1970 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 263 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, since this is

the first opportunity at this Parliament that I have had to address

this Assembly, I must welcome you back to your position, both from your

election for the office, and from your illness. We would have been very

disappointed in the North Central region if we had lost the chief

spokesman for our Highway 16 course, and we welcome you sincerely as a

man who everyone acknowledges does a good job.

Well, I would like to also welcome the new members, since I haven't

had the opportunity, and I only have one hope or one thought and that

is that they think as much of us in due course, as we happen to be

thinking of them at the present time. I don't think there's much

chance, but I think they are outranking us at the present time. I think

that the quality of debate, as has been mentioned by nearly everyone

who has been in this Assembly for some time, has been heightened by the

contributions of those who are newly elected to this Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I have some consternation on my behalf, I've found some

difficulty even within my own character, in the last few months. You

know, I spent about 15 or 16 years on page 26 in the bottom right-hand

corner of the press, and suddenly in this last year, to get front-page

centre each day is almost a little bit too much to absorb. I can't

stand the glamour of the situation of being right on this front line.

Now that the leader of the Liberal group the other day told me that I

wheel and deal behind closed doors, I got a little bit concerned when a

woman reporter, of all things, this weekend really got me into trouble.

She really did, you know, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, because

these stories get written up the wrong way, when I come down that

corridor in the morning and sneak down to get behind the doors, to do

my double-dealing, and I sneak down and it's still dark and I turn the

lights on at the far end of the corner, it's only because the Minister

of Public Works has got the light switch at the far end of the corner,

and I have to get down there before I can turn the lights on. I thought

this was handled pretty nicely until this woman reporter interviewed my

secretary and found out that she got there before 8 o'clock, and she

said the Minister was there ahead of her, so you see you can't do

anything in this life before some reporter or other has got you nailed.

AN HON. MEMBER: When does the light go on?

MR. WILLISTON: Well, they've been on now for 16 or 17 years, Mr. Member, I thought you knew that.

You know, the other day, Mr. Speaker, along with this new image, the

member from Vancouver East indicated that I was going to gaol or I was

heading for gaol, or something of this nature. I didn't hear very much

about it but I got a lot of sympathy from the Premier when he found out

about it. He said, "That's nothing, he's already been there this year,"

and that was true, you know.

I might as well confess all this afternoon, since it doesn't matter

what you do you're in trouble. But I was in real trouble when I took a

picture of this military installation which was a hospital and got

grabbed and got landed in gaol along with my family and a few others,

and it was quite an interesting occasion. I thought I better tell you a

little more, because really, if the reporters tell this story the way

it can be told, I'm going to be in real trouble. You know, when I

headed off for the middle of Nigeria this Christmas, I was first of all

in cahoots with Air Canada. You should know this because besides

everything else I was packing, I had a great big microscope, and you're

not supposed to carry this baggage business. But, along with some other

medical things, I thought I was taking it over to a hospital, and I got

in real trouble getting in through the Customs and so on, but I

honestly thought I was taking it to a hospital.

When I got over there and got away back into the middle of Nigeria,

I found out again, Mr. Speaker, that I was quite famous. You know I'd

been wheeling-dealing in money and I'd made a large donation to a

secondary school in the middle of Nigeria that I didn't know anything

about. I was welcomed by the head man of the country, and bowed to and

everything else. But if I told you I didn't really know why, it's just

like any father, you know, there are certain loans you make through

your life that you never think you are going to get back anyway. When

you wake up one morning and you've found you've made a donation to a

secondary school in the middle of Nigeria on your behalf, and that

you've sent it along, and it was one of those old loans that showed up,

you know you're really in a bit of trouble. Then he took me to dinner

and this is what scares me a little. My wife was along but I'm afraid

that the reporters wouldn't say this, because this head man, the Emir

of Borgoo, the head man in the country, was very good to us. He even

took us out to a very primitive African village that people don't get

to these days, where they still wear loin cloths and not very much

else, and have ivory in their lips and so on. But to be taken around,

you know, as an individual, it didn't look very good since money had

passed hands. He also had me to dinner along with my wife while we were

there, and the food was so hot you could hardly eat it.

You know these doctors how they take statistics all the time when

you go in, anybody that goes in to get treated takes statistics. If you

think we have trouble with our women, you want to get over there,

because when the doctor took statistics from the father he got a

certain number of youngsters, and when he took the statistics from the

four mothers he got a different number of youngsters, and I could just

see the reporters reporting that after the Minister had visited the

Emir of Borgoo, and they checked up on the family, they had that many

more youngsters than he admitted to in the first place. Now if they had

written this up in the press, Mr. Speaker, it could have made a real

good story, but be that as it may, this bit of glamorous overlay that I

have, I really can't live up to it, because I know my family and many

others still think I'm a bit of a square, and there's not very much I

can do about it, and I can't even here today.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the

Budget which was presented so ably in this House on Friday afternoon. I

thought I had better make it clear I was speaking about the Budget that

had been presented on Friday instead of the budget that was presented

on Monday, in case it had any difficulty. I think that the phone lines

went a little dead on the weekend because the Prime Minister seemed to

be on a little different budgetary approach than did the leader of the

Liberal group from British Columbia,

[ Page 264 ]

because where he's going to get that $1,400,000,000

if the Prime Minister isn't going to squeeze up, I have no idea. But be

that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I always feel this debate is unbalanced.

It's unbalanced because three of us here, the Minister of Finance, of

Mines and Petroleum Resources, and myself, all attempt to gather as

much revenue as the other 52 of you members wish to overspend, and you

very often, or very seldom come up with practical suggestions as to how

we are going to increase this amount of money, and it is difficult in

British Columbia when you are a Province which depends for its economy

upon exports, and experts too, that's right, maybe experts before

exports.

Mr. Premier will recall that my first words to him when he sat down

after delivering the Budget, was that it was better than I thought it

would be. You cannot consider I think, Mr. Speaker, of a Provincial

Budget in a vacuum. It must be related to the economic realities which

face all Canadians at this time. I repeat, it is a good Budget, and I

would predict that it will be the best Provincial Budget to come down

in Canada this year, if one considers three essentials. Those three

essentials, Mr. Speaker, are first, the anti-inflationary policies

needed for the treatment of a bad case of economic diarrhea which we

have at the present time; secondly, a Budget that fits the basic needs

of people who are caught in a price squeeze and cannot react to better

themselves. This is being done, increased payments, home-owners grants,

things of that nature, and also the problems of those equipping

themselves for service through education or those others who are

attempting to establish a home unit under the most difficult financial

capital limitations which face us today.

You know, the Government is often taunted, Mr. Speaker, to put its

money where its mouth is, and this Budget. has done just that. The

Budget, Mr. Speaker, has emphasized people's needs. As an aside, I

might observe that the most serious omission from the standpoint of

debate, must be the elimination of the year 1952, as a statistical

base, and adopting instead 1960, a second Social Credit milestone year,

when British Columbia's direct debt was paid off. The only real

difference, Mr. Speaker, will be that instead of emphasizing when it

all began, one can substitute why it is now all possible, because this

Budget really shows in a positive way what can be done by an

administration which has control of its monetary requirements for

operational need without reference to the dictates of the financial

institutions.

To me, a particular point of interest is not that the Budget met

need and was balanced, but how it was balanced. A very quick analysis

will show that since 1960 revenue in this Province has increased 3.16

times, and included in this expansion of revenue for the first time,

and raised from a position of insignificance, were the Ferry revenues,

for instance, which now amount to $25,000,000, and the miscellaneous

interest which people often miss. Through good management the

miscellaneous interest this year is estimated to be $13,000,000 of

revenue, rather than expenditure.

But it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see where the money comes

from. The revenue increases at or above this 3.16 times, were obtained

from income tax, at 4.1 times which reflects the buoyancy of our

economy and the wage level of our people. From Lands and Forests, 3.1

times; from minerals, 3.3 times; from sundry sales and services, just a

minor amount, but 4 times; from Canada's share of joint programmes

which are going up, 3.9 times, Mr. Speaker. And other provinces and

local governments, a matter of only $17,000,000, but that went up

actually 5.7 times. All of the other sources of revenue, your sales

tax, your motor-vehicle tax, your car licences, everything, all other

sources of revenue fail to keep pace with the average increase in the

Province of British Columbia. This emphasizes dramatically for me, Mr.

Speaker, our dependence upon the continued expansion of our

resource-based industries to maintain our cash-flow which is allowed

for the following increased expenditures in that same period since

1960. Education has gone up 5.4 times. It's gone from 18.5 per cent of

our Budget to 31.5 per cent of our Budget. Health and Social Services

has gone up 3.6 times, or in other words it's gone from 31.9 per cent

to 35.7 per cent of our Budget, and taking the two of them together

only, you've got 67 per cent of your Budget right there.

Against this, consider the expenditures on the economic pump primers

in this Province. In natural resources, including agriculture, it's

gone up 3.3 times, it's held its position, but it occupies only 7.2 per

cent of the Budget in the Province of British Columbia. And highways,

you want to know where the money came from, and now it has ferries

linked with it. Since 1960 our expenditure in highways has gone up only

twice and the percentage of the Budget has gone down from 21.9 to 13.7

per cent. People ask you where the money comes from and whether it's

directed towards people. You should think, Mr. Speaker, on some of

these things.

I would ask you also to remember the two Crown Corporations which

have been equally responsible for the general development which has

taken place, Hydro and the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. They do not

directly share in the general Provincial revenue that they happen to

create, but they only gain operational revenues from the charges they

have for their services.

The analyses I have made point directly to what I think was the most

important page in the printed copy of the Budget Address, and that was

Page 15. There's a map on Page 15 and that map highlights the basic

programme for the 70's. Without the execution of such an expanding

plan, our ability to meet the demand for increased essential social

services in this next decade will be severely curtailed. The

spectacular growth of the 60's, Mr. Speaker, was tied in to the

developments in the geographic centre of the Province of British

Columbia. There were important off-shoots all over, but a circle

centred on Prince George, with a radius reaching Kamloops, Fort St.

John and Prince Rupert, contains the bulk of the new economic action in

this Province.

The resulting additional revenue gained from resource development in

the form of direct assessments on timber, minerals, income tax, and

sales tax, enabled the advances to be made to services which are

provided for people. Such funds can only come from the profitable

productive efforts of an expanding and increasingly efficient labour

force. There must be areas serviced with communication and energy to

enable free enterprise to invest with a chance for a profitable return.

Present lending rates make this a real challenge, Mr. Speaker. If a

capital gains tax is applied through tax reform, then the profit return

on invested risk capital must be greater than the interest paid on

non-risk investments. If this does not happen, the incentive to invest

with risk will be destroyed, and our economy in this Province is going

to stagnate. In such a situation British Columbia's development will be

the most seriously affected in all of Canada. To keep up with our

present commitments there must be a steady expansion in our productive

capacity just to stand still. If we do not have additional school

pupils, hospital patients, or welfare recipients, costs are still going

to go up, and to meet the increasing demands for revenue created by

large numbers

[ Page 265 ]

of additional services, dormant areas of our Province must be ready for development.

Our North offers, Mr.

Speaker, an answer, and the announced plans for rail extension to Dease

Lake opens up a second frontier to complement the activity at Fort

Nelson. The Dease extension opens up large power reserves, vast

mineralized areas and known productive forest lands. Our total

sustained yield harvest of timber in this Province could be increased

as much as one-third through this extension alone. Even with a start

right now, the 70's will be well advanced before much more than initial

action has been taken. This is a vast land about which we have little

detailed information. It seems difficult to realize that the present

developments in the Peace River were triggered by the action taken

first in 1956 with the power, and then in 1958 with the rail, and

that's 12 to 14 years ago.

There are some clouds on British Columbia's economic horizon which

could affect the Provincial revenue during this year. Obvious areas for

concern are the market for timber at prices which allow for profitable

operation. At this time our comparative direct forest revenues are on

the decline, Mr. Speaker. This relates to lumber prices which, on

average, approximate those paid three years ago. Costs are going up,

the prices are down. This directly affects the stumpage return on the

sliding scale adjustment. Present plans to fight inflation in the

United States have reduced capital funds available for house

construction and there is no immediate relief in sight. Seventy per

cent of our market is affected. Pending labour negotiations promise to

be more difficult because of the market situation. Associated Crown

ventures are seriously affected by any disruption in the forest

industry. Both B.C. Hydro and the P.G.E. are dependent on continuous

activity in the industry to reach their budgetary goals.

Kraft pulp prices are improving, as is the market demand. However,

it will be another year before a noticeable benefit occurs. The

dependence of the pulp industry on residuals from the saw mills is now

more firmly established, so that a disruption of activity at any point

in the timber manufacturing process tends to slow production on a wide

front.

Labour and management associated with the forest industry must

resolve their differences in a realistic and responsible manner if the

Budget you are debating today is to provide the necessary revenues to

provide the services and increased benefits which have been set forth,

and I emphasize that fact. This is going to be one of the most serious

years that we as a Province will face.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to spend one moment on my own constituency,

because this will be one of the most significant years for

transportation advance in the history of the whole north central region

of the Province. Highway 16, Mr. Speaker, has acquired a new name along

with its new status. Yellowhead 16 joins Prince George to McBride and

so opens up the northern Trans-Provincial highway from Prince Rupert to

the Alberta boundary. The Yellowhead splits at Tete Jaune Cache, with

Number 5 going south to Kamloops. A new major junction point has been

added to the highway system of this Province, and soon Tete Jaune Cache

will be as well known as Cache Creek to the motoring public of this

Province.

A brief report, Mr. Speaker, on the reservoirs about which the

election was almost fought in our area. May I report that the activity

on Lake Williston is moving ahead. There are now 50 tugs, 50 tugs

working on Lake Williston. Many people would tell you, you can't even

get on. There are 50 tugs working there gathering material at the

present time, and all of the predictions concerning the ability to

handle wood and to clear the reservoir are going even better than

happen to have been anticipated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. WILLISTON: The Mica Reservoir is also on

schedule and is

being cleared and, Mr. Speaker, in this House and elsewhere, as an

aside, this was an area of debate, and in the recent election — both

Mica Reservoir and the Peace Reservoir are in my own riding, a large

part — and in those two areas I received the highest percentage of

votes I've ever had in my history. (Applause)

With the completion of Highway 16, or Yellowhead 16, the upper

Fraser Valley has entered the mainstream of communication of British

Columbia, and the rich river bottom land will provide agricultural

produce in increasing amounts to the growing centres such as Prince

George.

Also in that growth area, a brief report on the hospital situation.

A review has proved to the satisfaction of Government — and remember

now you have to prove to the satisfaction of Government — that an

emergent need exists for additional hospital beds at Prince George, and

a new hospital also to serve the instant town of McKenzie. Treasury

Board has given approval to place a plebiscite totalling $6,090,000 to

cover an additional 135-bed extension at Prince George and an 18-bed

expandable unit at McKenzie, and we are very, very appreciative of this

fact at the present time.

Before leaving my own constituency I can't help but say, Mr.

Speaker, that we had an election there too, that the leaders of both

parties stopped by, and I was the only one that got really special

attention, because the manager of the bus stopped off to run against

me. He had a tough time getting any time in to campaign, I would say,

but the Liberal group in our area decided not to run a candidate, and

so the bus lost its tour master and maybe that's why the predictions

didn't come out just quite as well as they indicated as they were

moving around the Province. I don't know. I don't know. When they lost

the tour master they must have lost the magic touch that was associated

with the prognostications that were coming out, or they lost their

responsibility, I don't know which.

AN HON. MEMBER: They lost their way.

MR. WILLISTON: But the amusing thing, Mr. Speaker, that comes

out of here, the Leader of the New Democratic Party spent a great deal

of time in Prince George, he came to Prince George and set up the

public meeting and in a presentation to the people — and do you get the

headline in the press, which was really wonderful — he indicated that

last year when he moved a vote of confidence in this House against

myself, that I was so chagrined that I cried in the Legislature. So the

banner across the top of the page was "Williston cried" and so he

passed it out. They brought a fellow from New Westminster to run the

campaign, and they said now in this public meeting, in this big public

meeting, "get in there and hit him hard, hit him hard and break him

down, and you'll get him right out in the public meeting." Well, I want

to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the goriest public meeting that was ever held

in the history of Prince George in this last election, and it wasn't

the present sitting member who was asking for any mercy from that

group. As a matter of fact, when the strategists go in on a business of

this kind,

[ Page 266 ]

as they did in that particular case, the one place you shouldn't

talk to are a group of people who you've had for high school students

over a great number of years, because when you tell them that you cried

when somebody put the bee on you, or the bug under you, as they know

me, that was the biggest joke that went around in the whole

constituency. I want to tell you, since I got the highest vote I've

ever had in my life after that many years of service, I was honoured by

the attention that they paid me.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's not time this afternoon to stay at items

of that kind. The history has been written. This debate has centred on

many articles of my own responsibility and I plan to get to them this

afternoon and deal with each one. First of all, it's on Cypress Bowl,

and the Leader of the Opposition says Hooray. I have never yet dealt

with this situation at Cypress Bowl here, and I intend to deal with it

with some background this afternoon. I feel it's largely a waste of

time, Mr. Speaker, but when the Official Opposition, both the Liberal

group and the Official Opposition group, make it a vote of confidence

at the time that the last debate was up, they must be taking the matter

sufficiently seriously to fill in the background information.

Mr. Speaker, the development of Cypress Bowl for recreational use

has been the subject of debate in this Legislature for the last five

years. It is only within the last few months that it has added a "who

done it" feature to give an air of mystery and intrigue completely out

of keeping with either the facts or the administrative policy governing

such development. Those who desire to confuse, select certain actions

out of context and elaborate against a contrived background of

supposition. Such situations may create best sellers of either books or

newspapers, but they do little to establish responsible understanding.

Let me illustrate, as briefly as possible, but it won't be very brief.

The Official Opposition first of all, Mr. Speaker, and has been

doing for five years, contends that Cypress Bowl was a park, and that

some formal action had to be taken to cancel such status before any

development could proceed in that area. Very limited research would

reveal the background of actual information, had they cared to look

into it. Timber alienations had been issued over the area in 1908.

These were referred to as the Heeps Licences. The timber was not of

good quality and appraisal for removal indicated a loss would be

sustained. With adequate advanced publicity and, Mr. Speaker, when you

get taken you really get taken, with adequate advanced publicity the

owner, who was Mr. Heeps of Los Angeles, the owner gave notice that he

was going to start logging the stand and a start was actually made in

1938. There was a tremendous outcry along the whole North Shore against

this action, and as a result, in 1939 Mr. James Sinclair was

commissioned by the Government to prepare a report recommending or

looking into future park developments in this general area, and he

prepared his report, and I happen to have it here. In his report, Mr.

Speaker, he referred to three separate projects, and they're well

known. One was Hollyburn, which included Cypress Bowl, one was Grouse

Mountain, and the other was Seymour.

Some interesting points right from his report, Mr. Speaker, right

from the beginning, is that he indicated up there one of the problems

that face everybody on the North Shore. He says the first necessity in

the development of the whole North Shore area is to make available for

all ages an easy access road up to the skiing area. So right from the

very beginning, and he happened to be an owner on Hollyburn Ridge, he

outlines it in here that he owned a cabin on Hollyburn Ridge and he

could be taken as a little bit prejudiced at times, but he made and

gave a very objective report. But access right from the beginning was

Number One. Mr. Sinclair, in examining the area suggested that the

Heeps Licences be logged, that the Heeps Licences be logged, as this

would not detrimentally affect the potential for skiing. It is fair to

indicate he thought that less than half of the timber had any value.

The Government had hired Lloyd Rodgers, who many of you in this area

know, he is from the Capilano Timber Co., a well known and respected

forester. They can laugh about him, but I think in the industry Lloyd

Rodgers stands miles high. He's a man, he's a man. To report on the

timber, Mr. Speaker. He recommended that the owner be permitted, Mr.

Rodgers recommended that the owner be permitted to log the licences,

since he could only lose money and as a consequence would let the

licences revert.

Despite both recommendations, the Forest Service was instructed to

negotiate a trade, and to give you their words, not mine, Mr. Speaker,

and to get back, that this was a contrived business in the first place.

The report reads on page 19, "In the summer of 1938 Heeps announced

that he intended to log the licences. Public feeling was immediately

aroused by the thought that, the green slopes of Hollyburn Ridge would be despoiled." In Mr. Rodgers' report he indicated that

they wouldn't be despoiled at all, but it's interesting to note that

Mr. Rodgers prepared the cruise for the Government and he indicated

that there were 29,300,000 feet of merchantable timber on the licences.

Mr. Heeps contended there was 85,000,000 feet of merchantable timber on

the licences at that time. Be that as it may, public pressure, and as

Mr. Sinclair says even at that time on the bottom of page 20, "Despite

this report (his report and Mr. Rodgers), certain groups with little

knowledge of the mountains continued to agitate for the purchase or

exchange of these timber limits," and to encourage this, Heeps

proceeded with the construction of a very steep, very poor logging road

and actually dragged out a few loads of shingle bolts by tractor and

truck to indicate that he was making progress. The trade went on, Mr.

Speaker, and the negotiation took about five years.

Out of this came a firm resolve of the permanent staff of the Forest

Service never to get caught in one of these situations again, because

in the trade it was determined finally to trade volume for volume,

volume for volume, not quality for quality, but volume for volume and

of this basic balsam, hemlock, decadent material, the trade was placed

at 45,000,000 board feet. It was traded, this decadent material, for

fir in the Sayward on Vancouver Island, the licences are still in good

standing on Vancouver Island at the present time. This was in 1944 the

trade was concluded. 55,000,000 board feet of timber has been taken

from the licences, the licences are still in good standing, and are

still being operated at the present time. Remember, Mr. Speaker, there

was a five-year lapse in that period of time from when the negotiation

started until it happened to be concluded in 1944. In the meantime, Mr.

Speaker, specific attention was paid to the Sinclair report, and I

realized that the people in the N.D.P. have taken a stand on this

matter, but they just have to go back through the records to find out

exactly what happened.

In the three areas, and the maps are here, Mr. Speaker, the maps are

here, one happens to deal with this area of Cypress Bowl and the

Hollyburn Ridge, and it was one of the areas designated for a park

purpose. If you can see across the way, the biggest area of this park

land, if you look at the map, is

[ Page 267 ]

municipally owned by West Vancouver. The red is Provincial and the

yellow is municipal. At the time when this was under discussion, there

was no indication that the municipal lands, and it was advocated first

of all that these be developed as a metropolitan park area, but there

was no enthusiasm for a metropolitan development in the region as a

whole. Which was point one. In point two, point two, Mr. Speaker, West

Vancouver — and they are valuable lands on the upper levels of

Hollyburn Ridge — never, either at this report time or after, indicated

the desire to place those lands within the park area.

The other two areas were Seymour and Grouse. Both were in North

Vancouver, and it was patently obvious that neither municipality could

develop them because at this time they were both in receivership. Mr.

Sinclair recommended that maybe if the Provincial Government were

approached that they would develop Hollyburn, Grouse and Seymour

because at the time, it was in the depression, we had our camps

operating, and he thought that the boys who were working in camps could

be taken up to Hollyburn, Grouse and Seymour and put to work at that

time. But, be that as it may, his suggestions were not followed through

nor were they acted upon by the municipalities concerned.

The Government, in receiving his report, did take action, because at

this time they owned a Provincial park on Mt. Seymour, and if you go

through the report, the only one where there was basic Provincial

ownership established for the whole park, they accepted Mr. Sinclair's

report as presented, and at that time developed Mt. Seymour into the

present Provincial park and that became the Provincial park on the

North Shore mountains. The rest of the park system there, as a matter

of conscious policy, did not become a part of the Provincial park area.

But even as that was going, the trade and the agitation for the trade

so that it could be eventually incorporated at some time or other into

a situation for a park in West Vancouver was pressed forward, and that

trade, as I have indicated, took place. But as a matter of conscious

policy the Government did not dedicate it as a park, for the simple

reason that in dedicating it as a park it became or would become a

Provincial responsibility in that area, and there was no indication

from the municipality either of contributing their lands or of the

municipality establishing the park or the metropolitan area

establishing the park in their own guise. As a consequence, as a matter

of conscious policy, that area was never, despite whatever the Leader

of the Opposition and the member from Vancouver East says, that area

was never, never has been designated as a park situation. Never has

been. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to stay with this the whole

afternoon, but I can show the Leader of the Opposition, I can show the

Leader of the Opposition, the landed areas of the timber licences that

were allowed to be reverted, that should have been in a park that were

incorporated back into the municipal areas of West Vancouver, and Mr.

Speaker…. I think I've taken more action in this regard, likely,

than anyone else. Mr. Speaker, let's move, because the shouting

interruptions, and things coming from the people cannot be

substantiated in fact at any level.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe it should be a park, or don't you? I can see you don't want to deal with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WILLISTON: I'll deal with it in its entirety. You are going to be here for quite a while this afternoon, Mr. Member.

The remaining action taken on this project has followed

administrative procedure and has resulted in a very restricted and

sometimes difficult condition for implementation. There was an original

proposal for development at Cypress Bowl placed before the Department

of Lands, and Mr. Speaker, this afternoon for all members in the House,

because of what you've heard in debate, follow the procedure through at

least to that, and then debate on the evidence of action which has been

taken.

They presented a proposal to the Department of Lands. Investigation

was promised. Since much of the area came within the municipal

boundaries of West Vancouver, a first rule was invoked. No approval to

proceed would be allowed or even indicated until the municipal council

had given its consent. In consultation with the Department of Municipal

Affairs, it was determined that a community plan should be developed

and this involved public hearings in West Vancouver, and, Mr. Speaker,

I intend to file the community plan that was adopted as a first move in

the development of Cypress Bowl, the community plan filed by West

Vancouver dated August the 19th, 1965, and passed, on their

instruction, through Order-in-Council. That was a start. This formal

plan, which was adopted, was subject to recreational development to

specific controls. Within this arrangement, access, parking lot, and

slope clearing plans were presented and approved. And, Mr. Speaker,

it's been intimated in this House — this will be filed — it's been

intimated in this House that our department took unilateral action

insofar as development on the Bowl is concerned. Nothing could be

further from the truth.

From the time of the immediate clearance — and that's the file just

on our approvals, Mr. Speaker, and from West Vancouver and their

concurrence and their joint signings, and I'm placing this also in file

before the Legislature this afternoon. But even at the start, on August

the 11th, 1966, from the Corporation of the District of West Vancouver

before anything started, the letter to my Assistant Deputy Minister

stated, and referring to Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd., "The

company sought and obtained the permission of the West Vancouver

Municipal Council at a special meeting of the Council on August 1st,

and at a regular meeting of the Council on August 9th, for the

construction of the tote road through District Lots 1343, 1344, which

lots are owned by the municipality. We have outlined this area in red

on plan C dated May the 31st, 1966, of the submission. The approval

tote road is shown in yellow," and if you'll follow the plan through,

you'll find that on the basis of this tote road presentation, the

Forest Service then issued the cutting rights on the tote road and

policed them. The next area to be cut was the parking lot. It was

presented, it was given at the same time, and it was policed. And Mr.

Speaker, every action, every action that's been taken on Cypress Bowl,

not one of them had been taken unilaterally. Not one action. It has had

approval and, Mr. Speaker, the actual job which was carried out — I

will admit the plans were presented, prepared by the company, approved

and supervised, and the supervision by the Forest Service — and the

Forest Service in their supervision carried out, and the reports came

back that, on the basis of the presentation, a good job had been done

by the peoples removing the timber from that area. In here are the

prices paid for the timber, the timber licences which went from seven

dollars a hundred cubic feet up to the last cutting permit which was at

$14 a hundred cubic feet on the fir. The material is there, Mr.

Speaker, step by step along the way.

[ Page 268 ]

But let's indicate one or two things which have changed. You

remember first of all an outcry came concerning what was taking place

on the hill, and West Vancouver asked us to stop action on the hill and

we stopped action on the hill immediately. When that action was

stopped, West Vancouver went and secured an independent appraisal of

the work that was going on. It was carried out by Borgersen and

Associates. Let me read one or two things which came from his report,

and if anyone is interested in the whole of his report, you've been

given just within the last few days ideas about avalanches and things

of this nature, and the nature of the clearing that took place. But he

says in his report, page 10, "It is pointed out that historically ski

areas in the Puget Sound region have clear-cut slopes, and it is

apparently the preference of many skiers for a wide open slope, and

this preference has dictated policy in this respect," and he endorsed

it. He indicates also — and we've had all kinds of information, Mr.

Speaker, here about the nature of the clearing that's taken place thus

far on Cypress Bowl — and these are from Mr. Borgersen's figures

himself, and he happens to be an expert in this particular field.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the date of his report?

MR. WILLISTON: The date of his report is in late 1968.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not fully up to date.

MR. WILLISTON: Not at that time. No. That's right. But it's

of interest to know that he pointed out for clear-cut areas. This is

from his report that on Snoqualmie Summit they have 500 acres cleared,

clear-cut, they expect to handle 5,000 skiers a day. On Ski Acres there

is 300 acres, and they intend to handle 5,000 to 6,000 skiers a day. On

Cypress Bowl there was 700 acres in total on the plan. At the present

time at Cypress Bowl 599 acres have been covered but the planned

density at Cypress Bowl is different than any on the Coast, and all you

have to do is look last weekend at Seymour. The planned density at

Cypress Bowl was for 14,000 to 18,000 skiers to be using the facilities

at Cypress Bowl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't they cut poles as planned?

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the plan has been followed and

there are enough pictures. We handed around some newspaper pictures

here the other day which were not depictive of the runs and so on, I've

got a complete set of the pictures as it is today, runs in the rest of

the area, and I'll pass them around the building this afternoon and the

members can see somewhat of what they happen to be talking about. But,

Mr. Speaker, when you look at these pictures, what are some of the

basic problems and the changes in the cost and so on. I'd ask you to

look at this one just in particular because there are matters here that

have to generally be resolved. When I first was made acquainted with

the initial plan which had been approved, it showed a looped road,

you'll be able to see it in this picture coming up from the bottom

land. It would loop and go back to the bottom area, and that was

approved at that time. Subsequently, after the Borgersen report and

subsequent action and interest was taken, a brand new road was

projected and put through which went right across the top of Hollyburn

Ridge. You can see it being constructed in this picture right here,

which opens up all the municipal area lands in West Vancouver at that

spot, and then brings it down to the south. This particular access,

coming in to this, charged against the development at the time, is one

of the main reasons why this initial action — well, there just wasn't

enough money in the whole proposition to get any of that work actually

done. That road, which is opening up — that's right, all municipal, and

that did not come within the Department of Lands and Forests for

ratification, that came within the area of West Vancouver — was charged

and required of these people and was not required of myself nor of my

department. But because it was required of West Vancouver it was made a

part of the plan and the objective of the plan as you see right there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Ranger said the road went nowhere.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the plan was presented to us and

it was not devised by the Ranger. The plan was presented to us by a

professional forester, approved by West Vancouver, as you will see, and

was carried out on that. I agree with the member from North Vancouver,

because I was over the road, that the initial road was not a good road

at that time, and there is no argument about that whatsoever. But that,

and the improvement of that and so on, does not indicate any basic

malpractice at any time.

AN HON. MEMBER: They just went into the good timber, that's what they did.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, they never went off timber, and it is statements like that that are completely irresponsible….

The total volume cut and removed to date off the licences, Mr.

Speaker, is 3,899,073 cubic feet. Based on a detailed analysis of the

scale bills, the area logged was an over-mature hemlock-balsam stand

with 72 per cent of the hemlock classified on the basis of an actual

scale as No. 3 grade, and we had our Leader of the Opposition saying

about this prime timber and the gain and the profit was $500,000. 72

per cent of the hemlock classified No. 3 grade, 11.4 per cent as No. 4

or lumber rejects. Balsam is an ungraded species but it is in an area

classified as being affected by balsam woolly aphids. Utilization was

above average as indicated by the inspection reports, and a further

indication of good utilization is the fact that 9.5 per cent of the

volume removed was classified as lumber rejects.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just who is woolly?

MR. WILLISTON: The preparation of a detailed, comprehensive

plan of development without assurance of final acceptance proved to be

financially difficult for Alpine in the light of the problems with

logging, access, the parking requirements which had gradually evolved.

Our policy of reserve until plan approval, then lease, develop,

purchase, really provides no collateral upon which finance can be

raised on a project of this magnitude. Providing they were able to meet

the requirements to be set forth for development, Alpine felt that they

required paper documentation to ensure they could proceed under the

community plan development conditions. They desired to document their

right to prepare a plan within a given area that the capital

structures would occupy. In this case, the reserve and the general

leases

[ Page 269 ]

requested had exactly the same force, and they are referred to in

both documents. They were not requested by the Department, Mr. Speaker,

they were not requested by the Department, they were not negotiable

action documents, they only delineated more precisely areas within the

boundary of the community plan in which planning would take place and

be presented for approval. The municipality was informed of the nature

of the proposed leases during the period of negotiation. I was not, as

indicated and my statements at the time were perfectly obvious, I was

not aware that the leases had in fact been signed. Nor was I

particularly interested since no development action could take place

without my personal approval and this would not come until after

detailed plans had been approved by the municipality in line with the

requirements of the adopted community plan. When it was brought to my

attention that the routine gazetting of the cancellation of the reserve

had not taken place prior to signing the leases, I instructed that such

action be withheld pending clarification of the situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who brought that…?

MR. WILLISTON: And that's where the — and the Leader of the Opposition was the man that mentioned that to me, Mr. Speaker. That's right.

To further spoil some of the real under-cover speculation about

action which has taken place, may I summarize. It was always the

understanding, Mr. Speaker, that certain capital structures would be a

part of the project. That is ski lift facilities and all of their

complexities. Ski service facilities, repairs, specialty shops,

restaurant areas, a hotel development, and an alpine village type

complex, and residential accommodation for the staff. Even these

projects had not been approved in detail. Each of the approvals would

require a subdivision of the land, and for the first time and after

35,000 subdivision clearances, I am finally being questioned on what a

subdivision is, but be that as it may, each of the approvals would

require a subdivision of the land to accommodate individual uses and

because the Province would always retain ownership of the ski slopes,

the parking lot, and other public areas. No blanket purchase, Mr.

Speaker, no blanket purchase is allowed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there a toll road?

MR. WILLISTON: Only those uses permitted by the municipality

under its zoning by-laws and also subject to my approval would be

allowed. This is set out in the lease document, and the member says a

toll road. Fine and dandy, Mr. Speaker, let's deal with that right now.

You are going up that mountain to ski. It is becoming a public venture.

My colleague here has a road going up Mount Seymour at the present

time. He spends over $100,000 on it on, snow clearance every year. He

still — and not enough, that's right, not enough — he still, Mr.

Speaker, requires a capital expenditure of upwards to $1,000,000 on the

Seymour Road before he's even got a road going to Seymour, and people

are here saying on the development put this up and the question comes

whether you should charge a toll. Mr. Speaker, if you don't go there,

and the rest of us who ski, whether you go up Island to Forbidden

Plateau and you drive on the weekend 240 and 250 miles, if there is no

other way except out of the public purse to put that road up onto

Grouse — or up onto Cypress Bowl, then you are either going to go there

or you are going to go all the way up the valley almost to Pemberton,

take the hours and the drive, if you even take that at three cents a

mile insofar as your car is concerned. That's right, it is worth the

toll up there if no public body is going to put it up, and, Mr.

Speaker, I have no qualms about that at all. And you're going to

prepare a parking lot up there, when you get there, Mr. Speaker, for

5,000 cars and remove the snow that is from there. The people that use

that and get that accommodation and don't have to drive and have it at

their back door should pay for it. They should pay for it because there

is not enough money for the recreational needs of the area unless the

people….

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): You said it was going to be free four years ago when I raised the question.

MR. WILLISTON: That is right. Because of the road. That is

absolutely right. Because of the road that was planned and put through

at that time, and it was not the road that was opening up the whole of

Hollyburn Ridge which you will see on these pictures that you see this

afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is Benguet still in the deal?

MR. WILLISTON: No — I am going to deal with the lease documents and Benguet and the rest of them, just hold yourself.

The second point — Mr. Borthwick did not negotiate the detailed

lease documents. We have read from the press all over British Columbia

and everything else concerning the matter. He did not negotiate them.

He did sign them, but only following a complete review of the terms and

the conditions by the Attorney-General's Department, and following the

execution of the documents by the company who, through its solicitors,

were well aware of the very stringent terms of the lease that required

compliance with all municipal regulations and by-laws and the approval

by myself before any development work could proceed, insofar as that

area was concerned.

And, Mr. Speaker, the next big mystery which they trumpeted around

the Province. The publication in the Gazette of the release of the

leasehold areas in the reserve was not carried out immediately because

the official responsible was on holiday and the leases were

consequently signed before his return. This was an unfortunate

administrative oversight but not calculated as one that was inferred,

and certainly not one that was considered to be of great importance.

And if somebody wishes to check the dates upon which the officer

responsible was on his holidays this year, he can do so very, very

easily, it's not a matter of great secrecy, intrigue, and all the

things that are going on.

Representatives of the Bahamian Port Authority did inquire about

provincial policy concerning the development of Crown lands. They did

indicate they were interested in joining Alpine if a suitable

arrangement were negotiated. This was done without further reference to

Government. I was made aware of the actual nature of the new

association through the press. I must admit I had never heard of

Benguet before, nor did I know the background of his association with

the Bahamian Port Authority. The so-called intrigue between Hydro bond

sales, Allen and Company, and Cypress Bowl made a thrilling mystery

reading even for myself, Mr. Speaker, and I had to get up in the

morning to read the paper to see what other mystery I had been involved

in overnight. Perhaps when I was supposed to be the central figure, I

should have known something about the participants or what was going

on. Mr. Speaker, there never has been a plan, despite what the Leader

of the Opposition says or anybody

[ Page 270 ]

else….

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the Attorney-General say?

MR. WILLISTON: …Nor even a discussion of a plan of an

intensive residential development on Cypress by myself or my department

and I do not believe such a discussion has taken place with West

Vancouver officials either. Independent feasibility studies based upon

a supposition have no validity. I will tell you what happened — and

this is again — and I said supposition has no validity, but the people

themselves interested in development, without reference either to

Alpine or to ourselves, made the investigation to which you are

referring, and if you'd do just a little bit of research you could have

found that out and found out who paid for it at the same time.

MR. BARRETT: Did Benguet have the engineer in there, the electrical engineer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Alpine?

MR. WILLISTON: The people making the feasibility study for them on the investment business was the responsibility.

MR. BARRETT: Well, who was that? Benguet or Alpine that ordered that?

MR. WILLISTON: If I said it here, it wasn't Alpine. That is what I say.

MR. BARRETT: You mean it was Benguet.

MR. WILLISTON: I am not saying. I say it was not Alpine, and it was not ourselves, and it had no official business.

I said there never has been a plan. The

summary statement of the

Cypress Bowl development was prepared on my request and did cover the

essential details. The so-called suppressed letter which occupied this

House for so long was referred to as the negotiation with Alpine and

for proper understanding this must be read against the background of

the community plan and the lease stipulations. Mr. Speaker, I would

have been stupid, if I was suppressing anything. I instructed that the

Leader of the Opposition be given every document….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. Oh…. No…. Oh…. (shouting)

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, the question, came through on

Cypress Bowl as to whether documents and copies would be taken from the

file. I indicated that the Leader of the Opposition was to get every

copy of any letter that he wanted. (applause) I challenge you, Mr.

Member, I challenge you on that business. You mystery boys that write

fairy stories want to listen for just a little while.

The rest of the story, Mr. Speaker, is well known. The policy of the

Government to protect the public interest in Cypress Bowl was defined

in 1966 when two Orders-in-Council were passed, one reserving 3,700

acres for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public, and the

other reserving 1,700 acres against alienation in which the development

would take place. It was from this latter area that the over-all leases

to provide the sites for capital works were provided. Basically, the

concept provided for a large area of land to be used for public

recreation and enjoyment and a limited area to be developed, subject to

approval, to provide facilities to enable the public to enjoy those

recreational facilities.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, and I asked the member from North

Vancouver the other day and I promised to file these documents, but

listen to just a few clauses out of the lease document indicating the

action that was there. "No. 3. That this lease and all leases shall

observe all the lawful by-laws, rules and regulations of every

municipality or other authority which in any manner relate to or affect

the Crown lands." And there is a community development plan over the

specific lands in which they were interested and that applied right

through the piece. Mr. Speaker, two or three other clauses, some of the

things they had to provide besides the access, besides the four lifts

by 1972, parking area for 5,000 cars by 1972, they had to clear and

groom at least 450 acres of the slopes by 1972…. Coming, that's

right. But the point I was making. "But whenever in accordance with the

or clear or groom or to cause to construct or clear or groom in any

location outside the leasehold, the lessor will grant to the lessee

seasonably from time to time all necessary permission and authority

within its power to enable the lessee lawfully to perform all such

obligations," and this was the clause enabling us, outside of the

municipal boundary, to carry out his particular responsibilities which

were not the responsibility of the municipality. "That the lessee shall

not commence construction on the ground until such times as detailed

engineering plans of the development proposed by the lessee have been

submitted to and approved by the Department of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources, and the department has been supplied with an

irrevocable clean letter of credit,"…and so on, "the performance and

fulfilment bond and a guarantee of security authorized to carry on

business in the Province of British Columbia." And this could only

come, Mr. Speaker, after the approval under the community plan by the

municipality of West Vancouver. Now I am filing, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the development plan, the leases.

What is the situation at the moment? At the moment action on the

Ridge is stopped. It was stopped specifically at the request of the

Municipality of West Vancouver. We argued whether we would remove some

felled and bucked or not at the time before the stopping. The felled

and bucked was removed, and at the request of West Vancouver today

action on the hill is stopped. Insofar as Benguet is concerned, Alpine

have received their letter, their letter states in unequivocal terms

that Benguet has been determined not to be a satisfactory partner in

the development of Cypress Bowl. That's the situation as it is. There

has been no change in the letter. There has been no interchange even of

correspondence since that letter was issued.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got the Attorney-General's report?

MR. WILLISTON: …and we have not, we have not got the

Attorney-General's report, but it is a matter of policy in background

at this stage taken by Government, that letter was

[ Page 271 ]

issued, and that letter still stands. In all fairness Mr. Speaker, I

would think five to six months under difficult situations today, from

the time that letter was issued, would be sufficient time for anyone to

rearrange a capital financial situation to carry on till fulfilment of

that project, if it is to proceed within that general framework.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're willing to live with Alpine.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, I've got to move. I have one very

important announcement this afternoon which will affect many of you,

two or three of you, and I wish to deal with two other matters before

getting to it.

First of all, the Skagit River controversy, Mr. Speaker, and this

too is fairly important due to the time that's been spent in this

House. A brief history giving the background of the agreement to flood

the Skagit River Valley seems to be necessary for members of the

Legislature, as well as many other interested citizens in the Province

of British Columbia. In October, 1926, the City of Seattle applied for

permission to raise the level of the Skagit River at the Provincial

boundary for the development of power. This application was made

subsequently formally to the International Joint Commission on May

26th, 1941. At the hearing in September the then Minister of Lands

presented a statement which read in part, "The Government of British

Columbia does not oppose the application of the City of Seattle but

submits that any approval given by the Commission should contain the

following conditions:

1. That the applicant make suitable and adequate provision for the

protection and indemnity of all interests in British Columbia that may

be injured by the construction or operation of the works to be

constructed.

2. That the Commission reserve jurisdiction to make a further order or

orders with respect to the construction or operation of the said works.

The order of approval by the International Joint Commission was

issued on the 27th of January, 1942. It provided: "(a.) adequate

compensation to the Government and any private interests; (b.) flooding

to the level of 1,725 feet; (c.) power to amend the consent to flood if

conditions were violated; (d.) an engineering Board to check on the

operation of the reservoir."

These are the facts now, Mr. Speaker, that have been avoided in the

debate in this Legislature in the presentation of British Columbia. The

Skagit Valley Land Act passed by this Legislature in 1947 ratified the

order of the International Joint Commission. This Legislature has

passed

an Act, provision was made for a lump sum payment as

compensation. The Journals of the House record, despite who you

represent, that no debate took place, nor was there a division during

the consideration of this Act. Negotiations took place with the City of

Seattle over a prolonged period of time by the former administration.

The British Columbia Government indicated… — now listen to this,

Mr. Speaker, because a great number of members have had a great deal to

say, and I was warned from south of the line that the American

conservationists were going to try and stop the Skagit River

development in British Columbia, because they didn't think they could

do it at home. I thought this was a matter which made no sense, until I

listened to some of the debate that's taken place in this House.

Negotiations took place with the City of Seattle over a prolonged

period of time. The British Columbia Government indicated that a sum of

$255,508 would be acceptable and this was agreed to by Seattle on May

27, 1952. It is interesting to observe the break-down of this figure

and note what it included.

AN HON. MEMBER: What date was that?

MR. WILLISTON: May 27, 1952. Lands and Forests — $66,183;

Water Rentals — $50,000; Mining Roads — $75,000; Wildlife — $54,325;

Trails — $10,000, making a total of $255,508. It's no wonder, Mr.

Speaker, that the Liberal group always think that we get taken in

discussions with the Americans, for the simple reason that if you look

at the discussions you will find that the original presentation by

British Columbia was better than $400,000, and that the American

presentation was about $250,000, and it ended at $255,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the Liberal Government.

MR. WILLISTON: This sum as compensation, Mr. Speaker, this

sum "as compensation for any damage that may be caused to the Province

or to any private interests — in lieu of rentals or other current

charges or assessments of any kind — save the taxes on the land to be

flooded," was numbered two on page 3 of the agreement that was proposed

for final signing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You need help.

MR. WILLISTON: On August 28, 1952, the file indicates that

all were satisfied with the agreement and that the necessary

Order-in-Council would be prepared. The clearing instructions were set

forth on September 8, 1952, and only an argument ensued as to whether

stump heights should be two feet or 30 inches.

Shortly after this time a new Government became aware of the

proposed agreement. Another problem had also developed which concerned

the construction of the Libby project. In trying to determine a proper

method for paying compensation for flooding, the "sharing" concept

evolved, wherein the approach was drastically different from any that

had been proposed up to that time, and was opposed strongly by the

American side. Some pressure was brought to bear to ratify the

agreement on the Skagit which had already been reached. The Libby

project soon became a part of a much larger Columbia River joint

development, and no action for compensation was taken pending the

outcome of discussions which led to the Treaty. The principle of

sharing which was adopted then, became the basis for the continuation

of talks on compensation to be paid for the allowance to flood the

Skagit which had been authorized by the legislation in 1947.

Discussions leading to a new agreement, on completely different

principles, were difficult, and took several years to finalize.

During this period of negotiation the City of Seattle made a token

payment of $5,000 each year without prejudice to ensure their

willingness to meet the conditions of the International Joint

Commission Order. On January 10, 1967, agreement was reached between

the City of Seattle and the Province of British Columbia on the

compensation to be paid for flooding, together with other details

concerning the preparation of the site. Fair-minded people, Mr.

Speaker, think that a very commendable arrangement was reached, when

considered against an unsigned agreement which had been approved by all

persons responsible.

The details of the accord can be briefly stated, and I only

[ Page 272 ]

do so because it hasn't been done before:

Allowance to flood to the elevation of 1,725 feet. This height was

established by U.J.C. order in 1942 and legislation in 1947.

An annual payment of $34,566.21 U.S. funds. This differed from the

flat payment previously agreed. In addition — and, Mr. Speaker, it

would only take a very modest amount of research to find — in addition,

the Province has the right, with a year's notice, to take the value of

payment in power at a price of 3.75 mills per kilowatt delivered at a

load factor of not less than 65 per cent at no cost to the Province,

and at some agreed point on the International Boundary…in 99

years, and it will reflect the increased devaluation of the power

during that time.

The City of Seattle to delineate on the ground all boundaries

necessary to contain the reservoir. This point was not covered in the

original agreement.

The City to pay all taxes levied on the lands covered by the

agreement, with the exception of Forest Protection Tax. This point was

covered in the previous agreement.

The Province to retain ownership of all timber on the lands to be

flooded, and this could be sold at any time. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the

Province to retain ownership of all timber on the lands to be flooded

and this could be sold at any time. When notice to flood is received,

sales will be cancelled and the City of Seattle will pay stumpage and

royalty on all mature timber remaining. In the original agreement, the

lump sum payment placed ownership of all the timber with the City of

Seattle.

The City is to provide a new road above the flood line, the length of the reservoir at no cost to the Province.

Any timber removed on the right-of-way to pay full stumpage and royalty.

If any land requires to be expropriated for right-of-way, action

will be taken by the Province at the total cost to the City. This

provision was not contained in the original lump-sum payment, and it is

estimated that the cost of the roads and the bridges will exceed the

total amount allowed in the original lump-sum payment which had been

negotiated The City agrees to clear all forest growth and debris in the

flood area to the extent directed by the Province. In the original

agreement burning and felling of trees was to the specifications laid

down by the Forest Service.

All labour employed on the project shall be restricted to residents

of the Province. This point was not covered in the original agreement.

The Province agrees not to divert water from the Skagit River for

the development of hydro-electric energy. Any consumptive use however,

domestic, industrial, agricultural, or municipal is allowed. This point

was not covered in the original agreement.

Debris disposal is allowed within British Columbia to the

specification of the Forest Service. Collection and disposal of debris

on a regular basis shall be perpetual. In the original agreement the

City was expected to keep the reservoir reasonably clear of logs and

debris.

The City agrees to indemnify and to save harmless the Province

against any action, claim or damage resulting from activity related to

preparation and/or operation of the reservoir. This point was not

covered in the original agreement.

The Province reserves the right of access for any person to the land

and water covered by the agreement and to such use and occupation of

the area not inconsistent with the purpose of the reservoir. This point

was not covered in the original agreement.

An arbitration arrangement was agreed to covering any matters which

might be in dispute. This point was not covered in the original

agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken time to detail the final agreement reached

in 1967, since many persons are under the impression that such matters

do not receive serious consideration. I am confident that a responsible

agreement was reached, considering the limitations which had been

imposed on our negotiators by statute and order, and I'm pretty proud

of the agreement that was reached, which was actually brought up in

1952, and Mr. Speaker…this member has been in the Legislature

much longer than I, and one of the prime rules which are difficult to

do, is when some responsible legislators of years previous have entered

into firm agreements as men of honour and agreement — those agreements

are reached.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were in the Government, you were in the Government.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the

Province might replace the loss of the electricity to the City of

Seattle in place of allowing the flooding of the reservoir. One must

understand this development allows for peaking power which might be

used for short periods of not more than 25 per cent load factor. Simply

stated, it can be used to cook your dinner, or supper, when there is a

sudden peak surge on the line. It has little industrial use. It does

enable the more efficient use of the other power in their system. We

cannot replace this with thermal because such facilities provide base

load from relatively continuous generation. Our own hydro generating

units could not be efficiently geared to meet Seattle's peaks without

serious interference with our own efficiency. All utilities are looking

for additional peaking capacity which becomes even more valuable with

the increased use of thermal generating equipment.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Province has

secured an equitable settlement in return for making this land

available. You will note that the agreement protects British Columbia

against inflationary trends, by giving us an option of taking

electrical energy instead of money in compensation. This energy has

been computed to amount to 9¼ million kilowatt hours per year.

Furthermore, Ross Lake has already provided the people of the lower

mainland, and we were talking here with first-class access to a

beautiful man-made lake, and this will be greatly enhanced with the

proposed development. My colleague has announced a continuing

recreational plan for this area, and I predict, Mr. Speaker, it will be

one of the most accessible, scenic and delightfully usable spots to be

found anywhere in the lower mainland.

Mr. Whip, I promised to be down by 3:30, but I have two matters that

I will deal with very briefly. One, the University Endowment Lands. The

western tip of Point Grey peninsula is roughly divided into four zones.

The foreshore is leased to the Vancouver Parks Board and borders the

campus of the University of British Columbia, which forms a second

area. The Endowment Lands are roughly divided into two sections. There

is a developed area where lots have been alienated in fee simple and

there are the undeveloped lands from which an endowment is contemplated.

Within the last few months the schools in the area have been

incorporated into the Vancouver school system and negotiations are

proceeding to bring a private real estate

[ Page 273 ]

development now being constructed on the former Jesuit holdings into the city.

Lands which have been alienated have not contributed funds to the

endowment of the University, in fact there is a deficit in the original

account. The area has actually received preferential treatment. There

seems to be no practical way in which the area now developed could ever

be made to endow the University and hence there is no valid reason why

it should remain unorganized territory. At the same time these lands

have enjoyed a tax advantage as compared to adjacent holdings within

the City of Vancouver.

The efficient servicing of the lands as a separate administrative

unit is a constant problem. Policing, fire protection, street

maintenance, zoning, water and sewage services could all be melded with

those of the city. At the present time there is no responsible, elected

group to represent the residents. Problems are discussed with the

ratepayers' organization which has served to good purpose under the

circumstances.

The Provincial Government proposed that negotiations be opened with

the City of Vancouver to incorporate into the city the developed

Endowment Lands now held in fee simple. To this end, the current taxes

will be set at a level roughly to approximate those paid by the city

residents so that no difficulties will arise at the time of asset

transfer. The undeveloped lands shall not be included in the

amalgamation but shall await a decision on their development as to how

best they might serve their purpose to endow the University.

This unusual administrative area was a creature of the British

Columbia Legislature and for this reason the announcement of policy is

made in this Assembly to allow for debate prior to a request that

formal negotiations be instituted. The University now has literally

1,200 acres, plus its own campus of which I was not talking about this

afternoon at all.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, and I won't deal with the one matter

except of water resources, forestry, and other matters except to say

this. There will be placed before the Legislature, in the relatively

near future,

an Act which will incorporate air pollution control within

the Pollution Control Board, and thus bring soil, water and air

pollution into the whole field of jurisdiction. Within the last two

years, since the Pollution Control Act was passed, the flexing out of

that department has been taking place and, Mr. Speaker, for the member

still here, let me say that action has gone. For example, in your

municipalities in British Columbia, on their pollution control in the

last ten years, they have been expanding their services on the average

of 25 per cent. In the last ten years they've added $160,000,000 in

this field as against the total expenditure of $200,000,000, and when

people spew and say that's nothing, it's almost exactly equal to what

has been spent in the whole of the Province of Ontario with their

population.

Mr. Speaker, when people say nothing is going on, some of you may

take "Fortune" magazine, you may have the current edition which talks

about the environment, a national mission for the 70's. If you look

inside this recent edition that came a couple of days ago, you'll look

inside and you'll see that industry starts the big clean-up and down on

that page you'll see a sewage lagoon carried out, not a sewage lagoon,

a lagoon associated with a pulp mill, with Crown Zellerbach, and the

Federal Government in Oregon, where they're carrying on studies about

the biological treatment of the effluent of that area, and they're

spending jointly $800,000 to do this job.

Mr. Speaker, when people belittle actions of the Pollution Control

Board and everything else, every single new pulp mill in British

Columbia has a much more sophisticated system, has a much more

sophisticated system than this already installed in the system. It

doesn't cost anything like $800,000 — they cost between two and three

million dollars to meet the requirements in the Province of British

Columbia. People who take the stand that unless you prosecute somebody,

something's not happening.

On the Island all of the mills, as my colleague indicated to you,

will be under control and our date is 1971. The pilot project on this,

if you go to take a look at it, is right now in the City of Alberni

where MacMillan-Bloedel are just completing their plant. On the basis

of the experiences gained with this plant, which is costing between

three and four million dollars, any final adjustment to the

requirements of the other mills will actually be made and be made at

that time.

Mr. Speaker, we're making progress, real progress, and as a matter

of fact, if the Liberal pipeline isn't too good to Ottawa, I was on the

pipeline to Ottawa this morning twice, with Mr. Green this morning, and

on two matters which are of general interest to the people in this

House. The two matters were our concern. In the Provincial Government

we're willing to co-operate, and there is quite a bit in my speech about

the Canada Water Act, and pollution control, and things of this nature.

We feel essentially that the Federal Government should do those things

for which it has entire responsibility, for example, the sea coast

where we've got troubles out in Nova Scotia at the moment, and harbour

areas, in airports with the jets, in making trans-Canada regulations in

areas where manufactured products have to move across boundary lines,

they do it.

Speaking about that today before this address, speaking to the

Honourable Joe Green, he indicates that they have trouble, they have

trouble by making a unilateral decision in Ottawa, for example, about

phosphates, because, as I indicated to him, it's absolutely crazy if

each province gets out here and comes out with a separate set of

instructions for phosphates, and he agrees. So he is contacting at the

moment across Canada, and will be responsible for drawing a pilot Act

designed towards the control of phosphates which can be passed in each

Legislature in Canada, so that we have a uniform set of instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's real progress, and besides that he

promised me, if possible — I gave him for your members here — I said,

please have it back here by the 15th of March at the very latest and

I'm sure, I'm sure this Legislature would give me permission to move it

first, second and third times all in a day, if that happened to be

necessary.

Mr. Speaker, on the second matter, and I will sit down just ten

minutes late, a second matter of discussion today which I feel is

going to get us all into trouble is if every province in Canada comes

out with a different muffler control device that goes on to

automobiles, we'll be in the greatest amount of confusion across Canada

that you will ever see, and particularly in British Columbia where cars

coming in on export from Germany, Japan and elsewhere are unloaded.

We'll have to unload them in categories out here at the base, whether

they're going to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, wherever they happen

to go. And I pleaded with him again, like with phosphates, to come out

again with a co-ordinated set of conditions which have to apply to

exhaust treatment or effluent treatment of automobiles, and if so put

those into

an Act. If he can't do it universally, put it

[ Page 274 ]

into

an Act and we'll do it across Canada on a uniform basis and action, I think, will go on that basis as well.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for occupying the House for this long

this afternoon. I apologize to the other members of this House who

await me. Thank you very much.

By leave of the House, the Hon. R.G. Williston tabled the following:

Copy of Order in Council 2376, approving "Mountain Public Recreation

and Natural Wilderness Area and Cypress Bowl Recreation Area Official

Community Plan By-law No. 2044, 1965," leases of land made between the

Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, for the Province of

British Columbia, and Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Limited, and

copies of correspondence between The Corporation of the District of

West Vancouver, Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Limited, and the

Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, with all the hollering that's been going on this afternoon, I didn't think there was any need for microphones.

I'd like to commend the Minister that has just sat down on his

proposed amendments to the pollution control legislation, but in

commending him I would like to also remind him that Tony Gargrave, when

he was the member for Mackenzie, made similar proposals in 1965 and

you, as the Minister in Government, voted against them, and so don't

take all credit. We have, in the five years following, continued to

propose this. We recognize that this is the job of an effective

Opposition. We'll continue to try to be effective.

Now, I'd like to first just make reference, Mr. Speaker, to the B.C.

Hydro subsidy that's in the Budget again this year, an equal amount as

last year, $2,000,000. This has been a great help in rural British

Columbia, it's been a great help in the riding of Yale-Lillooet which I

have the privilege to represent. There are now areas along the Nicola

Valley, in the Spences Bridge–Lytton-Lillooet area, that a few

years ago were barren desert. Today, first-class soft fruits, peaches,

apricots, watermelons, grapes of first-class quality, are grown in the

Spences Bridge area. I believe we have or will have the earliest

ripening peaches this summer. Anyone passing through Spences Bridge by

July the 15th will be able to sample some of the best peaches that I've

tasted anywhere, and it's in part due to the hydro subsidy that has

made it possible to get rural electrification and water on to some of

these slopes above the Nicola and the Thompson and Fraser Rivers.

This has also been a great help to the ranchers. In many places

where there was no grass they're growing three crops. In some places

there was one crop and they're growing three crops. This is putting

modern technology to help the farmer and to help us raise our standard

of living in British Columbia. So I commend the Government for at least

maintaining the $2,000,000 subsidy, the same subsidy as we had last

year.

While I'm feeling in a good mood I would also like to commend the

second member for Vancouver Centre. When the member spoke during the

Throne Speech he mentioned that when he came into this House he didn't

have too much respect for the civil servants or the public servants

that work for this Government, and I know many, many people,

particularly men that have been in business all their life, have this

feeling, and I say this in no manner of disparagement, but this is part

of the attitude that is developed in modern society. In our acquisitive

society we're to take our hats off to the man that can make a fast

buck, and I'm not sure that this is at all right. I believe if we are

going to move to an ever higher standard of living, both physically and

spiritually, we have to have more and more people that are dedicated to

serve, whether they are serving as politicians in public life or as

public servants. And I commend the second member in that he did

recognize that, through his association in this House and the civil

service, he has changed his mind.

Now I believe that this does relate too with the subject that I'm

going to deal with mainly this afternoon. I'm going to deal mainly with

the monies that we are spending in the Budget for health care, Medicare

and hospital services. If you will study or notice you will see that in

our Budget alone we are increasing the allocation from 40 to 50 million

dollars, or 25 per cent, and this is a major increase. The over-all

increase is even greater than that, when we consider the Federal Budget.

Now I'd like to just say a word or two on the history of National

Health in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The early socialists when they drew up

the Regina Manifesto in 1933, had clause no. 8 — publicly to organize

health, hospital and medical services. With the advance of medical

science the maintenance of health population has become a function for

which every civilized community should undertake responsibility. Health

services should be made at least as freely available as educational

services. The properly organized system of public health services,

including medical and dental care which would stress prevention rather

than cure, should be extended to all of our people, both rural and

urban. This is an enterprise in which Dominion, Provincial and

Municipal authorities, as well as the medical and dental professions,

can well co-operate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-seven years later.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 37 years ago. And what has

happened? Approximately 30 years ago the Medical Association in this

Province, in an attempt to arrest preventative medicine and national

health, organized the M.S.A., and what is the M.S.A.? The M.S.A., the

Medical Services Association, is set up primarily to pay doctors’ bills.

When the Regina Manifesto was drawn up during the depression doctors

were having a very bad time making a living. They were happy to get a

municipal grant of two or three thousand dollars a year to be a

municipal doctor in any part of Canada, but even though it was

difficult for them to collect their bills they still did not accept the

full medical picture from a preventative point of view, and National

Health, from a socialist conception, means preventative health care,

not just collecting money to pay doctor bills. Now in 1940 or in the

early 40's the doctors organized M.S.A. simply to get people, while

they were working, to pay into a fund so their bills could be paid

should they be sick or unemployed. This was a first step, and I think

it is commendable to that point, but when we look back we see that

today we have National Health Insurance that is doing nothing more than

merely collecting money from people and governments to pay doctors'

bills. We have absolutely no control over the quality or the type of

medical care that we receive, nor do we have any control over costs,

and it is for this reason that I'm going to devote my time in the

Budget address to dealing with some of the ways that we may be able to

try and

[ Page 275 ]

control the costs and the quality of medical care that we're receiving in this Province and in this nation.

Yesterday in the Vancouver Province, or rather in the

Victoria Times, I clipped an

article concerning the high cost of

Medicare in the United States, and it points out that while the

American Medical Association was the fiercest foe of Medicare when the

late President Kennedy was bringing in Medicare for the senior

citizens, that six clinics are taking over $1,000,000 per clinic from

the very limited Medicare plan in the United States, and the one clinic

that is taking $1,700,000 is operated as a partner or has as a partner a Dr.

Richard Wilbur, the second-highest staff member of the American Medical

Association. So while they fought right to the bitter end

AN HON. MEMBER: Right to the bank doors.

MR. HARTLEY: and, as my friend says, to the bitter end so

long as to end up at the bank door, they were prepared to go along from

there. There was another clipping, "U.S. Medicare Faces Crisis." This

is in The Province. The Province of yesterday, February 9th.

"Washington. Warning that rising Medicare cost, over-charges and sloppy

administration are aiming the government's health insurance programme

towards bankruptcy, a Senate report Sunday called for fixed fees for

participating doctors and other far-ranging, cost-cutting reforms. The

report likely to land with explosive impact upon the medical

profession, which opposes government fixed fees, said many doctors have

inflated their incomes through Medicare." And that brings me to a

statement that our Minister of Health made. In September, Dr. Loffmark

made a statement that quite a few doctors had been making more than

their fair payment under the Medical Services Act. This set off a chain

of events. When the B.C. Medical Association met up at Harrison, they

saw fit to pass a resolution that doctors' incomes would not be made

public under the Public Bodies Disclosure Act. This, in turn….

MR. WALLACE: That wasn't the resolution that was passed at all….

MR. HARTLEY: What sort of rubbish is that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: (Comment not decipherable)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. If the member has a point of order he will rise in his place and so state. What is your point of order?

MR. WALLACE: The resolution was very different from what the member says….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member

for Oak Bay for rising, at least he is listening and we are getting

through to him. I hope he will stay in the House until I'm finished. I

have the quotations here and if he would like to see them he's welcome

to when I'm finished.

Now, following the resolution passed by the doctors at Harrison, the

Cabinet passed an Order-in-Council whereby these funds would be

disclosed, they would be disclosed, there has been some discussion,

some controversy by the Minister in charge of Medicare, the Honourable

Wesley Black, that this may or may not be done. Surely when public

monies are being used, the public should be entitled to know what is

being done with their money. There's another quote that took place up

at Harrison or was made up at Harrison rather, by Dr. F.S. Hobbs.

"Earlier in the Session members heard a warning from the chairman of

the pattern of practice committee that the B.C.M.A. had better

establish some disciplinary machinery to control doctors who charge too

much, or else see the Government take over the job of disciplining."

Now, despite what my friend says, there must have been some discussion

and there must have been some problem, and I can tell him, I can tell

him this, that three years ago the B.C.M.A. came to the various health

services organizations in this Province and asked to have a

disciplinary clause put in their by-laws, because at that time, three

years ago, some doctors were reported to be earning over $100,000. I

have no objection to anyone making whatever money they like, but I

believe that when monies like this are being paid out of the public

purse, we all have a right to know of the accounting. I have heard from

other sources that in three years that figure has risen to closer to

$200,000 a year.

Now, as indicated by Dr. Hobbs, the B.C. Medical Association has

failed to act in this regard up until now. Not just since Medicare, but

they have failed to help in assisting the various medical services

plans discipline doctors that overbilled.

A few years ago one of the medical services plans had a plan whereby

the patients paid the first call. This was a lower cost plan, and by

patients paying the first call it cost less to operate the plan, and

this plan operated quite successfully. One day a patient, or rather a

beneficiary of the plan, phoned in and asked the health services group

why they were being billed for eight first calls. The girl on the

telephone said, "Well you phone and ask your doctor. He's billed us for

several calls, and unless you pay the first call we can't pay him." So

she phoned the doctor and the doctor said, "Look, you pay those eight

first calls and I'll send you a cheque to cover them." So, we received

a cheque, Photostated it, we Photostated the lady's cheque, the

committee met, and I happened to be on the committee at that time, and

for my

part I said, "Well, put the man before the fraud squad and have

them look into it." The committee decided to refer it to the B.C.M.A.,

and we haven't heard a thing since. This is why I say this and other

examples, that B.C.M.A. have failed in the past, and they are failing

today to discipline this misuse of public funds.

Now, why is the cost of Medicare skyrocketing in British Columbia,

in Canada, and throughout United States, and I believe it is. There was

a question placed on the Order Paper in the House of Commons on January

26th by Stanley Knowles, and according to this question, British

Columbia received 21.7 million dollars for the first nine months of our

operation. The next full year, 69/70, the current year, we are to

receive $36,000,000, which is an increase of 25 per cent over the first

year and next year they plan on paying us close to $50,000,000, 48.7

million dollars, which is an increase of 33 per cent over this year's

monies that we will receive. Now, why is this? Because of Medicare have

we more sickness, are people getting sick now because medical services

are more available?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are getting better service.

[ Page 276 ]

MR. HARTLEY: Or, are we getting greater service, and I'll come to that very point, sir, I'll come to that very point.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget that point.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, you remind me if I do. Very good answer. I

have a good medical authority to quote on that. Or is it, that more use

is being paid of the bill collecting agencies that we are providing?

Because I'll remind you again, that's all we are doing. We're not

developing preventative medicine. All we have done is extended the bill

collection agencies, in some cases put them under one heading, as in

Saskatchewan. In British Columbia, I believe, there are still nine.

Now, I have six points, Mr. Speaker, that I'll propose, that I feel

are positive, constructive points that will greatly reduce the cost of

both medical and hospital coverage in this Province, points that have

been proven both in other parts of Canada and in the United States. The

first one is that in British Columbia we should have one carrier. I

believe there are nine now at the last check I was able to make. By

having one carrier we only need one manager, one head office, one set

of computers. It would be more, much more efficient. In the Hall

Commission, and this was available, we discussed it in the House here

long before we passed our Medicare Act, Mr. Justice Hall pointed out

that a duplication or multiplication of carriers in Canada would cost

the taxpayer an extra $200,000,000. So by this first point, one

carrier, if this is applied across Canada, we could save more than the

Federal share for the three western provinces. So I think this is a

worthwhile suggestion.

Number two, I think we should do something about these monthly

statements that some 600,000 householders throughout British Columbia

receive. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance isn't here because I

would like to ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, just what is the

purpose of these statements that are mailed out to every home once a

month.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the statements?

MR. HARTLEY: What are they? They list the doctor that has serviced you, the date and the amount that has been paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: They thought you wanted to know that.

MR. HARTLEY: No, if it is serving a purpose, Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we would like to know, but what is

the purpose that is being served?

MR. WALLACE: (Comment not decipherable)

MR. HARTLEY: Very good, Mr. Speaker, very good. I'm glad my

friend has raised this point. If this is what it's supposed to be, then

it should state right here, so that you can check if the computer has

given you a correct record of the doctor visits and hospital calls that

you have made. This should state right here, if that's what you want it

for, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this possibly wasn't a big daddy

political gimmick so people would look and say, "Well big daddy paid

$68 for me, isn't that nice." Well, I think this can serve a purpose,

but if it is going to serve a purpose it should be stated here that

this account is sent to you to help you keep down the cost of Medicare

by making certain that the computer has not made a mistake. Mark all

your doctor's visits on the calendar, check your accounts each month,

if there are mistakes let us know. Incidentally these statements were

mailed to me by a senior citizen who'd had a visit with a doctor on the

4th of July, and the 4th of July account showed this, but here away

along in December they received another bill for an office procedure.

Now, the patient had been in the hospital, why there should be an

office procedure, I don't know, I'm looking into this. With close to

100 different services it is hard to know. But I agree with the member,

that these should be checked.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about that B.C.M.A. report?

MR. HARTLEY: Now, I would like to suggest a third point, Mr.

Speaker, and that is that whether we have one medical carrier or

several, that the billing patterns committee should be restored. When

we started to pay the doctors out of the public purse, one of the

things that they insisted was, the removal of the billing patterns

committee in the private plans that would regularly cut back 35 per

cent and more, sometimes, of doctors that were excessively billing the

plan. Now the private plans had this type of committee, but the British

Columbia Medical Plan and the plans operating under the Medical Care

Commission have done away with this, since we've started to pay out of

the public purse. Now, why was this done away with? When I first saw

these reports coming in at board meetings I wondered what it was. I'd

see a 30 to 40 per cent discount, so I said well how do you handle it.

You discount this account. Is there a method of appeal for the doctors

that you are questioning? And they say they never question.

Point number four, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should have a

quality of medical care committee set up. The commission could hire a

staff of public health officials and knowledgeable lay people to

safeguard the quality of medical care. I think this is fundamental and

is something that is working out very well in the co-op clinics,

particularly in the United States. In California there was a Council of

Health Plan alternatives that was set up to study the quality of

medical care, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

read a portion of the report. The grading system is under the direction

of Dr. Lester Breslow of the University of California, the former

director of Public Health in California and immediate past president of

the American Public Health Association. Dr. Moore said, "You might be

interested to know that the preliminary experience with the grading

system has revealed two striking facts. One, health insurance plans do

not necessarily improve as the price increases. There is little

correlation between costs and quality in the insurance plans we

graded." So, Mr. Maverick from Oak Bay, this is an authority that

studied all the direct service plans in California.

MR. WALLACE: That's the United States. This is Canada.

MR. HARTLEY: We have examples in Canada, too.

MR. WALLACE: Well, let's have a Canadian example.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. HARTLEY: "Fundamental to this evaluation procedure is a

fiscal and medical audit. We are working actively with a number of

hospitals, medical and dental groups in California to develop prepaid

comprehensive group health

[ Page 277 ]

service programmes, using group health practices of professionals.

Moore has said that the main task of the consumer is to get some

measure of control over some substantial share of the capital that

flows into the health care industry. He explained that he meant not

only the public and private funds that support this facility

construction, but the funds that go toward purchasing personal

services. 'Unlike other suppliers of services or products, the health

providers are assured of a virtually open-ended supply of money, paid

with no questions asked and no holds barred,' he said. 'There are no

public utility agencies examining books or reviewing price structures,

and there is very little public accountability for how money is spent,'

he added."

This goes back, Mr. Speaker, to the point I raised earlier, that the

Cabinet have passed an Order-in-Council to bring this under the Public

Disclosure Act. The various Hydro companies, the public utilities, all

have to come under the public utilities, and surely there is no greater

asset for any individual or any nation than health. There should be no

greater public utility, and I think that we should act or see that that

Order-in-Council is carried out, not just to embarrass anyone, but so

that we can have a proper quality care control to study and decide if

the quality of medical care that the people are receiving in this

Province could be improved.

Dr. Moore continued. He drew an analogy with public education to

illustrate the fragmentation of health services. He said, "Instead of

going to a school and taking

part in an organized programme of

instruction, how would it be if we would have to shop all over town for

a history teacher here, a math teacher there, and we could only get

admitted to the gym through arrangements with our private basketball

coach. To each of these instructors we would pay a fee, depending upon

what the market would bear, out of which he would pay his own rent,

hire his own staff, and develop his own income." Well, this is what, 100

years ago, progressive people had to argue for education. Now we are

arguing it for health.

Despite overwhelming evidence that health professionals function

better for themselves and their patients when they practise in teams or

organized groups, they cling to the disarray of solo practice. I would

like to quote Howard W. Ennes, Jr., Corporate Vice-President of

Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. "There is

considerable opinion today that prepaid group practice contains the

possibility of bringing about improvements in the health care field,

that it can result in a more efficient use of available manpower, that

it can improve the access to care, and that it can thus minimize the

inevitable increases in the over-all costs of the health care." This is

from an executive of a private life insurance company. No doubt they

have found that, through economic research, the co-op clinic, the

community clinic, not only is less costly but it does provide a higher

quality of care. There is a quote here from the New England Journal of

Medicine, September 9, 1965, with regard to the outmoded

fee-for-service system of operation. The New England Journal says this,

"The

insistence that the fee-for-service system has produced and continues

to produce the best possible medical care for the individual patient in

every walk of life and economic situation is, one must admit, anything

but necessarily flattering. It carries with it implications that the

physicians might falter in their dedicated care under any other method

of payment."

MR. WALLACE: Rubbish. Rubbish.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I think I will just

digress for a moment. This member has a favourite phrase "Rubbish!" But

what did he have to contribute — what did the leader of the Social

Credit party in this Province — their authority on health service? He

proposed that we have a three dollar a day tax on the sick people. To

me, Mr. Speaker, that's a very sick idea from a sick Government when it

comes to building health services.

MR. WALLACE: I'll get to that tomorrow. Don't you worry.

MR. HARTLEY: You know, Mr. Speaker, this is pretty good. For

50 years progressives in Canada have been fighting to build ways

whereby average people can get away from the threat of doctor bills.

They have organized M.S.A. plans, C.U. and C. plans, various medical

plans to pay doctor bills. Now we've got them under various taxing

authorities so that the fear of doctor bills is virtually removed from

people. So my ultra-conservative friend from the medical profession

suggests that we should bring new bills, three dollars a day, which is

$900 a year for a sick person, an old-age pensioner living in bed.

Never satisfied to put millstones of debt around the working people of

this Province. And, Mr. Speaker,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The

proper way to refer to a member is to refer to him as the

representative of his constituency. No one sits in this House in any

other way.

MR. HARTLEY: And the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the member for

Oak Bay feels that the way we are going to cut down hospital costs is

to have a deterrent fee, indicates the complete lack of health care

policy of the Social Credit party.

Now, what is the basic premise in health care? The healthy shall pay

for the sick. The strong shall help carry the weak. But no, he doesn't

accept that, or he doesn't understand it. He said we will put dollar

deterrents in their way, and as a doctor he should know that there is

only one deterrent in a man going to a hospital. He is admitted by a

doctor and he is discharged by a doctor, and if there are more people

in the hospitals than should be there it is the responsibility of the

medical association, and not the sick people that are in the hospitals.

And when we see the men that are paid for supposedly practising health

come up with ideas that are so far out, I think it is just another

argument that we need a committee on quality of practice to see that we

are still getting ever-improved medical care.

Point number five, is eliminate premiums. It is very costly to be

mailing out 6,000 of these statements, or rather 600,000 of these

statements each month, 12 months of the year. It is very expensive to

be sending out runners for premiums and second and third notices,

mailing out receipts. Place the premium on a direct levy as the Premier

did and the Social Credit did under the B.C.H.I.S. I noticed yesterday

and I was pleased to see the Premier smiling yesterday and reminding

the House that they abolished the premiums under B.C.H.I.S. It was an

unfair and a very inefficient system. I would suggest that we take

similar action but on the basis of ability to pay. An income tax, a

corporation tax, to handle Medicare in British Columbia. In this way we

would be doing pioneering that I hope that other parts of Canada would

soon follow.

Now my sixth point is the direct service clinics, co-op clinics. This would be really, of the six points I mentioned,

[ Page 278 ]

this is really the only point that moves us away from the

old-fashioned sickness insurance that we used to refer to as health

insurance, but it really is sickness insurance, Mr. Speaker, because we

only pay our doctors when we are sick, and we would move into health

services or preventative medicine. First, I think we should look at the

question of dollars; the costs of hospital services are skyrocketing,

the costs of medical services are skyrocketing, and I would like to ask

four questions, so that as I develop the idea of co-op clinics, you can

have these questions in mind and see if we answer them. One, why do

hospitals grind to a halt on weekends? Two, why are so few tests taken

from patients before they enter hospitals? Three, are there unnecessary

services being provided? Four, are we making an efficient use of the

medical services, that is the doctors and other facilities that are

available? I would ask you to keep those in mind, and for the answer I

would ask you to look at three co-operative clinics.

The first one is a co-op clinic in Sault Ste. Marie. It was

organized in 1963 by the steelworkers, and was organized to provide a

combined and a complete health service: medical services, surgical

services, psychiatric services. therapy services, and so on, and so it

has been operating now for five or six years. And they have found this,

that while the province-wide patient day per 1,000 for the population

of Ontario is 1,800, the patient days hospitalized by co-op clinic are

680, a little better than a third.

Now, we have a couple of these co-op clinics that were organized in

Saskatchewan to try and provide services to the people when the doctors

were on strike in 1961. And the Saskatoon clinic has a hospital patient

day average of 650 hospital patient days per 1,000, as compared with

the province-wide patient day average of 1,650 hospital patient days.

And for the third example, I am going to just look south of the border.

This is the oldest direct service plan that I am quoting, and it is the

Group Health Co-op of Puget Sound, Seattle. They have been operating

for approximately 23 years and their patient day average is 474 per

1,000. Now that compares in British Columbia and our patient day

average in British Columbia is approximately 1,700 patient days per

1,000 people, or well over three times that of the Puget Sound clinic.

Now, last year, according to Public Accounts, in British Columbia we

spent for B.C.H.I.S. $138,862,146. Now applying both costs against 474

patient day ratio, as compared to B.C.'s 1,700 patient ratio, it would

reduce that figure of $138,000,000 to $43,000,000. Now, that is an

absolutely fantastic saving, and yet this plan has been in operation

longer than B.C.H.I.S., this Puget Sound plan has been in operation in

Seattle longer than B.C.H.I.S. has been in operation in British

Columbia. This provides a complete service, because in the United

States they are not as fortunate as we in Canada are, in that they do

not have the hospitalization plan on a national basis. They do not have

a health service plan on a national basis, so that the poor people in

Seattle, prior to 1947, were able to get a group of doctors that would

work on a salary, they were able to buy a clinic from a doctor that was

retiring, and they set up the first little preventative health plan on

the Pacific Northwest. Some of them in the East had started many years

earlier, and today the Puget Sound Group Health Plan, Group Health

co-operatives, not only provide medical and surgical services, they

provide optical services and they provide drugs to their patients.

They have reduced drug costs from 30 to 50 per cent, so much so that

the Washington State Department of Welfare last year had the Puget

Sound Co-op contract to supply all of their drugs for the welfare

recipients in the State of Washington. Now if they can do this with one

little example of co-operative enterprise in Seattle, I believe we can

learn a little lesson from them, and that lesson simply, Mr. Speaker,

could be this. Under our B.C. Purchasing Commission we buy drugs for

our various hospitals, mental institutions, and so on, buy them in

large quantities. I would suggest that this purchasing agency be

expanded and explored so that wherever possible the drug committee of

the purchasing agency would buy through a generic formulary, and make

available these drugs to all the hospitals in the Province and to any

private drug company. Take a look at the small druggists that have

great difficulty in providing other than brand named expensive drugs. I

believe if we took this one step it would do a great deal to lower drug

costs for the people of this Province.

Now, I mentioned that in Saskatoon the co-op clinic only needs 650

patient beds per 1,000 as compared with the provincial average of

1,650. They need 1,000 less patient hospital days per 1,000 of the

population. Now what does this mean in dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker?

It means simply this, that if you applied that to each doctor, one

doctor would mean a saving of $35,000 per year. Now for 10,000 doctors

in Canada, that is $350,000,000 a year this type of plan, applied

throughout Canada, could save for the public purse of Canada. A third

of a million dollars, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Minister of Health, is far

more than enough to pay for the total cost of all prescription drugs

for every man, woman, and child in Canada. Excuse me — $350,000,000, a

third of a billion. And at this point, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my

learned friend from Oak Bay has left, but I would like to challenge the

health research personnel of both the Provincial and Federal

Governments, and the researchers of organized medicine in this Province

and this nation, to prove these figures wrong.

Now the reasons for the high cost of medical services. The first one

is the old-fashioned fee-for-service method that the American Medical

Association demands that the Canadian doctors continue with. Now,

piecework was discarded by the working men and women of this Province

and nation many years ago, and yet the doctors still cling to this

old-fashioned method of piecework. The more patients they push through

each hour the more they earn. The more organs they remove the higher

their income. The more sickness, the more income. Assembly line

procedures. Just think, Mr. Speaker, how can we hope to get

preventative health care when, if someone by magic alchemy could

develop good health for all of the people of Canada under our outmoded

fee-for-service system, the doctors would starve. They would be without

income.

I would like to quote Dr. Sam Wolf in a study he has made on costs

and types of operations that have been done in the Province of

Saskatchewan. He says that we know that the fee-for-service system

encourages doctors to undertake work that they are not best equipped

for, and he gives the example that in Saskatchewan during 1967 the

family doctor, not the surgeon, not the specialist, but the family

doctor removed 73 per cent of all appendix, 34 per cent of all bowel

obstructions, 55 per cent of all hernia repairs, 48 per cent of all

breast tumor removals, 51 per cent of all varicose veins operations, 29

per cent of all womb removals, 45 per cent of all bunion removals. How

many doctors would let anyone but a fully-trained, experienced,

surgical specialist remove a womb or a bunion from a member of his

family? The same

[ Page 279 ]

doctor says that in the large cities doctors often choose, not the

fee-for-service doctors, but highly specialized salaried physicians in

the University Hospitals. Doctors don't prefer the occasional operator,

they want doctors who have detailed and frequent contact with the most

serious complications, they want doctors that are fully in touch and

knowledgeable of the most serious complications that may arise.

The fee-for-service may be forcing conscientious men out of the

family field of medical services into a concentration of technical

procedures. The fee-for-service is the greatest factor in skyrocketing

medical costs. Dr. Wolf continues. A study of doctoral service shows

all doctors working on a 45-hour week, and this is their earnings:

doctors working a 45-hour week, the family doctor earned $28,500 a

year, the psychiatrist $29,000 a year, the surgeon $70,000 a year and a

radiologist $90,000 a year. He uses this as evidence to back up his

statements that the fee-for-service is forcing doctors out of the

popular family practice and going in to specialized techniques.

Now with regard to co-op clinics, if they are to accomplish nothing

else, they will lead to sharply reduced hospital costs. They will

reduce surgical rates, and they will free money for services that are

now not available. Ontario has made a study of the Sault Ste. Marie

Medical Clinic that I referred to, and because of the way they are

providing far more service for less money, and they feel quality

service, Ontario is now putting up $17,000,000 to start a programme of

co-op clinics, and the pioneer in Ontario — the Sault — will be put on

a capitation form of payments. Instead of being paid on

fee-for-service, the Ontario Government will pay the Sault Ste. Marie X

number of dollars a year to look after a person, and they will receive

that money whether the person ever comes near the doctors or the

hospital or not. This is the first step in Canada towards real

preventative health care.

Now, the co-op clinic can also provide services that normally we

just don't think of. Nursing home services, a family care service,

psychiatric services and all these services, Mr. Speaker, available on

a first-hand referral basis. What happens if any of our wives, while we

are away from home, if we need a doctor, how do we go about selecting a

doctor? Do we ask a friend? Do we turn to the yellow pages in the phone

book? So if we had a co-op clinic here, you would go, and you would go

before their diagnosticians, ask some questions and he would refer you

to the family doctor, and that family doctor would be your doctor so

long as you were here, so long as he was with the clinic. But anytime

that he felt that he needed medical assistance, he would be absolutely

free to refer you to whoever, in his opinion, he felt was the best

qualified person in that field, because he's not in competition with

him. Today, one of the problems that is causing high costs in hospital

insurance is that there is terrific competition for our hospital beds,

this terrific professional jealousy. One doctor likes to brag that he

has more hospital beds in the hospital than another, and to keep those

beds he has to keep them filled, he has to keep patients in there, and

possibly keep patients in there longer than he normally would.

Now, I've given different points of advantage to co-op community

clinic practice for the patients, for the beneficiary. But there are

also, many, many good points for the doctors and all those associated

with the clinic. The nurses, the para-medical assistants, there are

many advantages that the average doctor just doesn't know about. From

the life insurance actuarial point of view, the medical profession have

the shortest life expectancy of any professional group in America. We

are trying to help you. What will we do to lengthen the longevity of

the medical practitioners? We will give them regular hours in a co-op

clinic. That co-op clinic can be open 24 hours a day, so if you wake up

in the middle of the night and the baby is sick, or the husband if his

wife is sick you can phone, and there will always be someone there.

HON. P.J. JORDON (North Okanagan): Who's going to staff this?

MR. HARTLEY: It's staffed 24 hours a day on regular 8-hour shifts.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a possible recruit here.

MR. HARTLEY: We explained that some time ago, but apparently

the honourable member from North Okanagan was not listening, she's just

tuned in, and I hope she will speak on this very subject, from a

professional point of view.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when we are discussing the problem of people being

thrown in gaol because of faulty car insurance policies, he sits there

and obviously yawns, and shows boredom. Now, when we are fighting for a

better health care for the people, this member from Kamloops gets up

and attempts to ridicule us, and we are doing our best, as we have

done, fighting for preventative medicine in Canada for 50 years, and we

are going to go on fighting it, Mr. Member, long after you're not here,

after I'm not here….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please address the Chair.

MR. HARTLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there are

advantages for all those working in these co-op clinics. Regular hours,

regular holidays with pay, regular time worked, with time off for

post-graduate work, and refresher courses, proper and adequate pension

plans, and with these regular hours, the doctors can live as normal

family men, and can expect normal longevity. I will say this, Mr.

Speaker, that within 10 years we will see clinics like this set up in

British Columbia, and throughout Canada, and this will do more than

anything else, more than any deterrent, it will raise the quality of

the health of the Canadian people, and in doing that, it will raise the

health of the doctors and the nurses and all concerned.

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me try and summarize. In hospital

insurance, and national medical care insurance through health centres,

the skyrocketing costs of our hospital plans, the cost of unnecessary

surgery, the cost of doctors competing one with the other, the cost of

the undisciplined fee system, will not continue. In a consumer

sponsored health service modern technology can be combined with

compassion, and a one-door entry to the whole complex of health and

health-related welfare services, can be provided. In such a centre,

preventative medicine can be given at least equal time with traditional

curative medicine. Doctors can and will be attracted to work in such

centres.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. HUNTER B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I know

I'm a bit late in getting around to addressing you and extending

congratulations. I enjoyed the Throne Debate as a spectator,

particularly the contributions of our newly-arrived members, and as