1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st 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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

605 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code of British Columbia (Bill M-203) Mr.

Gibson.

Introduction and first reading — 605

Oral questions

Alleged blacklist of public servants. Mr. King — 605

Meadow Creek Farms racetrack proposal. Hon. Mr. Williams answers —

Seatbelt legislation. Mr. Wallace — 607

Racing dates for proposed track. Mr. Macdonald — 608

Pemberton report on forest industry. Mr. Gibson — 608

Budget debate

Mr. Lea — 608

Hon. Mr. Davis — 612

Mr. Lauk — 617

Mr. Lloyd — 624

Mr. Kerster — 630

Mrs. Dailly — 633

Mr. Bawtree — 636

Mrs. Jordan — 638

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is a distinct pleasure for me

to bring to your attention two distinguished guests from the province

of Alberta. We are happy to have with us today, seated on the floor of

the House, the Hon. Gerard Amerongen and his wife Betty. Mr. Amerongen

is Speaker of the House for the province of Alberta. He is visiting

British Columbia for a few days and he's here to watch our House in

operation. I'm sure you'll welcome them.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery

today is a dedicated community worker from my constituency, Mr. Mack

Leaming. He has with him his grandaughter, Michelle Wimshurst, and a

friend of hers, Kathy Boyd. I would like the House to bid them welcome

please.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, it is my

great pleasure to have in the gallery today some 70 young men from the

Shawnigan Lake School. I am delighted to be able to have these boys

here today, and I know all the other members share my pleasure.

This school recently celebrated its 65th anniversary, in provision

of an alternative form of education in this province. I would ask the

House to join in welcoming the boys and their instructor, Mr. Grass.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour

today of having a constituent of mine, Liz Caldwell, and her friend,

Sharon Watts, visiting here today from my constituency. I would

appreciate a welcome to them.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

my colleague from the riding of Shuswap, I'd like the House to welcome

some of the council members from Okanagan Regional College who are in

the gallery. Unfortunately, we know of some who are coming, but our

eyesight is so mutually bad we can't recognize the others. We will be

seeing them later and we're sure they're the first of many delegations.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE HUMAN

RIGHTS CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 203,

An Act to Amend the Human Rights Code

of British Columbia Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

today.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED BLACKLIST OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A question to the Premier:

yesterday the Premier announced that an investigation would take place

with respect to certain documents that were filed with this House and

had apparently come from the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen'

s) office. I would like to ask the Premier what the terms of

reference for that inquiry will be, who will be conducting the inquiry,

and will the human rights branch be involved to ensure that the serious

allegations that public servants are having their civil liberties

abridged also be part of the investigation?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

member for Revelstoke-Slocan for his question and his concern for the

rights of people. I know he expressed those sentiments when other

investigations were taking place; I just didn't hear them.

Mr. Speaker, the investigation is taking place under the direction

of the Attorney-General's department. I have asked the acting

Attorney-General, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), to hold

discussions with the Deputy Attorney-General, which I understand he has

done, related not just to the documents yesterday but documents from

the same department that were tabled in this Legislature, or dealt with

in this Legislature, last year. The scope of the investigation would

discuss the security of the office and relate to such matters as they

may find necessary in carrying out the investigation.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary. I want to thank the Premier

for the information. I may suggest that he extend the investigation

somewhat further with respect to security and investigate the

circumstances under which a confidential telegram came into his

possession.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your supplementary question?

MR. KING: Am I to understand then, from the Premier, that he

is totally ignoring the serious allegation that public servants in this

province are being identified by their political persuasion and being

harassed? Is that being completely ignored in the investigation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 606 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, those three documents that

were put together in some fashion, and are unrelated, as I suggested

yesterday, are not a blacklist. I reject that. I also reject the way in

which those documents were put together in an attempt to make them seem

part of a package. As such, no investigation appears to be necessary,

but perhaps an investigation into the way the member for

Revelstoke-Slocan wishes to use this House might be.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan has the floor.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier

refuses to answer a simple question. Whether or not he agrees with the

interpretation which I hold of the documents is not the question. I

have made a serious allegation in this House, an allegation that public

servants are being interfered with. I am simply asking if the

investigation which he has ordered will embody that area of concern.

All I want is a simple answer — yes or no — not a political statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in response to what I consider his frivolous allegation, the answer is no.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

supplementary. Will the Premier please explain to the House why all of

the letter that was received in his office was not passed on — this is

according to his own testimony in this House at 6 o'clock last evening

— but was retained in his office for the use of his office?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: It was retained in his office for the use of his

office. It was an organizational chart which was marked with the

political affiliation of certain of those public servants, when he

could have had for his office use a completely clean organizational

chart. Why wasn't that sent on with the original letter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, for the member who wasn't here

yesterday when this took place, who wasn't present in the House as the

rest of us were, a letter was referred on. An organizational document

was kept in the office to look at organization because it was the only

one we had as the new government. It wasn't kept as a political

document. The member can quite clearly see a copy of it, at least. It

was used for organizational suggestions, or apparent organization

suggestions, by a member of my office. I see nothing unusual about that.

MR. GIBSON: I might just say in passing that the reason I

wasn't here at that time was because I was in North Vancouver at a

testimonial dinner for his former candidate in that riding, who is a

man I admire more than most of the men on that side of the House!

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is your supplemental question?

MR. GIBSON: My supplementary question is this: how is it that

as of January 9, the date of this memorandum, when this government had

been in office for almost three weeks, his office had not had time to

obtain a clean copy, an unpolitical copy, of the organizational chart

of that department?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I might direct it to the Minister of Environment, since the

context of my question relates to one of the themes that the Premier

developed in his comments last night, and that was the whole question

of the integrity of civil servants and their living up to the oath of

office. Since much of this issue seems to have been precipitated by a

civil servant or public servant by the name of Klaus Ohlemann, who

wrote the initial letter dated December 23, could I ask the Minister of

Environment whether he has discussed this issue with Mr. Ohlemann and

the propriety of Mr. Ohlemann initiating a political issue in the

manner in which he did in this letter? Is there any anticipation that

the minister will discipline Mr. Ohlemann?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to the member, I have not yet

spoken to this gentleman since the incident was raised in the House. It

is my intent to discuss the issue with him. I will also be discussing

the propriety of such a letter with officials within my department, and

we will be making inquiries. I might mention that in seeing the name on

that correspondence — which is very difficult to read, really — when it

was originally viewed, it was not my knowledge that this gentleman

worked for the Ministry of Environment. I believe he is employed in the

land service division, but at that time I did not know who this

gentleman was.

MR. WALLACE: But you will pursue that.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I will be speaking with him, yes, and I will be speaking with some of the other persons involved in the department.

[ Page 607 ]

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): A supplementary to the Minister of

Environment: is it not true that since receiving the black-list memo a

major staff reorganization has taken place?

AN HON. MEMBER: What blacklist memo?

MR. SKELLY: This is directed to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SKELLY: Is it not true that a major staff reorganization

has taken place within the lands branch and, as a result of that

reorganization, people who were labelled Social Credit on the chart

have been given senior responsibility for critical positions, such as

in the north of the province even though they have no experience in the

north?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question offends against the

directions we have for questions in question period, particularly if

the question is offensive, contains epithet, innuendo, satire or

ridicule.

Interjections.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Lauk, QC, followed by Gibson, QC. Oh, aren't they jumpy over there today?

MR. SKELLY: On that supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as a result

of his receipt of that blacklist, have not some members in the lands

branch been promoted to senior positions within the branch?

MR. SPEAKER: The suggestion, hon. member, of a "blacklist" is

not a parliamentary term. If you will rephrase your supplemental

question in other terms it would be acceptable.

MR. SKELLY: Since receiving the memo, has not a major

reorganization taken place within the lands branch and, as a result of

that reorganization, personnel who were labelled NDP on the memo have

been jumped over and people labelled Social Credit have been given

positions of senior responsibility, such as responsibility for the

north even though they have no experience in the north?

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question,

that is rather filled with innuendo, lack of names and so on, is no. If

the member has any names of any people who, he may feel, have been

given special privileges, I would appreciate them. But

I might also mention that the memo had no effect whatever upon any

reorganization. The reorganization of the Ministry of Environment was

necessary because, unfortunately, in a few previous years it had gotten

out of hand.

MR. SKELLY: Is it not true that some of the people labelled

NDP on that memo, who were responsible for sections of the lands

branch, are paid less now than people working under them who, again,

are labelled Social Credit on that memo?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: All the persons who would be mentioned on

that list or reorganization chart would be subject to the provisions of

the Public Service Commission and would be paid commensurate with their

duties. Again, if you have any names or details, or amounts of money,

please advise me.

MEADOW CREEK FARMS

RACETRACK PROPOSAL

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker,

yesterday during question period the hon. member for Alberni asked a

supplementary question with respect to Meadow Creek Farms Ltd. The

question was: has Captain Harry Perry of Meadow Creek Farms made

application to the Attorney-General to establish a racetrack in the

area? The answer is no. Such applications are not made to the

Attorney-General. The establishment of racetracks is a matter for local

government decision.

SEATBELT LEGISLATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Transport, in the light of the very substantial amount of

correspondence that has been directed to MLAs regarding seatbelt

legislation, if he would tell the House whether the matter is under

reconsideration or whether he can assure many people in the province

that, in fact, the government will reintroduce the bill in a manner in

which the minister himself stated....

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill, no coaching!

MR. WALLACE: Hon. Premier, don't bother to coach your minister. Let him answer himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know.

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that MLAs....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member

[ Page 608 ]

for Oak Bay has the floor on a question.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in trying to meet my responsibility

as an MLA, I try to answer mail. But I can't answer mail if we haven't

some idea what the answers are from the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: That minister stated in the fall that the

legislation would be reintroduced, and I know he's just about to waffle

and not give us an answer. Now is it or is it not to be reintroduced?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter of policy. There are

several bills under the heading of motor-vehicles legislation to be

introduced, and the hon. member will know precisely what they contain

when they are tabled in the House.

RACING DATES FOR PROPOSED TRACK

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the acting Attorney-General whether or not a racetrack can proceed

anywhere in this province unless the Racing Commission, which is under

the A-G's department, grants them racing days

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a

racetrack was a question that was asked. Whether they can have

parimutuel betting is a matter for decision by the federal Department

of Agriculture, as the hon. member well knows, following the

establishment of racing dates by the Racing Commission. The question

was: has application been made to the Attorney-General to establish a

racetrack, and the answer is no.

PEMBERTON SECURITIES

REPORT ON FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: has he

read the report on the future of the B.C. forest industry prepared for

the government by Pemberton Securities, and submitted, approximately,

in October of last year?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I didn't commission any such

report. We get numerous reports. I'll check into it and see if I've

received and read such a report.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, just before I

begin, it's been brought to my attention that Alderman Marzari from the

city of Vancouver has just come into our gallery, and I would ask the

House to make her welcome.

Last night I was pointing out to the government and to the

government caucus that they are not the only ones cognizant of the fact

we are facing hard economic times and that there is restraint needed by

all sections and all factions of our economy. We are all aware of that,

just as members of the government have pointed out to us that we're not

the only ones in this province, or the only political party, who are

concerned with handicapped, or concerned with the sick, or concerned

with the poor. There are people on both sides of the House also

concerned with those areas. But what are the priorities of government?

First of all, Mr. Speaker, last night I said that every segment in

our society should be concerned about restraint, that it is not only

labouring people and tradespeople who should be concerned about

productivity. It should be the professionals, the lawyers, the doctors,

the small businessmen, the corporations, boardroom people. Everybody in

this country should be concerned about the lack of productivity in all

of those areas.

The opposition agreed with me last night that in every segment of

our society there should be concern about productivity. As a matter of

fact, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) yelled at me across

the floor: "Because you're concerned about those areas, come on across

the floor and join us. Because if you are concerned, then you have no

right being in that other party" — that was the implication from the

Minister of Labour.

I pointed out that each member in this House is concerned according

to his conscience. We are all concerned on this side about the economy,

the future, the need for restraint and productivity. But it also holds

that if the members opposite in government agree with me that there is

a lack of productivity in every area of our society, then there is a

degree of productivity which is also commensurate in our society. In

other words, sure, we're all concerned about productivity, but there's

no one area of the economy that can be picked out as the dirty villain.

Everybody in this society is responsible.

Productivity at the labouring and trades level is just as high as it

is anywhere else in our society. That is a fact that the opposition

over there — opposition to us, at least — seems not to understand. If

we are going to be concerned about the future, economically and

socially, then every segment of our society must be examined. If we are

guilty of a lack of productivity in one segment of our society, they've

agreed that it's in every segment of our population and our society.

What we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is this

[ Page

609 ]

budget, which I think reflects the attitude and the

words of government. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Chabot), the Premier, other ministers and backbenchers have gone

throughout this province calling for the need for more productivity in

the work place, more productivity at the plant level. They never talk

about more productivity from small business; they never talk about more

productivity from the corporate boardrooms; they never talk about more

productivity being needed from the professionals. Only the

working-class citizen comes in for fire under that topic from

government.

This budget reflects those words and reflects those attitudes,

because what have they done in this budget? They've said to the rich:

"Get richer, but no more productivity. We're going to remove succession

duties and allow you to get $30 million richer. And what about you

working people? We're going to increase the amount of money that you

pay into this budget. It's gone up to 80 per cent." Taxation from

people is up to 80 per cent of the entire budget, while those other

sectors in our economy, the private sectors, pay 20 per cent. It's 80

per cent from working people; 20 per cent from the other factors in the

economy.

It's obvious from those figures, Mr. Speaker, that this budget does

reflect their words over the past month; it does reflect their

attitudes over the past month. There's only one single group in this

society whom they want to hold accountable for productivity; they are

only blaming one group for, perhaps, putting us into an area of not

being competitive in the world marketplace. All of those attitudes and

words are reflected in this budget.

They hammer senior citizens; they take away Pharmacare; they take

away any amount of money that will do anything in terms of housing for

senior citizens in this budget. Over the last two years with the prior

budget and this budget they have hammered the working people over and

over again with sales tax, with income tax. What about the other

sectors in our society such as the coal companies, the oil companies

and the rich? Let them go scot-free. This budget reflects their words

and their attitude.

Mr. Speaker, I come from and represent in this Legislature a community which

has been more adversely affected by the attitudes, the actions, the policies

and administration of that government than probably any other community in this

province. I have information from municipal staff in the city of Prince Rupert;

I get this from the economic department of the city of Prince Rupert. There

has been an impact study of the Can-Cel shutdown. That study indicates that

an estimated 724 jobs will be lost in Prince Rupert because of the actions of

that government, or because of the government allowing actions of Canadian Cellulose

when they had the power, the duty and the right to stop those actions in an

assessment appeal case.

I asked the Minister of Finance in a question period whether he

intended doing anything about an assessment appeal that Prince Rupert

went under. The city of Prince Rupert lost $784,000 out of its coffers

because of that appeal.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that there is no conscience over there —

$784,000 out of the coffers of Prince Rupert because that government

failed to act in instructing Can-Cel as to the proper direction they

should go in terms of that appeal. We can only hope that the appeal

that's been launched in the Supreme Court of British Columbia will be

successful on the part of Prince Rupert, because if it isn't, we're in

even more trouble than we already are.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: That's right. The assessment authority is also

appealing, but also the very papers that were filed in this House by

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) from the assessment board

recommend

section 24 of the Assessment Act be changed, and yet the

Minister of Finance stands in his place in this House and says that

government has no intention of changing that legislation. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker, in a newsletter by the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities, dated January, 1977, They have a heading in here

called, "Assessment Ruling." It says:

"Finance Minister Evan Wolfe told the Legislature that

government will not interfere with the B.C. Assessment Appeal Board's

ruling that allowed a Prince Rupert firm, Can-Cel, to avoid paying

$784,000 in municipal taxes last year after the Pollution Control Board

ordered it to implement costly pollution control measures. Mr. Wolfe

also said the government has no plans to amend the

section of the

Assessment Act which permits corporations not to pay municipal taxes

for taking certain pollution control measures. He added that any

corporation ordered by a provincial board to spend money could use the

same loophole. Prince Rupert council advises that the sum Can-Cel thus

avoided paying in taxes now will have to come out of the pockets of

local taxpayers."

Mr. Speaker, is that the cost-sharing plan with municipalities that was mentioned in the throne speech?

If it is, Prince Rupert doesn't need it, and no other municipality

in this province needs it. This is a serious precedent which that

Minister of Finance deems not fit to deal with. He won't deal with it;

he says he will not interfere. He will not bring legislation into this

[ Page 610 ]

House to make sure that not only does Prince Rupert

get some retroactive help in this case — if they lose that final appeal

— but that other municipalities in this province won't come under this

new cost-sharing programme mentioned in the throne speech.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a net loss of jobs in Prince Rupert,

beginning last October and over the next year, of 525 jobs; 725

altogether, but approximately 200 jobs will be put into place by

construction on the new mill construction site. That's 525 jobs. Mr.

Speaker, let's do some calculations. I say that approximately $15,000 a

year was the annual salary of those millworkers. There were 300 laid

off because of a decision that that government allowed to take place.

In fact, they had the responsibility to stop that and they didn't — 300

jobs, $4.5 million out of the economy of Prince Rupert because they

didn't do their duty. On top of that, 225 more jobs were lost in the

service industry in Prince Rupert at $10,000 per annum — another $2.25

million. So we have $6.75 million lost in the city of Prince Rupert

because of inaction by that government.

Then we look at their taxation policies last year: $1,200 taxation

directly into the coffers in Victoria because of that government's

taxation policy. Four thousand families in Prince Rupert; another $5

million out of the local economy, for a total of $11.75 million out of

the consumer-spending pockets of the city of Prince Rupert. It's not

only the hardship of those people who have no money to spend, who are

forced to go on the dole, because of the lack of action by that

government. But, Mr. Speaker, we have $11.75 million out of the economy

of Prince Rupert in one fell swoop. A town of 16,000 people in the last

census...a community of that size with $12 million being taken out of

the local economy by direct action — or lack of action — by this

government.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the feeling of despair, not only among

those people who have lost their jobs, but in the business community in

Prince Rupert which knows that their economy has been entirely gutted

by a government that doesn't care or doesn't know any better. Not only

that, but with that mill closure, in 1977, between the hospital, the

school board and the city of Prince Rupert, another $750,000 will not

be in the city of Prince Rupert's coffers. Add that $750,000 on top of

the $784,000 for 1976, because that government didn't tell Can-Cel to

hold up until they could review the legislation of the Assessment Act,

and we have another $784,000,

The city of Prince Rupert has recently had to lay off 15 employees because

of no tax dollars coming in because of that government's lack of action

or because of their action in taxation. Then on top of that, business tax —

another $100,000 will not be going in to the city of Prince Rupert's coffers

in business tax because of that closure.

The mayor of Prince Rupert has endeavoured to get in touch with this

government to ask them why. Why are you doing this to Prince Rupert? Is

it because you're ignorant of the facts? Is it because you're mean?

Why? They don't even have the courtesy to inform the city of Prince

Rupert why they've done it and what they plan to do now.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): What about Mesachie Lake?

MR. LEA: Never mind Mesachie Lake, I'm talking about Prince

Rupert. I'm talking about a city that's been crippled by the taxation

policies of that government. I'm talking about a city that's been

crippled because of the lack of action in that government in directing

Can-Cel to take its proper direction. I'm talking about a city that is

going through economic and social straits because of that government.

And they've got the nerve to stand on the other side of the House and

tell me that as a representative of that city I should vote for that

government's budget. Mr. Speaker, it's hypocrisy that they would stand

in their place and ask me, as a representative of Prince Rupert, to

vote for a budget that is crippling that city's economy. It's

absolutely stupid on their part to expect that, and it's stupid for

them to expect any member in this House to vote for a budget that would

do that to any community. It doesn't matter, Mr. Member, whether it's

your community or my community or his community. If you stand up and

vote for a budget that does that to a community like Prince Rupert,

then where are you? Where do you stand? Take your place and talk about

it in this House!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Louder!

MR. LEA: Can't you hear me, Jim? That's right, you have to yell through some heads.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the transportation

problems on the north coast, on which the Minister of Transport (Hon.

Mr. Davis) will take no action.

For the last 50 years we've been negotiating with Ottawa for some

sort of subsidy for this coast, like they get on the other coast, and

with no success. The former Social Credit government had no success

when that minister was in the federal cabinet. We had no success with

the federal government when that minister was in the federal cabinet. I

think he still agrees with the federal cabinet approach that it is not

needed to subsidize west coast transportation — either that or he's had

an awfully quick change of mind now that he happens to belong to

another political party in another House.

Now what are they going to do? They say to the

[ Page

611 ]

citizens on the north coast and the central coast:

"Why don't you just wait until we negotiate some subsidy dollars with

Ottawa?" Another 50 years, Mr. Speaker, will they have to wait? Yes,

there is no one on this side of the House and there is no one living on

the coast who doesn't believe that Ottawa has a responsibility to pay

up. What they're saying is: supply the service, negotiate later with

Ottawa for the dollars.

Mr. Speaker, that government has the obligation to supply a

much-needed service to the residents of the central coast and the north

coast, and they are not picking up that challenge or responsibility

because they're playing the old game of wait till we get dollars from

Ottawa. It's a farce. They have an obvious obligation and duty to put

in place a transportation service that will supply the economic and

social needs of the coast. They have that duty and that obligation, and

they're trying to sluff it off on Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, put the service

in place, talk about the dollars later — because if history teaches us

anything, we probably won't get the dollars from Ottawa anyway. What

good is it, five years from now, saying: "Oh, I'm so sorry we didn't

get the dollars from Ottawa, so we will do our duty now and put the

service in place." Mr. Speaker, it is an old shell game that's been

played by that party over a great many years in this province.

MR. KAHL: You recognize it well.

MR. LEA: When they don't want to do their duty they blame

Ottawa. Now oftentimes it's not warranted. Personally, this time I

believe their attack on Ottawa is justified; I believe the government

is taking the right approach in trying to get those dollars from

Ottawa. But to use that as an excuse not to put in place the

transportation system that's needed now is just that, an excuse.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport for this government knows

that; he's been in both cabinets, the federal and this. He knows

exactly what the position of that government in Ottawa is. He knew it

when he was there, and he knew we weren't going to get a dime. What is

there that would make him believe that we're going to get a dime now?

He was a British Columbia Member of Parliament in cabinet, and couldn't

get a dime. What makes him think that as a member of this Social Credit

cabinet he has more clout than he did when he was in cabinet? On second

thought, Mr. Speaker....

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Maybe he does.

MR. LEA: Let's hope so, because he sure didn't have any clout

when he was in that cabinet. You'll recall, during that federal

election when that member didn't quite make it back to Ottawa, that the

Prime Minister came out and gave him a pat on the back. He forgot to

tell him there was a stiletto in it. Remember the campaign? He said:

"Keep my riding in the federal cabinet." They didn't even keep that

member and he was told by the Prime Minister.

Or is that the reason — that personal fight that's obviously gone on

between the Prime Minister and the now Minister of Energy, Transport

and Communications in this province? Is that the reason there's no

headway? Should the Premier deal with this himself? Should the Premier

deal with this and bypass his Minister of Transport? Everyone knows

that there are bad feelings between the Prime Minister and the Minister

of Transport in this province. So why send him down to speak to the

Prime Minister down there? I don't know whether we're going to get any

dollars or not, but I do know one thing: this government should never

say to the people of the coast: "We will not do a thing until we have

secured dollars from Ottawa."

Do it now. Everyone in this province, regardless of political faith,

will back you up in that fight with Ottawa to get subsidized dollars

for our ferry system. It crosses political lines. We want those dollars

from Ottawa. We've earned those dollars from Ottawa. We have every

right to those dollars from Ottawa. But that's a fight for another day.

Why should the people on the coast wait for you to conclude that fight?

Put the service in place. It is your responsibility and your duty to do

it. The people on the coast will remember for a long time that you

didn't act when you should have acted.

MR. SPEAKER: May I draw your attention to the fact that you're on your final three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do it, Jack.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, last evening and today, I've tried to

outline that there are many overlapping areas of concern regardless of

political party. There are people on that side of the House, we know

very well, who are concerned for the poor and the downtrodden and the

handicapped. I believe that on that side of the House, deep down, they

know that we are just as concerned about our future economic life and

our social life in this province as they are. They understand that we

are also concerned about productivity in every segment of our society,

and about being able to take our place in the world market places and

be competitive with those products that we sell from this province.

We're not talking about that in this budget. We're talking about the

fact that this budget does not reflect those views. This budget only

goes after the poor and the working poor and the working people of this

province, saying: we want you to pay more. We

[ Page 612 ]

want you now to pay up to 80 per cent of the total

budget, and we're going to allow the mining companies and we're going

to allow the oil companies, the coal companies and the rich to get off

scot-free. They're going to get off scot-free while the poor people,

the working people, people who don't have the same kind of clout as

those corporate friends, people who are in small business, people who

are not organized into trade unions, people who are in trade unions,

don't have that same kind of economic clout with this government. This

government's budget reflects them. It gives more to the rich and makes

the poor pay more. Make the workers pay more. Make the small

businessmen pay more. And workers, whether they're organized or not,

pay more.

This budget, I think, is going to be a living testimony to the

attitudes of a government that has only a now philosophy, and to hell

with the future.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, I'm heartened by the reaction of the press, of investors

in this country and of the public generally to our new budget. It

strikes a note of sanity in an otherwise troubled world. It's

responsible and it's realistic in the inflationary, unemployment-ridden

times in which we live.

One large area of concern to British Columbians is energy and I want

to dwell on it today. It looms larger in our scheme of things than most

realize. It calls for $1 out of every $3 being invested in this

province. Its demands on our savings are likely to increase as time

goes by. That's why I want to talk about our province's mounting energy

requirements and the manner in which they will be met in the years

ahead.

Our needs are growing. They are growing too rapidly. They are

growing at a rate of around 5 per cent a year. That means doubling our

provincial energy needs between now and 1990. It means a 100 per cent

increase in energy usage in British Columbia in a decade and a half.

True, this upward trend could moderate somewhat. It could curve

over; it could be trimmed back. Using sound conservation practices, we

could cut our losses and have less wastage by using energy more

efficiently, more effectively, in our homes, at work and on our

highways. But I am talking about a matter of degree. I am talking about

a 4 per cent per annum growth rather than a 5 per cent growth. At best,

I am still talking about a doubling in our energy requirements between

now and 1995.

This will take a lot of doing. Historically our growth rate, at times at least,

has been as high as 7 per cent a year. Six per cent, in that context, is an

improvement; 5 per cent may be the best we can hope for; and 4 per cent means

measures of restraint, some of them compulsory and some of them harsh, aimed

at curbing our appetite for energy in the 1980s.

Assuming that our best effort to conserve energy is successful, how

do we cope with these mounting demands? We are going to have to invest

many billions of dollars in power alone. We are going to have to spend

a like amount in the search for oil and natural gas, on new pipeline

construction, on refinery expansion and on better distribution systems.

And don't forget coal. Coal development calls for new townsites, new

highways, new rail lines, new port capacity — big dollars in anyone's

scheme of things.

If I had to guess, I would say that our future investment in energy

will be running at an annual rate of around $1.5 billion a year in the

1980s. That, as I said before, is the equivalent of $1 out of every $3

invested in this province; it's equal to the dollar value of all the

building permits issued in 1976. That's a lot of savings, a lot of

equipment, a lot of effort, but it's the kind of expenditure which we

will have to make if British Columbia is going to meet most of its own

energy needs in the future.

The challenge we face in this province is more than financial. It is

a resource challenge because we in this province are energy-deficient.

We import more than one-third of our total energy supply. The gap, at

least short-run, between our own supplies and our demand will grow in

the years immediately ahead.

Our outlook for oil is disturbing, to say the least. It's our

biggest energy item. But B.C. wells produce fewer than one-third of

every four barrels we use in this country — less than one out of four.

The remainder are presently imported from Alberta, and Alberta is

having difficulty meeting Canadian demands.

Canada's reserve position, unfortunately, is deteriorating. Domestic

production, Alberta and the north aren't keeping up with consumption in

Canada. Ottawa is focusing, increasingly, on central Canada. Alberta

crude is moving down across the prairies to Ontario and Quebec in

increasing volume. Less is coming our way; less is being pumped over

the Rockies and down to Vancouver. The TransMountain oil line is

running at half its capacity now. Shortly, when the last barrels are

shipped across to Washington state, it will be operating at one-third

of its capacity.

We in British Columbia are being hurt by this. Our pipeline charges

are rising while those to the east are being held in check by the

growing volume moved to the east. Already the pipeline tariff to

Vancouver is comparable to that of shipping, western crude as far east

as Montreal. Economically speaking, we are being pushed out into the

Pacific, away from our traditional source of supply, at least in

pipeline tariff terms. In tariff miles, we are already halfway across

the Pacific,

whereas southern Quebec, with the help

[ Page

613 ]

of a federal pipeline subsidy, a new subsidy, has been pulled back to Sarnia, Ontario.

Geographically, the shift of western oil is eastward. It's being

focused on the centre of the continent where oil prices, in the long

run, tend to be highest anyway, where net returns to Canadian producers

have been the best in the past. But today's problem is overwhelming. It

is one of a shortage of Canadian supply. To give Montreal security, we

are cutting off our exports to the U.S. Pacific northwest. We are

reducing exports everywhere. This is exposing British Columbia to

tanker traffic on the Pacific coast.

The situation is getting worse. Let me quote, for example, the

federal government's recent Green Book entitled: "An Energy Strategy

for Canada." Published in 1976, it says that our "dependence on

imported oil could increase to the point where imports will satisfy

between 40 and 47 per cent of our oil demand." That is by 1985; by

1990, the situation could well be worse. We could be — and I am talking

about Canada as a whole — importing half of all our oil requirements

principally from the Middle East. Some of these imports may be coming

into, the west coast then.

Ottawa obviously is telling us that imports are inevitable, that the

volume of foreign oil entering Canada will grow, that tankers will

visit our shores in increasing numbers. Increasing numbers on Canada's

east coast means shipments into ports which have long been receiving

foreign oil. But on Canada's west coast this means tanker shipments for

the first time since the early 1950s. At the very least, it means large

shipments to U.S. ports nearby.

This is a bad scene. Economically it's unfortunate; environmentally

it's a shame; and government must take most of the blame. Political

intervention rather than economic forces have caused us to be

import-dependent in this country. Tax policy and trade policy both have

frustrated exploration and development in this country., They have

moved us from a position of self-sufficiency to import-dependence. We

were a net exporter of oil in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The

outlook for the next decade is for heavy imports, particularly from the

Middle East.

Really, we in Canada have lots of oil. Potentially, we have a great

deal of oil. We have the tar sands, which alone contain more oil than

the oil contained in all of the world's conventional oil pools

combined. We have billions of tons of heavy black oil under Alberta and

central Saskatchewan. And there are the conventional oil resources of

the Mackenzie basin, Canada's Arctic islands, the Beaufort Sea.

But we've been short-sighted. We worried more about prices than production.

We taxed away most of the price increase and watched production decline. Provincial

royalties have increased dramatically. Export taxes have made sure that the

price to Canadian consumers is far below world prices. The difference has gone

to finance high-priced imports from the rest of the world.

Some of this money — some of this tax revenue — could have been

recycled by industry. It could have gone into exploration and

development on the Prairies and in the north, but it went instead to

the OPEC countries. It was used to subsidize their oil so that its

price, delivered to Canadian consumers, was brought down to our lower

Canadian level. While our own domestic prices are rising, the gap is

still there. We still have a two-price system. We still pay the Arabs

more than twice as much for their oil as we pay our own producers here

at home. I say our own producers, but oil companies producing oil in

Canada turn roughly two-thirds of their income over to tax departments,

federal and provincial, in Canada.

The real problem is that our costs here are high. They are far

higher than the costs of finding and producing oil in the Middle East,

in Africa, in South America, and even in parts of the U.S.A. I'm told

that the cost of finding and developing a barrel of oil in the Middle

East, for example, is of the order of 20 cents 20 cents a barrel. But

we're having to go north much farther north — and battle with inflation.

Alberta oil which used to cost $2 a barrel to produce now costs $6

or more — not 20 cents, as it does in the Middle East. Tar sand oil

costs $12 a barrel and up; Arctic oil is in the $15 or more category,

so today's $ 10 price in Canada — protected price — isn't enough to

build up Canada's oil reserves, to make Canada self-sufficient in the

long run.

Inevitable results: Canadian production falling, imports rising;

exports being cut off, including exports south of Vancouver to the U.S.

Pacific northwest; Canada's coastal provinces having to import oil —

British Columbia possibly for the first time in several decades; Canada

falling willy-nilly into the grip of the OPEC powers, countries with

lots of oil — low-cost oil — who, by acting in concert, already hold

the fate of several western nations in the palms of their hands.

The situation with regard to our No. 2 energy source, natural gas,

is better, if only by degree. It's much better in British Columbia. We

have our own source of supply in the Peace River area, and if we play

our cards right we won't have to be importers of natural gas, even from

the Northwest Territories, for a long time to come. We can add to our

own reserves. With a big increase in our exploration and development

effort we can meet our own requirements through 1990 and service our

present export obligations as well. Incidentally, our present export

obligations run out in 1989.

But it won't be easy. We will have to match the field-price

increases offered in Alberta if we're going to attract the capital we

need in order to add to the

[ Page 614 ]

search effort in northeastern British Columbia.

This is basically the pricing policy which has been followed in the

latest field-price settlements in this province. Our rate of tax must

be reasonable. There has to be an expectation of continuity; continuity

in pricing, continuity in taxation, continuity in regulatory policies,

if we are going to attract the billions of dollars which we in British

Columbia need in order to maintain our self-sufficiency in natural gas.

It's still touch and go. We were lucky to get by in the winter of

1973-1974. Then water flooding in our fields, together with a cold

winter, made rationing necessary. But drilling has picked up. The

exploratory effort in British Columbia revived when the NDP government

was defeated just over a year ago.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Wrong! Wrong!

HON. MR. DAVIS: Now it's accelerating under a Social Credit government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The search in our northern gas fields has

trebled over the past 12 months. As a result, our reserve picture is

taking on a healthy hue once more.

MR. MACDONALD: Because of NDP policy.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Socialists, Mr. Member, may think they have

the answer for some things, but they don't produce when it comes to

energy. They failed us in natural gas in 1972 to 1975, and even the

thought of the NDP returning to power is enough to send shivers up and

down the back of every thinking British Columbian. Our oil prospects

are bad enough without being forced to become natural-gas importers as

well.

MR. MACDONALD: Read the Energy Commission report.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Given political stability in this province,

given economic sanity along the lines of the present budget, we can use

natural gas a fuel price-leader in British Columbia. Already gas is

showing the way — it's cheaper, by far, to B.C. consumers than

competitive fuels are in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. It's also

cheaper than fuel oil in the U.S. Pacific northwest. Let me give you a

few examples: the city gates price for natural gas in Vancouver is 98

cents per thousand cubic feet; it's $1.50 per thousand cubic feet in

Toronto; it's $1.75 in Montreal, compared to our 98 cents. Our border

price at Sumas, B.C. — that is, gas exported south to Washington state

— is $1.94, compared to 98 cents for Vancouver. It's more than $2

delivered in Seattle, Tacoma, Portland.

If these prices outside of British Columbia are high, we must also

realize that they're rising faster than they are here in this province.

You can be sure, for example, that when the National Energy Board

reviews our export price in the fall we'll be asking the fuel-oil price

equivalent for the gas we continue to export. The fuel-oil equivalent

price is around $2.20 per thousand cubic feet today; it could be more

like $2.50 tomorrow.

Northern gas — gas from north of the Arctic circle — is of more than

passing interest to us here in this province. It will be a price-setter

at the international boundary line. That's the price which users in the

lower 48 states will have to pay for additional supplies from Alaska.

It's a lot more than our present export price of $1.94 per mcf, the

price we're charging now.

Canada can provide a land bridge over which Alaskan gas can move to

the rest of the U.S.A. The best route, in my opinion, is the Alaska

Highway route. It can provide us with a transportation corridor which

we can use for highway and other purposes. But the arrival of Alaskan

gas at the international boundary line can do more than that. It can

relieve us of part, if not all, of our export obligations to the U.S.

It will enable us to keep more of our own relatively low-cost, close-in

gas for our own consumption. This way it will not only help us to

improve our own supply position, but also maintain the price advantage

which our consumers now, enjoy over users in neighbouring parts of the

United States.

From natural gas I'd like to turn to the No. 3 source of energy,

electricity. Here we're in even better shape, relatively speaking. We

have a choice: we've got water power and we've got lots of coal — half

of Canada's commercially proven coal reserves, in fact. We can build

more dams and we can build thermal plants, or we can have a combination

of the two. We can optimize our generation, our transmission and our

distribution of electricity. We can keep our costs down and reap

economies of scale. We can minimize our investment by running our hydro

plants flat out in wet years and using thermal plants to meet our

demands in dry years.

True, our power rates will continue to rise with inflation, but they

won't go up as fast as power rates in other parts of Canada — certainly

in other parts of North America. They won't go up as fast as they've

been recently going up in Ontario, for example. No other province in

Canada, no state in the United States, is as resource-rich, from a

power-producing point of view, as we are. They don't have rivers like

the Columbia and Peace, rivers where the key dams have already been

built — and the rest, relatively speaking, is easy sailing. Nor do they

have vast coal deposits like Hat Creek near Ashcroft. Potentially it's

[ Page

615 ]

one of the largest and potentially one of the lowest-cost sources of power anywhere in the world.

I could go on. I could list dozens of other sources of electrical

energy here in B.C. Many of them have environmental problems. Some of

them are too far afield — at least for the time being — but they're

ours. They're within our ability to develop. They could be fitted into

our big B.C. power grid in the future, and we don't have to call on

other jurisdictions in order to make them work.

I've not mentioned nuclear power for good reason. It isn't of

immediate interest in this province. It isn't of immediate interest

because nuclear power is big-volume power. We would need vast amounts

of energy continuously before nuclear power was economic in this

province.

Incidentally, nuclear power coming from very expensive

capital-intensive plants is vulnerable to high interest rates;

coal-fired plants, being relatively inexpensive to build, are not. So

as long as we continue to live in an environment of inflationary

pressures and high interest rates, nuclear power tends to be at a

disadvantage and our low-cost coal-fired plants, by contrast, will be

cheaper to build, cheaper to operate and much more economical than the

nuclear ones.

I'm not worried about supplying our rising demand for electricity in

this province. I'm not worried about an 8 per cent growth rate for

electricity through the '80s. Quite the opposite. I think that

electrical energy should move up in our energy scheme of things. It

should pass natural gas in a year or two. It should help us to replace

oil: oil imported from Alberta and oil, some of which we may be forced,

by lack of Canadian supply, to import from abroad. So the sequence will

change. The emphasis will shift from one source of energy progressively

to another. Oil may still be our No. 1 source of energy, even in 1990.

But electricity — home-produced electricity — will be a close second.

Natural gas, reliable as compared to imported oil, will be No. 3. And

coal will be coming on. Along with the greater use of wood wastes in

our forest products industry and the burning of garbage in our cities,

we'll be better supplied in respect to energy then than we are now. But

we'll have to use the latest and best techniques. We'll have to curtail

our appetite for energy much more than we have done in the past.

Restraint in consumption, greater efficiency in use, less waste,

more economy — these, too, are resources, but of a different kind. They

are resources which can be mobilized with a view to holding demand

down. Making our supplies of conventional fuel and power last longer is

good from another point of view. It will cause less damage to our

natural surroundings. It will use up less capital and be less demanding

of our savings, too.

Conservation, the Science Council of Canada tells us, can pay off. Practised

consistently, it can trim our provincial energy demands by 20 per cent in 1990.

I'm not suggesting that we should go as far as some other countries have

gone. Sweden, for example, has cut its energy growth rate in half. It's

had to use Draconian measures, measures which 1, for one, wouldn't advocate

for us to adopt here in B.C. But they have been effective and I'd like to

list some of them for you this afternoon.

Oil-less, gas-less, coal-less Sweden uses both the carrot and the

stick approach. The carrot takes the form of grants to homeowners,

commercial establishments and industries. They get 35 per cent of the

cost of installing more insulation in their buildings and 35 per cent

of the cost of replacing old machines with energy-saving equipment of a

later kind. Introducing new processes also involves at 35 per cent

subsidy. Loans are also available for the remaining 65 per cent of

total costs, on a low-interest, 10-year pay-back basis. This year alone

in Sweden, the total budget grants and loans: $375 million.

The stick approach shows up in price hikes and a host of

regulations, most of them to be effective this year, First as to

regulations: the size and number of windows in new homes are limited,

especially those with a northern exposure. Oil burners have to be

inspected at least twice a year. Storm windows must be triple rather

than double. Insulation must be retro-fitted in old homes, laid on a

foot thick in ceilings.

There are other restrictions: temperature limits indoors; maximum

speeds on the highways; lighting requirements lowered substantially;

wasteful appliances banned; car sizes reduced; summer cottages cut off

entirely.

As to prices: another 35 cents tax on gasoline. In Sweden it already

costs $2 a gallon or more. Electricity for home use is a flat 5 cents

per kilowatt hour, double what our people pay here in B.C.

This is rough treatment. I don't see us moving this far or doing

things this harshly, certainly not as they have done in Sweden. But we

have to move! We have to conserve energy, use our heads, persuade

rather than compel, draw up guidelines for the design of new buildings,

build them right, take advantage of solar heating where we can, switch

to lower-grade fuels wherever possible, insulate our homes and save a

third of our residential fuel bill in the process, drive smaller cars.

In the future, we have to use rapid transit, buses, light rail cars

wherever possible.

Everything we do should be screened from an energy-saving point of

view. We should charge cars more and people less, relatively speaking,

on all our public facilities, including the ferries. We should adopt

utility rate structures that discourage waste and limit consumption.

Old rate structures that saw the price of electricity and natural gas

falling as

[ Page 616 ]

consumption increased are out of keeping with our

times. More doesn't cost less any more. It costs more. And so our rate

schedules should go up — trend up — not down. They should favour the

careful uses of energy, the small customers, the conserver and the

cost-conscious consumer alike.

Marginal pricing (that recognizes the fact that new dams cost more

than old dams, new gas costs more than old gas and imported oil is more

expensive than Alberta's oil of today) is on its way. B.C. Hydro's

rates are moving in the right direction. And it's about time.

Inteijections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: For the information of the hon. member: the

trailing rates have been raised in all instances and the initial rate

maintained constant. So obviously that's a trend in the right

direction. The shape of the curve is flattening and that's the way to

go.

Interjections.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Our users need to be reminded constantly of

our energy deficiencies in this province, of the fact that Canada is a

have-not nation as far as fuel is concerned, reminded that unless we're

careful we're going to be exposed to outside pressures, foreign

currency pressures, foreign boycott pressures, external influences of a

type and severity which Canadians have never experienced before.

The hon. members are all quite aware of the current shortages in the

eastern half of this continent, of emergency measures that Canada is

taking to help supply our neighbours in their moment of extreme need.

But these short-run measures are a foretaste of some longer-term

policies which we will have to focus on very seriously.

We in British Columbia should be doubly aware of the fact that the

states immediately to the south of us have now harnessed all of their

hydro-electric power. They don't have any oil or natural gas to speak

of, their coal deposits are small or marginal so they are more

energy-dependent than we are. So our short-term relations with them

have to be judged in the longer-term context of good neighbourliness on

the one hand and the need to limit our long-term commitments to other

parts of the continent on the other.

Mr. Speaker, energy today is a bargain any way you want to measure it. You

can do incredible things with electricity, natural gas and oil: you can do the

work of armies for a few cents an hour; you can lift great weights and travel

great speeds; you can do things that were inconceivable a few years ago in the

twinkling of an eye. People spend energy and waste energy because it's so

cheap, because it's so convenient and because it's there.

But cut your supply lines and our modern society and modern

communities are helpless. Your house is cold, your office is closed and

your industry is shut down. This is why the Scandinavian countries, for

example, are building up year-long inventories of oil, filling empty

mine shafts and building tank farms to reduce their short-run

dependence on the outside world, on the Middle East.

We in Canada, with our great land mass, with our vast sedimentary

basins, with our wide continental shelf, have, potentially at least,

resources to burn. With a little effort, with sanity in our policies,

we can have security of supply; with a little imagination we can be

self-sufficient. But we have to be resourceful in every sense of the

word.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a more definitive word

about energy policy as it applies to nations as well as provinces, to

small countries as well as nations of continental extent. The

essentials are, in order of their importance in my mind: first,

adequacy of supply; secondly, sound conservation practices; thirdly,

pricing on a replacement basis, not on an ancient cost basis; fourthly,

protecting the environment; fifthly, open planning wherever possible.

First and foremost, security of supply: it should be guaranteed

wherever possible. It should be domestic, rather than foreign. As far

as British Columbia is concerned, this means Alberta oil, not Arab oil.

Hang on to western Canadian supplies of oil for British Columbia

wherever possible. This energy should be proven up ahead of time. Its

existence should be known, if possible, for years in advance and it

should be predictable as to cost. This is the ideal situation socially

as well as economically, given western Canada's broad resource base

which is attainable in British Columbia.

Renewable sources, of course, are to be preferred over non-renewable

ones. Water power, using this criterion, is preferable to oil and

natural gas — so is solar energy — but together they can't meet all our

energy needs. So coal, which happily is abundant in British Columbia,

will be used here.

The second essential is adequacy of supply. This is really a matter

of investments made ahead of time, using our own people's savings.

Industries come to areas where the physical supply is not only assured

but can be expanded as the need arises. Our energy industries are

capital-intensive, hence the importance of investor confidence, low

interest rates and a stable political environment. Without it an

adequate supply of energy cannot be guaranteed in advance.

Thirdly, conservation is vital. It's linked to supply, on the one

hand, and efficiency and use on the other. Losses must be reduced,

waste eliminated. With sound conservation practice, a given resource

will last longer — sometimes much longer. It will be more

[ Page

617 ]

effective, more valuable. Also, a conserver society

tends to be a cleaner society, a healthier society, more fulfilling

from everyone's point of view.

Conservation helps to protect our environment, but forward planning

is important as well. Projects should be chosen with a view to their

impact on our natural surroundings. Wildlife and recreational values

must be assessed and must be protected. Offsetting measures should be

taken if they are necessary. All environmental costs must be included

in the price of energy. They are small, relatively speaking. We should

treat our environment well by being generous in the investments we make

in environmental protection surrounding energy developments in this

province.

Energy should be priced right. It should be priced, essentially, on

a replacement basis. Low-income users can benefit from low first-lock

lifeline rates, but bigger-volume users should pay all the costs of

today's supplies — the marginal approach, the new-dam-cost approach.

They must pay for their consumption on a last-in last-out basis. They

must pay enough for their fuel and power to offset inflation. This is a

realistic approach to energy pricing. It's the only one we can use if

we are going to have an adequate supply of energy in the future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there's the question of accountability: the public wants to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. DAVIS: The people need to know what's going on in

the energy field. We all need to know what the alternatives are, why

certain projects are selected, why costs are going up, what is

happening to our natural environment and how we can conserve more fuel

and power than we do. This is a job, in large part at least, for the

British Columbia Energy Commission. This is why the commission will be

holding hearings around the province, beginning in August. Our

producers, processors, transporters and distributors of energy will be

appearing before the commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Hydro?

HON. MR. DAVIS: B.C. Hydro will be there. So will West

Kootenay Light and Power, Inland Natural Gas, Imperial Oil, the Council

of Forest Industries and so on.

The commission will move from place to place. It will sit in

different parts of the province, and consumers there can have their

say. Local interest groups, undoubtedly, will show up. The public at

large can attend. I hope as many of our people as possible will

participate in these very important deliberations.

A year from now the Energy Commission will be, issuing yet another energy

outlook report. It's already published two, but as public participation

increases, this report will be more informative — it and the hearings themselves.

The report will be more authoritative; it will be more useful. Not only will this

information be helpful to members of the Legislature, but it will help us all

to participate more effectively in the development of a proper energy policy

in this province.

In this speech of mine, Mr. Speaker, I could have focused on our

energy legislation for this session. I am only going to list it now;

I'll describe it more fully as each bill is introduced. Here it is:

(1) An amendment to the Pipelines Act enabling the Energy Commission

to deal with tariffs charged by all oil pipeline companies acting as common

carriers in B.C.

(2) An amendment to the Power Act enabling grants to be made

for rural electrification in areas served by investor-owned utilities.

(3) An amendment to the Energy Act which, as the Speech from

the Throne indicated, will establish ways in which to keep prices down and at

the same time ensure that small retailers of gasoline will continue to play

an important role in the marketing of gasoline in British Columbia. As many

members have noticed in the budget, the reduction in the tax on propane is from

7 per cent ad volorurn to one-half cent a gallon, in specific terms. In percentage

terms the one-half cent a gallon is roughly equal to a 1 per cent tax, so the

tax will be reduced from 7 per cent to 1 per cent, and that will be in line

with the tax levied on oil products.

That's it, Mr. Speaker, as far as energy is concerned. There are

several bills also to be introduced under the heading of Transport and

Communications, and I'll deal with these at another time.

I think, from what I have said, that energy is important in our

overall financial scheme of things. I think, too, that the budget and

other legislation contains measures which will help us meet our energy

needs in an effective way, without unduly damaging our environment. I

am going to support the budget because it's sane, because it's sensible

and because it does all these things.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I see the

Minister of Energy gave a usual resume of our energy needs in the

province of British Columbia. I admire his intelligence greatly; he is

a very, very intelligent man and he's able to couch the most outlandish

statements about energy in a very smooth, glib, flowing language, and

that's a very skilful approach, Mr. Speaker. I got the feeling in his

speech that he was striking out at somebody — he was trying to resist

or get loose for some change, some control from some powerful source or

person.

[ Page 618 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Bob Bonner walks.

MR. LAUK: Bob Bonner stalks this chamber.

MR. GIBSON: Who appointed him?

MR. LAUK: Bob Bonner is the man who runs this province. Bob

Bonner runs Hydro, Mr. Speaker, and he was striking out. You could see

that there were little departures — very little, mind you — from Bob

Bonner's philosophy, and I understand that you checked by telephone and

okayed it with him — didn't you, Mr. Minister? Bonner's really running

this province.

HON. MR. DAVIS: He's in Japan right now.

MR. LEA: That's why you made the speech!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: That was one of the most revealing comments I could

have asked for, Mr. Minister. Did you check with his office? Bob was

out of town, Mr. Speaker, so he ventured a little here and a little

there.

Oh, thank you. You've just sent me a copy of your speech. It isn't autographed; I'll send it back.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I thought you could refer to it rather than imagine it. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: There's his signature: "Best wishes, Jet Lag." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the energy demands of this province and the energy

demands of the whole of North America seem to be a bottomless pit. The

projections by Mr. Bonner and industry, which are one and the same,

demand a premium growth rate, an uncontrollable growth rate, in the

last quarter of this century. It has become a bottomless pit. But what

Mr. Bonner is doing and what industry is doing is the old game. I was

going to say "the old shell game," but it's the old Imperial game, the

old Chevron game, the old Shell game. That game is self-fulfilled

prophecy.

If you say that energy demands in the next 15 years are going to be

8 or 9 per cent, then industry will do its best to make sure that it is

8 or 9 per cent. They will consume, and over-consume, and over-grow at

an uncontrollable rate so that eventually we are going to be in a

disastrous situation as far as energy is concerned.

Nobody faces that issue over on that side of the House. Bonner

backed down. He made a projection of 9 per cent and then he backed

down. But before he did he appeared before the public accounts

committee last year and said: "No, that's it. It can't go below that or

British Columbia will fall into the hands of the...whoever. There'll be

a disastrous breakdown in the economy," and so on. Yet less than a year

later he backs down, he revises his estimates, because it is all

political and it's all self-fulfilled prophecy.

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the Premier is not in the House

because he said something during question period that should go clearly

into Hansard . He said he will look into investigating the operations of the official opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're kidding.

MR. LAUK: That's what he said. As he took his seat in

question period he said he would look into the operations of the

official opposition.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): That will take a minute and a half! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: He said so as the First Minister of this province.

I am really shocked at that, Mr. Speaker. He is threatening not the

opposition, but this chamber and the democratic system in this

province. He is threatening to use the power of the state to harass and

oppress his political opponents, his political enemies. We have filed

in this House his "Nixon-enemies" list. I wonder how many other enemy

lists he's got. I wonder how he is going to use the power of the state

the way Nixon used the income tax division, the FBI and the CIA to

harass and oppress his political opponents.

It is a destructive attitude, Mr. Speaker. If he hasn't learned

anything because of Watergate, it's an even more shocking situation to

me. Well, that is in Hansard . He should have to deal with that.

Inteijections.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm delighted that the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is here, Mr. Speaker. As I went

out for coffee he snuck up and made a speech last night.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He calls me "dumb-bell." Here he is, looking down

on a poor little MLA trying to do his best, and he calls me names, Mr.

Speaker. "Dumb-bell," he says. But talk about dumb-bells!

Now that he mentions it, the hon. minister stood in his place last

night and said: "I am quoting from a press release, or rather" — cough,

cough! — "a report, or maybe it was" — clearing his throat — "produced

by someone in my department. It said the Grizzly Valley pipeline may go

ahead."

By the way, you got the dates all wrong, but that's

[ Page

619 ]

ancillary. You always do that kind of thing; that's your style. That's part of the style. It was in July.

I got the report out and on one of the pages: "As possible northeast

developments my department suggested the Grizzly Valley." It says:

"Quasar proposes to build a pipeline in the area." That was part of the

report.

The statement of the minister, which I was then, said:

"Lauk" — that's me — "concluded that the report was

designed to provide the basis for knowledgeable discussion concerning

possible courses for development in the northeast and should not be

considered as an inflexible bureaucratic blueprint."

You got that, Jim?

MR. COCKE: He didn't think that far.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it was a vicious attack — while it lasted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tip-top.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've heard in this debate, and

we begged the front benches to get up and answer while Evan was off

back east. By the way, we should hear a report from him soon or I'll

threaten that the public accounts committee won't pass his expense

chits. I want to hear from him whether he slew any dragons back there.

We heard just the faintest whisper of a report that he was even there,

but we'd like a report from the Minister of Finance.

MR. LEA: Well, yes, but that's not Evan.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): You couldn't understand it.

MR. LAUK: Sure, if you put it in simple language, Mr.

Minister, we'll understand it. We'll listen carefully. But while you

were away, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, you were spared an

excruciatingly embarrassing time because, you know, some of your

colleagues did get up and speak. Your seatmate, the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the real Minister of Health, and the

president of ICBC, stood up. He didn't answer any questions about the

$272 million that the ICBC has squirrelled away — the rip-off because

of outrageously high premiums on automobile insurance. He says it's the

lowest non-subsidized government auto.insurance plan. Non-subsidized —

at $272 million in what he calls short-term investments as of December

31, 1976? And premiums are now coming in a scant month-and-a-half later

for 1977, which will take it up to $372 million, $472 million, or $572

million that the ICBC can squirrel away.

The big question that he didn't answer is: where is this money going

to be invested? All of the diatribe coming from the front benches

during this budget debate, all of the dredging up of the past and the

old lies and mythology that they're trying to create in this province,

and not once have they dealt with a problem that's facing the people of

B.C. today — not once. Economic development, jobs, oppressive taxation

on the working family — not once have they answered the charges of the

opposition. A collection of cliches, homilies, half-truths, no-truths,

and flim-flam; that's the kind of speech-making that the treasury

benches can offer in reply to the opposition critique of the budget.

And the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — talk about

classics! His speech, Mr. Speaker, was a monument to demagoguery, the

zenith of self-fulfilled prophesy, and the epitome of self-deception.

Demagoguery because his language was meaningless, shallow epithet based

on the most startling ignorance ever displayed in this chamber — the

silly, homespun nonsense descriptions of what socialists are supposed

to be that we heard last night.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You'd better check Roget's Thesaurus.

MR. LAUK: We expected that the hotline callers from all over

B.C. would be calling in and saying: "Big Jim, I agree with you. I just

read the Marxist this and that, and I read Watchtower

magazine and so on." You play to the most base ignorance of the

minority of people that used to call you on your programme, Mr.

Minister and you haven't changed in the slightest. That's why it's

demagoguery. It's self-fulfilled prophesy, because when he was

appointed to cabinet he claimed to know nothing, and in the last 14

months has set about to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. It's

self-deception, because he really doesn't know how inept he is as an

administrator, how hopeless an MLA, and how devoid of policy and how

embarrassingly ridiculous a public figure he really is.

That speech, Mr. Speaker, was an absolute and utter disgrace, and

that, linked with the blacklist, his hacking up and chopping up of the

Land Commission and his response to reporters questioning him on these

important items makes him an undesirable minister — a minister who

should resign because he is incompetent to fill his office.

Now the Premier spoke yesterday. I notice today, Mr. Speaker, he was wearing his battle fatigues. Did you see that?

MR. COCKE: That was his suit — he got two for one with Allan Williams. (Laughter.)

[ Page 620 ]

MR. LEA: They got four of them — they didn't have change for a twenty.

MR. LAUK: I see. I understand they're going to get B.C. Hydro

patches so they can get free rides on the buses while the senior

citizens in this province pay more. Of course, they did give them free

campsites.

He was wearing his battle fatigues, and I don't blame him, because

he should be battle-fatigued. His government is riddled with scandal

and incompetence. Their speeches are full of rhetoric and nonsense and

do not apply to the problems of today. Never once....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Minister, you weren't here. You listen carefully. I am trying to give you a report of what happened when you weren't here.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I've heard this before.

MR. LAUK: You've heard it. So the Premier has admitted to you....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier has already told him.

MR. LAUK: The Premier has admitted to you that he was

speaking nonsense. Mr. Speaker, never once during the Premier's speech

yesterday did he mention unemployment or the economy. He didn't mention

the future of this province. He did not answer opposition attacks about

the tax burden on ordinary people: $300 million more in personal income

taxes in one year; a 38 per cent increase in one year. That's the

biggest increase in personal income tax burden in any one year in the

history of this province. Not once did he deal with that staggering

increase, that staggering, oppressive burden on the ordinary working

families of this province. Not once. And at the same time, having

placed that extra burden on ordinary working people, he didn't talk

about giving great tax relief to himself and the resource corporations,

such as the budget is doing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's an incredible twisting of speech.

MR. LAUK: The facts are there, Mr. Speaker. Last year 25 per

cent of the burden of the budget — look at the budget — was on resource

corporations, and 75 per cent was on the people and people taxes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Twist, twist, twist.

MR. LAUK: The year before, the last year of the NDP administration,

30 per cent of the burden was on resource corporations. It seems that 5 per

cent a year more of the burden of the budget is going to be placed on people,

and 5 per cent less on resource corporations in this province every year. You

figure out how many years we've got left before 100 per cent of the budget

of this province will be on the ordinary working families and nothing will be

borne by resource companies because the giveaway gang is back in this province.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): One year.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, of great concern to my riding in the

city of Vancouver is what this budget has done to the city. This budget

is a complete failure as far as the city of Vancouver is concerned. The

Socred budget's complete failure to deal with revenue-sharing with the

municipalities, and in particular with the city of Vancouver, is pure

and unadulterated treachery, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Credit campaign promise during the last general election

is a con on the voters of the city of Vancouver, a great many of whom

relied on the promises of the Premier and such Social Credit candidates

as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the Finance minister

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) himself, and the two gentlemen MLAs for Vancouver

South (Mr. Rogers and Mr. Strongman), not to mention the Liberals, G.

and M. — Gardom and McGeer, the old gruesome twosome. Do you remember

those promises during the campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as you know, if you are referring to other hon. members of the House, you refer by constituency, not by name.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. Vancouver–Point Grey, first and second.

Now, these gentlemen, during the campaign, promised relief to the

homeowner, revenue-sharing programmes and massive financial input from

the provincial government into rapid transit. It was splashed all over

the Vancouver newspapers. It won them a lot of votes, Mr. Speaker. I

know that. I repeat, the Social Credit campaign promises during the

last general election is a con on the voters of the city of Vancouver,

a great many of whom relied on the promises of those candidates, not to

mention that they categorically promised the relief of heavy property

taxation for the citizens of Vancouver.

They cannot be heard to say that there is no money available from

personal income tax or from the budget. The personal income tax alone,

as I say, has increased almost $300 million. This is a greater increase

than any other time in our history. We have an immediate transportation

emergency. We have an absolutely oppressive homeowner taxation in the

city

[ Page

621 ]

of Vancouver.

I will just refer to an article. I don't like referring to press clippings

like the hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) does.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hah!

MR. LAUK: It seems to me, if he didn't have a press clipping, Mr.

Speaker, he wouldn't have a speech. He even takes out the old, yellowed

press clippings from his files of three or four years ago. But Cliff Mackay

of The Courier in Vancouver, on January 27, 1977, on page 2, said some very important

things with respect to the attitude of municipal politicians, in particular

in the city of Vancouver, to this government and their treachery.

The title of this

article is...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table that document.

MR. LAUK: ..."Stop Licking The Hand That Strikes It."

"It's high time municipal leaders in B.C., including

and especially Mayor Jack Volrich, got some fire in their bellies, in

their financial dealings with the provincial government.

"The treatment given to the municipalities in this

week's provincial budget is a shame and a disgrace and a breach of

promise. Let them say so.

"To say that it is very disappointing, as Mr. Volrich did,

amounts to groveling at the feet of t a harsh and deceitful master.

"We had received a commitment from both the Premier and

the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the idea of revenue sharing would be

implemented this year."

Mr. Volrich mourned:

"This means we won't get it this year or next year under the present legislative setup" goes on the mayor. "I hope we will be invited to discuss this further with the government."

He hopes we'll be invited to discuss it further with.... Where was

he last December — I mean a year ago last December? Where was he during

that general election? Couldn't he read the papers? Couldn't his law

partner tell him what the promises were? He says: "Maybe we'll discuss it again." And, oh, tch, tch — another $8

million, $9 million or $10 million or $15 million on the city taxpayer.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Will you table that?

MR. LAUK: It is treachery, Mr. Speaker. It is treachery. They knew they weren't going to do it.

MR. KEMPF: Was that "tch, tch" or "gobble gobble"?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Table the documents.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Mackay goes on:

"Instead of hoping for an invitation, Mr. Volrich and

his colleagues ought to be shouting from the rooftops, hammering at the

doors and pounding the tables in Victoria. They won't get anywhere by

licking the hand that strikes them. The whole history of

provincial-municipal relations in B.C. proves that.

"Provincial politicians regard the mayors as a bunch

of cringing and ineffectual cry babies, and so they will continue to be

regarded that way as long as they lack the guts to stand up for their

rights."

Well, it's not their rights; it's the rights of the people f these cities, and particularly the city of Vancouver.

The general tone has been that set by Mayor Volrich in his inaugural address earlier this month in is new city council:

"We can see the importance of our assuming a strong

role of advocacy for the people of Vancouver in our dealings with the

provincial government, yet at the same time it is important that our

relations with the government be as constructive and harmonious as

possible. We have seen in recent years so much progress being hampered,

so much not being accomplished by reason of strained relations or lack

of communication."

Can you believe that? In effect, the mayor was telling the council

not to rock the boat, not to demand any showdowns, not to give a spade

it's right name.

"The long-term result of his attitude is that the

council is already resigned to increasing this year's general tax rate

by at least 8 per cent on top of almost 10 per cent last year, for lack

of the revenue-sharing promised by Premier Bill Bennett when he was

campaigning. In addition, the property tax levied for school purposes

will jump again this year because the Socred government has increased

the percentage to be paid at the local level. This is directly contrary

to the policy promised by the Socreds when they were trying to get

power. Now here he is, starting his second session as Premier, without

any attempt to live up to the commitments he made during his opposition

days."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an

article written by a reporter, a

journalist, in the city of Vancouver, and he's not known to be

particularly antagonistic towards the new administration — not at all.

But he is exasperated, as so many of us are who live in the city,

exasperated every time the Socreds are in power. For years they

completely ignored the urban problems of the city of Vancouver. They

laugh at us and they ignore weak and ineffectual city governments that

[ Page 622 ]

won't stand up for the rights of the taxpayer.

You take the transportation emergency that I touched upon earlier.

Many businessmen and employees rely on the downtown core which provides

some of the best services anywhere in the world for any downtown core,

and this downtown core is being ignored by the provincial government

and, in particular, this budget.

There is a crying need for some provincial government support for

rapid transit in the lower mainland, leading to the downtown core of

the city of Vancouver. To do anything less at this stage is condemning

the downtown core of the city of Vancouver into becoming a mausoleum —

nothing short of an archaeological digging. The transportation problems

in the city of Vancouver have caused traffic jams and have clogged our

streets so it's discouraging the people of the city and its suburbs

from using one of the most magnificent downtown cores anywhere in the

world. They can't do it by burdening homeowners with further land taxes

and other levies; they've got to have senior government support.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the budget and the Social Credit administration's

attitude towards the city of Vancouver.... I'm sorry that the minister

isn't here because I don't like to go on general attacks without the

minister being here.

This budget and the whole attitude of the Social Credit

administration towards the city of Vancouver has shown itself to be

chippy and arrogant. I should cite the most recent example, the PNE

situation where they refused this new PNE board appointed by this

government, and have reneged and welshed on the provincial commitment

to pay rent to the city of Vancouver for the Pacific National

Exhibition grounds. That's one chippy example.

They cut financial support to the provincial Assessment Authority,

adding a further tax burden on homeowners in the city of Vancouver and

in municipalities throughout the province. Chippy, arrogant! More

property tax pressure, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

wanders aimlessly ribbon-cutting in everybody's constituency except her

own and taking everything as notice.

The people of the city of Vancouver have been betrayed, Mr. Speaker,

and I predict that the great majority of the citizens of Vancouver will

not vote Social Credit again.

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again!

MR. LAUK: The NDP is the only party that represents the

interests of all British Columbians. It is the only party that

understands both the rural and the city mentality, that understands

both rural and city needs.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, we saw that.

MR. LAUK: This Social Credit government for 20 years starved

the city of Vancouver; this Social Credit government for only three

years will try and do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I'm calling upon the provincial government to do three

very basic, very simple, easy-to-understand things. It's a three-point

programme for 1977. It shouldn't take any longer than a year to get all

of these three points underway. It's not a fantastic programme, it's

something within your means. It's something that you can understand and

it's something that you don't have to get your hands in the cookie jar

over.

I call upon the government to establish a public transit trust fund.

You know, yesterday the Premier talked about a trust fund. The Premier

announced a resource trust fund, a heritage trust fund. Do you know

what that is? That's a Sam Slick excuse to once again starve the

taxpayers of Canada's greatest city, Mr. Speaker, to once again sock

away the profits of government eering and avoid providing the essential

services to the city of Vancouver which were required yesterday, not

tomorrow.

I call upon that government to form a public transit trust fund to

be jointly administered by the Greater Vancouver Regional District and

the government of the province, containing an amount not less than $200

million, initially provided by the B.C. government — and they can get

that out of ICBC — so that we can start to relieve the business people

of the city and the province and provide rapid transit to the lower

mainland residents.

Secondly, I'm calling upon the provincial government and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to stop stalling on the

North Shore foot ferry — he's dragging his foot on that — and stop

providing nothing but excuses for getting the foot ferry underway. I

say it will work, Mr. Minister, but I suspect that you're dragging your

feet in the hope that the concept will fail and you and your cronies

can build that third crossing.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Oh, you have to have a pretty strange mind to say that.

MR. LAUK: Well, you've had a year and a half to get the thing going.

I've heard nothing but excuses.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The sooner the better.

MR. LAUK: Traffic is clogging up. Every change in the plan

for that foot ferry that I've heard from my spies in this gentleman's

department...Mrs. Curtis.... (Laughter.) Every change he's made has

been a change that seems to be designed to tube the whole thing.

[ Page

623 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. LAUK: Another self-fulfilled prophecy — it's a beautiful

government. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

starts a rumour so that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) can

spread it, and someone else receives it. You know, it's all a treadmill

over there; it's all self-fulfilled prophecy. He changes the foot-ferry

system at the foot of Burrard. You're dragging your foot.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What changes!

MR. LAUK: You've always got some excuse. The bus systems at

either end of that situation.... In no way are you planning to take

care of the foot traffic off those ferries.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong again.

MR. LAUK: Okay, are you speaking today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I've spoken on this debate.

MR. LAUK: Well, have you spoken on this? You haven't even mentioned the Burrard Street ferry.

MS. BROWN: No, he didn't mention it.

MR. LAUK: You know the one — Lonsdale to Burrard.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Good for you! Excellent!

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: The Burrard Inlet ferry.

I suspect that they are trying to sabotage the concept because it's

an NDP concept, just as they tried to sabotage every other thing that

we had planned or started. For example, northeast coal: in the press

releases, all the Minister of Economic Development has done is to

change the name from Lauk to Phillips.

MR. KEMPF: You're going to have to change your researcher. You're wrong every day.

MR. LAUK: Then he says it's a Social Credit idea. The announcements

by the Minister of Mines the other day were just.... Well, they were hilarious.

The Calgary Kid did it again. I mean, he starts announcing all of these great

developments in mining, all of which were announced by the previous administration

and he says this is showing great progress. Well, let me predict something for

you which is of great regret to me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker:

exploration companies in mining are going to be closing down this year and next

year. They're going to be shutting down and exploration will be going down

in mining, But let's not be too fretful about that.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It is? Yes. That's right. Mr. Speaker, let me tell

you something else. These exploration companies do nothing but stake

claims. That's all they do. They've got a couple of engineers in the

field, they do this and that and they tap around with a hammer and they

do a little shoveling here and a little shoveling there. But I'll tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that there are only about 20 or 25 mines that are

operating in the province of British Columbia. There should be more.

The real jobs to be provided in this province are by producing mines,

not by standing up here and hoping one month to the next that

exploration investment is up or down. That's all a bunch of nonsense

and sooner or later, I hope you realize that.

As I was saying, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) is dragging his foot on the foot ferry. And I do hope that

he has something to say about that soon, because we want that ferry in

operation and we want adequate planning for the distribution of those

passengers from either terminal and parking facilities and all of that.

We want that in this House. And I hope the minister will report and he

can do so in his estimates.

Thirdly, I call upon the provincial government to immediately host a

province-wide conference of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the

B.C. government, with some federal attendance, to deal with the crisis

of financing in our municipalities. Out of this, a revenue-sharing

formula should be produced this year for the 1978-79 budget. There is

absolutely no excuse for this government to make the clear and

unmistakable promises to share the costs of financing our cities, and

then completely, with treachery, turn around and ignore that promise. I

say to them that this is the year that should provide the formula, and

implement it next year. They should have at least two or three points

of the income tax in this province provided to the cities and the

municipalities of this province.

HON. MR, CURTIS: You were the government that didn't trust

local government. How can you stand there and say that? You didn't

trust local government.

MR. LAUK: We were the government that started resource sharing in this province. We were the first

[ Page 624 ]

government in Canada to provide revenue sharing from the province to the municipalities and this government is treading water.

You know, if I hear another complaint or another whimper from the

Municipal Affairs minister about how he couldn't find this memo and

"gee whiz, we had too many secretaries in that office..." What he

should be concentrating on is fulfilling the promises of this new-found

party to the people of this province. That promise is revenue sharing.

That promise has to include sharing the points of personal income

taxation with the municipalities.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You were a government that didn't trust local government and couldn't work with local government.

MR. LAUK: Oh! Would you listen to that? Mr. Speaker, this is

what this minister calls working with municipalities. Do you want to

know what he calls working with them? "Stop Licking the Hand that

Strikes Us," says Cliff Mackay. That's what he says. He wants guys like

Volrich in there to bow and scrape to the Victoria government and do

nothing on behalf of the city taxpayer. That's what he calls working

with provincial governments. I say that's nonsense and there are mayors

and aldermen of the cities and municipalities of this province who will

stand up to you, Mr. Minister, and will demand that you fulfil your

promises. And it's absolutely disgraceful the way you pretended to be

doing something, by coming in here and complaining about paper clips,

when you've completely avoided your promises to the people of this

province. No doubt about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must draw your attention to the fact that you're on your last three minutes.

MR. LAUK: I would sooner be on my last three minutes than like that

administration which is on its last legs. You know, Mr. Speaker, one more proposition

about the Grizzly Valley pipeline. Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd. has submitted

figures to the B.C. Energy Commission, As late as January, 1976, those figures

were again submitted by Westcoast Transmission. They clearly showed on the face

of them inadequate gas supplies for the building of a pipeline — January, 1976.

Second fact: the branch of petroleum resources in the Minister of Mines'

department must, by statute, have the seismic reports and other survey reports

done by B.C. Petroleum, with respect to the new, so-called surveys and the so-called

new reports of reserves in the area. I demand, on behalf of the people of British

Columbia, that that minister table those seismic reports and that information

in this House. Table that information in this House! Otherwise I say it's

a hoax.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You said Quasar gave the information.

MR. LAUK: The minister now says Quasar gave the information.

The Premier says B.C. Petroleum gave the information. Get together over

there! The Premier said B.C. Petroleum had supervisors in the field.

Not true! Quasar provided it.

What a bunch of rubes! Do you think Quasar doesn't want to build a

pipeline? Do you think Westcoast Transmission doesn't want to build a

pipeline? Look at their tax position: if they don't build a pipeline

they'll be paying 10 per cent more tax next year. They'll build a

pipeline from nowhere to nowhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carrying nothing.

MR. LAUK: When are you people going to smarten up? You're not

equipped to deal with big business. You are small-town kids — a bunch

of hokey. They go and settle in the M.E.L. Paving case and now they've

got a line-up around the block because they saw the biggest suckers in

the world. P.T. Barnum was right about the Socreds: there is a Socred

born every minute. (Laughter.) But, fortunately, there is an NDPer born

every second.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not good.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have completed your allotted time.

MR. LAUK: I have so much more to say, Mr. Speaker, but you've

been so attentive, and I appreciate that. I thank you for the

opportunity of rising in this debate, and I must indicate to the House

and to yourself — I know you will be very very saddened to hear this

that I will not be voting for the motion in support of the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, before I start

today I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming two visitors

from Prince George. One is an old-time resident of the city and an

old-time friend of mine, Mr. Bill Hiller, and the other is Jim Frey

from the Carnage Committee, the group that's been so active on the

seatbelt legislation. I'd like to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. WALLACE: What about the seatbelt legislation? Tell us more.

MR. LLOYD: Mr. Speaker, as the MLA for Fort George I take

great pleasure in speaking in support of the budget presented so

capably by the Minister of

[ Page

625 ]

Finance. I'd like to commend the minister, both for

the reorganization of his ministry and for the realistic, sensible

budget the minister has proposed for the coming year.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the accomplishments of the Minister of

Finance in making available quarterly reviews of the province's

finances and in maintaining responsible fiscal control of all the

sectors throughout 1976 deserve the appreciation of all our province's

taxpayers and citizens. With the establishment of an auditor-general

later this year the people of British Columbia will be further assured

that the revenue of our province is being responsibly allocated, as

directed by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the estimated budget of $3.9 billion, which represents

a 5.9 per cent increase over last year, reflects our government's

continuing concern regarding restoring our province's economy to a

pay-as-you-go policy on operating expenses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LLOYD: This budget also reflects our government's concern

for the social, educational and health priorities of our citizens with

allocations of 65 per cent of the total budget being directed to these

ministries. I'm sure my constituents will be pleased to learn of the

$70 million increase in the highways allocation. This substantial

increase will allow the Ministry of Highways and the Public Works to

continue a badly needed upgrading and rebuilding programme on highways

throughout the province. This programme of reconstruction not only

resulted in safer and more passable roads, but also created many new

jobs for the workmen since the programme was accelerated last summer.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in seconding the throne speech,

my riding has a great number of secondary and rural roads of poor

standard and in need of rebuilding. The city of Prince George requires

priority consideration for rail and highway overpasses as well as

additional bridges over the Nechako River to update our traffic

circulation in relation to the tremendous growth that our city has

experienced. Therefore I am pleased to endorse the budget's realistic

allocation of funding to the Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see our continuing commitment of some $2.5

billion of the total budget for education, health and human resources. My constituents

will appreciate the increased funding for health care and the emphasis that

has been placed on improving ambulance services through the province. I would

request the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. McClelland) to give particular attention

to increasing the staffing and improving the ambulance service available at

Prince George. Our region has no back-up ambulance service from an adjoining

municipality or town, so it is only through the efficiency and dedication of

our ambulance attendants that a safe level of service has been maintained.

Two other programmes our hospital requires are a radio-isotope.

facility and a renal dialysis unit. Regarding the radio-isotope unit,

the Prince George Medical Society has requested that consideration be

given to purchase a computerized axial tomography scanner. This will

enable the doctors to check for brain damage from serious head injuries

without operating on the patients or being forced to send them to

Vancouver for examination.

MR. WALLACE: How about seatbelts? Then you might not need it.

MR. LLOYD: I would feel that this programme should have a high priority because of the geographical location of Prince George.

I understand that Kamloops, Kelowna and Trail all have radio-isotope

units. There has been a good deal of community support for this unity

and a goodly portion of the funds could be raised locally. Similarly,

the request for a renal dialysis unit is of long standing. This would

enable persons with kidney failures to be serviced in this community

rather than being forced to move from their homes and their employment

to be serviced in Vancouver.

Another major concern of the Prince George Regional Hospital Board

is the disparity in the per diem rates allowed by the B.C. hospital

programmes for our hospital operating costs relative to the lower

mainland hospitals. I fail to understand the rationale of how our

hospital, with higher transportation costs, heating costs, snow removal

and other expenses, can be expected to operate on a lesser per diem

rate. I would hope that this matter could be reviewed shortly as it is

of prime concern to our community.

Mr. Speaker, while mentioning ambulances and emergency-care services

in Prince George, I automatically think of the Carnage committee and

their recommendations for an effective preventive programme to combat

death and injuries. In the brief which the Take the Car Out of Carnage

Committee presented to the former administration, the Carnage committee

stressed several areas where government action would greatly reduce the

death and injuries on our highways. These recommendations concern

tougher penalties for the impaired driver, the compulsory seatbelt

legislation that Mr. Wallace is concerned about, mandatory driver

training prior to licence, stricter police enforcement and a vehicle

test centre for Prince George. Other priorities were the highway

upgrading and rebuilding and the driver-education programmes in the

schools. Of these, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Carnage committee will be

pleased to see the stricter impaired-driving penalties which will be

forthcoming in this session.

[ Page

626 ]

Regarding the compulsory seatbelt legislation, I am hopeful that all

members of this Legislature will support this legislation when it is

again brought forward. I am sure the data and the arguments presented

by the Carnage committee clearly indicate the desirability of this

legislation. The highway upgrading and rebuilding of the shoulders

which has been taking place last summer will be appreciated by all the

drivers throughout the province,

Some of the driver-education programmes the Carnage committee

mentions have been instigated in certain areas of the province. The

Carnage committee's recommendation concerning enforcement relates to

the understaffing of the traffic departments, and the

Attorney-General's ministry should review this situation with the RCMP

when establishing policing requirements. In my riding the district

detachment covers from Pine Pass to Tete Jaune, some 320 miles of

arterial highway, and it is felt that additional staffing would lower

the accident frequency with the resultant saving of lives and money.

Mr. Speaker, concerning the recommendation for a vehicle test centre

in Prince George, the Minister of Transport has indicated his

willingness to have the motor carrier branch investigate the

feasibility of co-ordinating a vehicle inspection branch into the ICBC

claim centre in Prince George. If it is not practical to co-ordinate

these programmes, I am hopeful that the motor vehicle branch will

establish a high priority for the Prince George area. The British

Columbia Automobile Association, in the regional district of

Fraser-Fort George, has advocated the establishment of a test centre in

Prince George since 1970, so I am sure the Carnage committee's request

has the backing of our community.

Mr. Speaker, the next concern in my riding, and a concern I feel

that you share as your riding is of similar size, relates to the

consideration of the logistics of the larger ridings in the province.

When government is establishing policy in distributing the provincial

funding, or establishing governmental department strength,

consideration must be given to the matter of logistics, such as the

distance between the major population centres and the adverse

travelling conditions due to both the weather and road construction

standards. The Fort George riding suffered a far greater impact than

was noted on Vancouver Island or in the lower mainland communities due

to the provincial staffing restrictions not only in the public health

field, but also in the Highways department personnel, Forest Service,

Public Works, Human Resources and land inspection, where the regions to

be administered are so vast and alternative municipal services are not

always available to cushion the provincial cutbacks.

If B.C. Is to realize its ultimate potential, then development and utilization

of our natural resources must be encouraged. Prince George and the other major

growth centres must receive specific consideration for their contribution to

B.C.'s development and economy. Our government must assist to develop health,

educational, recreational and cultural facilities in strategic centres outside

the lower mainland area to encourage our potential labour force to relocate

where jobs will be created.

Similarly, our smaller communities throughout B.C., like Mackenzie,

Valemount and McBride, must receive specific attention to ensure

provision of primary medical, educational and recreational facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I would feel that potential development of the enormous

coal reserves north of Prince George should emphasize the priority of

establishing the amenities that today's citizens expect. Residents of

the interior and northern British Columbia compare the $25 million

subsidy that Vancouver Island residents received through the B.C.

Ferries system and the $36.5 million transit subsidy paid last year

through the B.C. Hydro for lower mainland transit service to the

niggardly transit subsidies and other grants to the northern

communities. Our government must realize this imbalance and redirect

provincial funding on a more equitable basis, with special regard to

our frontier resource communities' needs.

The transit system in Prince George will no doubt benefit from the

financial and planning assistance it will receive from the provincial

Transit Authority, but not to the same extent enjoyed by commuters in

the lower mainland where more favourable weather and more concentrated

places of employment make possible better utilization of transit

systems. The residents of our smaller communities are unlikely to

benefit from transit subsidies due to long distances between these

communities throughout the northern half of the province. It is very

likely that improved air services would be far more valuable than a

transit system.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that Alberta has embarked on a programme

of upgrading their airports and their air control systems. As the

province of Alberta has the controlling interest in Pacific Western

Airlines, they will undoubtedly use that corporation to upgrade their

air travel services throughout their province and the Northwest

Territories.

In a similar manner, improved float-plane facilities and the

provision of better landing strips would very likely be of more benefit

to the interior of the province than transit subsidies for bus travel.

I will be working with the other northern and interior MLAs to review

the possibility of improved air travel scheduling and services

throughout the interior.

Mr. Speaker, a matter of great concern to my constituents is the

continuing increase in the air-fare rates over the past few years. We

feel that since Prince

[ Page

627 ]

George to Vancouver is one of the more lucrative

runs of the Canadian Pacific Airlines, consideration should be given to

maintaining a reasonable fare rate. I would think any further fare

increases would price air travel out of the reach of many of my

constituents. I would ask that this situation be reviewed very

carefully.

I share the concern of the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) and the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) regarding the price charged for gasoline

in the north and interior of our province. I find it particularly hard

to accept the high price that we pay in Prince George, where we have a

refinery located in our city. I must say I share the major oil

companies' reluctance to have government involvement in the pricing or

distribution of gasoline.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LLOYD: However, unless some more realistic price

structure is adopted throughout the province, I feel that in order to

maintain the viability of living, working and travelling throughout the

interior, we must request a more realistic price structure.

Another matter which we must be aware of is the problem of getting

emergency repairs for a car travelling remote stretches in the

interior. Some of the smaller owner-operators are being forced out of

business by the self-serve gas station outlets. I think we must pay

careful attention to the problems facing these smaller businessmen to

ensure that a proper level of service can be obtained throughout the

province.

I'm also disturbed by the 10 per cent subsidy which we pay to

equalize gasoline prices across Canada. I would feel that this is

another national policy decision which our Premier should attempt to

have removed in negotiations with Ottawa. It is difficult to

rationalize when we, who live next door to Alberta, pay the same tariff

as Montreal, which is 2,400 miles from Edmonton.

If Ottawa feels one price for gasoline is fair across Canada, then

the east should pick up a greater share of our tariff for freight on

all our products coming west or going back east that are shipped by the

CNR. It has long been contended by Mayor Moffat of Prince George, by

the manufacturers of mill equipment and by the forest companies along

the CNR line that the CNR freight rates, both from the east and return,

are grossly unfair.

We will never promote viable secondary industries, nor will our province receive

our proper compensation for our forest resources, as long as the federal government,

through exorbitant CNR freight rates, can tax or control the financial feasibility

of western industry. If we are to continue subsidizing their gasoline in the

east, then I think it is due time they picked up a larger tab of our freight

bill. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern regarding the proper conservation

of energy, especially over the last few years as petroleum and natural gas resources

have dwindled. Part of the fault seems to lie with the federal government taking

too much in the form of taxes and not leaving the oil companies enough for further

exploration and development of wells. It may seem sensible to some people to

suggest that all oil and gas should be priced at world prices imposed by the

oil-exporting cartel controlled by the Arabs, but I believe that we first have

to consider the competitiveness and viability of our own industries.

The budget speech has outlined many of the problems facing our

resource industries because of the higher costs in all sectors — wages

and operating expenses. Therefore to increase the price of fuel to the

world price would put us in a far worse competitive position yet. If

the conservation of our oil supplies becomes particularly critical, I

would feel a rationing system would be desirable instead of attempting

to control consumption or raising the price beyond industry's or our

citizens' ability to pay.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably imperative that we look at all forms of

energy which are available to us in British Columbia. We are very

fortunate to have over half of Canada's proven and commercially

recoverable reserves of coal in British Columbia. We also have an

immense capability of hydro power. B.C. Hydro is studying the

feasibility and the safety of nuclear power, and there have been

ongoing studies relating to the use of hog fuels and waste from the

forest industry to convert into electric power.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has many options available to

look for the production of energy, including the construction of a

pipeline from Kitimat to Edmonton, or the Alcan pipeline. Either of

these pipelines would supply part of our needs or alternately make it

possible for us to use more of our own reserves within our province.

While British Columbia has all these options, Mr. Speaker, there are

important environmental considerations that must be reviewed to decide

on the development of energy sources which are least destructive to the

environment. The proposed McGregor diversion project of B.C. Hydro has

raised a great deal of concern in my riding. But before discussing that

project, let me review briefly the alternatives as I see them.

As I mentioned, nuclear power has been considered by B.C. Hydro. I

feel that it is very important that this energy source should be

reviewed in a calm, rational manner. Canadians have been exporting

their technology in nuclear power development for some years; eastern

Canada has been utilizing nuclear power plants for some time.

Since this programme is subsidized by all Canadian taxpayers, and also because recent modifications to

[ Page 628 ]

the nuclear plants appear to make them safer, I

think it is important that we do not rule out nuclear power completely

for British Columbia until we have fully studied all the ramifications

associated with that programme.

Mr. Speaker, the Hat Creek coal-fired thermal power project of B.C.

Hydro has many studies proceeding at the present time. The public

information booklet on the Hat Creek project, which was issued by B.C.

Hydro in July of 1976, clearly outlines the detailed feasibility and

environmental studies that are ongoing. It also makes particular

mention of the terms of reference, and states that these are not

necessarily fixed and may be revised as the study progresses. The

report states that there are a total of 10 licences or permits which

will be required for the approval of the Hat Creek project by the

provincial government agencies, and that present scheduling calls for

the detailed environmental studies to be completed'by September of 1977.

In regard to the generation of electrical power, from hog-fuel

conversion plants, many studies and reviews of this have been made over

the past few years at different centres such as Williams Lak