[ Page 225 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wish to ask a question.

MR. SPEAKER: We don't have a question period, so my suggestion is that you might indicate for what you want leave of the House so they know whether they are giving permission for something you can do.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave of the House to ask a question of the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) regarding the school strike in District 61.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He is speaking first.

MR. WALLACE: Yes. I just want to be assured that that will be included, or that he will make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand the Hon. Minister is speaking today, and presumably he may make some statement on this matter. So would the Hon. Member be satisfied with that at the moment?

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I am honoured to introduce today Mr. Anthony Holland and 15 students from his Theatre Arts classes at Vancouver City College, Langara Campus, who are with us today. They are here to see another type of theatre in operation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure this afternoon to introduce a group of students from one of the internationally known name schools — Princeton. Princeton Secondary is represented here by a group of students and their teachers, Mr. Clark and Miss Elliott. And I ask you to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 25, intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 25 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PRIVACY ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 26, intituled The Government Computer Privacy Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 26 read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE CONSUMER CREDIT
DISCLOSURE PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 27, intituled The Consumer Credit Disclosure Protection Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 27 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT
CONFIDENTIALITY ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 28, intituled The Public Document Confidentiality Act.

Motion approved.

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

CANADA-BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN LANDS
DETERMINATION ACT

Mr. Smith moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 29, intituled Canada-British Columbia Indian Lands Determination Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 29 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

[ Page 226 ]

the next sitting of the House after today.

THE MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SUBSIDY ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 30, intituled The Municipal Transit Subsidy Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 30 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. House Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) asked a question regarding the strike by the school janitors. I appreciate the Member for Oak Bay's concern in this strike. He at least did indicate that concern to me prior to the demonstration which took place last week on the steps of the Legislature. I think that that's an indication of his genuine concern right through the whole issue.

It's a degree of concern that was not expressed by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), however, on any occasion previous to the said public demonstration. And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I must take some issue with the posture adopted by the leader of the Liberal Party in press statements he made following that public demonstration. The fact of the matter was that indeed a provincial mediator had been involved with the parties, a person who was professional in services to parties in dispute, who has had vast experience in mediating and assisting the parties to reconcile their differences.

Simply because that mediator had suggested to the parties that they recess for a short period of time to reassess their positions, we found some politicians, I believe, taking advantage of a highly charged emotional situation for the political stature that would be afforded to them for it, rather than through any genuine desire to assist a highly sensitive situation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of order governing motives, imputing motives, Mr. Speaker, for actions taken or statements made by Members of the House. I was speaking in all sincerity when I made those remarks, and I dislike and feel it's unfair to have this type of criticism levelled at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it, that all Members in the House must treat each other with respect and not impute motives to either side or to any individual in the House that would indicate insincerity.

HON. MR. KING: I accept the Member's statement, Mr. Speaker, thank you. However, it is somewhat significant that he had failed prior to that demonstration to register his concern with my office in any way.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce at this point that the mediator has been involved — who sat very, very long hours during the weekend with the two parties to the dispute, till 2 o'clock in the morning on Saturday morning, throughout Sunday and again early this morning — has now made a recommendation for the settlement of the dispute, which the parties have agreed to take back to their membership from their principals for consideration. I think that it is rather regrettable while this type of sensitive negotiation is going on that it becomes a matter of political debate, which certainly does nothing to contribute to an amicable settlement.

Mr. Speaker, to get on with the main thrust of the remarks I have to make today, I just want to say that this is a government dedicated to the principle of justice for all and recognition that human dignity and worth shall be supreme. Already we have amply demonstrated in the establishment of our Mincome programme our concern for people — a guaranteed monthly income of $200 a month for every British Columbian citizen. We are in the process of expanding the amount of parkland available to the public and will be preserving farmland for the use of future generations.

Our programme also includes full bargaining rights for civil servants, certainly something that has been too long neglected by the previous administration and something that should bring greater efficiency and harmony in the field of the civil service.

In the realm of labour it is our earnest intention to improve the conditions of those who work for a living. Our record to date proves our sincerity, I think. After only a few months in office we have increased the minimum wage to $2 per hour effective on December 4, 1972, and to $2.50 per hour within 18 months' time. At the same time the number of minimum wage orders in existence has been reduced from 27 to 13, and this is an administrative improvement. We combined the male and female Minimum

[ Page 227 ]

Wage Act to remove the inference that different standards should apply for male and female workers.

I think that is something that is highly significant and bodes well for the intentions of this Government. For instance in the funeral undertaking business the rate was increased and now it applies to all parts of British Columbia — the minimum wage rate — rather than to certain built-up areas as previously provided. At the same time rates have been increased quite dramatically for bus drivers, cooks and bunkhouse workers, patrolmen, taxicab drivers and truck drivers. All these people had their rates increased from $1.00 per hour to $2.00 per hour effective as of December 4, 1972, and subsequent increases to $2.50 an hour by 1974.

Motorcycle operators went from $.70 per hour up to $2.00 per hour, and I am sure the House can agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who tried to exist on the rate of $.70 per hour in this day of high inflation would be in a very unfortunate position indeed.

Truly, there is proof, if proof is needed, of the Government's determination to help those who need it most. Our great concern for the vast area of unorganized labour who lack the upward mobility to keep pace with the cost of living continues to display itself, and I think that legislation to relax the provisions of certification for these unorganized workers is something that is imperative in the future.

Of course there have been objections; there are those who claim that increases in the minimum wage were too much and too fast. My answer to them, of course, is: let them try and live on less. In fact let them try and live on $2 per hour in this type of economy we have today.

If the business world is operating on such a narrow margin that they are obliged to pay substandard rates of pay to maintain an economically viable business, then I suggest that they perhaps look to a reorganization of their business or to an area of interest in some other field of endeavour. Because I suggest that although small businesses have been hard pressed in the past, certainly they shouldn't look to their employees to subsidize their business.

Now the industrial relations area has been updated — the regulations have been improved, and the administrative arm of the department and the labour standards branch have been actively engaged in administering all legislation under its branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. KING: That's nice to hear a voice of support from the Opposition benches. I might observe, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal of balance and ability has been achieved on the other side. (Laughter).

During the past year — 1971 — the industrial relations branch investigated 48,611 cases. These resulted in $961,899 being collected in unpaid wages and so, and holiday pay and minimum wages. Our calls also included visits to employers to explain the requirements of legislation because we believe, and I think this is significant, that most employers want to observe the law and would gladly comply, certainly more readily, if the requirements were known to them. Good as the job of the branch has been, though, I am convinced it could be better. And to this end a number of legislative changes will be made at as early a date as possible.

Now, I had announced at an earlier date that changes would be forthcoming in legislation, and I hope to announce within a very short period of time the new vehicle that will be considering legislation and recommendations throughout the province. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, to be able to make an announcement in this regard within a very, very short period of time.

Now one of the other branches of the Department of Labour that has been doing good work is the apprenticeship branch. I presume the House is fairly well acquainted with the services that have been provided by this branch. Not only must the people of this province, we believe, be educated academically, but they must be well qualified in a particular skill or occupation. To this end a highly sophisticated branch of the department has been developed over the years.

As you no doubt know, our training programme consists of three separate levels. The first is pre-apprenticeship training, and I am pleased indeed that we are one of the few provinces which provide this type of free training in the course. Pre-apprenticeship provides basic trade skills training for a period of up to six months, depending on the trade, and allows a person who has ended his or her formal education to make an easy transition into employment. It also acts as a preparatory period allowing the trainee to acquire a marketable skill before seeking employment. Last year over 1,400 pre-apprentices were under training.

Secondly, regular apprenticeship training is offered in 88 trades and occupations. Apprenticeship training qualifies the worker to become a fully competent member of the work force. Such training enables him to qualify for a good rate of pay and excellent working conditions. It also assures industry that a supply of journeymen capable of meeting its labour requirements will be available.

At least that is the ideal, but unfortunately it is not always borne out by fact. In some instances it is evident that companies would rather hire qualified workmen away from other industries than train their own. Companies having a work force sufficiently large to enable apprentices to be trained should accept the responsibility of doing their own training, or at least training their fair share.

[ Page 228 ]

If they do not, perhaps we should be looking into some form of requirement that companies employing a given number of persons shall employ a set percentage of apprentices. At the present time there is a shortage of heavy duty mechanics, automobile repairman and industrial electricians, and yet there are those employers who are not training any apprentices, or considerably less than they should be.

In 1972 there were 9,083 apprentices under training. This is an increase of 1,531 over the previous year and 2,744 more than were under training 5 years earlier, so one can see that there is a real demand for an expansion and extension of this type of training facility.

Tradesman qualification is the third area in which we help qualify workmen. By this means we upgrade tradesmen who have been working in a particular craft, and we provide them with an opportunity to write papers or exams to gain certification in that particular craft. By obtaining this documentary proof, they then obtain standing in their trade and the rate of pay they could not otherwise obtain.

Although the branch has done a great deal to provide the necessary skill training for our work force, and I commend them for it, I am convinced it can do much more. New vocational schools are coming into operation, and as they commence accepting students, apprenticeship and industrial training counsellors will be stationed at these schools to provide the necessary liaison and guidance for the pre-apprentices, apprentices and tradesmen attending upgrading or refresher courses.

Similarly, more liaison with industry and unions is necessary if we're to project and provide for the manpower needs of the future. I also expect greater contact with apprentices than in the past, and to this end recommend an increase in the staff of this particular branch. The factory and elevator branch is another important branch of the Department of Labour. I think it's significant to point out that rates of pay and fringe benefits and so on are certainly minimized if we have inadequate lighting and poor ventilation and poor lunch rooms in the places of work throughout the province. Certainly workers spend a good deal of their time in their work environment, and these kinds of factors are of great significance to their safety and to their comfort.

It is the function of the branch to check these and other aspects of the work places, in offices, shops and factories — and to see that working people do, indeed, enjoy suitable standards. Inspections are increasing, and enforcement is improving. It is my intention to ensure that effective administration is pursued more vigorously in the future. Because, Mr. Speaker, while we may have good and reasonable standards, these standards are only effective if they are enforced properly. Therefore it's imperative that we have adequate staff to effect the investigation and regulations that are set.

There is no one who will quarrel for the need, of course, where the provincial labour department cooperates with the federal government to conduct the elevator inspections in the province. It's a function that is very, very important to the safety of the public. Certainly, people are using elevators on a very frequent basis in this day and age, and it's imperative that the safety standards of those elevators be maintained effectively.

In the area of human rights, Mr. Speaker, this province has one of the statutes which certainly has come under a lot of scrutiny during the past few years. I think it is, in fact, due for a thorough overhaul. It is typical of the previous Government, Mr. Speaker, that they paid lip service to this ideal and did very little else. I believe that it's not necessary at this point to outline more than a few factors contained in the legislation which I think are ineffective. I expect that consideration will be given shortly to this vital topic and amendments will be suggested that will make British Columbia a leader in the field of human rights.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, equal pay provisions should be amended, I believe, to provide the same equal treatment for males and females. I also feel the term "self-contained dwelling unit" in section 9 of the present Act should be deleted and, in its place, the term "housing accommodation" substituted. This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because of the difficulty in defining exactly what a self-contained dwelling unit really is. I would like also to see the sections relating to publications and inquiries and the displaying of signs, et cetera, extended to include marital status, sex and political opinion. Undoubtedly section 11 too, should be amended to include universities in the list of organizations that are exempt. However, all the non-profit groups mentioned should be subject to investigation and the onus placed on them to justify any discriminatory action on their part.

Also I would like to see a much broader publicity campaign undertaken, and the establishment of a storefront human rights depot in the East End of Vancouver, which would be manned by qualified officers, competent to assist complainants who would otherwise be reluctant to request help. These are but some of the weaknesses I see in the present Act. You may be sure that when a new statute is introduced it will be one of the leaders in this, or any other, country and one that our citizens will be duly proud of.

The Women's Bureau continues to do a good job within the confines of its present structure. However, I expect much more will be accomplished in the future. It is all very well to provide information, assistance and advice to school students, individual women, employers and employees and their organizations

[ Page 229 ]

on matters respecting the employment of women. But, I expect more emphasis to be placed in future on the abuses women encounter in the market place. I think this is one of the more significant and practical ways that the Women's Bureau can be of direct help.

As an example, a great deal of discrimination still exists in the employment of women despite present legislation which prohibits an employer or a trade union from hiring, promoting, training or paying a woman less, just because she is a woman. Perhaps it might also be a good idea to have a Women's Bureau representative present in the storefront establishment in the East End of Vancouver, which I mentioned a moment ago.

Without a question workmen's compensation is an important element in the lives of many of our people. It affects not only the workers, but also their families. There is absolutely nothing more frustrating or deadening for an individual than to be hurt in an industrial accident and then denied proper recompense for his injuries. I realize that only a few years ago a royal commission enquired into the Workmen's Compensation Act and its administration.

I give the former Government full credit for implementing all the recommendations of that commission, except the one which would have resulted in a decrease in workmen's compensation payments in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the Government has decided to completely review the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think it's imperative that the administration of the Act become somewhat more related to the needs and the realities of today and that the Act itself become a more humane piece of legislation.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I'll just comment that, during the few short months that I have occupied the office of Minister of Labour, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of workmen's compensation cases which have come across my desk. Many of them are a number of years old. Nevertheless, all were brought to my attention by workers who felt that they had a legitimate grievance — that they had in fact a compensable injury for which they had been denied recognition and recompense.

It's all very well to say that the Workmen's Compensation Board handles a large volume of cases each year and the rate of cases that are turned down is somewhat less than 3 per cent. But 3 per cent of 100,000 cases, in excess of 100,000 cases a year, represents a lot of people. And it's certainly my observation, on the basis of reviews of many of these cases, that the legislation has been somewhat stringently applied.

I would expect, among other things, that we'll be looking at some of the review machinery which is provided under the present Workmen's Compensation Act with a view to providing an impartial system of review; one which not only gives justice but one which appears to give justice. I think this is an important element.

The research branch of the Department of Labour, I believe, is one of the most significant branches that we have in the department. It's continued to expand, year after year, in its role and range of activities to more adequately serve the needs of the department and the general public as well.

The important role of research in the overall scheme of things was apparently envisaged in the Department of Labour Act when it was first passed back in 1917, although it wasn't until April of 1966 that a separate research branch was established in the department.

Since that time and despite a small staff, the branch has steadily increased and the scope of its work and the number of its publications have certainly broadened. The research branch has received strong endorsement from labour and management groups in the province for the excellent reports and publications it has issued. Works published by the branch are really only the tip of the iceberg. Much of its activity has been directed to supplying specific data to the department and to inquiring labour and management personnel, as well as the public.

In addition to preparing material and publications based on information on record with the department, the branch initiates projects on its own into many topical areas of interest. Last year was a most fruitful one. Utilizing the collective agreements on file with the department, the branch established the wage data bank, which is used extensively. The branch also completed a number of studies for the other divisions of the department. The subject matter ranged from various aspects of apprenticeship to labour standards.

As operational requirements often preclude individual branches from examining problem areas within their own jurisdiction, it is a most valued function of the research branch. Since its inception, the branch has developed a recognized expertise in connection with the analysis of collective agreements. Its studies report current trends in negotiated working conditions and provide sound knowledge for labour and management groups engaged in collective bargaining. Certainly, this supplies a wealth of knowledge for those concerned in such matters.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is absolutely imperative that the Department of Labour be activated to a role that is more conducive to today's climate in labour-management relations; more conducive to providing an atmosphere of assistance and cooperation, rather than one of hostility and one of holding the hammer in case the parties are unable to settle their own affairs.

I've said before on many occasions that I do, indeed, believe in free collective bargaining, but by that statement I certainly don't want to imply that

[ Page 230 ]

we eliminate objectionable legislation which is on the statute books now and simply leave the parties free to resolve their own differences and their own problems without any participation by government. I think the department, and particularly the research branch, has a unique opportunity at this particular time to provide very meaningful aids to the parties in collective bargaining. There are many new concepts being developed, not only in North America but in many other jurisdictions. I certainly expect to utilize all the ideas that I can possibly gain in providing material to management and to labour which will bring them closer together in their initial stances before they start to bargain collectively.

During 1972 another study was initiated into technological change, and a study was completed on dental plans available to trade union members. This is an emerging type of health and welfare benefit and of great interest to all. Additionally, a major study of collective agreements was completed last year. It consisted of an analysis of 140 subject areas and covered 255 collective agreements and an estimated 181,000 workers.

Despite past accomplishments, I instructed the research branch to improve the amount and the type of work it is engaged in. Among other areas, I instructed the branch to continue and improve the research activities previously carried out by the Mediation Commission.

Another area in which the branch has been required to expend considerable energy is the very important study of the effects of our revised minimum wage. You may be sure this Government is most interested in these effects on employees. We do not anticipate any reduction of staff, but rather increase the earnings and standard of living of the ones who need it most.

Undoubtedly much of the increased activity of the branch will lie in new directions, in areas where in the past, due to lack of staff, major commitments could not be made. In future the branch will engage in manpower studies aimed at reducing occupational shortages as well as surpluses, and provide direction for provincially sponsored training programmes. Research is also needed into the socio-economic factors influencing employment to include job satisfaction, motivation and worker alienation.

In the future, I think the success of the department and the programmes they sponsor will require the provision of a soundly researched bank of material. Accordingly, the role of the research branch will certainly grow in importance.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important functions of the Department of Labour relates to labour relations as such. The successful operation of our entire economy depends upon a smooth and harmonious relationship between the parties. It is all very well to subscribe to a philosophy of a better living standard for all our people, but if we don't export our goods and have a viable commercial base, we cannot support the great social reforms which are everyone's desire. Foreign buyers will not forever put up with erratic deliveries and unjustified price increases just because we demand them. Domestic business suffers, the workers suffer, and employers become discouraged and go out of business if we do not achieve a responsible relationship that assures continuity of work, certainly insofar as possible and under reasonable conditions.

In recognition of this, the Government has already undertaken steps by amending mediation legislation to remove compulsory features. Certainly it was amply demonstrated, I believe, over the past number of years that the system of compulsion did not work; did not improve the labour climate and certainly created more problems than it solved. No longer do the workers of this province have the threat of compulsion constantly hanging over their heads. Nor do some employers have an easy way of evading their responsibilities. They must bargain. You may be sure there will be other amendments proposed as quickly as possible.

Of course, with this new-found freedom must go greater responsibility. I sincerely expect that work stoppages will decrease as the parties advance into new ground and assume the responsibility which they should have assumed in the past. I expect also that trade unions will resolve their jurisdictional disputes without causing delays and upsets through disagreements over membership, particularly at a time when so many workers are unorganized. They must concern themselves with organizing the unorganized instead of fighting over the converted.

Because there is such a need for a thorough, ongoing revision of labour legislation, the Government is considering early changes and, as I indicated earlier, will be making a specific announcement in this regard within the very, very near future. I expect, to some degree, that a blueprint for a new way and a new thrust in labour relations will be proposed. When I say "blueprint," I say that advisedly because I certainly don't believe that there is any mechanism that can be developed which will guarantee industrial harmony. We'll undoubtedly always have conflicts, but this is the price that we must pay in a free democratic society.

What I am concerned with, though, is improving the climate. Certainly, I think — and this is somewhat of a commitment, Mr. Speaker — that if under my administration of the Department of Labour I fail to reduce the incidence of strikes and lockouts to a very significant degree over the next number of years, then I'll certainly consider that I have failed.

It's a fairly exciting and appropriate time, I think. We have a new government. Many of the old political

[ Page 231 ]

fights that have been associated with labour and management and the government in the past are wiped clean, to some extent. We have an opportunity to establish a new climate, a new relationship. Certainly it's my intention to make that relationship one which gives preference to neither side but certainly sets up a fair, equitable climate so that collective bargaining can indeed be free and fair to both parties. In this objective, I'm pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, to this date I've had a good deal of co-operation from the parties involved.

I have over the past number of months had a great deal of consultation with management groups, trade unions and so on, and I think there are high expectations out there. I think there's an eagerness to co-operate and find new ways, and certainly this is the challenge that they must meet if we are indeed to realize an improvement.

I've given a fairly broad outline of some of the functions that the department has been involved in over the past year. Certainly, many of its activities were set and undertaken before the new Government assumed office. I would expect, consequently, that more evident changes will be occurring in the coming year.

I do want to assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that we will be pursuing with vigour and determination some of the matters which I've outlined this afternoon. Some of the programmes will provide material of assistance to the parties involved in collective bargaining in the province, some of the programmes will bring greater benefit to the working people of this province in terms of educational opportunities, in terms of safety standards and health standards and so on.

It's a very broad area. I want as broad a possible input as I can obtain, and this is the way we're going. I certainly seek the co-operation of all the Members of this House in trying to establish the kind of climate which will be conducive to greater harmony than this province has ever known in the field of industrial relations. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought for a while on Friday that I would not get the opportunity to enter this debate. I do want to start off by thanking the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) because I think if he had not moved that motion of non-confidence at 5 o'clock, I'm not sure, after his two-hour sermon, if the House was in really good condition to receive my remarks. So thank you very much to the Member for Peace River

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You left early anyway.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disturbed on Friday afternoon by the speech from my colleague in North Vancouver, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). He made an interesting, philosophical and thoughtful speech, and I think he's going to be a very good Member. But I thought that thoughtful and philosophical speech was somewhat spoiled by a very unfortunate attempt to get a newspaper headline.

I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's politically naive to pick a fight with the municipal council of the district which one represents. In particular — on the basis of the evidence that was offered on Friday afternoon — to call the District of North Vancouver "a crooked outfit, one of the worst rip-off artists in the province," I think is a disgraceful thing to do in this Legislature.

The exact words: "…we have one of the worst rip-off artists in this province, Mr. Speaker, and that's the District of North Vancouver. They act more like a land developer, more like a crooked outfit, than any other developer I can think of in this province…."

Well Mr. Speaker, I think it is true. I'm sure that there are some land developers that are crooked. There are also some union leaders and union business agents that are crooked. There are virtually crooked people in virtually every walk of life, and I am sure there are some developers that are crooked. But to imply that if one is a developer he's automatically crooked, I think, is a disgraceful thing to do on the floor of this chamber.

Going further, Mr. Speaker, almost all, if not all, of the examples listed by the Member are outside of the District of North Vancouver, so it would appear that he doesn't even know the boundaries of the district in which he lives. He should talk to the provincial government. They're responsible for the problems — most of the problems — that he raised. They're the people that are going to have to make decisions about the land use on Indian Arm.

Now it is true that the District of North Vancouver does sell its land. I want to point out that the District of North Vancouver was bankrupt in the thirties and up to the late forties, and only in the late forties did they come out of their financial problems. They came out of those financial problems by land sales, by good management, and first-class administration of the affairs of the district with dedicated and responsible mayors, aldermen, reeves and councillors in the old days and administrative people — to the extent the former manager of the District of North Vancouver was hired away to the City of Halifax two or three years ago because Halifax

[ Page 232 ]

wanted to find the best municipal business manager they could find in Canada. They selected that man from the District of North Vancouver.

Certainly they sell their land. I think any district that has land available for sale might be prepared to sell its property. It sells its property by sealed tender, and as a result of this administration's responsible approach, there have been many fine housing developments in North Vancouver. Furthermore, the residents of the district have had a great many services provided for them, and their tax structure has been kept from growing too high.

So I think that while one might differ with some of those policies, to call that one of the worst rip-offs in the province is certainly a very poor thing to do. I want to suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Member that if he has some criticism to offer he should go directly to the district council and say it to their face, not in the safety of this chamber.

As a matter of fact, I was at the only council meeting, to my knowledge, where this particular Member actually met with the council. He made a number of excellent comments to the council that evening. It was a good meeting. He gave them straightforward answers, and he had an opportunity then to make any of the criticisms that he made last Friday afternoon. I would suggest that was the time — or at some future meeting that he might seek with the council. Then he can call them what he wishes in public.

Mr. Speaker, referring further to the speech on Friday afternoon, the causeway across Indian Arm that he mentioned was first proposed about 100 years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you propose it?

MR. BROUSSON: It was turned down then, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it always will be. But I don't think anyone is really thinking very seriously about it at all.

I also would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very pleased that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) has joined my campaign for amalgamation on the North Shore. But I want to make it very clear: there is no emergency situation there, and except in very, very special cases where there are emergency problems of that sort, I would not support compulsion of any sort. Let the people decide if they want to amalgamate. It seems that compulsion is one of the policies that goes with an NDP Government.

Well, Mr. Speaker….

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): That's what you were asking for in labour.

MR. BROUSSON: It's fairly hard, Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne to find very much meat to talk about. But I thought I would take one quotation and perhaps use it as my text today. "…our Government will bolster services to our country, our people, industry, and labour, to catch up with modern society's demands for quality services provided by skilled people." "…our Government will bolster services to our country, our people, industry, and labour." I want to look at some of the implications of that statement.

First of all, though, I should explain to some of the newer Members in the House, it's been my habit in the last three or four years to make some remarks in the debate on the Speech from the Throne and the budget debate and certain other areas, on the Skagit Valley.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no!

MR. BROUSSON: I had not intended, Mr. Speaker, to speak about it today…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: …but certain things came to my attention over the weekend, Because of this, I now have to add them to my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say very sincerely that what I am going to say about the Skagit today is not in any way critical of the provincial government. I want to say I'm gratified and pleased — and I think so were all the citizens of British Columbia, except perhaps the former Government — that the Premier and his Government and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) took the strong stand they did in November. I'm pleased that the federal government and the provincial government have agreed to work together and are working together on this.

There has been a great deal of talk about the Federal Power Commission hearings in the United States. These hearings have required that on January 29 last Seattle City Light's application be filed with the Federal Power Commission, and then those of us who were registered as interveners in that matter would have had to have filed our reply on March 5, I think.

But it's very interesting that three or four days ago these hearings were postponed until the fall. Actually the March 5 date has been postponed to November 1, and it's November 1 this fall now that the interveners must file their criticisms and evidence.

And what's interesting about this is the reason why the Federal Power Commission made the postponement. Not because they had heard anything from the province or Canada. The reason for postponement,

[ Page 233 ]

Mr. Speaker — let me read you the reason from the order which they issued on January 24: "The court of appeals in the United States held that an environmental statement must be prepared by our staff," meaning the FPC staff, the Federal Power Commission staff, "in advance of the hearing and that such statement must be subject to the full scrutiny of the hearing process."

So because of that requirement under the federal United States National Environmental Policy Act, this complete study of the environmental impact, done by the staff of the body holding the hearings, must be prepared before any further hearings are held. And that is why this postponement.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have a very valuable lesson to learn in British Columbia from that point, and I think our party, perhaps a little later in this session, will be introducing a bill to provide this kind of environmental protection, to guarantee this kind of environmental protection.

But the problem that I want to bring to your attention today is that no one in British Columbia appears to realize how really serious Seattle is. Perhaps you may have heard on the radio this morning Mayor Wes Uhlman of Seattle saying, "The dam is never going to be built. The valley will never be flooded. The governor is against it; John Biggs of the State Ecology Commission is against it; I'm against it — it'll never be built."

But let me try to tell you, Mr. Speaker, just how serious Seattle really is about this. First of all, here's a publication from November, 1972, by the City of Seattle Department of Lighting, put out by the International Skagit Ross Fishery Committee. This is interim report, volume one — that's November, 1972 — "The Aquatic Environment, Fishes, Fishery, Ross Lake and the Canadian Skagit River." That shows a good deal of determination.

This is not my speech, Mr. Speaker. However, I have Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 of exhibits, Vol. 2 of testimony, and Vol. 1 of testimony on behalf of the application of the City of Seattle Department of Lighting. And this is the document that was filed on January 29 with the Federal Power Commission in Washington. That's a lot of determination.

I announced in this House just a year ago that the Slaney firm of Vancouver had been paid at that point something in the order of, roughly speaking, nearly three-quarters of a million dollars one year ago. I would venture to say that by now that figure is at least $1 million. I have copies of correspondence from the City of Seattle that indicate that the Seattle City Light is prepared to spend and expecting to spend another $500,000 on these hearings before the F.P.C. That's the kind of investment they are still going forward with.

The volunteers involved, if you like, the volunteer environmentalists in Seattle — the North Cascades Conservation Council — are budgeting as of this past weekend $30,000 further for the work that they feel they have to do. They came to Vancouver over the weekend to ask what the volunteers of the Ross Committee were prepared to spend on their intervention with the F.P.C.

So I guess the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we have somehow to convince Seattle that we will not allow the valley to be flooded. I want to suggest to the Government three things that perhaps they could do, apart from the things that are being done through the regular channels in this regard. Now despite all the political things that went on in this valley, as recently as last June the former Government was still allowing the area down in the bottom of the valley to be logged off — against the advice of their own Department of Recreation and Conservation, the Fish and Wildlife branch. December, Mr. Speaker, there is still logging being done on the very edge of the valley, on the very edge of the area that is dedicated as, I think, a Class A provincial park. Now, that's not in the valley itself, but it's on the very edge; generally speaking, it's a sensitive area. And the thrust of some of the evidence that's in here, the thrust of this evidence, is to say, "Nobody in B.C. really cares. Look, they're using it for logging anyway; what are you worried about it for?" That's what some of this evidence in here says.

So I urge on the Government, Mr. Speaker, a moratorium. Because of the sensitivity of this particular project in this area, I urge on them a moratorium of all logging in that whole general area until the whole matter is settled.

Second. This area is directly north of the North Cascades National Park, which is a national park of the United States — a very beautiful playground. I have suggested before in this House and I recommend to the Government again that they consider looking at this whole area as a future national park in conjunction with the federal government — hooked on at one side to Manning Park and extending across the border with the North Cascades National Park, to make a very exciting and very wonderful international playground. The closest thing of this kind is Glacier Park in the Rocky Mountains, where there is an international playground of this kind. And this would be another opportunity — perhaps the only other opportunity in British Columbia — to have this kind of development.

So I would urge the Government to take a look at this programme. It has never been looked at, as far as I can determine, by anybody in the parks branch from this point of view.

And third, to strengthen our hand in these negotiations, to show Seattle that we really are serious about this, I would ask that the Minister or the Premier make a very strong policy statement within this House. The feeling that comes from

[ Page 234 ]

Seattle is, "Well, these are politicians, they make press statements, they make public announcements, they do all of that sort of thing. They're just talking for the press." So I would urge them to make a strong policy statement within this Legislature. I think this would have a useful effect as to just how determined the Government is to carry through the policy of not flooding the valley.

I would ask them to consider announcing that they have declared this moratorium on logging in the area and that they are studying the possibility of this great international recreational area. And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Government might consider rejecting any further payments from Seattle right now. There are rent payments coming every year. Perhaps they should tell Seattle: "We don't want any more of your rent; we don't want to flood the valley."

Now I'd like to turn to another matter, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not in the House right now, because I wanted to tell him how grateful I was for the announcement he made the other day of the removal of the Vancouver Island traffic from Horseshoe Bay. I realize how serious many of the problems are in that regard. I'd like to promise to him my support as the time goes along in solving those problems.

I enjoyed very much his recital of the Socred policies and correspondence over the years — back to 1964, I think he said — as they considered this move and rejected it each year. I couldn't help wondering if perhaps forcing the north shore to accept the Vancouver Island ferry traffic through Horseshoe Bay all these years — maybe that was the means the former Premier was using to revenge himself upon the north shore for consistently electing such a fine Liberal group through all of those years.

But as early as 1964, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) made a suggestion that the ferry should be moved from Horseshoe Bay. At that time he was suggesting, perhaps, Point Grey when he was beginning to point out the problem in public. In 1966 he proposed that it be moved to Iona Island. In 1968, when Sandy Robertson ran as the Liberal candidate in Vancouver South, I think, part of his campaign was that very point. 1968 was interesting — the present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) made some comments in which he said, if I can quote from the Victoria Times of September 12, 1968:

"The bill for a Vancouver Island mainland bridge or tunnel would be about $200 million, NDP Leader Robert Strachan suggested Wednesday." He said, 'it would be worth the cost in improving the economy of the Island by removing the transportation tariff holding back development.' Mr. Strachan was supporting the by-election campaign call of federal leader T.C. Douglas, who will seek the Nanaimo–Cowichan–The Islands seat.

"He said the federal proposal to spend a similar amount for smaller Prince Edward Island, and the $600 million English Channel tunnel project, show that such massive land links are possible and worthwhile. He said, 'the party at this point primarily is stressing the need for a feasibility study of the idea put forward by Mr. Douglas.' And Mr. Strachan said that besides eliminating a tariff wall against the movement of goods a bridge connection would enable Vancouver Islanders to go to ballet, opera, theatre and sports events on the mainland more conveniently."

In 1969 and 1970 the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) repeated this policy, and since 1971 I have personally been talking about trying to move the ferries from Horseshoe Bay to the Iona, Steveston area.

Last Fall, Mr. Speaker, because of the announced policy on the Burrard crossing by this Government, I stepped up my own campaign, and I'm very pleased that the Minister agrees with me on this. But there are some very obvious problems involved. There are problems at Steveston, there are problems at Iona Island, and there are problems at Gabriola.

I want to urge on the Minister and the Government the same comments that I made with reference to the Environmental Protection Act the United States has. I think there must be hearings on the location of those landings, and there must be environmental impact studies. We must not do just the economic studies, just the physical problem — we must examine the total environmental impact and find just what the cost is.

I've been considerably involved in some of the problems on Gabriola, and I've been concerned before, and I am concerned now, with the results of this. I very definitely put this forward, and I think that probably Gabriola is where the ferry has to be. But I want to suggest one possible solution which may help to at least improve the conditions that might come, which many Members have spoken of, including the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis). And he suggested the other day that he saw the serious problems of this kind of link to the Gulf Islands, and to Gabriola.

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do not want a freeway from Gabriola to Vancouver Island; we do not want a limited access highway from Gabriola to Vancouver Island. We want a no-access corridor from the ferry landing, wherever it is, to the mainland of Vancouver Island. So that when one got off the ferry at the — let's say the Gabriola end to use that as an example — we get into a no-access corridor which you cannot get off in any way, or get on to it, and go straight to Vancouver Island.

The Minister suggested that one of the savings might be removing the ferry between Nanaimo and Gabriola. I would suggest that that ferry should be

[ Page 235 ]

Of course the guarantee that has to be attached to that is the fact that the only way that no-access could be changed would have to be only by Act of the Legislature. So this would become a very serious thing, and a very difficult thing to change.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he would go the same way he goes today He'd take the ferry from Gabriola to Nanaimo, and he'd still be back in Vancouver slightly faster than he could under present circumstances. Which takes him now something in the order of four hours plus.

Now, I want to go on from there, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on transportation generally in the lower mainland. I'm glad the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is in the House, because I have a suggestion or two for him.

I think transportation in the lower mainland has caused more sound and fury than almost any other subject that has been raised in my very short political life. And we've probably had fewer results and less light on the subject than many I can think of too. But unfortunately our new government seems to be practicing some of the same policies as the old government.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve these problems by isolated solutions. What have we done so far — or what has the Government done so far? Well, they ordered 99 buses. They've set up a bureau of transit — it doesn't say bureau of transportation, covering all the problems, but the bureau of transit. The implication there is that it's a bureau of rapid transit — one segment. And they've agreed they're going to move a ferry terminal, or move two ferry terminals. These are isolated solutions. They may all three of them be excellent things, but they're in isolation again. If there was a criticism to be made, the most serious criticism that could be made of the problems of the Burrard crossing last year when it was debated in this House was that it was an isolated solution to the problem and no one was really taking the overview.

I've talked for three years in this House about the different items that are part of this equation. We're still not looking at them as a whole. What are some of those problems? Well, to summarize them, we've got freeways and highways coming from the north, from the east and from the south; we've got the Burrard Inlet crossings; we've got a variety of river crossings involved; we've got this ferry traffic we've just mentioned, and a study of what kind it is — the tourist ferry traffic, the residential, and of course the very important commercial and industrial ferry traffic. There is the effective recreational traffic, and how that's changed in the last year or so. The commuter traffic and its effect — these new routes that are developing to the Interior and elsewhere. Then there's all the problems of bus routes, and these again are a huge problem by themselves. And the rapid transit part of the equation.

I talked last year, and I want to mention it again because I found very few people have really got to the point. Parking in the central business streets of Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver has more parking spaces per 1,000 people, than any other city in North America that's comparable to it. Three times as many as Toronto. Three times as many. And as long as you've got 15-cent parking in the central business district of Vancouver everybody's going to drive their cars downtown.

So I say that if you're going to discuss rapid transit, and transportation, and all of these other problems, you'd better include parking as part of the equation. Where are you going to build shopping centres? All of these things affect the total transportation picture. And all we get so far is isolated solutions looked at with blinkers on.

I'm gratified with the ferry announcement, but I find it incredible that the Government didn't at the same time announce a complete overview of the whole situation. Ninety-nine buses, a director of transit, moving a ferry terminal — it's just simply not good enough, Mr. Speaker. That's the same kind of answer the former government used to give us. This new government, with their new ideas and all their promises, ought to give us something better. We must have that three-level study of the problem. The federal government's ready; the regional district is ready — only the provincial government has so far failed to move. Is this quality services by skilled people? Not so far, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, to move on, I want to say how much I always enjoy, and I think the whole House does, the comments of the first Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), now the Attorney General and the Minister for, I'm not sure of the name of his department — at present he calls it trade promotion, or trade development or something — he's not quite sure what the name of it is. He's looking it up; he's checking the name right now.

Mr. Speaker, that Member is usually relaxed and humorous in his speeches. But I couldn't help feeling when he spoke last week that he was ill at ease. As I say, he's forgotten the name of his department. He's going to have a new name for it; he

[ Page 236 ]

couldn't quite remember it. He used it, I think, two or three different ways in the course of his speech. He even, Mr. Speaker, he did something that I've never seen him do before. He read quite a large part of his speech. So, Mr. Speaker, it's quite clear that that Hon. Member is obviously out of his element when he starts to consider trade development, or trade promotion, or industry or whatever that's called.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I didn't read a word of it.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I saw him holding a paper up, and in his very relaxed way he was reading it like this, I think. And I….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that was merely copious notes. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you very much for your advice Mr. Speaker.

But Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help thinking what a magnificent opportunity the Attorney General has. He could be the greatest Attorney General in the history of this province.

HON. MR. COCKE: He is.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, just consider all the legal reforms, the law reforms, that have been left behind by the former Government for this Attorney General to now bring forward. Some of my colleagues on this side of the House have presented over the years all sorts of bills suggesting these things. He used to present them himself when he was on the Opposition side, and do it very well.

I think if he will pay a little attention to some of those matters and not concern himself so much — get rid of these responsibilities on someone who is more at ease with his office of trade promotion — and pay attention to the problems of the Attorney General's department, we may get some more of those quality services by skilled people. I'd like to give some suggestions to him in this regard, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: I can see we're now getting quality service by skilled persons, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Attorney General and the House the Mortgage Brokers Act, which was passed two years ago by this House. I think at that time it was very little understood by most of the Members who voted on it. I would suggest that today, Mr. Speaker, first, it's not being enforced. Second, part 2 of it, one of the most important parts, on disclosure, has not yet been proclaimed. Third, it needs very badly to be amended and made tougher.

Because these things are not being done, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that hundreds of the poor people of British Columbia are being gypped, and that this is one huge rip-off by people who are on the verge of being crooks.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Name names.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm going to name names right now. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you first of all how I got involved in this particular area.

Last December a young couple who live in North Vancouver came to see me. They have four children. They own part of a house in North Vancouver worth something over $25,000. They had been to a finance company on the north shore, a finance company which is fairly well known by a slogan "Never borrow money needlessly." Someone in that finance company's office suggested to them that the problems which they had could not be solved by a conventional finance company, and they should go to see a mortgage broker. They suggested which mortgage broker they should go to see.

Their problem was this: they bought this house worth $25,000 four or five years ago and then had gone off to work in Hong Kong. The house had been rented in the meantime. He'd returned from his job in Hong Kong about a year ago last December and came back, I think, pretty broke — four children. He'd wanted to buy a car and needed some other money to re-establish himself in Vancouver, and there were some small balances still owing against the house. Anyway, he went to see this particular mortgage broker.

Oh, I forgot to explain that against the value of the house there was a first mortgage of $9,000. There was a further equity up to $25,000 which these people owned at that point.

He arranged with this mortgage broker to get a loan of $6,000. There were legal fees and that sort of thing of $200. In effect, we might say the total proceeds were $6,200. This was to be a second mortgage. The bonus, as it's called, charged by this particular company was $1,700, which is 29 per cent of the proceeds. The interest rate was to be 17 per cent. The payments were to be made at $118 a month. Buried away in the fine print near the end there was a clause that said the entire balance still owing was due in five years.

Just supposing he'd made all his payments on time. At the start he had received $6,200. Excuse me if I go over this a couple of times, because you need a blackboard to do this sort of thing, really. At the start he would have received $6,200 proceeds on this second mortgage. In five years he would have paid

[ Page 237 ]

$7,080, approximately, and he would still owe at the end of five years $7,300 — due completely at the end of that five-year period, right now — a lump sum. If he kept his payments on time, at the end of the five years, he would still owe $7,300 out of the $7,900 which was what the mortgage became because of this bonus.

What actually did happen — remember, he got $6,200. He's got to repay $7,900 at 17 per cent, but in fact, at the end of one year — it's a young couple, the wife is working, he hasn't been able to get much of a job yet, he's got four children, and he's paying $150 on his first mortgage — he'd missed a payment or two. So now, including the rate of interest at 17 per cent that they added on, at the end of the first year he owes $8,250 — $350 more than it was at the beginning of the year.

Well, it's very clear, Mr. Speaker, what the result of this was going to be: one, that sooner or later these people were going to lose their home — there was no way they could live with this situation. Sooner or later they were going to be on welfare, and the whole thing goes down the drain. This is one of the things we've been trying to avoid in this useless Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What are the dates?

MR. BROUSSON: The mortgage was written — I'm not sure — December 1971 or January 1972, just over a year ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't that an unconscionable transaction under the Consumer Protection Act?

MR. BROUSSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, so far the use of the Consumer Protection Act on unconscionable transactions has not been really very successful. Let me come back to that a bit later.

I want to mention a sidelight, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case. Maybe this is not unethical; maybe it is. I don't really want to pass judgment on this. As it happened, there was a certain law firm involved who were the solicitors of the mortgage broker. They drew the papers up, received a payment for it. A few weeks later, after the second mortgage had been signed, it was assigned to another mortgage company, which turns out to be owned 50 per cent by one of the partners of the law firm that had drawn the previous documents. I found this personally slightly unethical, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

I mentioned names. I'm not going to name names in this particular case, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to name some names in a minute. But I'm not on this example because after I got involved — and I've checked this out pretty thoroughly — I made sure that, in my opinion, this story was completely on the level. These people were just honest, stupid — they'd been sucked in. Frankly, that's what you could call it. They'd been sucked in.

I went to visit personally the mortgage broker concerned, and I explained my position and that I was interested in this case and was looking into the matter generally. He said, "What do you want me to do?" I said, "Well, supposing some other mortgage company were found who would pay all of this off, how much would you take to write the thing off?".

Well, I mentioned there was a bonus of $1,700 in this particular case. The mortgage broker offered to reduce that by $1,200 to $500. This has now been done. They are in the process, with the documentation being done, for a new first mortgage at a reasonable rate that will pay off all of the old things and will allow them to make their payments at a monthly amount that they can afford at a reasonable interest rate — and they're going to come out of this.

I think in fairness — because these people did react, not to pressure but just to a casual visit — I don't want to use their names in particular. But I have some other examples. I think they are worthwhile. Perhaps you might like to jot the figures down to appreciate just how bad some of these things are.

I have one written by Westview Properties. It's a second mortgage, Mr. Speaker. The proceeds, including the legal fees, were $5,300. The bonus was $1,700. That's 33⅓ per cent of the proceeds. So, the face value of the mortgage became $7,000, to be repaid at 14½ per cent at $109 a month.

There's another one I have here from a firm called Modern Finance. It's owned by a man called McCallum. This is a first mortgage on a property worth something of the order of $100,000. The first mortgage is for $4,800; that's all. That sounds like pretty good security, eh? Well, the proceeds were $4,000, and the bonus was $800. That's 20 per cent bonus and a 10½ per cent interest rate. That gentleman, or the wife of that gentleman who signed that — she alleges that her husband arranged for the mortgage and that a man from Modern Finance attended at their home and had Mrs. Kenny and her husband sign.

She states that she knew nothing at all about the bonus and was simply told to sign by her husband and the mortgage company, and assumed that everything was properly done. She states that she would not have signed had she known about the bonus. She states also that her husband told her that he thought the 18 per cent and the $800 was one and the same thing, and that is the problem. That is how they do this sort of thing.

They give the impression that this is like an agreement of sale with a finance company, that the statement of the bonus is the same as the total amount of interest. In fact they are not. They are quite separate, as I am sure you all understand.

Another one from the firm called General Securities.

[ Page 238 ]

It is owned by quite a well-known firm, Burrard Mortgage Investments. It is a first mortgage on a property estimated to be about $15,000 in value. The mortgage face value is $6,000. That's reasonable — $6,000 on a $15,000 property, first mortgage — but the proceeds were only $4,000. The bonus was $2,000, 50 per cent bonus. The interest rate in this case was only 10½ per cent. It turns out that the man who took this first mortgage out with General Securities speaks very poor English, has a great deal of difficulty with the English language and was clearly, again, sucked in.

Another one by Modern Finance, a second mortgage. The proceeds were $8,700, the bonus $1,800 — 24 per cent interest in this case. So his monthly payments pay off $50 a year on the principal; that's all. At the end of five years he would have only paid off $250 on the $10,000.

Another one — Trinity Properties. Trinity Properties has quite an interesting history, part of a pretty big group in this field — owned by a man called, I am not sure how you pronounce it, Mike Poppel. He's got quite an empire — finance companies and mortgage companies, used car lots; there's a string goes on around in a big circle here. This was a third mortgage, and the proceeds were $2,150. This was November 1972, written just 3 months ago. As a matter of fact, there is still $150 of the proceeds hasn't been paid as of last week. Proceeds $2,150, the bonus $1,000 — a 47 per cent bonus, nearly 50 per cent — and 24 per cent interest. On this one he pays off about $15 to $20 a year off the principal.

I should explain every single one of these is due in full at the end of 5 years. So, the total amount of that principal has to be paid in full in one payment at the end of the 5 years, unless you can arrange some refinancing. But you are pretty much at the mercy of the mortgagor at that point.

Here's a well known name — Dupont Acceptance Corporation. Dupont Acceptance — that's owned by a man called Walter Link. He changed the name of his company from Dupont Acceptance to Link Developments now. Talk about rip-off developments, I think there's one that could be used. There have been a lot of things written and said about Walter Link. Incidentally, he sold the name Dupont to a man called Margolis, who also owns Columbia TV. But here we are, this was a second mortgage. The total amount was $4,500. But all the mortgagee got was $3,500 — a $1,000 bonus — that's 29 per cent — and the rate of interest 24 per cent. 24 per cent.

Now, this particular one has got a really interesting feature about it. He had to pay $90 a month for five years. So consider. He received $3,500 proceeds. In five years he has paid out $5,400, and he still owes $4,500. The interest rate exactly matches what he is paying every month. He hasn't paid a dime off the principal. So, he owes at the end of the five years exactly the same amount he did at the beginning, which is $1,000 more than he actually received. That's what the 24 per cent rate does.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): That's a long time.

MR. BROUSSON: How does all this get to happen, Mr. Speaker? You should take a look, if you never have, at the classified columns of the Vancouver Sun. I have last Wednesday's, January 31, with me, and there are three headings here, "Money to Loan," "Money for Mortgages," and "Mortgages for Sale."

If you look down them you find some interesting things. For instance, here is one — Provident Mortgage. Let me read you this one.

"Provident Mortgage Corporation. Our specialty; we can do the deal that others can't. Up to 100 per cent of appraised values. Bypass the middle man, and deal direct. Free appraisal. 15-minute service. First, second, thirds, fourths." Right? "No payments for one year, providing arrangements made at time of signing mortgage." That's in very fine print, that part.

Most of this is in great big letters like "Deal Direct" an inch high — but "providing arrangements made at time of signing mortgage" — that's pretty small. "Phone for a monthly payment rate." Then it says, "No obligations — borrow $2,500; pay $24.59 per month." But what it doesn't say is that when you borrow $2,500 and pay $24.59 per month you haven't paid anything off the principal at all. At the end of five years you still owe almost all you started off to. So they make it due in five years, but it's a 20-year amortization rate.

"More important, mortgages can be paid off at any time…" and so on. "We will give you short term loan anywhere in B.C. Phone collect…" and two numbers. That's a column that I think is 15 inches long. Even at the 30-day rate, that's worth about $120 for one insertion in the classified.

Over here in the other column is one by Trinity Properties. "Instant Mortgage Money — fast, friendly, convenient – 8¾ per cent."

Remember Trinity Properties? I read you the example about them — 24 per cent was the one I read you about. 24 per cent rate. They're talking about fast, friendly, convenient, from 8¾ per cent — but it turns out that Trinity Properties and Provident Mortgage are the same company — or at least owned by the same man.

There are many, many examples on these pages of ads that are for the same companies with different names or different telephone numbers, so the people are confused. There is something else that I think the Attorney General should pay careful attention to, Mr. Speaker, because all the way through here you have ads like this — this is a very small ad. "Private funds

[ Page 239 ]

available for the first and second mortgages. Reasonable rates…" and a phone number.

Another one. "Private investor. Have funds available for 9¼ per cent on first mortgages, 12 to 14 per cent on second and third. On $10,000, payments as low as $90 per month. No brokers, please. Phone evenings. Private investor wants to buy mortgages. Need cash? Phone so-and-so, evenings."

So, you do a little work on these and you phone some of these people, Mr. Speaker, and you discover that these so-called private individuals are not private individuals. They work for a mortgage company all day. But at night they do a little moonlighting with their own phone number. They give the poor guy who is in trouble — he needs to raise money for some problem he's got, so he thinks that here's a way. He's not going to be stuck with this big, ugly outfit like Trinity Properties or whoever the other people are. He can phone someone and get private money, which is maybe a little cheaper. He thinks somebody will give him money cheaper that way, but if you check it all through, it's the same people.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the Mortgage Brokers Act it says very clearly — it's really about the only thing, the only regulation the Act really does lay down clearly — it says, "No persons shall carry on business as a mortgage broker otherwise than in his registered name or elsewhere than at or from his registered address."

Yet here we have these people who have a direct relationship with people who are clearly mortgage brokers, and I presume are properly registered, but they are without any question at all carrying on business otherwise than in the registered name of that company. Or they are leaving an implication that they are doing so.

MR. LAUK: What's the penalty?

MR. BROUSSON: I'm not sure what the penalties are under the Act. Never have been enforced yet, but there are some substantial penalties. I'm not sure if that's the problem. I think it is the lack of enforcement, Mr. Speaker. There are three kinds of mortgage brokers. I want to make this very clear. I'm not trying to condemn everybody who is in the mortgage business. I think there are three kinds of mortgage brokers.

There, without question, are many ethical and legal people in the mortgage business. If you look through this paper you can, in these same classified ads, pick many of them out quite clearly. Many of us have dealt with them, I am quite sure, with some of the names you find in here. I sure have, with my home. That's one kind. The ethical and legal group.

Second, there are some that are outright crooks. Third are the weak ones that are tempted. One of our problems in society that we do have, is that people who are weak, if the opportunity is given them, are tempted and they do as the other guy does.

So, Mr. Speaker, what is our responsibility as a Legislature in this regard? I think first it's to make laws, to protect the public; second to make those laws available to the public so they do some constructive good in a useful way. I'm not in any way in what I'm saying suggesting any sort of indictment of the present Government or the present Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). If there's an indictment to be made here, it's of the former Attorney General (Mr. Peterson) from the former government, who had all the information in this regard at his fingertips for many, many months over the last two years. But simply the Act has not been enforced, and a good part of it has never been proclaimed.

But, Mr. Speaker, our new Government has been in power for five months and still has not acted. What can it do now specifically? The Hon. Attorney General can press enforcement of the law now. His department knows all about these cases; without question, he knows of them. There must be investigation of these people who are misleading the public by claiming that they're private. There needs to be investigation done on those.

Second, the disclosure section, part two of the Mortgage Brokers Act, needs to be proclaimed — next week, this week. Proclaim it; that's all you have to do.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That won't solve the problem you're speaking of.

MR. BROUSSON: Now, Mr. Speaker, it will help solve some of the problems. Mr. Speaker, I suggest then we study the operation of this over the next six months and bring in amendments this fall if we're unable to do them now. Maybe we can do them in this session. But if you're not ready for them, let's for sure have amendments to this Act in the fall, in the second session, to tighten this thing up. And perhaps later on in the debates in this session I can suggest some amendments myself.

Mr. Speaker, those were great words in the Speech from the Throne, "bolster services to people, industry and labour." I suggest that it's time that the Government put its money where its mouth is. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): May I commend you, Mr. Speaker, on the dignity which you have lent to our deliberations. This House has always had a certain distinctive personality to it, although I believe there has been a marked change for the better under your Speakership in the tenor of the debates here.

[ Page 240 ]

But I feel that the particular, peculiar individuality and vitality which I have always associated with this House is still alive and well and a credit to all British Columbians.

I am going to stray briefly from strictly provincial affairs to say how happy I am about the de-escalation of hostilities in Vietnam. I cannot call it a ceasefire, because it's obvious that no political settlement is in sight. I don't believe peace will ever come to that unhappy land until a political settlement has been found.

Mind that the Prussian Baron Karl von Clausewitz said 140 years ago that "war is not merely a political act but a political instrument carrying out of the same by other means, and in fact the two are one and the same." I hope a political settlement is found soon.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to note the Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance's (Hon. Mr. Cocke) policy regarding facilities for extended and intermediate care patients. During last summer when, for one reason or another, I seemed to be meeting thousands of people, I became aware very early that many elderly citizens with chronic problems were being passed from one hospital to another — 30 days here, 30 days there, 30 days over there — as acute patients. Not because there were any super-bureaucrats playing games with the system, but because the kindly doctors and administrators who were indulging in this practice knew as professionals and humanitarians that the only other place that many of these people could go was out to the street.

So apart from the human consideration, as has been pointed out by several other speakers in this House, it is very bad management for certain patients to occupy $60-a-day beds when their particular needs would be better served in accommodations costing around $20.

It seems most, if not all, of the persons in dire need of intermediate and extended care have made a singularly valuable contribution to the standard of living and the quality of life which we in Canada enjoy today. They have paid their dues, not just in taxes but in toil and initiative during their productive years, and the fruits of that toil and initiative they have already bequeathed to us and we enjoy every day.

I would hope — in fact I am sure — that both Ministers with an immediate interest in this field are acting with all deliberate speed in allaying this very pressing problem.

I would hope also, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement will concern itself, or is concerning itself with, a reduction in what is known as peripheral services in the Province of British Columbia. Most of these services — crisis centres, marriage counselling, volunteer help — would cost the Government a great deal more money were they not being done, in many cases, by private volunteer help. They have been operating on funds from government grants, LIP grants and so on. And there has been a reduction in these grants due to a new federal policy that seems to be opposed to what some people would call "bleeding heart" policies, and I think that this Government should pay attention to this.

I note just in the last few days in this town of Victoria — and I think some of the local MLAs are probably aware — a volunteer service, a very active one involving many numbers of people, has, temporarily at least, gone out of business for lack of funds. I think there were only two paid people involved in this particular organization, but large numbers of volunteers.

I see today that we had until I started to speak, for some reason, Mr. Speaker, a fairly good representation from the Opposition, which is unusual during a sitting of the House, and I was very glad to see especially the Liberal benches fairly well filled up. I thought perhaps there had been some resignations from that party over the last few months that I hadn't noticed, because it was so seldom there was more than two or three. However, I'm glad to see that handsome group is quite well represented here today — or they were until a few minutes ago.

I also welcome, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Trade and Industry's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) statement — and we'll name it that for the moment — on his economic development policy. You know we up in the Kootenays know all about no growth; it's not a new term. We've had no growth up there, not since the war, not since 1929, but since the outbreak of hostilities in 1914. I note that equity assistance for labour intensive developments can take several forms, not just the obvious initial capital assistance. In many places plant capacity and markets are available but start-up and working capital are missing. I think many farmers have been in that situation.

In some cases personnel assistance is needed. We have at least one heavy industry in this province, with operations in various locations, which in fact is a marginal operation, or a sub-marginal operation, only because of personnel and management problems. It's simply difficult to keep the thing running efficiently in terms of productivity. I think that the government can help in this regard.

In other areas, as the Minister noted, finding markets by an aggressive policy is essential. I believe those markets are there, and I believe this government capable of taking that sort of action.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Cape Breton steel operation became viable after the government took it over — not because of massive and expansive technological changes, which no doubt were needed, but because of a new management attitude that raised morale and allowed workers to increase productivity

[ Page 241 ]

by their own initiative. And also an aggressive and resourceful sales force that found markets in Europe, the United States, Latin America — markets, Mr. Speaker, that Dosco had for years maintained did not exist.

I'd like to say a word or two about two words that have been tossed around in this House with kind of wild abandon at times — initiative and incentive. The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has said that he does not believe in handouts but in encouraging initiative. I agree, Mr. Speaker. And while I may find certain of that Hon. Member's ideas rather quaint, to say the least, he does say some things that were as apt in antediluvian times — with which I am sure he is familiar — as they are today. When he speaks of incentive he means something rather different, though, from my interpretation. I think, from his statements and other statements from the official Opposition, that he means handouts, welfare for entrepreneurs pure and simple. And why not? It's nice work if you can get it. If you can obtain taxpayers' funds readily from some yet-to-be-defined DREE agency up in the sky, why should any developer go through that messy formality of selling shares or, even worse, debiting his own bank account?

Mr. Speaker, we too on this side of the House believe in initiative, and we too believe in incentive, as I think everyone does here. I believe that there is plenty of both in this province — plenty of drive, plenty of initiative and plenty of resources.

There will be no marginal operations, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, under the economic policy outlined by this Government. We do not need in this province enterprises which depend for survival on the kind of subsidies that became commonplace under LIP and DREE-sponsored programmes. I would submit that the dividing line between subsidy and political patronage — the old pork-barrel — is a very thin one indeed.

I don't think this province needs to indulge in marginal enterprises, whether they be public or private. We're too well endowed with natural resources and human resources for that ever to be necessary. All we need is imagination and good management. The Hon. Minister's statements on the seeking of markets for manufactured goods on the Pacific Rim is, I hope, only the first step in this direction.

I would, if I could, quote Winston Churchill. I think the people of this province look at their own resources, which they believe in. They look at their own ability, which they have quiet confidence in They look at the markets for manufactured goods in the Pacific Rim. They look at our unemployment. And they look to this Government, whatever party is in, and they say, as Churchill said to Roosevelt: "Give us the tools, and we'll finish the job."

Certain Opposition Members have said that there is amongst the business community a lack of confidence in the B.C. economy. I would like to meet some of these people. You can bring them over to my office. I would like to talk to them. They're certainly lying low, as far as I'm concerned. They're not speaking, apparently, of the forest industrialists, whose mills are stuffing boxcars with everything they can lay their hands on, including some things that look suspiciously like what used to be called "slabs", and selling them at — not the slabs but No. 1 lumber — at prices ranging from $150 to $200 per thousand. This is a resource industry that contributes better than 50 per cent of every dollar to the B.C. economy.

We in the Kootenays have a lot of people in the forest industry — large corporations and small operations. I find no lack of confidence here. It's true, Mr. Speaker, that the worldwide slump in many base metal prices has created a certain amount of uncertainty in the mining industry in B.C. But since this Government has jurisdiction over scarcely 1 per cent of the North American economy — and we're talking about world prices — I hardly think that this is something that we can really concern ourselves with at this time.

I find one area, though, of a great deal of uncertainty. This is the continuing spectre of inflation, which has continued unabated, despite the continuing recession which began in late 1967. Many small businessmen and working people have been forced to delay or scrap expansion plans because of rising costs that have forced them to invest capital to look after their daily needs. I would suggest that these plans were for going into labour-intensive manufacturing industries in many cases. Growth funds have been sidetracked by many persons in order that they may survive at all. In fairness, I believe that the previous administration was aware of this problem and, in its halting, unimaginative, misguided way, attempted to deal with certain particularly blatant aspects of inflation. However, unlike Mr. Bunker, we don't need a man like Herbert Hoover again. I think we had one for 20 years. In fact, we had several of them on the Government side of the House.

I don't realistically expect this Government to deal with inflation either. But I think we can show some leadership and perhaps the senior government in Ottawa — and when we're talking economics we have to talk about the senior government in Washington too — may take heed. In this vein, I welcome the Premier's action in regard to price increases in the petroleum industry. It seems to me that a former Member of this House, Mr. Shelford, was years ago so concerned with inequities in the retailing of petroleum products that he prevailed upon the government of the day to commission the Hon. Judge Morrow to study the situation. Judge Morrow found, amongst other things, that the planned proliferation of unneeded gas stations created unreasonably high costs of retailing gasoline, which justified very high retail prices.

[ Page 242 ]

As the Federal Prices and Incomes Commission has stated and as John Young of that commission has also stated, it would appear that the entry of petroleum companies into the retail field has resulted in an interference with free competition at the retail level. When free competition is tampered with, the consumer pays more, and he is paying more.

I would further suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the uncontrolled entry of large corporate interests into all aspects of manufacturing and marketing of a particular group of products is detrimental to the quality of life of all of us. In B.C. it's not just the petroleum industry — and that industry pumps oil, refines it, distributes it and retails it — but certain forest conglomerates are moving into the building supply field. Large food retailing chains, not content with retail-wholesale control, through subsidiaries are becoming corporate farmers as well. I don't believe this is healthy, and I think it's incumbent upon this Government to protect us from the evolution of an economy totally controlled by a corporate few.

In all fairness, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are people in the corporations who are aware of the problems, but they find themselves tied to a competitive situation in which they have no choice but to comply.

Before I leave the petroleum industry, Mr. Speaker, I would note that few workers in B.C. have to contend with the business conditions of a service station lessee. He has no union, no pension, no real estate, no Hours of Work Act, in many cases no choice of wholesaler — all he's got is customer goodwill and his lease. That can be terminated at any time. I hope that the Government recognizes that workers in B.C. are not all in industries and offices. Many are in retail businesses and are at the mercy of corporate overlords — overlords which, Mr. Speaker, I would note are in fact individually, let alone collectively, larger than this Government. I would endorse the Hon. Member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace) plea for controls on foreign and corporate ownership of land. I am sure he speaks of the territory in and around Victoria, but in the west Kootenays over half of all the alienated Crown land is owned by four firms, apparently associated with head offices in that great, huge, west European industrial state known as Liechtenstein.

I note that a great free-enterpriser, Mr. Lougheed, despite his stated fear of a socialist advance into Alberta…. His government has taken steps in regard to controlling this sort of thing, which in many aspects are more extreme than those taken by the neighbouring government of Mr. Blakeney. I would note, too, that large foreign owners of property in B.C. have adopted what is the heretofore unheard of practice of excluding the public from underdeveloped land when entry is sought for legal recreational purposes.

I would submit that the corporations who have control in the forestry, mining and railway business, who have controlled large sections of land, have not followed this policy in the past and are not following it today. There may have been a few untimely exceptions to this rule, but by and large the public of B.C. has always had access for hunting and hiking and fishing and mountaineering and so on in private lands, providing commercial operations were not interfered with and vandalism was minimal.

In the Kootenays that is not the case today. We have properties in excess of 250 square miles which are literally fenced off to the Canadian public. I would hope that the two Ministers with jurisdiction over lands and resources and taxation will be addressing themselves to this situation. I think that the countryside needs to be saved for ourselves and for our descendants.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government to consider some method of rationalizing transportation costs in this province. I know that this is a very fuzzy area, but I think it's a very important area. We've always been ready, ever since before Confederation, to expend vast resources on transportation facilities, and vast amounts of inputs have been needed, due to the terrain of this country, the climate and a sparse population. But we have never known the real cost in ton miles or passenger miles of transport, whether it be by rail, highways, water or air.

With the remarks and the criticisms that have been made in this House regarding ferries, rapid transit, railways and freeways, I believe it essential that hard facts and real costs be available to us. We Canadians are past masters at burying transport subsidies. We built ferries, highways and airports at all three levels, and bulk terminals in the Province of B.C. We hope, in each case, to break even on operating costs, but we've never expected a return on initial cost, and that's usually astronomical.

No thought is ever given to the acreage — or at east no thought until recently — used for transportation facilities and — I think a very important area here — the rights-of-way used by pipelines and power lines, and especially power lines.

In my own constituency we have one of the most beautiful valleys in the Province of British Columbia, called Beaver Valley. B.C. Hydro, that great corporate citizen, wants to build a power line down the middle of the valley, along with the other power lines, the railways and the highways. If this sort of thing is not controlled, Mr. Speaker, I believe that many of the valleys of the Interior will have nothing left but corridors for rights-of-way for various transportation facilities. At least in the Kootenays, there's not that much flat land. Valley bottom is at a premium. The general level of topography is 4,000 to 5,000 feet high and land in valley bottoms is at a premium. It must not be used for rights-of-way, especially when

[ Page 243 ]

those power lines can be put on rolling hills at perhaps a 10 or 15 per cent increase in cost.

Finally, I would like to note — I'm straying from my own area — that the people of B.C. in this House owe a vote of thanks to that farming couple on Saltspring Island, the Ruckles, who forwent, I think, tens of thousands of dollars of personal gain because of a moral commitment to the future of this province and to the people of B.C. I hope it is an example that we all can follow in our personal lives and in our deliberations in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I would like, if you wouldn't mind, conveying to the real Mr. Speaker my congratulations to him for the manner in which he has conducted this Legislature and looked after the business of keeping the parties and the conversation at an intelligent level.

Mr. Speaker, I am from a northern riding, and I would like to mention some of the problems of that riding. I feel that for too long, the previous government has ignored the real everyday needs of our northern citizens. It has always been romanticized that the north is a great place to live in, and so it is, but there are many hardships to living in the north. The people of our area are subject to the very high cost of living and, in many cases, very substandard wages. We have long, cold winters and high fuel bills and clothing bills, high-priced gasoline, lack of cultural entertainment. Many areas lack essential services such as doctors, hospitals, transportation, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that there are many, many things our Government must do to overcome the disparity between those living in the large centres and for those that live in the outlying regions of this Province. Housing is in a terrible plight in the north. The average wage earner in the north of our province does not qualify for Central Mortgage and Housing Assistance loans because he does not earn sufficient wages, or the land he has isn't the type that suits Central Mortgage regulations. We have hundreds of our citizens that haul water from the local towns, and this in turn means that there are many homes without flush toilets or other running water. Many youngsters grow into adulthood without the luxury of running water in their homes.

Although I have painted a picture of the hard facts about living in our area, I really believe that for a great many people it is the only place to live, and I also feel this way. In fact, I encourage people with some assets to come to the northern portion of our province to live. It is a great outdoor wonderland, and we have majestic scenery. There is very little unemployment in our riding, and it is confined to just one or two areas. In fact, in many regions of my constituency there is an abundance of jobs. The lack of housing, plus the lack of other facilities that I have mentioned, keeps these jobs from being filled.

Existing employment is mainly with the woods and mining industries, and this is going to bring me to a request from my Government. I believe that they should give special consideration to those people who are willing to live in the more remote areas of this province. I believe that people should be rewarded financially for going to the sometimes not so nice climate and staying to help create a lot of the productivity that makes our province so rich. I am thinking of course in terms of relief in their income tax. Other countries with not so nice climates reward their workers for putting an honest effort to make the economy a good one. I believe that we are certainly rich enough to make a decent effort to encourage people to do the same thing.

Our Government must also institute a plan of equalized gas prices throughout the province to bring relief to our citizens in the north.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our Government must create a plan for housing people in the more remote areas. Mobile homes are the kind I was thinking of. This I believe would help to fill the jobs that are available in our area, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak momentarily of the tourist industry. We live in an area that is virtually untouched as far as tourism is concerned. We have beautiful lakes teeming with fish. We have hunting. We have scenery second to none. There are many hundreds of miles of access roads that are reasonable to drive on. We have hundreds of campsites with easy access. It is not uncommon to see moose or deer as you drive along. At Fort St. James, we have a programme by the federal government to re-create the old Hudson Bay fort, which will be started immediately. This project will, in itself, attract thousands of tourists to our area. We have hundreds of accommodations throughout the riding.

In fact our area is an ideal holiday land. All I am urging is that the Department of Recreation give us the promotion to help bring tourism to our area. Very few tourists are urged to come to the Highway 16 West area, which includes our own. I'm suggesting that promotion of the high density areas of tourism should be allowed to accept or accommodate the excess of tourists that are available from these overcrowded areas.

Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to refer to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor's speech, and to the portion which says, "We abhor waste, and we will correct this waste if we see it." Mr. Speaker, during the last year of the former administration, an agreement was drawn by that Minister of Lands and Forests and the Department of Recreation and Conservation with the company by the name of Ootsa Reservoir Clearing Limited. The principals of the company live in Burns Lake.

[ Page 244 ]

The agreement was that this company was to construct a barge with a cutting device on it, and that they were to clear certain portions of the Whitesail Lake, which were drawn by the Alcan Aluminum Project. The firm constructed a barge with funds that were advanced to them by the Department of Recreation and Conservation. This firm then went on a spree of cutting off the drowned timber in a previously designated area of the lake. The timber was supposed to have been cut at an approximately 18 ft. level below the lake's surface. On a recent visit to the area that had been worked on, I found many sheer trees protruding from the surface of the water, and many dozens more just below the surface. At this time the draw down on the lake was less than five feet. By the end of October, 1972 the operation shut down for the winter.

The Department of Recreation and Conservation had advanced this company in excess of $300,000 for the building and operation of this barge. Very little thought had been put into the whole scheme. The fact is that the whole area that was cleared, or so-called cleared, will soon have to be re-cut, as it is the plan of the aluminum company to increase their power supply at Kemano, and in doing so, to increase the water drawn down to a further 10 ft. There are some assets owned by the Government — a barge that may be of some value, or it may not. Certainly its location is not the best, but I would suggest that our Government lost a quarter of a million dollars in a scheme that had very little thought applied to it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there were no tenders called for this job. Not one other person in this province was allowed to bid on this job, nor did they know of it. My contention is that the principals of this company were friends of the former administration and the whole deal was made with a great deal of secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, this reservoir has a shoreline of 500 miles, and approximately 80,000 acres of drowned trees. There is another company that has been doing an excellent job of clearing on this lake. They have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money. They have not received one red cent of subsidy from the provincial government. They take the whole tree out of the lake and turn it into a finished product. They employ many dozens of men and they do pay salvage royalty. They are the Bond Brothers Operation of Vanderhoof. Quite a difference when a company such as this, which could have enlarged their whole operation, and which recovers the whole tree from the lake, utilizing all the wood that is sound, was denied any support from the former government. Yet this company, that does not recover one particle of good wood, was allowed this very large amount of money, which in the end may be a large waste to our people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge the Government that whenever there are contracts to be called or public money is to be spent that it be opened to legitimate bids from the public at large.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge the Government to support any business such as the Bonds, who are clearing the lakes and also making a good product from that timber.

I would like to go into another aspect of forestry, Mr. Speaker, because this riding of mine depends to a large degree on the forest industry. The industry comes under constant scrutiny from the people working in it. We notice, for example, that the forestry department, which manages our timber, is in constant conflict with the logging contractors. They are continually changing their regulations and making it tough for the small operators to survive. They have instituted regulations in our part of the country that I am sure were never meant to be. One of the most recent ones is that a piece of wood — I refer to a log — that is 4 inches in diameter at the small end and only 8 feet long must be hauled to a sawmill.

With the waste that goes on in our coast forest, I find this especially hard to accept, mostly because of the difficulty in hauling this very small wood and handling it. I know that stumpage rates set up by the forestry for the small agricultural lease holders sometimes make it impossible — that a farmer or lease must actually pay money to have his lease property logged off; that there are no profits, but that it actually costs money to take this timber and put it in a sawmill — depending on location, of course. This is required by law.

In some cases some of the lessees have lost their property back to the lands department because they could not afford to have it logged. If there is a time limit in having your logging completed, and this happens in practically every case, in many cases a wet summer is all it takes to make this an impossibility. It is just about impossible to log during the wet weather in our region.

Some of the industry, Mr. Speaker, seem to have no problems with the forestry branch. We have a large sawmilling organization in our constituency that obtained a timber license several years back. They were required by the licence to cut so much timber annually. The figure is in the hundreds of millions of board feet. They have never in all the past years come anywhere near filling this contract.

Mr. Speaker, this company, by the very fact that it is large, has been able to do with the forestry department what none of the small operators can do. Hundreds of jobs have not been given as a result. Also, the provincial treasury has been short-changed by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker, I feel that this law that holds for the lessee farmer or the small contractor, should hold for the large sawmilling concern equally as well. I am concerned about the

[ Page 245 ]

manner in which the forestry department works. I would urge the Minister of that portfolio to urge an investigation into this department. I am sure that there could be considerable input to the workings of the forestry branch by their employees, with many of whom I have had discussions, This large sawmilling complex I refer to was just recently burning 40,000 to 50,000 board feet of logs daily because they were just too small. There was nothing illegal concerning this burning, as they had paid the stumpage to the Crown. What must be described as immoral is the very fact that this small wood still has considerable value, and many of the small sawmills would be very glad to obtain logs such as these. The people could create an income out of this so-called waste and help the productivity of their community.

Mr. Speaker, once again the actions of this large corporation certainly aren't in keeping with what would be considered the best way to operate. I would urge the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) to have his department look into the operations of this company and see that they live up to the conditions of their harvesting licence. Many of the small mills in our area need logs. I'm sure that if this company is not able to fulfil their end of the bargain that the forest branch should make timber available to these small operators.

Mr. Speaker, there is another subject that I would like to talk about and I am very concerned about, and that is the wasting of our game to hunters other than those that live in Canada. Of recent years there has been a serious depletion of our game in large areas of the north. This has occurred as a result of many things — the continued clearing of land for agricultural purposes, the diminishing habitat, et cetera.

This land is the normal wintering ground of our moose and deer. The lack of proper control of hunting as to the number of animals that are left in the woods — control of predator animals that have tremendous advantage over the deer family, especially after last winter's record snow fall. The deer and moose spent six weeks at least where they had to literally swim through the deep snows that were prevalent throughout the large areas of the province.

There is also evidence that the big game guides do not hunt these territories with proper control — that is to say, as a farmer would, that he would take a portion of his herd of cattle annually. It is common knowledge that the guide will accept all the reservations for hunters that he can possibly get. He will take these hunters to his hunting territory and do his utmost to obtain for every hunter a moose, a deer or both.

Most of them will do this without the slightest regard of whether there are sufficient animals for breeding purposes to keep the species in bountiful numbers to withstand the harvest of animals during the next hunting season, It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we must control our wildlife so that at no time will there be a possibility that the species may be endangered by over-hunting or lack of habitat. I would so urge our Minister of wildlife that he take steps to see that our wild animals do have a place to exist without mankind crowding them out of existence.

Mr. Speaker, I would also urge our Government to see that there are sufficient conservation officers to enforce all the regulations of the fish and wildlife branch. There are numerous cases of taking of game during the out-of-season periods, and this is prevalent all over the province. Our fish must be protected too. If a lake or stream has been over-fished, I believe these waterways should be closed to fishing until at least normal stocks of fish have built up. Then the number of fish per den should be controlled as to keep the number of fish in our waterways at healthy levels.

Mr. Speaker, I am of the firm belief that the penalties for infractions under the Fish and Game Act should be increased considerably to be more of a deterrent to the would-be law breaker under this Act. It is practically a joking matter with some of our residents when the topic of infractions is discussed between each other. In parts of the province where our game is quite plentiful, infractions of the Fish and Game Act are taking place quite frequently. Convictions are very few, and no wonder.

Our game branch has very little effect because of the lack of conservation officers in strategic points and locations through the province. If decent control of poachers is not obtained within a reasonable period of time, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the reward system be instituted to obtain convictions under this Act until, at least, the people involved realize the seriousness of their offences.

I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that snowmobiles and all forms of mechanized transportation should not be allowed in the taking of game in our province. I refer specifically, of course, to the actual hunting of animals. People may complain that this would be a very harsh move, but it would act as a very good buffer between man and the wild animal.

Many of our hunters sit in their vehicles and drive hundreds of miles, in some instances, on logging roads and other back roads until they see a helpless animal cross the road. Moose and deer are curious animals and are easily taken. The most exercise these hunters get is to dress their animal and lift it into their vehicles. Then the hunt is over.

I would urge the Government to consider this as being an urgent matter that should be looked into. There will be pressure groups that will attempt to stop legislation that may help in this matter. But I am sure it must be implemented to save the game. I am of the opinion also that while we are having this increasing problem of a much shorter supply of game

[ Page 246 ]

year after year, that we should consider allowing the hunting of our game to Canadians only. I know that the guides' association will be upset because, of course, several hundred people make their living at catering to the American trade in the hunting business.

Mr. Speaker, this industry advertises in sporting magazines as to the high number of animals available and usually predict 90 to 95 per cent kills during the last season. This year they barely went over the 50 per cent mark in my area, and I am quite sure the numbers of animals are decreasing annually because of pressure from the increased hunting population besides other causes.

The guides should take up the slack in their hunting territory by accommodating Canadian resident hunters. For some reason or other, all the guides in my area of the province failed to guide one resident hunter last hunting season in a very large region of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak momentarily of the allegations that our Government has driven business away from the Province of British Columbia. Omineca isn't an area with a lot of big businesses. In fact, we have quite a sparsely populated area, and even small businesses aren't numerous. I have been approached by that business community, and they have assured me that they are prepared to accept our Government and feel that they will receive at least as much as they did from the previous administration.

I have been approached also by a large international corporation that would like to establish themselves in our area. They are talking of several millions of dollars in instituting a large corporation in that area in the primary industry. We have other large corporations that have been touring our area just recently to look things over, and I'm confident that they will establish themselves in Omineca. And they will do it quite soon.

We have many business people who are doing their utmost to encourage business into the area, and I'm confident that they also will be successful.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.

MR.SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many years ago the British Government decided to give up a piece of territory now known as the Alaska panhandle as part of the boundary settlement with Russia — or the Imperial nation of Russia in that day. The area that I'm speaking about you can see on this map that I'm holding up that's on the cover of a booklet advertising the "beautiful centre of Terrace in the Pacific northwest, the hub of the British Columbia northwest." The section in question is in white along the northwest coast of our province.

I'll just read the description that was contained in the conventions that were drawn up between the Imperial nation of Russia and Britain in that day — that was on February 28, 1825:

"The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, as established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of said convention, in the following terms:

" 'Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes north latitude and between the 131st and 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Canal, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountain situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the same meridian); and finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen ocean.' "

Now I'm sure that the Russians and the British who made that agreement never actually saw the area that they were making this agreement about. And of course a few years later, in 1867, this territory in question was ceded to the United States from Russia as part of a settlement between Imperial Russia and the United States in that day.

And so it is today that that constitutes the boundary between British Columbia and the State of Alaska.

Now this has not constituted any problem in terms of access to ports until now. However, there are now a number of mining developments proposed for the area lying behind the Alaska panhandle, and also some forestry developments are likely in the works as well.

Now the thing is that from an economic point of view, it would be logical to export the resources from that region out through the American ports of the Alaska panhandle. That would make economic sense. The only difficulty is that this would mean entering into very complicated agreements with the United States for the use of these ports. And of course it would also mean that Canadian goods would be loaded onto ships in American ports. This is a pretty serious situation that's shaping up, and it's all going to come in the next several years. In the next 15 years this is going to become a major problem. I would say it's already becoming a problem, but certainly within the next 7 or 8 years it will become a problem.

[ Page 247 ]

Now there are three other options — other than shipping goods out through American ports — that could be considered. The first one is to acquire political control of the Alaska panhandle for the Province of British Columbia. I believe it was a mistake that the British ever parted with that territory in the first place. It seems ridiculous that they would allow that part — I think it was because of sea otters, because the Russians wanted to harvest the sea otters along the coast there. But here we are faced with this ridiculous situation today.

Now how would we acquire political control of the Alaska panhandle? I would suggest three possible ways. First of all, we could launch a military operation and seize control of the Alaska panhandle. But somehow I just have the feeling that such an operation would not succeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then you'd need foreign aid. (Laughter).

MR. DENT: It might have been worth considering at one time. However, at the present moment I think that we should not consider that option.

The second option is that we could make a trade of another portion of the Province of British Columbia for the Alaska panhandle. And the only part that occurs to me that we could offer to the American Government would be all of British Columbia south of the 49th parallel. I think the boundary should have been straight in the first place — straight right across. Now unfortunately this would mean that we would lose our present capital of Victoria, but that's not a serious problem because I think the capital should be relocated anyway. A suitable location would be in central British Columbia; in fact, in the geographic centre of the province — Vanderhoof. (Laughter).

Since we would be starting from scratch, we could build an entirely new capital with every ethnic group in the province putting input into the design, instead of having it designed purely by Victorian Englishmen. Now I've nothing against Victorian architecture — I think it's beautiful.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DENT: That's true. There would be less inclination for people to want to come down here and spend the winter in such a beautiful place as Victoria.

Now there would be some other problems of course. There would be some Hon. Members who would then lose their seats. Perhaps this problem could be rectified. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), I am sure, could become a U.S. senator in short order if he remained within the United States. (Laughter). However, if he chose to remain a Canadian, then we could create a new constituency in Skagway and I'm sure that he could take his chances along with any NDP Member — but I am afraid that he would probably lose.

It would also wipe out the Conservative caucus, which is not….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DENT: And this would not be a good thing after such a promising beginning that they have had. However, I am sure a couple of Socreds could move aside, maybe in the South Okanagan and Boundary Similkameen, and they could step down and make way for these two Members to get seats up in that area.

Now there's one thing, though, that causes me to reject that idea as a serious option. It would unfortunately result in the loss of our Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and I think that he is doing an excellent job, and therefore I would not consider this option at this time. Also, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) is doing a good job, and I would not want to deprive him of his seat either.

Now the third option, though, is the one we do need to look at seriously, and that is to build immediately transportation corridors and routes into the northwest.

I believe it is imperative we get started on this as soon as possible. A highway is needed, and I know that the Government is now giving active thought and active consideration to this project. It is imperative that the work begin as soon as possible to link with Stewart. Some paving has been done on the Stewart-Cassiar highway, and therefore, if we have the link completed between Highway 16 and Stewart, the whole highway project would then be ready for use probably in two or three years.

Also, rail lines are required. There is a rail line being constructed by the B.C. Railway from Prince George to Dease Lake through Fort St. James. This is presently under construction from both ends. But I believe it is also important that either the CNR or the B.C. Railway begin work immediately on at least a rail line north from Terrace, north into that northwest area. Certainly it should go as far as the junction of the Nass and the Bell-Irving Rivers as soon as possible because it would alleviate some of the pressure on the forest industry in there financially and also it would begin to make way for proposed mineral developments.

The one thing that I want to make clear is that I think that we should set a policy now that Canadian raw materials should be hauled on Canadian trains, unloaded into Canadian ships at Canadian ports, preferably after they have been manufactured into

[ Page 248 ]

finished products by Canadian workers.

It may be of interest to you to know that one of the companies that is now exploring some property for copper in the Stikine area made this suggestion to the Government. I would just like to read it to you.

There are a number of suggestions but this is one of them.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Which Government?

MR. DENT: The name of the company is Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company Ltd. acting on behalf of Skeena Copper, and the submission was to the provincial government. Now this is one of the points that was made.

"Assuming such a road were built" — they are talking about the road into their mining development — "the next logical step would be for the Alaska Government to complete a road from Wrangell," which is a small Alaskan port, "up to the international boundary at the junction of the Iskut and Stikine, which would have the effect of developing a second access to the coast. We also feel that it is logical and will ultimately be practical for a branch of the rail line at Dease Lake to be extended down the Stikine to our site and eventually to Wrangell in Alaska. This line, when developed, would provide a route for development of properties" — and then it mentions the properties.

The point is here that what they would like to have, as they put it, is an alternate road and rail route to the coast. Now I don't trust them, quite frankly, in terms of their proposal. I think that they are maybe even considering this as a primary route for the resources to be shipped. Therefore I would feel that we should be emphasizing this point again: Canadian raw materials from the northwest should be hauled down Canadian rail lines to Canadian ports at Kitimat…

MR. LEA: Where?

MR. DENT: …Prince Rupert and Stewart, and loaded hopefully onto Canadian ships after they have been processed by Canadian workers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this work should begin as soon as possible, and I believe that small business should be given an opportunity to participate in the mining, the forestry and tourism opportunities that will be opened up. The small man should have a chance at some real free enterprise, providing that he acts responsibly. I know many people in my constituency, small businessmen who are conscientious, hardworking, who know this district, who know the country, who are only too anxious to become part of this development. They should be given every encouragement and every opportunity, providing, as I said, that they conduct themselves responsibly. I have every faith and confidence that they will.

There is also a place for big companies with all of their sophisticated, technological know-how and the resources of capital. But, Mr. Speaker, it is my conviction that these big companies should be closely watched and supervised by our government.

I would like to talk for a moment about these big multi-national corporations that have already been referred to this afternoon, that are operating in various parts of this province.

A few months ago, I was invited, along with some others, to visit the Alcan plant at Kitimat. Alcan, as you know, is one of the very large corporations, and it has operations in several countries. I might add that its conduct in my area has been good, in my judgment — that is, in terms of its involvement in the community. I think that they have been very responsible and they have done a great deal for the district and for the community. I make that point first before I make the points following.

When I visited this company, I crossed through their gates, and I somehow had the feeling that I was crossing into another country. They had their own police force, their public relations man — a fine chap — he somehow gave me the impression of being an ambassador for a sovereign country rather than a person who was simply a public relations person for a business in our own country.

They have tremendous wealth, tremendous power. Probably Alcan has more real wealth and power than most countries of the world do. Compared to the small countries of Africa, Asia and South America and other places, probably Alcan has more real power and wealth than these small countries.

The man at the top in the corporate structure can give orders, and these orders will be followed all the way down the line. The only democratic decisions are made by the board of directors. And what is the purpose, the aim of these large companies, these large corporations? Well, their basic, fundamental, primary objective must be to make a profit, a return on the investment of their shareholders who have invested their money. In achieving that goal of obtaining a return on the investment, all other considerations must take second place.

Now that does not mean that making a profit is an evil thing. Some people on the other side of the House suggested that we on this side of the House think that making a profit is an evil thing. We don't think that at all. Anyone who makes a legitimate return on their investment, on their imagination, or whatever they may contribute to society, are entitled to that. If you are going to call that a profit, then certainly that's legitimate.

But it's the point that these large corporations have a primary responsibility to their shareholders

[ Page 249 ]

who may not live in British Columbia, who may not live in the area where the operations are taking place. They have that first loyalty to the shareholders, wherever they happen to be. And it may mean that they make decisions that adversely affect our environment; they may adversely affect our working people. It may mean that they make decisions affecting adversely our communities.

In short, it may well mean that when they come into the Province of British Columbia to develop our resources, to make use of our hydro-electric power, or for whatever other use they may come here, their concern may not be first and foremost for the people of the province, but of necessity, their first consideration is for the profits of their shareholders wherever they happen to be.

There are those in B.C. who will do anything — almost anything, that is — to entice these large international corporations to come in and take our natural resources, or to use our hydro-electric power, in order to achieve development, as they call it. In order to have progress. In order to have prosperity, And, perhaps, even in order to have jobs.

I am not opposed to these corporations coming in. But we should not sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.

I hope that all of you are familiar with the Old Testament. There is a story in the Old Testament about Esau and Jacob. Esau was the hairy one and Jacob was the smooth-skinned one, and they were twins. There was some battle between them as to who was entitled to the inheritance that fell upon them from their father, Isaac. It seemed to have been settled in favour of Jacob by a little connivance of his mother.

At any rate, Esau tried to get this birthright, and the way he did it was this: Jacob was out in the fields or out somewhere and he got very hungry. The thing that he wanted most of all was a meal, something to eat. So he came in and there was his brother Esau with a mess of stew. Pottage is sort of an old English word, I think, for stew.

Esau suddenly realized his bargaining position. Jacob said, "I would like some stew. I'm hungry." Esau said, "O.K. Just hold on. I will give you some of the stew if you will give me your inheritance that has been given to you by my father — the birthright. Give it to me, and you'll get the stew." Poor old Jacob There he was — famished, hungry. The only thing he really had need of at that moment was something to eat, and Esau had him in a beautiful bargaining position. So Jacob traded his birthright for a mess of pottage, for a bowl of stew — his whole inheritance That's what we are in serious danger of doing in British Columbia — of trading our birthright, our inheritance, in this province for a mess of pottage. We should be very careful how we part with our resources and who we allow to develop our hydro-electric power and what they're going to do in return. We are so anxious to have a little bit of prosperity now, so anxious to have the money flowing like water, that we are selling our birthright, as has been done for the last 20 years. We're giving them away at bargain basement prices.

We should not have to go begging to the multi-national corporations; begging them to come in to take our resources at bargain basement prices so that we can have jobs, when we have men right in our own province who are prepared to go to work tomorrow and develop our resources — men whose families have lived here for two or three generations. They're in business, and they can't even get off the ground. The rules tie them up and bind them up. We need to liberate them so that they will develop our resources.

There's something more I should say about these multi-national corporations before we leave that point. That is that I'm sure all of you read the item in the paper a couple of days ago where it said that West Germany was not going to allow any more dollars into their country because of the threat presented in regard to inflation. Then the comment was made, "Now maybe all of these dollars will flow into Japan, where it will give them some troubles because of the momentary situation."

Now, within the world community — and we should be conscious of the world community, the economic community — these multi-national corporations are virtually like autonomous nations, doing their thing as they see fit in order to make a return for their shareholders. I believe that the period today — of the competition for the natural resources of the world that is being carried on by these multi-national corporations and in some cases, state capital companies in the Communist countries — that this competition is something similar to the period prior to the First World War, when nations went into the empire-building business for land. Once all the land that was easily obtained and available was taken up, then they began to fight over the land that each other had, such as the case of Serbia, which triggered the whole of the First World War and the tremendous destruction. Here were hundreds of thousands of young men sent from our countries to murder each other in order to try and settle this dispute between these conflicting empires.

We're faced with an equivalent situation developing over resources. Energy resources seems to be one of the first that's going to be in line for this very difficult period ahead. These multi-national corporations and the nations that sponsor them are going to be fighting to acquire control of future needs in energy resources and other resources. I think that the period we're in now is one that we have to be extremely careful about.

British Columbia should begin to try to develop within its own province a new atmosphere, a new

[ Page 250 ]

sense of responsibility. Hopefully, this will catch on in Canada and maybe from there to the rest of the world. This can be done, as I said, partly by encouraging small business, partly by strengthening the agricultural community. But it can also be done by assisting a movement which is now active in British Columbia. It's only a small thing, but I think it's a significant thing, in terms of the long-range future of the world and the kind of atmosphere we should be developing.

I don't need to say that the profit motive carried to its extreme is rooted in greed — lust, if you like. There's a verse in the Bible — I quote from the Bible once in a while. It says, "Lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." The sequence is that lust, when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Now, in the world community greed, when it has finished, brings forth war and destruction. And war and destruction, when they are finished, bring forth death for the whole world community. That's the sequence. The answer is that we've got to end the greed. We've got to develop a new atmosphere, beginning right here in our own province. That is the point, I believe, that was made in the Speech from the Throne.

Now this little movement that I wanted to talk about just for a moment. This is a little group of people. They've got a small store in Victoria. This is just a paragraph from something that they write, and then I'll tell you about them. It's a letter written to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), and it says this:

"We are introducing an entirely different concept of food buying. The focus is on localized neighbourhood organizations brought together in the community buildings — church halls, schools, community centres, et cetera — for the purpose of getting food. By eliminating at the retail level the need for large operating capital and by eliminating the excess packaging and convenience of the supermarket, by doing the work involved on a decentralized volunteer basis, we are able to bring about an immediate and substantial savings for everyone in the co-op. There is no need for large capital-raising initiation fees which discriminate against lower-income people. There is only a need for a desire to get one's food inexpensively and a willingness to work together."

Now this is a very spontaneous movement, and it's a very interesting movement. I'd just like to tell you about it for a moment.

Groups of citizens, young people in many cases, in different communities across the province have got together to form these member co-ops. They operate out of private homes or church basements wherever they can find space. The work is done by volunteer labour, and in many instances the people work long hours and unselfishly. The purpose, as they state here, is getting food for themselves — to provide a service for themselves, something that they need for themselves. There's no greed there. There's no profit motive there. There's no big business there. There's no big unions there. There's only a group of citizens, banded together and working co-operatively for each other's benefit. What a spirit! I've met some of them. I was down and looked at their little store in Victoria here yesterday. They built the whole thing themselves. They come down and work in the evenings.

That reminds me of the kind of spirit we had when we built a church in the Cariboo and the people came out and contributed their labour. It reminds me of the kind of spirit I've seen in some monastic orders and orders of nuns, where people will work purely for the love of one another. Or in the case of the Hutterites or some of the other communes, where people do not work out of greed. They work out of their feeling for one another or perhaps their love for God.

To me, this is a step toward the building of a genuine socialist economy in British Columbia and perhaps throughout the world. Because to me, the spirit of socialism is a spirit of co-operation, of working for one another's benefit. There are people on the other side of the House who might say this, as has been said to me sometimes: "People must have incentives. People must have the incentive to work, to develop a business, to build the economy." And what is that incentive? The incentive is money, is greed.

I believe that there can be another incentive, just as viable. In fact it better be viable, because we say it every time in the Lord's prayer — "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" — and that is the incentive of benevolence, of a concern one for another. Again, there are people who might shudder and say, "It's a nice idea, young man, but it won't work. It's a great thought but it won't work.

"People need incentives. People have to have greed, otherwise they won't work. People ought to have greed, otherwise they won't build businesses, they won't develop the north; they won't do this, they won't do that, unless they can make a return." I say well, O.K. then, I consider that a natural route for what I just finished saying in the world community — Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth war and destruction. And war and destruction when it is finished brings about death — not just physical death; spiritual and total death.

I am happy to say that many of the people that have been involved with these co-ops throughout B.C. — and I'd just like to read some of the places and some of the names of them into the record. There's the Amor de Cosmos Co-operative in Victoria — mostly young people, a fine organization of young people. There's the Tillicum Food Co-operative in

[ Page 251 ]

Vancouver. One of my very good friends is a member of it and spends hours of volunteer work once a week. There's the Highwaters Co-operative in Prince George. There's the Hecate Strait Consumers Co-operative in Queen Charlotte City — mainly for native Indians. You know, native Indians take to this idea instantly, because they understand the meaning of doing things out of benevolence and concern for one another rather than greed.

We've really the gall to come into this province and say "You're all wrong; your motives are all wrong. You've got to learn how to be greedy. Benevolence doesn't work. We've tried it. And so we'd like you to become greedy too." These people understand what a co-operative is and how it should work.

There's the Grateful Fed Co-operative in Kamloops, the South Okanagan Consumers' Co-operative in Penticton, the Okanagan Buyers' Co-operative in Kelowna, the Nelson and District Consumers Co-op in Nelson, the Cowichan Self Help Co-operative in Duncan. And I understand from Paul Phillips, who's responsible for extension, that 30 other communities have been in touch with him asking for information and seeking to form this type of co-op. But did you know that in their desire to do something for themselves, to work not for money or profit but for each other's benefit, they have been stopped in many instances by big companies — by big companies in this province. And in some cases even by profit-oriented co-ops; bigger and more powerful co-ops.

But as I said, these groups are supported in most instances by Members of the New Democratic Party, I'm happy to say. They've been supported by the provincial convention, by a resolution that was passed offering them support; by the Young New Democrats and even as recently as yesterday by our provincial council, giving them encouragement and pressing the Government for financial support for their wholesale co-operative which they are about to establish — or they are now establishing.

I'd like to read that resolution, just the last part of it:

"Therefore be it resolved: that the NDP Provincial Council reaffirms its desire for immediate implementation as an emergency measure, the resolution passed at the NDP Convention to support member-run co-operative wholesale outlets.

"Be it further resolved: that the Provincial Council urge the provincial government to financially support the wholesaler currently supplying these member-run co-operatives by means not of a grant but of a non-interest loan set up for this purpose."

Now inasmuch as the people working in it are working for nothing in most instances — or practically nothing — I think that this is a reasonable request, and I would hope that the Government will give it consideration.

But as I said, this spirit that's embodied by these young people of doing things for each other, because it's worth doing and not for greed, is a wonderful spirit and I hope that it will not be a flower that will be stamped on by the big elephants of industry and big business.

You know the story of the chicken yard and the elephant? The elephant came in the chicken yard and began stepping on a few chickens. And so one of the chickens said, "Well, let's make some rules in order to protect us all." And the elephant says, "We don't need any rules around here. I demand my rights to do as I please." But the chickens saw otherwise.

And I think that it's important that this flower, a flower just of humanity, if you like, should be given encouragement.

Now I want to conclude by talking about something in regard to the subject of women's rights. This subject has been discussed, and I begin by saying that I support the need for justice for women in the Province of British Columbia completely, and I hope that every Member of this House will.

I've seen many instances of injustice experienced by women, partly because they're trusting — they've been brought up that way — to be trusting. And they've been taken advantage of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. DENT: There are employers who will pay them substandard wages simply because they're accepting and trusting of their employers and try to do a good job. But they need to be protected by legislation, and they need to be assured that their rights will be considered. But that subject has already been canvassed.

I would like to speak on behalf of another group that have not yet had anyone speak on their behalf in this House during this session. And that is for the boys of our province, the boys up until, say, age 30. — but even younger.

AN HON. MEMBER: 40,40.

MR. DENT: O.K., we'll include you if necessary.

I think this is a genuine concern. I've done a lot of work with boys in my period in the ministry — in fact there's a man in the gallery today, I think, who worked with me in a boy's club in St. George's Anglican Church in Vancouver for about two or three years. We advertised that we were open for business, and man, we had 40 to 50 boys in there the next night. They just came flocking in, and we ran this club for two or three years.

The other day I went to Central Baptist Church, and the boys' clubs they've got there are fantastically

[ Page 252 ]

good — tremendous concern for these boys. I've worked with scout troups and cub packs, and similarly I've met some outstanding people with a great concern for boys. Now, that doesn't mean we're not concerned for the girls, because we are. But I want to speak on behalf of the boys just at this moment.

This is a point that should be made. In 1971, for the year ended March 31, the admissions into our penal institutions in British Columbia were as follows, by sex: for males, 6,536; for females 600. I'll repeat those figures: the admissions into our penal institutions in British Columbia for the year ended March 31, 1971, 6,536 males — a great number of them merely boys — and 600 girls.

Now of course the women might stand up and say, "Well, that proves that women are more law-abiding; they're finer people, they're better, more virtuous and so on," and that boys are a bad lot all the way around, and I think a case might be made for that in this House perhaps.

But just the same. it's a concern — it ought to be a concern of this Legislature. I think that boys, when they're in their developing stages, need a great deal more consideration by all agencies — by their family, by the churches, by the communities, and certainly by this Government. Because I think something like $12 million was spent on maintenance of our penal institutions for that same period — the year ending March 31st. Now if 6,000-plus were males, and only 600-odd were females, that means that probably about $9–$10 million of that was spent on males — on maintaining them.

Now I want to press this a little further. There are some people in the country — and these are from different races, native people, non-native alike — who often don't understand the laws very well; they don't know how to avail themselves of legal assistance and legal aid. They get into trouble, they get a little pugnacious and first thing you know they're in jail. And I dare say that a great many of that number that I just quoted to you are people in that category — young men who maybe fought in a beer parlor and wrecked a table or who were caught breaking and entering or did some other crime of violence. The majority of these crimes, by the way, were crimes against property, rather than against persons.

I would say this to the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and to the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi). I hope that they will take cognizance of the fact that many of our social problems begin because we have failed to develop proper programmes for our boys in this province and that the fathers have failed in their responsibilities to bring the boys up properly. The churches, in many instances, have failed to be active and aggressive in going out and bringing the boys in and helping them along.

We've got some wonderful organizations — the Big Brothers organization is one that I didn't mention — but there are many others. But it's a big job, and it needs all of the assistance that can possibly be offered. To me this again is consistent with that spirit that I'm talking about — a spirit of concern, one person for another. I'll be happy when we no longer have to say, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven;" hopefully some day it will be a fact. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you very kindly, Mr. Speaker. It's a real pleasure to be here, getting up for the first time this session. I do find it a real privilege to take advantage of this opportunity.

I guess it has now been about five months or so since the people have spoken in this province. They have given this new government a clear mandate as well as their confidence to move forward in the Province of British Columbia. Certainly there is a tremendous feeling of anticipation and excitement in all walks of life. I personally look forward to working with everybody in this House — all Members on both sides of the House — in doing our job for the people of this province. To serve all the constituencies, including the backbencher from Peace River. (Laughter).

I've been sitting here quite a number of days, and I've noted many people have done a lot of talking. This I find very interesting, but as I sit and listen to the discussions in the House, in spite of all the numerous off-handed comments from some people, I get the distinct impression that everyone here is….

MR. CHABOT: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, Hon. Member. Would you be seated for a moment while we find out what the point of order is. Just be seated for a minute please.

MR. CHABOT: Strangers in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, any particular person you object to? Excuse me, if there are any Hon. Members of this House sitting in the gallery, would they immediately take themselves from the gallery. I don't want the public to be excluded, unless it's the express wish of the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: It's very clear, Mr. Speaker, that there are two Members in the galleries.

MR. SPEAKER: Your point is indeed well taken. It is prohibited to any Member of the House, even

[ Page 253 ]

new Members, to sit in the gallery above. I don't know where they are, but I gather they're leaving. Thank you. Sorry Hon. Member, would you now proceed with your speech.

MR. NUNWEILER: Thank you kindly, Mr. Speaker, that's something else we just learned today.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll all go back to school together.

MR. NUNWEILER: We'll remember that. I think this House…. Obviously, as we look around and look at one another, we do after all represent everybody from every corner of the Province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NUNWEILER: Yes, I guess we do. I understand we're going to get a few more, and I think we'll all work together to get them. We come from all walks of life. I think we form a good cross-section of the people of the province.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed, Hon. Member.

MR. NUNWEILER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should have told you at first I've got a very delightful speech, and maybe I might just get everybody's attention, but probably that's not the case.

My predecessor from Fort George, the Hon. Ray Williston, has given me his best wishes and also he has given you his best wishes in all our efforts to work together to work for new programmes of our Government. Accordingly, since he's a personal friend of mine, although a political opponent, I have given him my best wishes, and I am sure that everyone in this House gives him their best wishes and tributes in his future years to come. I'm sure we can all agree that he has served many years, in many different ways, for the people of B.C.

I have also noted since the election that there are many former staunch Social Credit supporters and former Liberal and Conservative supporters in my constituency and also some of my neighbouring constituencies that now openly come out and express encouragement and offer assistance in helping to work for the new programmes. We're all here in this game together. The closer we can work together, the sooner we can stop talking and get some action done to put in our new programmes that everybody has voted for.

A lot of the northern ridings, including my own, are very heavily resource-oriented. Naturally, the people are heavily dependent on resource planning to provide the stability in the community in which theylive. They have been governed by remote control from an ivory tower, from Victoria, for many, many years. The former Premier, who now happens to be the official Leader of the official Opposition, who has been used to this type of remote control, I note has been phoning his members from South America. I gather that he's running his Members by remote control from South America, and I would like to wish him the best of luck.

The forest policies of our previous Minister and the previous Government have been grossly inadequate and unjust for many people and many communities throughout the northern areas. Forest planning and forest allocation involves much more than just allocation of timber. People's lives are always seriously affected, and their livelihoods are also affected by any resource planning that takes place. It must always work hand in hand with three other things — with energy, with transportation and with people. The people, in turn, make the communities, and they require the amenities that go with those communities. That is schools, hospitals, medical care, and all the rest of those things. Energy of course is hydro and natural gas and fuel. Transportation is highways, roads, railroads and so on.

The four key items then are resources, energy, transportation and people with communities. A combination of all these must go together in providing the stability and service for any community, and then in turn any region, and then in turn the province as a whole. Take for example the community of Hixon, which is 40 miles south of Prince George. This community has had a sawmill operation for many, many years, and the timber licences allocated to this community were built up on this resource, and the community was sustained in that way to what it is today.

However a major company moved in, bought out the complex, took over the operation and then subsequently shut down the major part of it — the planer — and started hauling the wood to another area. The community thus was left stranded with its economy stifled, its homes devaluated, small businesses disrupted and all the rest of the problems that go along with it. This is a clear example to me that when a community's resources are removed, the community itself crumbles.

Now the same happens if an area is deprived of one of the other key things, such as hydro-energy. Let's take a look at the communities of McBride and Valemount. This area is the backbone of the east-central part of the province. Hydro has diesel generation in that area. Its policy is disrupting the communities and the economy that they have. The forest licence naturally requires the sawmills to utilize their waste by installing chippers, in order to conform with full utilization. In order to get a chipper, they must expand their mills, and in order to expand

[ Page 254 ]

their mills, they must have more hydro. But Hydro will not give them more power until they make a deposit in the amount of $350 per kilowatt so that Hydro can buy their new diesel generators.

Now a moderate expansion requires from 500 to 1,000 kilowatts, which means a cash deposit of anywhere from $165,000 to $335,000 nonrefundable dollars. Then to buy that energy they pay 240 per cent of the rates that they do in Prince George or any other conventional community. Before they'll even consider giving them any power, they must conform with this policy.

What they really do need is a hydro grid like other areas throughout the province have to give them the consuming energy to sustain the community that they have — I'll quote Mr. Shrum in a letter to me on November 29. He states: "They have a choice of paying Hydro approximately $330 per kilowatt for additional generation or of installing their own generation. It is really a question of industries restricting their load themselves or paying for additional capacity."

And yet it is noted that the Mica Dam reaches to within 12 miles of Valemount. The people there, they've got the dam at their doorstep — they cannot get any electricity from it. They cannot even turn on the lights, you might say. At the same time hydro is being sold to the U.S. market at bargain prices.

Also in the McBride area the mills must take their timber from the most rugged terrain in the area — that's in addition to the hydro problem — from the most rugged terrain in the area. At the same time the large saw and pulp corporation has timber in the best terrain right in that area and they get subsidized for the long haul to the pulp mill and the sawmill which is in the same location. This subsidy is reflected in the stumpage rate formula which gives concession for the long haul.

So we can see that this area is lacking just one of these four factors in resource planning, and that is hydro. This area, it has the resource, it has the transportation — that is the highways, the railways — it has the people and the community. It only lacks the one, hydro, that is needed for an area to grow those extra couple of inches…. There have been-long established communities that need to grow those couple of inches to get an adequate high school, hospital services, doctors, community care and other community services.

Taking the resource away at the expense of an established community is unthinkable, but this is what has been happening. We also have the dreadful example of Houston, of Ocean Falls — consequences of a forest policy which was not geared to serve the needs of people. It was only geared to serve the needs of dollars for a corporation.

This policy will leave its scars in these areas for a long, long time. There is an urgent need for a complete review of forest policy and allocation of timber to serve the needs of people in the areas involved. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister's role in resource planning is very important to protect the needs of people and communities and the needs of industries in doing his job. I am very happy that we do have a capable Minister to do this job.

Many northern centres also suffer from lack of basic medical and dental services. In many cases, services are only delivered on a temporary basis. We have one area at the moment, Mackenzie, which just has to have three doctors, and it only has one. A programme must be explored to attract doctors into the outlying areas. Air ambulance service to serve remote areas is urgently needed, and I would strongly urge that prompt steps be taken to provide air ambulances as quickly as possible.

There is also an urgent need to improve the system for planning health care, to co-ordinate facilities and programmes — public, private and volunteer within any city or any district or region, in order to avoid costly duplication of facilities and programmes. Such planning arrangement could easily work within the context of all levels of care — that is, from the ambulance to the acute services to the personal rest home, the home care, mental health, boarding home levels, retarded and so on.

We must somehow be able to have all these services work hand in hand and provide a much more efficient health care service. Remoteness to health care often results in many patients in our area waiting beyond the prevention care period and then requiring emergency care. It is very, very unfortunate.

Another problem in our area is unemployment amongst our Indian people. It is very disturbing to observe an Indian person apply for a job. To me it's a very, very sad thing. When you watch many of our Indian people apply for a job, they'll appear at a personnel office or manpower office and so often get the runaround right off the bat. They never come back. Consequently, you seldom see an Indian that is employed in a Government department or in a Crown corporation or any of our heavy industries. To a large extent it's not because they don't want to. It's just that they just don't get the opportunity and the encouragement.

Next question I would like to raise is taxation. The whole question of taxation on property should be thoroughly examined. Taxation on property should be for the purpose of serving the property, not to service people. Revenue for services to people should come from ability to pay. Property tax today is used to help finance schools, hospitals, welfare and other people services. I would therefore call for a thorough review on taxation, particularly on residential and farm properties.

[ Page 255 ]

Municipalities also must have a sound industrial tax base to keep taxes in line for the rest of the community. Our former Government's policy has even contributed to escalate the tax burden on homeowners, with lighter assessments and tax concessions to heavy industry within a municipal boundary. Wouldn't you, as a homeowner, find it much easier if you were to pay taxes on only half of your house when everybody else pays on his whole house — at a mill rate of 10 mills when everybody else's mill rate is 40 to 50 mills?

But this is what has been happening in taxation on corporations in our area and in many other municipalities in the province, working out to approximately 75 per cent municipal tax reduction in one year — the homeowner having picked up the burden as well as the small business people in the form of higher taxes, by the amount of anywhere from 15 to 20 mills, depending on which municipality that you are in. Besides, some big industries are even outside the municipal boundaries while the same municipality supplies the bedrooms for that particular operation. It is no wonder to me why homeowners and small business people try to flee outside municipal jurisdictions with this type of burden to live with.

Land assembly for residential sites in the city of Prince George has been something that will be of a great deal of interest to my Hon. socialist friend from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). There is no situation there where you will find the price of a lot the same as the price of the house itself. The municipal government develops the subdivisions, both residential and industrial, and it is the biggest factor in our area to hold the line on land prices. The land promoters and developers have discovered that they need not bother looking at the Prince George area as a place to prey on for quick-dollar operations to leave behind big mortgage debts on people — mortgage debts financed by our publicly-owned Central Mortgage and Housing. Our city buys its land bank, develops the subdivision and then sells sites at cost. The regional district, the mayor and the city council, the city planner, and the people as a whole are mighty proud of this situation. I note that this is not the case in other parts of British Columbia, and I would say I hope it will never come to our area.

The city council is doing its best to prevent shortage of building sites. Shortage of sites is the prime thing that tends to escalate land prices.

Prince George is also in urgent need of a major industrial site to accommodate secondary industry. We have the resources in the north; we have the transportation, the railways, the communities and the energy. All it takes is to provide industrial sites to accommodate industry. But it needs a joint effort and a co-operative effort by other agencies, such as highways, provincial railway, federal railway, industry itself, and the provincial government.

This is the kind of planning and work that is needed to produce a climate for investment, to provide the amenities for industry, to benefit from our resources and get the revenue to provide for a people the medical, educational, and community services.

Industrial people agree that this is what is needed. They have told me this repeatedly. They have told our other elected people repeatedly. What we don't need is politicians like I heard the other day — a non-elected leader of the Conservative party, who seems to know very little about the north, to go around shooting his face off to city slickers in Toronto and elsewhere and try to sabotage the people of this province in carrying out new programmes with their new Government.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Who was it? Name him.

MR. NUNWEILER: I can tell you of one sharp investor from New York who set up a subsidiary in Vancouver and bought out several substantial, well operated sawmills in British Columbia — and one was a plywood plant, one in my riding — on an agreement of so much down and so much a quarter. Within one year this outfit managed to cream this operation and its timber, made no payments on its agreement for sale to the local owner, had shut down its mill, shipped its logs out of the area — mostly to Japan — siphoned the earnings from the operation through separate holding companies, and walked out within a year with approximately a $1 million take, leaving behind a trail of demolition you would never believe. A massive amount of timber was gone, logging contractors were not paid for their winter's work, and the logs that were left on the site were tagged with a lien by one of the holding companies that nobody apparently could touch.

The forestry stumpage account was left unpaid by $90,000. The interesting point on the forestry account was that the former local owner, when he was operating, was never permitted to owe more than $10,000 on a stumpage account. But this foreign operator apparently got preference, and he ran his bill to $90,000 and walked out without paying it.

Needless to say, the former owner repossessed, and of course he repossessed what he thought was a good operation. It turned out to be a bunch of debts.

There also have been other slick bankruptcy sharks operating in the northern areas, who have left trails of destruction of employment, of unpaid wages and unpaid bills and unpaid taxes. Needless to say, there are social consequences that come out of it, such as welfare and so on.

Mr. Speaker, what we don't need is half-baked politicians advising these kind of half-baked investors on how to skin the people of B.C. The good investors

[ Page 256 ]

know that this Government is dedicated to properly planning amenities for its people and for industry in a joint and co-operative manner — that is to provide the transportation, the railways, the industrial sites, the resource planning, the energy and the communities with people's services that go along with them. This is the security that people in industry want and need.

I also feel that there should be a thorough study made on the high cost of living — not only in our area, but throughout the whole province. If the municipalities of Prince Rupert and Kitimat can do this kind of a study and analysis for themselves, surely we can do an analysis for our whole province.

I'm happy to learn that we are considering a Department of the Environment. This department will have to have very broad guidelines in exercising its responsibility. It should work hand in hand with industrial planning to avoid conflicts. For example, industrial planning in the Fraser River watershed should be compatible with protection of the life of the Fraser River. This watershed encompasses the major portion, the heart of British Columbia. And if one municipality or any one industry provides the excellent treatment of its effluent — at a very large expense — and others don't, the non-polluter's efforts are a wasted and expensive effort.

As an example, there are several cities and municipalities in the Fraser River watershed providing secondary sewage treatment. There are two or three of them — I think there's Quesnel, there's Williams Lake, there's Prince George and maybe one or two others — but the largest depositors — which is the lower mainland — are discharging only primary treatment, and many not even that.

Mr. Speaker, are we upstream wasting our efforts in providing secondary treatment, or is the lower mainland going to follow suit and help us preserve the life of the Fraser River?

May I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Morrow Commission Report inquiry into gasoline prices be exhumed and steps taken by government to control the retail price of gasoline in the Province of British Columbia — particularly now in view of recent events with the increase in wholesale prices and the indication that our friendly neighbours to the south are buying all the crude oil and petroleum products that we can produce.

It seems to me that the supply of gasoline, of diesel fuel and motor oil for motor vehicles by oil companies — companies who usually control both wholesale and retail outlets — should be a public utility, like a pipeline, like a railroad, like a power company, a telephone company, a municipality's water system, and so on.

Another item, Mr. Speaker, is Workmen's Compensation Board. I am very pleased to hear that the Hon Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is going to take some steps to deal with the great number of workmen's compensation cases that are outstanding today by setting up a review board. I must have dozens and dozens of requests — just about every compensation case that was pigeonholed for the last five or 10 years in my riding and neighbouring ridings, having come to me by mail. And I certainly welcome the action that the Hon. Minister of Labour is proposing to do.

Another point, Mr. Speaker, is the financing of rapid transit systems. We hear a great deal said about rapid transit systems, but we haven't really heard anything in other than the lower mainland. It seems to me that if the lower mainland gets subsidy for rapid transit — which I would welcome — then also the rest of our communities, cities and other areas, should be planning today for rapid transit in the future. And perhaps there could be some consideration given to provide financing for this service as well.

Mr. Speaker, with the many problems that we have in our areas with the resource planning and the social problems and the environmental and wildlife planning problems and the need for providing services to people, there must be a better and more compatible way to co-ordinate the planning and the needs of two-thirds of British Columbia.

That, Mr. Speaker, is something that should require a thorough examination in order to give the people in the areas an opportunity to enjoy the amenities and the comforts that we do witness here in the lower mainland and in the Vancouver Island area. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to pose a question to the Member who has just taken his seat. Would he name the company that was involved in the forest industry difficulties in the Interior?

MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid he has already resumed his seat. Perhaps you can obtain it later.

MR. NUNWEILER: My investigation is continuing, and the name will be available in due course.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, you must preserve order. Once a Member has taken his seat he cannot rise again in the debate.

Mr. Nimsick moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions.

Presenting petitions.

[ Page 257 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: It's a petition from the Vancouver Stock Exchange, praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act.

I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the Vancouver Stock Exchange received.

Motion approved.

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

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. CUMMINGS: It's a petition from the City of Vancouver, praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

I move that the rules be suspended and the petition of the City of Vancouver received.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege or order, as you wish, may I draw to the attention of the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) that in Bill No. 16, page 42 appears to be missing, and there's some six sections….

MR. SPEAKER: You mean they're missing from the book?

MR. WILLIAMS: From mine, anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. Well, we'll have an explanation tomorrow, I suppose, from the Hon. Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Hall files the 54th Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission, January 1 to December 31, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the Annual Report of the British Columbia Racing Commission for 1972.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.