[ Page 133 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. The point that I wish to raise is similar to the one raised yesterday, by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) dealing with Ministerial statements outside of this chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, I think before proceeding with it if we could adjourn the matter until 6 o'clock. I'm presently preparing the reasons to deal with the other matter. I would certainly consent with the House's consent to deal with it at that time. But it seems to me it would be engaging a double argument in one day, when one only may serve. Would you mind holding your point of privilege with consent of the House until prior to adjournment when I'll be presenting my investigations into the complaint of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MR. CHABOT: This one is similar in nature but it has to do with tabling of material in the House and the availability of material outside of the House which is not available inside of the House. It's a very brief statement that I'm going to make and I would like to make it if at all possible at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: There's one rule I would ask all Members to adhere to, which was set out I believe in May. When you have some matter of this kind, you bring it to the Speaker prior to the session, so that notice of the matter may be first given to the Speaker. That does not bar you from making a statement in the House. But it's proper procedure I understand, to notify the Speaker, prior to the session. In any event, if you wish to make your statement proceed. You say it is a point of privilege.

MR. CHABOT: Yes. Recently the Premier made a statement on a matter establishing a coal port at Britannia Beach — using as justification a preliminary report prepared by H. Paish and Associates. The report in question was made available to a member of the Press which is clearly indicated in his news release. The same preliminary report is not available to Members of this Legislature. In fact on request for a copy of the preliminary report I received a flat refusal. This in my opinion is most regrettable, and an insult to the rights of the Members of this assembly.

The release of this material to the Press without its availability to the Members or prior tabling in the Legislature is a serious step towards the erosion of the role of Members and the function of this assembly. I request that the Premier table the preliminary report on Britannia Beach prepared by H. Paish and Associates forthwith.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I regret that the Member is forced to embarrass himself in this manner with misinformation. The preliminary report prepared by Mr. Paish has not been released to anyone and that's a fact. And had the Member called my office and checked he would have found that the report — Mr. Paish's preliminary report on Britannia has not been released to anyone. In my Press conference I made it clear when the final report was available it would be released to everyone in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members…oh, excuse me is this on the same point?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, there was a copy of a Paish report on my desk this morning.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I beg your pardon. I had a report on my desk by Paish and Associates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's why I'm trying to avoid the Member's further embarrassment. It's a policy that everybody have every report that's been released. I made it very clear that I only had a preliminary report on Britannia and as a result it was not released to anyone. I made the statement that as soon as the final report was available it would be released. Unlike the former administration, these reports are made available to everyone.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you Hon. Members. The matter will be taken up on the question first raised by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) yesterday; about whether there is a breach of privilege in the releasing of policy statements by the government on matters concerning the government, prior to their being initiated by any statements in the House. That matter is in hand — our study of the matter has been complete. We'll be reporting to the House on the question of whether a prima facie case of breach of privilege exists, It is my duty under the rules to determine if a prima facie case exists from all the authorities we have and by which we are bound. If I find a prima facie case exists I will then put it to the House as to what they wish to do about a prima facie case. But my determination of the

[ Page 134 ]

matter will be given to the House, with your indulgence, prior to adjournment. Is that satisfactory?

Is there some statement the Hon. Member wished to make? He was up earlier.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would ask this House to join in welcoming to the galleries today four persons from the Skeena electoral district — Mr. Carl Spicer, the Mayor of Smithers — Mr. Perry York, the Mayor of Hazelton — Mr. Gordon Williams, the Vice-Chairman of the Industrial Development Committee. These three men are from the heart of the beautiful Bulkley Valley area. Also Mr. John Pidherny, he's a working man, a contractor from the Meziadin Lake area.

Introduction of bills.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a matter of urgent public importance to ask leave to move adjournment of the House to discuss the seriously protracted strike of Local 382 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees against the School District of greater Victoria, School District 61. This motion is seconded, whether you wish it, by either the First Member for Victoria, or the Member for Oak Bay, at your will. I have here a copy of this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it must be seconded. It is a question of which one you are asking to second.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will second this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, do you have a statement of the matter to send to the Speaker?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do. I have here clippings which I presume will be adequate for your purposes — clippings both from Victoria Times Saturday January 27, 1973, page 21; Tuesday January 30, 1973, Page 15. The clippings, Mr. Speaker, indicate that this strike has continued now for three weeks, that the school children involved — some of them getting part of their education part of the day or approximately two hours a day. Others are getting less. I interviewed two urchins in the street outside. They assured me they were delighted to have a full day's holiday today because the schools are closed down. We have had this dispute going on now for many weeks, a dispute that affects virtually every school child in the greater Victoria area. A dispute costing the public approximately $90,000 a day, the people of Victoria about $90,000 a day, despite the fact that the amount of education being provided is virtually minimal. These people will be required, no doubt, by legislation to pay school taxes for this period when no school services are being provided, and I, and my colleagues, two that I've mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the two other Members from the greater Victoria area — I know I speak also for the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis). I'm not too sure about the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst). But he certainly will have an opportunity to speak for himself if this debate is allowed. We feel that there has not been adequate attention paid to the gravity of this. We regret that there has been far too much….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member you are not to indulge in the debate on the topic, you were to indicate the urgency of the matter. I think I've grasped your statement as to what the matter is, and usually as a courtesy it is accepted practice to not only say what the particular matter is in terms of a strike but the urgency of debate. You've stated that verbally and I have accepted your statement of the matter. Now it is for me to decide as to the urgency of debate, not the urgency of the matter — that's for you to discuss if you are permitted to debate it. I have to determine, according to standing order 15, whether there is urgency that this particular special debate take place.

I'm sorry — it's 35. I wasn't reading this correctly — standing order 35.

The rule is that in determining that, I must decide whether you have the opportunity or have had the opportunity to debate this matter at large. I point out to the Hon. Member that he indulged in two debates in this week. The other Member who seconded the motion spoke yesterday in debate. Neither of you mentioned this as a matter of urgent public importance although it had, I understand from your statement, been going on for several weeks.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put it on the record that I did indeed speak in the throne speech debate on the school strike in district 61. I would wish to have that corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Right. I'm sorry. I was not in the House apparently when you spoke and so I would not be aware.

But at any rate and all the more, it reinforces the point. When I make a decision on this I have to decide whether urgency of debate requires this special adjournment of the House. It seems to me that since we are in the throne speech debate and every Member has the opportunity to join that debate, the matter could be canvassed every day of the week from now on and past days as well. Therefore, I cannot find in the authorities that bind me that there is that urgency of debate which impels me to ask the House to accept

[ Page 135 ]

the motion, or upon the request of not less than five Members.

In the circumstances, I think I must rule that it is not a matter of urgency within the rule that binds me.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm overwhelmed. (Laughter).

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Enjoy it. You'll never have it again.

HON. MR. COCKE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first, congratulations to you on a job well done, not only in this session but also in the special session during the fall. We're finding that your consideration of matters pertaining to this House is certainly fair indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note at this time that there is in the galleries just to my left the past Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Mr. Chant. I would like everybody to recognize him. I'm just wondering whether Mr. Chant came to keep his eye on one of his old critics but I'm sure it was something else.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also particularly proud to stand in this House with a group of new Members who are sure doing their homework and obviously have been doing their homework in the past in their constituencies as real community workers.

I particularly congratulate the mover and seconder of the reply to the Speech from the Throne. I think that they certainly set the tone for this debate and I do hope that for my part, and for the part of the rest of us that will continue on in this debate, that we can keep up that high level of production.

Mr. Speaker, I don't in any way want to embarrass the Opposition. They really didn't have that much to do with policy in the past Government. Despite that, they did, however, support the past Government. I mean it — I really don't want to be overly critical. But there has been a great deal of criticism from that side of the House and so I do feel somewhat defensive. Therefore I feel that since they can afford the luxury of criticizing a government of only 4 1/2 months in standing, 4 1/2 months in power — from September 15 to now — and they have been very heavy with their criticism, Mr. Speaker — I think that maybe I can say a few words about the last 20 years with respect to health care.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: I didn't hear what the Member said, Mr. Speaker, but I'm quite sure it was O.K.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the jobs that we have to do in this new Government is to clean up a mess. I've found a mess in health care. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a mess in health care elsewhere, but I am suggesting….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to deal with that exactly now. I hired an executive assistant, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Hire some friends.

HON. MR. COCKE: I hired a consultant. Who wouldn't? Were going to go into that in some detail, Mr. Speaker, into this particular thing. I did replace another executive assistant with my own executive assistant. The fact of the matter is that's the kind of support and help I need, and I'm getting great support and help.

What difference does it make? Look at the answers to the questions on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, I say again that we inherited a mess in health care. I'll just give you a couple of examples along the way. My department inherited the Vancouver General Hospital annex. Now, that's what happens in this system. That's what happens across the country when we have a tendency to neglect areas that are important. But when we have contempt for suffering — and we can't say that that suffering was unknown. It was known. When we ignore suffering, then we create situations such as that Heather annex. Now the Heather annex has been solved and I certainly congratulate the past Government on the fact that they did O.K. — the replacement for that annex.

But I do hope that we can get rid of that kind of institution, that kind of delivery of health care in this province — where the Press call a place "death row."

However, in spite of these unbelievable working conditions, the one thing that I'm really proud of is the fact that people were working their hearts out and working for years. Many of the people that worked in the Heather annex worked there for 15 and 20 years and we should really applaud that group of people in our society.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke at the opening of the new building, the Bannfield Pavilion, I asked that that old Heather annex be destroyed. You know, there's always somebody with a great idea — somebody

[ Page 136 ]

would find a use for it somewhere along the line. That thing has been an eyesore and a disgrace since the 1918 flu epidemic. So, I am happy to announce next week, on February 7 in the morning — that's Wednesday morning — I have been asked to start the demolition of that building and I'm going to be there and I'm going to be there with delight. Because we're going to sledge-hammer — no, we're going to do it with a bulldozer. Kind of for old time's sake. Anyway, if you'll forgive me….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. (Laughter). I don't mind being a wrecker on that kind of project, Mr. Speaker, through you to that Member.

Mr. Speaker, another example — and these are areas that all of you know about in the Press and so on and I feel that it is important that I put some of these areas before this House. There was the Royal Columbian Hospital problem.

Mr. Speaker, that was really a problem that was just poor labour relations. Management not speaking to workers and workers not speaking to management and therefore no communication. Really, that's what it was. Nobody really understood the other guy's point of view because of the fact that he had never heard it. He didn't even know what it was, unless he read bits and pieces of it in the Press. Because there really was no communication. I'm happy to announce that things seem to be going along well.

Therefore I feel that this Government is moving in the right direction in that area as well — to indicate to people that no longer will there be this kind of climate in which people tend to lean on one another without even listening to what one another is saying.

Mr. Speaker, this party across the floor, my good friends across the floor — yes, and we're talking to the farmers — they moved a vote of confidence the other day on jobs. What did we find? Squeeze. "That's where the squeeze was," said the Royal Columbian. That's where the squeeze was all over the place — the civil service.

On one hand this group across the floor castigate our leader for indicating that he's going to hire, that we're going to open up the civil service to replace the jobs that we've been calling for for years. They talk about patronage and all that silliness, because they know perfectly well that the Civil Service Commission is going to do that job and those people are going to be hired fairly and squarely. And look through my department if you care to. They've hired exactly the same as they always were. But the fact is we're opening up the squeeze, Mr. Speaker. We're opening up the squeeze on hospitals; we're opening up the squeeze on the civil service.

No longer do our hospitals in B.C. have to adhere to that infamous Press release that came out of that very door the day of prorogation in 1970, and I was standing outside the door when the then Minister of Health (Mr. Loffmark) brought a Press release out — no announcement in the House. Out in the hall came that Press release. The first sign we saw of this 70 per cent, that the Government will pick up 70 per cent of the increased cost of labour — after the negotiations were over. And that is correct, Sir. I was there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. That's right. It was not correct. The day of prorogation, and there he was in the hall with an armful of Press releases. That was the kind of situation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right. I'm delighted to say, however, that our leader, our Premier has made his statements right during our throne debate, when anybody can get up — and a budget debate yet to come — when anybody can get up and cry their heart out or pat him on the back — as I hope most of you will, because he's doing a great job.

Mr. Speaker, we within the last three months have restored that formula back to fair play. We've restored that 70 per cent back to the hospitals and back to the workers alike where it belongs. No longer do they have to worry about that shortfall.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that in that way we can create a climate, an opportunity for people to negotiate properly knowing full well what's on the table all the time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with one other area in this purview and that's Riverview. Now we as a province were once one of the foremost areas in all of North America with respect to the delivery of mental health care. Now because of the fact that we've been dawdling along in one direction and dawdling along in another direction and never been able to quite make up our mind how to go in the delivery of mental health care, we have actually fallen so far back that oftentimes people say, "It's shameful." I used to say that from the other side of the House and, now that I'm on this side of the House, I must confess that I still feel the same way.

We've had shortages of staff, we've had morale problems, and mainly because of the fact that the people that are involved directly in this particular aspect of health care know themselves, know that the direction isn't proper. And it's not only because of lack of governmental direction; it's structure. The whole thing is wrong. So the first step I feel is that we recognize that there is a problem there. We recognize that it's a major problem and we're certainly going to work our hands to the bone in order to put this thing right.

[ Page 137 ]

First thing I did, almost within a week of being appointed, I was invited to a meeting of the psychiatric section — that was last fall. And I met with 100 out of the 170 psychiatrists in B.C. Not only were they psychiatrists in the public sector, they were psychiatrists in the academic sector and they were psychiatrists on their own — in other words, the private practitioner. All of them.

One of the things that came out of that meeting was a promise from both Government and from them that there would be real cooperation in trying to redirect this whole question of mental health care.

So what have we been doing? Well, we've been developing community programmes. Right now there's the beginning of a good community programme, which is a pilot project under John Cummings, but it's endorsed by the Vancouver health region. Of course they are cooperating and so are we. But it's under the directorship of John Cummings. And I have great hopes that this particular kind of a community concept will develop to the extent that we can see where it's going to go and it will go right across the province.

We're not going to, however, decide that we're going to change the whole direction without really trying something properly and then, then we can move out. But we do feel that we must do it in that particular area first in order to prove to ourselves our own satisfaction. And then we will develop out from there.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a beginning.

You know, one of the things that I want everybody here to recognize is that there are many people in Riverview. Because of the fact that they've been there a long time, they've institutional neurosis and all the rest of it. So I believe that we have to consider Riverview in the future as people at the extended care level. Because a lot of them fit in that particular category.

There are also those that are intermediate care level. And of course some that are acutely ill. But I think that that has to be developed and we have to somehow or another get this question of mental health back into the area of health, period. It's been isolated, all by itself out there, and naturally in that kind of a situation it's almost impossible to develop a decent, good integrated programme.

So we're going to bring that programme back to the community. We're going to decentralize — there's no question about that. But I want to say at this time that there is no threat to the staff of any of our mental hospitals or other facilities in this province. No threat to them. They are as important to us in the community as they are in those mental hospitals. I say that to the psych nurses; I say that to the RN's involved; I say that to all of them, the aides and everybody. Because those are people that know that problem better than anybody else.

You know, there's nothing like "on the job learning," I feel, nothing like it. There are a lot of people that come out very nicely academically equipped. But there's no exchange as far as I am concerned, no substitute for the kind of learning and the kind of training that they've had — right on the job. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make that amply clear, that that staff is in no way threatened, no matter what happens, through decentralization or what happens to any of the complexes. They're in no jeopardy whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, we're looking at Riverside, that maximum security area out there at Riverview — and if anybody has been in there you know exactly what I'm talking about. We're going to bring it up to date. There's no question about that.

It has to be that we have to have maximum security. There are people in our society that just cannot be set free and that's all there is to it. And that's where they're going to stay. But we're going to upgrade that place. There's going to be proper security but proper recreation and so on, We're already discussing now, and I hope that we can get inter-forensic service in the near future. Because that should be coupled, we feel, with that whole question of Riverside.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're not standing still in the area of mental health.

Along another line, Mr. Speaker, my colleague who is now in Ottawa meeting with his counterpart at the federal level, the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi), he and I and one or two of our other colleagues have been working on this whole question of alcohol and drug dependency. As a matter of fact, the Hon. second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) made some remarks the other day — yesterday, I believe — regarding his lack of confidence in the two foundations. But, you know, those two foundations are part of a whole system of empires out there, a whole system of them. They're not just two; there's a multiplicity of groups that are dealing with this problem. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem, or at least a part of it.

Now I'm not suggesting I or anybody else has an easy answer to either of them. They are extremely important and very difficult-to-solve problems. But that's it, these empires, and the system has created these empires. And I believe that that's a great deal of our problem.

So therefore this whole question of direction — and naturally there can be really no direction as long as you have a group….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, no. It goes back to the community the same as the other. But you have to

[ Page 138 ]

have some direction.

You know one of the jobs I feel that government has is to finance, to set standards and to supervise. I think that that's necessary. Now you don't necessarily have to deliver the service. As a matter of fact I think it's rather bad when government does deliver the service.

But those are the three areas, as far as I am concerned, in my department. That's the direction that we're heading. And all of the evidence that we have today indicates that that's where we should be going.

So, I hope that we also get over this hang-up that we have on overprofessionalization. And that's an area that in that particular deal — that is in alcoholic dependency — that the most successful people in that area are the non-professionals. A.A. was the best example.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is what they call re-cycling, Madam Member. There's a dedicated work going on in these fields and what we hope to do is put it all together. I hope we're doing a little more than just speaking about it. As you know a few weeks ago we sponsored a two-day meeting. We picked up professionals, and non-professionals including the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who was there for a good part of the time. He was invited because he has some definite interests. And….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's quite a difference isn't it — "open government", Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, these people have expertise in working to combat this drug dependency problem. Don't forget when we're talking that drug dependency covers the whole scene. The overwhelming consensus of that group was the need for coordination of effort and the need for co-coordinating government's own activities.

Do you know we have six Ministers involved in that. We've got the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), doling out grants. We've got the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance in this kind of therapy aspect; the Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Levi), with his input; the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), dealing with the criminal aspect of the whole thing and the Premier, naturally. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) also is involved. So, it's a real dog's breakfast. We've put that together. From our committee we've got a subcommittee now of people, just a small group, that are charged with the responsibility of coming in with, at least, some direction. That's what we need. I hope that's what we're going to get.

It was wide open. There were people coming and going from that meeting and there was a great deal of enthusiasm. I feel that this kind of thing is going to help us because no one person has all the answers. Mr. Speaker, we'll put our best efforts forth and this Government will go on supporting that kind of activity.

Well, we're not stopping there, we want participation from everyone, not only in dependency, but in all areas of health care. Health care is certainly part of that dependency thing. The health security team I hear discussed. The health security team, or the health security programme, have advertised to the public in general for briefs. We say we want input from everybody — from layman, from professionals, from individuals, from groups.

This is the kind of an ad that we had in all the papers all across the province. Now, you have a voice in major health security decisions — use it…and on and on it goes. It's a big job, frustrations and so on. And if this ad tells the story, that's the work that Dr. Richard Foulkes is doing in the health security field. He's going out and finding out information that will be absolutely important to the Government and in studying directions for the future delivery of health care.

Dr. Foulkes and his committee have worked tirelessly. There are no reports coming from them until next October. I'm really excited looking forward to that report. But I am getting lots of memos. I know they're busy, and they're going day and night in this particular area. He has a group of hard working, excited people working for him and I'm sure that much will be learned from their deliberations.

Their job is to help us better co-ordinate our own activities. They are first to take an over-view of our departments. And you know this "health" in B.C. has a multiplicity of departments. I know some of you have heard me talk about that in the past. We've got mental health, B.C.H.I.S., Health Services which is Public Health, and we've got Medicare — all under one umbrella, but all separate. Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to work in a co-ordinated way under those circumstances.

So, there's research being done, and that research is directed towards ways and means of helping us co-ordinate our activities. It's also looking at interdepartmental problems. There are areas of overlapping between my department and the Department of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation. There is also overlapping with education…and so on. So, they're taking a good look at that at the same time to see to it that there is no overlapping or, for that matter, vacuums building because of the fact that there isn't the right kind of communication.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's all very exciting and I do hope that, soon, we're going to start moving a little bit faster. But I make no apologies for going slow. I think it's just too important to play around with this activity. Health care is a very, very important factor in our lives and the health security team is instructed

[ Page 139 ]

to advise us the best way to go. They can't do that in five minutes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they have other work that they must do. You know we've had a little bit of a confrontation with Ottawa over this question of health care costs and so on. It's not any more than any kind of confrontation that you would have to have in view of the fact that health care is becoming very, very expensive for us all. One other job that we've instructed the health security team to do is to check on the alternative methods of the delivery of health care. One such method is the community health centre concept.

Now, many of us have spoken pro and con about this in the House. There have been criticisms levelled at the community health centre concept. I've heard, for an example, in recent weeks that the clinic costs would be somewhat higher. There's a suggestion that per capita costs would be higher for this kind of delivery.

But we're still interested, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell you why we're interested. We're interested because that concept can save us hospital care, and that's the very expensive aspect of health care. Actual medical input is not that terribly expensive. But, what happens when people are hospitalized is very expensive. That's why we're still interested in looking at this concept. We're not interested in forcing it down anybody's throat either.

We believe that there are many areas to follow up, many areas of alternative methods of delivery. I read the scariest article in my life the other day. I would suggest that any of you that get a chance read Kelmar's article on a little bit of a history of the American system of health care delivery. He tells you about…from the turn of the century to the Carnegie Report, remember in 1911, and tried the big change then — and then the change where the academies lost control of the A.M.A. and the doctors took control of it.

He predicts that in 10 years time or thereabouts the insurance companies will own lock, stock and barrel the delivery of health care in the United States because of the directions they have taken. That's kind of scary — it's Kelmar, Sidney Kelmar. I could send you a copy if you like. It's very interesting and, as I say, it's an academic thing. He's got an awful lot of input into it. But — and it may be that he's wrong — but it's these kind of scary things are going on.

As far as we're concerned, Mr. Speaker, we're most interested in taking a look at this question of what to do about rising costs. So, we're looking at a real reduction in hospital utilization. We know perfectly well that our economy, or anybody else's economy cannot stand, or withstand, an increase of 12 per cent a year. Don't forget that that increase of 12 per cent a year drives the cost double every five years. It's just too much to take.

The federal government, a year and a half ago, commissioned John Hastings to do a report. He did a pretty good report considering he was only given a year to do it. We're reading that report, of course we are. Right here, the Community Health Centre Report, by Hastings. And there is no government decree. As far as we're concerned we want input from everybody, and we want an opportunity to assess and assist. But we do feel that the delivery of health care has to be centered around the community, and I'm not meaning in this particular way. But we certainly want to try it. I've announced that we're open to areas that are interested in going with us and we'll do pilot projects on this and we'll co-operate.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure that everybody knows that we're not hung up on this question. We're looking for alternatives and those alternatives have to produce a good quality system that must keep the price in line. We can't go on without the federal government. The Hon. Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and I were invited to attend a meeting that he was at in Ottawa. We were told by our counterparts down there that they want off the escalator. I don't blame them. I'd want off the escalator too, if I was in that position. So they made us an offer. I don't think it's an offer that we can use. But they have made us an offer, and it's improved a little bit from the offer they made in 1971. It's an actual sharing based on our present sharing arrangement, and they only share insured benefits — Medicare, hospital coverage and so on, up to and including extended care but not beyond.

That's one of the unfortunate aspects, you see. Ottawa doesn't recognize mental health and they don't recognize intermediate care. So, we're taking a formula that is biased against us. Then they're saying….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Excuse me. No, they are not broadening the basis yet. We are arguing that they should.

But anyway, their offer has been to increase their participation at the rate of increase of the gross national product. There's a little bit of phasing — it's plus 1 per cent the first year and plus 0.75 and so on — over a five-year period, to a point that we are going to be on that basis. Now we know perfectly well that the cost of the delivery of health care is increasing at a much more rapid rate that is the gross national product. So they have thrown in a nice little carrot and it's called the "thrust fund." It has been somewhat changed since the last negotiations but it is still around $65 million. This will help us develop alternative systems, they claim.

Now they have thrown in another one and that is risk sharing. For a five-year period — they're for going

[ Page 140 ]

for the ten-year period — they are prepared, providing we can prove it, to participate to the extent, on a shared basis, of up to three more percentage points. But it is still pretty tight, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to sit back and accept this until we have exhausted all our arguments.

I must say this — that we are not going to go out on a vendetta. We understand the problems of Ottawa I think that what they are making us do in this country is do some real hard work in this whole question of health care. We are going to go our best licks to get a better cost-sharing arrangement. But we certainly understand their position.

Mr. Speaker, we do view the increase seriously. We want greater federal participation and we are going to, ourselves, have to correct some of the problems that we have here in order to reduce our own costs. I feel there are a number of ways this could be done.

The first thing that we need is an informed public. We need a public that recognizes that you can, if you're not careful, kill the goose that lays the golden egg. I think it is important that we have the cooperation from a determined team of people. A team of doctors, nurses and paramedics. Now what about this team, Mr. Speaker? Well, I would like to say one or two words about them.

I said when I was in Opposition and I'll say it again now, that we in this province are really lucky to have this hard-working, dedicated group — not only the people that are working inside the system, but the people that are working all through, on the community level and elsewhere. I have found them most cooperative before and I find them most cooperative now. It's a privilege to work with them.

You work more closely with the people that are actually on your staff and so on. But I would like to just give you an idea about how some of these people feel about their work. Recently I was in Tranquille, at our hospital for the retarded up there. This was early evening. There was a young woman walking up and down the hall, in a uniform, carrying a little baby — no bigger than — just inches long. The person that was with me, the director, told me that that is the way she really feels. She is doing it continually, and particularly with this child, a little child that was just a few weeks old — I think something in the order of maybe six month, but of very, very stunted growth. This woman was walking up and down nursing this child as though it were her own because that's the way she feels. It was just great to see. These are the kinds of things that really make you feel that it's worthwhile and that there are people contributing to this system that are really worthwhile.

I'd like to boast a little bit, Mr. Speaker. How about the isolation of the A2 virus? We isolated it in our laboratory two weeks before they did in the east. When they did it in the east two weeks later, they got national coverage on television. I don't know, these guys were asleep. We let them know. They got national coverage on television when they did it two weeks later in the east. But I'm very proud of a laboratory that works that well and effectively.

MRS. JORDAN: What government hired the people in the laboratory?

HON. MR. COCKE: The Liberals and the Conservatives prior to 1952. Most of them are old, old guys.

Mr. Speaker, there are problems around. We've got intermediate care. We've got the situation around the R.C.H. and the V.G.H. and the Campbell River and so on. We have to respond to these thing. Since I've been a Minister, I think I've been confronted with virtually everything.

We've got medicare back now. Medicare has come home to rest and we feel good about that. We feel that there is some great input into the health department directly. The Provincial Secretary's department has really no relationship with this particular area, but we have a very close relationship. I would say right away that we've only had them in our department for a matter of weeks and they are already helping. They're cooperating, helping the health security team with some real good input, that people are not taking their own future seriously. If they want co-ordinate the whole effort.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to also suggest that we are very interested in the whole question of prevention — not only preventive medicine but also fitness. Therefore we dispatched to Ottawa one or two people to attend the fitness conference on December 4, 5 and 6, 1972, just a month and a half ago. I've so far had three reports and those reports are splendid, to the extent that I suggest that we are going to cooperate in every way with this new fitness council.

Mr. Speaker, some of the areas that they were dealing with when they were down there were exercise testing, post-coronary rehabilitation programmes, physical activity and weight control, the role of the community health centre in the promotion of fitness, techniques for improving fitness programmes for asked last fall that hospitals get their employees involved. In industry and homes for the aged, and marketing physical fitness — new techniques in attitude change. There has to be an attitudinal change.

People in Canada are in lousy shape. They are in poor shape.

MR. CHABOT: Physically.

HON. MR. COCKE: Physically. I hope that somehow or another by cooperating in this area of fitness that we can get people to involve themselves directly in jogging and other activities to improve their quality of life — in sports and recreation of all sorts. The

[ Page 141 ]

YMCA's, the government programmes and the municipal programmes are not well attended because of the fact that people are not taking their own future seriously. If they want to improve their quality of life, I think that they have to begin to study, read and think and then act upon it with respect to getting involved in recreational and physical activities.

I ran four miles a day every day for years, as the Member across knows. Unfortunately, I've been a little bit irregular lately — I make that confession — and I'm going to get right back to it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we feel that there is to be a reduction in morbidity, if not mortality. There is no proof, I don't think, at this point, that you can extend your life that much by taking part in physical activity. But there is proof that you feel better and there is a reduction in illness or, as I said, a reduction in morbidity. It's a positive approach. I asked last fall that hospitals get their employees involved. I think the government — people working in our department and we, as legislators — should lead the way in this question of keeping physically fit.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right. I think we can maybe get some of those springs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on to another area. I would like to announce that those young doctors or those fourth-year students called "clinical clerks," that as of January 1 , I am re-instating their renumeration. As you know, the last group — that is, the fourth-year students that will be getting out this May — lost a number of months. So we're re-instating it as of January 1 and it will continue until they're through. Then the next go-round will get the whole thing.

Mr. Speaker, I think that these people, these fourth-year students with no income at all, work hard. They work 50 to 60 hours a week and they move around the province and they learn a lot, and it will be a lot better for us in the future for having at least recognized them at this point, and we don't recognize them to that extent.

There isn't that much money but I do feel that it is important for us to make that kind of effort. Mr. Speaker, there has been an announcement in the paper — somebody said that I announced we were negotiating with Richmond Heights hospital. Well that's not true.

I didn't make the announcement that we were negotiating with Richmond Heights hospital, but we are negotiating with Richmond Heights hospital. (Laughter). More power to the Press I guess. But this goes along with our objective to get all chronic illness under our insured benefit programme.

Mr. Speaker, we feel very definitely that we cannot move in the direction of just providing under our insured benefits for people in any and all institutions, and we feel that there has to be some place that we draw the line. So naturally we are negotiating and we are also developing, as you know, four special care homes right now, one close to here in Saanich, two in Vancouver and one in Kamloops, and there will be others.

I might say also that Richmond Heights is not the only hospital that we are talking to, it is not the only private hospital. But as I say they are coming to us, we are not going out to them. We are also interested — and the Member for Oak Bay would be interested in this — in seeing to it that they are community run, not some new level of care that we are going to administer from here. It is going to be community run.

So the special care homes that we have now are demonstration projects and they will go into the community as well. No question about that. We have no idea of beginning this whole centralization approach. I am going to repeat it again, we feel that Government should be in the financial end, supervision, setting standards and that's it.

So, Mr. Speaker….

MR. WALLACE: It's like a breath of fresh air in here now.

HON. MR. COCKE: Thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in poor facilities. I might say that now, so if anybody comes offering us some of the places that I have seen in recent months I can tell you right now we are not going to buy them, for any price. But there are some facilities in this province that we would be only too happy to look at.

Well, I was going to deal very briefly with acupuncture. I know that nobody here expects me to just jump over that one. There is a tremendous public pressure at this point for us to involve ourselves in licensing acupuncturists. Well, as you know, we set up a committee, and I want to make this very clear. That committee was set up by myself and my deputy. We appointed the members. This wasn't a committee that was thrust upon me, and I have had some criticism that says that a committee of doctors are running us as opposed to us taking a clear look at it.

What we did, we got a person in cancer treatment, we got a person in arthritis and rheumatism treatment, we got a person in anesthesiology, the Registrar from the College, my own deputy, myself and I am pleased to say that Rosemary Brown, the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard, will be on that committee as well.

And what we want to do, and what we have

[ Page 142 ]

already asked, we've been in touch with acupuncturists and medical colleges outside of Canada, we have been in touch with China, the medical college in Peking, and asked them if they could send one or two people here who are involved in this delivery of what they term health care so that we can assess more closely just how we can help out our own health care team in this province with this system.

Mr. Speaker, 700 million people and more have been very close to acupuncture and it has been a system that has been used for many, many years in China and other Oriental countries, and there are many people who swear by it.

Now I'd like to suggest that there are two forms of acupuncture. One is the traditional. The ancient form of acupuncture is where the person administering it is trying his best to improve the health of your organs by stimulating them with the help of these needles. The second one is absolutely proven. The second one is analgesia acupuncture. Now the traditionalists say well, it doesn't take very long to learn analgesia acupuncture. Most of you have seen demonstrations of it on TV where they can perform an operation in the thorax or even in the cranium with no pain whatsoever, with analgesia acupuncture.

But we want to look at it carefully and then, if it is found to be something that we should have, we are going to be able to set standards and licensing regulations so that we keep it out of the hands of charlatans.

That's why we can't just say today, "O.K., go ahead, " because anybody that has a couple of needles can become an instant acupuncturist, and we just don't feel that is the way to go. So we are working on it. We know that there are so-called experts in and around Vancouver, and many of them are highly thought of, and we are certainly discussing the question with them, but we are just going to move at the pace that we feel is the safest for the people in this province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a couple of words before I close on that gem of this province — New Westminster.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

HON. MR. COCKE: It was odd to hear the Member from Burnaby asking where is that? He lives in the suburbs of New Westminster. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy with the kind of cooperation that we had from B.C. Hydro. New Westminster has been assured that they will be able to negotiate not only to keep their power which they will distribute from here on, but they will also be able to negotiate a fair rate, a fair price for the power. Mr. Speaker, the Mayor and the Council would like to let everybody know that they are quite happy with the new Government and the Hydro policy at the moment. Mr. Speaker, I am also very happy that we were able to change a few minds in Vancouver, not by undue influence but just good round talks and that was this whole question of the Annacis Island primary treatment plant on the Fraser River.

We were really really worried about that. We felt that after having taken a real good look at Iona Island and the damage to the ecology there, that it would be absolutely shameful on our part to go ahead and put in primary treatment only in Annacis. After some weeks of study and discussion, this Government finally made the decision that we would go for secondary treatment on Annacis Island. New Westminster thanks this Government for that as well.

They are also going to thank this Government, Mr. Speaker, if some decision is made in the not too distant future with respect to the courthouse. It is unbelievable — since 1889 they have been talking about that courthouse in New Westminster and I hope — and this isn't Government policy — but I hope that there is enough sense of antiquity around to keep that courthouse. Renovate it, get rid of many of the Government offices that are in there, build another building in that general area, but keep the courthouse as a traditional building — an historic site in New Westminster. Get rid of all the junk. Land Registry, the whole thing. Out, out. And then we have the fine courthouse. It is a beautiful old building, beautiful old courtrooms, and should be retained, and it could be renovated and brought well up to standards. Add a few more bathrooms — as you well know if you go in there, you had better be sure you go somewhere else first. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, the courthouse isn't the only problem. The R.C.H. of course is very close to my heart — that's the Royal Columbian Hospital. We are doing a study right now on this whole question of what is the future of the Royal Columbian and I can tell you that it's exciting times. We are not going to move quickly but we are looking at that as being a very fine central location for a referral hospital. So, Mr. Speaker, beyond that I would like to suggest to anybody that is interested in that area of the province and I am sure everybody would be, if they knew it — it is a great place.

We're going to be building an extended care facility on the site of Woodlands. Now we're not quite sure exactly where. There is a subcommittee of the board right now checking out different locations, but this will be, to begin with, a 150 bed extended care unit. We feel very definitely that that's the way to go and extended care is still a priority and will continue to be a priority until the needs are met. As you know, yesterday we opened 300 beds at the Gorge Road. Not only was that opening 300 beds, we created 270 jobs too, and I think that's important.

[ Page 143 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: What difference does it make? You know when it was started. But as I say, there were 70 new jobs out there.

MRS. JORDAN: Does a lot for your ego.

HON. MR. COCKE: You don't worry about my ego, you worry about your ego. (Laughter).

Well, Mr. Speaker, we wish to continue the policy of getting into this area of health care delivery. Extended care is still a priority and will continue to be a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say in closing that this is an exciting portfolio. There's something to do all the time, I'll tell you. I'm delighted to be the Minister of Health in the province. I've had a great deal of cooperation, not only cooperation out there in the department and also in the field, but also the cooperation of my cabinet colleagues and the Premier, and I'm delighted and hope that we can continue to serve this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to take part in the throne speech debate as the representative for the riding of Cariboo. I look forward to the second session of the 30th parliament.

I did not expect too much in the throne speech and I was not disappointed, because very little was revealed from this document which had not already been made public. I'd hoped for as I am sure most citizens of British Columbia were hoping for more information on the philosophy of the new Government, and what direction they were going to take this province in the immediate future.

When the present Government was the official Opposition, they had the answers to all the problems. Now they are a government they don't know where they are going. Every problem they have had has been referred to a committee, or a consultant, or a task force, and the problem is not resolved, While they boast about being an open government, they have taken some actions on problems that indicate they are not an open government, but a very closed regime. I refer, of course, to the forced amalgamation of some municipal areas and the land freeze affecting the whole province. I will have something to say about these questions later.

The throne speech makes reference to the employment of 1,000 new government jobs in the civil service of our province. The throne speech does not say how many jobs will not be created because of the lack of confidence in this Government by the citizens who want to invest in this province, but will not until they get better direction from the Government. Because of statements made by Members of the Government, while in Opposition and since becoming Government, the most noticeable atmosphere in British Columbia today is one of fear and uncertainty. We have a fairly high rate of unemployment, Mr. Speaker, and when the Premier was questioned on this he brushed it off and blamed the federal government. While the uncertainty exists, I am sure the unemployment will exist and continue to rise in this province, and this will no doubt be pointed out in a few days when the figures are released for the month of January, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, a problem this province is facing is the supply of electrical energy for the future. Where is the power to come from? It has only recently been reported that consumption will increase 9 per cent per year for the next 10 years. Therefore it is obvious that decisions have to be made soon to accommodate this increased consumption. The prior government commissioned the British Columbia Energy Board to report where the future supply of power was to come from for the period 1972 to 1990. This report was received August 31, 1972. About all that this Government has said about this report is to advise the citizens of British Columbia to turn off their lights and start burning candles. In my opinion, this is not acceptable to the citizens of British Columbia and whether the Government likes it or not, decisions are going to have to be made soon about the power supply and not swept under the rug by the Government as they have done so far.

I spoke in opposition to the proposed construction of the Moran Dam on the Fraser River last year. I was pleased to see that the B.C. Energy Board did not recommend the construction of this huge dam in their report. The B.C. Energy Board did not, and I repeat, did not recommend the Homathko River power development in their report, because of the risk of power line failures for the delivery of this power over the high elevations of the Coast Range, to get it to Vancouver Island. However, with this advice, Mr. Speaker, from the B.C. Energy Board, the Hon. Premier ordered them to take another look at this power development because he was opposed to nuclear power for Vancouver Island.

If the Homathko River Power Development is proceeded with, it will effectually change the course of a lot of water taking it from the Fraser River drainage basin to the coast drainage basin. If the Homathko Power Development is proceeded with, it will destroy one of five sockeye salmon in the Fraser River as well as devastate a large section of country in the Chilcotin, which is in my riding of the Cariboo. It will destroy it because of the lack of water.

The citizens of the Chilcotin are very much opposed to this development and through you, Mr.

[ Page 144 ]

Speaker, I want the Hon. Premier to know this. At present, the water from Chilko Lake and Taseko Lake flow in a west to east direction through a system of rivers to the Chilcotin River, which is a tributary of the Fraser River. If the Homathko River power development is constructed, this would take the greater portion of these waters and direct them to flow to the coast in an east to west direction.

By making this large water diversion, it would destroy the spawning grounds for salmon. In addition, preservation of the salmon is vital to the Indians living in the Fraser River basin. Last but not least, due to the lack of water flowing to the Fraser River, from the Chilko and Taseko Lakes, hundreds of miles of beautiful country would be destroyed for recreation, for farming and for many other purposes. The citizens of the Chilcotin, who I said earlier are part of my riding of Cariboo, strongly object to any diversion of existing water and while they realize the Hon. Premier is hung up about nuclear power, they will string somebody up if the Homathko Power project is undertaken.

I am sure that the Hon. Premier will not allow this project to proceed because of the heavy damage that will be caused to the salmon industry, the native people, and also the destruction of the environment in that part of British Columbia.

I would now, Mr. Speaker, like to discuss the amalgamations that have recently been ordered in this province. As a past municipal elected official, I am very disturbed about the recent arbitrary ruling of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) which ordered the amalgamation of the areas outside the City of Kelowna and the City of Kamloops. I don't know how this government can say that they have open government when the Minister of Municipal Affairs arbitrarily orders the boundaries of the cities of Kamloops and Kelowna to expand to the citizens in the surrounding areas without giving these citizens their rightful say in this decision. There has never been a more high-handed order issued from Victoria in many years.

I realize that problems exist in areas adjacent to these two cities, but I object most strenuously to the fact that they are to be resolved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs without consultation and study with the people affected. This directive from the Minister affects many thousands of citizens and surely if, as the Government says, we have open government, they should be consulted. Approximately 90,000 to 100,000 people are affected by this arbitrary order.

I am very surprised that the new Minister of Municipal Affairs has taken this arrogant action, because as a member of the Opposition in the Legislature for the past three years, he was a member of the Municipal Matters Committee. I was also a member.

In 1971, the Municipal Matters Committee dealt with the subject of boundary extension and amalgamation. This committee also dealt with this problem in 1972. Many ideas were presented to the committee on how to resolve boundary extensions and amalgamations and municipal incorporations in this province.

The municipal matters committee of the Legislature consulted with the Union of B.C. Municipalities — asked and received their opinion. For the information of this House, Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 140 municipalities and regional districts in British Columbia. All but three or four of these bodies are members of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Therefore when the committee on municipal matters received their opinion, it was safe to assume we had the majority opinion of all the elected municipal officials of the Province of British Columbia.

We received the last submission from the UBCM on March 20, 197, and it stated as follows:

"In our presentation to the committee on March 6 we expressed the basic opinion that communities in unorganized territory, either adjacent to or a distance from organized municipalities, should be required to assume municipal status when certain criteria were attained. In the case of communities on the fringes of municipalities, when the degree of urban content is similar to that of the adjoining municipality."

In addition they suggested that certain regulatory powers concerned with planning and zoning in municipalities should be made applicable to the unorganized fringe communities through the regional district. Thereby insuring that development along the boundaries of organized municipalities proceed in a manner compatible with that of the host municipality.

They further proposed that the provisions of section 12(5) of the Municipal Act be allowed to apply to town and village municipalities, as they are now available to cities and district municipalities. These provisions permit the council, in extending municipal boundaries, to undertake special works or services for the benefit of a specified area of the municipality, which may be the newly-added area. The cost for these added services, in whole or in part, are then charged to property owners or users of the work or service. The extension of these powers to towns and villages would permit residents in all types of incorporated municipalities to take up their share of local taxation only when they receive the benefits of added local services.

We also express our belief that better and more effective pollution control measures would result if communities around the fringes of organized municipalities were elevated to municipal status. They were aware that the provincial government had entrusted

[ Page 145 ]

municipalities with much of the responsibility for protecting environment and preventing pollution from a variety of causes. However, developing communities on the fringes of municipalities contributed to the pollution problem. But because they are outside municipal authority and control, the task of curbing that pollution falls to the regional district or to the province. We suggest that such pollution could be more effectively and economically controlled once these areas become municipal.

Finally, their brief appreciated that many of the difficulties encountered in the past during proposed boundary extensions have resulted from basic differences of opinion expressed by either a municipal council, municipal residents or residents of an outside community. Nevertheless, we firmly believe that elevation to municipal status must receive urgent consideration when certain pre-determined criteria are met. At that point, ample opportunity must be given to all parties concerned to advance their respective arguments on the type of municipal status to be assumed.

I would just like to repeat that: "And at that point, ample opportunity must be given to allow all parties concerned to advance their respective arguments on the type of municipal status to be assumed." With this in mind, they propose that the Minister cause an inquiry to be held when he believes that the established criteria have been met in any particular instance.

We hold that the setting up of such an inquiry should be mandatory and should be required by statute.

They now turn, Mr. Speaker, to some other further suggestions covering what they believe should be the duties, functions and composition of such inquiry boards. They suggested that the Minister appoint a secretary on such terms and conditions as he may deem to be proper. This person should have considerable experience in municipal and government matters and his duties should include the following: (1) to determine all instances where, in his opinion, the relevant criteria have been met and to report his findings to the Minister; (2) to proceed, after authorization by the Minister, to collect all relevant data pertaining to the community concerned and, in the case of a proposed boundary extension, to collect the necessary information from the municipality or municipalities concerned and from the fringe community. In this matter he should have full access to those statistics which are available only from departments of the provincial government, such as the records of the Provincial Assessor, Collector of Taxes, et cetera; (3) to publicize that an inquiry will be held in connection with the proposed incorporation or boundary extension, stating the place and date of such inquiry, the names of the members of the inquiry board and such information relevant to the holding of the inquiry as the Minister may deem necessary; (4) to convene the inquiry and perform such duties as the members of the inquiry board may require and to advise the members of the board in all matters on which they are required to make a decision.

The UBCM recognized that there would be instances where an inquiry may be necessary. But because of the minor nature of the matter under consideration, such as a small area with few residents being the subject of a boundary extension, there would be no need to establish an inquiry board of more than one member, assisted by the secretary. They therefore suggest that the Minister, at his discretion, shall determine the number of members of the board, depending upon the magnitude of the particular inquiry. If the Minister determines that the issue is such that it requires a board of more than a single member, they suggested that there be three members selected as follows: one member selected by the electoral area directors of the regional district, one member selected by the council of the host municipality. They recommended that neither of the members as selected above should be elected persons in any local government capacity, such as council members, regional district boards, school trustees, et cetera. Neither should they be permitted to serve if they have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matters referred to them.

The two members so selected would, within one week, nominate a third person to be a member and chairman of the inquiry board. Such election being made from a list maintained by the Minister, of individuals such as past presidents of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities or other prominent and respected municipal officials. It should also be required that the appointment of the third person be restricted to an individual who does not reside in the area under consideration.

In the event the two members are unable to agree upon the nomination of a third person to be chairman within one week, the Minister shall appoint such a person. In the event that more than one municipality or more than one fringe community is involved in a particular instance, the Minister shall specify the additional number of board members to be appointed, giving equal representation to the municipality's or municipalities' view points as well as to those the fringe community or communities.

The inquiry board thus established shall: (1) meet forthwith in the area under consideration; (2) determine the boundaries, with subsequent review and revision as required; (3) establish whether the criteria have been met within the boundaries so determined; (4) if the criteria have been met, hold public hearings and receive submissions to evaluate the opinions of all the parties concerned.

If deemed necessary, the board may conduct an

[ Page 146 ]

overall plebiscite of the area covering both municipal owner-electors and property owners in the community for the purpose of determining the wishes of the residents in respect to the proposed incorporation or boundary extension, as the case may be. Such a plebiscite shall be held to have been approved if a 60 per cent overall vote in favour is returned.

I would like to comment there. I'm still at their brief, but my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and all the Members, is that I think we should be considering reducing that percentage figure from 60 per cent majority to 50 per cent majority of those who vote. I would remind this House that there already is an amendment in the Municipal Act that if 60 per cent of the people vote that are on the voters' list vote, a 50 per cent majority now is acceptable, as I understand it. I think that we should, though, consider lowering to 50 per cent overall in view of the fact that the Government of Canada today is governed by a party that had 38 per cent of the popular vote and we have a government in British Columbia that governs with a percentage of the popular vote of 40 per cent.

If the board in its discretion deems it to be unnecessary for a plebiscite to be held or if a plebiscite has been held and approved by the required 60 per cent overall vote, the board shall make recommendations to the Minister concerning the type and extent of municipal status to be assumed; the date that these changes shall become effective; and any other matters which in the board's opinion will contribute towards the overall betterment of services, general improvement to the environment and long-range economic benefits to the residents.

If a plebiscite fails to receive the required approval, then the board should have the power to recommend to the Minister that no further action be taken at that time. However, they may recommend a review and reconsideration at a specific future date. In addition, their recommendations should include specific suggestions on services that might be extended into the fringe community, the methods of paying for such services and all other matters which encourage the community, require the functions and responsibilities of self-government.

In conclusion they reported that the functions and responsibilities of such enquiry boards are bound to be as complex as the problem which they were required to examine. We therefore advocate that they be given, by legislation, broad and comprehensive authority to make recommendations on any pertinent aspect which in their judgment would result in better and more efficient local government.

You will note from this, from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members — in the brief, that the provision for a vote was made based on a vote of the citizens within the incorporated area as well as the unincorporated area. Such a plebiscite should be held — been approved, which I mentioned earlier of 60 per cent that voted in favour.

You will readily see, Mr. Speaker, that the municipal leaders of this province wanted a vote by all citizens affected so that democracy would continue to be a governing factor in determining boundary extensions, amalgamations or incorporations of municipalities.

In spite of this fine report and before the committee had an opportunity to act on it, the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) directs the City of Kamloops and their fringe areas to amalgamate and the City of Kelowna and their fringe areas to amalgamate.

This directive of course denies all the affected citizens the right to vote on this subject and is most undemocratic. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has ordered the amalgamation of the areas of Kamloops and Kelowna to take place this year. Responsible elected officials of the area concerned have asked for extension of time. This has been denied.

Mr. Speaker, for many years, municipal officials of this province have been granted many additional powers so they can control their own destiny more effectively. Overnight we see this all changed by a new Minister of Municipal Affairs deciding he knows what is best for Kamloops and Kelowna. He knows best from his ivory tower in Victoria. He knows more about the situation than the local mayors, aldermen, regional directors and citizens in the local areas.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the local people know best and they should be left to decide by a democratic vote which is provided for in the Municipal Act.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Is that the way regional districts came in?

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll comment on that remark. Regional districts came in by vote of this Legislature. The vote was 55 to nothing to bring regional districts into British Columbia. I am firmly of the opinion that the Minister's directive in the case of Kamloops and Kelowna is not legally binding and I recommend the affected citizens in these two areas pay no attention to this directive from the Minister of Municipal Affairs unless they are given their just rights to vote on the amalgamation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: I was afraid you were going to say that Mr. Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the order-in-council which put a freeze on all agricultural land in British Columbia.

[ Page 147 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: On all land.

MR. FRASER: This order-in-council effectively stops all agricultural land sales unless it is sold to continue in agricultural production.

Many farms in British Columbia are not economic and the farmers do not mind this as they enjoy this kind of life. However, when they decide to sell they do not want restrictions applied to them which restrict what they can sell their land for.

Why should this small group of citizens subsidize society by selling their land for less than the market value? Most farmers look forward to the day of retirement and rely on the sale of their farms to provide them with some help in their retirement years.

This order-in-council effectively takes away for these citizens this income. The provincial Government should not allow this to happen. Again, no public hearings have been held prior to the passing of this order-in-council by the Environment and Land Use Committee. The least this Government could have done was to hold public hearings of the Environment and Land Use Committee first before dictatorially by this order-in-council freezing all agricultural land in British Columbia.

Again it shows citizens of the Province of British Columbia how this Government's promise of open government is so much malarkey. I say to the Government to rescind this order-in-council freezing farm land and conduct public hearings across this province so all citizens can be consulted before any legislation is passed.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Talk to the farmers.

MR. FRASER: I am sure all our citizens want to preserve farm land but not at the expense of a small group in our society — the farmers. The order-in-council of the Environment and Land Use Committee also takes away any power local authorities have over this land and whether the land is within a municipality or outside.

I refer of course to local zoning and building bylaws of a municipality or a regional district which most all areas of this province now have. The dictatorial action taken by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the boundary extension of Kamloops and Kelowna, and the dictatorial action taken by the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet — I cannot see why you do not take the remaining powers away from the municipal and regional authorities. You could just do this by passing an order-in-council disbanding all municipal councils and regional boards. Then you would have absolute control which is what you appear to desire.

While on the subject of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make reference to a statement made by the Hon. Premier telling the consumers of British Columbia to boycott the purchase of beef because of the price. The Premier of our province should not be making irresponsible statements such as these.

Even his own Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) disagreed with him about the boycotting of beef by the consumers and he said, which is correct, that beef prices have only reached the same level they were at in 1951. I am especially concerned about the Premier's statement because my riding of Cariboo produces more beef for shipment to market than most points in British Columbia.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, is it not time that the beef producers of this province get the opportunity to finally get a decent return for their hard work?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. FRASER: That's unparliamentary.

MR. SMITH: You mean you're a bill-shipper, Alex?

MR. FRASER: The costs of the beef producer have been going up constantly. Costs such as wages, fuel, farm machinery, taxes and all other costs. The Premier of the province should apologize to all the farmers of this province who raise beef for these most uncalled for remarks and urge the citizens of British Columbia to buy B.C. grown produce such as beef rather than lamb or mutton from Australia and New Zealand.

I have mentioned that the Cariboo riding, which I have the honour to represent in the Legislature, produces more beef for market than most areas in B.C. Cariboo is famous for its cattle country and it represents a big part of the economy. While we have some very large cattle ranches in the Cariboo we also have many smaller cattle ranches which are family operated and have been for years, passing from one generation to the next.

There are no citizens of this province who work harder and get less from the government. They have always paid their way and it has been very difficult to do so at times. But never have any of them expected any handouts from the public treasury. I hope Mr. Premier that your remarks about boycotting the buying of beef were not made to hurt innocent hardworking citizens and I only ask you to reassure the beef producers of this province.

Mr. Speaker, in the debate so far on the Speech from the Throne and indeed on it, even every other resolution presented to this House, the side opposite seems to wish to find solutions to problems by suggesting that after 20 years there was nothing but chaos in British Columbia.

The Premier himself is either galled or upset about any positive position assumed by the Opposition. His

[ Page 148 ]

Ministers decry the previous 20 years when they had all the answers and now admit that on almost every front they have none of the answers. Bills are still in the process of production, Mr. Attorney General, even the latest — the Prices and Enquiry Board of the Premier is really but a gleam in his eye and nothing more. 20 years is a long time, Mr. Speaker, but across this country the legislative books of Canada are full of ideas which were initiated here.

The list is too long to repeat them all but some will be enough, I am sure, to indicate that the throne speech itself is not only hollow but the Government's answer to criticism is also hollow. The first Ecological Reserve Act in Canada, the first Environment and Land Use Act in Canada, which my friends across the way described as a toothless tiger when it was introduced into the Legislature and yet has seen fit to use it to abuse the farm community of British Columbia in the month of January 1973. The Home Acquisition Grant, first in Canada, now becoming part of federal legislation; the Homeowner Grant, first in Canada, now becoming part of the legislative programme of Alberta; the municipal finance authority, first in Canada and described by an Ontario municipal committee as the finest piece of legislation they had seen anywhere.

The greenbelt protection fund, another first in Canada.

The perpetual fund supported in every instance by the NDP and opposed by the Liberals — another first in Canada.

The Elderly Citizens Renters Grant Act, another first in Canada.

The First Citizens of British Columbia Corporation Act — another first in Canada. One would only hope that the present government acts on it as the previous were in the process of doing, as the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder), the Hon. Minister without Portfolio well knows.

The Regional Parks Act, another first in Canada.

One can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Members opposite learn the responsibilities of Government much more quickly than they have exhibited so far. The ball is over there now, not here. But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the official Opposition intends to be not only the watchdogs of the people, but our positive position programmes were laid alongside those produced opposite for all to see.

Mr. Speaker, the socialists are advocates of a no-growth policy. In spite of them, we will have growth in this wonderful Province of British Columbia. I only hope their policies will not do too much harm.

They have advocated, since being elected, the takeover of so many activities in this province that the treasury — and I would remind them when somebody said he gave some money to something it's the taxpayers' and the citizens' money — they would be bankrupt in 6 months if all the takeovers were effected.

A few of the takeovers recommended are the natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, B.C. Telephone Company, the car insurance, a life insurance brought in just at this session by the Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), and all privately-held land.

They've not told the citizens of British Columbia where the money is going to come from to pay for these takeovers. They have truly shown they know how to spend the taxpayers' money but the taxpayers would like them to show some responsibility concerning the tax dollars. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assure you and the Hon. Members that I intend to speak as briefly as possible in this throne speech debate this afternoon and to touch only on those matters which I believe are of immediate concern to the people of British Columbia and, therefore, the Members of this House.

May I say, also, Mr. Speaker, that I was delighted to listen, to the best of my ability — although I was called out of the House briefly — to the statements at the start of this afternoon by the Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance for British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Cocke). That indeed, as my colleague from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) observed in an interjection, is a "breath of fresh air." For as a municipal person and as one involved with regional district government for quite some time, I recall with horror his predecessor.

Mr. Speaker, if I were required to single out one aspect of proceedings in this Legislature which troubles me as a new Member — or as a "rookie", as others have described themselves properly — it would be that dealing with much of the debate on the Speech from the Throne. And what I feel is the unnecessary procedural wrangles which appear on a fairly regular basis. I cannot believe that this is why the citizens of British Columbia have sent us here. I cannot believe that we are serving them efficiently and effectively by, as an example, the other night, spending over 25 minutes debating a single amendment with regard to the time at which night sittings might terminate.

For myself, and I believe for my colleague in the Progressive Conservative bench in the front, I say that we're prepared to accept the Hon. Premier's stated intention to improve the handling of matters in this House and to see that public business is carried out more promptly and effectively.

I hope there are new Members on both sides of this House who are seriously concerned, about the

[ Page 149 ]

relevance of some of our actions and this apparent preoccupation with scoring points by one side against the other.

In the course of debate last Monday afternoon, as I listened with others to the tossing of unemployment percentage figures back and forth, I wondered if the unemployed husband and father, or the mother of small children who seeks part-time work, is really concerned whether this unemployment figure is 7.8 per cent or 8.4 per cent, or 6.9 per cent. All that father knows, or all that mother cares about, Mr. Speaker, is finding work. And surely it is that to which we should be directing our attention.

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your stated intention to bring before the House proposals for improving and refining the procedures of this assembly. For with all due deference to the past, one cannot help but feel that we in this assembly are facing issues of the 1970's and 1980's in a House whose style has changed very little since the 1870's and the 1880's.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not without considerable sympathy for Members of the present Government — particularly the cabinet — and the situations which they have encountered in certain departments since the middle of last September. One did not have to sit in this House prior to last August to fully appreciate the fact that the former Government had simply grown old, inept and indifferent — in several departments, including health and hospital services, social rehabilitation, highways and travel industry. It was apparent to tens of thousands of British Columbians that the former Government had to be replaced at the earliest possible date.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, to quote the Hon. Premier, speaking as Leader of the Opposition just over one year ago, January 24, 1972, "we have seen a government that is tired in office, a cabinet that quarrels among itself and when pinned down with a problem acts in a crybaby reaction towards Ottawa. It is a bitter disappointment that this government has lost the opportunity to lead and I hope soon they will lose the opportunity and the right to govern." End of quote.

Mr. Speaker, those words spoken in this House by the present Premier just over one year ago crystallized for me, at any rate, the situation which faced British Columbia last summer. And as this new Government starts to mature in office, many of us who do not subscribe to socialism as the great panacea, hope that 38 men and women in this House will clearly understand one thing I believe this Government today is in power not because people turned to it, embracing all that the NDP offers, but again because tens of thousands of our citizens finally turned away from Social Credit.

At the time — last August 30th — it was a case not of voting for something but turfing out that tired, elderly, arrogant group which had held office for so long.

As a new Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, I turned to the Provincial Library for some appropriate quotation which would serve to emphasize the point. The librarians found it and I'm indebted to them.

The August 30th situation could have been stated beautifully, superbly, by a very famous North American now deceased. Robert Louis Taylor wrote that man's biography and provided this very brief passage:

"Who are you going to vote for, Uncle Willie?" asked Fowler.

"Hell, I never vote for anybody. I always vote against."

Mr. Speaker, W.C. Fields has said it all for us in those few words.

Now could we go back to the Hon. Premier's speech, that same one in 1972 quoted a few moments ago. And, Mr. Speaker, I realize that my colleague, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and others, have referred to the statement which I'm about to quote. Nevertheless, the Hon. Members must realize how seriously those of us in the Opposition view this complete change of attitude.

Let's go back. It is January 24, 1972, and the then Leader of the official Opposition said this: "It will not be meaningless exercise for us, Mr. Speaker, as the throne speech was a meaningless exercise for the Government." End of quote.

And again, a few lines later, I quote: "No matter what happens out of this Legislative session, no matter what happens in the future of this province it must be said for the record that one of the greatest opportunities for outlining new directions for the people of this province was dramatically missed by the present Government of this province in the throne speech." End of quote.

Mr. Speaker, as a new Member I am so very sorry that the Premier of this province, having had 5 months in office in which to review his policies, to set his priorities, did not give us more in the Speech from the Throne on Thursday, January 25, 1973. For the second year in a row, then, the comment must be made for the record that one of the greatest opportunities for outlining new directions for the people of this province was dramatically missed.

And this time, Mr. Speaker, that is not a quote.

Mr. Speaker, as badly as the people of this province wanted and needed a change of government last year, I believe that considerable disenchantment has set in already — perhaps to a greater extent than many of us would have expected so soon. For the moment I'm not speaking about so-called special interest groups who were prepared to be directly affected by the policies of this new socialist Government. I'm speaking about those persons who have been clobbered by the impact of poorly considered and suddenly announced restrictive orders in council

[ Page 150 ]

such as the one concerning a freeze on farmland subdivision — the one referred to by the previous speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in case some purely urban Members of this House don't fully appreciate the situation, in case the Government doesn't realize that it has blundered, can I say that there are now hundreds of farmers and orchardists in this province who now know how it feels to be hit by a government sledgehammer. Of course, we admit there has been a wholesale carving up of precious, vital farmland. Of course, this has been a matter of grave concern to all thinking British Columbians including the farmers and the agriculturalists themselves. But, Mr. Speaker, does this Government understand what has happened as a result of its action in December?

Well, let me refer in general terms to the reported action of one non-farming developer-speculator in the Fraser Valley who was apparently proceeding with a subdivision plan and it was virtually complete. He had received, as I am told, all necessary approvals from various levels of government — health, regional, municipal. He simply shrugged his shoulders and added $1,500 to the asking price of each parcel of newly subdivided ground.

Mr. Speaker, that is the heart of this foolish business. There will be no argument from this desk concerning Government proposals to restrict, to discourage, speculation or exploitation of land. But the action taken just a few weeks ago, has hit the non-speculating farmer and has brought prompt and widespread disillusionment in many parts of the province.

Mr. Speaker, when will Governments learn? When will Ministers of the Crown and their well-intentioned advisors finally come to realize that there is a difference…there is a difference between the land merchants — the wealthy, callous speculator — and the career farmer and farm family? When, in this province, shall we have consultation before legislation? That's what the farmers of British Columbia are asking again today.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that really we need to start preserving farmers and the farm unit as well as farmland. On this same general topic may I say how disappointed I am to find that, thus far in this session, there has been no policy reference to the serious problem of foreign investment in British Columbia land. In my own statements leading up to the election last August, I attempted to identify this as a matter of very grave concern. Other provincial jurisdictions have recognized this threat and are moving to ease and counteract it. It's to be regretted, I feel, that this new Government, in five months and with a strong majority in the House, could not have listed this as a priority task.

Mr. Speaker, if I could focus briefly on another problem, I would like to speak about comments made in this House earlier this week by the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) with respect to a proposed new ferry route running generally between greater Vancouver and Nanaimo. In my first draft of these remarks which were made on the weekend, I was devoting a few moments to the subject. However, in view of the Minister's statement on Tuesday, this particular situation has assumed alarming proportions and if my quick canvass…no, he's not listening…if my quick canvass of public opinion is correct, the residents of most Gulf Islands are extremely concerned.

The Hon. Members will realize that Gabriola Island is not within the provincial riding which I represent. Nevertheless, Gabriola is a typical Gulf Island and what happens there or does not happen there will inevitably be felt on the other islands which comprise this magnificent group. To the Hon. Minister, welcome — and to those Hon. Members who represent north shore ridings, I really offer best wishes in any attempt to relocate the mainland ferry terminal from Horseshoe Bay. However, at the same time may I really plead that no further consideration, even in the early planning stage, be given to routing mainland to Vancouver Island ferry traffic onto any of the Gulf Islands. To do so would be the ultimate folly in misuse of our still beautiful south western coastal area.

If any Member of this House has doubts on that matter, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Capital Regional District, which as you know includes most of the Gulf Islands, can provide a summary of the islanders' very strong and critical reaction to the expressed possibility of a bridge-tunnel link between Tsawwassen and the northern Saanich peninsula. They were literally up in arms over the proposal.

If Gabriola Island becomes a stepping stone for this cross-strait link, then we know that it will be easier for succeeding Ministers of Highways and succeeding Governments in five or ten or 15 years to also stand in this House, as the present Minister did, and say that it is finally necessary to link with another island and with Vancouver Island and the lower mainland.

We hear the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, tell us about conserving some of our natural resources and exercising restraints in matters affecting material possessions. As a permanent resident of Vancouver Island, who is obliged to use the ferry service whenever he wishes to take his car to Vancouver, I wonder if I am really entitled to have ferry space for my car available at the snap of a finger. Perhaps some restraint in this respect, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, would be helpful and constructive.

I don't think we should be compelled to move every automobile that offers itself to be transported between Vancouver Island and the mainland at a moment's notice. In all honesty, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 151 ]

through you to the Minister of Highways, there are those of us living on Vancouver Island — and the Minister should know this very, very well — who simply avoid travelling between Vancouver Island and the mainland on holiday weekends. Or, if we must, we travel as foot passengers or we fly.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House that residents of Gabriola Island are most alarmed over this week's announcements. Through you, I would like to ask the Minister of Highways how much discussion with respect to this new routing took place with the cabinet? How much discussion with respect to this new routing took place with the Government Member from that area? How much discussion with respect to this new routing took place with the Government caucus, Mr. Speaker? How much discussion took place with the Nanaimo regional district? I can answer that one, Mr. Speaker — none, not one word.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Shame. Shocking.

MR. CURTIS: How much discussion took place with Nanaimo city council? None. How much took place with the community organizations on Gabriola Island? Apparently none. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is a unilateral, Ministerial action which, I regret, is reminiscent of the former Government based largely, if not totally, on engineering considerations alone.

The school strike in District 61, which is now reaching the end of its third week, is indeed, in the view of the Progressive Conservative Party, a matter of very serious public importance. Elementary students are severely restricted and virtually all the junior and senior secondary students in the greater Victoria area have received no education of any significance for the past three weeks. It's very disturbing to us that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), who, when she was in the Opposition, spoke so frankly about her deep concern for the efficiency and quality of education provided in this province — yet what do we find when she holds the responsible position and the power of Minister of Education? Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in fact, has remained almost totally silent in this three week period when the education of many thousands of our students is being sadly neglected. Neglected to this extent, that some students may end up by having to repeat a year — those students in particular who are supposed, at this time, to be starting their second semester in grade 12. We really regret that it is not possible to have a full debate on this subject but we respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Negotiations in the strike, I understand, resume tomorrow and it's certainly the intent of the local MLAs who have supported today's attempt to have a debate to raise the matter again in this House on Monday, if no solution to that strike has been found over the weekend. We would, in the meantime, earnestly appeal to both sides in the dispute to bring their dedicated efforts to the bargaining table over this weekend so that our children in greater Victoria can return to school.

If no settlement is reached by the weekend, then we do hope that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) together will surely take a more positive role and show the kind of leadership which is expected of elected officials holding the highest offices in the province. We are sorry that this new and vigorous young Government has in fact, up to this point at any rate, failed miserably to show any leadership in this dispute.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may move to yet another matter — one of the few clear and concise statements in the throne speech related to the creation of 1,000 new government jobs in the provincial civil service. Along with others who've reacted to this statement in the debate, I'm puzzled as to the relative importance of 1,000 new positions in our provincial structure. And I have to express difficulty in believing that this one move apparently represents the keystone of the new Government's efforts to combat unemployment.

Now it cannot be argued that some departments of government in B.C. have experienced severe staff shortages and that services to our citizens have suffered as the natural result. The former Government was notoriously reluctant to add new employees when and as they were needed. Matters relating to public health inspection is just one example.

And yet this rounding off at the 1,000-person mark smacks to me of government by employment quota rather than by a careful analysis of staff deficiencies and positive response to that particular shortage.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if my observations are correct on another point, there is growing concern about the distinct possibility of "bureaucracy out of control" in our British Columbia. It may not have happened yet to any great extent, but the trend is already apparent and nothing has been said in this House by any Member of the Executive Council to counteract that impression or soothe that fear. And I would be lacking in my duty today if no reference were made to the proliferation of new appointments relating to special, executive or administrative assistants in and around the area of the provincial cabinet and senior departmental levels.

The Progressive Conservative Party in B.C. feels very strongly about the basic principle of responsible government through elected representatives. It is with those persons still responsible to the electorate that the decision-making process must rest.

The opposite trend, first in Ottawa and now here, apparently, is expensive and dangerous. Many provin-

[ Page 152 ]

cial cabinet Ministers I know are very busy — perhaps even overworked — and in need of continuing assistance. That being the case then surely a new and fresh government, such as we are told exists in British Columbia, would have introduced the concept of parliamentary secretaries, turning to the undoubted talent which is to be found in the Government backbenches for Ministerial advisors and assistants.

Because, Mr. Speaker, the citizen in this era of complex, complicated and bewildering government structure, would be far happier in the knowledge that both cabinet Members and their closest advisors are subject to acceptance or rejection in the polling place, every 4 or 5 years. Without doubt, Mr. Speaker, there are cabinet Ministers in this new socialist Government who are competent and experienced. On the other hand, there are also those who will be guided — or perhaps later even directed — in large measure by the appointed persons around them. In a democracy, particularly after 20 years of one-man rule in this province, that could very well lead to an extremely dangerous situation.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the spectre of "shadow government" is starting to loom in British Columbia.

Members of this House will understand that I have a particular interest in matters affecting municipal affairs and, as was mentioned during the special session of the Legislature by another Hon. Member, it's encouraging to note that there are several Members who have had experience in civic government in various parts of British Columbia. I would suggest that provincially elected people could learn a great deal from local government and by watching how it handles problems.

The difficulties facing cities and municipalities are increasing annually, and not all of them are expressed strictly in terms of dollars and cents. Therefore, while I have very high regard for the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and for the courage he has shown in a couple of generally unpopular matters already, I must again deplore the complete absence of reference in the throne speech to any new proposals, new legislation, which would assist persons living in the organized communities of this province.

Again, quoting from a year ago, "A great opportunity has been missed. An opportunity to say to the people who live in cities, district municipalities, towns and villages, 'This government is aware of the municipal crises and is prepared to work with you in solving some and easing others."

And finally, for this time at any rate, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that "business" is not a bad word in my vocabulary. And with many others in this province I have a feeling of growing uneasiness about the main thrust of the NDP Government.

Not all business is big business, either. Not all businessmen are wealthy and indifferent representatives of multi-national corporations about which we've heard so much in the past few months. Many of the business people with whom I come into contact on a fairly regular basis are small businessmen and women, with a half-dozen, a dozen or 20 employees. And with every single penny of their lifetime earnings wrapped up in and committed to a retail store, a small automobile dealership, an independent motion picture theatre, a small private bus company, a farm machinery outlet. These are the British Columbians who, in their previously frustrated rage last August, threw out one government and in doing so brought this Government to power.

And, Mr. Speaker, if this Government becomes similarly insensitive to the wishes and desires of these ordinary citizens, then those citizens will again respond in 3 1/2 or 4 years' time, and restore free enterprise government — in the truest sense of those words — to this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Comox.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that the Members of the Assembly this afternoon join me in welcoming in the Speaker's gallery two distinguished citizens from Alert Bay — both aldermen on the council up there — Mr. Gilbert Popovich and Mr. Norm Sumner.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the others this afternoon who have complimented you in your efforts to ensure that the business of this House is conducted in an orderly manner. And I would encourage you to continue with those efforts because I think it's extremely important.

It was gratifying to me, Mr. Speaker, to hear in the throne speech a reference made to the ceasefire in Vietnam. That war has weighed heavily on my conscience for many years and has occupied much of my time and energy. I as an individual did what I could to halt that war and feel a sense of relief that at least a ceasefire has been achieved.

I have tried to find honour in that peace, but as I reflect on the carpet bombing that took place during the Christmas season and the destruction inflicted on that small country over the years, the word somehow doesn't seem to fit.

The task now is to make that ceasefire a reality and to begin to rebuild that country.

Many Canadians have extended a helping hand to the Vietnamese over the years by making garments for children, knitting bandages and contributing financially to Canadian aid for Vietnam civilians' organizations. And many of us will continue to assist the Vietnamese in that way until they can achieve some normalcy in their lives.

But I'm asking today how else can we help? What can the provincial government do to help those

[ Page 153 ]

people in rebuilding a country which has been so ravished by war? I am asking that this government consider the possibility of allocating funds to the rebuilding programme in Vietnam or to consider sending British Columbians, whose talents might be useful in that massive programme the Vietnamese are now facing.

I would like to commend the Government for the creation of the special committee dealing with oil spills. A committee which has been instructed to bring back with all possible speed its report to this House. We must become prepared, for the environmental damage caused by spills of that nature are something we simply cannot afford.

When I flew to Alert Bay last week, through a sunny, almost cloudless sky, I was struck by the sheer beauty of the scenery beneath me. And I reflected then on the responsibilities that the 55 of us who occupy this chamber have to preserve that beauty the environment of this province. That responsibility may well be the most important one we have in this chamber.

The oil spill disaster at Alert Bay will, I trust, spark the special committee to act with haste, to work out with the federal government and the State of Washington the cooperation needed to deal with spills quickly and efficiently. We must have equipment ready, knowledgeable people available, and lines of communication and jurisdictions clearly defined, to keep damage to an absolute minimum in spills of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the Government for promising a Bill of Rights this session. One of the first obligations this Government has to the people of the province is to ensure their basic civil rights are recognized and protected.

Some of the response that I have had to the finger-printing incident at Port Hardy has made me realize that there are people in this province who do not treasure sufficiently their basic civil rights. One of the most precious advantages that we enjoy in a democratic society, Mr. Speaker, is our civil rights and we must be vigilant to see that these rights are not eroded. In areas like Port Hardy, where social services have lagged years behind the population growth, many problems develop which are difficult for the community and its police to cope with. The best way that the police can gain the help and support of the communities that they serve is to win the respect of all segments of that community. This they can do only if they work within the law.

The problems police face in rapidly growing areas are difficult ones. I contend, Mr. Speaker, that many of these problems would not reach the attention of the police if basic services to people were available. In the north end of Vancouver Island there are no resident social workers, mental health personnel, probation officers or lawyers. There isn't even a public road to service the north end of the Island. It is the responsibility of this Government to provide social services to areas like northern Vancouver Island and to embark upon a programme to make social justice and equality a reality.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) yesterday made reference to my comments in our local paper concerning ownership of land. While his remarks were essentially accurate, I would like to bring to the attention of the House what is happening in Courtenay.

The assessment commissioner of this province has used the powers, afforded to him under the Assessment Equalization Act and ordered that in some areas in School District 71, the usual 10 per cent maximum increase allowed under the Act be overlooked in order to equalize assessments in the area. In some cases this has resulted in assessment increases of over 100 per cent. Do you know what that means to people? It means that they cannot stay in their homes. It means that they cannot own land because they cannot afford to pay the taxes.

A land tax, Mr. Speaker, is an unfair tax because it is not based on ability to pay. The NDP has recognized that fact and is committed to the phased removal of the education tax from property, in the hope that pensioners and low-income earners can remain in their homes. Because of the rate at which land costs are escalating, I wonder if removal of the educational tax from property will solve the problem. Assessments are based primarily on value and value is largely determined by the price that speculators and land developers can command in the area. I have suggested to people in the Comox riding that they consider and discuss what the alternatives are so that people will not be forced out of their homes.

(1) This I suggested in the local paper — they can allow the uncontrolled escalation of land as is now the case, resulting in the situation that we see in that area. Or (2), we can begin to consider exerting controls on speculators and on land use. This the Government has already done, to some extent, with the freeze on agricultural land — a move that I heartily welcome. Or (3), the other alternative that I believe people should be considering at this point, in view of the fact of what's happening to them, to have land available on a lease basis. I personally feel that land and land use are far too important to be left to the whims of the market place.

Mr. Speaker, one other matter I would like to comment upon. I feel the women's liberation movement has done a tremendous job of focusing attention on the oppression and discrimination which women face. The women's libbers have made women who were conditioned in our society to play an inferior role and take an unfair place, aware for the first time of the position that they hold.

Like the Hon. Second Member for Burrard (Ms.

[ Page 154 ]

Brown), I want things put right. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm not convinced that a Ministry of Women is the way in which these wrongs will be righted. I voted against that resolution at our convention — the resolution calling for the establishment of a Department of Women — for I think that such a Ministry may be divisive. I question what we can accomplish through a separate Ministry. I am opposed, for instance, to the kind of legislation that requires that 50 per cent of any board of directors or 50 per cent of any board of governors or 50 per cent of school principals in this province shall be women. I don't want that kind of legislation.

The problem is at least as much one of attitudes as it is of legislation. I expect the Ministers of this Government to remove the discriminatory sections from existing legislation and to avoid any discriminatory clauses in the new legislation they are drawing up. But attitudes cannot be legislated. We, who make up over half the population, have a far better chance of achieving equal rights than many minority groups do. I feel that it is now up to us to carry the ball — we, the women.

We must educate men and children and each other to understand the injustices that women face, so that attitudes will change. It is our job, not a Minister's job, to tell advertisers that we don't want to be exploited in media advertising. Because we are consumers, they will listen. We must press labour unions to help us organize where we aren't unionized. It is up to us to ensure that legislation in every governmental department provides for equality for women. I expect the Ministers of this Government to listen and to respond.

They already have, to some extent. We are seeing a new approach in the field of day-care. This, I think, reflects a basic understanding of that Minister of that aspect of the problem. There is now just a Minimum Wage Act, not the "Female" and the "Male" Minimum Wage Act. That was done in the last session. We even have page girls in this House. Little enough, I realize, but I think it's an indication of the awareness that this Government has of these problems.

I trust that the Provincial Secretary will instruct….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. It was not the Government that made that decision. It was the Speaker.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, Mr. Speaker, my humble apologies! I'm glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that you are also aware of these problems. (Laughter).

I trust that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) will instruct the civil service commission to hire the additional 1,000 civil servants on merit, without regard to sex. Where we, the women, can point out that in school text books, for instance, where traditional roles are emphasized, I expect those passages to be removed.

Mr. Speaker, I saw the joy on the faces of the women who had toiled to pass this resolution at our convention. But I wonder if a separate Minister and department will be any more effective at solving the problems that women face than the Department of Indian Affairs has been at solving the problems of the natives of Canada.

If we cannot elicit response from the existing department in this Government, then I am prepared to reconsider my position. Right now I feel that it is not a separate Ministry that we need, but a will to correct injustices.

I hope to see men and women work cooperatively to eliminate injustices as they apply to sex, to race, to economics, to age and even to opportunities. And from this Government I expect a positive response.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's a real honour to be in this House and to represent the people of Dewdney and to speak in response to His Honour's speech.

Some of the people in B.C. I think are a little confused at times when they see leaders in the church standing in forums like this. Occasionally they will say that we should be out of politics and sticking to what they say is saving people's souls. These people should remember that in modern history one of the most eloquent spokesmen for this style — this very narrow style of what Christian leaders and what the church is all about — was Adolf Hitler. He was very happy that the church remain pious; that it remain irrelevant; that it not be active in political life.

One of the people in recent history who I read about who has greatly influenced my life was a man who probably chose political action further than anybody, I pray, in this Legislature will ever have to go — it meant his life. He was a Lutheran priest. His name was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Many of you remember that during the Second World War he led a conspiracy of people in Germany to put an end to the fascist menace of Hitler. He lost his life but his memory fingers. He was simply saying that if we take seriously that God loves the world, it means that man cannot privately be open to God's love without becoming very actively involved in the joys and the sorrows and the hopes and the fears of his people.

Indeed, some of us who remember in the 25th chapter of St. Matthew, there is a very concise description of the final judgment. St. Matthew describes the presence of God as really like the kind of person who is really interested in water to drink, in food for those who are hungry, for people that can have housing, for hospitals, for prison reform. Jesus was especially good

[ Page 155 ]

news to the people who were oppressed and who were poor.

Mr. Speaker, as we sit in this august chamber this afternoon there are a lot of people who are still oppressed. There are a lot of people who, I admit, sometimes create their own form of oppression — who are very poor. I believe that the material and the spiritual values of life cannot be separated.

Many of us have been influenced by the words of Gandhi who said years ago that "to a man who is hungry, God can only appear in the form of bread."

During the election I often quoted the 24th Psalm. I might quote it to an I.W.A. meeting or to a millworkers' meeting or to the chamber of commerce or the Rotary club or to a political rally. The psalmist said that "the earth is the Lord's." It's not the monopoly of a large company or of a union or of some technocrat. It is the Lord's and the fullness thereof and all those that dwell therein.

So I feel that it is really important for us here to be involved, to help people who don't find life very fulfilling, who sometimes in their own marriage find life tedious and lacking growth, who are struggling as parents, who are struggling with a job that they don't find very fulfilling, who have somehow got locked into the darkness of mental illness. I am happy to hear the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) move much more aggressively into the ministry of mental illness.

Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that in Riverview, only 60 years ago, there were wooden stocks that actually held people in position as they tried to, in a sense, beat out the devil out of people who were deranged.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that God can move through people who actively get involved in political action and encounter with people. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago in this Legislature an archdeacon of the Christian church became the first socialist leader of the CCF Party. He was a man who sometimes was even misunderstood within his own party. His name was Reverend Robert Connel. And I think we should pay tribute to that kind of leadership.

You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the founder of our party was a Methodist preacher.

At times, Mr. Speaker, actually on both sides of the House, I must confess I think there is sometimes misunderstanding about what the church is really trying to do. I have heard the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and even some of her own members, I think, somewhat misunderstand the new proposals for Christ Church Cathedral in downtown Vancouver. Some of the Members misunderstand that the church must never degenerate into some kind of a mere preservation of a building. It is not to be kept as some kind of a quaint museum to the past. I am happy, that to my knowledge, there has never been "church and state" in Canada. I hope there never will be. I feel a little uncomfortable about people that would suggest that our Government set up an annuity for Christ Church Cathedral.

I think it should be known, Mr. Speaker, that 70 per cent of the active members of that congregation and their dean, and even with the best wishes of the bishop, voted for a new style of ministry in the downtown part of Vancouver. They don't want to be subsidized as a dead monument to the past.

The church has a very unique role. It's a community, a community of people. In this case a people who live and work where we have the hub of the media, the hub of financial people, of people in the hotel and restaurant types of businesses — many lonely people. And this new facility, Mr. Speaker, would have meeting rooms and community rooms. It would continue an on-going counselling programme that has been there for many years. The architect, Mr. Ericson, feels that there will be many more walkways, much more open space, more green area and trees, places for people just to sit, for maybe musicians to play, for small outdoor….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I just happened to glance at the public bills in the hands of private Members, and I see that Bill No. 10 deals with Christ Church Cathedral Historic Site Grant Act and it seems, therefore, that it would be useful if you drew to a conclusion on this matter. You will be anticipating a debate still ahead of us.

MRS. JORDAN: We just wanted to have your support.

MR. ROLSTON: Okay. Well, my support says not in that sense.

In closing on that part of the speech, Mr. Speaker, I think that sometimes for there to be new things, old things must die — sometimes old styles of ministry. Just as, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to you, I'm looking forward to your recommendations in a few days time on the style of work in this House. At times I think it's a little tiresome, a little ineffective. I look forward to your recommendations. Indeed, some of the old has to die for new things to be reborn.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in that context I want to hold up a poster. I really don't have the confidence to stick this on a pillar yet in this building — but this simply says that "everyone has inside himself a piece of the good news." I believe that and I'm sure that the Members believe that. We in our party have tried to go to the people and say, "You have something significant to contribute, from both sides, from all political backgrounds."

I think you should know, Mr. Speaker, that one of the styles of working as an MLA we have a little

[ Page 156 ]

mainstreet office in Maple Ridge. I'm there every Tuesday from nine until six. Delegations come in. We have a receptionist. We have free typists. We have a telephone service. We are trying to be very available, very vulnerable to the people of Maple Ridge and to other parts of my riding.

In similar way we have started a programme of "think tanks" every month. We meet at various parts of the riding. We gather people from all political backgrounds that hopefully represent the strata of life in the community. And I'm happy to say that it's a no-host dinner. We meet for 3 1/2 hours and we simply hash out what it means to live in a community in a riding like Dewdney which is in transition, a riding where people have come to enjoy and to find fulfilment. The response has been incredible. Like a teacher, I don't need to take attendance any more. We get all 35 people that are invited to come.

Now out of these think tanks, Mr. Speaker, two things have become very obvious to me and I want to share these in this speech.

The first thing is that we have a real need for a planned secondary industry in our riding, as I'm sure in many other ridings. The previous administration, in fact the incumbent before me who in a sense was an industrialist, did very little to our knowledge to promote secondary industry in our riding.

We have people who would like to work as well as live in the riding of Dewdney. We have a lot of interest, by municipal leaders who would like to, in partnership with the Provincial government and with the Department of Industry, move ahead in a planned way to assemble land for industrial development, to service land; hopefully to, maybe in some kind of a shared financial arrangement, make it possible for industries to come in and even borrow money at attractive interest rates. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, our party in Dewdney has aggressively worked with small industrialists — again from all political backgrounds — to really mean what we say about creating jobs and developing secondary industry in the riding.

I'm glad to hear the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) say that we do have to spark — we do have to motivate.

A lot of people in Canada seem somewhat cautious about moving ahead in new industrial formations. I feel that the government is somewhat obligated to move in and do product market research. I am really embarrassed at times to see industry start up, long before we came into office, with no market research — no idea of what the sales for their product might be.

I think you should know, Mr. Speaker, for instance in the building supply industry in British Columbia there are 1,500 new products per year coming into the building supply industry. Often with very little research, very little idea of the acceptability of these products. I feel that there is in a sense an obligation for us to research and to give advice to these people before they spend a lot of money. I hope that we'll also help them in production techniques and we can maybe short-cut a lot of time and not waste a lot of money.

I do feel that all of us have to take risks. I know the Members here have taken some financial risks in investing — hopefully wisely, in secondary industries in our province.

Talk to the small businessman, to the small manufacturer regarding his impressions of the Industrial Development Bank. Find out the kind of interest rates that he feels obliged to pay when he goes to the bank. Find out how much the bank is really willing to loan him, Mr. Speaker, as a small fellow who is trying to risk and get in to do some manufacturing.

I felt, in fact, a little bit embarrassed at His Honour's reception last Thursday when I spoke to the mayor of Vancouver, Art Phillips, who manages one of Vancouver's I think, better mutual funds. He confessed and agreed that much more money could have gone into his portfolio in B.C., if not at least in Canadian stocks. The Canadian stock market has been better in the past two years than the American one. Surely in financial terms, if not in an obligation to the job formation in this province, we should invest in Canada and in British Columbia.

Now in our riding we have a special interest in the fact that we live next to about a million people. When you step across the Pitt River, you arrive in Dewdney. It's becoming a bedroom, but in a sense it's also a playground for the people of metropolitan Vancouver. (Laughter) Mr. Speaker, there is a certain obligation for us to, in a planned way, provide more parks, more planning.

I went with a constituent this morning to the head of the Parks Branch hoping that we could interest him — get in there and start planning for parks around the Harrison River, down the Fraser River, beside some of the larger rivers and lakes. Let's not wait for some real estate fellow to move in — the mob of real estate people to move in and take this land over without the people of British Columbia having an opportunity to say that it's for them to play in and enjoy.

I really hope that every Member in this House will be able to go from the Pitt River with his family, with a packsack and walk, without going on roads from one end of my riding, which is the Pitt River, right through to Haig, which is the other end — through trails, seeing little cabins. I hope many Hon. Members are in this type of recreation where they can simply enjoy being together in the wilderness — enjoying what is their land, which is really not asking too much.

I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that we are trying to interest the government in a much more aggressive re-

[ Page 157 ]

forestation programme. The previous government seemed somewhat cautious in reforestation. I think the House should know that this year we're planting 13 million seedlings in British Columbia. In the previous administration it was 3 million. We're now going to 13 million. Next year we're going to 20 million seedlings that will be planted in this province. I commend that and I am really happy about that type of preparation. Now, Mr. Speaker, that means employment, that means a future inventory of trees.

I think I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, in Dewdney there are people that are not working. Before our successful election there were a lot of people that weren't working. The Department of Social Welfare tells me that half of the people that are not working in my riding are 23 years old and under, often with a very cynical attitude towards work — work as we know work. They don't want to get locked into a mechanical and somewhat tedious type of job.

I talked to some mining people recently who lamented that in the mining industry sometimes they can't keep a young fellow more than one or two days. He's well paid, but the work is pretty hard and somehow he survives until the evening coffee break and then he's gone. That concerns us, Mr. Speaker. It concerns us that maybe we have to kind of really hash through what we mean by work today, what we mean by fulfilment. Must it be a 40 hour week? I'm not so sure, Mr. Speaker.

I think I should share with the House that at the think tank on January 3, in Agassiz, we had quite an interesting confrontation between two social workers, the head of the Department of Social Welfare, a couple of mill operators, two mayors and some young people. They very frankly said what they meant by work, by fulfilment, and obviously they did not necessarily agree. But I'm hearing, and I wonder if the other Members are hearing, that a lot of young people don't expect to work 40 hours a week. They don't expect to get paid for more than 30 to 35 hours per week. But they do want to do something that's meaningful. They don't want to get locked in. They want to have an opportunity to really contribute and to grow as people.

I feel that in my riding because of the huge recreational potential — because of the whole outdoors and I'm thinking of outdoor schools. I'm thinking of U.B.C. Research Forest; I'm thinking of the whole studying and promoting of our potential and wild life. I think that there's a real opportunity for some of these people to get into something, to be happy to live in this part of British Columbia.

I just want for a second, Mr. Speaker, to digress on the Britannia Coal Port, because I know that this is a pretty important issue to us all. As I quote the 24th Psalm, "The Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." As a person who has lived most of his life in West Vancouver who has spent all his life boating on Howe Sound who as a little boy remembered euphemistically Port Smellon and Woodfibre and that chemical plant at Squamish and the mercury that seems to leave that chemical plant, I lament that up until recent years, Mr. Speaker, there have been open sewers on Bowen Island and certain parts of West Vancouver. I can think of open sewers on what we call Cypress Point.

I feel everybody in this Chamber is somewhat implicated when they talk about environment. When most of you have probably fished, you've probably gone out on your yacht, with an open sewer from that yacht. You've probably gone on a ferry. There are lots of implications of people in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, that have somewhat lead to the desecration, or at least the feared desecration of Howe Sound. I feel that all of us are part of this. It's an emotional thing, Mr. Speaker.

Our Government is committed to get hard research on Britannia. We have said that. We said there'll be public hearings on Britannia. We want the facts on Britannia. As a person who has spent many, many years in and around Howe Sound — who has gone to Centre Bay with 300 boats and admits that a lot of sewage has gone into Centre Bay and other parts of Gambier Island, I feel that all of us are part of this trip. I think we ought to be very honest with our conscience when we talk about Britannia; when we talk about what this might mean.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move now on to the fact that I think a lot of people in my riding, and hopefully in others, feel a new sense of freedom, a new sense of this fullness that I referred to, when they received those Mincome cheques.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just for a second describe a very gracious couple who live across the street from me in Mission. This chap has dug graves for most of his life. In recent years he worked for the municipality managing a very small graveyard. In a sense he came over to me very quietly, even self-effacingly and thanked me for that $42 cheque that he received from Mincome. A man who nobody would question has worked hard, very hard. He tried to save and did save. He saves every little stick of wood to make furniture in our workshop for the children of the area. But here is a new sense of freedom. Here's a fellow who will drive into Vancouver because he now has a little bit of money to go in to the symphony, or in to see his relatives in Vancouver. Here is a new sense of liberation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that was also true of the small mill operators in my riding. I have two telegrams and two letters that came today from small men who don't have any logs.

Mr. Speaker, they're struggling to survive, the small shake and shingle operations in my riding, when they realize that there are logs going down the Fraser

[ Page 158 ]

River from Harrison and down the Harrison River, down the Fraser to the large mills of Vancouver, mills operated by the giant companies in forestry in B.C. They can't compete, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately they weren't at the right time 20 years ago to get TFLs. To get quotas. To get timber berths. They're not in what many of us euphemistically refer to as a "free enterprise, competitive, market place situation." There is nothing very competitive when you are not able to put on the table your timber berth or your quota. Mr. Speaker, I hope and I'm sure the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams) is concerned as I am that a lot of these small fellows don't have a real opportunity in a real free competitive enterprise system to compete for logs. We are aware of the price of logs, Mr. Speaker. We are aware that there must be a change.

Now the second half of my little talk, and a second priority, Mr. Speaker, from these think tanks is health services. I again want to remind you of my poster. It says that "every one of us has inside himself a piece of the good news." Our party is committed to people living at their potential, Mr. Speaker, all the people. There are a lot of people. Our type of health service is committed to the total person. I don't want to go into the Greek but it might interest you that in the New Testament the word for salvation means health. It means wholeness. It means self esteem. It means fullness. I'm talking about the intellectual, the emotional, the physical, the spiritual aspects of life and I'm committed to that and have been for ten years as a counsellor.

I hope that we will be able to involve all of the people in a more aggressive way — the doctors, the nurses, the paramedical people, the teachers — in a sense of collaboration as we between various professions help people to have a sense that they really have something to contribute. I'm happy that we are living in a kind of era now, Mr. Speaker, when we can read about Dr. John Hastings and his report. That obviously something has gone wrong with health services. That we are spending 12 per cent in escalation each year. That there is a lot of waste. There are a lot of people that are in acute care beds that have no business in acute care beds. In fact they are embarrassed to spend $65 a day of all our money in that acute care bed.

So I am personally committed to a preventive type of medicine were long before that person becomes sick or gets very anxious we intercede. We move ahead. A little child is diagnosed when he is very young to realize he has a speech impediment. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that in a conservative estimate 6 per cent of the children in our schools have serious learning disabilities? Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, the expense that that means to the Members and to the people in a lack of self-esteem.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's higher.

MR. ROLSTON: I'm sure it's higher. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will intercede. That just as we take an x-ray, we will take vaccinations. We will feel comfortable going to a community clinic. That we will feel comfortable going to counsellors.

I just want to describe to you a very personal thing here. As a clergyman and a counsellor I have been involved in the birth control thing for quite awhile and people are a little uncomfortable about this. In fact, my grandmother 20 years ago sat in this House and she felt very uncomfortable — in her dying years she was nearly laughed out of this House even by her own party because of total misunderstanding of family life education. She introduced a programme called "effective living". She was laughed at. It was watered down. It never resembled the kind of programme that she envisaged for our young people. Young people incidentally who would now be active or probably sitting in this House 20 years later.

Mr. Speaker, I am committed to preventive types of medicine. For instance in X-rays. If Prince George is one of the only large cities in our province that puts fluoridation in the water, maybe we have to provide fluoridation for our kids until we can agree to see that it's available for our people. Maybe we have to see that our young children have their teeth coated and painted at a very early age rather than wasting a lot of money later on very expensive dentistry.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can in a sense prevent problems and diseases and dependencies in the future. I was most moved by the second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he spoke of the 15,000 heroin addicts. That's pretty tragic. I don't know if it was the major issue but I felt during the election, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of people really saw the chemical dependency as really a life and death struggle. Surely this is not a political issue, Mr. Speaker, this is a sense of survival and I'm very happy and I'm sure I'll expect from other Members that we will in committee and in discussions have to look to the problem. It's not the symptoms you treat, Mr. Speaker, if you are an alcoholic or if you are on heroin, you deal with the problem.

I'm very happy to hear that the federal Minister, Mr. Marc Lalonde, is now willing to put federal money and planning into the treatment of alcoholics and I welcome that and I hope that this is a survival thing that this poster is trying to promote. That we can move ahead and we can keep people off responding to something external such as a heavy dose of alcohol or drugs or something and bringing it inside them and feeling that that is necessary for them to live as fulfilled people. I feel this is very crucial. I'm glad to be on a committee that will move very aggressively into this field.

Now, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I think that there are a few regulatory functions that our government and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) really should

[ Page 159 ]

feel obligated to move into. We now in the community care facilities have about 1,100 groups and institutions in homes under the Community Care Facilities Act. This is tax money that is paying for these and in some cases it's private groups that are administering this. But I do feel that if we have these, Mr. Minister and Mr. Speaker, there is a real responsibility that there be very good, properly trained people to run these places. This is especially true when working with the senior people, with working with people with addictions.

I agree with one of the Members earlier this afternoon, that often the charwoman in Crease Clinic can be as effective as a psychiatrist in helping psychotic patients. That's very true and I'm very glad that's true. But I think it is also true, Mr. Speaker, that we do as a Government and as a Ministry of Health have a responsibility to first of all have properly trained people — teachers, therapists, psychiatric people to counsel and to help these people to grow.

Secondly, I think there is an obligation that we must make good and sure where this money is going. There must be a sense of control. Our public health people have suggested that maybe there should be some kind of a director to co-ordinate the great maze of community care facilities which I'm sure is in each riding.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that I think we are into a whole new space. I think here we do want to move ahead in a very orderly and human way to see that the people of this province, the 2.3 million people that live or are lucky to live who by some quirk of history, Mr. Speaker, actually happen to live in this beautiful province, are able to have a sense and to believe that they and every one has inside himself a piece of the good news.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to offer my congratulations to you. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain, a riding that is located in the heart of Vancouver — the largest urban area in British Columbia. The majority of the problems of my constituents are the same problems that face people living in other areas of Vancouver and to some extent the whole greater Vancouver region. The population of Little Mountain is approximately 80,000. Within this area there is only one community centre. Few parks with the exception of Queen Elizabeth Park which is a city park, not a local park. We cannot speak of any area in this province having a high standard of living when the recreational facilities are so limited.

We must recognize that there is no such thing as saving money by not having recreational and community resources available in all areas of the province. I will bend every effort to improve this situation both in Little Mountain and throughout Vancouver. I will work through a committee of this Legislature which I will propose later in this speech.

There are, within Vancouver–Little Mountain, three public housing projects. They are the type of public housing projects that this Government would never tolerate. Physically the buildings are of poor construction such that one may hear conversations through the walls. The apartments are small and unattractive and are grouped together in a high density with no provisions made for recreation.

Sociologically, the people that are forced into these developments are forced into situations of high stress because of the large number of children and single parent families, as well as the artificial concentration of people from low income levels.

We, as a Government, will not be building any more of these kinds of ghettos. We have the problem of trying to overcome or rectify the tragic mistakes that have been made in the past by those minds who felt that the shortage of low-cost housing could be rectified by building concrete slums. As a short-term improvement in these housing projects, I will be pressing for additional provincial money for recreational facilities and staff.

The poor quality and environment in these public housing projects and the dismal housing in the skid row area revealed in the report of the Community Legal Assistance Society only serves to highlight the drastic shortage of housing in Vancouver. At this point, the only alternative that seems to be open to the people is to rent and be gouged by unscrupulous landlords or to buy and pay prices that have been forced up land speculators, with money borrowed at an interest rate that in other times would have been characterized as usury.

A number of events have taken place which emphasize the critical shortage in the housing market. Moreover, this situation will not improve in the near future, but will rather deteriorate unless there is extensive and drastic provincial government intervention. We cannot depend on the token effort by the federal government, and the municipal government simply does not have the resources to deal with these problems.

It is interesting to note a recent report prepared by the finance department of Vancouver which has pointed out that in terms of percentage of total budget, Vancouver city spends more money on public housing than either the former provincial government or the federal government.

What are the events that indicate a change for the worse in the housing situation? First, the federal government has closed certain tax loopholes which

[ Page 160 ]

previously had made it very beneficial to invest money in apartment blocks as a tax dodge. With the closing of this tax loophole, we can expect less investment in apartments and an increasing number of apartments to be put on the market for sale. This might result in an initial decline in the prices for used apartment blocks, but the overall effect will be to boost rents in a rather drastic fashion.

A second reason for the anticipated drastic increase in both rents and the cost of homes is the recent freeze of agricultural land by the Government and the subsequent diminishing of the land available for housing. This was a courageous and necessary step but we must be prepared to deal with some of the consequences of that move. This is combined with the artificial withdrawal of land by major landowners in the Greater Vancouver Regional District with the intention of forcing land prices sky-high.

The Dennis Report, which the federal government has attempted to suppress but which David Lewis brought to the attention of the public in the recent federal election, pointed out that six major land developers own 7,000 acres of land in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The Dennis Report feels that this would be enough to meet the land requirements for housing over the next 10 years.

In order to deal with these problems, I will work at this session of the Legislature and future sessions to implement a number of areas of New Democratic policy which, I think, will allow the Government to solve these problems. It is imperative that we greatly expand land-banking programmes — as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has already suggested he is going to do — in order to facilitate the present increase in housing stock and to control the cost of land for future housing developments.

Secondly, we must realize that nothing short of massive intervention by the provincial government in the housing market will have any lasting effect on the cost of housing. This means we must not simply become involved in housing for the poor but we must begin building public housing for a far greater income range in direct competition with the private sector. It need hardly be pointed out that public housing no longer means large-scale concrete slums that I have previously mentioned.

Although it might be useful to have rent controls in the short run, the limitations of such policy must be recognized. It will serve only to decrease the stock of housing in the long run and will become impossible to enforce. We must also encourage cooperative housing of a type that is jointly owned and does not allow for profit to be made on the sale of individual units.

We must also reinforce the ability of tenants to resist the kind of exploitation that is taking place. One could make endless lists of, horror stories concerning rent increases and unjust evictions. We must change the Landlord and Tenant Act to give the Rental Grievance Board power to determine when a rent increase is just and when it is unjust. It is important to make these boards more obviously neutral by insisting that their composition be equal numbers of those who represent the tenants and those who represent the landlords, with a chairperson being selected jointly. We should also encourage the tenants to organize to protect their interests and allow tenant organizations to be certified as bargaining units, in much the same way we now give certification to labour unions.

It is only by an extensive and far-reaching attack on the housing crisis that we can hope to combat the exorbitant cost of shelter in this province.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who lives or works in Vancouver realizes that the city is slowly being strangled to death by the automobile. The pollution from the automobile threatens the health of the people of Vancouver. The stink emitted by the car makes walking in the downtown area uncomfortable. The land consumed by the car is fantastic when one takes into consideration roads, parking space, garages and gas stations — the experts suggest 40 per cent of the downtown area.

All of these costs are being subsidized by the taxpayers. The automobile is a clear example of being overwhelmed and then trapped by our own technology. We of the New Democratic Party have for years talked about the necessity of placing the movement of people before cars, but it is only recently that other political parties, both at the provincial, federal and civic levels, have recognized the wisdom of this policy. It is urgent that we make public transportation our number one priority in the Vancouver area.

We must move to implement our party's policy of upgrading the existing bus system and introducing light-rail commuter service between Vancouver and the suburban areas. Now that it is obvious that a freeway is not wanted by the majority of the people in Vancouver and that a third crossing is unnecessary, those that argued for these positions will begin to rally their interests behind a heavy-duty rapid transit system such as the monorail or subway system. Fortunately, we have the evidence of the BART system in San Francisco to warn us against the costs of such a system and the indispensable need for a high-density city to support its costs.

I was particularly happy that at our recent provincial convention we adopted a policy which puts a high priority on considering the lower mainland urban transportation system a public service to be financed out of general revenue. This puts the proper perspective on transportation in the cities that other parties haven't borrowed yet. You can't halt the car unless you insist that people take public transportation. However, as it stands now, the fare system is a

[ Page 161 ]

regressive taxation because it falls on the least wealthy disproportionately to pay for what is a necessity in a modern city.

In connection with the lack of facilities available to the people of Little Mountain, I think that it is imperative that we improve the drinking situation. The situation which exists throughout this province at beer parlours in which people must drink through the lack of any alternative are nothing better than forced drinking troughs — with no other activity possible except drinking. To encourage development of this type of pub in Little Mountain would do nothing more than extend a very unpleasant situation. We must move rapidly to pass legislation which will permit a greater variety of neighbourhood pubs and taverns to be established where the emphasis can be shifted from consumption to sociability.

The New Democratic Party has always believed in representative government and for many years we have had a policy of ward government at the civic level. As it now stands, my constituents have no representation on the Vancouver city council, park board or school board who are directly responsible to them. In the recent civic election in Vancouver all the political parties supported some form of representative government, most borrowing their policy from us. The newly elected mayor of Vancouver came out in favour of a full ward system during the recent civic election. This Legislature should be prepared to assist the Vancouver City Council in gaining public opinion as quickly as possible and proceeding to the establishment of a ward system in Vancouver.

I would like to mention just a few more specific items before I make my proposal for a committee of the Legislature that I mentioned in my opening remarks.

A big difference can be made in planning a city when one escapes from the dilemma of encouraging the profit motive and starts to use a little imagination. For instance, it would make Vancouver a much more attractive city if the public had greater access to the waterfront and harbour. A mixture of public and business-oriented activities could make the harbour area one that is constantly active and a source of a great range of interests. I do not intend to discuss this matter at length except to recommend to the Government that they investigate with the National Harbours Board, the Canadian National Railway and the Vancouver City Council the possibility of securing the CNR property at the foot of Main Street for a fishermen's wharf type location which will involve a number of stalls and seafood restaurants, like for example San Francisco "Fishermen's Wharf."

It is obvious from the issues that I have raised in this speech that it is impossible to represent my constituents in Vancouver–Little Mountain without concerning myself with issues that concern the whole of Vancouver. What I have presented here in a minimum shopping list for the citizens of Vancouver, policies that the New Democratic Party has fought for over the years.

Other political groups are anxious to take credit. The issues that affect Vancouver cover the whole range of legislative responsibility of this Government in the largest urban area in this province. It is clearly an impossible job for any one MLA to adequately represent these many complex issues. It is equally difficult for any one cabinet Minister to keep an overview of all the details and inter-relationships of these issues in the City of Vancouver. What I am proposing is a standing committee of this Legislature on Vancouver composed of all Vancouver MLA's, except those who are cabinet Ministers, on the premise that they are too busy for this kind of work.

This committee would act as a liaison between the provincial Government and the Vancouver City Council and other groups and organizations in the City of Vancouver. It would also have referred to it for detailed study and comment many of the issues that have not up to this time received any input from the Vancouver MLA's but which are of crucial importance to the city and to our constituents.

It is already apparent that some decisions which have been made concerning Vancouver do not have the support of some of the MLA's. I would expect that the provincial Government squares the erosion problems of the university cliffs, planning of the Vancouver waterfront, negotiations for the Wall Street park, acquisition of additional park space, changes in the Vancouver city charter, and any other issue to the concern of the people that is raised either by the provincial Government or Vancouver City Council.

This committee would tend to blur the sharp distinction that presently exists between the various levels of government. And to give more of a sense of continuity to the political process in Vancouver. It would allow the people of Vancouver a specific political structure through which they could deal with the problems that are closer to them and allow them to eliminate a great deal of the red tape. Thanks very much.

Mr. Gabelmann moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn, Hon. Members, I promised the House that I would give a statement on the matter that was raised by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

At the opening of yesterday's sitting the Hon. Second Member for Victoria raised a question of privilege relating to Ministerial statements of policy made outside the House. And I advised the House that I would reserve consideration of the matter.

[ Page 162 ]

The privileges of parliament are those defined by ancient custom, set out in May's Parliamentary Practice, 16th ed., at p.42, as, and I quote:

"The sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament and by Members individually without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals."

The privileges of the Commons have been defined as "the sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members as against the prerogatives of the Crown."

Parliamentary privilege is, to some extent, indefinite. But ancient rights and privileges of Members include freedom from arrest and all molestations, liberty of speech in all their debates and the right of access to the Sovereign.

Certain offences against the authority and dignity of parliament are not specifically breaches of privilege, but more correctly described as contempt. Some acts are dealt with exhaustively in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 18th ed., Ch. 10. Examples of this or any committee thereof (see p. 140).

At p. 143 May states: "Upon this principle the Commons, on 21st April, 1837, resolved: 'That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of such committee or by any other person.'"

The publication or disclosure of draft reports of committees before they have been reported to the House will constitute a breach of privilege or of contempt, and may lead to reprimand — sometimes a refusal to nominate the offender to further select committees.

As can be seen, all of these breaches concern matters initiated by the House in its legislative or committee work. And the gravamen of the offence is that it is a discourtesy to disclose business of the House in the hands of the House at the time of the disclosure by the Member.

The Hon. Member's complaint is that a Member of the Government disclosed a proposed policy to the public before informing the House. No proceedings relating to this policy were in charge of the House or its committees.

In examining the authorities, no case can be found in the citations presented by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) holding it to be an offence for the Government publicly to announce its intentions. Indeed, this practice has been a common occurrence for many years. And were it a breach of privilege, some ruling must surely be recorded.

To the contrary, my view is reinforced by the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the House of Commons at a time when the Hon. Second Member for Victoria was a Member of Parliament.

March 31, 1969, at pp. 7298-7300 (Hansard), relating to an announcement by a Minister concerning a new airport. And again his decision on October 30, 1969, at pp. 269-270, with reference to the publicizing of a policy statement by the communications Minister, wherein it was indicated there was no precedent whereby policy statements had to be made in the House.

As was indicated ex mero motu yesterday, the House rules do not provide for statements by Ministers, although unanimous consent to suspend the rules for such purpose can be and is often granted.

If it were shown to be a prima facie case of breach of privilege, then the matter would be one for the determination of the House. But in the circumstances, and in view of the authorities as they appear to be, no prima facie case has been shown.

On the same principle, the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) today complained of the disclosure of a Government report to the Press. The Hon. Premier advised the House that such report was not in fact released, and his statement must, of course, end the complaint. Beyond that, it was not a report ordered by the House, nor was it the Property of the House or any of its committees. And the same reasons therefore apply, that no prima facie case of breach of privilege exists.

Thank you, Hon. Members.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:30 p.m.