[ Page 589 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act (Bill No. 33) Hon. Mr. Levi. Introduction and first reading — 589

A Stimulation of Employment Act (Bill No. 94) Mr. Curtis. Introduction and first reading — 589

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Hall — 590

Mr. Chabot — 594

Ms. Brown — 600

Mr. Nunweiler — 606

Mr. Gorst — 614

Motions No. 19 (Hon. Mr. Hall) Recording of debates — 619

Mr. Smith — 620

Mr. McGeer — 620

Mr. Curtis — 620

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 620

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 620

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 621

Mr. Williams — 621

No. 20 (Hon. Mr. Stupich) Study of food cooperatives — 622

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, it is an annual event for the Women's Study Group from North Vancouver to come to the assembly and to witness the proceedings here. I would like, on behalf of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), to have the Members welcome this group of ladies here today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome students today from the Gulf Islands, comprising the Capital Regional District, students from Gulf Islands Secondary, grades 11 and 12.

The school is in Ganges but the House will realize that a number of students travel from other islands to attend this secondary school in Ganges. They are accompanied by teachers, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Curmi. Also in the group, Mr. Speaker, is a student from Hastings, New Zealand, who is attending the school as an exchange student.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today three important representatives from the City of Kimberley: Mayor Ogilvie, Alderman Banks and Alderman Reid, I hope the House will welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery or shortly to come into the gallery are a number of students of Point Grey Secondary School in Vancouver. I'd like all of the Members to join with me in a hearty welcome to them.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Government House, February 16, 1973.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 33; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister would indicate whether this deals with Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it doesn't.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 33 introduced, 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.

A STIMULATION OF EMPLOYMENT ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 94 intituled A Stimulation of Employment Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 94 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.

[ Page 590 ]

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Surrey.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The budget debate, now in its closing stages, has been interesting so far at least in that over the last week-and-a-half two facts, I think, have become self-evident.

The first is that the budget, in its size, in its apportionment of dollars and the programmes it represents, has made it somewhat difficult for the Opposition to attack it as a budget. So they don't talk about it. They talk about, in fact, what they would like to see in a budget, which I suppose is the honoured role of an Opposition. They talk about what's not in it.

It's interesting to note that as you go through the list — and now we have the benefit of these printouts each day — we can check more closely than hitherto to see what they're saying about it. I want to pay full credit to the two official spokesmen of the two larger Opposition parties who dealt entirely with the budget: the Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) and the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

The Member for Oak Bay, (Mr. Wallace) however, had two qualities to his speech. It was a little bit like the parson's egg. I'm not sure which part he wrote and which part he didn't write, but I'll leave it to the House to judge which one was which.

Certainly the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) again excelled himself in his contribution by extolling the virtues of the budget as far as expenditure was concerned. He praised us. He said the new expenditure proposals were exciting, stimulating and — I don't want to put too many words in that Member's mouth. He appears to have a somewhat unlimited supply of them himself. (Laughter).

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, thank you.

HON. MR. HALL: But, however, when he came to revenue, he was very disappointed, I'm not entirely certain from where one should get the money for new programmes if you don't readjust some of your revenue proposals and make it more fair and equitable for everybody to take a piece of the action, to feel the bite of it. He also conveniently forgot five increased tax bills two years ago that his own group brought in and I remember the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Minister of Highways, having a bit of a field day that day. Maybe that was one of the speeches that you should have turned up but you didn't and so you will have to wait for the estimates, I suppose, to do that research.

The other Members have thrashed around — and that's fair enough — telling us they would like to see a bit more money here and a bit more money there. The interesting thing was really on budget day itself when we noticed the House Leader of the Opposition saying that it was a Social Credit budget. And how are you going to vote on this one? You voted for 20 of them I think, over the last few years. That should be interesting. The member in the gallery, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, called it a social workers budget — I think he might have a few letters about that from the various groups in the community. The leader of the Liberal Party called it a good budget — so we will be watching that vote again with interest.

The second point that I wish to raise, and this is not quite so light-hearted. In the course of the last 10 days, I feel that we should be really addressing ourselves to one feature and that is the growing need for more responsibility in the criticisms of the budget — I don't mind criticisms at all. Frankly the prophets of gloom on the other side aren't doing anybody any favours. I think it has been rather irresponsible of some Members of the Opposition to be a prophet of despair and I suggest you have a couple of days left to repent — to make up your minds.

I am reminded that the Progressive Conservative Party has a leader that is counseling that kind of gloom, that kind of despair — telling people not to come here. The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — the same kind of activity and I think that really shows a need for responsibility in Opposition. The kind of responsibility, I will say quite proudly, that used to be over there in the years that the Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) were leading affairs over there.

Mr. Speaker, the budget is a plan — the dictionary definition would indicate this is so — is a plan, a schedule of adjusting expenses during a certain period to the estimated or fixed income for that period. The budget is to "provide" — another meaning of the word. This motion, Mr. Speaker, that you leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply was moved by the Minister of Finance who then presented us with the details of the financial plan that this socialist government has designed to realign the priorities inherited from the old government to those that we wish to see operating in the future.

I think that that should be noted by all Members of the House. Because it's even more important, Mr. Speaker, than the simple arithmetical facts of the budget, the cold analysis so lengthily undertaken by the financial critic of the Liberal Party, even more important than that is the simple understanding of the real purpose, the real thrust that represents the desire and the will of the Government.

[ Page 591 ]

This debate has gone on and cabinet Ministers have stood up, and I particularly refer to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who eloquently spoke of that thrust and that desire in their contributions to date. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) will be doing so again tomorrow.

I think we should observe in the budget how some of these plans can be noted by anybody looking at the document. The first document was placed on everybody's desk and it was the 26 point, 1973 budget speech excerpt list. Mr. Speaker, that list of proposals, of expenditures, would be sufficient reason alone for us to applaud and to vote for this budget. The fact that there is no increase in general provincial tax rates for people of this province and yet we have seen a record — a "block busting budget" was one headline of one newspaper. We don't normally expect to get the kind of headlines on all budgets that perhaps Ottawa does or previous administrations have done.

The basic annual homeowner grant has been raised. That has put something to rest. Surely to goodness that has been around these chambers for long enough. It is the same increase to homeowners over 65. Municipal per capita grants made unconditional.

How many of us remember the speeches that used to go about the ridiculous analysis that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the then Member for Comox used to go through when he used to sit over here. How every year he used to say the municipalities were misspending their money. None of that this time. How the figures were always forced; how by some peculiar state of affairs the municipalities reported that they always spent the dollar in the right place at the right time. And you and I know how ridiculous that kind of stricture was, and how we voted against those strings.

The provision of nearly $65 million to keep up the Mincome programme. The operating grant structure. The increased expenditures for the educational system. The medicare payments and the funds that have been set up. The provincial home acquisition fund to be continued even though we are going into whether or not it should be made applicable to more people. Even though we want to know exactly what the full impact of those large amounts of money have been on the mortgage market. Then a list of the tax adjustments that are being made in terms of utilized capital, petroleum royalties, a reduction of tax on liquefied petroleum and gas — and the other remaining items of the 26.

The revenue side of the picture, Mr. Speaker, an increase of over a quarter of a billion dollars in this year. All without a single penny increase in general provincial taxation. All still keeping the time honoured boast of the previous administration — with the lowest personal income taxes, the same corporation income taxes, other industrial promises, the lowest gas tax, the lowest diesel tax and next to the lowest motor vehicle licence fee. How can you vote against that?

I think we should see what others have said about the budget. My own area, Surrey, is served by one of the large daily newspapers in the province, The Columbian. See what the headline is in that — "The budget basically sound, a little for everyone." What's fairer than that? "As a demonstration of fiscal responsibility, Finance Minister David Barrett's first full scale budget is a masterpiece."

Mr. Speaker, the pages of the newspapers have been full of conjecture. The industry spokesmen say they are split. Well that's not unusual. Part of the trouble is they don't believe what they really have heard with their own ears over the last four or five months. So I suppose if you are schizophrenic in your listening you would be schizophrenic in your observation about what is going on.

But let's look at the other facts that have been outlined in the speech. Over 1,000 jobs, if you add up those figures. Not all of them, jobs that were promised in the throne speech by any stretch of the imagination. The 1,000 promised in the throne speech refer entirely to new programmes — but three times the increase that we saw in the last budget speech, if you care to do your homework. Three times the increase in personnel relative to the starting point that we saw in the last budget speech. Look at the four or five items that I would like to go into with you in my own department, that of Provincial Secretary.

We in the Provincial Secretary's department have a budget, it's not one of the big spenders of the Government, if I may jokingly refer to my good colleagues in health and education and rehabilitation. But it does have some programmes which eventually will grow as indeed is the time honoured history of this portfolio, and will likely grow into full scale portfolios as we have seen over the passage of time.

Not only must we be concerned with the health and security of our people, we have to increase some of the other things, the cultural side of things — with the arts and recreation, and so on. One item alone, library development commission, which is under my jurisdiction, is now moving into a province-wide organization of public library services. Haven't heard a word about that?

This includes a provincial resource centre upon which all libraries will be able to draw — and a communications network to enable them to do so. The increase in grants for libraries in the province from $750,000 to $900,000 will enable the commission to finance the next phase of its plan, Mr. Speaker, that particular vote has been starved

[ Page 592 ]

in previous years. The personnel has been increased dramatically. And we will be able to provide a public library service fully funded by the province for those residents who do not have a local tax supported library service. I think that, Mr. Speaker, in one small way is the beginning of something that shows the thrust and desire behind these cold facts. I think it was, to paraphrase the Member for Victoria or the Member for Chilliwack, that's no "big deal" either. But then putting people to work in this way as guiders, as leaders, as beginners may not be a big deal in your language. But it's a big deal in our language when you know where those programmes lead to.

The need to supply adequate and comfortable housing for all our senior citizens is recognized by the Government, And we shall continue to provide financial aid towards the capital cost of construction throughout the province. In the coming year a record $4.5 million dollars is allocated for use in this area — senior citizens housing projects in every part of the province. Utilizing the local effort by local people to do something for the senior citizens of this province and we match it on the formula basis.

In the area of special care — $2 million dollars allotted to the Provincial Government's cost sharing programme for special care homes. Grants in the amount of 35 per cent of the total construction are being made as each application comes through.

Mr. Speaker, there again, while not in the 69 per cent of the budget field, that's the kind of thing this Government is committed to and again shows the fact this is an action budget as well as a people's budget.

Let's take our own temporary home in Victoria where all of us have to spend these days as we go through these legislative sessions. "The Bengal Room is a good place to start," says the Member for Point Grey — the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

Starting on that conducted tour, we will eventually find the capital city and of course the Capital District Improvement Commission. And we all know that this city, the seat of Government — the capital city — should be occupying a special place in our affairs and in out hearts, Victoria, as the capital comes within this general description I'm sure. And the Government gives expression to this concept through the work of the C.I.D.C. Again, we've improved that particular situation.

I should, I think, at this time pay tribute to the local elected members who sit on that commission and the staff people who sit on the commission. And to say that while we may have some arguments in the House, the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) and I at least come to a meeting of the minds on that particular district commission. In the course of its existence it's done a lot. New ideas are coming forward all the time. I think that that again shows the kind of sensitivity, the kind of responsiveness of this Government to get on with that kind of job with even more vigor than that we've seen before.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Library is under your control while we are in session, and when we depart it floats back under my door as it were, as the Provincial Secretary. Those of us who have been working here for six to seven years know that the Provincial Library has not been the kind of library that we really wanted it to be. Those of us who've been working here for 20 years are convinced that it's not the library it should be.

For some time this function has been under review with the view to expanding not only its physical facilities, but up-dating the quality of services offered to the Members of the House, the departments of government, and the general public. I think it's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, the current estimates reflect the implementation of those new objectives and those new thrusts of government.

Not only the expenditures in terms of the ability to go and buy something; to get some books and to expand our facilities, but to put some staff in there that can catch up with the work that's been left undone, year after year after year. And I should say, Mr. Speaker, ditto, for the Provincial Archives.

It's one of the finest institutions of its kind in Canada, not only in terms of the richness of its resources, of the material in print relevant to B.C., of the manuscripts, the paintings, the photographs. But in terms of the service, it's falling behind on the job again. And first class people doing first class pieces of work — asking for copies, for information - requests are stacked up on the desks this high because we haven't provided people to do the job.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend you to examine that particular vote and to see that that kind of work is continued and improved.

Mr. Speaker, the same with the last but one item I want to deal with in my own department — which is the Superannuation Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the Superannuation Commission has in its charge, millions and millions of dollars worth of securities. It's charged with the operation of the pension funds. And again, we find that in that department the work load has substantially without any corresponding increase in appropriation. The obvious result of this inattention has been a deterioration of the services provided to pensioners and contributors to the various funds — which, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion those contributors have had every right to expect.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that we've had four months of intensive work in that department — the results of which I'm hoping to be able to introduce and table before the House in a not too distant future. But the degree of cooperation that all Members have had — and I'm sure I'm speaking for most Members, if not all Members, they have cer-

[ Page 593 ]

tainly expressed this desire to me. The appreciation of us all goes to that particular department in the full and frank and forthright way that department is handling enquiries for MLA's and other people.

Mr. Speaker, the last subject in my department is that of the civil service. The province, I think is fortunate to have in its employ 30,000-odd people that are a credit to us. Like any group of 30,000-odd people there will be excellence, and there will be less than excellence.

One way in which we can improve the civil service is to make sure that it keeps abreast of rapidly changing conditions and technology. One thing we can be sure we can expect from a growing civil service is to allow it to employ trained people and to engage in forthright discussions with other jurisdictions and with the ranks of organized labour. All of these things have happened in the last four months.

Civil Service Commissioner — and here may I add in a light-hearted way that due to some incredible argument between the chairman of the Civil Service Commission and the Queen's Printer, $8 appears to have been taken off Art Richardson's salary. I think there's going to be a lot of argument later on but Ken MacDonald assures me that the $8 can be penciled back into your estimates.

I'm not too sure, Mr. Speaker, whether we're going to need a very formal resolution of the House, but certainly there is no intention at this time of reducing the chairman of the Civil Service Commission's wages by $8. I nearly said it was a typographical error. But if I say that, I know I have the typographical union on my neck in the morning. If I say it's a clerical error, I'll have the B.C.G.E.U. on my neck in the morning. I think, because I outweigh Ken MacDonald — I'll call it his fault and please pencil the $8 in.

Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commission will be asked of course to be instrumental in, and part of the collective bargaining process that this Government is committed to. The study which we got from the five commissioners at Christmas time is being actively pursued by the department. If it is at all possible, legislation will be introduced this session.

A number of proposals have come in since the report was tabled. I feel it only fair and proper that now the report has had full investigation — we've had orders for this report from all over the world — that we allow the affected people to have a response to that report. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government's intentions are to introduce collective bargaining for the civil service as soon as we can.

We intend to keep the civil service in first place and to encourage our employees to up-date their skills and to keep abreast of changes. And to that end, Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commissioner and his assistants have been encouraged — not denied — encouraged to communicate with other jurisdictions and to go and visit other jurisdictions — to go and see other parts of the world to find out how they can best be helpful in this continuing period of change as we give our employees that to which every person has a right.

But look at the other facts that are outlined in the speech. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out, for instance, the kind of change in atmosphere that is so obvious if one looks at the Department of Labour, a subject that you all know I've spoken about many, many times in this House. The simple increase in industrial relations officers — I think in that particular vote it was from 91 to 105 employees — shows the kind of desire that that Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has to get on with this job, to show that we are determined to build a new climate. We're determined to put a new emphasis and a new direction in the labour matters of this province.

Mr. Speaker, that's no big dollar deal either. The wages of 20-odd people are no big dollar deal. But when you consider the abject performance over 15 months of the previous Minister (Mr. Chabot), you've all got to bang your desks in applause of that. He brought a bill in here he couldn't even explain and took it away a week after to try and reshuffle it.

Twenty-three recruits in that department, Mr. Speaker, in apprenticeship in industrial training. If there's one thing that we all know, it's the problems that are bedeviling the young people in the work force today. Our unemployed figures have a higher percentage of young people than ever before. People remain unemployed longer than ever before. Mr. Speaker, any assistance we can give — and that's one way, recruiting people to the apprenticeship in industrial training branch — shows that there's a desire there for a new deal and a new day. And so it is, Mr. Speaker, with department after department.

The Ministers, as we go through estimates, will be outlining in even greater detail those budgetary and personnel changes that are represented in those cold figures.

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the words again of the editorial of the newspaper in my home community. The final paragraph in that editorial in the Columbian of Saturday, February 10, says: "And despite the absence of the pizzazz we've become accustomed to over the past 20 years, we believe Mr. Barrett's budget to be basically sound.

"Still, and he said as much on Friday, there's more to come before the year is through. We should, perhaps, see the Premier's first attempt as the first of several steps in the right direction" — that's what I said when I wound up the throne speech debate the other Thursday — "rather than as one giant leap forward. Perhaps, after all, that's the way it should be."

That's why this budget should be supported by both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker. Because to vote against it is to vote against the future and to vote for it is to vote for the various proposals that we've

[ Page 594 ]

outlined — for education, for health care, for more money for housing, for more money for the senior citizens, for the building programmes that are contained in the various pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we've been taking advantage of the weekends and the evenings in a way which would recommend itself to the Opposition — going out to find out what the people in the community are saying. Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: everybody I've spoken to says that they are optimistic, says that they can detect in this budget a realistic approach to this, the first stage in our term of office. People you talk to tell you that they like the sound of the way we're doing things. People you speak to tell you that they are confident with the announcements that are coming from the Treasury benches and that we are, indeed, on track and on line with the various proposals that we're making.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there's just two days left for the people on the other side of the House to really get down to their homework and look at this budget intelligently and to realize that to vote against it is not to face the future, but is to just hang on to the past. That's a posture that is getting awfully tedious, looking at you from this side of the House. Thank you very much.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again a pleasure for me to take my place in this historic debate to speak on what is essentially the first socialist budget to ever be presented in the Province of British Columbia.

We have just listened to the Provincial Secretary make his remarks relative to the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the travel industry as well.

MR. CHABOT: Well, he has spoken on it. I'll be fair. He has spoken on travel industry. He said a few words.

But I thought for a moment that he was making a pitch for the position of the Minister of Labour. Everyone knows in this assembly, I'm sure, that he was the choice of the B.C. Federation of Labour. The B.C. Federation of Labour apparently are having some form of battle at this time with the present Minister (Hon. Mr. King). I think he was hoping to catch the attention of the Premier by making the suggestions he made this afternoon.

I do want to say that it has been refreshing for me, who has been in this House for a few years — not very long, when one looks back …

AN HON. MEMBER: Too long. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: It's been refreshing listening to new ideas coming from the backbench. It's given us an opportunity to have new input, new ideas — not that I necessarily agree.

Yes, for the first time, Mr. Minister, because the speeches from those former Opposition Members who are now Ministers were stale indeed, very stale. Year after year we kept hearing the same old song. So it's been refreshing. I'm going to congratulate the backbench for their new ideas that they've brought forward into this assembly.

I'm not going to say that I agree with what they said, but nevertheless it's refreshing. They do from time to time make a minor point which I might be able to agree with. But I've detected something else from that backbench.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that? What's that?

MR. CHABOT: I've detected something else. There is a very apparent restraint in what they're saying. It's quite obvious. You can see it in their speeches. There's restraint. They're on their best behavior, Mr. Speaker, because they recognize that there is a rainbow over the horizon and at the end of the rainbow there are three or four little pots of gold. (Laughter). They're most anxious to pick up those pots of gold.

Three or four of you are going to be able to get those pots of gold but not all of you. Some are going to be disappointed. I hope you'll show your restraint on the question of disappointment. At least you'll show your true expression of opinions on matters of public importance in the future, after we've gone through this business of allowing three or four more to go into the cabinet.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): He went over the rainbow. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Now, the former leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer), who has been thoroughly discredited by the Liberal organization in this province…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh! (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: They've sent a man from Ottawa to replace him because they knew that the Liberal party was going to end up with exactly zero Members in this House. That's why they've brought on from high. Where is he? Where is he? Where is your illustrious leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's yours? (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: He's with yours. (Laughter). They've lost faith in that leader there. Now he's a

[ Page 595 ]

quiet backbencher presenting the same old usual shadow budget speech that he's presented over the years. That's the only place he'll ever present a budget speech from — that little five enclave over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a vicious attack.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had this to say about the Members speaking in this House. He said:

"I'd like to talk briefly about the budget. Perhaps not too briefly — I understand the Whip's having trouble getting Members of the official Opposition to speak. So he has asked me to speak for some time to sort of fill things in here. I don't know why they don't speak, Mr. Speaker. The only thing I can assume is that they don't have any time or that they don't have anything to say."

I want to say that's the worst speech I've ever heard delivered by that particular Member. It was strictly filler material. That's all he had in that particular speech, I'll tell you. It didn't deal with the anxieties of the Department of Agriculture, I assure you. It was strictly filler material, It's quite obvious to me that he hasn't been speaking to his Whip as well, because we've never, never denied the Whip a speaker on request and in fact we've always had our speakers available to him far in advance. Every individual Member of the official Opposition has taken his place in this assembly during the throne debate and during the budget debate, as far as it has gone, and we all intend to speak. We'll be heard.

But what do we hear from the treasury benches and from the cabinet over here? What have we heard from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)? Absolutely nothing. He hasn't spoken in the throne debate, and he hasn't expressed his opinion in the budget debate.

What about that silent Minister who is not in his seat at this time? We haven't heard from the Minister of Lands (Hon. Mr. Williams). We haven't heard from the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams). We haven't heard from the Minister of Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). We haven't heard from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams). We haven't heard from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley).

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) hasn't spoken in this debate. Unfortunately I lost my programme because I had others listed. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has not spoken in this budget debate.

Then they say they're having difficulty finding speakers! No, Mr. Whip, if you're having problems finding speakers, look over there, Look over there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think you're straying quite a way from the budget debate. You could go through 54 Members on that line and ask what they were doing but it doesn't deal with the budget.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, are you insinuating the Speaker can speak now? He's always speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to speak tight now. Would you get on with the debate?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He's closer to the point than usual, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm getting to the budget. This session will long be remembered in British Columbia as the "take over and squeeze out budget" of the socialist government.

It will also be remembered as a budget that's brought about punitive taxation against industry and the small businessman in this province.

No, the people of this province will never forget this budget. Those people that are looking for jobs will never forget this budget as well.

I never forget that the now Premier, when he was in Opposition not too long ago, said that it was a simplistic formula that was used by the former government relative to financing in British Columbia. "All you have to do," he says, "is underestimate your revenue and overestimate your expenditures. It's a very simple way of financing."

I want to assure you that he has adopted the underestimation of revenue and overestimation of expenditures to a far greater degree than it was ever done by the former government.

I want to say that this little group here will not sit idly by while that large 38 Member steamroller Government tries to destroy private enterprise in British Columbia, We will fight at every turn in the road against that steamroller government that is trying to squeeze out and penalize all industry in this province. We won't sit idly by.

This budget that we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a budget of slogans. It talks about the "new era." It talks about the "just and open era." Where have I heard that before? I've heard that from the national government. The just and open society — they've just changed one word. What has happened to that government? That will be the fate of this government as well. They talk about just and open era. I'll talk about that a little later.

"New deal for people." Where is the new deal for the municipalities, when you've cut back on their

[ Page 596 ]

allowances? The amount of the percentage of the budget has been cut back. Where is the new deal for municipalities that was outlined by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) just yesterday afternoon?

You talk about open government. The silent Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), who has left his chair again, released answers to questions on a question asked on the order paper by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). 1) "Did the provincial government purchase the property in Victoria at 606 Douglas Street?" — that was the question, a very simple, straightforward question. 2) "If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what was the purchase price?" Very simple.

Then he held a big Press conference to announce the purchase of this particular property on December 15. Yet 60 days after that Press conference, it's not possible for Members of this assembly to get an answer on that question.

Perhaps he didn't reveal the price to the Press at that time, but he did say that it was slightly under $1 million, and that they were in the hotel business. Yet 60 days later, we ask on the order paper, "Has the hotel been purchased, and if so, for how much?" The answer comes back, and the answer is," 1) yes, it has been purchased; 2) price not available at this time, due to continuing property negotiations."

How can you purchase the thing in the first instance and say, "Yes, it has been purchased," and say, "There is no price "? There has to be a price. I don't understand that kind of an answer.

Where is that philosophy of open government? Why are you denying the Members of this assembly the right to know 60 days after you made a formal announcement through a press conference that you'd purchased the hotel? It's impossible for Members of this assembly to secure the price. That's a poor example of your philosophy of open government, I want to assure you.

Now, I talked last time on the question of land banks and the obsession which the Government has to purchase land, almost at any price. So I want to say that there's a possibility, I have to suspect that there is a possibility, that that Government might want to establish a Ministry of Housing. I don't know whether this is the direction in which they want to go. If it is, I want to give them some advice as to who they should not put in charge of this particular Ministry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Block Brothers.

MR. CHABOT: One is the Minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources, Recreation, Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) and Condominiums. Don't make that silent Member the Minister, because he is the man who knew all along where the gravy train was.

He is the man who has stood in this House and said that the forest industry are a bunch of robber barons and that they're ripping off the people of this province, those robber barons. We give away our resources at one cent an acre on tree farm licenses. No, he knows where the gravy train is.

He said this, "If there is one area justified to tax" — and he was saying this in 1972, in this Legislature he was saying this — "it is right where the gravy train is, in the increased value in property." That's where he figures the gravy train is.

Then he went on in his accusation on the floor of this House. He said, "Fine, fine, go to it boys, feed in the growth communities. Make a fast buck in housing." Little did we know that when he was saying this, he was out peddling his $77,000 …

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on a point of order, personal attacks on the personal business of Members of the assembly are unparliamentary and I refer you to May, if you doubt my statement.

What a Member does outside of the assembly is generally his own business. He is here representing his constituency and if he's employed as a Government Member in this assembly, you can attack his Ministry and the way he operates his Ministry. But personal attacks are not acceptable in this chamber.

MR. CHABOT: It's not a personal attack. I've listened to that little Opposition over here, that little Government over there, and that big backbench over there, use the same type of speeches that I'm using now. Absolutely. He says, "Fine, fine, go to it boys." No, this Member had property, certainly, and he peddled his property….

MR. SPEAKER: That is his own business, Hon. Member, just as your property is your business, but to discuss it in this chamber is not the reason you were sent here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: You want the ruling? I'll give you the full ruling on it from May.

MR. CHABOT: Now don't start arguing with me.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you accept my ruling? I'm not arguing with you. I'm asking you, will you accept my ruling?

MR. CHABOT: No, we know where the robber barons are, Mr. Speaker. We know where they are. Yes, we do. He's still peddling property.

I'll tell you another Member of that Government over there that shouldn't be made Minister of Housing; and that's the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), because he's a real estate promoter.

[ Page 597 ]

That's what he is, Mr. Speaker, a real estate promoter. I listened in this assembly to that Minister on February 2 make this statement:

"… and one of the most serious wastes in our community has been the way in which we have wasted farmland. It is not the first time the Members opposite have heard of this waste. The Government is extremely concerned about this problem of preserving farmland and about the farmer's right to enjoy living on that farmland. The fact that the Premier has been sitting here all evening I think is good evidence of that.

"When I wrote this document a year ago…

He was delivering this on February 2, 1973.

"… I recalled my remarks of 1964. I started out by saying that waste of renewable resource, such as trees, is serious. Even more serious, however, is waste of non-renewable resource.  And when you plant houses and industry on farmland, you have wasted a non-renewable resource."

This is his statement of 1964. In 1964 he said that "it's tragic to put houses on farmland." Yet we find that he has put houses on farmland in the Nanaimo area — just on the outskirts of Nanaimo. He's a promoter of a real estate firm talking this way in this assembly that he's concerned about farmland. He is involved in the development of the Spencer Heights subdivision just on the outskirts of Nanaimo.

He's issued a prospectus of A & B Homes Ltd., phase 2, which indicates who the officers and directors of Spencer Heights subdivision are. There's a president and director, a director, secretary and a treasurer. It's all done under the Real Estate Act, under sections 51 and 52. Section 52 says:

"Every prospectus to which section 51 relates shall be a statement in writing dated and signed by every person who is, at the time of the filing of the prospectus, a promoter or a director of a corporate promoter of the subdivided lands referred to therein, and the prospectus shall contain a full truth and plain disclosure relating to the real estate proposed to be sold or leased, including the particulars set forth in Schedule 1."

So he's not listed on the prospectus as a director. I have to assume that he and his business partner are the promoters of this particular real estate subdivision.

This is on the outskirts of Nanaimo. No doubt the reason why the subdivision didn't take place inside the City of Nanaimo was because they might have to adhere to some municipal bylaws that would have made it necessary for the subdivision to provide greater services than were necessary in this particular subdivision, It's approximately one-half mile west of Nanaimo city boundary in the Northfield Fire Protection District, County of Nanaimo.

There are people on that subdivision. It's a subdivision of 33 homes. It's a $1 million promotion.

There are people that are complaining about the improper drainage, and they're complaining also of the fact that they have no recourse because of the wording of the prospectus.

The prospectus says that the land is not subject to flooding and no arrangements for any drainage have been made except for ditches along side roads, as required by the regulated areas. They are complaining this very day that they have no recourse for the devastation that has taken place on their land.

This was initially farmland, small holdings, 5 to 7-acre farmlands put together to make a subdivision — Spencer Heights subdivision. This isn't the only….

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Farmland?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, farmland, on which he said in 1964 he has been concerned about the resource and the subdivision of farmland.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, agricultural land. There are other subdivisions he's been involved in as well, farmland subdivisions, which he's turned into real estate promotions as well. But I'm not going to speak about all those promotions today.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Have you cleared it with the Speaker yet?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you sit down while we deal with the question of privilege. The Hon. Member wants to know if he could interrupt you on a question of privilege and I said that he could.

HON. MR. STUPICH: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I've been named as a person involved in a subdivision in Nanaimo. I have absolutely no personal interest in the company that was doing that subdivision. My name appeared as a signing officer of the corporation only. I own no shares in it, and I never did at any time. As an auditor of the company, from the point of view of convenience I am, and still am, a signing officer of that corporation.

MR. CHABOT: I don't think that as a signing officer of the corporation, A & B Homes, that you should lend your name to a promotion of farmland that's been turned into a subdivision. Under the Real Estate Act section 52, as I read before and I'll read again, it says: "Every prospectus to which Section 51 relates shall be a statement in writing dated and

[ Page 598 ]

signed by every person who is, at the time of the filing of the prospectus, a promoter or a director of a corporate promoter of the subdivided lands."

So you're either a promoter or a corporate promoter of farmland. I'm shocked to hear the Minister of Agriculture lend his support — I don't know whether it's financial support or community standing or what it is — for the devastation of farmland; and then to come in this House on February 2 and say that he's extremely concerned about the preservation of farmland, when he was a party to the desecration of farmland in the Nanaimo area. It's most shocking.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a smear.

MR. CHABOT: It's not a smear. It's the facts.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point — yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The land in question to the best of my knowledge — and I was born in the community 51 years ago — has never been farmed.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: That's not a point of privilege. These were small and …

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on a point of order. When you bring the personal affairs of a Member onto the floor of the House it is a matter of privilege. He has the right at that time to contradict you.

If you're going to discuss the private affairs of the Members …

MR. CHABOT: I accept, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: But I'll say this — that farmland and the old Pova farm as well — which I didn't mention a little earlier — is land that would be frozen under this farm freeze.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. CHABOT: Absolutely — five to seven-acre blocks of land that were lumped together for subdivision purposes.

HON.

MR. STUPICH: That was classified for tax purposes as farmland, and that land wasn't.

[ Page 599 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: Oh., There's a difference now. These are small farm holdings. Some of these are VLA land holdings too and sold as farmland.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier over there, who's shaking his head and smiling about the thing and thinking it's not serious…I want to say about the Ministry of Housing, if he's considering one, that there are two Members that I have suggested that shouldn't take over those portfolios.

On the question of land bank and the accumulation of land — and the obsession which the Government has to buy land at almost any cost; in fact, at $82,000 an acre…I think that it's necessary sometimes on certain issues, unless you're politically opposed to the ideas that are put forward, such as the land bank, to bring about constructive, alternative proposals. That's what I hope to do this afternoon on the question of land banks.

I know the prime objective really of the Government in accumulating the land at almost any cost is to ensure that low-cost housing will be available to people of lesser means. I'm not opposed to that philosophy. But I am opposed to the approach which the Government is taking on this most important matter.

I would suggest that the Government take that $10 million that's been allocated in the budget and invest it in B.C. Railway, B.C. Hydro, or schools and hospitals. I'm sure they could invest it at a return of about 7 per cent, which would bring about $700,000 interest per year that they could help needy families with.

If they were to use the interest alone from the $ 10 million they could subsidize rents of $100 per month for 583 families in British Columbia. Let's say that rents are an average of $175 to $200 per month. You could effectively reduce the rents for those people of low income down to a range of $75 to $100 per month.

Also it is going to take capital and I am sure the Government has ideas on capital allotment for the construction of these low-cost housing complexes.

I would suggest that they take that allocation — I have heard the figure of $50 million so let us suppose that it is $40 million — and put that in a perpetual fund as well. Fifty million dollars in a perpetual fund at 7 per cent would bring you $3.5 million a year. You could effectively subsidize rents to the extent of $100 per month for 2,915 needy families in British Columbia.

If you wanted the programme to be more flexible, because certainly there must be people who wouldn't qualify for the full $100, you could make it on the basis of need, basis of income; you could subsidize the rents from $25 up to $ 100.

Through a programme that is flexible and that meets the needs of families — and this programme should be geared to families and assistance to families on low-income — you could effectively help 5,000 families in the Province of British Columbia that basically need some help on housing.

The proposal I am making is one which would also allow for the integration of low-income families with other families of greater income or greater affluence. You would effectively, in my opinion, remove the stigma of living in low-income ghettos that leave children with a lifelong complex created by their surroundings in early life.

It would not be necessary for low-income people to live in slums any longer. I am sure if this suggestion is accepted it could effectively mean the end of slums and ghettos. This concept is one which I am sure that even with your socialist philosophy you can accept as being a reasonable proposal, I see that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not in his chair. Oh, he is here, The Minister of Highways is busy at the moment. I want to congratulate him for having a change of heart on the firing of the Department of Highways' employees in the middle of the winter.

But what bothers me is that the Minister should openly admit that he made a mistake and reinstate these workers now. When unemployment is 10 per cent in British Columbia as it is now, these people have to eat and there are no jobs available.

Why wait till April 1? The Minister should swallow his pride and make an announcement today that he will reinstate these employees forthwith so that they can have some income too. You have stated many times that you are concerned about jobs; show your concern and show it now.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has had a lot of difficulties with his labour inquiry commission. As I stated a couple of weeks ago, on January 1 he was supposed to release the names of those people who would serve on the labour inquiry commission and that went on and on and on. On February 6, it was announced in the House that he would make the announcement the following day. That never came about.

I suggested to him at that time that it would be difficult indeed for him to resurrect the labour inquiry commission because of the statements made by his friends in the B.C. Federation of Labour. But his friends who helped him and helped all these people morally, financially and physically in the last election, have come home to embarrass your Minister of Labour on his labour inquiry commission. You closest friends have embarrassed your government.

I am however gratified at least that he was able to salvage as much as he could out of the labour inquiry commission by the appointment of three special advisors. I am a little concerned about the fact that there is a lack of public participation in the inquiry or the meetings that will be carried out by these three commissioners.

The Minister has said very vaguely that the public can mail briefs. I don't know if he said to mail them to him or to the three advisors. I want to know whether the Minister is going to advertise to the public and let the public realize that their points of view are going to be accepted by these commissioners and their assessment of what the labour laws of British Columbia should be.

We know that the Vancouver District Labour Council has stated very publicly that they didn't want to hear from any kooks on the changing of labour laws in British Columbia. Unless the Minister makes a genuine effort to involve the public in this review of the labour laws I have to come to the conclusion that he subscribes to the statements made by the Vancouver District Labour Council.

I think that he should make a genuine effort to involve the public and unless he does I think he will have failed very miserably in involving what I consider a most important segment of our society and that is the general public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to game management. I am not going to speak on it too lengthily because there will be another opportunity in this House.

We listened to the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who suggested that we should close the hunting season on the female species. This would have an adverse effect; it would discourage many hunters from going hunting because, you know, most of them are not all quite so proficient as you are at shooting the bull. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I think that is just a bit vulgar and I would…

MR. CHABOT: I don't consider it vulgar when talking about bull moose.

MR. SPEAKER: I know you don't consider it vulgar.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no, never mind the facetious remarks, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Will the Member please be seated. Any indication of an attack on the Speaker is disrespect for the House. I ask the Member, politely, to withdraw a statement he made. I am sure he didn't mean it in a vulgar sense and he will clear that up with the House.

[ Page 600 ]

MR. CHABOT: It was not meant in a vulgar sense whatsoever, the statement that I am making now …

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: However, I hope that you didn't think it was vulgar for suggesting that I wouldn't know the difference, We have heard suggestions from, for instance, the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) that we go to permit hunting and the fee be between $100 and $200 per hunter to hunt. He said it this way: "…for a permit would be in the area of $100 or $200 but hunters would be virtually guaranteed an animal. As I just mentioned previously, the average cost to hunters in B.C. is $290 a year, so actually they would be getting a better deal out of this situation than they would in the way we run the fish and game situation in B.C. today."

Really, many of their costs would still be there, so what in effect you are suggesting…I'm not going to say you are suggesting it but, in effect, the suggestion of this nature would be to make hunting the exclusive right of those people who can afford to hunt. As the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) says, "landed gentry".

I think we should make hunting available to all those people who can hunt regardless of their financial means. I think that if we do ever consider the matter of going to permit hunting, it should be done only after public hearings have taken place.

I know that it might come as a shock to many people but there are many hunters who go into the bush and into the outdoors without the express purpose of killing. I have been a hunter for many many years and I go in the bush and I am always hoping that I won't see any game because if I do see some game and shoot a doe or a buck that would end my hunting season. So I go out there mostly for the peace and solitude that I can get in the outdoors and the enjoyment of the fresh air. (Laughter).

Really I don't think that we should consider game management as a money making proposition when it's a question of the survival of game. We should be gearing our laws to the protection of wildlife. And I want to congratulate the Government in providing additional staff for the enforcement of our game laws in British Columbia — the provision of more biologists and more conservation officers. It's a good move in the right direction.

I think what we really need, of course, is more intensive management of the game and the habitat. The key to game survival is management of habitat. This budget unfortunately makes no provisions for this.

I think that most of the biologists in this province recognize which areas are prime game habitat, and I think that there should be an extensive survey carried out to set aside those areas that are prime to ensure that our game will continue to survive.

I'm not going to dwell on this any more. I have certain opinions on game management and what I think is required. As I said a little earlier, I'll have another opportunity to speak, and I will do so during the estimates.

Getting back to the budget now, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet Ministers by their own admissions have indicated in this assembly that the budget is shallow and devoid of substance. They've confirmed on numerous occasions that what should be in the budget is, in effect, in the legislation.

Your budget might, in my opinion make provisions for jobs — certainly it does. But whether it makes sufficient provisions is another matter. I want to assure you that if the legislation you have so far introduced in this House is any indication of what is to follow then you'll destroy more jobs in British Columbia than you'll create with the budget.

The people of British Columbia will find themselves as the picture so amply shows it in the budget on page 21 — it shows a dry creek. I want to assure you that if your legislation continues the way it has, the people of British Columbia will be up that dry creek without a paddle.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's a dry squeak.

MR. CHABOT: I'd hoped, Mr. Speaker, to be able to support this budget. However, it fails to deal with the critical areas of unemployment and inflation. It's an illusory budget and it's a vacant budget. It will not contribute to the desired well-being of people in the Province of British Columbia.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the budget. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support this budget, Mr. Speaker. Before doing so I would like to make a couple of statements in an aside.

I feel that we have witnessed today one of the most murky attempts at character assassination in my living memory. I don't feel that it's necessary for me, or for any Member of the Government, really, to get up and speak in support of either the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), or the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) because I feel that the assassin suffered more from his attempts than did the victims.

I'm very new at this game, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I've ever served in a Government anywhere in the world in my entire life, and in a lot of ways I

[ Page 601 ]

guess I'm very naive. But I came here under the impression that we were not here to crucify each other, but to get on with the people's business. So with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get on with the people's business.

I rise to support the budget brought down by the Premier of this Province, on February 9, 1973. As you may have heard, Mr. Speaker, politicians are sometimes accused of making promises and not keeping them. I know that prior to the election of August 30 the NDP made many promises to the people of this province. And now, I am pleased to see that in this budget and through this budget we are taking steps to implement many of these promises.

I would like to quote from our mini-programme, Mr. Speaker. Everyone else does, and I'm certainly very proud of it, so I think I will too. And this has to do with land reform:

"Land is a basic natural resource to be preserved. Not a commodity to be bought and sold. An NDP Government will establish an aggressive land bank programme around urban centres, financed by senior governments in conjunction with a policy of leaseholds. It will also confine new urban areas to those lands unsuited for economic, agriculture, recreation, and conservation. It will also preserve and extend the greenbelts in the cities." Through the allotment of the $ 10 million to set up a provincial land acquisition fund to purchase future housing sites and through our farmland freeze policy, we are well on our way to making good on these promises which were made to the voters of this province.

This Government has been attacked for entering the land bank and farmland preservation fields. We have been attacked by the developers, by the real estate brokers, and by the Opposition. One realtor from Langley asks us in a page 5 article in the Province on Friday, February 16:

"Why should humans be strung dripping on the rain-drenched slopes of the North Shore, while saving the entire valley with its gentle undulating topography for animals and rows of vegetables which do not have a vote."

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think that's a very unkind way to refer to the North Shore. But then he goes on to tell us that there are over 2,800 acres of farmland in Langley which presently hold 3 farms. He tells us that if this land were subdivided into quarter-acre lots it would give us 11,520 lots. And if allowed each of these lots to be inhabited by an average of four persons per lot, we would add 46,000 people to this part of the province overnight.

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is precisely the kind of growth which this Government does not want to see happen. It was precisely that kind of thinking which forced the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to institute the freeze on farmland immediately, and not wait for public debate.

I know that most people in Canada would love to live in British Columbia. And I know that this Government knows that the population of this province is increasing and will continue to do so. Even more so now that the word has been passed around that we have good Government here.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that this increase, coupled with the land freeze, is going to put an additional burden on the housing facilities of our urban areas. We know of many young couples who were able to purchase new homes in the Delta area for as little as $1,300 down. I'm using this figure because this is a sign which I pass on the way to Tsawwassen Ferry every Monday morning, Mr. Speaker — it says "$1,300 down." We also know that these young couples will no longer be able to do so. We also know that it will not be possible for them to purchase a home anywhere in the City of Vancouver for as little as $1,300 down. So the dilemma of housing at a reasonable cost is a reality.

Two things have happened in Vancouver since the freeze: 1) Rents have gone up; 2) The cost of purchasing a home has gone up. Now, if we want to come to grips with these two problems, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that we have no choice but to go into the housing business.

The provincial government must become actively involved in the business of meeting the housing needs of the people in urban areas. This of course is part of our policy. Again I would like to quote from our mini-programme on housing reforms. It states:

"Housing is a basic right, and must be provided on the basis of need rather than profit. An NDP government will institute a major programme of socially owned housing available to all, regardless of income, and serving a wide variety of social and human needs, with the full participation of the residents and neighbourhood concerned. We would also see that this would involve the full participation of the municipalities."

The policies of land freeze and housing have to interlock and complement each other. For if we're going to freeze farmlands, we're also going to have to explore ways of making farming more viable and better able to support the farmer. If we're going to bank our land and develop greenbelts, then we're going to have to plan and develop our cities in ways to better house the people who must live in them. If people must be hung dripping from the rainy slopes of the North Shore, Mr. Speaker, it must be at least at prices that they can afford.

There are other reasons, of course, why we must get into the housing business. For one, as has been said before, land is a non-renewable resource and we have to husband it. It has to be preserved. We have to work towards a commitment of planning, developing and leasing of land for the good of all people and not

[ Page 602 ]

for just a few — no speculation, no rip-offs, neither by people nor municipalities. Land belongs to all of us and is here to benefit all of us. The Government has to take responsibility for administering this resource. The private sector has proven itself to be too irresponsible for this priceless resource to be left in its hands.

Might I add, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new idea. As early as 1884 a Royal Commission on Housing in London, England, recognized that the private sector could not adequately cope with the housing needs of people and recommended at that time that government should get into this field.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), Mr. Speaker, told us again yesterday of some of the grave abuses by some members of the private sector in the mortgage business. He called, and rightly so, for something to be done to prevent these abuses in the future. He very kindly outlined a four-point programme for ensuring that this was done.

Well, I thought about his four-point programme, Mr. Speaker, and I think that it was a good one. However, I do not think that it will have the effect that he is looking for. It is my belief that the devious free enterprise mind of so many of the entrepreneurs in the mortgage business out there, and the devious free enterprise mind of so many of their lawyers, would find ways around his recommendations. In four years or eight years or 20 years from now, he would again be able to stand up in this House and list the abuses of mortgage companies perpetrated against the gullible or just plain desperate public.

I came to this conclusion, Mr. Speaker, not because of the abuses itemized by the Hon. Member that were perpetrated by the charlatans and dishonest brokers in the mortgage business, but because some of these same abuses are, by his own words, being practised — albeit in a lesser degree — by the large, respectable members of the mortgage community — the respectable members who not only turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the practices of their more dishonorable members, but who indulge in and participate in these immoral deals themselves.

These deals may be legal, Mr. Speaker. They may be absolutely clean by the books, but they are immoral. This has always been the area in which the free enterprise system has failed — in its lack of corporate morality. So I think that this Government has no alternative but to seriously consider entering the mortgage field. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the mortgage field is just one area of the whole credit field that is presently under scrutiny. But the whole area of the credit field has to come under scrutiny.

Frank Mazko of the Vancouver Legal Aid Society stated in a broadcast on the CBC this morning that next to divorce, debt and credit problems ranked second among the problems that were being brought to the attention of the Legal Aid Society. The purchase of a home is probably the largest single purchase that a person will make in her lifetime. The establishment of credit is probably one of the most vital steps that we will ever be called upon to make, even more important than insuring our car. If the abuses of the car insurance industry led us to participate in this field, then surely the credit area has more than earned our attention.

So once again I would like to urge the Government to get into the mortgage field. I would like to say to the Premier and his Government, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter must be given special attention and that research must begin with all deliberate speed into the feasibility of such a proposal.

The Opposition is always speaking, Mr. Speaker, about the "heavy hand of socialism." I wonder how far they think a soft and gentle hand would get in dealing with those vicious vultures in the mortgage business. The hand of socialism has to be as heavy or as light as it has to be. I for one hope that it will be very heavy indeed when it locks horns with the mortgage brokers and the credit brokers of this province. Their practices must indeed have been very despicable, Mr. Speaker, when even a free-enterpriser such as the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) was outraged by them. The recommendations of the Hon. Member, although creditable, were just band-aids and will not serve to give the consumers the kind of protection that they must have.

Before leaving the matter of housing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the landlord and tenant situation. It is terrible. I am still getting complaints about unconscionable raises in rent, about buildings changing hands in land assembly deals, and about rents being raised twice in six months, et cetera.

Vancouver-Burrard is in a state of transition at this time. Many single homes are being demolished and are being replaced by highrises, condominiums, et cetera — not just Burrard but throughout the city. More people are becoming tenants, and they need to have some changes made in the Landlord and Tenant Act.

My feeling about this Act, Mr. Speaker, I know is shared by many of the Members of this Government. Like most of the Members of the backbench, I received a Christmas card from the Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). When I opened it, it turned out to be a copy of the Alberta Landlord and Tenants Act. It said: "Merry Christmas. Read this before the House opens." So this is something that is of major concern to people living not only in the more urban areas but everywhere throughout this province.

[ Page 603 ]

Before the election we made two promises to these people. They were — and again I would like to quote from our mini-programme — that we would recognize the rights of tenants' associations to be certified as bargaining agents, and that we would establish rental review boards composed of representatives of tenants' associations and local governments to act as mediators and arbitrators, if necessary, on complaint from either tenants or landlords. I think it is time that we got on with the business of keeping those promises.

In addition, I would like to ask that the rights of tenants in housing be extended to cover the rights of tenants in commercial premises. We had a very interesting experience in Burrard recently, when a group of store owners decided that Broadway between Blenheim and McDonald needed to be beautified. The residents in that area mobilized against this move when they realized that their homes were going to be demolished in the interest of giving additional parking space to the shopkeepers.

The really interesting fact that emerged was that 70 per cent of the stores in that area were owned by one man. As a matter of fact, he owned some of those city blocks outright, and it was he who wanted to get this project through because of the increased revenue that would accrue to him. I am referring to Mr. Orr of Orr Stores, of course.

What he did at that point was to raise the rent quite sharply in his stores. Many of the smaller businesses were forced to move out. Then he appeared before city council and quoted the number of vacancies in his building as reason for wanting this project to go through. What this highlighted, of course, was that tenants in commercial buildings have virtually no rights. So I would like to see the landlord and tenant legislation amended to include this sector of the population.

One of the great concerns that I have as an NDP MLA from Vancouver, the major urban centre in B.C., is the quality of life available in our cities. It is a fact supported by the Plunkett Report, which the former Social Credit government abandoned, that our municipalities are being starved financially.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Plunkett Report was commissioned jointly by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Dan Campbell, and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. After the data gathering stage had been completed, the Minister withdrew provincial support from the analysis and recommendation stage and forced the UBCM to continue the final stages of this report on their own resources. The former Government withdrew its support when it became obvious that the report would expose the Socreds for maltreating the cities.

We cannot hope to deal with this problem in one session. But we must be aware that the cities can only hope to have a reasonable standard of amenities if they have financial resources.

We are committed in the long run to removing the costs of education, welfare and hospitals from property and to giving the cities an increased share in the wealth of this province.

There is no argument with this long-range policy. The Vancouver NDP MLA's have, however, been concerned since the budget speech about immediate assistance that can be offered to the cities. We have been meeting to discuss this problem for the past week-and-a-half and have concluded that it is our duty to put forward a strong case on behalf of an increase in the per capita grants to the municipalities.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: A friend across the hall, Mr. Speaker.

We know that Vancouver presently gets the largest chunk of the pie. We also know that Vancouver will be receiving additional funds to cover additional transportation costs, et cetera.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of the NDP MLA's from Vancouver that municipalities should receive a per capita increase of at least $6 rather than the $2 that has been proposed in the budget.

In making this recommendation we are taking into account the fact that the per capita grant should be viewed as an interim means of transferring money from the provincial to the municipal governments and that what is really called for is a review of the taxation procedures in this province, especially as they relate to development and municipal financing.

Obviously this type of review cannot be accomplished overnight. It is also obvious that the federal government has to become more generous in its sharing. In the final analysis the financial problems of the city are not going to be solved until the federal government gives them a share of the federal taxes.

We also believe that it is incumbent upon the municipalities to make their tax systems more equitable by shifting taxes from residential to the business sector.

The president of the Vancouver area council of the NDP has met with us and expressed his concern on this matter. We have agreed to continue cooperating in putting forward the best possible case for the City of Vancouver and all other municipalities.

We have met with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and we are also arranging to meet with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) in order to discuss an increase in the per capita grants. To this extent, Mr. Speaker, we were indeed pleased and happy to see that the mayor of Vancouver is interested in meeting with us to discuss this matter. We look forward to meeting with him whenever he is in Victoria.

I can assure him, however, through you, that the

[ Page 604 ]

Vancouver NDP MLA's and the Vancouver Area Council have the affairs of Vancouver and the needs of Vancouver at heart and our efforts in this regard will be ongoing.

Other Vancouver NDP MLA's will be speaking later in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and giving more precise financial information on the impact of taxes on Vancouver's development.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about services to children. First I would like to quote from the annual report of the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. The child welfare superintendent, Mr. Belknap states:

"The children of British Columbia generally enjoy the privileges and benefits of our affluent state. They are richly endowed when compared to many millions of children in other parts of our world. The society which encompasses them provides a setting which generally respects their special place and is concerned and aware of what is essential to their basic needs."

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I certainly am proud to identify myself with someone who can write this kind of English. It's beautiful.

He goes on to state that:

"Our general reflect the needs of all people in our province and that is what the department is attempting to provide. We have been told further that the large allotment of funds to the social services in this province is to be paid largely for programmes and services and not for buildings and things."

We have to come to grips, Mr. Speaker, with the whole area of poverty and people. Poverty is never so tragic as when it affects the lives of children.

Every time that I use the word "affluent" to describe this province, or I heart the word "affluent" used to describe this province, I feel that I have to add a rider to it. When we say "affluent" we are referring to the resources. We are certainly not referring to the people.

In point of fact, 60 per cent of the people in this province earn less than $5,000 a year annually. In cold, unadjusted figures, that adds up to 493,000 people.

85,000 children in this province under the age of 16 fit into this category of people living below the poverty line. To that we'll have to add 25,000 status and 30,000 non-status Indian children.

I hope we'll think twice if we ever refer to this as an affluent province again. Surely there can be no justification for this province, as affluent as it calls itself, to shortchange its children in this way.

Like the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), I would like to say that I too am not impressed by surpluses being handed down in a budget if those surpluses occur at the expense of the children of our province, or if indeed they occur at the expense of services to any one of its people.

When I speak of services to children, Mr. Speaker, I speak not only of children on welfare but of all children. In many instances the suffering of the children of the working poor is as harsh as that of the children on welfare.

I would like to put it to you that maybe we should start thinking in terms of a guaranteed minimum income for children, i.e., an income below which no family with children should be allowed to fall.

I know that research is being done in other cities as to the financial needs of children. I know that our own Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is very interested in this area, as am 1. I would like to see this area explored, possibly by the legislative committee on health and welfare.

Of course, there is more to services to children than money. What we need most of all at this point is a co-ordination of services to all children, from infancy through high school.

In the olden days, Mr. Speaker, when we had Well Baby Clinics — and when I say the "olden days," I am talking about the days when I still used to have babies — before MSA. It was possible through the Well Baby Clinics to some extent to have this kind of coordination. It is my hope that the community health clinics, when they become a reality, will fill the gap that was left by the demise of those Well Baby Clinics.

Health needs, recreational needs, educational needs, cultural needs, financial needs — all needs — should be co-ordinated. And again I repeat for all children and not just for the children on welfare.

The child welfare report goes on to talk of the "battered" child. The battered baby may be difficult to detect, Mr. Speaker, but the battered child could be identified quite easily in the schools if we had either social workers or psychologists working in them. The early stages of emotional problems as well as problems in the home could be detected and treated before they were blown up to crisis proportions. In today's system it is not until a child's behaviour becomes flagrantly aberrant that the school will notify the Children's Aid Society, and by then it is too late.

We are thinking in terms of prevention in health care. We are thinking in terms of prevention in dental care. We must think in terms of prevention in our children's mental health needs.

We all know of young people who are using drugs, or who have had a brush with the law for shoplifting or some other antisocial act, who could have been stopped and turned around if the danger signals had been detected in their early stages. Our children deserve the very best that we have to offer them. I hope that this Government will ensure that the days of second-best education, second-best day care centres and second-best services to our children are

[ Page 605 ]

over.

Our children are more important to us than our roads, our natural resources, our industries or anything else. I am proud that the largest chunk of this budget will be going to provide services for them, because this demonstrates to me that this Government endorses the children's charter of the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver.

I'll read just the beginning of it for you, Mr. Speaker. It says: "Each child must be assured that his basic needs for food, shelter, education, clothing, medical and dental care be met in a manner consistent with good mental and physical health; that he be valued as a unique, responsible human being and be nurtured and cherished by a family of his own; that is, supported and preserved by community services…" and it goes on to list them.

Children, Mr. Speaker, grow up to be young adults. It is probably in the area of young adults that the problem of unemployment is most acute. I am glad that this Government, in looking into the whole field of creating employment for all people, has not overlooked the area of retraining and educating for today's job market. I am glad that the technical schools and the vocational schools have been issued directives, and that they're going to be addressing themselves precisely to the job needs which now exist. The needs for more people in the services which are crying out for employment, such as the ferry service — the ferry service which on Friday nights never has enough waitresses, and half the dining room has to be closed down because of that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: More friends across the hall. I hope that the Government is really going to address itself to these facts — and more and more — because as more and more of our young people are entering the job market at a younger and younger age, they are finding that most of them are just not able to secure employment, One of the difficulties that was brought to my attention — and this has to do with the Minimum Wage Act which was introduced in the last session — was provided by the difference in salary scale for people below the age of 18 and those above. It was brought to my attention that in some department stores — some large department stores in the City of Vancouver, for example — many people, most of them women, were being laid off when the minimum wage was introduced. They were being replaced by teenagers who could have been paid at a lower rate. Certainly this is an area that we have to look into. We cannot permit a situation to go on where the labour force is divided against itself and where our young people are being used to exploit the labour of older people. I hope that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is going to address himself to this.

I would like to add that I am very pleased that there is a cabinet committee which concerns itself with the overlapping and co-ordinating of services to children. I'm glad that the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) are working closely together in this area. I would like to suggest, however, that services to children go beyond this, and I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) should be involved.

We still have in this province, as rich as it is, children who are suffering from malnutrition. They are not suffering from malnutrition through choice, but through necessity. The cost of basic important foods such as milk and fresh fruit is just too expensive for their parents to afford. We have to find some way of getting foods into these children without bankrupting their parents.

We recently had a visit from the fruitgrowers. They brought with them large boxes of beautiful Okanagan apples. You and I know that there are many children in our cities who cannot afford these apples, even though they're grown right here.

I think that the Minister of Agriculture should be a part of this committee to explore ways in which he can assure that our children do get these basic nutritional needs in their diets, such as fresh fruit and milk. In underdeveloped countries, I realize that this is done very effectively simply by serving a meal in the school at lunchtime. This is supposed to be a developed country, and we do not do that sort of thing here. But if we are too proud to do it this way, then we will have to explore other ways to see that it is done. We cannot continue to tolerate that in our society today there are children with nutritional deficiencies, while apples and fresh fruit are rotting.

I would also like to see involved in this coordinating cabinet committee the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), as he is responsible for cultural development. Among the things in cultural development, I would just like to touch on one thing. That is the whole area of TV advertising zoomed at children. I deplore this and I certainly hope that the Government is going to, in the very near future, take steps to remove this type of advertising from our TV.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this budget has been called many names, that this budget has even had a benediction wreaked upon it by the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). So I would like to add my assessment to all the others that have gone before, and to say that it seems to me that the people's Government has handed down a people's budget. I say "right on."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Fort George.

[ Page 606 ]

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just happen to have received a note, which is a newspaper clipping from my hometown paper that does make an observation on our open Government. It reads like this: "This morning a Prince George Citizen reporter called the Attorney General, Alex Macdonald's office in Victoria. Expecting the usual Government runaround, he was a bit startled to have the Attorney General answer the phone, usually answered by a secretary on the first ring."

Well, they call it a "people's party" and indeed it is an open Government. I think we should all try to work together to keep it that way.

This is the first budget by the new Government, Mr. Speaker. It's a real pleasure to be part of this new Government, with its first budget. To me it appears as an all-people's budget, like the former speaker has explained — an all-people's budget for all British Columbia. I know, however, that some Members from the official Opposition have called it a Social Credit budget. I believe it was from the Social Credit Members, or some of them. I have to presume that this means that they will approve of it. Accordingly, I would invite them to vote in favour of it.

The first budget of this new Government, to me, sets a stage for the people of British Columbia. It is the beginning of a long pull forward for this province. I read into it additional allocations that will start to upgrade the services in the interior and the northern areas that have been skimped on for so long. I think this is the beginning.

Even with no increase in general provincial taxes for the people, we still have many new allocations. I see the upgrading of health services, with $54 million additional revenue earmarked for public health, for mental health and for hospitals and other services throughout our area.

In spite of complaints from one Member of the official Opposition about the additional funds aimed towards health care, I want to say that these additional funds will mean, in my riding, a beginning to relieve the pressure from a hospital operating at 125 per cent, a start on extended care units, the beginning of chronic care service and an upgrading of public health and mental health services. Our hospital has 11 psychiatric beds, when provincial standards there call for 40.

Air ambulance services for our remote areas would bring people much closer to the best facilities available. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Atlin, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Calder), for so well explaining the need for it. Mr. Speaker, there is a long-standing need to bring adequate health services to our region, a region which is so rapidly growing. I know that our Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has a big job ahead of him to do this job. I'm confident that he will do his best to achieve it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also very happy to see a community recreational facilities fund set up to share financing of recreational projects for communities throughout the province. Good recreational facilities become an asset and a pride and joy of any community.

A recreational centre becomes the pillar of a community. Without that pillar, we too often find another facility that becomes the pillar of the community. That usually results in the most costly social consequences of all. This is none other than our oversized beer parlours.

The lack of recreational outlets so often result in over-use of alcohol. Lack of recreation does not give opportunity for physical and social development for young people and our old people's needs and $10 million for this fund will be money well spent, well invested. Although I doubt whether it will be enough, it is a real good start, We realize that the liquor profits last year were about $85 million — so we will spend the $10 million for this project. The other $75 million from our liquor profits can readily go towards rehabilitation of alcohol problems.

I sincerely hope that the day is not far off when the child, or a family, that cannot afford the expense for admission fees to participate in recreation will in fact be able to participate in recreational facilities. I think this fund will be a step toward that direction.

I hope also that municipal boards and school boards will work closer together in the future in planning their community's recreational needs and services in a joint and cooperative manner.

In addition to active recreation we must also preserve the passive recreation. We don't always appreciate and consider seriously enough the landscape which has always been at our doorstep and which we tend to take for granted. I am referring to the natural landscape of British Columbia — the abundance of wilderness areas accessible to the public. We should underline the fact that the landscape as it is today presents the greatest resource that we have. But it may not always be here if we do not safeguard and preserve its natural order. That is, the natural order of the land. If we wait until we deface it, it will never be restored. I am not talking here only of wilderness reserves or park recreation but the careful preservation of streams, rivers, and forest areas.

When we consider the land actually used for urbanization, it is only something in the vicinity of 0.25 per cent in central British Columbia and there remains tremendous uninhabited land where a compatibility between extraction of resources and nature must be maintained. We must employ good reforestation practices. We must maintain green strips along streams and keep the rivers and streams clean in order to keep the wilderness in a good state of preservation for the next generation and so that we have it for our own enjoyment and for the perpetuation of the fish and the wildlife in their natural environment. If large urban areas, and small urban areas for that matter, do

[ Page 607 ]

their housekeeping and leave the other 99 per cent land area in a natural healthy state, a balance of nature may yet be worked out. On the subject of pollution control little mention is being made of pollution that affects the olfactory sense. The smell and the stench — thinking of our area mainly, the odour of pulp mills. No records of this can be kept by mechanical means because no one has yet devised a machine that records bad smells. On one occasion the usual bad smell of pulp mills in our area became so pronounced that many residents complained and subsequently a letter of complaint was sent to the management of the industry by the city council. The reply was that they were had no knowledge of any unusual emission.

A greater stress must be put on devising some better method for eliminating the air pollution problem. A well-planned town with developed parks and pleasant surroundings tends to have its beauty and its pleasantness so often defeated by air pollutant odours. Research programmes to combat air pollution should be escalated. Also the locating of industry should be placed well away from populated areas.

Gasoline prices, Mr. Speaker, in the northern areas are from 10 to 20 per cent higher than they are in the lower mainland. Yet the oil from the north is transported by pipeline to the lower mainland. Prince George has an oil refinery and so has the Peace River, yet gas prices in those areas are much higher than they are here. People in those areas are heavily dependent upon transportation and it is unjust and unfair to have this disparity in gasoline prices, particularly when we have refineries on our doorstep.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that fuel should be looked at as a public utility like city water, like your telephone, like your power, your hydro, and your railway system. Mr. Speaker, I propose that we set up a committee of this House to examine the Morrow Commission on gasoline prices and investigate a way to implement equal prices throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of labour-management relations; it is very important in our area for industrial stability. We have a large sawmill industry that feeds its waste in chips into five pulp mills in my riding. We have also a transportation, construction, and service industry, and various other smaller industries. Twenty years of labour confrontation was enough for our area. Removal of the compulsory mediation commission was a good beginning toward equitable negotiation procedure. But, Mr. Speaker, we must expedite many more changes to establish a truly amiable labour-management relations atmosphere.

Both labour and management in my area have expressed hope and faith in this new Government to come up with progressive legislation that both sides can live with and avoid the devastating and regrettable work stoppages of the past.

I would also urge in addition to all that that some unions with far-flung membership, in our area, examine their job dispatching procedures. It is not a pleasant feeling for a family when a husband is dispatched from his Prince George residence to a job on Vancouver Island, when at the same time another member is dispatched from his Vancouver residence to a job in Prince George, Mr. Speaker, our area is a heavily travelled area. Being as it is a transportation centre, it is a crossroads of the northern area with two major highways and two major railways. Transportation problems with highways has been a burning issue with the previous Social Credit government administration in our area for many years. Traffic density has been escalating along with rapid population growth to the point in many cases where the capacity is bursting at the seams.

School children mixed with logging trucks; heavy vehicle traffic in either direction from the city; long hills with no passing lanes exist, and have existed from the beginning of time. There has been little or no change in dispersal of both heavy vehicle and heavy industrial traffic from the original main highway routes.

The population of the city in the area has literally tripled in the past 8 to 10 years. Highway planning has seen little or no change in many respects. I think planning by highways, by school boards, municipalities and regional districts has been in conflict with one another many, many times. Each doing their own thing in isolation most of the time.

We have schools placed on major highway routes, schools with 500 to 1500 enrolment. Hazards have developed and have been ignored resulting in many accidents and fatalities. City councils have often found it impossible to know what highway policy is. They have had a hard time to know what Highways will approve and what they will not approve. They have had a hard time to know what Highways' policy on planning is, or whether Highways has even got a policy.

In the past, highways decisions so often seem to have been made at the whim of an individual Minister or official from Victoria who was planning in isolation. This has often resulted in a municipality wasting many man hours in drafting and planning procedures for long-term and short-term projects which often had to be scrapped after long and tedious waiting for highways to make up their mind and then coming back with a decision that says, "No."

I can tell you when a municipal council gets an arrogant letter from a Highways official with an arrogant flat "no" that has no reasonable explanation behind it, it is enough to set any city council into orbit. The highways department is neither God nor Government. It is there to serve the people, to communicate with the towns and cities, and with school boards and regional districts, and help to fulfill the community needs. That's what it should be there for.

There is no reason why the Department of

[ Page 608 ]

Highways officials cannot keep a close liaison with local civic governments and participate in joint efforts so that everyone can be tuned in on the same wavelength at all times.

The highways, the municipality, the regional district, the school board, all of them can get together and do this, and thus permit the entire community to benefit.

I have had discussions, about problems experienced from the previous administration, with the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan). I am happy to say that we can expect substantial improvements from his department to develop better relationships with local communities.

Winter conditions are always a factor, not visible from down here in Victoria. Quite often when one telephones the office in Victoria one gets the feeling that the person that's answering the phone at the other end of the line has a hard time believing you when you're trying to tell him it's 10 or 20 degrees below zero and there are two or three feet of snow. At the time, down here it could be 40 above. They just don't have a very easy time to believe what you're trying to explain to them. It is understandable, I suppose, to a point, human nature being what it is. But it is certainly a problem.

One month ago we had 85 logging trucks parked on our Department of Highways yard in Prince George protesting the snow-clearing services. Of course, that was really not surprising. This developed after many months of frustration.

We should remember, first of all, that the logging in our area is the life-blood of our economy. After investigating the particular problem it turned out that, although the conditions were bad, a large part of the problem was that snow-clearing equipment was inadequate and had frequently been breaking down. Consequently it was often in the back shops when it should have been out clearing snow.

It was noted on further investigation that the B.C. Department of Highways has approximately $50 million invested in equipment in British Columbia. Less than 7 per cent a year has been spent by the former Government during those years replacing the equipment. Now, 7 per cent can hardly keep up with the depreciation and inflation, let alone additional roads every year. A survey on the equipment in our area works out that the equipment is, on the average, 13 years old and some of it is 25 years old. So it is no wonder that we had logging trucks parked in front of the Department of Highways.

It should also be remembered that one accident can cost the loss of a life and expense equal to the price of one good piece of heavy equipment.

Mr. Speaker, there is a big job ahead for the Department of Highways to catch up with this responsibility in our area and many other areas throughout the interior and the north.

Mr. Speaker, speaking about the need for Department of Highways planning, which should be in close liaison with municipalities, school boards, regional districts and so on, I also want to reiterate further on resource planning, which must go hand-in-hand with energy resources, transportation, railways, community and regional needs. This requires a joint effort by all the agencies in a position to serve, such as highways, hydro, provincial and federal governments — in order to provide the amenities for primary and secondary industry and to benefit from our resources, to create the jobs and the facilities for medical, educational and community services.

Industrial people agree this is what is needed to provide a climate for investment. We do not need the kind of investment like the one I mentioned the other day — a corporation from the U.S. who set up a subsidiary in British Columbia to take over existing well-operated sawmills and plywood plants just to get the timber quota, cream the operations, shut them down and walk out. This is what happened in one case in my constituency, leaving behind a community scarred with unemployment and all kinds of social consequences.

In 1969 a Valemount resident by the name of William Osadchuk sold Yellowhead Sawmills to Goldfield Lumber Enterprises of Vancouver, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Goldfield Corporation of New York. Goldfield at the same time acquired Canadian Plywood Corporation of New Westminster and also Hedburg Veneer Ltd., of Valemount. These three forest companies were operated by Goldfield for less than a year — until approximately the end of February 1970.

During this period of time they logged approximately 11 million feet of logs, mostly Yellowhead. timber, the bulk of which, at the end of February, 1970, was stockpiled at Cedar Siding near Valemount in the mill sites of both Hedburg and Yellowhead.

At this time there was an outstanding forestry account of something in excess of $90,000 and numerous other accounts incurred in the name of Yellowhead. During this time also, early in March, 1970, while Yellowhead was still under the control of the Goldfield people, they borrowed money against the log inventory, which in actual fact belonged to Yellowhead, in the amount of $246,000. They pledged the log inventory by way of warehouse receipts and collateral promissory notes to a firm called Jatel Holdings that was incorporated in the meantime.

The money borrowed was used not to pay off the accounts of Yellowhead, but was advanced to Canadian Plywood Corporation. At this time, March 1970, Goldfield was in default with Osadchuk and his mortgage. Not one mortgage payment had been made to Osadchuk. Ultimately steps were taken by him to try to repossess Yellowhead.

He was not able to accomplish this because of legal wrangles until later in July of 1970. In the meantime, however, some of the loggers had filed liens to collect

[ Page 609 ]

their accounts, and one of them, Robson Logging Ltd., had placed Yellowhead in bankruptcy.

Robson was incorporated at the time that Goldfield bought out Yellowhead. Osadchuk, who had still received no mortgage payment, in order to avoid losing all his assets and security, was forced to pay approximately $ 100,000 to pay off bills owing, plus another $5,000 to get Robson to get them to agree to lift the bankruptcy proceedings.

Yellowhead, when Osadchuk repossessed it, was stuck with an agreement where it had to dispose of the inventory of logs to Canadian Plywood to continue the original commitment. The purpose of this was to effect funds to pay off the $246,000 to Jatel Holdings and also to pay off other creditors.

Canadian Plywood commenced taking the logs and it soon became evident to Osadchuk that they were creaming the log inventory and were leaving the logs that were of inferior quality. Furthermore, it was ascertained at this time that they were not scaling the logs in accordance with the cubic measurement.

The result was that Canadian Plywood was not paying for all the logs they were taking, Spot checks were taken on a sum of cars shipped by Canadian Plywood and they revealed that Canadian Plywood were only paying for about two-thirds of the logs they were taking out.

At this time Goldfield still had control of Yellowhead, since Osadchuk was not able to finalize his legal procedures. As soon as he got control of Yellowhead he was able to supervise it in the usual manner, which was not until July 1970.

The log sale to Canadian Plywood was immediately terminated. But he still had Jatel Holdings on his back, because the major part of the logs that were supposedly being sold to Canadian Plywood had somehow disappeared.

Ultimately Osadchuk mortgaged the mill to get the Jatel debt off his back, and in order to save the operation and the timber license, which was finalized only about two months ago.

Goldfield created the same situation with Hedburg Brothers of Valemount, who also had to repossess their mill, Hedburg Veneer Ltd. the same time as Osadchuk.

Both repossessions took place on the same day which was in July, 1970. Goldfield Corporation of New York had been de-listed from the American stock exchange. Goldfield Lumber Enterprises Limited was incorporated in British Columbia in June, 1969, and changed its name to Goldfield Pacific Resources in November, 1969. The vice-president and director of Goldfield Pacific was Burton Lindberner Sr. of Vancouver. The New York directors were J.M. Wigley, H. Becker Fluegel and G. Warnock. These four were also directors of Yellowhead, Canadian Plywood and Heglburg Veneer. During the period that Goldfield operated these three forest companies, the director of Robson Logging was Burton Lindberner Junior.

Mr. Speaker, it is these kind of investors exploiting the people of British Columbia that we can do well without. It was the forest policy of our former government that permitted this form of exploitation of people and permitted trafficking with the public's timber resource from one area to another at the expense of individuals and local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that these cases be investigated to determine wrongdoings, be they fraud, conspiracy or whatever other wrongdoing there may have been.

Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Railway is another transportation system in our area and it is a large network that plays a very important role to the north, relative to resource planning that so many resource-oriented communities are dependent upon. The British Columbia Railway is the third largest railway in Canada. It is the largest railway operating in British Columbia. It has approximately 1,300 miles of railway line — 460 miles of it between Vancouver and Prince George and the balance of about 840 miles beyond Prince George.

This is a very exciting and important transportation system to which the north has oriented itself and upon which it is heavily dependent. The success of this railway is vital to the success of northern and interior development for people, for communities, for resource allocation and for industrial planning.

The quality of this railway, however, leaves a great deal to be desired. It has many indications of extravagance, waste and management problems of low morale among employees which this government has inherited from the former Social Credit administration. I would like to think that the — staff employees and management — are working as a team, but it is a long way from that.

The object has to be to bring this railway, particularly in the north, up to standard in order to give the service the public and industry deserve. This includes the roadbed itself, its operation and the morale of employees. During the past several years the condition of the roadbed has resulted in countless derailments and wrecks. Sometimes two to three wrecks a day were reported in the media which resulted in damage to hundreds of pieces of railway equipment, railway cars, locomotives. There were damaged freight claims, injuries and fatalities, running into millions of dollars of expense to the people of British Columbia.

Some time ago I asked questions for information on derailments and wrecks north of Prince George for last year, and it is significant that it is taking so long for the management to provide the information. This is an indication of a large number of accidents that have to be documented.

Prince George is in the middle of the British Columbia railway system where accidents are regularly reported in the media whenever they occur.

[ Page 610 ]

I have also received complaints from the media in my area and in the Peace River area who claim they often have difficulty in getting news and information on accidents from the management. As an example, one day a derailment occurred in Prince George adjacent to the highway, fully exposed to public view. The next day the media phoned the Prince George railway management about the derailment and were told that they knew nothing about it. If they wanted to find out anything they would have to phone Vancouver. Certainly a very strange and peculiar way to treat the local media. I have received the same complaint from the Fort St. John media on a recent incident involving the Blueberry bridge accident.

I have noted that there has been considerable overextension of payments on some major British Columbia Railway contracts in the Fort Nelson extension. According to the prospectus of Keen Industries Limited, one contract issued on September 20, 1969, was for $1,808,000 for the Beeton River-Niteal Creek portion. Payment received was $3,422,000.

Another contract issued on September 29, 1967, was for $4,101,000 for the Niteal to Fort Nelson portion. Payment received was $7,722,000. Total contract tenders work out to $5,909,000; total received, $11,145,000. Which works out to payment of $5,236,000 over and above the contract tendered.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of almost double the tendered cost paid out in the Fort Nelson subdivision, the railway is still paying dearly in costly derailments and wrecks from inadequately constructed roadbeds. I urge a complete review of these contracts and the calibre of engineering work and to find out why the contractor was paid almost double the tender amount and why the costly consequences exist today.

This railway is also not without its other problems. There is, as I mentioned, low morale among employees. Good morale is an asset in any industry. Low morale is a costly liability. The morale of employees is a reflection of management and leadership. It is always a pleasure to work for a reasonable boss but it is a disaster to work for an unreasonable and inhumane boss.

I have received many complaints from many people and from the newspaper, some that were very valid and some that were not valid, that indicate the low morale among employees that exists today on this government-owned railway which we have inherited from the Social Credit administration.

Speaking of safety, a man was killed when hit by a train while driving a track-motor car. He was blamed for his own death for not properly interpreting the track lineup which is issued by the train dispatcher. It turned out that he could barely speak English, let alone interpret important written lineups. Yet management had instructed him to operate a motor car and risk his own life and other people's lives. It is an indication that training programmes for people in responsible positions are either ineffective or do not exist.

Another example on safety involves blue flags. The intent of the rule is to protect workers working on inspection and maintenance of railway cars while switching in the yards. So that nobody gets run over while he is working underneath a car. The procedure is for a blue flag to be placed at each end of the car by the employee who is to work on these cars. When he is finished working on them, he alone is permitted to remove this blue flag. I personally have seen a man killed — cut in half — many years ago. Someone else lifted the blue flag, a switch engine came along and moved the car while the man was working under it.

In this system here, the guy that is working under the car or doing the inspection of the cars, is told that it is O.K., he doesn't have to worry about the blue flag, the switch engine can take it down. If a train starts to move he just steps aside or if he moves to the other end of the yard he just rides it down and then carries on with his operation again. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that enforcement of safety on the British Columbia Railway system is most inadequate.

Another example involves a fellow who happened to get fired. He's got three small children. The reason he got fired is that he was unable to come to work one day when his wife had to go to the hospital for emergency treatment and he could not leave the children. He was told that he did not have his full six-month probation in and they don't have to consider him as a regular employee. They don't need to give reason for firing someone who is on probation.

He was a very experienced and capable man in his trade. The other railway subsequently wanted to hire him. Because of red tape they were not permitted to do so. It turned out that because he was labeled as having been fired for leave without proper authority, he was not able to get a job on another railway system. Indeed, a ruthless and unjust act such as I have never seen practised in any other company in my over 20 years of railroading.

Another case reported involved a locomotive engineer, with 15 years' railway experience as a locomotive engineer, who had gone on a Canadian government overseas mission on the CUSO plan to Africa on a mechanical assignment. On his return he received a certificate of excellence on his overseas work in mechanical services. After he completed his overseas work, he resumed in his trade as locomotive engineer on the British Columbia Railway. He subsequently got fired by a junior official, after writing a letter to senior management explaining the severe bad track condition on the Fort Nelson subdivision and making suggestions for improvements. His suggestions to junior management had been ignored.

[ Page 611 ]

He was told that the reason for firing was that he did not have six months' probation in and that they did not need to give reason to fire a man on probation.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Pretty near as bad as the Department of Highways.

MR. NUNWEILER: Senior management later would not agree to change or reverse the decision of the junior official. Mr. Speaker, this man today is also labeled by red tape, which will not let him get another job on his trade on another railway, even though the officials would like to hire him. It seems that the bureaucracy is more important than people. I know one other employee, a labourer, who was fired after working hard to help improve sanitary, eating, and safety conditions for his fellow members. He was the local representative for his union, like a shop steward. His fellow members today still claim that he was fired after he started a campaign to improve conditions. After he started his campaign, he was harassed to the point where enough pressure was exerted until they found reason to fire him.

Let us look at some of the conditions that some of these people were trying to improve. I've got some newspaper clippings, Mr. Speaker, I'll read out a few — over the last few years. From the Alaska Highway News:

"It is hard to believe that in this day and age men must resort to near slavery to get a railway built. A harsh way to put it maybe. Judge for yourself. We are now speaking for our very own Pacific Great Eastern Railway linking Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. We are also speaking of the conditions under which the men building this link must live from day to day…."

MR. PHILLIPS: BCR.

MR. NUNWEILER: I'm reading.

"At present there is a work gang of 100 men who must put up with the most unbelievable sanitary conditions. Take the water used for drinking and cooking. It was from a nearby muskeg pond…."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on a point of order. You're quoting from some published article, are you?

MR. NUNWEILER: Alaska Highway News.

MR. SPEAKER: I see. Thank you.

MR. NUNWEILER: That happens to be the newspaper of one of my neighbours, the Hon. Members from the Peace River. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

"Needless to say, the men were sick, now that the outhouse facilities for the 100 men — there were only five — all of which are filled and one foot above capacity. This forces the 100 men to go outside in the well-below-freezing weather. This also leaves their sleep and work areas a little less than desirable.

"The men work very hard, long hours and really deserve better treatment. After all, they are building our railway — something everyone in B.C. can be proud of. Shouldn't we see these men get treated in a different way?"

Another article from the same paper:

"Railway worker, Fort St. John. This missive will corroborate and comment further on the contents of the letter from the railway worker in the previous issue and clarify the term he used slavery.

"The drinking water was taken from a certain source locally and consumer for quite some time with no ill effects — but up to a date. Then everyone was stricken almost to the same hour. This occurred shortly after midnight and all of the men were going outside the rest of the night into a temperature of some 40 below zero.

"The privies were just as described. In fact, it was better not to use them. The disorder continued through the next day. Having to run into the bush several times and becoming thoroughly chilled each time did not make anyone very happy.

"The water was then brought from town and the disorder seemed to clear up. But the respite was ephemeral. A week later the performance was repeated and continued. Suspicion then turned to the food, particularly the meat sent out in the crew-car for dinner, which is cooked the night before and reheated for the noon meal.

"After one meal in particular, burning indigestion, cramps, et cetera, set in within three hours and continued into the night in my own case. As with the other men, considerable food would pass through undigested. As far as I know, the exact cause was not definitely determined. But one can draw conclusions.

"As to a long hard day, breakfast was at 5:00 a.m. Leave camp at 6:00. Back at 8:30 to 10:30. Then supper and straight to bed for maybe six hours' sleep. This meant that there would be eight to 10 hours without eating between dinner and supper. By quitting time the men were chilled, no matter how warmly they were dressed. At temperatures averaging 45 below, a person must eat to keep warm. There is no stopping to warm hands, feet, or faces except for a fast 10-minute coffee break, and not always that.

"The long days are partly caused by the camp

[ Page 612 ]

being too far from the end of the track. There was a total of five hours' travelling time. When it is kept moved up, the problem is alleviated for a while. Not keeping it moved within a reasonable distance indicates a lack of foresight and planning.

"Many are discouraged even before they reach the camp from town. The track is such that a speed greater than 12 miles per hour causes derailments, so it takes 12 to 14 hours to make the trip by train. During this time they ride in a caboose with nothing to eat or drink, except for melting snow and what might be shared by some fellow passenger who had the foresight to bring a lunch. Some of the men that go out there are farmers who are struggling to make ends meet and must have the winter employment. These are the ones most apt to stay, next to some immigrants. But even they leave after staying longer than usual.

"The turnover is quite high. Men just don't want to stay, even in this time of high unemployment. Enticing them with a wage of a whole $ 2.10 per-hour, a 10-hour day and a 60-hour week doesn't encourage them to stay. By the way, what is the 10 cents for? One thing in the PGE's favour is that manpower is easily obtained this winter. They come from all over, as far as Ontario.

"The great continental railroads of Canada and the United States were built by cheap labour but that is, or at least it should be the past. Today is not yesterday. Yes, railworker, our railway is something everybody in B.C. can be proud of, but let us not forget those that built it, that they might have had a certain pride in having even a small part in it. Pacific Great Eastern; it's Fort Nelson or bust. Signed, Another Railworker, Fort St. John."

Another short comment from the same paper is headlined "Railworkers Protest." This is a press release.

"Willie Enselmueller, area representative of the United Transportation Union, has called for an impartial inquiry into working conditions and sanitary conditions on the Pacific Great Eastern extension project between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. I strongly feel that for the benefit of my fellow workers and in the general interests of the public that an impartial investigation is imperative!"

"He did not specify the nature of the conditions, but he said the grievance procedure following earlier complaints did not bring satisfactory results.

"The union official also said that complaints had been made to the Railway's northern superintendent about unsafe working conditions in the Railway's Fort St. John yard."

Next one is a radio broadcast press release:

"Two workers on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway link being constructed between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson have charged that a lack of sanitary facilities on railway cars used for labour transportation are creating a health hazard. The workers, who declined the use of their names, said they had evidence to back up the allegations.

"The employees charged that workers being taken to the steel gang camps, in some cases a trip that may take from 12 to 20 hours, had no sanitary facilities in the car that transports them. They further charged that the rail car, a caboose, carries up to 12 men, but that there are only four seats available.

"The two men say that workers who quit are not fed on the journey back to Fort St. John, and that, in some cases, the trip may take up to 30 hours."

At least two government departments in Fort St. John say that they too have had complaints about working conditions on the railway link. A Department of Health officer has said that he has letters on file that include complaints of this type, and adds that the PGE is a section of the provincial government unto itself. He says that he has recommended a number of changes to his superiors to pass on to the railway managers, but that he has no jurisdiction over the provincially-owned company.

Here's another radio broadcast:

"The Fort St. John — Fort Nelson health inspector says his department is conducting an investigation into allegations of lack of sanitary conditions on P.G.E. worker transportation cars on the railway link between construction between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. The inspector says that he has jurisdiction to investigate and pass on recommendations on the work camps to his superiors.

"Two workers on the rail gang yesterday charged the P.G.E. worker transportation cars were crowded and had no facilities for the trip to the end of the rail, which took about 12 hours. The workers, who declined the use of their names, said that there were at the time 12 men in the car, but seats were available for four. They added that men were fed on the trip in, but if they quit, they would not be fed on the way back to Fort St. John, and that sometimes this trip could take 30 hours, depending on weather conditions.

"The inspector said yesterday that he believed the two men had been fired, but this could not be confirmed immediately.

"The two Fort St. John representatives of unions working on the Fort Nelson — Fort St. John link of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway said they both have records of having tried to go through regular grievance procedures to correct poor working and sanitary conditions in their areas.

"The vice-president and general manager of the railway, of Vancouver, said earlier today (Friday)

[ Page 613 ]

that the Maintenance of Way Employees Union has never approached the Company, and that railway officials had been unaware of the complaints.

"But both Tom Flynn, who represents the Maintenance of Way, and Willie Enselmueller, representing the United Transportation Union in the Fort St. John area, say their senior union men have had no success through procedures.

"Mr. Flynn said during an interview tonight that he had asked the grand chairman of his union, Mr. Stopper, to investigate complaints of worker transportation built to hold four to six men, often carrying 15 or more workers on 8 to 12 hour trips, and that the same cars had no sanitary facilities and were in poor condition. Mr. Stopper was tied, up with collective bargaining and could not leave. Mr. Flynn said that he made the call to Mr. Stopper after the superintendent said he did not recognize the area representative because the superintendent had not been notified of Flynn's status in the union.

"Mr. Enselmueller of the Transportation Union said his senior had written to the superintendent last year complaining of conditions, but nothing was done. "

Mr. Speaker, this is an illustration of some of the frustrations and problems that employees for the railway company have been experiencing. It would appear that trying to fight about what the procedure is, is more important than getting to work and improving the conditions for people in which to work and get good production for the company.

If you do not have decent conditions for the men, you're just not going to get the production. I think it's as simple as that.

I would also like to make mention of a more recent incident on the Blueberry Bridge, about 45 miles north of Fort St. John, which cut off the City of Fort Nelson from rail services. This area I visited early last month. This bridge collapsed under a train last November, and of course cut off rail services to Fort Nelson. They were not restored until the end of last month. There has been an independent inquiry ordered by the Premier and it is being conducted by an independent engineer so I won't make any mention of details of the bridge, since the inquiry is still going on.

But I would mention some observations on the working conditions. Progress was going very slow. The morning that I was there it was 28 below zero, and I'm told that there's often a wind along with this temperature. Now at that temperature, you don't stand around very long without having to get into a shelter and warm up. But the railway's warm up shelter for all these men was about 200 yards away. It was a tiny plywood shack, which was only 8 feet by 12 feet, and was also supposed to be the lunch room for dinner for 25 men. There was even a pile of dynamite piled in one corner.

There were no first aid facilities visible anywhere. One just has to wonder how they could cope with any serious accident or injury on the site.

There were no toilet facilities anywhere, of any kind. The camp itself, about 3 1/2 miles away, had only two toilets and one had not worked for many weeks.

One man who had only five weekends off since last May told me that he was threatened with getting fired if he refused to work over the Christmas holidays.

With their morale so low, and the facilities so inadequate, it is no wonder why the job is going so terribly slow. Just how that management Minks it can get production out of men under those atrocious conditions, I just cannot understand.

One investigation some insist should be made, regards the circumstances caused in the following reported death of a young man, Gary Brown. On May 22, 1972, he was assumed to have drowned. It was reported that the tractor on which he was riding with two other men overturned while crossing a temporary bridge over Leo Creek. This was on the construction of the B.C. Railway north of Fort St. James.

The following is a letter from his mother printed in the Fort St. James paper of June 21, 1972:

"Mr. Editor: My son, Gary Brown was the B.C. Railway employee missing, presumed drowned on May 22, 1972. My eldest son, Neil, made the journey from Toronto to the campsite, which cost him $800. He sent a telegram to the President of the B.C. Railway after he left. Nobody met him at either Vancouver or Prince George. He had to charter a plane to the campsite. He was met there and ordered off the property, not to talk to the men, or even visit the spot where Gary was presumed to have drowned. As far as the British Columbia Railway was concerned, he could have frozen, as he could not even use company phones to get out. If it hadn't been for one kindly employee, he would have had no place to sleep. The cook was even ordered not to feed him, or even give him a cup of coffee. Is life so expendable in British Columbia? If this is an example of British Columbia hospitality, I'm glad I live and will die in Ontario. Mrs. Eva Savage, Coburg, Ontario."

If the facts were as stated, it was quite a contrast to the hospitality extended to the politicians, prominent business men and a few old timers who were taken by special train last fall to the celebration of the completion of the building of the British Columbia Railway to Fort Nelson. Of course, the special train entertainment et cetera were at B.C.

[ Page 614 ]

Railway provincial expense.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we inherited serious problems from the Social Credit administration. There is room for great improvement in British Columbia and I strongly urge that prompt steps be taken to expedite this improvement.

The British Columbia Railway I know can become, and I know will become a great railway. And I think it should not only be a railway, but it should become a full transportation system that would fill the provincial transportation needs by land, air and water.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is room for a great improvement in the British Columbia Railway.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say I seem to have the fortune to speak at the end of the debate and the end of the day, and there must be a hidden meaning there somewhere. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity in the budget debate to support the budget, a statement I make without hesitation but with the pride and satisfaction that comes with knowing one is part of a new dawn and a greater horizon for the people of British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Never mind the poetry.

MR. GORST: Well, one poet to another — it's well taken. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, on the last occasion I was privileged to speak before this House I reported on my visit to the State capital of Oregon, the City of Salem. I was able to tell you at that time of the great interest the people of that state displayed in the policies and programmes of this New Democratic Government — and that they will be watching with keen scrutiny for any benefits from our policies which they could apply to their own circumstances.

Today, Mr. Speaker, just two weeks later I would like to report briefly on another visit I made last week — this time to Everett, Washington — on the invitation, Mr. Speaker, from public institutions in Everett. I had the honour to represent there the New Democratic Party and this Government before the audiences of the Everett High School senior class, the Everett Community College, political science class and the sociology class of the Everett Community College.

I also had the honour to meet with Mayor Bob Anderson and the council of Everett and engage with them in a most interesting discussion revolving around the programmes this Government of British Columbia is putting forward.

Then there was a radio interview, and I was a guest on a TV programme in which the viewing audience phoned in, a "tele-opinion" type of programme. Well now you are saying, "what has all this got to do with the budget?"

Just this Mr. Speaker: the political change that occurred in this province on August 30, 1972 was noticed beyond the borders of this province and it was noticed in a very healthy way in such unlikely places as Washington and Oregon.

There are many people there who are hopeful that they somehow can bring about the kind of programme we are going to have in British Columbia. Those people who realize that things much change are wishing this democratic socialist party every success, so that orders may witness a new society and be convinced that they too should adopt our political philosophy.

In connection with my visit to Everett I want to thank the Everett Herald newspaper, 50,000 circulation, and Mr. Eric Nalder political reporter of that paper who gave my visit excellent coverage and put our message before 100,000 readers. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition are in an unenviable position in attacking this budget, and they will be in an even more difficult position upon criticism of legislation.

They have never before faced a people's government and so they find themselves — there can be no other position for them — defending big, and I repeat big, business and privilege. Wait until we get to the insurance bills and see where they stand. Then we will see who is for British Columbia and the people — the New Democratic Party, that's who.

When reading this budget speech it should be obvious even to the most imperceptive perceiver that this budget is designed to bring about the improvements and the awards due to the people of British Columbia — social improvements which the people have been due for so many years; social improvements such as the $200 monthly guaranteed income to the over-65's, the handicapped and the disabled; improvements in medicare; more provision for educational facilities; $10 million for recreational facilities — and my riding of Esquimalt will be looking to that for an ice arena at Sooke.

There is the $5 million extra for the park development fund, $10 million for land acquisition fund for sites, and the added $50 million for the home acquisition fund. There is much more. But it has been well covered in this debate by others and, no doubt, we will hear more as the bills are debated.

It must be extremely difficult to build a case against this budget. However, I do give those on the other side of the House credit for a valiant but futile attempt, It should have been obvious to anyone who heard the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance that this was a budget which consolidated the gains this Government has already made in social improvements and paved the way for the greater

[ Page 615 ]

improvements still to come for the people of British Columbia.

This budget, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the throne speech, prepares and indicates the course to be followed by this Government in order to bring to British Columbia our stated policies and programmes as enunciated over a long period of time. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Esquimalt and, for that matter, on behalf of all the people in the province, I wish to congratulate the Premier on the approaches he has made to open discussions with Ottawa, Washington, D.C. and the governments of the State of Washington and the State of Alaska on our joint responsibilities to deal with pollution problems.

As chairman of the oil spill committee I am delighted to see the leadership shown by the Premier in this matter. While I am on the subject of this committee I would like to thank the members of the committee for electing me their chairman. I feel a deep personal commitment to solving the problems involved, and realize that the committee is going to have to do a tremendous amount of work if we are going to find solutions.

By the very nature of the subject we are going to have to look at the total environmental impact of man on his environment. For example, if this committee is going to expend energy on the scale I envisage then we cannot ignore the pollution of part of our coastline at Jordan River by a copper mine.

The Premier has stated the natural resources of this province have not been returning a fair measure of their value in the past. One of the reasons for this is pollution. Another is the lack of a total management plan which would integrate all our resources under over-all management. As one example of this we must come up with an adequate planning formula for our great forest industry, to enable it to live in harmony with our wildlife and our fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, others in this debate have spoken to the questions of wildlife management and fisheries management, but each of us has something to offer. So I would like to make some remarks in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, with adequate planning it should not be necessary for concerned citizen groups such as the Save Our Salmon committee to picket the parliament buildings here in Victoria before solutions can be found. This particular group from the Tofino-Ucluelet area battled bureaucracy on both the federal and provincial level for a considerable length of time. It was only in the last few months that they reached people in government who cared.

Yes, there is a new deal for people in British Columbia, and this Government listens and acts. There is an urgent need for an over-all wildlife management policy which can only be implemented after the establishment of a provincial land use policy, The people of British Columbia are entitled to a maximum return in every sense of the word from the wildlife of the province.

Species will be protected, except from the predators of nature, in the parks and wildlife refuges set aside for them, thus assuring the city or urban dweller the chance of visiting these areas and viewing our big game and the smaller animals for themselves.

But what of the game from the rest of the province? In particular one of the considerable deer and game bird populations of our more rural municipalities. Most of these municipalities, through lack of provincial leadership from past provincial governments, have bylaws prohibiting the discharge of firearms. This, in most instances, includes the bow and arrow within the municipality.

Without a system of wildlife management being agreed upon for these areas, they will become wastelands, inhabited by crows and seagulls as the only bird life, and dogs and domestic cats gone wild as the only animal life.

The idea of the free frontiersman is no longer tenable on land which has multiple use — farmland and forestry areas — which, after all, under correct management, is only a type of farming: tree farming.

We could be well rewarded by taking an intensive look at the land-use policies as they affect wildlife management of the leading industrial state of western Europe, the Federal Republic of Germany. This was referred to by another speaker in this debate yesterday or the day before.

West Germany, as it is more commonly known, is one-third of the size of this Province of British Columbia. But within its borders it has a population 30 times that of British Columbia. Think of that.

Then note this: the harvest of deer-type animals is six times that of British Columbia. Do not delude yourselves. These are not tame, domesticated deer reared like cattle, but wild animals.

In West Germany, game management is held in its true perspective and regarded basically as a part of land management. In that country, all the suitable land surface is divided up by the state into 37,500 game management areas of some 1,500 to 2,000 acres each. Only 17 per cent of these game management areas are in private estates of the aristocracy, exploding the favourite North American outdoorsman's myth that all of the land in Europe, plus all of the game, is in the hands of select few.

I am not advocating this approach for the whole of our province, but I do think it should be given serious consideration for areas such as the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island.

In 1962, a Canadian Wildlife Service report said: "Wildlife is given little serious consideration as an economic asset in the present land-use complex of the lower Fraser Valley." Needless to say, we are still in the same sad plight more than a decade later — only more so.

[ Page 616 ]

You may ask, Mr. Speaker, how do the West Germans get this amazing game harvest? Well, it is relatively quite simple. With the correct guidance of their government and the research and guidance of the equivalent of our Fish and Wildlife Branch, the people do it. Yes, the people — the hunter, the fisherman, the outdoorsman, the naturalist, all of the people with a concern to perpetuate the wildlife of their country.

Isn't that what life is all about? People.

Don't try to tell me we do not have the people here with the same concern because that is not true. In my own riding of Esquimalt, there is an organization made up of concerned people called the Amalgamated Conservation Society of Southern Vancouver Island. Over the last few year they have been giving freely of their own time and resources to rebuild the Sooke River watershed that has been desecrated by the ignorance of the past. They supply protection teams for many of the salmon spawning rivers and creeks during the salmon run.

This or any other group of people have never had the confidence of government, the assistance of government — federal or provincial — in sufficient quantity to enable them to carry out management programmes for the benefit of all. All of us — government, those employed by government, and the people as a whole — have to recognize the fact that this total concept of management cannot be carried out by government alone; it can only supply the leadership and the guidance. People actually must do the job.

The West German wildlife department sets a rental figure on each of their game management areas in the region of $3 to $4 per acre. There is no option to the highest bidder. The only people who can get the rental of a game management area are organized clubs, such as the Amalgamated Conservation Society, who can demonstrate that they have the ability and know-how to manage all the wildlife in the whole area.

This is a year-round job for these clubs. They have to maintain constant surveillance, keep records of wildlife numbers and produce short, medium and long-term plans for the management of their area to the satisfaction of the wildlife branch.

In return, they have the hunting privileges and the help of the governmental agencies in supplying technical and scientific information, advice and training.

With the state of affairs existing in this province — that is, up until now — what I have just outlined as a possibility for wildlife management is simply utopian. We have to come up with many other solutions to other problems first in overall land-use planning.

In this whole mess of land use in British Columbia, there is another area of concern in my area which is causing just as much concern in other parts of the province: the problem of sewage and garbage disposal. In my view there is no doubt that we need intensive research into the problems of treatment and disposal of garbage and sewage.

There needs to be a cut-off point, possibly when the population density of an area becomes greater than one family to 10 acres, where sewage and garbage disposal becomes the responsibility of the regional board. Certainly, sewage disposal in city and urban situations, whether from septic tank or main sewers, should be considered as a public utility and not an area for private enterprise where the operator has to show a profit.

The sea has been used by the people who live on its edge since time began as an open sewer and garbage dump. Those who live inland have had to find better methods to dispose of their waste. We who live by the edge of the sea will have to use other methods of sewage disposal rather than just piping it into the sea. This applies to all waste being dumped in the sea at present — domestic and industrial.

People of the world get a large proportion of their food as produce of the sea. But as each year ends, the chances of maintaining food production from the sea, far from increasing, become less and less, with one of the main causes being pollution.

Here in British Columbia our lack of land-use management has cut into the food-producing possibilities of our fisheries, mainly through the archaic management of our forests and the indiscriminate development on rivers and creeks. Last year, 1972, the commercial fishermen of British Columbia landed fish and shell fish valued at $73.4 million. Just think what this could be with proper enhancement and management.

All British Columbians must take a greater interest in the ocean which makes their western boundary. The sea has the potential of providing the basics of one of the province's greatest sources of wealth. At the moment, far too much is left to the federal government in Ottawa when it comes to the management of Canada's coastal regions and our fisheries. The fishermen of this province, both sports and commercial, have not been listened to, never mind heard, by either the provincial or federal governments in the past on what is a major issue.

Through public pressure, Canada is going to the next Law of the Sea Conference. The tentative date for this meeting is March, 1974. It was originally scheduled for 1972. It will ask for a ban on the high seas fishing of salmon. That is as it should be.

We have all the facts and figures from the Atlantic where the salmon have nearly been exterminated — as well as our own Pacific. The cost to a nation with salmon rivers is quite considerable. Apart from the obvious monetary costs of maintaining and enhancing the production of these rivers, there is the cost of lost water for industrial and domestic use.

[ Page 617 ]

Our federal government, in its wisdom, has seen fit to restrict the number of commercial fishing boats which can fish Canadian salmon, rather than increase the number of fish to be caught. That decision has been made. But let us be sure it is Canadian fishermen who catch the fish produced in Canada.

The protection Canada is asking for is fine, but it does not go far enough. To protect the right of British Columbians to catch the fish off our coast, we need complete control and management of the fish stocks to the edge of the continental shelf, i.e., to the 1,000-foot fathom-line. This area would be a fisheries control zone. It would not hinder the right of free passage of merchant shipping.

Because we have this fisheries control zone does not mean no other nation can fish in those waters. We would manage all the fish in the zone for a maximum sustained yield. If our fishermen did not fish all the species available and some other nation wished them, then there would be no problem so long as they did not attempt to over-crop the stock.

This is just not a problem for British Columbia or even Canada; it is global in scope. Many maritime nations are suffering from the few nations who operate predatory ocean-ranging radar fisheries.

Perhaps we should take heed of the problems of one small area in the North Atlantic — Iceland — and realize before long our fishermen could be in the same unhappy situation. In order that our position and feeling for people be made quite clear, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this House send a message of sympathy and support to the Icelandic government in their present struggle to protect their fisheries industry.

Here in British Columbia we need to protect and enhance our creeks and small rivers and bring those already lost back into production. It appears to me the federal government is only willing to work on the major systems such as the Fraser where they can get the maximum political mileage.

Partially through criminal neglect of our natural resources by previous administrations, the federal fisheries service has, in the past, even failed to enforce the federal Fisheries Act adequately. The incident referred to earlier at Tofino-Ucluelet would never have happened with either correct use-management policies in the province or if the fisheries service had done their work properly.

Let us not be misled by those who expound the theories of unlimited land, limitless wildlife and overabundant fisheries. These things and all of the problems which go with them need the immediate attention of all of the people of British Columbia if we are to give our grandchildren even a semblance of the life we would like them to have.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to address some words to energy and energy resources. Indications of impending resource crises have been with us for many years. However, of late these indications have been emphasized by ominous warnings. It is now surely apparent to all that the energy joy-ride is over. It is also apparent that our power and resource hungry neighbour to the south wants more energy and resources as fast as possible.

We are led to believe there are fuel shortages in the United States, thus giving the impression that oil and gas reserves are critically low in an overall picture. This is not the case at the moment but the crunch is not far distant. The current shortage is one, I suggest, that is self-inflicted, in order to persuade public opinion to support further imports from Canada and to implement the Alaska scheme.

I would like to dwell for a moment on a few pertinent facts applicable to the United States. Clean air standards in the U.S.A. have created a massive demand for cleaner fuel such as natural gas and lower sulphur content oils for both industrial and domestic use.

The same situation now prevails in the United Kingdom. The gas price control policy exhibited by the U.S. Federal Power Commission has greatly stimulated natural gas utilization and has simultaneously effectively discouraged exploration investment to seek new reserves.

There has been an absence of clear federal policy on their energy needs which has also contributed to the present problems.

Furthermore, American environmentalists have delayed off-shore exploration for gas and oil and have blocked the construction of some new electric power stations.

Finally, the massive, increasing industrial and total growth in the United States is exponentially demanding more energy resources.

The sum total of these factors is such that the U.S. covets what reserves of energy resources we may have, and is in consequence, suggesting a continental energy policy.

Canada, according to our federal Minister of Mines and Energy Resources, Donald Macdonald, is already exporting slightly more than 50 per cent of our oil and natural gas to the United States I would therefore venture to suggest a continental energy resource policy is already a fait accompli.

How much more do they want? The present U.S. proven reserves of oil, including the Alaskan fields which are not yet in production, are estimated to equal only a 10 year supply at the current rate of consumption, which is expected to triple by the year 2000 From the American viewpoint it is consequently necessary for them to increase their oil imports. In fact, it is estimated that by or prior to 1985 more than half the United States' crude oil must be imported. This will necessitate great fleets of super oil tankers plying across the oceans of the world.

[ Page 618 ]

To accommodate these tankers, new ports will be constructed and many more refineries.

Only the other day, Mr. Speaker, there was a small item in the Vancouver Province which reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are studying the west coast of the United States from Puget Sound to Los Angeles for new harbours for super tankers of 250,000 tons.

The alarm bells are now ringing in Washington D.C. and in the board rooms of the oil companies. Our Premier has already stated this province will not become part of a continental energy policy consortium. I would respectfully suggest that we immediately ensure that not one more barrel of oil or its derivatives, and not one more cubic foot of natural gas be exported from this country and this province to the United States, other than is being exported now.

I would further suggest we do not permit the conveyance of more oil and gas from Canadian sources through this province to the U.S.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, in the socialist principle of "the greatest good to the greatest number." I can, therefore, only recommend the imperative need for world energy and resource policies that will permit a redistribution of the world's wealth, including ours, to the benefit of all people on this spaceship, Earth, even though this may necessitate a decrease in our living standards but not — I repeat — not a lowering of the quality of life.

We must all devote some energy toward these world concepts. Until these concepts are initiated, our limited Canadian reserves must continue to be stored within Mother Earth.

I would like to address a few remarks to nuclear energy. During the various environmental conferences and meetings held in Stockholm last year, the problems of nuclear energy were discussed inside out once again by many competent scientists and engineers of world renown. Even those who lean toward such nuclear energy development agreed with their opposition that the disposal of nuclear waste is a formidable and frightening problem.

Let's take the case of breeder reactors. About 2 per cent by weight of the reactor's waste is plutonium, whose half-life is 24,000 years and that makes it dangerous for 250,000 years. We have, therefore, to endow the cost of each electrical unit produced with the cost of almost perpetual care of waste materials. We must not comfort ourselves that technology will provide us with vast amounts of cheap power via various exotic systems. Many of these systems are still in the research stages; others will only add to a world already overburdened with environmental problems resulting from technology and its misdirection.

It is essential that we immediately take stock of our very modes of living and its materialistic paraphernalia in an energy-production context. From this stocktaking we have then to divest ourselves of these high energy cost materials. We must also develop labour-intensive activities to economize on both energy and Non-renewable resource use.

At the same time this will provide the people with gainful employment and ensuring benefits to the total community.

Let us take one example in this regard of labour-intensive industry. Fiberglass products are, in part, derivatives of non-renewable resources such as natural gas, oil and coal. We now produce boats from the materials with facilities which are not labour-intensive. In British Columbia we are endowed with a magnificent and renewable natural resource, the forest. It makes much more sense to create small boatbuilding industries using the lumber from the forests. Such industries will be labour-intensive and will expand those excellent manual crafts now being lost.

There is also a great sense of achievement and pride developed by each worker in this type of production. Energy and resources are indivisible. Evidence shows that resources deplete as more energy becomes available. It is Parkinsonian, this galloping phenomenon, eventually detrimental to mankind. It has to be halted — and soon.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on his statement to this House that he favours the establishment of a law school at the University of Victoria. I support that. I have no doubt this would find wide support throughout Vancouver Island.

Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) would give consideration to establishing a school of agriculture in this area at the provincial government farm on Wilkinson Road, as an extension of the University of British Columbia, or in conjunction with the University of Victoria.

I recall, Mr. Speaker, that some time ago, during the 1968 federal election I think it was, there was a proposal by the then federal government to establish an institute of oceanography in this capital region. It was to be attached to the University of Victoria. However, once the election was over the federal Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis, announced that the oceanography institute would be established in his own riding.

I urge the Government of British Columbia to remind the federal government of this proposal and further to point out to the Government at Ottawa the distinct advantages such an institute would enjoy if it were established in this area. Particularly in Esquimalt, where we already have the federal dockyard facilities, Department of Transport vessels, naval ships, and other necessary works such an institute would require. Not only would this location afford better accessibility to the continental shelf, but it would also be more readily available to deal

[ Page 619 ]

with the question of water borne oil shipments.

Remember too, that the University of Victoria could be involved in the programme of such an oceanographic institute. These suggested university-related activities located in this area would not only relieve Vancouver facilities, but would strengthen the university community here, as well as providing the capital region with a suitable type of economy to strengthen the social and economic fabric of this community.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Nanaimo, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), speaking in this House on Monday last, spoke in support of late night ferry sailings between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay. I want to thank him for that support, for I wish to make a presentation for late night ferry sailings between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. I feel such a service is needed here, not because it would be particularly profitable, but because it would enable this capital region with a population of over 200,000 to enjoy an evening on the mainland and return that same night.

MR. WALLACE: Talk to the chief, Jim, talk to the chief.

MR. GORST: I'm talking to him. I invite the Member for Nanaimo (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to discuss with me the location of a third ferry crossing, because I feel  we could settle on one that would serve the southern half of Vancouver Island. While on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) that we might consider offering two sailings a day from downtown Victoria to downtown Vancouver. Yes, the sailing time is longer, but the overall trip time would be the same, or not much longer than Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen. It would, I'm sure, appeal to the Department of Travel Industry, as well as relieving some pressure on the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen route.

Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke in this House, I made special reference to a proposal creating here in the capital region of British Columbia, a provincial capital commission, based and structured on the model of the National Capital Commission in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, I have a very strong personal commitment to this concept, which has been fortified through numerous responses of encouragement resulting from my remarks on this subject in this House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish to re-emphasize the need for this commission to beautify and make more livable our capital region.

The potential for an outstanding capital is great, but so is the potential for a disastrous mess. There is strong justification for provincial involvement in the planning of this capital region, particularly in the waterfront area, This region, Mr. Speaker, is very much at a turning point in its development. Much as Ottawa was some 15 years ago, when the first plans of the National Capital Commission began to have their influence.

Similar to Ottawa at that time, much of this region's waterfront is a hodge-podge of old structures. But the next generation of buildings we are on the verge of creating will tend to solidify the landscape for the next 20 or 40 years. Now is the time to act in a manner that will restore the waterfront for the beauty of this capital, and to the benefit of citizens of this region, as well as the province as a whole.

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is sufficient at stake here to the people of British Columbia, and that we are at a sufficiently critical stage, that there is justification for the provincial government to freeze all development on the margins of Victoria's harbour pending a study of the feasibility to create a provincial capital commission, modeled on the National Capital Commission, which has done so much toward making Ottawa one of the most beautiful and livable cities in the world, despite its climate and mediocre location.

This morning's Victoria Daily Colonist carries a report that our federal government is considering purchasing what is known as the VMD property as a new location for the Ministry of Transport and its ships in this area. Now this may be a good use of that property, but we as a provincial government should be concerned at the effects of such a facility on this legislative precinct. Mr. Speaker, this seat of our provincial capital belongs in some way to all the people of our province, as does the federal capital belong to all Canadians. We should therefore express, throughout the province, a concern and desire to see it develop as a truly beautiful capital seat.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask all the Members of this House who spend two months here in deliberations, to give some thought to those remarks. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to suspend the rules of the House in order that I might move motion No. 19, standing in my name on the order paper. It has to do with the work of the committees (see appendix).

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in moving motion No. 19, standing in my name on the order paper, I shall begin at the beginning and say that this

[ Page 620 ]

amendment should get unanimous support. It will, Mr. Speaker, result in the recording of, then a preparation of a transcript of, all the activities in this House, including when we have the mace on the table, and when we are in a Committee of the Whole House. In addition, we will be able to have our deliberations in the Select Standing committees of the House recorded, and then that recording transcribed upon the request of any such committee. It's open government; it's this House doing it work, going on record, improving the standing orders of the House in a way that we should have done a long time ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in looking over the motion which is to amend Standing Order No. 129, there are a number of points that I would like to raise to the Hon. Minister if I might. As I understand it, it will be possible by passing this particular motion to record the debates in committee of the House, which is fine, except I wonder how you are going to handle the situation with respect to Standing Committees of the House, or special committees of the House, which may from time to time meet outside of the legislative precincts. If it is the intent of the motion that any such committees meeting outside of legislative precincts would have the use of recording equipment — how that would be accomplished, or if it would be accomplished by sending someone skilled in shorthand along with them. What the intent in that particular request is…

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Technical detail, the Hon. Minister says. But I think it is important that we have some understanding as to what is intended by the Hon. Minister in this regard. Certainly, after reading the motion, we do not object to the idea of the recording of debate, either in the House or in the committee. But it does seem to me that if we're going to carry on some continuity of committee work, there's a possibility of those committees meeting other than in these chambers, or adjacent to them, and I'd just like, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to address that question to the Hon. Minister before he closes the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I just want very briefly to compliment the Minister and the new Government for taking this step. It's so long overdue. Like many members who sat in the Opposition for years, I suffered the frustrations of the unwillingness of the former government to put on the record things that were said in the House and in committee. Mr. Speaker, the reason why I am saying a word or two in this debate is that I find it difficult to suppose that those who sit in the official Opposition and voted it down again and again and again, witnessed by the Members of this House, with the things that were said in debate on the record, should now find no objection at all to the move of the Government. What a change!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we support this move and welcome it. I was fortunate enough not to be in the House prior to last September — I mean that very seriously. I think it only proper that we now carry the business of recording the activities of the House in its various committees to a logical conclusion. We shall support the move.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): How far we have come in a few short months, Mr. Speaker. Look at it — Hansard, day after day after day. Every word that has been said in the House. Now we are going to have it in committee.

Twelve months ago, Mr. Speaker, when we sat in this House, not only were we not entitled to have any record of what was said in the committees — we weren't entitled to any word recorded or available to us — not even what was being said in the present debate. With the permission of the Speaker, we could have an excerpt of what was said up to but not over 25 words. How far we have come in 12 short months — this is another step forward and I'm supporting it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Me too, Mr. Speaker! (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we agree in this party quite clearly. The reason for our apparent delay in proceedings is that we are not altogether sure that motion could not be amended to allow more perhaps, than simply the chairman of the committee. In due course, when the thing is written

[ Page 621 ]

out and ready to be put in your hands I'll sit down and stop stalling, because my friend will have written the thing out. At the moment, we feel that perhaps leaving this in the hands of only the chairman, is inadequate and that any member of such a committee might well be able to request the transcript.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the motion paper in front of me says, "upon request of a select standing or special committee of the House, Mr. Speaker may supply such committee with a transcript of the committee proceedings." Is that what you are referring to?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. We would believe that this could be improved, Mr. Speaker, by making it available at the request of any Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the rules of the committee, which never functioned before, I might add, the right of the individual Member is clearly spelled out in the standing rules governing committees. But when we used to have complaints before in committee, Mr. Member, the complaint went to the Speaker and the Speaker said, "oh no, the committee has to resolve that."

I give you our assurance that what you are looking for will be protected in the standing orders. If you want to put in an amendment, we will accept the amendment, in whatever form you want to put it.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the spirit of the Premier's statement, the ruling wasn't that of the government, it was that of the Speaker. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you could gain the spirit of the House and not be bound by previous decisions of the Speaker, which we think were wrong and unfortunate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would hope that committee studying the rules — and I don't want to influence them in any way (laughter) — would protect the rights of the Members as equals in this House. As one who suffered by writing out a simple subpoena slip, as I was entitled to do in the House rules, and never allowed to use those subpoena slips, let me tell you that I hope that the all party committee comes in and protects the supreme right of equal powers of every Member regardless of party.

MR. SPEAKER: This is all very informal.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we accept. But we feel that there is a point here. Perhaps the Government may wish to do this under certain unfortunate events which might lead to your being incapacitated, delayed, unable to be here as Speaker of the House, some other person acting in your place might not be as generous as the Premier would like under this regulation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's have the committee write it in.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that might be a good idea, but why don't we write it in right now? We could write it in right now and deal with things at this stage.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the experience that the Hon. Premier has had and his indication of a willingness to accept an amendment.

What I propose is very simple. In section 4 of the motion as it stands, add this new subparagraph, subsection 9, which reads, "Upon request of a select standing committee of the House, Mr. Speaker may supply such committee with a transcript of the committee's proceedings."

The amendment I propose is in the first line, after the words "of a", to insert the word, "Member" — so it would read, "Upon request of a Member of a select standing committee of the House, Mr. Speaker may supply…."

Mr. Speaker still has the same discretion to exercise but instead of it being necessary to have the whole committee in agreement, a Member may ask that that discretion be exercised. I would ask that this amendment now be moved, seconded by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: On the main motion, the Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us, in its amended form, obviously commends itself to the House. In direct response to the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), let me assure you that there are three points of evidence in front of us now, I think.

The committee rooms already, as you and I know, having worked in one for some time, have equipment available for us. That equipment is portable, lightweight and can accompany you and I wherever we go in the spirit of investigating the North Peace or Surrey for that matter. That's point one.

Point two is with the Telpac system we can plug in to these quarters here and downstairs with the Hansard people instanter and that makes sure that we get that facility.

Thirdly, in front of you, without getting into the

[ Page 622 ]

details, in Vote one you will notice there is a suggested appropriation of $100,000 for select standing committees. With those three pieces of information, together with the amendment, I think we can call the question.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I think this will not take so long. I would like to ask leave of the House to move motion number 20 standing in my name in the order paper. (see appendix). While they are looking for it, it is to get one of the committees — the agricultural committee — studying co-ops.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the interesting developments over the past year or perhaps two years has been the number of small cooperatives that have started up in the community.

Groups of people getting together trying to do something in their own little way to actually reduce the cost of purchasing food. There is some complaint from some of them that they are having difficulty in arranging for supplies at reasonable prices from wholesalers. With a view to studying that, we felt that the best way would be to refer this question to a committee and have them look into it.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Levi files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 619 of the daily Hansard:

That Standing Order 129, being Part IV of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, be amended as follows:

1. By inserting after the word "House" in the second line thereof the words "and all committees of the House".
2. By inserting after the word "House" in the third line of subsection (4) the words " and all committees of the House".
3. By deleting the word "typewritten" in the first and second lines of subsection (7), and inserting after the word "debates" in the second line thereof the words "in the House and Committees of the Whole House".
4. By adding to Standing Order 129 the following subsection:

"(9) Upon request of a Select Standing or Special Committee of the House, Mr. Speaker may supply such Committee with a transcript of the Committee proceedings."

The following motion is referred to on page 622 of the daily Hansard:

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to inquire into the question of Government financial assistance for the operation of a wholesale outlet to service member-run, bulk-buying food cooperatives in British Columbia:

The Committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to hear representations from such organizations and individuals as may, in their discretion, appear necessary, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the House.