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)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27,1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 77 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The following Bill 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:

On the motion of Mr. D. Barrett, Bill (No. 8) intituled

An Act Respecting a Guaranteed Income for Senior Citizens.

THRONE DEBATE

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): We're highly honoured today to

have the Honourable John Turner, the Federal Minister of Justice, with

us on the floor of the Legislature. He's here with his officials

discussing important questions regarding Canada's situation, especially

the Constitution. I ask all Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to give

the Honourable Federal Minister a warm welcome.

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): I, too, would like to join

in the welcome that has been given to the Honourable John Turner

because in his early Parliamentary days he was associated with the

Resource Department of the Canadian Council as Resource Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on the Speech from the Throne, thus far, has

centred on two main topics — unemployment and the quality of the

environment. I intend to deal with each of these topics briefly this

afternoon. First, I think I'll deal with what I consider to be the most

important example of the employment opportunities which exist here in

the Province of British Columbia. It's my belief that, in this

shrinking world in which we live, people should concentrate on doing

those things well, for which they possess natural advantages and which

cannot be met by others. In this way, there is a good chance, I think,

for all to share an improved standard of living, wherever they happen

to live. Against this philosophy, there is that other proposition

expounded that, in the division of job opportunities, each country

should become self-sufficient in the provision of goods, regardless of

the economic consequences. This is often reflected in proposals for

secondary industry that we hear in this Province. In British Columbia,

the efficient management of our timber resources provides the prime

opportunity for job provision and for job specialization — all the way

from unskilled service to technical specialization to professional

application in the fields of biology, engineering, business management,

marketing and research. One of our aims should be to provide a world

centre for wood-based technologies. Such recognition has already been

gained by engineering firms, some in Vancouver, which specialize in the

design and construction of pulp and paper facilities. They are

recognized, as many of you know, on a worldwide basis at the present

time. But the same specialization presents particular problems, which

must first be understood and then resolved through intelligent

cooperation from all who are dependent upon this resource for their

economic livelihood. Let me illustrate from the current statistics

which depict the general conditions of the industry throughout this

last year. Many in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, have already said

that this last year is a year we would like to forget. But, in 1970,

the cut established a new record: it was up 2.2 per cent on the 1969

returns at 1,890 million cubic feet cut. It was a little down from the

estimate we had prepared sometime in November to be used in the Throne

Speech. It didn't quite come to the 3 per cent up that we had estimated

at that time. In other words, we had a record jump in 1969 and we met

that this year and we even surpassed it. This is no mean feat under the

industrial and market conditions which we face. Few people give credit

that this maintenance of employment, which is not matched anywhere else

in the industry, came as a direct result of the sustained-yield

management policies of this Province. A continuing cut position with

respect to timber availability depends upon recorded performance.

Because of our difficulties with the market, consideration has been

given to the implementation of a moratorium on cut, but such has not

been granted to date. If it does become necessary to some degree, it

will not provide for any stockpiling at all. Such a practice only

accentuates the "off again, on again" job opportunities which used to

be a feature of this industry.

But what has happened to these scaled logs? I indicated a moment ago

that this last year we cut a record. Lumber production was down 4 per

cent from 1969. Shingle production was down 12 per cent from 1969.

Plywood production was down 6.5 per cent from 1969. Pulp production was

down 7 per cent from 1969. Paper production was down 5.5 per cent from

last year. The decline of these last two items, the two pulps that I've

mentioned, was principally caused by industrial dispute, because the

market for these products has been fair to good throughout the year and

the demand also has been very good. The added cost of maintaining this

production in an adverse year has been jointly met by the people in

general and through Government, and by industry and its investors. The

wage earners in the industry received increases. The small independent

operators without adequate financial backing have been severely

affected. Major companies have recorded severe declines or even losses

during this last year. Under other systems, they would likely have

closed, which is what happened to a great number of the industries in

the Pacific Northwest south of the line. Remember, the total cut

increased. Against this, the direct revenues from stumpage and

royalties, based upon the actual market returns for logs and lumber,

declined this year by 27 per cent, from a rounded figure of 89.5

million dollars in 1969 to a figure of 65 million dollars in 1970.

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, it should be remembered that, even

at this total, the returns are the second best in the history of our

industry and they're still 20.7 per cent over and beyond 1968, which

was then declared to be a good year. I offer this comment, particularly

for the benefit of my friend sitting on the left, the Minister of

Finance, who's not too pleased with our efforts this year. His costs

keep rising and he naturally expects his revenues to do exactly the

same. But under the circumstances, I think we had a fair year, if one

forgets the cost of fire fighting, which is another expenditure made by

the people, through Government, for the continuing benefit of the

public resource owners, the industry and the workers. I could well add,

also, that this plays a major part now in the preservation of our total

environment.

The above analysis automatically poses two questions or it should

do. First, how could the total lumber scale go up and the production of

the various end products decline? There are two reasons: 1969, last

year, 1.4 per cent of our total production was exported in the form of

round logs. This was a year ago in our best year, 1969. This year, the

[ Page 78 ]

year into which we are going now, the figure

against total production was 2.6 per cent. In other words,

approximately one half of our increased cut this year over last year

was exported. The balance has been stock-piled to the point that

advances on inventory to allow for a continuing production are being

viewed with increased concern. We have more lumber and plywood now on

hand than we've had at any time in our recorded history.

The second question concerns the future prospects for marketing the

present industry, plus this year's anticipated production. It can be

speculatively answered in two ways. First, there is an indicated

increased emphasis to be placed on home construction this year in the

United States, Mr. Speaker. The responsible official, Mr. Romney,

talked about a target of two million homes. The American National

Association of Home Builders estimates 1.7 million homes. Even this

second figure will be up 20 per cent on the actual number of homes in

1970 and the effect on demand and price of forest products in British

Columbia will be almost instantaneous. The second matter of influence

on price and activity will be our ability to sell plywood in new

markets. Our close utilization policies are leading to dramatic

increases in the production as well as the employment opportunities

within this field. We have saturated the Canadian market, however, and

tariff prevents effective sale of this product in the United States'

market. We must sell our product on other markets and we sell a product

which is used primarily for structural purposes. We do not compete in

the manufacture of thin, decorative veneers, but we are world leaders

in producing structural grades of plywood materials and, as an aside,

the largest structural plywood plant in the whole world, at the present

time, is located at Quesnel.

We must open the European market through a concentrated sales

effort, or overproduction at home will lead to a general decline in the

comparative production of this labour consumptive

section of our

industry and will keep the price of the product too low for a return on

investment. In the last year, at least three proposed plants have

delayed plans for construction, awaiting some clarification of the

market problem. It is agreed, a product flow, without an economic and

continuing market is to invite financial suicide and serious people

dislocation. This has happened in other parts of Canada.

This is a specialized secondary industry in the woods industry; it

requires a special input, at the present time, in sales energy, which

will come, I suppose, from people in general. For the first time, if

we're getting involved with workers and others, I would think, because

of the increased ability for jobs and profitable jobs, that there is a

place also for involvement in advertising in the new markets which

might be undertaken by the industries, the workers and the Government,

all together to ensure an increasing demand for that material. There is

an overall involvement with everybody and I think that, unless we all

get into it, the job's not going to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I have four matters involving policy decisions this

afternoon. As I deal with each at the appropriate time, when the new

policy matter is there, I hope that each Member is able to grasp the

particular significance of the item under discussion.

The first has to do with land tenure. In the 1970 Session of the Legislature, a new Land Act

was passed with one

section incorporating the new policy that Crown

Grants of Provincial land should be issued only to Canadian citizens.

This was a further step in land control procedures which had already

incorporated a number of progressive policy decisions. These have been

accepted across Canada as an indication of advanced administrative

action towards ensuring that the public retain a vital interest in this

most important resource. For example, policies may be listed as

follows:

(1) The prohibition of the sale of land which gives its

highest economic return in the growth of a forest crop.

(2) The

retention of prime recreational land around all water courses for

public use.

(3) Leasehold tenure only on land around water courses

which has not been initially retained for public use. This means that

if the need develops in future years, such would revert to the full

public use without cost at all.

(4) The retention for use on a

performance basis of all Crown grazing land.

(5) The alienation of

larger tracts of land for agricultural and other uses, on a

lease-develop-purchase basis to ensure that Crown lands are not being

held merely for speculative gain.

(6) Nonarable land is not alienated

on a permanent basis unless it is required for a specific use which

does not require such soil qualities. Even with these procedures, there

has been nothing to prevent the sale of land owned by Canadians to

anyone who might wish to purchase, regardless of nationality. Many

large holdings have changed hands on this basis. It has been an

accepted privilege for any Canadian to be able to own his own home and

a given acreage of land for his immediate use. This concept has been

extended in recent years by action of this Legislature, in passing the Strata Titles Act , which as allowed for ownership of a living area without an individual's exclusive right to a piece of land.

Another fundamental policy change is being advocated now to help

control the permanent tenure situation as referred to a few moments ago

— wherein it was impossible to stop a Canadian acting as an agent and

then transferring title of his recently acquired Crown land. It is

proposed that, in future, large land holdings should be alienated under

the basis of leasehold only. I will repeat that, Mr. Speaker, because

it is a fundamental change in policy. It is proposed that, in future,

large land holdings should be alienated on the basis of leasehold only.

No decision has yet been made on the size of the land area surrounding

the home and other capital structures, which might be purchased

outright with the issuance of a Crown Grant. The same decision will

have to be made concerning industrial undertakings, although many of

these are now operated under this lease and partial purchase system as

a matter of straight administrative procedure.

May I emphasize now, Mr. Speaker, that it is not suggested that an

individual's home would be subject to such restrictions; however, it

would mean that large acreages would not be permanently alienated from

Crown control and when considered with the six mentioned policies now

in force, danger in the future of the public losing a vital interest in

this resource would be minimal, indeed. No Province in Canada can now

compare with our procedures in this regard and the action now

recommended would be a further step in the retention of our Canadian

identity. The reaction to this announcement will play some

part in

determining the acreage allowance which should be considered proper in

the allowance of future Crown Grants.

One word, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of ecological reserves. In

1967, in Canada, certain groups, determined to set aside ecological

reserves across this country for the purpose of scientific

investigation in this province — groups from the universities,

Government resource departments, and other interested persons — have

been making field examinations for selected areas for ecological

reserves. One of the

[ Page 79 ]

reasons for establishing these reserves is to

provide very small workshop areas for scientific research and

educational purposes associated with our environment. In addition, the

reserves also serve to set aside examples of natural ecosystems within

the Province and preserve rare or endangered plants and animals in

their native habitat. These reserves are not necessarily intended to

provide recreational sites but are specific for the purposes for which

I have mentioned. To date, my Department has set aside 26 of these

ecological reserves on its records, covering a wide variety of

locations throughout the Province. A further 14 (and the top of the

world is not a situation of this kind) that have been suggested by the

Committee are in the process of being checked by the Environmental and

Land Use Committee with respect to legal status and other matters which

will be adjudged in the near future.

The Committee has indicated that it will probably require another

five years to complete the programme of field work, at which time it is

anticipated that, over the Province as a whole, there may be a hundred

or so of these spots, at various elevations as we go up the hillsides,

and at various climatic regions in the interior and in the dry belt,

the coast and coastal forests, in the north, in the Kootenays, the

Okanagan, the Queen Charlotte's, Vancouver Island, which will give a

complete pattern area for study of the ecological circumstances of this

Province. I'd like to give particular praise to Dr. V.J. Krajina of the

University of British Columbia, who has spent a great deal of time on

this particular aspect.

The second major policy decision-making this afternoon, Mr. Speaker,

concerns activities of the Environmental and Land Use Committee. Those

charged with the responsibility in the field of environmental control

have been trying to establish the best administrative vehicle to carry

out the tasks which have been assumed. In most cases, the theoretical

approaches have not proved to be practical in application. Broadly

speaking, there have been two general administrative approaches. One

envisions a control centre, which would set standards and police the

results. We've heard some debate on this matter during the current

sitting of the House. The other would concern the administration of the

various resource departments. Within recent months British Columbia has

assumed a role of experimental leadership in Canada in this latter

field, and I'm willing to admit that this has come about through trying

to work with the problems and not through some development of some

theoretical master plan of procedure. I prefer myself the pragmatic

approach — simply, does it work? During this last year, the Land Use

Committee was established, as has been mentioned in the Speech from the

Throne. It may seem strange at this time in history, Mr. Speaker, to

state that this is the first time in Canada that an attempt has been

made to bring together all of the responsible administrative areas and

agencies within the Provincial administration to assist in the

development of co-ordinated Crown land use policies. Now, the policy

directives require that senior administrative officers must think, not

only in terms of their own needs for land, but also take into

consideration the requirements for multiple or balanced land use of all

other departments. An example of the direct outcome of this approach

has been the insistence that recreational needs, for example, be taken

into consideration in the management of all forest land and not merely

limited to those sections which are labelled as recreational areas or

parks.

A second example involves an area approach concept which includes

the administrators from Regional Districts, Natural Resource

Departments, Department of Highways, and representatives of industry.

This second general approach and pilot scheme was instituted in the

north end of Vancouver Island, where it was possible to plan use prior

to any intensive development. Other study areas have centred from

Quesnel north to Prince George, and then west to Smithers and the whole

of the East Kootenays. In these latter situations, land classification

has been involved with work done under the Canada Land Inventory

agreements by the Federal Government and they have assisted with the

compilation of the basic data.

It's not my purpose this afternoon to outline the work and

achievements of the Cabinet Land Use Committee but merely to show how

its development has been related to a major change in policy insofar as

environmental quality maintenance and pollution control are concerned.

Confusion has persisted, Mr. Speaker, in the public mind between the

responsibilities of the Pollution Control Board and the Director of the

Pollution Control Branch of the Water Resources Service. Both these

institutions operate under the provisions of the Pollution Control Act

and carry out Government policy. The Pollution Control Board, under its

Chairman, has the authority to set standards and broad pollution

control requirements and the Board also is a first appeal tribunal from

decisions made by the Director of the Pollution Control Branch. The

Pollution Control Director and his Branch administer the Pollution Control Act

by receiving and considering applications for permits and administering

the permits once they are issued. Neither the Pollution Control Board

nor the Pollution Control Branch has the power to establish basic

policies outside of the Pollution Control Act. It is this aspect of the work which will concern my important announcement this afternoon.

The original constitution of the Pollution Control Board membership

took into consideration the various resource departments and the other

agencies, such as Health, that had a direct concern with the

administration of pollution controls. Outside representation was added.

The practical development of policy involved assessing available

knowledge on each problem and trying to indicate a possible means of

application. There are still large gaps in the technical field either

at the measurement level or at the control end. Some of the effects of

this have been illustrated through debates which have already taken

place in this House. The very able speeches made in moving and

seconding the Speech from the Throne dealt with aspects of pollution

control. Insofar as mercury is concerned, for example, it is of special

interest to know that only very recently has there been instrumentation

developed to even measure the presence of this material in living

matter in the very small amounts in which it happens to be found. It's

very, very recently that this has been developed. As a consequence, the

mercury content of nearly everything is now being recorded for the

first time. Within the last week, Members may have noticed that some of

the highest readings in Ontario have been recorded in fish caught in

wilderness areas, where the only access is by plane and where

industrial and human activity has been absolutely nil. The field of

practical research of such new contaminants has only been scratched. As

a matter of fact, we are only beginning to find out what should be

researched on some kind of priority basis.

In discussions at the university level, I have heard it argued that

nothing should proceed until all the scientific evidence is available

on which decisions may be made. When

[ Page 80 ]

one asks us how this can be accomplished in a

practical manner, there is absolutely no answer. The most effective way

to find out will be to learn through doing, on a carefully controlled

basis, and then make this evidence available to others for their

guidance as well as our own. This discussion is not designed, Mr.

Speaker, to be exhaustive in the control field, but merely to show the

manner in which the development of administrative procedures takes

place. The Utah Mines Development on the north end of Vancouver Island

shall serve but as an example.

When the problems of effective effluent control were placed before

the Director of the Pollution Control Branch, they already had received

the attention of most of the competent, industrial expertise that was

available in this Province and elsewhere. The Director advertised the

fact that the application for a permit had been received and many

persons, at that time, and many groups responded, although, I believe,

none, even at that stage, could offer real assistance to him in

evaluating the problem which was before him. To supplement the study

taking place within the Pollution Control Branch, the matter of

application was assigned to the B.C. Research Council for report. When

the Council report was received the recommendations and other

information were circulated to all persons and groups that had

originally expressed concern with this development. Four of these

responded. They were invited to present their case at a public hearing

at the site of the project. Opposition was expressed by other people

that they were not permitted to make a presentation. Some of these

appealed to the Pollution Control Board concerning the decision of the

Director and they were heard. Even at that point, they declined to

submit any evidence which could assist in evaluating the problems of

effluent control. The approach being made, Mr. Speaker, by these

objectors was one of general policy and not of fact. But it still had

some merit. By law, the Director must proceed on the basis of available

facts and he is not permitted to decide upon basic Government policy.

The confusion associated with his desire to assemble practical and

scientific data and not opinion took the first two days to resolve at

the forest industry hearing, which took place at the University of

British Columbia this last summer. The Director of Pollution Control

has no responsibility for handling the political or industrial planning

approach to pollution control problems. The basic planning aspect was

originally designed to be handled by the Board but now this approach

does not appear to accept the total environmental and development

responsibility or to meet the need. The total implications of such

major decision-making appear to be far more important and should

involve Government policy at the highest Cabinet level. Such a burden

cannot be placed upon the shoulders of one man or upon a group that

does not speak with the total authority of Government. In the final

analysis, democratic processes cannot be circumvented in the resolution

of vital decisions which affect the social, economic and ecological

development of this Province. The Cabinet must assume full

responsibility.

The activities of the Land Use Committee, through the individual

resource departments and policy decisions of the Pollution Control

Board and/or the Director, have had one basic common objective. All

were directed at the establishment and maintenance of a quality

environment. Decisions were inter-related because, under certain

circumstances, effective controls could not be instituted without

taking the broader look at land use surrounding the area of concern. If

decisions were taken unilaterally by resource departments, compounded

trouble could and would result.

Another fact became evident. Unless effective policies of total land

use became incorporated in the administrative procedures of each

individual department, the policing action assigned to the Pollution

Control Act administration could be likened to closing the barn door

after the animals had escaped. This is a basic matter, fundamental in

administrative action, which is bothering administrators in Canada,

United States and Europe at the present time, and we hear it argued

backwards and forward. Matters in dispute concerning the Utah Mines

Products near Port Hardy seem to emphasize this dilemma. It has become

apparent that, at an early stage of a major industrial planning, a

decision will have to be reached concerning the ability of the local

environment to accommodate the proposed industry without substantial

harm. Once this decision has been made, detailed planning and

preparation for the development could be commenced and the technical

application of the pollution control requirements could be handled by

the pollution control authorities, and these men would not be faced

with the fundamental political decision as to whether such a project

should even be considered for that locality.

The above conclusion led to the recommendation which was outlined in

the Speech from the Throne that the Land Use Committee be changed in

name and function to the Environmental and Land Use Committee with

expanded representation and responsibility. This is the strongest

committee of Government and its representation encompasses the resource

managers and human disciplines which, in total, control the quality of

the environment. You can readily see, Mr. Speaker, that this approach

to control is directly opposite to that advocated by those who propose

an environment department that is concerned with regulations and

policing. Unless there is involvement with the total administration of

a resource, at all times, effective and constantly improving management

in harmony with environmental requirements will not result. Such a

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is now being reached by responsible

administrators in various parts of the world. During this last summer,

the Swiss Government, for example, sent a senior official across this

country to interview those responsible for pollution control. It was

his opinion that our approach in British Columbia would lead to the

most effective results. He had not been able to find a practical means

of administrative control unless there were direct involvement by all

agencies which could affect the quality of the environment. In this

case, he emphasized that theory and practice did not coincide because

the policing approach did appear more logical until you tried to make

it work. This was the reason for his trip and why it was financed.

The Federal Government would appear to be arriving at this same

answer, although the method of achievement might be somewhat different.

The recent decision to establish a branch concerned with environment

has resulted in the transfer of many departmental functions of

resource-related branches to this new ministry. We have been in almost

constant communication with them as the difficulties are being sorted

out. At the present stage, I am convinced that our approach is the most

efficient and effective but time alone will provide the answer. Suffice

to say, that the original policing concept has been abandoned in favour

of direct involvement and cooperation by the agencies with

responsibility for administration.

Another fundamental problem faces the Government. There is a growing group of people in this land who are

[ Page 81 ]

opposed to any type of development which would

modify the environment in any way. They are dedicated to maintaining

land and water areas in their natural state and reject the idea that

resources should be used for the benefit of man. As a consequence, they

will oppose every application for resource development. As an example,

in the western United States, at the present time, the Sierra Club is

opposing practically every sale of timber offered by the Federal Forest

Service, and placing injunctions to prevent any action thereafter. On

the other extreme, we had the recent demonstration at the opening of

this Legislature where people demanded that an increasing number of

jobs be made available for productive employment.

This Province is one of the richest natural resource areas in the

world and we have the responsibility for developing these materials for

the general benefit of our people, both from the standpoint of jobs and

the standpoint of Provincial revenue. The Government must take the

responsibility for the decisions that are made in this regard and their

decisions must be evaluated in a democratic way in the ballot box at

election time. Your Social Credit Government is prepared to accept the

challenge and, in this regard, my remarks this afternoon can be

summarized in the following points:

(1) The Environmental and Land Use

Committee will be charged with the responsibility for deciding whether

the environment, in a given situation, can absorb the wastes that will

develop from a proposed enterprise without real detriment. This will be

a general assessment, based upon independent evaluation, and after a

public hearing and recommendations from the Cabinet as a whole.

(2) Once the basic political decision has been made to proceed, the Pollution Control Act

administration shall be responsible for the implementation of controls

to approved standards. The composition of the Pollution Control Board

shall be modified to reflect the basic technical decisions which have

to be made. Ministerial representation shall be concentrated at the

Environmental and Land Use Committee level and not at the Pollution

Control Board level as at the present time. The Director of the

Pollution Control Branch of our Water Resources Department will

continue to administer the Act as provided in the Pollution Control Act.

The next matter of basic policy, Mr. Speaker, concerns waterborne

debris and beach clean-up. It involves a submission to the Forestry

Committee. The problem of debris control in coastal waters has been

receiving intensive study by a task force of the Forest Service for

several months and the report has just been received. Possibly, I

should review briefly the present procedures and the problems

presented, and then very briefly touch on the possible solutions

suggested by the report, which will be referred to the Committee. The Forest Act

and regulations were changed in 1967 to allow for salvage of all

material and portions of beach after public advertising had provided

time for the original owners to claim logs which bear their timber

marks. The success of this programme has been very limited; it did

salvage and make useful some high grade logs, but removal of the lower

grade material was uneconomic and was left on the beaches.

The current interest in pollution has compounded the debris disposal

problem. In the last year, for example, the burning of wood material

taken from the waters in Vancouver Harbour has been prohibited by the

Federal Government. The waste material has been piled up on available

open areas until that manner of handling has now become an even greater

problem. A study undertaken by the B.C. Research Council, on behalf of

the various Harbour Boards, shows much of the debris on the lower coast

comes down the Fraser River and could possibly be controlled by

diversion booms up river, but this diversion only delays the problem.

The Forest Service investigation found, on information presently

available, that the Fraser River debris would cover at least 200 acres

a year if diverted into sloughs and tightly packed. A method of

disposal still has to be found after it has been diverted. Salvage and

beachcombed logs of marketable value in the inside passage are sold

through a nonprofit organization known as Gulf Log Salvage. They pick

up about five million cubic feet a year of material and this is only

about a quarter of the material that's lost by industry. After Gulf Log

Salvage's costs are deducted and the appropriate stumpage and royalty

charge have been paid, the sale value of marked logs is divided, on a

percentage basis set out by the regulations, between the log salvage

permitee and the person who has the timber marked. With no-mark-visible

logs, with some exceptions, the owner's portion is pooled and later

divided among mark-holders on the basis of the proportion of marked

logs which have been handled by the Salvage Bureau. On the basis of the

last two years, one was good and the other was relatively poor, the

no-mark-visible fund distributed to owners approximately five hundred

thousand dollars.

I believe that, if a full-scale programme is organized to free coastal waters of floating debris, this should be subsidized from

public funds as little as possible. This means that any money that is

received from the handling of driftwood should be used to defray the

cost of disposing the unmerchantable material and of subsidizing the

removal of the lower value material from the beaches. Possibly, the

no-mark-visible fund should be diverted for this purpose. Possibly,

even, the proceeds of marked logs should also assist. I am, of course,

not considering logs recovered under recognized spill procedures which

follow a storm situation.

The Forest Service report indicates that the bulk of the loss is in

hemlock and balsam, particularly in the small diameters and deadheads;

it further indicates that flat rafts show the greatest loss in transit

but that bundle booms and barges add greatly to the loss of break-up or

dumping. Possible changes in log transportation seem to be overdue.

Ultimate disposal of waste would seem to be a combination of

reselling merchantable material recovered and the increased use of

chipping facilities, hopefully provided by private sources for

low-grade material. Still lower quality material could be processed for

hog fuel and new incineration methods would indicate this can be done

without increasing air pollution. As I mentioned above, it would seem

reasonable that the higher grade material salvaged should subsidize the

recovery and disposal of the lower grade material. I believe the very

important subject of debris prevention and disposal should be referred

to the Forestry Committee for study and report, and a resolution to

this effect will be submitted to the House shortly. This will allow a

complete review by all interested people. I'm issuing the indication at

this time so that there will be ample notice for people to both ready

their material and give thought to the problem.

My last matter of detail happens to concern Cypress Bowl. A brief

resume of the situation which now exists at Cypress Bowl would be of

interest to Members of the Legislature. During the Session last year,

it was reported that the ownership of the shares of Alpine Outdoor

Recreation would have to be assumed by a group that could be approved

by Government. At the end of the original deadline to report

[ Page 82 ]

progress on the transaction at the end of May, indication was given

that negotiations were proceeding, Mr. Speaker, with groups that could

prove to be acceptable. Several groups were interviewed but it became

apparent that none of these could finance the obligations which would

be imposed. A deadline to conclude financial control was set for the

end of the year and, when this date passed, the Government moved to

establish an on-going policy for the area. The original feasibility for

the development was carried out in late 1962 and early 1963. Eight

months of study had gone into the proposal, including meetings with

various groups and persons at the municipal level in West Vancouver,

before there had been an approach made to the Government. An assurance

of the practicability of the scheme, both from the standpoint of

finance and development, was given at the initial presentation and this

was not challenged. The subsequent public hearing on the project, which

took place prior to development of the community plan by the

municipality, did not reveal the expected return on investment and the

ability to proceed was, again, not challenged.

In due course, the original developers realized that they could not

fulfill their obligations to the municipality and to the Crown without

substantial investment of capital which they did not have at their

disposal, and this led to the arrangement that was made between Alpine

Outdoor Recreation Limited and the Benguet interests. Each of the

parties that has since desired to occupy the Benguet position…. I am

sure that if the Honourable Member for Vancouver East has all these

documentations, there's going to be ample opportunity for him in Court

to provide all the evidence that he happens to have. We'll watch it

with great interest.

Each of the parties that has since desired to occupy the Benguet

position has indicated that it is not possible to secure a return on

capital if the planned development must be carried out according to the

specified agreement. The chief stumbling blocks were listed as the

provision of access and adequate parking, plus the installation of the

lift facilities as required by the agreement. There was also the

separate problem of the refund to Benguet to cover their investment. It

was emphasized that, if the Crown assumed the responsibility for the

access, it would be possible to secure the required financial backing.

I repeat, it was emphasized that, if the Crown assumed the

responsibility of access and maintenance, it would then be possible to

secure the required financial backing. The Government reviewed the

situation. In so doing, the first-hand experience gained at Mt. Seymour

and at Manning Park proved of value. The return on investments of

several private winter recreational areas in the Pacific Northwest was

reviewed and it became apparent that, unless some concession were

allowed for property development to supplement the financial return

from the recreational facilities, Cypress Bowl could not be financed

adequately. If the Crown were to build the road and maintain such

access and the parking lot, feasibility was possible, that is, returns

could be expected to pay for and maintain the lifts and the other

recreational facilities that would be provided. The natural decision,

then, became apparent, that if the public were to invest heavily to

ensure development, public control of the facilities should be

maintained. With this in mind, the planned programme for Mt. Seymour

was reviewed and it became apparent that money expended at Cypress Bowl

would bring a better people-use ratio because of the suitability of the

terrain. My colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation,

will deal with this matter in some detail when he speaks to this House

tomorrow afternoon, since this falls within his departmental

responsibilities.

Criticism has been expressed concerning the clearing which is being

carried out…. (interruption ) If you've got the evidence up here and any

professional reputation which you can put forward, I wish you would

present it. Criticism has been expressed, and you're doing it this

afternoon, concerning the clearing which is being carried out on the

slopes at Cypress. The Forest Service was prepared to go and plant up,

as recommended by responsible ski slope developers. However, the advice

received was that the clearing for a high density type of development

was good except for a couple of small areas. This proved to be a

reiteration of the advice which had already been given to West

Vancouver authorities by independent expert consultants.

Ever since 1963, every step taken to develop Cypress Bowl has

followed general and particular recommendations from the Municipality

of West Vancouver. Despite this fact, most of the criticism for the

proposal has been directed at the Government, generally, and my own

Department of Lands and Forests, in particular. Much of the additional

expense incurred has been associated with the provision of an access

route which was designed to open up municipally owned land and property

at virtually no expense to the local residents. The proposed project

was most difficult to finance with the limited access proposed in the

first instance. With the requirement for the major Hollyburn road

route, the task proved to be absolutely impossible. Much of the assets

which Benguet claims to still have is in this road, which is now only

partly developed.

Against this background of information, which brings the situation

up to the present, I am authorized to indicate future Government

action:

(1) Forthwith, the Department of Highways is proceeding to

locate a road of good standard access to the Cypress Bowl Recreational

Area, with parking facilities. Action will commence on that almost

immediately.

(2) The area will be kept under public control and will be

administered by the Department of Recreation and Conservation. No

private development of either area or facilities will take place.

(3) A

high density, winter/summer recreational area is projected.

(4) Action

will proceed this year and should prove an added boost to the

employment close to metropolitan Vancouver. Mr. Speaker, that ends the

four matters with which I was dealing this afternoon. (interruption)

Who is paying Mr. Benguet? I'll answer that one. Nobody is paying

Benguet because the Crown is, in no way, obligated to Benguet. Thank

you for the question. The Crown never has been obligated except in the

mind of the honourable Member. Nobody gets the residential development,

because there is none. You were told this afternoon it was a park and

your immediate question is who gets the residential development. You

haven't even the responsibility to sit in this Legislature and listen

when it's placed. Because nobody puts residential into a park

situation. And you are just leading as you're going. Mr. Speaker, thank

you.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I want to thank you,

Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to take my place in this Throne debate. I

listened with interest to what the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources had to say.

[ Page 83 ]

He opened his speech by telling us he didn't know what he was going

to say and then he proceeded to read a fairly lengthy speech. If he

didn't know what he was going to say and there was a speech, who wrote

it? I'm sorry I haven't got a typed script to hand out.

I was particularly interested in his closing remarks about Cypress

Bowl, because what the Minister finished up saying and proposing and

outlining, as Government policy, was exactly what the present Leader of

the Opposition asked you to do five years ago. Public development of a

public park and you, Mr. Minister, sat there and gave us that lecture

you give us every time. "You don't know what you're talking about, you

just don't understand. If you would sit and listen. Standing in the way

of progress. Sand in the gears." For five years we have listened to

this and at the end of the road, Mr. Minister, you stand up there as if

you've had a vision. No confession of guilt, no apology to the Leader

of the Opposition for the things you have said to him over the years,

that he was telling absolute falsehoods, that it wasn't true, and you

finish up having to accept the position that he advocated.

When I heard your statement a month or so ago, about the

Order-in-Council, pointing out that the Order-in-Council of 1969 wasn't

really legal because it had never been proclaimed or advertised or

gazetted, does that mean that the trees that were cut down in Cypress

Bowl were cut down illegally? Will the attitude you've taken put the

trees back in? Will it restore the environment before it was gouged,

scraped and pushed. Of course not. We welcome your belated statement

that we are now going to have a public park, publicly developed. I

think perhaps we should name that park after some restoration work is

done, Barrett Park.

Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to congratulate the

Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia for reading the Throne Speech

under such trying circumstances. I thought he did an excellent job,

especially considering the poor material with which he had to work.

I have gone through the Throne Speech very carefully. As you notice

I have every

section named, underlining certain lines. I'm going to be

my usual quiet, reticent self today, so just sit back.

It's a problem to know where to start. There's so much that should

be said and so much that should be done. I'm going to start with my

constituency, first of all. It's been a busy year in Cowichan-Malahat.

We had a visit from the Premier, the Minister of Public Works was

there, one of our gracious lady Ministers was there, the Minister of

Trade and Industry was there, the Minister of Education has been into

Cowichan-Malahat. Cowichan-Malahat is becoming one of the most popular

places in British Columbia.

You will notice the Throne Speech mentions the fact that the first

section of the Lake Cowichan road has finally been opened and that the

new Provincial Building in Duncan has been opened. In the paper the

other day, in the "10 Years Ago" column, I read a piece where it said:

"A meeting between the Duncan-Cowichan Chamber of Commerce delegates

and three Provincial Ministers, the Honourable P.A. Gaglardi, Highways,

the Honourable E.C. Westwood, Recreation, Conservation and Transport,

and the Honourable W.N. Chant got a semi-promise from Gaglardi that the

Lake Cowichan highway would soon be started." That was 10 years ago and

we got a semi-promise. I don't know what a semi-promise is, but that's

what we got.

Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago in this House, there was an outstanding

Member from Cowichan representing the constituency. He was asking for a

new Provincial building and, as you know, the Opposition is not allowed

to increase expenditures but it is allowed to reduce expenditures.

You'll be interested, Mr. Speaker, that there was something on the

estimates to provide a 100 thousand-dollar Provincial building for

Prince Rupert. The Member from Cowichan, fifty years ago, stood up and

moved that that sum of 100 thousand dollars be reduced by 25 thousand

dollars in order to provide a new Provincial building for the Cowichan

district and the city of Duncan.

The motion was defeated and Prince Rupert got its Courthouse and its

new Provincial building and we had to wait through thirty years of

Liberal, Conservative and Coalition and almost twenty years of Social

Credit before we finally got the Provincial building. Now, it is open

and I'm very happy about that.

The Premier announced, when he was opening a Provincial building,

that he's going to be calling for tenders for the final

section of the

Lake Cowichan road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty years from now.

MR. STRACHAN: No, the advertising is out and I think tenders

closed yesterday. While I was at the opening of the

section of the Lake

Cowichan road, one of the people from Lake Cowichan gave me a bumper

strip and it says, "I am fighting for a new Lake Cowichan road." This

was one of the community efforts to try to draw public attention to the

need for that particular highway. At the opening of the new building

and after the Premier had announced we were going to get the final

section of the Lake Cowichan road, someone said to me, "Well, what are

you going to do now? You've got your new Provincial building, you've

got the Lake Cowichan road." For a few brief seconds it made me feel

like Alexander — no more roads to conquer. But then I had a look around

and I prepared a partial list of the kind of things I'm going to be

raising in this Legislature in this Session, and in succeeding

Sessions, during the short term that's left to this Government, until

all of them are accomplished, because as I said, "There is still so

much do be done."

First of all, I want to see immediate action on the extended care

units to the Cowichan District Hospital. A year ago, I discussed this

with the Minister of Health and I was led to believe that there weren't

any real barriers in the way and we could expect action in that regard.

This is urgent and I suggest to the Minister that he get moving and be

a little more understanding, just a little more agreeable, with the

Duncan Hospital Board so that we can get that extended care unit going

immediately.

Next I want to see proper psychiatric service in Duncan and the

Ladysmith area. This is referred to in the Speech from the Throne. We

have a situation in Duncan where the local people have provided the

facilities and where we are waiting for some help from the Provincial

Government to provide the personnel. A week or so ago when the Premier

announced that the books were open and we could hire 1,100 more civil

servants to fill the jobs, he said that they hadn't been filled during

the last 12 months because there was no need to fill them — the need

wasn't there. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely untrue. There was the

need for the psychiatric personnel, not only in this constituency but

all over the Province. The facilities were there and we were promised

that personnel would be provided and they were not.

I want to see the pre-school dental clinic in Lake

[ Page 84 ]

Cowichan. I want to see an adequate number of health inspectors for

the Central Vancouver Island Health Unit, because, again, a year ago, I

was promised by the Minister of Health that additional inspectors would

be available. It is a pretty important field, this field of public

health, and I have the clippings where the Minister indicated to a

meeting, which I arranged with the members of the Central Vancouver

Island Board of Health, that we would get these inspectors. When you

look at the work that has been put on the inspection service of the

Department of Public Health, then you realize why it is important and

was important that the Minister should have filled those jobs a year

ago, not only in that district but in other districts throughout the

Province. We find that the public health inspectors, according to the

report, are involved in so many areas of public protection that it's

nothing short of criminal to leave these public health inspection posts

unfilled and, for the Premier to say there was no need to fill the

jobs, is a travesty of the truth.

What is their function? Food premises to inspect in all areas of the

district, eating and drinking, food processing plants, food stores,

slaughterhouses, shell food plants. All of which I have in my

constituency. Two inspectors short. Industrial camps, I have industrial

camps in my constituency, the facilities of which are supposed to be

inspected regularly to see that the men living in these camps have

adequate health protection. They are supposed to inspect hospitals,

boarding homes, and I have a number of boarding homes in my

constituency. So have other people. All of you have heard complaints

about some of the health standards in these boarding homes. This is a

job of the public health inspector. Why weren't these jobs filled? The

Finance Minister said that they weren't needed but that wasn't true.

Kindergartens, summer camps, housing, tourist accommodation, barber

shops, beauty parlours, fur farms, livestock, poultry farms, pollution

control, bacteriological, chemicals, disease investigation, industrial

health visits, site inspections of subdivisions; all part of the job of

a public health inspector. We were promised two more. In the Central

Vancouver Island Health Unit we are thousands and thousands of

inspections behind and this is a Government that is supposed to be

looking after people, that says we are moving into a new era, that we

have taken care of the material requirements. In the year, with

thousands of people unemployed, 1,100 vacant jobs, including many in

the health service, these jobs were not done. Waste disposal, garbage

dumps, industrial waste, private garbage; in the field of recreation,

parks and beaches, restrooms; with regard to sewage, sewage out-falls

in plants, private sewage disposal, plumbing. They are supposed to make

sanitary surveys, supposed to inspect our schools, inspect our private

water supplies, public water supplies, swimming pools. With this long

list, we were promised two more public health inspectors in the

Vancouver Island Health Unit last year and we didn't get them. I'm

standing here asking for them, right now because it's too important a

field to be left to the whims of the Minister of Finance in his

attempts to keep the lid on, when he has a 64 million-dollar surplus.

Next, I want a survey of the whole coast of Vancouver Island within

my constituency, from Mill Bay right up to Ladysmith Harbour. It should

probably go right up to Nanaimo and right up the coast, but I'm

speaking for Cowichan-Malahat. I want that survey to determine what

pollution is taking place, whether it's industrial, commercial or

individual. I want that survey this year and I want action taken to

prevent any further pollution of the waters of Central Vancouver Island.

I want the development of the Cottonwood Creek campsite and a

clean-up of the debris on Lake Cowichan. A few years ago, I had some

correspondence and discussions with the Minister about the debris on

Lake Cowichan, and I have to say that the companies involved were very

cooperative and did help us clean up at least some of that debris. But

I was on Lake Cowichan several times this year with my little boat and

it's just too dangerous to be allowed to remain the way it is.

I want to see the Department of Highways build a car ramp for the

Kuper Island Ferry. This is essential. It is in the Indian Reserve but

there are absolutely no facilities for them to get a car on or off that

Island. I want a larger ferry for Thetis and Kuper Islands because,

with the view to integrating the young Indian people into our school

system, more and more of the young Indian children from the residential

school are being taken to the Chemainus School. The ferry is completely

inadequate, especially in the winter months. There are no waiting

facilities; they have to stand outside in all kinds of weather. The

little room that's on the ferry will not hold the number of students

that are involved so they have to stand outside on the deck,

irrespective of the weather. So that's a must — a much larger ferry for

Kuper and Thetis Islands.

Next I want a natural gas pipeline from the mainland to Vancouver

Island. I think it's time the people on Vancouver Island had an

opportunity to participate in the use of this great natural resource of

this Province. It belongs to the people of Vancouver Island, too.

Rather than spending much of our time trying to find markets south of

the border so we can sell it down there at a price less than we charge

the people of British Columbia, I want the Government right now to

offer a prize, a prize of a quarter of a million dollars for the

engineering firm that will produce a suitable piping system to get that

natural gas from the mainland to Vancouver Island. If we can get men on

the moon, surely, we can get natural gas to Vancouver Island.

Next, I want action on flood control for Lake Cowichan and the

Cowichan Valley. You know what happens. Every few years, we have a

flood situation develop. I have a picture of an outboard going up the

main street of Lake Cowichan a couple of years ago. At the time,

there's always a big free-for-all and the Minister gets very excited,

and we get people up from his Department, and reports are made — and

that's the last we hear of it. We have been fortunate that there has

been no flood this year. There was no flood last year. But I want

action, this year, on control of the flood situation for Lake Cowichan

and the Cowichan Valley, I'm not leaving roads out of it altogether. I

want the Cedar Road resurfaced. It's 20 years since it was surfaced. I

want a new road to Crofton, that narrow, completely hazardous road that

is impossible to walk on safely. There's a railway crossing on that

road that is against every law in the country. That road must be

attended to.

I want to improve the educational system in this Province. I want to

see the finance formula for regional colleges changed. I want to start

on that promise made by the Minister last year that the Island Highway

would be improved or, at least, a real start on the three lanes you

promised. There is an increasing number of accidents on that Island

Highway and I predict there will be more unless there is immediate

action.

I want the Health Sciences Centre of the University of British Columbia to be allowed to do the job it was supposed

[ Page 85 ]

to do. Do you remember this was developed with great fanfare? What

happened to that Health Sciences Centre? This was proposed as a 60-bed

hospital. It was supposed to be the model for all the hospitals of

British Columbia, a pilot plant in which they were supposed to try all

the procedures and methods and develop the best ways of bringing good

health services to our people. It has a 100 per cent occupancy rate but

the financial allowance is completely inadequate to let them do the job

that they were supposed to do in the Health Sciences Centre.

There has been no action taken yet to develop the facilities for the

care of the adolescents' and child psychiatric unit that was supposed

to be part of the Health Sciences Centre of the University of British

Columbia. I suggest that that has to be attended to.

I want to see the cuts that were made on the medicare scheme for the

para-medical services restored. That's a must in this Session.

I want the welfare load taken right off the back of the municipal

taxpayers and, finally, and as I say this is only a partial list,

there's lots to do yet. Let's not sit in smug majority over there and

think there's nothing left to be done. I want the taxation load taken

off the backs of the farmers of British Columbia.

I'd like to make a few more comments on the Speech of the Throne.

The Speech made some reference to housing. The Annual Report of the

Department of Social Welfare last year tells us the situation. I will

just read you two paragraphs, especially as it relates to the native

Indians. It says: "These people are facing a critical housing shortage

as well as problems in adaptation to a new cultural way of life. It is

becoming more and more apparent that total health, education and

welfare services to Indians will have to be assumed by the Provincial

Government in order to attack some of the basic causes of social

problems and to implement some preventive programmes." This is your own

Social Welfare report a year ago. If there were a dedication to

humanity, there should have been some reference to this in the Speech

from the Throne.

Housing remains one of the most critical problems within the region,

Region 1, Vancouver Island, my area. Homeownership is now out of reach

of many wage earners and impossible for social allowance recipients. We

require additional subsidized housing. Possible solutions include a

reduction of interest rates on mortgages, and the Provincial Government

and municipalities developing fully serviced building lots for sale to

the general public at a reasonable cost to reduce the present

speculatory, inflationary costs of land.

The above suggestions could not only create more housing for all

economic levels of society but could help to create necessary

employment.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the those Ministers over there ever read

the Annual Reports of their people in the field, or do they just sit

there with their smug majority and think that they, "blah, let the

thing go." These are your own people, who come face to face with the

needs and wants of society. There's nothing in the Throne Speech to

indicate that you've even read that Report, let alone are prepared to

do anything about it.

I listened to the Minister talking about the lumber industry in

British Columbia and how the Minister of Finance was upset with the

returns. I'm upset with the returns, too. I'm upset at this statement

here about housing being beyond the reach of so many of our people. Do

you know why the housing is beyond the reach of so many of our people?

Because we can't afford to buy our own lumber. We're getting robbed

two ways. One, we are not getting an adequate return to the Crown for

the resource. Then when we go to buy it, after having given it away,

it's the most ridiculous price. Do you know what I did, Mr. Speaker? I

was fixing up a room in my basement and I went up to a local building

supply house (it's owned by a subsidiary of the Great National Land of

which my friend from Nanaimo is the president) to buy some spruce

shelving. I bought some spruce shelving. It was knotty, it was warped,

but it was the best I could afford. Do you know how much it was? 47

cents a lineal foot. That's $470 a thousand feet board measure — for

knotty, warped spruce. Is it any wonder we can't afford to build

houses? Yet, I pick up the timber sales report for each month and I

find…what do we get? We get about $7 a thousand feet for it. Now, the

average worker in the lumber industry produces about 3,000 feet per

day, that's an average right through from the logger until it is put on

the car. Let us say, the average logger gets $30 a day for 3,000 feet.

That's about $10 a thousand feet in actual wages. We get $7 stumpage,

that's $17. Now, surely, it doesn't take the difference between $17 and

$470 to get one thousand feet of lumber from the mills to Nanaimo.

AN HON. MEMBER: You forgot the overhead.

MR. STRACHAN: I forgot the overhead, maybe so. While I have

this sheet in my hand, the Member from Vancouver East referred sometime

ago to the difference in return to the Crown, when there is

competition, and 95 per cent of them are not by competition. There's

one here, right on Vancouver Island, where, it's for some fir, the

appraised price was $12.30. That was the price the forest industry

thought would be a fair charge to make for that. The upset price was

$10.80 but, because there was a little competition, do you know what it

sold for? $31.00 a thousand, almost three times the upset price placed

on it by the Forest Service.

Think of what that would do when you go over the page and find that

here's a situation where somebody got three million feet of spruce and

the stumpage to the Crown was $4.50 per hundred cubic feet. If you go

to the interior, it's about half of that in stumpage returns to the

Crown. So, as I say, we are getting robbed two ways. Both in our

returns to the Crown and the fantastic price that we cannot afford to

pay to build houses for our people.

Again, we go to the Speech from the Throne and we find some

reference to the economic situation and we find the Government pleading

to Ottawa for something to do with incentive grants. A Minister over

there said, "We don't believe in hot-house industry, we don't believe

in hot-house industry." They want incentive grants, however. This is

only an indication of the sheer confusion that reigns over there. This

Government doesn't know where it is going nor what its policy is.

We take this matter of this proposed nuclear plant on Vancouver

Island, the nuclear reactor. Why do you think I said I wanted a natural

gas pipeline over here? I don't want any nuclear plant built on

Vancouver Island unless there is an absolute assurance, absolute,

absolute. Without question. And let me tell you, Mr. Minister, I am not

prepared to accept the word of that Minister, that Minister there, that

it is absolutely safe and sound and secure. We had these assurances

before, and I'll come to them a little later. You know, Mr. Speaker, it

was funny. First of all, the Premier started off by announcing he had

asked Ottawa to participate

[ Page 86 ]

in the proposed construction of a nuclear power generating plant on

Southern Vancouver Island. Then he had some second thoughts and he

decided, "Well, no." He realized there were some problems attached to

it, but then Dr. Shrum says, "Oh, yes, it's going to go ahead." Of

course, we've had the recent experience of Dr. Shrum moving into the

district, inviting individuals to come and talk quietly with him, and

their message is that we've got to be very careful and speak softly

until we've got the people coming our way.

As I say, they don't know where they are going. The Premier says,

"Yes," Shrum says, "Yes," the Premier says, "No," Shrum says, "Yes,"

but the product and the campaign has started and, as far as I'm

concerned, and I agree with the Council of North Cowichan, we don't

want any atomic plant in there until it's absolutely proven. Rather

than have the atomic plant, I want a natural gas pipeline to Vancouver

Island.

In what other ways does the Government not know where it is going?

We have the Minister of Recreation and Conservation telling us that

B.C. cannot control or ban DDT unilaterally. Then we have the Minister

of Agriculture saying, "Announcing a virtual ban on the use of DDT."

Kiernan tells why B.C. won't slap a ban on DDT. "Virtual DDT ban order

for B.C." There are two stories. Then, of course, we come to that

hydra-headed monster — the sale of water to the United States. Shrum

says, "Yes, we can sell water to the United States," Bennett says, "No,

we are not going to sell water to the United States." Kiernan says,

"Yes, we are going to sell water to the United States."

All of this indicates very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that this

Government can't be trusted and that's the message the people of

British Columbia are beginning to get. It can't be trusted; it has

demonstrated that time and time again.

Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne refers to the difficult year

of 1970. I agree that it was a difficult year in many ways. In many

ways it was the responsibility, on default, of this Government. In some

cases, it was the actions of the trade union movement. In many cases,

it was the actions of the employers. But what concerned me as much as

anything last summer was what happened right here on Vancouver Island,

where there is a cement plant. A cement plant that wasn't struck,

wasn't locked out, was in true production, stockpiling its production.

We had carpenters and construction workers on Vancouver Island ready,

willing and able to work. There were jobs that required doing and that

cement company refused to sell cement to the contractors who were in a

position to use it. I went to see the manager of that plant and I

explained the situation to him, that there was no strike or lockout in

his plant, that there were construction workers and construction

companies with jobs to do, so why wouldn't he sell them cement. He told

me that he was under instructions from Vancouver. I asked him to

justify this action and he told me that his principals were of the

opinion that by shutting down the cement market tightly, they could

bring things to a head. I reminded that gentleman that we have laws in

this Province that affect the workers of this Province. The workers of

this Province are not allowed to indulge in a secondary boycott. It's

against the law, as far as the workers are concerned. But there are two

kinds of law in this Province; there is one for the workers and there

is one for management. Here was management involved in a secondary

boycott — no law against it, no matter what damage it was doing to

Vancouver Island, no matter what jobs were available and could have

been going ahead. Collusion between the major employers in British

Columbia was the cause of the trouble last year.

Incidentally, while I'm speaking of this situation, the Minister of

Labour, when he was speaking last night, castigated the Leader of the

Liberal Party because he had said, "There were 2,900,000 people out of

work last year." He pooh-poohed it and he gave another figure.

(interruption) Man-hours. Why didn't he pick on his friend over here.

He said it was 3,000,000. You said there were only 2,900,000. The

Member from Columbia River said there were 3,000,000 but he didn't

mention that. Evidentally you two have been reading the same report and

the Minister hasn't read that particular report.

Mr. Speaker, this is Centennial Year and I have just been speaking

about the problems we had in the field of labour-management relations

last year. It's interesting to know that one hundred years ago when, as

someone said (I think it was the Member from Columbia River), we only

had ten thousand white citizens in British Columbia, the miners in

Ladysmith were on strike. In 1871, the miners in Ladysmith were on

strike. But there is a closer parallel than that there were some

workers on strike a hundred years ago. Let me read to you the notice

that was put out by the miners: "The miners, blacksmiths, labourers and

others in the employ of the Vancouver Coal Company of Nanaimo wish to

notify the public that, in consequence of having received notice of

reduction of their wages of 10 per cent, notwithstanding previous

reductions which they have patiently submitted to time after time, now

find it impossible to continue to work in consequence of the high price

of provisions. All men of the above classes are therefore notified that

work is suspended at present."

At a general meeting of the men, it was unanimously resolved to use

all moral and legal means to assert their rights. The statement by the

Government of the day, having heard that statement as to the attitude

of the men, was the following proclamation: "Whereas it has been

brought to the notice of the Government that threats tending to

breaches of the peace have been made and anonymous notices have been

addressed to persons in the employment of the Vancouver Island Company,

tending to create fear of life and property, this is, therefore, to

notify to whom it may concern, that all persons found using threats,

resorting to force, or otherwise illegally interfering with those who

desire to continue in pursuit of their lawful occupations, will be

prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law, and that any outrage to

life or property will be punished with promptitude and severity." The

men had said that they were going to observe every moral and legal

means and the Government made that statement.

But something else happened. They sent a gunboat up because, "There

had been observed a disposition to insubordination on the part of some

of the miners, the miners on strike having been holding meetings and

sending deputations to the manager." This was insubordination, "So send

the gunboat up." "HMS Boxer is expected up about the end of the

present week with a view to preventing disorder." A hundred years ago.

As I say, the more things change, the more they remain the same. The

attitudes of the Governments we have had, have always been a major part

of the responsibility for any problems, troubles, upsets or violence

that have erupted in the Province of British Columbia.

In the Speech from the Throne, mention is made of the improvement of

total environment. On January 21, the day this House opened, it was

reported that the Utah Mining Company had been given a permit to dump

nine million

[ Page 87 ]

gallons of tailings into Rupert Sound. I listened to the Minister

and his outline of what has happened. Do you know we've been through

this before. Buttle Lake. We had exactly the same kind of talk from the

Minister, all the Ministers, from the Government, with regard to Buttle

Lake that we are getting about the future and about the Utah Mining.

(interruption) Here is a press release dated January 22, of this year.

"The Fish and Wildlife Branch, concerned about the concentrations of

heavy metals found in some lakes in British Columbia and anxious to

keep the public informed about their observations, has announced the

compilation of a report based on their surveillance programme. By way

of background, it is pointed out that heavy metals such as lead,

copper, zinc and mercury, can be toxic, particularly to fish at

relatively low concentration."

Do you remember what was said in the legislative hearings when we

were talking about granting Western Mines a permit? "Oh, no, there's

going to be nothing like that. This is just going to be little pieces

of rock dribbling down into the bottom of the lake, that can't hurt

you, that can't hurt the fish." That was the story and the Minister

there knows it. I'd like to review the whole Buttle Lake–Strathcona

Park thing, because there is nothing that gets that Minister more upset

than to be reminded of his shortcomings in that particular effort. I

heard him on television a week or so ago, and he was very unctuous. He

would say, "You have three choices," and he enunciated the three

choices. He forgot the fourth choice which is the one he always takes.

"Give them more claims if they haven't got enough already," which is

exactly what he did in Buttle Lake. "If they haven't got enough to make

a mine, give them more." That was the fourth choice that you forgot to

mention in that television interview, Mr. Minister. Now we find that in

Buttle Lake the mine tailings are suspected of fish contamination,

there's going to be a joint probe into the Buttle Lake ore content and

all the rest of it. All because this Government has adopted a certain

policy and it's always been their policy. I'll tell you why the

Government has adopted that policy. There are two reasons and the first

reason lies with the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines. The

letter which they sent to that Minister there, the Honourable W.K.

Kiernan, on March 6, 1965, I'm going to read it again, just in case

some of the newer Members may not know where some of the orders come

from, where the direction comes from, where the attitudes come from:

"Dear Mr. Kiernan: In recent years briefs have been submitted to you

reviewing the job value of the mining industry to this Province, the

very small area of land involved in mining, the public use of mine

access roads, and the other arguments for permitting mining in

Provincial parks. Rather than repeat the details of these submissions,

the following summarizes the position of this Camber." Then they go on,

"In doing this, it should be recognized that unrestricted prospecting

and exploration is the lifeblood of the mining industry." Unrestricted,

don't forget, these are their words, "unrestricted prospecting

exploration is the lifeblood of the mining industry. It is impossible

to predict where new mines might be found. Geological conditions in all

British Columbia are favourable but they are complex, and even the most

skilled of geologists are unable to define areas that either have or

have not new mining possibilities. This is to say that given sections

of the Province cannot be set aside as parkland without accepting the

loss of new mining opportunities and the employment that goes with

them. In like manner, any Park Act such as the one now proposed, which

beclouds the right to prospect and explore and, in the event of

discovery, to develop a new mine, will have this same stifling effect."

Of course, that, basically, is the policy that has been adopted by

this Government. The Minister will get up tomorrow and say, "We have

defined Class A parks; we have defined Class B parks. You must have a

permit to do this or that." This Minister has shown himself willing,

without conscience, to change the classification of a park and change

the boundaries of a park in order to meet the demands of the British

Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines. That's why this Government can't

be trusted to preserve the heritage for the people of British Columbia.

This is where you get your policy, this is where you get your orders

and you can camouflage it all you want. The evidence is in, Mr.

Minister. (interruption)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STRACHAN: If that were the answer that it was to create

jobs he might have some substance. He might have some meagre iota of

substance to the reprehensible position he has taken. But let me tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that's not the real reason. (interruption) Just a

minute. I suggested recently to an official of the Department of Mines

and Resources that there might be a good case for leaving some ore

where it is until nonpolluting techniques for its extraction are found.

"We are discussing the Utah Mines project," he said and pointed out

that, in fifty years or so, there will probably be substitutes for

copper, making it unnecessary to mine the stuff at all. "How lovely," I

said, "so if we just wait patiently we can have the things we want to

make with copper and keep the land unspoiled and the water unpolluted."

"But the ore would then lose its value," my informant pointed out, "so

we must mine it and sell it now."

I have said in this House, Mr. Minister, that there may come a time

when it's necessary to mine in parks, either because of a crisis or a

world situation but, until that time comes, until that crisis or world

situation makes it necessary, I don't think we should adopt as a policy

digging as fast as we can every piece of ore and cutting as fast as we

can every tree and damming as fast as we can every single river.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wind up by making some reference to the

occurrences here on opening day. I listened to the remarks from the

Member from Columbia River and if ever I heard a hymn of hate, it was

the remarks of that Member that day. It's obvious that he has inside

him some kind of poison that makes him detest and hate the working

people of British Columbia. It's obvious from the way he attacked the

workers of this Province. I'll use his own words…. (interruption)

It was obvious from that hymn of hate that he hates the young people

and he hates the workers. Now, Mr. Speaker, as a

socialist…. (interruption)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I don't believe that the

Member is using the choicest parliamentary terms and I think that he

could show a little more respect for the Members of this House.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I accept your suggestion. I want

to remind you and the Members of this House of the things that the

Member from Columbia River said the other day, the things he said about

me, about this group, about those with whom we are associated and the

only words I can find are the words that he himself used to describe

the incident, "despicable, despicable." Mr. Speaker, as a socialist,

[ Page 88 ]

I dislike and detest violence. In the past, I have had no

compunction and if you want to go and look at the record you'll find

that in 1962 I made a public statement against violence, when there was

violence on the picket line. I was critical of those who were involved

in that. Built in as being a part of socialism is an antipathy towards

violence: international violence, national violence, local violence or

personal violence. I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that we have a

Minister in this House who endorses violence and endorses disturbances

in the street, and I refer to the former Minister of Highways now this

apology for a Minister of Social Rehabilitation. What did he say about

that television broadcast of the construction workers wading into the

peace demonstrators? I'll tell you what he said. He said, "It was the

best television programme I have seen for a long time. It did my heart

good." This was violence in the streets and the Minister endorsed it.

I repute it, I'm against it, I oppose it and so does every Member in

this House. He endorsed violence in the streets at a time when

reasonable people are trying to find ways of avoiding violence in the

streets and he said that it did his heart good to see one group

attacking another violently in the streets of New York. The best

television programme he ever saw he said…. (interruption) A Christian

Minister, a Christian Minister advocating and endorsing violence in the

streets and then that man down there has the colossal gall to stand up

and say what he said here.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I decided to stay in politics was

because I realized that the next 10 years would be troublesome, would

have real problems and would be a challenge to each and everyone of us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to preserve a democratic system. There are forces

that would destroy it. There are forces that perhaps, unwittingly, are

destroying it. Here's a report by the Economic Council of Canada. It

talks about poverty and it talks about the part poverty plays in

developing human attitudes. It points out the fact that most of us get

an occasional glimpse of poverty through a car window, a television

show, a Saturday Supplement article; these may be the only

manifestations of it which touch many a middle-class consciousness. Yet

the figures, even the conservative, rather tentative estimates in this

chapter, show indisputably that poverty is there, almost everywhere in

Canada, on a larger scale than most Canadians suspect. Earlier, it

talks about the persistence of poverty at a time when the bulk of

Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world and

it names that poverty as a national disgrace. And it is a national

disgrace. Later on, it talks about the pockets of poverty and it makes

a very succinct comment on the kind of economic attitudes that you

people over there adopt, that trickle down the theory of economics and

its says, "In other areas, however, where poverty occurs more in the

form of pockets, antipoverty policies should have a more distinct

character of their own. The trickle-down effects of national and

regional growth and development policies do not constitute an adequate

solution to the problem of poverty." This is one of the reasons that

we're in a upsetting period and I say that, perhaps, some of you are

unwittingly causes of the problems that face us today.

The other thing that creates unrest and, again, I say the Government

perhaps unwittingly contributes towards this, is when it denies

information to the people. There has been a growing tendency on the

part of all Governments, not just this Government, and I include the

Federal Government, to deny information to the people. But right in

this Province, when a reporter asks a B.C. surveyor of taxes how many

U.S. citizens are buying land through tax sales he is informed that the

department records are not open to the public. Department records as to

how many Americans are buying tax sale land are not open to the public?

Utterly ridiculous. This is the kind of thing that undermines a basic

belief in a democratic system, when we have governments that refuse

information to the people, when they close the doors. This is what

makes people question, it's what makes people take to the streets. With

the prodigious growth of Government, it becomes more difficult to keep

track of what is happening.

Mr. Speaker, in my years in this House, we've seen things that only

came to our attention long after the fact, because the doors were

closed. Government secrecy is often a denial of the public right to

know. The public cannot be expected to dialogue meaningfully if it is

refused the information which it should have. The democratic process

can only survive if true and complete information is readily available

to the public all the time. You erase out of the minds of the people of

this Province the adequacy of democracy and their belief in it, when

you refuse the Opposition Members in the Public Accounts Committee to

do certain things, when we are refused access to the public accounts of

Crown Corporations, such as the PGE and the B.C. Hydro, public

information that should be available that is barred to the duly elected

members of a democratic electoral system. What does that do to people

out there looking at our system? Does this restore or renew their faith

in, uphold their faith in it? I suggest to you, that if you want the

democratic system to survive, you'd better get off that fat majority

and change some of your attitudes. I believe in a democratic society,

not because it's the most efficient, but because it's the most moral.

The Minister of Agriculture says, "Communism is coming." I certainly

hope not but our kind of society has been pushing people toward the

same kind of mass man that any bureaucracy creates and desires. We are

slaves to a technology that is wasteful, soulless and, at times,

terrifying. There is a system, operating with power, authority and

prestige and money to offer, and every child is taught that. He is

taught how to survive, how to make it in the system. Our schools are

geared to that kind of teaching. Our schools prepare them for college

and graduate programmes, in diplomas and jobs and success and that's

part of the problem we're facing all over North America today. Power,

authority, prestige and money are the values. We wonder why our youths

are restless and dissatisfied. I think it is time, we here, the people

of my generation, took our share of the blame. How did the conditions

arise which have led segments of our youth to act as they do? Was it

youth who permitted the breakdown of parental leadership? Who failed to

give youth the practical love that is a necessary human relationship?

Who was it turned from moral and spiritual values into a wild quest for

material possessions? Was it the youth? The people who have been able

to accumulate the largest amount of material possessions become our

heroes under the ethics and the values that you people sponsored. Who

is it that controls the film industry and the TV stations that

propagate hate, violence and degeneracy? Is it the youth? Not on your

life. It's the establishment and because there's a buck in it, that's

it. I picked up a piece the other day and I find that the tobacco

manufacturers are afraid their profits from cigarettes will go down so

they are now surveying the market for marijuana, when it becomes legal.

You know, there's a buck in it. Was it youth, was it our young people

who have refused to face up to the existence of race injustice, economic

[ Page 89 ]

inequality and environmental pollution? Or was it our generation

that did these things? Was it our young people who, time after time,

have led it in the bloody wars? I don't think so. It was always the

establishment, the older generation, those who hold the reins of power

are responsible and the course of history will hold us responsible.

There is only one revolution I support — the revolution that has as its

objective the perfectability of a free society. I hope to keep that

revolution marching forward.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, it is a

pleasure to rise in this debate and take my place in it and

particularly to offer congratulations and be a supporter of a

Government which introduced measures such as we saw enunciated today by

the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. It's also quite a

pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise in this debate because I now have

surpassed the record of longevity of the last Member who represented

Revelstoke-Slocan. In fact, because Revelstoke-Slocan which was created

under redistribution and only came into being in time for the 1966

election, I now equal the record of the Member who was the Member

before the last Member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I assure the Opposition

that this riding, now that it is on the Government side of the House, a

great

section of which had been in the Opposition for twenty-five

years, intends to stay on this side supporting this Government as long

as it's in office, which will be for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, it's been interesting to hear some of the previous

speakers in the debate. The Member for Yale Lillooet yesterday said

that the policy of this Government, among other things, is to sock it

to the poor and sock it to the rich. I'll tell you that the policy of

the Social Credit Party is to sock it to the NDP and we look forward to

doing it again, next time. But the Member for Yale-Lillooet also said,

and I'm not going to get into this in detail, that this Government is

in the pocket of the insurance companies. Well, I'll tell you who's

into my pocket, it's the Member for Kootenay. Just after this House

rose last year we were having dinner, my wife and I and friends, in the

Kootenay Hotel at Trail. We were having spaghetti and meatballs and it

was on April 17 just prior to the spring meeting of the Association of

Kootenay and Boundary municipalities and the Member for Kootenay and

his wife were having dinner there as well and kindly joined us. They

had started their meal, they joined us afterwards and engaged in some

very agreeable and interesting conversation. Then the Member for

Kootenay and his wife left. The waitress wondered who the gentleman was

and so I said, "Well, I know him, he visited at our table." I would

just thank you for having such a minimal meal that evening, Mr. Member

for Kootenay, because your tab came to only $5.00, I was pleased to pay

it and to prove I did I will ask the Member for Cariboo to send it over

to you. (interruption) He didn't have his ballpoint to sign the tab.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on the speech of the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Leader of the Liberal Party, but I think

there were four of us and only two of you, Mr. Member for Kootenay, and

that bill is for five. But, to use one of the favourite terms employed

by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, there wasn't very much to

comment upon. However, he is still fighting the election of 1969 all

over again and we on this side, of course, are always pleased to fight

that one over again. He gave some figures, the Leader of the Party,

against which 80 per cent of the people of this Province voted at the

last election, and somehow he suggested that this Party received a

majority of the seats, 70 per cent of the seats with only 40 per cent

of the popular vote. Why wasn't he up in arms instead of congratulating

the new Premier of Quebec, because there they only got 66 per cent of

the seats with 45 per cent of the vote?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate both the mover and

seconder of the Throne Speech for the very fine speeches they

delivered. We in Revelstoke-Slocan were particularly pleased that the

Member for Columbia River who borders on us was chosen for the job of

moving that Speech. But I would be remiss if I didn't also offer my

congratulations, of course, to the Leader of her Majesty's Official

Opposition, who was officially confirmed in that position last summer.

You know there was somewhat of a similarity between the way he received

that post officially and a minor baseball game that was played in by my

then seven-year-old son around the same time. Young Graham came home

from a baseball game one evening and he said, "Dad," he said, "I got on

base three times." Naturally I was quite proud and I said, "Well,

Graham, how did you do it?" He said, "Oh, I got hit here, here and here

and so I got on three times." So it is with the NDP, Mr. Speaker. The

NDP Leader is quite proud, and rightly so, of being chosen Leader but

he is the Leader today because his Party has been, and leaders have

been, clobbered time and time again by the voters of this Province and

they will continue to be so. Some of them, such as the speaker who

preceded me today, have even been clobbered by their own legislative

supporters.

Some speakers from the side opposite have tried to indicate that

life is quite peaceful and serene in that group and maybe they suggest

that the election by acclamation of their Leader would appear to

indicate this. In actual fact, I'd like to read from a story which

appeared last November in the Vancouver Sun . The headline on it

was, "Barrett out to Show who Wears the Pants" and the kicker under,

"Fuse Under NDP — B.C. Fed. Marriage Bed". The

article by the Sun 's

labour reporter went on and I'll quote it very briefly: "It is hard to

tell whether the noise under the marriage bed of the New Democratic

Party and the B.C. Federation of Labour — what with all the ruckus

going on — is the tick-ticking of a time bomb or the sizzling of a

long, slow fuse. Barrett moved into the bedroom just over a year ago

and has already had more open fights — ones that the neighbours can

hear — than half a dozen previous Socialist Party leaders." What was

the leader of that party referring to? He was referring to the alliance

between the NDP and organized labour in this Province, a marriage at

which apparently no minister had been present and which he wanted

annulled. But the NDP Leader by acclamation did he really want a

divorce or an annullment, or did he just really want to set up the

appearance of separate housekeeping? It would appear the latter was the

case, Mr. Speaker, because in a Vancouver Province

article of

around the same time and I'll quote it just briefly: "B.C. Fed.'s

secretary-treasurer, Ray Haynes, told more than 400 B.C. Federation of

Labour convention delegates that NDP Leader Dave Barrett once suggested

to him he should contrive a public verbal fight against the NDP to show

how independent his Party was of the Federation." Haynes said that it

happened on April 10, 1969, the day after Berger defeated Bob Williams,

John Conway and Barrett for the Party leadership. Haynes goes on and

the

article quotes: "I was approached by Dave Barrett and he suggested

to me that I should connive a public fight

[ Page 90 ]

with Tom Berger to show that labour and the NDP are not synonymous.

I thought he wasn't serious, but he pushed me and I finally told him

there was no way I'd ever do it."

So there it is, Mr. Speaker, as we saw and as was illustrated in

that speech by the Member for Atlin yesterday, the NDP and the B.C.

Federation of Labour are still living together in sin and all the NDP

Leader, by acclamation wants to do, for all of his protestations to the

contrary, is to pull the bedroom blinds down a little bit so that the

public won't really see those smiles of delight on the faces of the NDP

hierarchy.

Mr. Speaker, this year we are celebrating the Centennial of British

Columbia's one hundred years in Confederation and I would like to

briefly commend all associated with the planning for this Centennial

celebration, especially its general chairman, Mr. Laurie Wallace. The

fantastic planning and the preliminary work which has gone into early

arrangements for this celebration, without a shadow of a doubt, prove

what a tremendous success it will be.

I have 12 Centennial committees in my riding and if all of them want

the Member in attendance for only one function during the coming summer

then this is going to be an even busier summer than usual. However,

these committees all have very enthusiastic chairmen and dedicated

members and the very worthwhile projects in which they will be engaged

range from a new swimming pool, through restoration of an historic

hiking trail, to construction of several additions to community halls,

as well as the building of a skating rink.

But Centennial Year is more than just a year for the erection of

monuments, Mr. Speaker. It is also a time for the proper recognition of

people who have served not only this Province and Canada well, but also

their own regions as well. It is my pleasure to disclose at this time

that today I sent a letter to the Board of Governors of Selkirk

College, the regional college serving the West Kootenays and Boundary

country, suggesting that the very fine library at Selkirk College be

renamed "The H.W. Herridge Library," to honour that fine

parliamentarian and gentleman. Herbert W. Herridge has had one of the

most distinguished parliamentary careers in the history of Canada and,

I think, it would be most fitting if special recognition in this

Centennial Year could take the form I have suggested. I won't outline

in detail Mr. Herridge's political career at this time. Suffice to say,

I have done that in my letter to Selkirk College and copies of that

letter have been made available to the press. I might say, however,

that I have personal knowledge of Mr. Herridge's continued great

interest in public affairs and issues. Almost without fail, when I make

myself available to constituents at Nakusp, Mr. Herridge calls on me

with a prepared list of items of interest to him and we spend a very

enjoyable half hour or 45 minutes discussing them. I had planned on

calling in on Mr. Herridge at his home just a couple of weeks ago

before the Session started; however, snowstorm-blizzard conditions

closed the road and, as you know, he lives a little way out of Nakusp

and I had to return home from Revelstoke via the Okanagan. I had a

letter from him shortly thereafter and just to indicate to the Members

of the House that he still keeps his fine sense of humour and so forth,

he says, that, after I wrote him my apologies for not showing up, that,

"We were all disappointed. My wife had cooked a lunch for you and

insisted I change from mackinaw to a business suit." Certainly, that

sounds like Mr. Herridge.

Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers in this debate have already

pointed out, this Province in 1970 went through one of its toughest

years, economy-wise, of all the years in which this Government has been

entrusted with the confidence of the people.

For all that, however, the Revelstoke-Slocan riding had some

especially noteworthy events. A tremendous new $3 million, 50-bed

hospital was opened in December at Revelstoke, while construction was

started on a new hospital at Kaslo. It is of interest to note, Mr.

Speaker, that of the seven bids which were received for that Kaslo

hospital, two of them were below the estimates and one of them was only

$1,000 above the estimates.

My riding is one in which roads are particularly important and we

were all pleased, Mr. Minister of Highways, through you, Mr. Speaker,

that a good sum of money was made available for a substantial

day-labour programme on Highway 23 north of Nakusp, which was carried

out from early May through to about mid-November. However, I would like

to repeat in this House the continuous representations I have made to

the Minister of Highways regarding a contract on Highway 23 between

Halfway River and Galena Bay and the most important need for

construction of an eastern access into Revelstoke involving the

building of a large overpass across the CPR tracks. Both these large

projects, as well as some smaller ones, such as a new bridge at New

Denver, are very important to my riding and I hope that before too much

longer the Minister of Highways will have some news on them.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Delta, the Member for Columbia River and

the Minister of Commercial Transport have stated, either in this

Chamber or outside of it, their outright opposition, or at least their

serious concern, regarding the proposed slurry-coal pipeline being

proposed by Cascade Pipeline Ltd. to convey East Kootenay coal the

490-odd miles from Sparwood in the East Kootenays to Roberts Bank.

Under this proposal, the coal would be ground into fine powder and it

would be flushed through the pipeline suspended in water and then

reconstituted at the Roberts Bank end. Now, major concern has centred

around the pollution problem anticipated at the receiving end, with the

discharge of such a large amount of suspected polluted water.

Mr. A.F. Joplin, who is vice-president of Cascade and a director of

planning and development for the CPR which owns Cascade, has been

quoted as saying that the pipeline would be of a size sufficient to

move from 8 to 12 million tons of coal a year. At 12 million tons, he

says, about 2.4 billion gallons of water from the East Kootenay region

would be moved to the lower mainland area, where the company would hope

to sell some or all of this discharge water for industrial purposes.

Some would even find its way to Japan, depending on how efficient the

reconstituting process was in drying out the slurry. Mr. Speaker, I am

sure that I speak for a sizable body of public opinion in the Kootenay

area when I say to the CPR: "Keep your cotton pickin' fingers off our

water!" Last December, this Government announced higher fees and

rentals for water used for industrial, mining and waterworks purposes

as part of an increased philosophical emphasis, taking into account the

greatly increased value of water as a resource. But that fee and rental

schedule, as far as I can see in my study of it, doesn't take into

account consumptive use of water such as is proposed here by the CPR.

B.C.'s pulp mills, under the new fee schedule, will be paying

somewhere between five and ten thousand dollars a year for the use of

water, with close to 100 per cent of it being returned directly into,

or very near, the source of

[ Page 91 ]

supply. With the Cascade proposal, we see this 2.4 billion gallons

of water being moved across the entire Province. Then this private

company hopes to sell this water to other private companies as a

commodity much like any other commodity. I suspect some very serious

problems in obtaining this amount of water to begin with, Mr. Speaker.

The most logical source of supply is the Elk River and its tributary

system, and B.C. Hydro which took over the power distribution system

generating plants in the East Kootenays would likely object very

strenuously to another license of any size being granted unless it

received assurances that its hydro-electric generating capacity would

not be affected.

There could also be problems under the Columbia River Treaty,

whereby both Canada and the United States have undertaken to not make

diversions except for consumptive purposes, although possibly the

interpretation put on "consumptive purposes" is broad enough to allow

the taking of such a large amount of water.

I would urge the Government, in any consideration it might give the

Cascade project, to bear strongly in mind the fact that this water will

not be returned after its use to its place of origin but rather will be

transported some five hundred miles; to also bear in mind that the CPR

proposes to sell this water as a commodity bearing a price tag; and to

keep in mind that the quantity of water being discussed at this stage

is sufficient to supply all the needs of two Kelownas, three Nelsons or

two Trails. If the rate charged pulp mills, which I repeat just use the

water and then return it to nearby sources, were applied to this

proposal, the CPR would pay only $1,300 a year and this fee would be

the same if the rate charged for washing coal were followed. I don't

believe any Kootenay water, a great Kootenay resource, should be

transported in this way. But if it is, then the fees should reflect the

fact that the water isn't just being rented to be used, but is being

bought and intended to be sold.

Mr. Speaker, the last subject I propose to deal with this afternoon.

An American, Henry Ward Beecher, once wrote: "A thoughtful mind, when

it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation

itself." About six years ago at noon on February 15, 1965, on

Parliament Hill in Ottawa, crowds gathered to watch as the Canadian Red

Ensign was lowered and the new Maple Leaf Flag was hoisted in its place

for the first time. Speaking then, the Speaker of the Senate commented:

"The flag stands for the unity of the Nation and unequivocally speaks

for all the citizens of Canada regardless of their race, language,

creed or opinion."

Mr. Speaker, flags are emblems of identity for men to rally around.

They are symbols of their loyalty to a cause. In a national sense, a

country's flag is a symbol of unity and is the symbol of the love of

its citizens for their country. With respect to Provincial and

territorial flags, they reflect the pride and love of Canadians in a

Province for their Province and, of course, to men who fought under a

flag and saw their fellow men die beside them, a flag can be both

sacred and spiritual. Yet, for all this, there are no official statutes

in Canada governing the display of the flag or its desecration. There

are rules of etiquette which have been adopted from international

usage, and procedures which have been followed over the years, but

there is nothing mandatory in law that requires Canadians to treat

their flags with dignity and respect. We have no Federal laws dealing

with flag desecration or misuse. What this country needs are some flag

veneration laws.

In Vancouver, this past summer, at the Beatty Street Armoury,

transient youth superimposed the clenched fist over our Maple Leaf Flag

on the building there. Last Thursday, one of the flags that hangs from

the wall in the rotunda just outside this Chamber was pulled down and

hurled to the floor below. With things like this taking place, Mr.

Speaker, is it any wonder that the Royal Canadian Air Force Association

at its Twentieth Annual Convention last fall in St. John's,

Newfoundland, passed a resolution urging the Federal Government "…to

enact legislation to prevent commercial use of the Canadian Flag and to

make wilful desecration of the Canadian Flag a criminal offence"?

I have even heard, and I want to assure the House that I don't

have personal, first-hand knowledge of this, but I do have it on very

good authority, that one young lady — maybe I had better not call her a

lady — a female taking

part in the demonstration at Blaine, Washington,

in May of last year even had the Canadian Flag made into underwear. I

have seen the Canadian Flag used as a shade under a fluorescent light

fixture; late last summer, in a community in the West Kootenays, a

bunch of rabble-rousing young adults created havoc outside an RCMP

Detachment building. Do you know what some of the members of that mob

did, Mr. Speaker? They urinated on the Canadian Flag. What was the

result of this? Nothing. The flag was wet when it was retrieved by the

RCMP, and a friend of mine, a radio reporter, was able to say that he

had seen two or three of the leaders of these hooligans huddled around

the flag, but he was unable to testify that he actually saw anyone

wetting it. If he had actually seen them, Mr. Speaker, so that he could

swear to the fact in Court, the police would have had to content

themselves with some charge, such as public mischief, or damaging

public property, since no flag veneration laws exist.

I would ask this Government, Mr. Speaker, and this afternoon we had

the Minister of Justice for Canada as a guest on the floor of the

House, to determine if a Provincial statute can't be drafted

prohibiting any form of desecration or misuse of the Maple Leaf, the

Canadian Red Ensign, the Union Jack and the British Columbia Flag, with

very stiff penalties provided, if the law is broken. Further, I would

like to see the Government give consideration to the establishment of a

Flag Day, such as that held in the United States on June 14 of each

year, when business places and ordinary citizens are encouraged to fly

their flags. Perhaps such a day could be tied in with July 1, or with a

special British Columbia day, such as has been suggested by the Second

Member for Vancouver South.

Our citizens, each and every one of us, owe respect to our flags as

a mark of loyalty to our country and as an indication of the honour and

esteem in which we hold Canada and our Province.

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

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

has been very pleasant during the first few days of the Session to find

the House in such a friendly mood with such a universal spirit of

goodwill.

I'd like to add my small contribution to this good humour and

fellowship by sharing with all the Members in the House the words and

music of that famous folk song, "Skagit Valley Forever." Last October,

the well-known composer, Melvina Reynolds, author of the folk song,

"Little Boxes," and many others, visited Vancouver and heard from a

local radio personality the story of the Skagit Valley. As a result,

she composed the song which is now being passed around. I

[ Page 92 ]

would very much like to sing it for you, Mr. Members, or at least,

perhaps have our group sing it. Any takers? Out of concern for Mr.

Speaker's tape recording equipment and the difficulties of transposing

the tune into the permanent House record we've decided we should avoid

this. However, I do have a tape recording of the song being sung by

Mrs. Reynolds and I would be delighted to play it for any Member who

would care to visit our Caucus Room later. I might add that Mrs.

Reynolds was kind enough to turn over the rights to use her song to the

Ross Committee.

Mr. Speaker, first, last summer, and then, again, last week, the

people of British Columbia received two major engineering reports on

transportation the implementation of which would have a lasting effect

on the life style of the lower mainland, in fact, on the whole of

British Columbia, because well over one half of the people of B.C. now

live on the lower mainland. The first report was the Vancouver Regional

Rapid Transit Study, commissioned jointly by the regional district and

the Provincial Government through B.C. Hydro. This report proposed a

$300 million rapid transit system for the regional district. The second

report, commissioned by the Federal Government through the National

Harbours Board, outlined plans for a new crossing, either bridge or

tunnel, of Burrard Inlet — the cost nearly $200 million.

Mr. Speaker, because both of these projects affect so greatly the

future of Vancouver, of the North Shore and my own riding of North

Vancouver–Capilano, I feel responsible to make a few comments. It seems

to me most unfortunate that both these projects have already had a long

history of political bickering. As politicians on every level of

Government try to take advantage for themselves, any chance of progress

towards construction of these projects or resolution of the problem

seems to become less and less. First, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on

record as personally favouring the tunnel for Burrard Inlet. If we can

build the tunnel for only 5 per cent more than the bridge and keep it

out of sight, under instead of over the inlet, this seems more

preferable to me. Second, it would seem to me very foolish to build

either project without full co-ordination with the other and without

full control of all the elements that go into a metropolitan

transportation system. These include major highways, freeways, rapid

transit and parking. Without control of all these elements in the

regional district, no part of the system will be successful and chaotic

traffic and parking conditions would be the only result.

I suggest, therefore, that an overall Lower Mainland or, perhaps,

Vancouver Regional District Transportation Authority must be set up to

be given control and responsibility for all these items, including both

the proposed Burrard crossing and the proposed rapid transit system, as

well as the others mentioned. The financial difficulty is a major one

but the facts of life are there for all to see. The traffic and

transportation problems must be solved; they're going to get worse not

better and they are not going to go away. We now have the basic needed

information. All the municipalities concerned belong to the regional

district and, clearly, this is a problem requiring at least a regional

approach. Neither tunnel nor freeway nor rapid transit should be built

in isolation from the other. Parking must be included in the package.

The Provincial Government must be involved, because across the North

Shore comes traffic from and to the ferries from Vancouver Island and

from all over the lower mainland from Squamish and, perhaps, soon from

the interior of B.C. Of course, North Vancouver is the freight terminus

of the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. The Federal Government must be

involved because these problems of the cities are simply too large to

be handled without some Federal help, because the National Harbours

Board is concerned with the port of Vancouver and because the

Trans-Canada Highway is also involved. So, Mr. Speaker, before each

politician at each political level goes charging off into the sunset,

uttering sneers and jeers and threats, I suggest it is time for the

politicians, for once, to get together, to do some hard planning and

bargaining and to get on with the job that must be done. I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with his

personal knowledge of all the parties concerned, with his well-known

enthusiasm for the regional concept might well be the catalyst that

would bring together the three levels of Government to make the

necessary arrangements, compromises and decisions. The lower mainland

of British Columbia needs rapid transit and it needs controlled traffic

flow into and around the city of Vancouver. Only a truly cooperative

effort, such as I have suggested, will make it possible.

Similar to most of you in this House, I have become increasingly

alarmed over the many ways in which our environment is threatened.

There should be no need, at this point, to engage in a long

presentation of many examples. They are forcibly brought to our

attention every time we turn on television or look at a newspaper. In

spite of all we have seen and heard, I wonder if we are really aware of

the full implications of what is often called "the environmental

crisis." I'm not reassured by the promises of this Government to give

B.C. the greatest ecological climate in the world. Just saying it,

won't make it so, and there is little in the past record of this

Government to indicate a willingness to do really very much more than

talk about effective pollution control. As you examine these

environmental problems, such as the Skagit Valley, you become more

aware of the deeper implications of the specific problems. Why, for

instance, should this beautiful valley, whether in Canada or the United

States, be forfeited to provide electric power to light more neon

signs, drive electric lawn movers, run machines or to build supersonic

jet transports?

Look at our ideal of the Canadian way of life; the essence is a

belief in growth. Our Premier frequently boasts that B.C. is one of the

fastest growing regions on the continent. Every Chamber of Commerce is

bent on making its community into the fastest growing city in the

country. Bay Street and Howe Street are dedicated in their search for

growth. Businessmen spend their lives in pursuit of annual increases in

sales, assets and profit. Housewives yearn for bigger houses, bigger

cars, bigger salary cheques. The one National goal that everyone agrees

on is an ever-growing Gross National Product. Each jump in the National

output has been treated as a triumph, and each fall as a set back.

We're convinced that, with a growing GNP and a corresponding rise in

the standard of living, most of our economic and social ills will be

looked after. A lesson I've begun to learn is that nonstop growth just

isn't possible for Canadians, or anybody else, for we live in what we

must recognize as a tight ecological system, a small planet with a

strictly limited supply of everything, including air, water and places

to dump sewage. If man insists on constant growth within the system in

elastic walls, something has to pop. Already most of the habitable

parts of our continent are overpopulated, not so helplessly overcrowded

as Asia, but well beyond the limits that would make the good life

attainable for everybody. Stewart Udahl, who is a former U.S. Secretary

to the Interior, now a practicing consulting

[ Page 93 ]

ecologist, has estimated that the optimum

population of the United

States would be about one hundred million or just half of what it

presently is, yet, growth of another one hundred million is predicted

within the next thirty years. In British Columbia, people, less

enthusiastic than our Premier about the prospects of growth for the

sake of growth, are questioning whether or not our Province should

become the California of Canada and whether Vancouver wishes to

emulate Los Angeles.

Last August, the Premier proudly pointed out that B.C. has the

fastest growing population in North America. "We're growing faster than

anyone — not only the Provinces of Canada, but all the States as well,"

he said. There is every indication that such unplanned growth is

strain