1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 453 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

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

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): How sweet it is! Mr.

Speaker, I always look forward to my turn in the barrel, my turn in the

debate. This is one big barrel, Mr. Speaker, and the name of this

debate, of course, is The Sermon on the Amount.

I want to first start out, Mr. Speaker, by saying what a pleasure it

is to see you there because to me, at least, you represent kind, firm,

judicious decisions in this particular House. You know, a great deal is

said about the House and I sometimes wonder how many people, outside of

the people that sit in it, really understand what it is all about. We

facetiously say sometimes that this is a very exclusive club. Sometimes

the membership comes high to come here, and sometimes the good people

who come into the gallery and watch their representatives, sometimes

don't understand the situation and it is very difficult for them to do

it. Sometimes members of the House are criticized for using this or

that ploy in terms of debate, but that is what political science is all

about, and as they say in the vernacular, that's the name of the game.

There are, of course, certain decorums and conduct with which one

should pattern himself for this place and, Mr. Speaker, you are the

representative of that dignity that should be part of this place.

At the same time, you know, there are perhaps people in the gallery

that think we ought to walk around here and have sour-looking and long

faces, and show our teeth at one another, and all this sort of thing,

and I want to say that in this business if you ever lose your sense of

humour, to again put it in the vernacular, you're long gone. I hope

that as long as I am here, I never lose that sense of humour. I know

that there are others opposite who have as keen or even a better sense

of humour than I have.

However, I want to say everybody has been welcomed, and I share that

welcome with everyone. But I don't think anybody has said anything

about the silent service down here. The silent service, I don't know

what we would do without them protecting us, particularly that young

chap in the middle (applause). I want to say how much we appreciate the

services of those young ladies who operate the tape and the sound

system so that we can be better heard.

But, however, sometimes a little sadness comes into our ranks. It

does indeed, because those chaps up there, I am telling you, you won't

find a finer, more informed Press Gallery than what you find there, and

that is not flattering them up or anything else (applause). But a

little sadness comes in — and you'd think those fellows, they spend so

much time running down those stairs, down there, getting on the

telephone, on the teletype, and some sad things will come.

Now these two fellows had forgotten that I am not Minister of

Welfare, and I have before me two applications for social assistance.

The first one, from Young, Alexander. On the top is "Out of Province"

and he has got, "I sure as hell am." Address: Press Gallery. Mailing

Address: Not sure. Phone: Taken out. Have you been known by any other

name? Many times. Reason for application: Won't print my stuff

(laughter).

Then I have another one, though. Hunter, lain. Address: No

permanent. Mailing Address: Unknown. Phone: Nearest. Have you been

known by any other name? Not intentionally. Reason for application: I

lost my Sun (laughter). I tell you doesn't that bring the tears to your

eyes.

I want to tell you, social workers are the last fellows those

fellows want, and I want to tell you that I'm going to send these back

up to them and have them referred to the proper Department. Knowing

both of them personally, as all of us do, I am sure that it's only

going to take a short period of time before they're deadbeats, and so

if you give this to the fellows in the Press Gallery we will refer it

to the Businessmen's Alliance (laughter and applause).

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, today has always been known — I used

to have Valentine's Day but I don't seem to get that any more — however, this is known as the W.D. Black Awards Day, and I have certain

awards to make. You know, to be a successful politician, Mr. Speaker,

you have to be a good debater, you have to know what you're talking

about. I repeat, you have to know what you're talking about. Number

two, you've got to have a bit of a flair for the actor, you've got to

have some histrionic ability, and in this Session an old play is being

reacted, and in this old play that's being reacted, we have some

delightful actors in it. The name of the play is called, "David Slew

Goliath." The actors in the play — of course, little David. I have

here, if one of the pages would take it over for him, it's a stone — buy your own sling-shot and because of some of the little tricks that

we have had lately, I've got another one for you. Just make sure you

don't get it on your face, it's egg. But I want to get around to the

real Academy Award people, which are the first member from Vancouver

East and the member for Cowichan-Newcastle or Cowichan-Malahat. Good.

You notice you can tell all the old hams, they stand up and bow to

everything.

In any case, in any case — the spotlight hasn't gone on yet. These

fellows that are putting this play on…. and did you notice the other

one the other day? "Oh, I'm going to stand on my rights, I'm not going

to leave, Mr. Speaker…." The name of that little play was to get that

tiny little Sergeant-at-Arms of ours to march him out and then the

photographers would be — oh, what a play! It was terrific. And the

other fellow pounding the desk, throwing his arms around, and boy I

felt sorry for one of our colleagues in this House, and that's my

friend over there from Burnaby, and so hazardous has this place become

that I got him a hard hat. (applause)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You'd better give that to the man that David was after (applause).

MR. BLACK: Well, that just proves how little my Scottish

friend knows about the Book, because Goliath was not the general of the

Philistines' army, and I want to tell you, the one he's after, there's

about 35 of them to get here.

Now we had a little business about stacked deck, and I don't know anybody that's tried to stack the deck more….

MR. SPEAKER: Order (laughter).

MR. BLACK: I have a deck of cards, Mr. Speaker. It's used for

playing games, and one of the nicest little game-players I've known is

the N.D.P. member from North Vancouver – Capilano,

and I really should have given him running shoes today to run back and

forth and get all his beautiful strategy planned. I have another

honours list. For my friend from

[ Page 454 ]

Kootenay, I have a razor blade for you so you can have another close shave.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's happened to my game?

MR. BLACK: It's illegal.

I have a calendar here which I will give to the member for Skeena,

to show him that there are 30 days in June and not 31, and that's the

only comment I want to make on his dissertations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say the N.D.P. member for North Vancouver-Capilano?,

MR. BLACK: My dear friend, I remember you when you were

leader of the Liberal party. You're now in the N.D.P. camp and as far

as I'm concerned you're all N.D.P. The N.D.P. won't have to worry about

you too much, because within a short period of time there'll be two go

to the Bench.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Senate?

MR. BLACK: Oh, none of them are quite old enough yet for the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted, first of all, to say that people in this

House have their little fun too, and this might, I suppose, be lecture

number one to the new interns. I think it's been said before that the

members, particularly the new members of this House, have given an

excellent account of themselves, and I include in that my friend from

New Westminster as well. I think we'd all have to agree that certainly

they displayed sincerity. You may not have agreed with what they said,

but all of us would defend their right to say it. You know that they

have good ideas. You know that they expressed them well and you know

that in the years to come in this House they will be a force to be

heard from here.

I don't want to take too much of your time but I do want to, Mr.

Speaker, report on two responsibilities that are mine in connection

with my portfolio. Firstly, I would like to report, if I may, on the

Department of Highways, and tomorrow a complete rundown on the

statistical data that is so important, particularly to rural M.L.A.'s,

will be on your desks. There you, as M.L.A., will have an opportunity

of assessing the position of your own constituency and then at the time

that the Estimates of that Department are before the House you'll

undoubtedly, on behalf of your constituents, have some observations to

make. There, too, I want to say that you will see the progress that is

being made in the Department of Highways and will become aware that

there has been some reorganization within the Department of Highways,

and we are attempting to keep the Department just as modern as it's

possible to do.

Our engineers, the Government engineers, are as well or better

informed than any certainly that I have met in Canada. I know some of

you who had the excellent services of Mr. Elston in your area as the

regional engineer will have been sorry to see him go from that post,

but I can assure you that he is in a post in the Department of Highways

contingent with his great capabilities in that of planning, and there

he is. The Planning Department — naturally the Government does the

planning, but it does take advice and counsel from those technically

qualified to give it. Also, we have Mr. Martin. I personally was sorry

to see him leave from my particular region, and Mr. Martin is now in

charge of over-all maintenance as far as the Province is concerned.

Some of you know him personally. Mr. Zapf still remains in the Location

Branch, and I doubt if there's anyone who has the international

reputation relative to location as Norm Zapf. Now I can't possibly

mention everyone but I want to say to you that we're seriously

considering, when we're able to obtain the right person for the job,

because it's so important, to have greater and better co-ordination

with those elected people at the local level, meaning the municipal

councils. In times gone by, perhaps no one's fault, there has been a

lack of co-ordination or lack of understanding relative to things

engineering at the local level, and we're trying to abridge that gap.

Two, you will be aware by the — it looks voluminous and only because

it's in mimeograph form — report on your constituency, that you will be

able to assess what has been done. In the last fiscal year we have done

more work than in any previous fiscal year in our history. Trans-Canada

is all but complete and I might notify the House that the Trans-Canada

Agreement is coming to a close. Nevertheless, the work of the Highway

Department continues. Our people keep themselves informed of the best

engineering advice there is anywhere in the world. You will notice in

the brochure that you will have the latest in bridge designs not latest

because we must have the firiest and the fanciest thing, not that at

all, but the latest in engineering studies because it is serviceable,

because it is economical, and because it's good engineering. You will

see the new overpasses and flyovers, as they call them, are of a very

modern design. You'll find in that report, too, a list of the contracts

that have been let and those contracts that are presently being

developed from the last fiscal year and will be continuing into the

fiscal year that is just ahead of us after April 1st, and about which

you will be expressing opinions during Estimate time.

I would draw to your attention, too, the ferry service, and the

development of the ferry service is a very interesting one. You will

begin to understand what it means by jumboizing a ferry or stretching

it or elongating it and, as you know, one was finished and the other

one is presently on the way and with the hope that this will be ready

for public service in the summer months.

Also, and I think most important to this House, it would be well if

you read the accident report. I think it saddens every citizen of this

Province when we see these unfortunate accidents on highways, and

there's always the tendency, certainly by newspaper reports at times,

to infer that this curve wasn't right or the speed limit is too high,

etc. Well, in some cases that may be true, but I would say that that is

down to an absolute minimum, and if you will look at that report you

will find that the greatest cause of accidents on our highways was

again booze — booze — the chap that wants to mix booze and gasoline,

and it's a sad situation. However, you will be heartened to notice that

those figures, compared to the ones in the previous year, have lessened

a little but certainly not enough. It is funny how all these traffic

accidents are somebody else's fault except the nut behind the wheel,

and you'll find that report most interesting. Also you'll be aware that

our various research plants, soil testing, etc., are in full operation

and are in the process of having some expansion. If you haven't seen

that operation down the street here from this building, perhaps you

should.

I want to say to you that in two years as Minister I have enjoyed

the most excellent co-operation from the staff and I hope they from me,

and the results of our labours are in your constituency and I'm aware

that your constituents appreciate it. I also know that it's your job to

ask for more and more

[ Page 455 ]

and more all the time, and I know full well that

you understand that we are bound by the limits of money voted to us by

the Assembly. However, we try to keep our thinking five years ahead so

that we have some adequate planning and could be ready for any

situation relative to the development of roads.

At the close of the Session this evening, Mr. Speaker, I shall be

filing the Aircraft Log for scrutiny of the members and the press. Let

me say that the co-operation of the Highways Department is open to all

members of this Assembly. We'd be delighted to have you come to our

offices so that we could hear your problems from you, and I'm sure that

your problems will be dealt with in a fine manner. If the answer is no,

you'll be told it, and that may well be the answer. However, we're

delighted to hear you and have you become acquainted with those people

who direct the technical aspects of the Highways Department.

Mr. Speaker, one report was placed on your desks as you came into

the House on the first day. This other report will be on your desks

tomorrow morning, or tomorrow sometime, and you'll have the opportunity

to make those assessments that M.L.A.'s should properly make in terms

of their own constituency.

May I change the subject, Mr. Speaker, to one that is very dear to

my heart, in that I should like to say a word or two relative to

medicare. In this debate I had the opportunity of listening to a fine

dissertation from the member for Lillooet — Yale-Lillooet — (applause),

and I appreciated his remarks. I certainly didn't agree with some of

them. Others, of course I did. However, let me say that when we speak

of medicare I want you to know, despite all those things political that

have been said against it over the years in this House and on the

hustings, that the fact that this medical plan is so successful has

given lie to their criticism. Most people in the House know perfectly

well that it was called tin cup medicare. You know perfectly well that

the initial Bill was voted against in principle. You know perfectly

well that we doctored up the votes, so the criticism said. You know

perfectly well that remarks were made by the then Leader of the

Opposition that you will never get 150,000. I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, as of today, 99 plus per cent of the entire population of

British Columbia is either in the over-all plan or the…. (applause)

99 plus per cent, some failure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Socialism.

MR. BLACK: I want to tell you, if it was socialism why didn't

you vote for it in the first place. Sharpen your sword a little better

than that. Oh, sharpen your sword a little better than that. You never

got to me at all.

The only people, the best of my knowledge, that are left out are

those who do not join any type of medical plan because of religious

beliefs or those who are wealthy enough to have some other type of

insurance. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's great irony — it was implied in

this House and elsewhere that the Government has sort of dreamed up a

little nightmare of its own and that there had been no planning. Yet, I

want to tell you that the Government spent just about 12 years studying

this plan, and when we say we have the best in the world, I honestly

believe that that is so. The irony of the situation is, it is my

understanding from Ottawa that a delegation from Sweden — ever heard

that name before? — a delegation from Sweden is coming to Canada to

study the medical plan, and I understand from good authority in Ottawa,

that one of the first places that they are going to come to study our

operation is British Columbia. I repeat, some failure! We are extremely

proud of it.

You might be interested to know the honourable member opposite from

Yale-Lillooet was incorrect the other day, in talking about the seven,

I believe he said, or nine carriers. The facts of life are that there

are four, and one of those is being phased out. We have the British

Columbia Medical Plan, we have the Canadian Pacific Employees Medical

Plan with C.U. and C. and M.S.A., and the C.P.R. or the Canadian

Pacific people are phasing into M.S.A. shortly. The teachers have

phased in, and the Fraser Valley have phased in, and so, what it

amounts to is, as far as individuals are concerned that's covered by

the over-all plan, the B.C. Medical Plan.

The others which are involved in group contracts, be they as a

result of collective agreements, are covered under those plans. Here's

some figures you might be interested in. This refers to persons. The

number of persons covered by the B.C. Medical Plan is 889,989, and the

Canadian Pacific Employees Medical Association 26,594. Now you can see,

obviously, why it's being phased in. The C.U. and C. 197,945, and you

can phase into theirs another 11,230, and M.S.A. 944,545. As you know,

the Federal Government employees are phasing in as well. You'd be

interested to know that the number of persons covered by the 90 per

cent subsidy are 470,292. Those receiving the 50 per cent subsidy are

91,423. There were some remarks made here relative to our operating

costs. Obviously, operating costs are extremely important, and one of

the reasons for the melding into as few plans as we possibly can, was

to cut down on the operating expense. Some of these plans, like C.U.

and C. and M.S.A., are fully automated and so we melded fully automated

plans and it has cut our cost down and the figure is around five per

cent. There isn't any medical plan in Canada that can boast those low

operating figures of five per cent.

This plan belongs to all of us. It belongs to this Government, to

this Legislature, to all the people, and I want to say to you that

hardly a day goes by when our people are not invited down to the United

States to deliver lectures, to be guest speakers, etc., in relation to

our plan and how it works, and I want to say this, because sometimes we

hear disparaging remarks relative to the medical profession. I have

dealt with a good many groups in my life and I can honestly say that I

never had better co-operation in terms of developing the type of

agreement that we have and in terms of making this plan work, than I've

had from the medical profession itself.

Some remark was made by my honourable friend opposite, and I know

not in a critical vent but rather as a suggestion. But we've beat them

to the punch in referring to this — this is the card that the

individual receives. As part of the debate my friend opposite, my

colleague from Oak Bay, said that is discipline, and indeed it is.

Because I tell you, that every time a subscriber who is a taxpayer and

one of the owners of the plan sees something on their form that is not

true, believe me, they write to us and believe me it is checked,

because the medical profession and the Government are equally concerned

about abuse. They certainly are, and I can say when it comes to abuse,

the medical profession's Pattern of Practice Committee has given us

excellent co-operation. If there are any of their people who are out of

line, believe me they deal with them, and so the people in the

Province, including the medical profession, have taken the attitude

this belongs to all of us, we are all part of it, and

[ Page 456 ]

they want to see it work, and at the moment it is working well.

It is true that we are providing benefits under our plan that are

not shared in by the Federal administration, and perhaps that day will

come. Those of you who are interested, the Federal Government has just

put out a report, true it only goes to March 31st, 1969. Here is

excellent reading for you which will give you comparative figures

between other provinces. I'm not going to bore you today by reading

those comparative figures, but if you take a look and read that report

in light of your plan, of which you should be justly proud, then we'll

have some basis for argument. This is an excellent plan, we're proud of

it, and I want to give credit where it is due to those, in its

formative years, that made it the type of plan that it was. Mr.

Stewart, the medical doctors, the medical profession, and they have

worked hard. I don't want to imply that I've always agreed with the

doctors or they with me, because that would be totally erroneous, but

we've always come to harmonious, amicable relations, and always come

out with the right answers. Their agreement will be coming due and

coming up for review this year, and I know that they're in the process

of preparing their submissions for that.

There is a good deal I could say relative to the Provincial

Secretary's Department. I want to take two or three minutes, however,

Mr. Speaker, to say a word about the contributory pension plans.

Unfortunately, in this House and elsewhere there are too few people who

know very much about contributory pension plans, even those people who

contribute. They never seem to become interested in their own affairs

until about two or three years before they want to retire, and then

they become awfully interested,

whereas they should have become

interested 20 years prior to that. And there are those in the broader

community who think that a pension plan is the be all and the end all.

I want to assure you from the experience I've had here that indeed it

is not, and that one who is on contributory schemes should have outside

equities to balance off the hedge against inflation, and because it is

an extremely difficult thing to do, to build into pension plans a hedge

against inflation.

In the pension plans that we, in this Legislature, have under our

jurisdiction, the right thing has been done. We have reviewed them and

the story of the development of the pension plans here has been better

than any province of Canada. There is new thinking, however, in

relation to pension plans. Relative to funding, which is the pool of

funds which supplies and develops the pensions there are those, I think

foolishly, who are opposed to any funding. I think that is foolish.

There are those that regard pension funds as trust funds and insist on

100 per cent equity. Now that perhaps is just as foolish as the other,

but certainly better funding has been the watch-word of the trustees of

this fund, of all of these funds, I should properly say.

I want to reiterate what the second member for Burrard said in his

presentation just recently in dealing with the Municipal Superannuation

Act. I want you to understand that we, as legislators, have really no

authority to amend or adjust that Act without the concurrence of the

employers and the employees, and we act as trustees for the fund. Those

who are not aware of how it works, if you will look in your Estimates

under the Municipal Superannuation Act, you will see that we are now at

the position, I believe, if my memory serves me rightly, of $75,000 or

$70,000. That's the Government's paying off at the rate of or reducing,

rather, by $5,000 each year, that's why it's $5,000 less in each

succeeding year to pay off the certificates of loan. It is true that

somewhere down the line, I don't want to go into it today, and perhaps

might describe during the Estimates, that somewhere down the line

certain groups of employees were left out in the cold, and some of you

— I won't mention any names here — have been receiving letters from

time to time from some of those people who were caught in that squeeze,

and set up a device whereby these people can go and make themselves

known and their point of view known to employers and employees. I'd

have to say this, without being nasty about it, that down the line the

employer and the employee were equally to blame for leaving these folks

out. Those of you who are M.L.A.'s, you should do everything — and on

all sides of the House, — to try to persuade those local jurisdictions

if they can't take a second look at this sort of thing. There is a long

story attached to it. I would be happy to tell anybody on a

confidential basis how it all happened. I don't feel, because it

involves personalities, that I want to do it here.

In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would be most remiss if I

didn't say anything about Centennial '71. You know, we hear a good deal

these days about Canadian unity and perhaps what we watch over

television, what we listen to by radio, what we read in the news media,

gives us some cause to wonder. We in this Legislature, all of us, have

expressed ourselves at one time or another in terms of that Canadian

unity, and we are all for Canadian unity. We will never have a better

opportunity than in '71 to reaffirm our stand as being part of this

great nation, Canada, because it does celebrate our one-hundredth year

in Confederation. Our people are fun-loving people. You know, all work

and no play makes Jack a very dull boy, and

AN HON. MEMBER: Author! Author!

MR. BLACK: I believe it was you …and our people have come

to realize that the tourist dollar in their community is a very

important dollar to their economy. I can say that by the experiences we

have had with other celebrations, we've had no problem whatsoever in

setting up boards of directors of well-informed people, reads like

Who's Who in British Columbia, and it is a delightful situation to see

people come to the fore and willing to help with this situation. In

your community we would prefer, although it's not absolutely necessary,

that the local community develop something of a lasting nature for the

Centennial '71 project. The grant system has all been outlined to them,

and we look forward to a tremendous celebration. We want not only to

invite in '71 just our own Canadian people, but indeed people from

everywhere else in the world, to show them the wonderful world of

British Columbia.

While I am just mentioning that, I could not pledge, during a

previous debate when one of my colleagues, the first member for

Vancouver-Burrard suggested for the entrance, or at least the

approaches to Vancouver from the International Border, that perhaps we

ought to plant tulip bulbs, or daffodils, I should say — daffodils. I

would have given him some today, only those daffodil bulbs should have

been planted in the fall, as you well know. But nevertheless, we think

it's an excellent idea and I know that the honourable member has gone

to great pains to get the support of those people in one organization

and another, and municipal people. We think it's an excellent idea. You

have our moral support, honourable member, and not only that, you may

have our tangible support when we have an opportunity of

[ Page 457 ]

surveying the whole situation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I opened this afternoon in a light, facetious mood and I want to end in that mood.

AN HON. MEMBER: I checked. The dealer would have had a straight flush.

MR. BLACK: I want to tell you, there are two jokers in it too, my boy. Two jokers. Sharpen your sword a little better on me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I checked the edges, too.

MR. BLACK: Did you! Well, hold them up to the light — you'll find them all marked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! We'll have order in the galleries. (Disturbance and commotion)

MR. BLACK: Well, I just have to remark that…. I tell you, a British Columbia audience is the best audience in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm not sure who's in charge.

MR. BLACK: Before you, Mr. Chairman, in a matter of days

really now, will be the opportunity to express yourself relative to a

Budget, and that Budget is certainly comparable to anything there is

anywhere in the world. Certainly, when you have a look at those budgets

that are being presented almost currently by other provinces of Canada

it stands out over and beyond. I sometimes wonder, perhaps people in

the Gallery sometimes, or members of the press, add up the demands of

the Opposition in terms of dollars, just add them up for one Budget

alone, and I am sure that you would almost double the Budget by the

time you get those costs added up. I also will have to say, despite all

the bickering and the insults that we've had to take over the years,

really we don't care. We've operated on a pay-as-you-go basis. The

Province is in good financial shape. You do have a Budget that can

stand the inflationary trends provided that everybody cooperates. I say

to you, ladies and gentlemen, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the choice

is easy, all you have to do is support it, and judging by the way some

of you fellows are spending the money over there, I don't doubt for a

moment that you will vote for the Budget.

Now I said, I started on a facetious mood and I am going to end on

one. Because at times I sit awfully near this microphone, and you know

what happens here every day, I have to at times help various parsons.

The other day I had to help one, and one of my friends opposite named

me "The Bishop." So I have a little story to tell you. It's short. This

is the story of when His Holiness the Pope visited Boston — he never

really did, but it's the story — and the whole church community of his

faith were all agog. Everybody wanted to help him, everybody wanted to

see him, everybody wanted to do something for him, and the Cardinal in

that area co-ordinated the things and said, "We got to start with first

things first. Pasqualli, you have been a bellhop in these hotels for

almost 40 years, Guiseppe you've been about 30 years. Now you two

fellows, the first thing you do is to get his gear up to his room on

the twenty-second floor." They never realized he had so much equipment,

and it took them goodness knows how long to get it up there, and when

they got down to their little room downstairs Pasqualli said to

Guiseppe, he said, "Gasep, you're givin' me my half of tip, please."

And Guiseppe said, "Pasqualli, I'm not a getting any tip." "What you

talking about?" "I'm not getting no tip, His Holiness is giving me

nothing," he said. "Santa Maria," he said, "I belong da church of Roma

for 65 years and my grandaddy 74, 80 years, and my greata-grandaddy 83

years, and His Holiness has given you no tip?" He said, "No, he give me

nothing." He said, "I tella you what to do. You go uppa the

twenty-second floor, and you say, 'Please Your Holiness, please give me

tip for my friend Pasqualli and me.' " And away he goes, and he comes

back in about seven minutes, and Pasqualli says, "Guiseppe, you gotta a

tip?" He says, "Yes, I got tip." He says, "Givva me my haffa, please."

And he says, "You really wanta your half?" He says, "Sure I wanta my

half." He says, "There's your half." Mr. Speaker, as it's so

appropriate for a bishop — bless you, my boy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the

honourable the Minister of Highways for his blessing. I hope it will be

in a more tangible form than justice in the House. I must say, with all

respect, that I am forced by Standing Order 30 to remove the head

adornment that he so kindly gave to me as soon as I stand up, but I

hope to put it down at the end of my remarks, to put it on my head

again. Now I'm….

AN HON. MEMBER: You'll need it.

MR. DOWDING: Yes, I'll need it. I'm going to say a few things

that need to be said. First of all, it is obvious that the people in

the galleries no longer know who the Government is. After the Minister

had finished his remarks, the honest impression was that the Leader of

the Opposition is running the affairs of British Columbia, and I think

the least you could do is move over and let us on that side of the

House.

Now there are some things that were said by the Minister that really

took me aback. One of them, of course, was the fact that he seemed to

think that the applause that he was getting when he first stood up had

something to do with his personal accomplishments. But to the new

members of the House, I want to remind them that the Minister who just

spoke previously was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he never

got that kind of applause then. Before that, he was the Minister of

Health, and he never got that kind of applause then, far from it.

Before that he was the Minister of Social Welfare, and he never got

that kind of applause then either, and I can only attribute it to his

office. Suddenly everyone has realized he's the Minister of Highways,

and they are all waiting for the goodies in the Budget in the Highways

Department, and it's so many roads to worry about.

Now I want to point out also, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has

adopted a new policy and I welcome this policy. He has stated that

henceforward there will be no lack of cooperation with the local

officials throughout the Province. Well, if I ever heard an attack on

the previous administration — that must be it, and it's true. In view

of the fact that we have a new spirit of cooperation between this

Government and the Department of Highways and local officials of

municipalities, I want the Minister to know that we welcome that

pronouncement, and the first thing I want him to consider is some

cooperation with the Municipality of Burnaby. Now, there are two areas

where there is shared

[ Page 458 ]

responsibility on highways in Burnaby. The first of those is the

problem on Hastings Street in Burnaby, where the municipality for

several years now has obtained the property needed to widen Hastings

Street from the present narrowed portion that is causing considerable

traffic problem. I hope and trust that now the Minister will perform

the deeds for which his words were the author, and that they will

cooperate with Burnaby to see that the new widened highways are paved

along Hastings Street. The second thing I would like to see is that the

Provincial Government will cooperate with Burnaby in regard to the

relocation of Marine Drive. For those of you who know Vancouver, they

will know that one of the real traffic hazards and pile-up of traffic

occurs on Marine Drive, as soon as you get to Burnaby from Vancouver.

Vancouver has agreed with Burnaby for many years to widen Marine Drive

and relocate it down on the flats at Boundary Road, and Vancouver has

done its

part in widening Marine Drive right to Kerr Road. They're

waiting for this Provincial Government and the municipalities, together

in cooperation, to relocate Marine Drive and it is vitally needed at

this time. So there again, we have a promise from the Minister of

cooperation.

There was something else that struck me as strange in his speech,

aside from the goodies he presented across the floor, and that was this

question of the situation in regard to the Highways Department in its

policies throughout the Province. He says that we must distribute the

Highways Budget in such a way that the whole of the Province develops,

but to a great extent he has neglected the urban areas in that

consideration and I would like to see him give more thought to it.

Earlier in this House I raised the question of traffic noise, which is

becoming a most serious problem in urban areas, and he and his

department had a vital place in suppressing that traffic noise by what

they do in regard to the highways and the truck routes, particularly

throughout urban areas.

Another thing he said that I thought was strange, he indicated that

the Opposition did not support the Government's medicare programme,

their original legislation. Well, for those of you who were not here at

the time, I think you should be told that when the Government

originally brought in its medicare programme it was so limited, it

was with no regard for Federal participation, it could only be called

tin cup medicare, and that's what we named it. That's right. And I want

to tell you something else. We were the ones who proposed the scheme

which is presently in effect….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh…. oh!

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I detect a note of incredulity. I

detect some skepticism over there. Do I have to call upon witnesses who

are no longer here in the House for an objective opinion about what

happened in 1963? Can't I rely on these Ministers to nod their heads

when I say that? What's happened here? Mr. Speaker, it's getting

dangerous to recall these things without a tape, and it's too late now

to have a tape recording of what happened in those days around 1963.

However, I will stifle that incredulity immediately by calling on my

first witness, and that's Eric Martin. Eric Martin, you remember him?

Mr. Speaker, he was the Minister of Health of this Government.

MR. D. BARRETT: They even forgot to introduce him on Budget Day.

MR. DOWDING: No wonder they wanted to forget him on Budget

Day. Here's what he said in 1963. This is in the Nanaimo Free Press .

"Health Minister Eric Martin said Thursday night he is in favour of an

all-inclusive medicare plan that would include everything from

laboratory tests to home-nursing and mental health services." Now

remember, at this time we had the tin cup medicare, not the socialist

plan, not our plan. In fact, at that time they hadn't even implemented

what they had proposed, Mr. Speaker, but it was tin cup what they were

proposing. Now, anyway, Mr. Martin went on to say "He told an all-party

September 30th election debate on medicare that he is in complete

agreement with the New Democratic party on medicare, but he added he

would like to see Federal participation in a much broader programme. He

said, 'B.C. now is in a financial position to go it alone on the

limited medicare programme proposed by the N.D.P., but I am looking for

a much broader base of protection. I am working to have the Federal

Government a partner.'" Then he goes on to say that, "In Victoria

earlier Thursday, Premier Bennett told a press conference the only way

a medicare plan would work is with Federal cooperation, and that the

N.D.P. plan estimated by that party to cost $60,000,000, would actually

cost five times as much." Imagine saying that, it wasn't true. Then Mr.

Martin goes on to say, "I'm in complete agreement with the N.D.P. on

medicare, only the plan must be all-inclusive." Now why, Mr. Speaker,

should I have to call on a witness outside this House? Here the

Ministers are. They were here then. Why do they have to laugh and scoff

when they know that Mr. Martin was telling the truth? They've got

convenient memories — convenient political memories. That's what it

comes to.

MR. BARRETT: Even when he was in the gallery you forgot him. Shame!

MR. DOWDING: Now there is another thing. I listened the other

day to the new member for Revelstoke-Slocan telling us all about the

history of parliament. I certainly appreciated that lecture from him,

because if there is anything members, particularly new members, should

do it's to study the history of parliament to gain a respect for this

august chamber and this institution. But you know, he really should

have looked a little further. Of course, I rounded up all the books so

that he couldn't get them, but when it comes….

AN HON. MEMBER: What

member?

MR. DOWDING: ….the member from Revelstoke-Slocan…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh the new member? Oh!

MR. DOWDING: …and he told us about what he thought the

history of why we don't allow the spectators to write notes in the

gallery or report on what happens here, and how even the press was

barred from the debates in the House, and there was no record to the

House and, you know, he really didn't look into the subject. The fact

of the matter is, that the principal reason why no note-taking was

allowed in the parliament, and why there was no press allowed, and why

there was no Hansard is simple — they were afraid of the power of the

Crown. In fact, before the sixteenth century, before the Commons would

meet to debate anything relating to the affairs of the state, they

insisted on searching anyone who came into the Chamber and when they

left the Chamber. Even members were not permitted to take notes out of

the Chamber. Why? Because those notes might get to

[ Page 459 ]

the King, and that might incur the displeasure of the King. One good

example of that was in 1641 where it was called a breach of privilege

for a member to deliver out a copy or notes of anything that was

brought into the House or propounded or agitated there. In the very

next year, Sir Edward Dearing published a collection of speeches which

he had made in the House. It was innocently done. Nevertheless, a

resolution was solemnly passed by the House ordering the book to be

publicly burned by the common hangman, and committed Dearing to the

Tower. The reason, of course, was that they had, on several occasions,

had their members reported to the King and two of them in particular

were sent to gaol or sent to the Tower, and we have the notable cases

of Pym and Hampton who earlier had suffered the displeasures of the

King. This was the reason, really, why note-taking was not permitted in

the galleries nor indeed the Press.

One of the most significant things that happened was in, I think,

1831 when the Chancellor was going through the corridors in parliament.

Up until this time the press were not recognized as being there, and

they used to have to sit or stand in the very back row of the Speaker's

Gallery where it was dark and they couldn't see, and try to write by

whatever means they could and sneak their notes out of the House. That

particular year the Chancellor, by accident, brushed against a reporter

and all his notes fell on the floor in the corridor all over the

Chancellor. He picked them up, handed them to the reporter, and from

that day on everything was changed, because that very day they opened

up the Press Gallery, they provided seats for them where they could

work, and that was the start of the reporting of the debates of

Parliament by the press itself officially in the House. And it's

something to remember, that traditions that are based on caution and

common sense should only survive so long as the reasons exist for that

caution.

It wasn't long, Mr. Speaker, before the people who were in the House

of Commons began to like the sound of their names in print, and they

were only too happy to have the press there, and I think it improved

many of the debates, and you might say it's the same reason we had a Hansard , and I won't go into that at this time.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the year?

MR. DOWDING: 1831, when they officially recognized the press in the Press Gallery, although they had been there for many years.

But one of the amusing things about it was Dr. Johnson, Samuel

Johnson, who was employed as a parliamentary reporter for "The

Gentlemen's Magazine," and his version of the debates made the

oratorical reputation of some of the statesmen of the eighteenth

century. "The eloquence of Greece and Rome is revived in the British

Senate," said Voltaire. He had probably read some of Johnson's reports,

and these reports were written by Johnson in a garret off the Strand,

and he said, without ever having been down to the House of Commons, and

possessed of no more material than the names of the speakers and a few

notes supplied by a chap named Cave. Johnson also told Boswell that he

took care that "The Whig dogs should not have the best of it," with

all apologies to the Whigs here, a saying which explains the thing that

greatly puzzled Sir Robert Walpole, the Whig. He said he had read

professed debates of the House, "wherein all the wit, learning and

argument appeared on one side, and on the other nothing was shown but

was low, mean, and ridiculous," and yet, strange to say, the division

had gone against the side

which, according to the report, had reason and justice to support it.

Just like this House. That book I was reading is, "The Pageant of

Parliament" by McDonnaugh, and it's well worth reading. It has some

interesting things about the history of parliament that I hope the new

members will read, and some of the older ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a question period?

MR. DOWDING: Well, they have a question period, you know, in

nearly every House of Commons and Legislature in the free world where

there's a Commonwealth form of Parliament, except here. The strange

thing is, the question period started in the House of Commons in

Westminster at the time of the South Sea Bubble, and some member was

looking for the promoters who had swindled thousands of people of

millions of dollars, or pounds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Commonwealth Society.

MR. DOWDING: Just a minute, don't help me out. So it's a very

strange thing about the history of the question period, because a

member wanted to know what the Government had done about this promoter.

He had fled overseas.

AN HON. MEMBER: To the Bahamas.

MR. DOWDING: No, not the Bahamas. So the strange thing, Mr.

Speaker, is although the Government for many centuries had been opposed

to any question period, suddenly they were converted overnight. They

couldn't wait to answer the question to get themselves off the hook.

And this happened in this House recently — last year. We had the

Minister concerned, the Attorney-General, actually interrupting the

debate, hurrying to tell us that he wasn't responsible for the

Commonwealth mess, and reading out what the Government was doing about

it, and I couldn't help but think, "Visions of 1807."

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): I had leave of the House.

MR. DOWDING: Yes you did. Yes you did, and you'll get leave

of this side of the House any time you want to answer questions. Not

just during your Estimates, but throughout the parliamentary session.

Every day. We will never deny you leave to answer our questions.

Now some of the debate — I'm not going to deal with all the subjects

of motherhood that the honourable the second member for Little Mountain

did, and inside of, I would say, the space of three minutes, she

covered every base. She talked about the flag, she talked about what

the Federal Government was doing about the institution of the Crown,

she talked about old age and motherhood, she talked about the fact that

this is now a religious state in British Columbia, apparently, she

talked about smoking. There was nothing that was left unsaid that I

could possibly say in that field. So I'm going to go on to other more

important subjects that she has missed.

Now I agreed, during this debate, with the honourable member for

Richmond. He indicated that there should be a law passed by this House,

a law that allows a person who is apprehended by the police immediate

access to a telephone, and I agree 100 per cent. He cited one example

of a mother

[ Page 460 ]

that was picked up, the police decided they weren't satisfied with

her answers, they took her to a lock-up and then they held her there

incommunicado all night. Another case recently that I know of was a

young man from Seattle went shopping in Vancouver before Christmas. He

had $200 on him, he went into a store, he bought some cuff links. He'd

bought some cuff links at another jewelery place and he was buying a

lot of them for his friends as fairly economical gifts — you know — $2,

$3 cuff links. He had a bag of them and he bought some more. He was

picked up, he was arrested, charged with shoplifting, sent down to the

lock-up with the Vancouver City Police and he was kept there overnight,

although he had enough money that he could have been brought before a

Justice of the Peace and let out on bail immediately, because bail for

that, generally speaking, would be about $50, $100 at the most. When

the trial came up he was acquitted without even having to take the

witness stand, but he was denied the right, all through that twenty

hours that he spent incarcerated, of reaching a telephone, reaching his

friends or his relatives or a lawyer. To me, I think that's despicable,

absolutely despicable. It's the sort of thing that makes the citizen

wonder what's the matter with the police, and there can be no logical

explanation for it. That happened just before Christmas, November the

29th or thereabouts, and his trial was sometime in January, the first,

week of January, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: Report it to the Attorney-General now.

MR. DOWDING: I certainly will, yes I will. The thing that's

disturbing about it was that this man had no reason to be locked up and

kept locked up, and at least he should have had the right to reach

somebody, and he was denied that right. He's back in Seattle, but it

wasn't a particularly pleasant interlude in Canada for him, and in the

United States, you know, you are by their Constitution given the right

of access to counsel. They can't deny you that although they used to

years ago, but today it's improved considerably there, and I hope it

will be so in British Columbia. If it means that this House has to pass

a law that, in effect, is punitive on police officers or gaolers who

deny citizens that right, then pass it, pass it.

Now I didn't agree, I must say with all respect, to the statements

that were made by the honourable the member for Esquimalt — I don't

know whether I should put my hat on now or not — but I just wanted to

say that it serves no useful purpose to use a tar brush on a whole

community, and in the case that I am referring to it was his

statements in regard to the affairs at Simon Fraser. He left the

distinct impression in this House that all students must be blamed for

the uprising that occurred there over a year ago, for the protests that

arose there, and he was blaming also the professors at Simon Fraser.

Then he went further, he went further, and tried to attribute some

blame to this group.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ask the Speaker. He'll tell you.

MR. DOWDING: Now that can only constitute an attack without

any foundation, without any proof, on a very large community of people,

and to say a thing like that outside the House could have very serious

repercussions for him, because he is suggesting that certain

individuals were guilty of counselling a criminal offence. I'll tell you

I, for one, when all this started at Simon Fraser, warned these young

people not to do anything precipitous, not to involve themselves in any

disobedience to the authority at Simon Fraser in regard to the plan

that they apparently were invoking…. When this happened, after they

were sitting in there and the Attorney-General was about to do

something, when they were sitting in the offices there, some of the

group that were not in there appealed to me to help these people. I

said no, they are making a mistake, they should get out, they're only

breaking the law. Now if you know differently, you say it, say it

somewhere. I don't appreciate the member for Esquimalt who knows

nothing about these things making these broad statements without any

foundation or substance to them. In any case it is no way to solve the

problems that exist.

We have taken this position, which I think is the right position,

that it is not up to the members of this House to interfere in

university affairs by any intervention. The reason is that we in this

House have decided that the universities are independent, and I do not,

for one, want this Government taking over the universities. I don't

want those universities to be simply a creature of the Minister of

Finance or any department of Government. I want them to be free

universities, and that's why I restrained myself from any intervention

in their internal affairs. I may come here and talk about necessary

amendments to the University Act, and we all should think about them,

but I don't think it's right to attribute any intervention on the part

of members of this House where it doesn't exist. After all, we have

decided that they will have their internal government, their internal

government.

Now too often in this House there is a general condemnation of

ideas. I heard it last night when the Minister of Public Works was

talking. I defended him in this House. Somebody had said that he was

old-fashioned. I disputed that. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you this, that

no man is any older than the ideas that he espouses, and if anyone says

to me that the Premier is getting on, I'll tell you this — he's a lot

younger than some of the ideas around here I've heard over the years, a

lot younger in his ideas.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what your Leader said.

MR. DOWDING: I make my own mind up. You, my friend, you my

friend, you are used to being obedient to everything, aren't you? You

have no ideas of your own, just what is given to you from the front

bench. But I want to tell you that I was shocked and a little surprised

to find that the Minister of Public Works was using as his Bible, Marx

and the Communist Manifesto of 1848, because that has destroyed my

theory about his ideas. Apparently there's something that everyone

should know, that Major Douglas gained most of his ideas about

economics from Marx, which I found surprising, and about capital. It's

amazing, amazing. But somehow you and Marx separated on some of your

ideas.

But when I hear the attack on ideas in this House by some of these

members it reminds me of something that I read in, of all places, the

Royal Bank of Canada monthly letter of January, 1970 — just issued.

Yes, I want to read this to you. In this book, "The State versus

Socrates," John D. Montgomery writes, "When the Athenians condemned

Socrates to die because of his ideas, they placed themselves forever on

trial." And they did. Then in this newsletter it goes on to set out the

disputes, how Socrates never wrote anything that we have read directly,

and he never caused anything, but he will live as long as the human

race lives, and his ideas will live, and the things for which he stood

and for

[ Page 461 ]

which he had to drink the hemlock, they live, long after we are

gone. He put his truth down to the inevitable test of his life. Very

few people in this society are prepared to do that on their ideas or

their truths. You might say that the ideas of those who are so swift to

condemn new ideas or new truths or prepared to reject and smear those

who are different. "Those people," says the Royal Bank of Canada's

letter, even in this advanced age, are driving through life with their

windscreens so clouded with prejudice and bigotry, that they are

dangerous drivers. Dangerous to others as well as to themselves.

Moreover, they are seeing little of the beauties in life." (applause)

AN HON. MEMBER: I never thought I'd applaud the Royal Bank.

MR. DOWDING: The next thing I want to mention is the

statements made by the Minister without Portfolio from North Okanagan.

Now this Minister gave the impression to the House that the Mayor of

Vernon, a very fine mayor with very fine ideas, that somehow he would

welcome any kind of economic development in the Vernon area.

HON. PATRICIA J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): No, I didn't say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you sure did.

MR. DOWDING: Oh, yes, you did. You waved an ad — she waved an

ad, Mr. Speaker, which indicated that any industry was welcome in

Vernon. But I checked the Vernon News and I find that Mayor Helena, who

is a good New Democrat, incidentally, according to the Minister, and

the Vernon City Council opposed the building of a pulp mill in the

Okanagan Valley. They can see no satisfactory solution for the disposal

of pulp effluent, and none has been found, and no one has been able to

devise any means for removing the stench or toxic pollutants from pulp

mill fumes. The prospect of air and water pollution far outweigh any

economic gain a pulp mill would bring to the Vernon area. Now the view

they took and other people in Vernon take — and a great public uprising

is involved in this — their view of that to improve their economy they

believe in a careful development of their tourist resources and the

preservation of the beauty of the Okanagan for everyone to enjoy. That

is included in an editorial of The Vernon News, February 12th, and they

are anxious to see Crown Zellerbach go somewhere else. Now, to show you

the confusion of this Government and the Minister in charge of

pollution, on the front page of The Vernon News of February 5th of this

year, we have a statement from the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources which says, "Pulp Mill would be a boon, says

Williston." Then read what he says, "In a telephone interview, Resource

Minister Ray Williston personally favours a pulp mill in the North

Okanagan. 'Quite frankly, my opinion in the final analysis is the

opinion of the area,' he said. Then he said, 'I'm not saying a blinking

thing.'" That's not unusual. Then he goes on, "But he felt that from

the standpoint of economics and resource utilization pulp mill would be

a boon to the area. The Minister stressed the main population centres

would not be good locations for such a mill. 'Certainly you can't put

it down in the Okanagan Valley itself along the lakeshore or they would

stone you.'" They sure would. He would need this hat. "'It must be

away from the dense business areas'" Now I want to tell you, Mr.

Speaker, he has just finished saying he is not saying a blinking thing,

then read what he says here. He said, "'It must be away from the dense

business areas,' he continued, suggesting around Enderby might be a

good location. 'Such a site would allow people to live and do business

in centres such as Salmon Arm, Vernon, and Armstrong, while still

reaping the economic benefits, he felt. 'It can be put in without

detrimental pollution in the area, but when I tell people that, they

don't believe me.'" Well, now. Well, now. What kind of a statement is that?

HON. P.J. JORDAN: Point of order.

MR. DOWDING: It had better be.

MRS. JORDAN: The editor of our Vernon News is a card-carrying

N.D.P. member too, and I was with the Minister when he said that, and

he was misquoted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DOWDING: ….some of the things that we have had in the

way of interruptions from that member. She stands up on the

representation to this House — just a minute — representation of this

House that she has a point of order, and when she stands up she knows

she hasn't a point of order. Do you mean to say that that is a point of

order? Then you must study the rules some more. Because I am going to

say, Mr. Speaker, that is an abuse of the House, to say you have a

point of order when you don't. I think somebody should talk to her

about the rules.

But anyway, I want to point something out to the Minister that she

had better fight against that pulp mill because it is going to destroy

the finest tourist area in our Province, if it ever gets there. Whether

it be in Enderby or in Armstrong, Shuswap or in Vernon, or anywhere in

those valleys. Anybody who has flown over that area during the forest

fire season will vouch for the fact that the effluent from a pulp mill

or the fumes from a forest fire will float and permeate every valley in

the central interior for miles and miles. I have been on flights over

that area where a forest fire was 20 miles or 30 miles from Revelstoke,

and you could see the smoke as you cross over the Shuswap Lake. It is

incredible. With the inversion of the air in the summer particularly,

you get floating through these valleys all the fumes and the stench

from these pulp mills that will last there and build up and build up,

until it will become a reeking stench pot all through the finest

playground and tourist area in our Province. Anyone who is so foolish

as to repeat what was done in Kamloops in regard to the location of a

pulp mill is absolutely mad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your senior member just advocated one at Cowichan Bay.

MR. DOWDING: There is one there now. Not at Cowichan.

Obviously, the member is not listening to the debate. The honourable

the member for Cowichan-Malahat, Mr. Speaker, as you know — you were

there, you remember — said that they didn't want it at Cowichan Bay,

and here the honourable member turns it right around to the opposite.

Incredible. There must be something about….

AN HON. MEMBER: ….between Cowichan Bay and Cowichan Lake.

MR. DOWDING: You know, Mr. Speaker, there must be

[ Page 462 ]

an inversion layer half way across the Chamber. Nothing seems to get through.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): Hot air.

MR. DOWDING: There we have it. My protest at a pulp mill at

Vernon is termed and labelled by the Minister of Welfare as hot air. But

it isn't polluted. Well, now….

Mr. Speaker, this question of the whole of the problem of pollution

control, the whole problem of pollution control…. I would like to get

on with it when the Minister of Welfare is finished. One thing about

the whole problem of pollution control and why we have this difficulty

with Government and why local areas are in constant dread that

decisions are going to be made in Victoria that affect the tourist

industry, recreation, the beauty of some of our magnificent areas of

British Columbia, is because this Government refuses to put pollution

and environmental control under the chair of a Minister dedicated to

protecting British Columbia. You insist on having the Departments of

Agriculture, and of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, involved in

decision-making as to the whole question of pollution control. The

Minister of Lands and Forests has made it clear time after time that

when it comes to decisions on pollution, the factory comes first.

Pollution comes first if it means industry, and that is his attitude.

Now to compound the problem, we have this curious involved procedure

called a Pollution Control Board, which is really the weirdest thing

that has ever happened to British Columbia. When somebody wants to

apply, on a question of any application on pollution, they have to

apply to the Director of Pollution Control. He reviews the matter,

sends it to the Departments of Agriculture, Health, Recreation and

Conservation, and Water Resources, advertises in the local press, and

if there are any objections there may be a public hearing held by the

Pollution Control Board. The recommendations from these departments

then go to the Director of Pollution Control, and then he makes a

decision to refuse or grant permit. His decision may be appealed to the

Pollution Control Board, and have possible public hearings. From there,

there is provision for a further appeal provided by legislation.

Well, when you look at the matter, Mr. Speaker, you find that who is

on the Pollution Control Board. Talk about a muddle — they have got the

three main Ministers I referred to, three Ministers have joined it.

They are the Minister of Lands and Forests, the Minister of Health, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, and they are on the Cabinet's pollution

control committee. Now they are to combine the actions of the Executive

Council's pollution control committee with the Pollution Control Board

to ensure co-ordination, in the public interest, of actions and

responsibilities of those departments most directly concerned with

pollution abatement. Can you imagine what happens when you have a

meeting of that body with the Deputy Ministers? Are the civil servants

going to over-rule the Ministers? What if they have a conflict on that

Board? Who wins? Well, can you see a Deputy Minister out-voting a

Minister, or in fact, departing from the decision of the Minister?

What this has done is thrown what should be administrative matters

right into the field of politics within the Cabinet. That's what it's

done. It is a very dangerous course. It's like they say about war — it

is too dangerous to leave to the generals. That's why Harry Truman had

to make some changes in Korea in 1951. But here you are — you put the

generals in with the politicians in one bag and they are supposed to

sort it out together, but the generals are under the politicians, and

can you imagine appealing from that mixed bag if you were somebody who

was affected by the determination of the Pollution Control Board? Why,

it would be the biggest mess of politics you ever saw, the most

dangerous thing that could have been conceived by this Government.

Nothing objective about it. Nothing impartial about it. Nothing

semi-judicial about it. It is a political bag with all sorts of

countervailing forces, the worst of which is that Civil Service is

forced to vote for or against decisions of their Ministers right in the

same Board. I think it is ridiculous.

Who is on the Board? We have Mr. McKinnon of the Department of

Forests, Chairman. Mr. Peck of the Department of Mines. Two

representatives from Health and Recreation, and then Dr. MacKenzie from

U.B.C. and Dr. Taylor, I believe, from the Health Department. Mr.

McKinnon, I understand, resigned last year. So that in facing the

problems of the 70's we've got a most peculiar instrument to try to

protect British Columbians and I say it won't work. I say it is time

that the Government took another look at what they are doing on the

whole subject of pollution.

Now I want to raise, in that regard, another matter that has been

discussed before in this House, and I am going to suggest that there

are some new solutions to this problem of the Skagit Valley. I was

under the impression, after listening to the honourable member for

North Vancouver – Capilano in his impassioned plea to this Government to

stop the flooding of Skagit Valley, and the destruction of that lower

land that would lead to a flooding of over 6,000 acres, that is solely

the responsibility of this Government, and this Government alone could

stop it, other than the Federal power people in the United States.

Well, I found a different solution to the problem that I am going to

commend to the House and to the public in British Columbia.

First, let me outline the situation on the Skagit Valley and the

present dam that exists there called the Ross Dam. The City of Seattle

applied to the International Joint Commission in 1941 for approval to

raise the Ross Dam on the Skagit River in the State of Washington by

stages, so that it would ultimately impound the Skagit River water to a

maximum elevation of 1,725 feet above mean sea level at the

International Boundary. The International Joint Commission approved the

application on January 27th, 1942. One of the conditions of the

Commission's approval was that the Ross Dam would not be raised beyond

the height at which the impounded water would flood British Columbia

territory unless and until a binding agreement was entered into between

the City of Seattle and the Government of British Columbia providing

for the indemnification of British Columbia's interests. In 1954 the

first of a series of interim agreements of this type between the City

of Seattle and the Province of British Columbia was entered into,

permitting the raising of the Ross Dam to the 1,600 foot level, which

did not involve substantial flooding of Canadian land. Finally, on

January 10th, 1967, the City and the Province concluded a long-term

99-year agreement impounding the Skagit River waters to a maximum

elevation of 1,725 feet at the International Boundary, with the

substantial flooding of Canadian land in the Skagit River area of

British Columbia. Now that was the situation.

However, before construction of this project can begin, the City of Seattle is required to apply to two places. First, it

[ Page 463 ]

has to comply with American regulations, and in that regard it has

to apply to the United States Federal Power Commission for either a new

licence or an amendment to the existing licence to authorize the

raising of the Ross Dam, with its consequential flooding of additional

United States territory as well as Canadian lands. It is expected that

the Federal Power Commission will hold a public hearing or hearings

some time this year, and considerable time elapses between those

hearings and the decision by the Federal Power Commission. So we have

some time in regard to that application.

But here is something else that the member for North

Vancouver – Capilano forgets. Under the International River Improvement

Act which was passed by the Liberal Government back in 1955, I believe

it was, that year they passed this Act, did Ottawa, which provides that

no Province, or any other authority, could interfere with an

international river without first applying for permission to the

Federal Government.

Here we have the Liberals, Federally, with the legislative power to

stop this right in its tracks today, and here we have the Liberal

members of this House trying to tell us we have got to do something

about it. Why haven't they been talking to Ottawa? Why haven't they

been asking the public of British Columbia to direct their appeals to

Mr. Greene in Ottawa? They've been trying to blame it on you. Yes,

they've been trying to suggest that you have the responsibility in this

matter, but you don't. You have no more responsibility on this now than

you had on the Kaiser deal on the Columbia River at Arrow Lakes. You

have no more responsibility. It's in the hands of the Federal

Government. Before the City of Seattle can proceed to raise that dam,

they must get the permission of the Federal Government, and

particularly of the Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources.

I'm asking those members to get an assurance from Mr. Greene

immediately. They know the folly of flooding that land, they told us of

that folly. They have sent and distributed to us all sorts of petitions

for the public to sign. We see us doomed to lose the Skagit Valley, a

tragic and unnecessary loss unless we all act now. Well, I am calling

on them to act now. I'm calling on them to get in touch with Mr. Greene

and see that he stops it. I also ask this Government to get in touch

with Mr. Greene, and ask him to stop it because, remember this, the

City of Seattle still has to apply to the Department of Energy, Mines,

and Resources for a permit or an exemption under the International

River Improvement Act, by reason of the fact that the flooding will

create a reservoir on Canadian territory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote the letter?

MR. DOWDING: Who wrote the letter? I was reading from a

letter from the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, the Minister of External

Affairs, dated February 13th, 1970.

Now it's very fortunate that Mr. Sharp has brought this whole thing

into focus, and made it clear whose responsibility it is to protect the

Skagit Valley, and I say for one, Mr. Speaker, that that valley should

be protected. I can recall in this House hearing the former

Attorney-General and Minister of Trade and Industry as he was, telling

us about the growth of the lower mainland region and what the

population would be there by the 1980's and the 1990's, and by 2000,

the millions of people that would be flooding into that area and

building in that area and living in apartments and highrises. If we

have any sense we will reserve to those people and future generations,

in fact just the next couple of decades, some of these precious

recreational areas that are close to that region. If ever there is an

area that will be used for recreation it will be the Skagit Valley if

we preserve it, and I say we must preserve it.

Now, there is another question I'd like answered by the Minister of

Recreation when he gets around to it, and that is something that I

noticed in a newspaper in Kamloops, an

article by George Smith on

Divide Lake. In that

article he suggests that Charles Mitchell, the

Secretary of the Mining Association of B.C., stated that the proposal

to drain Divide Lake was made to the industry by the Government, and

I'd like him to tell us, when the time comes in his Estimates, if this

is true. Whether this Government proposed the draining of Divide Lake

and proposed that the industry drain it and pay them $50,000 to apply

at Lac Le Jeune Park. If that is true, I think the House should have a

full statement from the Minister on that subject, because far from it

being an application, according to Mr. Mitchell, by the Bethlehem

Copper interests to this Government, he's saying, in effect it was the

reverse, and I'd like that cleared up in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. DOWDING: Now, I think we all welcome the return of the Premier from Ottawa and I think we also….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he return?

MR. DOWDING: Yes, he's back. He came in. He's back, but there

is something that did sound a little perturbing about what he had to

say when he got back, and that was that this Province is going through

— this country, is the way I think he put it — is going through a

recession. That we are in a recession.

AN HON. MEMBER: It didn't say that in the Budget.

MR. DOWDING: No, as a matter of fact you'd never know, from

the Budget, that it was the same man talking, and I'll tell you

something else, that his Budget in no way reflects the opinions that he

expressed in Ottawa or that the Provincial Premiers and the Federal

Prime Minister expressed in Ottawa.

When you look at this Budget the last thing you could say about it

is that it is anti-inflationary. The expenditures are going to be up

14 ½ per cent. That certainly cannot be said to be anti-inflationary.

When you look at the Bills that are before the House, and the

authorized borrowing powers, you cannot suggest that part of the Budget

is in any sense anti-inflationary. We have heard nothing, Mr. Speaker,

from this Government about cutting back on some of the large capital

projects that are not necessary at this time. I can understand and

applaud a Government spending money during an inflationary period on

essential services like schools and hospitals. That's essential, but it

is a far different thing, Mr. Speaker, to talk about building a 50 or

$60,000,000 building in Vancouver to the greater glory of the Premier

at a time like this. Those are the expenditures where the line must be

held, in my opinion, at this time.

Now, in looking at the reports from Ottawa, it appears that the

Prime Minister and the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission

want a voluntary price restraint pledged by industry, business, and the

financial institutions, and apparently there have been matching

promises by the Federal

[ Page 464 ]

and Provincial Governments to hold the cost-price line. Well, of

course, you know right away our Budget ignores that. Next, they say

that there must be a parallel performance by labour. Well, I don't

think we'd quarrel with that, if business restricts itself and denies

itself increases in prices, and in industry, in business, financial

institutions. We would all agree that the whole economy should do the

same.

But there is one thing you forget. If it's voluntary price restraint

or voluntary profit restraint — would you rely on MacMillan Bloedel to

do that, in the light of what they did last year, what they did to the

people of British Columbia on the prices of lumber? I have still got

here some of the statements about that lumber price rise. When the

I.W.A. two years ago was commended in every newspaper editorial, and by

many people in this House, for voluntary restraint on its wage contract

two years ago, they were called statesmen. They were statesmen, and

they did it on the understanding that business would show the same

restraint. Did they? They did not.

Look at the item of February 19th, 1969, in the Province. "Lumber

prices zoom up, up, up." Why? You know why. There was a shortage of

logs, and there was heavy snow, and they took the public for the

biggest ride you ever saw, and the prices went up. Just read the item.

"An unprecedented log shortage. Spiraling prices for all types of

lumber, and the possibility of cut-backs in home building and general

construction in the next few weeks." That's a year ago. "That an

unpromising situation faces B.C. as a result of the big winter

freeze-up." In other words, it was a policy of the lumber giants in

this Province to take advantage of the weather to stick it to the

people, and they did it. They squeezed the economy for every nickel and

dime and dollar they could get. That's good citizenship? Certainly not.

Now…. The member defends that, he defends that. Do you disagree with

the Premier and his cry for voluntary restraint, or do you side with

the big companies?

But the fact of the matter is this, and this is what you always

forget. When the I.W.A. or any other union goes in to sign a contract

for two years, they are having to gamble that prices and rents and the

economy is going to be the same two years from now as when they signed

the contract, because they're committed to it. Business is never

committed to it. Do you know any of these used car dealers in the

House, who would agree to sell you a car two years from now at a price

you set today? Not a bit of it. They don't know what's going to happen

to steel. They don't know what's going to happen to their supplies and

equipment. They have no idea.

It's all very well to talk about voluntary restraints, but when the

trade union sits down at the table and bargains and signs a contract,

that isn't voluntary any more, they sign an agreement they must stick

to by law. Now, can you understand why the trade unions are reluctant

to talk about voluntary restraint, with their experience of

statesmanship two years ago? You thought they were wonderful then, and

they were. They showed restraint, but what did those people they

bargained with do? They practically ruined the trade union movement

with the increases. The movement of prices, rents, everything's gone up

25 per cent in some areas. So no wonder they have been once bitten,

twice shy.

Now, I want to point out that the Premier has stated, according to

the Colonist today and according to Mr. Harry Young, the business

editor, "Premier W.A.C. Bennett says more than half of Canada is

already in a recession." I want to point out, also, that that point of

view is certainly shown in the monthly economic letter from the First

National City Bank of New York. In their February, 1970 issue, the

first words in it say this, "There is no longer any doubt that the

economy is slumping. It has been at least since October. The

appropriate concern, rather, is over the duration of the decline and

the vigour of the ultimate rebound in business. If the slide lasts

through April or May economists, with their somewhat arbitrary

definitions, will call it a recession." Do we see any mention of this

in the Budget? Not a bit. We've heard of it from his meeting in Ottawa,

and I say that the Budget Speech is singularly lacking in information

about the opinions of the Premier about the state of the economy, and

what he is saying in Ottawa is what he should have been saying here in

this House.

Now the question is, how do we fight inflation when it is pretty

obvious that you have to have some control over the economy or the

decisions in the economy, to have any control over inflation? But you

know, the way some people, particularly the Liberals in Ottawa, want to

fight inflation is by unemployment. Massive doses of unemployment, and

as late as January 15th….

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support that?

MR. DOWDING: Certainly not. As late as January 15th, the last

report we have on unemployment figures shows the national average in

Canada as over 6.3 per cent, but in B.C. it's over 7 per cent, over 7

per cent. Now, that was in January. What is it today? We'd like to know.

I think it must be up from there.

Now, if you fight inflation by curtailing the economy and spending,

you run into the problem of what you are going to curtail and who you

are going to hurt. There are lots of people who believe in curtailing

inflation, but they believe in doing it at the expense of the low

income brackets in the society. They believe in doing it at the expense

of the pensioners, the senior citizens, the war-time veterans, and

people on fixed incomes, and they are the ones that are asked to

tighten their belts.

Now, what has happened in Ottawa in the last two days? According to

the press, the Provincial Premiers and the Federal Government have

agreed to support the Prices and Incomes Commissioner's programme of

restraint down the line. Well, that's voluntary restraint, that's not

going to help. Any time the companies want to they can break that

restraint, and will do so, don't kid yourself.

The second thing is they have not indicated anywhere a hold-back on

profits or prices. As soon as Mr. Young and the commission announced in

December that they were going to have these hearings, or rather these

meetings and conferences with business, prices started popping up all

over the place. Everybody ran around to see if they could get their

prices up before they were told to restrain them. What a foolish way to

try to solve the problems of the economy, to signal that kind of a

warning that there might be some restraints, so that they can go in

there fattened by their prices and their profits and say we're not

hungry. But labour can't say that, nor can those on pensions, and those

who are on fixed incomes. So that out of the Ottawa Conference of the

Premiers, really, has come only a general resolution against sin, but

no practical way to solve the problem to ensure that restraint exists.

Secondly, it says that the Premiers saw eye to eye on the necessity

of taking action on pollution, but they came up with no answers on

that. Then they supported rent restraints, rent restraints. What do

they mean? Voluntary restraints? Or

[ Page 465 ]

do they mean some kind of legislation passed by the provinces to

see that rents don't sky-rocket any further? They also wanted to

tighten their taxing and spending belts.

They haven't done it in this Budget, Mr. Speaker. This Government

hasn't done it in this Budget. The Minister of Finance has in no way

tightened the belt — no way. Then it was advocated by the Premiers,

including our Premier, and agreed upon, that they defer any increases

in the consumer cost of such goods and services as cigarettes, gasoline, oil,

liquor, and hydro power — hydro power. Apparently they had a debate

in Ottawa on hydro power and on hydro rates, and the Premier agreed

there should be restraint, according to this. Now this is their

agreement. I call upon him to show that agreement in practice here in

British Columbia — right now.

I suggest that the problem of inflation is not one that can be

answered by pious hopes and pious pronouncements from Ottawa and,

indeed, some of the worst authors of the inflationary period that this

country has gone through are those people who are now calling for the

restraints. The Economic Council of Canada, the Sixth Annual Review,

made it clear and warned the Government of its dangerous course in

these words: "Further fiscal and monetary restraint conceivably could

result simply in higher rates of unemployment and economic slack, with

no more than marginal effects on current rates of increase in prices

and costs." The Council, Mr. Speaker, pointed out that since 1967 the

Canadian economy has been operating with a significant margin of

economic slack and, of course, the figure that we have now of 7 per

cent or more of unemployment in British Columbia indicates that slack,

and it's been constant throughout the winter. The Council points out

that with the unemployment in the range of four per cent to five per

cent, it is difficult to argue that excessive general demand pressure

has contributed to inflationary conditions. But, you see, the

Government at Ottawa has been pursuing this anti-inflationary policy on

the wrong basis all the way through.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's time we examine the whole question

in this House, and have the Premier, the Minister of Finance, certainly

on the day of his Estimates, go into all the factors of what this

Government can do to solve the problems of inflation that are

perplexing all of Canada, and particularly those in British Columbia.

We've seen some foolish ways of doing it. We've seen our country being

turned over to American companies, to a stage that they make the

primary decisions in every field of the economy. The Prime Minister,

Mr. Trudeau, indicated just recently in a statement that we have lost

the capacity to create economic growth in Canada, and thereby the

ability to create jobs and to influence inflation, because we have only

a 15 per cent marginal economy, which indicates to the extent to which

we are dominated and controlled by economic decisions made in the

United States. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, we cannot easily solve

the problem of inflation. We don't control the economy any more. Not

directly — those decisions are made in the United States.

A good example of the wrong way to solve the problem of inflation is

what the Federal Government did in regard to the salmon industry in

this Province. At the very time that our salmon return had dropped by

half last year, what did they do? They fired half the biologists and

cut down the number of salmon vessels that we were allowed to fish,

and, in effect, put a stop on all that area of the economy. In the end,

that policy will mean the fish-handling companies will do all the

fishing and the small entrepreneur fishermen will be excluded. It's

happening right now. The only way they solved this problem is to put

the independent commercial fishermen out of business, and that's what

they are doing on this coast, and that is a crisis I say, Mr. Speaker.

How can this Government in Ottawa, for example, how can it persuade

the Canadian people that it can cope with the problems of inflation

when it spends — just examples, $17,000,000 to refit the Bonaventure,

$49,000,000 for that Hydrofoil experiment — remember that boat that

kept turning up? — $49,000,000. $50,000,000, on the National Art Centre

in Ottawa….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Expo deficit.

MR. DOWDING: Yes, there's the Expo deficit, a fantastic

deficit. They gave $80,000,000 to the auto industry by forgiving them

their debts on taxes. Those are just some examples of the wasteful

extravagance of the Federal Government, and that's why I suggest that

in this Budget we just review some of the items like that building in

Vancouver costing $50,000,000, and I point out to the honourable

Minister of Public Works that we need schools and hospitals in this

Province more than we need that building.

Now I intend to talk further on this subject when it comes to the

Minister of Finance Estimates, but I think I have indicated to you why

this Budget falls far short of any understanding of the problem of

inflation or any measures to combat that inflation. Far from doing

anything that will solve the problem, this Government is contributing

to galloping inflation by the kind of Budget it has produced in this

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from North Vancouver – Capilano.

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

was a little concerned earlier this afternoon during the award ceremony

of the Minister of Highways, because for a few moments I thought I was

going to get an award. He named me as the N.D.P. member from North

Vancouver – Capilano, but however, Mr. Speaker, he didn't send over an

award. Now this strikes me as a little bit like some of the policies of

the Department of that Minister, Mr. Speaker. I remember last summer he

announced that there was going to be widening and improvement of the

Upper Levels highway. But things went along and he failed to award the

contract for that also, so I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if this is the kind

of award that this Minister normally sends out. Obviously, Mr. Speaker,

he has some confusion about North Vancouver, so I thought that I would,

perhaps, explain to him a little about the North Shore.

My riding extends, Mr. Speaker, from the shore of Burrard Inlet

right up the hillside to Grouse Mountain. From the eastern boundary at

Lonsdale to the western boundary of the Capilano River is only two

miles, but despite the narrow width of this riding, it includes the

municipal hall of the District of North Vancouver, and also the city

hall of the City of North Vancouver. Now I don't want to comment on the

city hall, Mr. Speaker — it's already been the subject of some heated

controversy, and I don't think it could stand very much more of that

kind of heat — but one of the thorniest problems in the North Shore in

recent years has been the fact that on paper there are two North

Vancouvers, but as far as most of the people of the North

[ Page 466 ]

Shore are concerned, there is only one. As you travel from one part

of North Vancouver to another it is almost impossible to remember where

you crossed from the City to the District or vice versa. The children

go from playground to park and from school to school without very much

concern as to which city hall their parents pay their taxes to.

There was a plebiscite in 1968 on amalgamation, and after much

controversy it failed by a very narrow margin. It's easy to look back

and blame this person or that, this organization or that of that

failure, but that's pointless and a waste of time. Today, I believe,

there is a new spirit of cooperation and a willingness to approach the

problem again with a fresh start from both sides. People are saying

that amalgamation is inevitable eventually, why don't we look at it

again soon, and in the meantime maybe there are some other things we

can do together.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are a good many things the

two North Vancouvers do together right now. There's one very successful

and excellent School District for all of North Vancouver. There is one

successful and well run Metropolitan Health Unit, which also includes

West Vancouver. Other programmes are jointly operated, such as social

welfare, police, hospital, the dog pound, recreation centre, and so on.

But unfortunately, many other administrative services are still

separate, and an example is the fire department where amalgamation

might save as much as $100,000 per year in this one phase alone. Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to tell this House that next week the two

councils of the City and District of North Vancouver are holding a

joint dinner meeting to discuss the possible formation of a joint parks

and recreation commission, or some similar form of organization. So I

believe there's a good deal of good will and desire on all sides, and I

hope that the mayors and councils and the others concerned will

continue in this kind of search.

I want to tell both the mayors, as my good personal friends, that my

personal Centennial project for North Vancouver for 1971 is to do

everything I can to bring about amalgamation in that Centennial year

(applause). I want to serve notice also, Mr. Speaker, that I believe

the next step beyond the amalgamation of the North Vancouvers, is to

consider a complete amalgamation of all the North Shore.

Mr. Speaker, my riding includes, not only both the North Vancouvers,

but also a very small piece of West Vancouver near the mouth of the

Capilano River, a small piece, but a very valuable one, perhaps valued

as much as $100,000 per acre.

Another very important part of my riding is the reservation of the

Squamish Indian Band, and I would like to tell you just a little of

this fine Indian organization. The band has been formed from the

amalgamation of a number of tribes of families, and today has about

1,100 members, with 26 different reserves in five different areas

including Gibsons and Squamish, as well as West Vancouver and the

District and City of North Vancouver. The Squamish band is one of the

most advanced and best-organized Indian communities in British

Columbia. In their modern administration building in North Vancouver

they have a staff of 15, including a business manager, a social worker,

community worker, a recreation director, receptionist, clerks and

maintenance men. It's interesting to note that the beautiful silver

spire, so familiar to people travelling Vancouver Harbour, is St.

Paul's Church, which stands on the Mission Reserve of the Squamish Band

in North Vancouver. The original structure was built over 100 years

ago, and the present building was actually blessed on June 13, 1886,

which was the day of the great Vancouver fire. Despite the existence of

this well-organized and well-respected group of Indians, there has

sometimes been an unfortunate lack of communication between the

Squamish bands and the three North Shore councils, and I believe that a

new era of cooperation and mutual understanding has now dawned.

Last December, we helped organize a one-day conference, which was

attended by all the North Shore mayors and councils, representatives of

the schools and parks boards, as well as the Squamish Indian Council.

There was a frank and honest exchange of views, and I believe all

parties understood and appreciated much better their mutual problems.

It became abundantly clear that it was impossible to plan and develop

one part of the North Shore without affecting many other parts.

One of the important results shown to us at that conference was the

effect on the educational system of the integration of the Indian into

our regular school programme. There are now 313 Indian children from

all parts of British Columbia in the North Vancouver School District,

just double the figure of a year ago. Specially interesting is the

programme being developed at Carson Graham Senior Secondary School,

where there are about 60 Indian students. The principal says the Indian

students there have made a valuable and lasting contribution to the

school's atmosphere and activity. He is very proud of them. In

particular, Carson Graham is this year working on an experimental

programme on Indian history, culture and anthropology. This is proving

so successful that the result will next year be a complete year-long

course of studies in Indian culture and history, very largely developed

by the combined efforts of the Indians and the white pupils working

together this year. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this programme can be offered

to the Department of Education to be used elsewhere in the Province in

the future.

Speaking of the British Columbia Indian, it is a strange thing to me

that we must go to Montreal to see the great exhibition of that west

coast Indian culture, that belongs to the University of British

Columbia. The people of the Potlatch, exhibited at Montreal last

summer, drew critical acclaim from all over the world. Time Magazine,

among others, said, and I quote, "The turn of the century photographs

in people of the Potlatch at Montreal's Man and His World are

remarkable. Even so, they are little more than an introduction to an

evocative exhibition of 5,000 artifacts of west coast Indian culture.

Drawn from the anthropology museum of the University of British

Columbia, the show is as stunning in its way as any of the art

exhibitions at Expo two years ago. More remarkably, it is the first

time that U.B.C.'s unique collection has emerged from a basement

storage room. When this collection, now valued at something or the

order of $10,000,000, returns to Vancouver, its only home is an

inadequate storage room at U.B.C. and a meagre 60-foot showroom."

Surely British Columbia can do better than that.

The Government has indicated its interest in Indian affairs by the

establishment of a First Citizens' Fund. I mention this today, Mr.

Speaker, because it would seem so fitting for the Squamish band,

involved as they are in development plans for their valuable lands,

leaders as they are in the re-establishment of Indians as important

citizens of the society of British Columbia. It would seem especially

fitting for this band to take the lead and develop plans for a cultural

centre and museum that might become a world-famous centre of Indian

Arts and Anthropology. I hope this band will think

[ Page 467 ]

about this, and I hope this Government will consider supporting such a programme, if the Indian band puts it forward.

Many people, Mr. Speaker, are aware that the Squamish Band Council

has been doing a very extensive study on the potential development of

their lands in North and West Vancouver. I think it is fair to say,

while this study has not yet been released, the approach taken has been

a very responsible one. Naturally, the Indians want to maximize the

financial returns to themselves, but they are very much aware of the

overall requirements of the community and the need for parks and

recreation areas. In fact, one of the matters that needs to be settled

very soon is the disposition of the so-called Indian cut-off lands,

District Lot Number 5521, which lies across the mouth of the Capilano

River. I would like to talk about these cut-off lands because the story

is a fascinating piece of Canadian history, but inasmuch as they are

currently the subject of a responsible and sincere negotiation between

the Squamish band and various levels of Government, I don't want to

pursue the matter further at this time.

The important point I want to emphasize to this House is the fact

that with these developments on the North Shore, there is now a real

spirit of cooperation developing between everyone concerned. In a

recent West Vancouver council meeting it was proposed that a Joint

Development Board be set up to review and discuss these matters, and to

include representation from the Squamish Indian band as well as all of

the municipal councils. I am sure that this kind of climate is going to

encourage good development that will be to the best advantage of all

parties concerned, the Indian band and all parts of the North Shore.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't rise in this debate again without

referring to the Skagit Valley. In his speech last week the Minister of

Lands was at some pains to justify himself in the matter of the Skagit

Valley. The resultant trail of red herrings served only too clearly to

demonstrate the Minister's scale of values and to prove our point that

the Minister of Lands and Forests should not also be the chief

Government spokesman on matters of environmental control. In the first

place, the Minister dug up the old draft agreement from 1952, which

provided for a lump sum payment by Seattle of only $255,000 and was

generally most unsatisfactory. This agreement was never ratified by the

Government, and thank God it was not. I congratulate the Government of

that day for refusing to be pressured into signing such an improper

agreement.

We must now consider the difference in public opinion between 1952

and 1967, and the very different scale of land and other values. It's

all very well for the Minister to boast of the improvements in terms

between 1952 and 1967. He mentioned pressure being brought to bear. I

can't help wondering what pressure was brought to bear which finally

agree after all the years of waiting and negotiating? The clear facts

still remain that there was and is nothing in the original

International Joint Commission Order of 1942, or in the Skagit Valley

Act of 1947, or in the tentative draft of 1952, or in the interim

agreement signed each year between '54 and '66, that forced the present

Government to sign any agreement short of adequate compensation. In the

public climate of the late 60's, adequate compensation would be beyond

a dollar price tag, and that's the price the Government should have

asked.

Under the pressure of the publicity we have brought to bear on this

matter, Mr. Speaker, the Government has reacted by dedication of a

Class A Park of 3,700 acres beside the 6,300 acres that they have

agreed to be flooded. Thank goodness for this tiny sop thrown to the

people of British Columbia by their Government. How much better if we

were dedicating a Class A Park of say 15 by 30 miles — 300,000 acres — a great park bordering the international boundary and matching up to

the great North Cascades National Park in Washington. This area could

truly be one of North America's great international parks and

wilderness areas. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have it on good authority

that the officials of the United States Federal Park Service have

approached B.C. park officials with a view of discussion of mutual

cooperation and development of an international park area in the

Cascades. It seems typical of our general attitude that our people gave

the Americans a very cold shoulder, because we only seem to want to

cooperate with them if we can sell them some water or make a deal over

flooding or power.

Let it be very clear to everyone, and the Minister of Lands knows

this as well as anyone in British Columbia, that a lake of the sort

that would develop if Seattle were to flood the Skagit Valley — with

muddy stump areas, murky shorelines that rise and fall with the power

demands, cold, glacial-fed water — let it be clear that this sort of

lake will be as nothing compared with the present flat valley bottom

with the meandering Skagit River, its miles of spawning beds, its

meadows, its campsites, home for hundreds of deer and black bear,

beaver, a whole ecology of natural beauty and wild-life in a

magnificent mountain valley.

The Minister was also at some pains to try and explain why British

Columbia could not cooperate with Seattle on an alternate source of

power. Now there are several ways of doing this, and the Minister as a

director of B.C. Hydro, if you'll pardon the expression, Mr. Speaker,

could easily find these out. Let me explain one in a little more

detail. It is quite true, as the Minister explained, that Seattle says

they want Ross Lake for peaking power. This is the reason the whole

project is so ridiculous, because $320 capital cost per kilowatt for

peak power at a 25 per cent load factor just does not make sense. There

must be some other reason of which we are not aware, which Seattle and

this Government are not telling us about. If Seattle is sincere in its

desire for 140,000 kilowatts of peaking power, then let the B.C.

Government suggest to Seattle that it build the best peak power plant

of all, a gas turbine plant, near the load centre of Seattle, and let

B.C. contract to supply natural gas to Seattle at a suitable rate.

Seattle could build such a plant for about $80 per kilowatt, perhaps

one-third or one-quarter of the amount projected for Ross Dam, and

British Columbia would have an annual revenue in excess of $35,000 a

year, and the Skagit Valley would not be flooded.

Incidentally, the Minister made a very big point in his speech over

the fact that B.C. can take its rental payment in power at 3.75 mills

per kilowatt hour, which is about 9 1/4 million kilowatt hours per year

at a 65 per cent load factor. Now this is really a very small amount,

Mr. Speaker. It would be produced by a plant of only 1,600 kilowatts or

about one per cent of the size of the Ross project.

I want to take very strong issue with the Minister of Lands on

another matter. In the House last week, if I can quote from the

Vancouver Province , the Minister stated, "I was warned from

south of the line that the American conservation interests were going

to try to stop the Skagit in British Columbia because they didn't think

they could do it at home, and I didn't believe that until I heard some

of the

[ Page 468 ]

debates in this House." First, I think it's clear from the tone of

this quotation what the Minister thinks of conservationists. Quite

obviously in his eyes, and in the eyes of his friends who are power

executives, across the border conservationists are a nuisance, they are

obstructionists standing in the way of the power and other developments

that have a much higher priority in their eyes.

This demonstrates the fundamental reason why we need a single

Minister responsible for environmental management, responsible to stand

for the wildlife and the river valleys, responsible to stand for the

trees and the inlets, the pure air, the pure water and the good soil.

How can the same Minister who is responsible for the development and

expansion of our great forest industry also be the chief Government

spokesman in matters of pollution, conservation, and environment? How

can the same Minister who is responsible for development of our mining

industries also be properly responsible for protection of our scenery

and wildlife from strip-mining? The Minister of Lands, as he speaks of

conservationists on both sides of the border, obviously agrees with the

president of the Truck Loggers Association of British Columbia who said

this past month in Vancouver, "The economy of this Province, the

standard of living of its people and its employment, could be destroyed

by the destruction of land use programmes now in operation," and he

rated demands by conservationists as one of the major concerns facing

his industry alongside inflation, productivity and labour relations. I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that many of us in British Columbia believe

the problem is not the conservationists, but feel rather the major

problem is the Minister himself.

Second, Mr. Speaker, I deeply resent the Minister's statement that I

and my associates, in the defense of the Skagit Valley from the

spoilers, are in some way being run by American interests. Let me

assure you that my own first interest was aroused in British Columbia.

Others of my group came to the same conclusion as my own as they became

aware of the terrible tragedy that was threatened. When we made contact

with the people of Seattle we were delighted to find we were not alone.

The Seattle group were fighting their own battles where it must be won,

with the Seattle City Council, and it was wonderful to exchange

information and to assist each other. Incidentally, for many reasons,

including both the high cost of Ross power and because of the

magnificent recreational resources that are going to be flooded on the

American side, the Seattle group feel very confident that they are

going to win in their own hearings and public sessions. I repeat, Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of myself and all my associates in the Ross

Committee, we bitterly resent the implication from the Minister that

the Americans are in some way behind us, and that the Americans are in

some way directing what we do and say, and I demand a retraction and

apology from the Minister for those remarks.

N ow, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the member from Burnaby-Edmonds

made an interesting proposal and I certainly appreciate his support and

his interest. I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that this Government was

listening, because I have far worse and more shocking news to give the

House today. I want to quote to you from the B.C. Gazette of February

5, 1970. "Timber Sale Licence A.0. 2263. Public auction will be held by

the District Forester at Vancouver, British Columbia, not later than 10

a.m. on the sixth day of April, 1970, for the purchase of Licence A.0.

2263 to authorize the harvesting of not more than 15,911,000 cubic feet

of timber. Three years will be allowed for removal of timber. Cutting

permit, to be issued under authority of this Licence, will authorize

cutting on Lot 1103, Yale Land District, in the vicinity of Ross Lake."

AN HON. MEMBER: Here it goes.

MR. BROUSSON: If this Timber Sale is proceeded with and the

timber is cut, the ball game is over in the Skagit Valley of British

Columbia, because Lot 1103 is the precise area planned to be flooded.

We have a map, Mr. Speaker, which I'd be glad to show any of the

members, that delineates the exact area of Lot 1103 on the Skagit

River. Lot 1103 is the beautiful wide valley we've talked about that

the Government is so anxious to turn into a stump ranch. Lot 1103 is

the 6,000 acres we're going to rent to Seattle for $5.50 per acre per

year.

If we allow this timber to be cut we've lost the ball game in

Canada, while in the United States they're still in the first innings.

Let me explain the difference in our time-table. You must first

understand that the North Cascade Conservation Council, the Sierra

Club, and the other conservation organizations, are totally committed

to fight this project all the way to the very end. The City Council of

Seattle will hold its public hearings in early March. If the Council

should decide to proceed with Ross Dam despite these hearings, they

will then apply to the Federal Power Commission in Washington in late

March or early April. Hearings before the Federal Power Commission

examiner will take a minimum of twelve months. If the examiner were to

rule in favour of the project, an appeal would be made to the full

Federal Power Commission, and minimum time for this appeal would be

nine months. It is possible at this stage that the Federal Power

Commission would require further internal reviews, which might take

another year and a half. Should the Federal Power Commission finally

issue the licence, recourse can then still be had to the Courts, which

is a privilege we don't have in British Columbia. First, the Circuit

Court, where a decision might take a year and a half. Next, an appeal

can be made to the United States Supreme Court, and this procedure

would take another 15 months or so.

So I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that a minimum, a minimum, of four

years and probably more would pass assuming Seattle Power were to win

each round in the hearings south of the American border. Now the

time-table laid out by the consulting engineers for Seattle Power

suggests a construction period of four more years. So actually a total

time of eight years, at least, would elapse even if Seattle Power were

to win at every step, and I don't believe they will.

What a tragedy if we were to de-flower the Skagit Valley, leave it

naked and ravished, and then discover the Americans had changed their

minds. Another Cypress Bowl — this time in the Skagit Valley.

Mr. Speaker, a woman cannot be a little pregnant, nor can a tree be

just a little bit cut down, Mr. Speaker. I've received literally

hundreds of letters from every part of British Columbia protesting the

Skagit Valley flooding, and I would like to show you one or two of

them, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read them all.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm going to read every one, word for word. Mr.

Speaker, this one comes from the great city of Kelowna. It says, "We

want the Skagit for a National or B.C.

[ Page 469 ]

Park. Keep up the good work and get Cece Bennett, my friend, on your side."

This one comes from Surrey, Mr. Speaker, and it reads, "Perhaps you

can suggest that Mr. Bennett take a holiday in our Province instead of

going to Europe, and suggest he take a fishing line and a young boy

with him and go the silver Skagit River, then maybe he'll understand

the inestimable value of our natural resources." This one comes from

Port Coquitlam, "I have hunted and fished in that area. This is the

most destructive and barbaric practice that is characteristic of this

Government. If the callous and wanton destruction of this beautiful

Province of B.C. does not stop, there will be no place left for people

to enjoy unspoiled nature. I feel very strong about this, I could write

page after page on this sort of thing. If you want to hang someone for

this, I will pull the rope."

Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for thousands of British Columbians when

I appeal to the Minister, through you, to cancel this sale. Why is

there any need for such indecent haste? Is it simply that a couple of

million dollars cash is so important? Regardless of whose is the final

responsibility, Seattle is eight years away from putting any more water

into Ross Lake, even if they win all the way and I don't believe they

will. It is only the first inning in Seattle, Mr. Speaker. Let's not

finish the ball game in British Columbia yet. Cancel the Skagit Valley

Timber Sale.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to be

here today, and I would like to bring you a little news from the centre

of the Island, to just tell you that today six mayors from Courtenay to

Victoria met there, and for the Centennial Year we hope to revive the

Dayliner as a main service on Vancouver Island to bring more life and

fun to Vancouver Island during the Centennial Year.

I would like to compliment the Minister of Finance today on a

progressive and sound Budget, with lots of steam still left in the

base, and I think it is prudent at all times in any economy to always

have a buffer in your Budget.

To our very worthy Liberal friends, who we enjoy being with on this

side of the House, I would just like to say one thing. When I look at

that $18,000,000,000 national debt, blessed are the young in heart, for

they shall inherit the national debt. To our other Opposition friends

who want more at no extra cost I only say, what the Government gives to

the people, first they must take from the people, and the only other

revenues that will be generated must come from our economy and its

productivity.

Free enterprise has proved itself in the market place and in the

standard of living we are having here in North America, and those who

try to destroy business will destroy our way of life. I only say that,

because there has been so much abuse thrown at the forestry industry

during this Session, and I would just like to come to its defence here,

because Nanaimo is the heart of a huge timber area and it means a lot

to the people in our constituency. It provides employment for more than

80,000 people in B.C. — one-twelfth of the annual work force.

Collective bargaining has achieved the highest wage scale of any forest

industry in the world, and Nanaimo has become a major distribution

centre for the entire Vancouver Island forest industry. One mill alone,

Harmac, produces a payroll of $11,000,000 a year, and with all the

other sectors of the economy that comes with it, it comes to many, many

more millions of dollars. That is the sort of thing that gives us a

good way of life, and when we look at the bread and butter on the table

in the morning, these are the things we should try to remember.

Statements in the House that the forest industry does not pay

sufficient taxes are erroneous. The fact is that the B.C. forest

industry is already the highest taxed forest industry in North America,

and since January, 1969, the effective tax rate has been 56 per cent

compared with competitive U.S. companies with an effective tax rate of

approximately 40 per cent. In 1968, the total direct tax bill to all

levels of government in B.C. was $300,000,000, with $120,000,000 to the

Federal Government, $30,000,000 to the municipalities, and $140,000,000

directly to the Government for stumpage, royalties, and fire

protection, etc. In addition, the multiplier effect of the industry on

wages, services, and supplies, resulted indirectly and directly in

generating approximately one-half of the Provincial tax revenue that

helps to give us the most vigorous economy in the country today.

Now, there are a few points that I would like to mention today. The

Government should consider them and, if adopted, would not necessarily

cost additional money to the treasury. With over half our population

under 25 years of age, and a quarter of our population going to school,

youth deserves vigilant attention and proper direction, and that's not

just in British Columbia, that's all around the world. In this respect,

the Government budgets a good proportion of its finances towards youth

in the Province in education, recreation, courts, welfare and work. Now

I am not naive enough to think that we don't need discipline and

juvenile security, but I do think that more effort should be initiated

on a community level towards prevention. It costs $10 a day to send a

juvenile to Brannan Lake, and in 53 per cent of the cases the

individual never returns to a correctional institute. Now, in Alberta

and New York under the Division of Youth, and this is a preventative

programme with these first-time offenders, they have had extraordinary

success in that nine out of ten of those youths never return to a

correctional institute.

Now to give an example of what a wrongly-directed child costs — 1968 — 332 boys, 15 to 17, were transferred from Juvenile to Adult

Court, and ended up in adult Provincial gaols at an annual cost of

about $5,300, a total cost of $1,750,000 that year.

A Division of Youth would be concerned with young people between the

ages of 15 and 17, who are on the border-line between responsible

productive lives and trouble. Under this programme, youth centres are

established in order to prevent delinquency and crime, and in

conjunction with such centres steps are also taken to working with

other associations to bring up a far better programme than you get

normally. In other words, when trouble appears, go in and help these

young people to become contributing members to