[ Page 5 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate.

Mr. Liden — 5

Mr. Gorst — 9

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor of the House this morning, just behind me, I'd like to introduce to the House several people. The first is Mayor Constable of Burnaby, and seated next to Mayor Constable is a former Member of the Legislature whom I know many of us remember very well and who is now a Member of Parliament, Mr. Ran Harding, and his wife, Mrs. Harding.

I am also very proud to introduce to you another former Member of the Legislature, Mrs. Grace MacInnis, MP.

Introduction of bills

Orders of the day

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting the following motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst): "That the following address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

" 'We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.' "

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged today to be moving the Speech from the Throne, and I thank the people from Delta who have given me this opportunity.

Reference was made in His Honour's speech to the nation's energy problems, and I think that draws attention to the whole energy question in the world today, because it's important not only to British Columbia, and to Canada, and to North America, but to the whole world. How quickly problems arise when there's a curtailment of energy in this world today.

There have been warnings over the years by the people who are concerned for the future — the environmental people. Books have been presented, papers have been presented, conferences have been held, but few people have been listening. Few people have listened when there have been statements about the problems that they've seen on the horizon. But the activities of last year must make it clear to everyone that any shortage of energy in the world has an effect on everyone's daily life, and certainly has an effect on the political structure of the world.

The shortage of fuel, it was proven, can start wars and it can stop wars, and even now in this delicate peace we have threats being made by people in some of the larger nations that if things don't change in the way of lifting embargoes and so on they won't be allowed to continue in that manner. Those are very serious statements, because they could bring us to a terrible situation.

Our resources in British Columbia and in Canada are the most valuable resources that we really have, and they must be treated as the most important asset that we have.

We have to plan the use of our resources, not only for the people of British Columbia but for all Canadians. We have to be prepared to share, we have to be prepared to work together in Canada on this matter and, most of all, we have to have public control of those resources.

It must be clear now, even to those supporters of the oil companies, even to those people who have stood in this House and talked in support of the oil companies, that we can't allow that resource to be used for profit first and for the people's needs second.

Surely we can all agree with the statements made by our Premier at that energy conference in Ottawa....

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Hear, hear! He's the only one that makes sense.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Where is he now?

Mr. Liden: While the Premier was telling all of the people of Canada that the Standard Oil Company had paid no taxes in British Columbia, I sat in Washington state and watched this on television, because they keep track of what happens in Canada as well. And if you turned to another station you could watch the same oil companies appearing before a Senate committee in the United States and trying to explain away why they're only paying 2 and 4 per cent taxes in the United States. And the reason, they said, was that they're paying up to 50 per cent taxes in other countries. Well, that certainly doesn't apply in Canada.

When our Premier was telling all of Canada what was happening, many people in Canada saw that programme. I've had calls, and I've had letters, and I've spoken to many people who are proud of B.C.'s representation. They are proud of our Premier's presentation, they are proud of the way it was done, and I share that feeling.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

[ Page 6 ]

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): You'll make the cabinet if you keep it up!

Mr. Liden: You'll get your turn. I can't even hear you up there — you're just making noises.

Having said that, and thinking about the so-called crisis, I want to raise the question as to whether there really was a crisis, or if there is a crisis even now. I don't want to minimize the situation as it existed in the Middle East and the shortage of oil, but it seemed to me that the shortage was shipped into a crisis by people who had something to gain from that situation. During the time that there was supposed to be such a shortage of oil, I'm told there was a television programme that showed large tankers anchored off the east coast of the United States waiting to be unloaded of oil. And they weren't being unloaded. The question has to be asked: why? Why was the crisis situation created out of what was originally talked about as a shortage, and who could gain from such a situation?

Well, it's pretty obvious. It's pretty obvious that the oil companies had a great deal to be gained from the thing because if you think of what's happened and what's been happening, the environmental concerns in this country and in the United States have been developing a case against the trans-Alaska pipeline; they've been doing it for some time. They've also been developing a case against the famous tanker route, the tanker route that's supposed to go along our coast in the Juan de Fuca Strait, through Puget Sound, up through Rosario Straits and into Cherry Point. And the support was building for those people and for their cause. Most of all, it was important that it was building in the United States.

Well, what happened as a result of the shortage and the crisis situation and the hysteria that was created? There's been a tremendous setback for the environmental concerns. What's happened to the pipeline? It seems to be in full swing, everything going ahead. Who's saying much about the tanker route today? Everywhere I travelled in the United States in the last couple of weeks I heard people very, very critical of the environment — concerned people. They're under attack because all of a sudden there's a crisis that seems to be created to accomplish something. Many times in history we've seen that people in a crisis situation take the easy way out. It would appear to me that once again we're seeing history repeat itself.

There's perhaps one more issue that's at stake and that's the question of the price of oil. If the oil companies win that, I'm sure the oil will flow — there'll be lots of oil again — and the whole cause, the whole crisis situation, would have been worthwhile. I'm hopeful that, perhaps when the dust settles, the leaders in this country, in Canada, accept their real responsibility and see the picture as it really is, and will develop legislation and regulations that will treat the energy resource in the interests of the people instead of the interests of the oil cartels.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver-Point Grey): Specifics.

Mr. Liden: In the session last fall, I spoke about the Workmen's Compensation Board and some changes that I wanted to see, and I suggested some pretty drastic changes. I notice in His Honour's speech that there are some amendments proposed. I'm hopeful — I should say, I guess, that I'm confident — that those amendments will bring about greater benefits to workers, and I'm hopeful that the benefits will be easier to obtain. But because the speech referred to the amendments instead of the new Act, I think we're beginning at least to solve the problems. I guess we won't solve them all in one day. But I want to say this: from the things that I've heard from the workers in British Columbia, the whole attitude of the Workmen's Compensation Board has changed. It's improved, it's a more humane place now, and it's a better place to deal. I'm pleased and I compliment the government for that.

Mr. Speaker, much of my constituency of Delta is lowlands. It's flood plains. It's not only Chilliwack that has flood plains. Some of us in the lower Fraser Valley have them as well. Because of that, of course, we're very concerned about dikes and drainage systems. Delta, I'm pleased, has entered into an agreement with the government to rebuild all the dikes in Delta. I know that that's a real financial hardship on any municipality and we're always hopeful in pressing for changes in the method of financing, but it's encouraging that at least the government and the municipality have started the work. It's encouraging to see that the work has started because, you know, the concern for diking in that area isn't something that's brand new. There was a letter written by Mr. W. McKee, the Delta municipal clerk, to the government engineer in Victoria. It was dated August 3, 1891, and it said:

"I'm instructed by Delta council to write to you and to ascertain what time you can come and report on the work proposed under the Boundary Bay diking scheme and to urge that you set as early a date as possible.

"Hoping to hear from you soon, I remain your obedient servant..."

That was written in 1891; that's 83 years ago.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Was it answered? (Laughter.)

Mr. Liden: I'm not sure. But I know this: in that time, from that time to this, we've had 60 years of various Liberal and Progressive Conservative

[ Page 7 ]

governments, we've had 20 years of Social Credit government, and we've had a year and a half of a New Democratic Party government. Now, for the first time, the work is underway, and I think that's a credit to the new government.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) recently made public the Foulkes Report on the changes needed in health care in this province. Already there are some very interesting comments, good comments. People are saying that this very exhaustive report is going to create some new and great improvements in the delivery of health care in this province. I'm sure that they're going to be gradual improvements because there are so many recommendations there. I don't intend to deal with all those recommendations in my presentation here today.

But I do want to deal with one of them — recommendation No. 254. The reason I want to deal with that one is.... Well, I want to read it to the House. It says that discussion begin immediately to prepare legislation to make fluoridation of major water supplies mandatory in the province. It also goes on to say that there should be some grants and aids for the cost of installations and so on.

Now I'm not qualified to judge the value of fluoridation, nor am I qualified to judge all the arguments that have been put up against fluoridation. But I think it's morally wrong to put fluoridation in the water when 50 per cent of the people have some very grave doubts as to its value. I don't think that we really know everything that we should know about that situation. We don't know everything there is to know about the long-term effects.

Some years ago we had some referenda on this matter. At that time I was involved in municipal affairs and chaired some of those meetings. I listened to some very well-documented presentations from those who were in favour and from those who were against. But every time, those who attended the meetings, I believe, either came there with their minds made up or left more confused that when they came.

The votes of the areas that have had referenda on the matter have generally been quite split. I think it's been about a 50-50 split. But recently, in the State of Washington, something else has happened. There's an article in the Sunday Herald in Bellingham on January 27 which says: "A Whatcom County senior court jury unanimously awarded $130,500 damage to a couple for loss of enjoyment and the loss of use of their property because of fluoride emissions from a nearby aluminum plant."

I suppose it can be said that there's a great deal of difference between emissions from an aluminum plant and what might be put into the water supply. But it does raise the question, and I don't think that we know all of the answers. In fact, there's a document produced called Environmental Fluoride; it was produced by the National Research Council of Canada, 1971. Under a heading "Toxic Effects, " they say: "As far as is known, no Canadian hospital or medical laboratory routinely conducts diagnostic fluoride analysis."

They go on to say: "It's difficult to document the effects of fluoride on man in Canada." That's the National Research Council.

We've established that fluoride is a pollutant; it may be dangerous. I suggest, there, that we tread very carefully and cautiously on this matter. I suggest that the Minister look at what's happening in some of the other countries. In the United States there are some cities that have had fluoridation in their water for a number of years and are either taking it out or considering taking it out. Of course, there are others still putting it in. So there's no real direction from there. But there are some other things happening as well.

In Sweden they have a mouthwash programme that's handled through the public school system, which means that all of the children are able to have a mouthwash programme daily except if their parents object; then they can be free of it. Now perhaps there's a great difference between a mouthwash situation and the taking of fluoridation internally. But for those who wish to take fluoridation internally, ways can be found to handle that as well.

I'm convinced that if we really want to find those solutions, all we need to do is look at the iodized salt situation of a number of years ago, where you could buy salt that was not iodized and other salt that was iodized. Perhaps we could do the same thing with bread for fluoridation. We could have bread that's differently marked by coloured wrappers and so on on the shelf alongside bread that is free of fluoridation. So those who want to take it internally, can. I suggest that while the Foulkes Report is going to go a long way in improving the health care in this province, I hope, before we get into all of the recommendations, that the Minister will take a good look at this whole question of fluoridation.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour mentioned the new departments that were created in the session last fall; and housing, of course, ranks as one of the major problems that we face in British Columbia. We need more housing of all kinds in the lower Fraser Valley. But we don't need them all in one place.

I said something about that last fall in the session — in Delta we've had a 50 per cent growth in five years. I say what we need now is co-operation from all of the municipalities so that they can bring new areas of homes into production, new ideas, and get a lot more building lots on stream. I'm hopeful that we will have full co-operation from all of the municipalities so we can spread out the requirements for housing in the Fraser Valley.

The rapid expansion of population in Delta

[ Page 8 ]

created some other problems. The rapid expansion created transportation problems which mean we not only need roads and bridges but we also need a public transportation system.

This government inherited a non-existent transportation system. When we came, to power there wasn't anything in the way of buses in our area. As a matter of fact, we watched the thing decline to poorer and poorer service until it became absolutely non-existent. We're pleased the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has announced that there'll be 200 new buses arriving in British Columbia some time this year and most of them will go into service in our area.

I'm convinced that if we produce good service — what I mean by that is buses on a very regular schedule — economical service, so that it doesn't cost so much to travel by bus, and we give buses some priority of movement so they'll be able to get by the lineups, there will be a lot of people using the buses and it will be greatly appreciated by the people. Once again I say to the government, you're moving in the very important areas and you are to be complimented by the people who need these buses and will be using them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, while there are many new and encouraging programmes being developed, I feel we really haven't done quite enough in the environmental problems of the province. I'm referring primarily to the situation once again that we inherited, where there was a decision made by the previous government that there would have to be primary treatment of the sewage in the Lower Fraser Valley by January 1, 1975.

In the first few months of the new government, after holding meetings with all of the people concerned, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) made an announcement of a new government policy that said that we would not tolerate primary treated, heavily chlorinated sewage being dumped in the Fraser River from the Annacis Island plant, that we had to have secondary treatment or better.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District was advised of that policy, but they disagreed. They felt it was not necessary and they've appealed that ruling and, in effect, have been dragging their feet on a very important issue. They've not carried out the instruction because they weren't convinced it was necessary.

Recent studies have indicated that we were right, that the Minister was quite correct in his announcement of the new policy, that there's a great threat to the fisheries if we have heavily chlorinated sewage dumped into the Fraser all in one spot. We need action now from the GVRD. I call upon them now to withdraw their appeal and get on with the job and build a secondary treatment plant.

Throughout the time they've been wasting and delaying, the marine life could be drowning in our filth. You know, it's said that tide and time waits for no man and I guess that can be said about pollution too.

There's a growing population on both sides of the river and we haven't found a way we can stop them from using the sewage system; we haven't found a way that we can stop that from happening. But we do know we can treat it. We can clean up that river and it must be done.

But that's not the only thing that affects the Fraser River. We've got our share of log barges which come in there and dump logs in the river — some float, some don't — bark and all the other debris that goes to the bottom. We've also had our share of oil spills. The mighty Fraser is becoming a mighty dirty Fraser.

It seems to me that we've got to move here as a province and establish an environmental protection service; hire some qualified people; give them some authority, turn them loose and tell them to clean up the Fraser. I'm sure it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, for years, perhaps for decades, the farmers have been providing food for the cities, not only here but all over. And most of the time the farmers have been going short because of low returns and because of their kind of life. They've not really shared in the improvements in living conditions which so many of us have shared — like the 8-hour day, the 40-hour week, regular holidays and that sort of thing. Farmers get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and they're faced with having to do that every day in the week because there are things like cattle that just don't take holidays.

Government policy that was established here in our first session to have select standing committees travel around the province, go out into the field, seek out the problems and recommend solutions certainly has been worthwhile in the agriculture field. The agriculture committee brought in a report last year and a great deal of legislation was introduced in the fall session. One particular piece of legislation was the Farm Income Assurance Act, and there have been results already.

Recently the Minister and the representative of the dairymen made an announcement which to me meant that for the first time in history farmers were going to have a guaranteed cost of production. That's a credit to the Minister and the new government.

A spokesman for the B.C. Federation of Agriculture was on a radio programme not very long ago and he said that now for the first time the farmers have an opportunity to hire retiring farmers, use them for a day or two a week so that they can get some holidays, so they can get a day off.

I think there's more to it than that because while the farmer should be getting some days off and living

[ Page 9 ]

the way the rest of us do, the farmers like everyone else have their contributions to make to society; they should be participating in what goes on in their communities. But they've had a very difficult time doing that because they've never been able to get involved in a proper manner. It's taken a very long time to get some benefits out of the changing society, but for the first time that has happened and it's encouraging.

We still have a great many problems in agriculture, of course. Last summer everyone was very well aware that beef prices went up. There was a great deal of publicity to the escalating meat prices in the grocery stores. Of course the farmer had some increases in the sale of his beef, but his cost of production went up just as rapidly — the cost of hay, the cost of feed, and so on. The retail stores, of course, passed that on to the consumer immediately. But few people are aware that recently the price of beef to the farmer has gone down. And the reason they're not aware is that it really hasn't gone down in the grocery store. If it has, it's been only slightly, That's what's happening: when the farm prices go up, of course everybody knows about it; when farm prices decline, very few people know about it because it really doesn't decline for the consumer, that very important place.

Mr. Speaker, His Honour's speech mentioned the Pharmacare programme which has been introduced by the government and hailed that as something new in Canada. I believe, when we look at the increases in pensions for the senior citizens of this province, the Mincome that has been provided for those aged 60 to 65 and the Pharmacare altogether, B.C. not only leads Canada but I think it leads North America in the way we treat senior citizens. The government should be complimented for that.

This government has come through with more success in carrying out their election programme than any other government in the past. This year's throne speech, Mr. Speaker, indicates that there will be a continuation of that tremendous success.

Mr. Gardom: Turn the meter on!

Mr. J.H. Gorst (Esquimalt): Well, you wouldn't be able to pay for it, even though we all know of your great wealth.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): You're a tired taxi driver.

Mr. Gorst: Well, someone once told me they lived the longest and stay strong to the end, so be careful.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me today to second the motion in the address by the Hon. Member for Delta in which he thanked His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor for his most gracious Speech from the Throne which His Honour addressed to this assembly yesterday upon the opening of this the fourth session of the 30th Parliament of British Columbia.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the majority of electors would agree with me, that this government has continued to carry out the promises it made before being elected.

Its philosophy is a simple one: to help the people and to ensure that everyone benefits from both the abundance of natural resources we have in British Columbia and the energy and foresight of working and living here.

We know there has been a huge backlog of problems that have had to be solved; problems that were purely the result of the inertia of the previous government and problems that could have been handled if only they had shown the same kind of enthusiasm to serve the people that we have seen from this present government.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, few people have criticized this government for its wide range of activities; only that it was difficult to keep up with us. That seems to me to be a pretty healthy criticism. In fact, looking over the bills passed in the fall session, I am impressed by the high percentage of those aimed to help citizens in all walks of life and to protect their rights and interests — something that had been rarely considered before.

I was particularly pleased with the Human Rights Code of British Columbia Act which prevents discrimination by landlords and employers for sex, religion or on any other grounds, enforces equal pay for equal work for men and women, gives an employee the chance to seek retroactive equalization pay, and outlaws discrimination in employment advertisements.

The last one, of course, raises the question of how you advertise. A nurse can, of course, be male or female, but I see in the papers there are still advertisements for a "girl Friday" and a "carpet salesman" and a "woods foreman". Maybe they should advertise for a "Friday person", a "salesperson", a "foreperson" in the same way that, in those committee meetings where the members are very socially conscious, they always ask for a ruling from the "chairperson." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Gorst: I would like to refer to other legislation, Mr. Speaker, in the last session which the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) did refer to. This is like hockey: you get an instant replay when you're running second.

I consider the Farm Income Assurance Act to be of great benefit to many farmers in British Columbia, all of whom are struggling to produce the necessary

[ Page 10 ]

agricultural products against an ever-increasing spiral of rising costs of production for them. We know that the farm community, the agricultural community, while it may not be large in total financial contribution in the province, nevertheless is one of great importance when a people consider that they must have the means to some major degree to be able to feed themselves.

I would like to refer also to An Act to Amend the Municipal Act and comment on the section that simplifies municipal amalgamation and incorporation. One of the real problems, Mr. Speaker, that we have in this province is the many large areas of unorganized territory. People commonly refer to them as "unincorporated."

Among these is the area in my riding of Colwood and Langford. I know from my municipal statistics that it has the largest unincorporated population in British Columbia, but I was very surprised to see in a newspaper publication about two months ago that that area comprises the largest unincorporated population in all of Canada. I don't think that can go on. Something must take place to give those people a form of local government so they can better direct their own affairs.

I know the government has been taking a hard look at this sort of problem and I want to emphasize the need to stay on top of it. In an unorganized territory, a developer can do almost anything — and usually does. When you travel through my riding in that area of Langford and Colwood you can see the type of uncontrolled development that is spoiling what should be a beautiful area.

Now, unlike the previous government, we believe in containing development, whether it is mining, logging, or sprawling urbanization, so that this beautiful province can be enjoyed not only by our children but by their descendants and others for generations to come.

I also welcome — and I'm sure everyone here does — the concern the government has shown for the welfare and the well-being of our senior citizens and those others who for no fault of their own are among the handicapped. Increased pensions for those people, Mincome and Pharmacare are just three of the continuing programmes which mean so much to so many people here in this Province of British Columbia.

One of our biggest concerns, if not the biggest, in this coming session will be that of energy. This is a national problem which is also going to be paralleled with a similar and probably much more severe one for our neighbours south of the border.

I would like at this point, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate our Premier...

Mr. Chabot: Where is he?

Mr. Gorst: ...on taking such a positive approach to the energy crisis both during and after the recent energy conference. He wants to see us in British Columbia share our resources with the less fortunate provinces. He has stated — and I know we will agree with him — that the other resource-centred provinces should join with us in such a programme, providing, as was pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, that prudent and public control be developed and maintained of those resources.

However, the energy crisis is not one where we should sit on our hands and do nothing at all. Just cutting back on energy, with dire results to our living standards and level of employment, would be a very negative attitude indeed.

It should not be a question of more or less but of different and better.

While in search of alternate energy sources, I think we in British Columbia should be taking a lead. A resource committee might propose some form of practical encouragement aimed at developing sources which are infinitely renewable and non-polluting, such as solar energy, wind and tidal power, methane from organic wastes, geothermal steam and, of course, an expansion of hydro power.

However, even there we have to be careful. More huge dams, if not carefully researched, would cause considerable damage to the environment. We mustn't forget that dams don't go on forever. The moment those turbines start turning, the silt begins to build up — so even clean, free hydro power has its problems.

Then there is nuclear power which can be used to generate electricity, and no doubt that would supply us with all the power we could use. And that in itself raises the question of what we shall do with such great quantities of power. If we were to use it, there would be, in much less time than we may think, very little or no resources left to process.

But my strongest objection to the use of nuclear power is the wealth of scientific data which casts a serious doubt upon its claimed advantages to life on this earth. It is very costly and environmentally dangerous.

During the various environmental conferences and meetings held in Stockholm a couple of years ago, the problems in nuclear energy were discussed inside out and once again by many competent scientists and engineers of world renown. Even those who leaned towards such nuclear energy development agreed with their opposition that the disposal of nuclear waste is a formidable and frightening problem. We would, therefore, have to endow the cost of each electrical unit produced with the cost of almost perpetual care of waste material. I, for one, cannot support nuclear power for those reasons, and many more.

Considering the questions around nuclear power, I call into question the federal government who, on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada,

[ Page 11 ]

actively moves about the world attempting to sell the nuclear power plants the way governments go about selling instruments of war. To me, both those sales items are very similar: they are both dangerous instruments of death. I don't think national governments should, at this time, be trying to sell this sort of power to other countries.

Interjections.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Come into the 20th century.

Mr. Gorst: Along with the drive to find new sources of energy we should also be looking at energy conservation. There is, unfortunately, on this continent a tremendous waste of energy. Up to now we haven't given a thought for tomorrow, but the day of reckoning would have come eventually, as those people over there found out. And those countries which control most of the world's basic oil supplies have just brought it home a few years earlier.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver-Point Grey): How do you feel about the Queen? (Laughter.)

Mr. Gorst: Well, I notice you're still on the square one.

A recent article in Science magazine suggested that energy consumption in the United States could be cut by as much as 40 per cent without any major change in lifestyle — and no doubt the percentage holds true here in Canada. It would mean improving the insulation in buildings, reducing transmission-line losses, and increasing the efficiency of equipment we build and use. This is for my friends over there.

However, I don't feel we need go as far as the Gas Board in England recently which put out advertisements, and got themselves into hot water, by suggesting that couples take a bath together.

Some Hon. Members: What's wrong with that?

Mr. Gorst: Well, it depends who the couple are. (Laughter.) You've obviously tried it. You say it's okay. You've tried it out have you?

On the other hand...

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): No wonder they're in a double riding.

Interjections.

Mr. Gorst: I don't know whether that's a criticism or an offer.

Interjections.

Mr. Gorst: Well, that's not in Oak Bay.

No comment on the energy crisis would be complete without reference to the national energy policy resolution passed at the 1973 federal convention of the New Democratic Party. I would like to quote from that resolution at that convention as follows:

"The New Democratic Party believes that the energy crisis demands that all energy resources in Canada be brought under public control. We contend that Canadians can only be protected with regard to price and security of supply by embarking upon a programme of greatly increased ownership and control by both federal and provincial governments.

"Only public bodies have the long-term outlook and overview of competing energy sources to bring about the planned management of our resources. From an economic, social and ecological standpoint, short-run profits must not be put ahead of long-run planning."

That is our party's national position on the energy problem.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to housing in British Columbia which remains one of our major problems. I'm sure we would all be behind any programme from the Department of Housing that will give the citizens of British Columbia a better housing deal.

As you know, the greatest cost today for anyone who wants to own a home is the cost of land, the cost of financing the purchase of that land and the development of the building. This government can control those factors. The land-bank programme means that we have large areas of land at our disposal which we can lease out to prospective home buyers.

For its public housing programme, the Department of Housing might stage a design competition which I'm sure would generate a tremendous amount of interest.

The Department of Housing will provide hope for thousands of hard-working people in British Columbia who wish to invest in a home of their own but who have been denied that right because of land speculation and high interest rates.

While I'm on this subject of housing, I would like to mention another related one: that is, overall land use and development. In my riding of Esquimalt we have the same problems as the rest of British Columbia. We would like to see sound overall planning so that the area, with what could be a very beautiful, natural coastline, develops a sense of unity and dignity and not just a hodge-podge of buildings of all sorts of odd shapes and sizes.

My earlier remarks about the unorganized territories fit into this total picture. Our zoning bylaws are weird and wonderful, and control of them can be very lax. A developer with enough clout can

[ Page 12 ]

stand in front of a zoning subcommittee and, with tax dollars shining in his eyes, convince them to turn around a zoning decision on a particular piece of property. There is often no consideration of the area as a whole and the final result is a blight on the landscape.

But this isn't only happening in the towns and cities. Our coastline in many of our beautiful recreational areas may be lost to the people unless we take positive steps in the near future. Certainly, when it comes to shoreline property, we should aim to preserve its natural character, protect the ecology of the area, and increase public access and recreational facilities.

I would like to review briefly, in a fairly long-range historical perspective, the traditional character of land-use policies.

The first fact that is apparent to the observer of land-use planning is that this is the first generation to be faced with the imperative of land-use planning. The interesting fact is that just this generation is the first to begin thinking about the need for integrated and province-wide policies. And what about the past?

A glance at the habits of previous administrations in all of Canada's provinces reveals no planning at all — an absence of planning. The previous attitude toward development was based on a belief that any development was good development. Checks, balances, controls — all those things which we believe distinguish democracy from other forms of government — were missing.

In the past three sessions of this House, this government has introduced legislation that touches on these great problems of urbanization and land-use planning. We have taken unprecedented steps to ensure that the anarchy and land-use policy that characterized the past would not persist indefinitely into the future.

We were not the first in the world, however, to recognize that this generation's greatest imperative is in that area of concern. Most European countries had long before identified urbanization as one of the most potentially disastrous facts about contemporary life. And now we will not be the last to introduce legislation which effectively returns the decision-making in the public domain to the elected representatives of the people.

It is interesting to note that most of the western states of the United States are now preparing legislation that will permit the state Legislatures to make large-scale, long-range maps for land use. This is called the whole state planning concept, Senator Jackson of Washington has sponsored a bill, which is co-sponsored by 12 other western governors, which will provide funds to states that set up planning agencies, inventory their land resources and make other moves to return land control to the elected representatives.

Let us be more specific. The State of Hawaii is now reviewing boundaries and regulations of its state-wide land-use plan which was the nation's first. Its 1961 law classifies all land in Hawaii under four headings; urban, rural, agricultural or conservation use. Hawaii is now considering further controls to guarantee the orderly development of land-use policies.

Oregon has passed a land-use bill setting up a commission and calling for a state plan that local zoning plans must follow. Idaho is completing a series of hearings on land use. The conclusions from these hearings will go to that Legislature for possible action.

Washington has passed a broad land-use bill through that House. Utah's legislature considered one land-use bill, and another one will be presented to their House in the spring. Both Arizona and Nevada have set up a framework for a state-wide planning system that would comply with the Jackson bill. Alaska is nearing completion of a land inventory that will provide guidelines for future action and there are even stronger moves in California to prepare adequate legislation to end the piecemeal planning of that state.

Some might question, why do we refer to the United States? We refer to the United States because their experiences are the experiences that follow through to this country at a later date. When we have the example before us and we see the path that those states are attempting to follow, we should pick up that and be aware and ready to implement that kind of policy here before we have to correct all the unfortunate development and the hodge-podge of land use that has taken place in that country. We know from articles in our newspapers over the past year or two that most of the Canadian provinces are now moving rapidly to bring order into provincial-wide planning.

The questions many people ask are these: How much can we plan for the future? How specific should the planning be?

This government knows that we cannot legislate for every generation in the future; but we can legislate broad guidelines which will permit those future generations their own options. There would have been no options left if the careless, callous decision-making of individual private investors had persisted. Because land-use planning to deal with urbanization and the need for an integrated resource-development policy are the great needs for our generation, we must make sure that these future generations have some options. The build-them-up and rip-them-down pattern of development in the past was based on an assumption that the developer had more rights in our society than the people who had to live with their decision-making.

Let me say this: the public interest is a greater

[ Page 13 ]

need than the rights of the developer. The public interest must be served in the matter of land-use planning. No human being is simply a private man.

If we're concerned that our homes are clean and orderly and attractive, we should at least be equally interested in the orderly planning of social spaces of our cities and the orderly development of Crown land and Crown resources.

This government is fully aware that societies are built around groupings of special interest. Each grouping struggles to maintain and extend the economic prerogatives that it has held in the past. Conflict and controversy occur when there is a shift in the relative balance of power between special interest groups. But democracy demands that planners for the public interest remember that we share the land, and democracy cannot win if special interest groups place their rights ahead of the public interest. On what basis in a democracy does one special interest group have special rights in regard to land use? They just don't. In land-use planning, this distinction between what is private and public must be looked at very carefully. Our legal system guarantees certain rights of privacy; and, of course, that must be maintained.

We do not need to refer strictly to history or to the growing tide of opinion in other countries that reflects the same need for land-use legislation and efforts to control the negative effects of urbanization. The southern tip of this island, of Vancouver Island, is itself an example of the effects of not having control over development.

We all know that this island is one of the most amenable places in a beautiful province. There are literally hundreds of miles of coastline. But the surprising thing is that, today, only eight miles of that coastline in this regional district, which covers 900 square miles from the Malahat to Sooke to Port Renfrew and all the way back to the Gulf Islands and back to the doors of this legislative building, are available for public use. A drive around this region will confirm to you that over 90 per cent of this area's accessible coastline is alienated from public access.

I would call, Mr. Speaker, on the consideration of that knowledge, that we should have on this shoreline, this waterfront area, a freeze of all development until a proper study has been made of the use to which we will put that foreshore.

Now this example is repeated in case after case in areas accessible to the larger concentration of population. It takes courage to develop the kind of legislation that is necessary to guarantee orderly planning for this province, whether it relates to zoning inside municipal boundaries or in the unregulated areas. This government has the courage that is necessary and will fulfil its obligations to this generation and to future generations.

For those who doubt that chaos and self interest motivated the people who were supposed to be the guardians of the public interest in the past: when you leave this House, just look around at the crush of commercial interests crowding in on these parliament buildings. How could any government imagine it was serving the public by allowing the capital region to become a target for a handful of vested interests who saw the opportunity to guarantee their fortunes by building motels and high-rise apartment buildings right next door to these buildings?

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can look forward in this coming session to further development of plans to ensure that an area surrounding these buildings and some distance beyond will be protected from the ambition of profit makers. The capital region is not any ordinary region. It is just not any municipality.

More than 20 years ago the then CCF Members and the Conservatives and Liberal legislators at Ottawa recognized that the nation's capital was just not any ordinary municipality. They prepared the way for laws meant to recognize a special public interest. Those legislators introduced legislation which identified the capital region as a special kind of problem, and they were bold enough to create the legislation that provided the funds required to guarantee rational and orderly planning for that area of the national capital.

We know that problems are often opportunities. We have in this capital region an opportunity to provide, for all future generations of this province, a place which reflects our genuine commitment to the public interest. What area is more symbolic of the public interest than the meeting place of the people's elected representatives?

I picked up a newspaper the other day and I read where some buildings not far from this building, 120 years in age, the oldest buildings in western Canada, the oldest buildings north of San Francisco, constructed of the stone ballast that came around in the bottoms of the ships around the Horn from across the Atlantic in the early days — that for those buildings the owner had received a demolition permit from the local City of Victoria. I was absolutely appalled that this could happen. Never should that kind of history undergo that kind of treatment. They're on the waterfront. That is the history of western Canada; it's part of our culture. This whole area has many, many historic sites and items along its foreshore.

We need some instrument — some provincial government instrument — that will have the direct responsibility to ensure that the capital area is preserved and developed into one of the finest cities in this country.

This government did not invent urbanization, but it has been charged with the responsibility of dealing with the problems that urbanization causes. This

[ Page 14 ]

government will show its commitment to redirecting the energies of growth by further legislation to help municipalities shape their destinies in a way that will turn our cities into living spaces instead of dying spaces. All of us, as representatives of the citizens of British Columbia, have an opportunity to join together to guarantee that our cities become environments in which we can be healthy. This is the opportunity that faces us now. It is also a problem that we must face ourselves.

An area in which this government has done a tremendous amount of pioneering work is in planning to base services in the community, and in encouraging each community to plan what it wants and how it wants to do it. That's an exciting concept. Through the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), communities will be able to plan a centre or centres in which there will be medical and paramedical services, social services, community school activities and resources for a complete range of community groups from senior citizens to drop-in centres for the young.

There are two other subjects I would like to comment upon. They are quite related. I have emphasized the need for overall planning. Nowhere do we need more direction and assistance and some form of government control than in providing a transit system for the people of the urban and rural areas of British Columbia. I saw a notice on a bus recently which stated, "This bus does 200 miles to the gallon." Of course, one word has been left out; after the "200," it said, "people." If the bus were loaded with only 50 people and did four miles to the gallon, it was still a lot more efficient in conserving energy than the monstrous, gas-eating cars that we all see with just one driver and I guess that we all drive ourselves.

This makes the point that if we provide good and efficient transit systems, we should be able to get people to leave their cars at home. We should be planning now the kind of transit systems we need across this province: bus, train, dial-a-bus, or the inter-circle route around our major cities. If we don't plan now and the energy crisis gets worse, we are going to have a lot of irate people storming that solitary bus as it goes down the main street every half hour.

In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to something which I have already mentioned; but I want to make it the closing remark of my address today. I would like to think that I have support from all of those here. This is not the first plea I have made; it's the second one today: we need, for the capital city of British Columbia, a capital commission along the lines of the Ottawa Capital Commission. When we speak of that, it's not just the City of Victoria; it's this capital region — this whole capital regional district stretching out beyond the five municipalities to the unorganized districts as well.

I would like to give you a quote from the National Capital Commission's annual report for last year. It is as follows:

"Society's greatest problems in most parts of the world have developed, or are developing, in the cities. The bigger the city, the tougher the problem; the greater the crowd, the harder it is to get work, to find a decent place to live and to have just a little elbow room and to have a little peace and quiet now and then."

Someone who lived in. Ottawa for many years made some interesting comments to me recently. He said that in his opinion we need a similar approach here to that in Ottawa. The potential for an outstanding capital is greater here than in Ottawa: climate and geography are in our favour, and our proportion of really ugly buildings is considerably less. However, there is a similar potential for a disastrous mess, and I believe that Victoria is now at that turning point.

The waterfront is a case in point. We have the opportunity to beautify it, or we can let the developers ruin it with such monstrosities as the proposed Reid Centre and the proposed Bapco-Canadian Industrial Developments Ltd. project on Laurel Point. Both of these will be benefiting from whatever funds are spent on beautification. These masses of masonry will not only block off the most attractive harbour in Canada, but will also have a visual impact that will be a disaster to this area as a whole.

I have made proposals for a provincial capital commission, and I would like to give you a summary of the purpose and effect that those proposals would have.

I would see it as a Crown agency, with a prime responsibility to develop the capital region to reflect the historic, political and cultural importance of this capital to this province. This capital area would be developed to stand as a symbol for the province. The area would be used as a model of planning and development that will benefit other parts of British Columbia and be a source of pride for British Columbians.

The provincial capital commission's role would be to oversee all development that takes place within this area, on all lands in this area. The establishment of a provincial capital commission would give this government the opportunity to prepare plans for, and assist in the development, conservation, and improvement of the capital region in order that the nature and the character of the seat of the government of this province of British Columbia would be in accordance with its national and provincial significance. Thank you.

[ Page 15 ]

Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. Lea presents the annual report of the Department of Highways for the fiscal year 1972-73.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:15 a.m.