[ Page 141 ]

CONTENTS

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

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Levi Introduction and first reading — 142

Throne speech debate Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 142

Mr. Smith — 147

Mr. Steves — 152

Mr. Gardom — 159

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege affecting all Members of this House, namely the actions of the government in releasing the energy report in the manner that it was released.

Mr. Speaker, this report has been, I understand, in government hands for approximately a week. It was promised the Members of the Legislature for today and yet, Mr. Speaker, it was released to the public and press prior to the release to the Members of this Legislature.

The opportunity that we have on a Friday for questioning the government on matters in this document of course doesn't exist. The ability we have to analyse it, to study it in the interests of the people of British Columbia prior to comments of the press, who are fully briefed, fully prepared prior to any Member of this House on the opposition side, indicates to me that the government in this matter has attempted to prevent us from having full information in this area, in a manner which we should do as duly elected Members representing the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in this instance nothing more can be done. The government has succeeded, in introducing this document in the underhand way, in preventing the proper questioning prior to a weekend. However, I do feel that this is a matter which has affected my rights as a Member of this Legislature, and the rights of every other opposition Member of this Legislature. I trust that you will take this matter under advisement and that in future you will make sure that government information, Or public information released in this manner, does not occur again.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I should know more of the background of this matter, certainly as to what has happened. I do point out, in a preliminary fashion, that I know of no instruction from this Legislature to the government with respect to this report. I believe it is the property of the government, and they can release it in any fashion, at any time of the year, that they wish.

If, on the other hand, it was shown to me that it did belong to this House first, as other reports from committees do, then I would say there would be a breach of privilege. But I don't at the present time have the information on which to base a claim of privilege unless someone can otherwise enlighten me.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's a matter of privilege at all; it's a matter of us trying to be fair. And therefore, when it was released this morning, when I had enough copies — I think it came in on Monday when the first copies were here in Victoria — but when we had enough copies available for all of the Members to have, it was released to the press roughly about 8:30 and my assistant immediately began distributing them to the offices of those MLAs who had arrived, had wakened up, and were in their offices about that time. So it's a matter of courtesy, and we went as far as we could…

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: For Hansard Mr. Speaker — we don't at the moment have the Hansard for the last week — but we are under the impression that this document was to be tabled in this House by the Attorney General and not released outside the House to people not Members of this Legislature prior to it's being released to us.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no. I understand that my office has already been informed that a copy of this document is being supplied to the House today. Now we have not yet entered upon the proceedings so that the document could be tabled. You've risen on a point of order before, in effect, the document could be tabled in the House.

I think we dealt with this question rather exhaustively in the last session, about the question of government reports and whether they're made to the House first or not, As a courtesy, it's very fine, when they are produced and put here in the House to all Members before perhaps they go to the press. I think it's an excellent courtesy. But, on the other hand, there is no binding obligation, as you know and I know, that it be done first where it does not belong as a property of the House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I ask leave to table…(laughter)…the report on matters concerning the natural gas industry in British Columbia, which was pursuant to Order-in-Council No. 1481, and dated September 14, 1973.

Leave granted.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear any objection, so I presume the report is tabled. So ordered.

Introduction of bills.

[ Page 142 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADOPTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Levi moves introduction and first reading of Bill 12 intituled An Act to Amend the Adoption Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 12 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed on the routine business of the day, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Comox would kindly take the seat for awhile perhaps, in honour of the ascendancy of womankind as of yesterday, in the victory that occurred and which all men must celebrate.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair]

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

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Not mister…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Speaker, before I begin this speech, I have something important to say. (Laughter.)

I want to say that I intend — and I might as well come right out with it — to support the throne speech and the gracious address that has been moved on its behalf.

I have been persuaded, first by the speech, the excellent and eloquent speeches of the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), and the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), and, if I had any doubts, I was persuaded by listening to the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) yesterday. And I intend to support the speech.

I want to pay greetings to the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) to wish him well and to wish all of the opposition Members well as they embark on a rather stormy period in their party affairs.

It is a strange kind of leadership race they have, Madam Speaker, in that they are all running over there; there are no supporters (Laughter)…they are all candidates. And they are all making a very good presentation.

The Hon. Member for Columbia Liver…(Laughter)…River, led off with a vicious attack on the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) for preventing the parliament buildings from falling down.

And I notice now a new entrant has entered that leadership fight; P.A. Gaglardi has his eye on the leadership; and the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) has his eye on P.A. Gaglardi. (Laughter.) And the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips), who is not in his seat, coming as he does from a natural-gas-prone area of the province, has donned the mantle of statesmanship and I think he's in the race too. And, you know, the Social Credit Party could look further and do worse (Laughter ) — and they probably will. But the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), in that stirring address yesterday, a man of great rectitude there, I think he'd rather be right than leader; and I don't think he'll be either. But anyway it's an important event in the history of British Columbia and there are great stakes involved. Who is going to win that race, the trustees of the B.C. free enterprise fund? (Laughter.) Money, money, where is the money? That's the name of the game.

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

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That million dollar baby, who controls it? And you have 10 ticket holders. As the Premier says, perhaps that is some kind of a lottery, but we'll see if that story unfolds.

I hope you have a democratic choice. In this government we have a very democratic leader. The Premier puts a motion to the cabinet and he says, "All opposed to this motion signify by saying 'I resign.'" (Laughter.) It sounds like the thin edge of the wedge. (Laughter.) But they say that thin is in, but fat's where it's at. (Laughter.) The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has begun his legislative programme, something borrowed, something new, and so it's like old times back here in the House.

Anyway, I was talking the other day to a hack in my department (Laughter.) Well, Madam Speaker, there are only two hacks in my department — there's my assistant and there is, of course, myself. (Laughter.) And I was talking to myself. (Laughter.) I was saying, "Don't you feel bad sitting in that big office with the lavish appointments — the homespun drapery, and the shag carpeting that's hardly been used, the big desk that would sleep three comfortably without touching the drawers, (Laughter) waiting room decor that any dentist would envy — all those lavish appointments, all courtesy of the former

[ Page 143 ]

tenant. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Anyway, I want to say something in a very kindly way to the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) because I think he did a great disservice to the province in the speech he made the other day about the Skagit River valley, where he adopted an attitude of doom and threw confusion as to British Columbia's position that can only play into the hands of those who want that valley flooded.

He said the public believes that the battle is won, and we are going to lose; the Skagit is going to be flooded. And he asked that this government should go to the FPC in Washington and that we should…

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You agree that we should not go to the FPC and abase ourselves before a foreign tribunal.

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

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

This is what you said: "The Resources Minister refused to go to Seattle earlier this year to attempt to negotiate a settlement. He has not attempted to intervene on behalf of the B.C. government at the U.S. hearings."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Madam Speaker, we do not intend as a government of British Columbia to go to a tribunal in another country and there genuflect and abase ourselves and ask, "Would you please be such as not consider the flooding of one of the valleys of B.C." We regard that as a trust and responsibility that fixes on us, as representatives of the people of British Columbia, to protect that river valley. Of course, there should be negotiations, and there will be negotiations, in accordance with protocol through the federal government with respect to tying up the ends.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Whose side are you on, Hon. Member? But let us have no doubt that the government of British Columbia is not prepared to see the Skagit River Valley flooded.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Will you give us a flat, unequivocal guarantee it won't be flooded?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Certainly.

There can be no question about that; that is a decision. That is our valley; we are responsible, and all Hon. Members of the Legislature should take that position.

Interjection.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's one other matter I want to touch on, in what I think may very well become one of fairly urgent legislation priority. I am referring, Madam Speaker, to the question of what are called "credit reporting agencies."

There has been valuable study done by the Law Reform Commission on this subject, and when you consider the kind of picture of what is going on in terms of these agencies throughout Canada at the present time, I think every Member of this Legislature should recognize that some action should be taken.

You have two kinds of credit agencies. You have the credit-rating agencies which report on people purely in terms of their credit rating; then you have the investigative agencies which report on a person's habits and their character, and whose reports in either case may be based upon malice, or gossip, or hearsay of the second or third degree.

I am just dealing for the moment with the first one. A person's credit rating, at a time when consumer credit is expanding, becomes almost a passport, and if that credit rating is unfairly damaged outside of even the knowledge of the person who is being investigated, that person has been deprived of basic human rights and his privacy has been violated. The threat — which the credit agencies may very well use if they are not regulated — the threat to somebody's credit rating may be a more punitive measure, a penalty against that person, than a court case. Yet that threat can take place based upon evidence which is gathered here and there, as I say, by gossip, by hearsay, and often by malice and through vindictiveness.

In the case of the investigative agencies, let me tell the House about one: the Retail Credit Company of Canada which makes investigations into persons in

[ Page 144 ]

terms of their character for life insurance purposes; perhaps in terms of a landlord who wants to get a report on a prospective tenant; perhaps in terms of an employer in terms of sizing up the question of whether or not that person should be hired. And in all of these cases the vital rights of the person concerned are being affected.

Now, there may very well be general utility to the dissemination of information of this kind. But that it should be gathered without the knowledge of the person concerned, without his right or ability to check, to verify, to know, to see that report, is, as I say, a gross violation of civil liberties.

In the case of this private company, Retail Credit Company of Canada, compiling dossiers — with an office in Vancouver, which is not in the yellow pages under credit reporting agencies because low visibility is the name of the game — you'll find them in the white pages of the Vancouver phone book, in non-cap letters. Yet that agency has in its possession dossiers on 600,000 residents of the Province of British Columbia, and the accumulation of those reports goes on from day to day at a very rapid rate. And where does this company have its head offices? It has its head offices in Atlanta, Georgia; and in Atlanta, Georgia is the electronic banking and processing and retrieval of that information — and open to what other persons?

I suspect, quite frankly, and I have good reason to suspect, based on my conversations with the consumer affairs Minister of the Province of Quebec that, in the life insurance field, the health reports which are gathered and which go to the head offices in the United States across our border, are trafficked between the companies in the course of their business. And who has access to these credit dossiers which, in the case of Retail Credit of Canada, are stored in a foreign country? And there are other companies, Hooper Holmes Bureau, Fidelity Inspection Services. I merely raise this matter at this time, and raise it briefly, because I agree with my learned friend — with the Honourable Member — that it really is a matter of urgent legislative priority for the Province of British Columbia. And if we can, by legislation, as I think we can, give people the right to know and to see and to be able to correct the records in British Columbia, I think we should, at the same time, do our best to see that those records are stored and kept for inspection here in the Province of British Columbia. I don't pretend that latter problem is an easy one, but I think we should address ourselves to it.

I want to say a little bit about the energy report. I want to say first, Madam Speaker, that in all sincerity I have a great deal of praise to offer to the commissioners who prepared that report under heavy pressure, under a chairman who has established his worth in the eyes of the witnesses who appeared before that commission, be they company, conservation groups, or experts; who has established his credibility and worth in the eyes of everyone, possibly with the exception of the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). And I regret that because I know the kind of political message he's been carrying around this province.

But when you have somebody who undertakes a work of that kind, and since May 8, 1973 has embarked on that kind of work, working days and nights, and earning the respect of all of those with whom he has come in contact, I hope that for political reasons this kind of disparagement of individuals who are serving the interests of British Columbia will come to an end.

The commissioners, in that period since May 8 of this year, were forced to make a forced march down a road where Mr. B.C. had been sleepily lolling in the ditches, straw in mouth, a rube to be bested by any international company that came here to ransack our resources.

And B.C. has been sleeping. In this whole field, until the activation of this commission, nothing had been done to assess and protect our natural energy resources. And that we have been hurt by that neglect, through the Social Credit years, is manifest in that report which shows that $100 million, based on current prices, is the gross loss at the present time to the Province of British Columbia through our under-valued energy resource being sold in the export market.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And the House should bear in mind, in looking at those statistics, which are based upon 32 cents or so that we're receiving for our gas at Huntington compared to 58 cents which we should be receiving, that that is also a steadily rising sellers' market for the people of this province, and that it is estimated that by 1977 that 58-cent price would be in the area of $1 if we were to receive true competitive worth for our natural gas.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So that loss, which is a loss to all of the people of this province, of $100 million, is based upon current figures and will expand unless we, as a province, are prepared to take action.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me give an example of the rising prices and the kind of thing

[ Page 145 ]

we've been suffering from. Our forest industries on Vancouver Island and at Powell River, which are beyond the reach of natural gas, have to depend upon California heavy bunker oil for their boiler fuel. That price of bunker oil has been increasing dramatically in the last year from $3-something a barrel up to almost $6 a barrel at the present time. Meanwhile, in Washington and Oregon, the competitors of our same forest industries are receiving British Columbia natural gas for their own mills at 1969 prices. And our safe, clean, easily-handled, rich-in-energy-potential fuel is flowing south to serve our competitors while our industries are burning that bunker oil, a heavy polluter, quite apart from the costs it is imposing on that industry.

In the past we have, as a province, sent to represent the people of this province in the international markets — to fight for us, to get the best return for our natural gas that we can — Westcoast Transmission, and I do not disparage in any way — and the Canadian officers are the ones I know — the Canadian officers and businessmen who are conducting the affairs of that corporation. But it is a corporation that, through Pacific Petroleum, is owned, I think it's 25 per cent by Phillips of Oklahoma, and 19 per cent by El Paso Gas Company in the United States. And what have we been doing in the past few years to send into the battle on behalf of the people of British Columbia? We've been sending out the "Son of El Paso" to do battle for us, to go down there and fight his parents.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have been sleeping.

I'm not complaining that the Federal Power Commission, to which I thought that the Honourable Member thought we should go on the Skagit — and Hansard I guess will answer that if the newspaper report is inaccurate — has, in the interests of the American consumer, been doing everything possible through the years to depress the export price that British Columbia should get for its natural gas. Now perhaps we can't complain about that. But we ought to recognize it and do something about it.

And I would like to say that that energy commission, based upon what they did even during the course of these hearings in analysing the service agreements of Westcoast Transmission, have already done a service of immeasurable value to the people of British Columbia, because those service agreements of March of this year were before the National Energy Board for approval and, subject possibly to minor changes, in my opinion would have been approved; and they are now before the Federal Power Commission in the United States, and would be approved by that agency.

Those agreements would be an absolute disaster for the Province of British Columbia, a disaster in terms of price, an disaster in terms of the depletion of our necessary reserves of natural gas.

On the question of price, under those agreements we were to receive another 4.26 cents, up from the 32 cents to a price of about 35 cents with a hooker in there, that we should not even get the 35 cents; it would be reduced by 1.5 cents unless British Columbia, by 1975, agreed to the export of an additional 450 million cubic feet per day. Now I say it would have been absolutely disastrous if that contract had been approved. And I say our energy commission and this little government have stopped the approval of that agreement.

Interjections.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Look at the reserve situation. This is a proposed increase in the flow of gas through Huntington from the present 800 million cubic feet per day to 1,250 million cubic feet per day by 1975 — an increase of over 50 per cent. We've already seen in the last few days how precarious the reserve of British Columbia has been allowed to become. We have in British Columbia proven reserves of about, let's say, 12 trillion cubic feet. We have used at this time, three of those 12; we have nine to go in terms of proven reserves. The estimate of the energy commission is that we have in the Province of British Columbia, in terms of potential, 18-40 trillion, but that we should not so accelerate the tempo of exploration and export as to tax the reserves that British Columbia must maintain for its own industry and its own consumers in an expanding company. Based upon our present information, if we maintained the present level of exports and the needs of the expanding British Columbia economy were satisfied, by 1989 our resources would be depleted.

I say without any hesitation that that contract proposed between Westcoast and El Paso is contrary to the best interests of the Province of British Columbia. In saying these things we are not in any way anti-American; we are pro-British Columbia. We recognize that our American friends receive for their resources and their products that they sell in Canada what the market will bear.

We recognize, and we have to recognize, regretfully, when it comes to the matter of the tankers coming down the B.C. coast to Cherry Point that that may very well take place without a by-your-leave of either this government or of the Canadian government, and our environmental interests will be sacrificed. In that kind of a world we

[ Page 146 ]

do not ask for animosity but we do ask that we adopt good business practice.

Protests will not be enough, though. It would be criminally improvident to rush our remaining precious and irreplaceable natural resources onto the international markets. The energy demand in the whole world is increasing by 3 per cent per year, but in North America it is increasing by about 6 per cent per year. And if you look at the multiplying factor, that means the energy demand is doubling every 12 years and, by the end of this century, may be four or five times in North America what that energy demand is at the present time.

It is against that kind of a background that we plead for good sense and conservation. We say it is not enough that we protest this or that service agreement. We say instead that where the Province of British Columbia is dealing with a natural resource which it owns, it can enact legislation to protect the public interest in this province and that this Legislature has a responsibility to enact that legislation.

I have no desire to have a wrangle, constitutional or otherwise, with the other MacDonald and I do not think that will be necessary. We do not have the Alberta situation. Our gas flows south whereas their oil — which is another subject matter — flows through the other provinces of Canada and into the eastern markets. It certainly will be the case that British Columbia, acting within its constitutional jurisdiction, will keep the federal government fully informed. We will seek, where necessary, cooperation from the federal government. And we will seek a recognition from that government that where a province is prepared to protect the vital interests of its citizens, the cooperation of the federal government should and will be accorded.

This matter will be debated again, I am quite sure, in this Legislature before the end of this session so I am not going to say anything more about it, although a lot could be said about the field prices and how they have dramatically increased in the last little while from around 13 cents by arbitration to about 21 cents on the average in the Peace River country at the present time. We had the news just the other day in Alberta that a field price arbitration there fixed a value of 33 cents per 1,000 cubic feet for gas, some of which comes across the border and flows through our pipelines. So the question of field prices, again, is something to which we have to give consideration in order that the producers can be encouraged to explore to the extent which is consistent, as I said, with the conservation of the resource and the needs of our consumers.

If we think in terms of a provincial agency at the wellhead which could purchase and market our gas, I would like to make it clear that that would be, I think, with the cooperation of the industries concerned. That might sound like a strange thing to say to the Members of this House because Westcoast Transmission at the moment is the owner of the gas. If we were the owner, even for a short time, of that gas and marketed it through a provincial agency, Westcoast Transmission would become a contract carrier, a utility carrier of the gas.

This question was put to Mr. E.C. Phillips, the president of Westcoast Transmission, at the energy board hearings. I don't think he said it would be good for the company, although, frankly, in terms of their earnings I am inclined to think it would be better for them than the present situation. He contemplated with equanimity that change, and I congratulate him for taking that stand.

Westcoast at the moment, of course, is badly pinched. They are pinched between the producers and pinched between the FPC and El Paso in the United States trying to get that gas for the least possible price that can be paid.

We do not want to go the route of merely increasing royalty payments. Some people — and I think that seems to be the case in the Province of Alberta — say that is sufficient: increase your royalty payments up to 25 per cent or something of that kind.

But as the crises at the wellhead increase we may bring in some more provincial revenue through improved royalties. Royalties must be looked at, but at the same time we make earning bonanzas for the private companies. It is well for this House to bear in mind that almost 95 per cent of the integrated industry from exploration to marketing in Canada is foreign-owned and controlled.

So we do not think it is sufficient to look at merely the question of royalties.

I would like to conclude, because I have been almost three-quarters of an hour, Mr. Speaker, by just saying that it is a fact that mankind is devouring the treasures of the earth at a madcap rate and that man himself is going to have to learn to live as a good child crawling upon the bosom of Mother Earth and live within his ecological means.

You can turn for examples in almost any direction: to the question of transportation; to the wastage and pollution engendered within that industry; to the default of governments and industry working out better and economical ways of moving people. I look at the horseless carriage and I see that it is too long in the wheelbase, too rich in its feed mix, and too polluted in its lungs. I think the time has come when the long-suffering straphanger may be entitled possibly at long last to some blessed relief and respite.

I think that as part of the energy picture the time may come when we should divert community resources into low-cost, commodious, rapid-transit services on the one hand, to conserve our precious

[ Page 147 ]

energy resources, and on the other hand, to save from exhaust pollution the very air we breathe.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It is always a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate, even though I would not be as flowery in my praise of the speech as the former speaker who just took his seat. As a matter of fact, we found very little in the throne speech of consequence.

We are going to look forward with some interest to the bills and the legislation which come before this House, whenever they come before it, because the speech itself seemed to be a reiteration of flowery phrases and a little bit of self-gratification on to the government. It hinted about such things as bills and legislation respecting labour and the farm industry but it didn't give us really much of a look at what the government is intending to do.

I think that's regrettable, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the government decided that it was good for the legislators and it was good for the people of British Columbia to hold two full-scale sessions a year. If that is true and that is required, then tell me why the government has not brought their legislation into the House so that we would have ample time to study it and prepare ourselves to effectively criticize what we don't like and perhaps even praise those things in the legislation that we do like.

I think it's regrettable that a government that has told us that they have so much legislation to bring before this House have been so reluctant to bring it in during the first days of the session. Surely, while we participated in this throne speech debate, we could at the same time have had the opportunity of seeing what you have in mind, particularly, Mr. Speaker, since we have not been over-indulging in night sittings and we have had time during the opening days of this legislative session which we could have used to good advantage had we been fortunate enough to have the legislation before us. What was the hurry for this session if the government is so reluctant to show us their tremendous programme?

I'm going to spend a few minutes speaking about energy in the Province of British Columbia because I'm certain that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would want to have some input from the opposition benches concerning the natural gas production and the petroleum industry in the Province of British Columbia. I don't disagree with his remarks concerning the commission and the amount of work that they have done over the past few months. They've listened to a number of briefs presented from all segments of industry, and from that have reduced what they heard to a report this size.

It is unfortunate that I've had no more than about 10 or 15 minutes to look at the report before standing in my place in this debate to speak about it, because obviously the Attorney General has had the advantage of studying it far more closely than I have, but I do think that some general comments are in order concerning the whole field of resource management in this province, with particular reference to the gas and oil business.

It's easy for the Attorney General and for the Members of the government benches to look upon everything that was done in the past as being of little or no consequence. But I remember very well when the first exploration rigs moved into the Province of British Columbia and the search for hydrocarbon products extended for some time before anything of consequence was found. I also recall very well the fact that only a few small communities at that time were serviced with natural gas.

It's also a fact that had the Province of British Columbia and the consumers within the province been the only people who would have received the benefit of that energy source, there would not have been a pipeline from the Peace River country to the lower mainland of British Columbia. It's also a fact that the former Premier scuttled the plans of Westcoast Transmission to pipe all the natural gas from British Columbia out through the Province of Alberta and said: "No way will we agree to that. If you're going to supply gas in British Columbia, you'll supply British Columbians first and on an export basis after that. The pipeline will be built through the Province of British Columbia so that we serve British Columbians first." But the whole economics of building that pipeline at that particular time rested upon the success of a company to negotiate a contract to export natural gas.

I think, Mr. Attorney General, that the type of hindsight that you have practised this morning is going to do nothing to solve the energy crisis that we now face not only in British Columbia but on a worldwide basis. It's fine to sit and take a look at what has happened and say that everything was done wrong. You yourself know that that is not correct, that we move through very rapidly changing times today and that no one, in their wildest imagination, would have predicted 20 years ago that the hydrocarbon energies then coming into production in northern British Columbia would be dissipated at the rate they are, or that there would even ever be a demand within the province or anywhere else for the amount of natural gas that we had at our disposal. You must well remember the days in Alberta when they flared natural gas off at the flare pits by the hundreds of millions of cubic feet, because it was a source of great consternation to the companies. They didn't like the natural gas except to get the oil out of the wells to the surface, and then they burned it off in Turner Valley by the hundreds of millions of cubic feet.

Times change, Mr. Attorney General. The supplies

[ Page 148 ]

that we thought were inexhaustible are not inexhaustible, and I don't think anyone will disagree with that. Other forms of energy will perhaps be discovered, solar energy, nuclear energy, which will replace some of the forms we use today. We've suddenly rediscovered coal as a form of energy, a resource which we've had with us for hundreds of millions of years and an industry which practically died on its feet because nobody wanted the product. But it's suddenly become very valuable. Through no good management on your part or ours, we happen to have an abundant supply of that particular resource in the Province of British Columbia. Fortunately with respect to the production of coal, we're probably next to the Province of Alberta, if not ahead of them, with respect to the amount of resource that we have at our disposal.

Let's take a look at the natural gas business. Last year, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), without consulting the petroleum industry arbitrarily and unilaterally increased the royalty on hydrocarbon energies, particularly on the production of oil. To say that the companies were upset would be an understatement. Certainly, they felt they had a right to be consulted before a figure was pulled out of the air and an increase which amounted in many cases to 200 per cent was slapped on those people who had oil wells in production in the province. About the same time, there were a number of statements made in the press by responsible Ministers of the Crown concerning the fact that this whole matter of not only royalties on oil but royalty on the production of natural gas would be considered. I said at the time that the companies were becoming very uncertain as to their future in the Province of British Columbia and for that reason they were pulling out of the exploration field. That was scoffed at by the government benches, scoffed at because I do not think there's anyone in the cabinet that realizes the close tie in the petroleum business and the natural gas business between the exploration side and the production side.

It goes without saying to anyone who knows what goes on in the area of hydrocarbon production that the exploration business must be a continuous and ongoing proposition. In northern British Columbia, exploration for natural gas came almost to a standstill for the last year. Not a thing has been done. The companies didn't know what the policy of this government would be.

They couldn't go to their banks and raise the kind of money that they required — and I'm not talking about peanuts but hundreds of millions of dollars — without knowing what their future was in the Province of British Columbia. So they've treaded water in that respect. They were scared of what was going to happen to them and their investments. You can talk about the big returns that these companies have made all you like, Mr. Minister. But the actual facts of the matter are that for every dollar put into the Province of British Columbia in exploration, less than 50 cents in actual gross dollars has been returned to the industry to this date.

The amount of money that has been expended on exploration alone, the last time that I put the figures together about a year ago, was over $1.25 billion, and that expenditure did not cost the government or the taxpayers of British Columbia one little red cent in taxes. You got your fair share.

Now, we can agree that the resource that they were looking for has a higher monetary value today, because it's in short supply, than it did even a year ago. I agree with the Attorney General. Our natural gas, when you consider it in relation to other forms of energy, is underpriced.

But the thing that was of utmost concern to the exploration side of the business was this: if they successfully negotiated an increase in the price of natural gas, be it either export or domestic, the greatest percentage of that increase in price would be returned to the government in increased taxation. Upon that basis there is no way that the petroleum exploration business will continue in the Province of British Columbia.

That is why, in my opinion, if you follow the recommendations which are outlined in this report concerning natural gas, its production, its future and the exploration for that product, you can write the natural gas exploration business off in the Province of British Columbia, because what you will do is make it so uneconomical that no company will explore for natural gas again in British Columbia.

We have an energy source. The amount of exploration which has taken place so far is really very small compared to the complete area where companies should be able to discover natural gas. We've just really begun to penetrate the producing zones. Hopefully there are many larger gas fields than we presently know to exist lying out there. But if the exploration business ceases to exist in British Columbia no one will ever know.

The facts are that we have the highest cost of any province or any part of Canada when it comes to exploring in northeastern British Columbia. The terrain is difficult, there's lots of muskeg, there's a period of about three months of the year when heavy equipment and drilling rigs can move into the area and effectively work, and then they must get out. So every company that looks at B.C. knows that the minute they take out a lease they will be required to spend two and three times as much money on exploration for each successful well as they would have spent, for instance, in the Province of Alberta.

It's unfortunate therefore that the attitude of the government and the recommendations contained in this report from the energy commission do nothing to

[ Page 149 ]

reassure the industry. As a matter of fact, once that report becomes public knowledge and the industry has had a chance to read it and see the full ramifications of it, we'll be lucky to have an exploration industry left in the province.

It would seem that the government is prepared to go it alone if they follow the recommendations of that report by setting up their own industry. Well, if that means investing the kind of money that has been invested in the past 20 years, the government can forget about their great plans for social services and social benefits for people, because there is only one source of funds and that is out of the taxpayers of the province and the revenue that is generated through taxes. If the bulk of that revenue is diverted to the resource industries, be it petroleum, coal or forestry, the government will find it impossible to continue the high level of social benefits and finance and the whole broad field of resource development at one and the same time.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia should watch very closely the entry of this socialist government in an equity way into the management and development of our resource industries. Certainly the experience of other provinces under a socialist government should be enough for the public to realize what a disaster most of those programmes have been.

The fact that we can create a climate under which we can provide social services for people and also attract large amounts of capital from outside sources to help develop our resources seems to be lost on the government benches in this socialist province. It's not good enough to suggest that you have to have the resource at your finger tips as an owner. Certainly you can provide the same benefits by taxing in a fair manner the people who do the development. And you pay nothing for their entry into the resource development field. You contract none of their obligations or underwrite any of their contracts. This they do on their own. If they are successful you participate and all the people of British Columbia participate in whatever return is there on a fair and equitable basis.

I'd like to spend a few moments now, Mr. Speaker, talking about the forest industry in this province. For the last year everyone has waited to see what the policies would be with respect to forest management and forest development in the Province of British Columbia. I think that no one area of government responsibility has occupied as much time on the part of the public generally as the forest industry.

But what's happening in the forest industry? Well, the Minister, first of all, has a record of non-communication with those people who are developing the forest industry in the province. It's obvious that letters go unanswered, that telegrams go unanswered, that it's almost impossible to get an appointment with the Minister — an appointment about some of the vital areas that business is concerned about.

The Hon. Minister — and I'm sorry he's not in the House this morning — has made many statements about forestry development in this province. But many of the statements have been vague and not defined.

He has alluded quite often to the political difference between his administration and the old administration. He has talked about new departments and about the Departments of Lands and Forests developing new concepts. He has alluded to the department's study on new forms of tenure, but he won't tell the industry what form of tenure it will take. He has talked about revising the stumpage rates in the Province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, a guideline was published but the proposal has not been enacted and the industry is apprehensive as to what will actually take place with regard to the new rates of stumpage proposed in the Province of British Columbia.

The Minister has said that he is looking at the reassignment of timber cutting rights, but not immediately — some time in the future. He has also very recently spoken about incentives and disincentives in the forest industry; whatever that means is a matter for all of us to speculate on at the present time.

But all the time this has been going on during the past year, the companies, who must know well in advance the plans of the government, have had to sit and twiddle their thumbs. Cutting plans and road-building plans are collecting dust somewhere, lost in the bureaucratic maze of the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in this province.

Decisions that are vital to the continuation of a viable forest industry in the province have been shunted aside. We get many statements about projected new policies and the Minister's intent to reshape the whole forest industry in the Province of British Columbia, but all we hear is statements. We see nothing in the form of legislative action or a firm government policy. It is airy-fairy type of planning by the Minister, designed to confuse, if nothing else, those people who have invested millions of dollars in plant and equipment to provide jobs for the citizens of this province.

Mr. Speaker, they can't wait while the Minister plays around with phony concepts. They can't wait while the Minister procrastinates and hedges. They have to know where they stand so that they can plan accordingly. Certainly if the Minister is going to get into the forest industry in an equity basis, and this is being done, he's going to have to learn how to plan well in advance. Otherwise, the industries which have become part and parcel of the Crown jewels would be

[ Page 150 ]

complete and utter fiascos.

I think all of us have watched with apprehension the entry of the government into the lumber business in this province, and certainly they've taken over plants at Prince Rupert….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No. They've taken over another operation at Ocean Falls. They've also taken over an operation at Vanderhoof. So it is obvious that the Minister will be doing his level best to make these appear to be viable, bustling operations, the type that will produce profits and great benefits for the people of the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: So let's take a look at how this is going to be accomplished. Well, it is fairly obvious, after watching the performance so far, that there are a number of ways of making a business appear to be profitable for the benefit of the newspapers and for the benefit of the position of the government — a number of ways of appearing to make a business profitable. Let me suggest a few.

There's nothing to prevent the government of this province from twisting agreements with municipalities so that the Crown corporations receive beneficial tax treatment. There's nothing to prevent the Crown from twisting timber allocations so that the Crown companies receive a greater share of the market than they deserve. I think we are also aware of the fact that there is nothing to prevent the Crown from twisting the situation regarding taxes and lease fees and royalties so that their Crown corporation is in a preferential position. It would seem that they have already entered into a re-allocation of timber regarding the Plateau Mills, in which they now have an equity position.

There's nothing to prevent the Crown from twisting the costs of insurance, particularly when they set up their own insurance corporation. There's nothing to prevent the Crown from using the facilities of B.C. Railway and B.C. Hydro, to a great advantage at the expense of the taxpayers of this province. There's nothing that will prevent the Crown from twisting this programme of incentives and disincentives to the advantage of those particular forestry operations in which they have an equity position. There's nothing to prevent the Crown from using the civil service and the expertise of the people in the civil service, and then covering those costs up by not charging them against the corporations.

I pointed out just seven ways in which the Crown can twist the whole concept of the forest industry to their own advantage just so that the Crown corporations can show a profit. That's seven twists in the road, Mr. Speaker. How many more are ahead is anybody's guess. But the first twist that I spoke about was one with respect to agreements between municipalities and the Province of British Columbia.

I'd like to speak for a few minutes about these types of agreements, particularly as they affect the City of Prince Rupert. Let's just take a look at one of the agreements negotiated some years ago. Because that's what it was: an agreement in good faith between Columbia Cellulose, as it was then known, the City of Prince Rupert and the government of the day in the Province of British Columbia — the Social Credit government.

It was obvious when this big forest industry moved into the Prince Rupert area that the city would have to supply people services and that those services would cost a lot of money, and that somebody would have to be responsible for paying those fees. So the municipality was concerned and they came to the provincial government and through the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, section 84, an agreement was confirmed and included in letters patent under which the corporation would assume a fairly substantial tax burden, because they were the people who would require the services for their employees.

It was agreed that this particular tax burden would not become a stone around the necks of the other citizens in the City of Prince Rupert. It was agreed to, the city was happy, the corporation accepted the terms and the government ratified them. The only problem was that a year or two down the line the corporation ran into some financial problems. They came to the government not once but on several occasions, asking for redress and a reduction in the assessment so that the tax burden would be less than what they had agreed to. Each time the government refused them, because they knew full well that the City of Prince Rupert, having committed itself to the capital expenditure required to provide services for these people, could not assume that tax burden without the assessment base provided by that huge timber resource company.

In recent months, however, that huge corporation became a child of the Province of British Columbia, so upon the advice of someone the corporation has appealed their assessment to the court of revision. Now one of two things will happen when that appeal goes before the court of revision. Either the appeal will be granted and the assessment will be reduced, or the appeal will be denied. If the appeal is granted at that level the corporation of Prince Rupert will lose an estimated $800,000 in revenue, because included

[ Page 151 ]

in their tax base are the assets and the assessment of that corporation, and that happens to amount to one-third of the total taxable assessment for the City of Prince Rupert.

If the appeal is denied at the court of revision, the company will then apply and go the next step, and they'll appeal. When they appeal they'll go before the Assessment Appeal Board. Who is the Assessment Appeal Board, and how do they obtain their positions? They're appointed at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In other words, the Assessment Appeal Board is a government-appointed board, and at that level we will have the government appealing to the government for a reduction in their assessment. It isn't hard to calculate the outcome of that appeal. My prediction is that the appeal will be granted and that the assessment will be reduced, so that the amount of revenue the City of Prince Rupert receives from that corporation will be reduced proportionately, and the citizens of Prince Rupert who did not ask the corporation to come there originally will be required to pay whatever the extra costs are to make up the deficit position in the budget of the City of Prince Rupert.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Will you resign if you're wrong?

MR. SMITH: It is interesting, Mr. Member, that you can be so vocal now, because when this matter was discussed by the mayor of Prince Rupert and those people who were genuinely concerned, the Member for Prince Rupert was very quiet about the matter. And the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) was very quiet about the matter.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there are many ways for a Crown corporation dealing with a benevolent father (in this case the government) to make it appear that they have boosted that corporation into a profitable business enterprise, because the government, in the final analysis, is dealing with the government. It is my belief that, rather than have egg on their face, they'll make sure that those Crown corporations show a profit, by one means or another. What they can't do directly will be done indirectly and a profit picture will emerge, but no one will ever know the amount of money it costs every other taxpayer in the Province of British Columbia. It has happened in other socialist provinces in this country of ours, it's happened in socialist countries around the world, and if this government has its way it will happen in the Province of British Columbia. Make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: The Minister says we wouldn't want those industries to go under. They should be able to pay their way, but the other thing is this: everyone, in the government benches, particularly the cabinet Ministers, are very optimistic about the future of northwestern British Columbia, particularly the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, but he says very little about the transfers that are taking place of timber quotas, of allocations, of the direction of chips which should go to the Cariboo and the Prince George area, but will be diverted to Prince Rupert. Very little is said about that area, so what is gained at Prince Rupert will be at the expense of the Cariboo and the Prince George region — make no mistake about that. The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) commented on it yesterday, and I'm only sorry that he didn't go further in his comments, because that's exactly what's happening in his riding. You'll create jobs in northwestern British Columbia at the expense of those people who are presently gainfully employed in the Cariboo and in the Prince George area. Is that an economic viable proposition? Nonsense, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I'd like to be optimistic, but we already know from what we have seen the direction that you are taking as government. We know the type of corporations you are setting up. We know the path that you are travelling, and believe me, Mr. Attorney General, there is no reason for anybody to be optimistic when they look at the overall picture that's unfolding in this province. You know, if the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea) was as concerned as he appears to be today about the problem that the mayor and council have in Prince Rupert, he would be doing something about it. It's no light thing for the people in municipal office to realize that one-third of their total revenue tax base could be lost through an appeal because the Crown corporation would like to put themselves in a good light. They could do it at the expense of the people of Prince Rupert merely by entering into an agreement with the people who created them, the province. Sure, you didn't create the corporations….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: All I am suggesting, Mr. Member, is that the appeal procedure is being used and, if upheld, Prince Rupert will lose $800,000 of revenue — that's the estimated lost revenue. Where are they going to recapture that from?

There is an answer to the problem of industrial assessments and increases and decreases. It's an answer that I believe would solve many of the inequities that we see with respect to industrial assessments located outside of the immediate

[ Page 152 ]

precincts of municipalities. I think there is a way of overcoming this problem to the benefit of all the people in the Province of British Columbia, and we will have more to say about that later in this debate, Mr. Speaker.

The future of resource-based industries in British Columbia, when viewed under the conditions that they have to live with now and the conditions that may be imposed upon them in the future, is not bright, So far, because of a world-wide demand for hydrocarbon products and for forest industry products, our economy has been more than buoyant.

The thing that plagues industry today is the indecision expressed through statements of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). It's a matter that they don't know where they stand and they don't know what their future will be. Unless something is done to restore their confidence, all of us in British Columbia will be the losers. I appeal to the government to consider wisely the path they have chosen to go. Stop rushing into hastily-made, ill-conceived ideas, because the direction that you are headed will be at the expense of every citizen in this province, who have a right to expect more than this government has shown in their first year in office.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate. I'm sure that when the bills of the government come before the House we will have an opportunity to take part in many other debates. I don't want to prolong the House this morning so, until we have an opportunity to see the legislation, I will say thank you for your time and attention, Mr. Speaker. We will look forward to a few more debates with the Attorney General before this session is closed.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the previous speaker for his fine talk. I think he will make a very fine leader for the Social Credit opposition.

MR. SMITH: However…!

MR. STEVES: Right on.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are three problems of a world-wide nature that face us in B.C. today and I would like to address myself to these particular problems.

These are the crises that I see in food and in housing and in energy — three essentials to all people. Early in this debate, in fact when the throne speech was first released, one of the leaders of the Social Credit Party, the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter), in discussing the throne speech, criticized the proposed energy seminar that we are planning for this fall. He is quoted in the paper as saying that the issue of nuclear energy has been well researched over the years, and he said, "There is already a wealth of information on the subject; why it is necessary to go into this matter now is more than I know."

The Liberal leader, the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), is quoted as echoing Mr. Richter's cynicism of the energy seminar: "God, these things have been going on for a coon's age. It will cost a lot of money and it won't achieve much." He is quoted as terming the seminar plan a very curious business and said that B.C. was simply going over ground covered 5 or 10 years ago in other parts of the world.

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

MR. STEVES: You know, the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) also echoed these words and said, "Why bring people from all around the world when the Premier is opposed to nuclear power?" I would just like to go over just who is coming, just who these people are that are coming, and what it is that we propose to do in the energy seminar this fall.

In the first place, Hannes Alfven, of the Royal Institute from Sweden, was a 1970 Nobel Prize winner in physics. He is an opponent of nuclear power and an adviser to the Swedish government. He is an expert on energy alternatives, particularly solar power.

J.L. Gray, who is coming from the Canadian Atomic Energy Commission, is a proponent of nuclear energy and he has promised B.C. that we would have 15 nuclear power plants by the year 2000.

Recent estimates by responsible scientists indicate that in the next 25 years, by the year 2000, there may be between 11,000 and 33,000 deaths from accidents caused by nuclear power plants plus other untold illness and other side-effects.

Going over the accidents that we have had in the past, in 1952 there was an accident at Chalk River, our Canadian plant, which has been classed as a relatively safe plant by Members of the opposition in the past. There have been accidents in Britain, many accidents in the United States. The Fermi reactor near Detroit almost caused the evacuation of Detroit in 1966 and recently in the newspapers we see that in Richland, Washington, a laboratory that had an accident in 1951 is still contaminated. They are still trying to find a way of getting rid of the radioactive plutonium in that particular reactor that has a radioactive power for 250,000 years.

Obviously there are many problems in the field of nuclear energy, yet the leaders of the Social Credit and Liberal parties seem to think that we had enough information years ago from which to make a decision.

[ Page 153 ]

I would like to know whether they want to make decisions on information gathered before the radiation hazards were known and before energy alternatives were studied — information, I might add, that has been largely provided by the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States.

Do they really want the citizens of British Columbia not to have a say in what type of energy we are going to use in this province in the future?

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

MR. STEVES: Mr. Speaker, billions of dollars have been spent on nuclear research, most of it in war research. Comparatively little has been spent on studying safe energy alternatives. In fact, if steam and sunshine were war materials, probably we would have had solar power and geothermal power a long time ago.

I would like to suggest to you that the performance offered by the official opposition in the last week or so in the throne speech debate has been somewhat lacklustre and has offered very little constructive criticism. And I think that the criticism of our efforts to try to investigate safe methods of energy production is somewhat unwarranted, out of place and totally irresponsible.

Were it possible for someone on this side of the House to do so I would be very happy to move a motion of non-confidence in that rudderless ship of the official opposition and her Liberal echoes.

While on the subject of energy I would like to discuss briefly the so-called energy crisis — so-called because we do not have an energy shortage in Canada of oil and gas. It is only occurring in the United States. So-called because while the energy crisis is real enough, it has been caused by lack of foresight, gross wastefulness and misuse of our energy resources by our consumptive North American society. It has been caused in part by a desire to involve Canada in a continental energy deal and to force us to accept the necessity of supertankers along our coast.

Also, I would suggest that it has been caused in part by a desire on the part of oil cartels to maximize their profits through artificial shortages. While on this subject I would like to suggest that the B.C. government should take a close look at what has been happening up at Beaver River to determine if the problems up there are due to natural causes or to some problems in poor extraction procedures of natural gas.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is moving toward a two-price system on oil but unfortunately, I would suggest, this can only be successful on a short-term basis because we only have enough oil reserves for about 18 years. Five to 10 years from now we can expect that the energy crisis will be occurring here in Canada and that our prices will start to go up here in this country as well. If we are not careful and if we have not developed alternative energy resources we could be importing energy at highly inflated prices.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), who I just suggested would make a fine leader for the Social Credit Party, has said that exploration costs in B.C. are higher than the returns to the industry. I would suggest that he failed to mention that if you sell at a loss to a parent company in the United States you are bound to show a deficit in your returns.

We in B.C. must attempt to maintain our oil and gas reserves for future use here instead of export for short-term gains. And what we do export should at least bring us a decent return. We must try to redirect some of our excess natural gas use to non-polluting automotive fuels, to public transit, as has been mentioned earlier, and possibly for the use of generation of electrical power and for the conversion of automotive vehicles to natural gas.

Energy is too important to the Canadian people and the people of B.C. to leave in the hands of the oil cartels and combines which are now coming to the fore and which profit largely in energy resources. In my opinion, all energy resources should be regarded as public utilities and put under public control; this would ensure that the people of B.C. would get a decent return on their resources and would ensure that we would have some resources left for the future.

The second topic I would like to discuss is the housing crisis. This of course is centred largely in the urban areas and is the most immediate problem to hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the Greater Vancouver area. Although I am very pleased with the appointment of a Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and I think this is a step in the right direction, I am a bit disappointed that we have not been able to meet this problem head-on much sooner.

Perhaps it is because the housing problem has been growing at exponential rates for the last five years and we are just now beginning to realize its magnitude. By this time next year the housing problem will have reached the stage of desperation for many people. And once we start trying to resolve it, it will take several years to alleviate the problem.

Right now many people are looking for accommodation and the results are higher rents and higher cost of housing. Single rent increases of 25 to 40 per cent are not uncommon. People are being evicted so that the rent can be increased without waiting for three months or so that they can increase the rent for the second time in a year.

Lots from my riding of Richmond have gone up since 1966 by 300 per cent or 25 per cent a year. People are also being evicted when they are getting

[ Page 154 ]

old, or when they have children, and so on, to provide accommodation for friends of the people who own the accommodation. Many evictions occur in Richmond so that the owners can illegally convert duplexes to fourplexes.

Rental agencies have sprung up and tenants can ill afford it, for it may cost as much as $60 to get rental listings, or $20 each to three rental agencies. What happens is that you answer an ad in the newspaper and you phone the number and find out that it is a rental agency that is handling it and they won't tell you where the house is or anything about it until you pay them $20. When you do pay the $20, you find that the house has already been rented. And I know this for a fact because I have been helping a friend for the past month to try and find a home in Richmond. This particular person went to two such rental agencies to no avail. He also waited outside the Pacific Press building with about 200 other people for the first issue of the newspaper to come out one day so that he could get the ads that were in the paper.

What happened was a great scramble as people climbed all over each other when the first paper came out, tossing dimes around and grabbing newspapers and running off to the phone to try and phone for apartment accommodation. After about 100 calls this particular person made, he finally found one or two that had not been rented already.

We also went to the point of driving around the community looking for vacant houses when people moved out and in one case we found one where a tenant had moved, but we couldn't find out who the landlord was. It took us three days to find out who the tenant had been and that the landlord lived up near Sechelt. We found that the landlord was coming down to Richmond to take a look at the house that weekend, in fact the very next day. We went over there early the next day and found about 10 or 15 other people had got there before us and they had all been doing the same thing.

So I would suggest that we have a very serious problem on our hands and we have. to find some solution for it. Mr. Speaker, drastic rent increases, increased evictions and the rip-off rental agencies that I've been mentioning are only able to operate because there is a housing shortage. When I raised this matter publicly at a meeting in Chilliwack last month, I received over 350 phone calls during the next couple of days from people, largely tenants, who were concerned about their problems of security and who were having difficulties in finding accommodation.

I hope that before the year is out the government will be able to start making provincial land available for public rental housing, for co-ops and a wide range of housing decentralized throughout the urban areas in order to take some of the pressure off as soon as possible One other aspect of this is that land speculators in my riding, and I think probably elsewhere, are holding land, hoping for increased speculative profits in the future. Here I think the government should get involved in an urban land bank and land assembly programme, and any other measures that are necessary to get this land onto the market.

We have heard criticisms that Bill 42 is causing the shortage of land and yet, in my riding, we have over 3,000 acres of land available for residential housing and it is all being sat upon by various people, just letting a little bit of land go at a time so that they can increase their prices on it. Not all of it is owned by speculators — some of it is owned by people who don't really wish to sell — a lot of it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you sell it?

MR. STEVES: Not really. We have enough land in Richmond as a matter of fact to double our population in Richmond.

Pressure should also be put on the municipalities and the Greater Vancouver Regional District to make 10,000 acres that the municipalities have available to low rental housing and they should get involved in that as well.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair]

Furthermore, I would suggest that we have to find some way, perhaps through an order-in-council or some other measure, to have rental increases posted on premises and acceptable reasons given for evictions outlined so it will help alleviate the situation with the tenant until more comprehensive action can be taken.

Finally, out of 35,000 eligible voters in my riding, 10,000 are not on the civic voters' list because they are resident tenant electors. I would like to see in this next year some legislation calling for enumeration of tenants so that they will have right to vote in civic elections. And even to that extent I would like, before the enumeration is done, the government to perhaps make it possible for tenants to register with the returning officer up to the election date, the same as property owners can do if they have been left off the list.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk on the food crisis, and in this presentation I intend to dwell on this in some detail. Even though we have a great food-producing area here in B.C. and Canada, I think we have a number of reasons for a food crisis in B.C.

First, there are shortages in other parts of the world which influence domestic prices here. An example: the rising cost of beef, which is well known; and the cause: shortages of beef in the United States. Another example: the rising cost of fish, also well known; and the cause: increased demand for our fish in Japan.

Another example: the cost of wheat, flour and

[ Page 155 ]

bread; the cause: a worldwide shortage of wheat. And check this out, at the Ogden Point elevator near here they recently increased their prices for medium quality wheat from $3.80 a bushel to $6.06 a bushel because of the increased worldwide demand. And so we are paying for it on the local market because there is a demand elsewhere, even though we have a surplus of wheat.

Unbleached flour, Albion's unbleached flour increased from $6.70 a cwt. to $11.25 a cwt. over the past two years. Another example: the rising cost of honey; again the cause: an increase in the demand for honey in Japan. Two years ago the bulk wholesale price was 33 cents a pound. The local people offered a bulk price of 46 cents a pound from Japanese interests and therefore burnped up the domestic price for B.C. people to 52 cents a pound this summer.

Because of increasing export demand, food costs are rising drastically on the domestic market even though we ourselves have no shortages. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian consumer, the B.C. consumer, is being forced to compete on the international export market for our own produce, the same as we are being forced to compete on the international market for our own oil and gas.

The second reason for the high food cost, Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, is a combination of the dumping of surplus foods outside of B.C. at certain times of the year and a lack of confidence in agriculture over the last 15 or 20 years by the farmers. Farmers, due to past uncertainty, have not invested in their farming enterprises. This has caused lower returns to the farmers and poorer cropland utilization in many areas. Furthermore, a recent report to the Greater Vancouver Regional District indicates that 53 per cent, or over 10,000 acres of Delta farmland is owned by the government and absentee landlords. In the report — and I would like to quote from it — prepared by Paton, Smith and Gram Ltd. to the regional district, they said that, "problems in farming in the area apparently date back to 1969 when the province expropriated 4,000 acres of farmland in west Delta and large tracts in east and central Delta as well." The consultant said, "with the exception of properties acquired under the more recent greenbelt programme, the government and absentee-owned farms have fallen into deplorable condition".

Mr. Speaker, a similar study is being conducted in my riding, Richmond, and I am sure they will find the same situation in Richmond as well and it will be just as bad. Much of Richmond's farmland is owned by absentee landlords, many of them land speculators from Europe, United States and Hong Kong. Some of the land has been owned by the Highways Department since the Deas throughway was built years ago. Much of this land is in poor pasture, couch grass and hard hack.

I would like to suggest that the government should look to the use of taxation by some countries in Europe, notably Holland, to reduce taxes on the bona fide farms which are being properly farmed so that they can offset some of the problems caused by cheaper foods being dumped across the border.

On the other hand, we should increase taxes on the land owned by absentee landlords and farmland which is not being adequately farmed, and for pete's sake we should do something about getting the government land into production. In this way I think we can encourage the bona fide farmers so they'll put more money into their farming enterprises, increase their production and the quality of their produce, and they will make substantial returns.

A third factor influencing food costs is the method by which production and distribution by the food industry is carried out and controlled in this province by the multi-national food corporations. Mr. Speaker, private enterprise in this province amounts to private government. Over on the opposition benches we just recently heard one of the representatives of private government speaking of the forest industry and energy resources. We all know the history of company domination in this province. We know the tremendous consolidation of corporate power in individual industries: the creation of a forest giant like MacMillan Bloedel by a series of mergers over many years; the concentration of cement and concrete production into the hands of two huge companies. But, Mr. Speaker, a new development is the growth through takeovers of conglomerates which span many industries. Individual businessmen have access to vital decisions not just in one industry but in many otherwise unrelated industries. This kind of concentration of economic power has created a powerful private government which is a challenge to the power of public government in this province as elsewhere.

I would like to go into some depth on the subject, particularly as it relates to the price of fish. The heart of the fishing industry is located in my riding of Richmond. In fact my hometown, Steveston, has been known for many years as the salmon capital of the world and I myself have worked in many facets of the fishing industry, from gill netting in the river to working in the fresh fish departments of both of the major fishing companies, to the canning departments, cleaning fish, and so on, and have some knowledge of the fishing industry. I'm sad to say that the seafood industry in British Columbia has now become just one component of a great conglomerate empire. The seafood industry is one of this province's major food resources, but it is currently controlled by two vast conglomerates, one Canadian and one American, working in unison.

Take B.C. Packers. The chairman of B.C. Packers is George Creber. Mr. Creber is president and managing

[ Page 156 ]

director of George Weston, Ltd., which owns B.C. Packers. He is also a director of Kelly Douglas, the Super-Valu supermarket chain, which is owned by Weston. He is a director of an eastern supermarket chain also owned by Weston's: Loblaw Groceterias and Loblaw Companies. He is a director of other Weston companies: the Eddy Paper Company; J.R. Booth, Ltd; Bishop Building Materials; Somerville Industries; Westfair Foods; Connors Brothers; Eddy Forest Products.

Mr. Pearly Brissenden, a director of B.C. Packers, is also chairman of Canadian Allied Property Investments, which builds shopping centres and office developments. He is also a director of Canadian Stevedoring, Macdonald Buchanan Properties and Grosvenor Laing, which was formerly one of the world's largest construction and property companies. Other directors of B.C. Packers sit on the board of other Weston companies which include, and there's quite a few of them: Weston Bakeries; Lane's Bakeries; Wittich Bread; McCarthy Milling; Soo Line Mills; Stuart Ltd.; Interbake Foods; McCormicks Ltd; Paulin Chambers Ltd.; Marven's Ltd.; Bowes Company Ltd.; Interbake Foods of the United States; Weston Foods; William Neilson Ltd.; Kambley of Switzerland (Canada) Ltd.; Willards Chocolate; Donlads Dairy; B.C. Packers; Nelson Brothers Fisheries; Ruperts Certi-Fresh Foods; Connors Brothers; H.W. Welch; Lewis Connors and Son; Eddy Paper Company; E.B. Eddy Company; Eddy Forest Products; J.E. Boyle; Eastern Fine Paper; Somerville Industries; Sommerville Automotive Trim; Canadian Folding Cartons; Westfair Foods; Kelly Douglas; Nabob Foods; Super-Valu Stores; Calvan Canus Catering Services; Dickson Importing; Isaac Pharmacies Ltd.; Foremost Foods; Loblaw Companies. Loblaw Groceterias; Zehris Markets; Dionne Ltd.; OK Economy Stores; National Grocers Company; Atlantic Wholesalers; Sayvette Ltd.; York Trading; National Tea Company of the United States; Loblaw Incorporated of the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: They sound competitive.

MR. STEVES: Very competitive! They control much of the food industry here in B.C., the rest of Canada, the United States, and in fact around the world. And this is the conglomerate which is largely in charge of British Columbia's salmon canning industry. It comprises some 5,600 supermarkets and shops and some 300 mills and bakeries. When the reigning boss of this empire talks to the press, it is to speak on subjects like apartheid and the British Empire, which he longs for.

B.C. Packers' only so-called competitor in the seafood products industry of this province is an American company, which by pure coincidence charges exactly the same price, to three decimal points, for its canned salmon as B.C. Packers. That price is $2.663 per unit pound, and it has gone up 59 per cent in four months this summer. This company, this so-called competitor to B.C. Packers, is also the so-called Canadian Fishing Company, so-called because it is wholly owned by the New England Fishing Company based in Seattle. Well, it's not quite wholly owned; out of 15,000 shares, eight shares are owned by the eight Canadian directors of the Canadian Fishing Company, (Laughter.)

For a taste of the kind of corporate power being wielded by individuals of this company, take a look at Roger Hager, who is chairman of the so-called Canadian Fishing Company. Mr. Hager is also vice-president of Western Mines and he is a director of the following other companies: Domtar; Crown Zellerbach of Canada; Royal General Insurance; Labatt Breweries; Kaiser Resources; British Pacific Properties; Park Royal Shopping Centre.

Not only have B.C. Packers and the Canadian Fishing Company shared the same prices, but for 15 years they also shared the ownership of one of B.C.'s old historic processing companies, J.H. Todd and Sons. And their executives get together at the meetings of the B.C. Fisheries Association.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia fishermen, cannery workers and B.C. consumers are being shafted by this great conglomerate in grand style. The B.C. Fisheries Association, which is a marriage of convenience between B.C. Packers and the Canadian Fishing Company, is effectively in control of the majority of the coastal fishing vessels. It has strong control over the sources of financing, which is becoming a more crucial matter every month as new licensing programmes force up the costs of getting into fishing. The fact is that it is indirectly in control of licensing. It seems to have an awful lot of influence in Ottawa, which has almost complete responsibility at the present time over our fishing industry.

A lot of fishermen get the feeling-that they can't get financing or boats unless they promise to deliver their catch to one of these two big conglomerates, B.C. Packers or Canadian Fish. In my own hometown there is very little opportunity for a fisherman to find someplace to tie his boat unless it's at one of these companies' wharves. Unless they fish for the company they have no place to dock.

The situation of our fishermen when they bring their catch in to the packing companies of this province is one like those of feudal peasants who had to deliver their tithes to the baronial castles in feudal days. Fishermen get a basic 20 cents to 50 cents a pound for their salmon. The salmon is industrially processed by one of the lowest paid industrial work forces in North America, half of them women. They did receive a 30 per cent wage increase this year, but basically it was a 30 per cent increase of nothing, and it certainly did not compare with the 150 per cent profit increase enjoyed by the companies during the last year or so.

[ Page 157 ]

In the case of B.C. Packers, Mr. Speaker, which is twice as big as Canadian Fish, that 20 cent to 50 cent salmon is then transferred to a warehousing operation also owned by the Weston empire. It could be Malkin's, it could be Loblaws, it could be Kelly Douglas, it doesn't really matter.

From that warehousing operation, it is transferred to a supermarket chain; it could be Westfair, it could be Shop-Easy, it could be Super-Valu. That 20 cent pink salmon, by the time it gets to the consumer, has turned into one of the most expensive items on the protein food list, selling at $2.49 a pound, an increase in price of 1,200 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. STEVES: It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that in the 24 weeks ending June 17 this year, the profits of B.C. Packers had risen by 124 per cent on a sales increase of only 25 per cent. Net income of the company more than doubled this year over the same period last year.

Serious questions have been raised just in the last few weeks about the hoarding of canned fish supplies. A.B.C. Packers marketing manager, representative of the Weston empire, said last month that he did not even deny that the company was hoarding its canned products. He said it was normal to withdraw temporarily from the market. We have also to consider that all of the companies are asking the same prices for their products, identical prices to three decimal points.

Mr. Speaker, the processing industry in this province has an ugly history of centralization and arbitrary plant shut-down. It is a common belief that during the last few years too many processing companies have been competing in a limited market. But this is not the case. Now there's no doubt that too many fishermen were chasing too many fish. But can there ever be, in the theory of a self-regulating market, too many companies competing?

In a business story in 1969, when plant after plant up and down the coast was being bought out by Weston's and New England and being shut down, the Vancouver Province stated that, "In the business of catching salmon in B.C., too many companies had been competing in a limited market; something had to give."

Something did have to give, and what gave was the free, competitive market that they were talking about. What also gave was many Indian communities up and down the coast of British Columbia when the canneries in those communities were bought out and closed down. The Indian fishermen found they had difficulties delivering their fish to market, and their wives and families had no place to work. And they were then put in a situation of losing their local industry.

Mr. Speaker, the work force in the fishing industry has been cut in half since 1967. Through a combination of automation and centralization, the industry, the fish processing work force has been reduced by half in just six short years.

Several of the old established companies have been co-owned for many years by B.C. Packers and Canadian Fish, which was a very cosy arrangement. In 1968 J.H. Todd & Son closed down. It had been squeezed out of business during the '60s by B.C. Packers, and Canadian Fish who divvied up the business between them. Anglo B.C. Packing folded in the same year; Canadian Fish took over its two plants in Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Half of ABC's peak work force was knocked out in that arbitrarily announced takeover — about 1,500 workers — and hundreds of them were Indian cannery workers up the coast. To the amazement of everyone in the industry, even people that work for B.C. Packers, it was announced the same year, in 1968, that B.C. Packers owned Nelson Brothers Fisheries and had owned them since 1960.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of corporate secrecy is nothing new in the Weston empire. Forbes magazine described this last year — the Weston empire as "more like a Byzantine court than a multi-billion dollar business" comprised of at least 170 companies. At the same time B.C. Packers announced that it was shutting down Skeena Sunnyside packing, throwing 400 people out of work, many of them native workers.

In my own community canneries were bought out and shut down. B.C. Packers closed their fresh fish operation and laid off 200 workers in 1969. The company stated that it was no longer economic to process fresh filleted fish, such as cod caught in local waters. Actually what had happened was that the Weston interests were building canneries on the cast coast using funds provided by the Liberal federal government to the tune I understand of around 11 million dollars for one cannery in New Brunswick. And as soon as they got the canneries built back there they started shutting them down here in B.C. claiming that it was no longer profitable to handle bottom fish here in B.C. Of course the Liberals gave them the money in Ottawa; they were able to exploit a cheaper labour market in New Brunswick, subsidized heavily by the federal government, to the detriment of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Same old give-away.

MR. STEVES: They do it all the time.

The workers of the canneries and the fishermen had no say in these decisions. The federal government made the usual promise of looking for other jobs for them but nothing ever came up. And, in addition to these lay-offs, new loading devices have wiped out

[ Page 158 ]

entire shifts of many packing plants, further reducing the work force and the company payroll.

Furthermore, over the years since 1967 and even prior to that it was starting; a new managerial class was brought in — many of them Americans — and many local people, familiar with B.C. problems in B.C. fisheries and very familiar with the local community and the problems of the fishermen, were sidestepped or went down the tube.

I recall one instance during an election campaign four or five years ago where, even when we went to enumerate one of the managers of B.C. Packers, the enumerators were given the royal shaft; they wouldn't even speak to us. They said they were American citizens and had no interest in wanting to take part in Canadian politics. The same manager during that election campaign, where we had people giving out election literature on government land, municipal land outside the company gates, threatened to run us through with pike poles if we didn't desist. These are the types of people that we now have running our fishing industry.

What is happening to B.C.'s fish harvest? Last year the two major companies, acting as middlemen on the sale of B.C.'s fish harvest, had the lion's share of an $80 million export business, i.e., B.C. fish and seafoods in all its forms. Of that business $42 million — more than half — was in whole fish, fresh and frozen. Virtually nothing was done to that fish except to clean it and put it in cases. Ten million dollars of that export was in the form of canned fish; $4 million of it was fish processed in other ways by smoking, pickling and so on; $24 million of the '72 harvest was other seafood, shellfish, and fish roe.

I would like to question how much of the whole fish — $42 million of it last year — was bought up by foreign companies, shipped abroad, and then processed and canned elsewhere, once again taking away Canadian jobs and profits out of this province. Of last year's harvest, $22 million — one quarter of the total worth — was composed of fish roe shipped to Japan where they make considerable use of this valuable protein food. How much of that was processed and packaged in B.C. rather than exporting the jobs and profits abroad again?

And what about our imports? We imported through Vancouver last year about $8 million worth of canned fish. Remember we exported $10 million worth. This would seem to indicate that British Columbia could easily handle the canned fish market for all of Canada and still export some.

Taking a look a little closer at what we import and what we export reveals that what we import is tuna and what we export is salmon. The way things are now, the only fish that B.C. people can afford is the cheaper tuna and we export our fine fish from our own resources to rich people abroad who can afford the fish that we cannot. To me, importing cheap stuff for our own people and exporting the good stuff just makes no sense at all.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes you can't even be sure that what you get is really B.C. produce. I can recall one time when I was working in the canneries where we were given the job of taking oysters imported from Japan — they were put in little vacuum-packed packages — opening the packages and dumping the little tiny Japanese oysters in with B.C. oysters, and they were sold then as B.C. produce.

Mr. Speaker, then there are the local community problems which face the fishermen, problems associated with monopoly control of the industry. Many of the fishermen in my community have been trying for years to become independent from the big canneries but they are tied with the big companies due to a lack of tie-up facilities for their boats. In 1958, when the provincial government turned over an island at the mouth of the river for a breakwater to the federal government, the federal government promised us a fishermen's wharf and harbour facilities. The canners feared a loss of control of this industry if this were to happen. And their friends, the Liberal government, did nothing about the project. So we formed the fishermen's wharf and harbour committee and I was the chairman of this for a number of years. Finally we got the federal government to take a look, and to carry out a feasibility study of having an independent fish boat harbour in Steveston. However, still nothing has happened.

We have, however, interested the Municipality of Richmond and they are going ahead with a proposal for a 400-boat fish boat harbour that they are hoping the federal government will finally support.

I would like to suggest that the provincial government could also get into this project, perhaps by buying out and reopening one of the closed canneries in our area for the offloading of fish to a public fishermen's wharf facility and for the direct selling to the local, Vancouver and B.C. consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I've used the fishing industry as an example to show how the food industry is basically one interconnecting conglomerate, from the primary source to the wholesale and to the retail outlet. I would like to recommend that the government should make an inquiry into the financial structure of the fishing companies and into all wholesale and retail food outlets in this province. Such an inquiry would include production and marketing costs, prices and income, and would provide for full financial disclosures on the part of the company.

I would suggest that we should also make further loans or grants to the rapidly-growing food co-op movement throughout the province, and establish public and cooperative wholesale food outlets in order to reduce the price-spread between the producer and the consumer.

[ Page 159 ]

Further, with regard to the fishing industry specifically, I would like to suggest that we should set up a Crown corporation to establish its own salmon processing and marketing facilities, either by new construction or putting existing facilities under public ownership and control. Such a corporation could be financed from a two-price system for fish — we're hearing a lot about two-price systems these days — and it could be done in this way: such a system as is being used for oil, and this way we would get a kickback from our resources being sold abroad to put back into the fishing industry.

Furthermore, such a corporation could be designed to restore local industry to the coastal fishing communities and enter into development of our bottom fish and shellfish resources which are being largely ignored at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, only by taking strong and concerted action will we be able to get off the international merry-go-round of skyrocketing price increases.

Finally, I would like to suggest that a full fisheries department would be necessary to oversee such a corporation and to work with the federal government to rehabilitate our salmon industry.

In 1971, Nova Scotia, one of our tiny provinces on the east coast, spent $1,020,779 on their fisheries, a total of 0.24 per cent of their total budget expenditures. Prince Edward Island spent $423,518 for 0.55 per cent. New Brunswick spent $1,102,588 — or 0.28 per cent. Newfoundland spent $2,537,647 or 0.84 per cent for their fisheries.

In 1971, the amount of money spent in B.C. on their fisheries was negligible. This is up to the point where in B.C. this year we are now spending $133,078 or 0.008 per cent on our commercial fisheries. However, we must put into this some aspects from the Fish and Wildlife which, although they are not involved in fisheries resources too much, do handle fisheries in a minor way.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a pretty big budget.

MR. STEVES: It's a pretty big budget — 0.008 per cent. Clearly this is not good enough for one of our most important industries here in B.C. We must, and I'm sure that we will, do something about it.

Interjections.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Hush, horde.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they've certainly spruced up the joint, I'll tell you that. We see new surfaces, and those forms that grace our ceilings — it's very, very impressive — gold trim up there and this luxurious pile in this very marvelous mauve carpet, and then we find ostrich feathers in those globes. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this place is really and truly fit for kings today. I guess it proves one thing; we at last know in B.C. who the cake-eaters really are, make no mistake of that.

The lights have been subject to a little bit of question by quite a few people. It's somewhat like the Oasis Room in a Palm Springs spa. I've noticed that it has done one thing with the press; it's certainly brought in a number of reporters from the "Las Vegas Chronicle." We see one sitting down now with his dealer's hat on. (Laughter.) You know, every time these lights go on full bore, I sometimes wonder if the Premier thinks that one of his backbenchers is prepared to go over the wall and he wants to keep a close eye on them.

But the thing that gave me the greatest concern of all — and I haven't heard from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) or from anyone else in here as to what you call that light blue planet up there, or who's in it, for that matter. But I'll tell you one thing; I'm very, very glad, Hon. Members, that flat-earth John wasn't here when it came in because it would have destroyed a great deal of his popular concepts. You know, one of the Members told me it's just a big empty sphere that repeats everything that it hears. Well, I suppose it's questionable as to whether it's closer to the floor or closer to the press gallery, and you can take your pick of that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought Gaglardi had left this place.

MR. GARDOM: Well, maybe Gaglardi is gone. I don't see a broom sticking out of it, Mr. Premier, so maybe you're right. But you know, there's another rumour that it's a long-range polygraph, which must account at least for the brevity of some of the Members' talks so far this session. But I'll say one thing, Mr. Speaker, whatever that big blue Martha Mitchell is doing up there, welcome indeed to the club.

I rather wish that the new member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett)…. He's not in his seat at the present time and in his absence I would also like to express my best wishes to him for a very effective and rewarding time in office. I think pretty soon we're going to be hearing whether he's a chip off the old block or if he's prepared to chop off the old block, (Laughter) and that will, perhaps, be happy times for all.

Indeed, I cannot carry on without expressing my deepest congratulations to the cabinet rookies whose smiles are surpassed only by those of their bankers. (Laughter.)

To the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) who's also not in his seat, I'd like to say, as every Member in this House — all 55 or the 54, excluding him — would say, that he's still a great tillicum of this Legislature, make no mistake about that.

[ Page 160 ]

Dealing with the new cabinet: during question period I was tempted to ask a question of one of the new cabinet Ministers, but I was in somewhat of a quandary, Mr. Speaker, as to which one to direct the question to because I read in the paper, from a report this week, that a doctor said that there should be more provisions for sexual activity in homes for the aged. And I really wanted to find out what the position of the government was in this regard and I wasn't too sure if I should direct my question to the Minister who is responsible for housing or to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. (Laughter.) So perhaps the two of them could mull that out together and see if they could come up with an appropriate answer.

Today it was quite pleasant to hear the Attorney General who gave one of the best speeches he's given since he's been elected. You know, he belongs to just about the most complete legal unit in British Columbia — Jim is the judge, Alex is the AG and Malcolm is the lawyer. Mr. Speaker, if they'd only had two brothers, they could have had a couple of clients and the family could have been totally self-sustaining. (Laughter.)

There wasn't too much talk about the tennis, but I think it was a particularly nice thing that that kindly, soft-spoken, reserved gentleman saw fit to permit Mrs. King to win. Indeed, it was a very noble gesture on his part.

The Attorney General plays a bit of tennis. His left court tactics have really improved since he took office. He's winning more games, Mr. Premier, he is indeed. Every time he plays a prospective judge or prospective QC he seems to win. (Laughter.) You know, we could really have in the Province of British Columbia just the same kind of a contest as we witnessed yesterday evening on television — I'd say between Rosemary and Alex, and the bill of either men's rights or women's rights would go to the winner.

However, the Attorney General talked a lot about Atlanta computers and law reform programmes and the furniture in his chamber, and it seems to me that it would be a very, very good thing if he was directing more intensified attention to the problems of law reform in the Province of British Columbia. Indeed, maybe a change of furniture, perhaps, would assist him in a change of outlook because so far, insofar as legal reform is concerned, we really have not seen too much that is new. We have not even seen the NDP following the policies that they have enunciated, as well as the policies that we have enunciated for the better part of 6 to 10 years in this House.

From the opening to the closing of His Honour's speech involved about 16 minutes — 166 lines — and I would tend to say that the speech was really as short in substance as it was in form. It was chock-full of the word "new," Mr. Speaker — new role, new stand, new togetherness…new togetherness, that bodes ill or I'm not too sure…new thrust, new measures; there's one "meaningful" and a couple of "dialogues." There was still little evidence of innovation, and mostly indications of the same old solidarity forever — forever structuring, forever controlling, and forever bureau critizing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

However, the NDP, if they leave something out of one throne speech, they're certainly going to put it into another one, so I would think that this coming January we can expect such roaring forward terms as: input and output; infra-structure; cooperative parallelisms; living and loving within the viable parameters of so-called democratic socialism as played in every key and in every dissonance by Dandy Dave and his Hordes with the Chords. What a spectacle that would be! You know, had Cec and Dave ever tried circus, Mr. Speaker, Barnum and Bailey would have been relegated to summer stock, but that's show business.

All of this reminds me of the story of the cleaner and the bound elephant, which Andy Stephen may tell you this afternoon and I'm certainly not going to repeat in this House.

The Speaker said that he would make a copy of His Honour's speech in order to prevent mistakes. Well, that was rather unfortunate because most of the voters in B.C., 60 per cent of them to wit, had rather hoped there would be some mistakes. It might have even indicated what the government was going to do and what extremes its philosophical and financial direction was going to take, but I'd say that without X-ray vision, it was just about impossible to find any of that in the throne speech anywhere in this day and age.

For one short second small businesses, most of whom are facing tax and bureaucratic extinction, had a moment of hope. That was when, instead of referring to family farms, as it was written, His Honour incorrectly stated, "New measures will be introduced which will provide for debt protection for the family firm under certain distress circumstances."

Well, that sounded encouraging; it was just a slip, but it had a very encouraging Freudian ring to it. But, alas and alack, Mr. Speaker, the way governments have been acting in this country, it seems that small independent business is destined to follow the fate of the buffalo and the small independent businessman is vanishing on the hour and, during the course, falling most heir to the ills from every excess of our times — over-regulation, overtaxing, overwork and limited and insufficient returns for the risks and responsibilities of his endeavours.

Now all of this is coupled with the distinct feeling that there is little government understanding of his

[ Page 161 ]

lot, little government understanding of his desire for effective public administration — but not competing public administration — and little regard for his desire for governmental thrift and administrative logic…at least, to the extent that he has to practise in order to keep alive…and, unfortunately, continuing lack of government understanding of his valid plea that he shouldn't have to suffer damages and loss from labour-management conflicts which are beyond his confines, beyond his control and beyond his responsibility.

It has been his hope that governments would accept such philosophies and enunciate policies and initiate frameworks wherein we can have a society that is truly functioning. And functioning means producing in all of the facets of society — goods and services and ethics and morality and justice. But default will never produce a concept such as that. So far, parliamentary effort has been either not enough or improperly directioned or a combination of both.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the political representatives have been in awe of the strength of organized labour and the strength of organized management, and have been misreading or ignoring the wishes of the general public. And which general public is now saying that it's not prepared any longer to sit by and just take all of the lumps, and if it's going to continue to be hurt as the consequence of two sides trying to hurt each other with the possibility of gain, if any, only for themselves, then the public is now also starting to say, "Why shouldn't you take care of my lot too?"

You know, it is very difficult to quarrel with that kind of logic. It follows simpliciter the law of damages: a party at fault is responsible for all those damages which may be foreseeable from the result of his default. Much public damage is perfectly obvious and directly foreseeable in many of these labour-management confrontative cases.

You know, it's one thing when two wasps try to sting each other, but it's another when they land on the backside of an innocent bystander. At that point it's not unnatural to suggest that he's got the firm right to become aroused and defend himself.

Now in contemporary society labour-management confrontation has become an unpleasant fact of life and so far, one that is showing little evidence of improving — in fact, quite to the contrary. It's becoming a continuing inevitability.

Total calm, we all understand, is impossible, except in the completely controlled economy and in a completely controlled society — if even then — but, if so, at a terrible price. The price is a loss of freedom and that's too high a price and too great a loss.

Management and labour must appreciate that what was considered a right to strike and what was considered a right to lock out is something that in many instances is a right no longer and, instead, has become, by virtue of the complexity and interdependency of society, a privilege in each case — a privilege which should not be lightly abused. Now this is definitely so in the essential services and becoming more so in the public sector, and in the larger operations in the private sector. In those areas we have no longer just the two-partner situation of management and labour, but now a third partner situation — management, labour and the general public.

It's for that third partner situation that I make this pitch — not as an expert; I certainly don't make any claims to be that. I would say that the experts' degrees of success over the past 20 years haven't won too many prizes as the situation continues to deteriorate with the experts in management and the experts in labour, if anything, becoming more polarized — that is, not producing results.

So here are a few suggestions, I'd say, hardly as panaceas, for even the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon could hardly produce that. But I offer these at least as suggestions, as areas for debate, for governmental enquiry, for labour enquiry, for management enquiry, for public response, because what we have had has not worked.

Now in the law of negligence there is a long-established principle that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which would be likely to injure your neighbour. Your neighbour is defined as a person whom you ought to have reasonably contemplated might be affected by your act or who would be affected by your omissions.

In the large situations the public, with their enormous degree of dependency upon the continuance of an operation or a function for their daily living, can certainly be construed as being that kind of neighbour, and they should not have to be hurt continuously. Also, because of the terrific interdependence of society, the public experts and they deserve that the abilities and energies of the specific sectors should be directed not solely to their own interests to the exclusion of all others but, where the public interest is affected, certainly to that interest as well.

Technology has brought about the existence of this third partner and there is no way that it can be ignored. The final analysis is true; no one can be forced to work and no one can be forced to hire, but neither should anyone expect the bystander, which is the public, to take every kick at his shin. If he does take a kick in his shin as the result of an illegal act of others, shouldn't he be able to look to that errant party for his genuine loss? Should we perhaps not amend the law to ensure that such a remedy would be more available and maybe even to defining the form and the extent of that remedy?

Also, when society concludes that public penalties

[ Page 162 ]

should be levied for illegal stoppages, is it unreasonable or is unfair to suggest that the law be followed and the penalties be enforced? Ignoring the law is no answer. Laws which are passed to be ignored should never have been passed in the first place, and should be repealed as quickly as possible.

It seems to be the suggestion and the practice of some, Mr. Speaker, that we are into a system of double jurisprudence in Canada — the law of the country and a secondary system dealing with the law of labour and management. I say that that's an unwholesome premise in a democracy. If society does wish to have that double standard it can have it, but so far it has given no indication of expressing that wish — in fact, very much to the contrary. But I do not think that our legislators and our parliamentarians have yet got that message. Certainly if they have got it they haven't acted upon it with the degree that they should act upon it.

Should there be contributions by management and labour to public damage funds that may be utilized as some form of compensation for public loss suffered by illegal stoppages, with a return to the contributors in management and labour pension or dividend benefits, or as they allocate themselves, if illegal interruptions didn't occur?

Should any thought be given to the suggestion of the imposition of a public levy or tax upon those who are responsible for unlawful lockouts or unlawful strikes, so that wrongdoers would know that they would have to face a little more than personal shortfall, and the collection of public revenues would at least be able to keep pace?

Might not study be given to the establishment of a uniformly imposed contract date with an obligation for parties to start negotiating at least six months before its expiry date, so as to prevent the leap-frogging of one settlement, good, bad or indifferent, upon another? Now this might well neutralize some of the bargaining crunch of either management or labour. But if it would better serve to produce a healthy economic climate and greater stability for all of the people of this province and lessen at the same time the apples-and-oranges argument, would that proposal be all that bad?

Also, is there any merit in the selection-on-offer concept? The basic principle of it is that where two sides in the dispute are deadlocked and are unable to resolve their differences, a mutually-acceptable selector or selection panel agreed to by the parties according, say, to the mechanics found in the existing Arbitration Act, would be nominated and would be given the power to chose between the last best offer presented by each side. The chosen offer without alteration would then be binding on both.

This principle has got some important values and I think it is worth inquiring into in greater depth. It could provide both sides with strong incentives to adopt a realistic position, for each side would be quite reluctant to risk a deadlock without good evidence to justify its point of view, since the other side's final offer might then be chosen as the more reasonable of the two.

The selective power to choose one of the final offers without alteration would provide strong leverage to encourage the two sides to agree. Final-offer selection, Mr. Speaker, might indeed provide a framework within which collective bargaining could operate more effectively without the necessity of strikes and lockouts. Surely this is an option worth considering.

We must all agree that every possible means of attempting to lessen the areas of dispute between management and labour must be encouraged by government, as well as by the parties themselves, and perhaps then being more encouraged by law, if necessary, to substitute consultation for confrontation. If confrontation occurs without consultation, some form of public imposition could follow. Wouldn't that be an improvement?

Wouldn't it also be an improvement that more defined and lengthy cooling-off periods become part of the law of the land, and become a sine qua non without which stoppages be considered illegal?

It is unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, to advocate that binding arbitration becomes a condition of employment in designated essential services? You know, if a doctor walks out of an operating room in the middle of an operation, leaving his patient open on the table, he is subject to about four areas of remonstrance. There could well be a charge of criminal negligence under the Criminal Code of Canada; there could be a claim for damages from the patient or his next of kin for negligence and breach of contract; the doctor could also face censure and loss of licence or work permit from his college, and certainly closure of facility from the hospital. On the other side of the coin, if the hospital locked him out under similar circumstances, it would face similar consequences — all mighty severe.

Is it too much to say that in essential service, the privilege of work stoppage be not permitted as a condition of employment, and if a function is not prepared to exist under those guidelines, or people work for a function under those guidelines, then perhaps the function should not exist and the people should seek employment elsewhere? The definition of "essential" may be very difficult indeed, and it is the responsibility of government to govern, and it is the responsibility of government to define that category, I would certainly say by the process of open debate, and I would be happy to be among the ones counted. If the government makes mistakes, the public can remove the government. It seems to me though, Mr. Speaker, that the definition of "essential" — again by

[ Page 163 ]

virtue of the technological complexity and interdependence that we are living under today — the definition of "essential" is indeed expanding.

Is there anything wrong with an encouragement towards profit sharing? Not instead of justifiable increases in benefits, but in addition to them. Surely having a piece of the action generally increases both responsibility and effort, and it is difficult to find anything wrong with that. Some might say that's a cause for harmony, but harmony, in the long run, is far less expensive than discord. Maybe more in management and more in labour could well serve their mutual interests by having greater regard for the concept of profit sharing. Also, what about at least primary increases or decreases being tied into the cost of living index? Wouldn't that be an acceptable step?

The Mediation Commission, Mr. Speaker, was a bust. It antagonized management and labour and, at best, it was an ineffective political buffer suspect from the outset in its attempt to isolate problems from government. At worst, it was a derogation of political responsibility. I would venture to say that had there been a free vote in this House under the former administration, in the spring of 1972, all sides of the House would have tossed out the Mediation Commission, for it only served to intensify and polarize the confrontative process. I say it was without redemption and I say, "amen and all right" to its departure.

However, as I said before, from its ashes there's some very, very good salvage value. I continue to advocate that the concept of its research and statistical process be utilized as the nucleus for an independent industrial relations research and information council, financed one-third by government, one-third by labour and one-third by management. It would become the public's own microscope, free from government, free from management, and free from labour; its job to fact-find and make public data that is objective, neutral and independent, and provide some sophisticated economic surveying and impartial statistics so the public would better know what the score really was between management and labour in a dispute, as opposed to have to continuously face a bunch of wildly-conflicting, subjectively-oriented statements and figures, as management and labour regularly gyrate around their bargaining tables.

The concept of that council could be well expanded as well. Enlarge it to provide impartial advice, if and when requested by either management or labour. Let it provide a climate and forum for meetings between management and labour; conduct workshops, train arbitrators, and formulate collective agreements and profit-sharing arrangements and, most of all, ensure that its operation be public in every sense. Let requests, costs, and assessments of situations be available to all and, indeed, let the sun shine in. But they have got to be new ideas and they have to be new approaches, and if this government is not able to effectively illustrate an improved course via the new legislation that they are proposing, then I would suggest that this government should go to the public and initiate a fact-finding survey.

I think, in any event, perhaps it is time in B.C. that we established a fully representative royal commission with the widest powers of reference to do just that. Nominate the best man we can find as chairman — and I would advocate Mr. Justice Nathan Nemetz — plus one appointee from labour, one from management, one from government, and one representing the consumers and fixed-income groups — a five-man commission. It would conduct a complete, clinical, in-depth and far-reaching examination of all of our labour and management and, indeed, public interest difficulties, and from an eight-prong point of view — costs, prices, productivity, markets, standards of living, wages, profits and public interest. All of the established formulae, Mr. Speaker, are wearing thin and B.C. needs cures and it needs direction, for what we have been doing up to date has just not worked at all.

Now, I see that we are running close to the weekend and… Oh, this is a jewel. I really can't throw this one out. Great guns, no. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member reading his speech?

MR. GARDOM: Oh no, no, no. No, I am reading the notes, Mr. Speaker, and I see a reference in here to you, Mr. Speaker, (Laughter) and that's the one I am going to delete. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether I should ask you to go on. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: You know, on January 25, 1973, Mr. Speaker, we heard another Speech from the Throne wherein the first listed priority of the government was for a British Columbia bill of rights.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Hark. Now, conceivably that bill should have provided protections against excesses of the state and it should have granted its citizens the right to seek redress from wrongs at the hands of its government. It certainly should have included the rights of fair compensation for public expropriation.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: It should have enshrined the

[ Page 164 ]

rights of the citizen to be able to proceed to the impartiality of the courts and there to seek equity, justice and recompense for injuries sustained. In loss occasions, it's the result of abuses or omissions of public authority. Surely thought would have been given to the establishment of a commissioner of grievances to help the citizens wade through the snarls of red tape and bureaucratic delays. It would indeed, Mr. Speaker, give a great deal of thought to the inclusion of an independent auditor, unfettered from civil service or partisan politics, who would be made available to watchdog government expenditures.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member, somebody rather thoughtlessly must have put some bills on the order paper which prevents you from debating this matter at this time.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with your ruling indeed, and I have no intention of debating it. I'm just trying to bring it to the House's attention. That's all, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Page 23 of the orders of the day.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, it's a great page (Laughter), but this first-of-all legislative priority, Mr. Speaker, this bill of rights, has been stalemated and stalled and left spinning in neutral. Call it what you will, but no word of these things that I've been mentioning and, in their place, Mr. Speaker, we still find fiats, which you will not find in the particular bill being refused, we still find businesses being expropriated, we still see a bureaucracy that is breeding like an Australian hare, and enormous sums of money being spent by warrant instead of under the authority of legislative vote and under the scrutiny of public debate.

Now, speaking to the Institution of Investors a short time ago, the Hon. Premier said, and I quote the Vancouver daily Province: "We have not expropriated one company; we have not nationalized one company. Any business dealing we have been involved in occurred in the open market." Well, that is living proof, Mr. Speaker, of at least one thing, and that is that our Premier is a humourist. I would say with lines like that, he could well become B.C.'s answer to Bill Cosby. But if that is still an operative statement — and as yet no member of the socialist republic of British Columbia has indicated that it is not — it certainly does warrant comment.

Now, let's have another look at the car insurance industry. They were forbidden to carry on business, told to close their doors, expropriated out of activity and, even worse, expropriated without compensation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh.

MR. GARDOM: And I say surely in a democratic society, even in a socialist democratic society — and those words are becoming pretty incompatible one to the other in B.C. today.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: It is not unreasonable to suggest that one should be entitled to carry on a lawful, legitimate, tax-paying, non-polluting vocation and which, for all practical purposes, this one was. As well, it was a government-regulated vocation.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: But you closed it up without granting the car insurance business any right whatsoever to seek compensation or any kind of legal redress, no checks, no balances, no rights, no power for anyone to seek remedies, and no mention by the socialists at any time of there being any democratic necessity for these things. Now the insurance legislation constituted a denial of natural justice. It eroded the individual and corporate rights; it confiscated without compensation; it seized without appeal; and it emasculated any rights of access to the court.

Now you can't tell me, Mr. Speaker, that there's not some kind of a banana-republic flavour to all of that. And I say, completely contrary to the utterances of our Premier who, putting it mildly, was either not speaking with complete candor or with fact or with any degree of accuracy when he said what he said, that this government has expropriated the car insurance business, it has nationalized it, and, sure as heck, it didn't have any proper dealing in any marketplace to do just that.

The thing that is even more troubling to me is….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if I could interrupt the Hon. Member to remind him — I'm sure as a lawyer he would appreciate this only too well — that apparently this matter is before the courts now, I'm informed. It would therefore be sub judice. I wonder if the Hon. Member would try to avoid, in effect, making any pre-judgments on the matter of this particular statute.

MR. GARDOM: I talked a little bit about the manifesto and the direction of the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Kelowna Manifesto.

MR. GARDOM: What manifesto is that? That's the Waffle Manifesto. And here's one thing that it does say, my friend: "A socialist society must be one in which there is democratic control of all institutions which have a major effect on men's lives, and where

[ Page 165 ]

there is equal opportunity for creative, non-exploitive, self development." But you can well question that statement, Mr. Speaker, and the socialistic concept of the word "democratic" when they make no provision whatsoever to pay for the harm of so-called democratically attaining institutions by control, such as has happened with the insurance legislation, and also by not offering any freedom of choice for any system other than the government system.

In his address a few days ago the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) sounded much like Hubert Humphrey of the late 1940s. He did, though, make great reference to the right of choice, to the freedom of choice and individual freedom. I'd say those indeed were noble sentiments and I agree with them. But I say to this government: practise it, practise it, and don't just sophistrate about it.

If this government thinks that its car insurance programme is going to be all that cottontailed nifty, why don't they permit that insurance behemoth to go ahead and allow the private sector to put their oar into the water? The public should be entitled to a choice, you know. We're not living in Cuba but in B.C., and the right to choose is a very strong characteristic of democracy.

I continue to say that it's highly doubtful that government insurance will ever be cheaper economically, philosophically, or in any other way, because there's going to be hidden charges, there's going to be overlapping of agencies and personnel. Any government, irrespective of whatever it may be, has never operated and never will be able to operate so that one particular administrative function can be in truly economic isolation to another. That's prevented by the complexities of our age even apart from Parkinson's theory of the perpetual expansion of bureaucracy and the Peter Principle of elevation to inadequacy. So we're going to find this in the Province of B.C. in insurance; we're going to find the B.C. taxpayers subsidizing the B.C. Insurance programme. I can't see why the one million people who don't have cars should be concerned about anyone else's fender.

There's also a loss factor and that's of public revenue, and that's a big item too, And there's going to be loss in taxes to this government from that industry: premium taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and land taxes, and all of which are an operational cost to the existing industry, and all of those kind of governmental revenues will diminish and disappear.

In closing, I'd like to make this forecast, which in retrospect might become the best-received political tax shift since the homeowner grant. I prophesy that the Government of British Columbia is going to offer the motoring public a decrease in the specific premium for car insurance. That's what will be offered before the next general election, without regard to the recouping of any of the enormous capital costs and even the actual costs of the plan for its administration and claim payments, a lot of which will be very neatly concealed in the multitude of other governmental services and the subtleties of other forms of indirect taxation: for example, up the insurance rates to B.C. Hydro which heretofore was primarily self-insured; put an extra cent on the light; say phooey to legitimate accounting practices. That's going to be your stance and you're going to subsidize the motorist.

You're going to work on the theory, Mr. Premier, that most who drive, vote. I say that it's flim-flam. But if you think it's going to sell, you're certainly going to be prepared to give it a whirl.

I hope everybody has a happy and successful weekend. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.