1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1972
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 17 ]
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1972
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
Prayers.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.
MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to the House today a prominent Canadian, a great Canadian athlete, a former world skating champion here to help celebrate Schmockey night tonight for the Kinsmen's Mothers' March, Donald Jackson in the Speaker's Gallery.
Introduction of bills.
Orders of the day.
SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, do you want it all at once? Or a little bit at a time.
AN. HON. MEMBER: All at once.
MR. BARRETT: All at once. I welcome the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Along with the other Members of the House I enjoyed the visit by the Royal Family last year, and had the opportunity of chatting with Prince Phillip for a few moments. Perhaps some day I'll share with the House that conversation, but that will have to wait for some great future date.
I want to say that I'm very, very happy that all of us are back here together again. There is a very heavy attrition rate among M.L.A.'s, and mercifully we have the same House that came here after the election in 1969. I think this is the longest period without a by-election in many, many years. And I am very, very happy about that.
I agree with all of the greetings given in the Speech from the Throne. But, there was one particular group of British Columbians I felt that the Premier had not acknowledged, or the government had not acknowledged. And that is the crew of the Green Peace. I want on behalf of the Opposition to express a public recognition for what these men did, in sailing that ship. It was a symbolic gesture, and it stirred I think, an awareness in all the people of North America in a deep concern that we have about pollution matters, and related incidents to those particular problems.
When I was discussing with my wife the fact that this was my 12th session now — the time has passed by so quickly….
AN HON. MEMBER: Too long!
MR. BARRETT: It may be too long, and for others it may be too short. But the time has passed very quickly. I When I first arrived our oldest son was just starting Grade 1, and now he'll be graduating from Grade 12. And naturally his parents were very, very proud of him and our other two children. But he asked me a most provocative question. What has the government and the Opposition accomplished in those 12 years? And from his point of view,, and with a sense of urgency that exists of people of that age….
Interjections by Hon. Members.
MR. BARRETT: All the birds are back. I'm glad they're back too.
With his sense of urgency there's merit to his question, certainly. But after this throne speech in the first year of our second century, when we expected a government and its responsibility to announce the directions it was going, give a message of hope and inspiration to the people of this province, give some idea for those people who have suffered because of inadequacies of government programmes — that those gaps would be filled — all we got, Mr. Speaker, was a statement from a tired, old government reviewing past glories, as they saw them.
A hollow document…a hollow document.
You know, when people start dwelling in the past exclusively they have no eyes for the future. They have no eyes for the future. They want to see the pages of history recorded the way they write it, Mr. Speaker. Of course that comment has something to do with the motion I made on opening day.
But I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker….
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. BARRETT: Oh, I have something for my hon. friend.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) is here. I have something for him too. But we will come to that in a few moments.
It's been a busy year, Mr. Speaker. Our caucus has travelled throughout this province. We've had meetings in various parts of the Province of British Columbia and we even had a meeting outside of British Columbia which I will come to later on. And I want to publicly thank all of the N.D.P. M.L.A.'s, all of whom have interrupted their busy Lives to attend most of the caucus meetings throughout this province.
I want to thank them for their patience, and for their interest, and for their service, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as a direct result of those caucus meetings their mail and their work load has gone up dramatically. Because in every single area that we visited where a Social Credit member sat, Mr. Speaker, our work doubled.
We came to the conclusion the only way to get something done was to go to an Opposition member, at least he'd fight for you. And in the north, Mr. Speaker, they've been served that syndrome, the seven safe Social Credit seats in the north.
They've believed all these years that they were getting their representation. But Mr. Speaker, what is the Social Credit caucus? You know, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit caucus had a meeting here in Victoria. They had a meeting here in Victoria, nice and warm. Down here in Victoria — not out there in the bushes, where the weather gets 35 below in Fort St. John, or the unemployed are lined up in Prince George. They had a caucus meeting here after the….
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
[ Page 18 ]
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, some people have fixations about memory glands. For those I can only advise that there are far more serious problems in this province than worrying about those particular comments. But I understand the Hon. Member was trapped by a newspaperman or radio man and it was an unfair comment. Some of us have got other things on our minds.
Mr. Speaker, they had a Social Credit caucus meeting here. Oh, what a delightful occurrence. Why, who was the chairman? I think it is the M.L.A. from Alberni, Dr. McDiarmid as quoted here in the paper. And I think democracy in a political party is a wonderful thing to observe although it's only in small measure in Social Credit. So I thought that the people of British Columbia should understand how they viewed democracy in their party.
McDiarmid was asked if there was a discussion about Loffmark's controversial powers to decide ultimately whether a doctor may practice in a hospital or not. The government has agreed to modify those powers following criticism of doctors.
"Yes, there was, " the MLA replied.
He was then asked if the feeling was expressed in caucus that the relations with the doctors might have been better handled by another man than Loffmark in this portfolio.
"That's a very interesting question, " McDiarmid said. He said that there was general agreement, meaning some sort of encouragement must be given to get doctors to far flung areas of the province where they are needed. But, he added that the M.L.A.'s are pleased now that the government has agreed to set up a medical manpower advisory board.
The indication was the M.L.A.'s feel that this is a better way of handling doctor shortages in some areas than leaving it alone, for the Minister.
But, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: "One of the best things from our point of view was that the Premier was with us for almost a whole morning." Isn't that nice. Here they met in Victoria for two-and-a-half day conference and "one of the best things from our point of view was the Premier was with us for almost one morning."
Aren't you boys lucky. He really had a chance to spend some time with the fellows from up country.
Just imagine how that goes over in Pouce Coupe, or down in Terrace,
or in Dawson Creek, or in Vancouver Centre when they stridently go in
and say: "I just spent almost a whole morning with the Premier, and we
can wait for another year for it to happen again. Don't worry about
your problems. Big brother spent half a morning with us." You know Mr
Speaker….
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. BARRETT: The second act is coming for my hon friend. He keeps on talking and he gets closer, and closer, and closer.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know it doesn't really matter what I say, because if I say anything that the Premier doesn't like it'll go out of the record anyway. So if I can use any comments I want after last year's experience.
Here we are now after we're through with the caucus meetings and we go on to see the performance of the Hon Ministers over the year. I've got a note here that says, Powder Mountain or in brackets, here we go again.
The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williston) unfortunately is not with us today, but I want to quote a few of his comments about the Powder Mountain incident.
On January 22, 1969, Mr. Redel wrote a letter to Mr. Ken Farquarson, who had written the minister warning him about the problems faced in Powder Mountain. The last paragraph of this letter to Mr. Farquarson says that many ski developments now operating successfully throughout the province were all handled directly by the department and "this project is no different from the others, there does not appear to be a need for public hearing."
A public hearing was asked for by a number of people. There was a Dr. Peter Andrews, the head of the Canadian Amateur Ski Association. On December 1, 1969, in response to that particular request the minister said: "There is no point in stopping this limited situation at the moment, " the Vancouver Province December 1.
The Vancouver Sun, December 1, 1969, headlines: "Powder Mountain Enquiry Bid Turned Down, Williston Says Probe Not Needed." During an interview, Mr. Speaker, he said at that time, and I quote: "Williston angrily accused the Sun of spreading snot about Cypress Bowl and Powder Mountain. And of dictating to cabinet ministers that they must read the paper."
It was suggested that the evidence gathered by the Sun's team at Powder Mountain showed a speculative real estate development, not a ski resort. "Why, nobody can buy land in British Columbia, there only can be leased development purchased, " the minister said. They are saying have you read the newspaper? Quote: "What kind of snot are we getting into in this life?" Williston then went on to say: "Dr. Andrew is only a dentist, what does he know about this?" And that the Sun called him up and put the words in his mouth.
Mr. Speaker, I have never known anyone to put anything in a dentist's mouth. But here is the warning — 1969, the Minister's response is to insult that great newspaper in Vancouver. I have some affinity for the Vancouver Sun — I used to be a newspaper boy, that's my only affinity.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I find the Hon. Minister's response most interesting when you consider his statements on December 5, the same year, and I quote from the Vancouver Sun. The Minister said, "when he was asked about Cypress Bowl he said that the situation of the Cypress Bowl and Powder Mountain are very different." Then he goes on to eight paragraphs later where he says, "Williston said the Powder Mountain differs slightly." Then he goes all the way in the Vancouver Sun, January 19, 1972, when he said, "Williston acknowledges the difficulties encountered at Powder Mountain are similar to those leading to the cancellation of Crown leases in Cypress Bowl."
How many times? How many times do we have to go through this performance? Now we have the department announcing that bonds will have to be posted. I remember a statement the Hon. Minister made about Cypress Bowl. He said somebody's been sold the Brooklyn Bridge. Well, I think in this case, Mr. Speaker, the rerun indicates that the minister is a willing purchaser of that particular kind of approach.
The Hon. Minister's performance in this particular instance continues the motto that was suggested by one of my colleagues when he said, the minister's philosophy about this is "log and let log."
Warnings from responsible people — from Mr. Goward of the regional district, from Mr. Farquarson and from Dr. Peter Andrews — all ignored. Warnings by members of this House —
[ Page 19 ]
myself, my former colleague Mr. Berger and the Hon. Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). All of these things were spelled out in this House and the minister, I recall, with his very good friend, the Member from Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Kiernan), when they were warned about these things happening viciously attacked the members who brought it to their attention as if they were naughty, naughty, in suggesting that these projects could go wrong.
Wrong again! And now we get a pronouncement that from now on they will be posting bonds. Bonds won't grow the trees back. We need a policy of comprehensive park development and reserves that are spelled out by the parks department first, before this kind of fiasco happens — not calling the parks department in afterwards to clean up the mess.
I would like to spend a moment on an item that I picked up from the Vancouver Province, of Saturday, January 22, 1972. "The B.C. Government Is Helpless on Sniff Problems, says Peterson, is the headline. "The Attorney-General, Leslie Peterson, said Friday the Government can do nothing more to help stop youngsters on the Lower Mainland from sniffing nail polish remover and similar substances. Peterson was commenting on a proposal by Ernie LeCours who said that an Order in Council should outlaw the sale."
Perhaps you are helpless in legislation, but in the throne speech it announced that seven new mental health centres were open in this province.
In our travels as a caucus to various parts of this province, Mr. Speaker, we found that there was no co-ordinated plan of hospital beds for adolescents who are emotionally disturbed and no plan whatsoever to have beds anywhere in British Columbia for adolescents who have a drug problem.
This morning I phoned to make sure that things were as I saw them when we travelled. I phoned the Kelowna General Hospital — there are no psychiatric beds for children and there is no programme out of that hospital or beds for any child who has a drug problem.
The Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster — no psychiatric beds for children — no programmes for adolescents with drug problems.
Prince George Hospital — no psychiatric beds for children in that hospital and no programme for adolescents with a drug problem. I might say that the interview room the 11 psychiatric beds are serviced through, in the Prince George Hospital, is a renovated broom closet. That is the first place the mentally-ill patient comes into and has his first interview Imagine the impact of that room with no windows and a small cubicle as a reception for adults with emotional disturbances …
The Vancouver General Hospital — we checked again this morning — an eight-bed unit for emotionally disturbed children. No programme for drug problem children and the clinic here in Victoria has yet to be opened. There is a proposal for 20 beds for children and even that won't have a programme for children with a drug problem.
"B.C. Government Helpless on Sniff…" is the headline, Mr. Speaker. I suggest it should be altered — "B.C. Government Hopeless on Sniff."
I had a call from a mother in Surrey this weekend who has a 16-year-old son addicted to heroin asking me what programme could I possibly suggest.
Quite frankly I advised her that if she could scrape the money together it would be far better for her to send her child over to England because there is nothing here in British Columbia.
HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): That was irresponsible.
MR. BARRETT: Nothing here in British Columbia and if the Minister says it is irresponsible, I challenge him today to go out from this room and tell the Press so they can broadcast it to every concerned parent in this province where they can take their child when they have a drug problem.
They won't take them in Crease Clinic. Let the Hon. Minister phone Crease Clinic and find out that there are no beds and no service for a youngster with a drug problem. There is no place in British Columbia.
I suggested to her in all honesty and as a social worker that the only place I know of is England. It is terrible, and I phoned these hospitals today and checked this out and you don't even offer anything as a result.
AN HON. MEMBER: I don't believe it.
MR. BARRETT: The hospital administrators are telling lies? Then if you know, I challenge the Hon. Minister to stand up outside this hall, outside this chamber and announce to the Press where there are beds in any General Hospital for an adolescent with a drug problem. Name it! It doesn't exist.
AN HON. MEMBER: Send the 16-year-old kids to England where they can get free drugs — that's your solution?
MR. BARRETT: The most irresponsible words come from that minister. But that's about as irresponsible as one can get.
The only treatment programme that I was advised was available, was in England. There is nothing here.
AN HON. MEMBER: What an idiot!
MR. BARRETT: Just sheer stupidity and evasion of responsibility.
AN HON. MEMBER: Great place for 16-year-olds! That's the end of the deal. Great place! Free heroin for 16-year-olds.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if that's the Minister's policy, let him defend it.
AN HON. MEMBER: That's your policy.
MR. BARRETT: That's not my policy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BARRETT: I went on to read in the throne speech that on page six the Government announced, and I am gratified to report, that British Columbia enjoyed a relatively good year in the field of labour relations. "The absence of prolonged labour disputes suggests the combined efforts of labour and management and my government avoided serious confrontations."
The simple fact was that it wasn't a major contract year last year. That's why there wasn't confrontation and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government is considering a change in legislation then they must scrap the mediation
[ Page 20 ]
commission as a start. Section 18 of the bill must be removed.
The mediation commission has been by-passed by this government enough to indicate that even they have lost confidence in it and the only answer that labour and management are both calling for is an elimination of that commission, the mediation commission.
Well, then I went on to read the statements that the Premier and I have been jousting about for some time and that is the question of unemployment. Last year the Premier promised 25,000 new jobs in British Columbia and when I asked about that new job programme, the Premier took to answering me in newspaper ads.
Now I don't have access to newspaper ads. If we are going to have parliamentary debate in British Columbia and if the Premier wishes to engage in debate with the leader of the Opposition by purchasing newspaper ads, then I want a budget so I can answer with newspaper ads, Mr. Speaker.
The cards are pretty stacked now anyway, but when it reduces itself to buying ads, saying the leader of the Opposition asked a question and here is the answer, we can't even get answers to the question on the order paper. Now we get them in the newspaper.
What does he say? He said: "I wish to draw your attention to my policy statement in my budget address presented in the Legislature, February 5, 1971. I want to stress that this is the minimum objective," that is unemployment, "the minimum objective this year is to increase the number of jobs of people gainfully employed from October 1, 1970, to October 1, 1971, by a minimum of 25,000 jobs. Mr. Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition, has asked publicly, 'where are the jobs the Premier promised?'."
And the last paragraph, in announcing this great expansion, the Premier adds — and it is signed by the Premier — "a huge expansion of activity in reforestation, hydro development, high-way construction, Provincial Parks, and extension of P.G.E., is creating more new jobs for British Columbians every month."
What are the facts Mr. Speaker? In the throne speech, the government refers to the October figure of unemployment. Why refer to October? Because the December figure is worse news.
So select the month you want for the throne speech.
HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Labour): 61,000 more jobs in December….
MR. BARRETT: We are coming to that. You remember that speech.
Mr. Speaker, pick the months you want. October is a nice month to talk about in the throne speech — 53,000 unemployed. In December, Mr. Speaker, two weeks before this throne speech was prepared, the figure of unemployment in British Columbia was 64,000 — 11,000 embarrassing more unemployed in December. So let's pick the October month out of the hat.
Very nice for a throne speech. But very little comfort for the people unemployed.
Unemployed in December, 1971, 64,000. The labour force in December, 1971, 934,000 — an increase of 55,000. Employed in December, 1971, 870,000 — an increase of 61,000 employed from the previous year.
But there are 55,000 more people looking for jobs. There has only been a gain on those figures of 6,000, Mr. Speaker. The Premier's still 19,000 jobs short of his promise. To be fair, I ask now, I ask now publicly for an advertising budget, so I can buy an ad and sign it by my name.
MR. G.B. GARDOM: That's compounding the problem.
MR. BARRETT: Compounding the problem? You might as well get on the act too. Because there is a lot of gap involved here. You think they are going to stop? You don't think they are going to stop? Well then if they are not going to stop, then we want equal rights.
Equal rights. Oh — we'll see ads about "don't use drugs." and we'll see ads about "this is what's going on," but in terms of substance, in terms of job-creating opportunity, in terms of drug programmes — nothing doing.
But anyway it is nice to see my name in print, even though the government paid for it.
I just want to refer you — you know you are always talking about the other party — to what would the N.D.P. do. We know….
I want to read to you a clipping from Manitoba. "Manitoba Jobless Rate Decreased in September." The jobless rate decreased in September, the unemployment rate in Manitoba decreased in December, 1971, to 4.1 per cent.
"The Labour Minister, Russell Paulley said the brighter outlook in the unemployment field could be the reflection of the government-initiated programme to provide work. The actual numbers of persons unemployed in the Province in December stood at 16,000 compared with 19,000."
AN HON. MEMBER: They'll all leave!
MR. BARRETT: They'll all leave? There were 3,000 more Manitobans at the end of the year. Where are they going? To Alberta? To Alberta?
AN HON. MEMBER: Kelowna.
MR. BARRETT: Kelowna? You have got one of the highest rates of social assistance lists anywhere in this province in Kelowna. It is designated as a depressed area, Mr. Speaker. Designated as a depressed area. They need a change in M.L.A. to get some jobs in there for them.
I want to tell you one thing we won't hear about anymore from that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is Alberta.
Oh yes. The empire of the Golden West has slowly faded. We remember the days of Reverend Hansell, when they invaded British Columbia in 1952. Now they are coming as refugees. What happened? What happened?
The Hon. Minister laughs. Oh my! The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs — I was going to talk about his work in creating jobs.
Oh, he is up there. There he is and his friend the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi). He has gone too. Do jets fly in this weather? Oh, he was in earlier? Everybody's grounded. We will get a chance to see that minister for a little while.
Then we were told about the magnificent Social Credit programme to give people jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, some of the things from Alberta didn't die. You have heard of the Social Credit dividends, haven't you? The funny money.
It's a new twist. Go to school. Finish high school. Go to university. Graduate from the university. Get a B.A. Join the unemployed and then apply for a certificate of opportunity. That's the new Social Credit dividend.
This is the only place in North America where they hand
[ Page 21 ]
out a certificate proving you are on welfare, Mr. Speaker. They give you a certificate saying that you have graduated onto the welfare rolls, signed by the minister.
The Social Credit dividend — the Job Opportunity Programme. Oh, how it was announced with fanfare. Well there was a fight about who was going to sign it. But I want to come to that fight and I hope that the two ministers are separated while I review their exchange of remarks — I wouldn't want them to break out into fisticuffs here in the House.
The leadership aspirants, Mr. Speaker. The leadership aspirants — because even our Premier doesn't claim immortality. One thousand years from now there will be a need for change in leadership, according to him. When that time comes, who's ready in the wings, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Social Rehabilitation and Improvement. And what are they fighting over? They are picking over the bones of the unemployed, Mr. Speaker. That's the leavings they get. That's the leavings they get.
I want to go over what these captains of the Titanic have to say. Here's what happens.
First of all — one of the reporters in the gallery, Mr. Robert McConnell, said on September 8, 1971: "Campbell who is running the show guesses there might be 25,000 employable recipients who would qualify for the scheme. He hopes that jobs can be found for 60 per cent of them or 15,000."
This government loves statistics, Mr. Speaker. They've announced what a success they've been — 4.6 per cent success. The only one who's smiling is the Minister of Social Rehabilitation and Improvement — 4.6 per cent success, 95.4 per cent failure.
The only one who's not smiling is the Minister of Municipal Affairs — 95.4 per cent failure. With that kind of failure rate he should quit. He should quit, or, as my friend suggests, he should get a certificate of opportunity.
But then while the plan was announced, and the opportunity's presented itself for the minister to make pronouncements, so that he could get in the newspapers, what happened but the Minister of Social Rehabilitation and Improvement had some other comments.
"Socred Ministers Clash on Welfare." I quote from the Vancouver Sun, November 27, 1971. "Mr. Gaglardi said Thursday he is opposed to putting social services under regional districts in the province and that they should stick to such fields as hospitals, sewers and water services." You get the hint, Mr. Minister? Stick to sewers, hospitals and water services. He's trying to tell you something.
"The Victoria Community Council and the regional board have opposed the board be given functions of social service." The minister who is responsible for that function the Regional District shall perform in B.C. Is Campbell. The Minister's step, when told of Gaglardi's objection: "That minister is responsible for straightening out his own chaos."
What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours, Mr. Speaker. And he's responsible for straightening out his own chaos. And it says in here Gaglardi and Campbell. What is that television show, Member from CHAOS?
AN HON. MEMBER: Smart.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Smart, agent Smart. "Gaglardi and Campbell, both regarded as potential Social Credit leadership candidates, when Premier W.A.C. Bennett steps down, last clashed this summer."
The boys are fighting over there. There's no better way of keeping control, Mr. Speaker, than by having the boys fight among themselves. And no one knows that better, Mr. Speaker, than the Premier of this province. Oh, no one knows that better. "Stir up the pot, keep the boys at each others' throats and backs and I'll still ride out the herd, " says the Premier.
Oh, yes. We know how it is. Well of course we'll never get the real word until we hear the full secrets from the caucus. But we can't get the full secrets from the defecting member, because the defecting member never saw the Premier's caucus anyway. That's why he defected. So, when the Premier holds a caucus meeting it's in a telephone booth, by himself.
These two ministers continue to squabble and I'm sure it's a lot of fun. "Gaglardi disclosed in an interview Wednesday, " and I quote from the Vancouver Sun of October 7, "that he is turning aside employers who want to qualify for the 50 per cent government wage subsidy under Campbell's programme and telling them they have to use his own older programme."
Don't turn to the new stuff, stick with the old.
"Campbell angrily declared that he, not Gaglardi, is running the job subsidy scheme, and he hotly advised reporters to ask him about its terms of reference instead of the rehabilitation minister."
What a lot of fun that must have been in the Press gallery. Two ministers vying for the undivided attention of that glorious Press gallery.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Gaglardi said he had advised a man that had called him saying he needed four cooks, 16 waitresses, to start a restaurant and hoped to qualify under Campbell's programme. The Hon. Minister said he advised him his proposal doesn't involve setting up a new business in competition with others operating on their own without a government wage subsidy.
"Certainly those are new jobs, certainly they qualify, " said Campbell angrily when informed of Gaglardi's statement, last seen storming off down the hallway.
AN HON. MEMBER: There are too many cooks.
MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, it would be amusing, if that was the only matter. Just to show that the leadership candidates were warming up at that time, an ad appeared by P.A. Gaglardi.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who, who?
MR. BARRETT: He's got his ad budget, too. But the modest fellow didn't run his picture. Known for his Kamloops modesty, the minister deferred to someone else and under this young-looking picture of the Premier, it says: "I have been commissioned by the Premier to train as many young people as possible for gainful employment." That came out right after the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced his programme.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question. Where does that put the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the leadership race? Is he or is he not allowed to use the Premier's picture on his campaign material? And who paid for the ad? Who paid for the ad?
Mr. Speaker, this unseemly display of advertising between ministers hardly is any consequence to the problems faced by the people of this province in terms of unemployment.
We have the jobs television open-line programme, Cablevision Channel 10, tonight 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
[ Page 22 ]
"Moderator Walter Rutherford, news director CKWX will invite your questions on the job opportunity programme. The Honourable Dan Campbell, Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable James Chabot, Minister of Labour, and the Honourable Grace McCarthy, will be on this show."
You're on the grapefruit circuit on the taxpayers dollar. Welfare dollars being used for cheap political purposes.
Mr. Speaker, the minister announced that 4.6 per cent have been successful. So far, we have issued warrants totaling $652,000 for this programme and most of the money has been spent on advertising. Most of the money has been spent on advertising to promote the image and the aggressiveness of one minister versus another and to counteract that the other minister is taking out ads in his own name with the Premier's picture. Unseemly. I remember once the Premier looking over to this side and said "Who's Brutus?" They have a number over there, a number over there, Mr. Speaker!
Just sit down in your seat and watch your back. I want to tell those Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, they better put a steel plate down that back of that chair. With that kind of rampant ambition overriding any sense of programme, we begin to see what's happened.
Well, then we come to the question of what is this government doing about job opportunities? What is it that this government is doing? Nothing….
Oh, we remember what Mr. Anscombe said about him but we don't like to discuss those things. No, no, I think Mr. Anscombe was misquoted when he called the Premier a double-crosser.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of the programmes that I felt should have been included in the throne speech.
I want to talk about the lack of husbanding that has gone by in this province by this government. The fact that this government has allowed the wasting of our non-renewable resources. It has allowed a fantastic amount of export from this province and received literally pennies in return for the treasures that are draining away from this province.
We're often told, Mr. Speaker, that it's a businessman's government. Certainly there is one businessman down there at 18 1/2 per cent, but I don't know about the rest, Mr. Speaker. We shipped out of this province, according to the….
Interjections by Hon. Members.
MR. BARRETT: If the shoe fits, wear it. Well, Mr. Speaker, with all the money they've spent, I wonder they've got any money left to buy shoes with, for crying out loud.
What are the figures on exported material, raw minerals in this province, Mr. Speaker? In 1969, we shipped out copper concentrates — according to an answer on the order paper worth $111 million. In 1970, we shipped out $128 million. In 1971 the current figure is $138 million worth of copper concentrates.
What is the royalty we charge, Mr. Speaker? What is the amount of money that we charge for royalty in the name of the people of British Columbia, on their behalf and being responsible for preserving those non-renewable resources?
Copper was placed in the ground by God, not by Social Credit. It is to be used wisely and justly on the people's behalf because we were lucky to have this resource here for the people of British Columbia.
And what is it, Mr. Speaker, that they charge for copper? Nothing, nothing. They don't charge any royalty for copper in this province. They give it away.
They passed a law some years ago, Mr. Speaker, to require 50 per cent of the copper to be smelted in this province. They passed the law through this House. They backed down. When they were under pressure, they said it would go down to 12 1/2 per cent.
April 2, 1970, after we passed the law, Mr. Speaker, what did we get? A tough government bargaining for the resources belonging to the people of this province? A government responsible to provide jobs security and comfort to people of this province, a government willing to take on large international interests in preserving what's right for our people who live here, Mr. Speaker?
We got a headline from the Minister of Mines, April 2, 1970: "Relax, Don't Panic Over Smelter, Richter Tells The Mines." We didn't really mean it, we didn't really mean it.
When you pass laws for labour, you mean it. When you pass laws for drunk drivers, you mean it. When you pass laws for other people in this province you mean it but when it comes to the mines, "relax fellows, we don't mean it."
Let us go through the whole record of the mineral processing in this province. Just a quick review, Mr. Speaker, of what the Premier has allowed to happen in this province with his thoughtless policies of giving away resources.
The Premier has shown himself to be an inept businessman when it comes to dealing with the mines of this province. Kaiser coal — why you know what Mr. Ashley said, "Let's not stir up the Indians." While the Indians were being scalped again, Mr. Speaker, another case of Howe Street losing more money than the mines ever did.
Good corporate citizens, Kaiser, came in here and I hope the Hon. Attorney-General will present a report of an investigation of the insiders dealing on those stocks. I hope the Attorney-General will stand up and explain why these people are still allowed to do business in this province after having the inside trading that they had going on through Ontario.
Can't the government of British Columbia run the mines or are they inept? Are they frightened or concerned?
Mr. Speaker, if the Premier of this province insists on giving away the mines of this province there won't be anything left for the people to take over. Mr. Speaker, what is the Premier's statement on Kaiser inside trading? What is his statement? Does he approve of it or disapprove of it?
HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): He doesn't approve of you.
MR. BARRETT: I've got news for you Mr. Premier, I don't think much of you either…. I don't think much of you either.
Interjection by Hon. Members.
MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the mineral resources of this province no one has given away as much of a treasure as the Premier of this province and that "me too" Minister of Mines. Kaiser is shipping five million tons of coal to Japan at $18.65 a ton. They'll bring in $95 million and you know how much royalty they'll be charged? You know how much the insiders will have to pay? Nothing, Mr. Speaker. No royalty on Kaiser coal, no royalty on copper.
While hundreds of unemployed line up for jobs, the Premier of this province is giving away the resources of this
[ Page 23 ]
province. He thinks more of San Francisco, of Japan, of the United Kingdom and the United States, more than he does of the working people of this province who desperately want jobs.
His Achilles heel, Mr. Speaker, is the record of the mining industry in this province. Blunder, blunder, blunder. Stumble. Give away. And every time when they're asked to do something about it, they bring in legislation and say it doesn't really count.
The mining industry brought in a report, Mr. Speaker, that indicated that they sold $401 million worth of mineral resources from the Province of British Columbia in 1970 — $401 million, and the province had a profit of $32 million — $32 million out of $401 million worth of treasure sold from the Province of British Columbia. That same year, Mr. Speaker, we made $64 million selling liquor in this province. More money, by twice, from the profits of sin than we get from the profits of hard work of the people of British Columbia.
You know, Mr. Speaker, this pious government says "We're against drink", but they're not against profit. They have given away the mining resources of this province for $32 million profit and the same year they made $64 million selling booze and then we get ads saying, "Don't buy it, but it you are, make sure it's at a heavy cost."
What kind of a double standard is that? The government has failed the people of this province. They have failed to provide jobs, they've failed to provide them the revenue that should be coming from the mineral resources of this province.
The government brought in legislation to have a copper smelter and then backed off. For what we need now is, Mr. Speaker, is a non-polluting copper smelter, a non-polluting steel mill here in the Province of British Columbia right now with our resources on behalf of the people of British Columbia. And if the Premier sneers at that idea, then he's lost the vision of the greatness of British Columbia and he's relegating us to second-class citizenship of giving away our resources while our people go unemployed.
Our people desperately need leadership and all we get is sell-out. What about those jobs? We've had federal- provincial conferences. What is the Premier doing in terms of those federal-provincial conferences? First, he said "no package" at the federal- provincial conference. Then when he was offered a package, he said, "well, we'll take the package." Some of us thought that the Premier of this province would stand up to the federal government and say, "Look, we want federal legislation that will require that all raw materials leaving British Columbia have to be shipped in Canadian ships manned by Canadian crews."
We want to start the Canadian shipyards here in Victoria and Vancouver going again, Mr. Speaker. We want the same of those countries who need our resources. If they're going to purchase our resources they must be shipped on Canadian ships manned by Canadian crews. Canadian ships built with Canadian steel by Canadian workmen. We did it in war, Mr. Speaker, we did it in war.
We want a government to stand up to Ottawa and fight for the people of British Columbia. And one thing the government does, Mr. Speaker, is every single time, when they're asked to do something constructive and positive they blame Ottawa, they blame Ottawa. What is the reason we don't have a shipbuilding industry in this province, a steel mill in this province, a copper smelter in this province? Because we have a lazy, tired government that is used to having people on welfare, used to having unemployed. They think it is all part of life in this province, and they think that there is nothing that can be done about it.
Where is their nerve? Where is their drive? Where is that dynamic government that used to boast about the great job it did giving away the natural resources? That's what they are doing now.
What about an alternative to the waste and welfare of this government? Waste and welfare — Social Credit. That's what they are. We want some work and wages in this province, not waste and welfare.
Mr. Speaker, this province in conjunction with the federal government and the municipal governments spent last year $134 million in welfare — $134 million, with costs rising — 50 per cent provided by Ottawa, 35 per cent by British Columbia and 15 per cent by the municipalities. Draining the taxpayers, continuing a welfare programme simply because there has been no new initiative to break through and provide jobs for our people here. Dead-end programmes, no guaranteed income.
Our Premier states publicly that he favours a guaranteed annual income while under existing Canadian legislation of the Canada Assistance Plan any province can bring in a guaranteed annual income, any time they want, through that Canada assistance plan by raising the ceilings of the Canada assistance grants. Any province can do it.
The legislation does not prohibit not only an adequate payment of social welfare, but also can provide for supplements to the working poor. "Baloney" says the Minister. In the Province of Alberta, Social Credit before it left office, passed legislation allowing the use of Canada Assistance Plan funds for the supplement of the working poor.
Mr. Speaker, it is the working poor who suffer most from this government's policy. It is the waitress who earns $200 or $250 a month. It is the janitor who earns $250 to $300 a months. It is the breadwinner of a family with no skills who has a low-rating manual labour job that brings home only $300 a month. It is the farmer of this province who is trying to keep together what little bit of land he has got and his earning average around $300, $350 a month. And he would be happy for it.
These are the working poor of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. These are the people who carry the burden of the disastrous policies of this government on their backs. And these are the people who look upon welfare recipients as people who might actually be better off than they are.
You find that question common among our people throughout every corner of this province. When you talk to the ordinary, average British Columbian, as he struggles through his daily tasks trying to keep his home and house together, his hostility turns on the welfare recipient because he reflects on his own income and finds that he might, in fact, be better off if he went on welfare rather than work.
The first thing we must do, Mr. Speaker, is supplement the low income earner. That can be done and must be done now. The second thing we must do is to approach the federal government and ask for a whole new concept of welfare funds used in Canada — ask the federal government to establish what they consider to be minimum standards of service and child care and in social assistance and then give grants and aids to the provinces.
With the commitment by the provinces that they will maintain that federal standard, allow the provinces to use the capital in many diverse ways, including direct payments to people Allow them to use the capital for other projects.
[ Page 24 ]
Allow for example the use of Family Allowance funds to be diverted into the housing field.
The record of housing by this government is deplorable. I quote the United Community Services brief presented just last week: "January to November 1971, B.C. used $1,664,000 of federal money for family homes in British Columbia. Ontario used $110 million."
A ratio of 80 to 1. Housing construction provides jobs. Where is the housing construction in this province? Why doesn't this government stand up at the federal-provincial conference and say: "Look, allow us to distribute family allowance money. Allow us. Given the minimum standard to make payments on a graduated scale — The children $24 for number one, $16 for number two, $8 for number three — allow a family of three children or of two children to take an advanced sum of family allowances. Ten year advance sum. If they use that advance sum as a down payment on a home, or the construction of a home." It's their money.
And, Mr. Speaker, before this programme is initiated, this government must move into partnership with the municipalities and develop municipal land banks. So that the land that people are building their homes on is not falsely escalated in price by one of the most rapacious industries in British Columbia — the real estate industry.
Land has sky-rocketed not because of value but because of profits. And the only way to allow our people to have direct access to low-cost land is by developing Crown land under municipal offices, and allow people to even lease land.
But let them have access to those capital funds so that jobs can be provided out of welfare money now, Mr. Speaker, rather than work away at these silly little programmes that the ministers fight over.
We want jobs, Mr. Speaker, our people are crying for jobs. We educate our young people — ask them to go to work. The Premier believes in the word ethic yet the dead end we have for our young people is a very high percentage of them on the unemployment roles and on welfare.
These are modern times, they need a modern government. They need some aggressive direction. All we have had in the throne speech is pap when the opportunity exists for this government to bargain with Ottawa, to stand up and fight for British Columbia.
Instead we have a cry-baby cabinet, Mr. Speaker. We have a cry-baby cabinet every time they are asked about a specific problem. Drugs — that's Ottawa's fault. Unemployment — that's Ottawa's fault. Social welfare — that's Ottawa's fault.
Every single thing out of that cry-baby cabinet is Ottawa's fault.
The opportunity exists to bargain for the social welfare funds. To bargain for family allowance capital funds. Use these things on behalf of the people of this province.
Do we have leadership? We have a caucus that's proud that the Premier spent a half a day with them out of a two-day meeting.
Mr. Speaker, there are other things we can learn from other people of other jurisdictions. Some weeks ago, because of our concern for the economic situation of this province and pollution matters relating to this province, we decided to visit with Washington State legislators to discuss with them mutual problems. That visit, Mr. Speaker, was initiated from my office. We were received courteously by both the Senate and their legislature, Mr. Speaker.
AN HON. MEMBER: Let us know what you said there.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we were received by both houses and I had the opportunity of speaking to both houses.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about what you said?
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, they regretted that the Premier of the province seemed to be anti-American. Senator Frank Attwood made that statement.
Interjections by Hon. Member.
MR. BARRETT: That's what he said. It was interesting, Mr. Speaker. Senator Attwood made that statement and we rushed to assure him, we rushed to assure him, Mr. Speaker
Interjections by Hon. Member.
MR. BARRETT: Don't be so upset over there fellas. Don't be so upset about that. You've got an opportunity to redeem yourselves. If you follow the lead of the Opposition, you might redeem yourselves. You know, Mr. Speaker, during our meetings with the members….
Interjections by Hon. Members.
MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, now that the chirping is over, I'd like to pass on for your information a copy of the resolution passed in the Legislature in the State of Washington concerning cooperation between that great State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia on pollution problems.
This resolution was passed last year and was mailed on to the Premier earlier this year.
HON. MR. BENNETT: It was not.
MR. BARRETT: It was. You've not received it? We were sure it was mailed earlier. They didn't mail it last year and I said it was mailed earlier this year. Has the Hon. Premier received a copy yet? Well, Mr. Speaker, if he hasn't received a copy, while I'm going over it perhaps if you would send this over to the Hon. Premier so that he has a copy.
AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't search the mail too hard.
MR. BARRETT: We tried to explain to them that the Premier is a very busy man and tries to answer as much mail as he can. I quote from this Mr. Speaker:
Whereas the population continues to increase on both sides of the border, it will become more and more desirable and necessary to meet problems of air and water pollution with a co-ordinated effort on the part of the state and local governments in Washington and provincial and local governments in British Columbia.
and there is a whole list of preamble but I'll go on to the resolutions:
Therefore be it resolved by the House of Representatives that the legislative council is authorized and directed to undertake the study of problems of pollution control along the border between the State of Washington and the Province of British Columbia, the study to be made in the greatest possible cooperation with local governments and all departments of state governments in Washington, the local and provincial governments in
[ Page 25 ]
British Columbia, the appropriate agencies and departments of the governments of Canada and of the United States, and existing organizations existing having relevant authority or experience.
and it goes on:
hoping that this can be accomplished.
Mr. Speaker, after having a joint meeting with the legislative committee the first meeting of that committee was held in conjunction with our visit to the capital of Olympia and the Speaker, Mr. Swayze, is the chairman of that committee. We participated fully and equally in that committee hearing and Mr. Swayze requested that he would be willing to accept an invitation from the Government of British Columbia to have the second hearing of that committee here in British Columbia, either under the auspices of a co-chairman or a British Columbia chairman of the committee. Mr. Swayze made that statement publicly and I am repeating now. It appeared here in the Press as well as in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, besides the joint committee meeting, we met with Governor Evans who expressed the desire for a return trip by B.C. legislators and indicated that he would welcome an invitation from the Government of British Columbia.
I announce then, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat that we will be inviting a group of Washington State senators to the Province of British Columbia sometime later in March and that the Governor would welcome an invitation from the government.
Mr. Speaker, Governor Evans announced that there will be a new north state highway opening in September in the State of Washington. When I suggested that we cooperate in terms of tourist promotion in the north-west he accepted my suggestion that representatives of the British Columbia government be invited to the opening of that highway.
He also requested that the Hon. Member from Yale Lillooet (Mr. Hartley) and I attend as well. Governor Evans also expressed his commitments towards nuclear power in the United States. He stated that he was aware of the Canadian scientific advances in this regard. Governor Evans made a commitment publicly that because they will be going for nuclear power, they will no longer look at the prospects of damming any major rivers in that state.
I asked Governor Evans on what evidence he would be making these decisions and he said that he would make all material available to the relevant departments of this government — all the material that he based his decisions on.
The governor expressed the wish for closer cooperation on pollution and tourist matters, and I have some specific recommendations to make, Mr. Speaker, to this House in regards to cooperation on pollution control and tourism.
I'd like to make the following political recommendations in terms of pollution control. That the next joint legislative committee hearing be held here in British Columbia and that if both houses agree, perhaps an invitation should be extended to Alaska and to Oregon.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to the second suggestion I discussed with a number of Washington State senators their sense of remoteness from their federal capital and our sense of remoteness from our federal capital. They agreed that on specific pollution control matters it might be a useful device to have members of both legislative bodies jointly sign statements of concern about specific issues to be forwarded both to Washington and to Ottawa. Two Democrats and one Republican senator agreed that they would be very interested in signing a joint statement opposed to the proposed cross-Alaska pipeline and the shipping of oil.
Those were the only three we discussed it with. They agreed that they would take the statement and circulate it among their colleagues. I am in the process now of drafting such a statement, Mr. Speaker, and will forward that statement to the Washington State house, Senate and to the Legislative Assembly and ask for its return, and I will circulate a similar statement here in British Columbia. Not only to M.L.A.'s but to M.P.'s as well.
Another matter discussed, Mr. Speaker, was the possibility of opinion plebiscite on current issues regarding pollution. Being politicians, they recognise the force of public interest, public opinion, and they said that they would be interested in a co-ordinated plebiscite.
In terms of administrative cooperation, Mr. Speaker, Governor Evans suggested that the two jurisdictions have joint pollution control standards. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this government accept that invitation and immediately set up through its pollution control board a task force to meet with its counterpart in the State of Washington to start drafting companion legislation that we can share across the border.
Number two, I recommend that there be a constant and methodical exchange of research. Some departments are already going this independently and have done so successfully over the years. The department of fisheries, the biologists and the fish and game department have been cooperating for years. Some of the other research material that they have can be made available. I would suggest a co-ordinated effort to bring that about, especially the latest information that the Washington State Fisheries Department has on the salmon killed on the Columbia.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, an innovation that I would like to suggest is an exchange of our scientists and of our civil servants, perhaps on a six-month basis or even a year basis.
Just as we exchange teachers with other jurisdictions, we can I think learn a great deal by exchanging some of our civil servants over a short period of time, to learn as much as we can about how they are handling the problems that are common to both jurisdictions.
Mr. Speaker, the trip to Olympia was a great learning experience for this group. The cooperation, the understanding and the hospitality of our neighbours, was unequalled. I think a great deal can be accomplished from these exchanges. I would hope the government would set aside its partisan attitude and follow up across the bridge that we built to those legislatures.
Mr. Speaker, there are many other things that I had intended to comment on; auto-insurance, gas pipe-line to Vancouver Island, free trade comments by the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture, our power needs in British Columbia. These things we intend to discuss throughout the throne debate.
It will not be a meaningless exercise for us, Mr. Speaker, as the throne speech was a meaningless exercise for the government. We intend to use this time to propose alternatives, plans and directions, that we think the government should be taking.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen a government that is tired in office, a cabinet that quarrels among itself and when pinned down with a problem acts in a cry-baby reaction to Ottawa.
No matter what happens out of this legislative session, no matter what happens in the future of this province, it must be said for the record that one of the greatest opportunities of outlining new directions for the people of this province was dramatically missed the resent government of this
[ Page 26 ]
province, in the throne speech.
We expected someone to stand up and fight for our people. We expected someone to stand up and fight for British Columbia. We needed leadership. Even the former Attorney-General in the province has indicated that he considers, "the Province of British Columbia's economic condition to be similar to some southern states."
The Premier attacked him for that comment. Who should know better, but a former Attorney-General? Now after this throne speech we have nothing from the government to go on. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to reject this throne speech and we will give our detailed reasons why. It is a bitter disappointment that this government has lost the opportunity to lead and I hope soon they will lose the opportunity and the right to govern.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.
MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it's nice to have everybody back again and it is nice to see those on the government side looking so well rested. Because it's evident from what was in the throne speech, the Hon. Members on the government side were certainly spending their time resting as well as being on vacation.
I found it reassuring to find so many security guards protecting the buildings for this year's throne speech. It would have been nice to have had them around last year. I don't think there was any danger this year, because I think that if any demonstrators had been in the building the throne speech would have put them to sleep before they started any trouble.
While I enjoyed what the mover and seconder had to say on Friday, we started a tradition a year ago with one of the people who was involved on that first day moving to the cabinet and the other moving to the opposition side.
I haven't quite made up my mind where this year's mover and seconder will be going to at the end of the session. I thought it might have been appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to attach some kind of an apology in that motion last Friday — some phrase of sympathy for the Lieutenant-Governor. He read the speech very well, but it must be getting to be quite an ordeal to go through all these meaningless platitudes each year.
To put it charitably, the throne speech was a pathetic launching into a second century. It was really a nostalgic look at the past. It showed that the government had completely exhausted itself reaching the end of the last century. There isn't anything left for this century. No steam. Some said.not even any hot air.
There was a mention of the Gas Act. I am sure that all Hon. Members were thrilled to learn, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Chant) especially, that there was going to be a new programme. We would have legislation to consolidate the Gas Act and the Electrical Energy Act and the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Act.
We had other bold advances too. We are going to have a board for the Hearing Aid Regulation Act. The government is considering the feasibility of an Indian court caseworker programme — not necessarily going to have the programme, we are just considering the feasibility.
Legislation is under consideration regarding the companies and securities law. Under consideration. We are going to have a supplement to the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act and that's going to be signed shortly. Two ferries are to be lengthened. An open-pit mining school is to be started. That will please both the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Richter) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brothers).
Mr. Speaker, this is a programme for the second century? I offered Hon. Members of our caucus 25 cents if they could identify a single item of any significance in this throne speech.
AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all that's worth — two bits?
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, that's all the throne speech is is worth, not even that. The throne speech wasn't worth 25 cents. I think the Victoria Times put it well in its cartoon when it said of the throne speech, "the Premier is recycling the empties again." What a programme for our second century!
Hunt through the throne speech. I offer any of you 25 cents. Find one significant thing in it.
Interjections by Hon. Members.
MR. McGEER: Well, for the Hon. Minister of Labour, I want to say a word or two, about unemployment, because there are 66,000 people unemployed in British Columbia. Those are the November figures — they gave us 53,000 in the throne speech, that's how out of date it was — 66,000 unemployed. What has the government got for them, Mr. Speaker? We know that the government spent $620,000 on a certificate of opportunities programme. I don't know whether the Hon. Minister of Social Rehabilitation agreed with that programme. Certainly he had words with the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.
$620,000 for what was it — 300 jobs or is it that many? Between the time that the programme was announced and when it was launched in November, unemployment had gone up 13,000 more in British Columbia, and it has gone up again since.
It is the same old story, Mr. Speaker. People are available and wanting to do work and there is a fantastic amount to be done in the province. Only bad management and bad leadership keeps the two from getting together.
Mr. Speaker, the dynamic Liberal programme would achieve this. We want to get British Columbia moving again and this is what a Liberal throne speech would have sounded like to commence our second century:
[ Page 27 ]
steps to bring our post-secondary educational programme in line with modern needs. A post-secondary educational commission will complete its studies within a year to recommend the priorities for additions to technical and vocational institutes, community colleges and universities. Included in the study will be the feasibility of opening a new medical school at the University of Victoria.Now we are going to come, Mr. Speaker, to a vote on the throne speech. That was a brief one. 15 points — took no more than 10 minutes — but contained in it is the kind of dynamic progress that we need to have now in British Columbia, to take these 66,000 people off the welfare roles and put them on to the wage roles, to get British Columbia reaching once more for the potential it can achieve and to get us away from the nostalgia of the past and into the dynamism of the future.
I invite all of you on the opposition side or the government side who wish to see a dynamic programme in British Columbia to vote for this programme. Come and join with us to put it to work. We will have a budget too, when budget day comes.
Well, not everyone measures progress by new development and capital growth. We must have roads and transit systems, and railway extensions, universities, and industrial growth and new sources of electricity. But for the people in heavily-settled areas their wish for preserving certain sectors of land in its natural surroundings for the enjoyment of those who will follow after becomes of paramount importance.
It is this particular set of values that applies to the constituency that I represent — Vancouver–Point Grey.
Progress and unchecked development to many of them is an unpopular thing. When you are blessed by the magnificence of the Vancouver surroundings, people become determined not to accept the inevitability of concrete dominance. They want to have the natural advantages of their environment preserved and not lost forever to the developer.
There is a particular area of Vancouver–Point Grey where for some years negotiations have been taking place between the City of Vancouver and the federal government. I know the Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is aware of this.
To date the federal government has agreed to lease 72 acres of the now remaining 110 acres of defence department property north of Fourth Avenue to the City of Vancouver for $1 a year. But only on the understanding agreed to in 1969, that the remaining 38 acres could be disposed of for a substantial financial return. The sale was to be made to compensate the government for losses on the 72-acre land swap.
Now, I want to set the records straight. The federal government gained control of the site in question as well as land south of Fourth Avenue from the Province of British Columbia. The date was March 28, 1947, the total cost was $351,500; the area, 140.6 acres; the amount $2,500 an acre.
The lady minister from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is getting a little ahead of me on my speech. Just as she got a little ahead of the federal M.P., Mr. Ray Perrault, in writing to him and releasing the letter to the Press before it arrived in Ottawa.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.
MR. McGEER: I don't think the people of Vancouver should necessarily expect hand-outs from Ottawa. But if Ottawa is not prepared to lease the further 38 acres now scheduled for private development back to the city for $1 a year, then the people of Vancouver should be allowed to buy it back at the price the provincial government originally sold it to Ottawa for. The federal government intends to sell these 38 acres at a total price of $3 — $4 million — approximately
[ Page 28 ]
$100,000 an acre, a speculative real estate deal involving potential profits of 4,000 per cent.
I think that profit is an expected occurrence between corporations or private individuals, but profit realised between two levels of government where the contracting parties are representing the citizens at large is inexcusable, particularly when it is this extreme.
Governments exist to serve the people and where previous arrangements, contracts or laws exist and appear not to be achieving that aim then renegotiation should take place in order to achieve optimum public benefit.
Prior to 1942, when the provincial government permitted its lease to be assigned to Ottawa, this area was open space — a golf course. It was taken over by the defence department for air force purposes. When the air force left the site at the end of the war, it was permanently alienated to the Department of Defence for the use of the army.
The national defence lands at Jericho are one of the few consolidated areas still available within Vancouver on which a major park could be developed and if a choice must be made between obtaining another 38 acres of parkland for the people of Vancouver or another 38 acres for private development for a few who will profit, I prefer the former.
Jericho Beach itself is the finest stretch of sand near a large community anywhere in the province. It is within a 30-minute drive of half the people of British Columbia. All the open space we can preserve near that beach will be precious.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislature will support the proposal I will make, that the area should not be sold off for short-term economic gain, but be preserved as open space. I hope this resolution will be supported particularly by the Hon. Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain, and be communicated to the federal government at an early date.
Now I want to talk for a few minutes about glue sniffing or solvent sniffing.
I want to associate myself, at least in part with some of the remarks by the Hon. Member from Richmond (Mr. LeCours) regarding that particular difficulty. I was extremely disappointed, Mr. Speaker, to read that the Attorney-General had stated outside the House that he was "helpless on sniff."
Many members may have sensed the helplessness of the Attorney General on quite a few issues. But I hope that in this particular case he might have shown the same aggressive dedication that he showed in going after the topless dancers. He was going to put the full arm of the law.
Interjection by Hon. Member.
MR. McGEER: Well, I only go by his interviews with the Press. I don't know how much comfort the mothers of British Columbia got from the Hon. Minister's drive against the topless dancers but I do know that many of them are extremely concerned over the problem of solvent sniffing.
Mr. Speaker, solvent sniffing isn't like our other drug problems. It produces a state quite comparable to simple drunkenness. But since juveniles aren't allowed to drink alcohol, they turn to solvents. That way they're not outside the law. But the only problem is that solvents are much, much more harmful, much more dangerous than alcohol to physical health.
Solvent sniffing isn't a new problem here or elsewhere. It is one that has received attention by medical and legal experts in many countries of the world.
Legislation has been passed against solvent sniffing in many cities and states in the United States — California, Illinois, Maryland…I hope the Attorney General is getting these places down…New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island. These are all examples of states that have legislation against solvent sniffing. In addition to this, there are a great many cities that have ordinances against it. So I say to the Hon. Attorney General it is wrong and it is weak of him to suggest that laws cannot be passed, or experience with these laws already passed cannot be applied to British Columbia. Simple amendments to the Liquor Act….
AN HON. MEMBER: He likes his liquor or likes his sniffing….
MR. McGEER: Just outlaw it. It would be very simple. Outlaw it, for sniffing purposes, and include sniffing as a state of intoxication.
A wide variety of toxic constituents have been used for solvent sniffing. I would like to tell Hon. Members what these are.
First of all, plastic cements. What the sniffers want in these preparations are toluene, acetone, hexane and various aliphatic acetates.
Then there are the model cements which you get out of hobby kits. Here again, the solvents are acetone, toluene and naphtha.
There are the household cements — toluene, acetone, isopropyl alcohol and ketones.
Fingernail polish remover — acetone, aliphatic acetates, benzene and alcohol.
Lacquer thinners — toluene, aliphatic acetates and alcohol.
Lighter fluids. These contain very dangerous halogenated hydrocarbons — things like carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethylene as well as petroleum ether. Then lastly, there is gasoline.
The potential toxicity of these solvents is to the brain, the liver, the kidneys and the blood. This is why all of these solvents are very strictly controlled in industrial situations.
The medical reports include hallucinations and delusions from solvent sniffing. This is just a more extreme manifestation of the drunkenness and euphoria which the people sniff for in the first place. Amnesia for events surrounding an intoxication is common. Tolerance is encountered. Habituation is common. About 30 per cent of solvent sniffers have changes in their blood cells. Protein and blood cells are found in the urine, which is evidence of temporary kidney damage. Some sniffers have been found to have enlarged livers.
So far no evidence has been found of permanent changes in the electro-encephalograms of these people. But a high percentage of them show acute abnormalities. There have been a number of recorded deaths from over-exposures. As far as one of the common ones — toluene — is concerned levels of 400 to 500 parts per million over a prolonged period are considered dangerous. But sniffing toluene produces levels 25 times as great. Fortunately, sniffing will lead to unconsciousness and this is one built-in safety mechanism.
But there is a bewildering array of organic solvents that can produce this state of drunkenness. It is obviously hard to pin down with any precision the overall toxic effects of solvent sniffing. It also would be impossible to eliminate the sale of potential agents
[ Page 29 ]
Now, what are we going to do about it? The approaches which have worked, and which have reduced the problem in many areas are these:
First of all education. The solvent sniffers ought to know the risks they run to their brains, livers, kidneys, blood.
Secondly, there should be alternative recreational programmes because surely if there are better things to do, people aren't going to go around sniffing solvents. We should organise sports, games, dances and the sorts of things that are always absent in disadvantaged areas, and indeed are absent in areas where this has become a problem.
What kinds of legislation have been tried? This by itself is not going to eliminate the problem. But what it is going to do is to help and it becomes part of the total programme to knock this very serious problem down to reasonable or manageable proportions — hopefully to make it disappear.
The way to go about it is first of all to extend the definition of intoxication to include that state produced by inhaling these organic vapours. That's what they do it for. It produces the identical effect to drunkenness. They can't drink alcohol so they sniff the solvents. That's an easy thing to do under the Liquor Act. The second thing is to outlaw the sale of these solvents for the purposes of solvent sniffing.
When a man in a skid-road grocery store retails several bottles of Cutex along with two plastic bags to a teenager, he knows, and the teenager knows, that that sale is for the purpose of solvent sniffing. And that is the kind of thing that can be legislated against. I suggest we refer the problem of solvent sniffing to a committee of the Legislature right away, and let this committee go about the process of pursuing the problems I have outlined.
If good advice is obtained regarding laws which have been cast in other jurisdictions then consideration should be given to such legislative changes before the House prorogues. But even without any changes in the law, if we come up with good educational and recreational programmes, that in itself is going to have a very beneficial effect.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the two ministers who are members of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro are present today. I am sorry the Premier is absent once again when I am speaking because I want to devote the remainder of my remarks…. Well, perhaps the ministers can convey what our ideas are on a new energy policy for British Columbia.
Now it's often been said that young engineers of the 19th century graduated with visions of bridges they would build while those of the 20th century were filled with darn nonsense. Somehow, in British Columbia, old politicians have got mixed up with that equation. Because almost every facet of our life here in British Columbia in the past decade has been subservient to some dam policy or other.
Why do power considerations loom so large in our life? The reason, Mr. Speaker, is because we British Columbians consume more power than any other group of people in the world except the Norwegians.
According to the 1968 figures, the Norwegians used 3,774 kilowatts per capita, we're second with 1,882 and Americans have 1,660. Well, I don't know why we're so high. But it is obvious that energy considerations loom very important in our lives.
AN HON. MEMBER: Those figures came from Dr. Shrum.
MR. McGEER: Yes, the figures came from the chairman, but you'll find that I don't agree with everything that the chairman says.
Mr. Speaker, the trouble in British Columbia is that, important as those energy decisions are, we have no formal way in this province of making those decisions. This is what needs to be corrected.
What we do have is an abundance of just about every form of available energy known to man, and we've got all the options that possibly could be considered. But how are we to choose wisely? On what basis, on what consideration, should the choice be made?
Mr. Speaker, Social Credit took control of energy decisions when it expropriated B.C. Electric. Why did it do so? It did so because B.C. Electric stubbornly refused to make politics a major consideration in deciding its future power projects. And since that time decisions have been made on basis of the political prejudices and the political intuitions of a few in the cabinet.
Judgments should have been more intelligently arrived at. They should have been arrived at only after gathering extensive information and taking into full consideration these three factors — cost, conservation and the environment.
Now we're approaching a new and critical round of energy decisions. Are we going to have the same old political interferences plaguing our judgments? Or who really makes the decisions? Who decides about the development transmission and distribution of energy resources?
Is it the Premier? Is it the Premier and his friends? Is it the Treasury Board? Is it the full cabinet? It isn't the Legislature. It isn't the Energy Board. It isn't B.C. Hydro. All of these bodies could be said to play some part. But as evidence has been piling up none of them really makes the decisions.
I want to give a typical example of how decisions are made. On April 30, the Premier called a surprise Press conference. And he announced that the cabinet was inviting proposals for a natural gas pipeline from Williams Lake to Vancouver Island.
Several industries were named as customers of that pipeline. They were named whether they liked it or not. The government, the Premier said, was prepared to force pulp mills to use the gas. Proposals were to be submitted by July 30 and the Premier said he hoped construction would begin this winter, by now. The provincial cabinet was going to decide which proposal to accept.
Well, I am going to say a great deal more about this pipeline before the session is finished. All I want to point out now, Mr. Speaker, was that this was related in no way to do any study by the Energy Board. It's obvious that a power plant fired by natural gas on Vancouver Island would be an important element to consider before any pipeline plans to the island could be definitely decided upon.
But this pipeline wasn't part of any proposal by B.C. Hydro. They were as surprised as anyone else. It didn't have anything to do with the Public Utilities Commission. That confused and bewildered body was dragged in later.
There wasn't any Order in Council, Mr. Speaker, that's because there wasn't any legislation that gave the cabinet this kind of authority. It didn't have anything to do with the Legislature — that's obvious.
Well, what did it have to do with? The only certain thing that we can find as input on this pipeline came from one of the Premier's close friends and public relations advisers. He's the one who had pipeline connections.
[ Page 30 ]
Well, the directive of the Premier wasn't related in any way to the most economic way to provide gas to Vancouver Island. Was it? You people know that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please address the Chair?
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, my apologies for having offended you. I'll certainly attend to my duties here.
The Energy Board's interim report which was filed in the Legislature last February said that the power supply to Vancouver Island was one of the "special problems" that Mr. J.K. Sexton as the engineering advisor would look into. So you see the Energy Board was studying this problem at the time the Premier gave his directive, and it was simply one more example and a particularly flagrant example of the constant political meddling in what should be sound and justifiable energy decisions.
You know, I think the cabinet was every bit as much in the dark as the Premier. Because after that original Press conference there was one confused statement after another, all of them contradictory, spilling out from a series of cabinet ministers.
They didn't know what the Premier was going to say next, they didn't know what he was thinking about, and they had no idea how the cabinet was to proceed. The Premier changed the ground rules a half-a-dozen times and moved much more nimbly than some of the cabinet ministers. But the whole point was that this was not a policy that was arrived at after careful cabinet study.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Quesnel (Mr. Fraser) is chuckling. He doesn't really care or express much interest at all in this. And that's the appalling difficulty of the Legislature. The cabinet goes ahead and makes these critical decisions with no reference at all to the back benchers, or to the Legislature, or probably even to the cabinet.
Now how about the cabinet directive of June 8, 1970? Again, political prejudices at work. This was directing the Energy Board on "the best use of public and private energy resources to meet the electricity load growth in the province up to 1985."
So far so good. Such a report is necessary and it's desirable. But the Energy Board could work better if it weren't kept in blinkers. And these blinkers were provided by further cabinet instructions that the board should consider "additions which could be made to existing hydro-electric plants," "potential hydro-electric plants which could be constructed, " and "potential thermal-fired electric plants which could be constructed using readily available sources of fossil fuel."
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Energy Board is not even allowed to consider the possible advantages of nuclear and solar power as compared to hydro and thermal power.
AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?
MR. McGEER: We're going to come to what's wrong with that in just a minute, Mr. Minister.
But there's still a more serious defect with that cabinet order. There's not a single word about environmental conditions. Despite this obvious cabinet disinterest in the environment, the Energy Board itself made this much of a gesture in its interim report filed last February. It said that, in addition to advisory groups on power marketing, fisheries and flood control: "provision has been made in the plan of organisation for the services of one more group or committees to serve in an advisory capacity, primarily with respect to environmental problems not covered by the advisory committees already described.
"Such an advisory group," says the Energy Board, "has not yet been named, pending clarification of the subjects for consideration." In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Energy Board is aware of the environment but doesn't know how to cope with it.
Now I want to switch to the favourite topic of the Minister of Labour, the Skagit Valley. Because this is where some clarification of environmental problems came.
And I want to pay tribute to the Hon. Member from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) for the amazing fight he carried on with respect to the Skagit Valley. And I would have thought there would have been a little applause there from the Hon. Minister of Recreation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan), and the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williston), because without that Hon. Member's determined and dedicated effort the whole project probably would be proceeding ahead to the detriment of British Columbia, to the detriment of our environment, and to the advantage of Seattle City Light.
Through his leadership and with no help from the Province of British Columbia the issue was taken outside of the Legislature. It became the subject of an unprecedented set of hearings by the International Joint Commission right here in British Columbia.
I wish I could give some praise on this whole question to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and to the other M.L.A.'s. Because I was ashamed and embarrassed when they walked out of those hearings describing them as irrelevant. And again they describe them as phoney. If others had had as little vision as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition we wouldn't have had the kind of report that we've got today, and the kind of optimism we have about the future of the Skagit Valley.
Few people here expected that the International Joint Commission would bring down the kind of critical report that it did. It was forbidden by its terms of reference to recommend against the project. But just the same the clear thrust of its report was that the dam should not be raised, that at the very least it should be delayed for further study. That report is going to be forwarded to the U.S. Federal Power Commission, and of course they will make the final decision.
The International Joint Commission said there was little it could recommend that would mitigate the losses to the environment of flooding the Skagit Valley.
You know, when the hearings were here, the Government of Canada appeared. The government made a strong case But the Minister of Recreation and Conservation wasn't able to muster any case at all on behalf of the Skagit Valley.
The International Joint Commission report referred in depth to the decrease in abundance of "almost all small mammals, and aquatic mammals in particular." They said there would be at least a 50 per cent decline and possibly an 80 per cent decline and possibly an 80 per cent decline in the population of deer. Black bears would be reduced by half and cougars eliminated. Fishing would be down to 20 per cent of what it is now. All of that data was collected without the slightest bit of help from our Minister of Recreation and Conservation. That information had to come from elsewhere.
Also absent from the hearing was the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Mr. Speaker, he's the one who
[ Page 31 ]
signed that contract for $35,000 a year. Worse than that, before the Hon. Member from North Vancouver–Capilano interceded, that minister was prepared to strip off all the timber years before Seattle City Light had the green light to go ahead.
This is the same minister that's been responsible for the devastation in Cypress Bowl and Powder Mountain. Can't log off recreational areas fast enough.
Even the former Minister of Lands and Forests for the Social Credit government, Mr. Sommers, found it hard to believe what the present minister had done.
The courts of the land found fault with the way Mr. Sommers handled his portfolio, but I won't fault him for handling the Skagit Valley issue. Here's what Mr. Sommers insisted upon for British Columbia: that British Columbia receive half the power benefits that would come from raising the Ross Dam. A few ministers over there, you know, sat on the cabinet benches with Mr. Sommers and probably remember when this issue came forward. It was the first problem that ever faced him as Minister. And he handled it well.
Because I estimate that the income to British Columbia, had the Sommers plan been adhered to, would have been $620,000 a year — 18 times as much as the income provided for by the Williston plan. And by the time the contract ran out it might be as high as 100 times as much as the Minister was prepared to sell out for.
But I don't think the real value was in the fact that the former Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Sommers, was able to strike a shrewder deal for British Columbia. The value was that this formula would make it uneconomic for Seattle City Light to go ahead.
If the present Minister had insisted on the Sommers formula — which after all was the formula for the Columbia River Treaty — then Seattle City wouldn't have even thought about flooding the Skagit Valley.
And the only conclusion that I can draw is that the minister wanted it to happen, and made the terms attractive to Seattle City Light.
AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read that contract?
MR. McGEER: I'd be happy to have you table the contract. But remember that the minister never signed it. Did he? The minister never signed anything.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McGEER: I'm talking about Mr. Sommers. They gave him a contract and he refused to sign. This is what the Skagit Valley says, talking about the International Joint
Commission….
Interjections by Hon. Members.
MR. McGEER: Maybe if you hear about it a few times it'll begin to sink through.
I want to quote from the International Joint Commission report.
Social preservation values are defined as the value to society as a whole, and to the many people who have no intention of visiting the valley, of knowing that it is preserved in an unchanged state. They reflect the preferences of society and the satisfactions gained from the assurance that natural phenomena continue to exist.
This social preference for preservation of natural areas may be completely independent of the participation of actual visitors. It is known that in considering the Arctic marine tundra environments, coastal oil spills and other matters, the general public has expressed preferences and attitudes supporting to a definite, but unmeasurable extent, the preservation of a natural condition. Society can be said in these cases to receive some vicarious satisfaction from the assurance that a natural phenomenon continues to exist, that its ecological bonds are not weakened, and that it is available for the unchanged enjoyment of very interested, or local people.
The principle, social preservation values. This is a principle which we Liberals strongly believe in and are prepared to support without reservation. And it's the principle which has been totally ignored by the Social Credit government and misunderstood by the N.D.P. official opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, shame!
MR. McGEER: They were the ones who were in favour of the
McNaughton plan for the Columbia and that Hon. Member who said "Oh,
shame", Mr. Speaker, was one I've heard stand up in this House
applauding the McNaughton plan which would have done devastation worse
than any of the projects that we've had — and they've been bad enough.
This principle that we're talking about, Mr. Speaker….
AN HON. MEMBER: If the Hon. Member would like to sit down, I'll tell him….
MR. McGEER: You'll have plenty of opportunity to advocate the McNaughton plan again, plenty of it.
AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what McNaughton said.
AN HON. MEMBER: Give us Strachan.
MR. McGEER: I'm sure the Hon. Member does want Strachan, but those Hon. Members are going to listen to this, Mr. Speaker, and some of it is going to be painful.
Interjections by Hon. Members.
MR. McGEER: Let's quote from the throne speech this year. This is what the Lieutenant-Governor was obliged to say….
Interjections by Hon. Members.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. McGEER: During 1971, more than 90 per cent of the electrical energy generated by the authority was from hydro-electric sources. It is important to note that these sources do not contribute to water or air pollution. That's what the throne speech said.
Somebody said, "Hear, hear", on the other side but I want these Members on the government side to consider how these sources of electricity have devastated the land.
Anyone who has visited the areas behind these dams, and I've visited nearly all of them, comes away with an eerie feeling of depression that lasts a lifetime.
[ Page 32 ]
AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!
MR. McGEER: True, says the Minister. Not true? Wait until you see what's up in your area behind Mica. There are few more ugly sights, Mr. Speaker, than a lake with skeletons of dead trees thrusting up from marshy water covered with tangled roots and debris.
Well, let me quote, and I'm going up to the Burns Lake area. Where's the Hon. Minister of Agriculture? He isn't here right now. On many occasions I've heard him say how he left the Liberal Party in 1952 because of the devastation that was planned behind the Kenny Dam.
This is what Walter Wilson of the Burns Lake Board of Trade said in that year. It was concerning Tweedsmuir Park: "The scenic waters of a great and beautiful country are to be polluted with drowning standing trees, gradually surfacing sodden roots and floating debris, poisoning the park's clear blue waters." He was right. Tweedsmuir Park has been devastated.
Let's come a little further south. A logger in Stave Lake, Ernie Blakely — let me quote from him. This lake was flooded 50 years ago. He said that 300,000 merchantable logs were still to come out and that it should be a lesson for all time as the wrong way to make a lake. That was 1920.
Well, how about the Nelson area? I see the Hon. Minister of Highways is there. Don Kolfage, the editorial director of the Nelson newspaper described the area behind the Duncan Dam, and I think he was being flattering to it when he said this. He said: "It's a sportsman's and conservationist's, nightmare — 29 miles of colossal blunder." He was right.
What's the sum total of wreckage in British Columbia, which has produced this pollution free source of electrical energy of which the Social Credit government is so proud?
The Skagit Valley flooding involves 5,180 acres. Now compare this with the other areas in British Columbia. Stave Lake, 6,950, Bridge River 16,420. That's a total of 23,000 acres by the old B.C. Electric. Tweedsmuir Park, behind the Kenny Dam, 110,000 acres. Now we come to the most gigantic of them all, behind the Bennett Dam 374,700 acres; the high Arrow Dam 26,800; Duncan Dam 8,469. The B.C. Hydro, the first decade, their total 409,965 acres. And still to come, 94,400 at Mica and 14,000 at Libby.
What's the total of all this devastation, Mr. Speaker? It's equal to half the size of Prince Edward Island, it's equal to the State of Rhode Island, 650,000 acres — 120 times the size of the Skagit Valley.
These are areas which have been devastated or will be devastated and all the Minister of Public Works can say is how many other acres are left in the province.
You know, Social Credit has often said water's a wasting resource, and that trapping it behind dams and using the flow of water for electrical energy is making use of a renewable resource and a non-polluting one at that.
But, they've tried to wring pennies out of this "wasted" water and what they've done, Mr. Speaker, is to devastate the land. And along the way they've loaded us with one of the higher cost electrical power systems in North America.
We Liberals reject categorically both the method by which power decisions are made and the narrow political considerations upon which these decisions are based.
AN HON. MEMBER: Have you been to Williston Lake?
MR. McGEER: Yes, I have, and it's something that the Premier and the Minister of Lands and Forests are going to have to live with for a long long time because it's a monument as to how not to do a job.
The dam was an engineering marvel, the take is an ecological disaster. The lake is an ecological disaster and that judgment will stand the test of time.
We believe, Mr. Speaker, that all options should be considered and should be weighed with regard to cost conservation and the environment. These should be of paramount and equal consideration.
These are the three steps we envisioned in arriving at energy decisions.
Step 1. The B.C. Energy Board should be required by law to gather data and make reports on all major energy projects. We believe in the principle of the B.C. Energy Board. We believe, within its terms of reference, it's done its work well in the past. It has done its work well in the past and is doing its work well at the present. But it has never been given a mandate to do a thorough and unbiased job.
The terms of reference of the Energy Board, by law, must be as broad as possible. The Energy Board should function full time by law and bring in a complete report covering economic, conservation and environmental factors prior to any major undertaking as a basis for public discussion.
Now, the second step. The Energy Board reports should receive full discussion prior to any action. This should be in public hearings by a new and vital select standing committee of the House — the Energy committee.
Step 3. After these public hearings have been held, the Legislature as a whole should consider the report of its standing committee on energy and arrive at a legislative decision.
AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know how committees work.
AN HON. MEMBER: We know how yours work, that's why we're making these suggestions.
AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't got a choice.
MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, sound energy development decisions can only be made on the basis of sound technological data. The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development doesn't believe in that, Mr. Speaker, but we do. The Energy Board can provide the necessary technological advice if we remove the political fetters that the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development and his colleagues in the cabinet constantly present it with. The public hearings and legislative discussions prior to action — again the Minister of Industrial Development doesn't understand this — would provide for the airing of various views which is not only essential to democracy but which I think is the real basis of the difficulty. But it may be valuable in stressing factors which were previously largely ignored.
Mr. Speaker, that's the whole lesson of the Skagit Valley and that's why we're prepared to tell it again and again and again. There's a lesson here, Mr. Speaker, and as I said if the throne speech had been given by a Liberal government, it would have stated that these principles would be embodied in new energy legislation for the province's second century.
The principle we enunciate regarding the environment is that in all our future energy projects "social preservation values" shall be taken strongly into consideration. The tragedy in Social Credit thinking over a generation has been a complete disregard for this principle. The Bennett Dam and
[ Page 33 ]
Williston Lake are gigantic examples. Duncan Lake, Mica Lake, Libby Lake, these are further examples. All the government's been able to understand about fish is put it in cans and sell it once they've been caught. But anything else involving the environment has been completely ignored. And it looks like it may continue to be.
Let me quote from what the chairman of the B.C. Hydro said only four months ago:
In the past, technology and economics have been the dominating factors in determining decisions on power generation. This situation is changing and B.C. Hydro is already including environmental, aesthetic and ecological factors when developing plans for the expansion of generating capacity. At present these do not override technological considerations.
As I've said, the area of environmental slum which is the heritage of Social Credit will reach the dimensions of the State of Rhode Island or half the size of one of our Canadian provinces, Prince Edward Island. It's devastating and it can only be retrieved at a fantastic cost. That cost is going to continue for generations, if we hope to rehabilitate that environment. These costs have never been taken into consideration in calculating the economics of those hydroelectric projects.
AN HON. MEMBER: What do you plan to do?
MR. McGEER: We'll come to what we plan to do, because there are plenty of options. We don't say either that there should be a total moratorium on dam building, because there are advantages to expanding our present power houses
There are going to be sites on the Peace River, and other rivers in British Columbia, where there will be negligible environmental damage. It's even conceivable that a circumstance could arise where flooding could enhance the environment. But all of these will be the exceptions and not the rule. Our guiding principle must be that we cherish the surface of the land and if it comes to a choice we will prefer those sources of energy which are below the surface.
The political intuition of the cabinet, that non-renewable resources should not be squandered by a government that has jurisdiction of natural resources, but should be saved for future generations, has been dominant. Only last week, the Premier stated to the Press that British Columbia's own needs for the future must be met before natural gas is exported to the United States.
Does the Premier remember making that statement, Mr Speaker? It was in the Press. But where has he been all these years, because the Premier of all people has been the one to push for sale of natural gas to the United States.
The people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, should be aware of exactly how much gas is supplied across the border Figures given to me by the Canadian Energy Board indicate that over 223 million cubic feet of B.C. natural gas is exported to the United States. Alberta exports 556 million cubic feet.
What's it used for? 52 per cent of this is used for industrial purposes, 23 per cent for residential supply, 16 per cent for electricity and 9 per cent for commercial purposes
But the chief question is how much electricity could be generated from this natural gas. From British Columbia, what we're sending out at the present time, would generate 2.5 million kilowatts of electricity continuously. That which is exported from Alberta would generate 5 million kilowatts continuously.
Now, what this amounts to is more than twice the total generating capacity of B.C. Hydro today. It's five times as much as the energy being generated by the Peace River Project. Over two-thirds of that gas is being used by our competitive rivals for the generation of electrical energy and for industrial purposes.
Again, figures given to me by the Canadian Energy Board show that the cost of generating electricity from gas varies from 2.7 to 4.2 mils per kilowatt hours. You add about two more mils for capital and depreciation costs and transmission.
Electricity is retailed to consumers in the City of Seattle for about half the price that the people of British Columbia pay. All of the west coast United States cities — Spokane, Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles — all of these generate electricity from Canadian natural gas. All of them sell electricity to their customers at a cost equal to or less than what residents of British Columbia pay. And in some cases that difference is very, very substantial.
I say that it's intolerable that we should devastate our land while we ship from Canada sources of energy which are beneath the surface and which we never see. We say we want to conserve that natural gas. But we're sending it out at a rate far beyond our capacity to use it.
The stand of the Liberal Party is that there should be no more indiscriminate devastation of the land. Sound principles of economics and engineering should apply to future energy choices, but never again should the damage to the land be ignored in any of these considerations.
The prejudices of the Premier are so heavily in favour of these land-destroying projects that nuclear power is not even supposed to be taken into consideration by the Energy Board. Yet nuclear power now seems to be the most attractive source as far as environmental considerations are concerned. It certainly has attractions to the southern end of Vancouver Island.
Now the arrangements the federal government has with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec is that the Atomic Energy Commission builds the nuclear power plant at no capital cost to the province. So if we've got $100 million that we're prepared to spend on a gas pipeline to bring gas over to Vancouver Island and then expect to pay the cost of building a gas-fired thermal plant you can see we have two tremendous capital outlays that are involved before we can deliver electricity.
And yet in the arrangements for nuclear power there is no capital outlay on the part of the province at all.
Secondly, the electricity that is generated from this power plant is then delivered to the system, and sold to the system at a cost which is equal to the average cost then existing in the system. If it's 3 mils you get your electricity for 3 mils. If it's 6 mils you get it for 6 mils. But the point is you get a plant for nothing and you get electricity delivered at a firm price competitive with what already exists in the system.
Now, there are other attractions, particularly for Vancouver Island. One of these was illustrated just last week when a storm took out both Peace River power lines and three out of four Bridge River power lines. If we were depending on cables to Vancouver Island to supply the energy it would be in very short supply.
AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't got any gas lines.
MR. McGEER: Well the gas lines could be taken out by cables being dropped by ships in a storm, or other marine damages. But if you've got a nuclear power plant on southern
[ Page 34 ]
Vancouver Island then the excess energy is delivered to the mainland. And there's a built-in safety factor.
The Americans have gone into nuclear power in a big way. They have 22 plants in operation, 55 under construction and 49 more on order. And all of these 126 plants will be in operation by 1980.
One of the difficulties of nuclear power plants has been their unreliability. But these difficulties seem to have been completely overcome by the new Pickering plant in the Province of Ontario. Now Canadian nuclear power plants have become the Cinderellas of the nuclear world. And it appears that all the major technological problems have been overcome and Canada will be in a position to deliver reliable new nuclear reactors.
Furthermore the pollution from such reactors is virtually zero. Oh, there are potential problems, but compared with the fantastic amount of pollution we have been willing to tolerate from these hydro-electric projects, the prospect of improvement should be welcome indeed.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McGEER: Nuclear power? Certainly, certainly. Your power is delivered on site. The Pickering plant has an 80-acre park built all around it. By far the lowest form of pollution of any source of energy that's known. You have to get the water, if you wish, discharged into an area that won't be disturbed because it's hotter than what's taken in. And there's a very….
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McGEER: The radiation problems are minuscule really. The Hon. Member I am afraid is 25 years out of date. He's catching up. But I recommend that he look at December 1971 issue of Nucleonics, which may be advanced reading but still it will give him good information about the Canadian nuclear reactors.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. McGEER: No, we don't need to go into these fast breeder reactors in Canada. Because we've got a pretty plentiful supply of ordinary uranium. They are exciting new developments but there are technological problems that haven't yet been licked. But the reactors that Canada has built have been very impressive in their reliability.
Mr. Speaker, this prospect is before us I might add that a firm design could be provided for British Columbia in a few months. But how can we reach a decision of this kind when we're still meddling around with terms of reference for a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island which doesn't involve the B.C. Energy Board and which leaves all of the people who are making a bid on that pipeline in the dark as to what the gas will be required to do?
Now against what nuclear power offers. What we have coming up at the present time in British Columbia is four hydro-electric projects which are either underway, to which we are committed, or which are being actively considered.
These are the Kootenay Canal project, the Moran dam, the Iskut River project, and the full development of Kemano. And of these four only the environmental consequences of the Moran Dam are receiving any attention at all. That's largely because of the fisheries problem.
The loss of fisheries is a certainty at Moran. The damage to the Fraser River delta is a huge question mark. The potential damage to the Fraser River canyon and the flooding of land between Moran and Quesnel are also huge question marks.
Well, perhaps in anticipation of what the provincial government was likely to do with its seat-of-the-pants political intuition approach to energy development a report was prepared by the technical staff of the Canada Department of Environment and the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Hon. Members would listen to a little of this. Because these are the great decisions that should be under debate in this Legislature but because of the policies of the cabinet never are raised before the Legislature.
Hon. Members should listen to it and pay some attention, and get up and say a little about these things themselves, because they're elected to help govern British Columbia. But the important things are taken out of their hands and they never raise a peep about it.
Mr. Speaker, the report is put out by the north Pacific salmon fisheries and the federal government — and I wish these ministers would read that report. It says that the fisheries above the dam would be eliminated and reduce those below the dam by as much as 50 per cent.
Then they went into the costs of alternative sources of supply, And they quoted experience from the thermo-nuclear plants and the thermal plants of the Pacific Northwest.
Without going into all the details the production cost in those plants ranged from 3.78 to 4.55 mils per kilowatt hour. The costs of installing a plant approximately the size of Moran ranged from about 150 million. Against that they estimated the cost of putting in the Moran dam at $740 million. And they estimated the cost of supplying electricity at $190 to $214 million annually.
It Works out to a range of 12 to 13 mils per kilowatt hour. But of course what was included in these calculations was the loss of fisheries. And perhaps their figures were high. Because they included potential fisheries which don't even exsist.
But the point that's made is an extremely valid one. And that is that nuclear power plants and coal-fired power plants are competitive in price with hydro. And the environmental damage is a fraction.
What I would like to know is how these principles apply? Not just to the Moran. And it seems virtually a certainty that that colossal dam will not be built. This colossal blunder will be avoided.
But I'd like to talk about another problem where the same considerations should have been applied, and this is the Kootenay Canal project. That's only $100 million, but it is going to deface a very beautiful area of British Columbia — that's the West Kootenay River.
Along the West Kootenay River you have something which is an exception for hydro-electric development. There is a series of six dams. And they are put in in an esthetically pleasing way. And it's a beautiful sight to drive down that West Kootenay River. A spectacular spray comes up over those dams during times of high run-off. But what we're going to have now, is a canal which will gouge its way into the mountainside on the far end of that river. It's going to just ruin it ecologically. And it's going to cost $100 million to do that amount of damage.
What are we going to do it for? Well, we're going to get a 500 kilowatt generating station. But I've talked to two
[ Page 35 ]
independent consulting engineers, both of whom have stated that it will only be able to run at a fraction of its rated output on an average basis over the years. There are only certain times when there will be a high run-off. That won't necessarily correspond to when power is most in demand.
You have to add to the real cost of the Canal project, the land clearing behind Libby. And you have to include as cost the value of the land which is lost for that Libby flooding. And once more there is another terrible hidden cost to that project.
One of these consulting engineers (and this is Mr. Bartholomew) has sent his calculations to the B.C. Hydro and to the government. And he says that the flows dictated by the overall needs of the Columbia River system will leave the Kootenay River deprived of necessary water much of the time.
He calculates that there will be periods as long as two years at a stretch when the Duncan reservoir will be empty and where there will be little more than stream flow available.
Now, it may be that Mr. Bartholomew doesn't have all the necessary figures to make precise calculations. But the question that deserves to be asked is who did make the calculations for the government? And what were the cost benefit factors — for this versus other projects that could have gone ahead for the $100 million it will cost to gouge out that canal — the $30 million for transmission lines and the $20 million or whatever it cost to clear that land behind the Libby dam?
But I think, Mr. Speaker, if all of these factors were taken into consideration the Kootenay Canal project would have been as outrageously expensive as Moran — and something which would have been postponed indefinitely.
All of this is without bringing into consideration the prior rights of the City of Nelson and the West Kootenay Power Company to obtain power from that river. And the Hon. Member from Nelson, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Black) knows that his city applied for water rights on the Kootenay River in '52, '56, '62 and '64, and each time the comptroller stated that the application would not be accepted.
Then they applied once more for a measly 714 cubic feet of water which would add to their licence of 1,428 cubic feet per second. And the government held it up. It stiff armed the application while it gave a licence to B.C. Hydro for 30,000 cubic feet — 40 times as much water. Then after Hydro had been given its licence, the City of Nelson was given its extra 714 feet, but only if Hydro doesn't want it.
All that the City of Nelson wanted was water rights to permit their already established plant to run at full capacity. The City of Nelson's power needs are increasing at a rate of from 5 to 6 per cent, per year. The Nelson electrical superintendent, Len Bicknell, said that it would cost the city three to five times as much to purchase additional power compared to generating the needed power itself.
Hydro's diversion canal very cleverly will come off at Cora Linn headpond and Hydro will have the engineering capacity to divert the water away from the City of Nelson and the West Kootenay Power and Light Company.
For many years the City of Nelson has taken advantage of the extra flow, which had to go through its system, to generate the power that its city needs. Now what's going to happen is that Hydro will hold the City of Nelson strictly to its licence and the end result is that Nelson will be reduced in the amount of electricity that it can generate and it is going to be forced to buy higher cost power somewhere else. Now what's happened — this is the scandal — Hydro has refused to give any guarantee either to supply power or to share the water so that the City of Nelson can generate sufficient to look after its own needs.
Instead, what Hydro has done is insist that it expropriate land from the City of Nelson for its own project over the objections of the Nelson City Council, and Hydro has suggested that Nelson sell its plant to the corporation. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know what's happened to Fernie, and Cranbrook, and Kimberley and Revelstoke and New Westminster.
AN HON. MEMBER: Revelstoke voted in favour of it.
MR. McGEER: Sure, the Minister of Municipal Affairs fixed that one up, didn't he, when they didn't vote enough in favour? Sure, sure — 60 per cent. He fixed the thing up, just the way he fixed up his friend in Stewart. Order in Council government!
I will tell you one thing, the City of Nelson's going to keep away from that trap.
I say the treatment the City of Nelson has received from the provincial government, and B.C. Hydro is nothing short of a disgrace. What you should do immediately is grant to the City of Nelson rights to continue generating power on the Kootenay River sufficient to meet its power requirements now and in the foreseeable future.
You deny them enough water even to make full use of the plant that already exists. We are going to have more to say about the treatment the City of Nelson has received from this government before the session is out. But now I want to switch to other projects in British Columbia that we are just beginning to get wind of.
What about the report, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources got almost a year ago about expanding the Alcan power supply from Kemano?
Again, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been meddling in energy decisions. What did he say? He was going to tell Alcan, "nicely, but clearly," to develop its full hydro generating potential or risk losing what it already has.
But, Mr. Speaker, how much more of Tweedsmuir Park is going to be wrecked by that decision? The Department of Fisheries has already come about with the report describing the damage that will be done just to the fisheries by expansion of that project. They have released their report.
We don't know yet about other environmental factors. We haven't even heard about them. When is the public going to get its chance to express itself on these issues?
Now I would like to talk yet about another one. That's the proposals for the Iskut or the Stikine River. We have rumours there that a 400,000 horsepower dam is planned. Well, what did the minister describe this as? "Super malarkey." Brinco gave strict instructions to its consulting engineer, Glenn Crippen, to give no details at all of what was going on.
Mr. Speaker, what it all smacks of is another under the-table energy deal and it is going to be kept out of public sight until it is too late.
Mr. Speaker, we Liberals want to end all of this political manoeuvering with respect to energy projects. I am not a power expert, but neither is the Premier. No M.L.A. is a power expert, and political intuition has got us into enough trouble and it should be abundantly clear that the present course of action is going to get us into much more trouble in
[ Page 36 ]
the future.
What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is to outline a policy which will permit intelligent and democratic decisions to be made. The three factors: cost, environment and conservation. The procedures: energy board reports, hearings before a select standing committee, legislative action. We can't predict which projects will emerge from this process as the ones of choice, but we say that from now on this is the way it must be done.
Mr. Speaker, we have outlined a dynamic programme of action for a new government in this province. We have stated how the Legislature should go about reaching decisions in one of the most important areas of money expenditures in this province. We are going to have a great deal more to say, each of our Hon. Members, about the details of the Liberal programme and when it comes time for the budget, once more, we will have an alternative budget for the people of British Columbia.
Hon. Mr. Peterson moves adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I move, seconded by the Hon. Attorney General, that on Tuesday, January 25, 1972, and on all the following days of the session there will be two distinct sittings on each day. One from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and one from 8 p.m. until adjournment, unless otherwise ordered.
MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.
MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): I would like to move an amendment to the motion that the Honourable Premier has put before the House.
Moved by myself and seconded by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) that motion No. 1, standing on Orders of the Day be amended by deleting from the last line thereof, the word "adjournment", and substituting therefore the figures, "11 p.m., unless otherwise ordered."
Mr. Speaker, this amendment I think would bring reason to this legislative chamber, prevent some of the rag-tag endings to our debates in the evenings. It will bring the debate up to 11 o'clock and then if we wish to continue, we would have to have a motion to continue.
Now this is all it does, but it gives some semblance of reason to it and doesn't leave it entirely in the hands of one person to decide at what time of the night we are going to end the legislation which is so important to the people of British Columbia.
I am sure that the Honourable the Premier should give in to this amendment at this time because it only means that instead of the sitting going on until we order the House to be adjourned, it will go on until 11 o'clock and then if we wish to continue it will take a motion to do so.
Amendment negatived on the following division.
YEAS — 17
| Brousson | Hall | Strachan |
| Gardom | Williams, R.A. | Dowding |
| Wallace | Clark | Nimsick |
| Cocke | McGeer | Barrett |
| Hartley | Williams, L.A. | Dailly, Mrs. |
| Lorimer | Macdonald |
NAYS — 35
| Merilees | Bruch | Smith |
| Marshall | McCarthy, Mrs. | McDiarmid |
| Wenman | Jordan, Mrs. | Chabot |
| Kripps, Mrs. | Dawson, Mrs. | Skillings |
| Mussallem | Kiernan | Chant |
| Price | Williston | Loffmark |
| Capozzi | Bennett | Gaglardi |
| Vogel | Peterson | Campbell, D.R.J. |
| LeCours | Black | Brothers |
| Little | Fraser | Shelford |
| Jefcoat | Campbell, B. | Richter |
| Tisdalle | Wolfe |
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:09 p.m.