1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 101 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INCOME TAX ACT

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

17 intituled

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 17 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. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point

of personal privilege under

Article 26 of our Rules. Mr.

Speaker, as authority for the point of privilege may I refer

you to the source used by this Legislature when our own Rules

are not explicit, namely Parliamentary Practice by May,

18th Edition, page 143, paragraph 2, and pages 331, last

paragraph, and 332, first paragraph.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the practice of the Executive

in holding press conferences to announce statements of policy

which should properly be made in this House. Mr. Speaker, that

there is a precedent that this House, by consent, hear short

policy statements from the Members of the Executive Council on

matters of public interest was demonstrated as recently as

Friday of last week.

Since that time two press conferences have been held, one

dealing with the ports of Squamish and Britannia and one

dealing with the price board for petroleum products. Both these

statements of policy are a violation of the privileges of

Members elected by the people to conduct provincial

business.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. Before you proceed, I

didn't get the page number of May.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Page 143, para 2,

and page 331, last paragraph; 332, first paragraph.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we are assembled for the

purpose of conducting public business, and the practice of

holding press conferences on important matters outside this

House, rather than by making a statement to the duly elected

representatives of the people in this chamber, is an

infringement of our privileges as Members and is in contempt of

this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances of a far-ranging debate

such as a throne speech is, I feel it is all the more

regrettable that the Executive is adopting this practice. Our

opening speech suggested that we were to be called here

together more often. But what is the use, Mr. Speaker, if even

when called together under our present practices, the

Legislature is ignored by the Executive?

Mr. Speaker, as this matter involves careful consideration

of the authorities cited, I am not asking for a decision or

ruling by you at this time. But I believe that this violation

of our privileges should be considered and I am asking that you

give your attention to it and, at your convenience, give a

decision.

MR. SPEAKER: I would be glad to entertain your point of

privilege. I do point out, however, one variation that I will

have to take into account in the rulings that are made in May.

In their House, happily they have statements by Ministers at

the beginning of each session and they also have question

periods, neither of which we have in this House. So it would be

out of order for a Minister normally to be making statements in

this House unless he had the floor. Therefore I will have to

take that into account. I mention it to you because it is a

matter that I will have to discuss.

I will reserve my decision, in any event, if you will send

the material up that you have gathered.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. I could read, if you wish, Mr.

Speaker, the quotation from May which I believe supports….

MR. SPEAKER: Well I've got a note of it and I think it is

well in hand. Thank you.

The Hon. Member for Esquimalt.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure

and honour today to welcome to the legislative chamber the

grade 9 class from Dunsmuir Junior Secondary of the Sooke

School District in the riding of Esquimalt accompanied by their

teachers, John Bergbusch and Bob Meikle. I hope they find the

afternoon's proceedings interesting and educational and

informative.

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

[ Page 102 ]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I wish to

rise on a point of order. The point of order, Mr. Speaker,

concerns motion No. 1 which we debated just prior to the

adjournment last evening and the amendment to that motion.

At the time the amendment was proposed to this House, it was

moved by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and

seconded by myself. Just immediately after the mover of the

motion spoke, I rose to my feet to support the amendment and I

was told that an amendment to a main motion does not have to be

seconded.

MR. SPEAKER: Procedural only. That's an exclusionary

one.

MR. SMITH: I would like to continue if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: Well I don't think your point of order is well

taken because that point of order, if you had one, should be

taken up at the time the matter is disposed of by the House.

You are now having an inquest and I don't think, in this case,

we can. But if you air any suggestions of authorities that will

aid the Speaker, I would be most appreciative if you would give

them to me at our leisure. We don't need to prolong the debate

on it now.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, surely I can raise a point of order

in the House and I can refer in the House to specific instances

in prior parliaments. We have referred to this particular

matter….

MR. SPEAKER: Points of order must be taken up at the time

and only at the time. In the circumstances, you did not raise

that as a point of order when you should have and now you want

to raise it today, after you've done your research. I suggest

that if you have any research that contradicts the position I

took, by all means make it available to me and I will try to

remedy anything that you think is wrong. Thank you.

MR. SMITH: I will concede to your suggestion, Mr. Speaker,

and I will be presenting to you the evidence that I would wish

to quote on the floor of the House, were I permitted to do

so.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly. Thank you.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before getting into the substantive remarks that I have vis-à-vis His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor's speech, let me first say how disappointed

I am in the official Opposition and the role that they have

played in this throne speech debate. I was looking forward to

some sort of rapier attack on the Government's approach. I was

hoping to hear what they stood for — what their philosophy is.

Instead, I heard what I would consider superficial

criticisms.

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) tells us about

the mass confusion over the Mincome advertising. We're sorry to

hear about that — seriously, we are. But the old people in my

riding, Mr. Speaker, are not confused. They know what it is to

live under the Socred largesse. The Social Credit Government

gave them nothing but words and we gave them food, shelter and

clothing. They will remember that. They weren't confused on

August 30, Mr. Speaker, they're not confused now nor will they

be on some future date of a provincial election.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) gave the

crushing thrust of the official Opposition attack as the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), as is his wont, gingerly took

up the rear.

With the exception of a refreshing but all-too-cute speech

from the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) — there's

impatience out there on the flood plains of Chilliwack now that

you have made your maiden speech — all-too-cute speech as I

say. Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition offered in debate

nothing but unresearched, groundless accusations based on gut

reaction and not reasoned argument. What's wrong with the

research assistant you have? Why don't you let Danny do it for

you? What a pitiful little group, Mr. Speaker — the remnants of

a vaudeville act. All you need is a few cream pies and a few

seltzer bottles to complete the image.

What happened to the once vibrant…

MR. PHILLIPS: That's wishful thinking my friend.

MR. LAUK: What happened to the once vibrant, populist party

that brought this province into the '50's? What happened to it?

A sad little troupe of characters, an intellectual desert,

devoid of imagination, understanding or sense of purpose. What

is your philosophy? Why do you now exist? All there is left is

vindictiveness and bitterness. I am disappointed in your

performance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Rise up. Rise up, Social Credit. Roll on, Social

Credit. What's happened to the Bennett team? What's happened to

the Bennett team over there? In utter disarray. Where is your

leader? Does he still sulk in his tent? The Hon. Liberal leader

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) said he was on the high seas. I hope

[ Page 103 ]

not with three sheets to the wind, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter).

Why not to complete your ignominious decline and choose for

your leader the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). He's

after the leadership, Mr. Speaker. And as was said recently in

the past, he wants it so badly his tongue is not only hanging

out, it's tearing at the roots. That's right, that's right, my

friends. The Hon. Member for Columbia River, Mr. Speaker, can

stand up now and say: "The heavy hand of state socialism. I'm

going to protect you, you people of British Columbia. Back of

the hand treatment, back of the hand treatment from the heavy

hand. You see, there's a red cloud above me and I can't see

anything. Where are my notes?" (Laughter).

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): City-slicker lawyer.

MR. LAUK: I'm just a country boy. (Laughter). Just a country

boy, trying to do my best, Mr. Speaker. All this for only one

dollar, Mr. Speaker, one dollar. Hurry, hurry, hurry.

Well, you know…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: I think that the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, were a

little more to the point. Except that we on this side of the

House are a little confused as to what your position is on

various issues. It sounds as if you're doing some reading and

some research. And I, as a rookie, appreciate it very much,

because at least we have something to listen to. We have a

contrast in philosophy, assuming that the fuzzy philosophy that

you have can be defined. But we would like to know what

position you would take if you were government.

The Member for Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) doesn't

know the details of the port at Britannia, and he's not

prepared to wait for any study. He says, "Whatever it is, I'm

against it."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: He's against it anyway.

The Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) gave us his usual

"golly, gee-whiz" style of speech picked carefully from his

grab-bag of old school tie critiques. You know why the Liberals

will never govern B.C., Mr. Speaker?

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. LAUK: You just wait my friend, you wait. You'll hear

policy as soon as I wrap up my criticism of the Opposition.

You know why the Liberals will never govern in this

province, Mr. Speaker? Because every time the defence before we even have a chance to talk about it.

However cynical the federal government gets, however stupid

their decision, however selfish their decision, or however it

militates against interests of the people of British Columbia,

and that's why you'll never govern this province.

I think the Opposition Members of all parties should watch

very carefully, Mr. Speaker…

MRS. JORDAN: Who's going for the leader of the

socialists?

MR. LAUK: …how the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

conducts himself and his representation in his riding. Watch

carefully.

He and his backbencher…(Laughter). He and his

backbencher, Mr. Speaker, have done more for their

constituencies. They have come quietly to Ministers, they've

been on the phone and the Member for Oak Bay has conducted

himself in a gentlemanly way. He has come to conferences and

meetings, offered suggestions without playing politics, as we

know some other people do. He does not sabotage the real

beneficial programmes of the Government. He provides us with a

contrasting philosophy as well, but watch him carefully.

And I hope that I don't live to regret those remarks.

(Laughter). I hope I don't.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: He already has, and you know full well, the Hon.

Liberal leader.

I want to talk about the role of the five month old New

Democratic Party Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That won't take long.

MR. LAUK: The Government has brought us back into

Confederation. That's been said before, I know. But it was not

just the symbol or renaming our highways. It was the evident

fact in this country that in British Columbia for the first

time in many years there is a new cooperation — although with

disagreements and some misunderstanding between the federal and

provincial government.

We have recently had announced — and a large part of this

effort of negotiation was on the Hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) — that the government will now share

with us the cost of land banking in Vancouver and Victoria and,

we hope, throughout the province, to bring about the

stabilization of land speculation in some way and to assist us

in our NDP efforts to bring about better public housing. The

land banks — that's what I'm talking about — 75 per cent

federal cost. This was largely due to the Hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs who went there and negotiated that deal.

There's cost-sharing.

[ Page 104 ]

The Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon.

Mr. Levi) has negotiated cost-sharing agreements. We led the

way, Mr. Speaker. We increased the old age security to a $200 a

month minimum income and now other provinces are following us.

The federal government is supporting us, and I hope that this

government will continue to lead in this social reform.

And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should in the House

look to the future of cost-sharing arrangements. I can see

cooperation on mass urban transit, on industrial development

in this province. And it will succeed because there is no

longer an empty chair for British Columbia in Ottawa.

Discussions, as I say, are and will be continuing. It is

almost a re-negotiation of Confederation by all the provinces

with the federal authorities. Because after the first 100 years

we are now looking to the future. We're now thinking of the new

problems of the urban man. And this re-negotiation of

Confederation, I know, will give us renewed confidence in our

future and a unity that we've never had before.

There was, Mr. Speaker, the historical meeting between the

cabinet in British Columbia with Governor Dan Evans of

Washington. A long overdue meeting, Mr. Speaker. A recognition

that we are both partners in terms of our coast line. Those

people in Washington were anxious to know what we looked like.

They wanted to know who we are, and they're finding out. Our

Premier brought us great distinction as British Columbians, Mr.

Speaker, and he was greeted well by the people of

Washington.

And just to show you what one meeting can do — we had an oil

spill up the coast line, up Island here, and in a split second

the governor of Washington responded with whatever aid we

needed without any question. Because he knows us now and he

trusts us now, Mr. Speaker. Meetings with the Yukon leaders,

with Alaska, have brought about a recognition that we are

responsible neighbours, that we have a responsibility to the

environment and to our coast line. And don't think for a moment

that the Premier is not aware of our responsibility as a

Pacific trading partner. These discussions and meetings and

exchanges will continue.

There has been some remarks made about human rights. Some of

the Members of the Opposition have stated that you cannot

legislate morality or attitudes and I agree. Just as you do not

eliminate murder, arson and rape by making them against the

law.

But, you see, a human rights bill is a statement of society.

It says that we in society oppose racial hatred and

discrimination. We oppose discrimination on whatever grounds,

based on race, creed, colour, political affiliation and so on.

And I hope that the Human Rights Act as it develops and

evolves in this province will include in it a statement under

the department of human rights for the protection of our

[ Page 105 ]

immigrants.

In my riding, Mr. Speaker, there are people from every

ethnic origin and national origin. Let's not forget where we

all come from. Let's not forget who made this country great.

Let's not forget who fulfilled the national dream. My

grandfather, Mr. Speaker, along with many other Polish,

Chinese, German, Scots, drove spikes for old 374 prior to its

chugging into Port Moody. And in those days the fulfillment of

our national dream, our national unity, and passed down in my

family was the old saying "Lord Strathcona drove the last spike

but a million more were driven by Mike."

Let's not forget, Mr. Speaker, that these immigrants are

still arriving in our country with hopes and dreams of a new

life. And remember that they are Canada's children too. They

deserve more, I think, than what they are getting now. They

have the problems of settling in a new country and often they

cannot speak our language. They need assistance, not only from

the federal government but the provincial government. I would

ask that this be taken into consideration in the future, and

that we assist these people in assimilating and adapting to

their new culture.

I want to say also that this government in the past five

months has clearly demonstrated that it responds to people. The

people of the North Shore have asked about the ferry terminal.

The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) answered. The

people of the province asked about automobile insurance and

that's going to be answered. Then don't tell me about

competition in automobile insurance. They knew on August 30,

the people of British Columbia, what competition there was in

that industry. None. And you will find that the oil and gas

review board revealed to the people of British Columbia what

little competition there is in that industry.

There are dealers, the small businessmen which the NDP

represent, Mr. Speaker, in my riding who have a great many

complaints to make about the oil monopoly in this province.

They are unequal wholesale prices. A large complex can get

below what the average dealer gets as the wholesale price.

Talk to the retailer about promotions that eat away into his

profits. Talk to him about the competition in the oil industry

and you will get your answer. They will want something more

than an oil review board eventually I can assure you. And I can

see the day when this province soon gets into the field of

wholesaling their own oil.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal was said by the Opposition with respect to the

speech of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. They said there was nothing in

there to indicate what this Government was going to do in the future. I will

read just one sentence. It's poetry, Mr. Speaker and you know poetry doesn't

have to be long, it doesn't get paid by the word. It's poetry for those that

have eyes to see and ears to hear with, and I quote: "The administrative and

legislative programmes will be carefully designed and will be based on the clear

necessity to plan our future, so that we may live in harmony with our environment

and at peace with our fellow men, and to depart from the acquisitive North American

values that have seen profligacy and waste on all sides."

Do you know there was in the 19th century a man by the name

of Herbert Spencer who, to his misfortune, read a book by

Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin at the time was saying that the

reason the human race has survived so well was because it was

the fittest species, or one of the fittest species. And that

those species in our animal kingdom that do not do well and are

not fit will not survive, but will perish.

Well, poor old Herbert Spencer thought that meant survival

of the fittest among us, the human race. But history told us

that it is not survival between human beings that Darwin was

talking about. It is survival between species. The fittest

species survives. And how has the human race survived? It has

survived because it was able to help each other. Because most

people, most of the time, recognize that we are our brother's

keeper.

You know, we are told that we need more growth, we need to

make things to sell, and sell and sell. The First Member from

Point Grey said that we need 10 per cent a year. This is a

fantastic challenge that is facing the new Government, 10 per

cent growth a year. Maximum growth, Mr. Speaker, leads and will

lead in the 1970's to disaster, to the destruction of our

society.

I say to the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) that he has no vision, he has no vision of the future.

He's betraying our future, because what about the next 20 or 30

years?

Profit through capitalism is a failure. It has given us

perhaps 30 brands of toothpaste and 50 brands of automobiles.

But it has also given us hollow empty lives. Where is the

happiness in that, Mr. Speaker. What has happened to our goals

as a society?

The loss of non-renewable resources is making it impractical

to continue this vast 10 per cent a year growth pattern of

which the First Member from Point Grey talks. These

non-renewable resources won't go away if we leave them in the

ground and negotiate a better deal — if we plan our economy, if

we make sure there are jobs for British Columbians. We must

protect ourselves. It is only when we are fair to ourselves,

Mr. Speaker, that we can be fair to others.

Automation some day will either make us all unemployed,

producing material wealth and services, or working perhaps one

day a month. And the Hon. Member from Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) give us his concept of what a job is. Well, he is wrong. A job isn't a

gift from some big daddy up in the sky who is going to give us

a job and we should kiss the hem of his garment. That's not the

concept of work. We must change our concept of work, Mr.

Speaker.

You talk of some, I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey who talks of some little

challenge — a silly little challenge, called 10 per cent

growth. Let's manufacture anything, an electric toothpick, as

long as he can get that 10 per cent growth. What does it

mean?

Well, I'm talking about a larger challenge, Mr. Speaker, and

it is called survival.

Profit through capitalist expansion, as I say, in the face

of diminish growth potential and loss of nonrenewable resources

can lead only to our complete destruction as a society. And it

is about time we in this Chamber opened our eyes and saw that

fact.

We have an environment that we have to protect, because it

leads to the basic fact that we must face in this part of the

century. The quality of life. Not just the quality of our

material wealth but the quality of our lives. Nowhere is this

more evident, Mr. Speaker, than in the riding of Vancouver

Centre where all the major problems of the 1970's are coming to

roost and demonstrating themselves most clearly.

The overcrowding high density situation is critical. It is

critical from many points of view. I can give examples of the

problems that arise. In the west end there is the development

concept of the past. I am glad to see that in Vancouver,

perhaps, there is a new approach that will be taken by the city

fathers, with the new government there now. But I will tell you

that MLA's from Vancouver will be watching them very

carefully.

Why is it that we cannot learn that sometimes leaving

something alone will add to the quality of our lives? I support

most clearly the arguments that have been raised for not

ripping down Christ Church Cathedral. That is in my riding. And

if you went down there to Georgia and Burrard and looked around

you could see tower after tower blocking out the sun, taking

away our view, putting people in close proximity with one

another for the greater part of their lives, and yet they want

another tower.

I can see perhaps some reversal in that attitude of build,

wreck down, rebuild, to something more planned, more

humanistic. With this overcrowding I can see that there will be

a new participation in all levels of government with

transit.

Because what has become of our cities, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to the automobile? We have built highways, we've built

parking lots. I ask any one in this chamber to join me in

trying to get home in my riding at 4:30 or 5 o'clock at night.

It is a city for automobiles, not for people. And we are now

moving towards a new goal to reclaim our city for people and

that's where mass transit comes in — a staged

[ Page 106 ]

development of mass transit. And I can see soon,

cooperation of the three levels of government to bring about

the staged development of mass transit so that we can eliminate

the need of the automobile in the hard core of the city.

I am not talking about 50 years from now, I'm talking about

five or 10 years. You will see this coming. The automobile will

no longer take such a major importance in our economy. It is

one-third of the average man's budget in the United States and

probably more.

But the saddest part of what's happening to the city is the

loss of community, the loss of human society. It leads to the

very real social problems in my constituency and in other urban

areas.

One of them is heroin addiction. There are 15,000 addicts in

the City of Vancouver. They are our children. And I don't think

that I could put it any better than what I read in this

morning's Vancouver Province . You know the

Province is improving; the Province is becoming a paper.

Yes, read it again, read it again. It's not a political organ

like the Vancouver Sun . It's not controlled by the Liberal

machine I hope. But it seems that Lance-Corporal Malone was on

a holiday because here's a nice…. "nice," that's not

the word for it. Here's a considerate editorial.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): God will get you for

that (Laughter).

MR. LAUK: No, he's on the high seas. (Laughter). I'll quote

from this editorial. Excuse the levity on a very serious issue — an issue that my friend from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has stated

should rise above party lines, and I'm sure it will.

"In ancient Greek mythology the height of futility was

represented by a character named Sisyphus. After offending both

Jupiter and Pluto he was condemned to push a heavy stone to the

top of a hill. On reaching it, it would always roll back again,

making his punishment eternal.

"In modern society the height of futility is represented by

our efforts to reduce the traffic in illicit narcotics. The

harder the police and the judges try to discourage the trade

the worse it becomes. It is evident every week that we not only

don't have the answer but that our substitute for an answer is

making the problem worse. Our present day Sisyphus has offended

logic and common sense to the point where we can't even roll

the "stone" to the top of the hill.

"Surely the time has arrived when Canadian legislators must

search for a better solution than that of endlessly rounding up

and jailing addicts and pushers whose places are taken almost

immediately by other addicts and other pushers.

"Last week a man was sentenced in Vancouver to life imprisonment

for trafficking in heroin. The judge called him, 'a determined and unrepentant

peddler against whom society must be protected.'

"The life sentence,' the judge added, 'should be a clear

deterrent to others who become involved in the distribution of

heroin.'

"This sentence was according to our drug laws that for years

have kept the police and the judges busy trying to stamp out

the drug traffic.

But is a life sentence a deterrent? The trafficker involved

had already spent 13 of the last 14 years in jail on drug

offences. Prison, obviously, had not deterred him and it is

fair to ask whether his life sentence will discourage others in

the same trade.

"Recently in County Court and the B.C. Supreme Court two

other life sentences were imposed on men involved in drugs.

This certainly will take them out of circulation. But does

anyone believe it will deter others?

"This approach won't curb addition. The trade is now

flourishing more locally than it has ever done."

That's not an unusual example, Mr. Speaker. I've practised

law for seven years. I defended mostly heroin addicts and I

know the sad story from first-hand knowledge. I've walked away

from emergency wards seeing children die from overdoses. I've

walked away from prison cells where they've hanged themselves

and I know the story first-hand. Our approach is just like the

approach of the myth of Sisyphus.

When do we say that these people are no longer a part of us?

You know, I imagine that in some day gone past there was a

large circle and all of the people were in this circle. And

perhaps a majority decided that there were some in that circle

that should be out of it, and the circle got smaller and

smaller until one day there was one man left. And all of those

who were cut out from the main stream of society were looking

at that one man. And then there was a large circle again.

When do we turn our backs on our children and say that they

are dead? When do we cast that handful of dust in their coffin

and say that they're not reclaimable?

The Narcotic Addiction Foundation in Vancouver, out of

15,000 addicts, treated less than 500 a year. Large sums of

money from this province and from the federal government and

from other agencies go to support that organization. That is

not a treatment centre, it's an experiment centre. It is a sop

on the public conscience, a fraud on the public. I would be

very displeased indeed if I saw any estimate in the forthcoming

budget, Mr. Speaker, going to that foundation.

I could say the same about the Alcoholism Foundation — they

treat no one — we are not approaching this problem, we are

hiding from it,

[ Page 107 ]

we are looking upon alcoholism and drug addiction as a

disease when it is a symptom of a disease.

The disease is here in this room, it's in society at large.

We are the disease. We cannot say, "Ah ha, you've got leprosy",

and cut them off from society. We are the lepers and we must

cure it. The approach that should be taken is one of treatment,

one of understanding. Why do we put these people in jail? Why

do we turn our backs on them and throw away the key and say,

"You are dead, my child I do not recognize your existence"?

That does not recognize the Judeo-Christian ethic that I am my

brother's keeper.

I can give you an example. In November of last year an

aircraft was lost in the Northwest Territories. The authorities

looked and searched for this aircraft. And after a certain

period of time, almost out of Swiftian mythology, we heard the

leaders say that we are calling off the search, that it was

likely that these people were dead, that we spent enough money

on them already.

But there were a few people in Canada that said: "No, that's

not the value of this society, that's not a statement of our

value. The value is the sacredness of human life. The value is

trying to search out for our lost ones." And the search was

continued. By chance a survivor was found.

Let us not ask questions about why that pilot lost his plane

and maybe how foolish he was. Let's look at David Kootook, 14,

who came from a gentle, primitive background, who did not need

to be told but knew and understood that he was his brother's

keeper.

That's our philosophy, Mr. Speaker, so that we may live in

harmony with our environment and at peace with our fellow man.

And to depart from the acquisitive North American values that

have seen profligacy and waste on all sides. I say Herbert

Spencer is wrong. He was wrong. And I say to all of you in this

chamber, "Join with us. Help us break down the cultural and

economic barriers to the good life for everyone. Help us to

create a new order of social justice".

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In

the interests of the decorum of the House I'll resist the

temptation to mimic the bitterness of the Second Member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). The Member says, Mr. Speaker, that he is disappointed in the

Opposition — that he wanted to know where we stood, where the

Opposition stood. Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I can

adequately express my disillusionment with the Government of

British Columbia over that incredible document that we continue

to call the "Speech from the Throne."

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, in this province with the whole of

British Columbia waiting for this shiny new socialist

Government to indicate where it intends to go, where it intends

to take us. Mr. Speaker, this Government was in the position to

win the confidence of British Columbians, but they blew it

because they gave us a meaningless document — a document that

leaves the people of this province in doubt and in uncertainty

that is prevalent in all of our homes. And it continues to

build. This Government had the chance to dispel that

uncertainty but it chose to ignore that chance.

The only things that this Government has indicated clearly

are negatives — stop the growth, switch off the development of

the most vibrant province in Canada. You must, Mr. Speaker, get

your heads out of the sand and accept the fact that British

Columbia is going to grow. It is going to continue to attract

people from all over the world, and particularly from other

parts of Canada. We must accept that and then we must manage

our economy and our directions of growth so that we can

continue to enjoy the level of life to which we have become

accustomed and so that we can protect and maintain a high

level of environmental quality.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson), the mover of the document in question, talked about

pork barrel the other day. Well, for once, Mr. Speaker, a

Member of this new socialist Government is on solid ground. For

this Government, in only five months, has honed the practice of

pork-barrel politics to a fine art. Consider the Cass-Beggs

affair. Consider the proliferation of the superflak — the

executive assistants, "friends" of the party — being repaid and

placed in positions of extreme influence regardless of their

qualifications, or the lack of them — positions that are

created mainly, it appears, to isolate the cabinet from the

people. And, if you can believe the television reports, to

isolate the cabinet from their own backbenchers.

Consider, Mr. Speaker, the exercise by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) in ordering buses without

benefit of public tender. His excuse — "I don't intend to horse

around with public tenders," he said. "I don't want to

delay the delivery of those buses so we won't horse around with

public tenders." There has to be a clue somewhere in that

statement to this Government's philosophy.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure he's smiling. While we're on that subject, Mr.

Speaker, the mover of the throne speech also said that openness is the style

of the NDP. Well, I wonder if the backbenchers still believe that, Mr. Speaker,

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they don't.

[ Page 108 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Or are they finding out like the rest of us — many other sections of our society — that the Executive

Council of this province is not interested in consultation, is

not interested in other points of view but its own. The

Executive of this province is interested only in power — for

that is the socialist way.

My colleague, Mr. Speaker, made reference briefly yesterday

to a particular problem in his constituency and one that

overlaps into my constituency as well. It's a simple problem

but it outlines perhaps the method in which this Government

operates. It has to do with a group of only 38 farmers who are

broiler hatching-egg producers. I suppose the city-slicker

lawyers have never even heard of a broiler hatching egg

producer. They just happen to be caught in a squeeze between

two marketing boards. Their position is critical and they asked

the Minister of Agriculture for help. All they wanted was some

help to get the two boards together so they could discuss their

problems. The Minister of Agriculture, in his magnanimity,

said, "Settle the problems yourself. I'm not interested."

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Did I say I was

not interested?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I don't think you said you're not

interested, Mr. Minister. I amend that. You said, "Settle the

problems yourself. Go away. Don't bother me."

Mr. Speaker, the people of my constituency have a number of

questions that they would like to have answered. They expected

the answers in the Speech from the Throne — if not the answers,

at least an indication of direction. They didn't get either.

Mr. Speaker, my phone rings constantly. My mail load is up

every week. And they aren't getting the answers. The people in

my constituency and every other constituency in British

Columbia can only assume that they didn't get the answers

because the Government doesn't know the answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Send it to committee.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Government doesn't know where it is

going, Mr. Speaker, and doesn't even know where it is now.

Just listen to the speeches from the Government side and it

becomes pretty obvious that this Government is confused — that

it still thinks it is in Opposition. It has no idea, Mr.

Speaker, about how to get on with the business of providing

positive, aggressive and open government.

Speaking of being confused, Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the Conservative

Party seems a little bit lost as well. I see he has left the House at the moment

but he spends most of his time on his feet attacking the Opposition. I'd like

to tell him that the Government is over there, not over here.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope that the Government does find its

way out of its confusion very soon and starts to answer the

questions that the people of British Columbia are asking — questions like, in my own specific constituency, "What are you

doing about flood damage payment for the people who were

inundated with water in many parts of the Fraser Valley?" I

realize that the Government has agreed to participate to some

extent with the Municipality of Surrey in costs, Mr. Speaker.

But what about the hundreds of individual families who have

nowhere to go for help?

Why didn't the Government set up local claims offices in the

flooded areas and invite those people who suffered damage to

their homes and property to come in and file for compensation?

The total damage in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, from the

Christmas flooding to private individuals — from flooded

basements, loss of furnaces and hot water tanks and rugs and

furniture and so on and other damages — will never be assessed.

But all indications are that the amount is tremendous — in the

millions of dollars. Normal insurance policies don't cover such

losses and there has been no answer from the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, Recreation and so on and on and

on.

I'd like to offer the Government the idea of local claims

offices and suggest it isn't too late, Mr. Minister, through

you, Mr. Speaker. Why don't you do it right now? People there

would love you for it.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): He doesn't know what love

means.

MR. McCLELLAND: The people of my constituency also want to

know what this new Government is going to do about future flood

control, about which I'll speak in more detail in a moment or

two.

Where is the mention in the throne speech about increased

aid to municipalities? Didn't see it there. Most important, Mr.

Speaker, where is the statement of direction of the socialist

Government — the statement that the people of this province

fully expected and fully deserve to have. I wonder where are

the explanations to British Columbia's farmers — the proud,

independent businessmen who have given so much to build this

province. "The backbone of the nation," that unfortunate

man in the gallery said the other day and he is right. Farmers

whose future hopes have been shattered by the callous attitudes

of the socialist Government.

First, Mr. Speaker, this Government destroyed the confidence

of the corporate and investment community and now it has

irrevocably impaired the confidence of the entire agriculture

community,

[ Page 109 ]

many of whom considered this new Government friends. As the

old saying goes, with friends like these who needs enemies?

Where are the explanations, Mr. Speaker?

Because of this Government's precipitous action with regard

to farmland, with no reference to any long-term planning — in

fact to any logical planning principles at all — this

Government has locked the door on the future of all of British

Columbia's agriculture industry. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this

Government has declined to consult with the very people who are

most affected by the actions.

Why is the Government so afraid to talk to the farmers? Why

can't the Government at least extend the farmers the simple

courtesy of listening? You told the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture that you would consult both with its executive and

with members who were interested before you did anything to

affect the farm industry. Again, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

chose to ignore that pledge. If the Minister had bothered to

talk to the farmers, Mr. Speaker, they would have told you that

you don't have to force them to stay on the land. Does the

Government really believe, Mr. Speaker, that it can keep a

viable agriculture industry going by force? If that is what

this Government believes, it is completely out of touch with

the real reasons why a farmer chooses to till the soil.

The point is that you are not going to keep 'em down on the

farm by telling them that you're going to freeze their land.

Just because you freeze the use of the land isn't any guarantee

that you will have anyone on that land maintaining that

use.

The whole of Langley city is frozen today; the whole of

Langley city.

If I may digress just a moment, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say

that I contacted our planning officer in Langley city today and

today alone we froze or refused permission for a development

for an egg cracking plant in our industrial area, another

industrial plant by Spiralock Industries in our industrial

area, a major apartment development, a senior citizens'

complex, Mr. Speaker, and a personal care home for senior

citizens. They've been effectively stopped because of the land

freeze initiated by this Government. On land that never ever

will be farmland again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, since this Government obviously doesn't

know why a farmer chooses to farm in the first place, why his roots are firmly

entrenched in the land, then I'd like to try to tell the Government — and it's

so simple, I wonder why you don't know: The farmer farms the land because he

wants to. Not as the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party said yesterday, because

he sees his land appreciating in value, but because he wants to farm. He chose

farming as a career, the same as an electrician, a carpenter or a cook or a

plumber — even a politician — chose his career.

Be that as it may, what's wrong with the expectation that

your land will appreciate in value? Historically, society has

used land and private homes as a basic form of security. In one

way I suppose that virtually all of us, Mr. Speaker, are

speculators. Even the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources and Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Williams) and so on, even that Minister has no

hesitation to turning a speculative profit if the opportunity

arises.

So, Mr. Speaker, as long as the farmer is a farmer by

choice, he's going to continue to work his land and provide the

produce to feed our nation. At the same time however, that

farmer has every right to expect the same opportunity for fair

compensation that you and I enjoy in our careers.

Mr. Speaker, the whole philosophical approach to this

farmland preservation by this Government is unacceptable.

Instead of freezing the entire inventory of farmland in British

Columbia, without first developing any logical land use policy

or set guidelines, instead of a hasty and ill-conceived freeze

of the assets of thousands of British Columbia farmers, we

should be directing all of our efforts, Mr. Speaker, toward

helping the farmer achieve that fair return.

Whether it's by implementing the drainage programme so

vitally needed in many parts of my constituency, or by

vigorously seeking out new markets for British Columbia grown

products, then it's in this manner that we will ultimately

protect our agricultural industry.

I mentioned the drainage programmes, Mr. Speaker. I'd like

to tell the House what benefits could accrue in increased

production and increased employment just by supplying adequate

drainage and flood control in one tiny corner of British

Columbia. This corner is where governments have been fiddling

around since 1881 with drainage plans.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Since 1952.

MR. McCLELLAND: Since 1881, Mr. Speaker.

We're talking about the most productive vegetable-producing

lands in western Canada. The rich farmlands of the

Serpentine-Nicomekl Valley. And I'd like to stress again, Mr.

Speaker, that the other side of the House is the Government now

and I expect you to do something. I don't care what happened

before, Mr. Speaker. Let's get on with it. All right? Fair

enough. With proper drainage this area has the potential, Mr.

Speaker, of supplying all the western Canada markets with fresh

vegetables throughout the growing

[ Page 110 ]

season. This area has everything, Mr. Speaker — unique soil,

moderate climate, long growing season — everything but drainage.

And the problem gets progressively worse, of course, as the

urban development on the uplands results in more and more

runoff water flowing into the under-drained farmland.

Consequently, more flooding and more crop losses.

The real shame is that as flooding becomes more prevalent

the growing season gets shorter and shorter. The flow of

products is interrupted more and more. And the area loses its

credibility as a reliable source of supply. So the buyer goes

elsewhere and the end result is not only a shortage of fresh

B.C. grown vegetables, Mr. Speaker, but a higher price for the

housewife in Vancouver.

The Government must implement an adequate drainage programme

in that area right away. You do it and you'll keep these

farmers on the land. You won't have to force them with

legislation, because they'll be happy to farm their land,

because they'll be able to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

And that's all they ask, Mr. Speaker, of this Government.

And the Government has to stop insisting on local

cost-sharing. The local municipalities cannot afford it. They

haven't got the money. And the province can't afford to let the

situation get any worse.

Because the Cloverdale area, Mr. Speaker, is the only area

in western Canada, west of Winnipeg, that's suitable for the

production of some of these kinds of vegetables — lettuce,

celery and cauliflower and such. It is the "salad bowl" of

Canada, and this Government has a duty to protect it.

Drain the land and it will provide western Canada with fresh

vegetables practically year-round. Don't drain the land and

we'll get our vegetables from the United States. We'll have, of

course, an immediate increase in foreign exchange requirements,

and then further dependence on the U.S. for food supplies and a

dependence that means higher food prices. That's what we're

committed to stop.

Mr. Speaker, the total estimated value of the food crop in

that Nicomekl-Serpentine flood plain area in 1972 was just over

$3 million. Do you know that the losses for 1972 were over $1.5

million? That's 50 per cent of the total value of that crop

production lost because the area isn't adequately drained.

The farmers in that area, Mr. Speaker, expected some hope in

the throne speech. They want a permanent solution; they want it

now.

Give these farmers a flood control and drainage programme

and you'll double production in that area and you'll allow

those farmers to make a decent living and they'll stay on the

land. A decent living. That's how you keep them down on the

farm, Mr. Speaker, not with threats and freezes.

A member of one of this province's finest pioneer farm

families was in our office the other day, Mr. Tom Berry. He's a

Vancouver Island dairy farmer and comes from my constituency originally. He told the whole sad

story when he said the other day, "You can legislate the farmer

off the land but you cannot legislate him back on."

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech was an astonishing document

in that it did not indicate the real socialist philosophy. And

because of that it didn't indicate the real reason for this

farmland freeze. Is the Government afraid to tell us what it

really has in mind, to tell us what it's seeking, and that it

is seeking an end to private ownership of land in British

Columbia? If that's what this Government believes, tell us.

There's not much doubt that the freeze is a smokescreen for

total control of private lands in this province.

The Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is quoted as saying,

"We have to take a second look at private ownership. I'd like

to see," she says, "all private property eliminated."

I'll bet that's not such good news for the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources and (Minister of) Recreation and

Conservation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Wildlife. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to invite

this House to look carefully at the order-in-council No.

153-73. Do you know that 90 per cent of the land in the

Municipality of Langley is now frozen under the very general

terms of that order? I've said already that most of the land in

Langley City — a vibrant and bustling little city with a good

programme of zoning control — is under the confines of that

order-in-council.

You know what else that order says, Mr. Speaker? It says,

"No person shall issue or cause to issue a building permit

authorizing the construction of a new building on

farmland."

"No building," "no person." Does that order mean what

it says? That you may never build a new home, a new barn, a new

garage? That's what it says. You can't construct a new building

on your own property. That's what that order says.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's the order, Mr. Speaker.

This new socialist Government isn't interested in

preservation, Mr. Speaker, it's interested in state control of

private lands.

And I suppose that's all right, because the Merriam

Webster Dictionary defines "socialism" as "a theory of

social organization based on government ownership or control of

the means of production and the distribution and exchange of

goods." That's what the dictionary says a socialist is; why

doesn't this Government tell us what a socialist is? Why hide

what you believe in, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 111 ]

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of more comments about the

farmland freeze. I agree wholeheartedly that we must provide

greenbelts and that we must preserve agriculture as an

industry. I believe it with all of my heart. And I agree that

we must never again allow urban development on logically and

sensibly defined flood plain. But we have to be realistic about

our farmland needs. This issue is often distorted beyond all

sense, and it is being distorted beyond all sense. We forget,

for instance, that technological advances have allowed us to

produce more food on much less land. Each year the number of

acres in farm production decreases, yet the production shows

considerable increases, outstripping in fact the actual

population increases. This preoccupation, Mr. Speaker, with

artificial attempts to preserve farmland tends to hide the real

problem which, simply stated, is to ensure that we don't cover

the entire lower mainland from Vancouver to Hope with black-top

and houses. We could only do that through positive planning,

Mr. Speaker, not freezes and threats.

Mr. Speaker, the mover of that weak Speech from the Throne

spoke proudly in the House the other day about all the things

the Government has done in only five months in office. Well for

once I agree with the Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).

The Government has been busy, all right. In just five months,

Mr. Speaker, the socialist Government has caused millions of

dollars to be lost in the stock market, frightened the

investment community, made being a friend of the party a

condition for employment and for winning government contracts,

even managed to alienate its own backbenchers. And this

Government, Mr. Speaker, has broken the spirit of the farmers

of British Columbia. That's not bad for just five months. I can

hardly wait for the rest. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey.

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

we've heard some interesting debate this afternoon. A number of

ideas. I cannot say that I agree with all of them, but they

were interesting.

The second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) certainly

attacked the Liberal Party, had his shoe lace out, said that

the Liberals were against everything. He referred to the

announcement by the Premier that there would be a cancellation

of the port announced for Squamish and that there would be a

building in Britannia instead. And I don't think the Second

Member for Vancouver Centre should have been attacking the

Government. He should have been attacking the Premier for the

very style of government that the Premier and his cabinet

colleagues found so objectionable when they sat on the

Opposition seats.

MR. CHABOT: Where is he? His chair is empty.

MR. McGEER: Well, that's traditional too, as the Member for

Columbia River well knows. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, probably the Second Member for Vancouver Centre

had not read the environmental report, which was the subject of

the news conference, before the House had been given any copies

or any notification. It is the conclusion of that report, and

why I want to make the point particularly, Mr. Speaker, to the

Member for Vancouver Centre and to all of the new Members of

the House. I'm pleased to see so many of them here, and Mr.

Speaker, they've just been excellent listeners which means that

these new Members are going to learn very fast about the ways

of the House. What that report said was this: "rather the main

concern is that the scenic, aesthetic and recreational

attributes of Howe Sound, and the life style associated with it

will be impaired by further industrial development."

Now it's on this basis that the leader of the Liberal Party

said that other alternatives should be considered. It's because

that particular report was misinterpreted to the press and to

the public at the time of his news conference that we object so

strenuously to be the old style of government, which is being

practised by the new Premier. The Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) who will be speaking in the

House in a few days will have a great deal to say about where

we should go in dealing with the shipment of coal from British

Columbia ports.

I want to just draw the attention of the House to one aspect

of the general problem, and that is, the Premier of the

province is following exactly in the footsteps of the former

Premier. As the Liberal leader said yesterday, the old Premier

is hiding in the clothes of the Member for Coquitlam, because

we have the same conflicts of interest that so plagued the

previous administration. We have one man being the Premier and

Minister of Finance. He was all against that when he was the

Leader of the Opposition, and all his supporters over there on

the Opposition side were all against it too. Now it's fine. He

condemned the corridor press conference, but now he's the

leading exponent of it. He condemned the ignoring of the

Legislature and the backbenchers, but now he's practising it in

exactly that way.

I put the motion forward as a member of the Public Accounts

Committee and as a Member of the House, that we should invite

to this chamber, through our committee system, the heads of the

Crown corporations in British Columbia, so that they could lay

before us their plans and their financial requirements. That

motion was refused by the then government. But, Mr. Speaker, it

was supported by the Premier and those who now sit in the

Treasury benches.

The reason for that suggestion is an obvious one.

[ Page 112 ]

The Crown corporations have hidden behind the skirts of the

Premier for many years, and it's clear that this tradition is

being carried on. When the former Leader of the Opposition, who

was so against pollution, now is advocating a third port to

ship coal within 30 miles, 40 miles, in an area which

environmental reports describe as one of prime recreational

value, and which if the Premier of the province were not

completely committed because of his conflict of interest

position to the welfare of the Crown corporations, the idea

would never be seriously entertained.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, when you refer to conflict of

interest, I think it should be made clear whether you're

preferring some kind of charge of a personal character, or

whether you're merely referring to the fact that he holds two

offices of government.

MR. McGEER: Oh, Mr. Speaker, two offices! May I make it

clear that there are three or four offices. There's President

of the Executive Council, there's the Minister of Finance,

there's the Presidency of the PGE, there's the control of the

pension plans. All these things represent incompatible

objectives. We used to talk about how the Premier should have

press conferences with the Minister of Finance, to talk to each

other and try and resolve some of these things. But it never

really happened.

What we're having is the same old style, and I say to those

in the backbench, that it's going to lead to the same old

difficulties, and it must be you who take a leading role in

seeing that these conflicts of interest are broken down. When

you sit with us on the Public Accounts Committee, set forward a

policy by which these heads of Crown corporations will appear

before you and us. You can demand that, because you'll have a

majority on that Public Accounts Committee. In this way you can

be certain that these conflicts of interest will begin to

disappear. You'll be the ones that will be successful in

implementing the policies that your Leader used to espouse. You

can be his conscience, and you can keep him out of trouble,

which if he carries on in this way is bound to increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) repeated that ringing phrase from the throne speech

about how we were going to get away from these "acquisitive

North American values." I think there is a great deal of merit

in that philosophy. I don't think it can extend to prolonging

the misery of the unemployed. Getting them jobs is surely not

incompatible with a quality of life. There isn't much quality

to life when you don't have a job. If we've got more people

looking for work than there are jobs, obviously you have to

have growth to take care of that problem. While I think that

philosophy has a wonderful note to it, I noted yesterday that the

Minister of Highways was violating that philosophy. He used to

give wonderful speeches in the House, Mr. Speaker, about the

evils of the acquisitiveness of certain cabinet Members. Who

would have thought that the present Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) would don the clothes of the former Minister of

Highways, Mr. Gaglardi? Who would have thought that the

socialist pilgrims would want to go first class in a new

executive jet?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Oh, come on.

MR. McGEER: Well, you've pedaled along for so many years,

but after all the executive jet has been brought back twice. A

report has gone in that it should be purchased. Well, I think

the Minister of Highways is going to go into a tailspin if we

go for that expensive first-class jet. You can go ahead and say

that that has nothing to do with acquisitive North American

values, but I can tell you there is no greater symbol of North

American acquisitiveness than the executive jet. All the

successful people get them.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. McGEER: Certainly, certainly.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: But he was never ashamed of capitalism or the

acquisitiveness. I just think that for the Minister of Highways

to be the leader in this, it just makes one's mind boggle to

wonder what is going to come next.

Certainly, from our point of view, we don't think a case has

been made for that kind of extravagance and we hope that the

Minister of Highways will retract and not try and follow in the

footsteps of the former office holder.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Columbia River Treaty.

Many Members who sit in this House, of course, were unfamiliar

with the raging debates that were carried on in the early

1960's, when one of the largest projects that had ever taken

place in the province was under consideration. It is now

commonly recognized that the Columbia River Treaty was one of

Canada's greatest negotiating disasters. It is a classic

example of a resource rip-off. It involves energy. At a time

when the United States is approaching Canada regarding a

continental energy policy, we should be reminding everyone in

this country that this is a prime example of what an energy

policy should not be. Canada is supplying the resource. Canada

is committing its territory to the development of that

resource. Canada is suffering the ecological damage and Canada

is selling the resource

[ Page 113 ]

to the United States for a fraction of its true value.

As far as I can tell from the answers given to questions I

have asked on the order paper — and the Premier asked some too

when he was Opposition leader — we are going to be short over

$360 million to reach the point of former Premier Bennett's

promise in the critical 1963 election. Members who were present

at that time will recall the promise was that the three treaty

dams could be built, that Mica could have half its machining

installed for what the Americans contribute.

It's too long for me to go into details as to how we arrive

at the $360 million shortfall. At present time the taxpayers of

British Columbia are supporting that project with generous

infusions of money. Some of it is on our electric light bills.

More of it comes by direct legislative vote. Over $20 million

from the Department of Lands and Forests has been committed for

clearing behind the Libby Dam. I will be happy to go over the

calculation with any Member as to how we arrive at this

enormous $360 million figure, which is the subsidy that we are

supplying to the United States.

This is going to come entirely out of the pockets of the

people of British Columbia. Before the last election I called

for a re-negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty. I support

what the Premier has done so far in seeking that

re-negotiation. I am disappointed that he did not get farther

with Prime Minister Trudeau in the December meeting. But the

offer I made in October to help out however I can still stands.

The Premier has yet to take me up on that offer.

I want now to make some suggestions as to the route British

Columbia can go to achieve a renegotiation. I want to remind

the Members that the stakes here are very, very high. We have a

tremendous amount to gain. We've got nothing to lose.

The first is to take advantage of the agreement signed between the British

agreement said, "Canada shall, at the request of British Columbia, present any

claim deemed reasonable by Canada arising under the treaty which British Columbia

wishes made against the United States of America." The agreement also states

section 5 that "Canada shall, if requested by British Columbia, endeavour

to obtain the agreement of the United States with respect to the operation of

any dams, the modification of land required, the diversion of water or any problem

which Canada and British Columbia agree is in the public interest." The key

phrase is "in the public interest." To rectify a situation which has seen the

British Columbia people shortchanged by over $360 million, stuck with 150,000

acres of our most beautiful land perpetually flooded — the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) knows of the devastation done in his territory, unnecessarily

— and suffering enormous ecological damage, is surely in the public interest.

Secondly, British Columbia can demand that the Canadian

government initiate a study to be carried out under

Article 15

of the Columbia River Treaty itself.

Article 15 states that,

"the permanent engineering board" — under the treaty there is a

permanent engineering board — "shall investigate and report

with respect to any other matter coming within the scope of the

treaty at the request of either Canada or the United States of

America." The results of such a study could then be used as a

basis for re-opening the treaty.

Thirdly, British Columbia can ask the federal government to

refer its problems directly to the International Joint

Commission. Again there is provision under the Columbia River

Treaty.

Article 16 of the treaty states: "Differences arising

under the treaty which Canada and the United States of America

cannot resolve may be referred by either to the International

Joint Commission."

Mr. Speaker, I think what has incensed so many Members of

this House who were here at the time and so many of the people

of British Columbia who visited this area of Columbia River

development and have seen what has happened, is that neither

the Columbia River Treaty itself nor the agreement which was

signed between the Province of B.C. and the federal government

was referred to the Members of this House. No committees of our

Legislature sat and heard any evidence. Liberal and NDP Members

who were then in Opposition were suspicious of the long-range

consequences of this treaty. Again and again we stood up in

this House objecting to what was being done. Never was there

anything done to bring the case to British Columbia and try and

justify what was being done to the people of this province.

Instead, an agreement was rammed through at the federal level.

A snap election was called at the provincial level, and now

we've got this disaster on our doorstep which we have to try

and rectify. And, Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Government

must know exactly what to ask for in a treaty renegotiation.

Because, unfortunately, a contract was signed. The former

Government demanded a lump sum payment for the sale of power

for 30 years and for providing flood control for all time. Now,

that's in the contract and it obviously isn't going to be good

enough to go cap in hand asking for more money because

inflation has left us with this unbelievable shortfall of $360

million.

What we've got to ask for is something completely different.

We must ask for compensation for ecological damage and

compensation for peaking power.

What the United States paid for in that lump-sum payment

were two completely different things: they paid for flood

control and they paid for firm power. No mention at all was

made of peaking power, and

[ Page 114 ]

yet it's very evident that the United States is benefiting

to an enormous degree from this peaking power. They're using

all of our Canadian storage — or will be in the future — for

that purpose.

Flood control in the United States involves loss of Canadian

land, the value of production of that land — both in taxes and

goods — and the environmental damage that's a consequence of a

poorly-cleared reservoir.

These reservoirs are not going to be valuable for prime

recreational purposes. The height of them varies tremendously

according to the demands of the United States. We have to empty

them every spring, flood our land to protect their territory — with no compensation.

The ecologically damaged area behind the treaty dams is

equal to 15 Skagit Valleys.

Francis Bartholomew, who was scorned by the old Government

but whose statements I and others have often quoted in this

House, has turned out to be consistently right in the

statements he's made about the Columbia River Treaty. In 1961,

in public hearings in Revelstoke, he drew everyone's attention

to a United States report that calculated the Americans would

save $120 million a year by the kind of storage that Canada

provides under the treaty. Those savings were not for firm

power, for which we receive payment. Those savings were in

peaking power, which the United States is getting

scot-free.

What we must rest on, Mr. Speaker, is the theory of the

Columbia River Treaty which said that benefits should be shared

equally between Canada and the United States. Now when the

details of that sharing finally get worked out it turns out

that some are more equal than others, by an enormous

amount.

The case that has to be taken to the Americans is two-fold.

First, Canada has suffered enormous losses because of inflation

and can no longer allow the Americans to have these peaking

power benefits for nothing. The inflation which has cost us so

much has merely added to the already tremendous benefits in

power that have gone to the Americans.

Secondly, the ecological factors — and these weren't valued

terribly highly by either country a decade ago — are now

extremely important. We can't afford to wait another 50 years

to pay some attention to them. That's when the treaty

expires.

The Premier did say he would be submitting a formal brief to

the federal government to re-open the treaty, especially in the

area of funding. We have no way of knowing what will be in that

brief. We hope, however, that British Columbia's case will be

better prepared than it ever has been in the past. And that may

mean the hiring of outside consultants such as Francis

Bartholomew, no matter how difficult B.C. Hydro engineers might

find such a suggestion.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) knows what I mean. But I would recommend to him, Mr. Speaker, that he study the

record. Because some people have been consistently wrong and

Francis Bartholomew has been consistently right.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

MR. McGEER: I understand that. But it's a question of

preparing a case. And I'm sure the Premier must have been very

disappointed by the Prime Minister's statement that he did not

think that B.C. has grounds to complain about the deal it got

from the United States.

The former Premier made an extraordinarily foolish

negotiating move. It won him an election. But it's left us with

an unparalleled mess on our doorstep. I have no hesitation in

saying that the federal government was equally foolish in

agreeing to it and permitting it to be the basis of a treaty.

The guilt is clearly federal as well as provincial.

Now, there are even more important reasons for complaint

about the treaty than the financial blunders. I'll name them

again: ecological damage and the ignoring of peaking power

benefits.

The Prime Minister has said he would name officials to a

liaison committee if British Columbia named officials to one.

That's a positive note. We should work on that basis.

One thing is clear. No further discussion should take place

between Canada and the United States on any aspect of

continental energy until the Columbia River Treaty is

re-negotiated. There is more to this than just the suggestion

that we should try and learn from the mistakes of the past. It

will be a test of whether goodwill on the part of the United

States extends to correcting an arrangement which is patently

unfair to Canada. Never again should we sign any long-term

energy contracts which do not provide adequate escape clauses.

The lesson on the Skagit and the lesson on the Columbia River

Treaty are just too obvious.

Circumstances change. Factors such as ecological

preservation can alter enormously the values to be placed on a

resource. So can shifting financial circumstances.

So we can hold out, with the support of the federal

government. The United States is approaching us about a

continental energy policy on gas. They'll be approaching us

about other things. What we must insist upon is that the

Columbia River Treaty be placed right at the top of the list.

Because in the case of the Columbia, it's not just the

taxpayers of British Columbia who've lost out. The whole

country's been hurt. The beneficial effects our energy has

conferred upon the United States has made it more difficult for

us to penetrate those resource markets south of the border that

we already have.

Right here in British Columbia there's idle

[ Page 115 ]

capacity at the Kitimat smelter. There's idle capacity in

Quebec as well. The greatest export market for the number one

power intensive industry in Canada, namely the aluminum

industry, is the United States. What we have to do, Mr.

Speaker, is to pay a tariff on every pound of aluminum that

crosses the border.

The Canadian manufacturers have to absorb the total cost of

that tariff, because they must sell the product at the same

price in the U.S. as does the U.S. producer.

After the Columbia River Treaty was signed, there was an

enormous expansion — as many Members predicted — in the State

of Washington and Oregon in the aluminum industry. Because that

treaty made available huge blocks of cheap power. The

consequences were a lowered marked for our aluminum, a

difficulty in competing price-wise with those industries that

were already established, idle capacity in Canada, unemployment

in British Columbia and lower taxes to the federal government

and to the provincial government.

So the effect is on jobs as well as taxes. We've lost out

and lost out heavily. The time to prepare a case is now. Unlike

many people who are pessimistic about something being done, I

say that our case in politics and economics is extremely

strong. I say that we should push that case with the national

government and with the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the second Member for

Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) who stated today on an extremely

fine speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear!

MR. McGEER: She had some wonderful ideas on industrial

development. She reads well. She reads well. She has picked up

a well-known book — Politics in Paradise .

AN HON. MEMBER : By a well-known writer.

MR. McGEER: Which I know others in this House have read as

well.

MR. LAUK: I've got it.

MR. McGEER: I'll autograph copies.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What's the price now?

MR. McGEER: $7.95. You can buy it on the ferries. They tell

me it's selling a bit too. At least better than another book

that's also for sale. I don't set the price; I feel badly about

that.

But the Member, Mr. Speaker, stands out from a good many who have reviewed

that book. She grasped its real intent. It wasn't to describe the scandals and

short comings of a previous administration. That sort of thing was just there

to entice people to read the book.

MR. LAUK: A typical Liberal trick.

MR. McGEER: The purpose was to lay out a completely new

industrial strategy for the province and for that matter the

country.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a few things on the

record about the previous administration that I felt a lot of

influential people should not have accepted in British Columbia

for so many years. That was only done — and those things were

only accepted as you know, in order to keep the hordes from

power. But you are into power now and despite what the second

Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) said today, the

performance of the economy is the key to retaining power once

you get in. Anybody who doesn't realize that lesson will find

out after he's been kicked out of office.

The former Social Credit administration did have an

industrial strategy.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I believe they are.

MR. LAUK: You're not listening.

MR. McGEER: It involved a harvesting of natural resources.

It worked while the roads were being built. It continued to

work while the pulp mills were being built. It was supported

artificially while the dams were being built but when all that

building was done, nothing more had been accomplished than

increasing the supply of natural resources to semi-saturated

world markets.

Everyone who looked carefully at the situation predicted

that the tailing off of construction would lead to high

unemployment in the province. Why? There was nowhere to turn

for new jobs. The years when a new industrial strategy should

have been worked out were entirely wasted. Now we have 80,000

unemployed. In the next years 80,000 to 100,000 more people

will be looking for jobs. You have to find at least 150,000

jobs over the next 2 years in order to make a dent in that

problem.

Mr. Speaker, what it amounts to is an industrial expansion

the like of which this province has never seen before.

Unemployment is going to continue to plague British Columbia

until we have that new industrial strategy. And if the second

Member for Vancouver South, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Centre.

MR. McGEER: Centre, not South. We want her in the cabinet.

She is the only one who has had any

[ Page 116 ]

bright ideas on that side.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Let

backbenchers in power.

MR. McGEER: If you want to stay in office, you're going to

have to have this new industrial strategy. Unemployment is

going to continue to plague B.C. until we have it. There is

only one that will work. Only one that has succeeded for any

advanced nation in the world. It's a strategy that could bring

to this province a million new jobs for British Columbia here

and around the world in the next 15 years. I may sound

extravagant but I want to give everyone here one example.

AN HON. MEMBER: $7.95. I'll buy your book.

MR. McGEER: He's read it. Read it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't understand it. It's the other Member who understood

it.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, last month to my laboratory an

electron microscope was delivered. It cost $46,000. I was

aghast but that's what you have to have in order to do modern

work in cell biology. Instruments about the size of two of

these legislative desks. The value of it — most of the value of

that $46,000 is tied up in a few plastic wafers about the size

of an ash tray. Inside them are printed electronic circuits

which can control to a fantastic degree the electron beam which

is the heart of the microscope.

The genius and design for all of this came from Eindhoven in

the Netherlands. Members may recall, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian

troops helped to liberate the Netherlands at the end of the

Second World War. It's a country about the size of Vancouver

Island. The land is just as flat as the Fraser Valley. They are

without natural resources and at that time they were without

industry. The corporation that produced that electron

microscope produces dictating equipment that the acquisitive

Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) probably has in his

office — which we have in the legislative buildings — and

thousands of other products; Mr. Speaker, the important point

is that 300,000 people are employed by that one corporation

around the world. The spin off in service industries — and, Mr.

Speaker, that would include lawyers I presume — and suppliers

would amount to maybe 1,500,000 people.

That is substantially larger than the total work force in the Province of British

Columbia. Holland happens to have the densest population in the world, about

17 million people I believe. The average unemployment runs about 1 to 3 per

cent consistently less than half that of Canada. So that clearly natural resources

are not essential to jobs at all and the industrial strategy that produced that

remarkable growth can be found in selected industries in Sweden, Austria, Switzerland,

Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United

States. Spain indeed.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Most of them are socialist

governments.

MR. LAUK: Most of them are socialists.

MR. McGEER: I mention these particular countries because

between 1964 and 1969 all of them had substantially less

unemployment than did Canada and did British Columbia. Now

maybe they had socialist governments, it depends what your

definition of socialism is. But I would guarantee that those

governments could not operate by the kinds of philosophy that

we have heard espoused by the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) and which appeared in the throne speech.

In a recent study by the Science Council of Canada — and the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and I'm sorry he's

not here, quoted from that. He had the conclusions muddled up.

But what is revealed in that report should shock Canadians. Of

110 of the most significant technological innovations that can

be described in the world today, not one was first reduced to

practice in Canada.

Of all the OECD nations, Canada was conspicuously last in

every single growth industry that has been part of the world

picture since the time of the Second World War. This includes

electronic components, plastics, computers, pharmaceuticals,

scientific instruments, man-made fibres. There is only one area

where we have shown performance and that's in steel and

nonferrous metals. The reason for that is because we've got the

minerals, not because we have the philosophy or the industrial

strategy.

What have we done to maintain the standard of living that

will permit MLA's to get the stipends they enjoy and others to

have the incomes that they also enjoy. It is because our

natural resources have been harvested at a greater rate than

our economy is growing.

The economy is growing at about 4.5 per cent a year but

natural resources are growing at 6.5 per cent a year because

the rest of the productive sector is shrinking. We have become

more and more dependent in natural resources during the last 10

years than ever before.

It is happening at an accelerating rate. The performance of

other nations is so much spectacularly beyond our own that we

have fallen back more and more and these are not industries of

high employment.

The capital investment for a new job in the forest industry

is about $50,000. In a whole series of

[ Page 117 ]

technological industries done in the Boston area, mentioned

in this study, the capital investment for a new worker was not

$50,000, it was $1,500.

Our standard of living now is about 40 per cent behind the

United States. If you believe World Bank figures, we are also

behind Sweden and Switzerland. A consequence of this bad

industrial strategy is being felt all across Canada. Mr.

Speaker, we are going to suffer from this in British Columbia

more than will the other parts of Canada because we have lived

high on the resource hog in this province.

What I say is that the only route for success will be to

produce and produce competitively in the modern growth

industries. Every public statement so far by the cabinet

members has been against not only that strategy but any

industrial strategy. The only member who has given a start at

all has been the Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs.

Webster), that's why I say take her in the cabinet. Bring some

common sense to those Treasury benches.

She said, "sponsorship of a Science City." That's right. It

is a start. A second one — might as well get the whole

programme out — is to offer industrial incentives of the

correct kind to get the proper new industries established.

The third is to encourage sales representatives abroad for

our manufactured British Columbia goods. Not to fire them as

the Attorney General did as his first act in getting into

office. We canned our only entry into a market which is as

large as the Canadian and which has a purchasing power at least

one and a half times as great. We eliminated that as part of

our industrial moves. At a time when there are a 1,000 new

civil servants, we canned two who give us an entry, into that

important market.

A fourth is encourage technical buying by the Government

itself. There is a wonderful example right here in British

Columbia — an industry called Glenayre Electronics. They

received encouragement by the B.C. Railway for getting a new

and very modern device attached to railroad cars for tracking

them, which if it works would be adopted, I am sure, all

through North America.

Now this is the way that a government agency can encourage

not only a British Columbia company but can encourage an idea

that has tremendous potential for growth.

AN HON. MEMBER: We shouldn't have to buy American jets.

MR. McGEER: Someone suggested, Mr. Speaker, that buying American jets

instead has been the purchasing policy of the socialists. But perhaps there's

time — we may get into modern things in our own B.C. railway rather than get

into a tailspin supporting American aircraft companies. A fifth, Mr. Speaker,

is to hire consultants to help with this industrial strategy. Go beyond the

B.C. Civil Service. Go beyond the economic consultants you normally find in

the province. If they had the industrial strategy you'd have it by now. Hire

Pierre Bourgeault. At least he studied the problem and has written a brilliant

report. Talk to top management in these successful industries — whether they

are in Eindhoven or anywhere else in the world, Mr. Speaker, this is my plea

to the Premier and the cabinet — but particularly to those who make up the

bulk of the Government side, sitting in the backbenchers. I have learned over

the years, the Premiers and cabinet Ministers often turn a deaf ear to Opposition

members. But the real power, if it is ever exercised, Mr. Speaker, lies in the

Government backbenches.

They have the power to discipline a cabinet. Bring forward

aggressive new ideas. It doesn't always work, as the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will tell you. But if it doesn't work for

a Government backbencher you can sometimes make it work for an

Opposition party.

What I say particularly to the backbenchers on the

Government side — it's a great opportunity — you don't need to

take notes — you instinctively realize that the power is yours.

Use it. Drop the dogmas of the Thirties — because if there was

one shortcoming of these people who are now the cabinet

Ministers when they sat in Opposition, is they were hung up on

the past. Take that government into the future. Bring us

forward with new industrial strategy. Then when that next

election comes along, Mr. Speaker, you won't be like the last

crop of Government backbenchers, you'll be coming back instead

of going into private life.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): He still thinks he's a leader.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I have been amazed

during the past few days at the attitudes of the last remains

of the former provincial government. What a change has overcome

them in four months. On Monday we heard the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) stating that the working people

and Social Credit want jobs now. That the new Government was a

no growth and no job Government. That after 40 years of

socialist ideas the new Government could not solve the job

situation in 4 months.

Mr. Speaker, after 20 years of Social Credit ineptness — after 20 years of selling out our resources without developing

adequate secondary industries, after 20 years of exporting jobs

to other lands, after 20 years of allowing our farmlands to be

zapped up

[ Page 118 ]

by land speculators and developers, after 20 years of

rip-off monopoly capitalism, Mr. Speaker, the last members of a

former government expect us to correct their blunders and

mistakes in 4 months.

The spokesmen for the other Opposition parties, Mr. Speaker,

they keep criticizing us for not doing the things that their

parties have continually not done in Ottawa in the past 100

years. Statements by spokesmen from the other parties have been

most revealing. By demanding more revenue we have created

uncertainty in the forest and mining industries they say, when

instead we should be giving encouragement to every single

industry and every single person who can help provide

employment. Well there's nothing uncertain about it. The

bountiful resources of this province belong to the people of

this province and they are entitled to a decent return.

What is most revealing however is the fact that the

Opposition has spent most of their time using the employment

issue to defend the profits of their friends, the big business

interests in this province. They suggest, and we have heard it

again today, that instead of collecting royalties on our

resources we should continue to provide incentives as they have

done in the past.

Furthermore in this age of ecology one Member, the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) even went so far

as to say that with so much unemployment the policy must be

growth.

Industrial strategy is growth. Growth to provide jobs he

said. Well that is why we are in Government and they are

not.

In 1971 B.C.'s gross provincial product grew by $1.8

billion, an increase of 12.5 per cent over 1970. Yet we had 7

per cent average unemployment over the year. In 1972 the gross

provincial product grew by an additional $1.2 billion and our

unemployment average 7.5 per cent. Profit rose and growth

increased each year but so did unemployment. In fact

unemployment is closely tied with growth but in a negative

way, What is needed, Mr. Speaker, is not a patch-up job of the

old system but rethinking of our priorities. Let's not treat

the symptoms but get at the illness before it becomes a cancer

and what the unprincipled growth advocates are suggesting could

well be terminal.

The throne speech clearly states that Government policy

will be based on the necessity to plan our future so that we

may live in harmony with our environment and peace with our

fellow man and depart from the acquisitive North American

values of profligacy and waste.

Mr. Speaker, this can only be done through developing our resources by and

for the people of British Columbia, not only by creating secondary industries

but also new recycling industries to protect our environment by reconstituting

our waste products. These are areas where meaningful employment can be created.

Along with this, new service jobs will be required to assist

the aged and expand leisure, recreational and educational

activities. Jobs to provide other environmentally sound

services to people, such as public transit and the development

of community schools and neighbourhood services — these are the

areas, Mr. Speaker, where our growth should be oriented.

To live in harmony with our environment also requires re-thinking of our concepts

of growth and our concepts of energy. I believe that we must start working towards

a steady-state growth concept. This concept allows growth, but only within the

carrying capacity of the environment. Furthermore, if social and environmental

costs of growth are considered, gross national product and energy conversion

become less important — still highly important, but less important. The first

step in determining an energy policy is to sort out what is possible. Certainly

it is not necessary to commit our resources to a nuclear reactor on Vancouver

Island for some time. Nuclear power, I would suggest, is Pandora's box — possibly

there are some pleasant surprises in it, certainly some demons. Some of the

demons have escaped and have been identified as low-level radiation, thermal

pollution and the truly awesome problem of disposing of radioactive wastes —

not to mention catastrophic radiation leaks.

There is also plenty of time to develop an

ecologically-based policy on the Fraser River that would deal

with flood control, fish, pollution and land-settlement

patterns in the Fraser Valley without building a power dam at

Moran or at some other location. Hopefully, these developments

or others like them won't even be needed.

Industry presently has lower hydro rates than residential

users. Increasing industrial rates, particularly at peak-hour

time, would cut down consumption and make present generating

capacity more efficient. When one adds up the environmental

costs of more dams and nuclear plants, this may be the route

that B.C. citizens will want to take. On the other hand, there

may be some increase in electrical consumption for necessary

mass transit systems. For example, a rail system with feeder

buses using the CNR and CPR tracks in my riding in Richmond to

connect with the Arbutus corridor in Vancouver would

drastically reduce the need for more bridges and freeways in

the Vancouver area. If we were to take the San Francisco rapid

transit system as an example, we find that a mass rapid transit

system in the greater Vancouver area would only produce a

one-time electrical energy growth of 2 per cent — not much when

you consider the saving in time and environmental quality.

While on the subject of public transit, I would like to

diverge for a moment and say that I find it very

[ Page 119 ]

disappointing that the Hudson Street bridge being built by

the federal government will not service Richmond but will

service the airport only. This bridge is taking up the major

transit corridor which could service about 65 per cent of

Richmond's population with a direct public transit route to

Vancouver.

Getting back to energy, the B.C. Energy Board Report last

fall suggested that automobiles could be converted to

electrical use. I would suggest that this would be a very

uneconomic use of our power reserves. On the other hand, it is

entirely feasible to use our natural gas reserves as a

relatively nonpolluting automobile and bus fuel instead of

exporting it to the United States.

I was quite shocked to read, Mr. Speaker, in the 1972 B.C.

"Summary of Economic Activity" that we exported 264 billion

cubic feet of natural gas last year and used only 120 billion

in the domestic market. Yet liquid natural gas or compressed

natural gas is the safest hydrocarbon fuel. When used in the

internal combustion engine, carbon monoxide production is

reduced by 50 per cent. B.C. Hydro tests have shown 1.9 per

cent carbon monoxide emissions from a vehicle using liquid

natural gas, compared with 3.9 per cent for an ordinary gas

vehicle with pollution control devices, and 7.4 per cent

monoxide emissions without control devices. Natural gas is an

important non-renewable resource and should be reserved for our

own domestic use and not exported. Once the tap has been turned

on, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to turn the tap off

again. Unfortunately, this seems to be the rule and not the

exception. The B.C. Economic Survey also states that in 1972 export

values climbed to a record $3 billion in response to increased

sales of wood products, metals in ores and concentrates, crude

petroleum, coal and natural gas. The bulk of these advances

were made in the United States and Japanese markets. All the

front runners except wood products are non-renewable resources.

These are the resources that are so important to develop here

in British Columbia for our use and our secondary manufacturing

industries. To produce jobs here instead of in other lands.

We have heard a lot about the energy crisis in the United

States. Presently the United States, with only a small

percentage of the world's population, consumes about 1/3 of the

entire world's supply of oil. Their need for energy resources

is expanding at exponential rates. They need our gas and our

oil to quench this thirst. There is no need to make an energy

resources deal, as someone has suggested. We already have one.

The international oil companies already have one themselves, as

they drain off our reserves across the border, bit by bit and

day by day.

Furthermore, we see an accompanying unjustified increase in

gasoline and oil prices on the domestic market. And we see an

unwillingness on the part of the oil companies to move into such areas as using natural

gas as an automotive fuel. As one of the backbenchers who

recently has been reported in revolt within our party, I would

like to take this opportunity to agree with the Premier. The

only way that we are to ensure that we are able to maintain our

oil and gas reserves for future use and influence the domestic

market is if oil and gas are brought under public control.

Public control of the oil and gas industry in British

Columbia could mean not only fairer prices to consumers and an

end to the energy drain, but also the re-allocation of profits

towards equalizing gas prices in the north and the development

of mass public transit in the urban areas. It would mean that

the uses to which the oil and gas are presently being put could

be reconsidered. It is quite possible, for example, that the

Government after study might find it feasible to set up natural

gas depots throughout the province and provide licensing and

other incentives to motorists who have their vehicles converted

to natural gas, and even convert fleets of government vehicles

as well.

However, I would like to caution those who might get overly

enthusiastic that our problems will all be solved by price

controls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or by take-overs.

MR. STEVES: It all depends upon the willingness of the oil

companies to cooperate. He talks about take-overs — I'll get

to that in a minute. The oil companies are not known to

cooperate willingly. In fact, we can probably expect to hear

the apologists for the oil companies raising their voices right

here in this House.

We will hear that even though prices rise simultaneously

among companies, that they are not a monopoly and that there is

competition at the local level, even though the so-called

independent operators are bound by iron-clad agreements with

the companies. Even though they are bound to handle company

gimmicks and advertising. Even as they have so-called

competition from cut-rate outlets, these same outlets generally — in fact, almost entirely — are run by the same companies in

competition with their own legitimate outlets.

One way that the oil and gas prices and export prices in

this province can be influenced is by nationalizing the oil and

gas pipelines and perhaps, I would suggest, even the wells

themselves. The profits for crude oil at the wellhead amount to

$1 to $1.80 per barrel and transition profits amount to $25

million to $30 million a year. It doesn't require an economist

to show that savings could be made to the consumer or that

energy resources such as oil and gas required as a necessity by

almost every citizen must be regarded as a public utility. Oil

and gas resources

[ Page 120 ]

which, when in the ground, belonged to the people of this

province in the first place.

While mentioning oil and gas, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

discuss briefly the oil shipment problem. Supertankers sailing

down the B.C. coast pose a major threat to B.C., as witnessed

by the relatively — and I say "relatively" in terms of what

could be a major disaster — minor oil spill this last week. And it was a

pretty bad one. The government in Ottawa must be brought to

realize the necessity of declaring a 100-mile pollution-free

zone along the coast of B.C.

They must be brought to realize that Juan de Fuca Strait is

a joint boundary between Canada and the United States, and it

is a right of common law that no man be permitted to cause on

his side of the fence an action that will do harm to his

neighbour and his neighbour's property on the other side of the

fence. Supertankers must be banned from Juan de Fuca Strait and

the federal government should call a meeting of the joint international commission to do just

that.

For friends here in this Legislature, who are friends also

of the federal government, I'd like to point out to them that

as the provincial government, we can only negotiate with the

Washington State as friends and neighbours, and rather recent

friends at that. The real clout in this matter lies with

Ottawa.

Finally, however, I feel that we could declare and should

declare to all those who would take risks with our waters and

our coastline, that those who cause oil spills and other

eco-disasters will be responsible not only for the cleanup, and

a substantial fine, but also for the economic costs of social

and environmental damages as well. Whether it's the temporary

loss of a swimming beach or the loss of a minute marine

organism.

However, in taking a stand against oil tankers, Mr. Speaker,

we must not forget the very real danger of the major

alternative, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The Mackenzie

Valley pipeline, financed by Canadian taxpayers, would carry

even more of our vital resources out of the country. In

addition, it poses a great threat to the delicately balanced

ecology of the Mackenzie delta. Like most projects promoted by

the Liberal Party, it would produce a fair number of jobs while

being constructed, but it would only produce 400 permanent jobs

once the job is finished.

The Mackenzie pipeline is offered to us as the only

alternative to the west coast oil tanker route, but there are

other alternatives. The study carried out by Dr. C.E. Law of

Queen's University for the Ministry of Transport has shown that

the Mackenzie Valley oil can be transported economically and

safely by rail. Failing that, the final alternative is to

leave the oil in the ground until we need it and have found a

safe way to transport it, and for that matter a safe way to

use it.

For a number of years, Mr. Speaker, I have been actively involved in an environmental movement. And one of

my major activities has been campaigning for adequate sewage

treatment along our waterways. I would like to take this

opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) for bringing in a

policy for a minimum of secondary treatment at Annacis Island,

and for starting a research programme to develop more advanced

treatment methods, which remove heavy metals and toxic

chemicals so harmful to the salmon and the marine environment.

I learned to swim in the Fraser River and I hope to see the day

when it will be safe for my own children to go near the

water.

While in a congratulatory mood, I would also like to commend

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) for his decision

to remove the Nanaimo Ferry from Horseshoe Bay. Certainly it

creates a bottleneck in that harbour, and there are more than

20 sailings a day out of Howe Sound that will be now removed to

another location. However, we in Richmond have long feared a

plan by the previous government to transfer the ferry terminal

to the end of Steveston Highway in Richmond, a move that would

do much to destroy the marine habitat of Sturgeon Banks, which

is an integral part of the Pacific flyway, and offshore feeding

ground for young salmon. They would create an additional hazard

to the commercial fisheries located at the mouth of the Fraser

and would also tunnel several million cars each year through

quiet residential communities. And anyway, an estuary is no

place to locate a harbour.

About four years ago, we presented an alternative proposal

to the previous government from Richmond Municipal Council to

establish a major transportation centre on Sea Island, with the

ferry terminal located on Iona Island. If the ferry is to come

to Richmond, then fine, it's welcome. But I would recommend

Iona Island as a site, as this area is already degraded by

pollution from Iona Island sewer plant and from log storage in

the north arm of the Fraser River. The north arm is so polluted

that the salmon no longer use it as a migratory route and, in

fact, if a ferry terminal is established there, it might even

help to clean the area up.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are other harbours being

developed in river estuaries in the province that are not so

well planned. Plans of the federally appointed Fraser River

Harbours Commission, for example, if allowed to go unchecked,

will convert the Fraser River into an industrial river similar

to the Thames and will require several thousand acres of prime

agricultural land for backup warehousing for the superport. We

are long past the day when there should be a unified board in

this province to help plan our harbours so that one does not

work at cross purposes with the other, or go

[ Page 121 ]

overboard in their attempt to export our resources. Perhaps

the provincial government can approach the federal government

to jointly set up such a board. I hope also to see us establish

a migratory salmon authority to manage resources along our

rivers to protect our salmon runs from bad farming and mining

practices, industrialization and indiscriminate logging and to

provide for green strips along our streams and to provide other

natural run-off controls.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said in the debate on the throne

speech about the freeze on agricultural land. As one who has

lived all his life on the farm and spent much of that time

actively engaged in farming, I would like to say that in my

opinion this is the best thing that this Government has done to

date. And I would like to put my support behind this move to

protect our agricultural land wholeheartedly. In fact, I only

wish it could have come 10 or even 5 years ago. If that had

happened, myself and a thousand others like me might still be

farming today. As one who was forced out of business by a

combination of bad agricultural legislation by the previous

government and unjust municipal zoning bylaws, I feel I have

the right to speak with some authority on this subject.

Prior to 1956, Mr. Speaker, my riding had 24,000 acres of

the most fertile agricultural land in Canada. In 1956 during

one evening at the Richmond Council, at the urging of certain

land speculators, 12,000 of those 24,000 acres, including our

own farm, were rezoned for industrial and residential use. In

many cases, the farmer didn't even know what it was all about

until he tried to build new barns and dairies to comply with

the new milk industry regulations brought in in 1958. And we

saw our taxes rising.

What resulted, Mr. Speaker, was haphazard urban growth that

saw housing and industries sprawled all over the community.

Consequently, the costs of servicing the scattered developments

with roads and drainage and eventually sewers, were monumental.

Taxes soared to the detriment of all. And this is what will

happen throughout British Columbia if land-bank legislation

such as what we are proposing is not legislated. More recently,

Mr. Speaker, land speculators have been sitting in the wings

waiting to have another go at it.

They want to elect a council in Richmond responsive to

rezoning another 12,000 acres. I know of one instance where a

land speculator has paid $9,000 an acre just to take that

chance. And another, a director of Crown Zellerbach Company,

living in California, paid $2,400 an acre to a poor

unsuspecting elderly farmer and listed it as industrial land

for $15,000 an acre, even though that land is zoned for

agriculture both municipally and regionally. All I can say, Mr.

Speaker, is that I'm glad the rip-off is over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. STEVES: It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can get the

farmer out from under the yoke of the processing companies. Out

of the vertically integrated system of contract farming, which

regulates farmers to the job of being sharecroppers on their

own lands. Give the farmers a fair break in taxation. Give them

a break on farm marketing and help protect the farmers against

the subsidized products that are being dumped in this province

from outside of British Columbia and outside of Canada.

Farmers I have talked to who are really serious about

farming welcome the legislation we are bringing in, and they

look forward, Mr. Speaker, to further legislation which will

put agriculture in this province on a sound economic footing

for the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

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

when a person takes

part in the address and reply to the Speech

from the Throne, you speak about your own riding, and I want to

say a few words as a private Member — if I can say that I wear

three hats for that particular purpose — about Vancouver East

and the kind of things I want from my cabinet colleagues. And I

want to say something about some of the things in the Speech

from the Throne. For example, the death of Herbert Anscomb,

whom I knew a little bit and knew more about from history. And

when, Mr. Speaker, we have so many gosling parliamentarians

newly arrived in this House and making such a good showing that

they kind of show up the older Members, I would like them to

think too of the example of a man like Herbert Anscomb with

whom I would agree on practically nothing (laughter), because

he was a Tory and not even a red Tory.

He was a man who spoke from his head and his heart and his

guts and he was never urbane or bland or unctuous or vaguely

equivocal. A man with whom, therefore, you could disagree, who

spoke his mind, who you could discuss, debate, exchange ideas

with. When politics becomes too bland a profession I think

we'll remember with regret people like Herbert Anscomb. And

Houses like this will miss him. And disagree with him as you

must, I think he's the kind of example who should be remembered

by all of us present here.

Speaking, Mr. Speaker, for the riding of Vancouver East, I

wish to suggest and hope and pray that the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) will proceed to give some financial support

to what he calls — and I believe that he intends to go ahead

with this — "community and recreational facilities." I think

in a big area like the lower mainland of ethnic communities — and in some of these cases, such as in the case of the German

community, they have their centre and their halls. Others have

not as yet been able to

[ Page 122 ]

manage, through the finances and through the property

location, to bring together something in the way of an ethnic

hall — open to all, open to all, but basically promoted by

groups within that city.

The Italian community is another one. And I think we can be

good enough Canadians by this time to recognize that part of

the strength of Canadianism depends upon the diversity of the

cultures and the ethnic diversity that has gone into making

this a great nation. I think it would be a pity if we lost

that. I see nothing wrong with people having two cultures,

because I think the Canadian nation that we seek to build and

make strong from coast to coast will be all the stronger for

not forgetting that kind of a heritage. And I think of the Indian people in that connection too. I

would hate to see the time when all of the historical and

ethnic and cultural differences between the peoples of the

world were reduced into one common sameness. Because I think

the world would be a far less interesting and exciting and

imaginative place if that were to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: We wouldn't have any more Scotchmen.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And I don't overlook the Scotch — particularly the Black and White. (Laughter).

I think too that I would like the Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) and the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to think in terms of

opening the doors of opportunity to the higher professions to

all of our young people, boys and girls alike. And I think in

the case of the medical profession of good remuneration and

great social need out there, particularly in the hinterlands of

British Columbia. Too few of our young people have the means or

the opportunity in terms of the restrictions on entry to

medical school. They have the door of opportunity slammed in

their face, even though they may have all of the talent and the

dedication that could be devoted to the people of this

province.

MR. WALLACE: Are you going to increase the medical

schools?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would increase them…yes, very

definitely. And I would hope that we could increase the

paramedical services. And I hope we could increase the number

of dentists who are allowed to train in this province. And I

would hope that we would be able to increase the number of

lawyers…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …who could receive a legal education — is there some difficulty with my words, Mr. Speaker? — in

this province. Because you take in the case of the legal

profession about 500 to 700 qualified young people coming up

year after year and knocking on the doors of the one law school

we have in the Province of British Columbia. 500 of them are

being turned away and 200 admitted, the 200 having super marks — well over 70 per cent, no sups, that kind of thing. A very

limited stream of people who are allowed to obtain legal

education.

To me there's something undemocratic about that. I think

that for qualified people the right to study the law, which is

an ancient and honourable learned profession, should be a

democratic right. And I would like quite frankly to see — and I

am sure that there's a great interest in that also in this area — that there should be a second law school in the City of

Victoria.

And if you say, "What's that got to do with Vancouver East?"

I say to you that most of the young people of Vancouver East

are barred from anything I have been talking about today. Very

few of them are able to take advantage of professional

advancement. That's true in all kinds of the areas of the

province. And we have to have the kind of boarding allowance

and the kind of open university system that will help to

democratize educational opportunity in this province. I would

like, of course — and I am not going to say much about this — that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) would

proceed with his plans for improvement of transit services.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Send me a

letter. (Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll see you tonight. (Laughter).

I know these things, Mr. Minister, cost money. I know they

cost money. But it may be that the horseless carriages will

have to pay something to look after the real social transit

needs of the footsore pedestrians and the ordinary

straphangers. Because pollution and congestion on our highways

is something that must give way to a more rational system of

moving people that will conserve some of the dwindling energy

resources of the earth, and help to keep our cities and our

small towns clean.

I wear, as some Hon. Members know, two hats — I am the

Attorney General. I can remember that. (Laughter). I can

remember that because I used to be a lawyer — now I'm a

reformed character. (Laughter).

The other department I wish to speak about for a few minutes

today, rather casually, because we're in the process of

developing what I hope will be a total new approach in this

industrial field…to begin with, Mr. Speaker, I don't like

the name of the

[ Page 123 ]

department. It says Industrial Development, Trade, and

Commerce, and I can barely remember that name — and I'm the

Minister. And I don't think it expresses the important

objectives that we have to achieve in this province, which are

economic developments…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. Mr. MACDONALD: Well, I hope I don't let failure go to

my head. (Laughter).

But I would like to see the department — and there will be

legislation to reorganize that department in this session — called the Department of Industry and Trade Development; of

Industry and Trade Development.

I don't like the word "industrial" in there, because I think

that industrial expansion must embrace other areas of our

economy — and I include particularly agriculture and the

service industries, which are intensive in terms of employment

of labour. So I think "industry" is a broader term and I think

we can better express our objective.

On the matter of agriculture, may I say that I am

cooperating with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) in connection with various projects which may very

well require industrial assistance by government as well as the

research facilities of government.

For instance, in the Peace River area, in the Creston area,

in the Vernon area — where alfalfa crops are grown — there is a

need to improve our export position and our transportation

position — and therefore the return to the farmers, for alfalfa

cubing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not too much involved in the case of

financing; not too much involved in the case of the kind of

help that will get the thing off the ground — where the alfalfa

can be grown and cut and shredded and trucked and flash-dried

and converted into cubes — and far more marketable and far more

easy to transport.

I would think that if industrial assistance were advanced in

that kind of area we'd not only be helping employment but I

think we'd be able to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayer

would not lose his shirt. I think that's an important factor in

all of the industrial programmes we suggest. Because I think we

could own the land where the facility was located. I think we

might be able to own the building in which the drying takes

place, and the preparation for shipping.

This is the kind of practical industrial assistance or

agricultural assistance whic