1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Liden — 5

Mr. Gorst — 9

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, seated

on the floor of the House this morning, just behind me, I'd like to

introduce to the House several people. The first is Mayor Constable of

Burnaby, and seated next to Mayor Constable is a former Member of the

Legislature whom I know many of us remember very well and who is now a

Member of Parliament, Mr. Ran Harding, and his wife, Mrs. Harding.

I am also very proud to introduce to you another former Member of the Legislature, Mrs. Grace MacInnis, MP.

Introduction of bills

Orders of the day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in

presenting the following motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst): "That the following address be presented to His

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

" 'We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects,

the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg

leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has

addressed to us at the opening of the present session.' "

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to be moving the Speech from the

Throne, and I thank the people from Delta who have given me this

opportunity.

Reference was made in His Honour's speech to the nation's energy

problems, and I think that draws attention to the whole energy question

in the world today, because it's important not only to British

Columbia, and to Canada, and to North America, but to the whole world.

How quickly problems arise when there's a curtailment of energy in this

world today.

There have been warnings over the years by the people who are

concerned for the future — the environmental people. Books have been

presented, papers have been presented, conferences have been held, but

few people have been listening. Few people have listened when there

have been statements about the problems that they've seen on the

horizon. But the activities of last year must make it clear to everyone

that any shortage of energy in the world has an effect on everyone's

daily life, and certainly has an effect on the political structure of

the world.

The shortage of fuel, it was proven, can start wars and it can stop

wars, and even now in this delicate peace we have threats being made by

people in some of the larger nations that if things don't change in the

way of lifting embargoes and so on they won't be allowed to continue in

that manner. Those are very serious statements, because they could

bring us to a terrible situation.

Our resources in British Columbia and in Canada are the most

valuable resources that we really have, and they must be treated as the

most important asset that we have.

We have to plan the use of our resources, not only for the people of

British Columbia but for all Canadians. We have to be prepared to

share, we have to be prepared to work together in Canada on this matter

and, most of all, we have to have public control of those resources.

It must be clear now, even to those supporters of the oil companies,

even to those people who have stood in this House and talked in support

of the oil companies, that we can't allow that resource to be used for

profit first and for the people's needs second.

Surely we can all agree with the statements made by our Premier at that energy conference in Ottawa....

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Hear, hear! He's the only one that makes sense.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Where is he now?

Mr. Liden: While the Premier was telling all of the people of

Canada that the Standard Oil Company had paid no taxes in British

Columbia, I sat in Washington state and watched this on television,

because they keep track of what happens in Canada as well. And if you

turned to another station you could watch the same oil companies

appearing before a Senate committee in the United States and trying to

explain away why they're only paying 2 and 4 per cent taxes in the

United States. And the reason, they said, was that they're paying up to

50 per cent taxes in other countries. Well, that certainly doesn't

apply in Canada.

When our Premier was telling all of Canada what was happening, many

people in Canada saw that programme. I've had calls, and I've had

letters, and I've spoken to many people who are proud of B.C.'s

representation. They are proud of our Premier's presentation, they are

proud of the way it was done, and I share that feeling.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

[ Page 6 ]

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): You'll make the cabinet if you keep it up!

Mr. Liden: You'll get your turn. I can't even hear you up there — you're just making noises.

Having said that, and thinking about the so-called crisis, I want to

raise the question as to whether there really was a crisis, or if there

is a crisis even now. I don't want to minimize the situation as it

existed in the Middle East and the shortage of oil, but it seemed to me

that the shortage was shipped into a crisis by people who had something

to gain from that situation. During the time that there was supposed to

be such a shortage of oil, I'm told there was a television programme

that showed large tankers anchored off the east coast of the United

States waiting to be unloaded of oil. And they weren't being unloaded.

The question has to be asked: why? Why was the crisis situation created

out of what was originally talked about as a shortage, and who could

gain from such a situation?

Well, it's pretty obvious. It's pretty obvious that the oil

companies had a great deal to be gained from the thing because if you

think of what's happened and what's been happening, the environmental

concerns in this country and in the United States have been developing

a case against the trans-Alaska pipeline; they've been doing it for

some time. They've also been developing a case against the famous

tanker route, the tanker route that's supposed to go along our coast in

the Juan de Fuca Strait, through Puget Sound, up through Rosario

Straits and into Cherry Point. And the support was building for those

people and for their cause. Most of all, it was important that it was

building in the United States.

Well, what happened as a result of the shortage and the crisis

situation and the hysteria that was created? There's been a tremendous

setback for the environmental concerns. What's happened to the

pipeline? It seems to be in full swing, everything going ahead. Who's

saying much about the tanker route today? Everywhere I travelled in the

United States in the last couple of weeks I heard people very, very

critical of the environment — concerned people. They're under attack

because all of a sudden there's a crisis that seems to be created to

accomplish something. Many times in history we've seen that people in a

crisis situation take the easy way out. It would appear to me that once

again we're seeing history repeat itself.

There's perhaps one more issue that's at stake and that's the

question of the price of oil. If the oil companies win that, I'm sure

the oil will flow — there'll be lots of oil again — and the whole

cause, the whole crisis situation, would have been worthwhile. I'm

hopeful that, perhaps when the dust settles, the leaders in this

country, in Canada, accept their real responsibility and see the

picture as it really is, and will develop legislation and regulations

that will treat the energy resource in the interests of the people

instead of the interests of the oil cartels.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver-Point Grey): Specifics.

Mr. Liden: In the session last fall, I spoke about the

Workmen's Compensation Board and some changes that I wanted to see, and

I suggested some pretty drastic changes. I notice in His Honour's

speech that there are some amendments proposed. I'm hopeful — I should

say, I guess, that I'm confident — that those amendments will bring

about greater benefits to workers, and I'm hopeful that the benefits

will be easier to obtain. But because the speech referred to the

amendments instead of the new Act, I think we're beginning at least to

solve the problems. I guess we won't solve them all in one day. But I

want to say this: from the things that I've heard from the workers in

British Columbia, the whole attitude of the Workmen's Compensation

Board has changed. It's improved, it's a more humane place now, and

it's a better place to deal. I'm pleased and I compliment the

government for that.

Mr. Speaker, much of my constituency of Delta is lowlands. It's

flood plains. It's not only Chilliwack that has flood plains. Some of

us in the lower Fraser Valley have them as well. Because of that, of

course, we're very concerned about dikes and drainage systems. Delta,

I'm pleased, has entered into an agreement with the government to

rebuild all the dikes in Delta. I know that that's a real financial

hardship on any municipality and we're always hopeful in pressing for

changes in the method of financing, but it's encouraging that at least

the government and the municipality have started the work. It's

encouraging to see that the work has started because, you know, the

concern for diking in that area isn't something that's brand new. There

was a letter written by Mr. W. McKee, the Delta municipal clerk, to the

government engineer in Victoria. It was dated August 3, 1891, and it

said:

"I'm instructed by Delta council to write to you and

to ascertain what time you can come and report on the work proposed

under the Boundary Bay diking scheme and to urge that you set as early

a date as possible.

"Hoping to hear from you soon, I remain your obedient servant..."

That was written in 1891; that's 83 years ago.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Was it answered? (Laughter.)

Mr. Liden: I'm not sure. But I know this: in that time, from

that time to this, we've had 60 years of various Liberal and

Progressive Conservative

[ Page 7 ]

governments, we've had 20 years of Social Credit

government, and we've had a year and a half of a New Democratic Party

government. Now, for the first time, the work is underway, and I think

that's a credit to the new government.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) recently made public the

Foulkes Report on the changes needed in health care in this province.

Already there are some very interesting comments, good comments. People

are saying that this very exhaustive report is going to create some new

and great improvements in the delivery of health care in this province.

I'm sure that they're going to be gradual improvements because there

are so many recommendations there. I don't intend to deal with all

those recommendations in my presentation here today.

But I do want to deal with one of them — recommendation No. 254. The

reason I want to deal with that one is.... Well, I want to read it to

the House. It says that discussion begin immediately to prepare

legislation to make fluoridation of major water supplies mandatory in

the province. It also goes on to say that there should be some grants

and aids for the cost of installations and so on.

Now I'm not qualified to judge the value of fluoridation, nor am I

qualified to judge all the arguments that have been put up against

fluoridation. But I think it's morally wrong to put fluoridation in the

water when 50 per cent of the people have some very grave doubts as to

its value. I don't think that we really know everything that we should

know about that situation. We don't know everything there is to know

about the long-term effects.

Some years ago we had some referenda on this matter. At that time I

was involved in municipal affairs and chaired some of those meetings. I

listened to some very well-documented presentations from those who were

in favour and from those who were against. But every time, those who

attended the meetings, I believe, either came there with their minds

made up or left more confused that when they came.

The votes of the areas that have had referenda on the matter have

generally been quite split. I think it's been about a 50-50 split. But

recently, in the State of Washington, something else has happened.

There's an

article in the Sunday Herald

in Bellingham on January 27 which says: "A Whatcom County senior court

jury unanimously awarded $130,500 damage to a couple for loss of

enjoyment and the loss of use of their property because of fluoride

emissions from a nearby aluminum plant."

I suppose it can be said that there's a great deal of difference

between emissions from an aluminum plant and what might be put into the

water supply. But it does raise the question, and I don't think that we

know all of the answers. In fact, there's a document produced called Environmental Fluoride ;

it was produced by the National Research Council of Canada, 1971. Under

a heading "Toxic Effects, " they say: "As far as is known, no Canadian

hospital or medical laboratory routinely conducts diagnostic fluoride

analysis."

They go on to say: "It's difficult to document the effects of fluoride on man in Canada." That's the National Research Council.

We've established that fluoride is a pollutant; it may be dangerous.

I suggest, there, that we tread very carefully and cautiously on this

matter. I suggest that the Minister look at what's happening in some of

the other countries. In the United States there are some cities that

have had fluoridation in their water for a number of years and are

either taking it out or considering taking it out. Of course, there are

others still putting it in. So there's no real direction from there.

But there are some other things happening as well.

In Sweden they have a mouthwash programme that's handled through the

public school system, which means that all of the children are able to

have a mouthwash programme daily except if their parents object; then

they can be free of it. Now perhaps there's a great difference between

a mouthwash situation and the taking of fluoridation internally. But

for those who wish to take fluoridation internally, ways can be found

to handle that as well.

I'm convinced that if we really want to find those solutions, all we

need to do is look at the iodized salt situation of a number of years

ago, where you could buy salt that was not iodized and other salt that

was iodized. Perhaps we could do the same thing with bread for

fluoridation. We could have bread that's differently marked by coloured

wrappers and so on on the shelf alongside bread that is free of

fluoridation. So those who want to take it internally, can. I suggest

that while the Foulkes Report is going to go a long way in improving

the health care in this province, I hope, before we get into all of the

recommendations, that the Minister will take a good look at this whole

question of fluoridation.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour mentioned the new departments that were

created in the session last fall; and housing, of course, ranks as one

of the major problems that we face in British Columbia. We need more

housing of all kinds in the lower Fraser Valley. But we don't need them

all in one place.

I said something about that last fall in the session — in Delta

we've had a 50 per cent growth in five years. I say what we need now is

co-operation from all of the municipalities so that they can bring new

areas of homes into production, new ideas, and get a lot more building

lots on stream. I'm hopeful that we will have full co-operation from

all of the municipalities so we can spread out the requirements for

housing in the Fraser Valley.

The rapid expansion of population in Delta

[ Page 8 ]

created some other problems. The rapid expansion

created transportation problems which mean we not only need roads and

bridges but we also need a public transportation system.

This government inherited a non-existent transportation system. When

we came, to power there wasn't anything in the way of buses in our

area. As a matter of fact, we watched the thing decline to poorer and

poorer service until it became absolutely non-existent. We're pleased

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has announced that

there'll be 200 new buses arriving in British Columbia some time this

year and most of them will go into service in our area.

I'm convinced that if we produce good service — what I mean by that

is buses on a very regular

schedule — economical service, so that it

doesn't cost so much to travel by bus, and we give buses some priority

of movement so they'll be able to get by the lineups, there will be a

lot of people using the buses and it will be greatly appreciated by the

people. Once again I say to the government, you're moving in the very

important areas and you are to be complimented by the people who need

these buses and will be using them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, while there are many new and encouraging programmes

being developed, I feel we really haven't done quite enough in the

environmental problems of the province. I'm referring primarily to the

situation once again that we inherited, where there was a decision made

by the previous government that there would have to be primary

treatment of the sewage in the Lower Fraser Valley by January 1, 1975.

In the first few months of the new government, after holding

meetings with all of the people concerned, the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) made an announcement

of a new government policy that said that we would not tolerate primary

treated, heavily chlorinated sewage being dumped in the Fraser River

from the Annacis Island plant, that we had to have secondary treatment

or better.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District was advised of that policy,

but they disagreed. They felt it was not necessary and they've appealed

that ruling and, in effect, have been dragging their feet on a very

important issue. They've not carried out the instruction because they

weren't convinced it was necessary.

Recent studies have indicated that we were right, that the Minister

was quite correct in his announcement of the new policy, that there's a

great threat to the fisheries if we have heavily chlorinated sewage

dumped into the Fraser all in one spot. We need action now from the

GVRD. I call upon them now to withdraw their appeal and get on with the

job and build a secondary treatment plant.

Throughout the time they've been wasting and delaying, the marine

life could be drowning in our filth. You know, it's said that tide and

time waits for no man and I guess that can be said about pollution too.

There's a growing population on both sides of the river and we

haven't found a way we can stop them from using the sewage system; we

haven't found a way that we can stop that from happening. But we do

know we can treat it. We can clean up that river and it must be done.

But that's not the only thing that affects the Fraser River. We've

got our share of log barges which come in there and dump logs in the

river — some float, some don't — bark and all the other debris that

goes to the bottom. We've also had our share of oil spills. The mighty

Fraser is becoming a mighty dirty Fraser.

It seems to me that we've got to move here as a province and

establish an environmental protection service; hire some qualified

people; give them some authority, turn them loose and tell them to

clean up the Fraser. I'm sure it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, for years, perhaps for decades, the farmers have been

providing food for the cities, not only here but all over. And most of

the time the farmers have been going short because of low returns and

because of their kind of life. They've not really shared in the

improvements in living conditions which so many of us have shared —

like the 8-hour day, the 40-hour week, regular holidays and that sort

of thing. Farmers get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and they're faced

with having to do that every day in the week because there are things

like cattle that just don't take holidays.

Government policy that was established here in our first session to

have select standing committees travel around the province, go out into

the field, seek out the problems and recommend solutions certainly has

been worthwhile in the agriculture field. The agriculture committee

brought in a report last year and a great deal of legislation was

introduced in the fall session. One particular piece of legislation was

the Farm Income Assurance Act, and there have been results already.

Recently the Minister and the representative of the dairymen made an

announcement which to me meant that for the first time in history

farmers were going to have a guaranteed cost of production. That's a

credit to the Minister and the new government.

A spokesman for the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was on a radio

programme not very long ago and he said that now for the first time the

farmers have an opportunity to hire retiring farmers, use them for a

day or two a week so that they can get some holidays, so they can get a

day off.

I think there's more to it than that because while the farmer should be getting some days off and living

[ Page 9 ]

the way the rest of us do, the farmers like

everyone else have their contributions to make to society; they should

be participating in what goes on in their communities. But they've had

a very difficult time doing that because they've never been able to get

involved in a proper manner. It's taken a very long time to get some

benefits out of the changing society, but for the first time that has

happened and it's encouraging.

We still have a great many problems in agriculture, of course. Last

summer everyone was very well aware that beef prices went up. There was

a great deal of publicity to the escalating meat prices in the grocery

stores. Of course the farmer had some increases in the sale of his

beef, but his cost of production went up just as rapidly — the cost of

hay, the cost of feed, and so on. The retail stores, of course, passed

that on to the consumer immediately. But few people are aware that

recently the price of beef to the farmer has gone down. And the reason

they're not aware is that it really hasn't gone down in the grocery

store. If it has, it's been only slightly, That's what's happening:

when the farm prices go up, of course everybody knows about it; when

farm prices decline, very few people know about it because it really

doesn't decline for the consumer, that very important place.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour's speech mentioned the Pharmacare programme

which has been introduced by the government and hailed that as

something new in Canada. I believe, when we look at the increases in

pensions for the senior citizens of this province, the Mincome that has

been provided for those aged 60 to 65 and the Pharmacare altogether,

B.C. not only leads Canada but I think it leads North America in the

way we treat senior citizens. The government should be complimented for

that.

This government has come through with more success in carrying out

their election programme than any other government in the past. This

year's throne speech, Mr. Speaker, indicates that there will be a

continuation of that tremendous success.

Mr. Gardom: Turn the meter on!

Mr. J.H. Gorst (Esquimalt): Well, you wouldn't be able to pay for it, even though we all know of your great wealth.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): You're a tired taxi driver.

Mr. Gorst: Well, someone once told me they lived the longest and stay strong to the end, so be careful.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me today to second

the motion in the address by the Hon. Member for Delta in which he

thanked His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor for his most gracious

Speech from the Throne which His Honour addressed to this assembly

yesterday upon the opening of this the fourth session of the 30th

Parliament of British Columbia.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the

majority of electors would agree with me, that this government has

continued to carry out the promises it made before being elected.

Its philosophy is a simple one: to help the people and to ensure

that everyone benefits from both the abundance of natural resources we

have in British Columbia and the energy and foresight of working and

living here.

We know there has been a huge backlog of problems that have had to

be solved; problems that were purely the result of the inertia of the

previous government and problems that could have been handled if only

they had shown the same kind of enthusiasm to serve the people that we

have seen from this present government.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, few people have criticized this government for

its wide range of activities; only that it was difficult to keep up

with us. That seems to me to be a pretty healthy criticism. In fact,

looking over the bills passed in the fall session, I am impressed by

the high percentage of those aimed to help citizens in all walks of

life and to protect their rights and interests — something that had

been rarely considered before.

I was particularly pleased with the Human Rights Code of British

Columbia Act which prevents discrimination by landlords and employers

for sex, religion or on any other grounds, enforces equal pay for equal

work for men and women, gives an employee the chance to seek

retroactive equalization pay, and outlaws discrimination in employment

advertisements.

The last one, of course, raises the question of how you advertise. A

nurse can, of course, be male or female, but I see in the papers there

are still advertisements for a "girl Friday" and a "carpet salesman"

and a "woods foreman". Maybe they should advertise for a "Friday

person", a "salesperson", a "foreperson" in the same way that, in those

committee meetings where the members are very socially conscious, they

always ask for a ruling from the "chairperson." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Gorst: I would like to refer to other legislation, Mr.

Speaker, in the last session which the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) did refer to. This is like hockey: you get an instant replay

when you're running second.

I consider the Farm Income Assurance Act to be of great benefit to

many farmers in British Columbia, all of whom are struggling to produce

the necessary

[ Page 10 ]

agricultural products against an ever-increasing

spiral of rising costs of production for them. We know that the farm

community, the agricultural community, while it may not be large in

total financial contribution in the province, nevertheless is one of

great importance when a people consider that they must have the means

to some major degree to be able to feed themselves.

I would like to refer also to

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act

and comment on the

section that simplifies municipal amalgamation and

incorporation. One of the real problems, Mr. Speaker, that we have in

this province is the many large areas of unorganized territory. People

commonly refer to them as "unincorporated."

Among these is the area in my riding of Colwood and Langford. I know

from my municipal statistics that it has the largest unincorporated

population in British Columbia, but I was very surprised to see in a

newspaper publication about two months ago that that area comprises the

largest unincorporated population in all of Canada. I don't think that

can go on. Something must take place to give those people a form of

local government so they can better direct their own affairs.

I know the government has been taking a hard look at this sort of

problem and I want to emphasize the need to stay on top of it. In an

unorganized territory, a developer can do almost anything — and usually

does. When you travel through my riding in that area of Langford and

Colwood you can see the type of uncontrolled development that is

spoiling what should be a beautiful area.

Now, unlike the previous government, we believe in containing

development, whether it is mining, logging, or sprawling urbanization,

so that this beautiful province can be enjoyed not only by our children

but by their descendants and others for generations to come.

I also welcome — and I'm sure everyone here does — the concern the

government has shown for the welfare and the well-being of our senior

citizens and those others who for no fault of their own are among the

handicapped. Increased pensions for those people, Mincome and

Pharmacare are just three of the continuing programmes which mean so

much to so many people here in this Province of British Columbia.

One of our biggest concerns, if not the biggest, in this coming

session will be that of energy. This is a national problem which is

also going to be paralleled with a similar and probably much more

severe one for our neighbours south of the border.

I would like at this point, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate our Premier...

Mr. Chabot: Where is he?

Mr. Gorst: ...on taking such a positive approach to the

energy crisis both during and after the recent energy conference. He

wants to see us in British Columbia share our resources with the less

fortunate provinces. He has stated — and I know we will agree with him

— that the other resource-centred provinces should join with us in such

a programme, providing, as was pointed out in the Speech from the

Throne, that prudent and public control be developed and maintained of

those resources.

However, the energy crisis is not one where we should sit on our

hands and do nothing at all. Just cutting back on energy, with dire

results to our living standards and level of employment, would be a

very negative attitude indeed.

It should not be a question of more or less but of different and better.

While in search of alternate energy sources, I think we in British

Columbia should be taking a lead. A resource committee might propose

some form of practical encouragement aimed at developing sources which

are infinitely renewable and non-polluting, such as solar energy, wind

and tidal power, methane from organic wastes, geothermal steam and, of

course, an expansion of hydro power.

However, even there we have to be careful. More huge dams, if not

carefully researched, would cause considerable damage to the

environment. We mustn't forget that dams don't go on forever. The

moment those turbines start turning, the silt begins to build up — so

even clean, free hydro power has its problems.

Then there is nuclear power which can be used to generate

electricity, and no doubt that would supply us with all the power we

could use. And that in itself raises the question of what we shall do

with such great quantities of power. If we were to use it, there would

be, in much less time than we may think, very little or no resources

left to process.

But my strongest objection to the use of nuclear power is the wealth

of scientific data which casts a serious doubt upon its claimed

advantages to life on this earth. It is very costly and environmentally

dangerous.

During the various environmental conferences and meetings held in

Stockholm a couple of years ago, the problems in nuclear energy were

discussed inside out and once again by many competent scientists and

engineers of world renown. Even those who leaned towards such nuclear

energy development agreed with their opposition that the disposal of

nuclear waste is a formidable and frightening problem. We would,

therefore, have to endow the cost of each electrical unit produced with

the cost of almost perpetual care of waste material. I, for one, cannot

support nuclear power for those reasons, and many more.

Considering the questions around nuclear power, I call into question

the federal government who, on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission

of Canada,

[ Page 11 ]

actively moves about the world attempting to sell

the nuclear power plants the way governments go about selling

instruments of war. To me, both those sales items are very similar:

they are both dangerous instruments of death. I don't think national

governments should, at this time, be trying to sell this sort of power

to other countries.

Interjections.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Come into the 20th century.

Mr. Gorst: Along with the drive to find new sources of energy

we should also be looking at energy conservation. There is,

unfortunately, on this continent a tremendous waste of energy. Up to

now we haven't given a thought for tomorrow, but the day of reckoning

would have come eventually, as those people over there found out. And

those countries which control most of the world's basic oil supplies

have just brought it home a few years earlier.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver-Point Grey): How do you feel about the Queen?

(Laughter.)

Mr. Gorst: Well, I notice you're still on the square one.

A recent

article in Science

magazine suggested that energy consumption in the United States could

be cut by as much as 40 per cent without any major change in lifestyle

— and no doubt the percentage holds true here in Canada. It would mean

improving the insulation in buildings, reducing transmission-line

losses, and increasing the efficiency of equipment we build and use.

This is for my friends over there.

However, I don't feel we need go as far as the Gas Board in England

recently which put out advertisements, and got themselves into hot

water, by suggesting that couples take a bath together.

Some Hon. Members: What's wrong with that?

Mr. Gorst: Well, it depends who the couple are. (Laughter.) You've obviously tried it. You say it's okay. You've tried it out have you?

On the other hand...

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): No wonder they're in a double riding.

Interjections.

Mr. Gorst: I don't know whether that's a criticism or an offer.

Interjections.

Mr. Gorst: Well, that's not in Oak Bay.

No comment on the energy crisis would be complete without reference

to the national energy policy resolution passed at the 1973 federal

convention of the New Democratic Party. I would like to quote from that

resolution at that convention as follows:

"The New Democratic Party believes that the energy

crisis demands that all energy resources in Canada be brought under

public control. We contend that Canadians can only be protected with

regard to price and security of supply by embarking upon a programme of

greatly increased ownership and control by both federal and provincial

governments.

"Only public bodies have the long-term outlook and

overview of competing energy sources to bring about the planned

management of our resources. From an economic, social and ecological

standpoint, short-run profits must not be put ahead of long-run

planning."

That is our party's national position on the energy problem.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to housing in British Columbia

which remains one of our major problems. I'm sure we would all be

behind any programme from the Department of Housing that will give the

citizens of British Columbia a better housing deal.

As you know, the greatest cost today for anyone who wants to own a

home is the cost of land, the cost of financing the purchase of that

land and the development of the building. This government can control

those factors. The land-bank programme means that we have large areas

of land at our disposal which we can lease out to prospective home

buyers.

For its public housing programme, the Department of Housing might

stage a design competition which I'm sure would generate a tremendous

amount of interest.

The Department of Housing will provide hope for thousands of

hard-working people in British Columbia who wish to invest in a home of

their own but who have been denied that right because of land

speculation and high interest rates.

While I'm on this subject of housing, I would like to mention

another related one: that is, overall land use and development. In my

riding of Esquimalt we have the same problems as the rest of British

Columbia. We would like to see sound overall planning so that the area,

with what could be a very beautiful, natural coastline, develops a

sense of unity and dignity and not just a hodge-podge of buildings of

all sorts of odd shapes and sizes.

My earlier remarks about the unorganized territories fit into this

total picture. Our zoning bylaws are weird and wonderful, and control

of them can be very lax. A developer with enough clout can

[ Page 12 ]

stand in front of a zoning subcommittee and, with

tax dollars shining in his eyes, convince them to turn around a zoning

decision on a particular piece of property. There is often no

consideration of the area as a whole and the final result is a blight

on the landscape.

But this isn't only happening in the towns and cities. Our coastline

in many of our beautiful recreational areas may be lost to the people

unless we take positive steps in the near future. Certainly, when it

comes to shoreline property, we should aim to preserve its natural

character, protect the ecology of the area, and increase public access

and recreational facilities.

I would like to review briefly, in a fairly long-range historical perspective, the traditional character of land-use policies.

The first fact that is apparent to the observer of land-use planning

is that this is the first generation to be faced with the imperative of

land-use planning. The interesting fact is that just this generation is

the first to begin thinking about the need for integrated and

province-wide policies. And what about the past?

A glance at the habits of previous administrations in all of

Canada's provinces reveals no planning at all — an absence of planning.

The previous attitude toward development was based on a belief that any

development was good development. Checks, balances, controls — all

those things which we believe distinguish democracy from other forms of

government — were missing.

In the past three sessions of this House, this government has

introduced legislation that touches on these great problems of

urbanization and land-use planning. We have taken unprecedented steps

to ensure that the anarchy and land-use policy that characterized the

past would not persist indefinitely into the future.

We were not the first in the world, however, to recognize that this

generation's greatest imperative is in that area of concern. Most

European countries had long before identified urbanization as one of

the most potentially disastrous facts about contemporary life. And now

we will not be the last to introduce legislation which effectively

returns the decision-making in the public domain to the elected

representatives of the people.

It is interesting to note that most of the western states of the

United States are now preparing legislation that will permit the state

Legislatures to make large-scale, long-range maps for land use. This is

called the whole state planning concept, Senator Jackson of Washington

has sponsored a bill, which is co-sponsored by 12 other western

governors, which will provide funds to states that set up planning

agencies, inventory their land resources and make other moves to return

land control to the elected representatives.

Let us be more specific. The State of Hawaii is now reviewing

boundaries and regulations of its state-wide land-use plan which was

the nation's first. Its 1961 law classifies all land in Hawaii under

four headings; urban, rural, agricultural or conservation use. Hawaii

is now considering further controls to guarantee the orderly

development of land-use policies.

Oregon has passed a land-use bill setting up a commission and

calling for a state plan that local zoning plans must follow. Idaho is

completing a series of hearings on land use. The conclusions from these

hearings will go to that Legislature for possible action.

Washington has passed a broad land-use bill through that House.

Utah's legislature considered one land-use bill, and another one will

be presented to their House in the spring. Both Arizona and Nevada have

set up a framework for a state-wide planning system that would comply

with the Jackson bill. Alaska is nearing completion of a land inventory

that will provide guidelines for future action and there are even

stronger moves in California to prepare adequate legislation to end the

piecemeal planning of that state.

Some might question, why do we refer to the United States? We refer

to the United States because their experiences are the experiences that

follow through to this country at a later date. When we have the

example before us and we see the path that those states are attempting

to follow, we should pick up that and be aware and ready to implement

that kind of policy here before we have to correct all the unfortunate

development and the hodge-podge of land use that has taken place in

that country. We know from articles in our newspapers over the past

year or two that most of the Canadian provinces are now moving rapidly

to bring order into provincial-wide planning.

The questions many people ask are these: How much can we plan for the future? How specific should the planning be?

This government knows that we cannot legislate for every generation

in the future; but we can legislate broad guidelines which will permit

those future generations their own options. There would have been no

options left if the careless, callous decision-making of individual

private investors had persisted. Because land-use planning to deal with

urbanization and the need for an integrated resource-development policy

are the great needs for our generation, we must make sure that these

future generations have some options. The build-them-up and

rip-them-down pattern of development in the past was based on an

assumption that the developer had more rights in our society than the

people who had to live with their decision-making.

Let me say this: the public interest is a greater

[ Page 13 ]

need than the rights of the developer. The public

interest must be served in the matter of land-use planning. No human

being is simply a private man.

If we're concerned that our homes are clean and orderly and

attractive, we should at least be equally interested in the orderly

planning of social spaces of our cities and the orderly development of

Crown land and Crown resources.

This government is fully aware that societies are built around

groupings of special interest. Each grouping struggles to maintain and

extend the economic prerogatives that it has held in the past. Conflict

and controversy occur when there is a shift in the relative balance of

power between special interest groups. But democracy demands that

planners for the public interest remember that we share the land, and

democracy cannot win if special interest groups place their rights

ahead of the public interest. On what basis in a democracy does one

special interest group have special rights in regard to land use? They

just don't. In land-use planning, this distinction between what is

private and public must be looked at very carefully. Our legal system

guarantees certain rights of privacy; and, of course, that must be

maintained.

We do not need to refer strictly to history or to the growing tide

of opinion in other countries that reflects the same need for land-use

legislation and efforts to control the negative effects of

urbanization. The southern tip of this island, of Vancouver Island, is

itself an example of the effects of not having control over development.

We all know that this island is one of the most amenable places in a

beautiful province. There are literally hundreds of miles of coastline.

But the surprising thing is that, today, only eight miles of that

coastline in this regional district, which covers 900 square miles from

the Malahat to Sooke to Port Renfrew and all the way back to the Gulf

Islands and back to the doors of this legislative building, are

available for public use. A drive around this region will confirm to

you that over 90 per cent of this area's accessible coastline is

alienated from public access.

I would call, Mr. Speaker, on the consideration of that knowledge,

that we should have on this shoreline, this waterfront area, a freeze

of all development until a proper study has been made of the use to

which we will put that foreshore.

Now this example is repeated in case after case in areas accessible

to the larger concentration of population. It takes courage to develop

the kind of legislation that is necessary to guarantee orderly planning

for this province, whether it relates to zoning inside municipal

boundaries or in the unregulated areas. This government has the courage

that is necessary and will fulfil its obligations to this generation

and to future generations.

For those who doubt that chaos and self interest motivated the

people who were supposed to be the guardians of the public interest in

the past: when you leave this House, just look around at the crush of

commercial interests crowding in on these parliament buildings. How

could any government imagine it was serving the public by allowing the

capital region to become a target for a handful of vested interests who

saw the opportunity to guarantee their fortunes by building motels and

high-rise apartment buildings right next door to these buildings?

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can look forward in this coming session

to further development of plans to ensure that an area surrounding

these buildings and some distance beyond will be protected from the

ambition of profit makers. The capital region is not any ordinary

region. It is just not any municipality.

More than 20 years ago the then CCF Members and the Conservatives

and Liberal legislators at Ottawa recognized that the nation's capital

was just not any ordinary municipality. They prepared the way for laws

meant to recognize a special public interest. Those legislators

introduced legislation which identified the capital region as a special

kind of problem, and they were bold enough to create the legislation

that provided the funds required to guarantee rational and orderly

planning for that area of the national capital.

We know that problems are often opportunities. We have in this

capital region an opportunity to provide, for all future generations of

this province, a place which reflects our genuine commitment to the

public interest. What area is more symbolic of the public interest than

the meeting place of the people's elected representatives?

I picked up a newspaper the other day and I read where some

buildings not far from this building, 120 years in age, the oldest

buildings in western Canada, the oldest buildings north of San

Francisco, constructed of the stone ballast that came around in the

bottoms of the ships around the Horn from across the Atlantic in the

early days — that for those buildings the owner had received a

demolition permit from the local City of Victoria. I was absolutely

appalled that this could happen. Never should that kind of history

undergo that kind of treatment. They're on the waterfront. That is the

history of western Canada; it's part of our culture. This whole area

has many, many historic sites and items along its foreshore.

We need some instrument — some provincial government instrument —

that will have the direct responsibility to ensure that the capital

area is preserved and developed into one of the finest cities in this

country.

This government did not invent urbanization, but it has been charged

with the responsibility of dealing with the problems that urbanization

causes. This

[ Page 14 ]

government will show its commitment to redirecting

the energies of growth by further legislation to help municipalities

shape their destinies in a way that will turn our cities into living

spaces instead of dying spaces. All of us, as representatives of the

citizens of British Columbia, have an opportunity to join together to

guarantee that our cities become environments in which we can be

healthy. This is the opportunity that faces us now. It is also a

problem that we must face ourselves.

An area in which this government has done a tremendous amount of

pioneering work is in planning to base services in the community, and

in encouraging each community to plan what it wants and how it wants to

do it. That's an exciting concept. Through the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), communities will be able

to plan a centre or centres in which there will be medical and

paramedical services, social services, community school activities and

resources for a complete range of community groups from senior citizens

to drop-in centres for the young.

There are two other subjects I would like to comment upon. They are

quite related. I have emphasized the need for overall planning. Nowhere

do we need more direction and assistance and some form of government

control than in providing a transit system for the people of the urban

and rural areas of British Columbia. I saw a notice on a bus recently

which stated, "This bus does 200 miles to the gallon." Of course, one

word has been left out; after the "200," it said, "people." If the bus

were loaded with only 50 people and did four miles to the gallon, it

was still a lot more efficient in conserving energy than the monstrous,

gas-eating cars that we all see with just one driver and I guess that

we all drive ourselves.

This makes the point that if we provide good and efficient transit

systems, we should be able to get people to leave their cars at home.

We should be planning now the kind of transit systems we need across

this province: bus, train, dial-a-bus, or the inter-circle route around

our major cities. If we don't plan now and the energy crisis gets

worse, we are going to have a lot of irate people storming that

solitary bus as it goes down the main street every half hour.

In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to

something which I have already mentioned; but I want to make it the

closing remark of my address today. I would like to think that I have

support from all of those here. This is not the first plea I have made;

it's the second one today: we need, for the capital city of British

Columbia, a capital commission along the lines of the Ottawa Capital

Commission. When we speak of that, it's not just the City of Victoria;

it's this capital region — this whole capital regional district

stretching out beyond the five municipalities to the unorganized

districts as well.

I would like to give you a quote from the National Capital Commission's annual report for last year. It is as follows:

"Society's greatest problems in most parts of the

world have developed, or are developing, in the cities. The bigger the

city, the tougher the problem; the greater the crowd, the harder it is

to get work, to find a decent place to live and to have just a little

elbow room and to have a little peace and quiet now and then."

Someone who lived in. Ottawa for many years made some interesting comments

to me recently. He said that in his opinion we need a similar approach here

to that in Ottawa. The potential for an outstanding capital is greater here

than in Ottawa: climate and geography are in our favour, and our proportion

of really ugly buildings is considerably less. However, there is a similar potential

for a disastrous mess, and I believe that Victoria is now at that turning point.

The waterfront is a case in point. We have the opportunity to

beautify it, or we can let the developers ruin it with such

monstrosities as the proposed Reid Centre and the proposed

Bapco-Canadian Industrial Developments Ltd. project on Laurel Point.

Both of these will be benefiting from whatever funds are spent on

beautification. These masses of masonry will not only block off the

most attractive harbour in Canada, but will also have a visual impact

that will be a disaster to this area as a whole.

I have made proposals for a provincial capital commission, and I

would like to give you a

summary of the purpose and effect that those

proposals would have.

I would see it as a Crown agency, with a prime responsibility to

develop the capital region to reflect the historic, political and

cultural importance of this capital to this province. This capital area

would be developed to stand as a symbol for the province. The area

would be used as a model of planning and development that will benefit

other parts of British Columbia and be a source of pride for British

Columbians.

The provincial capital commission's role would be to oversee all

development that takes place within this area, on all lands in this

area. The establishment of a provincial capital commission would give

this government the opportunity to prepare plans for, and assist in the

development, conservation, and improvement of the capital region in

order that the nature and the character of the seat of the government

of this province of British Columbia would be in accordance with its

national and provincial significance. Thank you.

[ Page 15 ]

Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. Lea presents the annual report of the Department of Highways for the fiscal year 1972-73.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada