[ Page 447 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable, the Premier.

MR. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I am glad to notice in the gallery today the daughter of a former very distinguished Attorney General, Mr. Bonner. Miss Bonner is my only God-daughter and I ask you all to give her a very warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, to complete the introduction, beside Miss Lou Bonner is Miss Christina Macdonald and beside Miss Christina Macdonald is Miss Barbara Marshall, the granddaughter of Mr. DeBeck.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of students from Brooks High School in Powell River. What is exceptional about these folks today, I think it's tremendous that they earned their money to come down to Victoria themselves and I am sure the House would like to welcome them here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): There are only seven left in the gallery to speak about and that is a family from Vancouver, the Zimmer family — my nephew, nieces and my wife's brother and his wife, and my wife too. This is the first time, and they paid their own way to come over here too. I am just asking you to welcome them and give them a good hand.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, this is a very special day. Many of the beauty queens from throughout B.C. are descending on the capital and I am particularly privileged, not only do we have a beauty queen — Miss Lois Doherty from Merritt and I know there are many beautiful girls throughout the province — but we have Miss Cariboo with us again this year. The Cariboo have many beautiful young ladies but for the past two years they have had to reach over into the town of Lillooet to choose Miss Lillooet and promote her to become Miss Cariboo. So, Miss Louise Barry and Miss Lois Doherty.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): In the galleries this afternoon, we have a group of very bright and very well-mannered students from General Brock Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teachers and by their parents, and I would ask the House to welcome them today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the House to welcome 13 beauty queens who are members of the Girl Guide troop from Canyon Heights in beautiful North Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable, the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay a special welcome to all of those in gallery who have not yet been welcomed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Peterson moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 28 intituled An Act to Amend the Administration Act.

Motion approved. Bill No. 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Mines.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Commercial Transport): Mr. Speaker, what I'm going to say is probably anti-climax in light of the statement made by the Hon. second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, (Mr. Gardom), but it's purely coincidental in the fact that I have two very highly-respected gentlemen from my constituency here in the galleries today in the person of his worship Mayor Liard of Penticton and also Mr. Cook, chairman of their industrial development committee of the city of Penticton. I would ask the members to join me in welcoming them here today. Of course, naturally, they paid their own way too.

Mr. Speaker, in contrast between the address of my colleague given about this time yesterday and at 1:10 last evening or early this morning, I wasn't just too sure whether I was going to be on deck today here to say a few words in relation to the administrative responsibilities which I have. But if there is any contrast, it might be attributed to the very quiet nature and modest character of myself.

I wouldn't want it to be felt that I was taking any particular stand in relation to the debate yesterday, which was very disturbing to me, and I'm glad that it's over and that we can get on to more of the business of the House.

At the outset, this being the first occasion that I have risen in my place in this current session of the Legislature, I propose to give some time to a few matters that affect the

[ Page 448 ]

constituency of Boundary-Similkameen.

There has been steady progress made in highway improvements and this is welcomed by the local and travelling public. True, there are other projects to be completed and others to be started within a long range programme such as has been developed for the province. These various projects will get underway soon. I was pleased to see an increase in funds would be made available to the Department of Highways to undertake additional work during the coming year, within the budget.

Our fruit industry, our fruit growers, in the Okanagan Valley have been plagued as usual with many problems, the solution to which is difficult to devise because of the world production of fruit and distribution problems. I am still convinced that better service and distribution within our own province can be attained and while not the complete answer, would undoubtedly siphon off a substantial quantity of fruit into the hands of our own consumers. After all, our own market is our best market and I have stated this on many occasions. I think that my honourable colleague the Minister of Agriculture has done an exceptional job in attempting to overcome some of the many problems which are monumental as far as the fruit industry is concerned. But I say, as I have said in the past, we must work at this on a continuing basis to resolve these problems.

This government has been confronted and criticised on its efforts to correct environmental pollution that has accumulated over the past 100 years. No matter how strong the pollution and environmental legislation might be, unless the public and the individual take their responsibility, the progress will be slow.

I was particularly pleased to see the publicity in the Press of Project Six — a project undertaken by the Grade 6 class and two of their teachers in the Oliver School.

The project is to undertake bottle and soft-drink can drives along with various other undertakings, to raise funds for a class trip to the lower mainland and Vancouver Island, where they advance their education by visits to industries, the parliament buildings and other attractions of interest.

Their trip takes place in the month of May and this project was brought to public attention by the problems encountered by the group in attempting to dispose of the soft-drink cans they gathered, when the local depot would not refund on the containers.

They therefore brought the matter to the attention of the Attorney General and the Press and myself and nearly 500 cans were sent to the Attorney General.

The refund obtained was sent along to the group to augment their bank account and help with the cost of the forthcoming trip which the students pay for themselves through their own efforts. Now, I was particularly pleased to hear of the group from Powell River; one of their teachers was a classmate of my son, in the Similkameen Valley. I was most happy to see him here present in the galleries and I must commend them for the efforts that they go to in paying their way.

Now what's the moral of this incident? It's that if Grade 6 students recognise and can be serious about environmental pollution control, why can't our adults be just as serious and enterprising in cleaning up the countryside and taking care of their own polluting habits?

Another subject that has been a continuing concern to me is the shooting by permit of deer during the winter months when they are driven by the elements from the higher levels to the valley floor in search of food — for which the deer cannot be blamed. Under natural conditions the lower elevations and valley floors are the natural habitat of pretty well all wild animals of the ruminant species.

When the deep snow drives these animals from the higher elevations, where it is virtually impossible for them to find food, what have we done to these animals? We have taken over their natural wintering ground for higher use, namely, orchards and agricultural production without providing any alternative for the wild animals. We propose to erect high fences, as others have done, causing the hungry animals to follow the fences to their end where a new hope of food appears, whereupon the agricultural crops are a welcome sight to the hungry animals who enjoy the tender growth of the fruit trees, the haystacks and other forage that is available.

The high fence, in my opinion, is not the answer to the problem. It is only a stop-gap measure and in itself will not force the migration of the game herds.

In my opinion, although contrary to game biologist theories, artificial feeding stations must be provided. This in itself poses a very great problem to the government and the department involved with wild game management and we must review our concepts. It is only common logic that by putting a barrier up to prevent the game animals from attacking agricultural crops, it will leave these animals to die of starvation.

Certainly, I agree with the game biologists that if animals are allowed to become emaciated and weak before having access to artifical feed, a great mortality will occur when access is gained to feed in such a weakened condition.

However, on the other hand, if feed is made available as the game progressively are driven from the higher elevations they do not take such large amounts and soon acclimatise themselves. It is the weakened animals that eat too copiously and die.

In my few short years in the wilderness I have always observed that the deer that had access to my haystacks and feed grounds by free choice were always the strongest and healthiest animals in the spring and produced the strongest young with the best survival ratio. Successful artificial feeding of our herds of deer and California rocky mountain sheep has been proven to be sound practice, not only in the State of Washington immediately south of us, but also in other states of the U.S.A. and right at home in the South Okanagan.

The experiences of the game farm at Kaleden and the experiences of the South Okanagan Sportsmen Club, with the cooperation of Mr. Abe Braun of Vaseux Lake, have proven to me beyond doubt that artificial feeding programmes can be the means of survival of our game herds.

I mentioned earlier that fencing the game animals away from feed is only part of the answer to invasion of agriculture crops by game animals. The provision of food for the game is the second part of the answer to the problem, if we wish to keep our game from starvation and maintain this natural resource for the future.

In many cases feeding stations would obviate the necessity of fencing in some areas. I urge the government to give very serious study to this growing problem when we experience winters such as that of the current one.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to now make a few remarks respecting those portfolios which I have the honour to administer.

1971 was a year of continued progress in the mines and petroleum industries of British Columbia. For the first time

[ Page 449 ]

in history the total value of mineral production reached and exceeded $500 million. It is estimated to be $531.9 million, or 7.4 per cent over 1970. This is the 10th consecutive year that a new production record has been achieved.

Encouraging as this record may be, it is nonetheless important to note that this continuing upward trend was due almost entirely to the marked increase in coal production value. This resource jumped from a $19.5 million value in 1970 to $50.5 million in 1971.

In the metals category, depressed markets and reduced metal prices took their toll and only a marked increase in copper and zinc production enabled the overall value of metals to be maintained to a point slightly lower than that of 1970.

But for the Kaiser Coal operation, mineral production value in British Columbia in 1971 would have faced a serious decline. This year should see an increase in production from Kaiser Coal, and with the coming on to line of Fording Coal, production value of coal in 1971 could jump from $50.5 million to $70 million.

While our four new metal mines commenced production in 1971, several closed down operations, including Bralorne which was the last operating gold mine in the province. The preparation for production of seven new mines this year indicate that 1972 should be another good production year for mining in British Columbia.

Having said this, I wish to point out that mining is a high-risk industry and the vagaries of international markets and economic conditions coupled with national fiscal policies make any real prediction of conditions a year from now a most hazardous venture.

A number of the major metal mines in the province are operating on the border line of economic viability. For example, the downward trend of copper and molybdenum prices on the international market have made the continued operation of some of our major mines extremely marginal propositions. World competition is severe and in some metals there is an over supply. Should prices take a further downward trend, continued operation of these mines would be brought into serious question.

While there has been a severe drop in metal prices, the costs of establishing and operating new mines in British Columbia have continued to climb. The continued growth of the industry has been maintained solely by the industry's ability to successfully work large low-grade mineral deposits.

The impact of conditions I have outlined are readily seen in the following facts:

The future of the mining industry depends primarily in the confidence of the industry to invest capital for the purpose of exploration. There are four areas in which there is evidence that this confidence is diminishing in British Columbia. They are:

Claims staked in 1969 totalled 84,665. In 1971 this figure dropped to an estimated 64,500.

Diamond drilling, which is probably the best barometer of mining activity, dropped from an estimated 2 million feet in 1970 to an estimated 1.5 million feet in 1971. A further reduction is anticipated in 1972.

In December 1971, Canada Manpower in Vancouver recorded unemployed 50 geologists, geophysicists and geochemists. Also 20 mining engineers. It is expected that this number will increase this winter.

Four major North American, one European and one Japanese exploration companies have withdrawn their operations from British Columbia in recent months.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I have outlined these facts is to bring home to Members on both sides of this House an understanding that we in British Columbia do not have a monopoly in mineral supply, that the international market is an extremely sensitive market, and furthermore our production costs are among the highest in the world.

If conditions governing exploration and development are not conducive to economic viability of operation, capital will go to other resource rich areas of the world, and once gone rarely returns.

I would remind the Honourable Members that in 1970, this industry spent over $300 million in equipment, materials and supplies, $140 million in salaries, wages and benefits. The average wage and benefit per employee exceeded $10,000 per year. Further to this, the industry in British Columbia paid in excess of $44 million in federal tax, $32 million provincial tax and $2.5 million in municipal taxes.

In addition to licences, leases, assessments, and drilling fees, the mineral industry pays land tax, education tax, mining tax, provincial sales tax, corporation tax, income tax, hospital tax, regional district taxes which included tax for libraries, parks, et cetera, motive fuel tax, gasoline tax and federal building materials tax.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I'm glad my friend asked that question about royalties and I would just quote from a very well-recognised authority, that authority being Funk and Wagnell's dictionary. And under "royalty" it says: "A tax or seignorage paid to the Crown on a product of Royal Mines."

Now what is so mystical about the word "royalty"? It is defined as a tax. A tax is a tax, an impost is an impost whether it be by royalty or whether it be by tax. I've seen nothing so mystical about royalties in this way. It was the form in which an impost was applied to the royalty in favour of the province.

I would be quite prepared to recommend to the government that it be done away with and the results of royalties be incorporated within this tax structure.

Now you don't receive a royalty until such time as you have produced the product. The sales tax applies to the machinery, income tax applies to the preparation of the mine, corporation taxes apply on down the line, you name it ad infinitum. If they're not taxed enough now, it is a high risk industry as I mentioned early in my speech, if there is no incentive, let me tell you have no monopoly on this and I will list some of these things.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the House come to order please? Order!

HON. MR RICHTER: As I mentioned, the revenue by whatever name is just as sweet to the treasury. For any Member of this House to imply that the mining industry is not paying a fair return in taxation for the privilege of developing the resource is gross misrepresentation.

Mining employed 14,850 workers directly and a further 35,000 workers in other industries supported by the mining industry. In total the mining industry generated a provincial income of $550 million in 1970. I would anticipate that this figure will be even greater for 1971. If the problems facing the industry at the present time can be overcome, it is

[ Page 450 ]

conceivable that this income generation factor could reach $1 billion by the end of the decade.

However, this will not be realised if investors are subjected to the kind of irresponsible utterances made by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech in reply to the speech from the throne. Threats of punitive tax measures and takeover of the mining industry by an N.D.P. government is the surest way of driving investment capital from the province and is a direct threat to the 50,000 or more workers supported by this industry.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I'll answer that, my friend.

It is a clear indication that he would sacrifice the welfare of the very people he claims to represent on the altar of his socialistic philosophy. As for taking over the mining industry, how much would he increase the tax burden on the people to pay for the $3 - $4 billion investment the mining industry has in this province?

How much of the taxpayers' money would he use to maintain exploration at a level conducive to a viable industry?

Or would it be the intention of the N.D.P. to emulate the actions of their like-minded friends in the "Banana Republics"? Socialists in those countries take over private industry then present the former owners with fictitious bills equal to the amount the government would have to pay when confiscating their property.

Is that the intention of the N.D.P. if they ever come to power in this province? It will be a sad day for the mining industry, it'll be a sad day for the province.

The only redeeming feature of the Leader of the Opposition's statements is that they make mockery of the benign and paternalistic platitudes he has been peddling around this province in an effort to beguile the people into believing he is no longer a left-wing Socialist, but some kind of a concoction of Liberal-Democrat.

His statement assures the people of British Columbia that the principle of state ownership of land, capital, and the means of production is still the cornerstone of N.D.P. policy.

I'm glad that the Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey protested, because I didn't think he would even associate himself with a Liberal-Democrat but would always abide by the recognised Liberal policies …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well then, you've associated yourself with a Liberal-Democrat.

Another area in which members of the Socialist Opposition have been misleading the public is in relation to royalties on coal production. Now I'd like to make this very clear. A royalty of 25 cent per ton is charged on all coal mined on Crown land. In addition they pay 15 per cent tax on all profits in excess of $10,000. Coal mined from lands which were Crown granted in 1899, part of which are now being operated by Kaiser Coal Company, pay a tax of 10 cents per ton in lieu of a royalty. Those lands are exempt from provincial royalties by decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. This is only one fact which the Opposition very conveniently avoids stating in their public harangue of the mining industry.

As the Minister of Mines I am gravely concerned with continued misrepresentation and persistent attack upon the mining industry by politicians and other special interest groups in our province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Marvellous!

HON. MR. RICHTER: This industry is extremely important….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: You're the politicians that have been attacking them. It's not this side… yes, other special interest groups who you know well and people who you are married to.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I hope they don't because I'll get lots of support that way. I don't worry about campaign funds, I take them out of my own pocket and I've got records to show it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's been in your pocket?

HON. MR. RICHTER: Unfortunately, I don't have as lucrative business as that of the law profession. However, I do contribute to the law profession and I'm happy to do so because I have an exceptionally fine lawyer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You need one.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I appreciate that, coming from the Leader of the Opposition. You would need to be.

As the Minister of Mines I'm gravely concerned with the continued misrepresentation and persistent attack upon the mining industry by politicians, as I said previously, and other special interest groups in our province. While this industry is extremely important to our province, it is not especially important to the rest of the world — 87 per cent of the world nickel reserves, 80 per cent of the world zinc reserves, 88 per cent of its iron ore reserves and 97 per cent of its copper reserves are all outside Canada.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well, if they're all gone by the year 2000 we will still have our own then won't we?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not if you give it all away…

HON. MR. RICHTER: You wouldn't even like to pay a tenth of what the mining industry has to pay to have the privilege of just to extract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. RICHTER: In addition to this and while presently enjoying a healthy trading position in coal with Japan, the recent emergence of the Republic of Canada … China. (Laughter). That's not so far wrong. What did the Prime Minister suggest?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you agreeing with the Prime

[ Page 451 ]

Minister?

HON. MR. RICHTER: No, I'm not agreeing with him. I'm telling you about the Republic of China. Do you want to hear?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which Prime Minister?

HON. MR. RICHTER: The Prime Minister in Ottawa.

In addition to this and while we enjoy a healthy trading position in coal with Japan, the recent emergence of the Republic of China as a world trading nation — and we recognise them in Canada as a…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Are we not Canadians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. RICHTER: As a world trading nation China may well present an extremely competitive challenge to the British Columbia coal industry.

The facts are that in the area of mineral and mineral fuels we are going to have to compete vigorously for capital and customers.

We are not in a preferred position in world markets. Our service, labour, and transportation costs are high compared to many other resource areas. Any notion that we can use our resource wealth to obtain special treatment in world markets is a fantasy. There are too many other countries trying to develop their ore bodies and sell their minerals in competition with us.

Mr. Speaker, it is partly because of the aforementioned reasons that my department, in cooperation with the mining industry of British Columbia, has been actively pursuing the feasibility of a copper smelter in our province. We're not so naive to believe that we can have a pollution-free copper smelter or steel mill as advocated by the Leader of the Opposition. I should more properly say Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

We are deeply conscious, together with industry, of the need of processing a greater portion of our resources here in British Columbia. The problem has been two-fold.

One was the acceptance of the product by the market. This I believe no longer presents a major problem.

Secondly, as the Hon. Members are aware, this government has set anti-pollution standards below which it is not prepared to permit the smelting of ore. This fact has presented a major technological problem to the industry. I am pleased to say that there are strong indications that this problem may well be overcome this year.

The smelting of ore is the first phase in the development of secondary industry in our own province. As Member of the Legislature for Boundary-Similkameen, an area whose history is studded with the trials and tribulations and success of copper smelting, I look forward with keen anticipation to the day in the not-too-distant future when British Columbia ore is processed in British Columbia smelters in a measure commensurate with our ability to market the finished product, and in a manner environmentally acceptable to the general public.

The Mineral Processing Act, the Mines Reclamation Act, and the Pollution Control Act are, in measure, all designed to bring about this desirable aspect of economic expansion.

The dramatic public emergence of ecological conscience has brought with it a positive change in social values. Industry has become one of the major factors in this evolution. If industry fails to face up to this challenge and does not effectively communicate its own desires and efforts to maintain an acceptable environment, then industry must realise that the attitude of society, whether by virtue of misinformation or lack of information, can become unbalanced to the point where there is a real danger of "the baby being thrown out with the bath water."

The answer to this problem is only to be found in a spirit of understanding and cooperation. The ultimate objective of all our endeavours is to arrive at a better quality and standard of life for each and every individual in the province and nation. Government, industry and the general public must all maintain a high degree of integrity if this most desirable objective is to be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I wish now to say a few words about the petroleum industry. Unlike the metals industry, production of petroleum and natural gas is tied to a regulated market. Consequently, sale of these mineral fuels does not fluctuate in the same manner as does metals.

The increase in revenue from these resources is due almost entirely to the money paid in bonus bids for the right to explore and develop these resources. We are, in fact, the only western province to register an increase in 1971 on price per acre. For example overall overage prices were Saskatchewan 85 cents per acre, Alberta $3.80 per acre and British Columbia — and I draw this to your attention — British Columbia $9.37 per acre.

The major interest of developers is centred in the foothills with the hope of finding extensive reservoirs of natural gas. The month of January this year saw up to 45 rigs actively drilling in the search for gas and oil. From the start of the geophysical year commencing April 1971, over 100 programmes of geological and geophysical surveys have been undertaken. This is in itself the real barometer of exploration activity in the province.

For the calendar year 1971, we saw the highest revenue year on record, the total being $46,318,143.90.

I was particularly interested yesterday in an article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun and certainly I have no intentions of reading the article but in the light of the debates that have occurred in this House and the discussions that have taken place in relation to the equalisation of payments and so on, this article was certainly of distinct interest to me because of my administrative responsibilities.

In the Sun yesterday was the article on resources and resource revenue, written by Mary Rossen, an economist and planner, and I was particularly interested in this aspect.

I have known economists and I have known planners but I think the combination has probably done something for both and I think this might be a good combination. Anyone who is a planner, I think, should become an economist and anyone who is an economist should become a planner because I think the article written by Mary Rossen has a lot of good logic and good sense in it.

In that article are competitive statistics related to British Columbia and Quebec. It is a full page article as you have noticed. I will not attempt to elaborate more but in a portion dealing with minerals it is interesting in view of the position of the official Opposition on resource development and revenue to quote the figures.

Quebec mineral production value in 1969-70 was $720 million. The Quebec government mineral production

[ Page 452 ]

revenue was a meagre $2 million.

British Columbia mineral production of $422 million but the government receives virtually 25 times more in the amount of $49 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: That includes oil.

HON. MR. RICHTER: What is mineral, my friend?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: I'll have something to say about the oil. Mrs. Rossen used an estimated British Columbia revenue figure which was not quite reached but virtually reached.

Mr. Speaker, in no way do I attempt to defend the meagre returns of revenue to the Quebec people from their mineral resources. However, I have also noted that statistics for the same year in the Province of Ontario which by any standard can be compared with British Columbia. What is their position on mineral resource revenue for the same period? The Ontario mineral production value was $1,223,380,337 and they received the magnificent amount by way of government revenue of $26,653,874. Now, who's giving their mineral resources away?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about forestry?

HON. MR. RICHTER: I thought I would leave that to my colleague, the Minister of Forestry (Hon. Mr. Williston) to deal with in his competent way and I'm sure that he will make his point. In other words, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia collects almost twice the revenue from a mineral production which is only one-third the amount which Ontario produces. I think that answers the question in some degree of this give-away accusation that's being made by the official Opposition.

For some time now there's been a number of statements from every point of the political spectrum in relation to exploration for oil and natural gas off the shores of British Columbia. As Minister of the Crown-provincial responsible for these resources I want to state quite categorically that there are no provincial permits active in the waters off our coast line.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the right permanent?

HON. MR. RICHTER: There are no active permits in the water off our coasts, they're all suspended and I'll come to that point. Those which were issued have been suspended as of July 28, 1970. The only permits active are those issued by the federal government, notwithstanding the recent statement of Environment Minister Davis that permits issued to Petrotar Development Ltd. have been cancelled. With the assistance of my colleague I would like to display to the House a map of the west coast of British Columbia, and on this map you will note that in the red you have the land mass and in the blue there are 221 federal petroleum or natural gas permits.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR RICHTER: There are no B.C. permits active and there are none offshore, my friend. The fact is that there are over 200 other permits representing over 14 million acres of British Columbia offshore waters which have never been cancelled and are still in existence — even though it is proposed that the 21-odd permits by way of the Press that were issued to Petrotar Developments Limited would be rescinded as stated by the Environmental Minister, the Hon. Jack Davis.

This has not yet occurred. These permits have not been cancelled and are still in existence. This map is a copy of the map put out by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, a summary of the activity in Canada lands off-shore dated November 1971 under the heading "Active" West Coast are 221 permits covering an area of 14,963,762 acres.

Mr. Speaker these are facts and it is time the people of this province were told the true position of the federal government.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Now, I want to show you a further map if you'll just turn this over. I might bring to your attention that the first map is drawn on a scale of 1 inch to 16 miles. This map is drawn on a scale of 1 inch to 32 miles. Now, the other side of this off-shore oil question in Canada which needs to be told is the double standard applied by the federal government. One law for eastern Canada and another law for the west, despite the facts I have just quoted the federal government would have the people of British Columbia believe that they are opposed to off-shore exploration and drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I have here this map which points up the federal government off-shore policy. This map is of the east coast and as I have indicated, this shows the area of off-shore permits issued by the federal government as of November 1971. There were 4,281 permits in existence covering 317,849,405 acres of water blanketing the east coast, surrounding Prince Edward Island. As is noted, along with that probably the area which has the highest tides in the world, and running up in the Bay of Fundy running up to the Anticosti Island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, also it goes beyond Newfoundland.

That is not all. I didn't have a large enough map to put the balance on so that the balance of the permits stretch out towards the United Kingdom because if you can only travel on those by foot or by automobile you would be able to go the majority of the way to the United Kingdom from Canada before you would hit the periphery of the permit area.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: David Anderson is probably just as interested in the ecology as anyone and should be equally interested not only in west coast but also the east coast.

Mr. Speaker, so far 30 wells have been drilled to completion on our east coast and currently three wells are actively drilling. It does not matter that oil in quantity has yet to be discovered. The fact remains that environmental Minister Davis and his local cohort, Mr. Anderson, see something sinister in permitting oil and gas exploration in west coast waters but so far as they are concerned east coast waters are something different. And let's remember Chedabucto Bay.

For years the crude oil needs of eastern Canada have been supplied by imports mainly from Venezuela. This massive flow of some 570,000 barrels of oil per day is brought up the

[ Page 453 ]

entire length of the United States eastern shore. Some 460,000 barrels are unloaded at Portland, Maine, thence conveyed by pipeline to Montreal. The remainder is taken into the St. Lawrence River system by a tanker. In the east coast case, the possible spillage of oil in the unloading at Portland is added to the perils of ocean movement. The United States has not objected or criticised movement of California oil up through their west coast to serve this province before oil became plentiful in Alberta and British Columbia.

I might add further to the fact. Since the beginning of the use of oil, we have continuously had tankers moving the product up the coast of British Columbia to Alaska and the converse can be said. They've been moving it down too.

I'm concerned about the pollution aspect. My colleague the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) has made statements on this along with myself. We're naturally concerned. We want to preserve the amenities that we have on our coast. Certainly we are not looking for what is being said about the drilling for oil, I'm more concerned with the movement of it, in the methods of there being moved or contemplated being moved today.

Mr. Speaker, I mention these facts to bring to the attention of the House just how some of our Liberal friends in Ottawa do literally speak out of both sides of their mouths at once for political reasons only.

Mr. Speaker, Davis and Anderson, in their off-shore policy and with the apparent consent of the Liberal government, are deliberately creating two distinct classes of Canadian provinces.

It is my understanding that the present Liberal government was working towards unity in Canada. Certainly, how do you establish any logic when you make second-class citizens and a second-class province of one of the contributing provinces to the equalisation payments of the federal government? They establish them as a second-class category to eastern Canada. I'm not condoning what they're doing, I'm not speaking on behalf of oil companies or anything of that nature. I am very, very concerned about what is happening to our country. If we can't have equal treatment as far as east and west are concerned, how can we ever achieve the unity which we rightfully wish to establish in this great Canada?

Mr. Speaker, as with the general economy of the province — and I'm going on to another subject here — the past year has been one of continued expansion in the area of transportation. Railways, aerial tramways, pipelines and commercial road transport has continued the curve upward.

Regarding road transportation, the fiscal year 1970-71 saw 222,921 commercial vehicles licenced. This is an increase of more than 7,000 over the previous year. However, this increase is in marked contrast to the year 1969-70 when the increase was over 20,000. The average increase since the fiscal year 1966-67 is in excess of 13,000. Preliminary estimates of 1971-72 figures would indicate a continued rise in the number of licences issued. These statistics in relation to commercial motor vehicles are an excellent reflection of the state of industrial activity in the province which in itself is a mirror of the state of the national economy.

The past year was marked by a significant change in weight regulations as they apply to axle, axle group, and gross vehicle weight. What the new regulations did among other things was to provide an immediate increase to 82,000 lbs. from 76,000 lbs. for the conventional five-axle combination.

In view of the increased weight allowed by the new laws, it was thought desirable to include in the regulations provisions that would prohibit the proliferation of vehicle combinations with inadequate horsepower and tractive effort and to reduce these problems on existing equipment over a period of time.

Accordingly, regulations were made to prohibit operators taking advantage of the new regulations by increasing their gross weight unless their power units were equipped with engines capable of producing one gross horsepower for every 300 lbs. of gross weight and by 1975 all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight in excess of 59,000 lbs. will be obliged to meet these requirements.

Also, any vehicle having one driving axle was prohibited from taking full advantage of the new allowable weights and by 1975 will be restricted to gross weights of less than 60,000 lbs.

The last two regulations are the first to be applied in this manner by any jurisdictions in North America and they were promulgated with a view to discouraging undesirable types of equipment and to provide performance standards and guidelines to industry, as well as to protect the interests of the general public.

A further innovation during the past year has been the construction in conjunction with the building of a new weigh station at Kamloops, of a truck inspection pit. This will enable the R.C.M.P. to carry out normal inspection of trucks covering such items as brakes, steering and exhaust systems. This will also enable the individual truck driver to inspect his vehicle and make any necessary safety adjustments.

An area of continuing and serious concern to my department is the tendency to oversize loads. Most manufacturing industries have been, as far as possible, made aware of the limits it has been necessary to impose on oversize loads. Industry must face up to the reality of those regulations or face the economic consequences.

Particular note of this should be taken by industrial designers. The fact that the manufacture of a particular component is accomplished will not of itself be sufficient to guarantee its movement on the highway. If it cannot be moved without the interest of the safety of the road using public being jeopardised, it will not move at all, no matter what the financial loss to the manufacturer or others concerned.

The regulations in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, have been formulated with the geographic and topographic nature of our country being a critical factor. These regulations will be strictly administered in the interest of public safety.

Why do I say this? Even with the increase in weight up to the figures that have been set out, there has been a continuing pressure on my department and myself that we should not only extend the width of loads from 12 feet to 14 feet to 16 feet, when it's only common sense that the travelling surface of a highway is only 12 feet wide. You are going to jeopardise somebody. You are going to jeopardise somebody and I have no intention of giving it. I have no intention.

I will resist this because it is not within reason to expect a 14- or 16-foot load to be moved on the highway on a 12-foot lane. You are going to jeopardise the motorists. If someone else carrying a similar sized load attempts to pass each other the ones that will be injured the most is not the loaded vehicle, it will be the motorist who innocently is encountered with a problem of attempting to do a defensive driving job

[ Page 454 ]

where he has no opportunity or no possibility of coming out. Any loads that are in excess of this must be carried out under very special circumstances, very special times, very special precautions with a lighted vehicle ahead, a lighted vehicle behind, even in the daylight and we don't issue permits to move at night except in exceptional cases where a short move is made in moving a house or something of that nature, and they must take all the necessary precautions.

I would like to say something about the provincial railway extensions amounting to more than 250 miles of mainline track together with major improvements in road bed, shop facilities, additional motive power and rolling stock, which together with the continuing increase in car loadings have made 1971 one of the most outstanding years of railway history in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Kootenay Hills?

HON. MR. RICHTER: We'll come to that in due course. It's before the courts at the present time, and my friend is well aware of it because I get material the same as he does and I noticed his name on the list along with others.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: With the Pacific Great Eastern, to be the British Columbia Railway Company, pressing northward, new areas of resource potential will be opened up and those developed which already exist will obtain ready access to the markets of the world. The whole railway system in British Columbia is expanding to meet the challenge of industrial growth. It is the backbone of industrial transportation and despite the innovation of more sophisticated methods of transportation, is likely to remain so throughout the foreseeable future.

During the past year 234 miles of oil and gas pipelines were completed with a further 241 miles under construction. My department is presently updating its maps of all provincial pipelines and it is interesting to note that eight companies operate over 4,500 miles of lines between them, and the mileage of numerous small companies adds considerably to that total.

The pipelining of solids still occupies the attention of researchers. However, there are no firm indications at this time that either market acceptance or technological feasibility has been accomplished. Consequently, I have no immediate confidence that this mode of transportation is about to supplant the need for an expanding railway system to move the product of the industry.

During 1971, the federal government created a new harbour commission to administer the Port of Vancouver. While its composition is not all that one would have wished, nevertheless it is a step in the right direction. I believe that the most important task of this commission will be to plan carefully the future development of this Canada's gateway to the Pacific rim. I am particularly concerned that the concentration of bulk loading and container facilities in Burrard Inlet is not to be continued.

With the availability of Roberts Bank, bulk loading at the inlet should be progressively phased out from this heavily populated metropolitan area. If container facilities are increased, this also will present a major problem of traffic movement.

If Vancouver is to handle the volume of container traffic which it undoubtedly is destined to do, serious consideration must be given to the cost of constructing adequate access routes through the already overburdened municipal road systems.

What I am suggesting is that the new commission take into consideration the amenities of water depth, available land and virtually uninhibited access at Roberts Bank and plan to concentrate all future development at that location.

This action would do two things. It would put a stop to the increasing industrial congestion in the metropolitan area around the inlet and over a period of time make available some of the land around the inlet for the recreational use of people. This commission has a tremendous opportunity to make Roberts Bank one of the world's greatest superports, while at the same time enable its citizens to enjoy to a much higher degree what is probably the most beautiful setting of any metropolitan area on the continent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I have no hesitation in supporting this budget which once again is balanced.

This scuttlebutt that has been going around about election budgets — I have never seen an election budget in this House and I have been here fortunately almost 19 years. Each year the budget progressively increases to meet the requirements of the province and every budget could be called an election budget, just because of its size alone.

This budget does many, many things. It covers a broad spectrum. We have a broad cross-section of population in this province, not all alike but having many requirements. This budget is doing for these people what they would expect a government to bring in, a budget for the people. It imposes no extra taxes and accents its spending on providing services and jobs for people. I have every confidence the people will support such a budget and I thank you very much for your attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you Mr. Speaker. First I would like to say that unusually for me I can say to the House today that I have a relative in the gallery to listen to my speech, my young niece has come from school with her friend to meet you. They came to Canada on my recommendation in 1963 and the Minister of Industry might be interested in this, because my niece's father is mentioned in one of his reports. He set up a flourishing business based on the most unlikely proposition that you can get — making a cement boat, float it and sell it and get a lot of people interested in it, both commercially and for pleasure.

I don't think it will float, but my niece's father says it does, and he's got one and he's selling them very well and the Minister mentioned it in his report.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: Since 1957, Mr. Speaker, our family has grown from 1 to 17. That's one way I've found out how to beat the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Member who has just sat down made some announcements and I welcome them. Because if indeed that Minister will resist the blandishments of the Canadian Pacific Railway and others regarding the size of trucks he will be the first Minister who ever resisted the Canadian Pacific Railway since confederation. I think that he's to be commended, if indeed each year he's able to say that. I will commend him now by saying he's done it successfully for the

[ Page 455 ]

two sessions that he's had this portfolio which we've been discussing from time to time.

However, in the increase in the size of the vehicles he refers to, I wonder why he said nothing about tire standards and why he said nothing about brake standards — both subjects which members of his own department, who I now understand have left the service of the province, have had a lot to say on in previous years.

Similarly, I listened with interest to the Minister and I share his concern and his criticism and his anger with the federal government regarding the differentiation between east and west of this country. While I listened to him I still really couldn't find out — I think it was only because he failed to tell us — whether the Minister is for or against oil drilling in the Straits of Georgia and in the Straits of Juan De Fuca. He didn't say so categorically and I hope he will say so during his estimates. I know he's against the movement of oil, but he still hasn't said it.

The Minister talked of ecology. He's in charge of mines and yet he didn't put to rest the feeling that the forthcoming inquiry into that industry is going to be conducted by the pollution control board in a way that is not going to satisfy a number of people.

There's a lot of comment that strip mining, for instance, and its problems will not be discussed at that inquiry, because of the presence in our statutes of the Act — chapter 18 of the 1969 statutes — and I'd like the Hon. Minister to tell us on some future occasion that indeed that mining inquiry which I think starts next month will be able to receive comments about strip mining.

Similarly, in the very reference that set up that inquiry into mining — and I know the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources is listening — one of the reasons that it gives for that inquiry is so that inquiries will be obviated in the future on individual application. Now, that's my reading of it. If I'm wrong I will be pleased to be corrected.

As I understand it, the purpose of the inquiry into mining next month, one of the purposes, is to do away with the need for inquiries into individual applications.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not right.

MR. HALL: In that case, I will convey that information to those people who are worried about it. In that case I suggest that somebody in the department could do better on his typewriter and not put the two lines in at the end of the terms of reference.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we've been told right the way through the piece that we're debt free. We've been told that we treat our municipalities better than anyone else, we've been told that our school districts are in better shape and we've been told everything's fine. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.

If it were true, then I wouldn't be getting letters from the Surrey municipality complaining about government action. I wouldn't be getting letters from the Surrey school board asking for assistance in solving financial problems. I wouldn't be getting letters from constituents in the proposed regional park asking for help. I wouldn't Mr. Speaker — if it were true — have in my mind the inescapable fact that out of every $11 send to B.C. Hydro 34 cents goes to pay for debt interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Surrey send a letter on the five to four vote?

MR. HALL: On the five to four vote? No, they didn't send me a letter, they knew where I stood on that one.

To pay the interest on debts, Hydro 34 cents out of every $1, Mr. Speaker. And in a pay-as-you-go province I can't quite square those two things together. In the district that I represent, the Surrey municipality has got in its current budget a provision for nearly $900,000 for debt charges — $900,000 for debt.

Mr. Speaker, in the school board, School District No. 36, the figure for debt including, I think the expression is, expenditures on principal and interest for sinking funds, debentures, term loans and bank charges, is over $2.5 million in the last reported year and on the provisional budget which is probably due for discussion under Bill 3, is up to $2,849,000.

If we take two of those items alone, Mr. Speaker — sinking funds, principal instalments, and debentures — that's code H1 and H2 for those who know anything about these forms, it adds up to $1,600,000. We take half of that as being a rough estimate on the 25-year series and you can see how much in debt School District No. 36 is.

It's estimated that something like 1.75 mil goes for debt — financing the debt of that school district.

I put a special plea in for those areas, School District No. 36, 37, 38, and 43 in the horseshoe starting off in Coquitlam and finishing up at Roberts Bank — the areas of growth, the areas that fell behind with per capita grants, the areas that had to do with the phenomenal growth in school districts.

They're the areas, Mr. Speaker, that are becoming somewhat cynical over the claims that the province is debt free. Those areas are becoming somewhat cynical over the democratic process when they hear the claims of the government. They know that their taxes have gone up. They know how much the government's home-owner increase means to them. And the areas from Tsawwassen right the way through to where my friend the Leader of the Opposition lives are suffering even though the clamour from the government benches is that "you've never had it so good".

Mr. Speaker, the debate yesterday ranged high, wide, and handsome and the Minister of Municipal Affairs just two days ago — it was just the beginning of the week — said that the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Party would not be on the front pages of the Vancouver papers.

You know, he was right. One of the few times during that speech he was right. What was on the front pages of those papers that day wasn't the speech from the leader of the Liberal Party or the speech from the leader of the New Democratic Party. It was indeed the fact that unemployment soars 25 per cent in one month. I don't know which the Hon. Minister would sooner have had on the front page.

The B.C. rate hit 8.7 per cent. Unemployment soars 25 per cent in one month, the B.C. rate hits 8.7 per cent. Last night the Minister of Labour made a speech that lasted just over an hour. He spent fifteen minutes on the Vallieres case, he spent 15 minutes abusing the New Westminster Member. At 2:40 p.m. he commenced to read his statistics and he gave us the usual parade of growth, he took credit for everything that was good and blamed Ottawa for everything that was bad.

The final 15 minutes of his speech were concerned with apprenticeship and industrial training and not one word, Mr. Speaker, about the front page story, not one word about 25

[ Page 456 ]

per cent increase in unemployment, not one word about the unemployment figures in January, not one word about that movement.

I listened to every word, Mr. Speaker, and I would tell you it was a very poor performance, a very poor performance from a new Minister of Labour.

Let's deal with the 15 minutes of his speech that had something in it. Let's deal with the 15 minutes of worthwhile content in his speech. For the past three years, Mr. Speaker, I've been asking questions about apprenticeship in industrial training. I know that both labour and management are not satisfied with what's going on. I know that the Minister of Labour is not satisfied with what's going on and he said so yesterday.

But the record of the government isn't very satisfactory either, prior to this Minister. Let's look at the figures again. Mr. Speaker, in 1966-67 there was appropriation of nearly $3 million in the budget. We spent less than $2.5 million, we had $500,000 left over at the end of the year. The year after that '67-'68, appropriation $4,200,000, spent $2.5 million, $1,700,000 left over. And it gets worse.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago I asked the then Minister of Labour, that is the first Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Peterson) if all the money would be expended. I had in my hand the nine-month figures because I know like many Members that the big expenditure comes after that nine month figure is in — in terms of housing shelter and accommodation. I had the answer "yes", from the Minister of Labour.

That was the year we under-expended apprenticeship in industrial training by $900,000. One thing we could do about apprenticeship and this is right off the top of my head is to say that never will an apprentice ever be laid off.

I could tell you stories, Mr. Speaker, that come from your home town and my home town in the old country when in 1924, 1922, 1926, the only money that was coming into people's houses came from apprenticeship wages. That's the kind of thing we should have in the back of our minds when we make legislation.

Let's look at what we achieved during those years that I referred to, 1966-71. Let's look at the kind of trade, the kind of skills that we are producing. Mr. Speaker, out of 1,552 apprentices — and these are mentioned in the Minister of Labour's last report — out of 1,552 apprentices 217 had to go with the car industry, learning how to bash dents out of fenders and repair automobile engines, 15 per cent of the output went to the automobile industry.

How much of the output of that scheme, those schools and this branch, went into something that's got to do with 1972 and 1973 — the last half of the 20th Century, the first year of the second century of Canada?

Electronics, Mr. Speaker — 0.6 per cent went into electronics, 0.5 per cent went into instrumentation in its forms. Mr. Speaker, the branch and the Minister, the then Minister — I'm not referring to this Minister, he's got this year to come up, we'll watch for him next year — they're locked into the fifties. They remember '52 and their minds stop. They had a good idea in '52 and haven't had one since.

The Minister in charge then was also the Minister of Education and he used to say it was a perfect mix — education and labour. It's a dreadful mix, Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, through you. The same kind of locked-in approach, the same kind of locked-in thinking went into education as well. And when we look at the graduating lists out of our Canadian universities — and these are available to the Members, they're published by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, "University and Community College Guide, 1970" — we look at some of the modern techniques, modern sciences, the modern disciplines they require and look where our universities stand.

Let's take, just off the first page, "Schools of Sociology, Environmental Studies and Anthropology." Something that we're all concerned with, something that we have to know something about if we're going to make some decisions about where we go economically, where we go from a development point of view, and where we go with the great impact that government has on people today.

In B.C. we produced in 1970 eight graduates, in '71 10 graduates while the University of Western Ontario produced 141. The same kind of locked-in 1952 approach.

"Secretarial, Science, and Arts." Almost zilch as the Minister of Municipal Affairs would say. Five graduates in '71 compared to Dalhousie University and St. Mary's University in the east.

"Public Administration", Mr. Speaker. Now we all know that if there is one trade union that is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger, it's the Canadian Union of Public Employees. We all know that the bureaucracy and the people associated with the civil service are going to get bigger, bigger, and bigger. We do know that we better start to learn something about public administration.

There's not even a course, not even a school, nothing. And we can go right through to the Master's degrees, Mr. Speaker, and the same results apply. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that from '52 until last year — and that wasn't '52, I guess it was around about 1956 or there abouts — when that dual portfolio was carried by the first Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, we had locked-in thinking that seemed standstill, standstill in terms of quality.

This Minister will have to do better. One thing he can do, Mr. Speaker, is to pass, suggest, produce, encourage, do something to produce a bill that would make sure that every vacancy in this province is notified to some central source. Every vacancy.

I don't say that we do away with private hire agencies although I could have a debate about it at some other time. I don't necessarily want to pass any comment about the fact you're in competition with Manpower, with the P.A.B. and the opportunities programme and soon. But I'm saying that every vacancy in B.C. should have to be notified centrally. So, at least the people who've got the lists for people looking for work have got on the other hand the lists of jobs available. That doesn't happen today.

If we do that, then that side of the House and this side of the House can look at the federal government and we can say to the Prime Minister of Canada, "either put up or shut up when you're talking about unemployment". He won't be able to go around then saying there are 40,000 jobs here and 20,000 jobs there. We'll also be able to say to Canada Manpower, "put up or shut up". I call for that control of vacancies bill, that control of vacancies Act or that control of vacancies order.

I'd like to say some more about this apprenticeship and industrial training programme. I want to see a lot more people involved in that new look as the Minister indicates. It's going to take a lot more than the simple input of money. And I'd like to see the House committee on labour take a look at it, because it's too important to leave to the whims of the government or the whims of the Minister. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I would be a little bit more appreciative of the

[ Page 457 ]

Minister if he'd have made all of his speech in the House yesterday, instead of out in the corridor.

Mr. Speaker, when we sit in this House…

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Labour): I made all my speech in the House.

MR. HALL: No sir, when he talked about drastic changes to the compensation board, which he did not say in this House, then I consider that an affront to the House and it's in keeping with him cocking his nose at the House like he did on opening day.

And we'd all get along a lot better if we pay the correct attention, and the correct service to this House rather than lip service to the House.

The Minister talked about changes in principle to the Workmen's Compensation Act not in this chamber but outside. No sir, it won't wash, it won't wash. He could have wiped out 15 of those 16 minutes on Vallieres and talked about 15 or 14 minutes on workmen's compensation.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, if we want to get rough like that I could talk about Social Credit members in Ontario, members of the Edmond Burke Society, members who break into book stores and commit violence, Social Credit members who attack visiting dignitaries — but that doesn't get us anywhere. So don't start that kind of tone of debate.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: I've done a better job of that since I've been in the House than you have. And you've been in the House twice as long as I have. Mr. Speaker, the last Minister of Labour used to just stamp his feet, stamp his satin-covered slippered feet. That's what he used to do, when we used to ask him about this kind of question. And I hope the Minister doesn't take on that kind of abberant behaviour as well.

Mr. Speaker, the debate last night went on right through the small hours of the morning. I was getting tired, like most Members I suppose, but when I heard the Minister of Agriculture blaming everybody again, blaming labour, talking about compulsory arbitration at one o'clock in the morning I must confess that I wanted to heckle him and I did. And I shouldn't have done that.

But as usual he castigated labour and recommended the old big stick formula, compulsory arbitration. I'd like to go into that one more time. One more time, because we've heard it over and over and over again.

Mr. Speaker it's my opinion, and I think it's a fact, that compulsory arbitration causes more strikes than it solves. It's not good enough to just take compulsory arbitration in a singular fashion and look at it as if it were frozen in one specific moment of time.

Mr. Speaker it is my opinion that those sections of our economy that are sensitive and can fairly obviously be declared to be in the essential public service field are willing to meet as both management and labour, to discuss the future of whither goest labour-management relations. But they've never been asked, they've never been asked. It's my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the compulsory sections of Bill No. 33 defeated its purpose from the government point of view. I'd like to look at the labour scene as far as compulsory arbitration is concerned, Mr. Speaker. If we look at the industrial western world — and that's what we're talking about — all of which to varying degrees have different collective bargaining arrangements, if we look at the incidence of strikes and lock-outs in those countries, we start to see a pattern emerging.

We take the last 13 years or thereabouts. We'll find out that if we take four countries — the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia and this country — the days lost per work are varied, from 0.31 to 0.006. And you don't have to be much of a genius to know that the one with compulsory arbitration has got the worst figures — 0.31.

The four countries differ in the degrees to which the determination of wages and conditions is regulated by law. And that regulation by law is what's wrong with Bill No. 33.

Mr. Speaker, we can discuss in detail Great Britain, Sweden, and Australia where they set up industrial arbitration courts which hand down legally-binding awards. But I prefer to deal in a kind of a principled way with the thing because maybe the Minister's not really caught on to this yet.

The principle of compulsory arbitration, Mr. Speaker, is not based on the need for any understanding whatsoever between the parties. It involves the intrusion of a third party into the dispute. It involves the intrusion of a third party to enquire into the issues and to impose a settlement. And since the terms of the outcome of that intrusion will be in legal form, legally enforceable, binding by the total weights of this Legislature, you can see the disputing parties have no responsibility whatsoever for the terms of the settlement to either each other — and that's important — or to their members, either the trade union membership or the shareholders, or owners or the corporate structure. And that leads to a loss of both union and management rights, and that's what we're talking about — rights.

This is not in the interest, in my view, of more peaceful industrial relations. It's alright to take one dispute and say, "solve it". But you've got to look at the overall picture in a long term, and the greatest argument against compulsory arbitration or the threat of it is that there is not a single shred of evidence that it decreases the incidence of strikes. And that's what we're supposed to be talking about. There's a lot of other reasons for objecting to it and I've named a couple.

But, Mr. Speaker, and here we're coming to 1972 as distinct from Bill No. 33 in 1968, if compulsory arbitration is a path upon which the government has set its feet it follows that the government is going to get involved right up to its neck in wage determination and therefore must become involved in the determination of prices and profits.

Mr. Speaker, I said that in '68. And I would be out of order if I referred your attention to Bill No. 3. But I think you'll see the connection, I think you'll see the connection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close on this item of compulsory arbitration with just one further quotation. Not a self quotation this time but a quotation from an article in Business Week, and that's not required reading for members of the New Democratic Party, if you listen to what people on the other side say.

Consensus: The subject of emergency disputes got considerable attention last week for an impressive assembly of labour-management experts gathered for the anniversary of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in the United States. The participants' opinions on the problems facing collective bargaining ranged the spectrum of their special concerns.

And here may I add, Mr. Speaker, that when the Minister says "politicians and other special interest groups" I think we

[ Page 458 ]

were laughing over his head.

The participants' opinions on the problems facing collective bargaining ranged the spectrum of their special concern — business, labour government and the universities. And there was one unanimous view, that compulsory arbitration is not the best device for handling critical strikes, whether they create or threaten an emergency or lead to substantial inconvenience for the public. Many of the experts at the week-long session argued there is already too much federal intervention in labour disputes. It goes on to then say how much they disagreed about everything else. But the one unanimous viewpoint was, that compulsory arbitration is not the best device for handling critical strikes whether they create or threaten an emergency or lead to substantial inconvenience for the public.

Mr. Speaker, we could debate, I suppose, for days on end what we should do. But I think we would agree on this, that the most important thing in labour-management disputes as far as the public essential service field is concerned is the climate that is existing in the province before ever a dispute or negotiations take place. And that amorphous, intangible thing called "climate" is where the government's going wrong.

And even calling for labour tzars, like the Liberals do from time to time when they mention "a splendid man" when they talk about that — Justice Nemetz isn't going to solve the problem either. Because what people don't realise is that there isn't necessarily a rational approach to be taken in a dispute between labour-management. And I said this last year. What you have to do is get the climate, what you have to do is remove all the rubbish and the argumentation about whether this is right or wrong, and that's where some parts of that bill might have been useful. And then you say, "let them have at each other". Fair and square, shoulder to shoulder. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Speaker, those things that I have mentioned are essential and then we start to go on with some of the other stuff. But the government doesn't even make the first step.

Part of the climate would be, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that there is legislation in this province that is useful to everybody, not to just one side. And when I look at what's happening to other parts of this country I find again that this government has a short-fall in its legislative programme.

Mr. Speaker, the question of plant closures and plant shut-downs is one which is going to bedevil Canada for a while. And it's going to start to make an ever-increasing amount of work for the Minister of Labour. It's going to hurt British Columbia. B.C., the third largest industrial province, is falling behind Quebec, and Ontario and the federal government in legislation to protect the workers, the economy, and the community against plant closures, and plant shut-downs.

Shut-downs, Mr. Speaker, are a product of the complex technical age, a by-product of a branch-plant economy in this country. They are usually caused by a combination of one or more of three basic reasons. Either foreign decisions — two, efficiency — three, mergers, or other rationalisations, of the branch-plant economy. And the main fault of these things, Mr. Speaker, is there's no advanced notice.

Now, I've been in management for a long time, and nobody's going to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of decision-making happens at 9 o'clock on a Monday morning.

For weeks in advance, management know that this kind of thing is coming along. No provision in the contract, usually, in this province for advance notice. No compulsory machinery made available by legislation. The employer has the whip hand, but the employer has a responsibility. A responsibility, Mr. Speaker. And if you can think of the effect it can have in one industry town you can rapidly see that we need this legislation and that we're way behind the federal government.

Let's look at the legislation that's available for us as a model. To speak of the legislation federally is the Canada Labour Standards Code, section 34 of part 4C — "group termination of employment".

Mr. Speaker, if any employer who terminates either simultaneously or within any period not exceeding four weeks the employment of a group of 50 or more employees he has to give notice to the Minister — eight weeks if he employs up to 100 — 12 weeks between 100-300, and 16 weeks notice if the group exceeds 300. That's notice.

Now, that's not all, that's not the end of it, nor should it be. But we go further and we see that the owner also has to notify the employee organisation, where there's a contract. Further, the right to negotiate and open the contract is available. And severance pay is laid down in the schedule.

But more importantly, it means that the three parties that are involved have got to get together, and that's the main thing. If the Minister did nothing else but dedicate his whole life to getting the three parties together day in and day out, he'd make a contribution far in excess of the contribution that has been made over the last six years by that Minister.

Ontario, termination of employment, effective date — same thing. One week's notice, to a person if he's got less than two years employment history — that's on the personal lay-off basis. When you come to the group lay-off it's almost the same as the federal code. Eight weeks' notice less than 200, 12 weeks between 200-500, 16 weeks if there's more than 500.

The recent shut-downs in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker? Mining — Churchill, Bralorn, Noranda. Lumber — N.B. King, B.C. Forest Products, Crown Zellerbach in Peachland, B.C. Laminated, and they've shut down their power machinery in Richmond, and the list grows day after day after day.

Nobody can complain or whine about it, it's a fact of life. I've said in my earlier speech what's wrong with this economy that we're in. It's now proven that you can do without 20 per cent of the people as workers, as you can do without 20 per cent of the people who are consumers. And that's something that neither Marx nor Keynes ever envisaged. But apart from the question of notice there is whole range of problems and a range of possible solutions.

Some of those companies I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, have because of the persistence of some activists in the Manpower consultative service and the trade union movement and in two cases to my knowledge, there may be more, of excellent employer-employee relationship have cooperated in lessening the blow.

What about the problems and what about the range of possible solutions? Well, first of all we have to get some machinery to handle the problem. That should be section 1 or section 2 of the Act.

Second, we can discuss, I suppose, the question of early retirement for those people over a certain age.

Thirdly we could talk about re-location. There's mobility assistance available from the federal government and I'm sure that with all this money that you're standing up to your hips in, you can afford a few bucks yourselves. Maybe the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Chabot) might be more aggressive in getting some of that money than his predecessor, too.

[ Page 459 ]

I'd like to write a job description, Mr. Speaker, sometime for the new Minister of Labour.

There's absorption into the other parts of the branch plant economy which could be written as indeed I think has been written in the case of Crown Zellerbach and I think it was M.B. Kinglam.

Retraining — now we come back, perhaps, to what we were discussing before where young people are concerned. Something which I expect no agreement from at all on the other side of the House — the question of take-over. There's been a study done, Mr. Speaker, and I …

AN HON. MEMBER: Which plant would you have taken over?

MR. HALL: It all depends which plant it was. Very selective. I can think of a couple of plants not too far away from your doorstep I might have taken over at one time or another.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: There's been a study done, Mr. Speaker, by the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. HALL: I want to quote from parts of that study …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Members please address the Chair and address the Chair from their own seats.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, carrying on about the study by the Ontario Federation of Labour, I recommend it to the Minister, an excellent piece of work. In our survey, Mr. Speaker, it was found that not all plant shutdowns were the result of a depressed economic situation in the country. Some of the shutdowns were caused by poor management and inefficiency. Others were closed because of an inferior end product. Others closed because of competition, domestic or foreign, lack of restrictions on foreign goods. A good many plants were closed because the decision to close was made elsewhere than in our own country. We can't state that often enough, Mr. Speaker.

The study goes on to talk about the nature of unemployment today. How the serious rise in unemployment cannot be attributed solely to a gap or a mismatching between the availability of labour and the jobs required.

They talk about structural unemployment. They talk about mismatching of skills, technological change — and I repeat my plea, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't somebody in B.C. start to investigate who is unemployed instead of using the gross and raw figures all the time?

In this time we're facing a range of things, tax cuts, an expanded social security system, higher wages, salaries, and government policies of investing in large-scale capital works. That's what we could be doing. That's what we're not doing. That's what we could be doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Members on the other side often deal in old-fashioned myths. "High wages cause unemployment." There's been a stepped-up campaign to convince the public that wage increases are the cause of unemployment. The facts don't bear it out. Wage increases are not the cause of unemployment. If they were, some of our greatest competitors would be in the same position as we are.

In 1969-70 wages went up in Japan by 17.9 per cent. Unemployment went down 2.8 per cent. That's right. Productivity. But then I cited the case of steel where the union cost of labour still is going down, down, down, down, down. We can go right through that series of random statistics. We can talk about the psychological effects of plant shutdown. Although a plant shutdown threatens all employees in the industry unit alike in that they all lose their jobs, the less-skilled, the ones with the lowest seniority and the ones at the bottom of the income scale suffer the most.

Here, I want to stray and say I disagreed with one part of this report because I don't think it pays anywhere near enough attention to the white-collar worker in the shutdown situation who often is more distressed. But then sometimes the answer for a white-collar worker is to do something that a blue-collar worker did a long time ago and that's swallow his pride.

Mr. Speaker, a comparison of the legislation in Quebec, Ontario and the federal government I think I have made in terms of the number of weeks of advance notice.

What it does, Mr. Speaker, is insures that the role of government agencies in providing information assistance to workers who find themselves unemployed because of mass lay-offs is as comprehensive as possible.

Listen to who is involved in the Province of Ontario. Life's a whole new ball-game for those Ministers who are dashing around. The provincial Departments of Education, Social and Family Services, Trade and Development, Treasury and Economics as well as the Canada Department of Manpower and Immigration and an official of the Ontario Department of Labour as chairman of the committee.

Now, I'm not too fond of that kind of structured committee in a way, but the point is it's beginning to work. We've got a model legislation and I think we can do something here.

Mr. Speaker, the questions of management rights is dealt with on page 86 of this report. Here, I suppose, there will be a difference of opinion between myself and the Minister of Labour and it's this. The old concept of labour as a commodity simply will not suffice. It is at once wrong and dangerous, hence there is a responsibility upon the entrepreneur who introduced his technological change to see that it is not effected at the expense of his working force.

I think we've got to admit that the old idea of labour as a product just simply to be sold is old hat. We can dispense with it and come up with some new values. Some new ideas about shares. You're all fond of drawing these wonderful pies in the budget. Let's draw some new pies for the kind of shares that we're talking about as we go into this last 20 years of this century.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one point that is of interest to those in B.C. That when a plant shuts down or closes, if that plant is in possession of one of the myriad pieces of paper that it can get — and I don't profess to be any expert in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources but I know that you can get grants of timber, you can get licences and there's a whole range of things that have happened, happen now and will happen in the future — but I simply say that if any plant that closes down has a piece of paper that has on it a natural resource that was given to it by this government, but the Crown, it should be returned to the Crown.

But when I remember, Mr. Speaker, the case of Georgia

[ Page 460 ]

Pacific — and I don't want to deal loosely in the figures — but I know deep inside me that Georgia Pacific probably made more money when it got out than it did when it was working. That's not good enough. Anybody that's got a piece of paper with the Minister's signature on it allows him to cut, trim, dig, to spoil, grab, come and get it — all the rest of it. It goes back to the Crown, Mr. Speaker, if I had my way.

In summary there is a range of things that this government could do. It could start with an inquiry about a House committee on the aspects of apprenticeship. It could pass a control of vacancies order. It could insist on the return to the Crown of all granted or licensed resources. It could pass a bill controlling plan shutdowns and closures. It could remove the compulsory sections of the Mediation Commission Act followed by changes in the Act itself. It could dismiss the mediation commission, and it could expect I think, Mr. Speaker, a better, fuller, and franker series of statements by the Minister of Labour. I hope he will do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister without Portfolio for Mackenzie.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, before beginning my address on the budget debate, I would like to mention first of all how pleased I am to see that the work has begun on the reconstruction of Highway 101 on the Sechelt Peninsula. I'm also very pleased that September, 1971 saw the opening of our new hospital in Ocean Falls. An additional floor to provide more acute beds and extended care at St. Mary's Hospital in Sechelt was opened in December. I am extremely pleased that finally at long last negotiations with the federal government have been confirmed for the building of a new hospital in Bella Bella.

However, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the time is fast approaching when serious consideration must be given to an alternate route to the Sechelt Peninsula as well as to Powell River. These areas are growing rapidly and would benefit greatly from such development.

I have had many letters and comments from people both in my riding and outside of it on the tremendous park work that has been going on. Especially in the Porpoise Bay and Roberts Creek area.

You know, this winter has been extremely severe and I feel that great credit should go to our highways crews who have worked constantly and indeed through the Christmas holidays — and most of us were able to enjoy our family — to keep our roads ploughed and sanded out. You know, this is not an easy task and I'm sure all the Members appreciate their efforts on our behalf.

This past week I had the most pleasant opportunity to visit Merritt, to attend the annual Moccasin Ice-hockey Tournament. Five teams competed in the tournament and the standard of skating and playing was exceptional.

I think the Canucks and some of our hockey teams might well take a look at some of these young Indian hockey players. They're just tremendous. The winners of the tournament will be travelling to Alberta to play in the western championships shortly.

Mr. Speaker, not having a teaching background I cannot attempt to compete with my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williston) in his adjectivally and adverbially enjoyable, factual description of the 1972 budget. I can however describe the 1972 budget in a few of the two- or three-syllabled words I have at my command.

This year's budget, a budget that is a credit to the outstanding financial ability of the Premier of this province, has a bushel and a peck of quality and quantity about it.

It is a mine of information. It indicates a forest-like growth. It holds water. It is a scenic tour of success. It is as rich as the brown soil — a veritable parkland, a landslide success. An educative accomplishment. A judicious presentation. A highway to the future. A labour of planning. A public work of stature. A healthful presentation. A recreative conservation of funds. It has planned excellence. It puts people first. It is trade-promoting and last but not least is a treasure chest of value for the people of this province.

When the privilege of ending the debate of the throne speech for the Opposition was granted to one of my own sex, I somehow believed that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had suddenly awakened to the place women have to play in our parliamentary process.

When I considered that the ending of the throne speech debate was traditionally a summation of what the Opposition considered to be their stand as opposed to that stated by the government side I eagerly and avidly anticipated a clear and lucid statement on the part of the Member from Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly). However, Mr. Speaker, I was not only amazed but also dumbfounded and indeed baffled by the remarks of the Hon. Member concerning her visit to Willingdon School where she was accompanied by the Member from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke).

I must express disapprobation to the remarks of the Member when in her evident hunger for attention she limelighted the girls at Willingdon School. A result of her comments was not averse to promulgating the limelight situation onto the parents of youngsters at the school and coupling both the parents and the girls with her histronics concerning "solitary confinement" and "last resort" and other items that once were used to describe penitentiaries, I found her statements over-coloured, extravagant, excessive, inordinate and a masterpiece of rhetoric.

In revealing that she gained all of her knowledge of the school as a result of a couple of short visits I can only assume that she is looking for headlines rather than for a change.

The call on the part of the Member for regionalisation of facilities is merely a pompous echo of what has been and a hollow one at that. This government's policy has been regionalisation for many years. A policy that is enshrined in legislation in 1969.

The professional staff at Willingdon school are well trained people and I feel quite certain that they know what they are doing. Their first concern is for the welfare of the girls at the school. The days of the sadistic type of institution are, thank goodness, long past and the concern of government today is in providing a variety of facilities for the care of young people and it is centered around professionally trained and competent people being placed in positions where they provide the know-how necessary for the care of young people.

It is very easy to jump to conclusions and this is what I feel the honourable Member has done. I can think back myself to the first time I visited a school which had incorporated open-area teaching concepts in its curriculum, then a very new departure for the particular school I visited.

I wondered during my visit how any learning could take place. It seemed to me that there was a great deal of confusion in the learning areas and the noise level appeared to be excessive. Students were all over the place and a great amount of messy stuff seemed to be going on in one corner

[ Page 461 ]

of the room. However, it became apparent to me, after several visits to this and similar planning teaching areas, that the teachers who were handling the open-area sessions were indeed competent in handling their area of teaching and that they students were given encouragement to be creative in their own way.

While I may still have some reservations on the open area teaching, I have to recognise and accept the roles of the teacher in this area of education. It is clear that the trained educator in this specific teaching situation is competent to provide and to maintain a learning situation which is a value to the students who participate in such a teaching concept.

In my speech in the House in 1969, I advocated more facilities at the community level for the young people who are in need of various care facilities and I will quote in part from my speech at that time.

"Children should not be considered in isolation from their families and their communities. A concerned and action oriented community strengthens the ability of each family with it. We must look inwardly into the communities, the families within the community areas, as well as to our social institutions, to determine where the cause stems from.

"Provincial institutions may have their place, but it seems to me that solutions are best found in the community from which the child emerges."

That's what I said in 1969. I need not remind this House that I also issued a challenge to any M.L.A. in this House to get involved in starting such programmes in any area and that I would gladly accompany any M.L.A. anywhere in the province to present my personal conviction and help that M.L.A. in creating and developing the types of resources for children that the community say as best serving their own particular needs. Did I get any takers from the Opposition? No, not one.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: We have an excellent treatment resources programme and there are many communities which have accepted the challenge themselves, and in the last two years alone, some 67 child-care resources have been opened in the eight regions in the province. Total capacity of these homes alone is 439. They cover short-term in family settings, receiving homes for infants up to two years, receiving homes for the mentally retarded, court remand homes, prereplacement homes, group homes for disturbed or delinquent girls and boys, group homes for the physically or mentally handicapped, homes for the emotionally disturbed, homes for those with behaviour problems.

In addition to those I have mentioned and in addition to Brannen Lake, Willingdon School and New Denver Youth Centre, there are special care resources available to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

These include intensive treatment for the emotionally disturbed, residential school for those with learning difficulties, hostels for the older girls, educational programmes for autistic children, programmes for the retarded deaf children, et cetera. There is a total capacity for 1,234 boys and girls in the eight regions.

I would say that the Member from North Burnaby, (Mrs. Dailly), as a result of her remarks, indicates a lack of comprehension of the problems that children are suffering and of the anguish and heartbreaks that the parents of these children experience.

She reveals a total disrespect for the communities and the dedicated people who are throwing all their energies towards helping these families. She creates additional worries and anxieties on the already overburdened families by continuing to perpetuate an outworn myth.

I can only conclude that the Member is giving new life to an old myth, really believes that the girls that go to Willingdon School go there to be punished and not to be helped. I cannot really believe that she still holds in her heart the conviction that the troubled child is not troubled, but is bad, as I am aware of that Member's own role in the educational areas.

I say this with deep conviction because I lived in Willingdon School and I have shared with the girls some of their joys and some of their sorrows. From my experiences during my visits — my many visits I might say — to the school, I cannot credit even from the casual visitor the kind of conclusions that the Member from Burnaby-North has made.

If that Member had but stayed and listened she would have discovered that the common cry from the girls in that school was that they want to be wanted. She would have heard of the many girls who have in their confusion run away and then phoned at any hour of day or night for the staff of the school to come and get them.

The Member visited the school, but she certainly and obviously did not make an in-depth visit. How can one assess in a two-hour visit the problems of these young girls, problems which have built up over a period of many years?

The Honourable Member should return to Willingdon, the girls there after all are quite forgiving, and she should spend some time gaining an understanding concerning young women in trouble rather than going there for the purpose of writing her speech for this House.

If the Member is sincerely interested in thoroughly comprehending the regionalisation of resources in this great province, I would be glad to give her all the information and examples of comprehensive community endeavours which she will need to round out her knowledge of how to help the troubled child — girl or boy.

It is interesting to know that the day after she had visited Willingdon School my good colleague the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Gaglardi) visited the school too and you know, her visit to the school was only, it would seem, to appear for the purpose of what political gain she could get out of it.

She chose, Mr. Speaker, to ignore all the good work the staff is doing at that school. The staff of the school was visited by the Minister as I said, the following day, and he found these people extremely disturbed over her cavalier and haughty attitude. Her criticisms are against some of the finest people in the civil service and she should be exposed, as I say, as a meddler for political gain at the expense of some very wonderful people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you go stab yourself with a ball-point?

HON. MRS. DAWSON: One other point I would mention, though, at this time — I wonder if it was the intention of that Member from Burnaby-North when she said "get rid of Willingdon School," did she mean that it was not good enough for girls but it was good enough for senior citizens? Surely that was not her intention.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

[ Page 462 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member will have his opportunity to take his place in the debate.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I have here in my hand today a complete list of receiving homes for boys and girls in this province, a special resource for the treatment of those who require intensive or various types of care.

I say, with all sincerity, let your Member come sit down with me and we'll talk about it. I'll go to the school with her too if she wants me to. I'll go with her on the condition that she'll sit down and listen and try to give understanding with the superintendent and myself. I will willingly do that but she must go and be prepared to listen to what is said.

AN HON. MEMBER: She did and they went away satisfied and then changed their minds.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: The superintendent did her best, but they wouldn't listen to the superintendent.

I was going to speak on the elderly citizens a great deal today but because of so much discussion last night, I'm going to leave most of mine until we get a little further along, possibly in the estimates.

I'll have an opportunity to tell you some more or some of the programmes that are going on in this province. But I am going to make mention of one today.

This is called the holiday programme for seniors. A holiday, a change of scenery, a different environment is necessary for all of us from time to time. We feel renewed, refreshed, and rested and perhaps, even more so, a change is necessary for our senior citizens.

Ordinarily those of us who work regularly, tend to take our holidays at the times of the year suitable to family plans and generally while our children are out of school the family takes off. However, senior citizens are not necessarily confined to taking holidays during the holiday peak season. It would seem reasonable to assume that were senior citizens to plan holidays during other than peak holidays, tourist oriented industries, the private citizen, might consider extending to these people a reduced rate whether they travel individually or in groups, within the Province of British Columbia.

To this end and because of talks I've had with the elderly citizens — and they showed interest in this type of planning — I've had meetings with the heads of transportation companies, hotel, motel and restaurant associations, and I plan to meet with those active in the entertainment fields.

Bus line operators, railroad and water transportation officials, hotel, motel and restaurant people, have all assured me of their keen interest in such a programme. Although we have just recently made a start, I have already had indications of reduced rates for our elderly citizens on the railways providing that they travel at certain times of the week. These are for the elderly citizens 65 years and over.

The hotel association has recently assured me that generally speaking they will cut their rates at least by 25 per cent on accommodation. The motel association has also indicated that they are greatly interested in this programme and we should be hearing from them in a matter of days.

Should a situation exist where a husband or wife is 65 years or over and the other partner is under 65 it is anticipated that the reduction will apply to both partners. The programme will extend from October to April, in each year anywhere in the province, anywhere they want.

In order that senior citizens may avail themselves of these reductions, an identification card is being prepared and production of this card will entitle them to all available reductions under the programme no matter where they go in the province, when the programme is set up.

Interjections by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Oh, no, you'd be surprised. There are some who like to travel. I get lots of requests. Mr. Speaker, it's quite surprising. I've been surprised at some of the requests of the senior citizens on travelling. You know what they want to do, some of them, especially who live alone, up in the interior and up Vancouver Island, Port Alberni, and other places? They said: "We'd like to go to the city for Christmas." They live by themselves. They like to go down and enjoy the bright lights and have a little fun at Christmas. This shows you.

They want to go not only in the summer time, they want to go in the winter time as well. I can see where the people up in Cranbrook area and Kimberley might like to choose to come down here, say in April or October and I would, if I were an elderly citizen. I would love to go up to the Kootenays in October and see the beautiful colouring of leaves. It's a sight to behold. You must agree to that.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Someday I'm going to be and someday you are too, aren't you? I know you're going to enjoy all the services the Province of British Columbia is providing for the elderly citizens. That's what I can't understand about people. I can't understand people who talk against senior citizens and I do have and you know you have had much discussion on this.

But I'll say this, boy even if you're going to be selfish about it, even for your own self, I would be behind every programme going on these holiday trip programmes for senior citizens, no matter what you are, because not only the present senior citizen of today is going to enjoy it, but so are you, and so is every one of us. I hope I am, I intend to enjoy it. I intend to enjoy the programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's still alive, hit him again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's later than you think, Leo.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: As far as I'm concerned I have not heard of a similar programme being developed anywhere and I would like to say at this time if we can start this in British Columbia, I'm hoping that this kind of a holiday set-up will spread all across this nation because I think we have a wonderful country in British Columbia and in Canada and let them see it if they can at a reasonable rate.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Yes they have rates, they have some plane rates too but it is the whole of transportation, the whole area of services that we're after and I think we can come up with a pretty good programme.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I know, but a lot of elderly citizens

[ Page 463 ]

do not want to travel by plane. You'd be surprised how many don't.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: This is good, you know. This is a round table discussion.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of my work with elderly citizens throughout the province, it became apparent to me that there was need for investigation of the needs of the hard of hearing, especially where their needs relate to sales and services of hearing aids.

I was told by many people, and so were the people in this House, of the abuse in sales and servicing of hearing aids in relation to the high cost of aids and poor after-sales service.

For those of our citizens who in their later years must have recourse to a hearing device, the expense of such a device is often prohibitive, in particular if the device must be serviced frequently. The senior citizen often cannot afford the expense of constant servicing of hearing aids. And while this may not seem quite such a problem to get down to your hearing aid dealer in the cities, it certainly is difficult out in the rural communities. Particularly if such servicing does not produce satisfactory results.

Initially we were concerned with that area of people in a community who could easily be taken advantage of — and could ill afford the constant expense of the hearing aid repairs. However, as we progressed in our investigations the programme became expanded to include all of the hard-of hearing, young and old alike.

A speech and hearing planning committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Elliot of the health department has been doing an excellent job of looking into hearing problems. The committee's aspects were broad and they have representation from the Department of Health, Department of Education, Department of Rehabilitation, University of B.C., the Western Institute for the Deaf, the medical profession, and audiologists.

The need of a speech therapy programme within our education system is certainly worthy of consideration. And I would like to see the departments concerned take a close look at this in the coming year.

In 1970 the Hearing Aid Bill was first introduced to the Legislature and the hearing aid industry was forewarned of the legislation which would come into effect as a result of the introduction of this bill. Possible federal developments — which, incidentally were not forthcoming — delayed implementation of the bill and it was reintroduced in 1971.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, was an outstanding success with the general public in British Columbia, and, as a matter of fact it was the first legislation of its kind in Canada.

A hearing aid board was appointed and set up as follows — I wish you'd listen to this now.

A member from the medical profession, one audiologist, one from the health department, two only hearing aid dealers, one member of the general public and a chairman who is a provincial consumer affairs officer.

It may be interesting to the lady Member of the Opposition to know that there are two women on the board. A quorum of five is necessary for any decision which has to be made. The seven members of the board represent…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Oh, we're protecting the public, don't worry… we're taking care of the people. The members of the board represent professional, consumer and hearing aid interests and the function of the board is to register hearing aid dealers and to issue licenses to them so they can trade within the Province of British Columbia.

The board has strong disciplinary powers which may be invoked where a dealer is considered to be incompetent, where a dealer is considered to have committed a breach of the Act or regulations pertaining to the Act. The Act makes it clear that the board is competent to deal with complaints either on its own behalf or on behalf of the general public when it receives complaints from individuals, it is empowered to ensure hearing aid dealers reach a standard of proficiency in knowledge of their product, so that the public can be assured that the hearing aid dealer knows his product and is competent to instruct in fitting and use of the aid he sells.

The Act became law on July 1, 1971 and at this time the board formulated regulations which were sanctioned and came into force on October 28, 1971.

I must take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the board members for their untiring efforts in bringing about the existing regulations — it's not an easy job. Regulations which allow not only the safeguards I have mentioned to be carried out, but also require the dealer to: provide a bond, keep proper records and correctly describe a hearing aid as new or used, maintain an adequate range of hearing aids with the repair facilities necessary to give good service, maintain equipment calibrated to acceptable standards.

In addition to this board a senior citizens' advisory committee representing the interests of our elderly citizens in our province has been formed to safeguard their interests in the area of hearing aid devices. There's one man and two women on this advisory committee; women's lib is getting ahead.

An educational sub-committee is presently looking into formulation of an educational course for hearing aid dealers, and, hopefully in mid-summer this year the course will be set up and will include a final exam for hearing aid dealers taking such a course.

These are all positive steps to establish a standard and to help individuals, and I'm pleased that the West Coast Hearing Aid Society insists that their dealers take a correspondence course which is set up by the national association. The course, which will be given by the board, will not only embrace the theory that is contained in their course, and from other sources as well, but will also have a practical application as well.

Those involved in working out the course details for such a training programme include: Mr. Stan Richards, director of the health division; Gordon Thom, vice-principal, extension division University of B.C.; Mr. Dave Hume, coordinator, extension division of the university; Mr. Derrick Franklin, curriculum development; Mr. Dave Anstey, coordinator, adult technical and vocational training; Dr. Irwin Stewart, representative, board of hearing aid dealers and consultants, and Miss Patience Towler, Department of Health. Now, I believe there are one or two others but that's the list I have at the present time.

Manpower has agreed to lend support to two courses for the interior of British Columbia and Vancouver Island. Spaces will be available for 20 dealers in each course.

The course will provide for:

1. Tests of knowledge in the following areas as they pertain to the fitting of hearing aids:

[ Page 464 ]

a. Basic physics of sound;

b. The human hearing mechanism, including the science of hearing and the causes and rehabilitation of abnormal hearing and hearing disorders;

c. Structure and function of hearing aids.

2. Tests of proficiency in the following techniques as they pertain to the fitting of hearing aids:

a. Pure-tone audiometry including air-conduction testing and bone conduction testing;

b. Live voice or recorded voice speech and audiometry including speech reception threshold testing and speech discrimination testing;

c. Effective masking for recording and evaluation of audiograms and speech audiometry to determine hearing aid candidacy;

d. Selection and adaption of hearing aid and testing of hearing aid.

And then, of course, taking ear mould impressions.

The hearing aid board was given firm reassurance by Mr. Anstey and the members of the B.C.I.T. present that there seems to be no serious obstruction to arranging the course and to providing instruction for whatever numbers of candidates who decide to take the course.

It is interesting to note that there are already over 79 dealers and consultants who have applied for registration and licences and the good faith of the hearing aid dealers can best be described in their willingness in cooperation with the government of this province to supply a good-quality standard hearing aid and ear mould at a reasonable cost of $50. Reasonable after-service goes along with the aid.

Because such an aid may not be suitable for everyone and they aren't all suitable for all persons as long as they give it a fair trial period it is my understanding that the dealers will be willing to refund the moneys already paid for this aid towards the purchase of another aid of the buyer's choice.

I congratulate the dealers on recognising their responsibilities to the consumer. However, I would like to state emphatically that all those who feel they should have a hearing aid should see their own doctor first. They should have a medical examination before they get an aid. And hearing aids may not be of assistance in specific cases of deafness.

At this time I would like to draw the attention of the House — by the way, if Members would like a list of hearing aid dealers in the province who have now got $50 hearing aids I would be pleased to give them out tonight. Anyone can have this list, it's for all of the province.

At this time I would draw the attention of the House to the close cooperation I have enjoyed with the majority of hearing aid dealers throughout the province. Cooperation has been enjoyed also by the board. I have appreciated their cooperation and their acceptance of the new regulations under the Hearing Aid Act. Any changes must be of necessity thoroughly discussed and refined before being implemented at this end I should say. I consulted with members of the medical profession, audiologists, the Western Institute for the Deaf and the consumer himself.

The Hearing Aid Act introduced by this government following this discussion and refinement clearly indicates the wishes of this government to bring about standardisation of consumer protection in this field. The Act came into effect as a direct result of large numbers of complaints from the part of the users of hearing aids.

Dealers are required by the Act to put up a $5,000 bond as a protection for the public. However, if was felt that those dealers who had been in business as hearing aid dealers prior to July 1, 1971 when the Act became law should have the opportunity to continue to trade provided that they observed the intent of the bill. While the majority of the hearing aid dealers have cooperated with the intent of this bill it appears that there are a minority of dealers who see in the provisions of our Act, an opportunity to continue to trade and to receive their registration and licences without providing the prescribed $5,000 bond.

Furthermore it appears that they do not wish to meet the educational standards, or pay the fees which have been incorporated in the regulations set out in the Act.

I want to state very clearly, Mr. Speaker, it's only a minority, it's not all the dealers.

All of us are aware that there are those who do not readily accept change, for one reason or another. And there are apparently a number of hearing aid dealers in this category. Since the sole intent of this Act is to protect the consumer I find it hard to understand the attitude of these dealers.

What is even harder to understand is that a Member of this House, so I was informed, permitted himself to be placed in the position of being retained by a group of hearing aid dealers who feel that they should be able to continue their trade as they did before the Act became law.

What these dealers have done in effect, is submitted their applications for licensing and registration, without the appropriate fees. It occurs to me that any bona-fide dealer would realise the advantage of being licensed and registered. Public confidence in his services would be assured and the senior citizens in particular, as well as others requiring hearing aids, would feel confident that a registered and licensed dealer could and would supply him with a hearing aid which would be effective in use and competently serviced should the need arise.

In order to further ensure such public confidence in the hearing aid dealers it is the intent of the Act that their dealers take a course of training and examination so that their level of competency is clearly established.

The senior citizen, on a limited income, and indeed anyone requiring a hearing device, has a right to such safeguards, I say Mr. Speaker. After all would any one of us knowingly engage an untrained person to carry out a skilled or highly technical piece of work? No, we would not, I'm sure.

Therefore I find it amazing to say the least that a Member of this House would lend his talents to those seeking to evade proper procedures under the Act — an Act passed by this House — an Act that has the sole intent of alleviating distress and financial burden on our citizens who have most need of hearing aid devices.

I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that not only has that Member — and I'm advised of this by the board — not only has the Member been retained by this group of hearing aid dealers…

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: …but also he advised them, I'm informed, that they should complete their applications in part only and they should submit their applications without fee or bond.

Furthermore, he indicated to the board chairman that he would be very pleased to see the board refuse or create obstacles for dealers wishing to apply in this manner. He

[ Page 465 ]

would then act for the dealers who wish to proceed under section 9 (1) of the Act.

Judas extracted his fee, 30 pieces of silver for betrayal of his friend and his master. I wonder what is the betrayal fee of the Member of this House for all the citizens of this province who have recourse to a hearing device?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Whatever the fee — is it worth it?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: Is it worth the price of having a senior citizen wonder whether he could go through a dealer, this dealer or that dealer? What sort of a deal would he get? Is it worth having the parents of a deaf child having to shop around for a dealer whose competence supplies vital aid to their child's only means of communicating? I say no.

And to the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Dowding) who has apparently allowed himself to be retained by these dealers, I say on behalf of these citizens of the province who depend upon hearing devices: isn't he ashamed of himself?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: In order that there be no doubt whatever, the provisions of this Act and regulations pertaining to it are to be observed by all hearing aid dealers in this province. The intent of this Act will be given the fullest consideration.

Before I leave this subject, Mr. Speaker …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: I do not deny the right of the dealers to go to court to get what they want. But what I can't understand is a Member of this House taking up their cause, that's all.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: But before I leave this important subject I would like to read you some of the letters which I have received from some of the dealers who have cooperated — and they have cooperated. I'm not ashamed if a dealer will come out and cooperate and try to do his job on the part of the people of the province. I hope they all will. I would like to see them doing this because only this way, by cooperation, are we going to rectify this situation. I think that's true and I'm trying to and they are trying to do it. There's some legitimate ones trying to do it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MRS. DAWSON: The hearing aid board will ensure fair dealing and enhance professional status for dealers as well as the public, these dealers tell me, and I am prepared to accept that these are the views of the majority of dealers in the province. In summary I'm going to read parts from these letters:

Through your efforts and cooperation of the hearing aid inspectors and consultants British Columbia has accomplished another first in Canada, a new precedent which may ultimately by copied by the other provinces.

The majority of hearing aid dealers, consultants, are most willing to support the Act and the regulations. A feeling of enthusiasm prevails among those who are prepared to improve their education in this field for the standards of the hearing-impaired.

Here is another one:

Now that the major facts of the hearing aid legislation are behind us, it might be a good time to read to you progress thus far and to plan for the future. First things first so let me say at the outset that in spite of a few dissenting voices the majority of the dealers of the province support the bill.

The Act as it now stands has taught us one sure thing. When you enter the complex and wide-ranging field of deafness there is a great deal more involved than what first meets the eye.

My yardstick for any law is simple — is the proposed legislation in the best interest of those who it seeks to serve, and that is the consumer? In my opinion the bill meets this test and under the Act hard-of-hearing persons in British Columbia will be better served by better-trained people using better equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I've been pleased to speak in this budget debate. A budget which speaks for itself. Mr. Speaker, I heartily support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to say that I wish to compliment the Minister of Finance on the budget this year. It's got great guts and lots of substance and one that we as British Columbians should be very proud of. This is the good life. YO-DE-LE-HI-OO.

I'm not going to put this hat on today because it's not snowing and there's rule 36 as well. It's a good life for us. But what about the elk in the valleys of Vancouver Island?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'd like to have one.

MR. NEY: They don't have snowshoes to walk in the deep snow with and they don't have a nice hat like this to keep the snow off them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NEY: Now, Vancouver Island is on a tourist boom right now. Increasing 10 per cent per annum. The Pacific Rim Park is going to create a catalystic effect on tourism in the '70's and it's going to be dynamic. Already Vancouver Island gets more tourists every year than Hawaii. But they don't stay as long! But they will some day.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NEY: It's our wildlife …

AN HON. MEMBER: Get a bigger bathtub.

MR. NEY: … and our beautiful water wonderland of nature that brings those tourists here. But if that goes — tourism goes!

AN HON. MEMBER: Rather than you?

MR. NEY: On Vancouver Island at this moment there are

[ Page 466 ]

between 2,000 and 3,000 elk. How many will be here in 10 years? Population keeps closing in, and for this reason we have to give more emphasis to quality of life and environment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NEY: I'm very glad to see the Member for Cowichan (Mr. Strachan) here today because I'm going to say something about the valley in a moment. The population is coming in and we have this land use committee now, and it's only been here two years but it has a place to take in the future of Vancouver Island now.

This has been created to communicate between the forestry, the wildlife department, water resources, fishing, mining, logging and parks.

What is happening now because of technological advances? The logging is moving faster than we're keeping up to it. We're going to have to use more force to have better guidelines for logging on Vancouver Island. Because at this moment some companies are coming forward with great guidelines in logging to preserve our wildlife while others are taking advantage of it in the market place to the disadvantage of the companies that are playing the game. I'm saying that we have to come in with tougher guidelines — the government must show the way.

What do we know about wildlife and fish in a multi-resource approach to land and water on Vancouver Island? I was up in Nanaimo Lake in the last few days and we went up there and they have left a nice fringe of heavy timber around the water bog and there are 36 elk in this area and they're doing fine. This is because of the wisdom of the logging company concerned. But if that winter grazing area had been cut down these animals' lives would be in jeopardy at this very moment. Of course, when you are logging, you have to log the valleys, there's no question about that. But what I am saying here that if they picked out strategic areas in each valley where they could create these areas around bogs and on south-westerly slopes, they could act as fire breaks and it wouldn't affect the logging at all because it could be done in rotation over a period of time and you'd get full use of the resource. It's just that they would move on and on and on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What company is that?

MR. NEY: The company is the Province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia. Are you worried about the elks? You want the elks to die? Don't worry about it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NEY: Oh, the company who left that tree fringe around, I believe was Crown Zellerbach.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NEY: So, I'm just saying this, it's a very simple thing so why not now come in with real hard guidelines and lead the way so that all companies have to follow the same rules and save the animals? We even saw little deer up there who'd starved in the cold because they hadn't got into this area quite soon enough.

It's very, very important to have this sort of thing going. I say as nature retreats, the population moving in, we have our Bill of Rights, give the animals their Bill of Rights because this may be our last chance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yodel again.

MR. NEY: Now a very short thing and I know our Member for West Vancouver (Mr. Brousson) may take offence at this but I'm going to talk about mobile homes now. But I do say, and Hon. Members have said the same thing, they are one of the great answers to low-cost housing. There are 45,000 in the province at the moment but it's going to double in the next five years.

Our legislation is not geared to handle what's happening at this moment. If you have a mortgage on a mobile home it's registered in the central registry. You have a record of the lien if the lien is placed in British Columbia. But if the lien is placed in any other part of Canada you have no record in British Columbia at all. If the mobile home has a clear title, unless it's on a separate lot in a fixed position there is no document that will validate the true ownership of the mobile home. Consequently, mobile homes are being sold with clear titles on a piece of paper which can be burned, destroyed, faked up or anything. People are coming in from all over Canada and there's no central registry and people come in and you have no way of knowing if the mobile home has a mortgage on it or not. Because you can't check every central registry in every province of Canada.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NEY: Well, I'm saying now this has all happened very, very suddenly. I'm saying now we're going to have to do it in the end. Let's examine what is happening. Let's revamp the legislation and immediately move in and register mobile homes, any mobile home that comes into B.C., any mobile home that's built in the future, have it registered similar to what automobiles are in the motor vehicle branch. Because at this moment, mobile homes are the lost waifs of British Columbia.

Now, with shorter working hours and more recreational time I'm very happy to say that in skiing Vancouver Island is leaping ahead in leaps and bounds. This year Forbidden Plateau has had a record season. But we do have a little trouble because that overflow that tries to get into Green Mountain they do find the last four miles a little difficult.

We've had help from the government there and it's been nice but there are 250,000 people in the south end of Vancouver Island and a lot that would make better use of that mountain. It's got Seymour Park and I'm not even going to talk about Cypress Bowl today. But we have 1/7th of the population of British Columbia so I would say that we're entitled to a provincial skiing park here as well.

For a very small investment we can put a $250,000 road into Green Mountain and with the enthusiasm of the skiers in this area, Green Mountain all of a sudden would generate itself and expand into an even more sophisticated skiing facility. It'd be a good cash flow. It's 4,000 feet high. It's a winter tourist industry. We'd keep more of our own skiers on the island. We'd bring skiers from the mainland. It's good for our young people and it's good for everyone. So, I say the government should act boldly now and name that Green Mountain a provincial park.

As a matter of fact, you'll need two of them very soon because we're going to have the same story in British Columbia that you're having back east now. Because all the

[ Page 467 ]

ski slopes are getting over-filled, in fact, I'll just digress on it. The big thing back there now is private skiing. Because they just can't get on the slopes. They are actually paying $3,000 in family memberships for a year, and only 100 families on each ski slope. They have a waiting list all the time. That may happen in B.C. one day, we won't look forward to that particularly.

One last thing here, I want to talk about Newcastle Island, a jewel, a beautiful island on the doorstep of Nanaimo. About the size of Stanley Park; rich in environment and the largest marina park on the west coast of North America.

The City of Nanaimo has asked for plans for development. I have found in our constituency that many people would like to leave the island untouched because it's so beautiful the way it is. Certainly we don't ever want it to become an amusement park.

Most parks around B.C. are used for active recreation and they have a nice campground over there and a swimming area and change rooms and that's fine. If there's going to be any development I respectfully suggest that we have the opportunity to hear and the chance to emphasise the interpretative story of the Gulf Islands. Because this is a typical gulf island. There's vegetation and the island is large enough that you can show the difference from north to south.

It's got a geological history. There's glaciation in various areas. There's a weather story there. There's a human history because the Indians used to live there. Their burial grounds are still there.

There was a coal mine there once, two stone quarries and this could work into special education programmes for many groups in the Province of British Columbia. They could come in and I'm sure all of the sudden this island would become a very, very great tourist attraction. If there's any transportation the motif should fit the island. In other words something that would fit in with it and any buildings, and they should be very few, should also fit in with the Gulf Island motif.

If we do this, keep this as natural environment as much as possible, in the future this will be richly treasured by generations for years to come. It's on the triangle ferry route. We've got a big investment in ferries — only a little more investment in Newcastle Island and we'll have even more people coming on those ferries. We'll get a fuller creative potential from the island and it will be an ecological reserve and a hands-off proposition for the preservation of wildlife and nature and a living asset forever to our people.

Last, but not least, let's get that waiting room fixed up in Nanaimo, get the washrooms in the building fixed. We want to make Nanaimo a showcase for tourism and that is all Hon. Gentlemen and Mr. Speaker because I want you to get that last ferry tonight.

Hon. Mr. Chant moves adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

MOTIONS

Hon. Mr. Shelford moves Motion No. 10. (That this House authorise the select standing committee on agriculture to assess the impact on British Columbia agriculture of food products which are imported from other countries and from other parts of Canada, with particular reference to those products which are produced in substantial volume in this province. The committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to hear representations from the food and agricultural industry, from government officials, and from such organisations and individuals as may, in their discretion, appear necessary, and shall report its findings and recommendations to this House.)

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Brothers moves Motion No. 15. (That this House authorise the select standing committee on social welfare and education to examine and report on the definition of the tenure of office of the members of the teaching staffs in the universities and on procedures followed by the universities relating to this matter, and to make such recommendations as the committee considers necessary.)

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves Motion No. 11. (That this House recommends that the Government of Canada make available for acquisition by the Government of the Province of British Columbia at the price at which they were purchased by His Majesty the King in the right of Canada or the Crown in the right of the Dominion of Canada (as the case may be) from His Majesty the King in the right of the Province of British Columbia or the Crown in the right of the Province of British Columbia (as the case may be) those portions of the lands and premises commonly known as the Jericho Defence Lands and more particularly described as:

Lots l, 2, and 3 of District Lot 538, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 13977;

Lot 4 of District Lots 448 and 538, Group l, New Westminster District, Plan 13977;

Lot 5 of District Lots 448 and 538, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 13977;

Lot 6 of District Lot 538, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 13977; on the understanding that the Government of British Columbia will not allow the property to be used for commercial, industrial, or residential purposes.)

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Price from the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills presented the committee's first report which was read as follows and adopted.

Your select standing committee on standing orders and private bills begs leave to report as follows:

That the standing orders have been complied with relating to the respective petitions for leave to introduce the following private bills.

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

An Act to Amend the Trinity Junior College Act.

Your committee recommends that the respective petitioners be allowed to proceed with the said bills.

Hon. Mr. Black presents the 53rd annual report of the Civil Service Commission.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:15 p.m.