1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 531 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 32) intituled

An Act to Amend the Infants Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

BUDGET DEBATE

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you must be aware that we, on this side

of the House, don't wish to see you go. For that reason, it is with

some concern that I rise on this last day of this debate because we

fear that perhaps that is to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just vote against the motion.

MR. WILLIAMS: That would be an idea. However, before dealing

with the matter of the Budget, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a

few remarks to the House on a subject which has already been under

discussion here. I refer to the motion that was passed in this House

some days ago, wherein this House unanimously expressed its concern

about the potential threat to our environment from the proposed

transport of Alaska oil to a point near the international boundary and

bringing vessels which would carry that crude oil into the closest

proximity to our waters.

I don't wish to dwell on the motion, Mr. Speaker, nor, indeed, on

the matters which, today, and for the past few days, have been the

subject of discussion and debate in other places. As a result of the

concern which the Members of this House felt about this matter, I have

had occasion to concern myself with the safeguards which are now

available to prevent the kind of marine disaster which could have a

great effect on the environment, of which the Members from all sides

have spoken.

empowers it to examine the quality of the vessels which come into our

coastal waters and to determine whether or not those vessels are in a

condition to carry their cargo safely. It is true, as well, that the

owners of those vessels, in the event that there is a marine tragedy,

to meet the tremendous financial burden that such a tragedy may create.

But I am dismayed, Mr. Speaker, to find that we do not have on the west

coast of this country, a system of navigation aids, which will ensure,

to the limits possible under technology, today, that the marine

disaster does not occur, in the first place. I'm even more disturbed,

Mr. Speaker, to find that such a navigation system does exist on the

eastern coast of this country, a system which was installed and is

maintained and operated by the Federal Government. I find that a

similar system operates through all of the European waters, from Spain

to Norway, including the entire British Isles and all the coastal areas

of Europe, and that such a system is also established and functioning

around the Islands of Japan. The system is land-based, but provides

vessels with the means whereby they may pinpoint their position with

almost deadly accuracy, a system whereby vessels, as they approach

coastal waters, may establish their position within accuracies as low

as 70 yds. I say, Mr. Speaker, with the problem which faces us, with

the announcement of the possible transportation of Alaska oils in and

about our waters, that it is unthinkable that we would not have such a

system protecting the coastline of British Columbia.

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government. It is their

jurisdiction but, we, the Pacific maritime Province of British

Columbia, is the one which will reap the damage that any such marine

disaster may create. Not only, Mr. Speaker, if the proposed

transportation goes forward do we face these disasters, but all the

vessels which ply our coastal waters, today, are without the advantage

of such a navigation aid — the fishing vessels, the tugboats, the

coastwise freighters, the large compartmentalized, containerized

vessels, which flow from Roberts Bank, from the Port of Vancouver,

shortly from the Port of Squamish and, one day, we trust, from a port

in the neighbourhood of Prince Rupert or Kitimat. While it is the

jurisdiction of the Federal Government to provide that system, we, as

legislators and the Government of this Province, must ensure that the

Federal Government meets its responsibility in this field. It is no

excuse that there is a constitutional barrier in matters of this kind.

I urge that the Government of this Province place before the Federal

Government, urgently, the concern which faces all the people in this

Province, not only about the threat from the transportation of crude

oil from Alaska, but from the threats which daily face all vessels

which move in and about our waters. There's no question about the

evidence of weather difficulties on these coasts. It may be said that,

because of the sinuosity of our coastline, such systems might not be as

effective as elsewhere. Yet examination discloses that, since 1969, the

system has been functioning with the required degree of accuracy all

along the coasts of Norway, the sinuosity of which compares favourably

with that of this Province. I urge the responsible Ministers of this

Government, those who are charged with concerning themselves with

matters of recreation and pollution, speedily, to demand the Federal

Government that we be equipped with the finest technical aids available

in the world, today, on our coastline so that, no matter what the

circumstance, marine disaster and environmental destruction will not

occur. The systems have other uses, Mr. Speaker, equally important.

They have uses in the fishing industry and, in cases of vessels in

distress, such a system enables the vessel to report its position

accurately and, thereby, speed rescue vessels and rescue operations to

the scene.

Why do we have it on the cast coast and not on the west'? There is

no answer for that. The cost is in the nature of $2 million and this is

a far cheaper price to pay than the inordinately high expense with

which we have been involved in the clean-up of one, single, marine

disaster. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the Budget.

It's a great Budget. (Applause).

Caught you. It stunned me. There was no applause. It didn't really stun

me, Mr. Speaker, because the Members on the Government side, both in

the Cabinet ranks and Party Members as well have been at some

considerable difficulty these past few weeks in putting on the floor of

this House any positive reasons why it is a great Budget. That's

because, Mr. Speaker, while the size may impress some people, I didn't

include enough adjectives.

It's a great, Bennett Budget. It's typical of all of the Bennett

Budgets we've had. It's a balanced Budget. When you examine the details

of that so-called balanced Budget, what do you find? A little bit added

here and a little bit added

[ Page 532 ]

there, but no firm thrust at the problems which face this Province, today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, it's a $1,300,000,000 Budget, an increase of 10 per cent over last year, 10 per cent (interruption) .

11.6, be my guest, 11.6. Yet, within the Government departments,

themselves, they all know that the increasing costs, due to inflation,

eat up 8 per cent of that 11 and the expansion of this Province in

population, alone, more than eats up the other three. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Distinguished Speaker (applause) ,

I say that the Budget which the Minister of Finance presented to this

Chamber two weeks ago is lacking in the kind of dynamic drive which we

one time saw from that Minister. He has ceased to be a Minister of

Finance, charged with the proper administration of the fiscal resources

of this Province, and has become a money manipulator.

I'm sure that all the Members have read the Budget Speech and have

noted in the Budget Speech, for they applauded it on the day it was

given, that 89 per cent of the Budget is devoted to human betterment

and Provincial development. Mr. Speaker, if you examine the Budget,

you'll find that, if you add the cost of Government and half a million

dollars for surplus, that's the whole Budget. So we've applauded and

the Members of the Government side applauded, on the day the Address

was given, the fact that the Minister of Finance was going to spend the

money on those things which it is his responsibility to spend them on.

How can we applaud a man for doing what he is obliged to do under the

law? "It's a Budget which will produce jobs," says the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker, there is not one place in this Budget where any

new job will be created because it shows no advance in those areas

which are the responsibility of this Government to provide for the

people of this Province, those things which they are entitled to expect

from the proper use of the fiscal resources. I wonder why.

I wondered why, until I turned to page 23 of the Budget Address in

its printed form, and I noted some words which were clearly read out by

the Minister of Finance but which have not been dealt with by any

Member on the Government side in addressing themselves to this debate.

The Minister of Finance said, after speaking of the Budget which we

have before us, of $1,300,000,000, "In addition, over $400 million in

capital for construction projects will be arranged by the Provincial

Government for the Provincial Crown agencies, the British Columbia

Hydro and Power Authority, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company,

the British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority and

the British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority."

Four hundred million dollars, Mr. Speaker, outside the Budget for those

Crown agencies? On half a million dollar surplus, Mr. Speaker, there's

no way. The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs said that

there was no way this Government could go into the public market — $400

million, outside the Budget'? There's no way you want to, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, but, indeed, you know there is a way.

The way is by the same method which has been applied by this

Minister of Finance and this Government over the years — by

underestimating its revenues, overestimating its expenditures and

cutting back on Government departments and ending up each year with a

surplus which, before the fiscal year end, is stripped out of the

Budget and placed in special funds.

Those special funds, Mr. Speaker, are devoted, almost in their

entirety, to B.C. Hydro. As of January, 1970, all of the special

accounts, under the control of the Minister of Finance, outside of the

Budget, totalled a billion and a half dollars. Of those accounts, $951

million were invested in B.C. Hydro. It is this Crown corporation, Mr.

Speaker, which hangs, as someone said, like a millstone around our

neck. Rather than a millstone, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is this

Crown corporation which drains the lifeblood from this Province. Yet

the policies by which that Crown corporation functions are not the

subject of debate in this House and, therefore, the Minister of

Finance, in manipulating these funds, presents to this House only half

a Budget. Until we have the opportunity to debate fully Government

policies with regard to the expenditures of these trust funds, we only

have half a Budget Debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WILLIAMS: What does the future hold? The Minister of

Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, last evening, mentioned the great

change there has been in this Province in the last 10 years and in the

direction of the budgets of this Government. Yet, we know that in the

past 10 years this Government has made available to British Columbia

Hydro one and a half billion dollars with which to construct those

capital works which Hydro deemed necessary in the performance of its

responsibility. We're offered, in this Budget, the suggestion that

another $400 million outside the Budget will be raised this coming

year. We know, from pronouncements by senior officers of British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, as reported in the press, that

upwards of $200 million will be required by this one Crown agency, each

year, for as far into the future as anyone can see. These monies will

be made available by this Government, not following debate in this

House, Mr. Speaker, but following decisions which are made in the

secrecy of the board room of B.C. Hydro, in consultation with the

Minister of Finance.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of serious concern to

every Member of this House, when considering this enormous drain upon

out fiscal resource, to find that the Minister of Finance, who does not

debate these matters in this House, is able, however, to Live hour-long

interviews on the subject to the press. We need to have our long

discussions in this Assembly, where we may challenge the Minister on

statements such as, "B.C. Hydro would not be cut free from its

financial and management connections with the Government.". Why not" We

should have the opportunity to decide. A statement that, "Vancouver

Island be a pollution-free recreation area, with no further industrial

development." Why don't the Members from Vancouver Island have some say

in such a policy'?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: We do.

MR. WILLIAMS: One Member, Mr. Speaker, who sits in the

Executive Council of this Government, claims he does. We should be

concerned in the debate here whether or not the Minister of Finance has

the right to declare that if the B.C. Energy Board, despite all his

admonitions, did recommend thermal power, lie might have to seek further

[ Page 533 ]

outside advice. That means, Mr. Speaker, that, if

we don't like the advice of the consultant, we get a new consultant.

You predetermine the kind of advice you require and you hire someone to

tell you what you want to hear.

We should have the ability to debate, and the right to debate, in

this House whether or not those are the underlying policies which are

to govern this Crown agency which sucks the fiscal lifeblood from this

Province. At a time, Mr. Speaker, when Members are standing responsibly

in their places, the Member from Oak Bay detailed the problems that

face the people regarding hospital facilities, the needs of our aged,

the question of housing development and jobs. From every side, from the

Government side, we have heard criticisms of the performance of this

Government, criticisms which need not be made if the fiscal resources

available to the Minister of Finance are employed to the people of this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, until the entire fiscal resources of this Province, all

the monies under the control of the Minister of Finance, are brought

for debate before this House, and not until then, will we have a Budget

Address. Not until then can we in this Party consider whether or not we

might support the motion which is before this Assembly, today.

What is the impact of these? What are we given instead? We are given

a Budget Address, which sugarcoats the pill that has to be swallowed.

In no place is this more clearly shown than in this Budget Address, in

one of the tables provided by the Minister of Finance, on page 33,

where the Minister of Finance speaks of a tremendous financial aid to

local governments. What do they include? They include the first per

capita grants, and there is no question that that is Government aid to

local governments, but it also includes the grants to school districts

which are the direct responsibility of this Government under its own

legislation. It includes a Provincial home-owner grant, which this

Government has always said goes to the people. It includes the

employers' share of the teachers' superannuation which is paid by the

Provincial Government and which it is this Government's legislative

responsibility to do. It includes hospital care, the major

responsibility of the Honourable the Minister of Health and Hospital

Insurance. That's an aid to local governments, says the Minister. It

includes water conservation, drainage, irrigation, flood control — that's the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, but it's

lumped as an aid to local governments. Development and construction of

housing projects is not an aid to local government. It's a need of the

people of this Province, aside altogether from the responsibilities of

local Government. Mr. Speaker, the most humorous touch of them all — the grants for Centennial celebrations are now an aid to local

government — all lumped together to show the dynamic advance of this

Government in its treatment of local governments, local governments

which are the child of this Government. At least, Mr. Speaker, when

they are treated in a fiscal way, they are the child of this

Government, until, however, it comes to a matter such as urban transit

and, then, the Government says, "Oh, no, you are another full-fledged

level of government and we'll load on top of your shoulders another

burden for you to carry because, after all, you are a level of

government." Yet, Mr. Speaker, there is not one property owner in any

of the municipalities, cities, towns or villages in this Province who

does not know that next year his land taxes will rise in order to meet

those responsibilities which this Government has left unfulfilled. Mr.

Speaker, so long as we are presented with this kind of budget,

sugarcoated, however it may be, the people of this Province and the

Members of this Assembly are not being given the fair opportunity to

discharge their responsibility in this House. We will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I am about to take my place but, before I do, there is

one other matter which is of great concern to me as it must be to every

Member of this House. I agree with the Honourable the Minister of

Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, who, at the outset of his remarks,

last night, questioned the manner in which the Members in this House

have, from time to time, discharged their responsibilities in this

Assembly. There is not a Member of this Assembly who is not conscious

of his responsibilities and his obligations. There is not a Member of

this Assembly who does not cherish the privileges which we enjoy as

Members, privileges which have grown up over the centuries with the

institution of Parliament. I trust that, in my lifetime and so long as

I may be in this Assembly, the occasion will never come when it might

be suggested to me that I did not meet my obligations.

Mr. Speaker, there are some matters which are property dealt with in

this Assembly and must be fully dealt with in this Assembly. I have

occasion to refer to the remarks in this House by the Honourable

Minister of Health, when he rose in his place several days ago and read

to this Assembly and tabled correspondence between him and Dr. McClure,

the Registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In the course

of those remarks and reading from the letters, as he did, the

Honourable the Minister of Health said and I am quoting from the letter

of Dr. McClure on November 27, 1970, "At no time have I ever suggested

or said that I was going to look into Dr. Regehr's medical competency

or see about lifting his license."

Last Monday, in this House, the Honourable Member from North

Vancouver–Seymour, in his place in this debate, raised a question as to

the truth of that statement and offered to present and to place on the

table of this House a tape recording and a transcript of remarks

alleged to have been made by the Honourable Minister at a meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Is the honourable Minister rising to a point of order?

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): Yes, I am.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Member please be seated?

MR. LOFFMARK: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Member is joining with the Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Seymour in the charge?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit and listen and find out.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister has not raised a Point of Order. The honourable Member proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it must be clear, Mr. Speaker, that I

am only reciting facts which are known to every Member of this House.

Leave to table the tape recording and the transcript was refused, the

reason for which I will never understand, because if we cannot raise

these matters within this Chamber, then, Mr. Speaker, it would seem

that the rights of the citizen to bring to his Member matters of which

he has knowledge must be dealt with outside this Chamber —

[ Page 534 ]

and that's wrong. Discussions dealing with the

manner in which any Member of this Assembly, or any Minister of this

Government, discharges his responsibility, as such Member, or as such

Minister, should take place in this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, following

the refusal of the right of leave to table the transcript and the tape,

the matter became known outside this Chamber. The only response, of

which I have knowledge from the Honourable Minister, is to question the

authenticity of the material.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not'?

MR. WILLIAMS: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise this

Assembly that there has come into my possession, this morning, a

declaration as follows: "In the matter of a meeting held November 5,

1970, with the Honourable Ralph Loffmark, Dr. Rudy Regehr, the

Honourable P.A. Gaglardi and Messrs. John Harwood, George Smith and

Jack Foote. We, John Harwood, George Smith and Jack Foote, all of

Clearwater, British Columbia, hereby declare: (1) that John Harwood is

chairman, George Smith is vice-chairman and Jack Foote is a director of

the Wells Grey Hospital Board; (2) that we attended a meeting in

Vancouver at the office of the Honourable Ralph Loffmark in the morning

of November 5, 1970. Present at this meeting were the said Honourable

Ralph Loffmark, the Honourable P.A. Gaglardi, Dr. Rudy Regehr and

ourselves; (3) that the meeting was held to discuss public policy

regarding the establishment of a hospital in Clearwater, B.C., and

lasted approximately one hour. We were in attendance throughout the

entire meeting, as were the other persons mentioned above; (4) that we

recollect the matters discussed at this meeting and the statements made

by each of the persons present during the discussions; (5) that we have

listened to a tape recording made at this meeting and we have read a

partial transcript thereof, which is marked exhibit A to this our

declaration; (6) that the tape recording fairly records statements made

by those present at this meeting, and the partial transcript thereof,

which is exhibit A hereto, confirms our recollection of those

statements; (7) that, in particular, the words "I want it very, very

plainly understood that no doctor is going to tell me that he is going

to leave unless he gets a hospital, because I am going to start looking

at his qualifications and his right to practice in this Province.

That's what I'm going to do," as heard by us on the said tape recording

and as appears in the said partial transcript, exhibit A hereto, are

completely and accurately recorded and transcribed and are the exact

words of the said Honourable Ralph Loffmark spoken by him in our

presence and our hearing and in the presence of the said Dr. Regehr and

the Honourable P.A. Gaglardi at the aforesaid meeting. We make this

solemn declaration, conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing

that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by

virtue of the Canada Evidence Act ."

It is signed John E. Harwood, George R. Smith, Jack Foote and was

declared jointly by them at Clearwater in the Province of British

Columbia on the 18th day of February, 1971.

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I ask leave of this House to table this declaration.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? One moment, please.

Would the honourable Member please be seated? The Honourable Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): On a Point of Order, when

a Member reads from a document in this House, it's a requirement that

he table it if asked so to do, not a matter of leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable Member be kind enough to quote his authority?

MR. DOWDING: Well, I have to look it up if you'll give me some time (laughter) .

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest you'd have to look very carefully.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I address

myself to the Point of Order raised. The rule is that, if leave is

refused, the matter can be brought up by separate motion on the Order

Paper and can be dealt with by the House in that fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable Member proceed with his statement. Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that I

believe, and I think all responsible Members of this and any other

Assembly of a similar kind, must believe, that it is in this Assembly

that matters of this kind must be discussed. I equally believe that it

is the right of any citizen in this Province to bring to any Member of

this Assembly a matter of this nature which comes to his attention and

of which he has specific knowledge. It is the right of a Member, having

received that information, in fact it is his obligation, to lay this

matter before this Assembly in this Assembly. It is the obligation of

this Assembly to deal with those matters which are so brought before

it. To receive for the second time, a refusal to receive in this House,

not put as an electronic eavesdropping of any kind, but a sworn

declaration, under oath, indicates to me that some Members of this

Assembly are unaware of the privileges which they have as Members and

show a disrespect to this Chamber and to the institution of Parliament.

Those who refuse this have no concept of their responsibilities as

Members of this Assembly and not one of them shall ever be heard to say

that there's anything wrong with raising matters of this kind outside

of this Assembly, if they won't hear us here.

When one is speaking of the matter of resignation, Mr. Speaker, I am

aware that you are an avid student of the institution of Parliament,

its beginnings and it's growth, and I know of the concern you have for

its future. Every responsible Member of this Assembly must have the

same concern and must know what needs to be done. I only say, in

closing, Mr. Speaker, that I trust that the Honourable the Minister

knows what he must do.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

heartily endorse the final comments of the Honourable Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound and I'm sure my colleagues will do the same.

I wish to follow up a range of matters, subsequent to my earlier

speech during the Throne Debate. I wish to deal with matters in the

interior of the Province which I think are of importance to all of us

throughout British Columbia. I regret that, first, I must deal with

some of the matters raised by the

[ Page 535 ]

Member for Vancouver Centre. I regret that I must

deal with them because I do regard his statements as beneath contempt;

however, in view of any impressions that might have been left, some

statements should be made.

Regarding the island the Member referred to, I would note that

myself and my friend have owned that island for some seven or more

years. We've spent our summers there — it's our main area of recreation

outside the city. I'd like to point out that when we acquired that

island, Mr. Speaker, it was actually unzoned. It was within the

district municipality of North Vancouver but, because it was offshore,

they had simply forgotten to colour the zoning map. In fact you could

have built a factory on it or a gas station or anything. You could even

have had your summer home on it which is what we have. As a result of

the fact that the property changed hands and caught notice, it was then

downzoned, in effect, and limited to single-family development and I

accept that. I'd like to say further that I have never written to the

district municipality of North Vancouver regarding this property. I

have never requested a zoning change from the municipality. I will not

request a zoning change from that municipality and the island is not

for sale. The letter that we received was simply the kind of trumped-up

material that we can expect from this Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the honourable Member meant to leave an inference that the Government had sent a letter.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. We're not really too sure who sent it since the signature wasn't on it (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the honourable Member be seated for a moment. What is the Point of Order?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member has left an inference that the

letter was trumped-up and that the facts are not true. That, in

essence, his statement was that it was never offered for sale by him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would think, if there are any corrections to be made, they'll be made at the conclusion of the address.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Member

also had a picture of the old house in which I live and my family lives

in the east end of Vancouver. What am I to reply to that? I live

amongst the people of East Vancouver. They are people whom I like and

respect and I choose to live in the east side of Vancouver. I prefer to

live there rather than in a nouveau riche suburb, such as West Vancouver, as does the Member from Vancouver Centre. I prefer… (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: It was my riding until the boundaries were

changed by this Government. We don't want to get into that whole

business of boundary changes by this Government because that's a whole

speech in itself. It's a 60-year-old house, Mr. Speaker, the interior

of which has been greatly improved and the exterior of which needs a

great deal of improvement. The improvement of that house has been a

slow process but my father and I did almost all the work, alone, inside

that house. You know that's rather common in Vancouver East. The people

of that area, generally, do gradually build up and improve their own

residences. I don't really understand the Member's complaint regarding

my home, but it's the kind of complaint that would have to be levelled

at thousands of my East Side neighbours, many of whom he and his

colleague from Vancouver Centre, do, in fact, represent, even though

they represent them from the heights of Shaughnessy and West Vancouver.

If he chooses to condemn us all, so be it. He suffers from a problem,

Mr. Speaker, he suffers from a problem that others associated with this

Government have and that is that he has both a silver spoon and his

foot in his mouth at the same time. I'd like to make it clear that I

don't separate this Member from the other Members of the Government.

It's clear that what the Member had to say had the general endorsation,

previous briefing and discussion with the Premier earlier in the

afternoon.

Now, finally, I'd like to tell this House, Mr. Speaker, that I am

prepared to deposit with the Clerk of this House a report listing all

of the property that I own or have an interest in, or any trust

agreements regarding any properties whatsoever. I'm prepared to list

any shares that I own or have options to, or trust agreements regarding

the same. I'm prepared to list all the assets that are in my name, my

family's name or my parents'name. I'm prepared to swear to the truth of

the statements and I challenge the Member from Vancouver Centre to do

the same. I challenge the Member from Vancouver Centre to vote for the Conflict of Interest Act

which I put before this House last year and will put before this House

again this year, later in the Session. I challenge the Premier of this

Province and the Government to vote for the Conflict of Interest

Statute that would require this declaration from everyone in this

House. I challenge you to vote for that bill, as I will, and the

Official Opposition win.

When I last spoke, Mr. Speaker, I discussed the city of Kelowna and

the area surrounding the city of Kelowna and I discussed the difference

between the quality of development inside the city boundaries and the

quality and the character of the development immediately outside the

city boundaries. I referred to the city's industrial site, which was

developed publicly by the city of Kelowna, an industrial development

owned by the city, a development with pollution and development

standards of an extremely high nature, unlike the area outside the

city. I pointed out that it was a site that did control access to

Highway 97, unlike the Provincial area nearby. I pointed out that the

profits from that development went to everybody within the city of

Kelowna. That estate, Mr. Speaker, is a model for the Province and it

showed, in fact, what public enterprise can do compared to private

enterprise. I compared that shopping centre with adjacent lands

immediately across the street, the shopping centre development

initiated by MacIntosh Centre Limited, and in that centre there is no

public water supply to date, there is no public sewer system to date,

several dangerous accesses have been approved by the Highways

Department, there has been private profiteering on a grand scale and

there has been, on all the lands therein and surrounding, a rank

underassessment and taxation level. The differences between the two

areas, one that the city owns and that owned by the MacIntosh Centre,

are like night and day and the difference between the two shows what a

huge potential revenue has been lost by the Crown. All of this, despite

the Premier's promise of 1968. The direct benefits of MacIntosh Centre

[ Page 536 ]

and the Orchard Park development went to that company and another company, Okanagan Holdings Limited.

In that talk, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that there was tax

discrimination on one side, outside the city boundary. I pointed out,

Mr. Speaker, that the tax-favoured lands included the Premier's

residence and the land surrounding the shopping centre. I pointed out

that the lands in the centre sold for $35,000 an acre and the adjacent

surrounding lands were assessed at $160 an acre. I called that an

assessment scandal, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat — it is an assessment

scandal. I challenge the Premier and the Government to change the laws

so that this kind of thing will not continue in any area of the

Province. I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier had said

regarding access to that centre, which was quoted in the Colonist and

other papers, where he said that outside engineers had been retained by

the Highways Department to study the access application of that centre.

The Premier is quoted as saying, and I'm sorry he's not here to verify

it, but he said, "'I am sure the idea of having outside engineers in

was to ensure safety,' said Mr. Bennett in an interview."

Mr. Speaker, in view of the ownership of the lands involved, it was

beholden upon the Premier to have been most precise about the question

of outside engineering advice. When I questioned the Minister on this

matter, he sat in silence. The Minister of Highways has since had. an

opportunity to speak in this House and he didn't mention an independent

study. It now seems clear that no independent study, in fact, was

carried out. It's a crucial matter, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's clear

that a full statement from the Minister of Highways is necessary and

long overdue and I suggest that an apology and full statement from the

Premier is also overdue. I suggest that the one line, "Tell them I

laughed," is simply a too-simple, arrogant statement by a man too long

in power.

The Premier of this Province used to say, in another decade, that he

stood for fair treatment for all and special privileges for none. I

challenge the Premier to say, "Tell them I laughed," to the elderly or

those on low and modest incomes on the north side of the city of

Kelowna. I challenge him to say that to the same citizens in all the

cities of the Province where fair assessment practices are carried out.

I'd like to make one thing clear, however, Mr. Speaker, we're not

discussing matters of legality Or illegality. Any of the matters raised

are essentially matters of important public policy. The problems we're

facing are not only sins of commission but sins of omission, and what

the Government and Premier do is important enough, but what they do not

do may, in fact, be more important. After all, Mr. Speaker, who really

makes the laws in this Province and, in effect, determines legality or

illegality, to a very great extent'? The man who has been in power for

19 years is the one who does. Who decides what assessment and tax

policy will be in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? The man who's been in

power for 19 years does. Who sets the guidelines for who will pay high

taxes and who will pay low taxes? The man who's been in power for 19

years. Who sets the policy on access? The man who's been in power for

19 years. Who decides whether land developments will be for public gain

or private profits? The Premier of British Columbia does. That's where

our basic quarrel lies, Mr. Speaker, with the Premier. He sets the

rules and he can change the rules. The present rules benefit only a

few, at the expense of many, and his response to all this is just,

"Tell them I laughed."

I'd like to review another matter in the interior of the Province,

Mr. Speaker, a matter that concerned this House, in 1968. It was the

matter that concerned this House prior to the resignation of the former

Minister of Highways, the Member for Kamloops. You will recall that the

Kamloops bypass was a matter of some discussion and controversy. In

particular, the Del Cielo development at the Trans-Canada Highway

junction and the Merritt Highway was of some concern for some months in

this House. It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the Kamloops

News Advertiser mentions a possible new major development at Del Cielo.

That's February 10, this year, in the Kamloops paper. So, activity is

still, of course, going on at Del Cielo, which was covered fully

before. The existing commercial areas at the Del Cielo junction are the

areas shown solidly in red on this plan, which was prepared by the

Regional District of Thom p son-Nicola, the regional district for the

whole area surrounding Kamloops. A new application has now come in, now

that the interchange work is proceeding at the Del Cielo junction, for

a huge site, some 2,000 ft. In length, back of the former development.

It's clear that the Del Cielo junction is one of the major centres in

the interior of the Province and is continuing to grow and that the

owners are continuing to benefit from the public expenditures on access

and the like.

Now the system is being built and construction is well under way.

It's worthwhile looking at the broad picture in Kamloops. Those of you

in the House who are familiar with Kamloops will know that the main

trans-Canada Highway drops down from the Del Cielo junction, Merritt

junction and down and around the hill at McIntosh Heights, I believe it

is, and into the city. The new highway takes off at this point. It

might be worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, to look at a larger map of the

general area. Mr. Speaker, this is the easterly side of Kamloops — at

the Thompson River bridgehead. You can see the new interchange there.

There's a fair amount of development there already, Mr. Speaker. The

Del Cielo area is the area over here, hatched in blue, and it's

important to know that, in a freeway system, the areas where the access

is are where the values are and that was pointed out in the 1968

debate. There are only three areas of access on the Kamloops bypass,

Mr. Speaker. One of them is down at the bottom, the Valleyview end, and

all that was taken up with existing development pretty well. The other

area for development is Del Cielo and that was covered fully in earlier

debates. There's one other area though that has a significant

development potential and that's the Springhill Drive interchange here.

So there are three areas, Mr. Speaker. I might note that the important

lands of the Springhill Junction are those hatched in red on that map.

It's worthwhile I think to look into the question, then, of who owns

the land at that valuable junction. I would point out, Mr. Speaker,

that this revised plan of the interchange system is dated, Revised,

1966, and revised, 1967.

If you check out the ownership at the southerly side of that

junction, that is, on the southeastern comer of that Springhill

junction, you'll find that it's owned by Springhill Holdings Limited,

and the legal description of lands involved, essentially, are the west

half of

section 31, Township 19, Range 17. That's the simplified legal

description. In checking with the Companies office, one finds the

latest annual report of Springhill Holdings indicates that the

directors of the company are Mr. R.J. Strachan, Mr. J. Russell Bennett

and Mr. Earl Carl. In checking the actual shares, one finds that the

shares are shared equally amongst the three, except that the shares for

one director are in the name of Benwest Holdings Limited. You, then,

check in the Companies office

[ Page 537 ]

as to what their records indicate regarding this

company. I might say, first, that the Springhill Company has had those

directors since 1964 and that the registered owners of that property,

Springhill Holdings Limited, show as owning that property since 1965.

Those highway plans are 1966-1967.

Then, the question of Benwest Holdings arises, Mr. Speaker, and if

you check the directors of Benwest Holdings, which is a substantial

company with substantial assets all over the Province of British

Columbia, and with most significant real estate holdings, you'll find

that the directors of that company are William R. Bennett of Boucherie

Road in Westbank, businessman, and Russell J. Bennett of Gellatly Road,

Westbank, businessman.

It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that there was, essentially, a windfall to

be made at only two locations, with respect to the Kamloops bypass. One

of these was at Del Cielo and we covered that in the debates of 1968.

The other area was at Springhill Drive, where there's a half diamond

interchange. It's clear that it's the Springhill Company that will be

the company that benefits the most from the building of that

interchange. It's clear that the benefits along the highways of British

Columbia continue to go only to a favourite few. We ask again, Mr.

Speaker, for the Premier to live up to his promise of April 8, 1968, in

which he said that in the future in British Columbia, these benefits

would be reaped by all of the people of British Columbia.

In my last talk, Mr. Speaker, I discussed what was happening outside

of the city boundaries of Kelowna. I'd now like to discuss the west

side of the lake, across the bridge from Kelowna, and I'd like to

discuss the question of public access to the water, to the lakeshore,

the access of people to that beautiful lake. This, Mr. Speaker, is also

an area under Provincial jurisdiction, like the land at Benvoulin Road

that we discussed last time. Westbank is now essentially a suburb of

the city of Kelowna, since the building of the bridge and the area was

settled at the turn of the century. Many of the pioneering families of

Westbank remain living in that area.

I'd like to discuss one such pioneering family and their former

lands, lands originally held by Mr. George Edward Brown, who is now

deceased. It's now a matter of the Brown Estate. The area I want to

discuss, in some detail, is the area around and along and on Gellatly

Road. Gellatly Road provides access to the water all along the lake.

Gellatly Road follows along the lakeshore and there's public access

along the lake for most of its length in that area. It comes down from

the Indian reserve below the bridge and down to the area known as

Scottish Cove.

I'd like to refer to the original survey plan, which simply shows

this part of the lake and the early subdivision, which shows a ten-acre

parcel, a six-acre parcel and another six-acre parcel. This was land

owned by the Browns. The lands involved, their original legal

description, Mr. Speaker, is, parcels 2, 3 and 4, of District Lot 487,

the Osoyoos Division of the Yale District. It totals about 22 acres.

The original survey was in 1906 and, over the years, a road system

developed in that area. The main road in the area was Gellatly Road,

along the waterfront. This map, here, shows the cove below the bridge,

and shows that Gellatly Road is, generally, right along the waterfront.

Lots are back of the road, along the waterfront, stretching down from

the Indian reserve to the north.

That road is like many of the roads in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

In parts, it was surveyed. In parts, it was gazetted and, in parts, it

was a

section six road. It's worth checking the Highway Statutes to see

exactly what a "section six"road is.

Section six of the Highways Act states, "Where public money has been expended on a travelled road that has not been theretofore established by a notice in the Gazette ,

or otherwise dedicated to the public use by a plan deposited in the

Land Registry Office for the district in which the road is situate,

that travelled road shall be deemed and is declared to be a public

highway." The Statute is fairly clear.

The important thing about the road, Mr. Speaker, is that it provided

access to the lake along its length. That's an important matter in the

Okanagan, where public access to the water is necessary and very costly

to obtain, if we have to buy parkland, as we will continue to have to

do in the Okanagan Valley.

When the Browns subdivided the northerly part of that land in 1963,

they cut off two parcels and they were called Lots A and B and the

section six road was dedicated, at that time. This plan, Plan 12966,

which was deposited in the Land Registry Office in Kamloops on February

20, 1963, shows Lots A and B. Lot A is here, it's 2.78 acres; Lot B is

2.65 acres; and it shows the

section six road, along the lakeshore,

with complete public access to the lake along its whole length. It was

a policy of the Highways Department — and the Browns were advised that

it was — to require a formal survey confirming the public land along

the lakeshore along the beach. The Browns complied with that, as shown

on that plan. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Brown family considered selling

the remaining lands to the south and the pattern had been set. The road

was there and had been there for decades. They expected that formal

survey plans would have to recognize it. So they sold those lands,

knowing what the Highways Department policy was. They sold parcels 3

and 4, which were the large parcels to the south. They sold those

parcels to both a company and an individual. The company was Scottish

Cove Holdings Limited, and, according to Land Registry Office records

in Kamloops, the individual was R.J. Bennett. An initial subdivision

plan was then deposited in the Land Registry Office, which changed it

from two parcels to three parcels.

It was a fairly simple subdivision but the important thing, Mr.

Speaker, is that the road location changed. That plan is this plan,

which was deposited on November 30, 1967, which, then, created these

three parcels. The road went along the lakeshore to this point and then

back up toward Westbank and Powers Creek but, by the deposit of this

land, Mr. Speaker, there was no longer any public foreshore, no public

shoreline and the road location was changed. The former road became

private property and became, with the deposit of this plan, parcel A.

Then there was the remainder, 3 and 4. The ownership of A was in the

name of Scottish Cove Holdings Limited, and the ownership of the

remainder of 3 and 4 was with R.J. Bennett. As a result of that plan,

Mr. Speaker, all of the public waterfront disappeared.

What happened then, with subsequent subdivision activity, Mr.

Speaker, is that the land between the new road and the water was cut up

into lots. The road became a subdivision. Twelve lots were created, Mr.

Speaker, where there were none before. The official subdivision plans,

when you join them together, show the kind of problem you have. The

next plan, and I might note, Mr. Speaker, that this plan, which wasn't

deposited in the Land Registry Office in Kamloops until February 13,

1969, was initially surveyed and was rechecked numerous times. It was

signed by the approving officer in November, 1966, July, 1966, in fact,

as early as 1965, so that a range of approvals and reapprovals were

obtained but this actual plan, showing the lots, was not

[ Page 538 ]

deposited with the Land Registry office until

February 13, 1969. This plan clearly shows the yellow area being the

new road location having shifted from the lakeshore. Then it's

interesting to attach the other plan, the subdivision that the Browns

themselves carried out back in 1963. They are both on the same scale.

When you put them together and put that boundary line along there, you

see the kind of road system you have. The new road, generally averaging

150 ft. back from the shoreline, on the Scottish Cove and Bennett

property, is shown as it is, back, and the other road doesn't join at

all. It's almost as if there had been an earthquake along that property

line, north of the Scottish Cove–Bennett property. Within the property,

as I said, the road is back 150 ft.

It's interesting to note what waterfront land values are in this

part of the Okanagan, Mr. Speaker. Waterfront values in the Okanagan

range from $200 to $300 a front foot of waterfront. If we put a value

at 250 ft., then, the parcels created might total approximately

$250,000. The question of Scottish Cove Holdings Limited, the company

that ended up owning the waterfront area, is something that can also be

checked out in the Companies office, Mr. Speaker. The current owners of

the property are Lois May Bennett, housewife, R.R. No. 1, Gellatly

Road, Westbank, B.C., and Mr. Gordon Lamont Courtice, accountant in

Penticton. They are the shareholders in that company. If you check

further back in the Companies office, you'll find that on previous

occasions, Mr. William R. Bennett and Mr. Russell J. Bennett were

directors of that company. The titles can be checked in the Kamloops

Land Registry Office and, as I said earlier, they are now in the names

of Scottish Cove Holdings Limited, that is, the

section on the

shoreline and the

section back of the road is in the name of Mr. R.J.

Bennett.

It's clear that there was one policy north of that property line,

Mr. Speaker, and another policy south of that property line. It's clear

that the responsible Cabinet Minister, throughout all of this, was the

former Minister of Highways, the Member for Kamloops. The line was

drawn, Mr. Speaker, on one side, where the average citizen is involved,

the rules are firm; on the other side, where they are friends of the

people in power, the rules change. It's as simple as that.

I happen to believe, Mr. Speaker, that public business should be

considered public business by everyone, both Members of this House and

civil servants. I believe most citizens agree. However, when I wanted

to follow up these questions with two deputy ministers, I ran into a

range of problems. I first took the matter up with the Lands Branch,

and I'd like to say first that I do not think that the Lands Branch is

basically involved in a matter such as this. It's a matter for the

Highways Department. The Lands Branch was involved in this question, in

a minor way, because of drift and shifting of ground along the

lakeshore, a small sliver of land had accreted to this property, and

accretions have to be approved by the Lands Branch, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Deputy Minister of Lands for the file, with

respect to this

section of Gellatly Road. I was refused the file. I was

told that I could not see that file, without the approval of the

Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. I have no quarrels

with the civil servants because, Mr. Speaker, they have their orders.

My quarrel is with the Government that gives those kinds of orders.

It's clear there's a substantial file in the Lands Branch, with a

great deal of material in it and I believe that should be the public

property of all the people of this Province and all the Members of this

House. Today, Mr. Speaker, at 9:30, I went to review this matter with

another deputy minister, the Deputy Minister of Highways. I had told

him, yesterday, about the two matters that I wanted to discuss, one,

the Kamloops bypass and, two, Gellatly Road at Westbank. When I went

there this morning, I asked for the file on Gellatly Road. The deputy

minister agreed that there was a file here in Victoria on that matter

but he refused to give me the file or let me see the file. Again I was

told that I could not see that file unless the Minister, himself,

approved. Again, Mr. Speaker, my quarrel is not with that civil

servant. It's with that Cabinet Minister and this Government which give

these kinds of orders.

The civil servants, Mr. Speaker, are the servants of us all in this

House and all the people of this Province. They are not a secret

service for the party in power.

I asked for a range of changes in my last speech, Mr. Speaker — a

Boundaries Commission, an open Public Utilities Commission, a PUC that

didn't have retired Cabinet Ministers in it, an Assessment Commission

that reported to this Legislature, a Highways Department that did not

have one access policy for its friends and one for its enemies. I

repeat those requests. We asked for the Premier to live up to his

promise, as well. It is clear that he has not.

I would add to that list now, Mr. Speaker, and say that we also ask

for a free Civil Service in British Columbia. We not only ask, but we

demand access to all files by all M.L.A.s on both sides of the House.

In view of the lack of answers, in view of the kind of Budget this

is, in view of the fact that this is a Budget that does not mean equal

treatment for all, a Budget that does not mean fair treatment for afl,

because this Budget means special treatment for a few, we, too, will be

voting against this Budget.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): …report to this House

that the Member who has presently sat down has given us false

information and has lied to the House during the presentation of the

information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. That is not a statement of a Point of Order.

MR. CAPOZZI: It's a point of information and I'm allowed to….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there is no point of information at this time.

MR. CAPOZZI: It is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am

allowed to rise and bring exact statement. He referred to my statements

and he said I had given false information. He corrected them and he has

presented false information to the House. I'm here to correct the

information, which is on the record and I am entitled to do so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A Member can raise a Point of Order if there

has been misinformation given and state that misinformation. The other

Member must then accept it.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, I am able to correct the information that he

presented to the House. I'm sure the House would want to know, Mr.

Speaker, that the statement which he made …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Never mind all

[ Page 539 ]

the

preamble. Make your Point of Order.

MR. CAPOZZI: Right. In his statement to the House he stated

that, firstly, the letter was not signed. The letter is signed by a

Mrs. Marguerite Cohan. He also was prepared to table it. I was prepared

to table it yesterday. He also stated that at no time had he ever

offered this land for any use other than as a single-family dwelling.

He also stated that there had been nothing but a phone call made… (interruption) . I will present the information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. CAPOZZI: I point out that…. If you're not prepared to

receive the truth…the point is and I'm prepared to submit affidavits

to this House that the Member offered this piece of land 12 to 18

months ago as an imaginative concept, featuring a luxury, high-rise,

apartment marina, which is suggested for the south end of the island

and it was planned by that planner. He's prepared and I'm prepared to

submit an affidavit to that. He also stated to the House that this

piece was never offered for sale.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Member has not the

privilege of making a speech at this time. If he has a specific Point

of Order, he should make it in that form and not in the form of making

a speech.

MR. CAPOZZI: I am asking for the privilege of correcting the record of this House. I am offering the….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I'm dealing with the Member now.

MR. CAPOZZI: Will he accept my statement that this piece was offered for sale?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I think the Member has made his case. Will he please be seated?

MR. CAPOZZI: I would then ask leave to table the letter that

is here. I will, subsequently, if I'm asked by the Member, submit an

affidavit that it was offered for sale.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Member will have the opportunity later to… (interruption) . What is your Point of Order?

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitiam): The Member is breaking the rules

of this House by making statements and he has no place in this debate.

If you insist on this we will ask for counter statements.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

I'm pleased to have this opportunity of having the last word in this

debate. It's two weeks now to the day, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister

of Finance presented the traditional motion of supply and, in this

intervening period, there have been many words spoken in this debate,

some in heat and some in otherwise, but very few directed to the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. PETERSON: …very few directed to the Budget. We've seen

the prime example this afternoon, of course. We couldn't get a better

example than a Member who speaks and winds up the debate, on behalf of

his Party, and spends 30 whole seconds on the Budget, 30 seconds of his

whole time on the Budget, by indicating that they're not going to vote

for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. PETERSON: One of the matters quite extraneous to the

Budget that was raised earlier in the debate, and I want to just touch

on briefly, Mr. Speaker, relates to the proposed increase in rates of

the B.C. Telephone Company. Some Members spoke at length on this

subject. I want to advise the House, that, some time ago, as soon as

the notice of the proposed increase was received, I was in telephone

communication with the president of the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities, Mayor Anderson. I since wrote to him on February 10,

1971, and I'll read the letter because I think it would be of interest

to the House. "Dear Mayor Anderson: Further to our telephone

conversation, the B.C. Telephone Company has advised us of its

application for a general rate increase throughout the Province and

supplied us with a copy of its application. At the time of the last

application for a general rate increase, resulting in the increase on

January 1, 1959, the Province opposed the increase. Its counsel, C.W.

Brazier, Q.C. also represented, through arrangements with the

department, most, if not all, the municipalities in the Province. I

believe this additional representation was arranged through the Union

of B.C. Municipalities. It appears to me desirable that, so far as

possible, the Province and the municipalities should jointly enter into

an analysis in opposition to the application. If you and your executive

concur and the municipalities are prepared to authorize a counsel for

the Province to act for them, also, and to share in the costs, I should

be glad to make the necessary arrangements with counsel for the

Province. It is anticipated that counsel will again be Mr. C.W.

Brazier, Q.C., supported by one or two experts in the field of rate

structures and accountancy, as was done in 1958. I should be pleased

to-hear from you at your early convenience. Any intervention must be

filed by March 5." Signed by myself, Mr. Speaker.

I have not yet received a formal reply. I was advised by telephone

today that, while they wish us well in our opposition, they're not

prepared to join with us and share the costs of the intervention. My

purpose today is to advise the Members of this Assembly that the

Province will, nevertheless, be opposing the application for a rate

increase and we have engaged and instructed counsel and other experts

to assist us in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I said there were very few words directed to the

Budget, during these last two weeks and, of those few words, there has

been very little in criticism of the Budget. The fact is that the

Members of the Opposition have found very little to criticize in the

Budget that's under debate. Today, in winding up this debate, Mr.

Speaker, I charge the NDP, the Official Opposition, with a total lack

of concern, a total lack of interest, in the budgetary matters of this

Province. If you ever have to measure that lack of interest, it was

apparent today, apparent when the Leader of the Opposition chose the

second Member for Vancouver East to wind up the debate on behalf of his

Party, a Member of this Legislature who wasn't even interested enough

in the fiscal policy and the fiscal programme of this Government to be

[ Page 540 ]

present when the Budget was presented, wasn't

interested enough to be here on the vote of the last motion, the

wind-up of the Throne Debate, wasn't interested enough to hear his

Leader on Opposition day, the Monday after the Budget was brought in.

He wasn't here. He never heard the Leader of the NDP on Opposition day.

This is the day when the… (interruption) .

I certainly am. I'm discussing the day you had to talk on the Budget

and the man you chose to wind up the debate wasn't even here. He didn't

hear the Leader of the Liberal Party talk about the Budget or the

financial proposals, did he? He wasn't here. Where was he, where was

he? Playing private detective, snooping in the Province. The voters of

Vancouver East are going to tell him that's not what they elected him

for. The voters of Vancouver East are going to tell him that his job is

here in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the consuming interest of this Member is

not in the Budget, not in.this Legislature, but it is in becoming the

world's greatest master of using innuendo and smear to besmirch the

reputation of innocent people. In the course of his stay in this House,

he's becoming quite an expert at the art. Make no mistake about it.

He's got a little competition from other Members on that side of the

House, as well. The basic trouble and the basic problem that the Leader

of the Opposition has, and all his Party has, is that to them the word

"profit" is still a dirty word. The word "profit" is still a dirty word.

AN HON. MEMBER: …95,000. That's a pretty good gain for the Socialists.

MR. PETERSON: That's a good point, Mr. Member. You know, an

atheist, whatever he has to say about religion, he still likes to bring

his children up in a Christian country where the principles of religion

are practiced. A socialist is one who likes to talk about Socialism but

they sure love the benefits of a free enterprise economy. But profit is

still a dirty word — if it's someone else that's making the profit.

They give lip service to this idea of jobs for people. We hear them

talking about it. We didn't hear about it, today, but he wasn't talking

on the Budget, anyway. They give lip service to the idea of jobs for

people but, the minute anyone is successful in business, they stand

ready to crucify that person, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, and you

know it. Anyone who makes a profit, invests that profit back, gives

jobs, develops the country, raises the standard of living, they are at

the mercy of this Socialist Opposition. Make no mistake about it. It's

because of these irresponsible tactics that the people of British

Columbia will never take them from that side of the House and put them

on this side of the House. It's because of these irresponsible tactics

that their numbers are diminishing in this House, each year, fewer and

fewer. If you don't get a hold of your bootstraps and pull yourselves

out of the ditch you're digging for yourselves, you'r going to have

fewer and fewer after the next election.

Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for the Leader of the Opposition,

because he's like the chap that lined up for a ticket on that ship that

sunk (interruption) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PETERSON: As a matter of fact, I recall — talk about

muckrakers — I recall the Second Member for Vancouver East, when he

spoke in the Budget Debate, last year, saying he didn't mind being

called a muckraker. He was quite proud of it. I think he has

established, again, that reputation, today.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget was carefully conceived to generate a high

level of economic activity in the Province of British Columbia and, in

turn, to generate new jobs. Notwithstanding the extensive efforts of

the NDP and the Provincial Liberals to create doubt and mistrust in the

minds of the people, the people of British Columbia still have

confidence in this administration. Make no mistake about that. They

know that this Province is in good financial shape. If you didn't think

so, you would have had someone speak on the Budget as the last speaker.

I haven't heard the Members on the NDP talking about the finances of

this Province. Why? It's very apparent, if you want to turn to page 17,

table 1. The older citizens of the Province will recall when Social

Credit came to power, when we had a net debt, as this table I shows of

$222 million-plus, the value of fixed assets less than the total net

debt and, today, the figures are here. December 31, 1970, net debt nil;

fixed assets increased to $1.3 billion-plus. The sound financial shape

of the Province, Mr. Speaker, together with the faith of investors in

the financial integrity of this Province augurs well for our future.

The announcement of the Minister of Finance of the objective in this

Province to create a minimum of 25,000 new jobs by October I was

welcomed by pretty well everyone with the exception of the Leader of

the Opposition. He conveniently overlooked the word "minimal" and

indicated that'this would represent a downward trend in new jobs, this

year, over last year.

Mr. Speaker, the added expenditures for parks, for highways — and

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound indicated there wasn't

anything in this Budget to provide a single, new job. What a ridiculous

and patently false statement. False statement. Because, Mr. Speaker,

the added expenditures for parks, alone, will account for many of these

new jobs. Highways, school construction, hospital construction and,

then, in addition, the private sector (interruption) .

I said the statement is patently false. That's what I meant to say and

that's what I said. I mentioned the public sector, Mr. Speaker, but the

private sector, alone, will add as well to the new jobs. I would say

this. My predication would be this, not as a guaranteed minimum or

anything of that nature, but a predication that, if our economy

continues to grow and remain on a healthy level, then, I would expect,

not from October to October, but the total year, 1971 over 1970, would

see a rise in employment by more than 40,000 employees.

In my address during the Throne Debate, I dealt, at some length,

with the job-creating programmes of this Government. I'm not going to

repeat them again this afternoon. I was critical, then, Mr. Speaker, as

I am critical. now. of the Federal Government's policy of deliberately

creating unemployment in order to curb inflation. On Tuesday of this

week, support for this Government's position came from a most

unexpected source and that was the Federal Minister of Labour, the

Honourable Bryce Mackasey. According to the press and television news

reports, Mr. Mackasey conceded that unemployment has been too high a

price to pay in the fight against inflation. He said, "There has got to

be a better method than putting people out of work." Mr. Mackasey will

never again be party to a policy of deliberately putting people out of

work in order to tight inflation. I want to congratulate Mr. Mackasey

on his statement. I want to congratulate Mr. Mackasey on his

repudiation of Liberal

[ Page 541 ]

policies.

It also, of course, as has been pointed out, was an admission that

this was their policy. Now, he, as one of the Cabinet Ministers, is

repudiating that policy. Really, what it's doing as well… (interruption) .

I know he's still in the Cabinet but what he's doing, as well, is

indicating that what this Government has been saying all along has been

absolutely right and correct.

When I closed the debate, a year ago, on the Budget Debate, Mr.

Speaker, I said then that this Government could never accept

unemployment as a cure for inflation. I called it then an irresponsible

policy. The Premier went much further than that and also advocated

additional policies that should be taken in lieu of the Federal

Government's policies in order to fight inflation.

Again, I won't reiterate these proposals because I did so, a year

ago. But I do want to reactivate a proposition that was put forward at

the September conference in Ottawa, the Federal Provincial Conference

in Ottawa, and that relates to the subject of immigration. According to

the Federal Department of Manpower and Immigration, last year, as of

September 30, 1970, there were 16,598 overseas immigrants who had

stated their intention to settle in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, we

have over five times that number unemployed. Now, there are two points

that I want to make on this subject of immigration. The first one is

this. I suspect that the Federal immigration officials are not

presenting a clear picture on the unemployment situation to the

potential immigrants; consequently they are flocking to British

Columbia to no jobs. For a man and his family, who undertake this

serious decision to leave their own country, to foresake their friends,

to pull up stakes and come here, a very serious move, and then to find

themselves without employment, eventually having to go on to social

assistance is a tragic situation, a situation that should not exist and

one which, from that point of view of giving accurate information, can

be readily rectified by the Federal authorities.

The second point I want to make, and this is the point that was made

and the proposition that was put forward in our brief to the

Federal-Provincial Conference last September, is that the Federal

Government should immediately curtail immigration from outside Canada.

In recent years there has been a liberalization of immigration

policies. Ottawa opened the doors to American deserters, in 1969. Then,

in addition, to those who are here legally, there are many people who

live in Canada illegally. According to the Vancouver Province ,

dated November 2, 1970, there are between 100,000 and 200,000 people

living and working in Canada illegally. Most of them come here as

visitors and then stay on without any authorization. According to the

Immigration Department the great bulk of these people are the unskilled

and the semiliterate.

When our National economy is able to generate sufficient jobs to

employ those who are presently living in our country, then certainly we

should welcome immigrants from other lands. That should always be our

policy. But that isn't the situation at the moment and it's not likely

to be the situation this year. In the brief which, by the way, is

attached to the Budget Speech as Appendix No. 2, you will find the

recommendation included that British Columbia recommends that when the

National unemployment rate exceeds 4 per cent, immigration into Canada

should be stopped, except in rare cases." Mr. Speaker, we recommend the

adoption of that policy, now.

While the greatest thrust of this Budget, Mr. Speaker, is towards

new jobs, we shouldn't overlook the necessity to improve productivity.

As productivity improves, so, too, will our ability to compete

effectively in both domestic and world markets. As we look to the

future, and it is a bright future as far as this Province is concerned,

but, as we look to that future, we can expect that many countries on

the Pacific rim will be looking to our Province for trade and for trade

development.

The experts indicate that Japan is expected to score the highest

during the next ten years in increasing its Gross National Product.

They see a possible increase of 162 per cent for Japan, compared with

50 per cent for the United-States. This will result in a reverse trend

in our present export market, as the United States is presently our

number one customer. In addition, Italy, France, Germany, all of these,

are expected to make tremendous gains. So, it is significant, and

highly significant, for our future, the rate of expansion in these

industrial nations and our ability to compete and to feed these markets

because with this kind of development, with industrialization, comes

more job opportunities and a higher standard of living for all. I don't

think it's possible to overemphasize how important advances in

productivity are to our whole economy, because we are so highly

dependent on being able to compete in foreign markets.

There are several crucial points to consider. One is the fact that

we must establish a reputation as an efficient and dependable supplier

of raw materials and manufactured goods. Here is the area, in which

there has been some discussion, which I talked about in the earlier

debate — the role of labour-management relations. Foreign purchasers

will not continue to purchase our goods if production or delivery is

delayed through work stoppages. My colleague, the Honourable the

Minister of Agriculture, when he spoke, made it clear that, after his

encounter with some of these foreign powers while attending the

conference in Russia, they were aware of the situation here to the

degree of actually knowing the number of days lost through work

stoppages. We had prime examples, last year, strikes in the towboat,

strikes in longshoring, Post Office, all facets of communication, all

important features of dependable trade with other countries.

Productivity improvement is an essential goal as we move forward, Mr.

Speaker, and we must always bear this in mind.

If we're going to attain this goal then we have to take full

advantage of technical change, of technological progress. We need

highly skilled workers. We have to provide the funds for the training

of these workers and assist in giving leadership, not only the training

but applying the developments of science and technology, as well.

Increases in productivity, if there are going to continue to be

increases in productivity, must be shared with the work force. That's

the only way you're going to have the proper motivation. I think the

psychological attitude of labour and management to the work process is

one of the most important factors in increasing productivity.

I have little sympathy and I'm sure all the Members of this House

have very little sympathy for those employers and, fortunately, they

are very few in number who treat their employees simply as a commodity

or factor of production. On the other hand, we don't have any sympathy,

either, I'm sure, for trade unions who cling to restrictive work

practices and are stubborn to make changes in these times of rapid

changes in technology.

Mr. Speaker, there have to be new efforts. There have to be imaginative efforts at the bargaining table and I have no

[ Page 542 ]

hesitation in calling upon labour and management to

dedicate themselves to an all-out effort to make British Columbia an

environment of growth, a healthy, genuine growth that is real because

it springs from increased productivity.

Now another subject that has been discussed at some length, both in

this debate and the previous debate, is pollution and this Budget makes

allocation for pollution control in British Columbia. I'm not going to

talk in the broad, general sense on the subject, but only to deal with

those areas in which I have some responsibility. I refer to our

pollution control programme as it relates to motor-vehicles.

Last Session, this Legislature passed some amendments to the Motor-Vehicle Act ,

amendments which provide that the Executive Council could make

regulations concerning the installation of pollution control devices on

motor-vehicles. During the year, those regulations were drawn and

passed, providing that all new motor-vehicles, motor-vehicles

manufactured on or before January 1, of this year, had to have certain

devices on them to control air pollution. These regulations set the

limits of exhaust emission of hydrocarbons I and carbon monoxide, as

well as other limits in respect to diesel-operated use. The standards

that we implemented by regulation, following this legislation, are the

same standards that now exist in the Province of Ontario. They are the

same standards that exist in the United States of America, so, we have,

and I think this is important, a degree of standardization in this area

that is not common in all areas that we legislate on.

Pollution control devices have been available on the market for a

relatively short period of time. The first device was a crank case

ventilator and that became standard on automobiles manufactured on this

continent in 1965. It was joined in 1968 by the exhaust emission

control device and that, now, since 1968, not on all foreign cars but

on cars manufactured since 1968 on this continent, has been a part of

the original purchase. The introduction of the evaporative control

device is a new factor this year. Its purpose is to trap the gasoline

fumes which come about through evaporation and they are, now, through

this device, recirculated through the fuel system. The combination of

these three devices is capable of reducing the emission of hydrocarbons

and carbon monoxide by at least 80 per cent. At least, 80 per cent,

with the installation of these three devices, which are mandatory now

in British Columbia on all new cars manufactured after January I of

this year. One of the points, of course, is that the vehicles, in order

to get this kind of performance out of their air pollution control

devices, have to be in good working order. That is one of the problems,

of course, with any such device.

I want to advise the Members and announce today that it is the

intention of the Government to expand the scope of the air pollution

control regulations under the Motor-Vehicle Act ,

to phase in requirements for the equipping of the vehicles which were

manufactured prior to January 1 of this year with pollution control

devices. In other words, we're doing it now on new cars and we want,

during the course of this year, to take in some of the used cars on a

gradual basis to make it mandatory for them, also, to have air

pollution devices. To move in this direction, we have to be sure that

there's an adequate supply of such devices, but I hope that we can make

a start, a substantial start on the programme this year. We'll have to

exempt some vehicles, older vehicles. Some will only need one device,

others will need more than one device, so, it's a rather complicated

area when you move from the new car field into the older car field.

Then, too, in some parts of the Province, where we have a low

population density and where vehicle registrations are low, there is

very little practical value in requiring motor-vehicle owners to go to

the expense involved of adding these devices. We have other areas, such

as Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, Westminster — in these areas, all

vehicles should really have air pollution control devices because, just

as Los Angeles has problems with air inversion currents, so, too, does

Vancouver, not to the same degree, but certainly sufficiently serious

to pay some attention to this question of air pollution and having as

many of the vehicles as possible covered (interruption) .

Yes, the diesel truck is a different matter. There, the question is not

the emission of hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide, just simply a smoke

factor and, so, we cover the diesel engines on the basis of smoke. But

it's a different kind of pollution from that which comes from the

gasoline engines.

One of the problem areas, at the moment, is how do we check the

efficiency of these control devices? How do we know they're working on

a vehicle? That's the problem that confronts, not only us, but every

jurisdiction that has moved in this field. Even California, where they

moved on air pollution control devices, still has this basic problem of

finding a means of monitoring the devices to see that they're working.

There are some that are being used now on an experimental basis in

California, on patrol, but they really haven't been assessed

sufficiently yet, I understand, to purchase them on any mass basis.

We're in complete touch with these other jurisdictions. As a matter of

fact, there's a conference in May — a workshop, really, in San Diego,

California, where we will be represented, where manufacturers of these

devices will be invited to participate. Scientists will be invited to

participate so that there can be some assessment in trying to find a

device that will work because, as soon as we do, then, we want to

establish these devices in our motor-vehicle inspection stations. It's

not easy because we have a limited time when the motor-vehicles are in

there. Now, when a new car is tested, you need very expensive

equipment. You need a lot of time, operating under different

conditions, to see that they're working. We can't begin to do that sort

of thing in a motor-vehicle inspection station. So it's difficult to

say, at this point in time, how far we are off from having these

monitoring systems in our motor-vehicle inspection stations but I'm

sure we will be among the leaders in this field on the continent.

Another aspect of motor-vehicle pollution, that is of increasing

concern to the general public, is the irritating one of noise. We have

noise, of course, resulting from motor-vehicles with a lot of buildings

around — the reflection of noise — all of these are different

conditions. The only one that we've been able to take some action on,

at the moment, is the noise resulting from the motor-vehicle itself.

I know some of the Members were wondering what this device was that

I had in here and I think there were a few suspicions, Mr. Speaker,

that I was recording. It's not an offensive weapon, but it is a sound

level meter and it registered in these Chambers, I might add. I had

some difficulty when the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound was

speaking. It didn't register too high but there were a couple of

occasions, when the Second Member for Vancouver East was speaking, that

it registered well into the 70's. But, at any event, you'll be

reassured to know that it hasn't gone over 85 decimals in the Chamber.

That won't hurt anyone's cars, Mr. Speaker, that level of noise (interruption) . I was afraid you might ask that question,

[ Page 543 ]

that's why I turned it off. I'm too close to it. It

should be about 15 feet away and that's what the instrument has been

calibrated for.

We only have one of these, at the moment, so that the motorists who

are going through the station, today, are safe in Victoria. We use this

when a motorist disagrees with the opinion of the inspector, when the

inspector says, "Look, you need a new muffler, my friend, it's too

noisy." Then, if he disagrees, they take the vehicle out, they test it

with this and it either reinforces or it doesn't reinforce the opinion

of the inspector. We're taking action now, in this way, and this type

of instrument, which is a fairly expensive little gadget, is proving

very helpful in this respect. It's amazing the… (interruption) . This is what we hope to do this year.

On the basis of the use of this instrument and our experimentation,

we hope to set standards, standards which we can make public so

everyone will know. The other advantage of setting these standards is

the fact that, then, we will have uniformity throughout the Province.

We won't have to have each municipality setting their own standard as

to noise factor, so that you get differences from one area of the

Province to another. That is our task for this year. I might add that,

if any of you are caught…from the experiences some motorists have

had, in this area, I understand, a fairly common experience is that,

when you're told, "No your motor-vehicle is rejected because of noise,"

they'll go back and fill the exhaust system with steel wool and that

deadens the sound. But, the inspectors, and the reason I'm making it

public now, the inspectors are onto this and you'll be very embarrassed

if you do that and come into a motor-vehicle inspection station because

they know how to catch this particular subterfuge, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the regulations, I would like to point out, as well,

that we have a special research project. I shouldn't say we, it's

really the research project of the University of British Columbia, the

Department of Mechanical Engineering. They are using the Richmond

inspection station, trying to develop methods whereby noisy

motor-vehicles can be quickly identified. The difficulty is monitoring

this within the station itself. This research programme is attracting

attention from acoustic experts in many parts of the world. There

hasn't been much work done in this area, as it relates to

motor-vehicles and, as soon as we find answers in this area, I can

assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we'll be anxious to take advantage of the

research and try to eliminate as much as possible unnecessary noise as

a pollution factor in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, one further subject I want to deal with, because it has

been overlooked, not entirely, but in large measure, in the course of

this Budget Debate, and, yet, when we refer to our Budget as $1.3

billion, we should remember that there are additional expenditures

being made each year as a result of the perpetual funds that have been

established. This has become a feature of Social Credit Budgets since

1969 — quite unique, I suggest, in this country and one that we're

extremely proud of. We don't expect the Liberals to talk about it

because they've never supported these programmes, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure

the native citizens have great difficulty in understanding their

position, because there is the First Citizens' Fund of $25 million.

There's an Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster

Area Fund….

AN HON. MEMBER: They're against that.

MR. PETERSON: A $10,000,000 Centennial Cultural Fund….

AN HON. MEMBER: They're against that.

MR. PETERSON: A $10,000,000 Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund…

AN HON. MEMBER: They're against that.

MR. PETERSON: …soon to be joined by another fund which will

be discussed, I'm sure, later on, Mr. Speaker. The important feature of

these funds is that the annual interest earnings are available each and

every year, in good times, bad times, each and every year the interest

earnings are available for these very important programmes. In

addition, the capital funds are available for investment in school and

hospital facilities to enable school construction and hospital

construction programmes to proceed. This, Mr. Speaker, generates many

new jobs, not included as such in the Budget which is the subject of

debate today.

I want, if I might digress for a moment, since I see the honourable

Member in his seat, to also express my congratulations to the

Honourable Member for Nanaimo for the attention that he has directed to

a very serious problem in the Province of British Columbia and a

serious problem in his own constituency — the drug problem. I mention

it, at this time, just to remind the House and to remind the public,

that we don't have jurisdiction in a broad way in this area. The

Federal Government exercises exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the

law enforcement aspect of drugs, also the prosecution of drug

offenders. Unlike other Federal offenses, whether it's a murder or what

have you, where we handle the prosecution, Provincially, in drug cases

the Federal Government handles the prosecution as well as direction of

the law enforcement in this respect. The one area in which we do have

jurisdiction, is in terms of education and this is where we can do the

most effective work. We also have exclusive jurisdiction, perhaps not

entirely exclusive, but, nevertheless, we have jurisdiction, under the

Constitution, over this serious problem of alcoholism. While most of

the public attention, at the moment, is directed to the problem of drug

abuse, we should remember that alcoholism is one of the most serious

health problems that exists in Canada, today, and exists in British

Columbia, today. More prevalent, ten times more prevalent than

tuberculosis, 25 more times prevalent than cancer, 50 times more

prevalent than polio and we can look forward to greater prevalence as

our population grows. So I ask the honourable Members to bear these

factors in mind when you vote on this Budget, because there is

financial assistance to these programmes provided in this Budget (interruption) .

Well, if the honourable Members don't wish me to pursue that subject,

I'd be glad to pursue the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund. I

would like to tell them a little about that.

This was one of the funds established in 1969 and it has had an

impact on sports and fitness in the Province of British Columbia.

During this past year, we paid out grants totalling $590,950. As a

matter of fact, the interest on this, earned from the establishment of

the fund, until two days ago, February 17, amounted to $1,311,632.36.

That's the revenue from that fund in that short period of time. That's

the amount that's been available for distribution to encourage and to

promote physical fitness among young and old alike and also to promote

amateur sports. Of that amount, we have

[ Page 544 ]

expended, to February 17, $1,012,733.06, Mr.

Speaker. So the Fund has had a tremendous impact on sports and fitness

in British Columbia. It's created a degree of enthusiasm that I think

few people would have anticipated in the sporting fraternity. It has

created a much greater awareness of the importance of co-ordinating the

various activities that go on in this field. It has created the

importance of good administration. As a matter of fact, British

Columbia is unique in having a very strong, well-organized, central

sports body — the British Columbia Sports Federation, representing all

sports in the Province. The centre, that has been established in this

respect, is a Canadian first. It's the envy of every other Province and

it has enabled sports and fitness programmes to move ahead much more

rapidly than would otherwise be the case.

I want to refer to a few letters of thanks and appreciation, just to

indicate the different kinds of grants that have been made and the

reaction to those grants, although, perhaps, the best evidence was in

this Chamber, this afternoon, when we saw the swimmers from Vancouver,

from the Dolphin Swim Club, who have just returned from New Zealand

after winning all the prizes in competition there. We have outstanding

swimmers in the Province of British Columbia and the funds have helped

them considerably. Here's one from the Vancouver Parks Board, because

we assisted them in some of the summer projects, expressing their

gratitude in promoting fitness and amateur sports. From the University

of British Columbia, "We are grateful for the financial support of the

British Columbia Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund, which made

it possible for the University to be represented at the World Games,"

from the Athletic Director of UBC. From the Badminton Association, some

of the honourable Members are badminton fans, we have participants, "We

have doubled out clinics and have under way a full-scale programme of

coaching and instructional clinics." That's the Badminton Association.

I don't know how the Honourable Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey

could possibly vote against these perpetual funds.

The British Columbia Volleyball Association, "The new impetus that

you have given us is certainly stimulating creative and imaginative

ideas. Our executive is fired up and on the move. Thank you very much."

From the B.C. Track and Field Association, "Because of this help, B.C.

track and field athletes have been able to establish themselves in

National and international fields." Amateur football, from the

Provincial Amateur Football Association, "The grants from the Fund, for

the past two years, have formed the lifeline of communication, growth

and improved abilities for football in British Columbia." The Amateur

Wrestling Association for the Province, "We are very pleased and happy

to report the strong development of our sport in all areas of our

Province. We have greatly increased numbers in participation with a

noticeable improvement in skills. These are the direct results of the

camps and clinics made possible from Fund grants." That's the Wrestling

Association. There are many more, Mr. Speaker, that one could refer to,

because the Fund has been well received. None of the grants is used by

the Government for administration expenses for administering the Fund.

All is paid out in grants to organizations. We're trying to ensure that

there is Strong, central administration, through the B.C. Sports

Federation, but we want the grants to feed down to clinics, to help

train, to coach and to build outstanding athletes, because these people

will set an example for all the young people to follow. Now that's only

one half… (interruption) . I

haven't the figures, Mr. Premier, at hand for the Festival of Sports

but it was far better, far greater than anything anyone would have

expected in the first year of operation.

We want to do more, for instance, now, with the Summer Games coming

to British Columbia. Here's where we want to do an excellent job. We

hope to come first in Canada at the next Canada Summer Games. We were

second in the last one. But, not only do we want our outstanding

athletes to benefit from the Fund, we want mass participation and we're

getting…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR.PETERSON: …more and more people to participate in all

the varying activities, Mr. Speaker. This is something that is much to

be admired and certainly is one of the major objectives of the Fund.

Now, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is, indeed, fortunate to be able

to produce a record Budget of $1.3 billion, at a time when the Canadian

economy has not been particularly dynamic. As the best part of the

address by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound indicated, it's a

balanced Budget. A Budget that is designed to keep British Columbia

moving ahead on all fronts. As the Minister of Finance pointed out on

page 17 of the Budget "We have opted for a continuation of dynamic

growth to increase the supply of jobs for our fast-growing labour force

and to maintain a high level of Government services to the people of

the Province." This, Mr. Speaker, is an action Budget. Members of the

Opposition have always excelled in paper promises. My goodness, when

the Leader of the Liberal Party addressed this Chamber, a week ago

Monday, he lead us down this road of fantasy to describe the budget

that the Liberals were proposing — paper promises, paper promises. But

paper promises do very little to the man who has to feed a family, to

clothe a family, to find housing, to have education, to have health and

medical care.

Action has always spoken louder than words, Mr. Speaker, and this is

an action Budget, an action Budget. It has provided the means whereby a

person can stand proud in this Province, knowing that his children have

an opportunity for education, knowing that they can have health care,

if necessary, and medical services and hospitals and, of equal

importance, if not more important, to be able to have a home as most of

the citizens can. Those who vote for this Budget will be supporting

money for housing: an additional $20 million, for home acquisition

grants: a total of $4.2 million for senior citizens, Mr. Provincial

Secretary, and you can multiply that by three in terms of total housing

because this amounts to the one-third grant. A significant increase, as

well, in the homc-owner grant is provided for in this Budget. Those of

us who will be supporting this Budget, in a moment or so from now, will

recognize the importance of education, recognize that we have to

provide the facilities anti the educational opportunities for our young

people. An increase of $35 1/2 million more money for all levels of

education, in one year. That's a pretty good effort for two

million-plus people. An increase of more than $35 million for li"the

and hospital services, a further $10 million for the best medical care

programme in Canada. They talk about in unicipali ties — this Budget

contains a better deal for municipalities. Are you going to vote

against that? (Applause.) T here's

no one who can deny that this Budget does not contain a better deal for

municipalities. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has already indicated

that, before this Budget, the in unicipali ties were

[ Page 545 ]

being treated more generously here than by any other Provincial Government in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is a record Budget to create jobs, a record Budget

to help people. It's a credit to the Province of British Columbia. It's

the envy of other jurisdictions, not only in Canada, but the United

States and, finally, Mr. Speaker, it's a tribute to a man whose

integrity and ability in managing the financial affairs of this

Province is without equal anywhere. (Applause.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is, "That Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of

Supply." Are you ready for the question?

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Smith

Ney

Tisdalle

McDiarmid

Merilees

Bruch

Capozzi

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

Skillings

Wenman

Jordan, Mrs.

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Dawson, Mrs.

Loffmark

Mussallem

Bennett

Gaglardi

Price

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

Vogel

Black

Brothers

LeCours

Fraser

Shelford

Chabot

Campbell, B.

Richter

Little

Wolfe

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

Brousson

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Gardom

Calder

Dowding

Cocke

Clark

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Barrett

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

Dailly, Mrs.

Hall

Macdonald

Pursuant to Order, the House resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill 12. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, Bill 12 is

an act, the Accelerated Park Development Act .

This is a very important bill. All bills are important but if I could

say that one bill is extremely important this year, I would say it is

this one. I think all Members of the House, all Parties, as well as the

people around the Province, appreciate that we're living now in a new

type of world, where people have more leisure time and people are

visiting more — our own people as well as from outside. The question of

having open spaces and parks and park development and of an opportunity

to carry out these healthy sports outdoors are so important. They are

the reason why the Government is presenting this particular bill this

year, over and above the regular items in the estimates for that

department. British Columbia is blessed with varied climate and terrain

which allows development of fine recreational areas for the benefit of

all citizens, as well as for visitors to the Province. However, the

dynamic increase in the population of the Province and in the number of

visitors, which, per capita perhaps might lead any place, points up the

need to augment our regular development of the parks programme.

Coincident is the need to create additional jobs at this particular

time. This bill, therefore, proposes to fulfill both needs, by

providing $15 million from the Province's budgetary cash reserve for

workers to create and improve park facilities in the Province. I

emphasize that. It's not to buy new parks. It's to develop parks and

create jobs. The sum of $15 million is over and above the regular sum

for park development provided for in the 1971-72 estimates of

expenditure.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Parks is not here,

today. He's doing a very important job in the Hydro but, I hope, during

the debate on this bill, that the Minister will be able to outline some

of the jobs and parks that will be developed out of this fund. It isn't

the intention of this fund to get the authority of the Legislature and

then, leave the fund unspent. It is the policy, this year, of

committing all this money — the whole $15 million — to put people to

work. This year — commit it all.

Some of these contracts might take longer to finish but it's my

hope, as Minister of Finance, that it will all be committed this year

because we want to, in this and other ways, during this Session, in the

estimates, you'll find all departments will be out to create more jobs

this year not only for a regular working force which is so important,

but also for students in our universities. We want to make sure we get

as far as we can within the Province of British Columbia, within our

scope, to create jobs this year. Now that interest money is dropping a

little, now that some of our labour disputes and management disputes

have eased, although we might be threatened by one, once in a while, we

think this is the time for British Columbia to make a great step

forward. We do that at some risk, because other Canadians may flock in

but, once you are in Canada, you have a right to movement and this

Legislature or this Government can do nothing about that. I only know

this, that, from my experience, a number of years ago, in the 1930's

when I left Alberta and found this beautiful country of British

Columbia, I didn't intend to stay here to live, either. I went into

Kelowna one day. This was in the first week in July. A chap took me up

in one of these cherry orchards — these Lambert cherries are just black

and dark and light (applause) . It's in South Okanagan, my dear (laughter) .

I ate more of these cherries in that one day than I had eaten all my

life before. That was a wonderfully hot day and I went down that

evening… (interruption) . No,

I wasn't. I went down that evening to the Aquatic in Kelowna, dived off

the board and swam there that night. I'm going to tell you this, I want

to tell you this… (interruption) .

No, I was a little thinner in those days. I want to say that I wondered

where I had been all my life that I hadn't been out to British

Columbia. We .never left. I got in touch with Mrs. Bennett and she came

up with two of the small children, babies at that time. In those

1930's…every person who went through that period knows that it was a

very difficult period, indeed, very, very difficult. It was possible.

We had wonderful people in the Okanagan —

[ Page 546 ]

the growers and so forth — and we had meetings and

they agreed that…. I had gone down to Regina and down there they not

only had difficulties like we had here but they were down in the

dustbowl and the grasshoppers were jumping right over you as you walked

down the main street (interruption) .

Not at that particular time, but he was a good citizen, certainly. He

and I were in many things together That's right, many things. Because

up in the Okanagan we're not narrow partisan (interruption) .

Certainly, certainly. I'd be the last to say that there are not good

people in all political parties. If I didn't have that trust in human

nature, that the great 99.9 per cent of the people are good people, I

wouldn't be in public life. I want to hasten to say this. We had these

meetings with these farmers and they agreed and volunteered to give

these apples — it was hard to sell them, anyway — free. The railroads,

the CNR and CP both, agreed to carry them into these drought areas,

free, without any freight charges. Then we organized in our churches,

at night, and we had the merchants to put up the money for the cans and

so forth. We canned tomatoes, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

cases, not in real cases but in old cartons. We put so many of these

canned tomatoes in every car of apples that went into the drought areas

and when these people received them they said, "My goodness, if a

place, in this terrible depression in these dirty 1930's, the day of

the jungles" — and a lot of people don't understand that day, the day

of the jungles, around every little town — "If there's any area that

can afford to do this then that must be a pretty good place to live."

So they came in in every way, on the engines and everything else. As

the Member from the Kootenays said, they came in every way They settled

in there and some people condemned them but I did not, because today

the years have gone by and, in my area, their sons and daughters are

not any better than they were but they're lawyers, they're doctors,

they're nurses, in all the professions. You find them all over this

Province, everywhere. They're good citizens. While they come to British

Columbia and are flocking to British Columbia, every one, with perhaps,

one or two exceptions, every one, in due course, will make their

contribution to this greater, greater British Columbia and,

therefore….

AN HON. MEMBER: Even long-hairs.

MR. BENNETT: I'm not worried about people with long hair. I'm

not worried about how they part their hair. What I am worried about is

that they don't pollute their minds because, of all the pollution in

the world, the pollution of the mind and the body is the worst. That's

the worst pollution This week, this talk on this bill, Mr. Speaker, is

not to invite everybody to come to British Columbia because I tell them

not to come, unless they have a lot of cash in their pockets today, or

have a job, because we have unemployment here, because our population

is growing, is growing about three times faster than the rest of

Canada. I only want to say, "Don't condemn the people that do come.

Help them, give them a helping hand." This bill is out to help create

more work. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what this bill has to do with the Okanagan. I

hope that the Minister wasn't trying to sell the Okanagan with the idea

that they should get the whole $15 million because, if that's the case

then it's not going to do the whole Province very much good.

The Minister also stated that he didn't want people to come in from

other. Provinces, unless they had money with them. I don't understand

you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, that you went down east and

you did all the advertising about what you're going to do with the

parks and about the $15 million you're going to spend and the jobs

you're going to make. You advertised it in the eastern papers. Do you

expect those people to stay home? No.

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is no.

MR. NIMSICK: That's right, I say that. Why don't you make

your mind up to be consistent with these ideas. Why did you say today

that you don't want them to come, unless they've got money. You don't

want them to come, unless they've got money. I say this is definitely a

wrong attitude to take. I agree that the people can come across Canada

and, thank goodness, that they can come across Canada without having

immigration authorities or somebody to stop them.

Mr. Speaker, this $15 million it's a very…when you think of the

area of the Province of British Columbia and the work that needs to be

done in the parks, it's a very small amount. It's better than nothing,

I'll agree. I say that, when you divide it up, I hope nobody gets the

idea that it's going to be a big thing in each riding. I hope that they

look over the whole picture throughout the Province, when they're

dealing with this $15 million. The Premier said that he hoped the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation would deal with the specific

places where it can spend this money.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say one thing. The first thing that we

should do about our parks throughout the Province…and our parks are

used a great deal and there are many, many areas that are used for

recreational purposes by tourists and by people that come in the

Province and the people who are moving about the Province. Alongside

our lakes and parks…I think it's a reflection on this Government, the

condition of some of the parks last summer. A party told me they were

up at Long Beach, the toilets were overflowing. It was ridiculous the

filth and the stench that was up there, at that time, he said. I was in

the Kootenay, and I can speak for the Kootenay. I was up in Long Beach,

last year, too. Mr. Speaker, in our area we've got a lot of grounds.

Some parks like Whiteswan Lake and Premier Lake, we've got camping

grounds alongside the lakes and they haven't got the proper facilities

to look after their garbage, they haven't got the proper toilets and

some of them have no toilets at all. At Whiteswan Lake the Junior Fish

and Game Club had to go out and try to build a couple of toilets. I

think it's terrible when you set up a park and don't have any

facilities for people to use. People can't even walk off the road into

the bush on account of that. This is one of the things that we should

think of first when we're thinking of spending this $15 million. I know

it's not only in my riding the lack of these facilities. It's in

practically all ridings that we haven't got the facilities.

Let's not make a grandiose scheme of this $15 million in any one or

two places. Let's clean up our park system throughout the Province.

This will provide a lot of jobs. Let's make the facilities for them to

put their garbage in, not only in the parks themselves, but in places

where there are lakes where a number of the people gather for

recreation. Some of them are not declared park areas but, nevertheless,

the recreational people in each area know those places and I

[ Page 547 ]

think we should have proper facilities for looking

after the garbage, proper facilities, hygienic conditions for the

people. That's one of the first things. On top of that I think that we

should also have, maybe, more smaller parks. I want to agree that parks

are very job-producing, more so probably than any other single factor

that we've got.

We had a youth camp up in Wasa last summer and I want to say that I

hope they are expanded this year — the youth camps. They've done a fine

job and I think it was a wonderful training for those young people to

get up into the country and have a person in authority there that

looked after them to see that everything went all right. They did a

very fine job at Wasa Lake. I think that we should have more of them,

though, around the Province, more of these camps and put the young

people to work, more places for students to get jobs, as the Honourable

the Premier said, during the summertime, and plan the whole picture

throughout the whole Province so that all areas of the Province will

get some benefit from this $15 million you're going to expend on parks

development — not any one area.

Up in our area, the parks are overcrowded. Wasa Lake campgrounds — they're turning them away every night. There's a whole field of people

who are wanting to go through Fort Steele and there's no campground

around Fort Steele, only at Wasa and it's quite a few miles away. I

think there should be a campground near Fort Steele because it's the

type of an area that adapts itself to camping purposes. Don't set up

these campgrounds, unless you put in the facilities, so that we can

look after the pollution, so that we can look after the garbage. In

some of the places last summer, some of the tourists had little concern

sometimes for the lakes or the campgrounds. Two of them went up there

with vans and they put their sewage connection right into the lake and

then when you told them about it, they were rather huffed. I know we

passed the law last year that this is against the law but,

nevertheless, people do these things. If you haven't got provisions for

garbage collection in these places then we've got little to holler

about the people not knowing where to put their garbage. This, I think,

is something that has got to be done and to me, no matter what went on

throughout the Province last summer, it was not good. A number one

priority should be the cleanliness of our parks and the looking after

the garbage and looking after the toilets, so that people will have

facilities when they camp at these places. They'll know where to put

their garbage and they'll know where to go when they have to go (laughter) not run off in the brush or field some place.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this $15 million will be prorated over the

Province to bring benefits to the people who are in need throughout the

Province, the people who are unemployed and as a training for the young

people in our Province (interruption) .

Well, you could even do that as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to

give everybody the right to share in the $15 million. But I don't think

that the parks in the interior are set up to entertain the people from

the coast, from the big cities. So, therefore, I would say that a part

of the per capita of the big cities should go to the parks in the

interior so that they will be given their share; otherwise, we'll be

swamped by the city folks and the people in the city. I would say

that… (interruption) . You've

got some parks around Vancouver. I'm not talking about Vancouver, but

you've got a lot of parks within maybe fifty miles of Vancouver,

serving the city of Vancouver, and all these parks should have a share

in this to clean up and look after them. I've got no objection. All I

want to see is that the whole Province, every place, gets its fair

share of the amount. You can't figure that this is going to be spent

within any municipality or any city. It has to be a regional area that

has to be considered, not just in the areas where the people live.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this bill. I'd like, as I said

before, I'd like to see it far more than $15 million, because I know we

could use it. It's going to be a very small amount for each region

throughout the whole Province, but nevertheless, at least it's a start.

I do hope that it isn't just going to be on paper and not spent. This

is what I want to see because you can have the finest scheme in the

world on paper, but unless you take the money and actually put it to

work, then it won't be there. I hope that you will see that it's

actually spent and that we get value for the money.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I

certainly enjoyed the Premier's introduction of this bill for second

reading. I'm not sure what canned tomatoes have to do with the

development of parks in the future, but it was wonderful to hear about

those early days in British Columbia.

It was very reassuring to those of us whose memory is a little fuzzy

about what it was like before 1952, but the Premier has given us a

wonderful description. The good old days in Kelowna when one could dive

off the high diving board and not think twice about the quality of the

lake. It's nice to know, too, that one could come from Social Credit

Alberta and on the first day in British Columbia decide this was the

place to spend your whole fife.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, as well, made a point about how this money

was actually going to be spent. We really were going to do some work on

parks, this year, and I think, to many of us in the House, those are

the most cheering words of all. If this whole $15 million can be spent,

it won't be soon enough. Of course, we absolutely subscribe to what the

Premier has said that producing jobs, at this time, is a vital

requirement in British Columbia. I must note in passing, however, this

is to be taken out of revenue surplus. The money was there, the jobs

were needed last year. Our Liberal budget did provide for an extra $5

million for parks development a year ago. We could have had the people

to work, already. We could have been preparing the parks for… (interruption) .

Well, revenue surplus is what this bill states and it merely says that

the $15 million is there now and is going to be used for this purpose.

We have the people standing in the line-ups, this week, waiting to pick

up their welfare cheques, out of work and anxious to develop British

Columbia, just the same way as the Premier. I think we should be

looking in a much more imaginative way to our future as far as

recreation is concerned in British Columbia than is implied by this

bill.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that some reference had been made about a

preference to be given for winter recreation in British Columbia

because I've been saying for many years that the snow on our mountains

is white gold. Perhaps, of all places in the world, British Columbia is

the most favourite of all for winter recreation, because here's where

we have the snow, here's where the climatic conditions in winter are

almost perfect — not the 30, 40, 50 degree below zero weather, just

right for ideal, dry-snow conditions. At a time when people all over

the world have the leisure time, which the Premier is describing, when