1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th 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, SEPTEMBER 26, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 259 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Sessional Reports Suspension Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr.

Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 259

An Act to Amend the Corrections Act (Bill 24). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 259

Oral Questions

Proposed steel industry for British Columbia. Mr. Phillips — 259

B.C. Ferries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 259

Throne speech debate. Mr. McGeer — 263

Mr. Curtis — 271

Mr. Richter — 276

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 281

Division on address to the Lieutenant-Governor — 289

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1973

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers

Introduction of bills.

SESSIONAL REPORTS SUSPENSION

ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall moves introduction and first reading of Bill

20 intituled Sessional Reports Suspension Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 20 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CORRECTIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Corrections Act .

Bill 24 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to bid welcome to the House two very kindly visitors from

the State of Tennessee, and I would like all Members to join

with me in displaying some degree of northern hospitality. I'd

like to introduce to the House Miss Cindy Montgomery and

Senator Brown Aires. Senator Aires is a Republican senator in

the state senate, which I understand consists of 33 people: 13

Republican, 19 Democrat and one independent. Senator Aires is

the caucus chairman.

Oral questions.

PROPOSED STEEL INDUSTRY

FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to

direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). With regard

to the proposed steel industry for the Province of British

Columbia, would the Minister advise me if he intends to form a

company in British Columbia whereby the people in British

Columbia can buy shares to participate in the profits of this

company and would he, similar to the Alberta energy company

which is….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member, I think the question is

irregular, unless there is some indication and a statement by

the Member that that is present policy. If it is present policy

of such and such intention, that's one thing; if you have no

evidence of that, then the question is irregular.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's been announced that it's the government's

intention. It is present policy. Would you allow the Minister

to answer, if he will?

MR. SPEAKER: Well it's up to the Minister, but I do feel

it's irregular unless there's some fact that you're basing your

question on.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce):

My department is still carrying on a review, Mr. Speaker, of all different possibilities

with respect to a steel industry in the Province of British Columbia. I think

it would be unfair to make any statement now and raise expectations or lower

expectations. We will have in due course announcements to be made with respect

to the reviews that we're presently carrying on.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't see how you can have a supplementary on

what is clearly evidenced to be out of order under our standing

orders.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have a supplementary question on the

same subject then, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister advise if

any studies are being done with regard to the effect that the

steel mill will have on the ecology of Kitimat and surrounding

areas?

HON. MR. LAUK: Not by my department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister tell me if there are any

surveys done with regard to a proposed railway into the Kitimat

area to carry the coal from….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think, in fairness to the

other Members, that as you're embarking on another question,

the next Member should be recognized.

B.C. FERRIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Minister of

Communications Mr. Speaker. With reference to the statement of

the Minister of Communications' that B.C. Ferries had

recommended the retention of a particular United

[ Page 260 ]

States firm because that firm, and I believe I quote

correctly, "has already constructed ships of a design that was

very close to that which would best serve the needs of the

people of B.C.," could I ask him what are the special

design features of the Washington State ferries which he

referred to?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's

a fairly lengthy question, I wonder if you'd repeat it, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure. I did try to catch your attention,

Mr. Minister, at the beginning.

With reference to the Minister's statement yesterday

indicating that B.C. Ferries had recommended the retention of

a particular designing firm of U.S. naval architects because

that firm — I believe I'm quoting him correctly — "has already

constructed ships of a design that was very close to that which

would best serve the needs of the people of B.C.," could

I ask him, what are the special design features of the

Washington State ferries which he referred to?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've made that particular statement

public several times in the past few months. I don't know

whether the Member reads the papers or not, but I indicated

very clearly that what we are moving into is a period of

double-ended ferries so that ferries no longer have to back out

of any particular berthing area. Which then means that when a

ferry leaves one side the cars drive onto that ferry and they

stop. When the ferry gets to the other side, the ferry stops

(Laughter) and the cars drive off.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You better stop when you're

ahead.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Then, after all the cars are off, other

cars will drive straight on. Then that ferry leaves that berth

and it doesn't have to back out. It drives straight out and

straight across the water and straight in to where it stops.

The double-ended ferry has propulsion at each end and it also

has different facilities with regard to truck facilities and so

on that we don't have now.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd point out to the Hon. Minister that the

television is not on; he'll have to do it with words.

(Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask whether the original proposal,

which was put to the Canada Steamship Inspection Service, I

believe late in August, involved a reduction in life-saving

capacity, and did it involve a utilization of a single rather

than a double bottom for these ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A single rather than a what?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Double bottom.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At no time was there any suggestion that

any ferry of that size have a single hull. At no time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The first part of the question on

safety?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At no time has there been any suggestion

that there be any abandonment of any necessary safety

precautions. As a matter of fact, it's my suggestion to you

that the submissions that were made to Ottawa will provide a

much safer ferry system than is possible anywhere else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well may I ask the Minister, as a final

question, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the original design

proposals put to the Canada Steamship Inspection Service

involved a reduction in the number of liferafts on board to

the point where less than 10 per cent of the capacity of the

ferry would be able to be catered to if the ferry got into

difficulties and they were forced to abandon ship?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, the number of liferafts is increased.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Over your original proposal?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Over existing.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A supplemental question, Mr.

Speaker. If I could just state, before I ask the question, that

I spent some considerable time on the phone with CSI this

morning, and the answers they give are somewhat different from

the answers just given by the Minister, and I would like to ask

a question.

The information I would like the Minister to correct, if it

is wrong, is that there will be no liferaft davits to lower

liferafts into the water; the only access to the liferafts

will be by rope ladder down the side of the ship.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer that question. But I am

going to read to you now…

Mr. Member, I could stand here and say some things about the

people who have been to you, but I am not going to be that kind

of Member in this House. I will not do that — with regard to

their experience and work that they have done — I am not going

to do that. But I am going to read into the record the letter

which was sent as a backup to the

[ Page 261 ]

brief…

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right. Come on, now. All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. On a point of order…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right. I'm going to read into the

record the letter that was sent…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister be seated, please?

There is a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Two Scotch tempers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you be silent on the point

of order, please? Proceed.

MR. WALLACE: Rather on a point of personal privilege could I

ask the Member to withdraw the implication that I have some

personal attempt at insulting people in making a statement

regarding public safety?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the Hon. Minister will retract that

statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At no time did I infer or make any

statement against your integrity in any way, shape or form.

MR. SPEAKER: Does that satisfy the Hon. Member?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And if perchance you mistook anything

that I said, then I certainly withdraw that. At no time would I

think of doing anything like that because, as you know, I

consider you a very forthright and upright person whom I admire

very much.

However, with regard to the proposals, this was a letter

dated August 28 of this year, sent to the deputy chairman of

the Board of Steamship Inspection, Ministry of Transport:

"Further to our meetings of August 22 and 23 with yourself

and members of the Board of Canadian Steamship Inspection to discuss the above-mentioned

design proposal. After reviewing our notes taken during the meeting…"

Remember,

these were meetings discussing and examining the whole requirements of the ferry

system and what kind of ferries. And let me tell you, there are ferries in the

water now owned by B.C. Ferries, built to specifications, that haven't got

double hulls. Let me tell you that right now.

" 1. The ferry hull below the main deck will be fitted with

two additional bulkheads to provide for a full

three-compartment subdivision."

Not a single ferry anywhere plying these waters has that as

a feature.

"2. The double bottom originally proposed to be in the way

of the engine room only will be extended as far to the ferry

ends as is practicable, taking into consideration the fine hull

form at the ferry ends."

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It did! It did! They want to extend

it.

"3. Water screens will not be required in the vehicle decks.

However the vehicle decks sprinkler system will be served by

three pumps, one of which will be independently driven by its

own diesel engine."

At the present time, none of the ferries have three pumps.

They've got two — an additional safety feature there.

"4. Fire insulation to A60 standards to be applied to the

passenger deck."

That is the passenger accommodation deck immediately above

the upper vehicle deck.

" 5. All lifesaving equipment exclusive of lifejackets shall

be located on the sun deck and shall be the Class 6 requirement

for a 1,500-passenger licence and the crew complement. The

equipment shall comprise: Class 1 diesel-powered lifeboats, one

port and one starboard, each operated by gravity lowering

davits; 40 throw-over slide-type 25-man inflatable life rafts,

20 port, 20 starboard, in groups of three or four; suitable

life raft embarkation ladders to be provided."

"The brief and drawing proposed that (1) anchor without

retrieving and windlassing shall be installed. We now propose

to install two anchors, one at each end of the ferry, also

without retrieving windlasses; however, the anchor weights…and so on…. A spare anchor could be maintained ashore.

"Because this design of ferry is double-ended, that is there

is a propeller, rudder and steering-gear at each end of the

ferry, we seek exemption from being required to install an

emergency steering-gear."

When you've already got two sets of steering-gears, why

should you have an emergency gear?

Interjection.

[ Page 262 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Any kind of steering-gear would help

them, but that's by the way.

"The proposed design of railings referred to in the brief

as being the United States Coastguard standards are acceptable

for installation about the perimeter of the passenger decks.

The proposed design of fire doors referred to in the brief are

acceptable, providing that door-to-frame gaskets are fitted and

zone bulkhead doors have shot bolts. Radar sets will be

provided, one per wheelhouse. A gyro compass which is the

exemption from being required to install an echo-sounder which

is approved for a proposed crew…

"Other than specifically mentioned, the foregoing intention

is to design and build the proposed…ferry to regulations of

the Board of Canadian Steamship Inspection, and also to build

and maintain the ferries to the rules and requirements of the

Classification Society and commence detailed preparation of

drawings," and so on.

The reply:

"1. Agreed.

"2. Agreed, subject to the board's satisfaction as to the

fore-and-aft extension of the double bottoms and upon

examination of the drawings.

"3. Agreed, each pump to be capable of providing water at an

approved pressure to all nozzles in at least two zones of the

system.

"4. Agreed.

"5. Agreed, with respect to the boats, subject to

examination of the drawings and satisfactory tests.

"6. Agreed.

"7. Agreed, but two sources of power to be provided.

"8. Agreed.

"9. Agreed, those to be of approved type.

"10. Agreed.

"11. Agreed.

"12. The matter of the echo sounder has been taken up with

our Vancouver office and it has been decided that this equipment should be fitted."

No question, it will be done.

"13. The crew is approved subject to the requirements of

the safe manning regulations and concurrence of the regional

office. All crew members are to be certified lifeboat men, the

requirement of certified lifeboat men to be provided for each

life raft is waived. Please note…"

MR. WALLACE: What was that last part that was waived?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The requirement that a certified lifeboat man be

provided for each life raft is waived.

"Please note, the board reserves the right to rule on any

details of the foregoing which may arise in the future and on

any subject not touched on therein."

The date of that is September 12, 1973.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. That's right. Now there is

the situation.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, my question still hasn't

been answered about the davits, and we may get to that in a

minute. But my concern, Mr. Speaker, is not so much with the

ship as with the safety of the people on the ship. We will all

remember — and you needn't shake your head — the safest ship

ever built didn't survive its maiden voyage, you might

remember, with some considerable loss of life. I think it is

very important that, no matter how safe the ship is made, the

Minister hasn't answered the question as to what will happen if

people have to get off the ship because the liferafts will not

be lowered into the water, according to the information I have

been given. Are there to be any davits…?

MR. SPEAKER: I think we have gathered the gist of your

question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The gist of the question is that nothing

will be done on these ferries…. And, Mr. Member, I want you

to appreciate that nobody is more concerned with the safety of

the passengers on these ferries than I am. That is my prime

consideration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have just read them into the record.

I've just read them into the record.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you inferring that the Minister is not

telling the truth?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, every question that has been asked, I

have answered. If you want to question my words you can go right ahead and question

my words, but at no time, at no time will I allow a ship to sail these waters

unless it is safe according to the allowances of the Canadian Steamship Inspection.

At no time. And I want that Member to come to my office the minute this thing

is adjourned and I'll tell him a few things that I'm not prepared to repeat

in this House right now.

[ Page

263 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Why did you cut me off?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because you raised things in this House

that I don't want to talk about publicly.

Orders of the day .

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: And there's more to come. (Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I wonder if I could be invited to

that meeting? (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I want to thank my colleague from Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) for adjourning the debate on my behalf yesterday.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I've sat in this House for a good many

years and, under the former administration, I was never once

able to adjourn a debate successfully.

MR. SPEAKER: We were tempted when you were away.

(Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Well, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for resisting

that. But you'll be sorry before I'm finished.

We're going to vote later on today as to whether to thank

His Honour. Most of us are in a very sentimental frame of mind

about His Honour and the gracious chatelaine for the wonderful

dinner that they hosted for the MLAs last night. We do thank

His Honour for that.

As for the motion we're debating, Mr. Speaker, I really

think we should send His Honour a message of sympathy because

it must be an ordeal for him to come down into this House. I

don't for one minute want to take away from the splendor of

opening day. The pageantry was really magnificent. I don't

think the buildings and the gardens have ever looked better.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) should be complimented

on that.

When the Hyack Battery went to work, Mr. Speaker, I was

looking to see if there were any editors of Barron's magazine

ducking under the bushes.

But I thought that the travel agents that were gathered on the lawn made a

wonderful backdrop. I know why they were here, Mr. Speaker; they were all anxious

to get a chunk of the action next summer. I thought the Provincial Secretary

did show good judgment in not inviting the travel agents inside because the

main event was a disappointment. But they were there, no doubt hoping to get

some of the cabinet Ministers' business next year.

You know, as soon as the travel agents' convention was over

we had a convention — I believe it's still going on — at the

Empress Hotel of the architects. I think probably they want to

be close to the action. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the next group

to have their convention here will be the interior

decorators.

Now mind you, Mr. Speaker, all of the cabinet Ministers

didn't go travelling this summer. Some of them stayed home. I

want to talk first of all about the ones that did stay home,

because they were unquestionably the busiest — at least on

government business. Some of them were shopping. One of them

was the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon.

Mr. Williams.) He's bought a few things, Mr. Speaker. He's

bought a newsprint plant; he's bought a pulp mill; he's bought

a planer mill.

I'll tell you what I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker. I'm hoping that

what he's going to do is what he did when he was the minister

of condominiums. I hope that he's going to sell all of those

businesses off at a bloated profit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a capitalist for you.

MR. McGEER: Well, I don't know; some of the profits might go

if we were to put all of the family on the payroll. I've got

one question for the Minister, looking back on his record with

condominiums, and that is: Is granny going to be on the

greenchain, Mr. Minister? (Laughter.)

Well, the Minister of Highways or Transport or whatever it

is (Hon. Mr. Strachan)…I'm sorry that he's gone out to

check his correspondence because he was doing some shopping

this summer too. Mr. Speaker, who would have thought, in all

those years when that Minister was attacking the Hon. Phil

Gaglardi for having his jet, that he was bent on buying two

himself. The former Minister leased a Lear, but he secured two

Citations — two Citations. Mr. Speaker, those are the only

citations that he's ever going to get.

Because of that I think we ought to follow the practice of

Canadian Pacific Airlines and name these two Citation jet

aircraft. I think we should call one "The Spirit of Bob" and

the other "The Empress of Ann." His and hers. Those jets were

expensive, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister of Highways (Mr.

Gaglardi) leased a Lear for $5,000 a month. We could have had

that jet of his for 30 years for the cost of those two very

expensive and luxurious aircraft.

[ Page 264 ]

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, while one Minister was buying up

businesses, that Minister stayed home trying to learn to run

one. We've had inflationary and injudicious settlements in

British Columbia. The ferry settlement was one of them. If that

is a sample of how this government is going to run all the

government businesses in the future, I would advise the people

of British Columbia to start by driving carefully. I don't know

what lies in store in the broad range of insurance and labour

relations with the many forest operations the government is

into if that's an example of what we have to look forward

to.

Well, there have been some changes in the House, Mr.

Speaker, and one of them, of course, is the new Member for

South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett.) He's a neighbour of ours over

here. We like him very much. He's made an excellent impression

on everyone. They all speak well of him. Mr. Speaker, they say

he takes after his mother. (Laughter.)

We've had some changes on the cabinet benches too. I suppose

that the most predictable one was the elevation of the Second

Member for Vancouver Centre to the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You better believe it.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when this

portfolio was taken seriously. That was many years ago. I

think, with the sort of string of Ministers we've had lately,

that it roughly corresponds to the Post Office in some other

jurisdictions. When the Socreds had their Minister in office

they were really worried about how to make Waldo look good.

Well, the new Premier solved that problem, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.)

But I want to give the Minister a word of advice if I may.

That is: defend the government, Mr. Minister, but never with

your fists. I thought the Minister, when he was a backbencher,

always kept a close eye on what the other Ministers were doing.

I think he got some itchy feet when he saw them all winging off

to Europe this summer. So he's rolled up his sleeves and he's

gone to work. Keep it up, Mr. Minister, and you'll get that

trip to Spokane in 1975. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'll look forward to that.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce):

They want a historical exhibit down there.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm sorry the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) isn't here. You know, I

really looked forward to hearing more from him, because I know

he had a lot to tell with all the lands that he visited this

summer. For that Minister, going back to England is old hat.

But he went to most of the capitals of Europe and wound up in

Israel in the Middle East. I thought that was very nice for the

Minister to have that experience.

I don't know whether he was trying to compensate for the

last time we had a cabinet Minister visit the Middle East; some

of the Members will recall when Mr. Loffmark went to Egypt. I

believe it was the Vancouver Sun that contacted him when he was

in Cairo and he had the breathless news that he was continuing

on around the world because he was going to save $25 or

$40.

HON. MR. BARRETT: $40.

MR. McGEER: The Premier well remembers. I don't know if our

Minister of Human Resources gave that kind of consideration to

his travels. He might have saved the public a few dollars if

he'd carried on around the world. Then, of course, he could

have discussed poverty in the breadth of the whole world seen

instead of just half the world.

Mr. Speaker, the horde has been in for a year now. I really

think that it's more like a posse making a pretty half-hearted

pursuit of some of the social problems of British Columbia.

There's the odd fist-shaking at the bad guy capitalist. But so

far we haven't really made important inroads. It's just too

comfortable in the saddle.

Of course, the Attorney General himself made clear where all

the fat cats are in British Columbia today; they are over there

on the government front benches, and I must say there has been

very little belt tightening on that side.

The shape of the NDP has changed, Mr. Speaker. No more of

these heart-rending speeches on behalf of the poor of British

Columbia. Gone are the attacks on all the patronage in British

Columbia. Instead of that, we are hearing about what wonderful

fellows all the NDP friends are. One can never say that the NDP

fail to learn in opposition. I doubt that any government in the

future will ever be able to challenge the NDP's patronage

record. No one should know better than my friends on the

right.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I want to talk about one set of appointments — just the back end. The only time we are appointed.

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I want to talk about where one set

[ Page 265 ]

of these appointments went, and that was to the Energy

Commission. I thought the Attorney General was very quick to

praise the efforts of his former colleague in the House, Mr.

Rhodes. We didn't get to know one of the other members, Mr.

Johannessen, as well as Mr. Rhodes because he kept being

defeated as an NDP candidate and never got to the House. I

liked Mr. Rhodes as a Member; I thought he was an excellent

Member. I think he and his staff conducted the energy hearings

in an exemplary fashion.

I thought the report was well written, but I don't think

anybody here should be under the delusion that this was an

objective, arm's length review of the energy situation by a

dispassionate expert. This was written by a former NDP MLA who

I am certain was in constant contact with the Attorney General.

And where, though the former Member from Delta was defeated

many years ago — before these energy problems came under debate — there was a surprising similarity between the views of that

commissioner and the speeches of the Attorney General when he

was in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the principle recommendation of this energy

board report is that there be a provincial Crown agency to

engage in the production, processing, transmission and

marketing of natural gas. The declared purpose of that Crown

agency is to increase the price of natural gas, and the

commissioners, in that report, accused Westcoast of keeping the

price of natural gas low. The commissioners even tracked down

evidence given by the president of Westcoast before the Federal

Power Commission in the United States. They smoked him out and

they reported some of his testimony in that report. I have read

the energy board report from cover to cover several times now

and this piece of testimony sticks out in my mind. The

president said, not before this energy board, but he said, "The

objective of Westcoast representations before arbitration

boards will be to retain wellhead prices at the lowest possible

level."

Furthermore, he said it was in West coast's best

interests "to keep the cost of gas at as low a level as

possible." Mr. Speaker, that is a dirty capitalist trick.

Imagine that! Conspiring to keep the costs of a basic commodity

low! And the proposal was to form a Crown corporation to end

all of that silly capitalist nonsense. I mean, how can we pay

for the cabinet Ministers' offices if we go around trying to

keep the prices low?

I appeared before the commission, and I believe I was the

only witness who was there to speak on behalf of the consumers

of British Columbia, saying the objective should be to get the

price of natural gas down. After all, Mr. Speaker, that natural

gas is our resource — the resource of the people of British

Columbia. Our citizens should get the benefit of that

resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. McGEER: Right on! By increasing the price to them by 70

per cent, Mr. Speaker, is that how you bring the benefits to

them?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Let's talk about what we should do. The Energy

Commission talked about the B.C. dilemma, but they didn't

really get the dilemma right. The dilemma is: how do you have

your cake and eat it, too? Because the gas is there in the

ground; it is quite within the reach of this government or any

other government to pay a full and fair return on the price of

that gas to those who risk their capital and explore, or to the

government if it wishes to take on that responsibility, to pay

the cost of building pipelines, the staff required to

distribute it, and still cut the price of that gas

substantially to the consumer in British Columbia.

I don't know what kind of socialism it is to bring in a

report recommending the increase of gas prices through a Crown

corporation; I don't know what kind of socialism it is. I do

know this: it isn't going to help the consumers of British

Columbia — not one little bit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't be too sure of that.

MR. McGEER: Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we obviously

have ample supplies of natural gas in this province for our own

people for some years to come, the prices to the residential

user in this province are by no means cheap. For 10,000 cubic

feet, Calgary pays $5.76; Regina pays $8.46; Oakland pays

$7.30; Seattle pays $11.90; Toronto pays $13.98, but Vancouver

pays $14.07 and Prince George pays $15.40. Are we getting the

benefit of our natural gas now when we are paying among the

higher prices? And is the proposal of the government to try to

gouge the public of British Columbia even further really in the

interest of the public? Again and again and again, the

commission made the point that the regulatory agencies in the

United States were working to keep the price low to the

consumers in that country.

Ever hear of such nonsense as that, Mr. Speaker? Would we

have regulatory agencies here in British Columbia that would do

such a dangerous thing? Well, I tell you we used to have one — the Public Utilities Commission. Anybody remember that? The

only time the government Members ever remembered it when they

were in opposition was when they thought of a certain defeated

cabinet Minister.

The powers were gradually stripped from the PUC until all

that was left were cemeteries. Then even that died. So there

was the PUC in British Columbia that

[ Page 266 ]

should have been doing the job that the Energy Commission

complained about — getting the cost of the natural gas down to

the consumers — stripped of its powers by both the opposition

and the government. And you only have to see what the relative

costs of natural gas are in Vancouver compared with some other

major cities in Canada and in the United States to realize the

importance of a regulatory agency divorced from the partisan

politics of the province.

During all these years the B.C. Hydro was returning bloated

profits on its natural gas sales, only one-third of the natural

gas they distributed went to residential consumers, but it

contributed half the profits from natural gas.

The confidential figures of the B.C. Hydro, when they were

finally released by the Premier — I thanked him previously for

this — showed that in 1972, during the calendar year, Hydro

made $9.7 million on gas and only $9.8 million on electricity — and yet electricity sales were between 4 and 5 times as great

as those for natural gas.

The B.C. Hydro's principle competitor, Inland Natural Gas,

without the goading of a Public Utilities Commission, with a

less efficient distribution system, fewer customers, was

nevertheless able to distribute natural gas to the people of

the Interior of British Columbia at a substantially lower price

than the B.C. Hydro and at the same time return a handsome

profit on their own investment.

Mr. Speaker, changes must come about in how we handle our

natural gas resource; but we categorically reject the

philosophy of the NDP government, which is to raise the price

and gouge the B.C. customer even more than he has been gouged

before.

If the resource is as valuable as it's claimed — and I

believe and accept that it is — then that resource should not

be exported to the United States for profit, no matter how

large that profit may be. Instead, it should be retained for

the use of future British Columbians. We should let our export

contracts lapse when the time is up. The provincial government

should forget about high profits from natural gas and just let

the people of this province have their resource at what the

cost of exploring for it and distributing it happens to be.

It is essential that there be a regulation of the retail

prices to protect the consumer of this province, set up in such

a way that it is completely divorced from the partisan politics

of the day. It if is to be a Public Utilities Commission or an

Energy Commission, let that be as independent politically as it

is possible to make such a commission. Give it as its mandate

the objective of low energy distribution to the people of

British Columbia, not subsidizing socialist schemes of any

kind, or other forms of energy as the B.C. Hydro did when it

was not regulated by the public.

The Energy Commission, I think, was quite correct in

suggesting that we should raise the price for export for those

export commitments we already have. The place to do this is at

the wellhead.

We don't want in British Columbia any federal export taxes

of the kind proposed for Alberta and its oil. In order to do

that, we should certainly stand behind a principle in this

House that resources belong to the province and taxes on those

resources come to the province, not to the federal

government.

So it probably is that the imposition has to be put on the

wellhead to get a proper return for what we export. But if

that's to be the case, and extra revenues come to government,

then they should be returned, possibly by subsidizing the

distribution of that gas to an equivalent extent so the public

of British Columbia are getting their resource for the price it

costs to search it out, to carry and distribute it.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Here, here.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm glad the Attorney General agrees to

that. But, Mr. Attorney General, that wasn't the thrust of the

report nor the intent of the Crown corporation that was to be

established. And the other course is to put a different form of

royalties, so much per therm — equivalent energy value if you

like — and take that money and see that the people in British

Columbia who are using that gas don't suffer from that added

imposition.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Here, here.

MR. McGEER: The remainder of the gas for the future; forget

about the idea of exporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government is finding out there are

many conflicts of interest inherent in taking a government

post. The dilemma the government will have to cope with as far

as natural gas is concerned is only one of many. When one gets

into the realm of trying to establish policy for Crown

corporations, when those corporations should be operating as

independent entities, you're going to find Minister after

Minister in the impossible position of trying to ride both

sides of the fence at once.

No one, Mr. Speaker, has taken on more conflicting

responsibilities than the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). I want to mention just one of

these because he's also the Minister in charge of reducing

pollution. I suppose no one, when he was in opposition, made

more extreme speeches on the subject of the pollution that

exists in British Columbia than that particular Minister. Now

he's in government, and when you get right down to it, Mr.

Speaker, he hasn't done a thing in his time in office.

[ Page 267 ]

We're continuing one of the most abysmal practices that we

could possibly have in this province, which is slash burning.

Jurisdictions with common sense abandoned this long, long ago.

Hon. Members may recall a film I arranged to be shown in one of

the committee rooms about how slash should be disposed of.

There are machines that can be taken into the bush that will

make mulch and fertilizer out of slash, rendering it completely

unnecessary for it to be burned.

There are two problems with slash burning. The first and

most obvious one is that you burn slash in the fall when you

get the warm, dry weather, when you have inversion layers that

guarantee massive pollution of the atmosphere. The slash

burning in the fall would easily, in the short time that it

goes on, produce far more air pollution than all other forms of

air pollution all the year round. Slash burning is number

one.

Secondly, there is the danger of fire. Usually it's just

been forest fires, but this year it burned right down into

residential communities, destroying farms and homes in the

Salmon Arm area. And I was astonished after all of that, Mr.

Speaker, to find that the Member from that area (Mr. Lewis) was

saying the Forest Service ought to be more careful in the

future.

The reason you elect new governments and change the

politicians is so the politicians will change the policies. The

public has no access to the civil service. If it's the policy

of the Forest Service to burn slash, the only way that policy

can be changed is by direct action of the Minister and by his

government. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it takes some guts, but if

we're ever going to remove this silly fire hazard in the fall

and enjoy a little clean air in the autumn, that step has to be

taken. Do it.

Mr. Speaker, you may be interested to know that I travelled a

little this summer too, but it wasn't at public expense. I was

in Japan and had the honour of giving some lectures there, and

was indeed shown incredible hospitality by the people who are

noted for being the world's best hosts.

One of the places that the Japanese people showed me with

great pride was the oldest public school in the world. It was

built during the feudal age of Japan, at a time when free

education for the commoner was unheard of there as it was in

Britain, the United States and Canada, and most countries of

the world. The Japanese people regard this first free public

school in the world with awe.

It all started with a feudal governor named Akito Mitsumatsa, a very far-sighted

educator. Mr. Speaker, what he did was to set aside the whole fiefdom around

the location of the school and turn the property income over to the school itself.

The policy, which is recorded in Japanese history, is that this was done to

protect the people who would benefit from that education — the commoners of

Japan — from the vagaries of politics should he be moved to another location.

I don't need to emphasize to you what that tradition did for

the country of Japan. It now has one of the finest educational

systems in the world.

The counterpart of Akito Mitsumatsa in British Columbia was

Henry Esson Young. He was a cabinet Minister in the McBride

government. Essondale was named after him. He wrote the

legislation for our universities and established the concept of

the endowment land for the universities of this province.

He didn't quite go as far as Akito Mitsumatsa because, for

reasons I don't understand, he never transferred the title. But

Henry Esson Young's concept remained free from politics for a

period of 65 years in this province. Only with the entry of the

New Democratic Party has this concept been torn down by lesser

men.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair for me to lay all the

blame at the doorstep of the new Minister of housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson), but the fact remains that in his first statement,

and one of the few that he has made on the subject of his

cabinet responsibilities, he's established himself as one of

the greatest enemies of education in the province's

history.

He announced that three tracts of land would be developed

for subsidized housing — not that a man should own his land,

which has been one of the most precious traditions of North

American, but that the government should own it like in a

collective farm — that the government should own it, not the

individual. He mentioned three tracts of land for this

socialist experiment. One was the Blair rifle range, which is

mostly owned by the federal government. The second was the

university endowment land. The third, Mr. Speaker, was a site

in North Burnaby, the old Vancouver Cemetery site.

What most Members don't realise is that the provincial

government obtained this land. The City of Vancouver did a swap

because Burnaby didn't think it appropriate to bury Vancouver's

dead on a beautiful location on Burnaby mountain. They

transferred the title to 65 acres of their land on False Creek

and, by resolution of the Vancouver City Council, $410,000 was

authorized to be paid to the provincial government plus the

North Burnaby site. Then the government of the day promised

that land to Simon Fraser University.

But Simon Fraser University has never been given the land. I

would hate to think that the Minister of housing would try to

steal from the universities of this province land which rightly

has been set aside for them, in order to engage in an

experiment of leasing for subsidized housing.

I guess the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) put it better than anyone could

[ Page 268 ]

have, Mr. Speaker, in putting before that Minister what his

responsibilities are. He is not teaching a high school class

any longer. He has power and he has responsibilities. But what

has happened between that Minister and the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is that by their

statements they have poured gasoline on the fires of inflation

for housing in this province.

Their efforts have not produced one single lot for the

people of British Columbia, either to lease or to buy. What

they have done is to sabre-rattle and to threaten, to bring

down legislation which has been so grossly defective that they

have taken it back to amend it. Because that land which is in

private hands now — and which seems to be the only vehicle at

the moment for new housing — appears to be in such limited

supply, the cost of new land has gone soaring. As those costs

have gone soaring, so have the cost of used houses. And as

that's gone soaring, it has been harder and harder to get

rental accommodation.

As my colleague, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound,

said, "If you come to British Columbia today, where there has

been a greater inflation in housing costs than anywhere else in

Canada…"

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Bring your home with

you.

MR. McGEER: …bring your home with you, the Member for

North Peace River (Mr. Smith) says, and I think he's right. Or

bring a tent because you're not going to get rental

accommodation. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Henry Block knew

what he was doing.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: A very sharp man — sending that letter of

congratulation to the Premier. He knew that he has pure gold in

his hand with those 2,000 lots all ready to go.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Think of the paper profits that went to Henry

Block with that legislation. Where was more land going to come

from? You'd better believe he liked that Act.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Profits were up 71 per cent, thanks to the NDP

government.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Sales are up too.

MR. McGEER: I am sure they were.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Of course they were. The cost of everything has

skyrocketed. You only have to sell half as many houses today to

have sales that are higher than they were last year. It doesn't

make sense.

Well, it's the number of units you sell times the selling

price, Mr. Member. I think a grade 2 student could figure that

one out, and I think that the cabinet had better figure it out

too…

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: …because the people in this province

legitimately want housing, and the NDP government, by their

policies, are denying it. We are going to continue to have

inflation as long as this nonsense over on the government

benches continues.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there is only one way for the

government to go now: that is to go and start buying land from

municipalities. There's lots of it available — Surrey, Delta,

North Vancouver, Burnaby, Vancouver city. There isn't any place

where there isn't land available to the provincial government

to buy.

You don't have to steal the land from the universities that

you've never given title to the people who should really have

it. Go and buy your own land from the municipalities and pay

them a fair price. And when you've bought that land, put in the

services; when you've done that, sell it.

Mr. Speaker, the most important purchase that anybody makes

in a lifetime is his home. It's the one thing he buys that goes

up in value. It's the best way to save. I didn't always agree

with the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), as everyone knows,

but he was absolutely right on this. He insisted year after

year after year that this was the most important thing. I

absolutely agree with him. But that's what is being taken away

by the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) — the right of a

man to own his own home and get the land for it at a reasonable

price.

I suggest we set aside $50 million right now for that

purpose. I heard a gasp from behind me, but Mr. Speaker, I'm

going to talk a little bit about the income figures for the

province later on and you'll see that today in British

Columbia, with the revenues rolling in because of inflation,

this amount of money is relatively small.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

[ Page 269 ]

But the one thing, Mr. Speaker: It's nice to see you in the

chair, Sir…is to be certain that in the future, as in the

past, the citizen of British Columbia with modest income can

look forward to owning his home in the future, that in this

province of abundant land, abundant trees and an abundance of

skilled labour that those things can be combined to give each

citizen of this province the castle which he deserves. In this

way we can be luckier than in other jurisdictions, but not when

we blunder along the way the present government has done in the

year it's been in office.

I want to deal just briefly with the western conference that

was attended by so many of our Ministers. I enjoyed watching

them on television, it was a great show. I saw the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Premier,

and so on, doing the best they could to hold their own with the

Ministers of other governments from western Canada. And

everybody had a chance to see how well they did, so I won't

pass comment. But I will say that I was disappointed in the

approach taken by the new government with regard to western

destiny. I thought that the government was off on the wrong

track when it should have kept hammering at the most important

central theme that this province has needed to have since it

entered Confederation. It couldn't have been better summed up

than by the submission by the Pattullo government of 1938 to

the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, and I

want to read one paragraph of that because it sums it all up

and the situation hasn't changed today:

"British Columbia at the present time is hampered by the

national policy of Canada which has emphasized the development

of manufacturing industries in the east at the expense of

primary industries. It is estimated that approximately 80

percent of the manufactured commodities imported in the

Province of British Columbia is imported from eastern Canada,

while approximately 75 per cent of our main primary products,

apart from agriculture, is sold in open competition on the

world markets. This means that British Columbia has to buy in a

protected market, and sell in an unprotected market. In other

words, to buy in the dearest market and sell in the

cheapest."

How much does it cost us in British Columbia each year to

buy in the dearest market and sell in the cheapest?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The Minister says $200 million. Mr. Speaker, I submit that

he's wrong. That figure is 10 times too low. It is closer to $2 billion, and

may even be double that. All right. Mr. Speaker, my figures are taken from the

only comprehensive study which I know has been done on this subject. A book

was written about it — 1972. It was the Shearer Study on the prospects of our

entering a north Atlantic common market. We have tried for some years to get

the national government to institute a comprehensive study of the cost of tariffs

in this country. I think you can appreciate why the federal government has ducked

this particular question; it's simply going to be too embarrassing to find out

the truth. But there is no reason why this government cannot institute a study

and gather its own information. We sell abroad about 50 per cent of our gross

provincial product. We are able to sell up to the level of external tariffs

by our foreign competitors. In other words, we can take aluminum to ingots,

but not the fabricated goods. We can take forest products to pulp and newsprint,

but not to paper. And our industry is limited in its horizons by the tariff

erected by foreign nations. What we have to do, all of us, regardless of party,

in this province is hammer away at the one thing which limits the destiny of

this province, and indeed of all of western Canada.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): The Liberal

Party.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Member, listen to what your leader has

to say nationally, and then be ashamed on this subject.

I tell you, that if western Canada is to reach its destiny,

and if British Columbia is to be more than a hewer of wood and

a drawer of water, and is really to be able to produce those

sophisticated goods with high labour content and high wages,

then it must stop this business of trying to get its revenues

by selling off natural gas, or copper concentrates, or coal, or

whatever it is that those countries that have erected tariffs

against us want in the way of raw goods to produce their

sophisticated products for their own people. It requires

everything that all of us have got. It requires more than

speeches of the opposition. It requires the resources of the

government to gather together the ammunition through which the

Ministers or the Members of the opposition, the businessmen and

the public of this province can take their case to the nation

as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I said I would say just a word or two about the

finances of the province. I do so because the Premier promised

that if he was handling the budget, in the same way that the

former Minister of Finance handled it, he would be the first to

correct the manner of giving the public inadequate, incomplete

or inaccurate information and would bring down a supplementary

budget. Well, it's just a little bit fuzzy isn't it, Mr.

Speaker? Never a supplementary budget. Just a little bit fuzzy.

But you

[ Page 270 ]

see, Mr. Speaker, it's the same old thing. You know….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He never said "a supplementary budget." Well,

Mr. Speaker, we'll be waiting anxiously to hear them.

Mr. Speaker, we had a famous legal case in British Columbia

in this past year, where an American was sentenced to jail for

presenting to the people of British Columbia a false

prospectus. And what that sports promoter did was to say he

wanted $3 million for one purpose and then he used it for

another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the one that fooled Capozzi?

MR. McGEER: That's not hard. (Laughter.) I think Capozzi did

all right out of it.

But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the budgets that we've had

handed down would never have passed that court of law, that the

public of British Columbia is entitled to have a full and frank

disclosure of its state of finances, and that every government

should be prepared to use the full resources at its command to

implement the programmes that the people have been waiting

for.

And when we talk about the inadequacies to our education

system — the lack of chronic care facilities, the lack of

housing, the lack of appropriate care for our senior citizens — always the impression is left that the will is there; our

hearts are big but our pocketbooks are empty. Let it be known,

Mr. Speaker, that the pocketbooks of the Province of British

Columbia are bulging as they have never bulged before.

This year the revenues of this province will be close to $2

billion. I said when I brought down my Liberal budget this

spring that I would be at least a $100 million closer to the

true revenues of the province than the Premier. And I'm willing

to lay at hundred-to-one odds with anybody now that I'm

right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah ha! No takers.

MR. McGEER: The Premier's budget, I said, was at least $130

million below what it could have been and I've changed that

figure now to $270 million. Because when there is inflation

revenues roll into government…always happens…income

taxes, corporation tax, dollars are worth less, and it just

comes pouring in. So the government has adequate resources to

take care of those people who are suffering because of this

inflation.

The government doesn't suffer during…governments like inflation, Mr. Speaker.

They really do. It makes the bonds that are out less valuable; it makes their

current revenues greater. People wonder why governments are always equivocal;

they say that they're going to fight, you know, but they just shadowbox with

inflation. I'll tell you what. They like it. It brings a lot of money into government.

The NDP is enjoying its revenue. But the people are without

housing — the pensioners, those who are chronically ill, those

who had hoped to buy a home and nearly had it made a year ago;

they're not enjoying inflation. No programme in this province

should be held back today for lack of money. Everyone should

understand that.

The Premier will have his chance later on today to revise

his spending upward, to look after the people of British

Columbia so that we'll know the socialist missionaries, who

came to government in this province to do good, haven't wound

up doing well.

I hope that people realize that we have swung from one

extreme in this province to another, and that extremism is not

the way, in British Columbia or in any other jurisdiction. One

doesn't have to be brilliant to govern well on behalf of the

people. One only has to have common sense, a big heart and a

willingness to reform.

I think that the Members, my colleagues in the House on the

Liberal benches, despite the slings and arrows of three

opposition groups in the House, have consistently preached the

course of common sense and reform, have tried to say that the

political vehicle of British Columbia should be driven down the

middle of the road and not be skirting into the ditch on the

right or the left as people swing from one extreme to the

other.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) has

set forward a course of action for the environment and has

championed the fight for the Skagit Valley. My colleague in

Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has laid down a course for human rights

in this province. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) has consistently enunciated the wisest policies for

natural resource development and the agricultural industry in

the province.

Of course, our Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has

explained to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)

how we should genuinely rehabilitate people by looking after

their needs. Today I think the public of British Columbia is

coming to recognize that his championing of keeping the tankers

out of our coast of British Columbia wasn't just a silly

political caper.

And so, Mr. Speaker, we say to you that, much as we regret

it, we cannot support the Speech from the Throne.

The Premier is crestfallen. But you know in the old days,

when the Speech from the Throne had nothing in it, at least

there was some good political flimflam from Bill Clancy, and I

think we ought to

[ Page 271 ]

get back. We should have either content or flimflam; but

when we have got neither, it's dull and it makes debate

difficult.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well I don't know whether we should adjourn the

debate now and take a vote. It looks like the opposition might

do better than we'd expected. But I won't adjourn the House,

Mr. Speaker, because I feel that I might keep up my record of

not succeeding.

And in any event, we want to hear the Premier's statement

about the bouncing resources of the province, and what he means

to do for the little people of British Columbia, the things

that he talked about so eloquently when he was in opposition,

but which cannot be found in this Speech from the Throne. We

say once more that the only way to drive, in the future of this

province, is down the middle of the road. We shall not support

the Speech from the Throne.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it

is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and to spend what

I hope will be a reasonably short time in making a few

observations, which are relevant to the Speech from the Throne

and the business of this Legislature.

Incidentally, I am pleased to draw to the attention of the

House the students of Mount Douglas Secondary School who are

taking

part in a tour of the legislative buildings today. Their

arrival is, if I may say, most timely.

Quite naturally I want to offer my congratulations and best

wishes to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) as he

assumes the duties of interim leader of this provincial party.

I think that I reflect the opinion of many Members of this

House when I say that he is held in very high regard by all of

us, on both sides, for his qualities of frankness, his

objectivity in debate — most of the time (Laughter) — his

concern….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's my leader.

MR. CURTIS: …his concern for the rights of the

individual, his compassion for the disadvantaged and, most

importantly perhaps, his almost unlimited energy.

MR. McGEER: It sounds like Agnew's endorsement of Nixon.

(Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: I think that should be retracted, Mr. Speaker.

That draws an inference which I find very unpleasant.

It's a pleasure to note that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay is gradually losing his Scottish brogue. It is

becoming less distinct and I can report that he no longer

swears at me in Gaelic. (Laughter.) He still swears, but at

is saying.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to the

newly-elected Hon. Member for Okanagan South (Mr. Bennett). You

know, he joins this House at a most interesting time in British

Columbia politics, and he brings with him into this chamber a

rather mixed legacy: He is the son of an eminent British

Columbian and, I think, the odds-on favourite to succeed his

father as the leader of a political party in British Columbia,

a political party which was thoroughly rejected by the electors

of this province just over one year ago. (Laughter.)

If he is successful in shaking loose from some of the rather

strange and reactionary elements which infiltrated that party

and rose to prominence within the former government,

particularly in the last few years, then he may well have a

bright and promising future. If he fails in that particular and

vital task then I would think that he and his party will

continue to wander in the British Columbia wilderness for a few

more years and then eventually disappear from the scene

altogether.

May I associate myself with previous participants in this

debate who have spoken very positively about the travelling

select committees. I can only comment, of course, with

first-hand knowledge on the committees on Agriculture and

Municipal Matters. In both instances, Mr. Speaker, it is my

belief that the Members representing all parties in this House

are now better informed and more qualified representatives as a

result of our weeks of studies, hearings and tours.

I think, frankly, that purely partisan considerations took

second place to individual attitudes and the search always for

a consensus. It was a refreshing and an extremely valuable

experience to move away from what I feel is the rigidity and

rather structured atmosphere of this legislative precinct into

what the previous speaker has referred to on more than one

occasion as the "real world" where we can actually encounter

and discuss individual problems and attitudes, where we can

talk with people first-hand, where they have no nervousness

with respect to coming to Victoria and the parliament

buildings, but rather meeting them on their ground and hearing

what they have to say.

Of the two groups with which I travelled, it is fair to

identify the committee on Agriculture as having, I think, the

more difficult and complex assignment, stretching over a number

of weeks, from Cranbrook to Smithers, from Oliver to Fort St.

John.

I'm sorry he's not in the House, Mr. Speaker; I told him

yesterday that I intended to compliment him and I shall do so.

With your permission, I shall

[ Page 272 ]

await his taking his place. I want to, very sincerely,

compliment the Chairman of the committee on Agriculture, the

Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), for his

enthusiastic and, most importantly, his impartial leadership of

our group. He set a very demanding pace, as others have

observed, but no one could ask for a more fair or dedicated or

enthusiastic chairman.

I don't intend to stand here and claim to be a crash-course

expert on agriculture; that has not been my background. It is

clearly evident that the problems facing the producers of food

in British Columbia today are among the most serious to which

this House must direct its attention, demanding prompt and

decisive action by the government.

Many of our farmers, our orchardists and ranchers are

demoralized and uncertain about the future. They are frustrated

by past action or inactions and legislation. In so many

instances, on the basis of our personal contact with them and

figures they filed with us, they labour for far less than the

minimum wage which this government boasts about so often. They

are in debt. They have little hope of breaking free. Their

capital costs and operating expenses are escalating at an

alarming rate.

I am particularly concerned, and I believe others must be,

Mr. Speaker, about the situation with respect to the younger

farmer — those under 40. I urge the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) and his cabinet colleagues to do all in

their power to reverse this distressing trend away from the

farm, to make the situation more attractive, if at least not

more tolerable, for the young family farm unit.

My own riding has a fair farming element, and, as must be

the case throughout the province, there are young men and women

well-trained, perfectly physically capable of assuming the

agricultural activities started by their parents or their

grandparents who are asking today with very real doubt if they

should continue in the same work.

This disillusionment, this uncertainty, is apparently

crystalized in a brief report prepared for the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, released, I think, within the last

ten days or two weeks. It says in part: "Young farmers in

nearby Delta are stricken with a sense of futility and they are

turning away from agriculture because they are uncertain about

the future of farming."

Admittedly there are rather unique pressures in that

particular part of the lower mainland, but this same sense of

futility to a lesser or greater extent will be found in other

parts of the province.

This party will enthusiastically support any carefully

prepared and positive legislation introduced by the government

to keep family farm units operating with a reasonable return to

the producer.

There is another matter affecting a number of young adults

in British Columbia and I must spend a few minutes bringing this to the attention of the House. As

the previous speaker, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer), and several others have commented in the last

number of days, we have a housing crisis in British Columbia,

particularly as it relates to the young family.

We have a newly-appointed Minister responsible for housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who I hope will have a fully-operative

department. I am sorry that he, too, is not in the House this

afternoon. We can only hope that this Minister had the

enthusiastic support of all the Members of the cabinet as he

tackles this massive job ahead of him. It is a massive task and

I am not entirely convinced that he can measure up to it.

In dealing with the subject, my first instinct, Mr. Speaker,

was to seek out and deluge you with as much statistical data as

time would permit. Frankly, I think that would serve about as

much purpose as the many accounts of statistics given to

interminable housing conferences, conventions, seminars and

weekend retreats over the past several years.

Despite all the brave words and the endless suggestions, the

situation has steadily deteriorated until now not just

low-income families who can be helped through public housing

efforts but a growing proportion of the middle-income group are

finding themselves removed from homeownership capability. In

many cases they are also in a most precarious rental

situation.

This is, perhaps, the most disturbing development of all for

it represents, again as the previous speaker observed, an

erosion of our traditional way of living in British Columbia.

The average new family formation in the province is being

forced into high-priced rental accommodation in apartment-type

dwelling units with virtually no hope of purchasing their own

lot upon which to build their own home.

Mr. Speaker, just over 10 or 12 years ago — 1960, 1961, 1962 — that would have been an unthinkable situation. In 1960, it

was still possible for a young family, newly married with one

or two children, to locate in a new two- or three-bedroom home

with all that they required, for a down payment of $1,200 to

$1,500. That was probably about 10 per cent of the end purchase

price of the house and the lot. It is hardly necessary to point

out that their interest rate, as well, was in the neighbourhood

of 6, 6 1/4 , 6 1/2 , 6 3/4 per cent — something they could

manage.

Today, serviced lots, which represent the young couple's

down payment on a home, are selling locally in greater Victoria

at a minimum of $10,000 and in most areas at $15,000 plus. And

even with both working in a two-wage-earner situation, this is

a huge sum of money for the average married team to amass.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Another example from Burnaby: serviced lots

[ Page 273 ]

today are in the $15,000 to $20,000 range, with the result

that, almost incredibly, the average, moderate, new home is

approaching the $50,000 mark. There are examples of $25,000 and

up for building lots. They are certainly not that unique, they

have been referred to earlier this week, and they are to be

found in a number of parts of the province.

It is a distressing truth that one of the major contributing

factors to this rapid increase in land values has been the

agricultural land reserve. Preservation of farmland is a

desirable goal, but if that land is not to be built upon for

housing purposes, then the government must assist in the

provision of other land where housing can be located, and at

the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, it is to help these young, middle-income

families to attain a home of their own that immediate, positive

and massive programmes of land assembly and servicing must be

undertaken by the two senior levels of government. The

initiative is clearly up to this particular government, to the

newly-appointed Minister, and the time is now.

I am fearful that some of the land assembly schemes which he

currently has under consideration are too long term. They have

much to recommend them, and they may prove to be of real

assistance 10, or 12, or 15 years from now. But, Mr. Speaker,

what about the short term? What about short-term, immediately

implemented, land assembly schemes? Thus far we know of none,

so through you to the new Minister, Mr. Speaker, although he's

not here, I hope he's not arranging or planning even one more

housing seminar, or conference, or weekend, and if the federal

government is to set one up in British Columbia, I hope he's

successful in having it abandoned. Surely the two governments

have virtually all the information they require, and now all

that is needed is action.

As the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams)

said on Monday, I believe, "Housing is a scandal in British

Columbia today." And here is word of another seminar, this one

proposed by the University of British Columbia on Friday,

October 5 — Land Banking Investment in the Future. I note that

the Minister is scheduled to speak to the conference but, and I

quote from the pamphlet, "This one-day programme will deal with

such questions as: 'What is land banking?' 'Why might it be

needed?' 'What are its advantages and its disadvantages?' 'What are

the major policy questions, i.e. long-term and short- term

goals, administrative structures, financing principles, pricing

schemes, disposal policies, et cetera?' "

Mr. Speaker, all that information is available. We don't

need another one-day or two-day seminar on a subject which has

been virtually talked to death in British Columbia in the last

several years.

Now I know it is easy to fall into the trap of offering the one magical solution

to a problem which is extremely complex throughout its total spectrum. Nevertheless,

I believe that land assembly is the key to unlock far more problems than any

other forms of government intervention in British Columbia in the housing field

ever can. And, Mr. Speaker, again, some of those land assembly programmes must

be put together and made available in the shortest, possible time.

Now, Sir, another new Minister in charge of consumer affairs

(Hon. Ms. Young) has a very great challenge ahead of her, and

we wish her well in that assignment, through you. There is

abundant evidence now to indicate that the federal Food Prices

Review Board is nothing short of an absolute catastrophe, and I

hope that this soon-to-be-created portfolio in this province

will meet with considerably more success.

We observe that the Minister has been very quiet thus far in

this session, and we shall await her remarks, or legislation

which she introduces, with interest and look for legislation

which directs itself not only to protection of the consumer,

Madam Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, but which recognizes

the fact that in British Columbia there are many reputable and

responsible individuals engaged in selling goods and services

who will be happy to work with her and with her department, to

express their opinions, to give you the background of their

knowledge, to recommend ways in which the less desirable

elements in the buyer-seller relationship can be neutralized or

corrected.

I know there are men and women at the retail level in food,

in appliances, clothing, home furnishings and automobiles, who

can contribute to her study of a given situation. And it is to

be hoped, really to be hoped, that she will take advantage of

that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, now that this government has settled into

office, apparently comfortably, I earnestly await positive

statements and, where applicable, legislation dealing with

these few matters among many.

A second try at a bill concerning conflict of interest and

public disclosure by elected and appointed officials at all

levels of government within the control of this jurisdiction.

It is unfortunate that the government was somehow intimidated

or frightened to proceed with its bill in the spring session. I

was very sorry when the Attorney General found it necessary to

pull the bill. Again, Mr. Speaker, if a public official has

nothing to hide, then that same public official has nothing to

fear.

Foreign ownership of land. This is a matter of urgent

concern and the time, I think, has long since passed when the

present government should have brought to this House more

positive moves. I spoke in support of restrictions in the 1972

general election campaign, we urged action again during the

spring session, we've spoken about it a number of times

[ Page 274 ]

since, and still nothing has been done. Nothing has been

brought to this House with respect to controlling foreign

ownership of this beautiful province of ours. The need is

apparent. The government can examine similar legislation in a

number of jurisdictions. The examples are to be found easily

elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, why the delay?

Interdepartmental contact, coordination and cooperation.

The situation, I think, has improved somewhat, but we still

encounter instances throughout the province where one

department of government apparently is unable to, or unwilling

to, talk to another. And individual Members of this House,

based on the experience of their own ridings, on both sides of

the House, can cite examples in those ridings, and they have

done so. This is a challenge to the Premier, to the Provincial

Secretary, and to every Minister, and I wish them well in

it.

Other matters not referred to in the Speech from the Throne,

and apparently therefore not high on the list of priorities of

this supposedly people-oriented government, Mr. Speaker,

include no ombudsman, still no right to sue the Crown, still no

Auditor General operating completely beyond the reach of

government interference, still no human rights Act.

I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we got down to the

legislation, and saw in black and white precisely what this

government intends to do about these very points which were so

popular with them before they came to power.

Another travelling committee, and I referred to it very

briefly, Mr. Speaker, was the one dealing with the Gulf

Islands. The principle of the Island Trust or commission is a

good one, and I subscribe to the committee report. I understand

that the chairman of the Capital Regional District is in shock

now that the report has been released, but that was to be

expected. I think that many islanders, regardless of political

affiliation, will subscribe to the basic principle of a Gulf

Islands Trust. However, again we must not have an unreasonable

delay. If the government is prepared to accept this concept,

this principle, then I would urge that it get busy immediately

with the necessary legislation. The Gulf Islanders have been

kept waiting for a long time. They've been left in a state of

uncertainty, in limbo, as it were, for a number of years while

the former government, and now the present government and the

municipal matters committee, consider their fate.

I think I should remind the House, because time does slip by so quickly, Mr.

Speaker, that it was October 28, 1969, four years ago short of a few weeks,

when the establishment of a 10-acre minimum subdivision restriction was announced

on Saltspring Island and the outer Gulf Islands, and on the same day, a similar

restriction on, particularly Gabriola Island, but those islands within the Nanaimo

Regional District. Community plans have been prepared since that time. There

has been tremendous community participation in the preparation of those plans,

with literally scores of men and women turning out night after night to work

on plans which they believed to be in the best interests of their particular

island.

Now, if those plans are not acceptable to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), to his cabinet colleagues

and to the government, then I think that statement should be

made at the earliest possible opportunity, and the

recommendation with respect to a trust introduced also at the

first opportunity. They must not be left in a continuing state

of uncertainty for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

There are problems on the Gulf Islands, Mr. Speaker, and

your committee, or the committee assigned by this House to the

task of looking at them, encountered many. One of the problems

is the diversity of the islands themselves, from a large,

relatively urban-type situation, such as Ganges on Saltspring

Island, to more remote and less populated islands such as

Lasqueti.

But, Mr. Speaker, the developers are still at it. From the

Vancouver Sun on August 22 of this year, a three-quarter page

newspaper ad:

"Sea lovers live here. Sheltered between Vancouver and

Victoria is…" and that is how it's printed "…is

hundreds of islands of incomparable beauty. The finest marine

playground in Canada. Property in these Gulf Islands is

becoming the most sought-after international investment today.

For this reason, the B.C. government is severely restricting

new development."

Elsewhere in the advertisement, I quote:

There's no doubt the Gulf Islands are the answer to close

marine recreation and will become increasingly popular to a

point where land will be unobtainable. Last of the great

locations. Now available, for the first time this year, 11

choice recreation properties: two ocean-front, $23,500; five

lakefront, $8,700 to $15,000; four ocean-view, $11,400 to

$12,490.

That's the Magic Lake Estates organization with respect to

North Pender Island.

It was in 1968, Mr. Speaker, 1968 and 1969, that I first

spoke out against developments of that size, of that magnitude,

on the Gulf Islands, and so I subscribed to the report. I

appreciate that a number of people resident in the Gulf Islands

will be very unhappy with the recommendations of the so-called

Nunweiler committee report. But we cannot just walk away from

it and say, "Okay, in the spring we'll get busy with

legislation," or, "Sometime next year we'll look at this

trust."

The question mark has been hovering over the Gulf Islands for far too long.

Now that this report has been filed and the essence of an idea presented to

this

[ Page

275 ]

House, I sincerely hope that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and others will move quickly to

reject it or to endorse it, whichever they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, although other Members have spoken about the

British Columbia Ferry Authority, particularly regarding this

summer's most unfortunate interruption of services and the

Minister's "gun-to-my-head" statement — a statement,

incidentally, which will live with him for the rest of his

political life — I want to touch on two or three other aspects

of the service and leave the question of the strike for some

other time.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister

responsible, I agree and concede that Vancouver Island

residents have no fully justifiable reason to expect

preferential treatment in ferry lineups. That suggestion is

clearly not practical. But what is possible, however, is some

form of optional car-reservation system open to all, regardless

of their place of residence, whether this is their first visit

to British Columbia or whether they have lived on Vancouver

Island or some other part of British Columbia all their

lives.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a certain percentage of

automobile spaces on each sailing could and should be set aside

for space reservation by telephone. Now these spaces could be

held for, say, 30 minutes prior to sailing time. If they're not

taken up by then, a half-hour before sailing, they would be

released to the general traffic waiting.

There should be a nominal charge for this convenience,

perhaps an extra dollar or two, to be added to the regular

automobile fare. I can only guess that the additional revenue

from this reservation source would perhaps assist greatly in

offsetting the extra cost to the authority. I want to make it

very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not advocating a total

reservation system by any means, but a percentage of spaces on

every sailing, Vancouver to Nanaimo and Swartz Bay to

Tsawwassen, where reservations would be accepted.

In many instances, I think the typical Vancouver Island or mainland driver

would not need to reserve and, there, wouldn't have to spend that extra money.

But if he or she is on a tight

schedule for business purposes or to keep a personal

appointment or responding to a family emergency in Victoria, Nanaimo or Vancouver,

then the means should be available for that particular driver to be as reasonably

certain as possible of getting on board a particular sailing.

Secondly, in this

age of the ubiquitous credit card, Mr. Speaker, surely this convenient form

of paying a bill could also go to sea aboard our ferry system. Acceptance of

the principle of travel credit cards along with Chargex for cafeteria and dining

room meals should surely be easily arranged by the ferry authority. There must

be many occasions when a family returning from a vacation of a few days or a

few weeks, or a passenger making a last-minute emergency trip, is simply short

of cash; it happens to all of us.

The average family, as we all know, can do the following

things with a credit card: buy gasoline for the car, stay in a

motel or a hotel, go shopping and buy a variety of goods, eat

in many restaurants — all with a credit card. But it cannot use

that credit card in a dining room or cafeteria on board a

British Columbia ferry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, many of the points made by many of the

previous participants in this debate I feel have been

constructive, interesting and thought-provoking. As a new

Member, however, I still question the necessity of protracted

debate such as this going on for many days in the absence of

the bulk of the government's current legislative

programme.

I think it's when specific material is put before us that

we're then able to get down to the serious business for which

we were sent here. For that reason, I've refrained from raising

several matters in these remarks, some of them relating to my

constituency, in favour of taking them to the Minister

concerned.

I hope this government, in spite of its relaxed and casual

attitude, is not in the process of settling too comfortably

into the task of administrating the affairs of British

Columbia. Surely they must know, as we do and as our citizens

know, that there's a vast amount of work to be undertaken for

this province. Thus far in this session we have yet to see any

significant evidence of the vitality and enthusiasm with which

this government indicated it would operate.

There is much to be done and, as one Member of the

opposition, I hope that very few days pass by before we're

presented with specific, carefully considered, detailed and

positive legislation which will permit us to get on with our

job.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by our leader when

he spoke in this debate, this party will continue to offer

logical, constructive and positive opposition. When we feel

that the government's policies are in the best interests of our

citizens, then we shall unashamedly and frankly support those

policies.

At the same time, we shall introduce, as we have already,

private Members' bills designed to outline, to convey, our

party's attitudes and priorities. But when we disagree with

this government and its policies or its proposals, Mr. Speaker,

then the government can expect a most vigorous and positive

opposition. That, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is the essence

of the parliamentary system, and that's why we are here.

[ Page 276 ]

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): At the outset,

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment you again, as I usually do,

on the method by which you keep us rascals in order. I think

that probably your greatest task is on the government side of

the House, as we witnessed today.

I want to also express my pleasure at being invited this

year to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in

Quebec. It was a very fine experience meeting as many

legislators from across Canada as were there, and there was a

good contingent of them. I made a contribution to that August

body. While I have some apprehension as to the powers that that

body might have, I think it is a clearing house for thoughts

and ideas. I hope that some of these can be incorporated into

the procedures of the various legislatures across the

country.

I want to join with the others in wishing the new cabinet

Ministers well, even though their stay may be very short. The

experience, I am sure, will be of great benefit to them.

I want to also compliment the mover and seconder of this

motion that is presently before the House. The mover gave us a

very historical background of the history of farming. It took a

matter of about 15 minutes. The seconder took about 20 minutes

on NDP bouquets to the government. I have a copy, as you will

notice, Mr. Speaker, of the speech that was delivered by His

Honour, for fear of making mistakes. I think, probably, the

speech in itself was probably the greatest mistake.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: The lack of content is very obvious. It again

shows that the programme that we have to look forward to will

be the legislative programme. We have no direction as to what

is coming up in the legislation. Consequently we have no means

of knowing what to prepare for. Fortunately a few pieces of

legislation came in yesterday.

I want to compliment the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr.

Bennett), who I can assure you is going to be of a great deal

of assistance to this little opposition — official opposition — on this side of the House. It's a real pleasure to have the

Member with us and I commend him highly on his remarks the

other day. I hope that I can say as much in such a brief time

as he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

MR. RICHTER: I would like to make a few remarks about my constituency

of Boundary-Similkameen, and some of the important matters that I think should

again be brought to the attention of the government. In 1972, with the general

election, we had many of the NDP Members from the opposition at that time in

the area to support their candidate.

There is a little matter known as the Penticton bypass that

I have brought up in this House for the last 20 years. I'm

wondering what is going to happen; whether we're going to ever

see this bypass, which seemed to be, at the time of the

election, a very simple problem to resolve. This problem was

not as simple as this present government thinks it is and

consequently, nothing has come about.

We have Okanagan Mountain Park.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: No I didn't. That's not solving the problem of

the Penticton bypass.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Stop interrupting the

Member.

MR. RICHTER: The Okanagan Mountain Park was of course a fait

accompli prior to this government. However, a great to-do was

made in the announcements about what was going to happen at

this park. It's a very rugged piece of land, which I think

should be as a wilderness. I don't think anything has to be

done by way of building roads into it or making any access

other than what is there already, because the cry today is for

wilderness areas and that is one area that I think could be

well left as a wilderness area.

Rural electrification programme. We need rural

electrification in the areas where the ranchers live and are

some distance from main powerlines.

The health services in Similkameen I've taken up with the

Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He promises that the matter is

being looked at and studies are being made, but the fact is

that we have the problem there today. Something has to be done

and done very, very soon to take care of those people who are

not able to make their way to where the doctors and hospitals

are located. I'm sure that the Minister will…

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well that certainly proves that the Minister

did listen to the representations that were made to him and I

thank him for that effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been home in a while, have

you?

MR. RICHTER: Yes I have, but I haven't been sick.

[ Page 277 ]

I've had a number of complaints from my constituency — and I

would like to direct this to the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald). This is a matter which has been brought to my

attention. I wasn't aware of it, but it's been brought to my

attention that, because of the immediate vicinity of the

international border in the Rock Creek area, quite a number of

transients, whether they are foreign transients or our own

Canadian transients, are taking up living quarters in abandoned

shacks and so on. The problem is that the people are opposed to

having these people occupy the bathing holes along the river

there and not wear bathing trunks at least. The promiscuity and

the nudity that goes on there is something to behold, they say.

(Laughter.) I almost think that maybe I should make a trip into

my constituency in that area.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to answer

that one. The claim is that the police force are not getting

the backing they need from the Attorney General's Department.

This I don't know, but I do bring it to the attention of the

Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll be up there tomorrow.

MR. RICHTER: Now in relation to an invitation that was

extended to us the other day by the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) regarding land use. Of course,

with the blanket freeze that went on, it didn't necessarily

confine itself to agricultural land totally. All lands were

taken in. My concern is the methods used in designating the

classification of this land.

There are areas that would appear, and probably prove as far

as soil tests are concerned, as being agricultural land. But

there are a number of other factors which have a bearing on the

viability of that land and those are the soil type, the

availability of irrigation at an economical rate and the types

of crops which can be produced and which will return a viable

remuneration to the farmer. These are areas that I feel

definitely should have further attention. In so doing, your

classification on many, many pieces of property will fall much

below that in which the soil type alone was the criteria in

classification.

I want to say something about marketing boards which were

brought up by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) in relation to

the broiler marketing board. Of course we have the problems

with a tree fruit marketing board and two factions.

Marketing boards, in their original concept, were a method by which the producers

could control their production and the marketing of that commodity in concert

with the demand. But today, with the fruit board and the breakaway group, we

have nothing more than the tearing down of an institution — well, it may not

at all times proven to be the best method; it was a method in which improvements

could be brought in by those who were in charge. In many cases, I have criticized

them for not bringing in newer methods in the marketing of their fruit.

But what is happening today — and I'm sorry that the

Minister of Agriculture isn't here — we have seen very, very

little intervention by the government in trying to resolve this

problem, or assist in some way in resolving this battle. Last

weekend we had fruit seized that was coming to the coast. I

know that this is against the tree fruits marketing board

scheme, but it appears to me that the government is sitting

idly by, hoping that these two adversaries will tear each other

apart to the point that the government will have to step in,

form a Crown corporation and say, "Well you can't resolve your

own problems. You can't run your own business. We'll run it for

you. We'll do the marketing. We'll tell you what to grow." And

again we will have the socialist philosophy of control of

production.

I have read the agricultural committee's report and I

disagree in one or two areas with this report, particularly in

relation to the control of grazing, where it has been referred

to the Department of Agriculture. Whether the government takes

this action or not, is yet to be seen; but if they do they're

going to have a greater problem on their hands then than they

have now, because you're going to have two departments

attempting to administer grazing land which can also be timber

land. I have the firm conviction that, where we have multiple

use, it should be that one department operates that resource

area, whether it's grazing, timber or land.

As far as the sheep-killing plant is concerned, that may

have been a good idea a few years ago but, through the wildlife

groups, the federation of wildlife, they have virtually

eliminated domestic sheep grazing on the ranges. Today we have

only small flocks, and to have enough of a home-produced

resource, by way of lambs or of mutton as far as that's

concerned, to maintain a packing house it just isn't in British

Columbia. And any of the packing houses that are here today can

readily process these animals. I know this. I have been

connected with this industry for quite a few years and I know

that there is no problem there. However, those are only minor

items and are really of not too much concern.

Our forest policies — or, let us say, threatened policies — in relation to a revised stumpage appraisal have brought a

flood of mail to my desk. I can see a great number of problems

that the forestry industries are going to be faced with,

especially where there are low-grade stands of timber and where

they are attempting to salvage decadent trees and trees of low

productivity as far as lumber is concerned, top-grade

[ Page 278 ]

lumber. The Interior is probably the area in which there is

more of this type of timber than there is in the rain forest.

There is a very great degree of concern in that particular

area.

Mr. Speaker, I have chosen just a few topics to discuss

today. On the matter of housing, which has been mentioned many

times in this Legislature and of recent date, there was a

statement of our Premier concerning housing in August when he

said that the housing situation had gone from bad to terrible

in British Columbia during his administration's first year in

office and was going to get worse. The fact is that many

disruptive moves of the NDP-installed bureaucracy have done

untold damage to the housing inventory of British Columbia and,

indeed, to the initiative to get action.

The leasehold land, which was spoken of today, for

residences and the emphasis on public housing are proven

failures in every jurisdiction that has tried it in the past.

It is not the answer to a mixed stock of housing. The lead time

for getting housing projects of any size under way to take

advantage of any of the economies of scale has drastically

lengthened in practical terms.

The 1973 construction year must be considered a wipeout, and

the prospects for 1974 are totally clouded. Housing initiatives

announced thus far by the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) — and I'm sorry he is not in the House — such as the

university endowment lands fiasco, have not clarified the

picture at all.

Municipal planners are at a standstill and are trying to

determine where residential housing should be permitted.

Central control of housing initiative is simply bogging the

system down. Small operators, who make up a substantial part of

the housing production sector, are simply not proceeding

because they cannot stand any bureaucratic delays, with their

limited capital resources.

True to form, the socialists have continued the ideological

hang-up they have had that only the public sector can produce

housing at a price one can afford to pay.

As far as welfare is concerned, Mr. Premier, your government

has added greatly to the inflationary fire in this province.

The psychology of inflation is dominating the labour scene in

particular. The Mincome plan is a sham. Last year a $17.12

increase to the old-age security, a Canada-guaranteed income

supplement, was absorbed by the British Columbia government.

The recent $9.02 increase announced is simply passing along the

federal old-age security increases.

In short, using 14 per cent as the increase in the cost-of-living index since

last year, the bare minimum for senior citizens should be $228 per month. The

guaranteed income bill has been amended to reflect the 14 per cent increase.

In the case of senior citizens it has increased to reflect a 14 per cent increase

on $225 — making the current position of this party on income to those over

65 to $250 per month.

Further, in the social assistance handbook, of which all

Members have a copy, on page 3 under "eligibility" and on page

5 under "transient" there is a passport to prosperity. As a

matter of fact, an invitation contained in the pamphlet is

becoming a passport for transients from all over Canada and the

United States. Furthermore, the community councils being

established reflect the welfare workers' point of view

entirely.

We have in British Columbia now a welfare state on a scale

never before contemplated. The investment climate in this

province has seen a very great decrease of interest by

investors from outside the province, who could come here and

invest their capital, develop resources and help the economy of

this province. With the exception of the so-called Northern

Development Plan which, in fact, was a negotiated programme

between the BCR and the CNR, together with the socialist

adventurism into business involvement, there has not been in a

year a single major economic initiative in British

Columbia.

The lack of initiative involves the public sector as well

for, with the exception of public works and highways contracts,

which were either underway or announced, there are no public

works or highway initiatives underway at the present time, with

the exception of the millions which the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) has described as necessary for the

renovation of the parliament buildings.

Mining has been cut virtually in half. There was an

announcement in August that the recording of mineral claims in

the first six months of 1973 is down 50 per cent from what it

was a year ago. The August sale of oil and gas rights stood at

just approximately 50 per cent of the sale at the same period

of August, 1972. The return of the parity bonds is a further

indicator of the growing lack of confidence in British Columbia

finance.

Consumerism. While the NDP in Ottawa are decrying the prices

review board as a toothless creature, the Minister of consumer

affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) in British Columbia goes on

province-wide television to admit that she has no tools to do

the job. The Hon. Minister does have, however, the salary, the

office and the executive assistant to go along with her

non-programme.

Successive increases in milk prices and egg prices have been

met with a deafening silence on the part of the consumer

affairs Minister. Furthermore, her quoted answer to high meat

prices is simply to "buy cheaper cuts." I would presume that

wieners are a cheaper form of meat, but the price of wieners

has risen 32 per cent.

Using the United States as an example, and because it is

considered the richest country in the

[ Page 279 ]

world — on earth…I suppose that would include also the

space platform that they have up there. No, it was just the

workers that came down yesterday. It is interesting to examine

wages of the Ministers and associate bureaucrats with wage

levels in the United States.

Based on median family incomes in 1972, only 7 per cent of

the family incomes reported exceeded $25,000. It is therefore

obvious that the bureaucratic positions created by the NDP

government are extending well beyond market levels and exceed

those median figures established in the richest country on

earth.

I think it is wise to bog down the salary levels established

by the NDP to a per-day allowance, which is more readily

appreciated by the man on the street. Top deputies start at

$175 per day; horizontally-promoted deputies start at $150 per

day; top deputies are fixed at $190 per day. The salaries and

expenses allowance of the Premier, based only on 330 days of

work per year, is $210 per day. In his case, this involves

substantial tax exemptions. Exempted are (a) $18,000 expenses,

(b) $13,500 sessional indemnity exempt. That's a total of

$31,500 in exemptions.

There is a rip off in British Columbia but it is taking

place across the desks of the NDP Ministers. Comparable figures

for Crown agencies involved in insurance, Hydro, BCR and the

Energy Board are known.

In addition to fixed-salary situations, a whole range of per

diem allowances have been involved in the Liquor Control Board,

the Land Commission insurance board and a number of other

boards which are to be established. These range anywhere up to

$300 per day. These so-called advisory commissions are simply

further outlets for talented NDP Members. The amounts of lard

in the NDP superstructure are so great, that even Fotheringham

is wincing a little.

AN HON. MEMBER: The gravy train.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, since this government has been in

office for a year, I have prepared a socialist report card and

I want to stick very closely to the report card. Most people in

British Columbia wanted to give the new government a fair

chance and so were really not willing to give any ratings to

their performance. However, now, after one year in office, the

basic ratings which can be assigned to the activities and

thoughts of this government are quite glaringly obvious.

The first subject, number one — sanctity of contracts.

The government has shown total disdain for the sanctity of previous agreements.

Security of tenure in the forest and mining industries, based upon long-standing

agreements, is clearly in jeopardy. The philosophy behind the PNE deal, even

it's not proclaimed, is dangerous. The massive increase for leas fees and taxation

on small recreational holdings is alarming. Bad faith on the part of any government

is an extremely dangerous characteristic. The rating: Failure!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, oh!

MR. RICHTER: Number two, bureaucracy. Nearly 6,000 people

have been added to the payrolls of the civil service in just 12

months of socialist government. The handmaiden of bureaucracy

under socialism is patronage. Rampant bureaucracy is bad

enough, but the blatant patronage with which the NDP has been

associated is unforgivable. Rating: Failure!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. RICHTER: Inflation control. The basic source of all

inflation is government attitude and action. While inflation is

worldwide, the inflationary forces in British Columbia were let

loose by extravagant salary increases, extravagant labour

agreements. The chickens are coming home to roost now, because

groups like the teachers have simply cited the agreements made

with other members of the public service as the whole reason

for inflationary increases rising upwards to 15 per cent.

Inflation is as much psychological as it is mechanical, and

the socialist government of British Columbia has, by example,

done more to flame inflation in British Columbia than any other

government in Canada. Your rating: Failure!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. RICHTER: The subject matter of number four, freedom of

association. The Public Works Fair Employment Act is an example

of discrimination on a wide scale. It is really designed to

have government the determiner of whether or not a person will

have a free right to join or not to join a trade union, and no

amount of special exemptions, like those offered by the moving

business, can hide the true intent of this bill, as it has been

practised in the field. The doubletalk by the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) cannot camouflage that freedom of

association in British Columbia is no longer the guiding

philosophical direction of this government. Your rating is: A

failure!

Fair taxation. The immediate 20 per cent increase on large

and small businesses alike, when the surplus position of the

government is admitted to be high, is simply discrimination

against one sector of the economy. The idea of cause and effect

seems to play no

part in the socialist understanding of the

[ Page 280 ]

economy. Who can deny that the taxation directly applied

provincially will cause an increase in the price paid by every

British Columbia consumer? Similarly, the new taxation levels

applied to amendments to the Assessment Equalization Act and

municipalities will cause prices to rise for every man on the

street. Indeed, the discrimination against commercial

enterprises will cause many small businesses to go under, and

again your rating is failure.

Investment climate. Already mining claims in British

Columbia are down 50 per cent over the previous year, which I

mentioned previously. Bids for exploration leases in the

natural gas and petroleum industries of British Columbia were

down 50 per cent in August this year over last year. There is

not one single new capital investment in the forest industry,

except that which you made by your royal commissions…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why don't you read the papers?

MR. RICHTER: …and your Crown corporations. In spite of

the fact that prices for forest products are at an all time

high and the demand for pulp products is at an all time high in

the world's history, it is ridiculous that rationing of pulp

products is taking place at a time when the British Columbia

potential is being ignored by the investment world. Again, your

rating is: Failure!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. You're failing.

MR. RICHTER: On the subject of housing. Initiatives by the

government in throwing a maze of red tape around land use

planning in British Columbia, have caused an artificial

scarcity in home sites. The NDP have a hang-up that only the

public sector can provide adequate housing, in spite of the

fact that public housing ventures in socialist countries such

as Denmark, Sweden and Norway are proven failures, and waiting

lists for public rental accommodations can be up as high as

seven and eight years. No wonder even the Premier admits, and I

quote: "The housing picture in British Columbia has gone from

bad to worse." Again your rating is a failure.

Subject: decentralized government. The NDP has shown that

the socialists can't govern without absolute central control.

All the legislation points in the direction of central control.

Municipalities and regional districts have had their local

decision-making process stripped from them. Central control and

planning is the hang-up of all socialists, and nowhere is it

more in evidence than in British Columbia. Your rating is a

failure.

Efficiency in economy. No amount of picture-taking by the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) can hide the extravagance of the government offices.

The little government for the little people of British Columbia has proven itself

to be a government of creature comforts. Even the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) must have blushed when he said the other day, "Forgive us our

small extravagances."

MRS. JORDAN: Right on.

MR. RICHTER: Again your rating is failure.

The Speech from the Throne this session, and the one last

session, in no way indicated what the legislative programme of

the government was to be. The budget last spring was not a true

disclosure of the government's spending intentions. Special

warrants for major expenditures have come from behind the green

doors at the end of this building in a flood.

Order-in-council government is practised on a scale that

makes a mockery of the rights of this Legislature. When one

recalls the statements about orders-in-council made by the

government opposite when it was in opposition, the record they

have made so far is cynical and hypocritical. Again, your

rating is a failure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And your speech is a failure.

MR. RICHTER: The subject: fair compensation. Fair

compensation for land required for the public purposes is no

longer policy in British Columbia. My colleague from down in

the Liberal benches today gave quite a dissertation on that

very fact. An entire industry — the insurance industry — was

wiped out without fair compensation, despite the fact that,

while acting as Leader of the Opposition, the Premier promised

proper compensation to people who wrote him about the future of

the insurance business under a socialist government. His letter

to the concerned people in the industry proved to be

meaningless. As Member after Member opposite gets up, seeking

the takeover of yet another industry, is it any wonder, with

the record of the fair compensation they have built up to date,

that there is fear everywhere in British Columbia? Again your

rating is a failure.

Federal-provincial deals. The agreement tabled in the House this last week

on railway development in British Columbia, is a classic example of poor financial

management on the part of the government. In the agreement, they forgot all

the claims to federal sharing for the capital investment in the BCR (formerly

the PGE). In return they will be sharing the capital costs of all the new railway

extensions in British Columbia. They will enter the normally federally-financed

harbour business at Prince Rupert and they will cost the British Columbia taxpayers

in the provincial sense, tens of millions of dollars.

[ Page

281 ]

The former government had an arrangement which would have

provided that the federal government bear the full cost of all

CNR lines in the province; the former government sought federal

sharing for the rail extensions to the BCR, sharing which is

not a precedent because it had been done in other provinces.

The former government, as well, had no intention of

relinquishing any claims to recovering some of the capital

costs already spent on the PGE.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, the federal Minister, the Hon. Mr.

Marchand, certainly saw the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) opposite coming, and he took him on a ride. Your

rating in that particular area again is a failure.

In the public school system of British Columbia, any

individual getting a report card such as this one would be

asked to repeat the year. However, no one in their right mind

would ask the government opposite to repeat the year they have

had with the record they have displayed to date. In the public

school system, with a failing grade like this one, there would

probably be a recommendation for special classes or special

remedial work.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the disease that the

Members have opposite is incurable. They have a basic hang-up

that individuals in a free society are not to be trusted with

the decision-making process and that only the government,

surrounded by high-priced help, can do the job. In the

post-secondary educational world, a record such as that hung up

by the Members opposite would be cause for the university

community to tell the students, "Further course work in this

subject is likely to be unrewarding." In former years, in the

university community, they would have been awarded a BAC

degree: Bounced At Christmas. Unfortunately, that degree cannot

be awarded by this Legislature.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the people of

British Columbia will be awarding that degree to the government

opposite, whether the tests come at Christmastime or any other

time.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) went to South Okanagan and stated clearly that the

election is really an opportunity for the people to pass upon

the record of the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, they did. And,

very shortly, we here in this House will pass upon the record

of this government.

I can assure you that the official opposition will be

assigning a failing grade by voting against the Speech from the

Throne, which was so vacant in content, so lacking in the

spelling out of the government's direction, and so typical of

what we have now come to expect from the socialists opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I

am to be able to participate in this debate. But I must say

that I'm surprised at the former speaker and at the marks he

gave out to the cabinet Members. It seems there's a great deal

of competition among the opposition benches, the Social Credit

party, to determine which one of them can become leader. One of

the methods they've devised, obviously, is a new form of game.

We have the Bingo game and now we're playing school. The

message I got from the Hon. teacher across the way was that he

wanted to bring back the strap.

But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't impressed with his

assignment of grades. He seemed pleased; he was impressed with

the fact that he could stand up and point to this government

and say that in his opinion we've been failures.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I accept his

opinion with grace. But I would have worried had he said we

were passing, because with that kind of approval we would then

have been able to say that we were just as bad as the former

government. As long as the Social Credit Party says we're a

failure, we're okay.

Everything they stand for, everything they went out to do in

this province, they claim they did the best. I'm almost

embarrassed on behalf of that Member, embarrassed by the fact

that he got up in this House and said for 20 years he's been

trying to get a road in his constituency and he wasn't

successful. Now, if that isn't failure, I don't know what

is.

I've enjoyed the remarks of the other Members in the House

during the debate. I always enjoy the good doctor from Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) who used to be a Liberal leader. He hasn't

forgotten that experience; every once in a while it comes

charging back through him, still giving out budgets, gratuitous

advice. I enjoy his evaluation of the financial structure of

the Province of British Columbia.

Got a new Liberal leader this year; a little bit more

petulant than he was a year ago, a little bit more picayune

than he was a year ago, and, in the South Okanagan, a lot less

votes than they got a year ago. They are a disaster, Mr.

Speaker. The Liberal Party of British Columbia should be moved,

seats and all, right over to the museum. They should be taken

over there and housed and given comfort so they can be a living

museum piece for a once-great party.

Now what is it down to? Ten per cent. But what did the

candidate say in South Okanagan? He said," I'm not fighting

the Barrett government. Everywhere I go I'm fighting Trudeau."

Well, that's his problem.

But anyway, I noticed, too, that the Member said the people

in South Okanagan gave a resounding expression of what they

thought of politics in British Columbia. Social Credit dropped

from 51 per cent

[ Page 282 ]

down to 39 per cent. That's some expression; that's some

expression. With that kind of drop across the Province of

British Columbia, we would have to move you in with the

Liberals as museum pieces. But you're a great gang and you're

all really trying very hard.

Who's going to get control of the Social Credit

free-enterprise fund?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Gunderson.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that Member shouldn't speak;

he's out of his seat. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But anyway, Mr. Speaker, that's what it's

really all about. Who's going to control those campaign funds?

And really, why don't you come out and say how much is involved

in those campaign funds and who's running the show now since

the old guard is gone and who signs the cheques for the Social

Credit education fund?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You do? You're so new, they wouldn't even

let you in on a board meeting. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other comments related to some

of the things suggested in the debate.

First of all, I want to thank the Members who have really

adapted in their own way to what we hope is the new style of

politics in British Columbia. I want to thank the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) who yesterday, in his

duties as an MLA, stayed in his constituency, examined what the

problem was and offered help on his behalf — the best he could

do. He phoned my office twice and gave my office information as

to that situation as it developed. I want to thank him

publicly.

Other Members throughout the last year in their committee

activities have said things publicly that I acknowledge.

Certainly the first year we've had with committees has not been

perfect, but it has not been a failure. I noticed that even the

Leader of the Opposition did not suggest the committee work was

a failure. I'm pleased with the fact that all-party co