[ Page 237 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I would ask Hon. Members to welcome a group of students and their teachers from Delta Secondary School the home of theSun Gods in sunny Tsawwassen and Ladner.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the first sitting after today:

Bill No. 4 intituled An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961.

Bill No. 5 intituled An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961.

Bill No. 6 intituled An Act to Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak on the Department of Agriculture today, but mainly on our aid fund agriculturally in world disasters.

But to start off with Mr. Speaker, you know the farmers are quite a persistent lot and finally after many years we finally grew an apple to show the consumers the producer's share of it. Notice that?

When we get this apple developed, anyone buying apples in the chain stores or anywhere else will know that the producer's share is this amount.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the red part the producer's share?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: No, it certainly isn't. The red is not the producer's share. The other part is.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would first of all like to recognise a good friend of mine who happens to be sitting in the gallery today — Mr. Bill Hobson, who was my campaign manager in 1953. I think the interesting part about this — and the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, though he's not here — would be interested in this, is the fact that he helped me explain the Ralston formula in 1953 at an election rally. I am very glad my friend from North Vancouver with all the tapes, wasn't there that day to record this performance.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I always enjoy the Member from Cowichan-Malahat, when he spoke yesterday, because he's always so consistent in his inconsistency. When he was a leader, he used to say that the Premier would say something and then all of the Ministers would parrot the same remarks.

Yesterday, he said it was quite different, that the Ministers were saying things that were different to what the Premier was saying. It is quite interesting to hear him speak two ways like that at the same time.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I suppose, of course, those fellows across there find it kind of difficult to recognise that this is a truly democratic party.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: It was better before you went up.

I was interested in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on the Speech from the Throne, when he said it was like a small town's annual report. I would say that we have got some mighty fine small towns in this province, and I would say.…

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a city slicker. He's insulted every one.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would say that if you really think that bigness is best, I think all of us will agree and I would think it's likely a good lesson to every one of us, because from here on we're going up. This is the example of the complex at Houston.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Yes, I think you can say that.

It certainly wasn't our bad management. It was just plain poor company management. I think it's a good thing that the Minister has control of these resources so that the only way to go is up and we will come out with a very good complex in the Houston Valley area.

So that my friend Ray doesn't think that all is bad, I would like to present him with a photograph for his archives, just to show him that there has been progress in this area over the years. I think this is one of the few pictures of its time where a dog team is hauling out logs on in 1918. I would like to present it to Ray because I'm quite sure some of the modern loggers would like to see how it was carried on in those days.

I listened with interest to the N.D.P.'s sudden interest in relations with the U.S. You know this really tickles me. On their trip to Olympia, and I would say this was a complete about turn over the years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no, only a make believe.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would like to point out that quite a number of years back, before the Hon. Member was here, I believe, I took the forestry committee down to the State of Washington and Oregon and the strange thing was that there was only one N.D.P. member that would come along. I think the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs remembers it and certainly the Hon. Member from Powell

[ Page 238 ]

River. Our lady Minister went on this trip and the only N.D.P. member that came along was the then Member for Nanaimo, Dave Stupich.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wasn't invited.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: All the forestry committee were invited, we knew you didn't know what a tree looked like.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you a Boy Scout?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Then for your group to go on and say that we don't communicate with our neighbours — whether it be the U.S. or any other country — is as far as I'm concerned just plain stupid or a lack of knowledge of current affairs. When I was first appointed Minister I made a tour of farm operations in the State of Washington. The tour was sponsored by the State Department of Agriculture along with federal officials and I must say it was very worth while.

Only last summer, the B.C. Department of Agriculture hosted the annual convention of the W.A.S.D.A. group — which is Western Association of State Department of Agriculture — and also the M.A.S.D.A. group — nice names, Mid-Western Association of State Department of Agriculture. We are now honorary members of these groups because we find it helpful to all of us to exchange ideas from here and across the line. Remember that Hawaii and Alaska also belong to this group.

I have invitations to attend their convention in Florida last fall and I must say that I'd have been there if the federal government hadn't been messing around with small elimination programmes.

All nations were invited to this conference, including mainland China. But there was a lack of national interest — naturally these countries felt "Well now, a province," they don't quite understand that provincial governments do have conferences such as this. But if there had been national interest, there is no doubt quite a number would have come.

The only ones that indicated interest, if enough would have come, were Japan, Fiji and Peru. They were very interested in coming. The main reason Fiji was interested was because we have given quite a bit of aid to Fiji through our various funds.

Twenty-three secretaries of agriculture, equivalent to Ministers here, from various states in the U.S. came to British Columbia and stayed here for four days exchanging ideas with our department. We exchanged back and forth every day practically, at least every week, on something to do with ideas between the various administrations.

I must say that their ideas on marketing were extremely interesting. They had just returned from a trip to Tokyo where they had an agricultural fair and there was a complete combined operation — the federal government of the U.S., the state governments, processors, wholesalers and such like.

It was so successful that they sold $2 million of agricultural products right on the floor of the fair and they took orders for $16 million worth of agricultural products while they were there.

It was quite interesting to notice the pictures taken by this group of the agricultural fair. They had little Japanese girls passing out chicken and such like and they had the big banners up there "U.S. Department of Agriculture" and the fellow who took the pictures only had the last letters of the banner but the pretty girl was right in the centre of his picture.

This idea of getting all groups together will certainly help in the idea of setting up an advisory food council — to get team work between the various groups of processors, wholesalers, exporters et cetera. Because we can't get into exporting unless we can get quality control and continuity of supply. That's one of the reasons why it disturbs me so much to see our ports tied up because we lose markets that we will never get back and I think it's about time we sat up and recognised that in the transportation field, unless we want to commit economic suicide, we should find better ways of solving our differences or we will go down as a nation.

We hosted several conventions in British Columbia this year with U.S. groups and others that were interested to come in.

For instance, the annual Christmas Tree Convention was held in British Columbia with delegates from all over the U.S., and the Florists' Convention, and I would say in total over half a dozen were held this year.

I can't understand the concern on the opposite side of the House that we're not communicating with the people in all countries whenever possible. We met over 100 Japanese businessmen, as my friend from the Peace River knows, this summer.

We have many people in Japan we can contact at a moment's notice and one of them made three trips this year back to take a look at the possibilities of agriculture in the Peace River region and other parts of the province. I think good things will come.

The personal approach is far better than the letter. This is what we hope to do more of in the future.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words here in this debate especially on the work done in regard to agricultural aid and developing countries and World Disaster Fund. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that not enough has been said about these funds in my opinion. Of all the numerous good programmes carried out by this government — such as our highways, ferries, power, railways, health education et cetera — these programmes are the best of all. I'd like to point out — and I don't think you'll stand up too long and deny this — that once these initial funds are set up the programmes carry on without cost to the taxpayer and with many benefits. No one can deny that. I couldn't hope to outline all of the benefits in a one hour speech by any means.

There's the first citizens' fund administered by my friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs — $25 million which helps thousands of Indians a year and has approximately $1,875,000 in interest to spend each year. Now this is the first time, and I repeat this is the first time, the Indian people have ever had a meaningful programme where they could call for assistance that means something to the average Indian.

The federal policy of Indian affairs for the last 100 years has helped the bureaucrat in the department a lot more than it helped the Indian himself, and the cost of administration has been excessive, whereas under this fund administered in this province the administration is practically nil.

In fact if all moneys spent by the Indian Affairs Department over the year had been placed in a fund such as this the Indians and Eskimos would be very well off today.

There's still a lot of fuzzy thinking going on in Ottawa and elsewhere that an improved economic climate which everyone is looking forward to will necessarily mean the Indian and Eskimo problem will be solved. Nothing can be further from the truth. A completely new approach is needed

[ Page 239 ]

and I hope those Members are listening, Mr. Speaker, this is fairly close to home. A completely new approach is needed and is the reason for a special interest in the cooperative proposal at Fort Simpson where the Indians will own and manage their own operation.

In other words, we will be helping them to help themselves — a desirable feature I would say in any government-run programme.

At the present time we're awaiting as you know, federal approval and we hope it comes through early. I would say it is a must if the Indians are to have any faith left in the federal administration. In fact, even now in this particular case it is up to the federal government at this time.

If anything happens to stop this programme it will reflect on all governments in Canada, including ourselves, and we can't afford to let something like this drop, or no wonder the Indians lose faith in us.

For this reason we have to do everything possible to make sure that once the Indians have spent years of planning and preparation that their plans are not scuttled by any group.

We have other programmes that are a story in themselves and no doubt will be told by other Ministers.

Major disaster fund — $25 million and again the interest of $1,800,000 a year. Physical fitness and amateur sports — $10 million or $750,000 to spend on young people. Is there anywhere else where young athletes can come and get support like here in British Columbia? I don't know of any.

We have the cultural fund ably administered by yourself — I don't think I need tell you about that one, Mr. Speaker. The drug and alcohol, cigarette prevention and rehabilitation fund.…

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, it's working very well.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: It is, it's working very well and we hear a very many good things about all of these funds by people that understand them. Quite a lot don't want to understand them because they're so good that they think it will be bad politically to understand them at all.

The one I wish to speak on this afternoon is the agricultural aid and world disaster fund, a $5 million fund with approximately $375,000 a year to spend. I must say it was my friend from the Salvation Army in World War II that made me start thinking about helping people. Certainly I'm very pleased that our Premier saw fit to start these funds. They were the only people that brought us chocolate bars in Italy and I'll always remember it. Other groups seemed to want to stay behind where the shells landed and that didn't do us much good.

Now this comes to a total of $7,500,000 in interest in this fund alone. This can be spent each year and I hope you will remember this figure of $7,500,000 because I'll be using it later. A year. That's right. This goes on forever.

Now it's interesting to note when you're speaking on aid to those less fortunate that last year $205 billion were spent in the world on defence. $205 billion.

We all say, "Hell, we really try to help people that are in need" but only $15 billion was spent on helping people all over the world compared to 205 for defence. It shows where our priorities really lay. I think it's very wrong.

I would like to say whether you have likes or dislikes I can sincerely say that the Premier has shown more compassion to those less fortunate than anyone I have ever known.

When speaking on the agricultural aid fund I would like to read some of the remarks received from various agencies this year. I think it's the only true record — what other people think of us, not we think of ourselves. Every dollar goes to helping people less fortunate than ourselves and none of this is used in administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looking after yourselves.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Are you against it? Are you against any of these funds?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Are you against any of these funds? Stand up and say you are against one of them. I dare you to.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I challenge you to get up when you speak next and say which of these funds you're against.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're looking after yourselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberals are against them all. Voted against them all.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Now you've had your say I'll go on. From the Unitarian Service Committee of Canada in their annual review — and I'd like you to listen then you can comment and say what you're against.

For the second year the Department of Agriculture, Government of British Columbia.…

I don't know where they get the Department of Agriculture but it is the Government of British Columbia, this is in their annual report.

"donated a carload of evaporated whole milk towards our U.S.C. feeding programme of sickly babies under 12 months of age in Korea and I have no doubt that this wonderful gift saved many infants whom their mothers could not feed. This item is more precious than gold. More precious than gold, our Korean Director called this gift from B.C. and I believe he is right, for I saw mothers walking miles to the distribution centre to get this monthly supply."

I have a couple pictures here, Mr. Premier. It shows B.C. milk and you'll notice the babies are fat now. Also this is plywood to house the aid in — you can keep that — aid in Pakistan.

From the Unitarian Service letter dated December 20 on our Pakistani refugees aid — and I want you to understand that over and above what I mentioned this afternoon there was $100,000 donated by the Government of British Columbia in aid to refugees. I quote from the Unitarian Services letter:

"You will be impressed to hear that the grant from your British Columbia Government now amounting to $40,000 equals that of C.I.D.A. on behalf of our federal authorities."

From UNICEF of Canada letter dated December 14:

"The Canadian UNICEF Committee is most grateful to the B.C. Government for its generous donation of $35,000 to provide water facilities in the India-Pakistan area."

[ Page 240 ]

And remember there were 8 million unfortunate people crowded into a one bunch and there was no way you can help in the field of aid until you have water. This is what we thought we could do something about.

As soon as the details of this project are finalised we will send you the information.

You and the B.C. Government set an example for the rest of us in Canada to follow and we thank you most sincerely.

From World Vision of Canada, letter dated November 25:

To see this positive action taken by the Provincial Government of British Columbia is a tremendous encouragement to all members of World Vision and I'm sure to those of British Columbia who give their substance to help those less fortunate. Truly, this is God-honouring and such action does not go unnoticed.

To bring you up to date, I would like to give you the following information from our report: The total expenditure since the establishment of the fund — and remember it took some time to get connections here and there in various places of the world and we now have connections all over and many good friends in all parts — the total expenditure has been $489,591.91. Not only helping those in need in other countries, which we can't forget with a clear conscience — we also helped our farmers here in British Columbia by sending over powdered milk, skim milk, apple juice and various other things. Again if anyone wants to stand up and say this is wrong, I'd like to see it here this afternoon.

Disbursement of these funds since April, 1969, has been made in 38 separate transactions which can be categorised as follows:

Medical materials and foodstuffs — $225,756. Educational grants — these are grants to help young people learn how to help themselves, as I pointed out earlier and I think this has been very successful but we hope to increase the amount that will be spent in this regard. We have a case in the Cameroons I mentioned before that we're very proud of because from our funds we supplied livestock — even a tractor — and they went into this scheme with such enthusiasm that today they're supplying poultry, pigs et cetera to many parts of Africa from the little start we gave them in the Cameroons. You know this is a very interesting country, and the women's lib groups will no doubt be interested in this. It's the only place in the world where they have a whole Women's Institute in the one family. The fellow's got about eight wives and they all belong to the Women's Institute. (Laughter).

Miscellaneous assistance, equipment et cetera — $72,000 for a total of $489,000 and I might say by this time there are one or two other grants that are just about ready to go.

Quite a number of these went into South America, a few in Africa and Asia. On a per capita basis British Columbia contributes more than any place in the world aiding others. Now I think we can be very proud of this not just as a government but every citizen of British Columbia. Even the Opposition I think should be proud of this.

Another thing I would like to point out and a lot of people get carried away and in a world of fog. That is the fact they claim that there is a shortage of food in the world and always will be. This is not correct.

There is no question the world is capable of producing six times as much food as there is at the present time. It's only a matter of distribution. We haven't had good Ministers of Finance all over the world that can find ways to move a product from one place to another. It's as simple as that.

In India — a friend from the Bank of India that I met not too long ago that's coming out here this summer to find out how you run British Columbia — says that if a little place like British Columbia can run affairs so well there surely must be something to Social Credit.

He will be here, according to his letter last week, he will be here sometime this summer. We certainly welcome him to British Columbia when he comes. Like we do everyone else. We're not anti-anyone. We like to be friends with all.

As I mentioned before, we don't say enough about this type of a fund and I think it's about time that we did so that more people realise what's going on, because after all it's their money and they have a right to know that is being done.

Believe me, I'm certainly very proud of what's been done of these funds and we sit spending money sometimes for several hours, and the first citizen's fund is certainly very well spent.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Minister of Finance): Without any interference from the Treasury Board.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Yes, yes, that's what I like, Mr. Premier. (Laughter). I'll mention that later in just in a minute. But I would say this indicates in a very small way the administration of these funds is real Social Credit in a farmer's language. Which I suggest that we use more so that everyone can understand what we are talking about.

It was interesting at the last federal-provincial conference, we were asking for a study to be made by an economist and I said: "When this study is completed I would hope that the main point of the study will be on less than 12 pages, and the rest will be for reference material." And the Minister, Bill Stewart from Ontario said: "I've been waiting for 10 years to hear someone say that and I'm all for it, because we get these long reports of 800 or 1,000 pages that fog the issue so bad that everyone throws up their hands and says, 'I guess there wasn't a solution in the first place'." Now, this is not something we should be doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: It may not have been buried then, but it's buried now.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: It's buried now. It might not have been before.

Using the accumulation of capital to give benefits to people forever without taxation I think this is a very fine principle and I think others should listen. You're talking about simple statements to keep it so that everyone can understand. I guess Sir Winston Churchill was a master at this. I remember when I was overseas at the end of the last war he was speaking in a pub in London.

I didn't think he'd go to a pub, but he liked them apparently. He said: "Never pass one by because you might never get another chance."

But, he used to say: "If the average fellow in the pub can't understand what you're talking about don't say it at all." And I think some of our economists sometimes could take this advice. Because I don't think we, or they know what they're talking about either.

But I would say, what could be better than funds such as I've mentioned? But I would like the N.D.P. and the Liberals and the Conservatives to stand up and say what is wrong with this type of a fund, and which ones they'd get rid of. Do you find programmes like this in the Conservative provinces of

[ Page 241 ]

Alberta, Ontario, and New Brunswick?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You certainly don't. Do you find them in the Liberal Provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Do you find them in the N.D.P. provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: And you don't find them in Ottawa either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no way.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You'd better join, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm leaving, I'm leaving.…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Now what do we see in the Liberal, Conservative and N.D.P. provinces? We see a policy of "spending everything in good times, and borrowing besides." So with the programme put in by the taxpayers not only do they have to pay for the programmes, but they have to pay on the interest also.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two or three times.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Several, yes. Between these two methods that I've mentioned which is funny money — it certainly isn't the Social Credit suggestion. I would say that the other three parties stay in power by misleading the public with double talk on what they are about to do. You get off the real issue facing this nation which is purely economic, and I think you'll agree when you get off into double talk — that you're going to do this for the pensioners, you're going to do this for something else, and something else — you don't say where the money is going to come from.

Unless you have solved the problem of economics, you'll be just talking, which might sound real good but that's all it'll do for the average person of this nation.

If the Government of Canada had embarked on a programme such as this…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: …accumulated capital to work for people instead of people working for capital, most programmes in Canada could be carried out by setting up such funds that have been set up in this province.

I'd like to see the Department of Agriculture set up that way, Mr. Premier, so we could work this on interest alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go tell that to the farmers.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I say if you want me to tell it to the farmers, I have, and they agreed. You go out and peddle your line to the farmers and tell them that you're going to solve it without economic change and they'll throw you clear through the door.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll tell them, we'll tell them.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I think in some ways it is unfortunate that our Premier wasn't sent to Ottawa about 20 years ago…don't be too hasty, he's done a fine job here. But the real problems that are to be solved will have to be solved on a national scale. And if he'd have been there 20 years ago you'd seen many programmes funded in this way by now.

Instead of the taxpayer paying out over $2 billion in interest to the financial interests before any programmes go ahead it would be the other way around. And if the average person really understood the Ottawa policies none of these parties would be there two days. It is unfortunate that they don't understand that there's no real change being recommended in the federal field at this time. I spent some time in the House this last summer listening to see if someone was getting to grips with the real problems facing this nation, and they're not.

I think it's very unfortunate that none of the three parties are coming to grips with this type of a situation because it'll make a farce out of the next federal election.

Take for example national housing. I think this is just one item — the home-owners of Canada, the average person getting married and trying to start a new home.

Since World War II we have borrowed $31,727,836 from C.M.H.C. Not from the federal government, the federal government was only good enough to guarantee any loss.

Fortunately the loss wasn't quite as bad as some people might think it would be. In fact the people who borrowed this amount, paid back, if you figure it out, at 9½ per cent which some people might argue is too high. But anyway there's a lot of things that you could add to bring it up to this total. Of 9½ per cent on an average interest they not only paid back the $31 billion over 20 years, but approximately $66 billion. Now, if you take this on a 30-year mortgage rate.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You're not coming to grips with this. There's not one Socialist member in Ottawa that's ever stood up that I've heard that has come to grips with this issue. And you know it. I think you should hide your head in shame.

It comes to $94 billion that would be paid back. Now just think if our Premier would have this kind of money to set up for programmes and for people. That's really what it's all about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You haven't said anything about how you're going to solve this, my friend. You sit back and say, "I'm going to give this, and I'm going to give that and I'll pick it off trees." Think again about the $100 million set up by us, and the $7,500,000 available at no cost for the programmes after the initial funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: You get it off trees…in B.C.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You do not get it off trees in

[ Page 242 ]

B.C. We should, the way you stand up sometimes and start talking about spending. You're like the foggy economist I was just talking about. Think what could be done with even a fund of $50 billion which could have been accumulated under housing over these years.

This is the only government that has faced up to this issue within our limited jurisdictions. Because it is quite limited when you get on a provincial state. And it certainly is tempting sometimes to say "I'll go on to Ottawa." The power of accumulated capital over the lives of the average person is disgraceful when it's done in this manner. This is the only real issue that our national politicians should solve. And yet our friend, Mr. Speaker — and you know him too in the Skeena Riding, he deals with culverts and bridges and never gets to the real issue facing this nation which is economics. Even the Port of Prince Rupert should come in his priority far ahead of what he's dabbling in at the present time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I'm saying what we did here and what we could do if we had the funds that they have in Ottawa. I'm glad you smile when you say it. Because you know you're wrong.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would challenge the Hon. Leader — either himself, the Liberals, or the Conservatives to stand up and defend the economic policy that he's preaching in Ottawa at the present time. His party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Waffle, waffle, waffle.…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I would say that it's about time that all people in the Western world took a look at the programmes for people — which these programmes that I've mentioned are, because the benefits all go to people. Not like Indian Affairs go to administration and other things.

Programmes for people without taxation by the government once they're set up, and I think this is very important because it goes on and on and on after we're gone. If this province is unfortunate enough to have you in next time I would say that you wouldn't have nerve, even though you say they're bad, to throw them out.

You wouldn't throw them out, you wouldn't throw them out and you know you wouldn't. We don't want to get side-tracked on the issues that you deal with.…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Arguments about hospitals, schools, and such like. Because the real issue — and we want to get back to it — the real issue is economic and make no mistake. I just wish you would accept this too. Because some of your Members that I met recently, they accept it. And you sit here and make fun of the real problem facing this nation and you don't want to get at it.

There's no question in these funds this government is a trail-blazer, because there's no one else, not followers like other parties. Believe me we will blaze many more trails that will be in the history book of tomorrow.

The greatest challenge of the day is how to get the abundance we produce and the capabilities of what we can produce into the hands of all people. I think that should be our goal and what we're trying to achieve in our limited jurisdiction. Then we will really have a truly just society that our friend the Prime Minister talked about at the last election.

I hope the next speaker will stand up and say he's against all these funds as his election campaign.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I'll chip in for his travel expenses if he'll come up north because we like him up there.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, you know in the days when I was first in this House, when the Honourable Member for Omineca was not in the cabinet, I rather enjoyed hearing that honest voice from the backwoods in the north.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I don't dispute that Mr. Member, but what I miss now compared to what I used to hear in '66 and prior to that before I was in the House is the kind of fighting for the people of the north, for the average person, that people had come to expect from him.

We no longer hear from the Hon. Member on the question of low-cost gasoline for the people in the north. We no longer hear from the Minister with respect to public car insurance for the people all over the province.

Instead, what we get from the Minister is the kind of line that has been fed to everybody in the cabinet by the Premier — and that is to use the stale old attack on Ottawa as a way out in any problem in British Columbia. And the man that used to be a summer rebel is now in winter pasture here in Victoria. (Laughter).

I find it rather hard to accept some of the bland statements from this new Minister. Quotes like this, Mr. Speaker, that really do take guts in a cabinet with lots of guts of that kind, he says: "The Premier has shown more compassion than anyone I've ever known for helping those less fortunate than himself."

He can say that, and you can cheer him on and there are people in this province on marginal sub-assistance wages, on widows' pensions, with Workmen's Compensation Board on disabled allowances and the like. And he says that that man is the most compassionate he's ever met? What an empty world you live in, my friend.

The person that has stood up and fought for these people year in and year out, in this Legislature for two decades is the Member from Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick), and he made it clear during this throne debate once again.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Contain yourselves, ladies. Try to be good.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Instead, what we've got from this man from Omineca, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of partisan garbage about the N.D.P., about the Liberals, about the

[ Page 243 ]

political parties, rather than the kind of voice we now hear from the backbenches.

As we've heard from the Honourable Member for the South Peace (Mr. Marshall) talking about the pockets of poverty in the north, with people on welfare raising their young people and educating them and then finding there's no jobs for them, the real voice from the North is still coming from the backbenches — not from the cabinet.

A simple comment really, is all that the Minister's speech deserves, Mr. Speaker. And I ask him this question: If he and his government are all that good, how come we've got all the problems that we have in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a few random notes here that I did want to refer to.

I wanted to mainly today talk about the parliamentary process in British Columbia. Those that are bored maybe should leave now since the parliamentary process really hasn't got the attention it deserves from this government.

Yet what's happened to the parliamentary process in British Columbia when history is being recorded will be this, will be the area that the Social Credit and the Bennett years will be most noted for. More than all the roads because they're almost forgotten now. More than the dams and all of the things the Premier and the government like to talk about.

The great impact that the Member from South Okanagan in his years in this House has had will be one — the parliamentary process.

The points that have been made in these debates during the throne speech that in my own judgment were the most worthwhile were the statements by Members that were the least reported Members in this House.

I refer to the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) and in some respects the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan). Their complaints were simple and clear, Mr. Speaker. All of them said that nothing more clearly shows the contempt for this House than the Speech from the Throne itself does.

In the Speech from the Throne, as they have indicated — and I'm unfairly trying to paraphrase some of them — didn't state a philosophy, didn't put forth a set of goals as a necessary preliminary to the budget.

Instead there was a kind of thumbing one's nose at the institution. It wouldn't be fair, though, to say that the attitude towards the Speech from the Throne itself is the only example of the arrogance and the lack of care for the parliamentary process itself. There are countless examples, Mr. Speaker, of the arrogance of age and the arrogance of excessive power. They abound.

The Member for Burnaby-Willingdon referred to some of the examples of arrogance that we've seen in this House. They bear repeating Mr. Speaker.

He referred to the Assessment Equalisation Act of last year. Some of you might recall that the Premier announced in September, 1970 that the laws of the land were going to be changed, that there was going to be a 10 per cent limitation on increases in assessment.

It was, incidentally, a move that would again help the privileged few — not anything new in this province.

He directed his staff to advise all of the assessors in this province to meet the requirements of a law that didn't exist. There was a law already passed, Mr. Speaker. Passed by this parliament and one that I believe the civil servants of this province were bound to uphold. They were bound to uphold those laws until this parliament met again.

But instead, letters went out from civil servants on the basis of the decree of the Premier. That's the kind of attitude that there is towards parliament on the part of the Premier. There's never any apologies for it, Mr. Speaker, and if there were great urgency one might excuse some of it. But it's all part of what might really be called a Louis XIV complex that has set in in this government.

I guess that kind of a complex develops and grows after 20 years of uninterrupted power. It was done again last fall, Mr. Speaker, again by the Premier with respect to the school finance formula. Again a decree by the Premier.

That's a complicated area which I don't really choose to go into at this stage. I think there will be ample opportunity later in the debate. But nevertheless, the announcement was one made without any reference to this House. There's a law on the statutes, Mr. Speaker, that clearly show that the 110 per cent figure in fact is the law of the land. But it doesn't matter what this parliament does, it seems, when administrative decrees are in the hands of the Premier.

In fact, again we have senior administrators in the Department of Education advising the communities of this province that in fact there is a new law — even though parliament hasn't met. It's that kind of Louis XIV complex with respect to parliament. The idea of a king in court that pervades this government, that is infecting the whole process in British Columbia and having a deep effect improperly on the civil servants in our employ here in British Columbia.

What does the Minister of Education say just last week? There's a law on the statute books; was passed a few years ago in this House. He said that anybody that obeyed that law would be illegal. It would be illegal if they obeyed the law that this parliament had passed!

That was on January 26 that the Member from Rossland-Trail said that. It's just like what happened a year ago with respect to the Assessment Equalisation Act, Mr. Speaker. Clearly contempt for the idea of law. It's infecting our whole society. From the police to the people in the streets — society at large.

The plea from the Member from Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Speaker, was to protect and nurture the parliamentary process. A plea to the Premier to remember that he was after all a custodian of the democratic process in British Columbia.

I'm sorry the Premier, again, isn't present, Mr. Speaker. That seems to be common during my talks and I appreciate the compliment. But the Premier sees governing this province as a kind of chairman of the board where he has all the proxy votes in his back pocket.

It's clear that the man in power sees himself in almost a divine right position and he sees not a cabinet around him but rather a court. When you have that kind of situation in a government, then countless things happen. People at numerous levels from the cabinet on down try and second-guess the king. They try and please him.

It shows up in the records of the debate of this House, Mr. Speaker. It shows up in deletions of the official record of parliament as I see it. Like for example, on page 766 in the Debates of the Legislative Assembly of the 2nd Session of the 29th Parliament, it's clear that is a desire among some to re-write history.

There is the fear somewhere with respect to an honest record. A fear that an honest record might offend the man.

[ Page 244 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr. Speaker, under section 4 of the standing orders was placed by this House in charge of a verbatim report of the proceedings of this House. To the best of his ability and the ability of the staff the record was kept.

I make it clear to all members of this Legislature that at no time did any member of this Legislature or any civil servant interfere with those responsibilities of the Speaker. If dishonesty is being levelled at anyone it's obviously being levelled at Mr. Speaker and at the Office of Speaker.

I think that the Hon. Member, because of a certain resolution which appears on the order paper, would be well advised to leave this section of his talk and to proceed with other matters at this particular time.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order. Are you making the decision based on the resolution on the order paper or some interpretation which I didn't understand in your preliminary remarks about the standing orders on the keeping of the records?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member said that at page 766 in the. official record of the debates there has been some deletions and challenged generally the honesty when he was talking about government. The honesty of keeping an official record.

What I have said is that Mr. Speaker keeps that record. That there has been no interference by any Member of this Legislature or indeed by any civil servant so far as the keeping of the record is concerned. Therefore any indication of dishonesty is being levelled at Mr. Speaker. I think that a resolution which appears on the order paper now, under which presumably this matter will be debated, may be a proper time to talk about it. But I am not accepting at this time an expression that indicates that I am dishonest or have done anything dishonest.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to clear up was first of all the fact that you made a statement, then made a ruling. The ruling is — and it's an understandable one — that there is a resolution on the order paper where this can be properly debated.

However, it concerns me, Mr. Speaker, that the Member has not made a statement of dishonesty in the Speaker's office. He has made a statement that in his opinion the records are not correct. There has been a certain body of evidence to that fact. However, the matter will be discussed under the resolution. But I don't accept the inference that is being prejudged and the Member has a right in my opinion to his opinion about the veracity of those records.

MR. SPEAKER: I will ask the Hon. Member to proceed with another part of his speech. I hope that he will concede.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly willing to accept your ruling, however — ah, without any "however." Nevertheless as the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition says, there is a body of evidence, and I do recall by my own memory some of the debates. I'll leave it at that. I'll leave it to that except, Mr. Speaker, to say that if there's an attendant near by I would appreciate it if this were returned because I do not want this document.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that I can continue my speech without the aid of the Hon. the Attorney General who has proved again and again that he is totally incapable of giving a speech in this House without an editing and re-write job from the Premier himself. It's continually a Charlie McCarthy situation when the Attorney General gives a speech in this House. But maybe the best thing, Mr. Speaker, would be to move into a lighter vein.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think that the kind of sickness that has permeated this government and some of their staff is even shown in small ways, such as on the British Columbia Ferries fleet. Even there, even there, directives come out from two members of staff in the ferry fleet who are obviously zealous employees who look at the ads in the newspaper, who check the magazines for purity of content, before they can be sold to the public that travels on the ferry fleets in the Gulf of Georgia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is an official list, Mr. Speaker, with respect to what can be sold in the newstands on the ferries. A very short list and it starts with "A" with Air Progress and ends at "W" with Women's World. The title at the top says "Magazines authorized for sale on B.C. Ferries, list revised September 23."

It's interesting to note the kind of magazines that aren't allowed, Mr. Speaker, on the ferry fleets in British Columbia. Well, Playboy isn't allowed, I guess that's to be expected. Canadian Forum — you know, that's the one that first published the Grey Report with respect to the ownership of the Canadian economy — that's not on the official list. Canadian Dimension, well that's a left-wing magazine out of Winnipeg, barely has any ads in it — that's not on the list.

What is on the list ranges from Jack and Jill to Stag to Fuddle Duddle.

I no longer buy any of my news or magazine material on the B.C. Ferries, Mr. Speaker, because most of it doesn't interest me very much. But I thought when I came over from the mainland this last weekend that I'd look a little more closely at what was available in fact on the ferry newstand.

Quite a range. One that has been officially sanctified, Mr. Speaker, is called Stag magazine. It's probably one of the worst magazines one could buy on any newstand in my judgment.

AN HON. MEMBER: No liquor ads.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't have any liquor ads, that's true. The stories range from "The erotic life of a nude model" to "I never slept with a cop before" and on and on and on. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I hesitate to mention it, since my wife is in the audience, there's even an article on wife-swapping and telephone numbers but I'll forget that. There's other magazines that are really equally as distasteful but they've got official sanction, Mr. Speaker. For the young, why there's comic books. Like this one, 52 pages for 25 cents. The title is "The Dark Mansion of Forbidden Love."

[ Page 245 ]

That too is available.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: You know, Mr. Speaker, in my own judgment the empty news racks — and they really are empty when they've got this stuff in them — on the B.C. Ferries fleet are a constant, ludicrous reminder of a man that's been in power too long. It's something just as simple as that, Mr. Speaker, that just may be the undoing of the man who's been in power for 20 years. The arrogance of retroactive legislation, the arrogance of records, the arrogance with respect to the school statutes, the assessment statutes, in a way it can all be summed up in what's on the newstand on the ferry fleet. The heavy hand of a man in power too long has clearly had its impact on the Press of British Columbia. It's had its impact on all members of this Legislature and its had its imprint on the civil servants. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, the imprint of the man in power too long has been on the cabinet itself. Nowhere in the cabinet has the imprint been more complete than with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell). I'm sorry to say that he isn't present at the moment.

I'd like to spend some time discussing the Department of Municipal Affairs and the man who runs it. I'd like to do so for a range of reasons, my own professional interest is mainly with cities and like many in my kind of work we thought that when the young schoolteacher from Comox was appointed as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that at last in this important department, we had a reasonable, intelligent and thoughtful man who could play a worthwhile role and have a fine impact on the cities of the province.

Instead, we have found in the later Bennett years that the Minister has more and more been trying to be just a minor image of his boss.

As an aside, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be wrong to say that the Bennett years have been costly only for the people nearest him in the cabinet. I think they have been costly to us all. I think they have been costly for myself and I am convinced that the Legislature too is the poorer because of him. This man that sits with his back to the Press, failing to hold back the tears when shallow men sing his praises as the greatest leader in the world, again almost like a Louis XIV court scene, is the very same man who laughs at idealism, the same man who scorns involvement of people in the democratic process, the same man who ridicules almost all expertise and scholarly analysis. The same man that appeals to the basest in us all, in British Columbia.

In spite of all this, there is still a handful in this House, like the Members from Cowichan and Burnaby-Seymour and Burnaby-Willingdon, who talk about Parliament as it should be. I suggest that these few are the men least corrupted by this House and this situation.

Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. There is a man who has paid one of the highest prices in this House for his share of the Bennett years. But to be fair to the Premier and his cabinet-making role, however, he's generally made sure that he has surrounded himself with people that had little to give and therefore had little to lose.

However, like the former Attorney General, Mr. Bonner, the Member for Comox was an exception to the rule. The difference between the former Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is that the former Attorney General knew when to get out before it was too late.

For an able person the price of entry to the Bennett cabinet or court is an automatic self-destruct mechanism. In the case of the Member from Comox the device is fully operational.

There are three main examples that I want to point to that showed the Minister's development along the self-destruct route, Mr. Speaker. One is the Minister's latest speech with respect to the Gulf Islands. The second is the Minister's intervention in the Mount Kobau area in the south Okanagan and the third is the Dufferin fiasco in the Kamloops area.

First, I would like to make it clear that there were a few things that I had hoped and expected in the early years in the activities of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in an age when cities are of the utmost importance.

Cities are the habitat of almost all our people and I hoped that he would face up to some of the challenges that do exist with respect to cities. I hoped that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would at least avoid the mistakes we had seen in the lower mainland and avoid having them repeated again and again in the major regional cities of the interior.

I had hoped that he would deal with the important questions like the preservation of farm land on the edge of cities, Mr. Speaker.

I hoped that he would fight for equity with respect to local tax policies between communities and I hoped that he would fight to see that the tax burden at the local level shifted to where it in fact belonged.

I hoped that he would end all free-loader enclave municipalities in the Province of British Columbia.

I hoped that he'd reform big city government in the lower mainland and give power to the neighbourhoods in the form of a ward system of some kind.

I had hoped that he would see to it that we avoided the freeway trap that other major cities of North America have fallen into.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there was hardly any of this. Instead in many of these areas, rather than in giving leadership, the Minister chose to sit on the sidelines. The Minister chose instead to give the Bronx cheer to those who in fact were leading at the municipal level.

He did it again in his speech of last week. He attacked planners — fair game I guess — he said they were planning for Forest Lawn in one breath and then said they were building a bridge system through the Gulf Islands in another.

In sham concern he said: "I'll not sign a bylaw that is not drawn in the spirit of participation with the public." Then, as a case in point, he referred to the latest publication of the planning staff of the capital region district here in Victoria, a publication entitled, "Gulf Island Options."

But he didn't name it as such, Mr. Speaker, he pulled only one page out of context from that report and dealt with option "A" in that report. We didn't see the full report when the Minister spoke.

You know, it's a big report and it's a worthwhile one. There are 24 pages in that report, all that the House was shown was one page. One page. There was no reference to capital region itself, no reference to the fact that there were 24 pages. Just dealing with one of the pages.

What was in the rest of the paper? I think the House should hear something about what was in the rest of this 24-page document or tabloid, Mr. Speaker, because it's important to all of British Columbia.

It dealt with the future of the Gulf Islands in a serious way and it didn't talk down to the people who lived there. It talked about the range of choices that in fact they as citizens

[ Page 246 ]

in the Gulf Islands faced. It asked them for responses. It asked them for answers. It's a fine piece of work, Mr. Speaker, by capable professional people and by responsible local leaders throughout the Victoria and Gulf Islands area.

He dealt with option "A" which was in the first section and entitled, Highways and Bridges. He didn't deal, though, with option "B". Option "B" is another option for the Gulf Islands — and again a map and a description, pictures, the works — that envisions limiting growth on the Gulf Islands in a very definite way. It envisioned having major conservation areas so that some of the finest parts of the Islands would be preserved. That was option "B".

Then there was option "C" which was major parks and that, Mr. Speaker, which the Minister never mentioned in his talk to this House, proposed 45 square miles of parkland, public parkland, in the Gulf Islands.

It suggested that seven islands in their entirety should become public parks — Sidney Island, James Island, Brethour Island, Prevost Island, Secretary Island, Samuel Island and Curlew Island, should all be public parks.

It established a price for that parkland of some 38 square miles for purchase of about $15 million, and pointed out that there was in fact 45 square miles proposed but the remaining seven square miles was in fact already public land.

In a later section, Mr. Speaker, page 10, there is a questionnaire asking for the attitudes of all of the people in the Gulf Islands and the owners in the Gulf Islands, the residents in the Gulf Islands, how they felt about all of these issues and the options.

A few of them have made it clear. The interesting thing will be when all of the data is in, when the people have mailed their returns, then we will know what the attitude is in the islands.

The fascinating thing is, Mr. Speaker, that they actually even conducted a public opinion survey at an earlier stage, prior to all this work. That's noted, and for the Minister's benefit — since he seems to be a chronic skimmer — page 11 covers some of the existing attitudes with respect to the question of preservation of open space on the Gulf Islands. It's very clear what existing attitudes are with respect to preserving the open space in the islands.

How did the various communities in the capital region feel about sending out this report, Mr. Speaker? How did the members from Salt Spring, from Saanich, from Langford, from the outer Gulf Islands, from Metchosin, from Victoria, from Esquimalt, from View Royal, from North Saanich, from Central Saanich — how did the local community leaders feel about this? They were unanimous. They were unanimous.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-one to 14.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, that was with an amendment. They were unanimous. Again you had better do your homework.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: With an amendment. They were unanimous.

The other interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that they even invited the Member from Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Tisdalle) to take part in their whole afternoon discussion and they had absolutely no negative comments whatsoever from the Member of this Legislature for Saanich and the Islands. What about option "A" which was the only option that the Minister chose to talk about? The Honourable the Minister didn't even tell us all about option "A" and I'm not really surprised. He showed us only one page in 24 but he only gave us a part of that page, because where did this crazy idea for a bridge and free-way system across the islands come from anyway?

Where did it come from? It says here in the first paragraph on option "A". "A 1967 study prepared by the provincial government at a cost of $80,000 suggests that ferry volumes may make it necessary to construct a 90-mile system of highways and floating bridges to link the Saanich Peninsula with Galiano Island."

No wonder the Minister didn't choose to tell us even what was fully on the one page that he showed us in this report. That was a secret report, Mr. Speaker, a secret report prepared for this government and was made abundantly clear in this tabloid that went out to the people in the islands, that this proposal for a free-way system through the Gulf Islands was not in fact endorsed by the capital region or its staff at all.

The Minister, Mr. Speaker, chose to say none of that. The easy way was to attack the planner because an attack on planners is what would appeal to those who are uninformed and what appeals to the uninformed in British Columbia is what leadership is all about in the Bennett years.

There is even an additional option in this report — and I don't apologise for spending this length of time on the Gulf Islands because I think they are significant to all of British Columbia — there is an option "D". There is an option "D", Mr. Speaker, which is blank and it's on the back side of the questionnaire. It suggests that if there is any comment or proposals, people in the Gulf Islands can actually draw on the map itself and send a map in to the regional district. Option "D", your own option for the Gulf Islands for the people who live there.

You know this kind of action by the capital region is a genuinely unprecedented case of planning and public involvement, not only in British Columbia, but it's an unprecedented involvement of all of the people in an area that's unprecedented for this country.

For a government that is interested in superlatives, I suggest that this report, Mr. Speaker, deserves praise. It didn't deserve the snide out-of-context comments that it got from the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I expect that the responses from the islands will flow into the capital region district and I expect that the people of the islands, on the basis of just public interest, public questioning to date, I expect the people of the islands will opt for some kind of variation of option "C", the major park proposal for the islands.

If that's the case, then there should be some leadership from the Minister of Municipal Affairs for a change. There should be some leadership from this government to see to it that 45 square miles of the Gulf Islands are in fact preserved in perpetuity for all of the people of British Columbia.

And that $50 million cost for 45 square miles, Mr. Speaker, is the best investment that that Minister of this government could make in this or any other year.

I think it would be worthwhile looking at another example of the Minister on his self-destruct route and this time it's in another regional district. It is in the Okanagan.

The regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, a region that stretches from Anarchist Mountain on the easterly side of the Okanagan trench to Manning Park, has a good local board, Mr. Speaker, with people elected from communities

[ Page 247 ]

like Cawston, and Okanagan Falls and the range of communities in the area. They've got a good small local professional staff as well Mr. Speaker. They prepared a bylaw in the Okanagan-Similkameen regional district and it was a bylaw to regulate and control new development. It was a bylaw to preserve some of the wilderness areas that existed within the region.

One particular area that was included was the area in the southern part of the region where they had proposed a forestry-grazing category for the land involved. One of the reasons they proposed forestry and grazing and limited subdivision developments was that it was already an existing forestry and grazing area — forestry and grazing is the dominant use in the area now, Mr. Speaker.

But it was something else, too. It was land that was in the vicinity of Mount Kobau, and Mount Kobau as most people here know this is the site of what might be or what could be the most important observatory site on this continent. The people in the region held public hearings with respect to that bylaw and the proposed zoning category. The directors in that region from Anarchist to Cawston to Manning Park supported the concept of limited development in the area near Mount Kobau.

The board had considered alternatives, Mr. Speaker. They've heard the requests of two private developers in the White lake area near Mount Kobau and despite the opposition of the two developers that regional district decided the best course of action for the region was to limit development in the area and to limit subdivisions to five or 10-acre parcels. It was reasonable progressive local leadership and it was reasonable really, Mr. Speaker, because after all pleas had been made to the small regional districts from as far away as London and around the world with respect to the Mount Kobau site.

At any rate, Sir Bernard Lovell said this, from Jodrell Bank in Britain. He said: "For the sake of international science, I urge you to protect the site." And Sir Martin Ryan commented "local development would be disastrous for Canada's status in world astronomy."

What happened, Mr. Speaker? The Minister decided to overrule the board of directors and he decided to overrule the Canadian scientific community and the world scientific community. He didn't even involve, Mr. Speaker, the environmental and land use committee which they occasionally refer to. Rather, he favoured looking after the investments concern of two companies, Gabriola Wildwood Estates Ltd., and St. Andrews By The Lakes Estates Ltd.

Now, one of those companies, Mr. Speaker, Gabriola Wildwood has already developed a subdivision, interestingly, in the Gulf Islands on Gabriola Island.

Some in the House, Mr. Speaker, may recall an article that was in the Vancouver Sun on December 6, a month or so ago, on page 35 of the Vancouver Sun. The headline was "Gabriola Scheme Misleads" and it shows the scheme.

I suppose one of the reasons they say the scheme misleads, Mr. Speaker, is that the picture at the top is part of their promotion leaflet for Gabriola Wildwood Estates and it notes that there is possible road linkages, possible ferry development, plotted on the map which really is part of the scheme that was commissioned by the Department of Highways back in 1967.

The Minister is no doubt aware of that development. I think that it is generally agreed that it is a poor premature subdivision on Gabriola Island that has not made good use of the land. That is kind of a mail-order lot situation which is common to the desert areas in the south-western part of the United States. So it was easy to get this kind of information. But because of the Minister's edict there is now going to be a Gabriola Wildwood, or there can be a Gabriola Wildwood development near Mount Kobau subject to the conditions of the Municipal Act, et cetera.

But in the proposal involved in the case of the South Okanagan area there are some 2,900 lots in total. Some 2,900 lots are in fact proposed for that area. The first stage that is proposed is 685 lots and if anybody chooses to look at any of these premature subdivisions that are blighting substantial chunks of the rural land of British Columbia now they can do so in the Shuswap and the Okanagan, in the Gulf Islands and elsewhere. The proposal was for more of the same in the South Okanagan.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister can talk about professionals and their inadequacies but what about the local people who know the area well, the people who have lived there all their lives? How do they feel about some of these crazy professional ideas? Let's quote them in that regional district. Alderman Frank Laird of Penticton said the Minister's decision would affect all regional districts in B.C. and quoted in the Penticton Herald said:

I think we should give serious consideration to standing up and letting the authorities in Victoria know what we think. We should under no circumstances accept a dictate of this nature.

And the dictate, Mr. Speaker, was that all of this area had to be called a development area under the Municipal Act. They didn't want to call it a development area as the Minister proposed. Mayor Seward of Penticton said: "Campbell's order to change forestry grazing rezoning defeats the idea of comprehensive regional planning." And another director Clifford Devine, said that if the province believes that forest grazing areas and development areas were one and the same then the provincial government should take over all local administration. Alderman Stan Spadola of Osoyoos said: "The board should have a full explanation from the government as to why a change in the zoning has been ordered." And on and on and on. The attitude on the part clearly of almost all the directors is the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read my letter.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let's read a chunk of that letter, Mr. Speaker. I don't have privy to all the Minister's correspondence but what the Minister did say in this letter, with respect to the proposed regulations of this area that were desired by the people that live in the region and govern the local region, he said this to them: "When regulations are first introduced in an area some recognition and consideration should in all fairness be given to the investment commitments and decisions made in the private sector."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister was adamant, Mr. Speaker. He said there was only one bylaw he would accept and that was his bylaw. The Minister chose to ignore the world scientific community, he chose to ignore locally-elected people, he chose to ignore local professional staff, and he chose to ignore the disaster that already exists on Gabriola.

Instead the Minister determined by decree — which is common to this government — that a bylaw with

[ Page 248 ]

development areas was what he was going to get.

Even Alderman Pollen, presently Mayor Pollen in Victoria, said this about these powers of this Minister. On August 12 last year, he said in the Victoria City Council: "Campbell's power to do this under the Municipal Act makes the possibility of political patronage extremely dangerous." That is from former Social Credit candidate.

But the example the Minister chose to point to during his speech, Mr. Speaker, was a co-op mobile home development in Coquitlam and it just may have been a case where modification might in fact have been reasonable. And I say that despite the fact that it was a proposal made and designed by a Social Credit candidate in the Coquitlam area. Despite all that I'm sure that there may be some merits to the proposal.

But where the Minister in fact interfered with local regional government has been in the Mount Kobau case where there was no justification and where there was an overwhelming case as in the Gulf Islands situation for supporting local leadership rather than gutting the sound proposals of the local elected politicians.

I think that any objective analyst, Mr. Speaker, would agree that real leadership from the department was sadly lacking.

We have talked about the lower coast, Mr. Speaker, and the South Okanagan. Let's see how the Honourable Minister has done in the Kamloops area. You know Kamloops is the home of his friend, his friend on his right there…

AN HON. MEMBER: And his rival?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: …the flying Minister from Kamloops. Let's have some background of those Kamloops communities. To begin with let's talk about Kamloops, at the junction of the Thompson Rivers — the city of Kamloops, and the former village of North Kamloops and an Indian Reserve at the junction of three rivers. There were formerly two major communities — one of them was the old village of North Kamloops and the former City of Kamloops. The two were amalgamated and that was a major step forward in the development in the Kamloops community, this major hub area at the junction of the Thompson Rivers.

A major city that will always be a major city in this province, Mr. Speaker, it has the two major railways of the province on the Thompson River, it's a natural distribution point for most of the central interior. The town, however, has mushroomed — which isn't surprising — and it's grown into the areas of Brocklehurst and Valleyview and Dallas and Westside, numerous small areas on all sides of the community.

Equally important, there's been major industrial development outside of the city boundaries Mr. Speaker. The Weyerhauser pulp mill to the west, there is a major oil refinery and there is a new LaFarge cement plant to the east.

The early views of the Minister with respect to the developing of areas outside city boundaries are probably worth reviewing just as the broad context of the City of Kamloops is worth reviewing, Mr. Speaker. Because the Minister has talked about the business of extending city boundaries on numerous occasions in the past.

He talked about it on March 17 in 1967, he talked about "cancerous parochialism." This was in 1967 however. He said that communities like Abbotsford, Sumas and Matsqui do not make any sense as separate municipalities in the modern world. And he said further that North Vancouver district and North Vancouver city should be amalgamated. He said that Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Coquitlam and Ioco should be brought together as well, that all of these areas in the lower mainland should be amalgamated.

What are the populations there, Mr. Speaker? North Van. city and district — what is it? 40,000, 30,000 or something like that. Port Moody, Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam again with 100,000 stage.

But in the City of Kamloops what are we talking about there, Mr. Speaker? There are 25,600 people in the City of Kamloops, 3,700 roughly in Valleyview, 8,500 roughly in Brocklehurst, 850 in Dufferin, 4,000 in Westside. Altogether including all the unorganised areas something like 50,000 people.

Even in 1968 the Minister had comment. He even attended a meeting of the Planning Institute of British Columbia up in Parksville, Mr. Speaker, and at that meeting in Parksville in '67 he said again that the lower mainland municipalities must amalgamate within two years.

That was the deadline for Port Moody, Coquitlam, North Vancouver, Abbotsford, Sumas, Matsqui, and so on. He even said it again, Mr. Speaker, in 1968 in a speech to the Chamber of Commerce. He said: "There is no hope whatsoever of solving some of our problems that we face if we do not re-examine political boundaries." He said further there is a great waste of municipal capital today because of duplications of services of the next door municipality and this simply means that it prevents other worthwhile projects from going ahead. No argument. That was in the early days of the Minister.

In Kamloops however, local people did begin to recognise the serious problems that they faced in the Kamloops urban area. The city thought seriously about extending its boundaries and the regional district tried to deal with some of the problems but clearly it wasn't working so a hearing was held in the Kamloops area by the Minister in Kamloops in October, 1970.

Twenty or 25 briefs were submitted to the Minister from places like Valleyview and Brocklehurst, the City of Kamloops and from many, many developers — and the loudest of the developers was Charlie Bennett.

Some members in this House may recall Charlie Bennett. He filled the galleries with his Kamloops faithfuls when the local M.L.A. was under attack with respect to Del Cielo and related interests in the Kamloops area. I won't bore the House with the details of that. I think everybody is familiar with that.

On October 17, 1970, Charlie Bennett of George Field Developments Ltd. said in a preliminary brief for the Minister: "We've not been able to get zoning changes to allow for light industrial or C4 zoning and no zoning permission for residential building. We have been trying to get the zoning for three years now and the refusals are mainly the result of the city's objections."

And he said: "The regional district has also refused as well." It's pretty clear what was bothering Charlie Bennett, Mr. Speaker. He wanted high value zoning in the Del Cielo area and the regional district wouldn't give it to him and the city wouldn't give it to him.

The city published its brief on October 22, 1970, Mr. Speaker, and what they proposed was a rational scheme. They proposed a major new city that would involve several communities such as Valleyview, Brocklehurst, Westside, Springhill, Mission Flats, and they proposed some kind of a ward system at least in the transition period so that there

[ Page 249 ]

could be local representation.

They pointed out that they did have high taxes in the City of Kamloops for example, that in the use of the sports arena 50 per cent of the people that used the recreation facility actually came from outside the city boundaries. They proposed expanding the boundaries to take in some of these new major industries — worth in fact $100 million — on the outskirts of the city so that they would have a decent tax base for the people of the community. Again, it was good sound local leadership in the Kamloops area and in fact it was even endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce. But Charlie Bennett was still speaking out, Mr. Speaker. On October 28, 1970, he was quoted in the Kamloops Daily Sentinel:

Mr. Bennett said the City of Kamloops is in the land development business where it doesn't belong and it isn't welcome.

Good heavens! The kind of thing that's being done in Prince George, the kind of thing that's being done in Saskatoon, the kind of thing that's being done in Ottawa, in some of the genuinely progressive communities of this nation.

Mr. Bennett contended that if the Minister allows zoning requests in one area then his area — that is Bennett's area — should receive the same approval. Otherwise the Minister's office is giving patronage to the City of Kamloops and discriminating against George Field Developments Limited.

He said and it was quoted in the Vancouver Province later, Mr. Speaker. That is Mr. Bennett said:

The Thompson-Nicola regional district has repeatedly refused him zoning and Kamloops Alderman Romano is regional chairman in the district, so Bennett said there may be a conflict of interests.

A conflict of interests! This is one time that I'm willing to bow to an expert.

There was a long hearing. The Minister heard various submissions and what did it produce, Mr. Speaker? It produced a short report a month later from the Minister. Whose advice did the Minister follow? Certainly not the city's.

November 24, the Minister turned the city request down to expand its boundaries. He gave no reason. He had no reference to any of his earlier speeches, surprisingly, about North Van. city and district. About Abbotsford, Matsqui, about the Coquitlam — that's from the days when he used to talk to the planners. Instead he recommended a committee. He recommended a committee of the regional district to administer services in the Greater Kamloops area.

What about those fat industries that were being undertaxed, Mr. Speaker? Those fat industries that could lower the tax payments of every home-owner in the City of Kamloops? The oil refineries. The LaFarge cement plant? The Weyerhauser pulp mill.

No, said the Minister, the industries will keep out of the noose of the city. Here's the reason the Minister gave.

The Minister said for the time being the pulp mill and oil refinery in the area should not be included in any municipality for tax purposes. But it should be a part of the regional district's tax base. Kamloops had asked that the pulp mill be brought within the city boundary.

What the Minister didn't say — and that's always more interesting than what he does say — is that in fact the industries could support both the City of Kamloops and the regional district. That's what happens in many other areas.

It's true to the Bennett years. That misinformation is part of the game plan. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? The city's general mil rate is 22.75 mils in the City of Kamloops now. The regional tax rate is 12 mils. Those industries outside the city boundaries, those freeloaders on the central community, should be paying both taxes in the city and in the region. Instead the Minister chose to give them the 12 mil rate rather than the 22 mil rate. He decided that those industries deserve half-price taxes and that the home-owners in the city deserve double taxation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Soak the poor, profit the rich.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And after those specious arguments with respect to the industries outside the city boundary, Mr. Speaker, the Minister expressed his concern about the lack of co-ordination in the Kamloops area. Then he said, he was feeling really gutsy by this stage, he said that "already a measure of unacceptable ribbon development is evident along the highways in the Kamloops area." An unacceptable level of ribbon development. But was he going to let the City of Kamloops deal with unacceptable ribbon development on the edge of the city? Not on your life.

Shades of Del Cielo, George Field, Charlie Bennett and all, the people that were involved in ribbon developments along the highway.

Even in the Bennett years, Mr. Speaker, statements like that take real guts. Then, Mr. Speaker, the Minister allowed the incorporation of Valleyview which is to the east, and the incorporation of Brocklehurst — and so much for the ideas with respect to Port Coquitlam and all the rest of it.

Clearly, everything the Minister has stood for in earlier years with respect to rational city government in this province was negotiable.

Then there was a period of consolidation of gains, Mr. Speaker. Gains by the developers, by the major industries and by the other freeloaders. The city sat back and consolidated its losses.

Then at the end of the last session of this parliament there was an announcement. There was a petition to create the new community of Dufferin and letters patents were granted on March 30, 1971, printed in the Gazette, May 20, 1971. Letters patent for the District of Dufferin.

Dufferin is an interesting community, Mr. Speaker. Did Charlie Bennett complain about the creation of Dufferin? Not on your life. What was the shape of the new municipality? What kind of configuration did Dufferin have? What kind of planner is this Member from Comox? Well let's just have a look. Let's look at the kind of planner the Member from Comox is.

This is the Kamloops area, Mr. Speaker. Everything coloured in yellow on this map is the present City of Kamloops and it includes the old city here on the south side of the Thompson and includes the old big village of North Kamloops. That's all the present City of Kamloops. Rather than let the city rationally expand its boundaries, he chose to accept after a suitable length of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: After a vote of the people.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, but only in the immediate area — because this is a boundary game, a numbers game and you move the boundaries with the numbers you want. That's the name of the game and the Minister knows it.

The District of Dufferin is everything that's in red. Here is the Trans-Canada highway leading into Kamloops and here's the highway leading out to Merritt. Down here is the Thompson. The other red area is a kind of umbilical cord

[ Page 250 ]

that ties this area to this area. This little red piece that's still within the district boundaires is simply the C.P.R. railway track. That's appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because it really was a railway job. There's no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Planner!

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: When the Minister plays planner it's a kind of snakes and ladders game in which the dice are loaded against the local people.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a headache!

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the District of Dufferin includes the controversial Del Cielo property. It includes that property where Mr. Bennett says he had trouble getting the zoning he wanted from the City of Kamloops. He had trouble getting it from the regional district. Well, how might he fare in the new District of Dufferin?

AN HON. MEMBER: What a headache. They should call that state Bufferin. (Laughter).

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: There's no question. There's no question. It is a headache and the Minister knows it. It's the gerrymander of the century in municipal politics in British Columbia. That is a rather fitting project for the centennial year and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: But beyond including the Del Cielo area in this district of Dufferin what does it do in addition? What does the C.P.R. umbilical cord do? What it does in the snakiest boundary manoeuvre in municipal politics in this province is to cut off the City of Kamloops from being adjacent to the Weyerhauser pulp mill. It means that it's the District of Dufferin that's going to be near the pulp mill, the $100 million tax asset.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll never get it.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ha, ha, those are tough words from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Tough, tough words from a Minister that at every stage, at every stage has caved in to the Member from Kamloops. In the Kamloops area the Member from Kamloops gets what the Member from Kamloops wants and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: That gerrymander clearly came before the cabinet. The two both walked into the cabinet chamber, no doubt, and discussed their points of view.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And look what came out. Look what came out. What came out is what the Member from Kamloops wanted and what the supporters of the Member from Kamloops wanted. That's what came out of that cabinet meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that why you're mad at us?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: You know, that gerrymander boundary even takes away the City of Kamloops work yard. The city's own works yard is in the District of Dufferin.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And there's a hotel down there in this end, Mr. Speaker. They put the hotel in Dufferin because there's some tax value in a hotel and they put the front yard of the hotel in the City of Kamloops. Kamloops gets the vacant lot in front of the hotel and Dufferin gets the hotel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kamloops gets the drunks and the other part sells the beer.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: It just may be that the Minister's hand was a little unsteady when these boundaries were drawn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or tied.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe he got a kind of guiding hand from the Member from Kamloops and a friend of the Member from Kamloops. Because after all, the Member from Kamloops, the Hon. Member, is very good at drawing lines on maps. There's just no question about that — why the former Minister shifted a whole highway to intercept with the right lines on maps. So the Minister of Municipal Affairs was dealing with a self-taught expert when he was dealing with the Member from Kamloops.

There may be a little spirit left in the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He still has small-scale fights in public with the Member from Kamloops but in the crunch the boys from Kamloops get what they want. But just to make it clear, just to make it clear who is boss in the Kamloops area, they went and named a new mayor for Dufferin. They appointed a mayor.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's hypocrisy.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: And who was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was appointed? Who was appointed?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I presume it was an ministerial appointment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you pick his name out of a hat?

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: The man, of course, was none other than Charlie Bennett. Mayor Charlie Bennett.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. RA. WILLIAMS: And who presented the letters patent to the new municipality? Why it wasn't the planner over there. It was the Member from Kamloops.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was fitting.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: On that occasion the Member from Kamloops kind of knocked the Minister a little bit but

[ Page 251 ]

only a little bit. The Member from Kamloops presented the letters patent to Mayor Charlie Bennett.

AN HON. MEMBER: "Here, Charlie old pal."

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: ….and what did the developer, I mean the mayor, say on that auspicious occasion? Why he said that the city council there in Dufferin will most likely continue to hold its meetings in the George Field estate office, "which I have made available to the council rent free." Rent free! That was a sweet victory indeed and it was worth $35 a month rent.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how you beat City Hall…. Take it over…. Never mind the voters.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: But at what price? At what price, Mr. Speaker, was this to the citizens of Kamloops? At what price was all of this activity to a decent, progressive municipal policy throughout the province and at what price to the self-esteem of the Minister of Municipal Affairs? I suggest it was an incredibly high price to the Minister and to the rest of us. But it's the kind of typical activity in the later part of the Bennett years in British Columbia. It is simply the story of a failure. It is the biography of a fake. It is about the people who are our government — the hollow men on the other side of the House.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. TISDALLE: The Hon. the second Member for Vancouver East indicated that the meeting that I attended on November 8.…

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

AN HON. MEMBER: We want our point of order, the Hon. Member was speaking.

MR. TISDALLE: He mislead the House and I wanted to correct him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Hon. Member will proceed with his point of order.

MR. TISDALLE: November 8 — the meeting that was referred to — was not for approval neither had my being there anything to do with tantamountly approving it. It was just a preview and I wanted the House to know that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member made his statement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want a ruling on whether or not that statement is going in the records. Because I claim that the Member was out of order and he wasn't in his seat and he didn't even make a correct reference to what the Member said. How can he possibly know? I rise in my seat on a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not in order in his contention. The Member has a right to raise the point.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: No, I want an answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just one moment. Any Member has the right to make his statement and the House will accept that.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services): I would ask Mr. Speaker to recall that if he rules that because he was out of the House at the critical time this Member was not able to speak, the conclusion would be that another Hon. Member could say anything he liked about a Member as long as the offended Hon. Member was not in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no speaking to the point of order.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, you did not hand down your ruling, thereby denying this House the opportunity to challenge your ruling, and I suggest that was an error, Mr. Speaker. If it was a point of order you have the obligation to make your ruling and you did not do so, but instead allowed the Member to make his statement which I suggest is most improper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Member raised a point of order. There was no ruling made.…

AN HON. MEMBER: You made a ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I allowed the Member to raise his point of order, period.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, there is a overruling point of order that in rising to correct a statement a Member must not himself make a statement that is untrue and misleads the House, and that's what that Member did, and that's when he should have been ruled out of order. And Mr. Speaker, that's why a Member who was not in the House when the statement was made should not be allowed to get up and make any reference whatsoever because he has been misinformed about what was said and the Member in trying to make his point of order himself misled the House, and misinformed the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The statements have been made. The Honourable second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to once again take my place in this debate on the throne speech, and to represent, along with the Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, that great constituency of Vancouver South.

I would like to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the motion that is now under debate. Both the Honourable Member for Richmond (Mr. LeCours) and the Honourable Member for Shuswap (Mr. Jefcoat) deserve top marks for their excellent addresses.

[ Page 252 ]

Congratulations are also in order to the Honourable Member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who has been elevated to the Cabinet with the portfolio of Minister of Labour. He has already gained the support of both management and labour and he is doing a fantastic job. I wish him success in all his efforts to maintain stability in the labour-management field.

And as for the Opposition party well, Mr. Speaker, they are the only group with Opposition experience. Let's keep them there forever.

Once again they have complained that the throne speech contains very little information for them. However let us remember that the matter of debate in a democratic Parliament demands that the Opposition offer justified criticism, and positive, responsible suggestions for improved legislation.

Surely the Opposition doesn't expect the government to do the thinking for them? The government already provides a special research consultant for the Opposition party in order to facilitate its work, to present constructive criticism.

If the government were to disclose in the throne speech all of the avenues of action it intends to take, then the Opposition parties would complain that the government was making political promises that were intended to hamper the style of the Opposition parties' contribution to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to note in the throne speech that the much-needed Knight Street bridge located in the Vancouver South constituency is progressing on schedule, and that hopefully it will be completed by the end of this year.

A very welcome announcement made by the Premier of our province on June 11 this past year, was the new programme of assistance in the building of special care homes for the citizens of the province.

I initiated action in this regard in my constituency and I am very pleased to announce that as soon as the working drawings are approved by the government the first sod-turning will take place in the southeast sector of Vancouver South, known as Champlain Heights, where the Kopernik Foundation, a non-profit organisation, will build a 109-unit special care home.

A further extension in the form of an 80-unit wing devoted to special care will also be added to the German-Canadian Benevolent Society senior citizens home in another area of the Vancouver South constituency. The Finnish Canadian rest home in still another area of the constituency is also considering extending its work into the field of special care.

Building more special care homes will certainly satisfy the long felt need for boarding house accommodation at reasonable cost for those of our citizens requiring a limited degree of medical and nursing supervision in their daily lives.

Mr. Speaker, the financial assistance in the form of a 35 per cent outright grant from the provincial government is greatly appreciated by the people of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. KRIPPS: That's right, it's the only level of government in Canada that pays any outright grants. Let's see if the federal government could come up with it.

Personally, I don't think we can have a better arrangement than that of government and community-minded public-spirited citizens working together, satisfying the need for personal care services for our elderly.

The membership of non-profit organisations derives a great sense of pride from its efforts to provide special care homes, to which they give a real heart and soul, and the community in turn also benefits. It's wonderful harmonious relationship of government and people working together.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed this year that in the parliamentary dining room the air is much more pleasant to breathe and the heavy tobacco smoke which was prevalent in past years is no longer there. I think this is commendable! It shows that some of our smokers are at least considerate of non-smokers.

These smokers are, in fact, being very responsible and are not denying the privilege of non-smokers to breathe air that is free from second-hand tobacco smoke.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that such responsible action be carried out voluntarily by the community at large, and places that are open to the public where smokers and non-smokers congregate should provide areas for those who wish to choke themselves to death by smoking.

I understand that some of the airlines and several restaurants in Vancouver have already implemented this practice.

I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that within the realm of our area of jurisdiction, we set an example to the community and refrain from smoking in the presence of non-smokers, and this applies to our caucus room.

Perhaps the Minister of Public Works could allocate a small room somewhere in the buildings to be designated as a Smoking Room, and anyone wishing to smoke could do it in peace and quiet, away from us non-smokers.

Mr. Speaker, another area of concern to me is the image and respect for that great humanitarian profession, the doctors. They have, and are providing high quality medical care at a high rate of remuneration for their services.

From the response to my questionnaire regarding the doctors' desire to increase their fees, I have received an indication that doctors are in fact more than adequately remunerated for their services at present, and that an increase in fees at this time is unjustifiable.

Doctors are human beings too and they can, and some of them in fact do, make mistakes and send a bill for a job which in fact they did not perform. Such an instance occurred in our family. The government in fact paid a doctor who had sent a bill for treatment of my healthy husband. We did not know the doctor, and yet he was collecting payment for treatment which in fact he did not render.

There have been other instances and complaints which I have received, indicating that some of the doctors were in fact taking advantage of a good medicare programme — one of the best programmes on the North American continent, thanks to the vision of our government to provide quality health care services to our people.

However, Mr. Speaker, if we are to maintain this high standard of health care, we must make every effort to curtail the escalating costs of this service or we could end up with no service at all.

Let me cite just some of the abuses that have come to my attention this past year.

An elderly couple, for example, on a visit to the doctor's office were in fact being attended by the doctor, in the same room together. I guess you could call this "group therapy", and when the doctor sent in his bill, it was for two separate office visits. I guess the doctor in question was being efficient with his time, at the expense of the government who paid the bill for two individual visits rather than one.

Another complaint concerned a patient who happened to

[ Page 253 ]

have met his doctor in the shopping centre. But, let me tell you that friendly meeting with the doctor — with an exchange of "Hello", "How are you?" — cost the government money, for the doctor in question sent a bill in for that service.

People have complained to me that they would have to sit as long as two hours in the doctor's office. Why would a doctor book so many appointments if he knows that he cannot see the patient at that time? Surely he must have an idea of how long it takes to give a general examination?

On another occasion, it was brought to my attention that the nurse was relieved that she no longer worked for a certain doctor, because she could now go to bed with a clear conscience. She was sick and tired of padding the appointment book for the doctor.

More recently, I completed an investigation after receiving a complaint verbally and I asked for it to be in writing, which indicated after my investigation that the doctor in question had overcharged two-and-a-half times the amount allowed in the fee schedule.

These are some of the complaints that I had. How many are there that may go unnoticed?

MR. DOWDING: What do you do with them?

MRS. KRIPPS: I refer them to the correct department for action.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the fear that the people have expressed to me in reporting the names of the various doctors. The people are afraid that they may not receive medical attention. This is not a healthy situation.

I believe there is too much secrecy about this self-policing system within the medical profession. It is time the public was made aware of the urgent need to help us in our efforts to maintain a high-quality health care programme which the taxpayer can and will support.

If the medical profession, for which I have the greatest respect and regard, is to maintain the respect of the community, they must do a better job of policing themselves, and we as a government must make it more difficult for the doctor to collect payment for services not rendered. There must be better accountability. Doctors are not untouchable.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to all citizens in the province to assist the government and the medical profession in their efforts to clean house and eliminate those who are in fact abusing the system.

I am asking the public to check their receipts very carefully to make sure that the payments made on their behalf are in order. And if for any reason they doubt the expense, please get in touch with your local member of the legislative assembly and report your concern.

Mr. Speaker, in this legislative assembly the Attorney General reported that he had urged the federal government to forbid the sale of toxic solvents found in nail-polish remover and other products to anyone under 16 years of age. This I wholeheartedly support.

However, to date no evident results of his efforts have been forthcoming from the federal government. Maybe the federal government didn't have time to do anything positive because they were so busy reshuffling cabinet posts. But I am not interested in excuses. I want results. I want action, and I want it now.

Sniffing nail-polish remover has reached almost epidemic proportions, particularly in the Raymur public housing project in Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, this is the culprit — the culprit that is destroying the delicate brain cells of our children. This is the name they proudly advertise in the front of their label. "Cutex," and on the back of the bottle, on the label it says the name of the manufacturer, Cheseborough Ponds, (Canada) Ltd., Markham, Ontario.

While it is true that the courts have declared that the provincial government's efforts to legislate against the problem are outside its power, nevertheless we must find a way to curb this stupid solvent-sniffing fad.

I endorse all the proposals already expressed in this legislative assembly, both for the short-term cure and also the long-range programme of education.

And while we wait for results from the Attorney General's investigation into the possibility of prosecuting vendors under the Juvenile Delinquents' Act and the possible removal of vendors' business licences, I wish to bring to the attention of this legislative assembly that there are nail-polish removers on the market now that do not lend themselves to kicks because of the additives they contain.

The products I speak of are: "Dura Gloss Remover," manufactured by Winarick Canada Ltd.; a nail-polish remover by Revlon International Corporation and another nail-polish remover by Yardley's of London. And there may be others.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of sniffing nail-polish remover is not new. It has been with us for a number of years, but recent public attention has been focussed on this problem by the outcries of mothers in the Raymur housing project who mobilised themselves to express their concern in a most dramatic and spectacular manner. I wish to congratulate these mothers for their efforts.

I believe parental concern is one of the first and best methods we can use to beat the sniffing kick which causes irreparable brain damage to our young children. While it is true that the company was not manufacturing an illegal product, nevertheless it must have been aware of the fact that "Cutex" nail-polish remover was not being used for purposes intended. Yet the company did nothing about it. This shows a complete lack of social responsibility, social conscience and good corporate citizenship — all for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all citizens, in the interest of protecting our youth from this devastating scourge, to demonstrate their indignation by refusing to buy all Cheseborough Ponds products. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to all retail outlets to stop selling "Cutex" nail-polish remover and to remove it from the shelves and return it to the manufacturer for a refund.

Such drastic action by the community will certainly alert the company in question to live up to its moral and social responsibility.

As another suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I propose that legislation be enacted, making it illegal in the Province of British Columbia, to sell without an additive any product containing a volatile solvent that may be used for purposes other than intended. I would further suggest that a list of such products that may be abused, be prepared by the Pharmaceutical Association of British Columbia. This list may be enlarged or deleted by the Attorney General's department from time to time. Such proposed legislation should be vigorously enforced and all violators punished by law. Just letting the situation drift along and hoping that conditions will improve by themselves is unrealistic and unworthy of us as responsible legislators.

Another area of concern to me is the 5 per cent social

[ Page 254 ]

service tax. This tax no longer applies to periodicals, magazines, pocket and comic books and yet printed matter in book form, for example, Ron Worley's book, "The Wonderful World of W.A.C. Bennett" and all other hard cover books are still subject to 5 per cent sales tax.

In my opinion such a social service tax structure as it now stands in regards to all literature, constitutes discrimination. A book such as this written in a straight-from-the-heart, down-to-earth approach to tell the Bennett story like it is in a like-it-was fashion is recommended for everybody and yet you have to pay sales tax. I don't agree with it.

Therefore, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance, the Premier of our province, rescind the social service tax on all literature, regardless of the form in which it may be printed. Anybody wanting a copy of the book — I know you've all read it because you were dying to know what's in it — please put your orders in. Unsolicited commercial.

Members to the House of Commons in Ottawa are elected on a local area representation basis. Similarly, members to the legislative assembly in Victoria are elected on a local area basis. However, the City of Vancouver elects its aldermen on a city-wide basis, commonly known as the "at-large system."

I think the time has come for the City of Vancouver to also have local area representation. Area representation would provide the citizens a better feeling of neighbourhood participation and interest in the activities of the Vancouver City Council. It could also form the structural basis for greater citizen participation in the area of social services, planning, recreation and cultural services. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to bring in legislation, in the form of an amendment to the Vancouver City Charter, that would enable the Vancouver City Council, if so desired, to institute a system of area representation. Such proposed legislation should be proclaimed by June 1, 1972, to permit the City of Vancouver to make use of it during the 1972 civic election, if it so desired. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest similar enabling legislation be considered for all municipalities in the Province of British Columbia.

In federal and provincial elections, eligible electors who are hospitalised have an opportunity to vote. However, such is not the case in municipal elections and for a city the size of Vancouver to deny its eligible electors the voting privilege because they are hospitalised, is indeed discrimination.

I think that provisions should be made for all eligible persons who may be patients in an acute, extended-care, private hospital, or rest home, to have an opportunity to cast their ballot whenever a municipal election is held, or a vote is needed on a particular bylaw.

I would therefore suggest that an amendment be made to the Vancouver City Charter for such provision, and that such enabling legislation be extended to all municipalities in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian government announced that the term of office of the Right Honourable Roland Michener as Governor-General of Canada has been extended for another year to April, 1973. This announcement was received by Canadians with general approval, for Mr. Michener has maintained the high prestige of the Canadian vice-regal office established by his distinguished predecessors. However, the extension of his tenure has brought up for open discussion a question, important to all Canadians: who is going to be our next Governor-General?

I think one of the reasons why a new appointment was not made at this time is that of an upcoming federal election.

Another reason is the assumption that his successor should be a French Canadian, and there is no rush to have a French Canadian as Governor-General while we have a French Canadian as Prime Minister and French Canadians as Speakers of both the House of Commons and the Senate.

I think that the selection of the next Governor-General should be made from the forgotten one-third of Canadian citizens that are neither French nor English. I am certain that many worthy candidates can be found from among them. There are many strong and valid reasons why I think the next Governor-General should be neither English nor French.

First of all, such an appointment would remove the concept of French versus English monopoly of public appointments to high office. This is a repugnant concept and is contrary to the principle of full equality of citizenship for all Canadians, whatever their ethnocultural background may be. It is an undemocratic exclusivity which is discriminatory in nature.

Let us for a moment also look at the office of the Governor-General from a historical point of view. During the first stage, this highly prestigious office was the exclusive prerogative of the British government, and only Britons were appointed. The second stage began when a Canadian citizen was first appointed as Governor-General in the highly-respected person of Vincent Massey, who personified an ideal combination of a scholar and a gentlemen.

We are now in the third stage when Canada's nationhood has been placed on the French versus English bargaining table with each registering their exclusive claim to one-half of all the privileges of Canadian citizenship. The fourth stage in the development of the office of Governor-General is yet to come.

Somehow, the natural rights to full citizenship of one-third of Canadian citizens who are of other than French or English ancestry have so far been stubbornly ignored, including the right to be appointed to the office of Governor-General. Somehow it seems natural for French and English Canadians to naively assume the discriminatory exclusivity of the office of the Governor-General for the French and English Canadians only. No others need apply.

There is no better time than the present to usher in the fourth stage. The stage of democratic enlightenment in Canada in the selection of our next Governor-General. The requirement that the Governor-General must be either French and Catholic or English and Protestant should be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, I would therefore suggest that the next Governor-General of Canada be chosen from any of the ethnic and aboriginals, and the choice should not be restricted to males only. This same consideration should be extended to appointments of Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces of Canada. Such a move would be a step forward to a full democratic nationhood of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the Province of Quebec, the English language serves as a common denominator for all Canadians, not only across Canada but virtually over the entire continent. It is the language of instruction and education, administration and commerce, because it is a common medium of communication, a practical economic and social necessity.

However, as a result of protests from the Province of Quebec — that the terms of the British North America Act were not fully complied with and that the French language and culture were slowly disappearing — with the blessing of the former Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson, a

[ Page 255 ]

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was created in 1963. Because the work of this commission has become the dominant influence in discussion of Canadian cultural life, we sometimes tend to think that the commission started the whole process.

However, it must not be forgotten that the Canadian "cultural mosaic" as contrasted with the American "melting pot," has been an aim for many years. At the turn of the century, Sir Wilfred Laurier suggested that the Canada he wanted to see would be like the gothic cathedrals he saw in Europe. He said that the cathedral is made of marble, oak and granite. He then went on to say:

It is the image of the nation I would like to see Canada become. For here I want the marble to remain the marble: the granite to remain the granite: the oak to remain the oak: and out of all these elements I would build a nation great among the nations of the world.

Mr. Speaker, our pluralistic society became a necessity for Canada niore than a century before Sir Wilfred Laurier. It became inevitable in 1763 when, following the defeat of the French by the British on the Plains of Abraham in 1759, New France was ceded to Great Britain. From that time on, when the British conquerors realised that they could neither liquidate nor assimilate the French-speaking population on the banks of the St. Lawrence, it became clear that this land would not be unilingual and homogeneous.

Once the Quebec Act of 1774 recognised that a person did not have to be an English-speaking Protestant to participate in public life, these same rights had to be granted to others as well. Once these "others" started to enter Canada later in the 19th century, it became clear that there was not going to be just one way to be Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasise that this is one of the important distinctions between Canada and the United States and a distinction which is important for us to preserve. We do not, and have not in the past, spoken of one Canadian way of life. Ever since the British conquered the French, this country has permitted different groups to live their own different ways, while yet being the equal of one another. In response to the fourth volume of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which concerned itself with the contribution by other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada, and the measure that should be taken to safeguard that contribution, the federal government officially pronounced its multicultural policy for Canada on October 8, 1971.

I think this was an important, though long overdue, recognition of this so-called ethnic contribution to the development of Canada. I consider this recognition a triumph of justice and proper evaluation of the Canadian reality.

We are now facing a new era in the life of our nation marked by a planned "just cultural society" for the "just society," the first-class citizenship for all Canadians.

On October 8, 1971 the multicultural statement of policy was subscribed to by all the federal political leaders of the country. Whatever the practical results of the new multicultural policy of the federal government in the near future might be, its ideological basis is most appealing and far reaching. It reads among others as follows and I quote:

Ethnic pluralism can help us overcome or prevent the homogenisation and depersonalisation of mass society. Vibrant ethnic groups can give Canadians of the second, third and subsequent generations a feeling that they are connected with tradition and with human experience in various parts of the world and different periods of time.…

The sense of identity developed by each citizen as a unique individual is distinct from his national allegiance. There is no reason to suppose that a citizen who identifies himself with pride as a Chinese-Canadian, who is deeply involved in the cultural activities of the Chinese community in Canada, will be less loyal or concerned with Canadian matters than a citizen of Scottish origin who takes part in the life of his community; his identity is not the same thing as allegiance to a country. Each of us is born into a particular family with a distinct heritage; that is, everyone — French, English, Italian, and Slav included — has an "ethnic" background. The more secure we feel in one particular social context, the more we are free to explore our identity beyond it.

Ethnic groups often provide people with a sense of belonging which can make them better able to cope with the rest of society than they would as isolated individuals. Ethnic loyalties need not, and usually do not, detract from wider loyalties to community and country.

Unfounded fears that through a multicultural policy Canada would become "Balkanised", are persuasively annulled by such statements as, and I quote:

Canadian identity will not be undermined by multiculturalism. Indeed, we believe that cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity.

Every ethnic group has the right to preserve and develop its own culture and values within the Canadian context. To say we have two official languages is not to say we have two official cultures, and no particular culture is more official than another. The policy of multiculturalism must be a policy for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I endorse and welcome this multicultural concept because I think it is the only logical choice for Canada. Multiculturalism is a realistic and inevitable future for Canada.

Yet, with all due respect and approval of this new development in the internal life of Canada, there are still some outstanding problems awaiting their ultimate solution.

First, it is unknown what funds in concrete terms will be set aside by the federal government for the implementation of the planned multicultural development.

Secondly, some federal agencies, like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, are still reluctant to undertake any changes.

Thirdly, the provincial governments, with few exceptions, are waiting with their policy formulation in this regard.

And last, but not least, there is no indication noticeable to confirm all the above solutions in the form of a legal constitutional recognition.

Thus, the postponed Victoria charter of 1971 did not guarantee any legal rights for the other ethnic groups, be it in linquistic or any other sphere of public life.

The Canadian society as a whole, and its governments in particular, are awaiting for the ultimate word in this respect. Perhaps this word will come from the inter-parliamentary constitution committee which is now preparing its final report.

I hope the constitution committee's report will be as much historically oriented towards the "other ethnic groups" as was the administrative proclamation of October 8.

Despite all the above shortcomings, the new stand of the federal government is an unprecedented step towards building a just society on just premises. If all the programmes, including constitutional recognition are completed, great

[ Page 256 ]

progress will be achieved, and naturally the national interest of Canadian life will profit in building up Canada, not only strong and free, but also exemplary for other nations of the world.

If the federal government does not come up with a firm budget to implement the various multicultural programmes outlined in the October 8 multicultural policy statement, then that statement becomes a hollow proclamation of promises designed to recapture the western votes which the Liberal party has been losing by the thousands over the last few years.

By contrast, Mr. Speaker, we in British Columbia are indeed very fortunate to have a $10 million perpetual British Columbia cultural fund — the only one of its kind in Canada.

And in anticipation of greatly expanded activity in the cultural field, I recommend that the Government of British Columbia establish a Department of Cultural Affairs for the purpose of co-ordinating the need to protect cultural values and to invigorate cultural activites.

Our cultural development is in need of systematic planning and long-term objectives and policies in much the same way as education and science. In my opinion worthwhile cultural policy is nothing more or less, than a plan for civilisation.

I would further suggest Mr. Speaker, that the Government of British Columbia give statutory recognition and protection of our multicultural society through enactment of a British Columbia Cultural Heritage Act.

I would also suggest that a British Columbia cultural heritage conference be held with a view to incorporating the wishes and desires of our people for short- and long-term programmes aimed at achieving a unique Canadian cultural identity, cultivated, nourished, and grown on Canadian soil.

With these thoughts in mind, let us then draw nourishment and inspiration from our past, and go forth into the future with deep faith, courage, determination and experience to build a truly united Canadian nation, and an even greater and more prosperous British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to start by reminding everyone in the House that this evening in Sapporo, Japan, the Canadian Olympic team will start the first of the competitions in the Olympic games and I'm sure that this House will join with me and share with me the telegram that was sent by the Premier of British Columbia stating:

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE LEGISLATURE AND THE CITIZENS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JOIN ME IN WISHING OUR CANADIAN ATHLETES AND ESPECIALLY THOSE FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA EVERY SUCCESS IN THE 1972 WINTER OLYMPICS.

And I am sure that all of you join with me.

We're in the tenth day, Mr. Speaker, of the debate on the throne speech and I can tell by the very diligent interested concerned looks that everyone has enjoyed the debate so far. They've been stirring, stimulating, I am sure you will all agree, and I can tell just by your appearance here Mr. Speaker, how much you have enjoyed the debate until the present time.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to close off the debate for the back bench. Somebody once described a backbencher as something like Raquel Welch's elbow, everybody knows she has one but they don't always pay that much attention to it. I'm suggesting, of course, that isn't the case in our government because they do listen to what all members of our front, back and all benches have to say. I know that many of you have listened and I'm sure that in spite of the fact that when the Leader of the Opposition commented about how many were back in the House this year and welcomed everyone back — and certainly we all do welcome everyone back, particularly I think the Member from Vancouver Burrard, the first Member (Mr. Merilees) who it is a great tribute to his courage and we're particularly pleased to have him back in the House with us at this time — but in welcoming everyone back, I also did want to pay tribute to the members of the Press who are again with us this year and particularly to James Nesbit who went through a very serious eye operation.

I know now that he does see us better, he will not necessarily like us more but he will once again keep us up-to-date on the things that we are supposed to have said.

I see that there have been some changes, everyone has commented on them. There have been people moving from one side of the House to the other. I would like your indulgence to paraphrase a tiny bit of Rudyard Kipling who once said that, "Cec is Cec and Tory is Tory and never the twain shall meet. Until that final judgment day when Scott Wallace loses his seat." (Laughter).

There have been other changes of course. In the last week I was a little surprised there weren't more changes, the changes that were announced out of Ottawa and the cabinet shuffle. I thought it has to be one of the most flagrant displays of political manoeuvering that this country has ever seen. I was surprised that the Members of the Liberal Party have not commented on a situation which at this time so vital in our history that literally we are without government.

Somebody once said that they were going to destroy the Canadian government but they couldn't find it. And I would have to think that at this moment in time, getting ready, just because they are approaching an election, they have shifted those Ministers out of vital responsibilities. There is no way one can justify a move other than on the political expediency of having them re-elected.

It means that every department of the major departments of government in Ottawa today are without responsible Ministers that understand what is taking place in that particular department. I think it is a shuffle which has to be called the shim-sham shuffle or the fuddle-duddle shuffle — whichever one you want to give — and I think at this time it's something that someone on that side of the House is going to have to make some comment on.

There have been some other changes. As I said I was interested by the comments of the Member from the Conservative Party. I thought that the way he proclaimed his new platform that he had found them in the rushes and they should have been on tablets of stone.

I've also been intrigued by the statements by various Members of the Opposition as to what happened between the last session and this. If the Members of the Opposition have done anything, according to what they've said one major programme has been that of losing weight.

The Member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) lost weight and ended up growing a moustache — we always understood what a Marxian Socialist is, we now know what a Groucho Marxian Socialist is. (Laughter). We also know that the Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) lost weight and whether that was done from stomping grapes I'm not sure but I know how

[ Page 257 ]

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) lost weight — from jumping on and off the American bandwagon. (Laughter).

Because there has been no greater example, that I know of, of positions that have changed as rapidly a position of pro- and anti-American as displayed by that small group. It was interesting yesterday to listen to the Member from Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) who went on to describe the tremendous pro feeling that they had and then to describe what was anti-American — I'm sure that at no time has he fully read the Watkins Report — so I intend to read the statement. It's been said before, but surely a statement that "the American empire is the central reality for Canadians and it is an empire characterised by militarism abroad and racism at home" — is anti-American — and of course we know that four members, from Burnaby North, and the Member from Burnaby Willingdon, and the first Member from Vancouver East — it seems to me that what they are playing is a great game of ante — ante — I — over and they are particularly trying to get the ball back into the American side of the court.

They feel that there is some great advantage to them. They have been having a tremendous time trying to justify various positions and I am sure that the Member from Cowichan-Malahat must have some small regret when he said there is a great difference in the cultures on the opposite side of the border and our side of the border because theirs as a race is founded on revolution and violence.

It's amazing, but I picked up out of the library a book on the story of Scotland and I'm not saying that there was violence and revolution but in the first 750 years there doesn't seem to be any period of less than three years in which they are not fighting somebody.

It is rather intriguing to me how suddenly the Hon. Member has become a peaceful loving citizen while those people who in 1776 decided that they were going to revolt are now a member of society founded in violence and based on a militarism as such. But what is even more intriguing as they have this giant love-in on the opposite side is the position that they have taken with Hydro. It just seems such a short time ago though that Hydro was a Hydro-headed monster and they were standing and disclaiming the terrible great Hydro that was being built and how it was overwhelming the Province of British Columbia.

Yesterday the Member from Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) said that they went down and took credit for the whole thing. They told the Americans: "We did it. Ours. Hydro belongs to us."

More than that, they are now stating Hydro should be given far more weight, far more responsibility, because after all it is a responsible corporate citizen, a responsible image in the great Province of British Columbia and of course it is but it is amazing how often they flip-flop back and forth. I'm sure that at times they have some terrible times justifying what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, of course, we are in the throne debate and I really would be a little bit remiss if I didn't complain that it isn't perhaps the most spirited document that I have ever read. I would describe it a little like an English dinner — it's solid, under-spiced, slightly overdone, a little dull, but nourishing nevertheless. (Laughter).

I'm sure with a little bit more garlic that it will become a very spicy appetiser for a pre-election budget which I am sure we will be hearing in the next little while.

I would like to extend some congratulations throughout the province to Mr. Tommy Dohm, the Honourable Justice Mr. Tommy Dohm for his new position and I'm sure that the wishes of all of us go in a very responsible post to Mr. William Rathy, the new head of the Port Authority which I think is a sign of the development.

Congratulations to the Attorney General for one of the finest campaigns that I have seen in a long time that he put on during the Christmas campaign on drinking and impaired driving and the same to the Minister of Education for some, I think, of the most inspired advertising and the proper use of advertising that we see.

I would also like to extend congratulations to the Premier on the effectiveness of the liquor ban advertising. I checked the records and the liquor sales only went up 10 per cent last year. I would point out in '69 they went up 10 per cent and in '68 they went up 10 per cent and in '67 they went up 10 per cent.

But I will also admit publicly, Mr. Speaker, that the effect has not been as serious in the industry and I think that one of the reasons is that advertising has been replaced by something perhaps of a better nature and that is the fact that now the products are displayed in self-serve stores and people can make their minds up. Perhaps that has been a particularity good move and I think that the industry at this time would recognise the fact.

I admit having opposed it, however I feel that we must find a way of overcoming the question of the proper literature coming into this province. With the ban as such and I having accepted the responsibility of the ban, I am a little surprised — I must say that and I throw this in as an aside — that how quickly after the session there were some changes of mind. I listened to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer) and the Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) stand up. I thought that there would be a tremendous number of people in the hospitals with wrenched backs from changing their positions so rapidly over the period of time.

Also, whoever was the joker who decided he would send copies of Saturday Evening Post and Time magazine to the Premier and the Attorney General — and I understand they received something like 100 copies which I have no objection to — but the three that went in my name, I certainly do not intend to pay for and I want you to know that.

From this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, the session by now usually has had a name. If you recall back we've had the Buttle Lake session, the Limerick session, we've had the Unemployment session.

I certainly hope that this session does not end up as the Pinko or the Glue-Sniffing or the Anti-American Pro-American session because, Mr. Speaker, I feel that there are certain significant and responsible positions which must be discussed in this session and if there is anything that is significant and important and should be discussed it is the question of labour and management relations.

We recently conducted a survey in our riding — we mailed out 31,000 circulars and people came back and rated in order which we asked them to do, seven items — labour management, ecology, finance, education, municipal affairs, drugs and alcohol and welfare. We received over 1,500 replies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all?

MR. CAPOZZI: That is an amazing percentage out of a free mailing and since we don't have privileges of return mail, we felt that the 1,500 people who responded and sent it back are concerned. Out of 1,500 people the major and most

[ Page 258 ]

significant concern in their minds (1) by far was labour management — (2) ecology, (3) finance, (4) education, (5) and down low on the list, Mr. Speaker, were rated municipal affairs, drugs and alcohol and welfare. Now in the minds of the public at this time the most significant and most important matter that should be before this House is the question of labour and management relationships. I would suggest that with the appointment of the new Minister and I congratulate the new Minister, I think that he has done an excellent job.

He's coming into the job. I was surprised at the attack. The reason I think he's done an excellent job — we checked over his ethnic background far back and found out that originally his family came from very near the French and Italian border. The only problem: we're not sure which family got pushed into what side. (Laughter). But I must point out some problems within the framework of labour-management relations. At this time in the Province of British Columbia there are people that are being held captive within a system that is supposed to supply a freedom of choice within the labour movement. There is the question of decertification. The question of people who whether they decide to be in or out of the union should have that particular choice.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give you very shortly, very briefly, a summary of a definite situation involving a group from J.D. Sweid and Company.

They're not a large corporation. They're a meat packing plant in Vancouver who on July 20 wrote a letter to the registrar of Labour Relations Board saying: "The 18 full-time employees, the 100 per cent of the J.D. Sweid Company have requested me to submit to you an application to cancel certification." They submitted the names, signatures. Went through the process.

On September 23, they received a note back saying: "We have examined it and decertification is denied."

So I wrote to the Minister and I said to the Minister: "Please get me the details." So he sent me a letter, as he does, very quickly and here are the details.

They investigated the J.D. Sweid employees and they determined the following: (a) a collective agreement was in effect, (b) the employees individually and collectively arrived at the decision to apply for cancellation of the certification without influence or direction from the employer (c) a majority of the employees were members in good standing of the trade union. As a result of that investigation a request for decertification has been denied.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that having followed the exact procedure 100 per cent do not want to be in the union. There was no influence or pressure by the management. There was a decision to opt-out. They were investigated. The report says all these things and they were denied.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: They were denied.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: It seems to me that the time has come to take a fairly long look at this. Because I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to open it to a two-way street if there is going to be any validity, any sense of proper recognition and balance for the two sides. I think however, Mr. Speaker, the matter is under control and I am sure that the Minister will attend to this.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's your responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAPOZZI: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that this does not come under the decision of the Labour Minister but is a board, privately appointed. It is not a board which is subject to his control.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fire the board!

MR. CAPOZZI: But I suggest that their long look has to be taken at a procedure which denies individuals a specific right such as this. The right to be free in their own choice.

But to the Minister I also suggest some matters of very serious consideration. I suggest to him that in this session there should be before us bills that will permit in British Columbia both utilisation of the four-day week. I believe that one of the new and one of the more significant contributions to productivity in the Province of British Columbia would be the gradual involvement of bringing in of the four-day week.

It's particularily significant for British Columbia when there are great distances for people to travel before they get to work. We do pay portal to portal time which is correct, but the amount of time which is on the job is therefore limited. I'm convinced that there would be far greater productivity, far more satisfaction on the behalf of the employee who would be much happier to be working the 40 hour or shorter because that's not the significant mark of the four-day week with three days off.

I would also suggest to the Minister that it is time to look at certain of the practices that we have taken on in labour legislation — and I'm referring to such things as overtime pay, double time, time-and-a-half and the question of which days we should supply and have overtime and time-and-a-half. There was certainly a significance, perhaps, to time-and-a-half when a man made $2.50 an hour but when wages reached $5 an hour what is the proper measure of the increased value of overtime at time-and-a-half or double time and particularly when Saturdays and Sundays are now becoming interchangeable days? Even in the churches' eye. Mass can be obtained on a Saturday in the Catholic Church. The relationship of overtime should not be as significant as the fact that a man should have sufficient leisure time. We should go back in cooperation and study with unions to take a look anew at the relationship of time and overtime in a new society.

I think an even more significant part of the survey that we conducted, Mr. Speaker, and to me the entire tone of what we should be debating in this House, was a question which we asked in our survey: "Do you believe that unions are too strong? Management is too strong? Neither, both."

The opinion of the people, and I would think that Vancouver Centre is not a labour centre as a fair cross-section because it runs the entire length of the city, covers all ranges of interest, 60 per cent of the people felt that unions are too strong, 25 per cent felt both are too strong, 7 per cent felt management is too strong, 8 per cent felt neither are too strong.

I'm sure that all of you recently in the Weekend Magazine saw a survey that said: "Would you limit the length of strikes?" — 74 per cent of the public across Canada said yes, no 25 per cent. You go on and read some of the comments — as they said in here, one of the most amazing responses of all because of its one-sidedness was the support readers gave to

[ Page 259 ]

the idea of limiting the length of strikes. As an alternative to strikes he suggested arbitration. "Polls seem to show a far deeper anti-union feeling than a Canadian Gallup poll did in 1970. At that time the Gallup Poll indicated that 50 per cent of Canadians" and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that throughout this land and throughout this province at this time there is a feeling on behalf of the people of British Columbia that they will not tolerate this.

During the coming summer any strike that ties up the economy of British Columbia — I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that at a time when we're looking at 600 labour agreements that will be negotiated in the Province of British Columbia this summer that from this House, not just on this side of the House but on both sides of the House — word should go out to the public, to the unions, to management. The Legislature and I'm sure that the leader of the Liberal Party will agree with me. I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition if he were in the House would also agree.

The word must go out strongly and clearly that management and labour must solve the problem of this summer's negotiation because we cannot let either for the good of the public or the good of the province let strikes destroy the economy that is gradually finding it's back on its feet at a time when this is most necessary in the Province of British Columbia. The public will not accept the strike. That would be the major concern for every one of us.

I would suggest to the Hon. Minister that a meeting be called between the representatives of management and labour and this message passed to them. I would suggest also that the time has come to bring into this House the final amendment to Bill 33 — a good bill, a bill which has served this province over a period of need. But within it there is need at this time to bring an intermediary step where they can be brought together into negotiation and held there without necessarily using the final clout.

Perhaps we have put in a bill which has gained us, I think, the envy and the respect of people across the country who may not all agree with it but there isn't one jurisdiction across Canada that has not said that at least the Province of British Columbia is taking steps in the field of labour legislation.

All you have to do is ask the Minister of Labour how many representatives from the departments of labour across the country have asked him for information, for details and for all the things that have come up over the period of years that this bill has been in effect. Because they recognise that we are on and taking the step along the right road to eliminate the problems of labour strife in the Province of British Columbia.

While on this subject, Mr. Speaker, of labour authorities and so on, I would bring to your attention a matter which I believe is the worst example that you can possible have if you're going to talk about control across the border and the infiltration of American control et cetera that is taking place.

Surprisingly enough this is not a major firm that is getting instructions from across the line but a trade union, a so-called independent trade union that operates in the docks and the port of Vancouver. The recent statements on the part of the port union that they would not carry cargo bound for the United States that was being unloaded in British Columbia as a result of instructions from the head office of the union in the United States has got to destroy the credibility that unions are independent within Canada.

I suggested that Mr. Garcia advise the American union of the agreement that exists — and there's a written agreement between the port authority and the shippers that they will handle all cargo — that the step that the union has taken is a violation of that agreement. It is on the direct incentive of the American union and I would suggest that they are destroying their own credibility if they persist in this particular measure.

But while dealing with the port authority — as you know, Mr. Speaker, that I have been fairly critical of the port authority over a period of time — over the past year I must pay tribute to the port authority and at the same time recognise the changes that have taken place.

I think that finally with a group of British Columbians appointed to the port authority that we are at least on the way or on the road to having some control over one of the most important parts both of our economy and both parts of the City of Vancouver.

Over the past years, as I have said, they have appointed to date some very fine people and as I said once before I would congratulate Mr. Rathy and wish him every success.

I would also congratulate the Port of Vancouver. In 1971, Mr. Speaker, they shipped through the Port of Vancouver 35,301,000 tons and it puts the Port of Vancouver as the number one port in Canada and number two in North America. They did that over conditions which have to be considerably trying. But at this stage, Mr. Speaker, they are facing another critical problem and that is the problem of supply of wheat. It isn't a problem that can be laid on anyone's doorstep except the weatherman.

Normally the Port of Vancouver requires 725 cars of wheat a day. That's how much is required to keep their shipping requirements up-to-date. As a result of the heavy snow and the closing down of the railway they have been receiving 100 cars of grain.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: Exactly, and the problem is there. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a partial solution to the problem, if those ships which are presently waiting in the Port of Vancouver can be helped.

I would ask the cooperation of the Minister of Industrial Development too — as you know a very close friend of mine — and I would suggest that if he were to contact the federal government and arrange with them to ship in what they need as a supply of clean wheat. They do not have time to bring the wheat in, and clean it before shipping. With the cooperation of the federal government the Port of Vancouver could maintain its commitments and its reputation by obtaining the clean wheat.

Not a thing is it going to cost the provincial government, anything but the effort, and I am sure that is one thing that the Hon. Minister is prepared to expand, because I think it is a very vital problem, at this time.

I spoke last year on the question of pilfering. The pilfering on the docks. On the question of pilfering, the unions spoke up and said that it had diminished and I am sure that a certain degree that it has diminished, Mr. Speaker, but I have to suggest to you the amount of pilfering on the docks is decreasing, not as a result of particular measures but by the fact that they are now being containerised. They are riding in sealed containers. But the I.L.W.U. are serious about wanting to do something about preventing pilfering.

I would suggest that the regulations which they have in their union agreement — which says that any container arriving on the dock in which there are shipments which must

[ Page 260 ]

be split off because they are not going to one single importer, have to be broken down on the docks — I would suggest that that is like putting temptation of the highest degree. It's like putting a dog in a meat plant and I'm not suggesting that all of them succumb to it but if the head of the union would like to come down with me some day to the beer parlours along the water front, I would be more than happy to indicate the amount of goods that are readily available for sale that have come straight off the ships down in that area.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You're insulting the wrong union.

MR. CAPOZZI: Yes, I'm insulting a union that won't do something about that particular clause, if that's the way you want to read it, Mr. Member. I do not find that pilfering which is placed on the shoulders of everyone that's brought in, is the kind of thing you would condone. I know you're not for that.

I have also written to the port authority and I have asked Mr. Raffey that this should be a open pier in the City of Vancouver and I have written to him on the fact that they have been calling for tenders and I suggested to him rather than tear down pier H that it be turned over to the parks board of the City of Vancouver and it be used as a public wharf.

I am hopeful that such a suggestion which has had vocal approval by members of the authority might be given some favourable consideration. I think that it is rather ridiculous that in a harbor as beautiful as ours the access of the public to this harbour is so limited.

Talking about port matters, I would like to again bring up briefly one other concern of those people who are involved in the question of control from outside. It's a question of development and also concerns again the Minister of Industrial Development and concerns the good members from the Liberal Opposition. It deals with the company called International Hydrodynamics, Mr. Speaker. A very small little company located in the North Shore — familiar, I am sure, to the Members over there. This company, because they are aggressive and they are a company that manufactures submersibles, developed in Canada, in the Province of British Columbia, a record of producing one of the finest crafts in the particular field of submersibles that exists anywhere in the world. About a year-and-a-half ago they decided to broaden the market. They went out with a full approval of the Canadian Government Department of External Affairs and they obtained a contract from the Russian government to build two submersibles. These are submersibles that on open market cannot be built as well by anyone else and the contract for each submersible was $2,400,000.

They began building it. The Russians had two people working with them. They were two people involved in oceanography because the craft only goes 2 knots and is designed to go down to 5,000 feet. It is not a craft which can be considered utilisable in the question of fighting war. They proceeded to build it and then one month ago, a month ago, this company received notification that the export licence had been cancelled.

Where did the pressure come from? It came from across the border, from the Americans who had said to the Canadian government they would not permit this craft to be exported from Canada. The excuse they used was the fact that the hull was American steel.

Every Minister that I have talked to has admitted that it was a result of pressure placed on the Canadian government by the Department of Defense in the United States. That is the most flagrant example of interference in the rights of a particular nation that I know of. I would hope that the message again would go back and I would suggest again that the Minister responsible for the development of industry in the Province of British Columbia, should also write a letter of protest — protesting that a company endeavoring to build up employment, endeavoring to build up new products, et cetera, should have the right, having gone through the Canadian government, to avoid interference by the United States of America.

You know the real reason, Mr. Speaker, is not the fact that it had American steel, which I'm sure if they want to steal secrets like that they could get the records because the hulls were manufactured in Great Britain and brought over here. I would suggest that the real reason was that this submersible is designed to go down 5,000 feet. The best the Americans have at the moment is one that goes down 3,000 feet.

It was really a suggestion of face or a question of face. They did not want another country, whoever they might be, to have one that could go down lower than theirs, because in my opinion the next real battle between for prestige will be the battle that they fight in the question of discoveries down in the depths of the ocean.

I guess in some sense it's backfired because now the Canadian government owns it — and here's a nation with 20 million people and we'll have one that can go down to 5,000 feet.

I was today going to go on a very long and serious attack on the Minister of Industrial Development because he expects it. Now we are going to run short of time and I would like to talk about some other things so I'll save it — give the Minister a chance over the next little while to improve his department and do some of the things I've recommended and I'll be prepared to give him the copy of the speech ahead of time. If he does the things I'll tear it up and not even use the various comments that are there.

I stopped because I want to discuss a particular matter which to me is extremely important and is becoming more so every day.

It's about a forgotten group in our society, and one of the fastest growing groups in our society. A group that has no vote on financial matters. There is an ever greater burden of the taxation placed upon them. The group, Mr. Speaker, is the tenant who now probably, in the question of dwellings, is the fastest-growing member of the dwelling community, you might say that.

I refer, of course, if you want to a Vancouver Province editorial in which they say that the tenant is a second-class citizen. He's denied by law from having a vote in municipal bylaws and the government turned down the request by the City of Vancouver to make this possible.

The home-owner grant is a particular cause of concern recently in the report from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Let me say that home-owners' grant, I think, is a wonderful piece of legislation. I have no arguments with the grant itself, but I would point out in the study that was done and the statement that was made within here, they point out something very realistic. Another factor must be considered with respect to home-owner grants and this is the disparity and the distribution of those eligible for such grants as between municipalities. It also says in reality the home-

[ Page 261 ]

owner grant is a grant made for provincial revenues to one sector and not made to another sector.

They also point out that the grant will benefit only a decreasing number of municipal residents because the number of residents in relationship to the number of tenants is decreasing and even more important is the question that the home-owner grant is a distinct differential: a burden placed against the tenant.

I am suggesting that this has to be remedied and I intend, Mr. Speaker, to bring a bill into this House which will be called a Tenant Equalisation Grant Act and under this a tenant of one year in the Province of British Columbia will receive at the end of the year — if he's been a tenant of one suite for the whole year — up to 10 per cent of this rent for the year up to a maximum of $100. This would be in the form of a certificate which he would be able to turn over to the landlord who in turn could turn it over to the municipal authorities in payment only of his taxes.

What is happening at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is as a result of the load that is being placed by the particular grant that is being given to a home-owner, that the homeowner receiving that amount has his tax burden reduced, the load that is being placed in the entire community is being placed in an ever-increasing amount on the shoulders of the tenant.

What is even more important, Mr. Speaker, that communities as a result of this are being discriminated against. One community, one city, one area, is getting a particularly large amount of money in return from the government because they have a larger number of home-owners.

In the latest statistics that are in the book, I would point out that in the capital district of Victoria the owner-occupied dwellings are only 47.5 per cent. In the cities of Coquitlam and Surrey they are receiving, 80 per cent of them are receiving a home-owner grant. In the City of Vancouver, 52 per cent of the dwellings are held by the home-owner and therefore the amount of dollars that goes into that particular community in relationship to another community is at a tremendous disparity.

I am sure in the sense of fair play and justice for all that the Premier maintains and has always maintained that he will recognise this tremendous disparity and move into the field and accept the very humble bill which I intend to place on the order paper.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: I was in the back bench. I got moved for that. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I would suggest that perhaps maybe the Premier may not particularly want the next while, because I intend to do something even better for him. I intend to save the Premier over the next five minutes $100 million and I am sure that what he can do is take the $100 million and that as a grant as a savings to turn into a tenants' equalisation grant.

Again I'm going to be very brief because of time, Mr. Speaker, and I will close off the things that I have to say.

I want to talk about two particular items. One is the question of the George Derby and Shaughnessy hospital complex. For those of you who may be aware of Shaughnessy you may not be aware of the George Derby Hospital. George Derby Hospital is one of the finest areas of its kind. It was built in the late forties, it's in the Burnaby-Coquitlam area, I'm sure you are all familiar with it. There is 200 acres in the development, 25 acres are screened off. It's a rehabilitation hospital. It's got the administration buildings, surrounded by residential areas. It has a gymnasium. It has a boxing ring. It has a swimming pool; there are climbing ropes, on a magnificent terrain. It is really an ideal area. There is only one problem. It is a federal government hospital for veterans and the average age of the veterans in the hospital is 73 years of age.

Of the population of roughly 200 and some, 16 are over 90 and the gymnasium which is fine — I think that gymnasiums, swimming pools, for older people are something that should be a part — but the swimming pool at George Derby is at such a steep slope that none of the residents at their age can walk up the slope to get to the gymnasium and the swimming pool. It was designed as a rehabilitation hospital in the forties. It is obsolete for the purpose that it is being used for now. It is part of the Shaughnessy complex.

Within the Shaughnessy hospital complex, Mr. Speaker, there are 1,200 beds. At this moment with a shortage of beds throughout the lower mainland of Vancouver, 200 beds are empty in Shaughnessy hospital. Don't imagine that Shaughnessy is a run-down hospital. Shaughnessy has one of the finest hospitals in the Province of British Columbia. They have the finest X-ray facilities; they have one of the finest laboratories and they have a dedicated staff in the Shaughnessy hospital that would be a credit to any hospital in the Province of British Columbia.

But the time has come, Mr. Speaker, to take this within the hospital complex of British Columbia. An offer has been made. There is an offer to the federal government to turn the hospital over to the province of British Columbia, to put up $8 million for further expansion of the hospital, provide the unlimited amount of land.

But there are some problems. There are some very serious problems. There is the problem of assimilation of staff. There are roughly different, 2,000 workers in the hospital. They have to be brought into a different pension plan, they have different benefits. It's a tremendous load, a tremendous burden for the province to take on. There is the problem of the treatment of veterans which requires special privileges under the regulations that the government has.

But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a close examination of this would indicate that the type of veteran that uses Shaughnessy, and has used Shaughnessy, is a veteran fundamentally from the World War I who used Shaughnessy as the place that was familiar to him. The veterans who are coming from the World War II feel much more at home in their own community, with their own doctor. They feel much better about being treated in their own community. The demand for services within Shaughnessy Hospital is diminishing and falling off.

I would suggest that there are hospital jealousies for hospitals in that area.

All of these, Mr. Speaker, are problems that can be overcome if the Minister would appoint today, a committee consisting of respesentatives, federal representatives, to sit down and solve the problem of Shaughnessy. Because the problem of Shaughnessy moves into a larger field, Mr. Speaker. We are being asked to commit $60 million to build a hospital at U.B.C. I state in this House today, Mr. Speaker, that with the availability of Shaughnessy Hospital, we should not spend one cent on a hospital on the campus of the University of British Columbia — a hospital of 300 beds, and you can ask universities and doctors throughout the City of Vancouver, is not large enough to be a satisfactory teaching hospital, or if it is, it's marginal. It does not provide sufficient examples of various medical cases. It is not large enough to

[ Page 262 ]

do the job that should be required.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier and to the Minister, I suggest that we can save $60 million to form a better service for the community, provide a better hospital. Just because you want to use the beds out there at $200,000 a bed. Why, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the time has come to completely re-examine the expenditure of $60 million on a hospital that will be too small and before it is even finished.

I would suggest the taking over of Shaughnessy to solve the problem. I would suggest that if the vote were put to all medical people, in the City of Vancouver who are responsible both for teaching and for conducting the courses at the university, that if a vote were taken, they would recommend the taking over of Shaughnessy and the development of the university hospital at Shaughnessy.

Now, I'm going to close by saving the Premier another $40 million. I know he is not going to like this. He has built up a reputation over the years of being a doer and a builder and constructor and he has been an individual who has had probably more visions than any other individual in the Province of British Columbia. The dedication, his record, the achievement that he has are perhaps more significant than any part of the throne speech.

However, may I suggest that rather than now be known as a builder, he be known as a non-builder in the City of Vancouver. I would ask him to save this province $40 million by not building the B.C. building in Vancouver

I walked down the streets of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, and I looked up at the increasing number of towers…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR CAPOZZI: …and I say, Mr. Speaker through you to the Premier, that the tribute that he could build by not having a building for the Government of British Columbia.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: The Government of British Columbia cannot build a building cheaper than anyone else. They cannot build a building taller than anyone else. Even if the building they build is the finest building that is ever built it will be only a matter of time until someone builds a better building.

But if you build a non-building, Mr. Premier, if you build an open space — no matter what they put around you the non-building will be more beautiful than anything else that you can construct. In the eyes of the people of the City of Vancouver — if you want put it to a referendum let us make a decision and what we want in the City of Vancouver. Our own Members.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier, the tribute of the green grass and the blue sky will be a far greater tribute than anything else you can build in that particular space.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: In closing, I would agree with the good Member from Burrard that there is in the final part of the throne speech the most significant words of all. He quoted them yesterday and I feel that they should be quoted again. That "we have much to be thankful for in British Columbia and we look forward to the coming year with renewed vigour and a sense of challenge" and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the Province of British Columbia at this time there is a desire for that challenge. There is a need for a Legislature to provide that challenge. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. I know that in the coming weeks when the budgets come down that the true effect the challenge that is before the people of the Province of British Columbia will be felt and for this reason I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support fully and completely the throne speech.

Mr. L.A. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Peterson presents the annual report of the Director of Correction for the year ended March 31, 1971.

Hon. Mr. Williston presents the statistics of the office of the Registrar of Companies for 1971, the quarterly financial and statistical report for Credit Unions as of September 30, 1971, and the financial statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1971 of the British Columbia Liquor Control Board.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.