1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 141 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege Release of energy report to public and press. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 141

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Levi

Introduction and first reading — 142

Throne speech debate Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 142

Mr. Smith — 147

Mr. Steves — 152

Mr. Gardom — 159

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

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

of personal privilege affecting all Members of this House,

namely the actions of the government in releasing the energy

report in the manner that it was released.

Mr. Speaker, this report has been, I understand, in

government hands for approximately a week. It was promised the

Members of the Legislature for today and yet, Mr. Speaker, it

was released to the public and press prior to the release to

the Members of this Legislature.

The opportunity that we have on a Friday for questioning the

government on matters in this document of course doesn't exist.

The ability we have to analyse it, to study it in the interests

of the people of British Columbia prior to comments of the

press, who are fully briefed, fully prepared prior to any

Member of this House on the opposition side, indicates to me

that the government in this matter has attempted to prevent us

from having full information in this area, in a manner which we

should do as duly elected Members representing the people of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in this instance nothing more can be done. The

government has succeeded, in introducing this document in the

underhand way, in preventing the proper questioning prior to a

weekend. However, I do feel that this is a matter which has

affected my rights as a Member of this Legislature, and the

rights of every other opposition Member of this Legislature. I

trust that you will take this matter under advisement and that

in future you will make sure that government information, Or

public information released in this manner, does not occur

again.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I should know more of the background of

this matter, certainly as to what has happened. I do point out,

in a preliminary fashion, that I know of no instruction from

this Legislature to the government with respect to this report.

I believe it is the property of the government, and they can

release it in any fashion, at any time of the year, that they

wish.

If, on the other hand, it was shown to me that it did belong

to this House first, as other reports from committees do, then

I would say there would be a breach of privilege. But I don't

at the present time have the information on which to base a

claim of privilege unless someone can otherwise enlighten

me.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's

a matter of privilege at all; it's a matter of us trying to be fair. And therefore,

when it was released this morning, when I had enough copies — I think it came

in on Monday when the first copies were here in Victoria — but when we had enough

copies available for all of the Members to have, it was released to the press

roughly about 8:30 and my assistant immediately began distributing them to the

offices of those MLAs who had arrived, had wakened up, and were in their offices

about that time. So it's a matter of courtesy, and we went as far as we could…

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): We didn't have to go that

far.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's not a message bill or anything like

that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For Hansard Mr. Speaker — we don't at the

moment have the Hansard for the last week — but we are under

the impression that this document was to be tabled in this

House by the Attorney General and not released outside the

House to people not Members of this Legislature prior to it's

being released to us.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no. I understand that my office has already

been informed that a copy of this document is being supplied to

the House today. Now we have not yet entered upon the

proceedings so that the document could be tabled. You've risen

on a point of order before, in effect, the document could be

tabled in the House.

I think we dealt with this question rather exhaustively in

the last session, about the question of government reports and

whether they're made to the House first or not, As a courtesy,

it's very fine, when they are produced and put here in the

House to all Members before perhaps they go to the press. I

think it's an excellent courtesy. But, on the other hand, there

is no binding obligation, as you know and I know, that it be

done first where it does not belong as a property of the

House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I ask leave to table…(laughter)…the report on matters concerning the natural gas industry in

British Columbia, which was pursuant to Order-in-Council No.

1481, and dated September 14, 1973.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It doesn't have to be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear any objection, so I presume the

report is tabled. So ordered.

Introduction of bills.

[ Page 142 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADOPTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Levi moves introduction and first reading of Bill

12 intituled

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 12 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed on the routine business of

the day, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Comox would kindly

take the seat for awhile perhaps, in honour of the ascendancy

of womankind as of yesterday, in the victory that occurred and

which all men must celebrate.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair]

MS. SPEAKER: I would have let him win. (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker…

AN HON. MEMBER: Not mister…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Speaker, before I begin this

speech, I have something important to say. (Laughter.)

I want to say that I intend — and I might as well come right

out with it — to support the throne speech and the gracious

address that has been moved on its behalf.

I have been persuaded, first by the speech, the excellent

and eloquent speeches of the Hon. Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot), and the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), and, if I had any doubts, I was persuaded by

listening to the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

yesterday. And I intend to support the speech.

I want to pay greetings to the new Member for South Okanagan

(Mr. Bennett) to wish him well and to wish all of the

opposition Members well as they embark on a rather stormy

period in their party affairs.

It is a strange kind of leadership race they have, Madam

Speaker, in that they are all running over there; there are no

supporters (Laughter)…they are all candidates. And they are

all making a very good presentation.

The Hon. Member for Columbia Liver…(Laughter)…River, led off with a vicious attack on the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) for preventing the parliament

buildings from falling down.

And I notice now a new entrant has entered that leadership

fight; P.A. Gaglardi has his eye on the leadership; and the

Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) has his eye on P.A.

Gaglardi. (Laughter.) And the Member for South Peace (Mr.

Phillips), who is not in his seat, coming as he does from a

natural-gas-prone area of the province, has donned the mantle

of statesmanship and I think he's in the race too. And, you

know, the Social Credit Party could look further and do worse

(Laughter ) — and they probably will. But the Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), in that stirring address yesterday, a man

of great rectitude there, I think he'd rather be right than

leader; and I don't think he'll be either. But anyway it's an

important event in the history of British Columbia and there

are great stakes involved. Who is going to win that race, the

trustees of the B.C. free enterprise fund? (Laughter.) Money,

money, where is the money? That's the name of the game.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That's an illegal lottery.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Ray Haynes won't win it

either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That million dollar baby, who controls

it? And you have 10 ticket holders. As the Premier says,

perhaps that is some kind of a lottery, but we'll see if that

story unfolds.

I hope you have a democratic choice. In this government we

have a very democratic leader. The Premier puts a motion to the

cabinet and he says, "All opposed to this motion signify by

saying 'I resign.'" (Laughter.) It sounds like the thin edge

of the wedge. (Laughter.) But they say that thin is in, but

fat's where it's at. (Laughter.) The Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has begun his legislative

programme, something borrowed, something new, and so it's like

old times back here in the House.

Anyway, I was talking the other day to a hack in my

department (Laughter.) Well, Madam Speaker, there are only two

hacks in my department — there's my assistant and there is, of

course, myself. (Laughter.) And I was talking to myself.

(Laughter.) I was saying, "Don't you feel bad sitting in that

big office with the lavish appointments — the homespun drapery,

and the shag carpeting that's hardly been used, the big desk

that would sleep three comfortably without touching the

drawers, (Laughter) waiting room decor that any dentist would

envy — all those lavish appointments, all courtesy of the

former

[ Page

143 ]

tenant. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Anyway, I want to say something in a

very kindly way to the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Brousson) because I think he did a great disservice to the

province in the speech he made the other day about the Skagit

River valley, where he adopted an attitude of doom and threw

confusion as to British Columbia's position that can only play

into the hands of those who want that valley flooded.

He said the public believes that the battle is won, and we

are going to lose; the Skagit is going to be flooded. And he

asked that this government should go to the FPC in Washington

and that we should…

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I didn't say

that. Read the speech.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You agree that we should not go to the

FPC and abase ourselves before a foreign tribunal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He says that we shouldn't go there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You say we shouldn't go there, do

you?

This is what you said: "The Resources Minister refused to go

to Seattle earlier this year to attempt to negotiate a

settlement. He has not attempted to intervene on behalf of the

B.C. government at the U.S. hearings."

MR. BROUSSON: Read the speech, not the press.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Speaker, we do not intend as a

government of British Columbia to go to a tribunal in another

country and there genuflect and abase ourselves and ask, "Would

you please be such as not consider the flooding of one of the

valleys of B.C." We regard that as a trust and responsibility

that fixes on us, as representatives of the people of British

Columbia, to protect that river valley. Of course, there should

be negotiations, and there will be negotiations, in accordance

with protocol through the federal government with respect to

tying up the ends.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Whose side are you on, Hon. Member? But let us have

no doubt that the government of British Columbia is not prepared to see the

Skagit River Valley flooded.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Will you give us a

flat, unequivocal guarantee it won't be flooded?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you resign if it is?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Certainly.

There can be no question about that; that is a decision.

That is our valley; we are responsible, and all Hon. Members of

the Legislature should take that position.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you resign if we save it?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's one other matter I want to touch

on, in what I think may very well become one of fairly urgent

legislation priority. I am referring, Madam Speaker, to the

question of what are called "credit reporting agencies."

There has been valuable study done by the Law Reform

Commission on this subject, and when you consider the kind of

picture of what is going on in terms of these agencies

throughout Canada at the present time, I think every Member of

this Legislature should recognize that some action should be

taken.

You have two kinds of credit agencies. You have the

credit-rating agencies which report on people purely in terms

of their credit rating; then you have the investigative

agencies which report on a person's habits and their character,

and whose reports in either case may be based upon malice, or

gossip, or hearsay of the second or third degree.

I am just dealing for the moment with the first one. A

person's credit rating, at a time when consumer credit is

expanding, becomes almost a passport, and if that credit rating

is unfairly damaged outside of even the knowledge of the person

who is being investigated, that person has been deprived of

basic human rights and his privacy has been violated. The

threat — which the credit agencies may very well use if they

are not regulated — the threat to somebody's credit rating may

be a more punitive measure, a penalty against that person, than

a court case. Yet that threat can take place based upon

evidence which is gathered here and there, as I say, by gossip,

by hearsay, and often by malice and through vindictiveness.

In the case of the investigative agencies, let me tell the

House about one: the Retail Credit Company of Canada which

makes investigations into persons in

[ Page 144 ]

terms of their character for life insurance purposes;

perhaps in terms of a landlord who wants to get a report on a

prospective tenant; perhaps in terms of an employer in terms of

sizing up the question of whether or not that person should be

hired. And in all of these cases the vital rights of the person

concerned are being affected.

Now, there may very well be general utility to the

dissemination of information of this kind. But that it should

be gathered without the knowledge of the person concerned,

without his right or ability to check, to verify, to know, to

see that report, is, as I say, a gross violation of civil

liberties.

In the case of this private company, Retail Credit Company

of Canada, compiling dossiers — with an office in Vancouver,

which is not in the yellow pages under credit reporting

agencies because low visibility is the name of the game — you'll find them in the white pages of the Vancouver phone

book, in non-cap letters. Yet that agency has in its possession

dossiers on 600,000 residents of the Province of British

Columbia, and the accumulation of those reports goes on from

day to day at a very rapid rate. And where does this company

have its head offices? It has its head offices in Atlanta,

Georgia; and in Atlanta, Georgia is the electronic banking and

processing and retrieval of that information — and open to what

other persons?

I suspect, quite frankly, and I have good reason to suspect,

based on my conversations with the consumer affairs Minister of

the Province of Quebec that, in the life insurance field, the

health reports which are gathered and which go to the head

offices in the United States across our border, are trafficked

between the companies in the course of their business. And who

has access to these credit dossiers which, in the case of

Retail Credit of Canada, are stored in a foreign country? And

there are other companies, Hooper Holmes Bureau, Fidelity

Inspection Services. I merely raise this matter at this time,

and raise it briefly, because I agree with my learned friend — with the Honourable Member — that it really is a matter of

urgent legislative priority for the Province of British

Columbia. And if we can, by legislation, as I think we can,

give people the right to know and to see and to be able to

correct the records in British Columbia, I think we should, at

the same time, do our best to see that those records are stored

and kept for inspection here in the Province of British

Columbia. I don't pretend that latter problem is an easy one,

but I think we should address ourselves to it.

I want to say a little bit about the energy report. I want to say first, Madam

Speaker, that in all sincerity I have a great deal of praise to offer to the

commissioners who prepared that report under heavy pressure, under a chairman

who has established his worth in the eyes of the witnesses who appeared before

that commission, be they company, conservation groups, or experts; who has established

his credibility and worth in the eyes of everyone, possibly with the exception

of the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). And I regret that because

I know the kind of political message he's been carrying around this province.

But when you have somebody who undertakes a work of that

kind, and since May 8, 1973 has embarked on that kind of work,

working days and nights, and earning the respect of all of

those with whom he has come in contact, I hope that for

political reasons this kind of disparagement of individuals who

are serving the interests of British Columbia will come to an

end.

The commissioners, in that period since May 8 of this year,

were forced to make a forced march down a road where Mr. B.C.

had been sleepily lolling in the ditches, straw in mouth, a

rube to be bested by any international company that came here

to ransack our resources.

And B.C. has been sleeping. In this whole field, until the

activation of this commission, nothing had been done to assess

and protect our natural energy resources. And that we have been

hurt by that neglect, through the Social Credit years, is

manifest in that report which shows that $100 million, based on

current prices, is the gross loss at the present time to the

Province of British Columbia through our under-valued energy

resource being sold in the export market.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They couldn't run a peanut stand.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And the House should bear in mind, in

looking at those statistics, which are based upon 32 cents or

so that we're receiving for our gas at Huntington compared to

58 cents which we should be receiving, that that is also a

steadily rising sellers' market for the people of this

province, and that it is estimated that by 1977 that 58-cent

price would be in the area of $1 if we were to receive true

competitive worth for our natural gas.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One of the greatest scandals…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So that loss, which is a loss to all of

the people of this province, of $100 million, is based upon

current figures and will expand unless we, as a province, are

prepared to take action.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's one of the most scandalous stories in

the history of this province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me give an example of the rising

prices and the kind of thing

[ Page 145 ]

we've been suffering from. Our forest industries on

Vancouver Island and at Powell River, which are beyond the

reach of natural gas, have to depend upon California heavy

bunker oil for their boiler fuel. That price of bunker oil has

been increasing dramatically in the last year from $3-something

a barrel up to almost $6 a barrel at the present time.

Meanwhile, in Washington and Oregon, the competitors of our

same forest industries are receiving British Columbia natural

gas for their own mills at 1969 prices. And our safe, clean, easily-handled, rich-in-energy-potential fuel is

flowing south to serve our competitors while our industries are

burning that bunker oil, a heavy polluter, quite apart from the

costs it is imposing on that industry.

In the past we have, as a province, sent to represent the

people of this province in the international markets — to fight

for us, to get the best return for our natural gas that we can — Westcoast Transmission, and I do not disparage in any way — and the Canadian officers are the ones I know — the Canadian

officers and businessmen who are conducting the affairs of that

corporation. But it is a corporation that, through Pacific

Petroleum, is owned, I think it's 25 per cent by Phillips of

Oklahoma, and 19 per cent by El Paso Gas Company in the United

States. And what have we been doing in the past few years to

send into the battle on behalf of the people of British

Columbia? We've been sending out the "Son of El Paso" to do

battle for us, to go down there and fight his parents.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, but that's business, you know.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have been sleeping.

I'm not complaining that the Federal Power Commission, to

which I thought that the Honourable Member thought we should go

on the Skagit — and Hansard I guess will answer that if the

newspaper report is inaccurate — has, in the interests of the

American consumer, been doing everything possible through the

years to depress the export price that British Columbia should

get for its natural gas. Now perhaps we can't complain about

that. But we ought to recognize it and do something about

it.

And I would like to say that that energy commission, based

upon what they did even during the course of these hearings in

analysing the service agreements of Westcoast Transmission,

have already done a service of immeasurable value to the people

of British Columbia, because those service agreements of March

of this year were before the National Energy Board for approval

and, subject possibly to minor changes, in my opinion would

have been approved; and they are now before the Federal Power

Commission in the United States, and would be approved by that

agency.

Those agreements would be an absolute disaster for the

Province of British Columbia, a disaster in terms of price, an

disaster in terms of the depletion of our necessary reserves of

natural gas.

On the question of price, under those agreements we were to

receive another 4.26 cents, up from the 32 cents to a price of

about 35 cents with a hooker in there, that we should not even

get the 35 cents; it would be reduced by 1.5 cents unless

British Columbia, by 1975, agreed to the export of an

additional 450 million cubic feet per day. Now I say it would

have been absolutely disastrous if that contract had been

approved. And I say our energy commission and this little

government have stopped the approval of that agreement.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The give-away gang.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Look at the reserve situation. This is a

proposed increase in the flow of gas through Huntington from

the present 800 million cubic feet per day to 1,250 million

cubic feet per day by 1975 — an increase of over 50 per cent.

We've already seen in the last few days how precarious the

reserve of British Columbia has been allowed to become. We have

in British Columbia proven reserves of about, let's say, 12

trillion cubic feet. We have used at this time, three of those

12; we have nine to go in terms of proven reserves. The

estimate of the energy commission is that we have in the

Province of British Columbia, in terms of potential, 18-40

trillion, but that we should not so accelerate the tempo of

exploration and export as to tax the reserves that British

Columbia must maintain for its own industry and its own

consumers in an expanding company. Based upon our present

information, if we maintained the present level of exports and

the needs of the expanding British Columbia economy were

satisfied, by 1989 our resources would be depleted.

I say without any hesitation that that contract proposed

between Westcoast and El Paso is contrary to the best interests

of the Province of British Columbia. In saying these things we

are not in any way anti-American; we are pro-British Columbia.

We recognize that our American friends receive for their

resources and their products that they sell in Canada what the

market will bear.

We recognize, and we have to recognize, regretfully, when it

comes to the matter of the tankers coming down the B.C. coast

to Cherry Point that that may very well take place without a

by-your-leave of either this government or of the Canadian

government, and our environmental interests will be sacrificed.

In that kind of a world we

[ Page 146 ]

do not ask for animosity but we do ask that we adopt good

business practice.

Protests will not be enough, though. It would be criminally

improvident to rush our remaining precious and irreplaceable

natural resources onto the international markets. The energy

demand in the whole world is increasing by 3 per cent per year,

but in North America it is increasing by about 6 per cent per

year. And if you look at the multiplying factor, that means the

energy demand is doubling every 12 years and, by the end of

this century, may be four or five times in North America what

that energy demand is at the present time.

It is against that kind of a background that we plead for

good sense and conservation. We say it is not enough that we

protest this or that service agreement. We say instead that

where the Province of British Columbia is dealing with a

natural resource which it owns, it can enact legislation to

protect the public interest in this province and that this

Legislature has a responsibility to enact that legislation.

I have no desire to have a wrangle, constitutional or

otherwise, with the other MacDonald and I do not think that

will be necessary. We do not have the Alberta situation. Our

gas flows south

whereas their oil — which is another subject

matter — flows through the other provinces of Canada and into

the eastern markets. It certainly will be the case that British

Columbia, acting within its constitutional jurisdiction, will

keep the federal government fully informed. We will seek, where

necessary, cooperation from the federal government. And we

will seek a recognition from that government that where a

province is prepared to protect the vital interests of its

citizens, the cooperation of the federal government should and

will be accorded.

This matter will be debated again, I am quite sure, in this

Legislature before the end of this session so I am not going to

say anything more about it, although a lot could be said about

the field prices and how they have dramatically increased in

the last little while from around 13 cents by arbitration to

about 21 cents on the average in the Peace River country at

the present time. We had the news just the other day in Alberta

that a field price arbitration there fixed a value of 33 cents

per 1,000 cubic feet for gas, some of which comes across the

border and flows through our pipelines. So the question of

field prices, again, is something to which we have to give

consideration in order that the producers can be encouraged to

explore to the extent which is consistent, as I said, with the

conservation of the resource and the needs of our

consumers.

If we think in terms of a provincial agency at the wellhead which could purchase

and market our gas, I would like to make it clear that that would be, I think,

with the cooperation of the industries concerned. That might sound like a strange

thing to say to the Members of this House because Westcoast Transmission at

the moment is the owner of the gas. If we were the owner, even for a short time,

of that gas and marketed it through a provincial agency, Westcoast Transmission

would become a contract carrier, a utility carrier of the gas.

This question was put to Mr. E.C. Phillips, the president of

Westcoast Transmission, at the energy board hearings. I don't

think he said it would be good for the company, although,

frankly, in terms of their earnings I am inclined to think it

would be better for them than the present situation. He

contemplated with equanimity that change, and I congratulate

him for taking that stand.

Westcoast at the moment, of course, is badly pinched. They

are pinched between the producers and pinched between the FPC

and El Paso in the United States trying to get that gas for the

least possible price that can be paid.

We do not want to go the route of merely increasing royalty

payments. Some people — and I think that seems to be the case

in the Province of Alberta — say that is sufficient: increase

your royalty payments up to 25 per cent or something of that

kind.

But as the crises at the wellhead increase we may bring in

some more provincial revenue through improved royalties.

Royalties must be looked at, but at the same time we make

earning bonanzas for the private companies. It is well for this

House to bear in mind that almost 95 per cent of the integrated

industry from exploration to marketing in Canada is

foreign-owned and controlled.

So we do not think it is sufficient to look at merely the

question of royalties.

I would like to conclude, because I have been almost

three-quarters of an hour, Mr. Speaker, by just saying that it

is a fact that mankind is devouring the treasures of the earth

at a madcap rate and that man himself is going to have to learn

to live as a good child crawling upon the bosom of Mother Earth

and live within his ecological means.

You can turn for examples in almost any direction: to the

question of transportation; to the wastage and pollution

engendered within that industry; to the default of governments

and industry working out better and economical ways of moving

people. I look at the horseless carriage and I see that it is

too long in the wheelbase, too rich in its feed mix, and too

polluted in its lungs. I think the time has come when the

long-suffering straphanger may be entitled possibly at long

last to some blessed relief and respite.

I think that as part of the energy picture the time may come

when we should divert community resources into low-cost,

commodious, rapid-transit services on the one hand, to conserve

our precious

[ Page 147 ]

energy resources, and on the other hand, to save from

exhaust pollution the very air we breathe.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is always a pleasure

to participate in the throne speech debate, even though I would

not be as flowery in my praise of the speech as the former

speaker who just took his seat. As a matter of fact, we found

very little in the throne speech of consequence.

We are going to look forward with some interest to the bills

and the legislation which come before this House, whenever they

come before it, because the speech itself seemed to be a

reiteration of flowery phrases and a little bit of self-gratification on to the government. It hinted about such things

as bills and legislation respecting labour and the farm

industry but it didn't give us really much of a look at what

the government is intending to do.

I think that's regrettable, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the

government decided that it was good for the legislators and it

was good for the people of British Columbia to hold two

full-scale sessions a year. If that is true and that is

required, then tell me why the government has not brought their

legislation into the House so that we would have ample time to

study it and prepare ourselves to effectively criticize what we

don't like and perhaps even praise those things in the

legislation that we do like.

I think it's regrettable that a government that has told us

that they have so much legislation to bring before this House

have been so reluctant to bring it in during the first days of

the session. Surely, while we participated in this throne

speech debate, we could at the same time have had the

opportunity of seeing what you have in mind, particularly, Mr.

Speaker, since we have not been over-indulging in night

sittings and we have had time during the opening days of this

legislative session which we could have used to good advantage

had we been fortunate enough to have the legislation before us.

What was the hurry for this session if the government is so

reluctant to show us their tremendous programme?

I'm going to spend a few minutes speaking about energy in

the Province of British Columbia because I'm certain that the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would want to have some

input from the opposition benches concerning the natural gas

production and the petroleum industry in the Province of

British Columbia. I don't disagree with his remarks concerning

the commission and the amount of work that they have done over

the past few months. They've listened to a number of briefs

presented from all segments of industry, and from that have

reduced what they heard to a report this size.

It is unfortunate that I've had no more than about 10 or 15 minutes to look

at the report before standing in my place in this debate to speak about it,

because obviously the Attorney General has had the advantage of studying it

far more closely than I have, but I do think that some general comments are

in order concerning the whole field of resource management in this province,

with particular reference to the gas and oil business.

It's easy for the Attorney General and for the Members of

the government benches to look upon everything that was done in

the past as being of little or no consequence. But I remember

very well when the first exploration rigs moved into the

Province of British Columbia and the search for hydrocarbon

products extended for some time before anything of consequence

was found. I also recall very well the fact that only a few

small communities at that time were serviced with natural

gas.

It's also a fact that had the Province of British Columbia

and the consumers within the province been the only people who

would have received the benefit of that energy source, there

would not have been a pipeline from the Peace River country to

the lower mainland of British Columbia. It's also a fact that

the former Premier scuttled the plans of Westcoast Transmission

to pipe all the natural gas from British Columbia out through

the Province of Alberta and said: "No way will we agree to

that. If you're going to supply gas in British Columbia, you'll

supply British Columbians first and on an export basis after

that. The pipeline will be built through the Province of

British Columbia so that we serve British Columbians first."

But the whole economics of building that pipeline at that

particular time rested upon the success of a company to

negotiate a contract to export natural gas.

I think, Mr. Attorney General, that the type of hindsight

that you have practised this morning is going to do nothing to

solve the energy crisis that we now face not only in British

Columbia but on a worldwide basis. It's fine to sit and take a

look at what has happened and say that everything was done

wrong. You yourself know that that is not correct, that we move

through very rapidly changing times today and that no one, in

their wildest imagination, would have predicted 20 years ago

that the hydrocarbon energies then coming into production in

northern British Columbia would be dissipated at the rate they

are, or that there would even ever be a demand within the

province or anywhere else for the amount of natural gas that we

had at our disposal. You must well remember the days in Alberta

when they flared natural gas off at the flare pits by the

hundreds of millions of cubic feet, because it was a source of

great consternation to the companies. They didn't like the

natural gas except to get the oil out of the wells to the

surface, and then they burned it off in Turner Valley by the

hundreds of millions of cubic feet.

Times change, Mr. Attorney General. The supplies

[ Page 148 ]

that we thought were inexhaustible are not inexhaustible,

and I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Other forms

of energy will perhaps be discovered, solar energy, nuclear

energy, which will replace some of the forms we use today.

We've suddenly rediscovered coal as a form of energy, a

resource which we've had with us for hundreds of millions of

years and an industry which practically died on its feet

because nobody wanted the product. But it's suddenly become

very valuable. Through no good management on your part or ours,

we happen to have an abundant supply of that particular

resource in the Province of British Columbia. Fortunately with

respect to the production of coal, we're probably next to the

Province of Alberta, if not ahead of them, with respect to the

amount of resource that we have at our disposal.

Let's take a look at the natural gas business. Last year,

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick), without consulting the petroleum industry arbitrarily

and unilaterally increased the royalty on hydrocarbon

energies, particularly on the production of oil. To say that

the companies were upset would be an understatement. Certainly,

they felt they had a right to be consulted before a figure was

pulled out of the air and an increase which amounted in many

cases to 200 per cent was slapped on those people who had oil

wells in production in the province. About the same time, there

were a number of statements made in the press by responsible

Ministers of the Crown concerning the fact that this whole

matter of not only royalties on oil but royalty on the

production of natural gas would be considered. I said at the

time that the companies were becoming very uncertain as to

their future in the Province of British Columbia and for that

reason they were pulling out of the exploration field. That was

scoffed at by the government benches, scoffed at because I do

not think there's anyone in the cabinet that realizes the close

tie in the petroleum business and the natural gas business

between the exploration side and the production side.

It goes without saying to anyone who knows what goes on in

the area of hydrocarbon production that the exploration

business must be a continuous and ongoing proposition. In

northern British Columbia, exploration for natural gas came

almost to a standstill for the last year. Not a thing has been

done. The companies didn't know what the policy of this

government would be.

They couldn't go to their banks and raise the kind of money that they required

— and I'm not talking about peanuts but hundreds of millions of dollars — without

knowing what their future was in the Province of British Columbia. So they've

treaded water in that respect. They were scared of what was going to happen

to them and their investments. You can talk about the big returns that these

companies have made all you like, Mr. Minister. But the actual facts of the

matter are that for every dollar put into the Province of British Columbia in

exploration, less than 50 cents in actual gross dollars has been returned to

the industry to this date.

The amount of money that has been expended on exploration

alone, the last time that I put the figures together about a

year ago, was over $1.25 billion, and that expenditure did not

cost the government or the taxpayers of British Columbia one

little red cent in taxes. You got your fair share.

Now, we can agree that the resource that they were looking

for has a higher monetary value today, because it's in short

supply, than it did even a year ago. I agree with the Attorney

General. Our natural gas, when you consider it in relation to

other forms of energy, is underpriced.

But the thing that was of utmost concern to the exploration

side of the business was this: if they successfully negotiated

an increase in the price of natural gas, be it either export or

domestic, the greatest percentage of that increase in price

would be returned to the government in increased taxation. Upon

that basis there is no way that the petroleum exploration

business will continue in the Province of British Columbia.

That is why, in my opinion, if you follow the

recommendations which are outlined in this report concerning

natural gas, its production, its future and the exploration for

that product, you can write the natural gas exploration

business off in the Province of British Columbia, because what

you will do is make it so uneconomical that no company will

explore for natural gas again in British Columbia.

We have an energy source. The amount of exploration which

has taken place so far is really very small compared to the

complete area where companies should be able to discover

natural gas. We've just really begun to penetrate the producing

zones. Hopefully there are many larger gas fields than we

presently know to exist lying out there. But if the exploration

business ceases to exist in British Columbia no one will ever

know.

The facts are that we have the highest cost of any province

or any part of Canada when it comes to exploring in

northeastern British Columbia. The terrain is difficult,

there's lots of muskeg, there's a period of about three months

of the year when heavy equipment and drilling rigs can move

into the area and effectively work, and then they must get out.

So every company that looks at B.C. knows that the minute they

take out a lease they will be required to spend two and three

times as much money on exploration for each successful well as

they would have spent, for instance, in the Province of

Alberta.

It's unfortunate therefore that the attitude of the

government and the recommendations contained in this report

from the energy commission do nothing to

[ Page

149 ]

reassure the industry. As a matter of fact, once that report

becomes public knowledge and the industry has had a chance to

read it and see the full ramifications of it, we'll be lucky to

have an exploration industry left in the province.

It would seem that the government is prepared to go it alone

if they follow the recommendations of that report by setting up

their own industry. Well, if that means investing the kind of

money that has been invested in the past 20 years, the

government can forget about their great plans for social

services and social benefits for people, because there is only

one source of funds and that is out of the taxpayers of the

province and the revenue that is generated through taxes. If

the bulk of that revenue is diverted to the resource

industries, be it petroleum, coal or forestry, the government

will find it impossible to continue the high level of social

benefits and finance and the whole broad field of resource

development at one and the same time.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia

should watch very closely the entry of this socialist

government in an equity way into the management and development

of our resource industries. Certainly the experience of other

provinces under a socialist government should be enough for the

public to realize what a disaster most of those programmes have

been.

The fact that we can create a climate under which we can

provide social services for people and also attract large

amounts of capital from outside sources to help develop our

resources seems to be lost on the government benches in this

socialist province. It's not good enough to suggest that you

have to have the resource at your finger tips as an owner.

Certainly you can provide the same benefits by taxing in a fair

manner the people who do the development. And you pay nothing

for their entry into the resource development field. You

contract none of their obligations or underwrite any of their

contracts. This they do on their own. If they are successful

you participate and all the people of British Columbia

participate in whatever return is there on a fair and equitable

basis.

I'd like to spend a few moments now, Mr. Speaker, talking

about the forest industry in this province. For the last year

everyone has waited to see what the policies would be with

respect to forest management and forest development in the

Province of British Columbia. I think that no one area of

government responsibility has occupied as much time on the part

of the public generally as the forest industry.

But what's happening in the forest industry? Well, the Minister, first of all,

has a record of non-communication with those people who are developing the forest

industry in the province. It's obvious that letters go unanswered, that telegrams

go unanswered, that it's almost impossible to get an appointment with the Minister

— an appointment about some of the vital areas that business is concerned about.

The Hon. Minister — and I'm sorry he's not in the House this

morning — has made many statements about forestry development

in this province. But many of the statements have been vague

and not defined.

He has alluded quite often to the political difference

between his administration and the old administration. He has

talked about new departments and about the Departments of Lands

and Forests developing new concepts. He has alluded to the

department's study on new forms of tenure, but he won't tell

the industry what form of tenure it will take. He has talked

about revising the stumpage rates in the Province of British

Columbia. As a matter of fact, a guideline was published but

the proposal has not been enacted and the industry is

apprehensive as to what will actually take place with regard to

the new rates of stumpage proposed in the Province of British

Columbia.

The Minister has said that he is looking at the reassignment

of timber cutting rights, but not immediately — some time in

the future. He has also very recently spoken about incentives

and disincentives in the forest industry; whatever that means

is a matter for all of us to speculate on at the present

time.

But all the time this has been going on during the past

year, the companies, who must know well in advance the plans of

the government, have had to sit and twiddle their thumbs.

Cutting plans and road-building plans are collecting dust

somewhere, lost in the bureaucratic maze of the Department of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources in this province.

Decisions that are vital to the continuation of a viable

forest industry in the province have been shunted aside. We get many statements about projected new policies and the

Minister's intent to reshape the whole forest industry in the

Province of British Columbia, but all we hear is statements. We

see nothing in the form of legislative action or a firm

government policy. It is airy-fairy type of planning by the

Minister, designed to confuse, if nothing else, those people

who have invested millions of dollars in plant and equipment to

provide jobs for the citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, they can't wait while the Minister plays around

with phony concepts. They can't wait while the Minister

procrastinates and hedges. They have to know where they stand

so that they can plan accordingly. Certainly if the Minister is

going to get into the forest industry in an equity basis, and

this is being done, he's going to have to learn how to plan

well in advance. Otherwise, the industries which have become

part and parcel of the Crown jewels would be

[ Page 150 ]

complete and utter fiascos.

I think all of us have watched with apprehension the entry

of the government into the lumber business in this province,

and certainly they've taken over plants at Prince

Rupert….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No. They've taken over another operation at Ocean

Falls. They've also taken over an operation at Vanderhoof. So

it is obvious that the Minister will be doing his level best to

make these appear to be viable, bustling operations, the type

that will produce profits and great benefits for the people of

the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I'll get around to Prince Rupert, my friend.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: So let's take a look at how this is going to be

accomplished. Well, it is fairly obvious, after watching the

performance so far, that there are a number of ways of making a

business appear to be profitable for the benefit of the

newspapers and for the benefit of the position of the

government — a number of ways of appearing to make a business

profitable. Let me suggest a few.

There's nothing to prevent the government of this province

from twisting agreements with municipalities so that the Crown

corporations receive beneficial tax treatment. There's nothing

to prevent the Crown from twisting timber allocations so that

the Crown companies receive a greater share of the market than

they deserve. I think we are also aware of the fact that there

is nothing to prevent the Crown from twisting the situation

regarding taxes and lease fees and royalties so that their

Crown corporation is in a preferential position. It would seem

that they have already entered into a re-allocation of timber

regarding the Plateau Mills, in which they now have an equity

position.

There's nothing to prevent the Crown from twisting the costs of insurance,

particularly when they set up their own insurance corporation. There's nothing

to prevent the Crown from using the facilities of B.C. Railway and B.C. Hydro,

to a great advantage at the expense of the taxpayers of this province. There's

nothing that will prevent the Crown from twisting this programme of incentives

and disincentives to the advantage of those particular forestry operations in

which they have an equity position. There's nothing to prevent the Crown from

using the civil service and the expertise of the people in the civil service,

and then covering those costs up by not charging them against the corporations.

I pointed out just seven ways in which the Crown can twist

the whole concept of the forest industry to their own advantage

just so that the Crown corporations can show a profit. That's

seven twists in the road, Mr. Speaker. How many more are ahead

is anybody's guess. But the first twist that I spoke about was

one with respect to agreements between municipalities and the

Province of British Columbia.

I'd like to speak for a few minutes about these types of

agreements, particularly as they affect the City of Prince

Rupert. Let's just take a look at one of the agreements

negotiated some years ago. Because that's what it was: an

agreement in good faith between Columbia Cellulose, as it was

then known, the City of Prince Rupert and the government of the

day in the Province of British Columbia — the Social Credit

government.

It was obvious when this big forest industry moved into the

Prince Rupert area that the city would have to supply people

services and that those services would cost a lot of money, and

that somebody would have to be responsible for paying those

fees. So the municipality was concerned and they came to the

provincial government and through the Municipalities Enabling

and Validating Act,

section 84, an agreement was confirmed and

included in letters patent under which the corporation would

assume a fairly substantial tax burden, because they were the

people who would require the services for their employees.

It was agreed that this particular tax burden would not

become a stone around the necks of the other citizens in the

City of Prince Rupert. It was agreed to, the city was happy,

the corporation accepted the terms and the government ratified

them. The only problem was that a year or two down the line the

corporation ran into some financial problems. They came to the

government not once but on several occasions, asking for

redress and a reduction in the assessment so that the tax

burden would be less than what they had agreed to. Each time

the government refused them, because they knew full well that

the City of Prince Rupert, having committed itself to the

capital expenditure required to provide services for these

people, could not assume that tax burden without the assessment

base provided by that huge timber resource company.

In recent months, however, that huge corporation became a

child of the Province of British Columbia, so upon the advice

of someone the corporation has appealed their assessment to the

court of revision. Now one of two things will happen when that

appeal goes before the court of revision. Either the appeal

will be granted and the assessment will be reduced, or the

appeal will be denied. If the appeal is granted at that level

the corporation of Prince Rupert will lose an estimated

$800,000 in revenue, because included

[ Page

151 ]

in their tax base are the assets and the assessment of that

corporation, and that happens to amount to one-third of the

total taxable assessment for the City of Prince Rupert.

If the appeal is denied at the court of revision, the

company will then apply and go the next step, and they'll

appeal. When they appeal they'll go before the Assessment

Appeal Board. Who is the Assessment Appeal Board, and how do

they obtain their positions? They're appointed at the pleasure

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In other words, the

Assessment Appeal Board is a government-appointed board, and at

that level we will have the government appealing to the

government for a reduction in their assessment. It isn't hard

to calculate the outcome of that appeal. My prediction is that

the appeal will be granted and that the assessment will be

reduced, so that the amount of revenue the City of Prince

Rupert receives from that corporation will be reduced

proportionately, and the citizens of Prince Rupert who did not

ask the corporation to come there originally will be required

to pay whatever the extra costs are to make up the deficit

position in the budget of the City of Prince Rupert.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Will you resign if

you're wrong?

MR. SMITH: It is interesting, Mr. Member, that you can be so

vocal now, because when this matter was discussed by the mayor

of Prince Rupert and those people who were genuinely concerned,

the Member for Prince Rupert was very quiet about the matter.

And the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

Mr. Williams) was very quiet about the matter.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there are many ways for a Crown

corporation dealing with a benevolent father (in this case the

government) to make it appear that they have boosted that

corporation into a profitable business enterprise, because the

government, in the final analysis, is dealing with the

government. It is my belief that, rather than have egg on their

face, they'll make sure that those Crown corporations show a

profit, by one means or another. What they can't do directly

will be done indirectly and a profit picture will emerge, but

no one will ever know the amount of money it costs every other

taxpayer in the Province of British Columbia. It has happened

in other socialist provinces in this country of ours, it's

happened in socialist countries around the world, and if this

government has its way it will happen in the Province of

British Columbia. Make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: The Minister says we wouldn't want those industries to go

under. They should be able to pay their way, but the other thing is this: everyone,

in the government benches, particularly the cabinet Ministers, are very optimistic

about the future of northwestern British Columbia, particularly the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, but he says very little about the transfers

that are taking place of timber quotas, of allocations, of the direction of

chips which should go to the Cariboo and the Prince George area, but will be

diverted to Prince Rupert. Very little is said about that area, so what is gained

at Prince Rupert will be at the expense of the Cariboo and the Prince George

region — make no mistake about that. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) commented

on it yesterday, and I'm only sorry that he didn't go further in his comments,

because that's exactly what's happening in his riding. You'll create jobs in

northwestern British Columbia at the expense of those people who are presently

gainfully employed in the Cariboo and in the Prince George area. Is that an

economic viable proposition? Nonsense, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I'd like to be optimistic, but we already know

from what we have seen the direction that you are taking as

government. We know the type of corporations you are setting

up. We know the path that you are travelling, and believe me,

Mr. Attorney General, there is no reason for anybody to be

optimistic when they look at the overall picture that's

unfolding in this province. You know, if the Member for Prince

Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea) was as concerned as he appears to be

today about the problem that the mayor and council have in

Prince Rupert, he would be doing something about it. It's no

light thing for the people in municipal office to realize that

one-third of their total revenue tax base could be lost through

an appeal because the Crown corporation would like to put

themselves in a good light. They could do it at the expense of

the people of Prince Rupert merely by entering into an

agreement with the people who created them, the province. Sure,

you didn't create the corporations….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: All I am suggesting, Mr. Member, is that the

appeal procedure is being used and, if upheld, Prince Rupert

will lose $800,000 of revenue — that's the estimated lost

revenue. Where are they going to recapture that from?

There is an answer to the problem of industrial assessments

and increases and decreases. It's an answer that I believe

would solve many of the inequities that we see with respect to

industrial assessments located outside of the immediate

[ Page 152 ]

precincts of municipalities. I think there is a way of

overcoming this problem to the benefit of all the people in the

Province of British Columbia, and we will have more to say

about that later in this debate, Mr. Speaker.

The future of resource-based industries in British Columbia,

when viewed under the conditions that they have to live with

now and the conditions that may be imposed upon them in the

future, is not bright, So far, because of a world-wide demand

for hydrocarbon products and for forest industry products, our

economy has been more than buoyant.

The thing that plagues industry today is the indecision

expressed through statements of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). It's a matter that

they don't know where they stand and they don't know what their

future will be. Unless something is done to restore their

confidence, all of us in British Columbia will be the losers. I

appeal to the government to consider wisely the path they have

chosen to go. Stop rushing into hastily-made, ill-conceived

ideas, because the direction that you are headed will be at the

expense of every citizen in this province, who have a right to

expect more than this government has shown in their first year

in office.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a pleasure to participate in the

throne speech debate. I'm sure that when the bills of the

government come before the House we will have an opportunity to

take

part in many other debates. I don't want to prolong the

House this morning so, until we have an opportunity to see the

legislation, I will say thank you for your time and attention,

Mr. Speaker. We will look forward to a few more debates with

the Attorney General before this session is closed.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I would like to take this

opportunity to congratulate the previous speaker for his fine

talk. I think he will make a very fine leader for the Social

Credit opposition.

MR. SMITH: However…!

MR. STEVES: Right on.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are three problems of a world-wide nature

that face us in B.C. today and I would like to address myself to these particular

problems.

These are the crises that I see in food and in housing and in energy — three

essentials to all people. Early in this debate, in fact when the throne speech

was first released, one of the leaders of the Social Credit Party, the Hon.

Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), in discussing the throne speech,

criticized the proposed energy seminar that we are planning for this fall. He

is quoted in the paper as saying that the issue of nuclear energy has been well

researched over the years, and he said, "There is already a wealth of information

on the subject; why it is necessary to go into this matter now is more than

I know."

The Liberal leader, the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson), is quoted as echoing Mr. Richter's cynicism of

the energy seminar: "God, these things have been going on for a

coon's age. It will cost a lot of money and it won't achieve

much." He is quoted as terming the seminar plan a very curious

business and said that B.C. was simply going over ground

covered 5 or 10 years ago in other parts of the

world.

MR. CHABOT: How come you didn't make the cabinet?

MR. STEVES: You know, the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) also echoed these words and said, "Why bring people

from all around the world when the Premier is opposed to

nuclear power?" I would just like to go over just who is

coming, just who these people are that are coming, and what it

is that we propose to do in the energy seminar this fall.

In the first place, Hannes Alfven, of the Royal Institute

from Sweden, was a 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics.

He is an opponent of nuclear power and an adviser to the

Swedish government. He is an expert on energy alternatives,

particularly solar power.

J.L. Gray, who is coming from the Canadian Atomic Energy

Commission, is a proponent of nuclear energy and he has

promised B.C. that we would have 15 nuclear power

plants by the year 2000.

Recent estimates by responsible scientists indicate that in

the next 25 years, by the year 2000, there

may be between 11,000 and 33,000 deaths from accidents caused

by nuclear power plants plus other untold illness and other

side-effects.

Going over the accidents that we have had in the past, in

1952 there was an accident at Chalk River, our

Canadian plant, which has been classed as a relatively safe

plant by Members of the opposition in the past. There have been

accidents in Britain, many accidents in the United States. The

Fermi reactor near Detroit almost caused the evacuation of

Detroit in 1966 and recently in the newspapers we see

that in Richland, Washington, a laboratory that had an accident

in 1951 is still contaminated. They are still trying to find a

way of getting rid of the radioactive plutonium in that

particular reactor that has a radioactive power for 250,000

years.

Obviously there are many problems in the field of nuclear

energy, yet the leaders of the Social Credit and Liberal

parties seem to think that we had enough information years ago

from which to make a decision.

[ Page 153 ]

I would like to know whether they want to make decisions on

information gathered before the radiation hazards were known

and before energy alternatives were studied — information, I

might add, that has been largely provided by the Atomic Energy

Commission of the United States.

Do they really want the citizens of British Columbia not to

have a say in what type of energy we are going to use in this

province in the future?

MR. CHABOT: The Premier has already made up his mind.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars have been spent

on nuclear research, most of it in war research. Comparatively

little has been spent on studying safe energy alternatives. In

fact, if steam and sunshine were war materials, probably we

would have had solar power and geothermal power a long time

ago.

I would like to suggest to you that the performance offered

by the official opposition in the last week or so in the throne

speech debate has been somewhat lacklustre and has offered very

little constructive criticism. And I think that the criticism

of our efforts to try to investigate safe methods of energy

production is somewhat unwarranted, out of place and totally

irresponsible.

Were it possible for someone on this side of the House to do

so I would be very happy to move a motion of non-confidence in

that rudderless ship of the official opposition and her Liberal

echoes.

While on the subject of energy I would like to discuss

briefly the so-called energy crisis — so-called because we do

not have an energy shortage in Canada of oil and gas. It is

only occurring in the United States. So-called because while

the energy crisis is real enough, it has been caused by lack of

foresight, gross wastefulness and misuse of our energy

resources by our consumptive North American society. It has

been caused in part by a desire to involve Canada in a

continental energy deal and to force us to accept the necessity

of supertankers along our coast.

Also, I would suggest that it has been caused in part by a

desire on the part of oil cartels to maximize their profits

through artificial shortages. While on this subject I would

like to suggest that the B.C. government should take a close

look at what has been happening up at Beaver River to determine

if the problems up there are due to natural causes or to some

problems in poor extraction procedures of natural gas.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is moving toward a two-price

system on oil but unfortunately, I would suggest, this can only be successful

on a short-term basis because we only have enough oil reserves for about 18

years. Five to 10 years from now we can expect that the energy crisis will be

occurring here in Canada and that our prices will start to go up here in this

country as well. If we are not careful and if we have not developed alternative

energy resources we could be importing energy at highly inflated prices.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr.

Smith), who I just suggested would make a fine leader for the

Social Credit Party, has said that exploration costs in B.C.

are higher than the returns to the industry. I would suggest

that he failed to mention that if you sell at a loss to a

parent company in the United States you are bound to show a

deficit in your returns.

We in B.C. must attempt to maintain our oil and gas reserves

for future use here instead of export for short-term gains. And

what we do export should at least bring us a decent return. We

must try to redirect some of our excess natural gas use to

non-polluting automotive fuels, to public transit, as has been

mentioned earlier, and possibly for the use of generation of

electrical power and for the conversion of automotive vehicles

to natural gas.

Energy is too important to the Canadian people and the

people of B.C. to leave in the hands of the oil cartels and

combines which are now coming to the fore and which profit

largely in energy resources. In my opinion, all energy

resources should be regarded as public utilities and put under

public control; this would ensure that the people of B.C.

would get a decent return on their resources and would ensure

that we would have some resources left for the future.

The second topic I would like to discuss is the housing

crisis. This of course is centred largely in the urban areas

and is the most immediate problem to hundreds, maybe thousands

of people in the Greater Vancouver area. Although I am very

pleased with the appointment of a Minister of housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) and I think this is a step in the right direction, I

am a bit disappointed that we have not been able to meet this

problem head-on much sooner.

Perhaps it is because the housing problem has been growing

at exponential rates for the last five years and we are just

now beginning to realize its magnitude. By this time next year

the housing problem will have reached the stage of desperation

for many people. And once we start trying to resolve it, it

will take several years to alleviate the problem.

Right now many people are looking for accommodation and the

results are higher rents and higher cost of housing. Single

rent increases of 25 to 40 per cent are not uncommon. People

are being evicted so that the rent can be increased without

waiting for three months or so that they can increase the rent

for the second time in a year.

Lots from my riding of Richmond have gone up since 1966 by

300 per cent or 25 per cent a year. People are also being

evicted when they are getting

[ Page 154 ]

old, or when they have children, and so on, to provide

accommodation for friends of the people who own the

accommodation. Many evictions occur in Richmond so that the

owners can illegally convert duplexes to fourplexes.

Rental agencies have sprung up and tenants can ill afford

it, for it may cost as much as $60 to get rental listings, or

$20 each to three rental agencies. What happens is that you

answer an ad in the newspaper and you phone the number and find

out that it is a rental agency that is handling it and they

won't tell you where the house is or anything about it until

you pay them $20. When you do pay the $20, you find that the

house has already been rented. And I know this for a fact

because I have been helping a friend for the past month to try

and find a home in Richmond. This particular person went to two

such rental agencies to no avail. He also waited outside the

Pacific Press building with about 200 other people for the

first issue of the newspaper to come out one day so that he

could get the ads that were in the paper.

What happened was a great scramble as people climbed all

over each other when the first paper came out, tossing dimes

around and grabbing newspapers and running off to the phone to

try and phone for apartment accommodation. After about 100

calls this particular person made, he finally found one or two

that had not been rented already.

We also went to the point of driving around the community

looking for vacant houses when people moved out and in one case

we found one where a tenant had moved, but we couldn't find out

who the landlord was. It took us three days to find out who the

tenant had been and that the landlord lived up near Sechelt. We

found that the landlord was coming down to Richmond to take a

look at the house that weekend, in fact the very next day. We

went over there early the next day and found about 10 or 15

other people had got there before us and they had all been

doing the same thing.

So I would suggest that we have a very serious problem on

our hands and we have. to find some solution for it. Mr.

Speaker, drastic rent increases, increased evictions and the

rip-off rental agencies that I've been mentioning are only able

to operate because there is a housing shortage. When I raised

this matter publicly at a meeting in Chilliwack last month, I

received over 350 phone calls during the next couple of days

from people, largely tenants, who were concerned about their

problems of security and who were having difficulties in

finding accommodation.

I hope that before the year is out the government will be able to start making

provincial land available for public rental housing, for co-ops and a wide range

of housing decentralized throughout the urban areas in order to take some of

the pressure off as soon as possible One other aspect of this is that land speculators

in my riding, and I think probably elsewhere, are holding land, hoping for increased

speculative profits in the future. Here I think the government should get involved

in an urban land bank and land assembly programme, and any other measures that

are necessary to get this land onto the market.

We have heard criticisms that Bill 42 is causing the

shortage of land and yet, in my riding, we have over 3,000

acres of land available for residential housing and it is all

being sat upon by various people, just letting a little bit of

land go at a time so that they can increase their prices on it.

Not all of it is owned by speculators — some of it is owned by

people who don't really wish to sell — a lot of it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you sell it?

MR. STEVES: Not really. We have enough land in Richmond as a

matter of fact to double our population in Richmond.

Pressure should also be put on the municipalities and the

Greater Vancouver Regional District to make 10,000 acres that

the municipalities have available to low rental housing and

they should get involved in that as well.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair]

Furthermore, I would suggest that we have to find some way,

perhaps through an order-in-council or some other measure, to

have rental increases posted on premises and acceptable reasons

given for evictions outlined so it will help alleviate the

situation with the tenant until more comprehensive action can

be taken.

Finally, out of 35,000 eligible voters in my riding, 10,000

are not on the civic voters' list because they are resident

tenant electors. I would like to see in this next year some

legislation calling for enumeration of tenants so that they

will have right to vote in civic elections. And even to that

extent I would like, before the enumeration is done, the

government to perhaps make it possible for tenants to register

with the returning officer up to the election date, the same as

property owners can do if they have been left off the list.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk on the food

crisis, and in this presentation I intend to dwell on this in

some detail. Even though we have a great food-producing area

here in B.C. and Canada, I think we have a number of reasons

for a food crisis in B.C.

First, there are shortages in other parts of the world which

influence domestic prices here. An example: the rising cost of

beef, which is well known; and the cause: shortages of beef in

the United States. Another example: the rising cost of fish,

also well known; and the cause: increased demand for our fish

in Japan.

Another example: the cost of wheat, flour and

[ Page 155 ]

bread; the cause: a worldwide shortage of wheat. And check

this out, at the Ogden Point elevator near here they recently

increased their prices for medium quality wheat from $3.80 a

bushel to $6.06 a bushel because of the increased worldwide

demand. And so we are paying for it on the local market because

there is a demand elsewhere, even though we have a surplus of

wheat.

Unbleached flour, Albion's unbleached flour increased from

$6.70 a cwt. to $11.25 a cwt. over the past two years. Another

example: the rising cost of honey; again the cause: an increase

in the demand for honey in Japan. Two years ago the bulk

wholesale price was 33 cents a pound. The local people offered

a bulk price of 46 cents a pound from Japanese interests and

therefore burnped up the domestic price for B.C. people to 52

cents a pound this summer.

Because of increasing export demand, food costs are rising

drastically on the domestic market even though we ourselves

have no shortages. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian consumer, the B.C.

consumer, is being forced to compete on the international

export market for our own produce, the same as we are being

forced to compete on the international market for our own oil

and gas.

The second reason for the high food cost, Mr. Speaker,

strangely enough, is a combination of the dumping of surplus

foods outside of B.C. at certain times of the year and a lack

of confidence in agriculture over the last 15 or 20 years by

the farmers. Farmers, due to past uncertainty, have not

invested in their farming enterprises. This has caused lower

returns to the farmers and poorer cropland utilization in many

areas. Furthermore, a recent report to the Greater Vancouver

Regional District indicates that 53 per cent, or over 10,000

acres of Delta farmland is owned by the government and absentee

landlords. In the report — and I would like to quote from it — prepared by Paton, Smith and Gram Ltd. to the regional

district, they said that, "problems in farming in the area

apparently date back to 1969 when the province expropriated

4,000 acres of farmland in west Delta and large tracts in east

and central Delta as well." The consultant said, "with

the exception of properties acquired under the more recent

greenbelt programme, the government and absentee-owned farms

have fallen into deplorable condition".

Mr. Speaker, a similar study is being conducted in my

riding, Richmond, and I am sure they will find the same

situation in Richmond as well and it will be just as bad. Much

of Richmond's farmland is owned by absentee landlords, many of

them land speculators from Europe, United States and Hong Kong.

Some of the land has been owned by the Highways Department

since the Deas throughway was built years ago. Much of this

land is in poor pasture, couch grass and hard hack.

I would like to suggest that the government should look to

the use of taxation by some countries in Europe, notably

Holland, to reduce taxes on the bona fide farms which are being

properly farmed so that they can offset some of the problems

caused by cheaper foods being dumped across the border.

On the other hand, we should increase taxes on the land

owned by absentee landlords and farmland which is not being

adequately farmed, and for pete's sake we should do something

about getting the government land into production. In this way

I think we can encourage the bona fide farmers so they'll put

more money into their farming enterprises, increase their

production and the quality of their produce, and they will make

substantial returns.

A third factor influencing food costs is the method by which

production and distribution by the food industry is carried out

and controlled in this province by the multi-national food

corporations. Mr. Speaker, private enterprise in this province

amounts to private government. Over on the opposition benches

we just recently heard one of the representatives of private

government speaking of the forest industry and energy

resources. We all know the history of company domination in

this province. We know the tremendous consolidation of

corporate power in individual industries: the creation of a

forest giant like MacMillan Bloedel by a series of mergers over

many years; the concentration of cement and concrete production

into the hands of two huge companies. But, Mr. Speaker, a new

development is the growth through takeovers of conglomerates

which span many industries. Individual businessmen have access

to vital decisions not just in one industry but in many

otherwise unrelated industries. This kind of concentration of

economic power has created a powerful private government which

is a challenge to the power of public government in this

province as elsewhere.

I would like to go into some depth on the subject,

particularly as it relates to the price of fish. The heart of

the fishing industry is located in my riding of Richmond. In

fact my hometown, Steveston, has been known for many years as

the salmon capital of the world and I myself have worked in

many facets of the fishing industry, from gill netting in the

river to working in the fresh fish departments of both of the

major fishing companies, to the canning departments, cleaning

fish, and so on, and have some knowledge of the fishing

industry. I'm sad to say that the seafood industry in British

Columbia has now become just one component of a great

conglomerate empire. The seafood industry is one of this

province's major food resources, but it is currently controlled

by two vast conglomerates, one Canadian and one American,

working in unison.

Take B.C. Packers. The chairman of B.C. Packers is George

Creber. Mr. Creber is president and managing

[ Page 156 ]

director of George Weston, Ltd., which owns B.C. Packers. He

is also a director of Kelly Douglas, the Super-Valu supermarket

chain, which is owned by Weston. He is a director of an eastern

supermarket chain also owned by Weston's: Loblaw Groceterias

and Loblaw Companies. He is a director of other Weston

companies: the Eddy Paper Company; J.R. Booth, Ltd; Bishop

Building Materials; Somerville Industries; Westfair Foods;

Connors Brothers; Eddy Forest Products.

Mr. Pearly Brissenden, a director of B.C. Packers, is also

chairman of Canadian Allied Property Investments, which builds

shopping centres and office developments. He is also a director

of Canadian Stevedoring, Macdonald Buchanan Properties and

Grosvenor Laing, which was formerly one of the world's largest

construction and property companies. Other directors of B.C. Packers sit on the board of other

Weston companies which include, and there's quite a few of

them: Weston Bakeries; Lane's Bakeries; Wittich Bread; McCarthy

Milling; Soo Line Mills; Stuart Ltd.; Interbake Foods;

McCormicks Ltd; Paulin Chambers Ltd.; Marven's Ltd.; Bowes

Company Ltd.; Interbake Foods of the United States; Weston

Foods; William Neilson Ltd.; Kambley of Switzerland (Canada)

Ltd.; Willards Chocolate; Donlads Dairy; B.C. Packers; Nelson

Brothers Fisheries; Ruperts Certi-Fresh Foods; Connors

Brothers; H.W. Welch; Lewis Connors and Son; Eddy Paper

Company; E.B. Eddy Company; Eddy Forest Products; J.E. Boyle;

Eastern Fine Paper; Somerville Industries; Sommerville

Automotive Trim; Canadian Folding Cartons; Westfair Foods;

Kelly Douglas; Nabob Foods; Super-Valu Stores; Calvan Canus

Catering Services; Dickson Importing; Isaac Pharmacies Ltd.;

Foremost Foods; Loblaw Companies. Loblaw Groceterias; Zehris

Markets; Dionne Ltd.; OK Economy Stores; National Grocers

Company; Atlantic Wholesalers; Sayvette Ltd.; York Trading;

National Tea Company of the United States; Loblaw Incorporated

of the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: They sound competitive.

MR. STEVES: Very competitive! They control much of the food

industry here in B.C., the rest of Canada, the United States,

and in fact around the world. And this is the conglomerate

which is largely in charge of British Columbia's salmon canning

industry. It comprises some 5,600 supermarkets and shops and

some 300 mills and bakeries. When the reigning boss of this

empire talks to the press, it is to speak on subjects like

apartheid and the British Empire, which he longs for.

B.C. Packers' only so-called competitor in the seafood products industry of

this province is an American company, which by pure coincidence charges exactly

the same price, to three decimal points, for its canned salmon as B.C. Packers.

That price is $2.663 per unit pound, and it has gone up 59 per cent in four

months this summer. This company, this so-called competitor to B.C. Packers,

is also the so-called Canadian Fishing Company, so-called because it is wholly

owned by the New England Fishing Company based in Seattle. Well, it's not quite

wholly owned; out of 15,000 shares, eight shares are owned by the eight Canadian

directors of the Canadian Fishing Company, (Laughter.)

For a taste of the kind of corporate power being wielded by

individuals of this company, take a look at Roger Hager, who is

chairman of the so-called Canadian Fishing Company. Mr. Hager

is also vice-president of Western Mines and he is a director of

the following other companies: Domtar; Crown Zellerbach of

Canada; Royal General Insurance; Labatt Breweries; Kaiser

Resources; British Pacific Properties; Park Royal Shopping

Centre.

Not only have B.C. Packers and the Canadian Fishing Company

shared the same prices, but for 15 years they also shared the

ownership of one of B.C.'s old historic processing companies,

J.H. Todd and Sons. And their executives get together at the

meetings of the B.C. Fisheries Association.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia fishermen, cannery workers and

B.C. consumers are being shafted by this great conglomerate in

grand style. The B.C. Fisheries Association, which is a

marriage of convenience between B.C. Packers and the Canadian

Fishing Company, is effectively in control of the majority of

the coastal fishing vessels. It has strong control over the

sources of financing, which is becoming a more crucial matter

every month as new licensing programmes force up the costs of

getting into fishing. The fact is that it is indirectly in

control of licensing. It seems to have an awful lot of

influence in Ottawa, which has almost complete responsibility

at the present time over our fishing industry.

A lot of fishermen get the feeling-that they can't get

financing or boats unless they promise to deliver their catch

to one of these two big conglomerates, B.C. Packers or Canadian

Fish. In my own hometown there is very little opportunity for a

fisherman to find someplace to tie his boat unless it's at one

of these companies' wharves. Unless they fish for the company

they have no place to dock.

The situation of our fishermen when they bring their catch

in to the packing companies of this province is one like those

of feudal peasants who had to deliver their tithes to the

baronial castles in feudal days. Fishermen get a basic 20 cents

to 50 cents a pound for their salmon. The salmon is

industrially processed by one of the lowest paid industrial

work forces in North America, half of them women. They did

receive a 30 per cent wage increase this year, but basically it

was a 30 per cent increase of nothing, and it certainly did not

compare with the 150 per cent profit increase enjoyed by the

companies during the last year or so.

[ Page 157 ]

In the case of B.C. Packers, Mr. Speaker, which is twice as

big as Canadian Fish, that 20 cent to 50 cent salmon is then

transferred to a warehousing operation also owned by the Weston

empire. It could be Malkin's, it could be Loblaws, it could be

Kelly Douglas, it doesn't really matter.

From that warehousing operation, it is transferred to a

supermarket chain; it could be Westfair, it could be Shop-Easy,

it could be Super-Valu. That 20 cent pink salmon, by the time

it gets to the consumer, has turned into one of the most

expensive items on the protein food list, selling at $2.49 a

pound, an increase in price of 1,200 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. STEVES: It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that in the 24

weeks ending June 17 this year, the profits of B.C. Packers had

risen by 124 per cent on a sales increase of only 25 per cent.

Net income of the company more than doubled this year over the

same period last year.

Serious questions have been raised just in the last few

weeks about the hoarding of canned fish supplies. A.B.C.

Packers marketing manager, representative of the Weston empire,

said last month that he did not even deny that the company was

hoarding its canned products. He said it was normal to withdraw

temporarily from the market. We have also to consider that all

of the companies are asking the same prices for their products,

identical prices to three decimal points.

Mr. Speaker, the processing industry in this province has an

ugly history of centralization and arbitrary plant shut-down.

It is a common belief that during the last few years too many

processing companies have been competing in a limited market.

But this is not the case. Now there's no doubt that too many

fishermen were chasing too many fish. But can there ever be, in

the theory of a self-regulating market, too many companies

competing?

In a business story in 1969, when plant after plant up and

down the coast was being bought out by Weston's and New England

and being shut down, the Vancouver Province stated that, "In

the business of catching salmon in B.C., too many companies had

been competing in a limited market; something had to give."

Something did have to give, and what gave was the free,

competitive market that they were talking about. What also gave

was many Indian communities up and down the coast of British

Columbia when the canneries in those communities were bought

out and closed down. The Indian fishermen found they had

difficulties delivering their fish to market, and their wives

and families had no place to work. And they were then put in a

situation of losing their local industry.

Mr. Speaker, the work force in the fishing industry has been

cut in half since 1967. Through a combination of automation and

centralization, the industry, the fish processing work force

has been reduced by half in just six short years.

Several of the old established companies have been co-owned

for many years by B.C. Packers and Canadian Fish, which was a

very cosy arrangement. In 1968 J.H. Todd & Son closed down.

It had been squeezed out of business during the '60s by B.C.

Packers, and Canadian Fish who divvied up the business between

them. Anglo B.C. Packing folded in the same year; Canadian Fish

took over its two plants in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Half

of ABC's peak work force was knocked out in that arbitrarily

announced takeover — about 1,500 workers — and hundreds of them

were Indian cannery workers up the coast. To the amazement of

everyone in the industry, even people that work for B.C.

Packers, it was announced the same year, in 1968, that B.C.

Packers owned Nelson Brothers Fisheries and had owned them

since 1960.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of corporate secrecy is nothing new

in the Weston empire. Forbes magazine described this last year — the Weston empire as "more like a Byzantine court than a

multi-billion dollar business" comprised of at least 170

companies. At the same time B.C. Packers announced that it was

shutting down Skeena Sunnyside packing, throwing 400 people out

of work, many of them native workers.

In my own community canneries were bought out and shut down.

B.C. Packers closed their fresh fish operation and laid off 200

workers in 1969. The company stated that it was no longer

economic to process fresh filleted fish, such as cod caught in

local waters. Actually what had happened was that the Weston

interests were building canneries on the cast coast using funds

provided by the Liberal federal government to the tune I

understand of around 11 million dollars for one cannery in New

Brunswick. And as soon as they got the canneries built back

there they started shutting them down here in B.C. claiming

that it was no longer profitable to handle bottom fish here in

B.C. Of course the Liberals gave them the money in Ottawa; they

were able to exploit a cheaper labour market in New Brunswick,

subsidized heavily by the federal government, to the detriment

of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Same old give-away.

MR. STEVES: They do it all the time.

The workers of the canneries and the fishermen had no say in

these decisions. The federal government made the usual promise

of looking for other jobs for them but nothing ever came up.

And, in addition to these lay-offs, new loading devices have

wiped out

[ Page 158 ]

entire shifts of many packing plants, further reducing the

work force and the company payroll.

Furthermore, over the years since 1967 and even prior to

that it was starting; a new managerial class was brought in — many of them Americans — and many local people, familiar with

B.C. problems in B.C. fisheries and very familiar with the

local community and the problems of the fishermen, were

sidestepped or went down the tube.

I recall one instance during an election campaign four or

five years ago where, even when we went to enumerate one of the

managers of B.C. Packers, the enumerators were given the royal

shaft; they wouldn't even speak to us. They said they were

American citizens and had no interest in wanting to take

part

in Canadian politics. The same manager during that election

campaign, where we had people giving out election literature on

government land, municipal land outside the company gates,

threatened to run us through with pike poles if we didn't

desist. These are the types of people that we now have running

our fishing industry.

What is happening to B.C.'s fish harvest? Last year the two

major companies, acting as middlemen on the sale of B.C.'s fish

harvest, had the lion's share of an $80 million export

business, i.e., B.C. fish and seafoods in all its forms. Of

that business $42 million — more than half — was in whole fish,

fresh and frozen. Virtually nothing was done to that fish

except to clean it and put it in cases. Ten million dollars of

that export was in the form of canned fish; $4 million of it

was fish processed in other ways by smoking, pickling and so

on; $24 million of the '72 harvest was other seafood,

shellfish, and fish roe.

I would like to question how much of the whole fish — $42

million of it last year — was bought up by foreign companies,

shipped abroad, and then processed and canned elsewhere, once

again taking away Canadian jobs and profits out of this

province. Of last year's harvest, $22 million — one quarter of

the total worth — was composed of fish roe shipped to Japan

where they make considerable use of this valuable protein food.

How much of that was processed and packaged in B.C. rather than

exporting the jobs and profits abroad again?

And what about our imports? We imported through Vancouver

last year about $8 million worth of canned fish. Remember we

exported $10 million worth. This would seem to indicate that

British Columbia could easily handle the canned fish market for

all of Canada and still export some.

Taking a look a little closer at what we import and what we export reveals

that what we import is tuna and what we export is salmon. The way things are

now, the only fish that B.C. people can afford is the cheaper tuna and we export

our fine fish from our own resources to rich people abroad who can afford the

fish that we cannot. To me, importing cheap stuff for our own people and exporting

the good stuff just makes no sense at all.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes you can't even be sure that what you

get is really B.C. produce. I can recall one time when I was

working in the canneries where we were given the job of taking

oysters imported from Japan — they were put in little

vacuum-packed packages — opening the packages and dumping the

little tiny Japanese oysters in with B.C. oysters, and they

were sold then as B.C. produce.

Mr. Speaker, then there are the local community problems

which face the fishermen, problems associated with monopoly

control of the industry. Many of the fishermen in my community

have been trying for years to become independent from the big

canneries but they are tied with the big companies due to a

lack of tie-up facilities for their boats. In 1958, when the

provincial government turned over an island at the mouth of the

river for a breakwater to the federal government, the federal

government promised us a fishermen's wharf and harbour

facilities. The canners feared a loss of control of this

industry if this were to happen. And their friends, the Liberal

government, did nothing about the project. So we formed the

fishermen's wharf and harbour committee and I was the chairman

of this for a number of years. Finally we got the federal

government to take a look, and to carry out a feasibility study

of having an independent fish boat harbour in Steveston.

However, still nothing has happened.

We have, however, interested the Municipality of Richmond

and they are going ahead with a proposal for a 400-boat fish

boat harbour that they are hoping the federal government will

finally support.

I would like to suggest that the provincial government could

also get into this project, perhaps by buying out and reopening

one of the closed canneries in our area for the offloading of

fish to a public fishermen's wharf facility and for the direct

selling to the local, Vancouver and B.C. consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I've used the fishing industry as an example to

show how the food industry is basically one interconnecting

conglomerate, from the primary source to the wholesale and to

the retail outlet. I would like to recommend that the

government should make an inquiry into the financial structure

of the fishing companies and into all wholesale and retail food

outlets in this province. Such an inquiry would include

production and marketing costs, prices and income, and would

provide for full financial disclosures on the part of the

company.

I would suggest that we should also make further loans or grants to the rapidly-growing

food co-op movement throughout the province, and establish public and cooperative

wholesale food outlets in order to reduce the price-spread between the producer

and the consumer.

[ Page

159 ]

Further, with regard to the fishing industry specifically, I

would like to suggest that we should set up a Crown corporation

to establish its own salmon processing and marketing

facilities, either by new construction or putting existing

facilities under public ownership and control. Such a

corporation could be financed from a two-price system for fish — we're hearing a lot about two-price systems these days — and

it could be done in this way: such a system as is being used

for oil, and this way we would get a kickback from our

resources being sold abroad to put back into the fishing

industry.

Furthermore, such a corporation could be designed to restore

local industry to the coastal fishing communities and enter

into development of our bottom fish and shellfish resources

which are being largely ignored at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, only by taking strong and concerted action will

we be able to get off the international merry-go-round of

skyrocketing price increases.

Finally, I would like to suggest that a full fisheries

department would be necessary to oversee such a corporation and

to work with the federal government to rehabilitate our salmon

industry.

In 1971, Nova Scotia, one of our tiny provinces on the east

coast, spent $1,020,779 on their fisheries, a total of 0.24 per

cent of their total budget expenditures. Prince Edward Island

spent $423,518 for 0.55 per cent. New Brunswick spent

$1,102,588 — or 0.28 per cent. Newfoundland spent $2,537,647 or

0.84 per cent for their fisheries.

In 1971, the amount of money spent in B.C. on their

fisheries was negligible. This is up to the point where in B.C.

this year we are now spending $133,078 or 0.008 per cent on our

commercial fisheries. However, we must put into this some

aspects from the Fish and Wildlife which, although they are not

involved in fisheries resources too much, do handle fisheries

in a minor way.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a pretty big budget.

MR. STEVES: It's a pretty big budget — 0.008 per cent.

Clearly this is not good enough for one of our most important

industries here in B.C. We must, and I'm sure that we will, do

something about it.

Interjections.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Hush, horde.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they've certainly spruced up the joint, I'll tell you that.

We see new surfaces, and those forms that grace our ceilings — it's very, very

impressive — gold trim up there and this luxurious pile in this very marvelous

mauve carpet, and then we find ostrich feathers in those globes. I tell you,

Mr. Speaker, this place is really and truly fit for kings today. I guess it

proves one thing; we at last know in B.C. who the cake-eaters really are, make

no mistake of that.

The lights have been subject to a little bit of question by

quite a few people. It's somewhat like the Oasis Room in a Palm

Springs spa. I've noticed that it has done one thing with the

press; it's certainly brought in a number of reporters from the

"Las Vegas Chronicle." We see one sitting down now with his

dealer's hat on. (Laughter.) You know, every time these lights

go on full bore, I sometimes wonder if the Premier thinks that

one of his backbenchers is prepared to go over the wall and he

wants to keep a close eye on them.

But the thing that gave me the greatest concern of all — and

I haven't heard from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) or from anyone else in here as to what you call that

light blue planet up there, or who's in it, for that matter.

But I'll tell you one thing; I'm very, very glad, Hon. Members,

that flat-earth John wasn't here when it came in because it

would have destroyed a great deal of his popular concepts. You

know, one of the Members told me it's just a big empty sphere

that repeats everything that it hears. Well, I suppose it's

questionable as to whether it's closer to the floor or closer

to the press gallery, and you can take your pick of that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought Gaglardi had left this

place.

MR. GARDOM: Well, maybe Gaglardi is gone. I don't see a

broom sticking out of it, Mr. Premier, so maybe you're right.

But you know, there's another rumour that it's a long-range

polygraph, which must account at least for the brevity of some

of the Members' talks so far this session. But I'll say one

thing, Mr. Speaker, whatever that big blue Martha Mitchell is

doing up there, welcome indeed to the club.

I rather wish that the new member for South Okanagan (Mr.

Bennett)…. He's not in his seat at the present time and in

his absence I would also like to express my best wishes to him

for a very effective and rewarding time in office. I think

pretty soon we're going to be hearing whether he's a chip off

the old block or if he's prepared to chop off the old block,

(Laughter) and that will, perhaps, be happy times for all.

Indeed, I cannot carry on without expressing my deepest

congratulations to the cabinet rookies whose smiles are

surpassed only by those of their bankers. (Laughter.)

To the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) who's also not in his

seat, I'd like to say, as every Member in this House — all 55

or the 54, excluding him — would say, that he's still a great

tillicum of this Legislature, make no mistake about that.

[ Page 160 ]

Dealing with the new cabinet: during question period I was

tempted to ask a question of one of the new cabinet Ministers,

but I was in somewhat of a quandary, Mr. Speaker, as to which

one to direct the question to because I read in the paper, from

a report this week, that a doctor said that there should be

more provisions for sexual activity in homes for the aged. And

I really wanted to find out what the position of the government

was in this regard and I wasn't too sure if I should direct my

question to the Minister who is responsible for housing or to

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. (Laughter.) So

perhaps the two of them could mull that out together and see if

they could come up with an appropriate answer.

Today it was quite pleasant to hear the Attorney General who

gave one of the best speeches he's given since he's been

elected. You know, he belongs to just about the most complete

legal unit in British Columbia — Jim is the judge, Alex is the

AG and Malcolm is the lawyer. Mr. Speaker, if they'd only had

two brothers, they could have had a couple of clients and the

family could have been totally self-sustaining. (Laughter.)

There wasn't too much talk about the tennis, but I think it

was a particularly nice thing that that kindly, soft-spoken,

reserved gentleman saw fit to permit Mrs. King to win. Indeed,

it was a very noble gesture on his part.

The Attorney General plays a bit of tennis. His left court

tactics have really improved since he took office. He's winning

more games, Mr. Premier, he is indeed. Every time he plays a

prospective judge or prospective QC he seems to win.

(Laughter.) You know, we could really have in the Province of

British Columbia just the same kind of a contest as we

witnessed yesterday evening on television — I'd say between

Rosemary and Alex, and the bill of either men's rights or

women's rights would go to the winner.

However, the Attorney General talked a lot about Atlanta

computers and law reform programmes and the furniture in his

chamber, and it seems to me that it would be a very, very good

thing if he was directing more intensified attention to the

problems of law reform in the Province of British Columbia.

Indeed, maybe a change of furniture, perhaps, would assist him

in a change of outlook because so far, insofar as legal reform

is concerned, we really have not seen too much that is new. We

have not even seen the NDP following the policies that they

have enunciated, as well as the policies that we have

enunciated for the better part of 6 to 10 years in this

House.

From the opening to the closing of His Honour's speech involved about 16 minutes

— 166 lines — and I would tend to say that the speech was really as short in

substance as it was in form. It was chock-full of the word "new," Mr. Speaker

— new role, new stand, new togetherness…new togetherness, that bodes ill

or I'm not too sure…new thrust, new measures; there's one "meaningful" and

a couple of "dialogues." There was still little evidence of innovation, and

mostly indications of the same old solidarity forever — forever structuring,

forever controlling, and forever bureau critizing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

However, the NDP, if they leave something out of one throne

speech, they're certainly going to put it into another one, so

I would think that this coming January we can expect such

roaring forward terms as: input and output; infra-structure;

cooperative parallelisms; living and loving within the viable

parameters of so-called democratic socialism as played in every

key and in every dissonance by Dandy Dave and his Hordes with

the Chords. What a spectacle that would be! You know, had Cec

and Dave ever tried circus, Mr. Speaker, Barnum and Bailey

would have been relegated to summer stock, but that's show

business.

All of this reminds me of the story of the cleaner and the

bound elephant, which Andy Stephen may tell you this afternoon

and I'm certainly not going to repeat in this House.

The Speaker said that he would make a copy of His Honour's

speech in order to prevent mistakes. Well, that was rather

unfortunate because most of the voters in B.C., 60 per cent of

them to wit, had rather hoped there would be some mistakes. It

might have even indicated what the government was going to do

and what extremes its philosophical and financial direction was

going to take, but I'd say that without X-ray vision, it was

just about impossible to find any of that in the throne speech

anywhere in this day and age.

For one short second small businesses, most of whom are

facing tax and bureaucratic extinction, had a moment of hope.

That was when, instead of referring to family farms, as it was

written, His Honour incorrectly stated, "New measures will be

introduced which will provide for debt protection for the

family firm under certain distress circumstances."

Well, that sounded encouraging; it was just a slip, but it

had a very encouraging Freudian ring to it. But, alas and

alack, Mr. Speaker, the way governments have been acting in

this country, it seems that small independent business is

destined to follow the fate of the buffalo and the small

independent businessman is vanishing on the hour and, during

the course, falling most heir to the ills from every excess of

our times — over-regulation, overtaxing, overwork and limited

and insufficient returns for the risks and responsibilities of

his endeavours.

Now all of this is coupled with the distinct feeling that

there is little government understanding of his

[ Page 161 ]

lot, little government understanding of his desire for

effective public administration — but not competing public

administration — and little regard for his desire for

governmental thrift and administrative logic…at least, to

the extent that he has to practise in order to keep alive…and, unfortunately, continuing lack of government understanding

of his valid plea that he shouldn't have to suffer damages and

loss from labour-management conflicts which are beyond his

confines, beyond his control and beyond his responsibility.

It has been his hope that governments would accept such

philosophies and enunciate policies and initiate frameworks

wherein we can have a society that is truly functioning. And

functioning means producing in all of the facets of society — goods and services and ethics and morality and justice. But

default will never produce a concept such as that. So far,

parliamentary effort has been either not enough or improperly

directioned or a combination of both.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the political representatives

have been in awe of the strength of organized labour and the

strength of organized management, and have been misreading or

ignoring the wishes of the general public. And which general

public is now saying that it's not prepared any longer to sit

by and just take all of the lumps, and if it's going to

continue to be hurt as the consequence of two sides trying to

hurt each other with the possibility of gain, if any, only for

themselves, then the public is now also starting to say, "Why

shouldn't you take care of my lot too?"

You know, it is very difficult to quarrel with that kind of

logic. It follows simpliciter the law of damages: a party at

fault is responsible for all those damages which may be

foreseeable from the result of his default. Much public damage

is perfectly obvious and directly foreseeable in many of these

labour-management confrontative cases.

You know, it's one thing when two wasps try to sting each

other, but it's another when they land on the backside of an

innocent bystander. At that point it's not unnatural to suggest

that he's got the firm right to become aroused and defend

himself.

Now in contemporary society labour-management confrontation

has become an unpleasant fact of life and so far, one that is

showing little evidence of improving — in fact, quite to the

contrary. It's becoming a continuing inevitability.

Total calm, we all understand, is impossible, except in the

completely controlled economy and in a completely controlled

society — if even then — but, if so, at a terrible price. The

price is a loss of freedom and that's too high a price and too

great a loss.

Management and labour must appreciate that what was considered a right to strike

and what was considered a right to lock out is something that in many instances

is a right no longer and, instead, has become, by virtue of the complexity and

interdependency of society, a privilege in each case — a privilege which should

not be lightly abused. Now this is definitely so in the essential services and

becoming more so in the public sector, and in the larger operations in the private

sector. In those areas we have no longer just the two-partner situation of management

and labour, but now a third partner situation — management, labour and the general

public.

It's for that third partner situation that I make this pitch — not as an expert; I certainly don't make any claims to be

that. I would say that the experts' degrees of success over the

past 20 years haven't won too many prizes as the situation

continues to deteriorate with the experts in management and the

experts in labour, if anything, becoming more polarized — that

is, not producing results.

So here are a few suggestions, I'd say, hardly as panaceas,

for even the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon could

hardly produce that. But I offer these at least as suggestions,

as areas for debate, for governmental enquiry, for labour

enquiry, for management enquiry, for public response, because

what we have had has not worked.

Now in the law of negligence there is a long-established

principle that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or

omissions which would be likely to injure your neighbour. Your

neighbour is defined as a person whom you ought to have

reasonably contemplated might be affected by your act or who

would be affected by your omissions.

In the large situations the public, with their enormous

degree of dependency upon the continuance of an operation or a

function for their daily living, can certainly be construed as

being that kind of neighbour, and they should not have to be

hurt continuously. Also, because of the terrific

interdependence of society, the public experts and they deserve

that the abilities and energies of the specific sectors should

be directed not solely to their own interests to the exclusion

of all others but, where the public interest is affected,

certainly to that interest as well.

Technology has brought about the existence of this third

partner and there is no way that it can be ignored. The final

analysis is true; no one can be forced to work and no one can

be forced to hire, but neither should anyone expect the

bystander, which is the public, to take every kick at his shin.

If he does take a kick in his shin as the result of an illegal

act of others, shouldn't he be able to look to that errant

party for his genuine loss? Should we perhaps not amend the law

to ensure that such a remedy would be more available and maybe

even to defining the form and the extent of that remedy?

Also, when society concludes that public penalties

[ Page 162 ]

should be levied for illegal stoppages, is it unreasonable

or is unfair to suggest that the law be followed and the

penalties be enforced? Ignoring the law is no answer. Laws

which are passed to be ignored should never have been passed in

the first place, and should be repealed as quickly as

possible.

It seems to be the suggestion and the practice of some, Mr.

Speaker, that we are into a system of double jurisprudence in

Canada — the law of the country and a secondary system dealing

with the law of labour and management. I say that that's an

unwholesome premise in a democracy. If society does wish to

have that double standard it can have it, but so far it has

given no indication of expressing that wish — in fact, very

much to the contrary. But I do not think that our legislators

and our parliamentarians have yet got that message. Certainly

if they have got it they haven't acted upon it with the degree

that they should act upon it.

Should there be contributions by management and labour to

public damage funds that may be utilized as some form of

compensation for public loss suffered by illegal stoppages,

with a return to the contributors in management and labour

pension or dividend benefits, or as they allocate themselves,

if illegal interruptions didn't occur?

Should any thought be given to the suggestion of the

imposition of a public levy or tax upon those who are

responsible for unlawful lockouts or unlawful strikes, so that

wrongdoers would know that they would have to face a little

more than personal shortfall, and the collection of public

revenues would at least be able to keep pace?

Might not study be given to the establishment of a uniformly

imposed contract date with an obligation for parties to start

negotiating at least six months before its expiry date, so as

to prevent the leap-frogging of one settlement, good, bad or

indifferent, upon another? Now this might well neutralize some

of the bargaining crunch of either management or labour. But if

it would better serve to produce a healthy economic climate and

greater stability for all of the people of this province and

lessen at the same time the apples-and-oranges argument, would

that proposal be all that bad?

Also, is there any merit in the selection-on-offer concept?

The basic principle of it is that where two sides in the

dispute are deadlocked and are unable to resolve their

differences, a mutually-acceptable selector or selection panel

agreed to by the parties according, say, to the mechanics found

in the existing Arbitration Act, would be nominated and would

be given the power to chose between the last best offer

presented by each side. The chosen offer without alteration

would then be binding on both.

This principle has got some important values and I think it is worth inquiring

into in greater depth. It could provide both sides with strong incentives to

adopt a realistic position, for each side would be quite reluctant to risk a

deadlock without good evidence to justify its point of view, since the other

side's final offer might then be chosen as the more reasonable of the two.

The selective power to choose one of the final offers

without alteration would provide strong leverage to encourage

the two sides to agree. Final-offer selection, Mr. Speaker,

might indeed provide a framework within which collective

bargaining could operate more effectively without the necessity

of strikes and lockouts. Surely this is an option worth

considering.

We must all agree that every possible means of attempting to

lessen the areas of dispute between management and labour must

be encouraged by government, as well as by the parties

themselves, and perhaps then being more encouraged by law, if

necessary, to substitute consultation for confrontation. If

confrontation occurs without consultation, some form of public

imposition could follow. Wouldn't that be an improvement?

Wouldn't it also be an improvement that more defined and

lengthy cooling-off periods become part of the law of the land,

and become a sine qua non without which stoppages be considered

illegal?

It is unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, to advocate that binding

arbitration becomes a condition of employment in designated

essential services? You know, if a doctor walks out of an

operating room in the middle of an operation, leaving his

patient open on the table, he is subject to about four areas of

remonstrance. There could well be a charge of criminal

negligence under the Criminal Code of Canada; there could be a

claim for damages from the patient or his next of kin for

negligence and breach of contract; the doctor could also face

censure and loss of licence or work permit from his college,

and certainly closure of facility from the hospital. On the

other side of the coin, if the hospital locked him out under

similar circumstances, it would face similar consequences — all

mighty severe.

Is it too much to say that in essential service, the

privilege of work stoppage be not permitted as a condition of

employment, and if a function is not prepared to exist under

those guidelines, or people work for a function under those

guidelines, then perhaps the function should not exist and the

people should seek employment elsewhere? The definition of

"essential" may be very difficult indeed, and it is the

responsibility of government to govern, and it is the

responsibility of government to define that category, I would

certainly say by the process of open debate, and I would be

happy to be among the ones counted. If the government makes

mistakes, the public can remove the government. It seems to me

though,