[ Page 623 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Mr. Chabot. Notice of motion on proposed amendment — 623

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Infants Act (Bill No. 11). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 623

An Act to Amend the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act (Bill No. 41).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 623

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act (Bill No. 40). Hon. Mr. Levi.

Introduction and first reading — 624

The Cattle Industry Development Act (Bill No. 32). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 624

An Act to Amend the Farmers Land Clearing Assistance Act (Bill No. 36).

Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 624

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 625

Point of order

Mr. Williams. Introduction of bills — 625

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 625

Ruling by Mr. Speaker — 625

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 626

Mr. Speaker — 626

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 626

Mr. Speaker — 626

Privilege

Mr. Williams. Distribution of bills — 627

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 627

Mr. Speaker — 627

Mr. Williams — 627

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 628

Mr. Speaker — 628

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Williams — 628

Mr. Smith — 634

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 641

Mr. Gardom — 653

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of students from Cloverdale Secondary School today, and their teachers Mr. Cocker and Mr. Johnson.

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

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce to the House a group of students from Templeton Secondary School from Vancouver Centre, with their distinguished teacher and friend of mine Cliff Greer.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to report that you have in your gallery this afternoon some distinguished visitors — namely the mother of the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), who sits to the left of me. Also my wife and my daughter.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears that there is an error in the Votes and Proceedings, and in the orders of the day.

Yesterday, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) moved, seconded by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) a proposed amendment to a motion. And it appears today as a notice of motion. However, it was in fact a proposed amendment to a motion and should rightfully have appeared on the orders of the day as a proposed amendment to motion. Because it really is physically impossible to have a sub-amendment to an amendment because of the time lapse given as notice on the votes….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member you don't need to proceed further on it.

The rule of course, provides that in effect there has to be one clear day's notice, on a notice of motion. But in this case the first motion that's on the order paper to which the notice of motion for an amendment to that is added, could not possibly be physically available on one clear day. Therefore what will happen undoubtedly is that when the notice of motion is called, the amendment will be accepted — I would assume by the House in any event, to that notice of motion that was one clear day. So that the one that could not physically be done in one clear day would still be accepted by the House, and I see no difficulty in that. But I could not put it down as a proper notice of motion within one day. At least I'm so advised by the Clerks.

MR. CHABOT: Very good then, if it will be accepted as a sub-amendment at the time which is relevant. But I was just going on the past procedures as it appeared in the orders of the day on February 10, 1972, in which a proposed amendment was made to an amendment to the main motion which did not, the prior day, appear on the Votes and Proceedings, but moved directly to the orders of the day on February 10, 1972.

MR. SPEAKER: At any rate, it's in the Votes and Proceedings that apparently Mr. Phillips to move — is that one you're referring to?

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The number is 31….

MR. CHABOT: He will have the opportunity of moving it at the appropriate time?

MR. SPEAKER: That's my understanding. It will not be barred by the House, I would assume, unless they have suddenly taken leave of all fairness.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INFANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 11 intituled An Act to Amend the Infants Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 11 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EQUAL
GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 41 intituled An Act to Amend the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act.

[ Page 624 ]

Motion approved.

Bill No. 41 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADOPTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Levi moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 40 intituled An Act to Amend the Adoption Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 40 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

THE CATTLE INDUSTRY
DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 32 intituled The Cattle Industry Development Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 32 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.

HON. MR. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FARMERS
LAND CLEARING ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Farmers Land Clearing Assistance Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I move 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. 36; Mr. Dent in the chair.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if in the course of this debate in committee whether the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) intends to make any statements to the House as to the purpose of the bill which is accompanying this message. The reason I pose this question is that there is some suggestion that there has already been some release of information concerning this legislation and I think that the Members of this House are entitled to the courtesy of hearing from the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was some release, yes. When I spoke in the debate on the budget I did speak about this bill and told the House at that time something of what we intended with this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've heard the motion. I would point out that no debate is permitted on the introduction of a message bill in committee.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): What we're really interested in knowing, Mr. Chairman, is whether any statements have been made to the Press regarding this specific piece of legislation today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the statement was made in the House. And there have been questions asked about that legislation from time to time including today.

MR. McGEER: Would he repeat a statement that he made to the Press today regarding that specific piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order. Would he be seated, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): How can that man possibly be out of order in committee stage, when we're simply inquiring of the Minister a very straightforward piece of information? The committee stage, we understand, is for discussion of this nature. We in no way want to impede first reading of this bill. We'd simply like to….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated, please. I would point out to the House, after consulting authorities, that it is the time-honoured

[ Page 625 ]

tradition that in the introduction of a money bill, there is no debate at this point of the introduction of the bill. Would you be seated, please.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 36 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.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Land Commission Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Government House, February 22, 1973.

HON. MR. STUPICH: 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. 42; Mr. Dent in the chair.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The motion is for this committee to recommend to the House that this bill be introduced. Before this motion is passed by this committee, I suggest that we're entitled to have from the Minister some clear statement as to the purpose of this bill, or else how can we determine whether or not it should be so reported?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're out of order. Would you be seated, please.

I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated. If he doesn't accept my ruling, he may appeal it. We will continue to consult authorities and advise you privately.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …at the committee stage made, we think, reasonable requests for information which is required by us or at least we would desire to have prior to voting on this particular motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think what you're taking up is a point of order. It has been ruled in this House on a number of occasions, on the formal introduction of a bill, it is not debated. It may be different in Ottawa, but we do not follow the rules in Ottawa. We follow the rules of May as set out in standing order No. 1 of our rules.

The point is and what I wish to explain to the Hon. Member is that the time-honoured tradition of which he speaks on the introduction of a bill by message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is debated in time-honoured tradition in the House of Commons at Westminster, on the basis that a bill has yet to be formalized or devised by the House in Committee of the Whole House. For that reason, where a message comes down without a bill accompanying it, there may be debate at that stage. But that happens on most extraordinary occasions only.

But not where a bill comes down with the message because obviously it would be unfair to the Members to debate a bill that is not yet in their hands. But where there is no bill with the message and a bill is sought by message, then the House in Committee of the Whole House may resolve to devise a bill to comply with the request from Her Majesty.

This being the situation, it would not be under our tradition in this House to debate in Committee of the Whole House on the introduction of a message accompanied by a bill. For that reason, I suggest it would be out of order under our tradition to debate the introduction of a bill. If that were so, this House would be filled with debate on the introduction of many bills of Hon. Members such as yourself, which bills are manifestly out of order and would be demolished at first reading.

If you want it that way, you're inviting the whole House to debate your introduction of a bill. Your bills, I note on the order paper, at first blush appear to be out of order. But it's also been the tradition….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, please. If you've read our standing orders you will know and observe the bills that are on the order paper. They're out of order. But

[ Page 626 ]

I have always made a practice, and so have other Speakers, of permitting the introduction of bills that are out of order, so that you have the opportunity with the leave of the House to have your bills before the House.

But if you're going to ask the other Members to debate the introduction of bills, you're asking for retaliation which I would not like to see in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think there is some misunderstanding as to what actually we wish to debate. We wish to debate the motion to report the bill, not the motion to introduce the bill. There is a distinction.

The second point, Sir, of course, I believe that a great deal of your very interesting comments are perhaps a little off point in that they were discussing private Members' bills from the Opposition parties. We are here in a situation where we have a special circumstance of a request for information dealing with revealing knowledge about this bill prior….

MR. SPEAKER: There's a stage in every bill when you can request information. That's when you come to Committee of the Whole House to discuss the bill itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're not, Mr. Speaker, asking for information on the bill. We're asking….

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, Hon. Member, has been raised. What is your point of order?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The point of order is this: the bill is not before the House. We cannot debate a bill until it is before the House. The motion is that the committee report be adopted. The committee recommended introduction of the bill. We cannot debate that bill until it is before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're not debating the bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're trying to debate the bill. Yes, you are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Hon. Members, I think what we'd better do on this question, because it's an interesting point and I don't want to jump on a decision of this kind. I would therefore recommend that I reserve my opinion on the matter and give a report to the House on this particular question and, with the leave of the House, the question of these motions be discussed after I have investigated and given a report to the Members on my findings. Is that satisfactory?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Either we operate on the rules of this House, governed by previous rulings, or we are going into chaos. Now I suggest to you that the remedy that you're suggesting is that when a point is asked about an already-existing rule and tradition, the point takes precedence over the already-existing rule in practice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to go that route, I suggest to you that we won't be able to get any business done. If you want to review it and have a recess now and come right back with an answer, fine. That's acceptable. But let's not go any further now in terms of that kind of approach and have every question of standing rule and practice hold up normal business of this House. If you want a recess, let's have a recess and have a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, Hon. Members, I declare a recess because I'm certainly going to research the point. I don't feel that it's justified to just make a decision right from the lip, as it were. So I'll declare a short recess on this point.

The House took recess.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: In the short space of time available, we can find nothing to disturb my decision on the question of debating the report from the committee on the ground that this is a pro forma proceeding that is recorded in three stages which really relate to the introduction of a bill on message.

The message was presented with the bill; the Members do not have a copy of the bill and they have nothing, therefore, to debate except the advisability of something they know nothing about. Until that stage, there's really no subject matter of which they can have knowledge.

If they were debating the message, and the message asked for the introduction of a bill on a certain subject, they would then, in Committee of the Whole House, have something to debate.

Looking at our standing order 45(l) you will note those matters which are the subject of debate. They do not include a report coming from Committee of the Whole House on the introduction of a bill.  Under the circumstances, I can see nothing to disturb my ruling, up to this moment, of my research. If any Members have any information that they wish to present to me at a later time, I would be very glad to welcome and study it.

In the meantime I must rule, as I did formerly, on the basis of the present material before us, that long usage in this House has determined the course that I am following; that is that there is no debate either in the Committee of the Whole House or in the stage of report from Committee of the Whole House. I now

[ Page 627 ]

wish to proceed with the question on report from the committee.

Report adopted.

Bill No. 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege. Last evening you explained in great detail the procedures that were adopted with respect to the availability of bills when they are printed in this House. It is in that respect that I raise this matter of privilege.

I am sure that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. The question is — and I hope you will take this into consideration and advise the House — whether or not it is a breach of privilege for a Minster of the Crown to answer questions with respect to a bill which is to be presented by message in advance of it coming before this House and going through the procedures we have just passed in this House. It is in this respect that I raised questions in committee a few moments ago. I think that this is a very serious matter.

Obviously, if one is able to ask enough questions of a Minister and get enough answers then he has the entire bill in his possession. The Minister said in committee today that he mentioned the bill in his remarks in this debate earlier and that since that time, including today, he has been asked questions about this legislation. If he has answered those questions, then people have knowledge in advance of Members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of privilege, I would ask the Speaker on behalf of the Government if indeed we could have a ruling in this regard because there has been a practice in this House for Leaders of the Opposition, cabinet Ministers, leaders of other parties, to make pre-recorded statements on television with a release time.

For instance, on budget day I did ask three leaders to come to my office — only two came, unfortunately — to accept the budget and, of course, respect the deadline. They do make themselves available to questions. I meet with the Press at any hour.

The former leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer) adopted the same practice, as well as the new Opposition. I want this clarified for all Members of this House because they all find themselves in the situation where the electronic media perhaps want a pre-taping for television and they give their word that the pre-taping will not be released until the time specified by the Minister.

If that is no longer permitted, then I would ask the Speaker to rule on that for all Members of the House. That practice has not been abused to my knowledge in any single instance — the pre-recording of those particular things with a time deadline.

If, however, it has been abused, I would suggest that's a problem in the Press gallery rather than a problem of the Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I just want to observe that the question that you propose is also governed by the fact that I presume you are talking about message bills which are not the property of the House and of which the House had no knowledge until they are first introduced in the House.

Therefore, it's slightly different from where you have put a motion on the order paper to introduce a Member's bill where the House has then, in effect, got possession of a bill which you've intituled on notice of motion.

I would assume I have to consider both aspects of it: where the House has some property interest in a bill that you are bringing in, or where there is a message bill of which the House has absolutely no knowledge at the time and is certainly not yet the property of the House. These are problems I'll be prepared to grapple with.

It covers also, I would assume, matters such as disclosure of the budget speech prior to its introduction at a certain time in the day to members of the Press on their guarantee that they will not disclose it. All the matters I will look into if the House wishes me to do so. But I will only do it if the House so agrees.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am in accord with the comments of the Hon. Premier in this regard. All Members are aware that the throne speech and the budget speech are made available in advance. All Members are also aware that the Press gallery at that time is specifically marked to be out of bounds, save with your permission, Sir.

I think we should look into this matter as it affects message bills as well because when you consider that message bills invariably deal with the financial expenditures of the Crown, then any advance word that might reach the outside through some incautious action on the part of the person who is committed with the responsibility of having advance knowledge is very serious indeed. I am certain that the Hon. Premier would be the first to be concerned about any such thing happening.

I am not suggesting that in this instance it has occurred; but events have occurred which have raised

[ Page 628 ]

this and I think it's a matter that all Members of the House should concern themselves with now. I am not sure what is required from the House, Mr. Speaker, in order to place this matter firmly before you as a matter of a request for your considered opinion, but I think it should be done now.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't leave the comments without adding some concern. If the Member is suggesting that there has been no incident and then relating it to events that are unstated in this House, you leave the instruction with the Speaker vague no matter which method we follow around something that may or may not have happened around this bill.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to be fair to this House, that if the Member is suggesting that someone has indeed broken a practice in the Press gallery — which is a very serious breach — that should be stated clearly with the facts now or to a committee of the House. But to leave the Speaker with the impression that there are facts related to "events around this bill," to quote your words, that the Member is not disclosing to the House, leaves a pall over the Press gallery that I don't want to see sustained.

Now if the Member has specific charges around this bill, then I suggest, to protect all the Members of this House, that a substantive motion be put forward by that group or that Member pointing out the situation, the events and the allegation. Otherwise, we are placing the Press in a very precarious position.

Now if these events are there, Mr. Member, and you have facts, you owe it to all the Members of this House to lay a substantive motion in front of this House. But if we're dealing with something else that's going on that we don't know about and you're not prepared to say to us exactly what it is you're concerned about, then I suggest you're leaving too many questions up in the air.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on the point of privilege. It is customary on a point of privilege for a Member who raises the point of privilege to be prepared to make a motion to the House relating to the point of privilege. In other words, it doesn't occur in a vacuum. If there is any breach of privilege of which the Member has knowledge that he is prepared to reduce to writing in the form of a motion, I would be much happier to deal with it in that fashion.

If the Hon. Member has some information upon which he bases a complaint on a factual basis, then he should commit that to paper. The rule is generally that a breach of privilege is followed by a motion. Whether it's to go to a committee on privileges to deal with the question and resolve it, the Speaker first has to determine whether it is a prima facie breach of privilege that should be considered by a committee of privileges, to determine the facts. He merely sees where there may be facts. If there may be facts, the committee then comes back with a report.

I would suggest in this particular instance that I don't want to find myself making decisions in a vacuum. Therefore I would ask that if the Hon. Member will give consideration to this question today, and report his decision to the House as to whether he says there's a breach of privilege by the Press or by anyone, he should put it in writing in the form of a motion asking a committee of privileges to deal with it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago we received a very good suggestion from the Premier that there be a consideration by you of a number of practices and he gave a very general scope to this.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I suggest that that be in a form of a motion to the Speaker, to deal with that question and report to the House and let them decide there what they think….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If the Premier would like me to put his words in a form of a motion I would certainly do that. I would feel though, Mr. Speaker, that the whole matter could be cleaned up and cleared up very quickly if unanimous consent is given at this time for one of the Opposition to pose a question directly to the Minister of Agriculture on this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. Order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order. If you have notice of a breach of privilege then present it in a motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it in writing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Put up or shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Minister of Recreation and Conservation): After that, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I should be bothered to make a speech. My

[ Page 629 ]

secretary, however, advised me that today was visitors day and I decided that I should attend.

I would like to say, however, that I regard this speech as a rather difficult one, because I've been used to being on the Opposition side, and I've been used to having the job, along with several of my colleagues, of attacking the government. And I can't help feeling a bit like Pavlov's dog. (Laughter).

The problem is, when I look at the Government and see all these beautiful people here, I just can't do it all. But I can't help but think that there's still a Pavlovian thing remaining with the Liberal Party. There's been talk about the "old school tie routine" in the Liberal ranks. And I'm beginning to feel that it's simply the "tie that binds," and it's binding this Legislature right now.

I can't help but suspect, Mr. Speaker, that this long harangue over the rules with a Government that has been so generous in relation to developing proper rules in this chamber, that this long harangue really had another purpose. And that's tied to the non-confidence motion and the desire of the Opposition to talk until the late hours this evening.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's a great pleasure to share with so many people in this province a kind of elation over the change that's come about in British Columbia with the establishment of a new government. I think there's a feeling amongst the people of this province that the doors have at last been opened in Victoria, that we've got a government that's willing to be bold and a Government that is willing to do difficult things if they're necessary.

I think at long last the Vancouver Club, and the Union Club, and the special clubs of this province are on the outside looking in.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of our group are more discriminating than the minority. But I'd like to make it clear that the forest policies, the mineral policies and the resource policies of this province are now determined here with this Government, and not in the special clubs of the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'll be dealing with that my friend.

I want to talk about my own riding of Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker. It's an area that I personally care a great deal about. And it's an area that this province and the city in the past have too frequently forgotten. It's especially rewarding for me as a person that has spent all my life in that area to know that the Premier is a person who grew up in the area, that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) of this province represents the riding as well, and that I have the opportunity to represent the riding in this capacity as well.

This kind of "east side power" is something that I think is really a pleasure that's shared with the people in the riding. They've been waiting a long time. The faithful people of Vancouver East through thick and thin supported this movement. So I make no apologies. I want to talk about my home base because it's important to this party, it's important to me, it's important to this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think there are many things that can be done in my riding, which I consider a great place in which to live. But there's many things that can be done to make it a far better place to live. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the place we can start, on the east side of the city, is on the waterfront.

Unlike the westerly part of the city which has mile upon mile of open shoreline, the east side of the city is limited to one small park at New Brighton, which is right at the Pacific National Exhibition. Much has been done in recent years to improve the situation in terms of park acreage on the east side of the city. But nothing has been done in terms of the waterfront. The concentration has essentially been in the Point-Grey area and in the Jericho Beach area. I'm sorry that there hasn't been the concern with respect to the east side of town where the need has been far greater.

But now we do have a new civic administration in the City of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure it's an administration that this Government can work with and that there should be an opportunity of changing things, provided there is some cooperation with the National Harbours Board with respect to possible provincial and civic goals, but one can't help but keep in mind that the man who gave us all block 4252 and Pacific Centre is now the man who's presently in charge of the National Harbours Board.

Unfortunately, there's no evidence yet of change on the part of the former mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Rathie with respect to the city's concern about the harbour and the waterfront. And the filling….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid so, it's worse. But there's filling taking place at the foot of Main. The city council isn't told what it's for or what the purpose will be. There's filling taking place on Commissioner Street, the city isn't told until there's a fait accompli on their doorstep. Local people in the neighbourhoods that are concerned about what's happening in the harbour are simply not informed by this chairman who represents the NHB on the west

[ Page 630 ]

coast.

But I'm convinced that now is the time to begin, Mr. Speaker. I think I should note that a small start was made earlier this month by myself with respect to a small grant to the City of Vancouver Parks Board. It was to prepare a plan for the waterfront area near the Pacific National Exhibition, and near the Columbia grain elevator site on Commissioner Street. Those of you who may know the area may realize that New Brighton is one of those kinds of pockets with very little outlook, whereas the headland where the old elevator site is located is a magnificent headland that gives an open view of the whole harbour and the North Shore mountains and the downtown. It is an area that I would like to see preserved.

There's another one of the fill areas that the Harbour Board has been playing around with. The decisions made to date by the NHB people in Vancouver, essentially Mr. Rathie, put that land in jeopardy. There have been various agreements made prior to informing the city council, with respect to the agreements, Mr. Speaker. The city is now under pressure to approve an industrial proposal in the area that I'm concerned about. I think the mistake, in terms of establishing contracts and arrangements with private industrial developers in the area, was essentially Mr. Rathies's and that of the National Harbours Board. And I think the problem should be theirs.

It may seem that this is a rather small matter for the new city administration or for the province. But I regard it as a rather significant one, because I see it as a genuine challenge in terms of the kind of approach that should be taken in the city in the future. I would urge the city to see it as a challenge, and I would urge the NHB to see it as a challenge, Mr. Speaker, because it is a major question in the east side of the city. I would urge the city, and challenge the city to continue with their present stance and not approve the industrial development on the site. I'd urge them to go one step further and to zone the land as parkland, because this is the chance for the new civic administration to show clearly that the city's priorities are changing and that the harbour has a different role in relation to the people that live in the town.

It is not just an industrial base, and it is time to recognize that the east side of the city has been abused in terms of adequate space and access to the waterfront. I know we can't have Jericho and Locarno solutions on the east side, but we can give people access to the waterfront in an interesting and delightful way that could make the entire city a better place to live in.

I challenge the city to zone the land for parkland purposes. If they will, I would like to assure them that the province will provide considerable aid with respect to the acquisition of the land in that area. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is a challenge for Mr. Rathie and the question is whether he is prepared, if the city is prepared to go along with the province with respect to these areas, to counter the wishes of the democratically elected city council in the City of Vancouver and the democratically elected government in Victoria. This is a challenge to the NHB, the Ottawa administration and Mr. Rathie on behalf of the people of the east side of the city.

There is another key area east of Main, Mr. Speaker, and that is at the foot of Rogers Avenue, and most people may not know that, right by the B.C. Sugar refinery. There is a great opportunity there for waterfront open space on the east side of town in an area that desperately needs it. Rogers Street is right near the Raymer public housing project, a project that desperately lacks amenities and that carries with it inherent social problems simply because of its design and poor decisions by the previous government. I sincerely hope that work will be done with respect to parkland in that area on the waterfront as well, Mr. Speaker.

But there is another underdeveloped asset on the east side of the city. It is a major one and it is a major land area, and that is the Pacific National Exhibition. The PNE board of directors has once more proven that it can make news, and the latest controversy with respect to hockey for the kids in that part of the city is simply just that. It is the latest controversy. It is one of a string of controversies that have surrounded the Pacific National Exhibition. I think the latest thing is a reflection of an attitude that has continuously prevailed at the Pacific National Exhibition for as long as I can remember. I grew up in that area, Mr. Speaker.

We could make the exhibition grounds more significant for the province and more worthwhile for the people of the east side of the city.

Too often the PNE is simply a burden on the people of the east side of town. They have to live with the traffic problems almost daily as a result of that development. They have to deal daily with the mammoth invasion or intrusion into their residential neighbourhoods. I know that that can't be washed away, but it would be easier for the people of that area to take if the PNE were more responsive to their own needs right in the community.

The board of directors has continued to destroy the amenity qualities of the lands in the Pacific National Exhibition grounds. They used to be a pleasant place to be. They are no longer. We lost the golf course when there was a golf course in the ravine. We lost Calister Park for a long time to drag racing on what was the most important soccer pitch in the city for many years. All of that is really just part of the pattern of abuse that, as I see it, has taken place in that part of the city. It is something that people in that residential area have grudgingly grown up with.

[ Page 631 ]

Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not too much to expect that in this day and age we should have a board of directors of the PNE that is responsive to the community that it lives within, and surely it is possible to have a board that is responsive to the community and to the province.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is not what we are suggesting. The Hon. Member isn't quite aware yet of what we are suggesting.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, rather than a blacktop wasteland that the present board has allowed to develop in the exhibition grounds, something more can be done. Surely it could become more like Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, or like some of the great parks of Europe. There is no reason why those grounds couldn't be one of the greatest assets of the city. They are presently a rather narrow commercial money-making facility and it can be much more than that.

The response of the Opposition with respect to the PNE question….

AN HON, MEMBER: They listened to the hot line show.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) said in a release the other day, "Good heavens! The Minister of Resources and the Attorney General want to turn the PNE into a giant community centre. Wouldn't that be a disaster?" You bet your sweet bippy we want to change it into a giant community centre.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We want to make that area responsive to the community that it is within and more responsive to the province at large.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Then take all the provincial directors off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn it into a used car lot. (Laughter).

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We do want more neighbourhood involvement in decisions that are made on the PNE grounds, and it is really the only way, Mr. Speaker, as I see it in a broad sense, to avoid the kind of urban wreckage and anarchy that has developed in the United States in recent years. There has to be community involvement in the decisions that are made — in the decisions that affect them. We are going to go the disastrous way that our neighbours to the south have, unless we take this kind of approach with agencies like Pacific National Exhibition.

I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the official Opposition endorses the present system, one that ignores the community to a very great extent. It is the system, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, that in some ways is almost a country club for a middle-management elite that is frequently self-appointed. The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) will be given a chance within the next few days to decide which system will be better, ours or theirs — the one that his government was willing to live with for 20 years.

There will be a new board of directors for the Pacific National Exhibition, Mr. Speaker. I might note that the legislation was drafted long before the present controversy. The pattern was there for those with eyes to see. The legislation was drawn in early January before this matter came to public attention.

The following members will be appointed under proposed legislation to the PNE board of directors. The board shall consist of 16 directors who shall be 9 persons appointed by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who shall be, in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, one person who is representative of the agricultural interests or community of the province, the industrial community of the province, the business or commercial community in the province, a person representative of the cultural and ethnic communities of the province, a person representative of the artistic community of the province, a person representative of the sports and recreational community in the province, a person who is representative of the trades union movement of this province and, Mr. Speaker, three persons who are residents of and representative of the interests of other residents of land situated within a radius of one mile of the lands owned by or on behalf of the Pacific National Exhibition.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there will be five members of the city council who they may choose, one member of the city parks board who they may choose — all to be the board of the directors of the new Pacific National Exhibition.

I think that in this way we can have a truly representative governing body for the Pacific National Exhibition and we can have an exhibition that will continue to grow and improve with the province. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we can have an exhibition that will provide a new heart for the east side of the city.

I make no apologies for dealing with these problems in my riding, Mr. Speaker, because I regard them as significant. I would hope that once the city decides on the question of neighbourhood representation that the representation could be tied to a neighbourhood government within the City of Vancouver. In the interim, however, we don't have neighbourhood representation on the city council. I would hope that would be the way the city would

[ Page 632 ]

move and we could in turn move that way with respect to the Pacific National Exhibition.

I would like to talk about our major provincial parks, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be worthwhile to give a little bit of perspective with respect to the growth of parks and parklands in British Columbia under the last government.

I suspect, looking over the figures and the information that is available to us all, that we probably had the greatest retardation of park preservation anywhere in the world during the last 20 years in British Columbia. At a time of great population growth and growing concern over the preservation of the natural environment, what did that former mammoth group over there do? What happened to our parklands in the last two decades in British Columbia? In 1952, here's the acreage, 9,015,867 acres. Remember 1952? The year that you used to tie everything to?

Then there were deletions in the park system — at Crescent, at Nakusp, at Seymour, Keremeos, at Tweedsmuir — and by 1955 we had 7,997,618 acres, Mr. Speaker. Then there were further deletions; deletions at Mara, Jim Smith, Hamber, Garibaldi and others. By 1962, during that decade of growth in British Columbia, how much parkland did we have after ten years? 6,356,720 acres. The loss in a decade under that administration, Mr. Speaker, was over 2.5 million acres. In the following decade there was a modest improvement. By 1971, there were only 6,497,467 acres; still a loss of over 2.5 million acres.

During those two decades, Mr. Speaker, the provincial population in 1952 was 1,205,000 — in 1972 — 2,185,000. A 100 per cent increase in the population of the province, and yet a loss of parkland exceeding 2.5 million acres.

The summary of all this was prepared, during the last administration's tenure, in July of 1972, and that's available to all. That's why, Mr. Speaker, this Government will be placing a major parks preservation statute before this House shortly. One which will preserve numerous major new parks throughout the Province of British Columbia. We'll be establishing major new parks on the Yukon Border, on the frontier. We'll be establishing major new parks in the magnificent shoreline areas of the Queen Charlottes, which have been so often ignored. We'll be establishing at least three parks in the east Kootenays.

We will be preserving some of that magnificent landscape of this province that for two decades that administration continuously refused to consider. For two decades they cut down on parkland by millions and millions of acres and continuously refused to preserve some of the most magnificent landscape yet untouched on this planet. For two decades the Parks Branch suffered the frustration of that inadequate administration, and this is only the beginning of righting the wrongs in that particular territory.

The parks that will be established under that new statute, Mr. Speaker, will be established by statute, not by order-in-council. The parks will only be changed by statute, not by order-in-council. If any of this 1 1/2 million-plus acres that we establish is going to be changed in the future by this, or any other administration, it can only and will only be done after full debate in the Legislature itself.

We'll never again have the situation, Mr. Speaker, where two and a half million acres can be removed from park status by order-in-council, as was done by the previous administration.

I think we should talk a little about some of the policies with respect to these major parks that we do have in the province. Probably the classic one, and it's hard to choose, is Strathcona. Certainly all those files are ready and available for anybody that wants to review them.

We'll talk about Western Mines and we'll talk about the kind of attitude that prevailed under the former administration with respect to the landscape of this province. We'll talk about it all.

1911 is when Strathcona Park was established, Mr. Speaker, and the main reason it was established was because of the alpine lands and the then magnificent Buttle Lake and the shoreline of Buttle Lake. It wasn't until 1923 that the statutes were changed and it was possible to prospect in areas like Strathcona Park. That statute was changed in 1923. Minor exploration work continued through the years since that time. But it's interesting to note that just prior to the more intense activity in the Myra Creek area, there was a request by the staff of the Parks Branch to start dealing with the claims problems within the provincial parks. It was a rather prophetic request for consideration in view of what happened afterward. Numerous claims have been established.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, numerous claims established under your administration. Numerous claims in these parks all during the years of controversy. The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) on numerous occasions during previous debates in this House, made it abundantly clear that it wasn't just the question of the old crown grants, that the former administration was willing to live with the same stuff throughout the decades of the Fifties, the Sixties and the Seventies.

All the various park-use permits were put together in the Myra Creek area, into one, in 1965, Mr. Speaker — park-use permit no. 477, which is Western Mines. The terms of that particular park-use permit, like the terms of several other difficult park-use permits, were essentially established by the politicians. There was not full involvement of the parks administration staff. We continued to live with

[ Page 633 ]

difficult commercial exploitations within the provincial parks that are a result of park-use permits virtually written by the former politicians in charge of the department.

The Western Mines situation in Strathcona Park was often referred to by the proponents as simply "a 10-acre hole in the bush" — in the park, But what happened once those rights were established, and once approval was granted and the park-use permit was given? Why they had to get the concentrates out. They had to get bunkhouses built. They had to build some roads. They had to have water supply. They had to have barge movement on Buttle Lake, and so on.

Then they decided they wanted a townsite. They wanted a special park-use permit for a townsite at Ralph River, and then because they had a townsite, they had to have a highway. They said they'd pay $2 million for a highway into the townsite — into Myra Creek and the workings. The cost of the highway was double that and the provincial Crown paid the cost — the additional cost of the destruction of the park.

Then they needed power, and so they used lakes in the alpine area for their development in Myra Creek. So we intruded into the alpine area of the park to provide power for the mining operation. Now just this fall they said they needed more power, and so they wanted to dam creeks in the alpine area, and divert lakes in the alpine area for their development in Myra Creek. Those requests were refused in October of this fall, Mr. Speaker. They will not be allowed to affect any more of the environment in Strathcona Park for that purpose.

Then there was the whole sad history of the tailings being dumped into the lake. Then you had to have a pipeline to get the tailings into the lake; then you needed another pipeline; then you had to have a right-of-way established; then you had to log the right-of-way; then you had to go into the logging business as well. That's been the pattern with Western Mines within that particular park.

In fact, the former administration even went further. They changed the Park Act to remove water out of the jurisdiction of the Department of Recreation and Conservation so that Buttle Lake would not be regulated by the Parks Branch. Buttle Lake would then be a handy dumping ground for tailings. In 1965, the statute was changed. I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is our intent to change the statute again. All of the water courses, all of the waterways in the provincial parks of British Columbia will come under the jurisdiction of the Parks Branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hang your heads.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Buy it out!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Once the camel gets in the tent, he destroys the tent entirely. Everything from garbage dumping — we've had to move in and get them to move the garbage dumping to outside the provincial park, to the community dumping area further to the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm familiar with that topic.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It just goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. It should have been clear to the former Minister that once the camel is in the tent, the whole area is destroyed. The 10-acre hole in the bush has become a major industrial operation in Strathcona Park.

Now in Strathcona Park we're in the mining business; we're in the power business; we're in the housing business; we're in the garbage business; we're in the transportation business; we're in the dumping business. Only barely are we in the parks business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, the philosophy was they should build their parks elsewhere.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. The only multiple-use areas we had in British Columbia under Social Credit were in the provincial parks. (Laughter). We're therefore doing the following things with respect to this particular problem — one that we acknowledge we have to live with because of the commitments that have been made.

Western Mines has already been given notice that the Park Branch's approval is required before any timber removal takes place in the park. I might say that that's been ignored in the past under the former administration. From here on in, Mr. Speaker, we will charge triple stumpage for timber out within the park. That policy will prevail with respect to all similar situations that we have to slowly extricate ourselves from. We will cancel park-use permit No. 507, which authorizes the Ralph River townsite. Detailing disposal plans for the foreseeable future will have to be provided to us in considerable detail, and that hasn't been done in the past.

Beyond this particular mining operation of Western Mines Ltd., which is an established fact, we will terminate the staking and recording of mineral claims within Strathcona Park. I'd like to also read a statement of policy which reverses the previous statement of policy of the former Minister with respect to park use permits in provincial parks. It reads as follows:

(1) In my estimation, the intent of the Park Act, sections 8 and 9, to set provincial parks apart from other Crown land and to preserve them and their resources for public recreational use is perfectly clear.

(2) It is my opinion that private ownership, occupation or development of lands within public parks is seldom necessary to the preservation of the recreational values involved and is, in fact, usually

[ Page 634 ]

detrimental to those values.

(3) Similarly, I am of the opinion that the exploitation of the natural resources of a park is seldom necessary to the preservation or maintenance of its recreational values and is, in fact almost always detrimental to those values.

(4) Under these circumstances, it is a policy of the Department of Recreation and Conservation to minimize industrial occupancies and exploitations within provincial parks.

(5) Normally, no exploitation of any resource within a provincial park shall be authorized, except as is incidental to the development of the recreational resource to facilitate the planned public recreational use of the area involved.

(6) While the Park Act section IX(1)b, Statutes of British Columbia, 1965, provides that utilization of natural resources in a provincial park of class B status may be authorized under a park-use permit, provided this utilization is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park involved, the only activities thus permitted will be those which seem necessary to the planned recreational use of the park or those which are clearly demonstrated as not detrimental to the recreational values of the park or those which cover a social service demonstrated as vital to the public interest.

(7) When it is determined by the director of the Parks Branch that the exploitation of a resource is necessary to the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved, an exploitation to the extent necessary to that preservation or maintenance may be authorized by a park-use permit.

(8) The applicant for a park-use permit whose necessity has not been determined by the director of the Parks Branch shall be required to provide the director with conclusive evidence that the proposed exploitation is necessary or not detrimental, as the case may be, to the preservation or maintenance of recreational values as required by the Park Act, section IX, before a permit is issued.

I think those are the main points. There are some minor ones in addition, Mr. Speaker. That is a major change in policy with respect to the parks of British Columbia, and a change that I'm considerably proud of.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the pending claims that are currently under departmental review with respect to Strathcona Park, Muncho Lake Park, Stone Mountain Park, Kokanee Glacier Park, Wells Gray Park, will not receive the clearance they've requested.

There are many areas that I might cover, Mr. Speaker, from Oak Hills to Skagit Valley to a range of other things, but I think I might cover them on another occasion. I really want to talk about my home base, my neighbourhood, and the city that I love and some of the things that we're beginning to do to preserve the great, magnificent natural landscape of this province.

In closing, I'd like to say that the real joy in doing our work here in this Government is when we go back to our constituencies, and when we meet the many people who have devoted their lives to this party and its goals. It's such a great thing to meet these people that built this party and see that they're as pleased as they are with our achievements in the short time we've been in office. It's on times when I get back to the constituencies that I must admit to a genuine feeling of joy and thankfulness that we in this group should have this chance at this time in this place to reflect their hopes and dreams.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure once again to stand in this House and take part in the budget debate.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the previous speaker, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources, Recreation and Conservation. One of the first remarks that I must disagree with is the fact that he said that there's a feeling of elation among the people of this province, having now elected an NDP Government. I'd just like to know where he has been lately, because it hasn't been in the same parts of the province that I have.

I'll tell you this: where I go, the feeling is not elation, Mr. Minister. The feeling is dejection. It's becoming more widespread all the time. We'll see just how true those remarks are a year or two down the road.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Were you in the Union Club? (Laughter).

MR. SMITH: No, I haven't been there. I understand they have a new member in the Union Club these days. Perhaps I should introduce him to the House.

Anyway, after listening to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, to the contribution he made to this debate, and reviewing in my own mind the things that I am about to say this afternoon, I am more convinced than ever that what I have to say as representing the views of the official Opposition, is dead on. There is certainly a demarcation. There's a distinct difference between the policies and the hopes and the aspirations of the Opposition in this House and those of the NDP and their philosophy.

I think that over the years, this is going to be borne out more and more and that we will show the people of the Province of British Columbia, in a greater fashion than we were ever able to do before, just what the differences are between a socialist state

[ Page 635 ]

and a state in which we feel the freedom of the individual is paramount.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Premier in his opening remarks, when presenting this budget to the House, stated:

"This budget heralds a new era for the people of our province, an era where the rights of the individual are supreme. We are committed to making this a just and open era in the governing of this province."

High-sounding remarks. And to those remarks I answer, "Horse feathers. Hollow words. Shallow statements."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: There's no such thing as horse feathers?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SMITH: For the uninformed a horse feather is a colloquial expression to explain the jet-like stream left by Pegasus as he flew through the air.

Actions speak louder than words. So let's take a look at the actions, not the words.

The only major legislation in the House so far, with the exception of the bills that came in this afternoon, is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act and a totally monopolistic car insurance plan. With two bills the NDP have completely emasculated the rights of several thousand British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to infringe upon the rules of the House. I'll have more to say on the matter of these bills when they come up for debate in second reading.

Since the opening day of this session, the Government party has systematically floated trial balloons by assisting their backbench Members in developing the material for their speeches, just to test the winds of public opinion. Wake up, backbench. You are being used. You're prostituting yourselves. You're being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member withdraw that expression. It implies that they are in effect selling themselves, and that would be unworthy of them. Anything that's unworthy should not be repeated in this House.

MR. SMITH: I'll accept your statement, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw the suggestion that they were being used in an unnatural manner. They have been perhaps sacrificed on the altar of political expediency; sacrificed so the Members of your cabinet, who all have a fair measure of political experience behind them, can test public reaction without exposing themselves on the firing line.

You probably thought the cabinet wanted to be helpful. Helpful, my foot. They were playing political chess, using you as the pawns. This is supposed to be a Government that cares about people.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask you to refrain from any accusation that any Member of this assembly is a pawn of anyone else. Because they are here freely elected to do their own duty. If it causes any ill feeling between Members, it should be withdrawn.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say that they were knowingly being used as pawns. I just said that in my opinion, Sir, it appears that the cabinet has been playing political chess games with them. Can I say that, Sir?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think you can accuse the cabinet of playing chess, if they are.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is supposed to be a Government that cares about people. I hope you agree with that.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no opinions in this House. (Laughter).

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's take a look. Who do they care about most? I think it's pretty obvious. Number one position — Mr. Premier, who apparently has left the chamber. Between salary adjustments and increased expense allowances, we all must admit that he tops the list.

Number two position: with all deference, Mr. Speaker — yourself — providing we have two sessions a year. Not far behind you in number three position — the rest of the cabinet. The mutual admiration society looked after themselves quite well by any yardstick you care to use.

Number four: in that position I'd have to say that place belonged to those people who had party loyalties to the NDP — I'd say political hacks, but I'd probably be called unparliamentary for saying that; so I'll just say that they had loyalties to the NDP — and very suddenly ended up with surprisingly fat salaries, and jobs like executive assistants, Press secretaries, special assistants, special consultants, and on and on and on, ad infinitum, right down the line.

If anyone would question that, I'll suggest that I have a list of a few people. While I do not wish to name them in this chamber, we see that a person who is now employed in the Department of Labour was campaign manager for the Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mr. King — the Minister of Labour; I shouldn't use his name,

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): On a point

[ Page 636 ]

of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: The statement which the Member has made concerning a member of my department is completely untrue. There is no one employed in the Department of Labour who was my campaign manager.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of privilege at this stage.

MR. SMITH: The procedure in the House, if you have a point of privilege, is to rise on the point of privilege at the end of the speech of the person who is on his feet.

MR. SPEAKER: I just pointed this out, that it was not a point of privilege at this point.

MR. SMITH: We'll forgive him this time.

MR. SPEAKER: That doesn't entitle you to repeat what he has denied. (Laughter).

MR. SMITH: I won't, sir. You're helping me today.

We do have a number of examples and the public are aware of them….

Interruption.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the lights went out I was speaking about the matter of the care the NDP has shown for people. I listed a few people that I thought were well looked after. I'd like to continue in that vein.

We get down to position number five. There we find the rookie Members who comprise the backbench.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hooray!

MR. SMITH: Hooray! True, the increase that they will receive must by law be paid to Opposition as well, but, backbenchers, don't become impatient. Just sit tight. Take it cool.

You've already heard about such things as special committees, Crown corporations, maybe, with directors appointed by cabinet, new parks boards and the PNE board — now we've heard about it today. Perhaps even parliamentary assistant's jobs to help the Press secretary, help the executive assistant, help the special consultants, help the cabinet Ministers to make a decision on how to overcome unemployment. Then, before approving a decision, refer it back to a special committee for further study.

While I am on the matter of cabinet Ministers and assorted assistants, look at the increased expenditure under the heading of "travel expenses." I agree that the cabinet Ministers are not responsible for all of the travel expenses.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): You're not kidding.

MR. SMITH: But let's take a look at it. The one-year increase in travel expenditures for all departments of the Government — almost 30 per cent — it was up by $1,218,000 from 1972. In four years this would be nearly $5 million of taxpayers' money. Some people might label that a "Vancouver East rip-off." We've heard that term in this chamber before, particularly from the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Williams), the former self-appointed Opposition specialist on rip-offs.

There was a specialist in the Ottawa House who liked to talk about "corporate rip-offs." We all recall him. He's still there — the federal leader of the NDP. He's not talking so much about "corporate rip-offs" these days, particularly since it's known that he's going to support the federal budget and that in order to stay in office he had to do a 180 degree turn.

Mr. Speaker, I say this, that a 30 per cent increase in one year — that's on an average; and if the cabinet Ministers would like to know what their average increase is percentage-wise, it's more than 30 per cent. As a matter of fact it's 46 per cent. But I say this — the one-year increase is totally unjustified, particularly when the greatest increase percentage wise is for the cabinet Ministers themselves. A one-year average of 46 per cent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SMITH: And that in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is a non-taxable, socialist rip-off, if there ever was one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know how to twist and twist….

MR. SMITH: No twist about that. Would you like me to read the list?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Read the list.

MR. SMITH: All I'll say is this, Mr. Speaker, that….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, did you have a good time in England saying hello to mommy? At the taxpayers'

[ Page 637 ]

expense.

MR. SMITH: Some of the cabinet Ministers have no increase in travel expenses. Others have a percentage increase of over 100 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dear, oh dear!

MR. SMITH: The thing is this, Mr. Speaker. When the Government talks about the "little people" of British Columbia, I just don't believe it.

Now let's get on to someone else. The person I think in number six position as far as my analysis is concerned — do you know who that person is? That's the unofficial member of the NDP caucus. He's not in the House at the moment. The Oak Bay socialist who masquerades as the House Leader of the Conservative Party. Some House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it would be a good time to point out to the Members that because this is a new House, we have been fairly free of personalities and personal attacks.

I want to read to you, Hon. Member, if you wouldn't mind sitting down for just a second, on a point of order I am raising — Beauchesne at p. 115:

"A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence against the House, in the person of one of its members, which, on account of the respect due from every member to the character and dignity of the House, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker, in order that any irregularity into which a member may have been betrayed in the warmth of debate may be rectified, and that any expressions, which may be disrespectful to the House, or painful to the feelings of individual members, may be explained, apologized for, or retracted.

"The difficulty which often occurs, of obtaining an apology for words spoken in debate, especially when the offending person thinks he had sufficient provocation for using the expressions objected to, ought to be a warning to the House," and I stress this, "and particularly to the Chair to interfere at first; and not to permit any expressions to pass from any member unnoticed which, being applied by any other member as personally offensive to himself, may draw forth further words of heat and contumely till, at last, confusion arises — different Members take a warm and eager part in the dispute — and besides the time that is lost in composing the differences, the House exhibits a scene of indecency and disorder."

I mention that because, if I don't draw it to your attention immediately, then somebody gets himself into a position of heat and disorder and they respond in kind. Then you get feuds going in the House between persons, when we're supposed to be objective and impersonal towards each other. I therefore urge the Member not to deal offensively or personally against another Member of the House in your debate.

I'm not saying that you are any greater offender than anyone else.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if I may — the words must be offensive and the description given by the Member is certainly not offensive — as a matter of fact most complimentary as far as I am concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it still has a meaning that is offensive to the Member concerned.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: He doesn't want to be known as the socialist Speaker.

MR. SMITH: Well perhaps I won't continue in that vein. I'll take your ruling into advisement, Mr. Speaker.

All I will say is this — and these words will be directed, not to the leader of the party that I just mentioned, the House Leader of the Conservative Party in this House. I'll direct these words to the Members of the Government backbenches. Keep your eyes on him, backbench. Don't go to sleep, or you might wake up to find that one of the Hon. Members in this House — who I shall not now name — has pole vaulted from the Opposition benches to the cabinet benches in one leap.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: That, I hope, is not unparliamentary.

But surely the Hon. Premier, who is in his place now, wouldn't stoop to playing political games like that, would he? He wouldn't bypass one of his own backbench in the cabinet shuffle just to gain some political advantage, would he? Would he? Watch it. Keep a sharp watch, backbench. There is more in this game than just watching each other. You'd better watch some other Members on the Opposition benches. One I could name in particular — and it doesn't happen to be myself. I'll go on record to say that.

Now let's get to number seven on the list. I almost forgot that number, but it's a good number I think. That's the NDP faithful; the ones who worked hard in the hope that something would be left on the table for them.

Well, hordes, don't despair. At this particular moment you're not really a high priority, if I may borrow the favourite saying of the Premier — not a

[ Page 638 ]

high priority. In fact, if you agree with my calculations, "Big Daddy" may have something in mind, even if he's not prepared to say what it is today.

I did want to speak for a few moments on agricultural matters but I see the Minister is out of the House so I will save those until he returns.

MRS. JORDAN: He may be quite a long time.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about one of the most important departments of government and the fact that it must be operated presently by a part-time Minister. I refer to the Department of Recreation and Conservation. We realize its importance because the budget shows a $3 million increase and I'll applaud that, although why the Hon. Premier dumped this additional portfolio into the lap of the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) is a mystery to me.

Certainly all of us who have been in this House for any length of time know that the Ministry of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources is a very heavy portfolio in itself. Some people would say it is almost three major portfolios in one. Why the Recreation and Conservation portfolio was placed in the hands of that Minister to add another burden on him is something that I question as an unwise decision. It makes one wonder if the Hon. Premier in setting up his cabinet had some negative attitudes with respect to recreation and conservation.

I know that sportsmen and fishermen and conservationists will applaud the budget increase but I suggest to the Government that they will not long remain silent if they do not receive a full-time cabinet Minister in that portfolio in a short period of time,

MR. CHABOT: He's against it. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is against it.

MR. SMITH: Are you against that, Hon. Minister of Highways?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I'll speak tomorrow.

MR. SMITH: Do not and I repeat do not underestimate the importance of this department, particularly when you equate the responsibility for the preservation of our flora and fauna with this department. Today high salaries, more free time and good methods of transportation allow ever increasing numbers of people to participate in outdoor activities. The department will have to run just to keep even with the demand for its services. I believe that before long when the changes are made in the cabinet the Minister responsible, the Hon. Premier, will see that the Department of Recreation and Conservation does receive the services of a full-time cabinet Minister.

If I may, I would like to turn to a matter concerning highways. The increased allocation for highways is welcome news, particularly as we have a large number of unresolved highway problems in the Peace-Liard region. I am hopeful, therefore, that the Minister will have a little chat with his colleague who is sitting behind him, the Hon. Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) and ask the Hon. Minister without Portfolio not to be quite so parochial in his approach these days. That Hon. Minister, who has spoken strongly in support of the Alaska Highway and the upgrading of it — not knocking it.

Over the years, the Hon. Minister without Portfolio has consistently advocated northern development in this House, not only for his own riding but for all northern B.C. Certainly the Alaska Highway is part of northern B.C. He mentioned, when he was speaking in debate in this House, that the Stewart-Cassiar road was finished and that perhaps we should forget about paving the Alaska Highway.

I would hope that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is neither floating a balloon or listening to that advice. Just this year, after 20 years of fighting with the federal authorities and almost everyone else, a bill was introduced in the House of Commons on January 15 — a bill called C-18, An Act to provide for the Establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority.

I would like to quote just a few passages from this bill because it is important to all of us in British Columbia. It is important to all of Canada. It is important to the United States. It's important to Alaska and the Yukon.

"Under the definitions, 'highway' means that part of the Alaska-Yukon Highway prior to this enactment known as the Alaska Highway, and described as extending from mile 83 in the province of British Columbia to Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory."

I would like now to turn to the objects and duties outlined in the bill:

"The objects of the Authority are to construct, reconstruct, improve, extend and maintain the highway. The Authority has the management, regulation and control of the highway. The highway is hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and any work or undertaking necessary or incidental to an object of the Authority is a work or undertaking for the general advantage of Canada."

I say "amen" to that, because for many, many years those of us in the north and even the British Columbia and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have backed the idea that the Alaska Highway should be upgraded, improved and paved.

I sometimes wonder when I hear a statement concerning northern development, if the statement is being made to try to get a message across to the

[ Page 639 ]

Members of the Opposition, and if it's perhaps a little kite-flying to suggest a change in policy, a change in direction with regard to northern development.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it worries me but time will tell, particularly, Mr. Speaker, if and when I see an answer on the order paper to question number 179 that stands in my name with respect to the construction of a highway from Fort Nelson to connect with the Fort Simpson road at the northern boundary of British Columbia, generally referred to as the Fort Nelson–Fort Simpson road. When that question is answered by the Minister of Highways, I think that will be a good indication to all of us — we will all know what the position of the socialist Government really is on northern development.

One thing is positive in my mind. The present socialist Government in less than six months has managed to retard if not outright scuttle almost all of the northern development programmes initiated by the former administration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: It's read into the record now, Mr. Minister. I think if you wish to look at the record beyond today, you will find it.

Certainly what we have heard in the way of policy announcements from the Ministers of the Crown, and the things that we have read in the Press and newspapers in releases that have been made by Ministers of the Crown, gives us all reason to be very apprehensive as to what really is the plan for the future of British Columbia.

I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has returned, and therefore I would like to deal with a few problems that come under his jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) while addressing this chamber referred to the fact that there was apprehension on the flood plains of Chilliwack. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not apprehension in the Peace River country, it is a four bell fire alarm — an alarm brought on by a combination of circumstances which to a large degree the present Government chooses to ignore, perhaps in the hope that the problems will go away. Well, they won't go away, Mr. Minister, and I have no intention of allowing the socialist Government to push them under a rug.

Both the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and myself have spoken on the devastating 1972 crop losses. The provincial and federal governments made token contributions to farmers, but that's all it was — a token.

Somebody down the line says very faintly, "$1 million." There are 1,600 farm units in danger of being wiped out, and what kind of assistance was forthcoming? An average payment of $800 per farm unit. Nothing at all for cattle ranchers. Nothing at all for the vegetable farmers who lost everything in the Taylor area through a disastrous hail storm.

It is very clear that in the eyes of this Government, what happens to a farmer in the Peace River country is an act of God, therefore his tough luck; but what happens to a farmer in Surrey in a provincial disaster, therefore the person involved should be compensated accordingly.

The Premier is not here…I see, I'm sorry; he is here.

As Minister of Finance, he clearly demonstrated, when answering question 180 on the order paper, how well the Government is prepared to look after their own.

Let's take a look at the answer to that question — it refers to crop losses in the Surrey Area:

Total compensation paid to farmers who suffered crop damage in that particular area through flood: $413,662.29. Average compensation paid per acre: $277.44.

Average compensation paid per acre to farmers in the Peace River country who suffered an equally devastating loss, including both provincial and federal contributions: $3.75 per acre. To the farmers in the Peace River country: $3.75 per acre.

Let me bring to the attention of the Minister a few excerpts from letters I have received from people in that area. This farmer says: "In my opinion, this has been a major disaster and should be treated as such by your government."

This was a letter to the Hon. Premier and to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) with copies to myself:

"Speaking as one of the farmers involved, I think that the proposed payments come very close to being an insult to Canadian farmers in general. This impression is heightened when we consider the millions in aid that our country justifiably sends in other parts of the world. I believe that you must consider this a much greater and massive programme because there will be no money to plant the 1973 crop. To leave these thousands of acres unplanted will not only be a great hardship to our own people but would be almost a criminal offense to all others considering the shortage of food in the world."

I have a number of other letters. As a matter of fact, I have a basket full of letters, but I'd like to go to one letter in particular because I think this best exemplifies the position of people who are in the farming industry who are no longer young in years:

"Referring to crop loss and assistance, I would like to supply you with the following info: Due to crop damage failure of 100 per cent and very poor prices of past years, I have reached the end of the line. We don't know how to carry on. For last year's crop I borrowed $1,150 at the bank; at the

[ Page 640 ]

wheat pool, $800 for fertilizer adding 10 per cent interest; at the Co-op for fuel and miscellaneous, $400 adding 12 per cent interest. As you see, I have exhausted all my credit. With no seed at hand, what is a man going to do next year? I am 51 years old and have arthritis in both legs, so work for me would be very hard to find with none around anyway. A man can't just walk away from it with no future to go to."

That man is a gentleman that has farmed in the Cecil Lake area for many, many years. I have another letter from a farmer in the Farmington area who lists his outstanding indebtedness to the farm corporation for land payments, for fuel oil and repairs, for taxes, for fertilizer and so on. He has $9,600 of current liabilities on last year's crop and he never harvested a bushel. Never harvested a bushel.

Another letter:

"I am now overdue on my farm credit payment which is $980. I owe $300 for fertilizer and about $800 for fuel. Part of my 1972 land tax has not yet been paid. In addition, I have a machinery payment for $2,500 due at the beginning of June. Land taxes for 1973 will be due before I can expect any income from my 1973 crop. In order to seed and harvest this crop, I'm going to need at least $500 for fuel, $300 for fertilizer, $200 or more for seed, as well as some money for miscellaneous repairs and something to live on for myself and my family."

These people, Mr. Speaker, are putting their case to the government of this province as plainly as they can. They have said, if they were the type of people to say so, that they've received tin cup treatment in the settlement of a disaster.

We've heard that statement before in this House and I don't think that it's unparliamentary. "Tin Cup treatment," when their losses run somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 million.

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of the Peace country would want me to say to the Hon. Premier, "We are hard working people, unaccustomed to asking for help. But today a crisis is upon us and we need help. Don't discount the situation or think that Peace River farmers will accept being treated as second class citizens. We look at the crop losses in Surrey — payments of $277.44 per acre out of the disaster fund; $3.75 per acre for a similar disaster in the Peace River country; none for the vegetable farmers in Taylor; nothing for the cattle ranchers."

It would be different, Mr. Speaker, if the province did not have at their disposal funds to draw on. But they have a disaster fund that was set up to help people in these types of emergencies. Certainly it's not bankrupt.

If the Hon. Premier is having trouble finding funds, perhaps he would give consideration to using a few of the 24 millions of dollars he's going to put in his hip pocket as a result of federal raise in old age pensions. If that $24 million is not going to be passed on to the old age pensioners, at least provide enough financial assistance to the farmers of the Peace River country so that they can get back into the business of farming on a basis that they can work out themselves. All they need at this time, if they get fair conditions in 1973, is someone to bankroll them between now and the time their crops come off in the fall of 1973, partly as a grant and maybe partly as a loan, as long as there was no interest involved or very low interest.

But they need that support and they need it now. They can't wait for the government to play with the problem for the next six months, two months, eight months or a year. Their situation has never been worse, and I'm appealing on the floor of this House to the Hon. Premier who is in charge of the disaster fund, and to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to get their heads together and help overcome a disaster the like of which we have never seen in the Peace River country in the past and, hopefully, we will never see again in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the NDP are embarked upon a socialistic programme — and they'll applaud that I would think — which, if allowed, will destroy this province. Regardless of how long or how hard the Hon. Premier, the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) or any other cabinet Minister try to suggest differently, try to whitewash the issues, try to throw up smoke screens, the facts speak for themselves.

I call today on all people who do not subscribe to total state control, who do not wish to be engulfed by the red tide of state socialism, to take heed of what I am about to say. I was never more convinced of what I am about to say than after listening to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) this afternoon. So far, all we are able to detect is the tip of the iceberg. But let no one forget the Titanic, one of the worst ocean disasters in history. Yet the experts said it could never happen.

This budget — supposedly a people's budget, with great emphasis on the rights of the individual — is purposely designed, in my opinion, to overestimate expenditures and underestimate revenues…

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Well, that's never happened before!

MR. SMITH: …as a first step in the socialist doctrine of government monopoly and control.

The idea of creating surpluses is not new, my friend. In many respects, it was perfected by the former Hon. Premier of this province, but with one basic and fundamental difference. The surpluses of the former Minister of Finance had a two-fold

[ Page 641 ]

purpose: first, to be used to stimulate employment through government-sponsored projects in times of high unemployment — and we're in that particular position today, with the highest rate of unemployment in Canada — over 10 per cent…

MR. LAUK: Say that with a straight face.

MR. SMITH: I do say it with a straight face, my friend.

… and secondly, to create perpetual funds from which the annual interest earnings could be used to financially assist worthwhile community projects. Funds were set up so that the benefits would accrue annually in perpetuity, the capital to be invested in schools and hospital bonds. This was the policy of the former administration. Where could you find a more worthwhile objective?

I am convinced that the objective of the present Government that will intentionally create surplus revenue is far more subtle and far more dangerous. That revenue will be intercepted and diverted to finance a series of Crown corporations and agencies — a socialist ploy that will effectively eliminate individual enterprise in the Province of British Columbia.

You have a right to ask on what evidence do I base my opinion. Let's look at it: creation this session of the largest insurance monopoly in Canada, with a captive market at the Government's beck and call — and that's being applauded by the Members of the Government benches; the announced policy through your backbench to enter into almost every type of business included in the Manitoba Manifesto. And for the uninformed who have forgotten the game plan, let me refresh your memories: establishment of a banking system owned by the Crown; a Crown holding corporation which would own the bank and would own a large number of Crown corporations.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Socreds tried that one.

MR. SMITH: A development corporation to loan funds to new Crown corporations. The Crown holding corporation would set up Crown corporations in every kind of business where profits can be earned. The greater the profit, the more justification for the corporation. Are you beginning to see the light?

In the primary sector, top priority includes mining, logging and the petroleum business. Are the public beginning to see the light? In the manufacturing sector, reference is made to canned foods, pharmaceuticals, drug sundries, glass and automotive windshields, even laundry detergents and baby foods. Are you beginning to see the light, my friends? In the service industry; life insurance; fire and casualty insurance; retailing of all kinds; the tourist business; the hunting, fishing, guiding business; the hotel business; the used car business.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I would hope the people of British Columbia have begun to see the light.

Mr. Speaker, before taking my place, I wish to make one final point. I wish to make it perfectly clear I do not support this budget. Those of us in the official Opposition are not socialists. Neither are we capitalists. But we are a group of people dedicated to preserving a way of life that includes respect for individual rights and the dignity of man. Let no one be deceived, in this chamber or outside it. We will go to the gates of Hell and back to preserve that way of life.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we've had almost a month debating either the budget or the throne speech. Tomorrow, presumably, we'll be voting on it. Perhaps it's best to sum up where we are and what we've done.

The budget, as mentioned by my Hon. friend, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), falls into two parts. The first part goes up to page 7, and it's basically a throne speech. It's throne speech material, probably put in there because of the lack of content of the real throne speech, which allegedly was read on January 25. It's interesting.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), Mr. Speaker, read out, "The budget is a vital document and it reflects the Government's policies and allows citizens an opportunity to judge the success or failure of the Government in carrying through the programmes upon which it was elected." Not on whether or not it was good at following previous budgetary practices, but on whether it is good at following its own policies upon which it was elected.

I have here a policy platform. It's called the Democrat, actually the September issue although I understand it was printed up prior to the election. It is the NDP platform. It talks first of the need for employment, new developments for British Columbians. Well, we've seen what's happened to employment in this province in the last four or five months.

It goes on to talk about an economy for people and the need for secondary industry. Yet to date, Mr. Speaker, we haven't had much on that line either. It goes on to say that the NDP will also establish a department of economic development, establish a British Columbia development corporation, examine the best means of assisting small businessmen, establish a provincial transportation authority, and on it goes.

It talks about a new deal for farmers. Well, they've

[ Page 642 ]

had a new deal. I'm wondering whether they like it very much. We will, of course, be discussing the legislation on farm takeover at a later date. It talks about the need to take school taxes off the family farm, the need to take succession duties off farmland, to establish a farm machinery depot and encourage consumers to buy B.C. products. Well, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers are altogether happy at the moment with the over-all impact of NDP policies.

Next page, there's an end to the labour-management crisis. There's a picture of three chairs — empty. The NDP believes that conflict in industrial relations can be reduced and that labour and management representatives can be brought back to the bargaining table. Well, we've recently had a three-man commission established, excellent people no doubt. But I wonder whether they really do cover management, labour and presumably Government as a third party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Labour's chair is still in.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I question whether or not there has been success in that area, where you have excellent gentlemen no doubt. But are they representative of the three parties to any labour conflict or controversy?

It goes on under the same heading to say that an NDP Government will immediately raise the minimum wage to $2.50 an hour. That, of course has been abandoned already and we can leave it.

We next come to equal opportunity for women. Of course, I'll pass over this quickly because of the splendid tribute paid yesterday to the Premier when he won the male chauvinist piglet award. I think it might be embarrassing if we spoke at length on this. He does look embarrassed. "Equal opportunity for women" is the headline. It's all great stuff but yesterday, apparently, or the day before — I forget which it was — he won the award as the male chauvinist of the year in the political arena.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He's come a long way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps it's backwards, I believe, Ms. Brown.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) mentions that the Premier has come a long way. Indeed he has. I only suspect that it's backwards at the moment. He must, I think, again start checking his campaign propaganda and compare it to performance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier asks whether someone will instruct him. I think that in actual fact, if I can depart from my speech for a moment, I will say he's had better advice from the ladies of the backbench, the Ms.'s and the Mrs.'s, than he's had from the males. We genuinely feel that the Hon. Member….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd better stop while I am ahead. Right. O.K., but we have — just as an aside we would like to say that the speech of the Hon. lady Member was very interesting.

MR. LAUK: Where are the women in your province?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We come next to a new deal for cities. Well, the budget came out, and one unanimous view of the municipal leaders was one of disappointment; disappointment because the increases were slight and did not take into account the inflation that had taken place over the last few years — although they were pleased by taking off the restrictions on where the money could be spent.

But they did feel that the increases should have been a great deal better. Under the NDP Government it went on to say only services to property will be paid from taxes on property. It is the very point upon which of course the municipal leaders, including the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), at the moment, set up such a howl because they were expecting better on the basis of the NDP policy.

It goes on to say that land is a basic natural resource, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Despite activities of Members of, no doubt, all sides of the House prior to the election, currently only the farmers have been caught in the bind at the moment.

Establish a rental review board — again not done. Immediate steps: the NDP Government will establish a provincial department of environmental quality and planning. Months have gone by, we are waiting for it.

Develop a comprehensive programme for recycling of waste products: where, Mr. Speaker, is that?

Establish a migratory salmon river authority to manage resources along our rivers: we would be interested to see it. Education crisis is talked about and it talked about the homeowners' already heavy taxes. Well of course the result of taking off the 6.5 per cent freeze, whether or not that was desirable, will be to increase the tax revenue that the municipalities must try and raise from their own homeowners in their own community. Again a campaign promise unfulfilled.

We are waiting as well for the commission on higher education. We go on to other areas —

[ Page 643 ]

protection for the individual, citizens' rights, appointment of a provincial ombudsman, pass a Crown proceedings Act, develop comprehensive legal aid. None of these things I feel, Mr. Speaker, have been attempted.

It goes on to say under consumer protection that the Consumer Affairs Branch of the provincial government will be strengthened by increasing its staff and by establishing regional Consumer Affairs Branches throughout the province. There is to be a prices review board.

That is a cursory examination of the NDP political policy statement during the election. I think that perhaps the Premier is right in the second paragraph of his budget speech to suggest that that is the thing that his budget should be judged against. I think when that is the case it will be judged by many people who supported the NDP — perhaps some indeed in this room — and found to be wanting.

I read on from the budget speech, third paragraph: "the rights of the individual are supreme." Well that is an interesting statement. I wonder whether our consistent use of order-in-council legislation; whether our farm policies this House has been considering; whether this type of thing is really defending the rights of the individual and making them supreme.

Perhaps it is better if we assume there is a need to preserve farmland. But it seems to fly in the face of making the rights of individuals supreme. Perhaps society has other views, but the rights of individuals apparently are not supreme by this Government.

We go on from there: favouring partnership arrangements between industry, government and employees rather than subsidies and loans to industry. I raise that, and I will speak if the Premier is in the room — and I thank him for his courtesy in attending. I will just discuss this for a moment.

We have here a statement that subsidies are not the vehicle the provincial Government thinks should be used to subsidize industries and therefore presumably employment. Yet a short time ago in this House we were debating the question of unemployment in the province which has reached shocking proportions — proportions which I think, and other members of the Opposition felt, were really of crisis nature.

Since then of course it has gone up again. At that time we were looking at figures which put B.C. up 16,000 in a month while the other region of the country, the one other region of the country that had an increase, the Prairies — of course it has two NDP governments as well — went up 5,000.

Quebec went down, Ontario went down, the Maritimes went down. But B.C. goes up 16,000 — a shocking figure. We had a debate by the Premier, or at least we tried to have a debate, on the question of unemployment. The Premier simply came in and announced that shipbuilding was the clue and ship subsidies were the answer and the federal government, of course, was entirely responsible.

Well, at this stage, if I can find the bits and pieces of my speech, I would like to quote from the report on business of the Toronto Globe and Mail of Thursday, February 15. It is by Albert Sigurdson. "Shipping. Recent prosperity is continuing for most British Columbia shipbuilders and prospects are good for at least the next year, according to a survey of operators."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it's not Hacking's column. It is Albert Sigurdson's column from the Globe and Mail business page.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, if you wish I will deal with one or the other. Burrard Yarrow sales, he goes on to say, were about $16 million last year, projected to reach about $40 million.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, but Burrard Yarrows, it says here, are $16 million and projected to reach about $40 million in 1973, "according to J.W. Hudson." It may be that he has been misquoted as the Premier suggests. I don't know.

But perhaps then if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, if that particular example…there may be some question of some dollars here or some dollars there. I will quote from other shipyards in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Hudson may well have been, Mr. Premier. I was not aware of that but it does….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You could have phoned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I am to phone every company listed in this….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Would you address the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will go on as the Premier evidently finds this….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yarrows is completing two deep sea tugs and an $8.6 million order from

[ Page 644 ]

Amerada-Hess Corporation of New York, overseas buyers under the federal subsidy.

The two yards are sharing a $10 million order from Northern Transportation Company Ltd. Employment at the two locations total 1,750 — quote, "triple what it was a few months ago."

Then we go on: "I am sort of optimistic" — this is a quote from Mr. Hudson. Perhaps he changed his mind when he spoke to the Premier. "We are making surveys of our situation now for the various improvements to the yards." We go on: North Vancouver…there is the Allied Shipbuilders, building for a London firm, a London firm by the name of International Offshore Services…which I believe is a subsidiary of P & O.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. McLaren, the president of Allied Shipbuilders said, "we are employing twice the number we did a year ago. We are at 300 now and we have been working three shifts since the first of the year."

Vancouver Shipyards, a subsidiary…et cetera. Mr. Gadsby says they are making a laboratory for the department of the environment. "We are particularly short of skilled tradesmen, particularly platers. But all the local shipyards are feeling the same thing."

Bel-Air Shipyards of North Vancouver is working on a $5 million order. The order is for Christiansen Canadian Enterprises of Halifax. Apparently we are capable now of selling in the east. We are also completing work on tugs for Northern Transportation on the Mackenzie River.

B.C. Maritime Shipbuilders of Vancouver, the yard now employing 150, "double a year ago," is working on a — unfortunately the Minister is not here — working on a $700,000 order from the British Columbia Department of Highways. "In the wind is a $1.5 million order from an Edmonton based company for a 102-ft. tug for use on the Mackenzie River.

"In New Westminster, Associated John Manly Ltd. is working on about $2 million in orders — three tugs and two barges." Affiliated Western Propeller, which shares New Westminster quarters with Westminster Tug — quote, "is very busy because of the general high level of work in B.C. shipyards. We are making most of the propellers."

Another New Westminster Shipyard got its share of work but didn't fare so well. Starr Shipyards went into receivership in December and the reason given here is inexperienced management. But owners have taken over and, you know, that company is building for a Quebec outfit, known as Quebec Cartier Mining Company. This is interesting again that we are capable of selling and competing in Quebec.

Well, that's a list of how the shipyards are faring in B.C. I agree that there is a possibility of increasing shipyard construction and also, of course, increasing shipping in B.C. I don't deny the Premier the suggestion which is a good one.

But it did nothing, Mr. Speaker, in terms of improving the job situation between November and December. It did nothing to explain 16,000 extra people unemployed — that jump there, or the subsequent one. It did nothing at all. It was simply a red herring which was dragged across into this debate and I feel it is most unfortunate.

The article to which the Premier referred, is by Norman Hacking of a couple of days ago in the Vancouver Province. Norman Hacking is generally a very reliable reporter. I obviously have been reading a great deal of shipping columns and I found him to be very good. He goes on to describe why it would take a subsidy of approximately $1 million a job to create jobs in the shipping industry.

He talks of the difficulty of getting people to man these ships. He said most British ships now have Chinese crews or Indian crews. Dutch ships recruit their crews in Indonesia.

He goes on to say: "Few of our boys want to go to sea any more."

Well, it's easy enough for the Premier to simply say he has found one person of all these companies listed and, let's face it, I have heard an awful lot from the same chap over the years when I was a federal Member. He is just not exactly a man who see the bright side of any picture.

Perhaps it is possible for the Premier to find one of these people to indicate that Mr. Hacking wasn't 100 per cent accurate or that Mr. Sigurdson misquoted him. But that's pretty thin when we deal with the list of orders that are in there and the fact that there is substantial activity.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go on and say that I received a copy of a letter from Vancouver shipyards. The letter was dated February 16, sent to the Premier, copies to myself, Mr. Derril Warren and Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. It goes on to say, after endorsing the Premier's view, "I must point out that the direct effect of your proposed change, as outlined in Bill No. 69, of the Social Services Tax Act will be to reduce the present federal subsidy from 17 per cent to 12 per cent on all barges, derricks, dredges or, in fact, any type of non-self-propelled vessel over 500 tons."

So on the one hand we have shipping and shipbuilding listed as the great cure for unemployment, and the debate was on unemployment or should have been on unemployment. Then we have actions by the Government to reduce the effectiveness of federal measures already taken to stimulate shipping in this province. That type of contradiction, I think, is most unfortunate and I suggest that in

[ Page 645 ]

future we are going to have a great deal more precision by the Premier when discussing issues such as unemployment or anything else.

It is easy, and let us admit it here — we all know it — it is easy for him to drag a red herring across the trail and to turn a debate on to any subject of his choosing. What he says is news and, therefore, a realistic debate on unemployment naturally fails to succeed. We don't think it is the right thing to do and we think it is a type of device which is going to have to be abandoned by the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he really intends to take his job seriously.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is he saying, "Naughty, naughty"?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll go on to another subject which is much the same, in terms of action by this Premier.

I refer to the actions of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, who after visiting his friend in Washington State 13 months ago, comes back the first time and states that there is no chance of stopping the Alaska pipeline or the tankers along our coast — the decision is irrevocable, the decision is made. That was 13 months ago.

He has another occasion to see his friend, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Evans again persuades the Premier that it is inevitable. So we have another statement damaging to the efforts of people who are opposing this line, damaging to our fund-raising efforts, damaging to our efforts to keep the spark of hope alive that we, through legal means, could do things. He comes back again from Olympia and makes the same statement.

I am glad the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is in the room because he also fell into the same error of assuming that those of us who didn't have as much money as our opponents would be unable to win in the American courts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've won, Mr. Attorney General; in the courts we have done extremely well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When I need a lesson from the Attorney General on real politics in Washington, I'll ask him for it.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): His record in court is better than yours….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In any event, we now have a complete reversal of policy and, unfortunately, I was unable to comment upon this last week when the statement came out that the Premier intended to visit Washington, D.C. We had a complete reversal of policy.

What was inevitable before suddenly became something which the Premier wished to associate his office with and his person with. So then he decides he is going to rush off to Washington. He phones and claims that 24 hours later the call will come back. Well, we waited for a week and we are still waiting for the call. We have in today's paper the report of the Prime Minister's telegram indicating that to straighten out the phone lines and things the Canadian embassy has been requested to arrange a meeting.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, that may well be,

MR. McGEER: What about the President's assistant. Couldn't he call back?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: I was unaware of a phone call….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have now this reversal of policy. If the Premier wishes to comment upon conversations he has had with federal cabinet Ministers, of which I know nothing — I am not a Member of this Government of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're the one that's supposed to clue me on what's happening. Now you know nothing. Make up your mind.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver–Howe Sound): Go out in the corridor and have a Press conference.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have had this reversal of policy whereby the Premier has turned around and decided that, no, he was wrong for 13 months. It is not inevitable, there may be something I can do. So his intention is, apparently, to go off to Washington and register the protest of the British Columbia government.

Well, that's fine, except the time for that has long since passed. We have had protests from the Canadian government, from Sharp. We have had discussions between Nixon and Trudeau. We have had many indications, Mr. Speaker, that they have heard our views and rejected our views.

[ Page 646 ]

They even take us to court. I have here the decision of the United States Court of Appeals. On the one side we have ourselves, the people trying to obstruct this pipeline or prevent its construction; on the other we have two U.S. cabinet Ministers, Rogers Morton and Earl Butz, Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, and we have the State of Alaska, another of the friends of our Premier.

Now, I will send a copy of this over to him; I don't have very many of them, but here is the decision of the Court of Appeals. It runs to many pages and I think it might be useful to read it.

It might be useful to read it because when our Premier goes to Washington, Mr. Speaker, he is going to have a few rough decisions and I think he should know about them. As I have requested a meeting with him over a month ago and have failed to get a response or a time to have that meeting, I will tell him now as he happens to be in the room.

If our Premier goes to Washington and is told, "Well, thank you for your views," and he is shown the door, you can be quite sure that is pro forma and of little value except to the Americans who will use it to indicate division between federal and provincial governments.

If he goes, however, and they take him at all seriously, he is going to be faced with questions because the time has passed simply to record objections. That has been done — more than six months ago, more than a year ago. This is why we have found ourselves for more than a year in the courts. The time for objections was basically in January of 1971 when the testimony was taken by the Interior department and then later by the federal government at the diplomatic level. So assume, Mr. Speaker, that they take him seriously and they are going to ask him questions.

The question is going to be: "Mr. Premier, what are you going to give in return for us not having oil tankers down your coasts?"

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the level of the flippant remarks on the other side indicate that they haven't spent much time thinking about it.

The question is going to be: "Do you, or do you not, support a Mackenzie Valley pipeline?"

The question is going to be: "Do you, or do you not, wish to have that Mackenzie Valley pipeline, as the federal government would like, 51 per cent Canadian-owned?"

The questions are going to be along the lines of, "How about control of that pipeline?"

They are going to be questions such as, "In the interim, before that pipeline is built, will you be willing to allow, or will you lend your support to the concept of having Canadian resources — oil, gas, electricity — go south so the Americans have time in which to build a Canadian pipeline?"

These are fairly decisive questions; I mention them in all seriousness. It is easy for some of your Ministers, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, to be flippant about this, but that is the type of deal we are at now. Basically, you play your cards that you've got, you are willing to trade, you are willing to gamble, you are willing to play poker. Or you might as well just go home.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This issue is far too serious to play poker….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it suddenly becomes serious a week ago. The Premier didn't even think that there was any point in doing anything about it — it was inevitable.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: You help him. He's the one that needs help.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: He's the one that's trying to turn a political show into….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have followed this for some time and I know what level we're at now. We are no longer at the level where protests are registered and that's that.

We are now at the level where, if we want to prevent those tankers, we are going to have to offer something in return. It may be simple for us here and for stupid remarks to be made by backbenchers when I bring this matter up, but it is a real fact of life.

If they take you seriously, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Premier, they are going to ask what are you willing to do. I don't know what the answers will be but there had better be some answers otherwise the chances of putting off a west coast line are forever gone.

In the judgment, which I will send to the Premier, there is a dissenting view on one aspect of the case — a dissenting view which is very interesting. It indicates some of the problems we are faced with in the United States. I urge the Premier to read from page 127 on.

In that judgment, which is pretty important, they talk about the Canadian alternative, and it says why that particular judge rejects the Canadian alternative. He talks about security. He talks about the American law — there is a law in the States which he thinks would require no U.S. funding of a line which is 51 per cent Canadian owned or controlled.

Now my personal view is that we are at such a stage, Mr. Speaker, that there is no way that the

[ Page 647 ]

federal Liberal government can continue its desire for 51 per cent Canadian ownership. These are views that I put to both the Prime Minister in my meeting with him on Saturday last and to the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources.

I don't believe that we should at this time require either Canadian ownership or control of that line which essentially will be linking two American states and will be a communications link for energy — both gas and oil, actually — between Alaska and probably North Dakota.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've informed the Premier, who apparently is unaware of the guidelines laid down by the federal government, that that is their position and I think he should reject it, as I have rejected it today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You reject the 51 per cent Canadian ownership concept?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I reject your position….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point is, Mr. Speaker, that it's pretty simple to make a statement, such as the Premier just made, that he rejects completely the idea of an American-owned pipeline across Canada. Let's not forget there are at least two Canadian-owned pipelines across the United States — one running through Michigan, called the Trans-Canada Pipe; the other, of course, from New Hampshire up to Montreal.

American law is such that if we are serious about getting rid of the risk of oil pollution on our west coast, the Premier is going to have to face up to some thoroughly unpleasant choices. You can no longer get away with flippant remarks. You can no longer get away by trying to bring in red herrings as he did on unemployment. You're going to be faced with professionals who know their stuff and who are good people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear hear.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You should brief yourself. You should read things such as these statements. You should try and get the input from some people who know perhaps more than you do about the trans-Alaska pipeline dispute. You should realize that if you go down there and do not make any concessions, if there's nothing that you are willing to put in the pot, if you're not, for example, willing to indicate that you support the position of Peter Lougheed of Alberta and that you will support it at the future conference of Western Economic Opportunity, you are simply signing the death warrant of the B.C. coast as far as oil tankers go. Because they'll use that, Mr. Premier, against the Canadian federal government's position and they will point out that as the NDP is in control of three of the four western provinces and controls natural resources, property and civil rights, there is no way that the American security should be jeopardized by some of the things that might be done. The guarantees that they request from the federal government might well not be honoured if provincial governments are not at one with the federal government.

It's a serious question. You're either going to go down there and they're going to say, "Good-bye. Thanks for your views," and they are going to ignore you; or they're going to take you seriously. When they take you seriously and ask you questions, you're going to have to give intelligent responses — not responses designed for Press coverage in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the Hon. Member to address the Chair, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right, Mr. Speaker. I'll continue and I'll address the Chair.

I'm glad that the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement is in the chamber, because, Mr. Speaker, some time ago in debate in this House I outlined — when Mincome came in and when he was good enough to take a very keen interest in what the Opposition parties had to say on this — we debated the question of Mincome. There was also reference made at that time, Mr. Speaker, to what would happen if there was a cost-of-living adjustment at the federal level. I don't want to go over this at length and I'm quite willing to try and cut it as short as I can. I talked about it and I went on to say,

"It's something which I would like to question the Minister on now. If it so happens that this cost-of-living escalator clause results in an increase in the federal contributions to a pension scheme, will it, under his scheme — the provincial supplemental scheme — also be cost-of-living adjusted? Instead of simply having the $200 a month, will it be possible for the pensioner to take the benefit, if you can call it that? It's really not a benefit; it's just an adjustment for extra payments under first the federal scheme and secondly the provincial. In other words will both be cost-of-living adjusted?

"He shakes his head in agreement with me. Good. He won't have to answer that question in his speech."

Now, whether or not the Minister was thinking specifically of the old 2 per cent cost-of-

[ Page 648 ]

living adjustment formula or whether he was thinking more generally, I cannot say. I don't wish to suggest to him that he was thinking of a general increase such as occurred with this $17 and a few odd cents increase in the federal universal pension for senior citizens.

I felt at that time that if it so happened that the federal government — and it was expected, let's fact it — increased its pension contributions, then the provincial scheme would not simply be cut back by a like amount.

Again, I admit there are points here which he can comment upon one way or another. But I do feel that at that time, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, the impression was given that future increases in the federal contribution, which we all knew were inevitable, would not result in reduction of the provincial contribution.

More recently we've heard, and I am quoting from the Vancouver Province of February 21, and the headline is: "Federal pension raise won't boost Mincome." Now I appreciate that the Minister has not had a chance to study this in detail and to go into all aspects of it. So what I will do here is simply make a strong plea for consideration of allowing the pensioner to hold onto some of that increase.

The basic flaw that I saw in the Mincome scheme back in October — on October 26 when I spoke — was that it made no provision for any income that the pensioner might have — a provision similar to the federal dollar-for-dollar allowance, giving him at least 50 per cent of his other income. That is still the case. I regret it and I trust that the amendments that he is talking about bringing in will deal with this point.

In addition, I feel it's necessary, when dealing with the specific extra $17.22, for this to wind up in the hands of the pensioners.

I realize that it's going to take a while to adjust. I am not accusing the Minister of taking this away yet, because I don't really feel that these news items have fully explored his position. I do, however, feel that it is very important for him to realize that we're very concerned that pensioners be given the result of that increase.

I was phoned earlier today by a lady who talked about this very point. She was very worried that her $17.22 would be taken away from her. On the strength of what I have read so far, or heard so far, I had to agree that it probably would be. I invited her down this afternoon to listen to my comments that I have given just now, but she said she would be unable to come because she is blind and she finds difficulty in getting around. But it's that type of person that we're trying to help.

It's not just federal. It's not just provincial. Both governments are trying to help, even though of course the vast bulk of the money is federal, still. It is, I think, unfair for one government to take away what another government gives. That's the situation we're in right now.

I do feel that the Minister should be willing to make adjustments to his legislation — he has promised to bring in adjustments anyway. Those promises were made in the throne speech — to allow the pensioner, the senior citizen, some advantage for this increase in the federal pension.

Federal pensions have been going up fairly steadily. The GIS and GIP pension provisions in the time that I was in the 28th Parliament in Ottawa went up well over $40. There was more than a $40 jump in that period. Now we've just had another jump of $17.22. I feel it is unfair that this be taken away.

HON. MR. LEVI: It was $2.75 on GIS.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: $2.75? Yes. I'm having difficulty actually hearing the words of the Minister, but he mentioned $2.75. Perhaps if he is speaking later in this debate — I don't know whether he has already spoken — but he might well comment upon this. He might speak also outside the House. I invite him to make a statement outside the House on this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not a policy decision. It's a straightforward one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of procedure, I would request that you address yourself to the Chair and to the House and not engage in conversations across the floor.

Interjections by some Hon. Members. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And he looked at me. (Laughter).

The Premier has indicated that the definitive word was the Minister's statement in the House and apparently the Press has quoted him correctly, in a rather hard-hearted way, I feel. All I can say then, if that is the final statement of the Premier, I trust that the Minister will continue to work within cabinet to get some of this federal pension increase back in the hands of the old age pensioner.

One other point I'd like to mention at this time, Mr. Speaker, is the whole question of contracts for B.C. Hydro buses.

The Minister is out of the House, and let me say that I have the highest respect for him. I feel that he is one of the best Ministers in the Cabinet. He is always cheerful and friendly towards Members of the Opposition, which is something that many of his colleagues are not. (Laughter).

[ Page 649 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I asked questions in the House on this business of buying buses without tender, and it was replied to by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) on February 16, not so long ago. We find that the prices are about $45,000 a unit for Flyer. Total contract is $2,707,500 and about $1,902,500 for 39 buses from GM. My failing mathematics gives me about $45,000 for Flyer, $48,780 for GM.

Mr. Speaker, it was said at the time that it was necessary to do this this way because there was no time for tendering. Yet, I read in the paper that it had been checked out by a reporter. This reporter found that earlier on in late September, B.C. Hydro had reserved 100 places on the GM line, and that on October 10, when Hydro was in communication with the company, they asked for a specific price quotation on a specific model. That was in the Vancouver Sun of December 22, two months ago.

We queried that at the time. I queried it, and I'd better quote myself correctly, it's here somewhere. I think I said, though, that there was an apparent irregularity in this contract. Well there has been two months for this apparent irregularity to be corrected. There has been a speech in the House by that Minister, and nothing so far has been done to indicate what the urgency of the situation was, why those places were cancelled and why contracts were given without tender. Nothing so far has indicated to us that there was any real improvement in that situation. Now, as Hon. Members know, and again I can quote the newspaper, the headline of the same article is, "Windsor firm prevented from bidding on 99 bus order from B.C. Hydro."

As Hon. Members know, statements were made about the number of companies available to tender, and it was said there were only two. Well I can't guarantee any company in Canada, but I did my best to find out about the third company which kept claiming that it was able to put forward a bus and that it was able on the basis of a GM chassis and engine to build a body that would be suitable for this. Furthermore, I attempted to check out their claim that they could do it cheaper. And I attempted to check out their claim that had this third company been used, these 99 buses would have been delivered in the Province of British Columbia earlier than under the present arrangements.

Well, we worked on that. I first looked at Flyer Industries. I tried to get hold of the financial report of Flyer, and it was refused to me, or at least I should say it was refused to a person acting on my behalf in Manitoba. Here is his letter:

"Further to our telephone conversation of the other day, here is some material on Western Flyer Coach. Regretfully, we are unable to supply you with copies of the annual report of Western Flyer Coach, as the Manitoba Development Corporation has no obligation to file such reports in the House. Incidentally that's one of the rules that we'd like to see changed. I contacted the head office of Western Flyer Coach and asked if they would supply us with copies of their annual report and they refused, saying that they were available only to stockholders. This company, by the way, is 74 per cent owned by the Manitoba Development Corporation. However, I am able to supply you with some detailed information on our most recent attack on Western Flyer Coach which revolved around the hiring of Mr. Ault…."

That's irrelevant to this argument.

"More recently, as I think I discussed with you on the phone, there was some local controversy about Western Flyer Coach because the Manitoba government told the City of Winnipeg, which was considering purchasing buses from either Western Flyer or GM, that unless they purchased buses from Western Flyer, they would receive no provincial grants. The Metro Transit System loses money every year, and receives provincial subsidies. It became a hot local issue but the government fielded all criticism by saying that their primary interest was providing jobs for Manitobans."

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Who was the author?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: David McClellan from Winnipeg. If you'd like a copy, I'll provide you with one, Mr. Minister.

So that's the story on Western Flyer. We have no obligation, I feel, in this province to assist Western Flyer to create jobs for Manitoba. Obviously we have friendly feelings toward our fellow Manitobans, but we have no direct obligation. Our obligations in British Columbia are to the taxpayers of British Columbia and to the people of British Columbia. I'm glad that Members of the Opposition backbench applaud that statement.

Western Flyer lost $500,000 in their last year in which we were able to get the figures — 1971 — on a total sales of $3 million. Then it goes on to say that no figures have been released for 1972, but Marmon, that's the fellow who is the company spokesman, estimates sales will be close to $5 million, about $3 million less than the company's first forecast. $3 million less. "We were forced to shut down for the last three months of the summer because we couldn't get parts from our suppliers," they said. Yet this is the same company which apparently is going to be in such a great hurry getting us buses. Questionable one.

[ Page 650 ]

It's a case of a third of a million dollars being offered to a Manitoba company, over and above the cost that it is plain that we can get these buses for, from dealing with another supplier. The total of these buses will come later — not earlier, but later. If three companies are used, they will come earlier rather than later. And they will come later, of course, if two companies are used.

We have here a contract, which is all around highly questionable. We've had no Ministerial statement in the last two months to straighten things out.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is an election coming up in Manitoba, my friend.

We have had no explanation as to why the orders on the GM line, which were made in late September, were cancelled. We simply have no explanation whatsoever as to why a British Columbia supplier, Sumpter Bus Brokers, was unable, despite the fact that he's a tax paying member of the British Columbia public — paying taxes to this Government, to this province — why he was unable to bid. He claims, and he's in the business, that he can phone down if he gets the specifications, to his head office in Windsor, and they can give him a firm price bid within 48 hours. Yet we are told that if it had gone out to tender, it would take an extra eight months — I believe that was the Minister's statement.

If it takes 48 hours, how could it possibly delay the buses eight months? Furthermore, if these buses were purchased from a company, surely the Government must have known what the price would be before they accepted the deal. So if they had the price of the bus, and the company had the specifications, surely that's good enough for tendering. I thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) for coming back. The whole argument and the excuses given so far have created more doubt in my mind than ever before that this contract was not one as has been described by the Government.

I'd like to read a letter into the record, and I'll table the information below, from this British Columbia supplier:

"David:

For your information, I've had Glen Houston, our sales manager, put together an approximate price on what we guess would be a typical Hydro bus. We have put every possible extra on this, also everything heavy duty."

That sentence is underlined.

"Undoubtedly, they will not require some of the extras listed here, but we put them on anyhow, and as you can see, the price is still several thousand dollars below Western Flyer. This would include partial assembly here in Vancouver." — jobs for British Columbians — "(Note two prices, one for diesel power and one for propane.)

"I cannot emphasize too strongly the fact that we have included every option and this is why the price is over $40,000."

Remember Flyer was $45,000 according to the questions tabled in the House. That's a substantial difference.

"I feel that their specs will indicate less required, but we have" — underlined again — "over-priced to protect ourselves. Once again, we are at a disadvantage not having specs to go by. For your information, Wayne makes all of the Post Office vehicles for the federal government. We enclose advertising material for your perusal."

Well, I could read on these one, two, three, four pages of specifications.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Read them all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll give you a quick rundown. You have things like heaters, you have all the double windows, you have hand-rails. Everything is specified in this, and as I said, everything is the top-of-the-line material. We go on to very heavy duty axles. These extras are probably not required, thus a price drop of $825 plus 12 per cent — a $935 total reduction on this one option alone.

I'll table this, but if we are to find out, Mr. Member from the backbench of the Government side, who seems so interested in getting this thing over with, if we are to find out why one-third of a million dollars of the money of the people of British Columbia is being spent to buy buses, when other buses are available, we'd like to have a few answers. We think it deserves a little bit of the time of this House.

The government has gone in for diesel buses. The fact of the matter is that this particular supplier can deliver propane. If we're discussing the budget, it's well to point out that there was a suggestion that propane should be used. Propane can be delivered for $39,943 maximum cost.

Now, I will table all this information but I will once more ask for a serious reply….

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): How many transit buses have they built?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: How many transit buses have they built? Well, I'm sorry, I cannot give you all that information. But this company has produced a good number of these buses — both Wayne and Wells. I can't give you all the information on it, but all I'm saying, Mr. Minister, and I see you turning there….

[ Page 651 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They've been losing money for years, too.

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the prospectus. The picture there is one of a transit bus. Can the Minister see it? Has he seen this material from the company? He apparently has not. He's not asked for it. Well, have you seen this material, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter). I rather doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether in casual conversation with the….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, my ankles are quite O.K., Mr. Speaker.

The Minister has raised a point and that is that this company has completely cornered the market in school buses in many areas of North America. They are a very, very big supplier of school buses. But they are quite capable and have built regular transit buses. There is no reason that I can see for a British Columbia supplier to be denied the privilege of tendering, when he pays taxes in the Province of British Columbia, would employ British Columbians in the final assembly of these vehicles, and has every desire to offer his services to the province.

I feel it's bad in principle that British Columbians are denied for any reason the right to tender to their provincial government, whatever the reason may be. The Minister has given no convincing explanation of why this was done. We have given him two months to do this.

There is a motion on the order paper requesting the production of correspondence between the various companies and himself. We haven't had it yet. Nothing so far has come forward. I've even written to him asking for the specifications. That's a recent letter; I sent it earlier this week. I haven't received a reply. I don't think that it's fair to ask for a reply yet, but I haven't received any information in the two months that we've been raising this issue.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in a hypothetical sense, what is the reason for this? Of course, we know, as was said on my right by the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), that there is an election in Manitoba this year. We know that the Manitoba government, an NDP government, and the Manitoba Development Corporation is under very, very sharp attack for mismanagement. We know that they are determined to try to make a success of this company, at least in terms of sales. We know that this particular company, as I said, lost money and we know that they've been desperately searching for markets elsewhere.

You put these things together: a complete lack of information from the Government, a complete lack of sensible explanation from the Government, the political advantages to the Manitoba NDP Government — which was raised at their convention in Winnipeg not so long ago and pointed out at that time — and you wonder whether or not that might be the reason for this type of purchasing.

As I said, I cannot provide information on that. I don't know and no one in this House will. But I challenge the Minister now to make some reasonable explanation and not simply to ignore it as he's done in his previous speech.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: O.K., I will sit down. I trust he will. Up to now he's had two months to do it and has failed to do it. So I will table, Mr. Speaker, for the House, this statement of the bus brokers who claim they can put together a bus at $5,000 less if it's a diesel unit, more than $5,000 less if it's a propane unit. I will table the other supporting material, the type of chassis on which they build, which I believe is essentially Chevrolet or at least GM — probably Detroit diesel propulsion units. I'll put this thing forward.

Once again, we in the Opposition do not want this thing to be forgotten once more. There is a request that this information and the information between the companies and the government be made public. It's in the public interest to make it public. We fail to understand why this has not been done.

Mr. Speaker, the budget and the Premier made a fine thing about the fact that the budget would not increase taxes to the average citizen. Well, in a certain sense that is true. It does not directly increase taxes. But what the budget does do, of course, is to increase corporate taxes in the province which, according to most economists, are the type that are generally passed on to the consumer.

Of course, you escape if you're an international corporation; you can pass it on to a foreign consumer, if you're lucky. But in the case of products sold in British Columbia, the result is an increase in the cost of living. It's an increase in the actual charge upon the citizens to get the same standard of life as they've had before.

As apparently revenue was not heeded, as apparently there will be large budgetary surpluses, we feel that this budget should have made some allowance for the ordinary taxpayer and not put in this disguised taxation which can only hit him. We also feel that there is a real need for municipal tax decreases or, at the very least, a holding of the municipal tax line in British Columbia in this year.

I've got, Mr. Speaker, some material here — quotes from mayors all across the province on this budget. The headline is "Most Municipal Chiefs Find Little to Applaud."

First of all, as was mentioned in the debate and in the NDP manifesto, the NDP election material, there

[ Page 652 ]

was no removal of school taxes from property. This has been put forward by my Hon. friend from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) in the shadow budget, the Liberal budget that he put forward. We feel this should be done.

We feel, in addition, that there has been no acknowledgment of the fact that when programmes are undertaken by the provincial government which involve municipal expenditure, it may well be that the municipalities are locked into spending money by provincial decisions which they can only recover by increasing the mill rate. I'm thinking in particular of increases in welfare costs and, of course, school costs that I mentioned a moment ago.

In education, the ceiling has been taken off. It's no longer 6.5 per cent. Whatever it should be is really irrelevant in terms of the municipalities. What they understand and understand very well is that their costs are inevitably going to go up. In ballpark terms, municipalities have to raise approximately a third of a billion a year for school taxation. If the total level of spending on education is increased by the provincial government, a portion of this will devolve upon the municipalities for them to raise. So they are hit with a very heavy increase in school taxation.

Secondly, there's welfare, another area in which the Government indicates it will spend more money. Welfare may well be a good thing to spend more money on but it does result in the municipalities themselves having to pay at least 15 per cent of the cost. This is an extra charge upon them brought about as a result of provincial actions.

In these two areas the spending by the municipalities is basically on provincial government instruction, and it leaves them with even less for the services which they have to perform as municipalities.

They've been given $2 extra; $30 was the old Social Credit figure. I believe it had been unchanged for three years. They've been given $2 more, which doesn't even take into account inflation since the last increase to the $30 figure.

We think that this is far too little. In a budget which includes substantial surpluses, we feel that the municipalities have been particularly badly treated by not increasing this amount.

Municipalities have been faced with amalgamation problems that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has forced upon them, violating the election promises of the NDP which I read out earlier.

The inevitable result this year is that municipal taxes are going to have to go up substantially. It's been mentioned in my own city by Alderman Tom Christie who said the per capita grant increase was "a mere pittance" and wouldn't help the city prevent a major mill increase expected this year. "I can foresee a 7 mill increase in the mill rate this year. The additional $2 will amount to about 3/4 of a mill," Christie said. He went on to say that it should have been a $10 instead of a $2 grant.

This is the net result of the budget on the municipalities. It may be that taxes have been held in terms of taxes on individuals. At the same time we have to realize that this budget has forced increases on the municipalities, which means forcing increases upon the average citizens of the province, which means a general increase in taxation by the creatures of the province, namely the municipalities themselves.

We feel in our party that that grant should have been a great deal higher. We feel, in addition, serious steps should have been made at this time to take the school taxation off property, and we regret that this has not been done.

The other area that I would like to mention at this time is consumer affairs, Mr. Speaker. We have had statements in the NDP platform; we've had statements by other parties as well. I thought that all parties, no matter who got into power, would have brought in improvements in the consumer affairs branch of the province, improving the situation with respect to most of our citizens who get into the troubles that were described by my Hon. friend from North Vancouver (Mr. Brousson).

The NDP platform indicated that this was an area of importance and yet very little has been done. We've had a price review board on gasoline which quickly turned out to be a farce because it tended to do nothing about the increase in the price of gasoline. We've had minor alterations to the staff of the consumers affairs branch. We've had no department set up. We think that much could have been done in this area and it's a serious disappointment to us that nothing has been done.

In consumer affairs there are so many things that could be touched upon but I'll try and deal with as few as possible. You want freedom of choice in the marketplace, as much as you can get it. You want freedom of action in the marketplace again. You want freedom from fraud and deception — and we've gone into that at some length in the specific areas of mortgages and consumer finance from another member of this party. And of course you want freedom from the fear of physical or economic injury as a result of defective products.

A good deal and probably most of the consumer affairs jurisdiction is provincial and not federal. I feel that we in this province have certainly not kept up with Ontario, for example, which has storefront consumer affairs offices throughout the province to assist the low income people in particular to make sensible decisions when they are faced with some of these impossible decisions — or what seems to them impossible decisions — to make about how to finance this or that particular product.

The Attorney General (Hon, Mr. Macdonald) on December 7, in the Vancouver Province advocated

[ Page 653 ]

consumer counsels to protect the public. We applaud this. We regret that there hasn't been enough indicated in this budget for us to really have confidence in it. We know that the consumer affairs branch is doing a good job. I have here their pamphlet, issued under the authority of Leslie Peterson, Q.C. (former) Attorney General — it's not yet changed. This is a pamphlet that they handed out and I just happened to have it in my drawer.

They are doing their best to assist but they are simply not adequately staffed. As was made clear the other day, unless a person is in Victoria they really don't have as much opportunity — in Victoria or Vancouver — they don't have as much opportunity to use the services of this department as they would have if they lived in Victoria in particular.

We think that there should be a department of consumer affairs. We feel that the lackadaisical approach to this is not the fault of the Minister. It's just another of the many things that he's got on his shoulders and the branch simply isn't getting the attention which it deserves.

The Minister is no doubt interested in the area, but it would be helpful, I feel, if someone with fewer other duties were a little more energetic in the area and took it over.

I asked the question on the order paper — Question 50. I asked for the number of people employed. There's the consumer affairs officer, and then there's the administrative officer, and then there's a clerk and there's another clerk — there's a clerk-steno. I know this is going up a marginal amount but it's far, far from being a department of consumer affairs. It's far, far from being the type of consumer affairs protection in this province which the Province of Ontario, the Province of Alberta and other provinces, including the Province of Quebec, provide to their citizens.

We know that consumer affairs and cost-of-living problems are many and they're complex. We know that it's not possible for government simply by fiat to announce what prices will be. But we do feel that there's a lot more to be done in this area and we don't feel that the way to do it is simply to subsidize one form of distribution system, namely co-ops, and ignore the others. We feel that if the government is to spend money on this it should not be along the lines suggested by the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi). It should be more general assistance which even private organizations could take advantage of.

We don't think it's simply a question of ownership of the outlet which determines the high price of food or that this area is the thing to look for. The fact of the matter is that there are many factors — many of them complex — and the situation we too often arrive at is that the farmer or rancher himself is blamed when it should be some other element of society — or perhaps all of us who tend to be consumers when we're thinking about our dollars when we are spending them, and tend to be rather avaricious when we think of our dollars in terms of earning them — or increasing our wages. We all bear blame for high costs.

Because virtually nothing is done in these two areas, Mr. Speaker — first of all some relief from the taxation, particularly in forms of municipal taxation; and secondly because so little is done in this budget with reference to consumer affairs, we are moving an amendment to the motion which I will read at this time:

"And that the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following words: 'But this House regrets that the budget neglects the general good of the citizens of this province by failing to provide for relief from the burden of provincial taxation and by failing to provide adequate consumer protection."' It's seconded, Mr. Speaker, by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Who's he?

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it's very nice to be on my feet again. I started to feel a little bit like I was going to go through life in the fetal position over the last few days. (Laughter). If any of the Members here would feel like a seventh-inning stretch, it's perfectly satisfactory with me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I could use that too.

MR. GARDOM: Certainly. That's fine and dandy.

The House really hasn't been in the jolliest of humour this afternoon. As a matter of fact earlier on it was rather like being in a tea party with a pack of swamp adders. (Laughter).

It's been rather a quiet day for news. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Williams) came out of the woods. (Laughter). The farmers found that they probably will have to get an order-in-council to go to the chick sale. The lights went out in the House. We find that Empire Stadium, Exhibition Park and the Forum are going to become a great big community centre. So you can't say, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't accomplished a great deal today as legislators.

Since this talk is likely to go a little over the witching hour, I think perhaps I'm going to start with a topic that I had towards the end, and one that may be more appropriate as we get closer to 6 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, because the sun may not be quite over the

[ Page 654 ]

yardarm, but I'm going to volunteer a "pint or two" of comment about that all-time, all-time, all-time moneymaker in the Province of British Columbia, liquor.

First of all let's consider that the Government Liquor Act is about as bad a mishmash of ill-conceived, intemperate legislation as we could ever find in our statute books. I would dare to say….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I'm happy to hear that I've got some support from the Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): You made that up in the Bengal Bar. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: I wish I had.

HON. MR. HALL: I hope this is on TV.

MR. GARDOM: I hope the next round's on you, Mr. Provincial Secretary. (Laughter).

I dare to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are very few, if any, persons in this room who, at one time or another, have not been complete and utter offenders within the provisions of our government liquor statute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: I'll explain to you why. A law, to have any kind of credibility, has to be clear, it's got to be concise, it's got to be certain and it has to be capable of being enforced — and it should be enforced — and all of this to acquire the acceptability of society. It's not supposed to be loaded with inanities and absurdities as we find in the Government Liquor Act.

For example, I'd like the Hon. Members to consider a couple of sections of this statute. I'm going to paraphrase them to save time. First of all, section 81, it reads: "No person shall have…liquor in any restaurant." No person shall have liquor in any restaurant. All of this of course unless, there happens to be a licence or a permit. So if an individual does have liquor in a restaurant, that is an offense, both of the individual and of the restaurant keeper.

Now let's take a look at the penalty section. You find something here that is even stricter and much tougher than what we find under our Summary Convictions Act. Under Section 3 of the Government Liquor Act, "every person guilty of an offense under this Act for which no penalty has been specifically provided, is liable for a first offense to a penalty of not less than $50, not more than $200 and, in default of immediate payment, to imprisonment for not less than 30 days and not more than two months with or without hard labour."

Now I'd just like, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members to think of the permutations of this. You could have the situation of a lady purchasing a bottle of cooking wine or what-have-you to take home. It's raining. She's waiting for the bus and she decides she's going to pop into a restaurant for a little bit of shelter. Or, say, the businessman on the way home, or a worker who wishes to take a bottle home with him and he happens to drop into a restaurant, and puts the bottle in a purse or in a lunch bucket or a shopping bag or what have you. It doesn't make one whit of difference if the person doesn't have any intention of drinking it or any portion of it in the restaurant. Just be virtue of having it within the confines of a restaurant you have an offense.

Now, that's a silly kind of a statute to have. All the Crown prosecutor has to do is show that it happened to be in the possession of an individual. This even violates one of the most cardinal rules in our criminal law. That is, the subject is considered to be innocent until he is proven guilty. He's also entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt. But in this very, very silly statute even those centuries-old safeguards and rules of proof are swept aside because, under one other section, it's up to the poor subject to prove that he had the right to have the liquor if he's accused of improperly having it.

So you can see from all of this technically, in the illustrations that I've given you, you'd be a dead duck if you found yourself in those positions. Now, look at the offense. There is no room whatsoever for any lesser amount. Just think of that. You could dip into somebody's pay cheque or a pensioner's return.

Apart from the amount, this minimum amount which cannot be reduced — immediate payment. If you didn't appear in court with $50 in your jeans, off to Oakalla poor granny could go. Immediate payment — time for payment is not permitted. That is far, far stricter than anything you'll find in sections of the Criminal Code for, say, assault or dangerous driving, where fines can be levied and time for payment can be given. Apart from the very unfortunate position of a citizen, look, Mr. Speaker, at just what kind of a light all of this nonsense can put our police and our courts into. In my view, and I think in the view of every person in this room, the police of today are doing a terrific job in very, very difficult days. They're understaffed. I think they're underpaid, indeed, for the dangers that they have to face and the abuse that they have to take.

They're far from being properly regarded in society as being the friend and protector of society. Trying to enforce this kind of a statute is something that certainly is not conducive to establishing or contributing to a good image.

Imagine just having to try to enforce violations and report violations such as I've mentioned here. Mr.

[ Page 655 ]

Speaker, if you happened to poll the police in the province and you happened to poll the provincial judges in the province, I would say that 100 per cent of them would say that the Government Liquor Act is 100 per cent absurd and 100 per cent contemptible.

I'm urging the Government to revise it, review it, distill it, ferment it — do whatever you want with the thing — but for goodness sake, clear it up and do that as quickly as you possibly can.

I'd like to say a couple of words also about alcoholic rehabilitation. Is the clock right, Mr. Speaker, incidentally?

MR. SPEAKER: No, it just seems slow. (Laughter). Actually, Hon. Member, it's now five minutes to six. I warn you of that.

MR. GARDOM: We always used to speak so well of you too, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

Now, Mr. Speaker, dealing with alcoholic rehabilitation — which I'm sure is a topic which will warm your heart. But for it being very, very tragic, Mr. Speaker, the accounts of the Liquor Control Board ending the period of March 31, 1972, would indeed be a very, very jolly statement. The net receipts for that year ending a year ago March….

Would you like to stop now or would you like to hear the rest of this before you go to dinner? All in favour? Straw vote. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is it good news? (Laughter). Which do you want?

Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Hartley files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer files the annual report of the Department of Commercial Transport for the year ending December 31, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.