[ Page 2605 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Energy Act (Bill No. 148). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction of amendments — 2605

Water Utilities Act (Bill No. 146). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction of amendments — 2605

Telecommunications Utilities Act (Bill No. 147). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction of amendments — 2605

Ocean Falls Corporation Act (Bill No. 164). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction of amendments — 2605

Development Corporation of British Columbia (Bill No. 102). Second reading.

Mr. Chabot — 2606

Mr. Smith — 2607

Mr. Phillips — 2608

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2609

Mrs. Jordan — 2609

Mr. Gardom — 2611

Mr. Wallace — 2612

Division on amendment to postpone second reading — 2612

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2613

Division on second reading — 2613

Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act (Bill No. 103). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2613

Mr. McClelland — 2614

Mr. Gardom — 2615

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2615

Division on second reading — 2616

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia Act (Bill No, 120). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2616

Mr. Fraser — 2616

Mr. Brousson — 2617

Mr. Curtis — 2617

An Act to amend the Public Schools Act (Bill No. 156). Second reading.

Hon, Mrs. Dailly — 2617

Mr. Schroeder — 2617

Mr. Brousson — 2618

Mr. Wallace — 2618

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2618

Ocean Falls Corporation Act (Bill No. 164). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2618

Mr. Smith — 2619

Mr. Williams — 2620

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2621

Mr. Wallace — 2621

Mr. Rolston — 2622

Mr. Lockstead — 2623

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2624

Ocean Falls Corporation Appropriation Act (Bill No. 164). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2625

Division on second reading — 2625

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act (Bill No. 168). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2626

Mr. Wallace — 2626

Mr. Rolston — 2626

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2626

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2627

Mrs. Jordan — 2627

Mr. Wallace — 2627

Mr. Rolston — 2628

Mr. Lauk — 2629

Mr. Williams — 2629

Hon, Mr. Barrett — 2630

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2630

The House met at 9 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

ENERGY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 148 intituled Energy Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 10, 1973.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to a committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 148.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 148.

Motion approved.

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

WATER UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 146 intituled Water Utilities Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 10, 1973.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to a committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 146.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 146.

Motion approved.

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

TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 147 intituled Telecommunications Utilities Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 10, 1973.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 147.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 147.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have the Honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 164 intituled Ocean Falls Corporation Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 11, 1973.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 164.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2606 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 164.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 102.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When I concluded last night at about 11:29 p.m. the Premier had just gotten into the debate on the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act, Bill No. 102 and he was a little emotional about the legislation being called "jackpot legislation." He became quite emotional.

Well, you know, he might get upset about "jackpot legislation…."

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Crackpot.

MR. CHABOT: Jackpot. I get more disturbed and the people in British Columbia become disturbed too with the "crackpot" government we have over there.

HON. MR. KING: We know you're disturbed.

MR. CHABOT: The crackpot government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CHABOT: That's what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is one thing to call some bill "crackpot" but not to call other Members of the House "crackpot," especially at 9:15 in the morning. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Well, I know it is very difficult to find the proper words sometimes at this time of the day and it is neither a personal nor individual attack I am making against any Member — it's a collective attack. It is a "crackpot" government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: No. We are looking at….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. I have had a request that you get back to the bill.

MR. CHABOT: You know, this legislation is the type of legislation that strikes at the very fabric and way of life that we recognize and have recognized in British Columbia — that of individual enterprise. It is a piece of legislation that is interwoven with other bills that are before the House with other similar principles. The Revenue Act, the land bill, the Energy Act, the Mineral Act, the monopoly insurance, the right of investment in any having in charge Bill No. 146. And this is part of it. This is one segment of that master plan.

No, it's a whole change in the direction of the affairs of the people in the Province of British Columbia. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the government is very anxious to see this session terminate. They have this deadline and they have become very disturbed with the fact that we, in attempting to do the people's business by infusing new ideas into the legislation that is before the House and that we are debating now, trying to point out the pitfalls and the errors of their way, are warning that government not to pursue these faulty….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, they're anxious to get out. But there's no reason why we should rush when we're dealing with serious principles of legislation such as the Development Corporation of British Columbia. Because it has such wide ramifications.

No, the Premier sits us to 11:30, back in at 9 the next morning, because he has this deadline of Easter. He wants to hammer the legislation through. He doesn't want us to take the necessary time to debate this serious principle of this legislation. And then continuously he will say we have this deadline before legislation comes in on a daily basis.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He's taken an ounce off the bottom and put five pounds on the top.

MR. CHABOT: I can understand why the backbench is not particularly anxious to debate the principle of this bill or particularly anxious to meet the objectives of the government, or the House Leader, or the Premier relative to its adjournment, because they are only here on a platoon basis. Some are here, some are not. Most are not. They operate much like the Liberals. They're only here in bits and pieces. That's the kind of party they are to start off

[ Page 2607 ]

with. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CHABOT: Like this morning, Mr. Speaker. All they have in is the rearguard. The shift system.

The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the Development Corporation of British Columbia, is one in which the government say they want a piece of the action. Not one in which they are going to make dollars available at attractive interest rates, but dollars will be available on the commission's terms. A piece of the action. They want control, that's what the legislation is about. And some of those left-wing Liberals behind me, the rough group, they'll go along with that, Mr. Speaker, I think.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Next he'll attack the attendants. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: But really I'm wondering whether the government, when they close the debate, will tell us if they are responsible for the failure of the establishment of a copper smelter in the Kootenays, which would have provided many new jobs for the people in the east Kootenays who are British Columbians. Is that the reason why we don't have a copper smelter under construction today in the east Kootenays or anywhere else? Is it because of the insistence by the government of control of a copper smelter? Is that the reason why we are not refining our copper in British Columbia today? Is that the reason why there are no prospects on the horizon for a copper smelter in British Columbia, because of the government's insistence on control of the action?

I know that the Premier has had talks with people relative to the establishment of a copper smelter. I think he should tell us, through the Minister of Industrial Development, the reason why we don't have a copper smelter in British Columbia today. He knows why not, and I hope he'll level this morning with the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is legislation really that has wide ramifications. It is not the type of legislation that has in it the type of principles that I support. I believe that there's need for industrial development — secondary industry incentives through the method of loans — but I don't think that the government has any business to invade every potential corporation in British Columbia that might need financial assistance.

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to expect to control in a minority way or a majority way the corporations or the industries of British Columbia that might need financial assistance.

You can rest assured that any industry that would come to you for help would be coming as a last resort.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is far-reaching legislation that I would like to have more opportunity to study. We've seen much controversial legislation, new direction legislation presented before us. We haven't had too much time, Mr. Speaker, to examine in depth the direction and the path down which this terrible — legislation is leading British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, you know in by-gone years there's been ample opportunity, really, to assess legislation. Let's just look at the session of 1972. There haven't been the night sessions that we've seen and the lengthy sessions that we've seen this session. In 1972 there were only three night sessions beyond 11 o'clock, two of which adjourned between 12 and 1 o'clock, and one adjourned shortly after 1 o'clock. None started before 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

Under the circumstances we haven't had the necessary time — and I'm going to be perfectly honest — not only for this piece of legislation, but for other pieces of legislation as well. If the government is insistent that the particular deadline be met…I know the Liberals, with their law practices are anxious to go back. They're only here on an every-other-day basis.

Well, they can go and look after their law practices, but I'll stay here on a daily basis and as long as it's necessary to look after the affairs of the people of British Columbia. No, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is legislation that needs more study. I therefore move that the motion be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefore the words "in six months hence."

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member intends the motion to read, "Upon this day, six months hence."

MR. CHABOT: Yes, probably. It's early in the morning for speeches.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'm usually up.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Because the legislation has such far-reaching effects and is legislation that I can't support and will not support. I think it should be delayed.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On the amendment, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amendment is that the bill be hoisted and read on this day six months hence. If we ever had a good reason to

[ Page 2608 ]

move that amendment, we certainly had it after watching the performance of the Premier last night. I'm speaking to the amendment, and the reason why we have moved the amendment. Mr. Speaker, it was a petulant performance and unbecoming to the head of the government of this province. He not only threatened the Members in this House with that performance but, in a manner, threatened the people that we represent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I can't see how this relates to your amendment that the bill should be stood over for six months.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm relating not only what has happened this morning but what happened last evening to the reason for moving an amendment to delay the second reading of this bill for six months. 

The bill is the carrot on the end of the stick treatment to both large and small potential industry in this province. The bill provides that the government will have an equity position. In so doing, the government has taken a good idea as far as a development corporation is concerned and surrounded it with political manoeuvre.

It's obvious that if this bill is passed in its present form, only those corporations and firms who have been able to convince the government on a political basis will be successful in obtaining finance. That should not be the principle of any bill before this House. Unfortunately, it is the principle of too many bills that we have seen come before this House in this session.

It shouldn't matter Mr. Speaker, whether it be a copper smelter in the Kootenays or an alfalfa cubing plant in the Peace River country — the finance should be available from the corporation without political interference or without any political intervention.

If the proposition is sound, it should be available on a straight business-like basis without any political interference from the government. That is why we want to see this bill withdrawn so it can be reviewed for six months. Remove the undesirable features; bring it back into this House in a form where people, regardless of what political party they belong to, have equal opportunity to share in the benefits of the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is loaded in favour of those people who support the NDP philosophy. In that respect, it is not acceptable to those of us in the opposition and we will not support it. That is why the Hon. Member for Columbia River moved a motion to read this bill six months hence.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support this amendment, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons. Last evening when I opened my comments on this bill, I said that there was a definite need in the Province of British Columbia for a development corporation. In the few moments that I had to speak, I put forth some good suggestions that should be considered by the government.

When I resumed my seat, the Premier rose to his feet with fire in his eye and hate in his heart and started threatening Members from the Peace River ridings, a performance which to me was absolutely, completely disgusting.

So I had to do some thinking, Mr. Speaker, as to why the urgency to ram this legislation through. I got to thinking, Mr Speaker….

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Peace River doesn't need any help now, even for six months.

MR. PHILLIPS: I got to thinking, Mr. Speaker, that the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now there's some more threatening remarks from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Go ahead and threaten away; I'll stand my ground any day against both you and the Premier. You go right ahead and threaten away.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You explain to me why you're ramming all this legislation through.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To help the people in the north.

MR. PHILLIPS: To help the people in the north! This whole thing is tied in together. Your finance legislation, your resource development legislation, your insurance legislation, your revenue legislation; the whole thing is tied in together, Mr. Speaker. That's why it needs to be set off for six months and examined in the light of the rest of the legislation. That's why it needs to be done, Mr. Speaker.

You can go ahead and threaten me about the alfalfa cubing plant and all the rest of it. I know what the situation is, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: If this legislation is so sound, it shouldn't be necessary for either the Premier or the Minister who is introducing this legislation to throw

[ Page 2609 ]

threats across the floor of the legislature.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to have a fall session, Mr. Speaker. It's already been told to us by the master of the House, the Premier, that we're going to have a fall session. I have never — and I said last night and I said yesterday and I'll say again this morning — never in the history of this parliament has so much legislation been tabled.

Not only is there a great amount of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but there are 10 to 12 bills before this Legislature that completely change the whole system from individual enterprise in British Columbia to a collective socialist state. It's just too fast to move. It's too fast for the official opposition and it's far too fast for the people of this province.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You're just not used to change.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier himself, Mr. Speaker, seems to be overworked and suffering from the pressure and I say, if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've been running, Mr. Speaker, a shift system and it's time we stopped, right now. Give us six months to study this legislation in relation to the rest of the legislation; in relation to the Mineral Act, in relation to the Revenue Act, and in relation to the Energy Act.

They all fit together, Mr. Speaker, into a great big pattern that's going to change the entire life style of this province.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, was not drawn up by our legislators across the way — this bill was drawn up from the Manitoba bill. Mr. Speaker, I haven't had the opportunity to sit down and compare the two, but there are many flaws in the Manitoba bill.

The people in the province of Manitoba today are paying millions and millions of their tax dollars to subsidize their Industrial Development Corporation there. That is why this bill should be suspended until we can study and find out where they went wrong.

Last evening, Mr. Speaker, I made some good concrete intelligent suggestions to the government opposite. They were so intelligent that the Premier couldn't stand it. That's why he went off in an uproar and lost his cool. But I think it would be wise, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier would rethink his position and give the Members of this House the courtesy that is due to them and give us an opportunity to study this bill.

The Revenue Act, Mr. Speaker, gives the government the right to invest in any corporation, about along the same lines as the Industrial Development Act. So what is the difference between the two? I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will take a second look, keep their cool and pass this amendment and give the Members of this Legislature and the citizens of British Columbia the opportunity to study the wide-ranging ramifications of Bill 102, the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief on this amendment. It seems to me that one of the areas of this province that needs assistance in the realm of secondary industry is the Peace River area, north and south. I think it's absolutely disgraceful that this Member would want to hoist for six months the kind of assistance we could give if we had the legislative ability for agricultural processing in that area. That's exactly what you're doing by this amendment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, what you were saying, Mr. Member, is that the reports and the consultation reports and the economic studies we've done, for example, with regard to alfalfa cubing in the Peace River area — that all of that should be delayed for another six months, at least six months, and that the government would have no legislative power to give that kind of assistance to the farmers in the Peace River country — in your own area.

Now, you say that if we go up into that area and tell the people that, we're threatening you. We ought to. We ought to tell them that. You are stalling the ability of this government to extend help in agricultural processing to the have a perfect right to tell them that and we intend to tell them that. We intend to see that they get better representation from the Peace, north and south, in this Legislature than is being afforded by these two Members.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan on the amendment.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In rising to support this amendment, I'm just shocked to sit here after the performance of the Premier last night, where he stood up again — and I wasn't in the House the other time.

Not only is bludgeoning legislation unknown by the public of British Columbia through this House, he constantly threatens the Members of the opposition — "Do this or we'll do that." Mr. Speaker, this is a

[ Page 2610 ]

democracy. This fact may well have escaped this Premier and this Attorney General. But this is British Columbia, not Chile. This is British Columbia, not Russia. This is British Columbia, not Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Speaker, we will stand here and defend the rights of the people of this province as long as necessary. We will not knuckle under to ham-handed, immature, petty threats by the boy Premier of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: By the Premier of this province, Mr. Speaker. That Attorney General, who is supposed to be the epitome of justice in this province, gets up and tries to delude the opposition and the people of this province that this is a great big assistance bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has an extraordinary price on it, an unbelievable price on it. A few bucks, Mr. Speaker, for your democratic rights — and they're your own bucks at that.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is questionable as the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. It's ludicrous that statements from him should come from the Minister of justice in this province.

The Liberals are sitting behind me saying, "Oh, oh!" This Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, of which only one Member is present in this important debate, has been laying its eggs in the opposition's nest for the last month. They packed up their tents over a month ago and dedicated themselves not to defending the rights of the people of British Columbia, but to going home and tending to their personal affairs. We say to those Members, produce your own eggs in your own nest. Stop following the lead of the official opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon Member address herself to the amendment instead of insulting every Member of the House?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to your statement, the Members are here to defend the rights of the people of British Columbia. That means that every Member in this House has to make up their own mind. Every party has to have its own policies. If there's a Waffle group across there, Mr. Speaker, there's a Waffle group cousin sitting on this side of the House in the form of the Liberals, who can't make up their minds which way they're going. This official opposition….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: I fooled you, didn't I? I fooled you and I fooled the Liberals and we fooled the Conservatives. You put all your eggs in our nest.

This official opposition is willing…

AN HON. MEMBER: Get through with it.

MRS. JORDAN: …and have assumed the role as the watchdog for the people of British Columbia, the little people in this province — the husbands and wives and business people, small business people, the farmers who can't be in this Legislature to speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker.

The government over there has a platoon system. Look at them. Less than half of their platoon is here now. They can eat through their platoon system. They can sleep through their platoon system. And they can be out of the House through their platoon system, Mr. Speaker. Because the Premier just lops it off by saying, "Only one speaker can be on the floor at one time." And that's true. But, Mr. Speaker, what that Premier doesn't understand and what that obedient little platoon over there doesn't understand is that that's not what the British parliamentary and the democratic parliamentary system is all about. As I say, The Liberals want to go home and they use the platoon system — a slightly depleted platoon, Mr. Speaker. I won't mention it any further. They use it in cooperation with this government time after time.

This government has refused time after time an opportunity for effective and rational and well thought-out debate on these bills. They have refused time after time proper study of these bills. In presenting these bills and the bill which we are amending at this moment, they have refused to tell this House and the Members of this opposition who care and the people of this province who care, what the real content of these bills are.

Mr. Speaker, only one bill, the money bill, has gone through this House at this time. This government is talking about proroguing next week and they're still introducing legislation. This is an example of shameful disarray of that government; an example of lack of leadership by that Premier; an example by the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce of wilful effort to keep the people of British Columbia from knowing what these bills contain and how they're going to change the complete fabric of their individual lives in British Columbia.

They say, Mr. Speaker, that we're obstructionists. We expedited the estimates in supply. We were accused by the media and by that government of letting it slip through. The media said 46 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we're dedicated to our duty. Where it is proper, the estimates will go through. Where it is proper, the estimates will go through. Where it is not

[ Page 2611 ]

proper, they will not go through.

Mr. Speaker, there is more dollar and budget significance in the bills before this House and in this bill in particular than the whole estimates that we debated put together. That is part of the point, Mr. Speaker. We look at Canada as we seek to amend this bill. We see a parade of failures across this nation, with government in business. Not just socialist governments, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal government have an excellent record of failure when in business and using the taxpayer's dollar.

In Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, $250 million of taxpayers' money down the drain. The only people who were happy at that time, when it started, were the government. The only people who were happy in the end, Mr. Speaker, at the loss of those taxpayers' dollars, were the slick bankers. The heavy water system, Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia — pipes that don't even sweat to this day….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, Hon. Member, I think May clearly sets it out that you must stick closely to the amendment if you are permitted to debate it at all. In some jurisdictions the Speakers don't permit debate on this motion, but I feel that every Member should have a right to speak.

That does not include debating the principle of the bill, or going all over Canada to discuss whether we need a six months delay of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Well thank you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate the wisdom of your decision, and the generosity of your decision in allowing this amendment to be debated. My point in supporting the amendments and asking the government to examine this bill and let the public examine this bill for six months is to show them the need is there. Because they have not examined the results and consequences of their philosophy and their proposals in this bill. If they took six months, Mr. Speaker, and the public took six months to look at the failures by government in business across Canada, I'm sure the government would take a second look at the bill, and use their wisdom and their responsibility of leadership. If they talked to Premier Schreyer during this six months about the Churchill Falls situation in Manitoba, Premier Schreyer in that six months would tell Premier Barrett of British Columbia that the taxpayers' money invested in Churchill Falls will never be recovered.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province the Premier over there who is talking so happily says that it's government's duty to look after people, and we agree. But, Mr. Speaker, it's not government's duty to elbow its way into the business of the people and put them out of business.

It is not the government's duty to take taxpayers' money and invest it in failures, and we as the official opposition do not wish to contribute to that failure. Business must take the risk and the success or failure, not the taxpayer.

We'll find when we examine this bill over six months, if it's laid over, Mr. Speaker, that the difference between the socialist philosophy on industrial development and the Social Credit philosophy is incentive. We believe, in asking that this lay over for six months that the Premier will find out that business should be encouraged — yes, Incentives — yes. Participation by government and elbowing-in by government — no.

Individual enterprise, Mr. Speaker — yes. Castro — no. Regulations to be drawn up in that six months — yes. Heavy-handed state control — no. Quality control to be designed in this six months — yes. Dollar control of the individual by the state — no.

The point is that it is obvious that we are debating a bill that will change the life style of individual British Columbians. In speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, we warn the Premier: this and his other bills will not be rammed through this House. We say to the other Members of the opposition: "Meet your obligations to the people who elected you and meet your obligations to this democratic system, and concentrate on these bills. Stand here and don't make just piecemeal legal contributions, but speak for the rights of the individual in British Columbia. Take time and speak for a long time if necessary. Ignore the ho-hums of the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) so that the people of this province have the time to know what is in these bills and to make up their own minds, and so that the media have the opportunity to got the story across."

Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment. I warn the Premier again, through you, that ramrodding this type of legislation through this House does him no credit, and it does his government no credit. It's a complete invasion of the rights of the individual and he speaks of carrots that will choke those who swallow them.

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

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I think that we have to treat the remarks of the last speaker more in pity than in scorn. It's a very clear indication that the atmosphere in this Legislature in recent days has become pretty seamy.

There's been a great deal of very serious and very relevant debate, and that's the very thing that makes democracy work. But I would say that cheap rhetoric and constant, dull repetition is contributing nothing to the process, but is demeaning it.

This is one of the reasons why political people are not all that popular in the eyes of the general public.

[ Page 2612 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You want to come and run against me?

MR. GARDOM: I wouldn't even come close to you, Madam, let alone run against you.

It is also extremely interesting to hear the Social Credit talk about assistance to business. I have been in the House for six years. During the whole time I was in the Legislature there was during every session and throughout the year constant approaches on the part of the Liberal Party, on the part of the New Democratic Party, and on the part of the Conservative Party, when they became Members in their own right in this House, for assistance to business, and for incentives and assistance for secondary manufacturing. And to completely deaf ears for 20 long years.

AN HON. MEMBER: They all used to laugh.

MR. GARDOM: As my Hon. colleague says, the former Minister of Industrial Trade and Development (Mr. W. Skillings) used to laugh and come out with a lot of banal talk about "hot-house industries" and "putting camels through the eyes of needles" and all of these kinds of things, and it didn't make any sense whatsoever.

There was only a tiny bit of deathbed repentance in Kelowna before the last election when they came through with some kind of an offer to the general public.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that they have been speaking with forked tongues on this particular point. I reiterated my views on the bill last night, and I am not going to repeat that. There is far, far more good than bad in the bill. We indicated last night that we are supporting the bill. We think it is necessary for the Province of British Columbia and I think it would be a very, very sad thing if this adjournment were to be accepted just for a political reason.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has suggested that every Member of the opposition should take a stand in debating this amendment. I am certainly very happy to do that.

The inconsistency of the Social Credit stand on this particular bill just has to be seen and heard to be believed. Right here I have a copy of Bill 17 under the name of one Mr. Phillips — who I believe is the Member for South Peace River. If you compare Bill 17 introduced at the fall session with Bill 102, you are looking at very much the same document — very much the same phraseology. (Laughter). The phraseology, the principle, the fundamentals in Bill 17 from the fall session are exactly the same as Bill 102. Not only that, but last night we have the Member showing absolute incredibility by tearing the bill apart in debate and then sitting down and saying, "But we'll support your bill," and then they come back this morning and say that it's completely unacceptable.

She then has the audacity to suggest that they are rejecting it because they are defending the rights and freedom of the individual.

The fact is that the Social Credit government did nothing about secondary industry when it was in power, and those same Members who come from the Peace River country — the former Member asked the government of that day for this very kind of assistance. This is the kind of flip-flop performance we see from the official opposition. As the Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has just said, no wonder we politicians are in pretty poor repute in the eyes of the public when the official opposition behaves in this irresponsible way.

As I said last night, there are some dangers in this bill. There's always danger when you lend anybody money, and some of these businesses may well go broke. But the point is that there have to be initiatives in trying to diversify the economy of British Columbia to produce the jobs which we have all talked about from all parties on both sides of the House.

Now, the government has come up with a constructive proposal. The bill isn't perfect — no bill that comes before this House ever will be. But this kind of performance down the road here, as I say, has to be seen and heard to be believed. I can't see any reason whatever why I should support this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 102 be read on a day six months hence. Are you ready for the question?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 39

[ Page 2613 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the main bill we had a long debate. I am not going to try to review everything that has been said, but I would like to assure the Hon. Members who have made constructive suggestions as to how this legislation can be implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on the main motion and I am taking it that the Hon. Attorney General is closing the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

MR. SPEAKER: I must indicate under standing orders that he is so doing. Agreed? Proceed.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In terms of constructive suggestions that have been made throughout this long debate I want to assure Hon. Members that their remarks are enshrined in Hansard and it will be required reading and the first task of the new commissioners and directors when they are appointed.

I think this is one of the occasions when Hansard is a very valuable thing in terms of new legislation, so that those who are coming in to implement that legislation can read the debate insofar as it was a good debate — insofar it was a bad debate, they can throw it in the wastepaper basket. I ask that the question be put.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 102 be read a second time now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

NAYS — 9

Bill 102 read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 103, Mr. Speaker.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION
INCORPORATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Bill 103 is a non-controversial bill as well, Mr. Speaker. It deals with the Pacific National Exhibition, which is the greatest exhibition in western Canada.

As indicated in this bill, the statute originally was in 1908. The Pacific National Exhibition has grown and developed within the city. With the former board of directors, I might say now, to a very great extent it was self-perpetuating. It's the intent of this bill to make the board of directors more responsive to the community that the exhibition grounds are within and more responsive to the province at large.

There has been a unilateral decision by some members of the board that the board is carrying on most satisfactorily with the members of the city council in the City of Vancouver making up the great majority on the board. Several others did remain on the board so that there's some diversification.

Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes to include people from various sectors of the provincial economy, from such areas as business, industry, the arts, sports and ethnic groups; and in addition to have representation from the city council itself, representation from the city parks board as well, and representation from the neighbourhood that the exhibition grounds are within.

Also included within the principle of the bill is an advisory committee with respect to agriculture, so that people from different regions of the province and different sectors of the agricultural economy are advising the exhibition board.

I might say that I've met with the board of directors of the PNE in the last few weeks. It was a most amicable meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Amiable.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Amiable, that's it. At any

[ Page 2614 ]

rate, it was a most worthwhile and productive meeting. Some amendments have been suggested by the board of directors that will certainly have the positive consideration of the government. We're not talking about any amendments of a major nature, but there will be amendments of a minor nature brought forth.

The principle of the bill, however, will remain the same. The city council in Vancouver has indicated that they're very happy with this bill. There are minor amendments which they feel would improve the situation somewhat. We're certainly prepared to entertain those.

I'm pleased to say that we've had correspondence from some members of the city council who are on the board of directors indicating how happy they are that the government has taken this step to democratize the Pacific National Exhibition to a greater, extent, and to have it relate to what we see as the greater needs of the province and the needs of the community it's within.

It's with pleasure that I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It really shocks us, you know, to watch this group on the other side just getting their sticky fingers into everything they possibly can. Most of all they must get at community-oriented organizations which are now served by volunteer people, and have been served well for years and years and years.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, this government wants to turn those organizations upside down and create new jobs for friends of the government. Once again, that's exactly what we're doing here with what is the finest exhibition association, or was the finest exhibition association in Canada — the association that put on the finest fair in Canada and what was largely a farm fair and not a community centre for the east-end gang to cavort in.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just point out that in the past the Pacific National Exhibition has spent an average of $50,000 a year on 4H activities, which have ramifications all over British Columbia, not only in the east end of Vancouver. The Pacific National Exhibition, Mr. Speaker, has spent in the order of $200,000 every single year on agricultural activities and horticultural activities which have great benefits to all of the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, not just the east-end gang — including them as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific National Exhibition has been a community centre to a degree. The people of the east end of Vancouver have used it extensively, used it well; so have all of the other people of Vancouver. The people from the west end of Vancouver and the people from the Mt. Pleasant area; the people from Langley and the people from Cloverdale and the people from Abbotsford; the fair belongs to all of those people because all of those people contributed to the overall good of the Pacific National Exhibition.

Mr. Speaker, this government now wants to emasculate that fair. The Minister talks about speaking with the board; what's left of the board, he means. There's no board left; there's just a token left and those people are all supporters of this government, and we know that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Moonen. Mr. Speaker, virtually every agricultural group in British Columbia — Mr. Moonen knows where his bread is buttered too, Mr. Speaker — every agricultural group in British Columbia is against this move. Mr. Speaker, the people who have devoted much of their lives to the community in the way of the Pacific National Exhibition — for no pay; just out of love and community spirit, wanting to see this fair get ahead and be successful; and it has been — have been chopped off by the government, just as this government is chopping off every single community oriented operation in the province, or wants to.

I'd like to just point out, Mr. Speaker, where the input to the Pacific National Exhibition came from in relation to dollars spent. The capital expenditures of the Pacific National Exhibition to the greatest degree were paid for not by the city of Vancouver alone, but by the provincial government, by the federal government and by the City of Vancouver and by a whole lot of other people who have contributed to the Pacific National Exhibition like the Jockey Club, the Vancouver Canucks and the British Columbia Lions.

The Minister of PNE over there laughs about their contribution, just as he laughs about the contribution from people who have volunteered their time and effort to make that fair a going concern. The Minister wants to turn over all of those assets to the city. But what about the assets that belong to somebody else; are you going to confiscate those as well and turn them over to the City of Vancouver?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has suggested a token representation from the agricultural community. He says he's going to set up some kind of an advisory committee to advise the east-end gang about how the fair should relate to the agricultural community. Well, Mr. Speaker, we feel that's not nearly good enough.

There should be representation from all over the province so that those people's interests are protected, unless the Minister really believes that this fair is going to be nothing but a giant community centre as he quoted it in the House here one day — a giant community centre to serve only the east end of Vancouver.

[ Page 2615 ]

You might as well turn Stanley Park over to a commission and let only the people of the west end enter the park, or turn Queen Elizabeth park over to the people of that area, and turn it over to a paid commission of party followers.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there isn't any doubt in my mind that when the Minister talks about community participation, what he really means is jobs for our friends and his friends. Mr. Speaker, we can't support this bill, because it's just another example of this government intruding and putting down the effort of people who want to volunteer their time.

For some reason, Mr. Speaker, those people who have built this fair up over the years into the most successful fair in Canada, the sixth most successful fair in North America…for some reason this government has a vendetta against people who only want to serve their community. They seem to be doing everything in their power to put those people down and replace them with party followers and party hacks. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we can't support this bill.

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

MR. GARDOM : I'd just like to say a few words concerning the bill, Mr. Speaker. The Minister, when he opened his remarks, talked about democratizing the representation of the board of directors of the PNE. This is something that has been requested for a very long time.

But I do feel very strongly that it is an extremely incorrect thing to blame the lack of democratization upon the volunteers, the directors, who have performed an exceptionally valuable community service over the years. I think they have received a degree of public abuse that has been totally uncalled for, both in the Press and by the critics of the particular process.

I think it would be a very nice thing today if this House was at least unanimous on one thing — that the people who have been directors of the PNE have served without reward and they have performed a first-class service. They have produced one of the best exhibitions we have in Canada. I think the whole House should at least express some sentiment of gratitude to them.

By virtue of the process, they've been easy to attack — much as people do not like parking meters. I do feel, with every respect to the Minister, that when he discussed the situation of the PNE in this House some weeks ago, I'm afraid he really did start off completely on the wrong tack in sort of establishing an cast-west vendetta. Well, this may be a particular hang-up that he has, but I don't think that did justice to the thing. Nor do I think his remarks, when he indicated that he was going to "bet his sweet bippy" that he wished the whole thing to turn into a community centre…. Well, that perhaps was a capricious remark and I do hope we're not tending in that direction. Because if we were tending in that direction, the bill would show it.

I think the bill shows very adequate representation, save and except one thing — and I agree with the Member who spoke last for the Social Credit Party. I think it would be advisable if the agricultural representation was beefed up. I think that this is a little shallow because the initial concept of the Pacific National Exhibition was, of course, to be an agricultural fair. For the literally thousands who have the great opportunity of attending this fine fair, it's perhaps their only advent into the agricultural arena. I think that we should continue to see that it remains absolutely first-class in that field.!

So I say thanks to the people who have served. And I hope that many of them will be considered for these positions. And I hope also that we'll hear from the Minister that he doesn't intend to turn this place into a community centre — which obviously isn't going to be the case.

Perhaps also we might hear from the Minister, when he does close the debate, whether it might be a contemplated policy of the government in the future to maybe get, to an extent, away from total appointment of directors. I see that we're moving in the regional field towards election: and maybe, to some extent, election might be a useful thing here. Perhaps not of all, but of some.

On the whole, I think the bill stands as a needful change and we intend to support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the Members of the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill. It certainly is the intent of the government to see the exhibition in the broadest sense become a community centre for all British Columbia. We see this kind of representation on the board of directors as a means of achieving that.

I did mention some modifications or amendments that would make the composition of the board somewhat more flexible than is proposed in the bill. But the basic principle would remain the same.

I recognize the need for reasonable representation from the agricultural community. The advisory committee will certainly do that. But something additional might be done with respect to the composition of the board itself.

[ Page 2616 ]

Regarding the contribution of the city, the province and so on…and the lessees, as the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) mentioned: there's no question, there seems to be some doubt about the contribution of the lessees to the development of those grounds — to the whole question of reasonable payment for services and real estate rendered.

The present city council in the City of Vancouver is quite disturbed about that question. They want some assurance that the City of Vancouver and the PNE get a fair rate of return for the commercial operations on the PNE grounds. The government is most sympathetic to those views of the new city council in the City of Vancouver.

I would say, from the meeting with the board of directors that I had, that the feeling, with respect to the return the PNE gets from those lessees being inadequate, is unanimous. That is, people of various political walks of life on that city council are convinced that through the years the city has not had their fair shake, and that the PNE itself has not had a fair shake from the commercial operators on the exhibition grounds.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The idea that the people should be tied to leases into the 1990's with respect to the commercial operations on those grounds, and the idea that there should not be some kind of tax revenue to the City of Vancouver with respect to those commercial operations is simply unsatisfactory for the council. I am pleased to see that there is that kind of progress: that the kinds of attitudes at the responsible political level in the City of Vancouver have changed so significantly because the attitudes at the provincial level have changed in the same way. So we foresee considerable cooperation between the city council, the new board of directors and this government in the future.

I call the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:.

YEAS — 36

NAYS — 10

Bill No. 103 read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 120, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, I would like to point out that there are two major issues in this bill that I'd like to mention.

First, the objects of the authority are extended to include the financing of all capital requirements of regional districts and their member municipalities. Formerly, the financing was limited to water, sewers and pollution control and abatement facilities. To date, the Municipal Finance Authority has been successful in obtaining funds at a very competitive rate and so this bill authorizes the extension of their objects for borrowing for other capital investments.

The second main area of change is provision whereby special districts such as the water and sewer districts, which previously were not included, may opt to finance through the authority. Once having opted to finance through the authority, then they must continue to do so.

I think basically those are the two major provisions in this bill. There are other minor provisions. It deals with the broadening of the objects of the authority and so on and types of investments that may be invested in by the finance authority, these to include investments guaranteed by any chartered bank and term deposits of credit unions.

I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, we on this side agree with this, to see the expansion in the Municipal Finance Authority which has got a good start and which this expands a little further.

[ Page 2617 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, just very briefly I do want to comment that the chairman of the Municipal Finance Authority at the present time and last year is, of course, the Mayor of the District of North Vancouver, Mr. Ron Andrews, who I represent. Many of us have tried for several years to broaden the powers of the MFA, and we're very pleased now to see these powers being broadened. Most certainly, the MFA has made an excellent contribution to the financing of the municipalities in British Columbia. I know that Mr. Andrews, as chairman, is certainly pleased to see these amendments being put forward by the government.

Just one disappointment about the Municipal Finance Authority at the moment, Mr. Speaker: we're disappointed to note that the bills on superannuation do not allow the government to invest those funds in the Municipal Finance Authority. I hope that the government will accept the amendments in that regard that the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has proposed.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well, Mr. Speaker, we will support this. The Municipal Finance Authority, or whatever it would have been called when originally envisaged and requested by municipalities, was to cover all borrowing for capital purposes, and this really brings us up to date.

I would point out through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Members that the MFA does not have a provincial guarantee. In the early stages, in 1970, it was felt that this would be an impediment, that this would create difficulty in the national and international markets, but that has not proven to be the case. Indeed, the credit is so well accepted that one, without too much stretch of the imagination, could see the day approaching when the Province of B.C. might indeed wish to finance through the MFA.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate and have noted the remarks by the Hon. Members and I now ask that the question be put.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Motion is that Bill No. 120 be read a second time now.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 120 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 156, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I want to point out, first of all, that all these amendments were brought about through consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation and the B.C. School Trustees Association. We sat down for a number of meetings before we came up with these amendments.

Most of these points here I've already mentioned in former speeches. They deal, of course, with the enactment of kindergartens being made compulsory — that is, for school boards to put them in, with local employment of school superintendents on a pilot project basis, with facilitating financial operating costs between school boards and municipalities and regional districts and with facilitating better use of our school buses, so that they can be used by community groups.

Also, of course, in a major amendment, the government now takes over 100 per cent of the capital cost of college financing.

I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition will support this bill. There is only one caution as it pertains to the entire bill, and that is that we would like to be sure that the expenditure for these amendments is well within the reach of our capabilities as a province. We're all aware that perhaps one-third of the entire budget is involved in education expenditure, and I will have some questions in committee on what are the anticipated costs of the various sections.

However, in principle we support the idea of kindergartens completely. We support the idea of common use of buildings.

We have some questions regarding title — in whom shall title be vested whenever we are constructing buildings on a common site? We have some questions regarding the responsibility of a school board to provide operating expenses in a section. I'm sorry I can't refer to the section — I'll do it in committee.

[ Page 2618 ]

These are some questions that I will be asking and I give notice of the questions so that the Minister won't be surprised. We support the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, every one of these points, of course, are items that we have asked for many times in past. years. We are very pleased to see the government bring them in. I hope that the other matters that require amendment in the Public Schools Act will also be coming forward in due course.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: We also support the bill for the reasons already stated.

We would like to commend the government for the degree of cooperation which they are showing with the school trustees and B.C. Teachers' Federation. One gets the impression from reading their reactions that they feel they do indeed have an access to the Minister and that she is listening.

The other point I would commend the Minister for is the speed with which she has acted in bringing in these amendments which have been requested repeatedly for a long time, particularly the kindergarten amendment which I think shows that we realize we should start a little earlier and give children exposure to educational experiences on a broad basis We strongly support the government on these amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I want to thank the Members who spoke for their remarks and in preparing me for the questions that you are going to be asking in the committee stage.

I would like to move second reading now and call for the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of Bill No. 156

Bill No. 156 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No 164, Mr. Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this Bill No. 164 is the Ocean Falls Corporation Act establishing a Crown corporation which will own and operate facilities at and around Ocean Falls. The intent, Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated in previous announcements by the government is to make sure that a town that was going to die will stay alive on the north central coast.

The kinds of assets that the Crown is acquiring at Ocean Falls are considerable. This small map here alone, Mr. Speaker, gives an indication of the amount of land itself at Cousins Inlet, the fine deep-sea harbour area on which Ocean Falls is located with miles and miles of shoreline, plus the assets of the own itself and the power facilities at Link Lake, and all the licences and appurtenances related to that.

Among the assets at Ocean Falls, Mr. Speaker, are some 86 houses in the old townsite, some 73 homes in the Martin Valley area, the Martin Inn, the hotel with some 400 living units, 5 apartment buildings with 163 units, 1 garden apartment complex with some 24 units, a swimming pool for which Ocean Falls and its people are known around the country, a cinema, a fire hall, a bowling alley, tennis facilities, sports facilities, moorage facilities. There are also television relay facilities. There is a post office, a liquor store, a RCMP office and a legion hall which was recently remodelled.

There is a secondary school built in 1970 at a cost of over $1 million. In addition there is a hospital built in 1971 at a cost of $500,000 and there is a provincial building, a court house, paved roads, and the whole infra-structure of a living community — significant social capital on the north-central coast of British Columbia.

There is a mill which can provide employment for the people in that part of the province. There is also, we think, a chance to diversify on the north-central coast so there can be additional roles for Ocean Falls and additional activity in the north-central coast. We've continued to pursue the possibility for diversification and also the immediate opportunities in the area itself so that the people can move around more readily in their part of the region.

We are convinced there are opportunities in that regard. We've had other people and other industries in Ocean Falls only this week that are potential industries that could diversify on the basis of the actual economic base of the region.

The north-central coast obviously has a role in relation to the sea, and Ocean Falls in recent years hasn't played a role in relation to the sea. We think it can in the future. It has the power facilities, it has the housing, the infra-structure. In addition, it's got the people — people who have stayed and people who want to come.

There is intention, Mr. Speaker, as we announced in the earlier release, to have newsprint production underway in the fairly near future and our progress

[ Page 2619 ]

to date is beyond our expectations. We are presently producing now at the mill.

Beyond that, we are finding that our management costs are not what we had anticipated. In fact they are considerably less, so that we are rather pleased at the progress that has been made by our new manager who was formerly with Crown Zellerbach and who knows the town intimately. He is probably the most qualified person in the province in terms of making Ocean Falls work as a community in that part of British Columbia.

The alternative, Mr. Speaker, was to let the town die and to lose those jobs, to lose that productive capability. At this time in the province that alternative wasn't acceptable to this government. Now Canadian Magazine, a national magazine, came out not that long ago with a story about a town that was going to die.

I think that there's a real feeling not only in this community but around the province — a feeling of joy, if you will — that there is a government now in British Columbia that isn't willing to see this kind of thing happen, that isn't willing to see social responsibilities ignored.

I wonder if many of the Members of the House have seen some of the television shows that have been on national television since the decision by government to keep this community, and in effect this region, alive. I don't think one can help but be moved by hearing and seeing the people of that community and their feeling about this government's decision. While we indicated initially that we saw this not as a profitable operation — and I think that's so — we're rather encouraged by developments today which indicate that it is probably a more positive situation than we had anticipated in our first analysis.

But despite the economic question, if one can see and hear the people of that community, people that now know there is a new lease on life, people that were born there, for example, that want to continue to live there, then one can't really wipe it all out. The marketplace has a place in our society. The market plays a significant allocation kind of role that no other thing can and even we in this government don't deny that.

But there is the question of social responsibility; there is the question of regional development. We see some of the decisions that were going to be made in the private sector both in this community and in others as such that would have been too destructive to the regions that were affected. And so despite the present positive outlook with respect to the economics of the situation in relation to this bill, the important thing is that attitudes have changed and there's a feeling of hope that is right and justified in that part of British Columbia. For that reason alone I'd be happy to move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, but there are a wide range of reasons.

This is a bold breath of life for a region that has been ignored in the past by former administrations and we are pleased to move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Listening to the Minister comment on second reading of this bill, it's fairly obvious that he's trying to do a real sales job on those of us who sit in this House. This Bill No. 164, called the Ocean Falls Corporation Act should more properly be called the "Crown Zellerbach Bail-out Bill."

For anyone who looks at that proposition, they've got to conclude that the Minister has made a bad business deal. Not bad for the people who live in the area, but bad in terms of the position that he's taken in bailing out a company who had some responsibility both moral and financial to look after their own interests and the interests of the people that were working for them better.

The government is paying $1 million for a list of assets that the Minister referred to. More properly I think the government could have negotiated a deal which would have committed Crown Zellerbach to putting many more millions of dollars up before the government stepped in.

This is the first step in a move by this Minister on behalf of the government of this province to take over the forest industry. And it's a very unsound step at that.

So let's take a look at what you have done for the people of British Columbia, and what this deal has done for Crown Zellerbach. Let's draw up a balance sheet, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, it's apparent that you relieve the company of any responsibility for school costs or school taxes. That will make them feel very bad, won't it?

You've relieved the company of any responsibility for the operation of that hospital or for paying any hospital taxes for the operation of it.

You've relieved the company of any responsibility for the maintenance, the upkeep and the operation of a townsite. You've relieved the company of any responsibility for the operating losses that they were incurring at that mill.

You've even relieved them of the responsibility for the costs — which I understand will be substantial — in repairing the dam at Link Lake that supplied the power.

In the process, you've purchased some obsolete, vintage equipment — two paper mills, as a matter of fact, or paper machines. They're early 1900 vintage. One has been cannibalized to repair the other. In the process you have also set up an agreement between the government and Crown Zellerbach that they still

[ Page 2620 ]

retain control and supply the sawlogs.

So they supply the product to the paper mill, which is now an asset of the Crown, at a profit. So that Big Brother government can operate the mill at a loss. In the same process, the government has relieved Crown Zellerbach of any commitment or responsibility to bring that plant up to present pollution control standards. They've been relieved of any responsibility or commitment to the viability of the communities at both Campbell River and at Ocean Falls.

For this privilege taxpayers of the province have paid Crown Zellerbach $1 million. Somebody must have done a real sales job to have talked the Minister into this type of a business proposition.

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister, in his haste to move into the forest industry in a participatory manner and to become involved financially, has taken the taxpayers of the province down the garden path. This initial step by the government, and it is just the initial step, into the private sector of the economy of this province, I am sure would qualify the Hon. Minister for the P.T. Barnum Memorial Oscar Award — the one which is inscribed, "There's one born every minute."

In the remarks of the Minister it was apparent that in trying to present his case he has worked on the emotional appeal which is certainly going to have some effect on people. But he has completely disregarded the economic lack of appeal in this particular business proposition.

The money that we have invested so far is peanuts compared to what will have to be invested to bring that plant up-to-date and operate those communities in a viable manner. The only people who have benefited financially by this particular takeover is Crown Zellerbach because they have been bailed out of a very difficult position. So regardless of what the Minister might say, we in the opposition say it's a bad business deal, Mr. Speaker. It could have been negotiated in a manner much more beneficial to the Province of British Columbia and those people who will live there. Because there is only one of two solutions: either you will continue to pump millions of dollars into an uneconomic operation or eventually you will reach the same conclusion Crown Zellerbach reached and that is that you have to close the mill down.

Politically, the government would have egg all over their face if they closed the plant down. So politically the government will probably continue to pour millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars into an uneconomic operation, and they'll justify it by the same type of claptrap that we heard when the Minister spoke on second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we do not support this bill. We think that the type of decision the government made was not a wise decision, and therefore we will vote against Bill 164.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will support this bill. As I listened to the Hon. Member for North Peace keep talking. I didn't know whether he was going to end up supporting it or not supporting it. But at least we have him fairly identified at the beginning of this debate.

As I listened to the Member for North Peace, I thought back over the months and the years that Crown Zellerbach was operating Ocean Falls and the difficulties that they had. I recalled that some many, many months before this last election the government of the day was made aware by Ocean Falls that they were going to discontinue operations of that mill and of that whole town.

Nothing was done. No move was taken by the former government whatsoever to stop the destruction of that community. However, in the few months before the election campaign, the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. Williston) recognized the political implications of allowing that town to disappear and took some action — or tried to take some action.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), They weren't particularly concerned with saving the town, but with saving the seat.

It's typical of the former administration that they would think of the community as a conglomeration of physical assets that would appear on the balance sheet, and would fail to recognize that a community and its strength consist of the people in that community. They were prepared to stand by and see those people and that community destroyed.

The new government came along and had to face up to that situation as to whether or not it would be allowed to happen.

There's no question that there are serious financial, economic questions about the future of Ocean Falls. But I for one have never believed that Ocean Falls merely had to exist because of the single operation that Crown Zellerbach had in that town.

I can't believe that that section of the coast of this province is not capable of growth and development along other lines. And yet before that growth and development can be approached, and certainly before it can be realized, there must be a base of operations. If we are to lop off all of the communities along our northern coast which may not be viable for a single

[ Page 2621 ]

corporate operation, then we are going to lose all of the chances that we have of growth and development in that area of the province. It is an area which for years had been ignored, an area where industry has flourished largely by a subsidy from government — not a direct subsidy, but by support from government, all for the benefit of areas which were easy to populate, were easy in which to establish communities and were easy in which to demonstrate economic viability.

The government must fully appreciate that in taking this move they take the risk of subsequent criticism if the hard decision that they have made turns out to be a failure. But when we are talking about saving a community — in fact revitalizing a community — which had already been lost, of providing an opportunity for people to re-establish themselves in what was their home for many, many years, the government has to take some hard decisions. We will watch with interest the progress that's made by the government.

If the government does not move into new areas of economic opportunity in that community, we will wish to question them as to that failure. If the government were to allow Ocean Falls to continue on a single industrial base, we will criticize them. But we wish the government well — not for the government, but for the province — for the people who are going back to Ocean Falls, people who are going to make that second effort to build that community into an exciting and responsible contributor to the success of this province, it's a risk we're taking. There are many, many communities in our province which, looked at from a straight dollars-and-cents point of view — the balance sheet approach, could lead to a simple conclusion — let it die. But that's not the way that the pioneers of this province developed it and that's not the way in which we will develop in the future.

There's been a lot of talk from time to time about incentives and the need for incentives in our society But we can scarcely talk on the one hand about incentives, initiative, drive and pioneer spirit and responsible approach to growth if, at the same time, we are prepared to ignore an opportunity such as is presented at Ocean Falls.

I would have wished that the government had found themselves able, in the course of making this decision — or having made it, to have given the Members of the assembly some better look into the background upon which that decision was based. So we will have to wait and see whether that decision is really wise.

We could debate this bill better, I think, if we had some of the same advice available to us that the government had, fully appreciating that the government must make the initial decision; but in testing the wisdom of that decision now, we should have had the opportunity of at least seeing some of the economic reports that they had, rather than waiting as we will over the next few years to see what develops in Ocean Falls.

We will watch very carefully to ensure that the government does not pour millions and millions of dollars into a fruitless venture. We will watch to ensure that the people who have come back to Ocean Falls are not disappointed in the opportunity which this government is today offering to them.

We'll criticize the government if they have made a blunder. But when you weigh the human values against the risk, we feel that we must at this time support the government in their decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in a sense I'm imposing on you at the moment. I took this opportunity to ask the House — at least those Members who are here — to welcome a group of students from Nanaimo who conveniently arrived in this House just at this very precise moment. I'd ask the Members to welcome those students from Brechin school in Nanaimo.

When the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) was talking about the concern about the millions of dollars that might be poured into this project, personally I was pleased that he went on to mention the case for the human values, recognizing that this too is important. Certainly, if it were on the basis of economics alone, I think the government would not have been nearly as anxious as it was in view of all the other factors.

Of course, as he says, if they had the full knowledge of the economic facts, they would be in a better position to discuss this bill and to vote on it more intelligently. But, the other part of the case that he did mention — the human values — really can't be studied in black and white on reports as can the economic part of it. It's only by looking at the whole situation, recognizing what is there, recognizing the potential to some extent, that the Members can intelligently vote on this. We appreciate this. But we think the case has been made well enough, particularly for the other factors, that the House should unanimously support this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had to be out of the House so I hope I won't repeat what others have said.

The stand of the Conservative Party is pretty much in the terms that the Minister of Agriculture has

[ Page 2622 ]

outlined. We feel that the individual in society today feels very much in the grip of automation and economics and the marketplace and all the other words we use for the forces which intimately affect the individual in society. It's a machine age, it's a technological age and it's too much an age in which the dollar decides everything.

We agree with the government that the dollar should not decide everything. In this particular case, as the Minister has just said, if you look at this issue we're debating purely in terms of dollars, we would have to be extremely apprehensive. As an aside, of course, Mr. Speaker, I'd also say that the Minister in charge of this bill has given us the welcome information that he is very keen to diversify the economic base of Ocean Falls. Surely this makes sense.

Without reflecting on previous bills, I think this bill specifically ties in with the general theme which we've discussed many times in this House that British Columbia must diversify; that this established pattern over the years of depending on one or two basic industries must change. In fact the population is growing very rapidly and it's an entirely different world we're living in from the world of 20 or 30 years ago when the forest products and the mining probably could remain basic pillars in the economy.

On top of that, the advance of automation and highly sophisticated techniques in machinery and the fact that each individual to sustain himself in our present society has to be highly trained and better educated means that we have to be careful that we don't lose sight of the human value of each single individual. I have said many times in this House that this is the first, primary and basic concern of the Conservative Party in all aspects of it function in this province. A concern to safeguard not only the rights and freedoms of the individual, but to try and bring about the kind of government and the kind of society which will enable the individual to achieve his maximum potential and to feel that his purely technical capacity and his ability to earn a dollar is not the one and only basis on which we draw up legislation.

For that reason — which has been well spelled-out, by the Minister — that this particular issue was one of creating a ghost town and forgetting about the human individual concerned or trying to save the town and at the same time perhaps introduce a new element into the 1970's where government does indeed put the individual and his welfare and element into the 1970's where government does indeed put the individual and his welfare and Mr. Speaker, this is not to overlook the fact that one cannot completely ignore the dollar. If this government had said we are trying to resuscitate the old mill and had not come forward with this wider policy for northwest British Columbia, and had not recognized the need to diversify the economy of Ocean Falls, we, I think, would have opposed this bill.

So that on these points that I've raised — the human factor, the willingness to look at different roles for Ocean Falls, the willingness to put it clearly on the record that this government believes in the individual — and while I say that I hope this government on the other hand, as it seems to have done in other legislation, sometimes puts the individual at the dictate of government, and I think this particular bill is showing very much the kind of philosophy that we can approve of.

I also know that as a member of the Conservative Party that has many so-called hard-nosed businessmen I will stand to be criticized for what I have said today. All I'll say to these businessmen, if that's their attitude to me, I don't propose to change it in terms of human values, and I don't care which political party I'm in.

I've had a great deal of reaction by people who have said, "what on earth is this government doing? They're useless, they don't know anything about business, and they're making one foolish blunder after another." Now I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that as a layman in the business world of high finance, I don't claim to understand the very complicated economics involved in this particular issue of Ocean Falls, or the other one we'll be debating shortly.

But I think, as I've said already, that the individual in society these days feels so trapped by the stockmarket and the harsh, inhuman world of economics and the marketplace, that I am sure that this bill in its impact on society and on the individual in society, has given him and her fresh hope that governments don't just look at cold hard figures on a balance sheet and say yes or no.

Now I'll simply close by saying again that if the Conservative Party thinks that this kind of philosophy I am espousing is hard to swallow, well, there'll probably be a lot more to swallow in the next few years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, Mr. Speaker, I stand in this debate as a person who has lived for three and a half years in a town like Ocean Falls. Ocean Falls is very similar to Tahsis. It has 188 inches of rain. It takes two hours to go by Mallard or Goose to Vancouver if you're lucky and if the weather breaks for you. It's a place where transportation and communication are very crucial, We never had any television. In fact television only came to Tahsis four years ago and the CBC repeater station rarely had any radio.

I think that this House needs to give some encouragement to the people who want to live on

[ Page 2623 ]

that part of the coast. It's very easy to live in Victoria. It's very easy to live in the lower mainland of Vancouver, and goodness knows these areas are increasing in population.

But I really believe, and I hope it's representative of this House, that it's very important that we have people who can find a meaningful life either working in a place like this or even retiring, Mr. Speaker. I've considered retiring at some time on the west coast of Vancouver Island where I can do a little scuba-diving and maybe a little fishing. I would hope that there is a sense of real faith; and theologically my idea of faith and I think yours too, Mr. Speaker, is hope. It's not blind optimism, but it's hope. It's hope based on the fact that people are really willing to dig in and do something.

Now I think that's what most MLAs in this House are really saying this morning. You just can't measure things in financial terms. We want this to be a viable financial enterprise and yet we do believe that there are many places in the province where people, can be encouraged to live and to play and even to retire. I think Ocean Falls is one of these several places where a much greater effort has to be put in.

I hate the cynicism. It disappoints me that some Members who have probably a lot of time to discuss this matter with the Crown Zellerbach people, who spent an awful lot of money of the taxpayer in a new hospital and in a new high school, would be so cynical. Their cynicism is negative — it's a kibitzing kind of attitude which isn't going to help us.

I just want to quote a few words from the Crown Zellerbach News of late March:

"Mr. Bob Rogers, Canada president of Crown Zellerbach says that he wrote the Premier, Dave Barrett, a week after the New Democratic Party was elected in late August. He said we were publicly asking in the range of $10 million for Ocean Falls facilities. Mr. Rogers said, 'Obviously we are prepared to consider offers on an as-is, where-is basis. The other alternative was to dismantle the equipment and salvage what we could. As president of the company I did have an obligation to the shareholders to recover what value I could from the assets of Ocean Falls, but at the same time as a Canadian and as a British Columbian I felt it was essential to do everything possible to preserve Ocean Falls as an ongoing, viable community.' "

That's the president of Crown Zellerbach. I think that we can diversify. I'm sure we'll look into the possibilities of a sawmill, maybe a veneer plant, maybe a plywood plant. It also has occurred to me that this is a place for oceanography, for the obvious ocean studies. There are many other possibilities and there have been discussions.

But what I'm trying to say is that for $1 million and with some capital outlay later to somewhat modernize the plant, I think that there can be a real, viable and human place to live.

I would ask the Minister, and with some of the Liberal Members here, I think we really have to look at ocean freight rates, Mr. Speaker. If we subsidize most other forms of transportation, certainly rail and highway transportation through links of highways, I think we have to ask the federal government — or maybe at the provincial government level — to look into some kind of subsidy for transportation on the coast.

The federal government was subsidizing up until recently Northland Navigation for work in this area. These subsidies, I understand — and I could be corrected — have been lifted. I believe some of the problems with Ocean Falls is the towboat increased freight rates, This is a serious thing, Mr. Member, and one that we have to look at.

My point in this discussion is that we be optimistic, that we be hopeful, that we have faith, that we aggressively work with the Department of Transport federally to get some kind of subsidy, just as almost all other British Columbians are subsidized when they take a trip on a highway. So some of the economy can be improved even more for this very habitable place of Ocean Falls.

Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker. Ocean Falls is in my constituency and I wish that every Member in this House could have been in Ocean Falls the night the Minister made the announcement that this government had purchased Ocean Falls.

There were very nearly 200 people at that meeting, and there wasn't one person who said that they were against the government buying and operating Ocean Falls. Even if Ocean Falls, Mr. Speaker, does not make money — and I think it will for awhile anyway — but even if it doesn't, the social implications are tremendous — first of all for the people living there and for that part of the coast.

It is a vital community, a vital link in a part of the coast that has been dying. We hope, as a government, to be able to revive school services, social services, courtrooms, everything — a place all stationed in Ocean Falls. A whole vast area of the coast would have been left without these services.

When we think, Mr. Speaker, that we are providing 200 or more jobs directly,200 jobs that will probably affect 500 or 600 people, some of whom have been without work…somewhere down the line somebody would have been out of work had these people not been employed in Ocean Falls.

The input into the community and into the

[ Page 2624 ]

financial reserves of this province just by the fact that these people are employed, rather than unemployed, will have an impact.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker stated, the Hon. Member for Dewdney, there is room for expansion in that area. It is not a dying community. It's going to live and grow. People are happy about it, not only in Ocean Falls but all up and I down the central coast area.

Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been a pleasure for me to hear the difference between the rational opposition and the irrational opposition in this House. And I think that the definition pretty well is clear.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Members from the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, talked about this being something beneficial for Crown Zellerbach; that the government was really interested in helping them out. They talked about us buying supplies from Crown Zellerbach and in fact using their marketing facilities for a period of time as well.

Obviously, if one wanted this community to continue living without any major break-up, a close working relationship with the Crown Zellerbach Corporation was necessary, certainly until the date of the agreement in 1975.

There is no way one could provide the pulp and wood and marketing expertise and so on overnight. You just don't create that kind of ability overnight and I would think that people in so-called "free enterprise" parties might appreciate that fact. If we wanted that community to be an ongoing community so that there was no major disruption to speak of, there was no element of choice. Close cooperation between this government, the people of British Columbia and Crown Zellerbach was necessary.

I suggest that that's not without costs to Crown Zellerbach. In a world of high demand for wooded products and pulp, Crown Zellerbach has all the markets it wants for its products. As a result of this decision by government, they have had to change their plans and programmes and see to it that this community and this industrial base was supplied with pulp and wood and a marketing ability. I suggest that that may well have affected their own internal operations, and not to a beneficial degree, as the Members in the official opposition suggest.

The confusion in the irrational section of the opposition is apparent in one speech. One part of the speech we get from the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is, "They paid too much. The government was taken." In the next part of his speech he says, "It's another confiscatory action by he government." Make up your mind, Mr. Member. Which is it?

The former Minister who was aware of this problem for some length of time — possibly for some length of time before he ever advised the Premier or the cabinet — continued to say one thing in public with respect to Ocean Falls and another thing in private in discussions with people in the company. It's that kind of two-faced position on public issues that finally discredited that former government.

As a government, we do want to see the coastal area in the north-west diversified, and as a government, we do want to see Ocean Falls diversified. To that end we've had two different groups in fact up in Ocean Falls this week that could well see to it that Ocean Falls is diversified to a greater extent. This wouldn't be just the Crown corporation we're discussing here but other independent private companies with facilities, needs, demands and markets of their own. We intend to encourage that kind of approach with respect to the central coast.

I think growth and development can be assured in the central coast and in the north-west. But as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) indicated, you don't destroy the base you have if you want to do something there. We have to have some kind of urban structure, some kind of communications system, some kind of development, some kind of settlement to grow from. We already have that in Ocean Falls. We intend to build on it.

The think that has impressed me about some of our regions in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is that we've allowed them to be cannibalized. I suggest that the central coast of British Columbia is one of the regions that we've allowed to be cannibalized, where the resources all get pulled down, essentially to the lower mainland or lower Vancouver Island. That's the pattern the international companies have wanted. That's been to the hardship and the detriment of those regions. I suggest that all of us as a people in this province have to look at the way we've allowed the major private sector industries in this province to cannibalize our regions. We have to ask ourselves if that's the kind of growth pattern we want to continue in this province.

The Queen Charlotte Islands, for example, so much a part of the central coast — is it right that they should be cannibalized? Is it right that the central coast should be cannibalized, or part of the north coast? I suggest not.

Transportation is a problem. That's something the government will have to spend time on. It's a very serious question. There have been significant subsidies, again in the private sector, with respect to transportation. It's one of the critical questions now

[ Page 2625 ]

that we face and will have to deal with regarding Ocean Falls.

"Governing," the late President Kennedy said in the United States, "is making choices." We have to make those choices. They're not the kind of choices one would like. We think we can develop this company in a way that will be satisfactory and viable. But more important, there are the social elements that everybody in the rational opposition and in the government benches have indicated that they're concerned about.

One of the choices was this — and I wonder if that's really the choice that the rational opposition is in favour of — this kind of thing. Something that might have happened, in fact probably would have happened, if they had remained government — an advertisement that would probably have been in the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Post and the other financial journals of North America. What is it? A chunk of the British Columbia coast, a beautiful little town on the northern inlet. "For sale on the British Columbia coast. Instant town. All you add is people."

Is that the kind of social irresponsibility that we might have had if the former group had remained as government in British Columbia? What did they say at the end of this ad? This ad was close to going. At the end of the ad they said, "It's the biggest bargain in town. We're looking for offers in the $10 million range with a 10 per cent cash down payment."

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: "With a 10 per cent cash down payment, " and a $10 million price. The price the government paid is $1 million which will in fact be $790,000 with the remainder at 6 per cent mortgages at market value.

We're convinced as a government that we and the people of this province can do the job that hasn't been done heretofore in this part of British Columbia. As the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) suggested, it's a risk worth the taking. In a sense, it's a new kind of pioneering on the part of the government in this province. I'm pleased to see the kind of basic endorsation of this new kind of pioneering by the rational opposition, the Members in the Liberal and Conservative Parties.

The kinds of social concerns that they express are the kinds that concern this government. You see people in that community, people who were born there and want to continue to live there. You see some people who have lived there as long at 42 years. They're people who have lived there so long and they want to die there. We think that that kind of right should continue.

I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who has expressed on countless occasions a genuine concern with respect to the individual, finds himself in agreement with this government in this regard. I think it's one of the strange ironies of politics. I don't think politics is anything if it isn't irony. But the people in the rational part of the opposition, the Conservative sector of the opposition, find themselves agreeing with us in areas like this because we live in the kind of world where the power of the state is necessary to assure the freedom of the individual.

Mr. Speaker, it's our intention to use the power of the state to keep our individuals free in this province, particularly right now the people in Ocean Falls. I call for the question.

Motion approved; second reading of Bill No. 164.

Bill No. 164 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of the companion bill, Bill No. 165, Mr. Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION
APPROPRIATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is the companion bill to Bill No. 164, which simply provides for the funding for the acquisition of the assets that will be held by the Ocean Falls Corporation.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

NAYS — 9

[ Page 2626 ]

Bill No. 165 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 168, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES
LICENSING ACT

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

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 168 is a bill to amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act. It's an omnibus type of bill. There are a number of amendments to the bill, and I think most of them can best be discussed at committee stage.

I want to indicate that the most important aspect of this bill is the fact it tightens up the whole question of community care facilities licensing. Heretofore people weren't quite aware of whether or not they were covered under the Act. There was advertising that was going on that would indicate that some of the facilities were covered under the Act and were licensed, but weren't. So, Mr. Speaker, all in all it has been a hodge-podge.

One of the things we have been troubled with recently is that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) has been plagued with the day-care problem, and we haven't really had an Act that lent itself to this whole question. So there has been a great deal of shadow boxing and all sorts of things being done in our province just because of the fact that we have had an Act that really said not enough of anything. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have an Act now, with these amendments, that I think will do the job adequately. I therefore move second reading.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly support this bill. We regard it as a step in the direction toward the better integration of all levels of care. We had great debate in this House earlier in this session about the need — if diversify is the word used in business — in health care facilities to diversify the types of care that are necessary.

This kind of bill is somewhat similar to the ambulance bill where we are setting standards and trying to make sure that personnel providing care have a basic and safe amount of training. That sounds all too simple a thing to say, but it is absolutely vital to the very effective and economical use of health care personnel and facilities.

I have said many times in this House that very often we finish up with people in acute hospitals who need not be there in the first place had the standard of care and the kind of personal attention which they could have received in this type of facility been available.

I think we have a long way to go, but the government obviously appreciates the vast scope of facilities that are required to meet the individual needs of citizens. This particular bill, I think, sets out on that path by spelling out the requirements for a person to operate such a facility; the right to suspend licences when the standards aren't met and so on. I think this is a most progressive step and we certainly support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, just a quick question. When you close the debate could you tell us a little bit about who is going to administer this because in my riding there are still those that…I think there is a half a nurse increase. There still hasn't been a significant increase in the public health staff.

On the weekend I talked to the public health officer again. There is an increasing demand on his staff to administer this Act. So I am asking: do you plan for a team of inspectors to administer this Act for an area like the central Fraser Valley? Is it possible to have one community-care form for the fire marshal, for the health inspector and for the building inspector? It, again, is still confusing to the people out in the field.

I am just simply reflecting input from people who I have worked with in my riding — the need for greater staff to administer this Act. We appreciate the Act, but it has to be administered to be useful. The other thing is: can we look forward to one common, simple form per facility?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the support from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who is most interested in health care in this province, and has indicated his interest over a long period of time. His confidence in this kind of bill certainly gives us a greater feeling of support. We feel a lot of work has gone into this.

In reply to the question from the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), we have had nothing really to work with heretofore. As far as standardization and as far as inspection and that kind of work, that now can be contemplated with some feeling of confidence. What would have been the purpose of having any organized inspection service in the past when we didn't have a bill to support it?

Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that the question now

[ Page 2627 ]

be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 168 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 173, Mr. Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG
COMMISSION ACT

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): This bill is really the culmination of a great deal of public debate and in response to people in the communities, especially parents, who have been asking for a number of years now that something be done about the drug problem and the alcohol problem.

What we want to do in this bill is to coordinate first of all financial distribution of money which has previously been through four government departments. We want to be able to cooperate with the federal departments — three of them — that have been giving money into our communities in a somewhat uncoordinated way. We also want to be able to stress prevention and the educational aspect of the whole problem.

I would ask the House to be assured that the discussion in respect to the pilot project about the possibility of the use of heroin is only a discussion. It's the kind of thing that we want to stimulate. There will be no moves made unless we have adequate talks with the federal government. I asked the federal Minister of Health and Welfare last week if some time in the fall it would be possible to have a federal-provincial conference around the total drug problem involving all of the Ministers that have some concern in this. I hope that we'll be able to have an answer on this in April when we attend the conference in Ottawa.

It's a first attempt to coordinate everything that really has to be attempted in terms of the drug and alcohol problem. You have a similar structure in the Province of Alberta and recently in the report that was tabled in the Saskatchewan Legislature the first recommendation is that the alcoholism commission of Saskatchewan be renamed the Alcohol and Drug Dependency Commission of Saskatchewan. Their aims and intentions are exactly the same as what we have in the bill.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know of the Minister's views in this area fairly freely. We've listened to his comments.

We will support the bill, Mr. Speaker. We will deal with it in more detail in committee.

The Minister is aware of the cautions that we feel he should take in this area and those again can be dealt with in later debate.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this party will certainly support the bill. It is the kind of step which I think is very much a first step towards a more rational and practical and perhaps unemotional view of a tremendous problem in our society today.

When we have a problem of this dimension it's so easy to criticize any steps which are taken when really nobody has the answer to the drug problem.

If you stand dispassionately back and look at the drug problem you wonder how on earth any even half-sensible individual would abuse himself physically and mentally by the taking of drugs; but the fact is that in society today it is a very widespread, social menace.

There seems to be no obvious answer. Everybody's got all kinds of suggestions and the people who have not yet been closely involved with it tend to be rather indifferent — "It can't happen to my kids," is so often the phrase I hear.

If the concept behind this commission does nothing else than to bring the intensity of the problem into focus for a start, then I think the bill in that respect is very well worthwhile.

I know the Minister plans to go well beyond that in making this commission function, not only as an educational body — which indeed is very important — but as a better vehicle for coordinating such information and research as we now have. I hope that in the general terms in which this bill is set out that there will be tremendous scope for the commission to innovate by dealing with individuals and groups and bodies of various kinds — researchers, scientists, physicians, parents — and that from that kind of exchange of ideas the public by and large, as the Minister has said, will be drawn increasingly into the debate.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Indeed, where the problem of this dimension has no obvious answers, it's clear that there will have to be pilot projects and experimental attitudes taken in the hope that we can find some measure of solution heretofore missing.

The Minister I think has wisely today pointed out that the heroin problem is part of a total problem. While, from my position in this House, I have taken a firm stand on the question of the possibility of heroin

[ Page 2628 ]

clinics, the Minister has never at any time on the record made that kind of statement. The Minister has simply said that the problem is immense, it is serious, it is growing and that some time in the future, based on research and public debate, this kind of approach might be taken by the government.

I think now that we have this bill for second reading in principle, that clear statement of fact should go on the record.

The main approach which I know the Minister plans to take is to involve parents and concerned citizens at the community level and to minimize the centralized function of establishments simply working in a central urban or metropolitan area. I think this again is one of the basic steps that is required to put the whole management of the problem on a more hopeful basis.

I would be remiss also if I didn't make a plea that I would like to see the medical profession, now that it has this kind of vehicle, take a more active part in trying to support and in many ways contribute to this exploration of the problem in the hope that we can find at least some partial solutions.

I don't mean to sound unduly critical of the medical profession, because some of the practical aspects to the physician conducting a general practice are very difficult if he becomes too closely recognized as treating the problem of addiction. But apart from the actual therapeutics of the drug problem, I think that the physician can now be given encouragement through this commission to contribute not so much specific treatment, perhaps, but his experience and his advice and his new ideas as to how the commission can carry out some of its research function.

The problem of course must involve the federal government. I do hope that the Minister, as he stated a few moments ago, will be successful in persuading the federal government and the provinces to meet later this year to exchange their ideas and perhaps compare their planning. Alberta already has a drug commission and Alberta and B.C. together could probably present a very sound approach and a useful brief to the federal government.

In discussing this with the federal MP from Victoria, Alan McKinnon, I was distressed to find that while he sits on the health and welfare committee in Ottawa, he said that in general the MPs in eastern Canada are not at all aware of the problem, nor are they much impressed by the kind of information which he takes to the committee from western Canada.

If this is the case I think it's very disappointing that, despite the intensity of the problem here in British Columbia and all the efforts the Minister has made and all the publicity, we still have the central government of Canada apparently either unaware or relatively indifferent to a problem of this severity — and we have 61 per cent of that problem in British Columbia.

While the conference is very important I hope that between now and then the Minister will spare no effort to get the message across to Mr. Lalonde and the federal government, that while they may have ignored a lot of other things like freight rates and other parts of the difficulty which western Canada has, they can no longer ignore the drug problem which happens to exist in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to emphasize three words to the Minister: prevention, education, rehabilitation.

There's been very good feedback on this. I think you know, Mr. Minister, some of the people who worked with me in my campaign. One of them was a heroin addict. He's been straight for five years. He's a very successful businessman in Maple Ridge and is really trying to do a job. There's been very, very good feedback from public health and even some of the aldermen in Maple Ridge.

Prevention: we've got to risk; we've got to get close to people; we've got to intercede. The RCMP officer who in my experience as a clergyman did more to really police was a fellow by the name of Ted Foster who lives in Victoria right now. Staff Sgt. Foster, a very young man, always was effective as an RCMP officer because he interceded. He prevented the difficulty before it happened. He was there. He was close to people.

I'm very appreciative that this is a community-oriented programme. This is a service-oriented programme. The emphasis must be that we prevent, in the sense of interceding with the kids. It's not just kids, unfortunately. As you know, in Maple Ridge three weeks ago there was a very large heroin interception. All the people there involved were over 21 years old. This certainly concerns me.

The second thing is education. We've done a lot of education work in drugs. I've always been amazed that the parents don't seem to know the drug families, the actual chemical families. This concerns me because this kind of ignorance causes a credibility problem with the teenagers and their families and their neighbourhood. I would certainly hope that policy-makers in education — teachers, counsellors, nurses, clergy, medical people — I enjoy my Member next to me (Mr. Wallace) but sometimes you do have to take medical people by the arm and actually lead them to conferences so that we can work together, so that there can be a real educational programme.

I would like to see some very well-done stuff, not negative and not goody-goody type of programmes, but very effective programmes.

The third thing, of course, would be rehabilitation.

[ Page 2629 ]

The first speech I ever made in this House was that every person has inside himself some of the good news. I believe in this. I believe in people. I believe that rehabilitation is restoring a person to his intended God-given purpose.

I am afraid that we've been surveyed to death in this field. There's been LIP after LIP (Local Initiatives Programme) grant surveying and over-surveying ad nauseum, We have to see that there is rehabilitation. We have to see that people can get close to help young people know that they don't have to live in a vacuum and that they don't have to take something outside of their body into their body to give meaning and purpose to their life.

If there's ever a problem, it's purpose. I still believe that philosophically the most important question people ask is, "Who am I and what is my purpose in life?" I certainly support this. I see it as the very beginning. I'm very appreciative that this is a community-based programme. Thank you,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Just a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. It was raised by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I wasn't going to speak in this bill at all.

What it is is simply a structure by which money can be distributed, by which various volunteer agencies can be coordinated with respect to alcohol and drugs within the community. It's something that's long overdue and something that those of us who have worked with addicts and alcoholics over the years have been waiting for.

But let's not think for a moment that it's going to answer the problem or solve the difficulties of alcoholism and drug addiction. I must re-emphasize what the Member for Oak Bay said. Over the past several weeks I have been in touch with some officials of the federal government with respect to the drug problem. I am completely unimpressed, first of all with their knowledge of the problem in this area, and secondly with their intentions.

The federal government must come to grips with the problem of the criminal sanction against drugs and what it is doing to the people. They've got to come to the bargaining table, if you like, with this provincial government and other provincial governments and work out a solution, treatment facilities and a more sensible solution, rather than this barbaric approach that we have to heroin addicts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We support what the government is proposing. But if the purpose of this bill is as the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has said, merely as an agency to distribute moneys among organizations that are involved in the matter of drugs, then indeed I have some despair. I do appreciate that the commission appears to be programme-oriented. This gives me some concern. The programmes are essentially ones of an investigative and study nature with the laudable opportunity of disseminating some information.

But, Mr. Speaker, if those are to be the limits of the commission's responsibilities, I don't think it's going far enough. I think I must join with the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston). What we need is an entirely new approach, We can make all the studies that we wish to make. Heaven knows, governments throughout this country and throughout the world have spent millions and millions and millions of dollars in studying this problem. Millions and millions and millions of words have been written about the problem. Yet we seem no closer to a solution.

Education is indeed a wonderful thing but the experience of the commission in Alberta, which has done some admirable work, is that once you start to educate, you realize that the education must extend to younger, younger and ever younger children. I've spoken with one of the senior officials in the Alberta commission. They have gotten down to the problem of how do you educate with respect to drugs at the kindergarten level? They have come to the conclusion that perhaps a realistic approach is in respect of life-styles and attitudes, not in education about drugs per se.

Yes, we have the existing addict. He must be rehabilitated if at all possible. He must be treated with compassion and as a human being. I accept that. Yes, we must continue the stringent penalties against the person who engages in the trafficking of drugs for profit. Each day we read of some man or woman in our community who has been apprehended by the authorities with a quantity of drugs worth a million dollars stashed in the bottom of a suitcase.

The rewards for breaking this law are tremendous for some people. We must penalize those people. We must take the Profit out of that kind of operation.

Aside from that and aside from rehabilitating and caring for the unfortunate person who finds himself in the grip of alcohol or drugs — and I don't know why we distinguish foreign chemical substances which have no place in our bodies — we have to help them. But really the solution will be when the commission gets down to considering what we must do in all of our communities with all of our young people to make them recognize that you can get high on life, not high on drugs.

A young man whom I know very well has been exposed to the drug culture. He tells me that he has never used drugs. When asked the question "Why?"

[ Page 2630 ]

he says, "I was born high. I don't need drugs." He gets a kick out of what he does.

If we can generate in all of our young people this approach to life, then they will be in a position to withstand the pressures that are placed upon them, the encouragements there are throughout all of society to take that first step. It's only a little step at the beginning but it is one which leads to tragic consequences. Let's take our young people and say, "Look, don't take that first step. There is a much more exciting step in another direction."

I hope that this commission, bent as it will be upon investigation and the dissemination of information found from its investigative activities, will not overlook the need to search out in the community those weaknesses in our society which encourage the young people to take the step in the wrong direction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a few words, Mr. Speaker. I didn't speak earlier on the question of drugs. But I'm motivated by the lack of party division on this subject and I'd just like to add a few of my own comments.

I agree with the Member for West Vancouver Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) that we have to say "don't" but we have to offer something as a substitute. On the question of getting high on life we have to figure out how for one youngster it's a beautiful experience to come back with the response that, "I'm high on life," and with the other youngster who has nothing in his life experience to let him believe that there is a high in life.

One of the problems with drugs is that it is not an isolated situation; it's part and parcel of human behaviour. It's a pitfall that is available to fall into if the fabric of that person's life isn't whole enough to protect him from not going into that pitfall.

The good doctor (Mr. Wallace) is now beginning to work with parents of drug addicts. I'm sure you'll find common symptoms with those parents. You'll find that much of the tragedy that exists with the young people can actually be related to the problems parents bring with them into marriage and the family situation. It's nothing that you can predict, but there is a certain epidemiology involved in the use of drugs.

The challenge really comes back to this Legislature in many ways. The commission may be an attempt — and I hope a good attempt — to resolve some of the problems. But, the challenge comes back in here: what can we do to make life believable for a large part of the population? What can we do here in this House to make people believe that there is hope, that there is a place for them in life, and that there is some definite framework within which they can develop to their maximum potential?

I think it is a political job. I think that the whole life-style that is available in our political system and the things we can do within our political system will allow youngsters to feel far more secure and far happier.

I think the greatest challenge is in my colleague' s portfolio, the Department of Education. How many young people are absolutely frustrated with an educational system that is inflexible, that is rigid, that has goals that were perhaps more appropriate for a generation ago, but totally inappropriate for today? How many teachers are being challenged through my colleague's department to stimulate within the teaching profession some basic questions about what opportunities we are allowing young people in our society to develop their minds and their life-styles in a meaningful and positive way?

My colleague took away the strap in schools, and to me that is symbolic of a first step to understanding the loving, caring society that must be developed. We don't ask that anybody be mollycoddled; but the basic ingredient missing with the drug addict is love. I don't want to criticize parents, but a meaningful love that exists between parent and child or family and child is an ingredient that is missing. If you want a sociological analogy, how many young Chinese children do we have using drugs? Not very many. How many young Chinese children are alcoholics? Not very many. The family life-style of living in that community is such that it is strong. There is a lot of respect; there is a role for the aged and for the young.

Our society, because of many of our materialistic bents, has divided people by age groups. We have homes for the aged and we have services for kids. It is my hope that, integrated with this bill, the community recreation facilities we build will encourage family activity, family participation, family lifestyles. The incidence of divorce in North America, the incidence of family breakdown in North American can't be traced to the individuals who are having those problems; it's part and parcel of a reflection of a life-style that demands kicks from other things than just having a warm, human relationship with other people.

I don't know if the commission can begin to start dealing with these things. I certainly hope it can. But I think one of the examples of developing this kind of life-style can come out of this Legislature. One of the reasons I feel personally so strongly involved in what I am doing in politics is the hope that out of all our experiences we can develop situations and institutions and services in a way to allow people to develop as whole individuals within a solid family structure. If this bill can help do that, then perhaps we've added a little bit today.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I think it is gratifying that we have unanimity on this subject. I

[ Page 2631 ]

just want to assure the House that we hope to see that the commission's function in terms of service to the community would be education for our very young people, some research, and very particularly in terms of evaluation of the programmes we're doing. This is a direction we're going into in a number of departments. We want to be able to evaluate what we are doing.

The key that will make this commission work will be the involvement that takes place in the community. There is no way we are going to be able to accomplish anything without that kind of involvement in the community. That's where it is going to be based; that's where the cry is coming from. We are saying to the people in the community, "You have a vehicle, you have problems. Tell us what it is you want and let's agree together on what we are going to do. Then you people are going to do it." We are going to provide some of the money and some of the staff but the community is going to have to do it.

The problem is so large that we would never be able to provide all of the staff on a paid basis that we would like to do to combat this problem. I said in an earlier debate that we are again looking for community participation and participation of the volunteer — that all-important person in the community who delivers so much service without pay and is so willingly and always available.

I call for the question.

Motion approved; second reading of Bill No. 173.

Bill No. 173 referred to a committee of the whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

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

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the House does adjourn I would very much like the Members of the House to join with me in welcoming to the galleries a group of students from the Prince of Wales High School and their teacher.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The order of business, Mr. Speaker — I hope to complete second readings and move into committee. The committee will either be done numerically or by Minister. I'll be able to let the House know this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:30 p.m.