1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 163 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

THE GUARANTEED INCOME ACT

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

21 intituled the Guaranteed Income

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 21 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have

the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

COMPANIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor herewith

transmits a bill intituled Companies

Act and recommends

the same to the Legislative Assembly, dated at Government

House, February 1, 1973.

HON. MR, MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and

the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of

the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 16.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 16 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.

VOLUNTARY EMERGENCY FIRST AID ACT

Mr. McGeer moves introduction and first reading Of Bill No. 22

intituled Voluntary Emergency

First Aid Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 22 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

today.

AN ACT REGULATING CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AND DISCLOSURE

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

23 intituled Conflict of Interest

and Disclosure Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 23 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

today.

EMPLOYEES' TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

PROTECTION ACT

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

24 intituled Employees' Termination

of Employment

Protection Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 24 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(Continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, It is with a great sense of history, Mr. Speaker, that

I take my place in this throne speech debate. It occurs to me

that there is at least one Member of this of this house who was

sitting in this Chamber some years before I was born. I find

myself sometimes wondering where I really am when I'm in this

place. It's difficult at times to understand the history, to

understand the struggles that have gone on over the last 100

years in this province. It's difficult for some of us to

understand that many Members of this House have been here for a

great many years.

I think for that reason a lot of the "rookie Members," as we've been

described in this debate before, stand at

these microphones, stand at our

[ Page 164 ]

desks, and quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, quiver a

little bit.

I must say that I don't get too nervous speaking to a thousand

people at an all-candidates' meeting in North Vancouver but,

believe me, I sure get nervous speaking to 55 other Members in

this House. I know that a lot of the rookie Members …

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-four.

MR. GABELMANN: Fifty-four? That's right, Mr. Member, and I'm

sorry.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Fifty-three. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I listen too. (Laughter).

MR. GABELMANN: Some afternoons it's not more than 20 and

that's a bit of a disgrace, I think.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a short speech this afternoon

but I want to talk about a couple of problems particularly

relating to my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour, and one in

particular relating to the Indian Arm area which the Premier

and I share jointly in terms of constituencies. But I'll do

that at the end of my short speech.

It's only been 4 ½ or 5 months since we've been elected to

this job and I've run up against a number of things that I find

quite astounding. It seems to me that if we were ordinary

employees working for an employer, that a union would have been

formed in this House a long time ago because the working

conditions are pretty intolerable.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Organizing!

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Member, I just might do that. I found it

very unusual — I've had a little bit of experience coming over

to Victoria the last few years, so I've had some idea of the

intolerable conditions — and I'm not saying that they are not

being improved. They are, and, Mr. Speaker, you deserve a lot

of credit for the improvements that have been made. But I just

want to say that it seems to me we've got a long way to go.

I can't believe, for example, that interior Members don't

automatically have an airline pass to get them from their

constituency to this capital at least once a month.

We're provided with rail passes and with Greyhound Line passes. I

suppose that was fine in the dirty thirties and may have been fine

during the war, but most of us are too busy, we have too much activity,

too many things to do, too many people to talk to, too many problems to

solve to spend a day travelling, particularly from the north, on the

Greyhound, the railway or however people are coming down. It seems

sensible to me that airline passes be provided. That's one thing.

The second thing is that the way the job has hit me is that

it appears to me that each of us in fact act as an ombudsman in

our constituencies. In order to do that job properly, we need

to be able to be full-time. In order to be full-time, we need

to have pay that at least equals what most of us were earning

prior to being elected. I'm quite sure that those changes will

be made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, let's hear the thumping.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, even more important in my view

is the total lack of secretarial and research assistants. You

know, it's funny. I suppose I spend 20 per cent of my time last

fall being a file clerk, another 20 per cent of my time being a

junior typist — because my typing isn't that good.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You should have seen

what it was like four or five years ago. (Laughter)

MR. GABELMANN: I appreciate, Mr. Member, that the conditions

here were much worse in days gone by.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: We've got a long way to go, Mr. Speaker. I

have to get members of my constituency association to take down

my letters and get them to do my constituency. I guess every

Member has a lot of that. I have to get volunteers to do that

when they come home from work, or if it's housewives, in

between the work they're doing. That's absolutely crazy and

intolerable, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it nobody is going to object to my

estimates. (Laughter).

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that your estimates cover

a 12 month period, not just the period that we're sitting here

at the House. That's my point.

Another point about assistants, Mr. Speaker, is that all of

us need the option of having someone do some research for us. I

can't possibly keep up with the demands that are put on me — the amount

of reading I have to do, the number of groups that I

have to meet with, the number of people that have got ideas and

there's some good ideas out there that we don't know about. I

don't have time to go and listen to those people because I'm

spending too much of my time doing routine work that assistants

could do and should be doing so that I can get on with the

[ Page 165 ]

important work of talking to the people in my

constituency.

We need secretarial assistants and we need research

assistants. Now I don't know whether we are going to get away

with having two assistants each. That would be my aim, but if

we can only be allowed to have one person each, 12 months of

the year, then I would argue that we be allowed to choose the

type of person that we hire — some of us may want to hire a

pure research person, others may want to hire just a secretary.

That choice should be left to each individual Member.

O.K., that's the question of what happens when we're out in

the constituency and when we get into the House, Mr. Speaker,

we have to sit in offices. I don't know what it's like for the

Members in the Opposition but for the Members in the

Government, we have to share an office, which is fine. I have a

good room-mate and I don't have any problems that way but

unfortunately we have to share the same phone.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What does she say about

it? (Laughter).

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not sure. We have to share the same phone

so that makes it difficult if we're both trying to phone at the same

time. We both have a lot of phone calls back to our constituencies and

that's a poor system.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but two other Members and I have

to share one secretary. That woman is doing a fantastic job as

far as I'm concerned. She's done more work than I ever could

have expected her to do. But it's not fair to her to have to do

the work for three Members and it's not really fair to us

because we're put in an impossible position about how much work

we give to those secretaries because we think, "Well, we had

better not give them any more work or we're going to drive them

out of their minds." I think that situation has to be remedied

as well.

O.K., that's enough on our problems because I think the

major problems we should be talking about in this House are the

problems that we find out in our constituencies.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to talk about it because I don't

know how to deal with it, but you know the major problem out

there is loneliness? I find that in the last 4 ½ months most

of the work that I've done is similar to work that social

workers would be doing. The phone calls and the letters I get

often don't require a formal or a specific answer. They just

require somebody to listen, somebody to talk to.

The alienation and the loneliness that is occurring in our society

is pretty devastating. I was conscious of it in a kind of intellectual

way in the past, Mr. Speaker, but I've become exceedingly conscious of

that tremendous alienation that exists in all classes, in all social

groupings in our society because of the kind of letters and phone calls

that I've been receiving. Quite frankly, I'm not capable of dealing

with that. I try to be a good listener and I try to talk to everyone

who calls but I'm just not trained to do that kind of job. I hope that

when we improve the social services in this province that we spend a

good deal of attention to the question of alienation.

I want to talk about two issues in North Vancouver. I note

the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) will be

speaking this afternoon and it may be that we touch on some of

the same issues. One of the major issues in North Van — and I

guess it was a lower mainland issue recently — has been the

third crossing which I want to thank the Government for killing

because I think that we are on a dangerous path towards a

freeway system in greater Vancouver that would have strangled

the City of Vancouver if that third crossing had been

completed.

If you live in North Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose

this is true if you live in any other suburb of Vancouver, you

have to have two cars. That's a bad trend. There is no way that

if you live in Deep Cove or if you live in the upper Lonsdale

area, or if you live in the highlands area of the Member for

North Vancouver-Capilano's riding, or if you live in Delta — as

the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) pointed out the other day — there is

no way that you can survive without having at least

two cars.

That's an expensive way for this society to operate. The

second biggest expense we face in our lives is usually the

automobile. More and more now we're having to buy two of them.

That's absolutely ridiculous because not only is it a cost to

the individuals who have to buy those darn things, but it's a

cost to society. Not just the bridges and the highways and the

parking lots and all the pollution that's created, and the

depletion of natural resources — not just the oil and gas

that's being burned — but the need for more steel and more

rubber and more of all of the materials that go into making

these monstrosities. It creates not only those things but also

urban sprawl.

You have an automobile, you build a road, and so people live

further and further away from the city, which eats up more and

more farmland, which creates more and more problems, more and

more alienation and the problems go on and on and they're

indefinite.

They lead to one other very important problem, too, in our

society, Mr. Speaker, and that's the problem of tension. We all

know what tension is. I started to talk about that at the

beginning of this speech because of my tension in having to

stand up in this House. But the tension that the automobile

creates in our society is absolutely devastating. I don't know

how people do it — fighting the rush hour for a 35 or 40 minute

drive home from a hard day at

[ Page 166 ]

work. They have to fight that traffic; they have to

breath

that air. They have to drive that monster that in many cases is

in control of the driver, not the other way around. They come

home, and no wonder people come home from work bitchy. That's

the kind of society we're creating in North America with the

automobile.

I think we are going to have to think very carefully about

that because there's no simple solution, Mr. Speaker. But the

beginning of the solution is for whoever is going to run the

Hydro bus system in Vancouver, whether it's the Greater

Vancouver Regional District or B.C. Hydro — I don't much care

about who runs it as long as it's run on the basis that it

doesn't have to make money. What it has to do is provide

service so that we can end the trend into automobiles, so that

people can know they can move into an area and not have to buy

a second car because there will be a bus in that area.

I want to read a letter that I got from the Deep Cove Old

Age Pensioners' Association. I'll read part of the letter, Mr.

Speaker, because it doesn't say anything new but it touches

very humanly upon what the problem really is. This is from the

association, and they say: "In order to go to Lions Gate

Hospital for X-ray tests or physiotherapy, it is necessary to

take the Deep Cove bus to the Vancouver bus terminal…. ." Now

you'll appreciate that Lions Gate Hospital is in North

Vancouver, "… and from there take a bus to Lonsdale and

13th Street, or take a Deep Cove bus and transfer to another

bus on Main Street. This bus only goes once an hour. The

present fare to go to Vancouver is 60 cents one way with no

transfer on Vancouver buses" so when they get on a Vancouver

bus they pay another 35 cents to get back onto the North Shore.

"There is no Sunday or holiday bus and no evening bus and no

bus into town after 4:20. To take a taxi from the Kootenay

loop," which as you know is in the Vancouver East

riding, "or 13th Street is costly — $3 or more."

If people in my riding want to take a taxi, which they often

have to do if they want to go to the centre of any commerce or

hospital or whatever, the taxi rates are anywhere from $3 to

$5. There are a lot of pensioners living in that area. It's my

point, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't matter if the buses make

money or not that service that area, but it's social

responsibility of society to serve that area. That's very

important in my view.

O.K., I want to go from there into a couple of other things. I had

to tear up part of my speech, Mr. Speaker, because when the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) the other day made the announcement about

Horseshoe Bay, he took …The only criticism I was — yes, a seagull — the only criticism I was going to make of the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, was

that they weren't responding to our cries in North Vancouver that the

Horseshoe Bay terminal be moved.

I want to thank the Minister of Highways for making that

announcement and I want to add to something he said, Mr.

Speaker, because it's very important. It's going to be

increasingly a problem not just for those of us in the North

Shore but people anywhere in B.C. who are going to use that

ferry for the next three or four years. Those conditions are

going to be intolerable at Horseshoe Bay because of the

inadequate parking and inadequate ramp facilities. And as far

as I'm concerned that's fine, but I don't want to hear from the

other two Members in the North Shore any complaints about

inadequate facilities at Horseshoe Bay in the next three our

four years.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not an engineer, Mr. Member, and I can't

tell whether four years is too long or not. That's enough about

Horseshoe Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and I wish he were here because I

want to say something that I want him to do, but I've talked to

him privately and he knows my feelings.

I want to commend him for the amalgamation of Kamloops and

Kelowna. I think that was an important event for those cities.

And I don't live there, Madam Member and that's why I want to

say this. I live in North Vancouver, and I think it is urgent

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs considers very quickly

the amalgamation of the city and district of North Vancouver.

And when he's completed doing that, Mr. Minister, which I hope

is very soon because there is too much duplication of services — there's a new city hall going to be built in the city of

North Vancouver which is pretty silly when they've already got

one pretty good city hall facility in that area.

These kind of expenses in my view are pretty mindless. And

that amalgamation is going to have to come sooner or later, I

would prefer it to be sooner. And once he's done that, Mr.

Speaker, I hope he takes a good look at West Vancouver because

I think maybe we're going to have to merge the whole of the

North Shore into one municipality. That's not an immediate

priority but I think discussions should be going on about that

question.

Moving on to the question of housing and land development,

Mr. Speaker. There's been a lot of talk in the last few months

because of the land freeze that we're going to have to move off

the idea of building homes on the flat farm lands, and with

that I concur 100 per cent. But that's going to create a

responsibility on those of us who live on the slopes north of

Burrard Inlet, and north of the Fraser River all the way down

to Harrison, I guess. It's going to create a responsibility on

us to be able to persuade

[ Page 167 ]

the people who lie in those areas already that

they're not

going to be able to continue to be able to live in the kind of

isolated fashion they've been used to.

In my riding, Mr. Speaker, we have probably the largest

chunk of undeveloped land next to the City of Vancouver. There

are a number of plans that have been presented to create

anywhere from a population which is now 13,000, a population up

to 50,000, some estimates going as high as 120,000 people. And

that's almost as many people as they have in the entire

municipality of Burnaby. So we're talking about a large land

development up in that area. I want the provincial Government

to be involved in that programme because, frankly, it has

ramifications that go beyond any considerations of just North

Vancouver — they are lower mainland considerations. The problem

in there is that we have the C.M.H.C. that owns a great chunk

of land, we have the provincial Government that owns a great

chunk of land, the district owns a great chunk of land, the

National Harbours Board owns land, and nobody seems to be able

to get together and come up with any plans. It's essential that

that happens. And I suspect that the Member for Coquitlam and

the Member for Dewdney will have to look very carefully at

their northern slopes too, because that's where we should be

building our future housing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to a subject very briefly

that's very dear to my heart, and that is the "work ethic", if

I could put it into two words. There has been a lot of

discussion in the House in the last week or so about what work

really is. Is work meaningful? Should people do work that is

mindless and meaningless? Should we allow people to pick and

choose what kind of jobs they take? Is it right for society to

say to a person, "If you don't take the job that we offer you,

whatever it is, you cannot have any kind of income supplement

from society."? Those are the questions, Mr. Speaker, that we

as a society are going to have to spend a great deal of time

thinking about in the next few years because it's only now just

beginning and I think the flood gates will soon open.

It's been my view for a long time, Mr. Speaker, that the more we can

get rid of some kinds of jobs in our society, the better off we'll be.

I can't believe the kind of lives people live who have to work in let's

say an automobile factory on that mindless chain, doing one job day

after day, hour after hour, for 40 years of their life. They come home

from work, and I think I made this point in the October session, they

come home from work and you know there is just no wonder at all in my

mind why they come home, open a beer, sit down and watch the television

and don't spend any time with their family, and don't spend any time

particularly with their kids, and their wives. I don't blame these guys

coming off the green chain after 8 hours slogging away on that mindless

job, I don't blame those guys for coming home and not being very

sociable. But it is a society that we're going to have to do something

about, because it's creating all kinds of problems — sociological

problems — that we're just not dealing with yet, Mr. Speaker.

We're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to

move into some kind of guaranteed annual income for everyone.

We're going to have to decide whether or not we're going to

continue with welfare programmes, unemployment insurance,

family allowances, workmen's compensation — all of the whole

range of income supplement programmes that we have that are

costing us millions and millions of dollars in this society

just to maintain the bureaucracies. Why don't we just simplify

the whole thing and say, "O.K. there's one scheme — if your

income is below this set figure we'll bring it up to the above

figure."?

There's a curious kind of alliance on that question between

the right, as represented by a guy like Friedman in the United

States, and the left. And I might say quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, that those of us on the left have been split on this

issue. There are many socialists who feel that the guaranteed

annual income is a poor approach. I've been toying with the

idea for quite some time and I think I've come to the

conclusion that any other alternatives are even worse. As much

as I don't like what the guaranteed annual income implies, the

other alternatives appear to me to be much worse. So I think

we're going to have to move on that.

What we're doing, Mr. Speaker, in this society is coming to

a realization that there's going to be a great deal more

leisure time. We're not any longer going to be working 40 hours

a week; we're not any longer going to be working 50 weeks a

year; nor soon are we going to be working five days a week.

We're going to have to decide how we deal with that leisure

time. And it's a very important question. It's not just dealt

with by creating more recreational facilities although that's a

very important part of it. An important

part is what the

education system in this province does in terms of training

people to deal with leisure time. Training people to be on

their own, and to find some enjoyment — to find some enjoyment

in being alone. And there's a great deal of difference between

being alone and being lonely. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that

that is an important area for educationalists to work on in the

next while.

We're going to have to expand — and I'm glad to see the

Minister moving quickly on this, the whole idea of the

community use of schools. I don't particularly like the term

"community schools". We like that short term sort of thing and

I can't think of a nice crisp term. But the proper idea is the

community use of schools — that's what's important. It's absurd

to have those buildings empty most of the day, or part of the

year, or all weekend. Why do we

[ Page 168 ]

build duplicate libraries, why do we build

duplicate

swimming pools, duplicate playing fields — all of those?

Mr. Speaker, I haven't worked this idea out entirely in my

mind, and I'm not saying it because it's definitely my own

final view. But I'm coming to the view that we should perhaps

take the school — the physical plant, the physical facility — out of

the hands of the school board, and put it in the hands

of the community. So that there'll be some board or some agency — whether it's the city council or whether it's some new kind

of agency that actually builds and operates the schools — and

they rent those facilities. They are going to work in

cooperation with the Department of Education, of course, to

make sure that the facilities are well designed. But they then

turn around and rent the schools to the community. Part of that

rent would be for school use; part of it would be for community

use; part of it would be for every group in society to get in

there and do their thing.

Why do we say to kids you have to go to school between 9 and

4? Why can't we say to the kids, "O.K., this week you're coming

to school from 8 until noon, and you've got the rest of the day

to do your own thing. Next week we're going to have you come in

the evenings, because we want to bring in people from the

community, who have something to tell you." We use the

school for them in the evenings.

This rigid structure is really pretty absurd. One of the

ways to get around this is to get away from the idea that the

school belongs to the school board. And I know that at first

that sounds like a bit of a weird idea. But the more I think

about that, Mr. Speaker, the more it makes sense to me that the

physical facilities in a community — whether they be schools,

libraries, swimming pools, classrooms, whatever — belong to that

community and everybody makes use of it. Education, Mr.

Speaker, can't stop at age 16 or at age 18. In this increasing

age of leisure, education is going to have to be a life-long

thing where we spend all our lives going to school. Perhaps the

first 12 years we spend most of our time going to school and

the rest of our lives we spend at least some of our time going

to school. That's an important thing, an important

philosophical change that I hope we can make in this

province.

Going from there, Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about a

couple of issues that I will deal with briefly — but that

doesn't mean they are small issues.

Burrard Inlet. The Hon. Member from the High Seas, (Mr.

Bennett) before leaving on his journey, suggested that perhaps

Burrard Inlet should be turned back to the people in Vancouver.

Now I don't know. I don't have the technical expertise and I

haven't done enough research on it. But I would like to see us

discover whether or not we can move the major port handling

activity out of that harbour and perhaps down to Roberts Bank, perhaps

to some other place. I don't

know. There are so many problems involved in this and I'm as

conscious as anyone in this House is of the problems.

But it's absurd, Mr. Speaker, that on the east side of Burrard Inlet

— both on the north shore and the Vancouver

side — on the east side, where the working class people live,

there's no access to the water. On the west side, where the

Liberals live, there's plenty of access to the water.

(Laughter). And that's not fair and it's not right and I think

we're going to have to do something about it.

In North Vancouver we have a coal-loading facility at

Neptune Terminals. The housing values above Neptune Terminals

have just plummeted in the last few years. That's life, I

guess. People understand where they're buying their homes and

it's part of the marketplace kind of game we live in in this

society. But there's threats of more and more industrialization

- perhaps of shipbuilding — in that area. And I'm not sure that

Burrard Inlet can stand any more of that.

We need in North Vancouver some access to the water. We

don't have any direct public access to the water between Lions

Gate Bridge and all the way out to Cates Park, which is at the

far end of the Burrard Inlet on the north shore. And that's

absurd. If I want to go down to the water I have to either go

to Cates Park or way out to the West Vancouver area, which has

ample access to the Pacific. And we've got to do something

about that.

Whether we can or not, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the

problems that the Premier and the cabinet have in determining

where these facilities are going to go. I am quite prepared to

live with decisions that are arrived at as long as we make all

the studies required to see whether or not we can make some

changes there.

We have one particular area in North Vancouver, Mr. Speaker,

in my riding, called the Mudflats, commonly referred to as the

Mudflats — more specifically the Maplewood Mudflats. This is an

area of tidal land — it's land when the tide's out and it's

water when the tide's in. It is uniquely situated in that it is

very easy to get to and it has some exceedingly rare features,

Mr. Speaker. It's an area that is still in its natural state — and

that's pretty rare in Burrard Inlet.

There are now plans by the District of North Vancouver to

put a complex on top of those mudflats that would rival a

combination Park Royal — Bayshore Inn. It would make the Park

Royal, the Bayshore Inn complexes look like Mickey Mouse

operations. And that's going to go onto an area that in my view

should be preserved for future generations, because the natural

cycle of life is still occurring in that area. That's a very

important issue in my riding.

Mt. Seymour. We have I guess the most commonly

[ Page 169 ]

used provincial park in British Columbia in my riding. I'm a skier,

Mr. Speaker, and I love skiing, you know, and you go to Mt. Seymour and

there aren't enough facilities, there aren't enough chairs. But you can

sure go up there now on a beautiful highway. For some reason, we have

spent millions of dollars building a great, spanking-new road — to

what? To a couple of chairs. That facility needs to be improved, as do

most of the ski areas in British Columbia and I hope the Government can

get involved in that. We need to be able to preserve low-cost skiing — if I can coin a term I haven't heard before — for those many working

class kids who can't afford the $8 a day it is to ski at Whistler and

some of the commercial resorts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: How did you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: I saw you there.

MR. GABELMANN: I spent a week skiing in Alberta, Mr. Speaker — because they have very good skiing over there …

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. GABELMANN: I might say that at the top of that ski run,

at Sunshine Village, as you go up the top, it's into British

Columbia. We cross the international border on that run.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk a moment about the Whistler

Mountain area from a couple of vantage points. One is as a ski

area it's a terribly underdeveloped area because the cost of

improving ski facilities is pretty immense. The capital costs

involved are extraordinary. They're trying to fund it by

gouging skiers at the rate of $7 and $8 a day, and they're

still not picking up enough capital in order to properly

develop that area as a ski resort, I would like to see the Government

involved in those kind of

activities, Mr. Speaker. There are at least a half a dozen

areas in the Squamish to Pemberton region that could be

developed as magnificent ski areas — better than any in the

world — and they're sitting not being developed because there

isn't any money, or our free enterprisers aren't prepared to

take the gamble. I just don't like to see people deprived of

that kind of recreation because some free enterprisers aren't

prepared to take a gamble.

I would prefer that the Government got involved and set up a

couple of parallel facilities in that area similar to the

Whistler one.

There are some problems right at Whistler, Mr. Speaker. As

many of you know, the Whistler area at the bottom around Alta

Lake is situated on a solid rock foundation. There is very

little soil, very little growth very little chance for

pollution to be dealt with in any natural way. There are four or five lakes in

that area, Mr. Speaker, and an unlimited number of housing or

development sites. People are putting in their own sewage

systems. One of the new aldermen in the City of Vancouver is

involved in a scheme to set up a great big complex there.

The pollution in the Alta Lake area is going to be really

obscene in the not-too-distant future unless we put an end to

the kind of use of those lakes as the reservoir of the sewers

from those cabins. We're going to have to get a sewage system

into that area if we're going to …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GABELMANN: I've had my discussions and I'll continue to

do that. I wanted to make that point in the House, Mr. Speaker,

because it's absolutely urgent, if Whistler is going to develop

any more, that something be done about those sewage

problems.

As many of you know who have driven to Pemberton — that's

probably the worst road in the world, the road from Squamish to

at least the Whistler and beyond. The B.C. Railway runs up

there, Mr. Speaker — I am really addressing these remarks to

the Premier — and many of us who drive that treacherous road,

on icy days, would very much love to see a ski train going from

North Vancouver right into the Whistler area. All we require is

about a 3 1/4 mile spur line off the main road, it brings you

100 feet to the bottom of the terminal. I think the thing could

make a lot of money for this Government, Mr. Speaker, if we

were to put in a special ski train to Whistler.

Now I want to talk about Indian Arm — and I'm near to being

finished, Mr. Speaker, except this will take a few minutes

because it's, I think, the major scandal that's happening in

the lower mainland right now and it isn't very widely known.

Indian Arm is a chunk of water that extends off Burrard Inlet.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, it's shared by the Premier

and I in terms of representation. It's probably the best

recreational area in the lower mainland. The only area that

comes anywhere near being its equal is parts of the Sechelt

Peninsula. It's got good fishing, good boating, good water

skiing, excellent hiking potential — I go sailing in there

quite often. You can still swim in Indian Arm. The water's

clean still, believe it or not.

There's crab hunting — what do you call it? You don't go

crab fishing, you don't go crab hunting. I don't know what you

call it. Crabbing? (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. GABELMANN: In any event, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 170 ]

this is an area that has been until now unspoiled and there

is something going on in that arm that I want to tell you

about.

I have down on these notes, Mr. Speaker, 10 different items

about things that are happening in Indian Arm. And if those

items are allowed to continue, we will lose forever the

recreational value of that arm, The water in that inlet, Mr.

Speaker — or in that fjord, as it properly should be called — is

probably the deepest in the entire area. The water doesn't

change very quickly, it's cold — because it's deep — and if it

ever gets polluted it's going to be like Lake Eric. We are

never going to be able to reverse it again because the water

doesn't change. It stays the same.

Right now, in that area, the District of North Vancouver has

made an application to the Greater Vancouver Regional District

to rip out great acres of gravel out of the Buntzen Bay area.

Now the Buntzen Bay area is a beautiful location for a park,

for swimming, for boating, for all kinds of activities. If that

gravel exploitation is allowed to continue, it will be a

terrible blow to any future recreational development in that

area.

You all know about the Granite Falls resort that the ferries

go up to when you want to go on a booze cruise. That place was

just bought and funnily enough, just burned down after it was

bought. Now we hear great plans to put in a huge commercial

development in that area. Also in that Granite Falls area there

are other gravel deposits which will scar that area if ever

anyone makes an application to take that out.

Going north of Granite Falls and a place called Iron Bay it

is filled with logging booms, and now we are beginning to see

the stray logs and the junk that is coming out of those booms

down into the arm, The water is slowly beginning to become

dirtier from those booms, from that logging. You go up there in

a boat, Mr. Speaker, and the mountainside is scarred. Now, I

appreciate that if we are going to have a logging industry in

this province we are going to have scarred mountains. I

understand the economics of this whole thing.

But there are some values that are higher than the economic

values we put on. In my view, the Indian Arm area has far more

economic value to our society as a recreational area than it

does as an area where we rip out the resources.

The Indian River estuary at the head of Indian Arm is like

any other estuary — a very delicate area, a very beautiful

area. There is an incredible recreational potential along the

river at the head of that inlet. You can hike. We could put a

hiking trail from there right over to Squamish, Mr. Speaker,

that would be the envy of any hiking trail in North America.

That area is being devastated. It is being devastated by a

company we all know well — Weldwood of Canada.

They're logging Felix Mountain and just scarring that thing

beyond belief. They've got the entire estuary area covered by

log booms, which is going to, destroy any of that marine life.

That has to end, in my view, Mr. Speaker.

Just around the corner from there is Wigwam Inn. We have all

heard of Wigwam Inn over the last 60 years, I would guess. It

has a fabled history. I was tempted, Mr. Speaker, to go into

the library and dig up the history of that place and relate it

to this House, because I think there are a number of quite

funny and interesting stories about the gambling and other

events that used to happen in that fabled place.

Mr. Speaker, that place has been, left. It is a shell. It is

being destroyed by nature and by vandals and it's just been

purchased by a developer. It is 150 acres, including one mile

of very beautiful waterfront area — waterfront area that I have

gone swimming in, Mr. Speaker. I knew I was on private property

but it is so nice to go swimming up there that I did that.

That area is being bought and the developer — and I say this

out of the House as well as in — that developer is planning to

subdivide that area and take out a great profit. My concern

isn't that he takes out a great profit. My concern is that he

destroys that area forever as a recreational outlet for the

people of Vancouver.

Coming down you've got that huge Crocker Island. Now, I

don't know whether any of you remember about Crocker Island.

But that sea island is where they got all those pieces of stone

to build all those beautiful buildings in Vancouver. The Mount

Pleasant school which has just been destroyed, unfortunately,

in Vancouver — they ripped all the stone out of the bottom of

that school — that stone came from Crocker Island, Mr. Speaker,

60 odd years ago. That island, 250 acres, has just been

purchased for commercial development. That frightens me,. Mr.

Speaker, because that's an area again that has prime

recreational potential.

Coming further down the inlet … and I am only cataloguing

all of these items because I think it is important for the

public to know that this place is being savaged. It is being

absolutely savaged, and if we do not do something about it very

quickly it will be lost forever.

Coming down you've got the Bishop Creek area where a company

called Bishop Aggregate is logging. Now, some few years ago

they were logging across the other side of the arm at a place

called Buntzen Bay. Their plan in their permit was that they

were planning to take out gravel. They didn't do that at

Buntzen Bay. They just ripped out the logs — a bit reminiscent

of the Cypress Bowl incident where these companies go in and

take the logs and don't fulfil the rest of their contract. In

this case, Mr. Speaker, I don't want this company either to

fulfil its contract about the gravel or rip out these logs,

because it is

[ Page 171 ]

again a beautiful area. That Bishop Creek area is a prime

location for hiking and other recreational facilities in the

future.

Then coming further down we have one of the worst rip-off

artists in this province, Mr. Speaker, and that's the district

of North Vancouver. They act more like a land developer, more

like a crooked outfit, than any other developer I can think of

in this province; and that, believe it or not, is the district

of North Vancouver.

Just to digress for a moment, the budget of North Vancouver,

the annual municipal budget, is $10 million and $2 million of

that budget is raised by land sales. Now, that's the kind of

outfit we have there. They are now threatening to go logging in

their part of Indian Arm. Now all these meetings have been in

camera at council. But the obvious intent is to make some more

money for the district of North Vancouver, and devastate that

part of Indian Arm.

Then we've got B.C. Hydro who have taken more of a beating

in this House than any other group, I guess. They've got great

swaths like they've got all over the province, great swaths of

power lines down through Indian Arm, and they are using

herbicides to keep that growth down. I don't understand why

they cannot send in teams of people to cut down the growth if

it has to be cut down that badly. Why use herbicides in an area

like that?

Finally, the worst thing of all is that there are indeed

serious plans to build a causeway from Dollarton across to

Belcarra. So the Premier and I, when he is back in his riding,

will be able to get together a lot quicker than he can now

having to drive all the way around.

But do you know what this causeway will do? This causeway

will lock Indian Arm into a freshwater situation. It will end

the tidal action. It will end the salmon fishing.

Now it's not a serious plan, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that

it is not being pushed by a group or being advocated or being

presented to any decision-making body. But the engineers out

there are talking about it. The so-called planners are talking

about the need to have some kind of transportation route, both

rail and highway, going from the North Shore out the Fraser

Valley. To do that, what are they going to do?

They are going to build a causeway across Indian Arm linking

up Port Moody and North Vancouver. That can never be allowed to

happen, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I guess I have said enough about Indian Arm. I feel pretty

emotional about it. It is an area that I live fairly close to. I know

it is an area that a lot of people have never been to because they

don't know about it. My fear in raising this issue in the House is that

it would get too much publicity and people would learn about Indian Arm

and we would have more people there. But that is one of the things we

are going to have to suffer with in the future, because our

recreational facilities are so short.

What I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is

that he get together with the National Harbours Board, with the

federal environment Minister and figure out a way to make that

whole Indian Arm area into a combination marine-land park.

I think that is a high priority for that department and I

would urge that he do just that. That is all I have to say, Mr.

Speaker. I have left out a lot of items near and dear to my

heart but we are going to have ample opportunities in future

debates in this House, particularly in estimates, and again in

the budget debate. So, that is all I have to say now. Thank you

very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Before I start the formal part of my speech I want to

concur with the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann) in his remarks at the beginning of his speech with

regard to northern and interior members having at least an air

pass so that they can get back and forth to their

constituency.

Now I have a sheaf of passes about that thick — I don't even

carry them with me — I will gladly trade all of those passes in

for one little pass on CP Air.

With regard to telephones, Mr. Speaker, I said the first

time that I stood in this House that I appreciated the changes

that have been made in the Members' quarters. But I find it

increasingly difficult to share a phone with somebody. I find

that, with the province growing — and maybe it is because I am

in a different role — but I find that a private telephone for

each member would certainly be an asset. I have one in my

office at home. I don't have to share it with anybody and I

would appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. And I will certainly vote

for your estimates if …

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you think we should take over B.C. Tel?

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, I am sure that as I live and

breathe and stand in this Legislature that my thoughts are not

going to make one iota of difference in what you eventually do

with regard to British Columbia Telephone. Now I want to make

one other remark and I want to make it in all sincerity. I

appreciate the speech that was made yesterday afternoon in this

Legislature by the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke). It was probably one of the first

speeches made in this Legislature by a member of the Government

that dealt, without being political, with

[ Page 172 ]

the business of the day. I want to say that I appreciate

it.

While I'm talking about speakers in the House, I want to say

that I was most disappointed in the speech from the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), who stood in the House

and condemned the official Opposition for not having

constructive criticism of the throne speech, while he spent

about half an hour himself on a speech that had nothing to do

with the throne speech whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. It sounded to

me like a campaign speech for the Conservative Party. While all

the time condemning the official Opposition, he was making a

political speech himself that had nothing to do with the

business of the throne speech. This disappointed me because I

had, up until yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of regard

for that Member for Saanich and the Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shouldn't make political statements.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he shouldn't. Not at all.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say officially — because really this

is the first time that I've made what you would call an

official, full-fledged speech in this Legislature since

returning after my three-year absence — that I am very pleased

to represent that great riding of South Peace River. The people

up there are no less than the salt of the earth and, indeed,

the salt of British Columbia.

The first speech I made in this Legislature after returning,

Mr. Speaker, was to second an amendment to a throne speech. I

must say that I got caught off balance and didn't get the

opportunity to make my full remarks in that throne speech

debate. The other night when I was speaking I made another faux

pas, you know, when I asked for adjournment of the speech

because I didn't have the opportunity to give out my full

remarks.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the

Government — and I quote the Premier — he says that the

Government is learning. I want the Premier to know, through

you, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for South Peace River is also

learning his role as an Opposition Member.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stood in the

House the other day and he asked for a new attitude. My

colleague, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), said that

some speeches depended on the tone of voice and the loudness of

the voice and how you could flail your arms, instead of the

material. I want to advise the House this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker, that I am trying to turn over a new leaf …

(Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Turn down his mike.

MR. PHILLIPS: You must realize, though, that even when I was

on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, I used to get pretty

excited about the things that were happening in the north. I'm

not that much of an excitable person, Mr. Speaker, but I do get

excited about the business of this province, and excited about

the affairs of the people who sent me to this Legislature.

However, if it's reform you want, Mr. Speaker, it's reform that

the Member for South Peace River will try to give you.

I want you to bear this in mind though, Mr. Speaker, that

when the adrenalin doesn't flow as freely, the tongue slows

down. Therefore it might take me a little longer.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: You're going to keep your voice down to a roar

though. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. It might take me a little longer to say

what I have to say.

In dealing with the throne speech itself, Mr. Speaker, it

contains about as much of nothing as is physically possible to

put into a speech. Of course I understand the Premier's idea

behind this. It's to give a full two weeks of free-wheeling

debate without giving all of the Government's intentions. This

is accepted, Mr. Speaker, and I'll go along with that. But it

gives no direction whatsoever of where the Government is going

to go so we continue to debate.

However, the present Government when in Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, criticized the previous Government — criticized the

previous Premier — for doing this very same thing in previous

years. Another example of the Government's past criticisms,

when an Opposition party, being followed by an exact — almost to

the letter — duplication of the Social Credit Government.

However, they say they are learning and the Premier is

learning. He's learning that to be Minister of Finance is also

the best way to go — to keep that portfolio with that of the

Premier — because he realizes that he has control. I'll go

along with this, Mr. Speaker, because he realizes that the

previous Government was right in most of the things they did.

He's learning that the Premier should be president of the

railway so that he can know how the province is developing.

I'll go along with that, Mr. Speaker. I think that's an

excellent idea.

But, Mr. Speaker, what this Government hasn't learned is

that things have changed in the province. When the past 20

throne speeches were read in this House, the people had a sense

of direction. They knew how the Government felt about taxes.

They knew how the Government felt about free enterprise. They

knew how the Government felt. Now things have changed.

[ Page 173 ]

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that now a sense of direction is really

needed. An explanation from this Government as to where it

intends to go is not only desirable, but is essential if we are

to provide jobs for the unemployed of this province. That is

why, Mr. Speaker, through you to Mr. Premier, that I would have

felt that something in the throne speech has to give not only

business and industry but the unemployed a direction — something that

they could grasp onto and say either "it's

coming" or "it isn't coming." That is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel

that the throne speech is a very empty document. Regardless of

what has happened in the past, Mr. Speaker, it should have

given some direction. One hundred per cent of nothing is still

absolutely nothing.

The Government had better wake up to the needs of this

province and give some direction, Mr. Speaker. I think it is

time that the Government realized that today is the tomorrow

they were going to do so much about yesterday. That time of

decision, Mr. Speaker, has arrived. It is time that the Premier

of this province spoke out and gave out direction. Mr. Speaker,

I would like to point out to the Premier that if he doesn't

give some direction very shortly, he will lose his credibility.

I know that the Premier does not want to lose his credibility.

He has a lot of support over there and if he loses his

credibility, he may not only lose the credibility of the voters

but he may lose credibility in his own backbench. He must give

them direction.

You have started your cabinet Ministers as they stand on the

floor day by day, giving some bits of direction as to what your

intentions are, what your philosophy is. But unfortunately, Mr.

Speaker, the cabinet Ministers who stand on the floor of this

House giving these directions give conflicting statements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Even the Premier himself — and I hate to say

this, Mr. Speaker, I really hate to say this. It touches me

from the bottom of my heart to say this (laughter) — that the

Premier himself …

MR. CHABOT: The First Minister of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: …the First Minister of this province, Mr.

Speaker, has actually made conflicting statements since he

became Premier. This really is shocking to me. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that you are shocked.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. (Laughter). Only when it's in the same

speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it only heightens an

already jittery situation. (Laughter).

On October 18, 1972, the Premier stood in this Legislature

and said that there would be no hand-outs or no incentives. Mr.

Speaker, do you remember — yes, I'm sure you do. It's in

Hansard . (Laughter). Yes, we have a record now. It's

fantastic sometimes what goes into this record.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but I remember the Premier wanted that

Hansard . I sort of thank him for it now because I find

it a great assistance the odd time.

Anyway, the Premier said there would be no hand-outs or

incentives. On Monday last the Premier stood in his place in

the Legislature during a very, very sincere effort on the part

of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to discuss the very timely

subject of unemployment in this Legislature. The Premier stood

in his place and what did he do, Mr. Speaker? The Premier stood

in his place and he criticized the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, yes, he criticized the federal

government. And what did he criticize the federal government

for, Mr. Speaker? What did he criticize the federal government

for? I remember what he criticized the federal government for,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Good boy!

MR. PHILLIPS: He criticized the federal government for not

subsidizing shipbuilding in the Province of British

Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: And yet, not too long ago, he said his

Government isn't going to have any subsidies. No way. Yet he

goes and asks Ottawa for subsidies. Now what kind of an upside,

flip-flopsy-dervy sort of a — put that in Hansard will

you? (Laughter). What kind of a conflicting attitude is

that, Mr. Speaker, that our Premier has? I'll tell you, it

bothers me.

Don't lose your credibility, Mr. Premier. If incentives and

subsidies are good enough for one government they're good

enough for another government. I'm sure that you wouldn't want

the federal government — you wouldn't condone anything our

federal government does that you wouldn't do, Mr. Speaker,

would he?

Oh boy, I'll tell you. But he didn't go on and say — the

Liberals came out and said, "Well, sure, there's a subsidy."

Didn't they, Mr. Premier? But they didn't tell how much subsidy

there is to the shipbuilding industry in the Province of

Quebec. And I didn't have time for research to do it. But I'll

try and dig that up,

[ Page 174 ]

Mr. Speaker, before this House is over. Because I remember

reading not too long ago about some very large subsidies — not

25 per cent, either. Far greater than that, my friends in the

Liberal benches, far greater than that — to shipbuilding in La

Belle Province.

Now, you stood in the House and …

HON. MR. BARRETT: He'd better look up what firm it was,

too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, well now I'm glad you brought that up.

And I'm not sure of my facts, but I do remember something about

relations. Now I - was it relations? Now that could have been

public relations, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter). I don't want you to

lead me into anything that I am not prepared to say. But it was

something about relations. Now that could be …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Skip that lecture. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: But what I was going to say, was that the

Premier really tried to sidestep the main issue of the day and

this is what I'm saying. Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier is

going to stand up and give some direction, but I think it

should happen now. Because the budget speech is a week away, a

week today the Premier will stand in this House …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no. Now we're both learning, Mr. Premier,

we're both learning. My heart is full of goodwill today,

too.

However, for that act in the Legislature on Monday, Mr.

Premier, the Social Credit caucus — the entire caucus — has

voted you the great actor of the week.

Now, then, we heard from the backbench, Mr. Speaker, the

Hon. second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — big man

too, big man, good lawyer, good debater. He stood in this

House, Mr. Speaker, and he said this growth policy has got to

stop. There should be no further growth. Is that what the Hon.

second Member for Vancouver Centre …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. All right, I stand corrected. But what he

said really is not the most important thing to happen. And, Mr.

Speaker, when I'm talking about conflicting statements I'm leading up

to another conflicting statement. And that second conflicting statement

was when the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who doubles as

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce, stood on his

feet Wednesday of this week. Mr. Speaker, now what did he say about

growth and incentives? Well, I'm not going to tell everything he said,

but I remember very specifically, Mr. Speaker, him saying that this

Government will possibly build buildings that the government can own

and that industry can use, Mr. Speaker, would that be considered an

incentive to growth, an incentive to industry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you say you were against him?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't say I was against him, Mr.

Speaker, no way did I say I was against him. What I am trying

to point out, Mr. Speaker, is the conflict of statements that

we're having.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The farmers have the same thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to talk about the farmers in a

minute, Mr. Premier.

All I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, and to the Premier through you,

Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying this is a bad policy. I'm certainly

not for no-growth policy because I know that if you're going to

keep people happy, they've got to work. Because I believe

firmly in the policy that if a person is working and doing

something constructive that he's a happy person. But maybe

that's just my old-fashioned upbringing or something. But it's

with me and I haven't found any other policy that I'm willing

to accept as being a better one at the present time.

But it's the conflicting statements that really, as I say,

already have added to an already jittery situation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I agree. But what we want and the people want

are clear-cut policies. And I hope, Mr. Speaker, that somebody

comes forth and gives some clear-cut policies — or at least be

consistent. When your cabinet Ministers stand up next week, Mr.

Speaker, in the debate as it carried on, let's have some

clear-cut policies. Because I'll tell you every day that we

don't get these people back to work, the people who are working

have got pay for it. And it is a very urgent matter.

The Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) anticipated

capital investment in 1973 to be $3.6 billion, which is about

the same as last year, so at least we're not going to go

backwards. But I would

[ Page 175 ]

like to see an increase in the anticipated investment in

1973. Because as our work force grows, as our population grows,

we must have an increase in investment to keep those jobs

rolling.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade,

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), while on his feet, said that

he was going to get rid of the dirty word "industry" in his

department. I might agree with a change in the name of the

department, but industrial growth is going to be something that

this Government is going to have to face and they're going to

have to make up their mind whether they're for or against

industrial growth.

But I don't think that the Hon. Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce is too sincere — or at least

agrees with the rest of the cabinet when they talk about

no-growth policy, because back in November he went to Ottawa

and he lined up top economic and industrial experts from Ottawa

to serve in a proposed B.C. Development Corporation. Yes. And

we haven't heard a word on the floor of this House since this

session opened about a B.C. Development Corporation, Mr.

Speaker.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Premier doesn't know

that he went for one.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is out of the Vancouver Province

dated

November 10, 1972, "Industrial Development Minister Alex

Macdonald has lined up top economic and industrial experts from

Ottawa to serve in the proposed B.C. Development Corporation.

On his return from an exploratory trip to Ottawa and Toronto,

MacDonald said Thursday, he also looked into the Ontario

Development Corporation and spoke with federal trade Minister

Jean Luc Pepin and federal Justice Minister Otto Lang."

He also stated that he spoke to Eric Kierans, former Liberal

cabinet Minister, over the telephone. Did you hire Mr. Kierans

to head up this Industrial Development Corporation that we're

going to set up here, Mr. Premier?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You didn't hire him?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Walton's got the application.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about

something that is very close to my constituency, very timely

topic and very close to the Premier, also, and that is the

development of the Sukunka coal. Mr. Speaker, I am becoming

increasingly disturbed by comments in the Press and on the

radio and television, made by politicians, regarding the

development of Sukunka coal. These comments are being made mainly by

politicians from the Liberal faith — both in this Legislature and in

particular one Liberal Member

from the federal government. I feel that a lot of these

statements, Mr. Speaker, have been made without the politicians

doing their proper research. These statements, Mr. Speaker, are

being made by these politicians without consideration for the

overall development and the overall good of the Province of

British Columbia.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to look at some cold, hard facts

regarding the development of the Sukunka coal. The development

of the coal deposits are in an area south of Chetwynd known as

the Sukunka Valley, and they will be financed by an all

Canadian company, We've heard criticism in this House before of

our resources being developed by outside money. This is an all

Canadian company known basically as Brascan Limited, Toronto.

The only other coal development of this size in British

Columbia is being financed and run by an American company.

That's Fact No. 1.

The second significant thing about the development of the

Sukunka coal deposit is the fact that over 60 per cent of the

coal will cap an entirely new market. This is a very important

fact, Mr. Speaker, — an entirely new market. This new market is

the European Common Market, which has a potential for future

sales far greater than that of the Japanese market. That is a

very, very important fact, Mr. Speaker. We must realize that

although our exports to Japan, although very welcome, should

not in any way dominate our export trade. This is a very, very

important fact we must consider in the future. The reason of

course is obvious. We don't want British Columbia to be so tied

to the economy of one single country, namely Japan — that if

Japan sneezes, British Columbia gets a cold, and I mean this.

This is very serious. You should witness last year what

happened when the United States closed the dollar and

devaluated the yen. You know what happened.

MR. LAUK: What?

MR. PHILLIPS: Another very important fact to consider in the

development of the Sukunka coal is the fact that the entire

deposit is not pre-sold. This is a very important fact. It is

not pre-sold, not the entire deposit. This means that this top

quality coking coal can be developed and sold, portions of it,

on an open market. In other words, you develop the coal, it's

there, and you go out and you send salesmen out, and you say,

"I've got a high grade quality coking coal, do you want to buy

some?" Then you negotiate the price. That's a very important

fact, because if you understand the coal markets of the world,

you fully realize that there are many, many millions of tons of

coal that will never be mined because they are pre-committed.

What I mean to say by that is steel

[ Page 176 ]

companies throughout the world have gone, they've found coal

deposits, and they've bought the entire deposit and sewed them

up so they can be assured of a source of coal in perpetuity.

This has happened. Consequently, millions and millions of tons

of coal in the world will never be mined. The fact that the

coal is not previously sold in its entirety means that the risk

money that, goes into the development of this mine is truly

risk capital.

When Porcupine Mines developed a project similar to this in

the Smokey River of Alberta, the Canadian Bank of Commerce in

Toronto demanded the entire coal deposit be sold before they

would put up the risk capital. What does this mean? It's

another very important fact, Mr. Speaker. This in effect means

that there are no chances of getting a better price for the

product should the market change, because they are sewed in,

they are locked into a deal. I feel that the Canadian Bank of

Commerce should have put some risk money into this and helped

develop that mine. They should take a risk once in a while,

that's what our banks are for. They want everything clear cut

and dried before so that there's no risk to them, to the

detriment of the development of some of this risk money.

It also means that the best cut price for the product cannot

be bargained for. So far as I am concerned, and this is another

very important fact — this Canadian company is very ecology

minded, is very concerned about the environment of the area of

where the mine will be developed. And further, the company, to

my knowledge, has been very fair in all its dealings with the

British Columbia Railway, the British Columbia Hydro and

indeed, the British Columbia government. They have laid all

their cards on the table, and all they ask in return is they be

allowed to make a fair return on their investment.

The investors in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, are

thousands and thousands of people who own shares in Brascan

Limited. The shares are on the open market, and it will be the

investors, the small investors, who will suffer should this

project go ahead and not provide a proper return.

Now let, us look at the logistics of British Columbia and

how the coal should be shipped to market.

Number one — Sukunka lies approximately 37 miles south of Chetwynd.

Chetwynd is a divisional point on the British Columbia Railway with one

line going to Dawson Creek and the other heading in a northerly

direction to Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. The development of the mine

will require a Hydro line to be built — a road and a natural gas

pipeline in order to develop this mine. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker,

the development will not require a new townsite which would require the

expenditure and outlay by the province for townsite roads, water,

sewer, hospitals, schools and all the other services necessary to

develop a new townsite. The facilities in Chetwynd are large enough to

cope with the fairly substantial increase in population without the

outlay of additional funds. Now this is a very, very important point.

The company naturally realizes that on a dollar and cent

basis it would be cheaper to have their employees at the mine

site. And I certainly hope that no under the table deal — I

know there is many under the tables deals, Mr. Premier — is

being made to have a new townsite built in exchange for — no,

Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier and I won't even entertain the

thought. They're interested in the environment of the area.

They're interested in the area economically. They know that for

the good of the area they must use the existing town. It will

be the best way for the area. That's the type of a company you

are dealing with, Mr. Speaker.

Now let us explore the timely question of what port this

coal is going to be shipped through. Before I discuss this in

any great detail, I want to make it perfectly clear to all the

Members of this Legislature, to all the people they represent,

that the British Columbia Railway is owned by the people of

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: That point, Mr. Speaker, must be made

perfectly, unequivocally clear. British Columbia Railway is a

railway that receives no subsidies from Ottawa. Nor has it

received any subsidies from Ottawa for its extensions into the

Peace River area in 1958, for its extensions in the Mackenzie,

for its extensions to Fort St. James, for its extension to

Fort Nelson, for its present extensions to Dease Lake. These

are very, very, very important facts in the consideration of

this particular deal.

Now let us look at some of the mileages involved. The rail

miles over the British Columbia Railway from Chetwynd to Prince

George is 196.6 miles. From Prince George to the port of

Squamish over the British Columbia Railway it is 422.9 miles

and from Prince George to Prince Rupert over the Canadian

National line it's 466 miles. From this it is fairly easy to

see that it is shorter from Prince George to Squamish than from

Prince George to Prince Rupert by 45.1 miles. Not a great

number of miles so far as railways are concerned, but it's also

a very important fact.

The grades over the British Columbia Railway from Prince

George to Squamish are far better than the grades over the C.N.

Railway line to Prince Rupert. The rail bed itself on the

British Columbia Railway Line is in much better shape than that

of the C.N. Railway. Anyone who disputes this fact can check

the amount of work done on upgrading the British Columbia line

over the past ten years versus

[ Page 177 ]

the amount of work done on upgrading the Canadian National

line in the last ten years. And how much work has been done

upgrading the Canadian National line in the past ten years?

Mr. Speaker, I want to read you a very interesting article,

at least it seemed very interesting to me. It's entitled "Grain

cars, too heavy for tracks," and this outlines some of

the engineering and thought that goes into that great Canadian

National Railway line in Western Canada. "Ottawa Dateline — 2,000 big

grain carrying hopper cars purchased last year by the

Government for $48 million can travel on only half the railway

tracks in Western Canada, the Commons Estimates Committee was

told Wednesday."

Now, great, fantastic planning by this great railway that

has been in operation — how many years? Well, longer than I've

been around. "W.E. Jarvis, Coordinator of the Industries

Department Grains Group said that something less than half the

tracks can carry the cars once they are full of grain, and the

other half cannot take the weight of a full car." They can't

even put these grain cars on the line when it's empty. Now I

want to tell you, that's great planning for a national railway

eh? Mr. Speaker, and I mean this sincerely, it shocked me.

I want to say thank goodness those wonderful people who run

the province's railway do a far better job of planning — and

I'll be talking about that in just a moment — than our national

railway. Or, I want to tell you, somebody would have to be

subsidizing that railway — it would be broke. I promised to

keep my voice down. I'm sorry. (Laughter).

Due to the fact that these

lines must run both summer and

winter, it would do for everyone interested in this project to

check the number of down days on the CN line from Prince Rupert

to Prince George, I think you will find that the line is out

approximately 37 days per year or 3 days per month. The big

factor, of course, about this is reliability and the fact that

you are supplying an offshore market. You must give your

customers service and deliver the goods when you say you will.

Canada has had lots of bad experiences in the past by not

supplying their hard-fought-for offshore markets, such as the

delivery of wheat and, indeed, the first delivery of coal from

the Kaiser project.

This, Mr. Speaker, is another very, very important fact in

the decision of what is going to happen with this project. With

an unreliable railway line, it would mean that thousands and

thousands of extra tons of coal would have to be stored at the

port through which the coal is going to be shipped. I want you

to think of that, Mr. Speaker, in terms of ecology.

Another point in the logistics, of course, is as stated

before — 60 per cent of this coal is going to be shipped to the

European market, a market which, in the interests of all

British Columbia, should be developed because of its potential.

Another point which we must consider is the extra three shipping days from

Prince Rupert to the Panama versus Squamish to the Panama. This

may not seem like many days in terms of an ocean voyage but,

when you are competing on a world market, every cent that

increases the price of your ton of coal could either make or

break the deal.

While I'm discussing costs, let me give you some thoughts on

the 25-cents-a-ton versus an undisclosed royalty. We must

realize of course, as I stated before, this coal has to be sold

on the world market. It is competing against coal from Alberta,

coal from Australia and coal from many other sources in the

world. When we become too emotional about the royalty of 25

cents per ton versus $1 per ton, I think we have to take into

consideration the amount of taxes derived from a development

such as this, When you do, you will find that the taxes will

far exceed the extra number of cents per ton. Certainly, if the

development of Sukunka coal deposit was going to hinge on

whether the Government got 25 cents a ton or $1 a ton royalty,

I would say that the development should go ahead at 25 cents a

ton royalty.

I can certainly appreciate the Premier trying to get the

best deal on this coal that he can. I appreciate that he wants

to get the best deal he can for the people of British Columbia.

I have no argument with that. But I would like to caution him

that, being an old salesman, I know that sometimes a deal is

lost and there is no profit at all. I appreciate the Premier as

a bargainer. I appreciate him as a businessman and I know that

he has handled this project in all the sincerity that is due

his high office. I appreciate that. But I caution the Premier,

Mr. Speaker, through you, not to be penny rich and dollar

poor.

We also get emotional about using up all our natural

resources. But we must define one thing clearly and that is

that a natural resource is only a natural resource when it is

required for use by somebody. Technology in the world today is

changing so rapidly that in 10 years or 20 years there could be

an entirely new source of energy. A recent breakthrough in the

development of atomic energy makes the present method seem

cumbersome and archaic. I don't think that we should have

to rely on new sources of energy being developed. But, by the

same token, we must be realistic about new technology and new

developments and entirely new sources of energy that we haven't

even dreamed of. I refer to solar energy and the energy that

lies beneath the surface of the world. You just had to see what

happened in Iceland recently to realize that there's certainly

lots of energy down there.

These are a few of the facts regarding the Sukunka coal

project, Mr. Speaker. It frightens me to think that, because of

bickering between uninformed Liberals in the House and strictly

political statements of the Liberals in Ottawa, this project

could be killed.

[ Page 178 ]

I must say that I appreciate the sincerity with which the

Premier has been dealing with this project. I do, however, as I

have said before, want to caution him from holding out for too

good a deal. We must also look far into the future and realize

- and I want to make this perfectly clear — we are going to

need the development of the port of Prince Rupert in the very

near future, whether the Sukunka coal goes through Prince

Rupert or whether the Sukunka coal goes through some other

port. We are going to need the development of the port of

Prince Rupert. I want to make this perfectly clear. You have to

look past tomorrow or next month. You have to look into the

future. You have to know the potential of the north the realize

this very important fact. Not only will we need Prince Rupert,

Mr. Speaker, but we will also need the port of Stewart.

Why do I say this? Because when you realize that two-thirds

of the land mass of British Columbia lies north of the 53rd

parallel; when you realize that there are more known mineral

deposits behind the Alaska Panhandle — which is the area that

the railway is going into now, up through Dease Lake — than

anywhere else in the free world; when you realize that over 50

per cent of the merchantable timber lies in this north country;

when you realize that there are still millions of acres of

agricultural land that have not been brought under production,

I think then you can get some glimmer of the immensity of that

land up there that has to be developed. That is why I say we'll

need Prince Rupert and we'll need Stewart. If you've got enough

vision to see this and if you've got enough faith in the

Province of British Columbia and if you've got enough faith in

the Government of the Province of British Columbia, you will

realize that these ports must and will be developed.

So what we are arguing really are semantics. We're arguing

them without any vision. We're arguing them on political,

sometimes hysterical, statements.

The other thing that I want to point out and that probably a

lot of people haven't even taken the time to realize, is that

we're not only discussing Sukunka coal — that's one project.

How many people realize and know that there are seven other

deposits, some of them larger than the Sukunka deposit, in this

Peace River coal field? So, we're not talking about one

project. That's why I say we'll need the port of Prince Rupert.

In that very vast area north of Prince Rupert no one has even

catalogued the resources in that area. That land up there will

support a population, without even trying, equal to the present

population of Canada.

Now, let's just have a little talk about environment, ecology and

pollution. I want to refer to an editorial in the Vancouver Sun

dated January 31. They're discussing the Sukunka coal project. They are

talking about the Squamish wind, which is something like the Chinook

wind. It's a maverick wind that blows hard and strong and comes up in

gusts and so forth.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's a good point, Mr. Attorney

General, But anyway, this

article goes on to say that real second

sight would see the Squamish, which is the wind I referred to,

working on giant coal piles. Real second sight would see the

inevitability of an oil spill. I don't know where the oil spill

comes in when we're talking about coal. But what I do want to

say, Mr. Speaker, is that if the composer of this particular

editorial had taken the time to do a little research, he would

have found that the coal is not going to be stored in open

piles. The coal is going to be stored in covered silos, and all

of the coal is going to be carried in covered hopper cars — completely

covered.

This is what I'm talking about, when people are getting into

the act. Why don't they do their research? Now a lot of people

read the Sun editorial — I'm disappointed that they

didn't do more research. I really am. Because I would have to

call this…shall I use the term irresponsible Press? Mr.

Speaker, instead of all the studies about the effect on

environment I suggest that some study be put into how coal can

be handled in a better method.

Why don't we do some studies on that? Is it necessary, when

you're handling coal, to have coal dust blowing all over

everywhere. Is that necessary? Why don't we recommend some

studies where you can — you know, I can walk into some woman's

kitchen and it's a mess. (Laughter). Now I am not naming any

names (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're a long way from home.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right and my wife isn't here. And I can

walk into another kitchen, my wife's (Laughter) … after the

cleaning lady has been there (Laughter) … and it's

spotless.

What I am saying is that there are different ways of

handling merchandise (Laughter).

Alright, there are different ways of handling coal, I think,

Mr. Speaker, you understand what I am trying to say this

afternoon. You don't have to be sloppy when you are handling

something, you know. Some people can carry a pail of water and

not spill a drop and others spill it all over and get their

pant cuffs wet. You understand what I am saying. So why not do

some study about how we can handle this coal without having

pollution. Wouldn't that be a much more intelligent way to look

at this project? I am just asking you that, Mr. Speaker.

But let's say that maybe the real issue behind the blocking

of the South Port versus the Prince Rupert

[ Page 179 ]

and the final handling by the CNR lies in this very point.

Should the project go ahead as originally engineered by the

British Columbia Railway and the environmentalists could see

just how clean this coal project is going to be, how clean the

operation can be, how cleanly coal can be handled, I am

suggesting that somebody would have to take a second look at

Roberts Bank. I am suggesting that when the environmentalists

see how clean this operation is going to be, they will not only

look at Roberts Bank, but they will also, Mr. Speaker, take a

look at Neptune Terminals, which was mentioned earlier in this

House today.

Now I have been in office buildings overlooking the harbour

and what do I see there — open sulphur piles, open piles of

other minerals, an open coal pile — right in downtown

Vancouver.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this project

goes ahead, they will find it is so well engineered that the

environmentalists will then be causing somebody to clean up a

festering mess in the inner Vancouver harbour. It is going to

cost somebody a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. It will cost the CPR

a lot of money. It will cost the Vancouver Harbour Board a lot

of money to clean up the mess they have.

When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, I want you to

realize one fact — that coal dust is practically pure carbon

and never really polluted too much or killed anybody.

One last aspect to natural resource development in British

Columbia so far as energy is concerned, Mr. Speaker, is that

there is at the present time in the United States of America a

major crisis in the shortage of hydrocarbons. But I want you,

Mr. Speaker, to think of really what has caused this shortage

of hydrocarbons in the United States.

I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the

hydrocarbons from the northern slope of Alaska had a method of

entering continental United States today, either by pipeline or

by ship — I am not saying which it should be — what I am saying

is, if they were available to the continental United States

today, there would be no energy shortage.

Right now we see the United States dealing with Russia to

obtain oil from natural gas, when they have lots of it on the

north slope of Alaska. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I

think if you do your research and I do mine you will find that

there is more oil — I will say more hydrocarbons on the north

slope of Alaska — nearly, I will say — as there is in the Far

East.

This is a very, very important point and is leading up to another

point that I would like to make. We are being told by environmentalists

and by preservationists to leave the ultimate fuel, namely coal, in the

ground. Why? I say that future generations will be very capable of

solving their energy problems if they ever arise. I am suggesting that

they will never arise. I want to know where the logic is — why the

prophets of doom have multiplied in the last few years. They say that

the human race is in danger of suffocating itself by overbreeding, of

overpoisoning itself with pollution and weakening the basic structure

of society through too much prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I am just about to tell the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. D.D. Stupich) I am going to be moving into

agriculture very shortly.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): At the rate

you're going, I'll be back in plenty of time.

MR. PHILLIPS: I know that the Minister in that remark didn't

certainly mean to squelch the Oppositions remarks. I know that

he didn't want closure in this House — never.

Now I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't doubt the

sincerity of these critics. I don't doubt their sincerity at

all, but these doomsday prophets are misleading. About five

years ago they prophesied that the world would be overpopulated

and starving to death in the near future. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that this was misleading. It is not so.

The world growth rate is declining as birth rates in

underdeveloped countries decline and as agriculture in these

same countries improve. Food production today, Mr. Speaker, is

outstripping the demands placed upon food by the population of

the world. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that natural

disasters, over which we have no control, cause far more damage

to the world than man could ever think of causing.

There is also a study, Mr. Speaker, that represents the

world stock of non-renewable resources with a single number — overlooking a cardinal law of economics which holds that

increasing scarcity…who has the floor here anyway?

(Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: I think the Opposition has more Members in the

House than the Government has.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: The combined Opposition has more members in

the House. Maybe the Opposition members are not interested in

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon.

Members of the Government are not interested in getting my very

timely remarks today about pollution and so forth. If they have

less numbers in the House than we have, Mr. Speaker, I suggest

that's bad. I am not going to do anything about it like

bringing the Government down or

[ Page 180 ]

anything. I just want to make my speech. My heart is full of

goodwill today, so I will just carry on without

interruption…

MR.CHABOT: Move adjournment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll move adjournment — wait till I finish

(Laughter). When I get my say I will maybe move adjournment,

Mr. Speaker. One example of this, Mr. Speaker — and I think my

remarks are a little disjointed here because of the …

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): So what else is new?

MR. PHILLIPS: However, what I want to say is that a very few

years ago, and not too many years ago, there was no such thing

as Peace River coal, no such thing as Monkman Pass gas and oil.

There was no such thing as northern slope oil. There was no

such thing as Arctic oil. I can remember that a short six years

ago, they just started developing, or started exploring, in the

Arctic.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, here and now is that there

are more resources in the world than we can ever imagine. When

the time comes you will find them. That is why I don't get all

uptight and all scared when these doomsday artists come along

saying we are going to extinct ourselves. Some scare tactics

used for the freezing of the land is a similar situation, Mr.

Speaker.

We have a tradition of fear. At the end of the nineteenth

century the head of the U.S. Forest Service stated that timber

in the U.S. would be used up in 30 years; that anthracite coal

would last only 50 years; that raw materials like iron and

natural gas were being rapidly depleted.

Today, 70 years later, we hear the same complaints. Most of

you know the story of the shepherd boy who cried "wolf" too

often. I fear that this is happening today. We could face the

real disaster by the fact that we are having the problems

overstated by would-be environmentalists who are trying to

scare us. And if we are scared too much, the general public

will no longer listen. And that is why I refer to — and all of

you know — the story of the shepherd boy and the wolf.

The Premier said in a recent interview in the Vancouver

Province that "we're not going to kill the goose that

laid the golden egg." I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that

this is not a proper analogy of the situation. There are more

than geese. There are also chickens — and they are all

contributing to the welfare of this province. And I would

suggest that if things are the same today as they were when I

was a little boy, that if you frighten the chickens they won't

lay any eggs — whether they be golden eggs or other.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is let's not only say we're not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg;

let's not even frighten the chickens. Or we will all

suffer.

Reserves of metallurgical coking coal at present known in

the Province of British Columbia, at their present rate of

extraction, are enough to last us for 50 years. The market by

that time could diminish and completely disappear. And while

I'm just finishing up on the subject of coal, I want to point

out that British Columbia — and this is from the present status

of the Canadian coal industry — British Columbia presently

holds 48.1 per cent of the coal reserves in Canada. And this

article goes on to say, in

summary, the problem is not one of

finding coal seams of good quality, for there are plenty of

these with thicknesses of up to 50 feet — the difficulty is to

find those with mining conditions enabling them to be

economically produced and marketed under today's

conditions.

And I think, Mr. Speaker, this in essence sums up the whole

subject, I don't think we have to get all uptight and all

scared about giving our coal away. As I said before, we don't

have to give it away. But let's not lose the market. Because

the market may not be there in a few short years, and there is

certainly more coal in British Columbia than this generation,

or the next, or the next will ever use.

In this particular area alone, where the Sukunka coal is,

there is also the Denison Mine, the Nickel Hill Mine, the

McIntyre Mine, Denison Mines are in there, Bermeda Tech, Bay

Fund Ltd., Pine Pass, Bermeda, Synabar Peak, Utah and Amex — 11

projects similar to the size of Sukunka and they will probably

never all be developed. So I would like to alleviate for once

and for all the fact that some people are scaring us to death

that we're going to run out of coal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I get into agriculture there's one

thing that I want to discuss which bothers me …

AN HON. MEMBER: You've had lots of time for this.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and I'm going to take my time. And that

is one

article in the throne speech that says we are going to

create 1,000 new jobs in the civil service. And I think, Mr.

Speaker, that this is hardly a credible statement. Our normal,

annual increase in civil service during the past approximately

10 years has been about 2,000 jobs a year. So increasing it by

1,000 I don't think is a very credible statement.

The other amazing thing is that there are about 500 civil servants,

as near as I can gather, that have been fired on January 31, 1973. So

if you're going to fire 500 from the Department of Highways and only

create 1,000 new, all you're really creating is 500 jobs. And if the

normal increase is 2,000 jobs a year, I would say that you're going to

cut back the civil service by 1,500 jobs. And if that's creating

employ-

[ Page 181 ]

ment and expanding the civil service, well my arithmetic isn't

very good.

Now what I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is why this firing had

to take place. Why did the firing of these men in the

Department of Highways have to take place in the worst possible

month of the year — January the 31st? Why did this firing have

to take place at this particular time of the year, Mr. Speaker?

I thought this Government was going to create jobs.

I don't think there's one single thing that this Government

could have done in one fell swoop that would have hurt people

worse, done more damage to families, than the laying off of

these men from the Department of Highways — in the middle of

the winter. And I don't agree with it and I think the

Government should take immediate reconsideration to put these

men back on staff.

I don't know about other constituencies, Mr. Speaker, but in

my own constituency, on top of a disaster with our crops last

fall, and a slow start in logging, even these 28 men that were

fired constitutes a small disaster in itself.

I have a letter from a lady here, Mr. Speaker, who has been

farming in the area for some time. They lost their crop in

1972; they lost their crop in 1971; they have had to sell off

their livestock; the husband got sick and has to take expensive

pills; and their son, who was working for the Department of

Highways, was just laid off. I've asked the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to reconsider having this man put

back on staff. And I know that there are many others that I

don't know about.

And you know what really amazes me, Mr. Speaker, is that we

have a British Columbia Government Employees' Union. It's

supposed to be nonpolitical, it's supposed to be fair to all.

The October issue, 1972. The

article entitled: "In Victoria

'Big Daddies' no longer walk tall."

The

article says, "Got a problem? A promotion you didn't get

or a grievance about overtime? Think that maybe a phone call or

a letter to an MLA will help? Not so long ago the answer to

these questions was, 'Maybe.' But the recent election and new

provincial government has changed all that."

And it goes on to say that now the civil servants didn't get

anything that they couldn't have won without the indignity of

the hand-kissing usually demanded by the "Big Daddies, "

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if I was one of those "Big

Daddies," and the Social Credit Government was in power

today, I'd be camped on the Premier's step until those men were

rehired.

And what of the other Members from the north — where men in

the Department of Highways are laid off — where are the "Big

Daddies" there? Where's Mr. "Big Daddy" of all, Mr. Richards?

What is he doing to put these men back on staff?

It really makes me stop and think, Mr. Speaker.

Just what is happening in our civil service? I'll say no

more at this time because we will be debating it.

But I just want to mention this last little article. Mr.

Fryer and the British Columbia Government Employees' Union

president, Norman T. Richards, said that "the new Government's

labour policies and its pledge to legislate free collective

bargaining for provincial employees are bound to bring about a

vast improvement in the relationship between the British

Columbia government employees and the Government."

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that these men who have

just been laid off in the heart of a hard winter would not

really agree with this statement in the September issue of the

Provincial .

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for just a moment to you about

the Monkman Pass area. And the reason I'm bringing it up at

this time instead of waiting until the Department of Highways

estimates come up, is because yesterday, at 11 o'clock, I

attended the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources, in his office, and he issued a statement

that said a total of $6,895,505 was added to the provincial

coffers from sale of land and drilling rights.

The other reasons that this is so timely is the fact that

two of the largest bids — one by Quasar Petroleums and the

other by Texaco Exploration of Canada Limited — the highest

amount of money per acre was paid by these two companies in an

area 65 miles south of Dawson Creek, in the Monkman Pass

area.

Early in November of last year I forwarded a brief complete

with maps and all the details to the Premier. And in this brief

I stated that the Monkman Pass area at the present time had

five oil wells drilling down there and that 90 per cent of the

spinoff revenue employment provision of services was going to

Alberta, and this concerned me.

I also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in that same letter, that

we could alleviate this problem very easily by having the

Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources snowplow the

road for the winter. They don't have to worry about base

because it's frozen hard. At the present time it's a forestry

road and it has restrictions on it.

I also pointed out to the Premier that any of the civil

servants who wanted to go into this area had to write to

Victoria to get permission to take their car in through

Alberta or hop a plane which is flying into the area, because

Quasar Petroleum built a very nice landing site out there. And then

when I was in Victoria

approximately a month later I phoned the Premier's office and I

asked him is he — well, I didn't ask him. I couldn't even get

to speak to him. But that's understandable, I understand that.

So I got to speak to his executive assistant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

[ Page 182 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: And this gentleman informed me that he

couldn't find the letter. But however, after a while, he did

find the letter. The gentleman also informed me that the

Premier was no longer running the province, that the Ministers

were running the province. However, I doubt if anybody's

running the province. (Laughter).

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Good point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now the point is, when you've got two or three

Ministers to deal with you used to be able to have somebody

that you could get to get the Ministers together. Now I wonder

if the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is afeared of

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

Williams).

AN HON. MEMBER: They all are.

MR. PHILLIPS: And I'm not going to go through all the letters

and phone calls that I have here, but I don't know yet whether the

Minister of Highways has ever talked to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources about this road. He promised me he would, but he

told me after a month that he hadn't had the opportunity. Now I'm sure

they must have cabinet meetings or they must get together. But maybe

they're not on speaking terms.

AN HON. MEMBER: They pass in the hall once in a while.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's just plain,

ordinary good business.

Now, it's in February. If you plow the road pretty soon

spring's going to come and we could have used the road all

winter — all we'd had to do was snowplow it. But we have this

insurmountable barrier in front of the use of this road, and

that insurmountable barrier, if we can get together, is to have

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and the Minister

of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) say

to one another, "Why don't we take this road over and plow it

and be done with it?" It seems to me oh, so simple. And yet

it's been made into such a monstrous problem. And all the time

the cash keeps flowing out, payroll and everything else keeps

flowing out to Alberta.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It has for the past 20 years.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, now, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) says this problem has been there

for 20 years. Well, sure.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Since 1959.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Minister, and we've argued this over

the phone — I'll inform the House as I informed you, that six

months ago — now I've got to be careful of my logistics here,

let's go back to when I started this — six months from when I

originally asked.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've got to be careful of a lot of

things.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will. I'll be very cautious. Six months

ago from when I started asking that something be done about

this road there were not five wells drilling in there. And yet

you go back and say, "Oh, it's been there," and condemn

the previous Government. My heavens! You're in Government now,

and you must realize that when you are in the business of

running this province that the decisions have to be made now.

You're a businessman now. You can't go back and say, "I didn't

do it 20 years ago so I'm not going to do it today." What kind

of a way is that to run the province?

Well, I'll tell you. It's enough to get your adrenalin

running when a stupid little thing like this can't be resolved

without becoming a major issue. It's enough to make somebody's

adrenalin run.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Are you going to be another 15 minutes

before you get to me?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm going into the Department of

Agriculture right now. (Laughter).

Well, now, I want to talk lastly but by far no means least

important — as a matter of fact it's the most important — and

that is agriculture. Agriculture in my riding firstly, and

agriculture in the province.

Mr. Speaker, agriculture in the Peace has suffered through

several disasters since August of last year. The first disaster

was the hail to the market gardens at Taylor.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have something more to say about that,

Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) in just a few

moments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst disaster was the recount.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, the recount. Oh, yes. That wasn't any

disaster. That was the greatest thing that ever happened to the

people in the Peace River area, my friend. And I see that the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) certainly agrees with

that.

[ Page 183 ]

(Laughter).

The second disaster — and this is a very serious matter — was the

early snow in September which covered the grains and

the legumes in our area and also the hay, because due to the

wet August the hay was still out in the field.

The third disaster, Mr., Speaker, was the way Victoria

handled the whole matter — the way the Government handled the

whole matter. That was the third disaster, Mr. Speaker, and

that was almost a complete disaster.

Payments were not made out of the disaster fund until

January, despite my repeated pleas to the Hon Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) that if he waited for Ottawa he

probably wouldn't get any more than he did if he didn't pay it,

so these people had to wait, not knowing what they were going

to get.

I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture that the payments

be made back in October, November — and I can appreciate, I'll

have to say, the dilemma that the Minister of Agriculture was

in. However, he is the Minister of Agriculture, he holds that

reponsibility and he has a responsibility to listen to people

who may know what they are talking about. And he should take

their advice.

Now I'd like to deal with each one. And I want to say that

when the payments did come, Mr. Speaker, they were too small to do much. And when the payments came too late they

only came for a segment of the disastered farmers.

Let's deal with each one separately. First of all, the first

one that happened was the Taylor root crop and market gardens.

This, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, through you, Mr. Speaker, is

the beginning of a very viable agricultural enterprise in that

area and, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, could be a very

important and fast-growing one. To deny them the assistance

that they should get maybe leads me to believe that because

they're a very small group and because they're just starting,

that they're a minority group, that we're going to pay no

attention to them — whatsoever.

I find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon.

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would take that

attitude. I'd like to ask the Hon Minister of Agriculture — why

no assistance for these market gardeners?

HON. MR. STUPICH: You can sit down now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why no assistance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Do you want an answer now?

MR. PHILLIPS: They're every bit as entitled to relief as a

grain farmer who lost his crop due to a flood.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now I think you should sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're every bit as entitled to assistance as

a grain farmer who lost his crop by a flood. And there were

many farmers in the area who did lose their crops due to a

flood and that were paid.

No hail insurance was available to these people.

Then we got snow in September — and it was a wet snow and it

really never went away, even though the snow went away the

fields were so wet that the farmers could not get on them to

get their crop off. Aid was too long in coming and it was too

little when it did come. And although it covered all the grain

farmers it covered absolutely no one for the loss of a hay

crop.

Now many of the livestock producers in the area were not

growing grain but were growing hay. And they got no relief at

all, despite repeated promises from Victoria that the relief

was coming and despite the promise from the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to take a second look, immediate

aid was coming.

Mr. Speaker, this disaster will ruin forever many of the

small farmers in the Peace River area. I would like to ask the

Minister of Agriculture to reconsider the aid that has been

given and to renegotiate with Ottawa. I've been talking to our

MP in Ottawa and he has informed me that the Hon. Mr. Whelan,

Minister of Agriculture for the federal government, will take a

second look providing the Ministers of Agriculture for the

Province of Alberta and the Province of British Columbia are

willing to sit down and ask for more assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking that the Minister of Agriculture do

just that. We have got to do something, Mr. Speaker. We help

people with social welfare. We have helped other people through

the disaster fund and I see no reason why we're not going to do

more for these people. I will be quite happy, Mr. Minister of

Agriculture, to show you some of the letters that I have here

on file outlining some of the very real problems that some of

these people are having. We either have to give them more

assistance or we have to do something.

I guess I'm not allowed to discuss the bill that I have in

the House. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a very real necessity and a

very real urgency that we do something. Please, Mr. Minister of

Agriculture, come to the assistance of those people who need

your help, who so very sincerely need your help now. I know

that the Premier has a big heart and I know that if the

Premier, Mr. Speaker, were to go and talk to some of these

farmers who have very real problems, he would say to the

Minister of Agriculture, "Sure, we've spent

[ Page 184 ]

a lot of money in crop disaster in the Peace River area but

we've got to do something more."

Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting that if something isn't done and

when these problems develop into very real problems, this

Government will regret the day that it didn't do something. I'm

not trying to threaten the Government, Mr. Speaker. All I'm

trying to say is that when you find out the very real problems

of these very real small farmers and if you don't do something

really constructive in the way of help for them, you will be

very disappointed in yourselves in future years. These people,

a lot of them, are going to get by all right for the winter but

they have no way of raising money to put their crop in in the

fall. They are going to lose their implements. Many of them are

going to have their farms foreclosed. They're going to lose

their land.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this a real disaster and a very

vital one — one that if something isn't done on, it will be on

the conscience of the cabinet as long as they are in power. The

Minister of Agriculture says, "Go to social welfare." I want to

ask the Minister of Agriculture, when he says "Go to social

welfare," why he doesn't get together with the Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr., Levi) and

say, "Help these farmers"? Because they go to the social

welfare and the social welfare says, "Sell your cattle."

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you name anyone that's had that

answer?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly will. I'd like to put that in the

record here and now that the Minister … Yes, I'll give him

the name but what are you going to do with it?

I've had farmers phone me and say, "Look, I've got enough

stuff in the cellar that I can get by the winter. I've got

enough wood in the woodshed and I've got enough clothes and I

can send my kids to school, but can I get social welfare to

feed my cattle?"

HON. MR. STUPICH: That's not what you said. You said "told

to sell their cattle."

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I shall make a Press announcement

that I want the names of everybody who has gone to the social

welfare department and asked for assistance and have been told

to sell their cattle.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Give me the names. You haven't got one

yet.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll get you a list.

Now, there are a lot of very, very well-to-do farmers in the

Peace River area. I want to dispel this deal that every time you start talking about a farmer,

everybody gets their back up and says, "Oh, the farmer's

spending his winters in Hawaii."

Sure, there are a few farmers spending their winters in

Hawaii and they're entitled to it. But how many? Thirty-seven

per cent of northern farmers earn less than $2,500 a year.

Statistics Canada, 1970. About ¼ earn between $5,000 and $10,000 and only 17 per cent made more than $10,000. Nine per

cent or 808 operations made less than $250. This Government is

dedicated, in statements made by it, to preserve farming as a

way of life, Mr. Speaker. I ask them what they are going to do

about it.

I have some suggestions, Mr. Speaker, as we get into the

further debate in this session. I'm speaking for over 70 per

cent of the farmers who can't make it on this small amount of

help, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. Over 70 per cent. A large

majority of these will be wiped out.

I ask the Government's help in bringing in their own bill,

Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Premier, I ask

your help in bringing in your own bill that will assist these

farmers with their credit problems.

In mid-July there was a rainstorm in the Fraser Valley, in

the Vancouver-North Shore area. A statement came out in the

paper that 100 per cent of the damage, as independently

assessed, will be paid by the provincial government — all

claims to be assessed by the members of the Canadian

Independent Adjusters Conference. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to

know why vegetable farmers in the Fraser Valley and in the

North Shore area received payment from the disaster fund

because of a torrential rainstorm, when vegetable farmers in

the Taylor area could not receive one single cent because of

their crops being ruined by a hailstorm.

AN HON. MEMBER: We had a change of government in

between.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, I haven't got the date of that

announcement because it was a general announcement and appeared

in several papers. "One hundred per cent of the damage as

independently assessed will be paid by the provincial …" — and it

was paid, Mr. Premier, and I appreciate you asking me that.

I think that we should do something for these vegetable farmers in

the Taylor area. Because I'm sure, Mr. Premier, Mr. Speaker,

through you, that you would not want it on your conscience that

there was discrimination against the north. I'll have to go on and say

that hay farmers are just as hungry as vegetable farmers. A

vegetable grower at Taylor is just as entitled to help as a

vegetable farmer in Surrey. Where is the policy of fair

treatment for all?

Mr. Speaker, on top of this disaster in the Peace

[ Page 185 ]

River area and the way it was handled, this Government

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "Former Government"? The former Government

wasn't in power in September.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The hailstorm happened just before the

election.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right and we sent a team in to look at

it. If the Government had stayed in power they would have done

the same thing they did to the Surrey farmers.

But then on top of this, there was an order-in-council

passed on January 18, 1973 to freeze all land in British

Columbia. Not only farmland but all land — whether it's city

land, village land, town land — all land. I want to make it

perfectly clear that I'm not against preserving farmland. As a

matter of fact, I'm for preserving farmland. I'm for preserving

farmland. I want that written perfectly well into the

record.

But this decision was made without consultation to the

farming community — I should say this arbitrary, dictatorial

decision. And was this decision made, Mr. Speaker, by urging

from scary environmentalists?

I want to tell you the other evening I sat and watched

Hourglass — Wednesday night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. PHILLIPS: And if you've ever seen a good example, Mr.

Speaker, of how the public can be misled by that one-eyed

monster, that I might add the people of Canada are subsidizing

to the tune of many millions of dollars a year, you should have

seen the programme Hourglass. You should have seen it.

The programme told only one side of the story, but it was

certainly complete, with the guitar and the crooning and all of

that, you know, to get the proper effect so that you just think

that every acre of farmland in the Province of British Columbia

was going to be used up by big monstrous housing developments.

Cut down orchards. I almost wept. However, not once during that

programme, Mr. Speaker, did it mention the actual number of

acres in the Fraser Valley or in the Okanagan Valley that had

been taken from farmland production and put in subdivisions or

what have you.

And then I heard the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) stand in the House the other day and talk

about incentives to industry. What started all this in the

Okanagan Valley? What brought all this industry into the

Okanagan Valley? Federal government incentive — that horrible

word "incentive" again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crazy guidelines, too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who ordered that in the Okanagan Valley in the

first place?

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

MR. PHILLIPS: The thing that really bothered me about this

Hourglass programme is that the news media is supposed to

present both sides of the story. That certainly didn't present

both sides of any story. It presented a biased, one-sided

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker … one-sided view of

what was happening.

Now I'll tell you, I made a speech once in this House about

the CBC — I wish I still had my notes. I guess I'll have to do

some more research. Shocked the people of this province into

realizing how many millions of dollars it's costing them for

this CBC. There's some good people in the CBC (Laughter). But,

oh, they mustn't become one … because they'll lose their

credibility, Mr. Speaker. And we don't want the CBC to lose its

credibility. (Laughter).

Because after all, we, the people, the poor taxpayers, are

paying the shot for the CBC. It's a good news medium, Mr.

Speaker, but oh, let's not have them become one-sided and

biased …

AN HON. MEMBER: Archie's okay, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, Archie's a good man, yes. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He does a Snow job. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Now something else that the Minister said on

this Hourglass programme was his support for the freeze on all

land in British Columbia; his support in the letters he was

receiving — and he didn't say how many letters either, Mr.

Speaker, he didn't say how many letters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

MR. PHILLIPS: But it was four to one. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that one of the reasons for the support of this land

freeze in British Columbia is because nobody in the Province of

British Columbia has realized the full impact of the

dictatorial order-in-council that was passed on January 18.

That's the reason, Mr. Speaker. Nobody knows about it. And I

want to tell you that I didn't know about it.

The Press phoned me and said, "What about this land freeze?"

I said, "So what! So what! It won't

[ Page 186 ]

bother us. We've got lots of farmland up here." I didn't

know it until I read it, M