1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, FEBRUARY 7, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

(HANSARD)

[ Page 287 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it has come to my attention, with

regret, that Mr. Arthur Cuthbert, who was a respected attendant

of this House in previous years, passed away suddenly a little

over a week ago. I'm sure it would be a wish that I convey on

your behalf our regrets to his mourning family.

The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to ask the House to give recognition to a group of very distinguished

visitors in the galleries today from Fernie: Mayor Vernon Uphill, who is a son

of Tom Uphill, who graced this House for 40 years; and Alderwoman Mrs. Williams;

Mr. Frank Butala, the city clerk of Fernie; and two delegates from the Board

of Trade, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Majic.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I would beg

leave of the House to introduce from the City of Rossland

Alderman Harry Lefevre and Mr. Andy Chapdelaine.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of students

from the City of Vancouver — Lord Nelson — who are visiting

this assembly for the first time. I hope that they will have

experiences that will last them throughout the coming years in

their pursuit of an education experience.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to welcome a very special guest of mine today. Please be

on your best behaviour — my mother is over today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I think that would apply to the Premier more

than anybody.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO CONTROL PYRAMID SELLING

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

60 intituled

An Act to Control Pyramid

Selling .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 60 read a first time and ordered to be

placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE POLLUTION

CONTROL ACT, 1967

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

61 intituled

An Act to Amend the Pollution Control Act,

1967 .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 61 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after

today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(Continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Burnaby Willingdon.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Commercial

Transport): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the first opportunity that I

have had to congratulate you on your election as Mr. Speaker. I wish you well

in that torrid area. (Laughter).

I would like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the

motion on which we are debating for the fine job that they both

did. I would like also to congratulate the 28 new

Members who are gracing our chamber this year — 28 Members that

have never set foot in this palace before. We wish them well.

They've all spoken — we've heard them all, from all parties. I

think we all agree that they have done a terrific job and we

can look forward to a few years of very high level debate in

the chamber.

To those four that suffered an absence, I want to say

welcome back. We're glad to see you back again, with the

exception of one gentleman who was voluntarily absent. But we

welcome you as well. (Laughter). For those that have returned,

I admire your survival instinct.

I would like to start discussing for a moment the question

of — but before I go into that, I might say that there are some

differences over on this side of

[ Page 288 ]

the House. It's very difficult to get used to coming in the

different door and that sort of thing. But any of you over

there that want to get over here, I want to explain to you that

there are some fringe benefits. On debates of this kind we can

speak first and that's something that was very difficult to do,

I found, when we were on the other side of the House. So there

are some benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: The main benefit is to the people.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Now regarding transit, I think the

Government, on taking over as the Government of this province,

immediately determined that there had to be a decision made as

to whether or not we were going to go down the road with the

automobile or whether we were going to move into the field of

transit. The decision was reached that we would move towards

the transit solution to the problems of the urban areas. As a

result, we decided that the cities actually are there for

people, they're not there for the automobile. Where there was a

conflict between the automobile and people, then the residents

of the cities would have to win out.

In order to proceed with the plans, 99 buses have been

ordered and these will start to arrive in April of this

year.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Speaking about that, there are only two

firms in Canada that produce transit buses. Those two firms

were both asked to send in figures as to costs. As a result,

instead of causing delays — we have 50,000 people in Coquitlam

that have no bus service. We have people in Surrey that have

very limited bus service. Delta, the same way. In order to get

bus services through without delay — now you may want delay. You

may not want these people to have the services that the areas

and the urban areas should have. That's up to you. We decided

that the system would be operational this year and instead of

waiting for another year, these buses were ordered. Likewise,

in View Royal and in some areas in Saanich, the bus services

will be improved.

By the end of this year we expect that the services in the

Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Capital Regional

District will be greatly improved and there will be a start, at

least, on an overall surface bus system throughout the two

areas.

I have invited three representatives from the Capital

Regional District and likewise the Greater Vancouver Regional

District to sit on a committee to determine the matters that

have to be detailed. The two members from my department and two

members from Hydro and one member from the transit union.

These will be two separate committees — one for the Capital

Regional District and one for the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. These committees will be meeting.

I also invited the Minister of State, the Hon. Mr. Basford,

to appoint two members from the federal government to sit on

this committee to give us expertise and, I would hope, to give

some solid suggestions as to financial assistance by the

federal government. We have heard from the federal government

that they are anxious to assist the urban development of the

country. It seems to me that one of the major concerns in an

urban area is the transit problem. However, I have received a

letter from him today in which he declines the invitation and

this is a disappointment to me. However, I expect to be in

consultation with Mr. Basford from time to time and am hopeful

that in due course there will be some input from the federal

government.

The purpose of the committee basically is, first of all, to

look after the transit system, to determine who should operate

it — whether it should be B.C. Hydro, whether it should be the

regional districts, whether it should be a Crown corporation or

whatever other vehicle that may be required to operate the

system. The second aspect is how is the system to be financed?

What share will the regional districts pay, what share will the

province pay, and so on.

I think that as far as we are concerned, we consider the

transit merely to be an extension of the highways and ferry services in this province. We're looking at a total

transportation system throughout the province, not only in the

two major areas of population but also in the cities in the

interior and the cities on Vancouver Island, eventually. The

first attack will be on the two areas which I have outlined

earlier, but certainly such cities as Prince George, Prince

Rupert, Kamloops and so on, will have to be looked at on this

transit question. I think we have to look also at smaller areas

and the country communities as to how we can get people moved

about, due to the fact that transit bus service throughout the

province is not quite what we would like to see it.

The third question to be determined by this committee will

be the question of where these routes should go. Should they

first of all appear in View Royal or in Saanich or where, and

what routes should be taken? I would expect that this committee

would receive representations from the general public and would

act in accordance with the wishes of the people affected as far

as their bus service is concerned.

The fourth thing, of course, is to deal with the local

governments to determine what streets are available for

transit, what corridors can be blocked off in order that buses

can move down the streets. Of course when this is completed and

when the bus systems have been built up, then the next survey

[ Page 289 ]

what do we need in the next few years as far as transit is

concerned, in the more sophisticated areas of transit.

I would like to make a few introductory remarks regarding

the problems of municipalities. The responsibilities of local

governments are increasing at a rapid rate. The city dweller is

anxious to have more services. He's demanding underground

wiring. He wants sidewalks. He wants swimming pools. He wants

this and he wants that — libraries and so on. That is the way

that our society is moving. All these are causing additional

costs to the local taxpayer and, of course, to the city

fathers. Municipalities have limited areas where they can raise

money. They have a land tax. They can obtain money from

licensing of various things, the business tax and that sort of

thing — dog licences and so on. If they have land in their

name, they can sell it but this is a short-term proposition

because obviously you can only do that for so long.

Populations are shifting towards the urban centres. In the

country areas, although the communities or villages as centres

may be increasing in size, the populations are not increasing

in the country itself.

Pollution abatement is now a real problem. People are

demanding clean air, clear water and unpolluted soil. They want

lower levels of noise. These matters are forcing local

governments to take a serious look at their future developments — not only on the local level but in the senior governments.

The question of pollution has quite an economic effect on local

governments. The social costs involved in our modern society

keep rising.

The issues that face the large urban centres today have

little relationship to the issues that faced large centres of

population 50, 60 or 70 years ago. There's very little

relationship between the two. In the local budgets, probably

only 5 per cent could be said to be mad money. The other 95 per

cent is merely funds that are required by local governments to

pay for the services which were performed last year. With this

probable 5 per cent, the local councils have to determine how

they're going to spend this. Are they going to put it in a

swimming pool, a skating rink, or do they need a new library or

what not. We certainly appreciate the fact that the

municipalities are not rich.

In

summary, I want the municipalities to know that we

appreciate their problem. We are sympathetic with their problem

and we'll certainly do what we can in cooperation with the

municipalities at least to take off some of the pressures. We

know we're not going to make them wealthy overnight but

certainly we are prepared to discuss their problems. If there

is any way we can help them financially, we're most prepared to

do what we can.

I was somewhat surprised at the remarks of the Hon. Member

for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) regarding the creation of the new

cities of Kamloops and Kelowna. If that criticism had come from the Liberals or the

Conservatives or even the new Members of the Social Credit

Party here, I would have accepted the criticism. But to get

this type of criticism from someone who has sat in this House

for over three years, who was involved in the debates of the

situation, who has a background of municipal government, it was

really somewhat quite unreal.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Our paper says he's

a crucial Member.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I did not intend to discuss or criticize

the performance of the previous government. I don't really see

any point in doing so because we're not worried about what

happened in the past. We're expecting to look to the future and

govern accordingly. However, it seems necessary to answer the

criticism. I must go back a little bit in history in order that

at least the new Members of this chamber know part of what has

gone on in regard to this one item. I suggest that the

direction that I have taken was dictated by the action and lack

of action of the previous administration.

I would like to state that the greater Kamloops area, a few

years back, consisted of two cities, the area on the one side

of the river of North Kamloops, and Kamloops itself. They

carried on as two separate communities for some time.

Eventually they decided that for the benefit of the area as a

whole, and for the benefit of better local government, better

planning and so on, that they would amalgamate. This was done

around 1968, I believe it was — '67 or '68.

AN HON. MEMBER: …the referendum.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll come back to referendum, just hold it

my friend.

And as a result they united in 1968.

On October 23, 1969, Valleyview was created — bordering on

the city of Kamloops. And it is part of the greater Kamloops

area. This is where, after the community had become united, we

see the commencement of the Balkanizing of the Kamloops general

area.

Then again, on April 23, 1971, the district of Dufferin was

created. Now, you all remember the district of Dufferin — that's the deal there where two communities, two areas, joined

together by a railway track. That was the Dufferin deal; and

that consisted of a population of around 750 people right on

the border of Kamloops, and partly inside. They are completely

adjacent to the city of Kamloops. And so the Balkanization was

proceeding. Then, on June 22, 1971 Brocklehurst was

incorporated. And luckily for the area the election took place

and there was no further incorporations of the region.

Otherwise there would be two or three more incorporations

coming

[ Page 290 ]

about.

Criticism is levied against me on the basis that this

amalgamation will be taking place without the right of a vote

to the areas of Valleyview, Dufferin and Brocklehurst. Now,

these three communities were created without a vote of the

region. Valleyview was created by a vote of those people who

presided in the new city of Valleyview. The vote in Dufferin

was cut off with the vote of only those people who reside

within the confines of the new district of Dufferin. 750 people

total population decided the future — or were deciding the

future of the Kamloops area. The votes did not take place of

the whole region — there was no vote of the whole region — of

the Kamloops area. The people of Kamloops who were most

affected by these splinters — these take-offs — did not have

the right to vote. And the vote that took place was therefore,

in my opinion a rigged vote.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): All the leeches. All the

leeches.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Now, a further interesting feature…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LORIMER: What I'm saying is that there was no vote

of the region. The area affected did not have the right to

vote. And I as Minister feel that I am unable to allow this — protect this kind of situation.

Now, a further interesting feature in the Kamloops area is

the fact that all the industrial lands were left out of the

incorporations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh.

HON. MR. LORIMER: In the new Kamloops, all the industrial

areas of the area will be in the new city of Kamloops. The new

city will have a strong industrial base, a strong tax base, and

will have a strong local government for the future development

for the area. And Kamloops, along with Kelowna are two of the

areas which are hubs within the whole province of British

Columbia. The situation is that unless you have a healthy base

you'll not have a healthy town. I suggest that Kamloops will

have a strong foundation along with Kelowna, for future

construction — future growth and development.

In Kelowna, the government by their failure to act to allow

extensions of boundaries has strangled the City of Kelowna. The

City of Kelowna will now be liberated. These communities can,

and are now working together planning for the future. Both

cities are key cities in future development. It is our opinion

that with a solid base, the local governments will survive and

be successful.

It is my opinion that where communities exist side by side,

and have existed in that manner for a great number of years,

and each community is providing their own facilities — I

believe that if the people of the area wish that this sort of

thing continue, that is their decision.

Now, when the area or communities are taking advantage of

one another, or using services being supplied by one, and not

being contributed to by another; and where there are health

hazards — where some of the communities may not be totally

paying their share of the advantages that they are receiving — in cases where there has been a break down, as in the case of

Kamloops, of services being supplied by one area to another;

then I think it is a responsibility of the Minister to take

action.

The local study committees, which consist of elected

representatives in both communities, have been working very,

very hard for the past two months in trying to resolve and

create a blue-print for their future development. These people

who have divergent views, and from different interests have

been working very hard together. They've been cooperating

together in a manner which has not been evident in those

communities for a great number of years. They are cooperating,

for the benefit of the area as a whole. And the people in that

area, I suggest, are very satisfied that a rational decision

has been made. We in this province owe a great debt of

gratitude to these committees, and the members of these

committees who are working so hard deserve our

congratulations.

Now, as I have set out to the areas, if the government is

prepared to give continued assistance, both in an advisory

capacity and financially, it will make sure that the future of

these two areas is secure.

The other remarks regarding the call from the Hon. Member to

advise the areas not to cooperate — I feel were irresponsible

statements and I'm not going to comment further on them.

In regard to the regional districts — I want to make mention

that the regional district concept was brought into being by

the former administration — and I give them full credit for it.

I have before, and I think it is one of the great achievements

of the previous Government. However, in some areas the regional

districts have not operated in the way that probably was

expected at the time that they were formed. And I appreciate

the fact from discussing matters with different people in the

province, that there are some problems with regional

districts.

I wish to state that in late fall we did have some of our

representatives from our department going around to give

advice, or help, or assistance to the communities and the

regional districts to try and get them off the ground if

possible. There are some basic problems which must be reviewed,

and we will have staff people out in the province trying to

assist in any area in which there are problems. I appreciate

the fact

[ Page 291 ]

that there are problems. We hope to at least resolve some of

the basic problems, and hopefully can assist in the matter of

regional district development.

I wish to spend a little time on the question of housing. I

want to state that there was a new bill brought in by the

federal government lately. There are a number of items in that

bill which I think can assist our housing projects. For

instance, there is the question of assisted home ownership

programme. This is where they are prepared to give a direct

mortgage from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for

mortgage loans on old and new houses. And the difference in

this is that they intend to have a sliding scale of interest

rates. So that if a person is in a lower financial category,

that person may be able to receive a lower interest rate than

the normal Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

interest.

In addition, although it's not in the bill I understand that

the regulations will indicate that they will pay up to $300 per

year as a grant in order to help the lower income groups to get

involved. Now this ties in very nicely with the second mortgage

provisions which again were brought in by the previous

Government. I think that we can get people who are maybe below

the $7,000 or $8,000 per annum area into home ownership. We

still have the problem, of course, of those below the $5,000 or

$6,000 a year financial area for which we have to find

alternate housing.

There is additional help for the housing assistance section,

the non-profit sections, in which at the present time the

province gives a one-third grant — maybe in senior citizens'

homes or something of that sort — 10 per cent being put up by

the organization that's operating the scheme and the rest by a

loan from Central Mortgage and Housing.

Now apparently the federal government is prepared, in

addition to this, to give a 10 per cent grant to that

non-profit organization. So, we can hope that we will have a

little help in that area as well. There are other areas of

assistance to cooperative housing and the 10 per cent grant is

to be given to cooperative housing as well, providing the bill

passes. There are some improvements, I think, in the federal

housing programme.

It is my belief that the high cost of land and the high cost

of housing and the high cost of servicing, are the most serious

problems presently facing the urban areas — not necessarily the

heavily developed areas — but in the communities throughout the

province. The home acquisition grants and the second mortgages

certainly help those people beyond the $8,000 a year level. But

we still have to consider what we are going to do with those

who do not have the money to purchase houses at the present

time.

I suggest that the subsidized housing schemes throughout Canada have generally

been to build a large complex, fill them with people that need subsidized housing

and then go along and build another complex. I suggest that this certainly provides

shelter but, in our opinion, housing is more than a question of shelter. The

social problems that this sort of complex creates can well more than defeat

the benefits received by the shelter provided.

I think we are all in agreement that in 1973 everyone in

British Columbia, irrespective of their financial worth, is

entitled to some type of proper housing. For a successful

housing programme I believe it is necessary to have a complete

mix of economic incomes. In an apartment, a condominium, in our

opinion there should be a proper mix. For instance, I don't

believe there should be more than probably 15 or 20 per cent of

subsidized units in those establishments. The other apartments

should be rented out at a fair rental to the general public,

whoever so wishes to occupy the premises.

We believe that single family houses and duplexes should be

built throughout the community — not in a set area but

throughout the community — and that the subsidized tenants

could be moved in with no problems. Now it is obvious that the

Government will be in the housing business. Those suites or

units not used for subsidized tenants will be used for the

general public. As such, the Government will be in the housing

field.

The intention is to create a large stock of a variety of

housing units. And it is hoped that time will have an effect on

the cost of land throughout the communities. Now I know that

this is a long programme and that it's not going to have that

effect immediately.

Before such a programme can be undertaken, it is necessary

to create a bank of land in which the planning for the housing

programmes can be carried out. I wish to report — I think it's

in the answers to the question I filed yesterday — that there

are 44 individual lots purchased in the downtown Vancouver

area. Land has been purchased…

MR. CHABOT: What's the acreage?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't know what the acreage is — 44 lots — I haven't got the acreage. Land for 100 senior citizens'

units in West Vancouver; land for 192 senior citizens' units in

Burnaby; 11 duplex lots in Burnaby; land for 70 to 90 townhouse

units in Victoria — I think that's 4 1/2 acres that one.

MR. CHABOT: 4.3.

HON. MR. LORIMER: 4.3 acres. And in Smithers we've purchased

about 26 acres in Smithers for development there.

We have under consideration land worth approximately $13

million which can be picked up. Now, not all of this will be

picked up. It's reserved in order that

[ Page 292 ]

we can take what we require. In that grouping there is one

400-acre parcel which will tie in, if we want to proceed on

this new

section of the federal Act for creation of new towns

and services. We can get substantial assistance from the

federal government in this area if we decide to proceed with

that. And 16 parcels varying in size from half an acre to 36

acres.

Now, in addition to that we have reserved 200 individual

lots in groups of from 2 lots to 22 lots. We have land for 346

housings units — either row housing or apartments or whatever.

We have written to cities, the federal government and to others

asking to have first right of refusal for lands that the public

body is intending to sell. We have placed advertisements in the

newspapers for land and individual lots throughout the urban

areas.

We are looking at a wide variety of accommodation — mobile

home parks, apartment blocks, fourplexes, duplexes, single

family dwellings. I think we have to look at the whole spectrum

of housing and have a complete mix.

In built-up areas it may be advantageous to purchase some

existing apartment blocks. Now, I am fully aware of a number of

problems in the programme described. To obtain a maximum number

of housing units for subsidized housing, it is much easier to

build a large complex and classify them all as subsidized

units. We have refused to take this course. Those areas that

are bought will be subsidized only to a degree of up to 20 per

cent. As a result, although the housing units will be

constructed, the units for subsidized housing will be

considerably less than the units produced.

Our housing needs will not be resolved this year. They will

not be resolved next year nor, indeed, in the next 10 years.

The programme that I have outlined is merely a modest beginning

on what I hope to be a successful attack on our social

problems.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

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

Mr. Speaker. As I take my place in the formal debate on this

motion I want first of all to extend my congratulations to the

mover and the seconder of the motion which is now under

consideration.

In view of the criticisms that have been leveled against the

throne speech, I must doubly congratulate them. It must be

obvious to the Members that while the throne speech has been

called "empty", the proof of it is that the majority of debate

on both sides of this House has scarcely made mention of

anything which was in the throne speech. Instead we have dealt

at greater length with the corridor speeches of Members of the

Executive Council.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have now got Hansard so they can

read the remarks, Mr. Member.

I would hope that in future years the Government might be

encouraged to put into the throne speech those things which

this year it has dealt with in the corridors of this building.

That's the kind of open government that we have been led to

expect from the new Government.

I want especially to congratulate the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) for her remarks in seconding the

motion. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Government might see fit next

year to let her write the opening speech.

If I have one comment, and it's not a criticism, in the

course of her remarks dealing with matters of human rights and

the legislation which we are all anticipating on that subject,

she used the analogy of the disadvantaged people being in a

long distance race. She suggested that it was unfair that long

distance races should start from a straight starting line. But

rather, she suggested that we should have staggered starting

positions for such a race.

I suggest to her that if she would consider the reason why,

in sprints and middle distance races the starting blocks are

staggered, she would realize it is because each runner, each

competitor must run in his or her own separate lane. In long

distance races, which as she so correctly says this life is, it

is the right of every individual to run as close to the centre

pole as is possible. To run at his own time and his own speed

without interference from other competitors. Those are the

rules. There must be no interference.

I would rather like to think that the Bill of Rights Act

that we will have in this province will enable each person to

run on the inside track if that is his wish and to provide

rules that there shall be no interference one with the other — rather than a bill of rights that would tend to place each

individual in some separate path which he, by regulation, must

follow. I think that so to do would more likely result in the

kind of society which I am sure the Hon. Member and I both hope

we will one day achieve.

I'm sorry that the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer) has left the chamber. I wanted to congratulate

him. on some of the action he has taken with regard to the

urban problems, and particularly in matters of transit.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We'll pass that on.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, perhaps the Hon. Attorney General would

listen very carefully then to what I have to say.

As well as congratulating him however I feel I must take

exception with one of the matters he dealt

[ Page 293 ]

with. That was the purchase of the 99 buses. He indicated

that there were only two companies in Canada capable of

producing those buses. In fact, there are three. Or, at least,

there is a third company which has its representative in

Canada. It's the Wells Company. They supply buses which are

made by the Wayne Corporation in the United States. But they're

built in Canada, and indications are that this company could

perhaps supply these buses for something like $3,000 to $5,000

per unit cheaper. We'll never really know. The reason we will

not know is that tenders were not called.

Now, if these figures are accurate, then it means that the

people of the Province of British Columbia could save perhaps a

third or a half million dollars on this particular transaction.

I don't believe that we should see in government expediency

being used as an excuse for fiscal mismanagement. To conclude a

purchase on this basis without calling tenders is, I suggest,

fiscal mismanagement. It leaves the Government unfortunately

open to charges which may be improper.

I recall to you, Mr. Speaker, that within a week following

the announcement by this Government of this purchase — within

two days in fact — Press statements emanating from the New

Democratic convention in Manitoba would leave the impression

with some people that this decision was based upon the fact

that there is an NDP government in Manitoba which owns 70 per

cent of the company supplying these buses, and an NDP

government here. Now that's the impression that is left by the

statement and that is unfortunate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And it's false.

MR. WILLIAMS: And it's false and I accept what the Attorney

General says. But the only way that you can ever assure the

people of this province that, in fact, these kind of charges

are not proper is by insuring that all significant contracts

are called by tender. I trust that the Government will never

ever again see fit to stray from what surely must be the basic

principle of government financial management.

I was pleased about the suggestion from the Hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) that we will soon have an

improved system of public transit in the Greater Vancouver area

and that some of the communities that form part of Greater

Vancouver will be served as they have never been served before,

But I would urge the Minister in this endeavour to make certain

that actions of other departments of this Government do not

interfere with the full realization of this goal.

I'm pleased that the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) is in his place because I wish to draw his attention

to a decision apparently made in his department which I think

is wrong. Under the previous administration, Mr. Speaker, we had a decision made

to build a mammoth monument, some 55 stories high, to a man who

is no longer with us. He may be back, but he certainly isn't

with us at the moment.

AN. HON. MEMBER: He was with us in spirit on Friday.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, by telephone or by telegram or

something. At any rate, I applaud the decision of the

Government to discontinue that particular venture. I think the

building was too large. I think it was wrongly located. But I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Hon. Minister of

Public Works, that the decision apparently taken or under

consideration by the Government to provide a substitute for

that building is equally wrong. The indications are that

buildings of much less height will be constructed, that there

will be some open space provided, but that there will be more

buildings.

I want to suggest to the Minister of Public Works that that

be reconsidered. I think there should be a medium highrise

building constructed, Mr. Minister. I think that the location

of that building should be three or four full blocks south of

the existing courthouse in Vancouver. I suggest that the area

between that building and the courthouse be left as open space

for the moment, and I'll tell you why.

As the downtown core of Vancouver grows, the need for the

public transit system to bring people to that core and to take

them away will be steadily increasing. One thing that we will

require is a central terminal at which those buses, those

public transit vehicles, will arrive and depart. I suggest to

you that if you have viewed the construction which has taken

place in Block 52, and the work that is taking place today in

Block 42, you will come to two conclusions. The first is that

if large buildings, even medium-sized buildings are allowed to

be constructed in the downtown core of Vancouver, you forever

lose the opportunity of any underground development — whether it

be for rapid transit, heavy rapid transit, for parking, for

underground terminals — whatever may be the case.

You will never be able to face the expense of going under

major building structures to make use of underground areas.

What I suggest we should have in this three or four block

area, south from the courthouse to where your new Government

building will be, is eventually not the heart of the downtown

core, but indeed the pulse of Vancouver's core. This can be

done by excavating that area. And you will find, if you watch

what's happened in Block 42, that the sub-structure in that

area of Vancouver provides for easy and inexpensive

excavation.

If you excavate that area, you will be able to

[ Page 294 ]

provide a major downtown transit terminal to service the

whole downtown area. You will also be able to provide

underground approaches to that terminal. You will eventually

arrive at the situation that you can take off the city streets

not only private passenger vehicles, but also public transit

vehicles as well. So you would have between Burrard Street on

the west and Hastings Street on the north, False Creek on the

south and east, an area of Vancouver serviced by public transit

providing underground throughways for private, passenger and

commercial vehicles to move and leave the entire surface free

for the enjoyment of the people who live and work in that

area.

This, Mr. Speaker, would be a living monument to the wisdom

of that particular Minister. I suggest that steps should be

taken immediately to sit down with the mayor and the council of

the City of Vancouver and discuss this proposal. Let's get the

planning started now. Because once you create this situation

with the court house and this long open space — which will

always be open, even though the undersurface is used — with the

British Columbia Building four blocks south, with all the

streets available for the planting of trees and the enjoyment

of people, you will have a core of Vancouver which pulses with

life and yet is devoted to people, not machines.

I trust that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

will communicate with his colleague, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon, Mr. Lorimer) and with the transit committee which

he has established to take steps to ensure that this result

will finally occur. It's not going to be easy and it's not

going to be cheap. But it will never be less expensive than if

we start now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct your thoughts to another

matter which I think is of significance to all the people in

British Columbia, a matter which has been raised on the floor

of this House before by Members in these benches — by the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). That is the need

in this province to have established a full-time energy

board.

We've had an energy board which has functioned in the past

and it has dealt with matters of electric power. But we know

today that there are other energy problems facing the people of

this province, of this country, of North America — indeed, of

the world, and that is the so-called crisis with regard to the

available supply of petroleum products and natural gas. The

crisis is one which, at the moment, is felt most by our

neighbours to the south and it is a crisis which results from

their wasteful activities. The crisis is not so much one of

supply but of supply at a low price.

Strange as it may seem to you, Mr. Speaker, we do not have

in Canada, nor do we have in British Columbia, any certain

assessment of what the future needs will be for petroleum products and natural gas. We

must have these because the indications are that within as

little as three decades, some of those supplies will be

depleted. I say there are indications. There are equal

indications that the known resources have not been fully

assessed and so the time may be longer. But we must be

concerned at the suggestion that within three decades we will

be out of natural gas or petroleum products.

Look around at all the Members here. I suppose there's

scarcely anyone here who won't be alive three decades from now.

Think seriously about this one problem. What would you do if

you were the person to have the last gallon of gasoline, the

last quart of oil? The wheels will stop turning and society as

we know it, as much as we may criticize it, certainly depends

upon the turning wheel. Do you want society to go back to the

days before the wheel was invented? This is what we face.

Therefore I suggest that the time is right now for this

Government to make the assessments that are required with

regard to our future needs and the future supply, and let us

have solid facts upon which we in this assembly may deliberate

the actions that must be taken in light of the potential

crisis. As I have said in this House before, while we must

concern ourselves with the problems of the moment — and there

are many of them — so, too, we have a responsibility to the

future generations who will live in this province, to the

future Members who will sit in this House, to ensure that the

decisions that we make are made in proper time and with a full

realization of the effect of those decisions upon the future,

which is theirs not ours.

The Hon. Premier, in one of his press conferences, has

suggested that there will be a petroleum prices review board of

some kind. In that same press conference he indicated that

there would be perhaps a full and comprehensive energy board, I

say let's start it right now. Let us put on the board those

people of expert knowledge and technical knowledge who can make

the kind of assessment that must be made. We can't wait for

others to do it.

It may surprise Members, as it certainly surprised me, to

assessment of this problem. They believe they know but truly we

do not have the figures, we don't have the statistics upon

which any one of us can make the wise decisions and provide the

wise advice.

The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is in the House and I want

to turn to a matter that he raised earlier in the debate, a matter which I applaud.

He made, as he pointed out, a difficult decision with regard to the matter of

ferries. I want to congratulate him for taking that position.

It is true, Mr.

Speaker, as you well know, in my brief experience, that that particular Minister

gave

[ Page 295 ]

every indication when he sat on this side of the House that in Government

he would have no hesitation to make those difficult decisions that must be made.

He has here made a difficult decision which was one of the legacies left by

the former Government.

He said at the time of those remarks, and I read from page

89 of the record of debate on January 30:

"There will be problems in this transition period. There

will be problems of waiting in line. There will be problems of accommodation,

there will be problems of parking. I expect the support of those people in and

out of this House who have been talking about the need for changing these ferry

terminals. I expect their support unflinchingly and right down the line in this

transition period. Because otherwise we're in for difficult times."

I second what the Hon. Minister said and I assure him here

today that he will have my unflinching support in meeting these

problems. I have said so publicly outside this House and I will

say so again whenever the circumstances may require, whether

the criticisms are leveled by constituents of mine or

otherwise. Because we must make these kinds of decisions if we

are to have any progress.

Some criticism or suggestion has been made that the decision

taken by the Hon. Minister is going to result in the

depreciation of other areas in this province. Therefore I wish

to go further with the Minister and say to him that as grateful

as I am for the decision to move the ferries from Horseshoe

Bay, I do not want that decision to be taken at the expense of

any other part of this province. I do not believe that the

people of my constituency are entitled to dispose of their

difficulties by thrusting them onto the backs of other

citizens. I believe, however, that the examination will show

that the move of the ferries must be made.

For those people who have been concerned that perhaps

Gabriola or some other area might be affected, I want to direct

them to what the Minister also said on that occasion. He

said:

"I want to say also that if the recommendation is Gabriola Island, we already have the bylaw No. 39

protecting Gabriola Island." But he said, more importantly:

"The planning commission on Gabriola Island will be part of

determining the protection that will be given to that island.

But I'm determined that Gabriola Island will not be

destroyed."

I think that those people who have expressed concern have done so properly,

but I think they must remember what the Minister said. They must remember also

what I have just said about that Minister, that he is a person who will not

shirk from making hard decisions. When he suggests that the planning commission

will be involved in the decision-making process, I know that that will in fact

be the case.

However, the Minister also said something else on that

occasion. He said, on page 88:

"My friend from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) is

back in his seat, and I'm glad he's back, because I indicated

to him earlier that the moving of our ferry terminals will

create problems — finding other places for them to go."

I appreciate that.

He then went on to say:

"If every MLA and every other community adopts the attitude

that you are taking toward a coal port at Britannia,"

and he was referring to me, "then we'll have no place to go

with the ferry system. You said, 'No way.' No way do you want

one ship a week. This proposal will take from 10 to 20 ferries

a day out of Horseshoe Bay. And if you want us to do that, then

you must be prepared to support us in other areas, even if it

affects your constituency — because we have to share the load

of protecting and preserving this province, as well as

developing the province."

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the proposition which the Hon.

Minister directed to me on that occasion. I am not here to

barter my vote; I am not here to barter my support. I am

unhesitatingly opposed to the suggestion that a coal port

facility be constructed at Britannia Beach or any other place

in Howe Sound. I believe that Howe Sound should be preserved

and improved as a recreational waterway and that it should not

be converted into a commercial shipping lane.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now in so saying, while I am concerned about

the recreational opportunity for Howe Sound, and while I am

concerned about the general environment, that does not mean to

say that I am unconcerned with the future development of this

province. And I wish to develop that thought with you for a few

moments, Mr. Speaker.

The only suggestion — other than from British Columbia

Railway — that there should be a port development at Britannia

Beach, is contained in a report made to the government of this

province by Howard Paish and Associates. I urge the Members, if

they have not read that report, to do so, and if they have read

it, to do so again, and to note very carefully that with

respect to the matter of Britannia Beach, the apparent

suggestion that it be used as a coal port facility was

conditioned with the words "if economic and engineering

considerations demand that there be a port in Britannia."

That's the condition. It's a pre-condition that Mr. Paish made

in his report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the preliminary report?

[ Page 296 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: This is the preliminary report.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have not had

with regard to that proposed development is any proper

consideration of the economics of port development.

The Hon. Premier and the Hon. Minister of Highways have

talked about one ship a week. Well, I have something to say

about that. At the same time as the Paish report was filed,

there was, as part of the arrangement made between the

provincial and federal governments, a report prepared and

released by the Department of the Environment of Canada.

It says: "At ultimate development, the terminal," and

this was the proposed port facility at Squamish, "will have an

annual shipping capacity of 10 million tons of coal. The first

stage, scheduled for completion, in 1974, will accommodate 2

million tons. Ships required to service the terminal will rise

from 35 to 40 per year to 175 to 200 for ultimate

development."

That's a statement made by technicians who made an

assessment of the Squamish proposal. But I want, Mr. Speaker,

to refer to you some history with regard, to the activities of

British Columbia Rail in the Howe Sound estuary.

If you go back into the years of the late fifties, the

Village of Squamish's central commercial core was subjected to

recurrent flooding of a very serious nature. The municipal

government at Squamish made approaches to the provincial and to

the federal government for the construction of dikes which

would protect that area from flooding of the Squamish

River.

Those discussions and negotiations went on through the early

sixties, through 1967, until about 1968 an agreement was

finally reached between the Government of the Province of

River responsibility would be assumed entirely by the

Government of British Columbia. That decision was made, as I

say, in 1968.

It's like a jigsaw puzzle if this is put together. The

second piece comes when miraculously, out of the budgetary

estimates of the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources, moneys were made available to Squamish to start the

diking project. There was never any real estimate but moneys

were found. I am sure the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) who is in the House today,

is busily looking for that little cache of money that he can

suddenly lay his hand on. But the other Government found it at

any rate.

And so the dike construction began. And it progressed one

year and progressed two years. And miraculously the Village of

Squamish was suddenly saved from flooding. Except that not only

did the dike protect the Village of Squamish, but it kept going

farther and farther down the Squamish River until it got to the estuary, and farther and farther out

into the estuary, and everybody wondered what was happening.

Then they learned that it was what they called a "training"

dike.

Well, the next picture that goes into this jigsaw puzzle — and I give it to you in chronological order — but no one saw it

in chronological order. It is now clear that in 1969 and early

1970 discussions were going on apace between British Columbia

Railway and a firm of consulting engineers, Swan Wooster, with

regard to the design of a port at Squamish. As I say, this was

chronologically the position but no one knew about this until

early 1971 and on into 1972 when suddenly it appeared that

there was some kind of a port development at Squamish.

This came as a surprise, a shock to many people, but a

delight also to many in the Squamish area. Until, however, it

became obvious that the initial stage of the port development

was to be a bulk coal loading facility — and here we have a

suggestion of one ship a week.

But if you go and look at the model, or if you look at the

copies of the plans which are attached to any of the reports — whether you take the federal government report or whether you

take the Howard Paish report — you will find that there are a

series of stages for this development. British Columbia Rail's

plan for this area is a monstrous development. If you look at

their model, you find not only the bulk loading coal but you

find grain elevators, containerized shipping areas, a complete

development of a superport.

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier talks about one ship a week

servicing the facility at Britannia, either he fails to

understand or has not had communicated to him, the full extent

of the ambitions of British Columbia Railway. Because the Swan

Wooster report upon which the design for the port in Squamish

was based in the body of the report says that the estimate of

future PGE — as it was then called — commodity movements which

could logically be shipped via Squamish were used as the basis

for port planning. And those estimates of future PGE commodity

movements were estimates that the engineers got from the

Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is a

proposal on the part of British Columbia Rail, first of all to

develop in Squamish and, when it has been chased out of there

because of localized environmental problems, it has moved to a

consideration of the next available site which is Britannia.

They say they are only to develop coal, but that is ignoring

the full ambitions of British Columbia Rail.

And it's wrong. Because there are other sites on Howe Sound

capable of development — at tremendous cost, I admit — but

other sites on Howe Sound also capable of development for

ocean-going transport. Therefore British Columbia Rail if it is

success-

[ Page 297 ]

ful, and a port is established at Britannia and the barrier

is broken, and large ocean-going ships are allowed to plow up

and down Howe Sound — then what is the excuse for refusing a

similar development at Porteau or at Furry Creek or any of the

other areas where flat land could be made available on the

shore for terminal construction?

I know the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann) who spoke in this debate about the problems in

Indian Arm did so with a true feeling for the environment and

his constituency. He spoke also of the need to have significant

changes made in the development that has taken place in

Vancouver harbour. I trust that he will also see the wisdom in

stopping a situation in Howe Sound so that we will not face the

problem years hence when we must undo the mistakes that are

before us today.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the development

of this province. I realize that not only for British Columbia

but also for the rest of Canada it is necessary, nay it is

essential, that we have port development on our Pacific coast.

But we can never have proper port development if we are

prepared to continue the narrow approach to that

development.

How much longer will we go on with the British Columbia

Railway developing its own system regardless of the impact upon

the rest of the province or upon the rest of the transportation

facilities of this province? How long can we let Canadian

National Railway do it? Or the CPR? Or the National Harbours

Board? How long can we allow conflict between whatever the

desires of Prince Rupert may be and the desires of New

Westminster and the Fraser Harbour Commission?

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the time has now come

when we must develop to the optimum port facilities in British

Columbia and the rail and highway transportation links which

serve those ports. We will only develop these port facilities

to the optimum if there is a cooperative effort on the part of

the governments of British Columbia and Canada, the national

and provincial railways, the National Harbours Board, the

Fraser River Harbour Commission and the local communities at

Prince Rupert or Kitimat or Vancouver or wherever such port

facilities can be properly established to ensure that we best

use those locations for the service of the people of British

Columbia and of Canada.

That surely must be our aim. How much longer can we have the City of Vancouver

warring with the National Harbours Board because of the tragic mistakes that

the National Harbours Board is making in Burrard Inlet? How much longer can

we allow Roberts Bank, which was designed as a superport in which upwards of

$50 million have been spent, to exist as a single commodity facility capable

of berthing one ship at a time and serving the needs of one company — $50 million

of the people's money sitting at Roberts Bank when the full development plan

was to have given Canada for the first time a superport on the Pacific capable

of handling many commodities, containerized shipments and serving the needs

of all who might need port facilities?

How long can we allow the British Columbia government and

the federal government to engage in a war as to whether or not

we should have a port at Prince Rupert? I say to the Member

from Prince Rupert that there is no question in my mind that

under the previous Government the decision to proceed with the

Squamish port was only to give that Government and the Premier

of the day, bargaining position with respect to the federal

government and its desires for Prince Rupert.

They wanted more cards in the game. Mr. Speaker, the game

has to stop and I urge the Premier of this province as the

Premier to forget his role as president and chief executive

officer of the British Columbia Railway, and to approach this

problem and the solutions to this problem for the benefit of

the people of British Columbia and Canada.

I know that politicians are only human but surely the

Premier of this province and the Hon. Minister of the

Environment federally can stop the kind of bickering that is

going on and get on with their respective responsibilities. How

are we ever going to join together in the cooperative movement

that I am talking about if the Premier of this province and

that Minister are continuing to battle in the Press? I don't

care whose fault it is, let's put a stop to it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources):

I think the problem is jet-lines.

MR. WILLIAMS: Whatever the problem is, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Speaker, let's stop it, and let's get on.

Therefore I suggest to the Premier and the Government of

this province that we do this — that we take the initiative and

establish a comprehensive port development authority membership

of which will be: government of the Province of British

representatives of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific

Railways; representatives of British Columbia Rail;

representatives of the National Harbours Board; representatives

of the Fraser River Harbour Commission and representatives of

the local governments of those areas which have port

development possibilities.

When we have such a group they will be in a position to

instruct engineers to make the kind of comprehensive study that

needs to be made to ensure that what should or should not take

place in Burrard Inlet is done, and that the National Harbours

Board stops the waste and destruction that is taking place in

that harbour. To go on with the development of

[ Page 298 ]

Roberts Bank to whatever its maximum potential should be. To

develop in Prince Rupert the kind of port that we must have if

the northern areas of this province are to advance. To stop the

suggestion that somehow or other the rail lines for their own

profit should be permitted to bring all the goods in the north

of this province to the most southerly tip and then ship them

overseas — that's got to be idiocy.

With this movement we can then rationalize the difficulties,

preserve Indian Arm, preserve Howe Sound, and we will have the

kind of port development and rail and highway transport system

which this province, this Government and Western Canada can be

proud of. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier, in putting

forward this idea for this kind of authority should do so now

and receive the unanimous consent of this House, and he should

take this to the conference which the Prime Minister of Canada

has indicated will be convened for the purpose of considering

with the Western Provinces their economic future in Canada.

This should be one of the main positions that we take and it

is a position, Mr. Speaker, in which I am certain the

governments of the other three western provinces will join. I

am sure that if we take this tack it will be another monument

to this Government and to British Columbia.

It won't be easy. I know the Hon. Ministers sitting in the

Treasury Benches have difficulty in negotiating with the

federal government. But I suggest that this kind of movement,

supported as I am certain it will be by the people of British

Columbia and of the other western provinces — that that kind of

joint action is action which the federal government cannot — dare not — reject.

I suggest as well at this particular time, with the

difficulties that the federal government faces, that if they

dare reject this kind of proposal that the national leader of

the New Democratic Party could be encouraged to remove some of

the support which heretofore he has given to the federal

government.

That sounds like a threat. If we have to use threats let's

use them but for Heaven's sake let's get this problem solved,

so we can put it to one side and stop worrying about whether

our activities in the development of this province are going to

destroy our environment, or whether the preservation of our

environment is going to interfere with the proper development

of our economy.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I bring you greetings. And

to all the Hon. Members of this chamber I bring you greetings from my riding,

Prince Rupert. Before getting to the central topic on which I'd like to speak

today, I'd like to make a few general remarks — general remarks and observations

that I've made, some conclusions that I've come to from those observations,

both here in the House and out of the House.

I would like to admit at this time that I came down here in

the fall session — the small fall session, quite willing to

dislike all Members of the Opposition. Now, I can't really do

that. I would like to say that there are Members over there

that I've become friends with.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: O.K. name names. I'd like to name the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) and the Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis). I think that we could all learn a lesson…

AN HON. MEMBER: Two!

MR. LEA: …that no matter what our political philosophy

is, or our political ideology, we have to give those other

people the right to those political philosophies and

ideologies. I really believe that the Social Credit Party have

a philosophy, that they belong and believe in. I believe that

the Conservative Party does. I give them both that right to

belong to it. And when the Liberal Party finds one I'll extend

that right to you too. (Laughter).

Now, the reason I say that is that I think it's obvious

there isn't too much a political philosophy within the Liberal

Party, because we can look at the federal Liberals — well, it

reminds me of a story of the fellow who was winding up his

speech and he said: "Now, those are my political philosophies.

Those are my policies, and I'll stand by them no matter what.

And if you don't like those I have some more." That seems to be

what's going on federally at the moment. And I think possibly

that's what happens to Liberal Parties all over the

country.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: We're holding the country together. (Laughter).

Now, I'd also like to thank a Member in this House for

giving us from time to time a lecture — a member of the Liberal

Party. I'm not going to mention any names, except to say that

he did sit one time in the House of Commons. (Laughter). You

know I'm amazed at his patience with us — he does have

patience. He gives us a lecture on parliamentary procedure,

economics, philosophy — and he's patient. He knows that some

day we'll be smart too. I'd like to thank him for that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Some of them take longer than others.

[ Page 299 ]

MR. LEA: Well, that's within his own party.

I'd like to touch on a few other subjects. I noticed the

other day when the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) was

speaking he mentioned the fishermen's union — the United

Fishermen and Allied Workers Union — and the ex-Minister of

Labour (Mr. Chabot) put an interjection in. He said, "communist

front." In my constituency in Prince Rupert we have a great

many fishermen who belong to that union — the biggest work

force in our community. You can imagine the frustration they

must have felt having a Minister of Labour who took that

attitude.

Can you imagine the kind of response they would get going to

him, and asking for his help as the Minister of Labour? Now,

there's been a great deal of talk in the House, especially from

the official Opposition, about the number of hats that are

being worn by some of the Ministers of the Government. I can

only mention that, no matter how many hats they wear, they

probably wear them in a better manner than if there was only

one hat passed around to each Minister in the previous

Government. Talking about hats, I'm sure that the official

Leader — or the House Leader of the official Opposition feels

that there are already one too many "chapeaux" in this House.

(Laughter).

Now, there's also been a great deal of talk on the land

freeze. I think that is the way it should be. I grew up on a

farm and I know what it's like to live on a farm. I know what

it's like to work on a farm. I know the dreams farmers have of

making that land fruitful. The Government took that farm away.

I was raised in the Arrow Lakes district in the Columbia River

area.

I agree that order-in-council isn't the best way to govern,

but at least people did have some previous knowledge of what

was going to happen. It's a lot better than some of the

farmers in the Columbia River who sent their taxes in and were

written back by the previous Government, telling them that

their land had been expropriated. And that happened. So, I find

it rather distressing that the same Government, or the same

people who were in that Government, can stand up and condemn

anybody for anything and everything.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), when talking the other

day, mentioned that North Vancouver district had been bankrupt at one time.

So, you cannot really blame them for selling land to try and get themselves

into a solvent position. I'd like to mention that Prince Rupert was also bankrupt

at one time. The main factor in pulling Prince Rupert out of that bankruptcy

was the fact that the City of Prince Rupert owns its own telephone company.

Every time they need money they go to that telephone reserve fund and they pull

money out. One of the only things that has kept Prince Rupert solvent through

the years is owning that telephone company.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: No, as a matter of fact the revenue from that

telephone company pays for practically all the social services

in the City of Prince Rupert.

Now, unemployment has been a big topic in this session. I

really hesitate to call upon a government to create more jobs.

I realize we live under the system we do and I suppose we have

to create more jobs.

But I don't believe that's the direction we should be going.

I think we should be looking at the manner in which we

distribute wealth, the revenue from our resources, and have a

more equitable split. I don't see why we should have elitists

living off those resources that belong to all of us. I believe

that the direction we have to go is to share that which belongs

to us, and not keep exploiting. I think we should understand

that progress and growth don't mean the same thing. I hear the

people using them in a synonymous manner and I don't think we

can.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Yes, well he's gone. You're alone.

You know, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) touched

on a bit of the problem the other day of why we're in this

dilemma of not having enough jobs. He mentioned automation and

he mentioned technology. And I agree with him, but how do we

solve that problem? Do we solve it by creating more plants,

more automation, more technology? Or do we use…you know

we've been waiting for this period for a long time when

machines would do work for us. We could maybe sit back. Maybe

people could work 20 hours a week. You don't have to take any

less money. Just don't give it all to the elitists, to the

capitalists. You know, I think that is the direction we have to

be going because the other way is suicide, suicide for everyone

in this world.

Also, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay mentioned strikes. They've

been mentioned by most Members of the Opposition in saying

there has to be a better way. There has to be a better way than

strikes. Well you know, even under management courses, and I've

taken one or two, under the capitalist system they point out to

you quite often that the best way to manage is to let the

people who work in the plant take

part in making the decisions — in what the goals are going to be, and how you're going to

achieve those goals. I think one way we can avert strikes is to

let the workers have some say in their own economic destiny. It

wouldn't be that bad…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: I suppose it's how you define workers.

[ Page 300 ]

For instance, I think there are two economic factors in

our life. One is capital that you invest and the other is workers. I believe that a great many people who

belong to right-wing politics get that confused. They think

that because they're management, they're not workers. They

are workers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: They aren't? Well, in some cases they aren't. I'll

agree with you. (Laughter).

I'd like to compliment at this time the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) for the manner in which they

handled the strike in Victoria with regard to schools.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): What did the Minister of

Education do? Nothing.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): You want to

bet?

MR. LEA: How do you know? See, he doesn't know.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, would you kindly address the

chair and less crossfire at the moment. You're busy talking to

each other, carrying on a conversation. We'd all like to get in

on it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to talk about trade

unions. First of all, I'd like to mention that in my opinion

trade unions are the children of capitalism and not socialism,

although for years and years and years the only social

conscience in this country was the trade union movement. I'm

afraid there are a great many trade unions now that don't take

the share of the social conscience that they should. They'll

take

part in exploitation of other underdeveloped countries and

they'll ask only for their bigger share of the pie.

At the same time, I believe that we have to look to the

trade union movement to show us the way. They do represent the

workers. I wish they represented a great many more workers. I

hope that there is legislation soon that makes it a lot easier

to make the availability of getting into a trade union much

easier.

There has also been a great deal of talk, Mr. Speaker, from

the Opposition and also from our own benches about the rate of

unemployment — 8.3, 5.7. It doesn't matter — because to a

person who is unemployed, those figures don't mean much, or

anything. They are rather ridiculous when you look at the

figures of some of the minority groups in our province, such as

the Indian people who live in my area.

You can go into a town of 1,000 people and only 30 people

are working in that whole community. I'm sure that they are not impressed by the kind of figures that

we talk about in this chamber. I'd like to talk about one of

those communities and discuss with you possibly a way that we

can help people, specially the Indian people. I'd like to talk

about the village of Haida on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

When you walk into that village, you can see despair and

frustration on the faces of those people. There hasn't been any

work there for generations. They've been on welfare. They don't

have proper medical care, educational care, recreational care.

I believe that those people do have something to offer us. I

believe that we have to look and take into account and exploit

the knowledge and skills that hey have, that are indigenous to

them.

I've brought with me on this trip some smoked salmon made by

an Indian lady who lives in Masset — canned smoked salmon. I'm

going to pass some of these cans around to the different

caucuses and let you taste it — because it's a delicacy. Only

they know how to do it and I think it's a shame that we waste

that knowledge and that skill. I believe that everyone in this

House should join with us when we try to put industry in that

will help Indian people in this province and especially where

they have been impoverished.

Did you notice anybody from the Social Credit — were you

applauding when I said we should help Indian people? Good. I'd

like to explain to you, through you, Mr. Speaker, the kind of

help that they received for 20 years. Like no help.

But I will say one thing. During the last election campaign

the person from the Social Credit Party who ran against me — and I still find this hard to believe, but it's true — went to

that village that I just described — in the community hall, he

took down a movie called "The Second Sequence to the Good Life,

" I believe, and showed that to them in the community

hall. Can you imagine? They didn't even understand what he was

showing them. At least some of them didn't but an old man there

who was there who was blind said afterwards, "You know I'm

blind, but I still saw through that." (Laughter). That's why on

August 30, even though they poured millions of dollars, and the

promise of millions of dollars, into those constituencies with

Indian people, they still lost the election. Because they don't

understand people — at least they didn't — I don't suppose they

do now.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Do I? Yes. Do you? That was another thing, Mr.

Speaker. During the election campaign the person that I was

campaigning against from the Social Credit Party went on the

air when I criticized him for some of his policies and he said,

"For the first time in 20 years we're doing something for those

people and now they complain." (Laughter).

[ Page 301 ]

It doesn't seem to matter what topic you mention in the

north, two areas seem to come to mind because they are vital to

the north, and they are transportation and communication. There

are experimental projects going on in the Queen Charlotte

Islands right now that are astounding. There's a doctor there

who is progressive. He has an administrator with him who is

progressive. They say they're going to be there for five years

and that's the first time we've had a doctor in the Queen

Charlotte Islands for over six months. His name is Dr. McGuire.

He's going to be here on February 25 to meet with the cabinet

and discuss some of his ideas. I'm going to be talking on some

of his ideas later on in the session.

But to give you an idea of what this man has in mind — he's

already applied for a channel on the satellite that's going to

be put up by the federal government — I believe in 1975. What

he would like to do is to have a communications network where a

doctor could be operating in the Prince Rupert General Hospital

or in Queen Charlotte City in the hospital there, and it could

be viewed by a specialist sitting in Vancouver offering advice,

guiding his hand. He's also going to use the telephone; where

he can send data down and it can be analyzed right away.

I believe that if we utilized the communication that is

available to us through microwave, telephone and satellite

communication — it might cost a lot of money to initiate it,

Mr. Speaker, but in the long run we're going to save a great

deal of money. I believe we should be looking in that direction

a lot more.

As a matter of fact, there's a report put out in the United

States jointly by the Council on Health Manpower and the

Council on Rural Health. It's entitled, "Priorities for

Increasing Availability of Health Services in Rural Areas." I'm

going to be dealing with this more extensively, but I'd like to

read you one paragraph because it's the top priority that has

come out of this study. This is it:

"Increased study and development of a variety of alternative

systems or models of delivery of care in medically deprived

rural areas, with greater attention to the importance of

transportation, technology and communications."

It just seems a shame that all these services are there and

we're not using them. Which gets me around to

transportation.

We are in dire need in the north of air ambulance services — all of rural B.C. — but especially in the north and especially

in my riding where so many of the people reside on islands. The

Queen Charlotte Islands are 80 miles from the coastline. We not

only need air transportation from local communities to regional

hospitals. We also need transportation from those regional

hospitals to the urban areas where a more specialized kind of

medicine can be offered, Mr. Speaker. I would like to suggest

to this Government that it is our responsibility to supply that

service through our medical care plan, and we should be looking

towards getting aircraft to do that job. Because we can't rely

on the rather sketchy service that's been supplied in the past

by the military. We have to take it up. It's our

responsibility. I believe that the people in the north need

that service now. There are other areas that we would not like

to wait for but we can wait for, but this is vital. We have to

have air ambulance service in the north.

Now I'd like to mention port development and the

transportation of coal from mine sites, especially that of

Sukunka to Tidewater. I'd like to commend, Mr. Speaker, the

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

many of the suggestions that he made of getting more

cooperation between the federal government and the provincial

government.

First, I'd like to talk about the responsibility of port

development in two different areas of the province — the lower

mainland and Prince Rupert and point out, Mr. Speaker, that the

BCR has its terminus on Howe Sound and that the CNR, which is

the federal responsibility, has its terminus in Prince Rupert. Only months ago Prince Rupert was named as a National Harbours

Board port, which again comes under the jurisdiction and

responsibility of the federal government.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years has it had the CNR?

MR. LEA: About 100.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEA: Well it was called something else before that. As a

matter of fact, as I understand it, we're still paying off one

of the bad deals made by the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, for

acquiring the CNR.

What type of port development is needed in Prince Rupert at

this point in economic time, Mr. Speaker? I believe that we

have to have a port that is going to be economically compatible

with the kind of resource produce that we're going to turn out

in the Pacific northwest of this province. We need a general

cargo port in Prince Rupert.

We need a port that is suitable to facilitate two-way

traffic, so that we can take imports from other nations to

destinations in Canada. We need a port that will not only

service the northwestern part of this province, but in time

will service the Yukon. One of the biggest problems in the

Yukon is that they do not have Canadian access to tidewater — and I lived in the Yukon, Mr. Speaker, for eight years, and I

know that that is a concern in the Yukon.

For years, Mr. Speaker, northern port development has been

used as a political football — and it goes back to 1900. As a

matter of fact people are still

[ Page 302 ]

wandering around Prince Rupert talking about Charles Hays,

the man who had a dream of the grand trunk railway with its

terminus in Prince Rupert. Unfortunately, Mr. Hays went down

with the Titanic and people are still waiting for that dream

and politicians have played with the northern port since that

time.

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that we are having another

political game with the northwestern port. Once again the

federal Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis, is playing

political football with a northern port in this province.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to refer to an

article from the

Vancouver Sun on Wednesday, January 31, 1973 and, because I

wouldn't want to do Mr. Davis an injustice, I am going to read

this from beginning to end — in case some of the Members, Mr.

Speaker, aren't familiar with it.

The by-line is Ottawa. It says:

"Environment Minister Jack Davis disclosed Tuesday that

there is an environmental study on the consequences of a

bulk-loading facility at Prince Rupert.

He denied a statement by Premier Dave Barrett that Ottawa

has never done an environmental study in connection with

proposals for a coal loading facility there.

A federal report released Monday recommends against Squamish

as the site for such a facility. The report also said

detrimental ecological effects of a coal port at Ridley Island,

near Prince Rupert, 'are considered minimal.'

Davis stated in an interview that 'any proper environmental

appraisal' looks at all alternatives, and doesn't just consider

one proposal. He said that several years ago there was a

proposal for putting a bulk-loading facility on Flora Bank, at

the mouth of the Skeena River, and that when federal officials

looked into this proposal they also examined Ridley Island as a

substitute.

'We said at that time that Ridley Island was better,' Davis

said, 'so we've made our least damage assessment.' He said that

Barrett has never asked the federal government for a copy of

this report.

Davis also said that provincial government environmental consultant Howard

Paish did not evaluate Britannia as a site for a coal port but stated anyway

that Britannia 'isn't as bad as Squamish.' The Minister also denied a charge

by Barrett that the reference to Prince Rupert as a better site for a coal handling

facility than Squamish was a political statement. Davis said he didn't write

one word of the report — 'It was a technical report and I am sure Mr. Barrett

read it as such."'

Mr. Speaker, I have another clipping, and it's from the Vancouver

Province from today, and the headline is "Prince Rupert Coal Port Study for

Release Soon, says Davis." Now I'd like to go back to the previous Press release

where he said it was released on Monday, but now its coming "soon".

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEA: Okay. You're right. But that's not the point I'm

going to make.

On Wednesday, January 31, when this first newspaper item

came out, I remember that there had been a study — all right,

Mr. Davis was telling the truth — there had been a study done in

the Prince Rupert area in the estuary near Flora Bank, on an

island called Kitson Island, in the estuary of the Skeena

River. I have that report. I dug it out of my files, and I'll

come back to that later. I'd like to go to this second report

that's coming out soon. Because I phoned, Mr. Speaker, to the

regional director, Mr. Hourston, of the fisheries department

under Mr. Davis — the regional director for the Pacific region — and I thought, "Well, if we haven't asked them for the report,

why don't we?" So I asked him and there was a bit of "umming"

and "ahing", Mr. Speaker, and I sort of got the impression that

maybe there wasn't a report. But I wasn't really talking with

Mr. Hourston at that time, I was talking with Mr. Rod Palmer,

Mr. Speaker, whom I had been referred to by Mr. Hourston's

office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you call Davis?

MR. LEA: So, two days later, I phoned back on the Friday

afternoon — and this time I did speak, Mr. Speaker, with Mr.

Hourston. First of all, the first report was concluded and

filed, the recommendations and conclusions, Mr. Speaker, in

April of 1972. Mr. Hourston, when I spoke with him, Mr.

Speaker, said that on May 1, 1972, more data was being gathered

near Ridley Island — that's the island adjacent to Kitson

Island, about two miles away — and so it was the following

month that this further gathering of data began and it ended on

August 22, 1972.

He said "the data is currently being analyzed." It hasn't

been analyzed yet, Mr. Speaker. There are no conclusions and no

recommendations and I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that that's the

report that Mr. Davis is referring to. He's telling us, "Go to

Prince Rupert," when the data hasn't even been analyzed,

Mr. Speaker. And that's politics.

So the only report that we really have, Mr. Speaker, is the

first report that was completed and filed in April, 1972. It's

called "A Cursory Investigation of the Productivity of the

Skeena River Estuary," done by the Fisheries Service,

the Department of the Environment.

I'd like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, the

summary and

conclusions from this only finished report on

[ Page 303 ]

Prince Rupert:

"Summary and Conclusions.

The 1971 investigation of the Skeena River estuary consisted

primarily of eel grass distribution, plankton types and density and fish distribution

in these waters. Results indicate that Flora Bank supports approximately 60

per cent of all the eel grass and almost 100 per cent of the juvenile herring

and needle fish captured between June and October at various stations in the

estuary.

The planktonic community structure was sampled only twice in

1971 and does not permit comparison of Flora Bank with the rest of the estuary.

However, because of the high abundance of plankton-feeding fish and the plankton-fish

feeding relationship, it represents an integral part of the complex food web

of Flora Bank.

The present data indicate that Flora Bank is the most important

shallow water area of the Skeena River estuary in terms of rearing juvenile

fishes. The proposed port development would completely destroy the complex Flora

Bank ecosystem and damage to the fisheries resource of the Skeena River and

its estuary would be immense.

Since the fishing industry contributes 30 to 40 per cent of the

base income for Prince Rupert, it is probably that the construction of port

facilities in this important tidal flat area would be economically unsound,

and it is suggested that water areas away from estuaries should be investigated

as alternate port development sites."

AN HON. MEMBER: I can smell a rat.

MR. LEA: Those are the summaries and conclusions of the only

report that I know of.

Mr. Speaker, Ridley Island, although it's two miles from

Kitson Island, is only yards from Flora Bank — it's in the

estuary of the Skeena River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go up and look.

MR. LEA: I have some maps here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go up and look.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what I said.

MR. LEA: Now, Mr. Speaker, there's been criticism of the

Premier in his feud with Mr. Davis. I would like to say that

the Premier has been charitable to Mr. Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask how could anyone respect a cabinet Minister

that puts forth information from a non-existent report? I suggest that Mr. Davis

hasn't had the respect of the fishermen in this province for some time and he's

now lost the support — or should at least lose the support — and respect of

all British Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEA: It's the report, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that when a person — especially a

cabinet Minister who is a British Columbian — would do this to

British Columbians, that he should resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. LEA: Now I'd like to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that in

Prince Rupert we do want port development. We want port

development that will be beneficial to the northwestern part of

British Columbia. We want a general cargo port and, in time,

I'm sure we will want bulk-loading facilities for coal.

But when you ask me, Mr. Speaker, or the people ask me to recommend that it

go to Prince Rupert with only this, Mr. Davis's word, Mr. Speaker, I can't do

it. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would first like

to draw to your attention and to that of the House that my 83

year old mother is in the gallery today, which I consider to be

an honour to me. I would like to say that I want to give my

mother my fondest regards. My mother is one of those people who

was a charter member of the CCF Party of Canada in 1933 — one

of those, Mr. Speaker, who has worked the 40 years to bring

this party, the people's party, to office in British

Columbia.

She worked for Mr. Strachan in 1949. The only thing I can

say, before some of my friends over there say it, is that her

son was not always so steadfast. But the wisdom of intelligence

is to make the change when you know that the change is required

and long overdue.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GORST: No, I'd never go back, Pat.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just think, you could have been leader.

(Laughter).

MR. GORST: What a fate! (Laughter). Matter of fact, I might

have even been in Ottawa and I would be sitting next to Pat

now. That's another story.

Mr. Speaker, I also hope the former Member above doesn't

have opera glasses looking down here. I'd like to welcome him

to the gallery today too. While I'm at

[ Page 304 ]

it, I'd like to say hello to my sister, my niece and my

nephew. It's family day in court.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I did note with pleasure that our Premier

and members of the cabinet paid a visit to the Governor and the

Legislature of the State of Washington in their role as

Government of this province. I welcome that. I'm sure we all

welcome this move to better know our neighbours to the south,

so that we in British Columbia may cooperate with that state,

that government, on matters of mutual concern, particularly as

they relate to the environment. The honour to make such a visit

was mine as an individual who received an invitation from the

Speaker of the Oregon State Legislature. That visit I made just

two days after the Premier and the Cabinet went to Washington.

They upstaged me.

January 18 and 19 of this year I spent in Salem, Oregon — in

that state's capital. A very beautiful capital it is, too.

While there, I was invited to take

part in several legislative

committee hearings. It may be that some aspects of their

legislative procedure would be of advantage to us here, and

hopefully that will be considered as we move to bring about

certain changes in our own procedure. I feel that the people of

Oregon afforded myself and through me, the people of British

Columbia, a great honour when I was asked at that time to

address the Oregon State Senate and, later in the same day, the

Oregon State Legislature.

The government of Oregon, Mr. Speaker, has asked me to

convey to all here their best wishes for our success in our

deliberations during this session.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I found in Oregon, as I am sure the

Premier found in Washington, that they are struggling to find

solutions to many of the same problems we are faced with here

in British Columbia — fisheries, forestry, agriculture and that

very burning question of farmland status.

Mr. Speaker, as we come to the final stages of this debate

in reply to the Speech from the Throne it is, I am sure,

obvious to all that nearly everything that could be said in

that regard has been well stated by all Members of this House — the important area of a bill of rights, proposed government

auto insurance, amendments to government pension plans,

proposals to revise some departments so to reflect the thrusts

and priorities of this new government and changes in the health

care to chart a new course in that field. These and many more

major changes of direction are embodied in the theme from the

throne speech, a theme I find long overdue and one offering the

people of British Columbia great opportunities. One of the

major debates in this House has been that revolving around the

freeze of farmlands and land use and ownership.

First, let me say the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) has my full support on a most courageous and socially

conscious act. I listened with awe and dismay to the official Opposition and also to the

lesser oppositions of this House as they went into great

efforts in what would seem an outpouring of concern for the

farmers of this province, a concern which is not substantiated

over the 20 long years of their government. Theirs was a

government that in 20 years brought the farmer and the

agricultural industry of British Columbia to the critical

economic position it finds itself in today. Now, it's even more

intriguing, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that the Leader of

that Opposition, which has flooded this chamber with doom and

gloom over this issue, is serenely enjoying a world cruise,

first class, on one of the most beautiful and palatial ocean

liners afloat.

I find it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to credit their concern

with any sincerity. Rather I suspect, in the opposition

arguments, that the farmer and agriculture are being subject to

rhetoric. Because the real concern and the true interest of

that group is with the ever insatiable appetite of the

speculator and the land developer.

Mr. Speaker, many Members of this House have, in their

speeches over the past week, indicated the sad state of

land-use planning in our province. My riding of Esquimalt

suffers from the same inadequacies as the rest of British

Columbia. The feelings of the people of my riding match those

of the rest of the province in calling for orderly development

and land use based upon the greatest lasting benefit to the

people of the province as a whole.

There is a valid public awareness and interest in directing

growth and development in the province and in preventing the

misuse of land and the sprawl of suburbia. The people know that

unlimited and unregulated growth leads inexorably to a lowered

quality of life. British Columbians want sensible planning from

the grass roots district level right up to an over-all plan for

the province — planning which will protect the young couple who

move into a new subdivision which is carefully planned, and

properly placed environmentally — planning which will allow out

young families to settle in peace, knowing their district is

safe from the past practices which laid to waste many of our

subdivisions where no land-use planning protected the

environments.

Our citizens see the critical necessity of total planning,

which will bring multiple benefits — total planning, which will

provide a planned use for all land. It will provide the

opportunity to maintain the integrity of our cities and cut

down on the enormous social costs brought about by suburban

sprawl and core disintegration. It will give us the chance of

integrating transportation, energy, education, health services,

industry, water and sewage systems so that we can hopefully,

ahead of expansion and development, direct its course, rather

than trying desperately to catch up with growth for which there

is no planning.

[ Page 305 ]

We must have correct land use to protect all aspects of life

in our province, remembering that we, the adults of today, are

but the caretakers for the children of tomorrow. We must

protect the farms of the Fraser Valley, southern Vancouver

Island, the Okanagan and other prime soil areas of maximum food

production, from the pressures of people. Adequate planning

would give us a tool to divert growth and development to the

areas of the province where it is needed and where it would do

the most good.

There are other speakers to go today, so I will complete my

remarks on that topic at another time.

But now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to the

subject of our shorelines and in particular to the oceanic

coasts of the Queen Charlottes, Vancouver Island and the

fjord-indented mainland coast. The shoreline: that narrow strip

of transition, the interface where the sea meets the land.

Perhaps here nature is at her finest. Here there is constant

flux of two opposing forces sometimes battling in angry

confrontation yet always mixing; blending one with the other.

The shoreline — its unique identity is a deep and powerful part

of the heritage of British Columbia representing in its very

nature that spirit which makes our people proud and dedicated

British Columbians and Canadians.

Recreationally, the coastline is probably our most

significant resource, not only for our residents but for the

visitors who travel to our province. At Long Beach — Pacific

coast of Vancouver Island — over one-half million people used

that coastline during the first eight months of 1972. The West

Coast Trail, a wilderness parkland strip on the Pacific coast

from Port Renfrew to Bamfield, is one of the most intensely

used wildland park areas in the province.

The shorefront urban parks such as Beacon Hill in Victoria

and Stanley Park in Vancouver receive an extremely heavy

shoreline recreational use from the local public.

Aesthetically too, the coast is a highlight of our province.

Although it is true that the oceanic coastline represents but

only one segment of the British Columbia landscape, when it is

recognized that three-quarters of the province's population

live on or directly adjacent to the coast, then its high

relative importance is clearly apparent.

I am sure, though, that we all recognize these values of our coastline. However,

we are aware just how rapidly those values can be lost or destroyed if we do

not carefully manage this shoreline resource. This magnificent coastline, a

very special area biologically, is one of those that most profoundly reacts

to the impact of human activities upon it. In British Columbia, the coasts,

splendid as they may be, have suffered great abuse due solely to the helter-skelter

development which has occurred with no overall consideration being given to

the rational planning and management of this resource.

We here in this province have allowed our coastal lands to

be alienated and despoiled, often on the blind excuse that such

actions were required for the expedient progress of free

enterprise. Thinking only in the short-range terms, the

previous government of this province, Social Credit, preferred

to make a fast buck rather than give any thought for the future

or to recognize that a precious resource was being rapidly

dissipated.

As an example of this, let us take a look at Vancouver

Island's east coast: an endless procession of private property

signs; subdivided beach fronts. Hardly anywhere is there an

easily accessible route to the shoreline. In fact, from

Victoria to the northern tip of this island, less than 12 miles

out of a total of 600 miles of shoreline on the east coast of

Vancouver Island have been preserved for the public's use. Not

much of a legacy, Mr. Speaker, for the future generations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am strong on this subject for I

represent Esquimalt, a constituency whose people maintain very

close ties with a natural coastline and who have on many

occasions rallied to save a beach or regional park. I

personally have seen priceless recreational shorefront lost to

public use to satisfy the more limited desire of the

developer.

I know, too, how rapidly the shores of the mainland and the

Queen Charlottes are being altered. Mr. Speaker, the whole

process appears so harmless.

A lot purchased here, a subdivision there. But when added up

at an accelerated rate, it is taking place and soon a whole

section of coast is alienated permanently. There is no

effective overall planning. Each subdivider is concerned with

only his own interest. By this type of shorefront development,

the best shoreline is acquired by a few who can afford the very

high price. Or it is cut up into one attractive subdivision and

the people are left the inferior remains of a resource that

might have been of more significance.

On some of our Gulf Islands, this situation is already a

fact. The degree of private ownership makes access to the coast

very difficult. I ponder what will happen to these islands and

their value as a release valve to the large populations of the

lower mainland and the capital region if all the shoreline

areas are unavailable to the people…

MR. CURTIS: Or from ferry terminals.

MR. GORST: …except those few — and not all of them

resident in this country — who are fortunate enough to acquire

seafront property, as the former Premier of the province has on

Saltspring.

The escalating cost of shore property that accompanies the

waterfront land speculation makes it difficult, particularly in

the populated areas where

[ Page 306 ]

the need is greatest, to establish any significant coast

parks.

In dealing with the problem of retaining some control over

the development of our shoreline, it is important to say a word

about the role the major forest companies could play in

altering the onshore lands. A few of the giant forest companies — Macmillan-Bloedel, B.C. Forest Products, Crown Zellerbach,

Rayonier, Pacific Logging, CPR — have extensive private land

holdings on key shore properties, some of which they intend to

engage in the subdivision and real estate business, In fact, the public outcry at Galiano this past year was

because of that kind of activity where tree farm land was to be

subdivided. Only the action of the New Democratic Party

Government and the Minister of that department prevented that

carving up which would have adversely affected the character of

that island.

Overnight, in a manner of speaking, the serene beauty of our

coast could be drastically affected by the ill-planned

subdivisions — the get-rich-quick real estate promotions of

those who would divide up these islands. We have to move, Mr.

Speaker, to enforce legislation that will ensure that the

people of British Columbia control the shorelands of British

Columbia.

The foreign land investor is now acquiring some of the best

coastal property in the province. The Opposition would no doubt

say he is just being enterprising but what really concerns me

about the foreign investor is that he is operating in British

Columbia because good coastal properties are getting more

difficult to find in his own country. Obviously, we should

recognize this as a warning of things to come. Should we not

first gain control of our own shorelands.?

The problem of acquiring control and development of our

coastline is not unique. Other governments — Britain, New

Zealand, Denmark, Australia, Sweden, Norway — have demonstrated

that it is not necessary that this resource be lost to

haphazard development.

We should learn by the experience of others how we might

best manage our shorelands. Washington State has been very

progressive in their approach to seashore conservation. That

state established the Seashore Conservation Act in 1967

for the purpose of acquiring shoreline property from Juan de

Fuca Strait to the mouth of the Columbia River. But this year

the people of Washington State passed a referendum requiring

that all state shoreline be subject to comprehensively planned

master programmes in order to:

(1) Recognize and protect the state interest.

(2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.

(3) Result in long-term benefit over short-term benefit.

(4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.

(5) Increase public access to the shoreline.

(6) Increase the public shoreline recreational

opportunities.

By this Act, human activities and developments are

classified into categories of permitted uses and non-permitted

uses. Priorities are obviously being given to the former over

the latter. All in all, the Act is a far-thinking one which we

should investigate.

California this year followed Washington's lead when the

public in that state passed by plebiscite a bill that would

institute a comprehensive master planning and regulation of

California State shoreline. I think that in this case it is

interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that with regard to the

California referendum, the people of that state voted in favour

despite the fact that real estate promoters spent $1 million in

an attempt to defeat that plebiscite. That must surely indicate

how concerned those people are for the preservation of their

coast.

Surely the people of British Columbia are equally concerned

about our coastline. Therefore, I strongly urge that in

accordance with the environmental philosophy dictated in the

throne speech, we establish programmes to enable British

Columbia to realize the full potential of such a precious

resource as represented by our coastal shorelines.

I would suggest that an acquisition fund be created to

purchase back key land areas of our coast that have been

alienated. As an example, there is the beautiful Prevost Island

which, with such a coastline fund, we could acquire for the

people of British Columbia.

All the B.C. coastline, private or Crown-owned, should be

subject to comprehensive master plans which would be developed

to regulate and ensure wise use of all coastal areas.

The programmes of the States of Washington and California

should serve as examples to us when we initially institute

shoreline management for British Columbia. When such plans for

this province have been completed they should be enforced by

laws that operate similar to zoning bylaws of a city. For

example, in areas designated by the plans for subdivision and

other private uses, development in such zoning laws would

require that a substantial greenstrip be left in natural state

for use by the public.

Crown shoreline should be retained in the public domain and

even leasing of shoreline properties should cease or be seldom

permitted. These are the programmes required to protect our

shores but before I leave this topic I want to reiterate the

question of why must such ownership be located directly on the

shore. Why could it not be located just back from the shore so

that all, not just a few, will enjoy it?

I am not advocating that the entire coastline should be one

long park. This jurisdiction is often

[ Page 307 ]

inappropriate. However, what I am saying is that the

shoreline should be retained through sensible planning and

management in as natural and as accessible a state as possible.

High use in key areas will certainly necessitate park status.

Yet I see no reason for example, why public forest land — coast

strips could not remain under the forest service.

I see the coastland often being defined as a strip scenic

recreational easement, be it on Crown land or on private. The

urgency to undertake this system of progress cannot be

underestimated, for as each day progresses we are continually

losing our right to this beautiful coastal area and at an

alarming rate. We have no time to spare. We must preserve it

now.

Mr. Speaker, so long as I am addressing myself to the topic

of coastline protection I think it would be logical to discuss

the oil tanker problem. And management of the sort I have been

speaking of is going to benefit our coastal area, then that

area must be subject to the likelihood of oil spill

pollution.

I would venture that there is little need to further discuss

the actual hazards that the proposed supertanker route would

represent to the ecology and the aesthetics of this coastline.

There has already been much talk on this by Members of all

parties. Perhaps for once we have an issue here where

socialists and free enterprisers are in accord. However, I

would like to approach this subject from a slightly different

angle than the ones normally taken.

The Premier has voiced his concern in this matter and the

difficulty we have as a province to deal with what is

essentially a federal responsibility. I think this should bring

us to a clear awareness on the nature of the problem which is

one of international character. It is in most respects beyond

the legal control of British Columbia, for at no time will the

tankers actually enter Canadian waters, therefore it is a

matter that must be handled through Ottawa, and the Department

of External Affairs.

If anyone is going to stop this thing from the Canadian

point of view, it is the responsibility of Ottawa. To date I

would suggest that office has not been terribly effective or as

concerned as one might expect. The Canadian government has

taken the approach that it can only protest the oil tanker

route in the hope that such a protest will create sympathy and

embarrassment of the U.S. federal government to the extent of

influencing that government's decision makers to call off the

proposed route.

However, recognizing the degree to which the United States seems to be committed

to the route, we should hardly expect that a formal protest from Canada, regardless

of how long or how strong, is going to be effective. The United States is concerned

about a self-inflicted energy crisis and is only going to continue its good

neighbour policy toward us, respecting our formal protests, so long as that

policy is not going to interfere with the flow of desired energy resources.

And I think this should be a lesson for the future.

Whenever the United States will need energy or other

critical resources, she will not tolerate our attempting to

slow things up — unless Canada today, on something as critical

as the oil tankers, strongly asserts her position that we are

not simply the good provider for all American needs, in a

language they will understand. The language of economics.

Canada cannot prevent passage of the oil tankers but we can

introduce legislation whose effect will ultimately unfavourably

influence the benefit cost rations calculated by the oil

companies who will use the tankers to transport the oil. Canada

could pass legislation specifying that any party guilty of

spilling amounts of oil would suffer severely in paying fines

and clean-up compensation.

The Canadian nation does not have immediate jurisdiction

over the passage of these tankers. But it should have a

definite say on the matter of damages — for compensation if oil

enters Canadian waters. And improved tracking systems able to

clearly identify the guilty party would be required. Oil spill

observation flights by Canadian Forces aircraft — radar tracking

— would cost but it would work. Why shouldn't Canada attempt to

go beyond the simple diplomatic protest and try to provide an

economic deterrent in order to re-direct American thinking?

At this moment I am sure the Americans feel that the

simplest part of transporting the oil is getting it past the

British Columbia coast. They are not encountering the same

static on this as they are from their own people over the

Valdez pipeline route. Protecting our coast in a more vigorous

way than at present I strongly urge, as I am sure others here

do, that we intensify our efforts to get more dramatic results

from our federal government on this issue.

I am concerned that Ottawa is not actually sincerely

promoting the interests of British Columbia as well they might.

I have a couple of reasons for wondering just how deeply and

effectively Ottawa is committed to halting the oil tankers.

During the recent spill of the Irish Stardust the public was

awakened to the dangerous situation on our coast. Perhaps the

province was not 100 per cent prepared for that spill but we

learned fast and I would expect that should another occur, we

would to the best of our ability be ready to meet the

situation.

However, to be technical it is the national government that

is perhaps the most responsible agent for the protection of our

shores. Yet the only spokesman I heard for Ottawa was the chief

enforcement officer of Environment Canada. What did the federal

Minister in charge of this department have to say on the Irish

Stardust spill — the new Minister whose home riding is on the

coast — nothing. There was no statement from him — not one of

any significance. I saw little evidence of any effective

contingency plan of action

[ Page 308 ]

by that Ministry to handle the spill, despite the fact that

supertankers seem to be coming and everyone, particularly the

federal government, expects them.

When I see just how ineffectively the federal government

reacted to this situation and I realize just how ineffective

their protest to the United States has been; and when I realize

that the ship involved was not a supertanker, not even a

tanker, I become sick at the prospect of what our beaches will

possibly look like in a few years.

My message is clear and by no means original. We in British

Columbia sit on the edge of a catastrophe. We are mostly

powerless to prevent it and our only possible hope, the federal

government, seems only semi-concerned of our plight.

Just how unconcerned the federal government is to the danger

an oil spill might wreak upon our shores can be demonstrated in

the information which was made available last April, but which

at that time failed to significantly reach the B.C. public.

I have here a map of oil exploration permits on our coastal

waters. Now all those areas marked in black — there is the

coast of British Columbia — all those areas marked in black,

which is an appropriate colour for oil, are under permit to oil

companies for exploration. Companies such as Shell, Standard — for offshore oil and gas, By March 1 of 1972, 237 permits had been granted on this

coast by the federal government. 40 of them were issued in 1971. None, not one had been revoked despite all the concern in

British Columbia over the danger of oil spills. It would seem

to me as if the federal government would not be very worried

about oil tankers if they were promoting such oil

exploration.

This map also shows 14 drilled well locations, several off

the coast of our newly created Pacific Rim Park. You will see

on the map that some of those oil permits for exploration are

right here in the Straits just 2 or 3 miles from the parliament

buildings.

We would not have much of an oceanic park at Long Beach if

by chance oil leaked from a well-site to the shore. We all

remember Santa Barbara. I would say that the federal government

and the Minister of Environment are not doing their job insofar

as protecting British Columbia's coast from the very possible

desecration by oil pollution. British Columbia must impress

upon Ottawa the urgency of this situation. We have had enough

rhetoric from Ottawa and now we have to have action — and not

the kind associated with granting offshore oil exploration

permits.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to say something about the

capital seat of British Columbia. I feel that we must, without

delay, form a provincial capital commission to take this

capital region out of the hands of the developers and to ensure

that public funds are used for the benefit of the people as a whole; not

for the benefit of the developers.

Right at this moment thousands of dollars are being spent to

upgrade Wharf Street and Johnson Street — in the Johnson Street

Bridge area; money being tossed in after the millions poured

into the inner harbour for the betterment of those developers

who would prefer public park-like settings for their towering

hotel, apartment and condominium developments.

For years the people of this province have deplored the

condition of the entrances to the capital city: the dilapidated

inner harbour, the polluted Gorge and sanctimonious agreement

by the politicians that something must be done. Planners and

other interested people have gone to a great deal of trouble to

offer solutions. There was the Old Town report, the briefs on

waterfront development, the Colquitz River plan and the hopes

for the Gorge waterway and Portage Inlet and Selkirk waterway,

which I and the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis) have worked together on for a number of years — I'm

sorry he's not here at the moment.

Little has been done — perhaps because of the lack of a

co-coordinated body to take over the responsibility. So here we

sit in this old building — a spectacular building which

dominates the landscape here by the inner harbour. But I wonder

for how long before it's cowering in the shadow of the

surrounding high rise towers.

The public will have to face up to the financial as well as

the environmental cost of making this a city fit for developers

to get rich in.

Take the inner harbour as an example. The City of Victoria

has purchased the Ocean Cement plant with federal and

provincial funds — public money as well as the city's money;

all of it public money on three levels — at a cost of $1

million for 2 1/2 acres. Add to that $1.5 million or so to

demolish the old buildings in that plant and develop it into a

park, which is the intent. The city also wants the rest of the

foreshore all the way to the Johnson Street Bridge, likely

bringing the cost to $3 million.

And what is it all for? Well there is, of course, the Reid

Centre. Some of you here may not be familiar with that. But

there are those here who are. And there are people in the

gallery who know all about the Reid Centre with its towers. A

public park would really enhance the looks of such a

development.

The Reid Centre, if you want a similarity, is Victoria's own

Four Seasons complex.

Then there is the money to be spent on the causeway in front of the Empress

Hotel, and on buying the CPR property right outside the front door of the Parliament

buildings. I wonder why we have to buy that CPR property. They are leasing it

from the

[ Page 309 ]

federal government. Couldn't we just take over the lease?

Back on this side of the harbour there is the projected 700

units of condominium and hotel accommodation slated for the

Bapco Paint property which is owned by Canadian Industries

Limited. I imagine that company will appreciate the city's

greenbelt efforts on its behalf.

Such development will likely make the owners of those

properties across the harbour — again in Victoria West in my

riding of Esquimalt — sit up and take notice. And we can expect

to see more buildings on that foreshore across the harbour.

Now how do we stop this alienation of our waterfront and the

crowding out of the parliament buildings to be dominated by

other structures when it's quite obvious the architect who

designed these buildings meant for these buildings to be the

dominant feature of this area?

Well, there have been a few good ideas out of Ottawa even if

we've never had the right kind of government there. One of the

best ideas was the National Capital Commission. It is a body

funded by the federal government and responsible for the care

of waterways, foreshore, open land and parks. It works with

local city government in improving the area of the government

precinct, helping with necessary roadwork, taking up unused

railroad tracks, caring for bri