, for all of our

Canada.

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

MR. BROUSSON: Some of us felt ashamed when just a few years

ago we saw the empty chair at the federal-provincial conference. The

empty chair belonged to British Columbia. Some of us felt a twinge of

shame and perhaps envy this week when we read the statesman-like

comments of Premier Davis of Ontario. Ontario is determined that

whatever the political climate or the heat of the moment we will not

willingly allow Quebec to be isolated in the context of

federal-provincial relations to appear to stand alone without friend or

ally in the continuing discussions and negotiations with the federal

government.

Certainly Mr. Speaker, some of us can applaud the Attorney General

when he quotes the late Ross Thatcher: "Just for once listen to the

west." I agree with that but we will not applaud the Premier or the

Attorney General or anyone else in this government who continues these

insane attacks on the unity of Canada. We will not applaud. We will

fight back.

Mr. Speaker, so that there be no misunderstanding we in the Liberal

Party will vote against the budget. Now you know where we stand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, my pleasure once again

to take my place in this debate on behalf of the large constituency of

Atlin, on behalf of all the residents, pioneers, people who are moving

northwards to take

part in the building of the north. On their behalf,

I'm happy to be on my feet. On their behalf as well, I'd like to

register my protest in this continual federal-provincial squabble in

the persons of the Prime Minister of our country and the Premier Of OUT

province. It seems that there is no end to this and it certainly

disturbs me very much, and no doubt it has disturbed a great many

people throughout our country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trudeau's fault?

MR. CALDER: They are both to blame for this. They are both to

blame. I say again that a great number of people are disturbed and

mainly because the people know that they are the victims of the two-man

fight that we have witnessed in the past several years in Canada.

Politically our Premier has stood up in this House and outside this

House and proclaimed one Canada. He's spoken of Canadian unity.

Likewise the Prime Minister of Canada has said the same thing. The

great Canadian unity is to be achieved and yet these two people are

continually at each other's throats and certainly not doing one bit

of good for themselves or to the people of this country.

Now he has brought up the question of serving notice that

[ Page 619 ]

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CALDER: This of course, is the rebuttal to a term that

was applied to the Premier by the head of our government in Canada. So

now we hear our Premier talking about equalisation. Well, Mr. Speaker,

who is the Premier to talk about equalisation? Just who is he, talking

about equalisation? Because there's so much inequality in this

province, particularly in the north, that the Premier if he's going to

preach equality then he should practice it in his own backyard. He

should practice it in the north.

Who has borne out all this inequality, Mr. Speaker? Who has brought

it out? In the past three years and particularly since the Premier's

been teasing the public with an election, the backbenchers for the last

several days have been mentioning inequality. Actually, my speech is

going to be based on the criticisms of the back benches in the last few

weeks of debate being critical of government policy because nothing has

been done in the north.

I say again the Premier should clean up his own backyard before he

makes any charges, either in public or in court. There's been some

pretty strong things said about bilingualism and every aspect of it.

There'll be no stop to this either. To me this is separatist talk.

You know, I have a suit against this government, the decision is yet

to come down and it has to do with who is the actual or aboriginal

owner of this country. I don't know if the court decision is going to

be favourable to the Indian people in this province, but in the

government's criticism of bilingualism and the aspects of it I think

maybe one way I can walk in and grab my own country back is if you

people decided to go back to the plains of Abraham and shoot it out to

the finish. At least I don't have to wait for the court decision.

(Laughter).

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

MR. CALDER: Before I start going into some of these

inequalities, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to also take my position

with respect to the Alaska highway and I notice some of my northern

colleagues are not in their seats. But nevertheless, I will state my

position because we all read the other day the remarks of President

Nixon, and I read from the Vancouver Province :

U.S. Abandons Plan to Help Rebuild Highway in Canada.

President Nixon told Congress Tuesday that the U.S. government has

abandoned plans to join Canada in reconstruction of the Alaska Highway

between Dawson Creek and the Alaska border and so forth.

I would imagine this would include paving. In recent months we have

heard many people that are interested in this whole system up north

requesting the paving of the highway. No doubt President Nixon has

heard some of the criticism coming forth from the State of Alaska. But

let me just review for a moment the value of this highway.

As most of us know, the construction of the Alaska Highway accrued

from the wartime period. It was the military road. Even though now it's

a public highway and they're reconstructing it here and there to make

it a public highway, it still has this military aspect. They're still

fortifying some sections of the north. We still see vans going through

the highway and therefore I maintain that it still retains the military

aspect.

It's a link to Alaska. You might say it is the second trail of '98.

Because the. plans were fruitful in '39, you can always say that it is

the trail of '39.

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

There is paving in the State of Alaska on this highway but none in

Canada. Canada has not really taken part. Again, B.C. has said that

Canada has the responsibility for this although they have mentioned

once or twice that there's a possibility of paving within the borders

of British Columbia.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is an Indian in the woodpile and it's in

the matter of the construction of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway. I

must say, for your information, and this I've been told very recently

by the department, that there's only 15 miles to before the completion

of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway.

When I spent some time this past year in the far north part of my

riding and in the Yukon, and hearing people who travel the highway,

most of them Alaskans, I was quite surprised how much knowledge they

have of this Stewart-Watson Lake highway. They tell me that it is right

near completion. Of course, they didn't know that I was the Member for

the area, and that they had their eyes focussed on the near completion

of this highway.

They even told me that it's 1,000 miles shorter than going through

the Alaska highway. It is 1,000 miles shorter because to them this

completion of the road is a short cut between the State of Alaska and

the State of Washington.

This is very true because once they close the gap, Mr. Speaker, we

will have witnessed the completion of a Pacific Coast Highway. It is

the shortest link.

In this respect, I maintain that almost overnight, if the government

opens this highway, that at least 40 or 50 per cent of the business of

the Alaska Highway will be coming through this new route.

On this basis — and this is what I heard, the past summer and fall

in my trip up north — the Alaskans would rather see this highway paved

than the Alaska Highway.

I'm quite sincere in my request, Mr. Speaker, that this government

consider the paving of this particular road. I think something else

that has to be considered, it will be an international road and

therefore expenditure of a major paving and construction should be

Government of British Columbia. I think this has to be considered

because I can see a giant of an artery in this road and we all know

that there's a second gap to be closed and that's the one that connects

with Hazelton.

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

So much for my position on the Alaska Highway. I hope the Hon.

Members that are neighbours of mine in the north are not too upset over

this, but this is what I see.

Mr. Speaker, this question of the route from Alaska to the State of

Washington by oil tankers is another concern that I think concerns the

government and everybody in this province. Particularly the fishing

industry and the Department of Transport and everybody else interested

in this.

We read about the possibilities of spills. We just don't know how to

go about solving this situation. I think the only thing to do is get

prepared for it. The scientists believe that we can't avoid any spills

and as the government we must find

[ Page 620 ]

ways and means of protecting the coast.

I'm at this time going to put my 25 cents worth in for a couple of

Victorians who believe they have developed a machine that can remove

oil from atop water. I've seen movies of this, although oil was not

used. I noticed that, and I think the forest industries would be

particularly interested in this, they can remove chips and sawdust off

the face of the water.

They are going to further experiment with the use of oil, although

they're going to have to see the authorities about this because they

find it's illegal to go and spill oil anywhere and try. If the

experiment doesn't work then they're caught with the oil on the water.

I am rather disappointed of the results of their first visit to one

or two departments here. They weren't too happy about the reception and

with the response that they received. They require a small amount of

funds to go ahead with their experiment. They believe that this

actually works and like I say, I've seen the movies and I'm very

impressed over these, even though I'm a layman. I have the diagrams and

everything here. If some of the Members wish to have copies, I'd be

only delighted to give them some of the copies.

These two boys are scientists in their own way. They know what

they're talking about and certainly I believe that they're dedicated to

this work and that the government should listen to it.

In this matter of protection, this is where the government should

take a position of when they encounter or meet people of this calibre

with the knowledge that they have in not only promoting but to actually

set forth an invention that works, that this government should take a

stand by encouraging people and providing grants to the extent that you

might even consider providing the facilities.

These two gentlemen have gone, I believe, to the research board and

they have impressed a lot of people that they have shown this mechanism

to. In the matter of these two gentlemen I would believe that they

should be there rather than turn it over to other scientists to work

because there are some people who just go and grab the message that

these two gentlemen provided.

So, I leave this with you, Mr. Speaker. As I say I will pass the

writings and the diagrams to the proper departments because I would

like to know the position of the government. Like I say these two boys

have gone to certain departments and they've received a rather poor

reception. But they're not disheartened. They are going to continue to

see, perhaps, industries and get them interested and perhaps get a

little fund. These boys require funds and I'm on my feet pleading that

they be provided with such a fund.

Again I would like to speak on behalf of the same two gentlemen.

This has to do with the discussion of powers we've had in quite a

number of years.

Member after Member has stood up this particular session on account

of possible damming of the Moran dam on the Fraser River. Of course,

we've heard many critics over this. I have said quite a bit about

salmon versus Hydro. People have brought up the question of the

flooding of valuable lakeshore lands when you create a reservoir.

Likewise with the valuable timber that has not been cut and of course,

has gone to waste.

We've read and seen pictures of the debris-polluted reservoirs and

the government has received several criticisms in quite a number of

years over this question. Of course, our scenic beauty in many respects

has been destroyed.

Then we hear debaters come forward with natural gas distribution,

one of which is now under discussion — one that is to be distributed to

Vancouver Island. All this is a costly business. We hear about the

diesel units — where there is no Hydro. power then they substitute

diesel, quite a lot of it in the rural electrification area. Again it's

costly to the extent that the government has had to subsidise quite a

number of communities in this rural electrification. Now we hear

debates about the nuclear power and many are in doubt with respect to

pollution. Some say it will produce pollution, some don't. And so the

debates will race on for several more years before perhaps this

government will actually consider nuclear power.

Not too many of us have heard or read about water diffusion as a

source of energy. And these two gentlemen have also come forward — and

this I am told has really impressed people that are really

scientifically minded. There is quite a number of people that have come

forward with this type of source of energy and maybe a lot have not

quite taken to it, but these two gentlemen believe there is actually a

way of extracting electricity from compressed water.

Well, I'm a layman so I'm not going to continue with this. Again

I've asked permission if I can pass on their brief and this I will do

perhaps next week.

Again they require funds for this, it's not much but they'd like to

continue their work in a hope that they will hit upon something that

will provide absolutely a clean source of energy. There's no pollution

in this respect, and I certainly hope that the government will consider

if these two gentlemen go back to them again, to encourage their work,

provide a grant and what's required.

So there are two possibly great inventions — one solves oil-spill

pollution, one prevents pollution. And I think we should be interested

enough to provide these gentlemen with some action and interest.

Mr. Speaker, on September 8 of last year a motion was filed in the

House of Commons in which a copy of the Stanbury Field report was

requested. This enquiry or report began, I believe, as far back as 1965

and people who are members of this research and investigation on

taxation on Indian reserves comprised people from the federal

government or the federal civil service, from the provincial government

and from the municipalities — three levels of government, and the

federal agreed to file this, only if the province agreed.

The motion was that there be laid before this House a copy of the

Stanbury Fields report. And again a good many chapters have to do with

the taxation on the Indian reserves. And on the order paper in Ottawa

was an order that the House do issue a copy of the Stanbury Fields

report. "This motion was accepted on September 8, 1971 subject to

provincial concurrence. We have been informed that the Province of

British Columbia will not concur with the tabling of this report."

I think this is a very sad state of affairs. When the Indians in the

last several years have been requesting a complete consultation before

anything is done with the reserves, in all aspects of the reserve life

and legal aspects with it. And here this government has refused to

agree with the federal government that such a report be tabled.

At the end of this day, Mr. Speaker, I will be putting such a motion

on orders of the day. But I'm very much concerned over this refusal.

Because I understand this report has been completed, and a thorough

investigation was made relating to taxation. It's interesting too,

don't ever believe that any money accrues from Indian land. I think up

to now this province has received almost $1 million, up to '67 it was

[ Page 621 ]

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

I'd like to see this report because in it — we don't have to guess

what's in the report. We know that studies will have to be made on

whether or not the reserves can be taxed. Right now it appears to me it

will relate to the municipal status. They may be very lenient with

people who then would own lots on the reserve if that village takes

municipal status. But that village also owns a great number of reserves

upon which no one lives, there's timber and everything else on it. I'm

just wondering if this will automatically revert back to the provinces,

and such things as that.

I'm interested to know what the report said about Indian bands that

lease land to non-Indians and just how come, say, the City of Vancouver

can take about 50 per cent of the tax returns, the village 50 and yet

there has been nothing settled in courts as to certain things that the

Indians want, as provided in the Indian Act.

This is a very serious thing, that we are not able to see this

report. There's a great many

interpretations we are told that was made

in the report and we would like to see that. The income of Indians who

perhaps if they allowed a logging company for instance to get aboard

the reserve, and the Indian band allows that company to cut on the

reserve and if the Indian who lives in the company bunk house and earns

money we are told he is subject to taxation. We'd like to know about

that, Mr. Speaker.

I could list, Mr. Speaker, a lot of headings on a document which I

have, which I'm still guessing whether or not there are chapters

belonging to this report. There's no way that I could find out. But

this happened to be in the same period that that report was being made

and I think I have a fairly good guess as to this report.

I am just wondering who else has such a document. If there are other

people who were mailed such a thing then I don't see why the government

should hold back the tabling of this report. Just to close my remarks

on this Stanbury Fields report, there are not too many Indian leaders

that know about the committee that was appointed to study this whole

question of reserve taxation. It only came to light when a certain

motel was subject to provincial tax when the Indians themselves decided

to construct a motel on the reservation at Spences Bridge.

Of course, when these people decided to borrow money to complete the

project we found that that money that came from the bank was subject to

taxation. That money became Indian and

whereas the principals involved

in this case were not taxed, the borrowing powers were taxed and

therefore that motel was taxed.

I don't believe this has gone to court. But here again we're

interested to find just what this report says about it. Lands that are

leased to municipalities in which an Indian reserve is located adjacent

to that municipality — how does the taxation work in this respect? And

because of the Indian request today that they be fully consulted with

what's to be done with the social and economic progress, and

particularly what's to be done with reserves, I believe that this

report should be filed and I think the Indians should know all about

the property upon which they live.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here listening to all the speakers and I

believe everyone has taken a chance to speak in this debate. And if

everyone on that side said that this is a good budget, then I didn't

expect that anybody on that side would ever be critical.

Yet I've

marked down quite a number of points which particular people in the

north like myself have mentioned — quite a number of inequalities. They

particularly mention these items because they know that there isn't

enough money being allocated for such things as medical attention for

instance in the north.

I jotted down as Members spoke about the road development programme

and I'm mainly speaking about the north. I found by a telephone call

just yesterday and just before I walked into this Legislature today

that the western part of the 72 mile that goes into Telegraph Creek has

had so much snow that the town of Telegraph Creek is completely

isolated.

I phoned the department about this and the Department of Highways

immediately phoned north and they managed to get the fuel truck through

and so they were able to provide power for the radio telephone. People

were just running out of fuel and that truck actually arrived in time.

But they were using a little bit of equipment, the highways

representative up at Dease Lake was using a little HD5. They had been

trying to get rid of this little machine for several years because it

just isn't powerful enough to remove that heavy snowfall through that

area.

People in Glenora at the present time are isolated, and no doubt

other places. We are told by the highways department that they couldn't

provide enough machinery, and this is my beef today, that there is just

no equipment in a lot of these roads, not only on the Telegraph Creek

road, but available roads throughout the north haven't got highway

equipment to help keep those roads open. This would be the criticism of

the other northern Members, Mr. Speaker, and I say that there should

be more money funded into the north in the road development programmes.

We hear about medical attention again on the other side. And for

years I have been bringing this to the attention of the government — the lack of medical attention in the far north, in going through

community after community in the north, Mr. Speaker, not only in my

riding but in others that the doctors only visit periodically and

sometimes they don't.

I think this is a sad state of affairs when this government couldn't

provide this type of attention to the far north. This is one of the

reasons for years that I have been asking for an air ambulance service

because I figure this is the only other step that if any one was to

need transportation or someone was hurt, certainly this is one way of

getting them to the hospitals.

Dental care as well has been brought up on the floor of this House

and again they tell us that they have periodic visits throughout the

north and I find that sometimes this is not the case. Again this is the

reason why I have requested quite a number of times for a mobile dental

clinic to look after northern areas.

We talk about rural electrification. And again it has been presented

on the floor of this House by several Members. Now let's give you an

example before I go on with the rest of these items. On this rural

electrification we have been asking for one for Telegraph Creek but

several years ago one was provided in Atlin and I think, Mr. Speaker,

I'm going to read you the statistics that I've got for the town of

Atlin and then I hope this will give a picture of what this government

does with rural electrification.

This is for a town of Atlin as compared to 11 towns which the

government helps in a form of subsidisation, and I will name these 11

towns — there's Stewart, Anaheim Lake, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Fort

Nelson, McBride, Massett, Port Clements, Valemont, Barkerville and

Wells. And then on a

[ Page 622 ]

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

Now under rate zone 3 they have the little town of Atlin. There's a

real government supply system here, Mr. Speaker, and I'd ask that the

Members take note of the residential rates for these 11 towns that I

have mentioned. The first 600 kilowatt hour is at 3 cents per kilowatt

hour, then you go right across and compare that to what they charge

Atlin. In the town of Atlin the first 600 kilowatt hours at 3 cents per

kilowatt hours — exactly the same.

You go to 11 towns, it says the next 2,400 kilowatt hours at 1.1 per

kilowatt hour. You go over to the town of Atlin it's exactly the same,

only it's the next 3,000 kilowatt hours at 1.1 per kilowatt hour. Then

all additional kilowatt hours at 2 ½ cents per kilowatt hour and this

is where the fun starts, this is residential rates.

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

Now we come to the commercial rates — these are the people who are

investing in a country that needs building. I wouldn't say these people

are rich people, they are people that want to become residents in the

north and build up a business. And here's what the B.C. Hydro has for

the town of Atlin as compared to these 11 towns. The first 200 kilowatt

hours at 4 cents per hour. In the town of Atlin the first 200 kilowatt

hours at 15 cents per kilowatt hour. Then you go to the 11 towns, next

1,800 kilowatt hours at 3 cents per kilowatt hour. In the town of

Atlin, it says the next 400 kilowatt hours at 10 cents per kilowatt

hour. For the 11 towns all additional kilowatt hours at 2.6 per

kilowatt hour and in Atlin it's 7.5 per kilowatt hour. The minimum bill

for two months in the 11 towns is $5, in Atlin it's $10.

Now when I checked with the authorities on this I found that they

arrived at the power provided — and this was under a subsidisation in

Atlin and they're no different from any other 11 of these towns, Mr.

Speaker — we find that power provided in Atlin is being charged three

times greater than the rates listed for the 11 other communities named.

So this is Hydro providing rural electrification in the north and

I'm just wondering how people, who I wouldn't say were wealthy people,

are trying to set up a business and help build the north and then you

provide this exorbitant rate to them. It's just unheard of. This

government is certainly not providing the incentive for the people to

pioneer that northern country.

When I questioned B.C. Hydro as to why there are such high rates in

the town of Atlin they said well it's due to remoteness. It's due to

the high cost of diesel fuel, it's due to the high cost of diesel fuel

shipments, it's due to the high cost of plant operation and due to the

high cost of repairs.

But the town of Atlin is like the other towns. It's being subsidised

and I say this, that regardless of these points that B.C. Hydro

raised, I think there should be an equality when it comes to providing

diesel fuel to small communities such as these 12 communities. They

should be all the same at equal rates. I don't see why they have to

charge extra under this subsidisation policy of the government, why

they should charge extra for communities that are located a little

further north.

Now I'm very much afraid about asking for power rates for Telegraph

Creek because it might be worse. It's even more remote. Yet it's one of

the things the doctors are critical about in the town of Telegraph

Creek. Here again, we are talking about what has been brought up on the

floor of the House by Members on the other side, stating that there's

inequalities with respect to this budget and this is what we're talking

about. I'm giving you some detailed information.

We're trying to get lights for Telegraph Creek because the doctors

at Terrace and White Horse who visit the town of Telegraph Creek are

quite annoyed at the eye soreness of the school children who have to

read and study under candle light or oil lamps. This is not my

accusation, this is coming from the doctors in White Horse and Terrace.

I think in this day and age when you're doling out money as if it

were prize money, you don't even provide money for such people that are

in need of extra funds so that they can have better facilities.

Administration is another point. In quite a number of communities

that I visit I get the request that I should stand on my feet on the

floor of this House and ask for government agency offices in the north.

We require such an office at Cassiar. We require it in other places in

the north because there are such great distances that people are unable

to go all the way to a certain place where there is an administration

building of this government for their car licences, their motor vehicle

business or to get licences for hunting, fishing — of this sort.

Particularly if they are going to lay claims, mineral claims, they have

to go all the way to these other places, maybe the only place in the

whole area. They have to go. It's just not fair, Mr. Speaker, that this

has to happen.

As far as the whole north is concerned, this is one of my main

criticisms with the budget, because there are just no extra funds going

to services at all. I'm speaking of claim recordings and everything

else throughout the north that is considered a mineral belt. There are

no increases there.

The lack of law and order — with the amount of people that are

moving into the area there is more work for the R.C.M.P. and certainly

these people are not there for bookkeeping. They're not bookkeepers.

They're supposed to be out in the field. But again there's no money.

All we're told is that there's lack of staff. I don't think it's good

enough.

We heard from one of the Members — I'm still quoting from that side

of the House — who has been critical of the budget. At the opening day

everybody applauded this. It's just too good to be true and yet in

the last two weeks we've been hearing criticisms about the lack of

money allocations to certain areas in this province. As a matter of

fact I thank the back-benchers. So I can list them as they said.

The other day one of them said: "There's no incentive to attract

secondary industries in the north." Of course one of the back-benchers

was accusing the Minister of this lack of action. This is a serious

situation. We need this incentive.

Just the other day my neighbour brought up the equalisation of

educational grants for northern students. Of course this is an old

debate. We've heard this for years and years. My area is particularly

involved in this respect and we certainly hope that the government at

this time will consider setting out a policy by which they can assist

northern students that want to receive higher education in the lower

mainland. This again we're asking.

We heard about — on the other side — the lack of nursing home care.

That there is no nursing home for the aged in the north or north of

Terrace. We heard from the other side "no facilities for chronically

ill pioneers of the north." Well many of our boys on this side for

years have been talking about this. I can remember Ernie Winch at times

bringing such a thing up and your own side has told the public that

there is a complete neglect, not only in the north but in other areas

of this province.

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

[ Page 623 ]

he's been to the north, but no doubt he's concerned about our

problems, so he's a good Member. The headlines after his speech said:

"Study of The North Urged." Very good. We certainly need a committee or

an organisation of the governments, a tribunal to make a thorough study

as to the whole question of northern development.

My leader, the Honourable Member for Coquitlam, (Mr. Barrett), just

received a wire and this has to do with the north. I will read you this

wire.

DAVE BARRETT, PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS,

VICTORIA, B.C. REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE RE

DISCONTINUATION OF FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS

AND SERVICE IN PEACE RIVER AREA, RESULTING

IN DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS TO MOST PEACE AREA

FARMERS. SIGNED LOCAL 806, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION.

There you are, just a fact there that tells you that the north is in

need of help and this government has not provided it in this budget and

it's a very sad thing.

I would just like to say, as I said in my opening remarks, who is

this Premier to talk about equalisation? To challenge the government in

the east about equalisation when he hasn't even cleaned up his own back

yard? There's inequalities in the north and everywhere. I say that he's

got to have a clean sheet before he can charge anybody else with

inequalities.

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

The Hon. Premier just walked in. I've been quoting the criticisms of

all the back-benchers and this is only what I'm providing. There are

just no incentives provided in the budget for the whole north and I'm

very critical of the whole thing because other Members have charged the

Premier and the government of playing politics with money allocations

and to me it's doling our funds to the people as if this was a special

Social Credit prize money. I don't think this is good at all.

As far as I'm concerned, this budget has removed the spirit of the

Klondike in the north. It has removed the spirit of '98. I just read

you an example of people who have to pay exorbitant rates in power.

They are very much concerned that they are not able to go ahead with

what they had to do in the north.

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

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

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Highways):

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I'm glad that you properly introduced

me because I want to say that I am the Provincial Secretary. I am the

Minister of Highways. I am a Canadian, and I am in favour of a great

many things. "Ou est les liberals?" Where are the Liberals? Oh, there

he is. Well that's about all that will be left next time.

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

MR. BLACK: I'm not too sure they do. I always look forward to

this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, because I try to become a sort of a

self-styled adjudicator on what has taken place in the previous debate

and in the debate which is now closing. I usually have some awards and

unfortunately some of those recipients of those awards are not here.

However, just to give them time, sometimes we in the House become so

forgetful of the people who serve us — these delightful young boys who

are pages, the Hansard girls, and I noticed that certainly the male

population of the House have certainly noticed them.

However, it always concerns me in this debate as the years have gone

by how the character of it has changed. I said on a previous occasion

that while Hansard maybe is a good thing, and I'm not going to debate

that, I certainly have noticed as a personal observation how excellent

speakers in this House have resorted to reading almost everything that

they have.

I don't think that that does anything for the character of this

House. Why some of these people who are endowed with the knowledge of

addresses without reading it, I'm blamed if I know.

However, that's a personal thing and some people like to have all

the sentences grammatically correct, every word weighed and this sort

of thing. I again think that takes away from the character of the

House. It has long been my opinion, and I know it's shared by many on

graduate of any university to take his place in this place.

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

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

Now today one of the first awards I was going to make is because one

of our distinguished members who I have facetiously over the years

referred to as John the Baptist, I brought in one of these change of

name forms, because he flooded this place with potatoes. I was going to

call him Spud but after last night I tore it up. He's still John the

Baptist as far as I'm concerned. (Laughter). I've already told my wife

Helen that we won't be going to church on Sunday.

Also, I want to mention another gentleman that doesn't get mentioned

and I want to mention Bob McConnell of the Press. He's been here the

last couple of years and I'm sure we all like Bob. He did a tremendous

job of good sportsmanship at Schmockey Night and, believe me, if

there's any person who knows that if the goal post or is the goal

tender to be his best friend, it's certainly Bob.

Also I should say this too, because perhaps this is the first time I

think probably it was that the president of the gallery was invited to

the state dinner. An unfortunate thing, as you know, happened there, as

far as the Lieutenant-Governor is concerned, and it must have been a

terrific temptation for Bob not to get on the blower and have some big

Press release or other. To his great credit, he certainly did nothing

of that kind.

Now to the actual awards situation. First of all I want to digress a

minute to say that we have a lost and found department and I want to

see that these things are attended to. We found a former Member's

marbles in our caucus room. I would like to return them to him. In the

proper bag. I'm told by experts that the name on the bag is Wallace in

Gaelic.

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

HON. MR. BLACK: Well, we shall see about that. Too bad that

he lost them. Of course, secondly, now that he is in another place, I

want to present him with a left handed baseball mitt to play left field

with.

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

[ Page 624 ]

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

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

HON. MR. BLACK: I counted them, it said 101. Next one I would

like to give is that for many years we have been entertained in this

House by the great budget maker, the first Member for Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer). This time it sounded to me like listening to Lawrence Welk's

orchestra, you know, "Old Bubbles in the Wine." So I brought him

Lawrence Welk's record. At the same time — I'll have more to say about

that later — I've got a bottle of Geritol for those tired Liberals and

their tired blood. (Laughter).

Now we get into the more serious aspects. It seems to me that a

certain Member — would you give this to Dr. McGeer please? — someone

said: "There's something the matter with parliament because of all the

playacting." I should remind that Honourable gentleman that in the

party that he now sits in is probably one of the greatest playactors

that have ever come into Canadian politics in the person of John

Diefenbaker. So perhaps you could espouse a little playacting too but

sometimes you might say: "Well what are you doing adjudicating these

things?" I'm adjudicating this because it is a fact — and you can check

it out — that I was the first person to teach drama in the high schools

of British Columbia as an accredited course. So I think I know a wee

bit about it.

Now the best act, for the best act award, in my opinion, was won by

none other than the Member for Cowichan (Mr. Strachan). It was at the

time when he made the Barrymores look like amateurs, and it was at the

time when we had a nonconfidence motion in the House and I have never

seen anything short of Captain Bligh that would exhibit such righteous

indignation. It was a terrific act. So would you see that my friend

from Cowichan-Malahat gets that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that empty?

HON. MR. BLACK . Just wait a minute, you can take this to

another fellow if you don't mind. This one is that in this political

business if you ever lose your sense of humour you might as well go

stick your head in the sand. Forget it. Now, there's one person who has

got it, there's one. Just look at that. See, like Jimmy Durante says,

"Everybody tries to get into the act." He wasn't content with that, he

wants a supporting role too, I want a friend, the first Member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to get this — you didn't hear me, Mr.

Speaker. This goes to Alex Macdonald — for his display of humour with

the second reading of Bill No. 2.

Secondly, he's not here, but you can give this to the Liberal Member

who is not here. This has to do with the best debate that I heard. It

was during a certain evening when we were talking about another

nonconfidence motion and automobile insurance come up and he took one

Member for Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) through the hamburger machine.

(Laughter). We'll give him the award for the best debate.

The last one though is one I really enjoy. He hasn't quite made

professional yet but he's coming close. He did this through two debates.

Just think back when your dear old mother was telling you about

Little Red Riding Hood, how Little Red Riding Hood with her basket of

goodies tripped through the woods picking flowers on her way to her

grandmama's.

The Leader of the Opposition I thought did a tremendous job. I got

him a Little Red Riding Hood. (Laughter). Because I'm told by certain

Members who ought to know that he's a man of many parts and has many

costumes.

Now he could hardly have that without the basket of goodies and I've

got that too. (Laughter). Will you take the little basket? (Laughter).

Can't you see they are full of eggs — just like his promises, there's

nothing in them. (Laughter). And so if you would pass that to my

friend. Don't let it get lost, either.

Now I got to tell the House a little joke, Mr. Speaker. The story of

the Red Riding Hood costume. I tried to get one at a reasonable price.

(Laughter). I had to wind up renting this one and it cost me $1.50 but

if Barrett doesn't give it back to me, it costs me $30. (Laughter). He

isn't going to — I'm not going to let him get off the hook for that. I

get that back.

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

HON. MR. BLACK: Just try it, you'll be sued. Then I thought

another thing worth mentioning was the other day, my friend the

Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) was on his feet and you

people all know the famous triple play in baseball — Tinker to Evers to

Chance — I tell you there was something happened faster than that when

the Honourable Phil said: "The Premier is right many times, most of the

time, all of the time." (Laughter).

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

HON. MR. BLACK: That's pretty tough eating for a wolf. That's

right. This is the year of the rat and the Chinese have already said to

us "Gung hay fat choi" — Happy New Year — and it seems only appropriate

that we should mention that great philosopher, Confucius.

Confucius as you know said many things. He was a man of great

wisdom. One thing he did say that was applicable to politicians was

"One picture worth a thousand words." He also said "Politician who

carry hatchet wind up with same in own skull." So I thought I'd have

that and just show it around. If it sort of fits I perhaps had better

let it drop there. (Laughter).

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

These, Mr. Speaker, are not done on my part to offend anybody, far

from it. Just to say we shouldn't lose our sense of humour in this

place. We have a right to have our own fun. Goodness knows, we're

criticised for many other things. People in the gallery because we

pound our desks rather than applaud, they don't understand why that's

done. Nevertheless, we have to have our own little fun.

I think it is only right…Tried the Geritol already, eh? I haven't

seen you smile all day. (Laughter). Good. I think it's only right and

proper that I should start my remarks today relative to Nelson-Creston.

First of all I don't think it's any news to anybody that it is a

beautiful part of the country. In speaking of the Kootenays it is a

part of that great part of the country and is indeed beautiful. But my

colleagues, regardless of what party they're from, will have to admit

that the jewel of the Kootenays are the people who live there.

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

[ Page 625 ]

brought up in debate by the leader of the Liberal Party and by one

of his colleagues from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson). That

was in dealing with the Kootenay Canal — remarks like: "Where is the

Member? What is the Member doing?" and this sort of thing.

Now I would think that probably since the last election when the

famous bus trip took place and famous lectures were delivered to

persuade anybody they could get — and I mean that in the right context

— to carry their flag — when that speech was made this was about the

first time he'd been there — but of course he's already to criticise

somebody else.

Now, where was the Member? Where does the Member stand? I want to

tell you where the Member stands. Far as I am concerned, I took an oath

of office and I intend to abide by it at all times. Now, as far as the

Kootenay Canal is concerned and the position of the mayor and council

and indeed the citizens of that town, I support what is right not

necessarily who is right.

Last Saturday I flew to Nelson but it was so overcast, couldn't get

down in either Castlegar or Nelson so we had to return. My colleague,

the Minister of Lands and Forests and I will do exactly the same thing

tomorrow, exactly the same thing. I hope the weather is such that we

can get down.

To do what? To negotiate and discuss this matter of Nelson's

position relative to the Kootenay Canal and relative to their future.

I want to tell the Member opposite from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that

we don't need his putting this problem into the political arena. We

don't need it. Because if the Member is playing politics with this I

want to tell him and I'm sure I speak for my Member opposite that when

an election is called I can tell him right now without making any

predictions that his Members won't win, that's for sure. Because if

they could win some of his big names would come out from underneath the

rocks and seek candidacy because some of his people wouldn't accept any

type of nomination unless they could win. So they won't come.

I'm quite well aware of where he got this information from. I'm

quite well aware why he interjected it in here. Because, Mr. Speaker,

it is nothing but just cheap politics. That's all it is.

Alright, what is my position? My position is exactly this. I've

never had to do this in 20 years of standing in this place. Again I

repeat I want to do what is right. Be sure and copy it down. Get it all

down. That's important.

I want to know what will be the return to the people against their

loss. How much will be required of the system if shut down? What will

be the return if the proper amount is invested at a reasonable interest

rate to bring compensation from the investments for those losses that

that city will undoubtedly suffer? Because anybody that knows anything

about it at all knows perfectly well that the City of Nelson has

subsidised other things from the profits accruing from their hydro

situation.

If negotiation breaks down, I hope that is not so, but if it does I

would like to recommend or hope that we could have an independent

arbitration. I've worked with this government long enough to know

perfectly well that the government will declare, and I haven't lost any

hope as far as that is concerned. I will be there to discuss the thing

with the Mayor, the weather be willing, and I hope we can get down.

I want to say a couple of other things relative to it. The Liberals

have made a great play about the Kootenays and what they're going to

do. You know the Kootenays position over a period of many years because

of the Liberals. Had it not been for the southern transprovincial

highway being built by this administration with the support of many

people, the people of the Kootenays would still be spending their money

and making their purchases in Spokane rather than in British Columbia.

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

After the southern transprovincial having been built then Spokane is

going economically downhill. I don't say that because the Canadians

aren't buying there to the extent that they were but I happen to know

that in one department store where there used to be 2,600 credit

accounts, there is now something like 22 as of about a month ago.

So this will give you some rough idea of where it's going and that

certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the Liberals because they

helped to create that position. There are 22 individual ones, that's

correct.

Then we heard, because I knew he was in the Kootenays, about "let's

widen the southern transprovincial to TransCanada standards." I know

exactly where that comes from and I don't mind telling you that comes

right straight from Maurice Klinkhammer, Mayor of Cranbrook. I've heard

that song so many times.

Sure, and my friend opposite will be the first to agree with me for

all intents and purposes Cranbrook, as far as their old patterns are

concerned, are almost complete so therefore they're looking somewhere

else, rather than support say Kimberley or other people within that

riding, no they go out onto this. The amount of money that would be

required to do that would just be out of this world when that money has

to be spent and fairly spent in other parts of the country.

Let's look at the Creston to Salmo and the bridge at Nelson, All you

have to do is to go into this library right at the back of us not more

than 100 feet away and you'll discover that the Liberal politicians

over the years played the Creston to Salmo versus the Nelson bridge. In

order to win one set of votes they promised the bridge at Nelson. In

order to win the other set they promised the other, and they did this

at different times to keep it divided and they didn't do anything until

this government came along and did the smart thing and built them

simultaneously.

I want to say something else not particularly related to this bridge

or to this debate and one thing that concerns me very, very much. I

only want to touch upon it lightly and it only brought it to mind by a

chance remark of one of the Liberal Members, I believe, in talking

about drug abuse.

I don't think there's any more distressing thing than the drug abuse

that is taking place in our province. I don't think there's anything

more distressing. I doubt very much if there is one single M.L.A. who

has not had a distressed parent say: "What can you do to help me with

my son, my daughter?" or something of that sort. It's very sad. Someone

said: "Don't bother with the parents who are sitting watching TV." Mr.

Speaker, that's the very person to bother with. Because the majority of

parents, the first flash is to blame it on somebody else, blame it on

to somebody else.

I remember a case recently of a couple who had one daughter, an only

child. They discovered at age 17 the girl was on heroin and yet they

didn't know that. You sometimes wonder, does a mother ever look into

the dresser drawers? Does a mother ever turn the mattress? This sort of

thing. Besides I know that particular family. They were all too busy

going to somebody's cocktail party, or some concert somewhere and all

this sort of thing and poor kid: "Here's $3. Go

[ Page 626 ]

and get a milkshake and a hamburger."

But once that first shock has taken place, then these people want to

know all about it. I'm not going to bore you with a long speech but I

belong to the Kiwanis Organisation. You'd be wise to look at their last

monthly and it tells the parents in a very good ad what to look for to

find out whether their child is on heroin, or on drugs.

In this problem that we have to deal with in drug abuse — fine, we

have to concentrate on the user, we certainly do. There's no question

about that. But we certainly have to inform the parents of their

responsibility and what they may have to look for in terms of looking

after their own children.

I think, Mr. Minister of Education, that in your advertising

programme, of course to get to the users but of course get to the

parent as well because they are extremely concerned, they are clueless

when it comes to looking for the sign. A simple thing like sitting

across the table from a boy or girl every morning and not even noticing

dilated pupils. And that sort of thing.

This is an amazing thing to me, and I say it on behalf of

Nelson-Creston because I don't know what the percentage is, but I know

there are drug users there, I know there are drug users in Creston, and

I'd make a reasonable guess that they are in every other town too.

It's just a fact of life. You talk to some of these high school kids

once you get their confidence, they can tell you where they get the

marijuana. They know where to get it, they know where to get booze.

They know all about it, they know where to get it. And the problem the

parents have I can only thank God that our kids have grown up and this

was never a problem.

But I'm not stupid enough to say "it can't happen to me." Or, "it

can't happen in our family," because indeed I hope it happens in no

one's family, but sometimes these things have a way of reaching out and

touching us all.

We are in the budget debate and I have a great many things to say to

you today, and I want to be reasonable about the time. No doubt about

it whatsoever I wonder sometimes and great numbers of us have been here

although we hear a good deal about parliament in 1952 there were only

six perhaps seven people that were here in 1952.

Now one of the most interesting little documents to read in your

spare time is the late Byron Johnson's 1952 budget. It's a very

interesting document. There you will discover on page 29 that not only…

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BLACK: Yes you did, you read parts. I'm going to

read other parts. That Mr. Johnson on page 29 informed the Legislature

at that time that he was going into the money markets to borrow

$28,350,000. And over on page 48 in relation to debt reduction that

we've all been talking about something we take for granted now. So it's

wise to refresh your memories to what that debt was. I'm not going to

read it all.

There you find the P.G.E. with a debt of in round figures some $31

million. Highways and bridges $101 million,

whereas today we pay them

all out of currency.

University of B.C. $10 million and again I'm not going to read them

all, but believe it or not there are $7.4 million for unemployment

relief in the hungry thirties. This has all been eliminated and all one

has to do is to turn to the latest budget that was before you two weeks

ago and you'll see that not only has this administration reduced that

debt, but it has built up the assets as well.

This government has given to the people of this province performance

and not politics. I can point to every item in that budget and I'm not

going to enumerate it for the second time, and say to you as they say

on the TV. ad "now that's performance." At times in the budget because

government has to look beyond the end of its nose, it has to look into

five, 10, 15, 20 years from now and if somebody said during the debate

perhaps through the years but they have to look ahead and they have to

plan ahead. And it seems that the public demand for services are

insatiable. No government anywhere could do it all, no government

anywhere.

Simple matters like roads — there will never be an end to people's

desires for roads, and they should have them because this province

isn't going to progress without them. My friend from Atlin (Mr. Calder)

a moment or so ago was trying to indicate that this government had

forgotten the north, when the reverse is quite true. Because the facts

of life are they have made the north — they have not made the north as

they would desire it, but Rome wasn't built in a day and all these

things cannot be done in a day. There are times when we have to have

restraint. We just have to have restraint.

Sometimes we who are Ministers facetiously say when it comes

treasury board time: "Well, why don't we let Education and the Health

boys and the Welfare boys go first and then we'll sit back and argue

about who gets the rest." Now that may be facetious, but it's

nevertheless true. Why? Because the health care package, if I may

include welfare in that too, and education, those costs are soaring at

tremendous rates and if we don't do something about it then there isn't

going to be any money for anything else if we went hog wild.

We have to be very mindful that we do have to cut costs. Every last

one of us has had to face that in our homes from time to time. Every

last one of us had had to face that. Our Minister of Finance has been

astute to build up reserves that could be used in time. And he's had

nothing but criticism as the result of that. Sometimes all you have to

do right at the moment because other jurisdictions are sitting in their

Legislature, their budget will either have come down, or will be coming

down. And if you think we're badly off or this is not a good budget,

then make those comparisons.

Just on this debt, and goodness knows the Social Credit Party have

been laughed at, sneered at, ridiculed because of debt reduction and we

heard a lot of that during this debate, Mr. Speaker. But the Proof of

the pudding is in the eating, and we do have these reserves, we don't

have to pay off debts, either principal or interests, and we do have

that money to go into the public service.

I have been very mindful of this and I'd like to inform you, Mr.

Speaker, that in keeping with the government's declared objectives of

restraining undue expenditures and controlling inflationary pressures

on the economy in the public sector I'll shortly be introducing a bill

into this House for this specific purpose.

The bill will be an amendment to the Constitution Act. And

whereas

in the past the salaries of the executive council and of the Members of

the legislative assembly and the officers of the legislative assembly

have been increased by a bill introduced and passed by the Members

themselves this amendment will provide that these increases will in the

future be dependent upon and related to the increases declared and

fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to be applicable and

permissible in the whole of the public service.

There's a further stipulation written into this bill that

[ Page 627 ]

where the proposed increases and the salaries, indemnities and

special allowances exceed the amount fixed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the increase will not be effective until

it is approved by a plebiscite of all the electors in the province

taken in accordance with the rules set out in the pertinent

section of

the bill.

The majority vote required to approve the increase is the same that

is required under the Public Schools Act. You can't say