[ Page 75 ]

CONTENTS

Seating of new Member Mr. W.R. Bennett (South Okanagan) seated in the House — 75

Routine proceedings Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 13). Mr. Gardom Introduction and first reading — 75

British Columbia Ombudsman (Bill 14). Mr. Gardom Introduction and first reading — 75

British Columbia Auditor General (Bill 15). Mr. Gardom Introduction and first reading — 76

Public Scrutiny (Bill 16). Mr. Gardom Introduction and first reading — 76

Oral questions Export of Sukunka Coal. Mr. Wallace — 76

Intervention in Seattle City Light power application. Mr. McGeer — 76

Possible amendment of the Public Schools Act. Mr. Schroeder — 76

Exemptions from Public Works Fair Wages and Conditions of Employment Act. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 77

Eurocan operations in Kitimat. Mr. Smith — 78

Willingdon housing project. Mrs. Jordan — 78

Strike at Sandringham Hospital. Mr. Wallace — 79

Throne speech debate Mr. Lewis — 79

Mr. Phillips — 83

Mr. Dent — 92

Mr. Rolston — 100

Privilege Filing of agreement on northern railway development. Mr. Chabot — 107

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that you will be very pleased to know that we have a guest in your gallery, Mrs. Agnes Kripps from Vancouver, who sat in this House as Second Member for Vancouver South. She now is president of the Social Credit Women's League Auxiliary and an active member of our board. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you will remember her for her clever and entertaining speeches in this House and the public of British Columbia know her now for her conscientious work and her fine humour. I would ask all the House to give her a warm welcome, because she may be back.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure to announce that we have from that great riding of Revelstoke-Slocan Mr. George Toma with us in the gallery today. I would ask the House to join me in extending a warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, on the 5th day of June, 1973, I did receive a declaration from the Hon. William Andrew Cecil Bennett, Member for the electoral district of South Okanagan, of his resignation of his seat in the Legislature.

Pursuant to section 55 of the Constitution Act, being chapter 71 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, 1 did transmit to L.J. Wallace, Esquire, Deputy Provincial Secretary, my warrant for the issue of a new writ for the election of a Member to fill the vacancy in the said electoral district of South Okanagan.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings,
Victoria, British Columbia,
September 19, 1973

Mr. Ian M. Horne, Q.C.,
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, South Okanagan electoral district, September 7, 1973.

I enclose herewith certified copy of the certificate of Mr. K.L. Morton, Chief Electoral Officer, representing the election of William Richards Bennett to represent the South Okanagan electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly,

(Signed)
L.J. Wallace,
Deputy Provincial Secretary.

Mr. L.J. Wallace,
Deputy Provincial Secretary,
Parliament Buildings.

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, September 7, 1973, South Okanagan electoral district.

The resignation effective June 5th, 1973, of William Andrew Cecil Bennett, the elected Member for the South Okanagan electoral district, caused a vacancy to occur in the Legislative Assembly. A writ calling for a by-election to fill that vacancy was issued on August 1, 1973, polling day being September 7, 1973.

From the writ now returned to me, I hereby certify the election of William Richards Bennett as the Member to represent the South Okanagan electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours truly,
(Signed) K.L. Morton,
Chief electoral officer.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move that the letter of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the result of the election of a Member be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost pleasure and a great deal of satisfaction that I present the newly elected Member for South Okanagan, Mr. William Richards Bennett, and ask that he be seated in this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

Introduction of bills.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 13 intituled Crown Proceedings Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 13 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading

[ Page 76 ]

of Bill 14 intituled British Columbia Ombudsman.

Motion approved.

Bill 14 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AUDITOR GENERAL

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 15 intituled British Columbia Auditor General.

Motion approved.

Bill 15 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SCRUTINY

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 16 intituled Public Scrutiny.

Motion approved.

Bill 16 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

EXPORT OF SUKUNKA COAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments on the conference on coal at the Empress Hotel, I would like to ask the Premier if he could bring the House up to date with the dealings regarding export of Sukunka coal, and the information we had last session that Japan and Britain were trying to determine whether the coal was suitable for exporting and blending in these countries. Could the Minister bring us up to date?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the blending qualities of the coal are excellent. During my visit to Great Britain I spoke to British steel representatives. Yesterday morning representatives of British steel were in my office. There is no doubt that the coal is excellent for blending. Negotiations are still continuing with Brascan, a principal holder in this kind of deal. We have not arrived at the formal point of an arrangement yet; there is a great deal of negotiating still to be done.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The economy, I am told, in the Dawson Creek area is not in good shape. Could the Premier give us any idea what length of time he anticipates will go by before negotiations are likely to be finalized?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I really can't. I'd like to be able to give you a date, but I really can't at this point. The negotiations we are involved in are new for the Province of British Columbia. In the past, resources were dealt with not so much as commodities, but as grants. This is a whole new field we are involved in, and as a result we have asked outside consulting help as well as help from the Department of Mines. We have also asked for outside legal help and, yes, there are feasibility studies being done on Brascan's part to reinforce positions they have taken in contrast to our positions.

I appreciate the need of the region for the project. However, I want to say as Minister of Finance, I will not lend my name to an agreement unless, backed up by facts and backed up by the support information of outside consultants, I feel that there is a new commitment in terms of return of funds out to the people, different than there has been in the past out of the resources.

INTERVENTION IN SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

POWER APPLICATION

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Has he given any indication to the Federal Power Commission in Washington, D.C., of the Province of B.C.'s intent to act as an intervener in the Skagit Valley application being put forward by Seattle City Light?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, the province has no intention of being an intervener in a foreign country.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister, or has the government in general, received any communications from the Federal Power Commission of the United States regarding this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not as far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker.

POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF THE

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This question is for the Minister of Education. Has the Minister of Education given any indication to the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation that the Public Schools Act would be amended to provide the

[ Page 77 ]

compulsory negotiation of teacher working conditions?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, I have not.

MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister offer any comment to the House which would relieve our anxiety about the president's reference last night on CTV that boards should negotiate working conditions on a voluntary basis rather than wait for legislation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I regret I did not hear the beginning of your question. Would you repeat it?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, ma'am. Could the Minister offer any comment to the House which would relieve our anxiety about the president's statement that boards should negotiate working conditions on a voluntary basis rather than wait for legislation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am not in a position to relieve your anxiety. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Minister of Public Works.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, excuse me a minute. Would you give up the floor for a minute on a supplementary?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): To the Minister of Education: has the Minister any guidelines to offer the B.C. Trustees' Association on meeting the teachers' demands at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you asking as a fact or as a policy? Because if it is policy, the Minister is not required to make statements on policy unless it is a fact.

MR. PHILLIPS: All I am asking her is if she has any guidelines to offer the trustees. They are meeting now and has she any guidelines to offer?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You are asking me with reference to the present negotiations?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MRS, DAILLY: I think you should be aware that the Minister does not involve herself in the negotiations. They take place between each individual school board and each individual teachers' association.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you have pursued it far enough in view of the fact of the Minister's statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think we might as well throw this question period out because…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are set rules on question period and if you are not prepared to abide by them, I must rule on them.

EXEMPTIONS FROM PUBLIC WORKS

FAIR WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF

EMPLOYMENT ACT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Public Works: in the light of his statement that certain firms and certain industries can be exempted from the Public Works Fair Wages and Conditions of Employment Act, may I ask him how these exemptions are decided on?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that we do prefer that the people of the province are given an opportunity to join a legitimate trade union, and we prefer to deal with people so organized.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of the fact that Members of this House do prefer the government to obey the laws passed by this Legislature, and as there is no legislative authority which I can see in the Act for exemptions of the type that the Minister has said outside the House that he will make, can I ask the Attorney General when he's going to instruct this Minister to follow the law? And if not, Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General seems unwilling to look into this matter of the failure of the cabinet to follow the laws passed by this Legislature, can I ask him what the legal position might be in terms of cabinet Ministers who fail to uphold the laws passed by this Legislature?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Any citizen of the province, Mr. Speaker, who feels that a cabinet Minister or anyone else is not observing the laws of the province could take the matter to court and get a judicial ruling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As it is impossible to sue the Crown, Mr. Speaker, can I suggest then…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can sue the Crown for an interpretation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's no problem in

[ Page 78 ]

this case — you might allow it. That's very kind of you.

Well, can I ask when we can have some definitive statement from the government as to when we are going to have the executive act in accordance with the laws of British Columbia, or when they are going to continue to act in the preference for certain unions which they might or might not like?

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Attorney General, since the invitation is for any citizen to challenge a Minister who oversteps his authority, whether the Attorney General himself would be prepared to do that to see that the laws of the Legislature are upheld?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Of course, if it was my conclusion that a Minister of the Crown was not observing the terms of a statute, I'd get in touch with that Minister and ask him to do so, based upon our legal advice. Now, if there is a difference of opinion about it, then I suggest that the courts are there to make sure that we interpret the laws correctly.

EUROCAN OPERATIONS IN KITIMAT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. It has to do with his recent trip overseas to the country of Finland. I would like to ask the Minister if, while visiting Finland, did he have any discussion with the government of Finland or the Bank of Finland concerning an equity position in Eurocan and their operations at Kitimat?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SMITH: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. There is no intent upon the part of the government to enter into an equity position in Eurocan, period. Is that my understanding?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

WILLINGDON HOUSING PROJECT

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Human Resources. He will recall that on Monday night last, the Burnaby council expressed alarm and concern at the lack of consultation between the government, or the Minister, or any member of his department with their council on the Willingdon housing project. My question to the Minister is: why was this consultation not forthcoming?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, the consultations: I wrote to various municipalities; I also spoke as recently as two weeks ago to Mayor Muni Evers about this situation. He is on the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Mrs. Dailly also…

MRS. JORDAN: Who is the Minister who is answering the question? The Minister of Finance or the Minister of Human Resources?

HON. MR. LEVI: It is my complete understanding that they were quite aware of what was going on. I informed Mr. Muni Evers; they were quite aware of what was going on. We had made some indications, on a private nature, quite some time ago about this situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Minister's statement, or is the House to understand from the Minister's statement, that in fact the statements made by the council Monday night last are not true?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that the Greater Vancouver Regional District, of which Burnaby is part, were aware of the direction we were going.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister then saying there was consultation about the Willingdon School housing project with the Burnaby municipality, which was directly effected by himself or a member of his department?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. With the Burnaby council, no, there was not. I wrote them a letter some time ago that we were not prepared to consider it as offices for the Burnaby council. That was some months ago when I wrote that letter.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will perhaps recall that the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) stated that it would be government policy, whenever housing was involved, to have prior consultation with the municipalities that were affected. Are we to assume from this Minister's statements — the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) — that that in fact is not government policy? Or are we to assume that he sets his own policy of making statements in the corridor rather than in this House…

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MRS. JORDAN:…and are suggestions that the words of newly elected councils in fact are not true?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! What you assume,

[ Page 79 ]

madam, is your own business. If you have a question, ask it.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: An answer to what?

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister of Human Resources accusing the Burnaby council of making a false statement Monday last?

HON. MR. LEVI: It was a ridiculous statement.

STRIKE AT SANDRINGHAM HOSPITAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd never make it. I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), in light of his statement on the two-year-long strike at Sandringham Hospital, two quick questions. First of all he mentioned that bargaining has not taken place in good faith — and I'm not questioning that I'm just making the statement plain. Can I take it from that statement that the Minister has no power to attempt to bring about bargaining in good faith? Secondly, if this is something that cannot be achieved, could he report at what stage negotiations to take over such a private hospital are? Or perhaps the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) should answer that.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the question of good faith bargaining was dealt with by the Labour Relations Board over a year ago. It was the finding of the board at that point that the employer had in fact failed to bargain in good faith. Now the penalties under existing legislation for such a failure are less than meaningless; and there's no way under existing law that adequate penalties are available to induce parties to so bargain in good faith. Efforts were made through my office to introduce a third party to the dispute, which might find a basis for resolution. These overtures were not accepted by the employer. Really there remains no economic question on which the parties are in disagreement, and it would appear that good faith bargaining is still in fact not taking place.

With respect to taking over Sandringham Hospital, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a satisfactory device in terms of solving labour disputes. If that hospital should be taken over, I would presume and recommend that it be on other questions of economics and social policy rather than an effort to resolve a labour dispute.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid we've done more than the full 15 minutes.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tell us about that fire.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the two roosters?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Well, I'm glad you brought up the subject of the two roosters, because one of the first things I intend to do in this session is introduce a private Member's bill, "The Protection of the Rooster Act." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, it's a great honour for me to again stand in this House in the throne debate, representing the beautiful constituency of Shuswap.

In the last week there's been a tragedy in the Shuswap area, I think as most people here are aware, when a fire swept down off the Fly Hills area from a 5,000-foot elevation to the valley floor in a matter of a couple of hours. This fire was ignited by the co-op crews under permit from the forestry system.

Mr. Speaker, I know that a lot of people in my riding, and a lot of people in the province, expect me to come out and attack the Forest Service. Well this isn't my intention whatsoever. I feel that these people are working for the province, that possibly a bad decision was made, but it's not up to me to be the judge.

I've asked the Minister to conduct an investigation into the fire, independent from the Forest Service. To this time he hasn't made any public announcement on this, but I feel that the people in Shuswap, the people in British Columbia and also myself, expect this type of investigation. I'm not saying that the forestry wouldn't be fair in their deliberations; I'm just asking that everybody's minds be set at ease.

The damage in that fire was extensive, and people are going to suffer for many, many days to come. I'm asking the government to be most lenient in their appraisals of the losses of the people. I'm asking that they be very fair in the compensation it pays them. To this time I've had the best of cooperation from the Minister, the Premier and the cabinet.

The morning that the fire was running wild I had a phone call from the radio station getting me out of bed at 6 o'clock in the morning. At that point I contacted the Minister, and he immediately got the ball rolling in regard to bringing in personnel from the Prince George area that were efficient in forest firefighting. I think everything that was humanly possible was done by the Minister and his staff. I would also like to thank the people in the Salmon

[ Page 80 ]

Arm area at this time, Mr. Speaker, I believe the majority of them remained cool and that the civil defence did a good job. The council did a very good job in regard to the number of council members left in the area, and the spirit of the people in the area was tremendous.

There's one thing that does worry me and that's any recurrence of this in the future. I believe an investigation, by the Forest Service and an independent investigation, will bring out recommendations that will alleviate many people's fears in regard to this happening in any part of British Columbia in the future, not just in my riding.

I have assurances from the Forest Service that the area will be rehabilitated, and I would like to make the request to the Minister that this is done as fast as it's humanly possible because it's an area that depends heavily upon tourism. It's a mountainside that has completely been destroyed and it's going to be an eyesore for years to come. But I think, with cooperation from the forestry, the area can be rehabilitated in a short time.

I think Mr. Speaker, I've dealt enough with the fire. I know there's a lot of emotions in my riding, and in the province, with regard to it. I just hope that the people will be reasonable and wait until the results come out from the hearings.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to leave this subject and move on to agriculture, seeing that I'm from a riding which is heavily based in that area. I'm not too happy with all things that have happened in agriculture, but most things have gone quite well and the Minister has done a good job.

There have been many progressive steps made by the Minister in the past year and he's had very many problems to contend with. I think he's had one advantage that the past Minister never had: he's had a cabinet that listened to him; and I would like to thank the cabinet for that.

The things that he's had to contend with are crop failures in the Peace River, a drought in a big part of the province, which caused chaos to many, many farmers. There's also been inflation in all livestock inputs during the last year, some of them going as high as 300 to 400 per cent. He had the situation that was brought on by the national rail strike to contend with, as well as the strike that was on with the ferries. I think his department and other departments did a very good job in trying to overcome this situation.

There are problems in the fruit industry that are far from being resolved. I don't think anyone in this chamber knows what the answers are.

There was much work brought on his desk by the Land Commission and I expect this will continue in the future until it's straightened out.

I would like to thank the staff from the Department of Agriculture for the cooperation that I've received from them. During the agricultural committee tour we met many, many qualified people working for that department. I think the Minister has an excellent department.

There are some areas that I'm not very happy with. I'm the Member for Shuswap, and prior to becoming a Member I continually voiced my opinion with regard to the right of agriculture to grow in the Interior of the province. It's been badly neglected in the past and in some areas it's still neglected.

Marketing boards have caused much distress to the Interior, as those are the areas where farming is more remunerative to the people involved in that industry. The big part of that type of industry is centred in the lower mainland of this province.

Prior to being elected I ran an extensive campaign in regard to the things that were happening in marketing boards — and in regard to the broiler board in particular. Some problems have been straightened out with some boards but the broiler board, as far as I'm concerned, is a catastrophe. I've been in contact with the Minister continually on this since being elected and he's assured me that he's working on it.

Just prior to making this speech today I contacted the Minister and asked what progress is being made. He said that he had sent a letter to the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board saying that something had to be done to see that a viable industry was created in the Interior. He said that this was somewhere in the neighbourhood of August 8, and up to this time he's received no answer.

Well, Mr. Minister, I don't think that this is good enough. I know that you are a very busy man and you have been doing everything that you possibly can, and the problems have been great. But I think that the broiler board is responsible to the people in British Columbia — responsible to the farmers of British Columbia, not just responsible to a group of farmers in the lower mainland. If they're not being responsible, then I say that it's up to your department and your staff to overrule them.

There have been applications gone before this board throughout the years for the right to produce broilers in the Interior of this province. The board says, "We haven't turned them down; their names just haven't come up on the list." Now I don't like that attitude. This could go on for 100 years. I'd just like to give you some figures with regard to how the broiler industry has grown in the lower mainland-Vancouver Island area since 1968.

In 1968 there were 30 million pounds of broiler meat raised in these areas; in 1969, 35 million; in 1970, 39 million; in 1971, 44 million; in 1972, 50 million. The estimate for this year would be 9 to 10 per cent above that.

In my view, some of that increase in permits should have gone to the Interior of the province to help establish the industry in that area. I think we all have to remember that the Interior is an area that is

[ Page 81 ]

very, very low on industrial development. There is very little industry in any part of the Interior when you compare it with the lower mainland. Agriculture is one area that we have a chance to grow in. If we're denied that chance, we're going to stay stagnant forever.

I would also like to point out things that are happening in the industry in regard to secondary permits which they absolutely refuse to give to the Interior whatsoever. Our names have never come up on the list. In 1971 a secondary permit was given out to practically every broiler producer in the lower mainland-Vancouver area — in the number of 5,000 birds. In 1972 they gave out an additional 5,000 birds, Now here is the cruncher. In 1974 that permit that was given out for nothing to the growers of the lower mainland-Vancouver Island area will become worth $3.50 a bird. So in a short period of four years, besides what profits they've made from selling their product, they're going to realize an additional $18,000 from the value on their quota.

Now it's reasonable to expect that if this happens in 1974, in 1975 the same thing will happen with the 1972 permit that was issued. I say that we're making a lot of "fat cats" at the expense of the people in the rest of the province.

Here's something that should shock you a little bit: some of this permit that was given out went to that poor little fellow called Panco Poultry. Do you know how many broiler birds they already have in their operation? Between 180,000 and 190,000 broilers.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Well, that's not indefinitely. But that's the rotating crop that they take off at least four times a year. Now that 180,000, as a minimum, are worth $3.50 just for the right to raise those broilers. So you can see what type of thing we have done in this broiler-quota situation.

I have every reason to believe that there's been a trade-off with the broiler board in regard to the Kootenay area. I have information that I can't substantiate — but it comes from a good source — that Alberta Poultry Marketers have agreed not to put products into other parts of the Interior, providing the broiler board lets them have the Kootenays. I think this is disgraceful when the industry could be set up in that area — when some farmers and a processing plant could operate in that area.

The broiler board made a token effort this summer and said: "Well, we're not going to let any quota into the Interior, but we'll be really nice and we'll let you have some permits for roasters. There's not going to be any processing plant there, so you'll have to truck your roasters all the way to the Fraser Valley to be killed in a processing plant in the lower mainland."

Now I've talked to people in the Department of Agriculture and they told me that they ran a test case on turkeys. In a 12-hour shipping period there was a 14 per cent shrinkage in those turkeys that were shipped. I say their intent was to give out these nominal permits; after a period of a year or two years the farmers wouldn't be able to make it — they would go broke. Then the broiler board would say, "I told you; they're not smart enough to make it in the interior."

A man in the Sorrento area, not far from where I live, had requested the right for broiler growing to go into the Interior back as early as 1968. He put an application in to the federal government under the federal incentives plan. They granted $40,000 towards the building of a plant at that time. But the broiler board refused the right for the product to be grown in that area, so it dropped dead; the area lost the $40,000 that could have been used in a killing plant.

I've talked to many store-owners in my riding and I'm sure that the same things exist throughout the Interior. Their attitude towards the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board is absolutely hostile. The field man that comes around to their stores they don't refer to as a field man; they refer to him either as the "gestapo" or the "policeman." I think that when relations deteriorate to this extent, something has to be done to check into the situation.

Mr. Minister, in the other provinces of this country we have a board set up by the province — of course, this isn't the same in every province, but they do have a board — with a member from the Attorney General's department, a member from the Consumers Affairs department, a member appointed by the provincial government and a farmer — all of whom sit on a board once a month to review actions by all marketing boards in those provinces.

I'm making a very strong appeal that this type of thing happen in this province to keep an eye open to see that the producers, the public and the consumers are protected.

I also would like to make the request that an appeal board be structured in this province whereby, if there's any injustice to a producer, any injustice to a store-owner, he has an independent appeal board that he can go to. I would suggest that one member on this appeal board should be from the Department of Agriculture.

I think that only through actions like this and direct action by yourself will the board come around to moving in these areas. I certainly urge that you do this as soon as possible. I think the people in the Interior of the province have been very patient in regard to the problems that they've had with agriculture and with not having the right to grow. I'm sure that it's not going to last much longer.

[ Page 82 ]

There have been some people in the Interior who say "there's no hope beyond hope." I would hope that they're wrong. I would like to say that in no way am I running down the Minister of Agriculture for the work that he's done in the province. Only in one area.

I would like now to move on to problems that I am encountering in my area with highways. I am sure that every MLA, or nearly every MLA, in this House has problems with the bureaucracy that exists in the Highways Department. There are applications for subdivisions, which I think are justified, that have been lying in somebody's office for two years. It is quite often that a person will apply for the right to subdivide and the Highways Department won't give them approval until they get permission from the Board of Health or from some other board. In 90 days the Highways Department says, "Well, your application has run out. You will have to re-apply." This sometimes goes on for two years, and I think it is shameful.

I think that if we are understaffed in this department we should correct it, but I am sure that the people in my constituency aren't going to put up with it forever.

There are things happening in that department with regard to subdivision applications that I am very unhappy with. In an area called Pritchard, which is halfway between Kamloops and Salmon Arm approximately, there have been applications to put in two different subdivisions well back from the river in a flat area on land that is not suitable for farming, an area that I feel would be suitable for a subdivision. The Highways Department turned it down. And what is the reason? "You're too close to Kamloops." Well that's too bad, if it's too close to Kamloops, then move Kamloops. Because as far as I am concerned, my riding is not going to be frozen forever.

I would like to point out that "too close" to Kamloops is 30 miles. Now if that's the case, possibly Langley, Chilliwack and other municipalities out in that area had better stop building because they are too close to Vancouver.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): They've already been stopped.

MR. LEWIS: There is another area where I am not too happy with the Highways Department, and that is in regard to hired equipment and the people who get the jobs. I say that everybody in this province should have a chance at the work that public money puts into these jobs.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Even if they aren't NDP.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Yes this is very true. The situation hasn't changed whatsoever and this is what worries me. The same people get the same jobs and I am getting considerable flack in my riding.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Well, there's the odd Liberal that would like a job too.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: If you come, you'll get re-elected next time.

MR. LEWIS: I would like my noisy friend to be quiet down there and I'd carry on.

I would like to give you an instance of one situation in regard to seal coating in the Highways Department, where there is a trucking firm called Joe Hall Trucking. Now this has happened in the past; it hasn't started yesterday.

About the day after I was elected I had a delegation of truck drivers come to see me about the situation, complaining that they weren't able to get their trucks on the job but that Joe Hall Trucking was able to pretty well assure themselves of having the majority of the trucks on the job every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carrying the wrong card.

MR. LEWIS: They also gave instances of when these trucks moved from one job to the other, Joe Hall Trucking would always have one little piece of machinery in their truck. They got paid mileage and time for travelling to the next job, but the unfortunate truckers who were outside of that organization were forced to move on their own time without any mileage. I think this is shameful.

I brought it to the Minister's attention. He said he was looking into it, but one comment he made was that we would have to be careful because we could be accused of racial discrimination. Now it so happens that these people are East Indians. I have nothing against the East Indians; I have nothing against black people; I have nothing against any race; but maybe there's some discrimination against the rest of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about political parties? (Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: I would like to make a few comments in regard to the civil service legislation that is coming before the House this fall, being that I was once a civil servant myself.

Civil servants have been treated as second class citizens in this province for many years. It seems to be an attitude of the public that, if you work for the

[ Page 83 ]

public you should be willing to take less. I certainly don't support this theory in any way. I think we have some very capable civil servants out there. Many of them are doing a fine job, and they should get the same conditions and the same pay as anybody else in the same type of work.

I do question the ferry service and the right to strike. I am very reluctant to say that anybody should not have the right to strike, but surely there can be some machinery worked out that would assure these people as good working conditions as other people, that Province of British Columbia wanted them. They told yet would not tie up the complete Vancouver Island during a strike.

I suggest that the ferry service has a tremendous tool of power. I would also suggest that if they are allowed to use it continually, the spread between them and other qualified civil servants in this province could become very great. I am not suggesting that they shouldn't have the right to strike; I am suggesting that we should take a look at every means available to us before that's allowed.

I would also like to comment on labour, management and government, period. It is quite easy for me to make some remarks on labour because I am in a riding where there are very few labour people. I want it understood that I am sympathetic to labour people and sympathetic to everybody in our society, but I think it is time that all of us got together — labour, government and management — possibly at a conference or something where we could start to work out some guidelines for the future.

One suggestion I would like to throw forth is possibly labour could say: we are willing to hold our wages at the present scale this year, but we want a reduction of 10 per cent in lumber, we want a reduction of 10 per cent in this field or that field. I think that we would gain the same ends and our economy would be able to thrive much better in the future. I know that this could be torn apart in many ways, but I think it is time that we started to think about the whole thing, that we get together and try to work out some sort of solution instead of continually being at each other's throats.

I know that some of the things that I have said in my speech aren't very nice and the opposition are going to say, "Oh he is a nasty guy. He has criticized some people in his own government." But I would like to tell you one thing, that I was elected in my riding to do a job for the constituency of Shuswap, and if it means speaking out in this House against my honourable friend from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), or one of my buddies in the cabinet, I intend to do so. Thank you.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I start my talk I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you again and to congratulate you for your efficient way in which you are handling the question period. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Then we are all agreed. Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Today, Mr. Speaker, has been a very important day in the history of British Columbia. A very important event took place in these buildings today when William Richards Bennett took his seat in this House after being sworn in.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House, that it was just 17 years ago today that the Socreds swept to power in British Columbia on September 19, 1956. I will let those who hear these words be a judge as to whether this has any great meaning or connotation, but in that election, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit government swept the province with 39 seats, the NDP had 10 seats — just about the reverse of what it is today — and there were two Liberals and one independent. Just as today these splinter parties in the House really don't have much bearing on what is going on, or much significance, in the political scene in British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Only one.

MR. PHILLIPS: The significance, Mr. Speaker, is that this young man, who took his seat in this Legislature today to represent the electoral district of South Okanagan, is a young and very astute businessman, and certainly, Mr. Speaker, this young man understands the problems of today's generation. He understands the problems of business and he has the ability and the business sense to work out solutions in a businesslike manner. That is unique, Mr. Speaker, because, as I will mention later, there is a great lack of business experience in this British Columbia Legislature.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Commonwealth Trust.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, it's good to hear a few words from our friend, the Premier, who says he is endowed with such great business experience. But, Mr. Speaker, the thing about this is that the people of this province will be very sad in a few years when they come to realize that our Premier really hasn't got that much business experience and that some of the decisions he is making are going to have dastardly effects on the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's certainly an honour for me to stand in this Legislature again and represent that great riding of South Peace River, that part of the great

[ Page 84 ]

land mass east of the Rocky Mountains, that part of British Columbia which became part of British Columbia through a quirk of history.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They've been making political mistakes ever since.

MR. PHILLIPS: And, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Premier brought this up because that party is making a political mistake by forgetting about the Peace River entirely. They have an aggressive MLA — and you recognize that, Mr. Premier. One thing you are astute about is recognizing the great MLA whom they have for the South Peace River area.

But, Mr. Speaker, this government has forgotten about that great land mass east of the Rocky Mountains; that great area, Mr. Speaker, that supplies the rest of British Columbia with its natural gas; that great area, Mr. Speaker, which supplies a lot of the oil to the rest of British Columbia to keep the wheels rolling; that area, Mr. Speaker, which supplies the majority of the hydro power to the rest of the Province of British Columbia; that area that has the capability of feeding the entire Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then you don't have any problems.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have problems, Mr. Speaker, because that great government over there doesn't recognize the potential and forgets about it. I'll be speaking a little later on about some of the needs of that area, but I want to point out that this is a very important area.

This area, Mr. Speaker — if this government ever makes up its mind as to what it's going to do — has the potential of being the coal capital, not of British Columbia, not of Canada…

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): How about the world?

MR. PHILLIPS: …not of just North America, Mr. Speaker, but the coal capital of the whole world.

MR. WALLACE: Yea! (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: This area, Mr. Speaker, has been hard hit by this government: mining exploration in the area has practically ceased due to the policies of this government; petroleum exploration is at an all time low due to the policies of this government. They have effectively stopped the coalition mining deal while they are making up their minds.

Now it's amazing, Mr. Speaker, that while this socialist government was in opposition they had all of the answers. But now that they're government, faced with making a decision, lacking in business ability, they haven't been able to make up their mind. And I can understand them, Mr. Speaker, wanting to hire lots of consultants. If I were sadly lacking in business experience as that government over there is, I'd hire lots of consultants too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we're not going to give it away, like you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well now, the Premier says, Mr. Speaker, he's not going to give it away. I didn't ask him to give it away, but what I am saying is that while in opposition he knew how much he was going to charge for it. Check the records.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Check the records: it was $1 a ton. I haven't got it here but with very little effort I can dig it up. It's $1 a ton and I don't think the Premier disputes that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's just the royalty.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. Well anyway, Mr. Speaker…(Laughter )…while the Peace River area waits in anticipation, this government flounders, lacking in experience. They have created uncertainty in the area, Mr. Speaker, and they have created despondency among those great voters up there. And, Mr. Speaker, the voters have long memories. The people of that great Peace River area should receive a bonus for living up there in the first place, putting up with the hardships. But instead of that they get the back of the hand from this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything to upset that Member.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What have you got against the Peace River?

MR. PHILLIPS: They get the back of the hand from this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a pleasure for me to comment on this newly-decorated chamber. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether it's the fact that the throne speech had very little meat in it or whether it's the sort of sleepy effect of the chamber, but I notice, Mr. Speaker, that debate is very low key and it's not that there aren't issues. I don't know whether the Premier has put his Members to sleep. There are very few of them in the House; maybe they're out sleeping. I thought with this newly-decorated chamber they'd be spending more time in it.

[ Page 85 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It must have something to do with the speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is a possibility that they don't want to learn the facts and that's why they are out of the House. They don't want to learn the facts. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not like the colour of the rug. (Laughter.) I think it's a dumb colour. It must have been designed by a committee. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, because the chamber has such a deadening effect, is that why the government is going to introduce booze in the dining room — to liven up the debate?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would like a statement. I've heard it rumoured that you're going to introduce booze in the dining room.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member must know that the dining room is under the jurisdiction of the Speaker, not the government.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you very much for informing me of this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to get that booze poured down your throat whether you like it or not.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it is really my hope, however, that this session will not be as hectic as the spring session when the Premier outspokenly condemned the previous administration for working such long hours and then purposefully had this House sit in the morning when the Members either had to be in the House or miss being in the House to do their research. That, Mr. Speaker, is, in essence, stifling the work of the opposition Members in doing their research.

I don't like to see this Premier going on open-line shows and saying he has introduced democracy into the Legislature in British Columbia when he's doing everything he can to stifle debate.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Legislature will not go into morning sittings, to allow the Members to look after their constituencies and do the proper amount of research when research people are available and when the civil servants are available. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it bothers me that the Premier goes around the province saying how he introduced democracy into the Legislature.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much research staff did we have when we were opposition?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, the Premier knows full well that research staff can't answer your constituents' mail. Now I know, Mr. Premier, that you have a stream of stenographers down there a mile long answering your mail. When you became Premier you said, "Write me; I'll answer your letters." The former premier maybe didn't answer his letters and the present Premier doesn't answer his letters.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: At least it's not making a mockery of democracy by having somebody else answer his…the letters went unanswered…rather than have a puppet, a party hack, who you hired in your office, answer your letters. You never see half of them, and you know that, Mr. Premier; you know that. And here are these unsuspecting people in this great Province of British Columbia receiving letters, some of them signed by you — which I doubt if you even take time to read — which are typed up by some stenographer in your office.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to deal with a few pieces of legislation that were crashed through in the spring session, before I resume my seat. But, as I say, I do hope that the Premier, if he really wants democracy in this Legislature, will stay away from morning sittings. I would far rather sit in the evening and all night if necessary because I can't be out there working for my constituents — which I have to do in the morning — or attend committee meetings, and the Premier knows this.

I hope that the people of this province are intelligent enough, and I know they're intelligent enough, to see what the Premier is doing, in opposition to what he is saying he is doing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the session opened with all the pomp and ceremony that was due a coronation of the Queen. This sort of amazes me because this government said that they were a little fed up with some of the pomp and ceremony that used to go on in this House with regard to openings and with regard to dinners at Government House. It amazes me, Mr. Speaker, for a government that is supposed to be going around in shirtsleeves, and who at times show disdain for time-honoured practices, to have so much pomp and ceremony at the opening of the fall session.

It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the story of the prince and the pauper. Mr. Speaker, the pauper is learning and learning very fast: blue suit, the new offices, chauffeur-driven limousines, troop of public relations men, sherry parties and jet airplanes — all within 12 months. Soon the dreamer, in his dreams scorned, will from now on be unrecognizable by the hordes in his new role. However, I'm glad to see that our Premier, Mr. Speaker, is learning.

The speech itself, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech,

[ Page 86 ]

had no surprises. The reason it had no surprises is because the legislation that it talks about, such as agriculture and labour, was revealed in the press weeks before the opening. So there was nothing new. But I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because there was nothing in the throne speech with regard to a bill of rights — a bill of rights, Mr. Speaker, that we were promised in the throne speech on January 25, 1973.

If you go back in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will see where that promised bill of rights was lauded in debate by many of the government Members. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what happened to that bill of rights…the people's party who are so interested in the rights of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, since the spring session we have had a by-election in South Okanagan, and the people of that riding spoke loudly and clearly. They told the right-wing capitalists that, in essence, elected this government — and I'm referring to the Conservative Party — that neither South Okanagan nor the Province of British Columbia wanted them. They told the people of this province that Social Credit was the answer to the socialist hordes. In spite, Mr. Speaker, of great support by the Conservative mouthpiece, the Province, they still couldn't win the election.

The people of South Okanagan also said to the Liberals that the people of this province didn't want an Ottawa-controlled party. I feel sorry for the Liberals in this House because of the frustration they must feel in having to…well, the one Liberal in this House…the frustration they must feel with having to put up with their counterparts down in Ottawa.

The people of South Okanagan also spoke out loud and clear against the policies of this socialist government; they reject it. The people know, Mr. Speaker, that you can't buy people with their own money. The Premier endeavored, did his best, Mr. Speaker, to throw out some election goodies ahead of time to convince the people of South Okanagan that he was going to be good to them.

Now I mention, Mr. Speaker, that the debate this far on this throne speech…and I think I got the cue as to what is going on, on opening day. The Premier made a little faux pas that would, in essence, have stopped all debate on the throne speech. He said, "That's just fine with me; that's just fine with me."

That is the attitude, Mr. Speaker, of our Premier, who goes around boasting that he introduced democracy into the British Columbia Legislature. He would be well satisfied if there were no debate whatsoever. He would be happy if the Members of this Legislature had no opportunity whatsoever to speak and to voice their opinions. This, Mr. Speaker, is this people's government that our Premier brags about so loudly and so clearly.

He would like to effectively shut up the opposition at any cost. This is our Premier's true feeling, down beneath all of that great front of his, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)…down underneath all of those great smiles…down underneath those great outbursts over the media that he "introduced democracy into British Columbia."

The mover and seconder of the speech on Friday last really had very little to say. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) gave us the history of agriculture and the history of labour, and the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) tried to talk about policies for people — the policies for people that this socialist government has introduced.

I want to talk for just a few moments on some of these policies for people. But before I do I want to say, in listening to the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) yesterday afternoon, that I agree with him when he says we should dispense with the compensation board.

I stood in this Legislature in 1968 and said, in essence, the same thing: people who are injured are going to have to be looked after. I feel the same way about all the multitudinous programmes we have for pensions — pensions for the widows, pensions for the blind. We should have a guaranteed annual income for all of those people.

Do away with all of the various bureaucracies that have built up over the years — and they have built up. We're entering an age — and I don't disagree with him — where people in need, regardless of the cause, should be looked after.

I want to say — and you may not agree with this, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) may not agree with this, but this would take the burden of compensation, which is a very high cost, to certain highly dangerous industries. This burden should be borne by all of society, the same as the rest of the burden such as hospital insurance and so forth. So I just wanted to say that I did agree with the Member from Delta.

Before I get into these people policies that I want to talk about that have been introduced by this government, I want to congratulate the new cabinet ministers, only one of which is in the House. I'd like to congratulate in particular the new Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), and state that the best way for him to look at the roads is to drive on them. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that our new Minister of Highways, the Hon. Member for Prince Rupert, is new in his job, and I want to advise him that flipping over these roads up north in a helicopter is not really the way to see them. He should get down and drive them in an automobile, because that's what uses our highways. I'd be quite happy to provide him with one if he comes up, but…

I want to congratulate the new Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), and I want to wish him well in dealing with all of the biologists in his department. And at the same time, I want to offer my assistance to him, if he needs any

[ Page 87 ]

assistance, in dealing with these biologists.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I know something about them. I know that their mind is sometimes completely and utterly closed.

I want to congratulate the new Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), and wish him well and hope that he speedily gets to work, because if that department is going to do anything to fatten the coffers of this province, they better get busy in a hurry because it may be too late.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You voted against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, go on and talk about that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to talk about that. I'm going to discuss that, and I hope you stay in the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately, I have a 3:30 appointment. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Housing… And I hate to say this, but I don't know whether he has the business experience to carry out this tremendously important portfolio. It involves a lot of dollars, and it involves a great problem, a problem which this government has helped create.

Also, my congratulations to the new Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young), and I'm sure that she's going to miss being the Chairman up here and having to deal with the Member from South Peace River, but I wish her well in her new portfolio.

During the summer, I had the opportunity to travel with the agricultural committee, and I had the opportunity to witness first hand some of the frustrations of our farm population. A lot of this frustration, Mr. Speaker, was caused by Bill 42, because Bill 42 took away any hedge that these people in the agricultural industry had against inflation. If they thought that their land was some type of a pension plan for them, it was eroded away when Bill 42 came in in this province.

The farmer knew that the people of the world had to be fed and they also knew, prior to Bill 42, that a few lean years they could always survive. So Bill 42 created a lot of their frustrations. They also know, Mr. Speaker, that federal government agricultural policies have led the farmers down the drain to protect eastern industries. I do hope that our government in Ottawa will recognize that they must come to grips with the agricultural industry and, if necessary, close the borders to some of the agricultural products that are now entering Canada.

I also had the opportunity while travelling with the agricultural committee to show the committee the great Peace River area. I had the opportunity to let them see first hand that the Peace River area has the greatest potential for agriculture of any part of British Columbia. I had the opportunity to travel with them to Beaver Lodge where experiments are carried on with regard to agriculture in northern Canada. It was a great awakening to them, Mr. Speaker, to learn of some of the facts and figures, mean temperatures, rainfall, et cetera, which does away with some of the myths that agriculture can't be a viable industry in the north.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say this for every member on that committee, that they were a hard-working, conscientious group, and I would not hesitate to hire any one of them in my own business.

I want to review some of the dismal record of this government of the first 12 months in office. No matter how much light the Premier tries to pump in, he can't hide the darkness that the shadow of doubt is casting over the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, our Premier tried at Williams Lake to prove that he was the best thrower of bull in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But you weren't there. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I had the opportunity to see it over television — that media that brings us all the great news. But to me, the Premier didn't have to go through all this bull throwing at Williams Lake to prove to me that he was the best bull thrower in British Columbia.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the Premier went fishing, and he proved himself to be a fairly good "happy hooker." (Laughter.) I hope that maybe he's going to come back and teach the rest of his cabinet some of the tricks of the trade.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it was Strachan that was on the hook.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's a lot of them on the hook and the Premier's got most of them in that position.

What about these policies, Mr. Speaker, that are supposed to be so good for the people of British Columbia? This government has a sorry, sorry record in its first 12 months of office. Most of the policies that they have brought in, and most of the things they have done… And they have set the example in being the biggest contributor of all to number one enemy, which is inflation — inflation that erodes away the savings of the elderly; inflation that wrecks

[ Page 88 ]

the futures of the young people of this province; inflation that, in essence, sends up in smoke most of the payrolls of the labouring force in this province.

This government can say that there is inflation in all of Canada, not just in British Columbia, and that doesn't impress me, because this government has the opportunity, like the previous government to set an example for the rest of Canada to follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have, but not to follow.

MR. PHILLIPS: This government is setting an example of feeding the rampaging fires of inflation. How have they done it? What did Bill 42 have to do with inflation, Mr. Speaker? Well, I'll tell you what it did — it sent the price of land for housing out of the reach of the young people of this province. That contributed to inflation, Mr. Speaker. It created a shortage of homes, and when there's a shortage of anything, the price goes up. That contributed to inflation.

On August 28, 1972, the Premier of this province conceded that the housing situation had gone from bad to worse during his NDP's first year in office. He went on, Mr. Speaker, to predict that the situation would get worse.

There is an extreme shortage of apartments and again this shortage creates inflation because the price of apartments is going up all over British Columbia.

Wage settlements made in the recent ferry strike are highly, highly inflationable, and again contribute to this government's sorry record of creating greater inflation.

Mr. Speaker, when this government took the lid off educational spending they led the way to greater inflation because of the increase and the trend, and there will be more said on this in the session, in teachers' salaries.

They set the trend themselves, Mr. Speaker, and I think they will rue the day when they increased the wages of every Member in this Legislature. It is very difficult to negotiate with anybody when they can look you in the eye and say: "What did you do with your own salary?" And as I said in the spring session, Mr. Speaker, in my talk on the budget, this act alone would lead to the greatest rise of inflation in the Province of British Columbia. I compared it with an act similar to the Pearson government when they settled the wages of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

This government and all governments have the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to lead. This government has done a very, very poor job in setting an example for the control of inflation, our number one enemy.

Inflation will bring down this province and this nation to its knees quicker than a nuclear war. Inflation in this province and in this nation will be in the long run more damaging than all the pollution, and it is interesting to hear the Minister of Health and Welfare (Hon. Mr. Cocke) — and I hope and pray, Mr. Speaker, that when in his department, when he brings in new legislation and when he has his hand in dealing with that great spender, that he will consider what inflation will do to the people.

Yes, I'm interested in the people and I'm interested in policies that will protect the people. I want to tell you again, Mr. Speaker, that inflation, not only in Canada and not only in North America, is the biggest problem that governments today are facing.

Another bill, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am concerned contributed greatly to inflation, a bill which I was fairly vocal about, is Bill 153 — the Public Works Fair Employment Act. You might well ask, Mr. Speaker: how was Bill 153 contributing to inflation?

No. 1, Mr. Speaker, Bill 153 will create price fixing in bids where people are bidding to work for the government. That will create inflation. It will lead to increased costs of government contracts.

I was amazed — and this is nothing to do with inflation — but I was amazed to return to my riding where a certain contractor is building a new provincial government building, and that particular contract was let quite some time ago before Bill 153. Goon squads from the labour unions were up there harassing that contractor, trying to give the impression that that contractor had to go union before he could complete this government building.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not going to mention names because the contractors who want to work for the government in this province are scared spitless, some of them are taking out NDP cards so that they can be guaranteed the opportunity to bid on government work.

HON. MR. COCKE: What a pack of nonsense!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Minister of Health, in a recent Public Works contract to build maintenance depots on the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, one electrical bid alone because of Bill 153 came in at $25,000 higher. A non-union electrical contractor bid on this particular contract. The person who got the bid just recently went union. His bid would have been $25,000 less.

I predicted this, Mr. Speaker. I predicted this would happen because of Bill 153. And I am disappointed that the movers in Victoria didn't take Bill 153 to court to prove its validity. I'm disappointed. I wish they had.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Minister surrendered to them instead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 89 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that they would have found that Bill 153…

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to cite to him May's Parliamentary Procedure, the 18th Edition, page 416. "Disrespectful or abusive mention of a statute would seem to be partly open to the same objection as improper language as applied to Parliament itself, for it imputes discredit to the Legislature."

I would ask the Member to contain himself in his indignation, if possible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say then, Mr. Speaker, that recently since certain legislation was passed I estimated that there would be a 50 per cent increase in the cost of hydro line construction. In a particular hydro line that I would like to see constructed in my riding, the Lone Prairie hydro line, and I've talked of this before, the cost of this hydro line has jumped 40 per cent in the last six months. Since I can't mention the legislation or speak disrespectfully of it, I will leave you to decide what bill I am referring to.

Not necessarily is it the cost of wages, but it is the cost of a lot of regulations the union lays down. Some of them are good and some of them are unnecessary. Costs of this line jumped from $1,600 a mile to $2,200 a mile, and puts it entirely out of the financial reach of those good people in Lone Prairie.

Twenty-seven miles of line that would have cost $38,000 will now cost $50,000. That's how the policies of this government work for the people of this province, and that's how that particular policy has contributed greatly to inflation.

More recently in the Nass Valley, for a line from Greenville to Aiyansh, the price of that line last fall was $100,000. This year the contract was just let for $126,000.

In a year when most of the hydro line contractors are sitting twiddling their thumbs the price shouldn't go up because they are not looking for work, or because they don't need work. Last year when these low prices came in the hydro contractors were all very, very busy.

The fact that there are no long-range plans, Mr. Speaker, is caused by uncertainty. Uncertainty has prevented risk capital from coming into British Columbia. In the lumbering industry, plans should now be developing for construction and expansion five and six years from now but, because of uncertainty, there are no more long-range plans. What will happen, Mr. Speaker? There will be shortage in five or six years. That shortage will again lead to inflation, more inflation, and who will pay, Mr. Speaker, who will pay? The people of this province will pay, the very people for whom this great socialist government purports to work so hard.

Their policies are very, very, very short-sighted, Mr. Speaker.

You have created a false impression of profit from your state-controlled forest industry, because any industry in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that will pay lower and lower taxes, lower stumpage fees, lower hydro costs, lower insurance costs and have their research done for them by the government, should be able to show a profit. And if the profit that is going to come from the lumber industry is going to replace the taxes on land, I would like to take a very close look at what happens. How is this government going to set an example when in settling disputes it is both the employer and the mediator?

Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't have the business sense to run these big businesses. Your recent candidate in the South Okanagan by-election was quoted as saying that he "wouldn't get any votes from those bastards," referring to the members of the chamber of commerce who were basically businessmen, and I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if this is the disdain that the whole socialist party feels for business. He was a paid party organizer. Does he voice the feelings of the whole socialist party?

And he went on to ask, Mr. Speaker, and I am bringing this up because it is very important, whether businessmen have the sole right to politics? Just exactly what did he say? Oh, "should they have the inside track on politics?" This started me thinking and I thought: let's see if businessmen do have the inside track on politics.

I went back and I did some research on those members who ran for the NDP in the last election and I found approximately five people who could be classified as businessmen. There were two farmers, one chartered accountant, four lawyers, three housewives — who always display a great amount of common sense — four social workers, quite a few paid organizers and quite a few labour organizers.

We don't have too many businessmen in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker. And what is government but business? It's the people's business and it's the biggest business in the land; and no one is going to tell me that you don't need business experience to run the biggest business in the land.

So maybe this is the policy of the NDP government: disdain for the business community, disdain for the businessman and disdain for the small business people who are in essence the backbone of this country.

What about the record of some of the other departments with regard to inflation, Mr. Speaker, and with regard to policies for people? What have we done in the field of education? — and I am glad to see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is in her seat. We have appointed numerous inquiry boards, which is fine. We took out the strap from the school, did away with that authority. We have allowed kids

[ Page 90 ]

to smoke in school and we closed down Willingdon School for Girls.

We had a very disturbing happening in our riding this summer, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to be the judge as to why this happened. We had two young girls who had previously spent some time at Willingdon School for Girls and they took it upon themselves to burn down one of our schools. Another young fellow, who is a product of our education system, a product of a school-without-a-strap, burned down another school.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says this has nothing to do with it. If these girls had been in Willingdon School for Girls or in some other programme that had been thought out before the school was arbitrarily closed by our Premier… You be the judge. Maybe it wouldn't have happened.

Those girls right now, Mr. Speaker, are in our community now threatening to burn down another school. It's no laughing matter. It's a very serious offence. The people of our riding are quite upset about it, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier wanted to close down Willingdon School, why was some other policy or programme not developed prior to that to look after these girls who were taken out of the school? And don't tell me that putting them in foster homes and leaving them in the hands of Social Welfare people is working because it isn't working. It isn't working.

Social Welfare people are human resource people; everywhere in the province they are trying to come up with new programmes, something that will look after these people. I don't consider that to be the greatest policy for people, Mr. Speaker, to rush headlong down the road without giving proper thought and without having proper consultation when before this government became government all they could talk about is "Oh, before we do anything, we'll consult. We'll consult."

The Mincome programme which this government so proudly talks about — they boast about it. What about it? It was only $200 when it was introduced; it should have been $225. And the federal government increase last year of $17.12, this government put that money in their back pocket. Now they are going to increase it to $209, which is woefully short. And why is it woefully short, Mr. Speaker? Because this government has contributed so much to inflation and while they tell the elderly people of this province that they are doing so much for them. They're in essence doing nothing for them, because of inflation.

This Mincome, Mr. Speaker, regardless of how many times the Premier tries to explain it away on a Jack Webster show, still requires a means test. Anybody who has any assets other than their home is naturally going to be receiving some income from those assets unless they've got it buried in a tin can in the backyard. Maybe that is what this government is going to force people to do so that that money can also be eroded away by inflation. The Premier encourages the elderly people of this province to spend what they have, to take away any security these people might have by some little nest egg they have saved up. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that he wants them to spend it because he knows that it will be eroded away by inflation at any time.

I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that our Premier and the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) finds it necessary to go around the province trying to reassure the businessman that everything is going to be all right, trying to smooth the waters. They know that uncertainty exists, Mr. Speaker, and they know that they've created this uncertainty. But I wonder if while they're trying to soothe the businessmen of this province to sleep, they intend to come around later while the baby sleeps and steal the rattle.

Mr. Speaker, the business community in British Columbia is very perturbed because maybe private enterprise in British Columbia is doomed as we continue to rush towards a socialist state. This is not a social democracy similar to Sweden where 90 per cent of business is in private hands; this is a pure socialist state where this government intends to own all the business or at least be partners in most of it. This government that we have in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, makes Tommy Douglas seem like a piker when he went in and started buying out businesses and running the business of Saskatchewan.

No, Mr. Speaker, this great province of ours is slipping from a bastion of individual enterprise and private initiative. The Premier of our province is tipping the scales away from private enterprise and personal incentive to government control by his ruthless, unwarranted interference into personal, corporate and daily lives. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province will take time to be aware of what is happening.

The legislative programme passed in the spring session of this Legislature has brought about this uncertainty — and uncertainty is the arch enemy of investment. Confidence of the mining investors has been shaken and what happened? The cash goes elsewhere. During a year when mineral prices were at an all-time high there was a 30 per cent drop in mining exploration.

The Premier explains this away by saying that this is strictly capitalist hogwash. When will the Premier come to grips with the problem that he has created? When will he realize, Mr. Speaker, what he is doing to business in this province? A 30 per cent reduction in

[ Page 91 ]

British Columbia, while in the Yukon and the North West Territories there was nearly a 100 per cent increase.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, uncertainty is certainly the arch enemy of investment. The last land sale by the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources was just over $3 million — 50 per cent reduction from last year's figure of over $7 million. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I stood in this Legislature in the spring session and predicted this would happen. I told you, Mr. Speaker, that the August sale of petroleum rights and lands in this province would be practically 100 per cent less than it was last year. And that happened. It happened because of the uncertainty that this government has created.

The Premier, just yesterday in the House, talked about the shortage of natural gas that we could have this winter. The shortage of natural gas in this province will be due to the policies of this socialist government.

The attitude of this government towards the petroleum industry has created uncertainty. Exploration and the money necessary for exploration has gone elsewhere. The petroleum industry realizes by past policies that this government cannot be relied on, so they stopped exploring for new fields.

The dogmatic attitude of the socialist government has created this problem. Both the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) and myself tried at great length to point out to the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) what he was doing to this province. Is this another one of the great policies for people, Mr. Speaker? Starve them out of their own resources; let them go undiscovered; create unofficial shortages so that you can shove up the price and create more inflation, more unemployment. Is that a policy for people? Is that the policy of this socialist government?

The Attorney General tried to make big political hay out of "B.C. gas first for British Columbians." So far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, that's just a bunch of big political buffoonery, a fraud comedy that should be exposed. This gas shortage is a serious business.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): You don't seem to be short of it.

MR. PHILLIPS: This government again yesterday showed its disdain and disregard for existing contracts. I'm beginning to believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is the inherent policy of this Marxist socialist government: complete disregard for contracts.

This government again yesterday showed its arrogance and its disrespect. You make a big deal about cooperating with your neighbours. You go down to Washington in the big government limousine and make big fellows of yourselves. Then you turn around and say — and this is almost exactly what you said yesterday — and I'll use the words of Rex Harrison, "Let the hellcats freeze." That's what you said when you explained your gas policy yesterday afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. Let those people south of the border freeze; the existing contracts don't matter. Typical of the way that you treat contracts with disdain: the PNE existing contracts, the Energy Act, the Mediation Commission, leaseholds — all part of the inherent policy of this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few more words on the waste and extravagance of this government, how it contributes to inflation, and how, as I said before, inflation contributes to the eroding away of the future of the youth of British Columbia.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, last session rushed through the Development Corporation of British Columbia Act, and he said that this Act was needed immediately so that we could get several projects underway. And yet the British Columbia development Act has not even yet appointed its directors. I wonder why, Mr. Speaker, there was so much urgency. When we tried to bring in an amendment that would have set this legislation over till fall so that all of us could have a better look at it, the Premier says, "You don't want anything in your riding; you're against the bill." But, Mr. Speaker, nothing has been done with the British Columbia Development Corporation. I cannot think of one single investment or of one single enterprise that this Development Corporation has helped. So we have to wonder: why the big rush to get it through the Legislature?

It seems to be generally felt throughout British Columbia that the high level of new investment in British Columbia will not be continued. And yet the Premier seems to take a great deal of joy, Mr. Speaker, in going around the province saying, "Business is great; we've received more tax dollars this year than last year."

I wonder if the Premier really stops to analyse just exactly what happened in British Columbia this year. Does he realize that it is mainly the forest industry and the high price of lumber that is contributing the greatest amount of taxes to the province this year? Does he realize that this could be short-lived? Does he realize that mining money is going elsewhere and new mines which could and would be brought under production will not be brought under production three or four years from now because of no plans being made, because of no exploration? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier really stops and thinks before he makes some of his absurd, unbusinesslike statements. And it bothers me, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province, the ordinary people of this province, might be believing exactly what the Premier is saying.

[ Page 92 ]

But there is uncertainty. Why were the parity bonds returned, Mr. Speaker? That in itself created uncertainty. The way in which the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act was brought in created uncertainty. No regard, Mr. Speaker, for existing contracts created uncertainty. The way, Mr. Speaker, that lumber industries in this province were purchased creates uncertainties. Bill 42 created uncertainties. Bill 153 created uncertainties.

The plans by this socialist government to enter all phases of business as partners or competitors causes uncertainty. The plans of this government to set up a provincial television works causes uncertainty. The statements by this government that they will nationalize pipelines create uncertainty. The plans of this government to set up their own oil refinery create uncertainty. The plans of this government to take over mining industries in the province create uncertainty.

Legislation passed to give municipal governments the right to undertake business ventures creates uncertainties. Some socialist-minded civic government could take the whole of this legislation and create havoc in a given community.

No, Mr. Speaker, what we need in this government is more business experience, or at least a showing on the part of the government that they will listen to someone who has business experience.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just for a moment, in closing, on my own constituency. It's unfortunate that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is not in the House, but I asked during the spring session for some action to be taken to build a road into the Monkman Pass area so that the Province of British Columbia would reap the benefits of some of the development that is going to take place in that area. But this government, Mr. Speaker, that had all the answers before they became government, this government that knew everything, this government that was going to do everything, has done nothing.

In that area just recently, and I'm sure the Premier must know about this, a new coal deal was signed which involves about 47,000 acres — coal equivalent in quality to that in the coalition deal and a coal deal that could be larger than the coalition deal. There was another $13 million deal made for gas in the area which, if properly developed, could alleviate some of the shortage. But that area, Mr. Speaker, remains accessible mainly through the Province of Alberta; the development that takes place in that area will benefit mainly the Province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to discuss agriculture to any great length because I will be discussing agriculture when the new agriculture legislation is brought in, but I do want to remind the House of some statements I made in this Legislature on February 22 regarding agriculture. I laid out, Mr. Speaker, a few points which I hope the government will see fit to bring into legislation, and I just want to remind the House of some of those points. This was the Socred stand on agriculture and I'll just outline them for the House, Mr. Speaker: the farmer should be helped to stay on the farm by giving him a guaranteed annual income; I ask, Mr. Speaker, for low-interest or no-interest loans to help either directly with the farm or to help farming industries; I ask to have land taxes taken off agricultural land; I ask, Mr. Speaker, that more services to farmers in the way of veterinary services, better weed inspection, more personnel, be given to the agricultural community. And I hope that some of these points, Mr. Speaker, will form part of the new agricultural policy which this government is going to bring in.

I hope that soon, Mr. Speaker, it will realize the benefits that the Peace River area gives to the rest of the province, that it will recognize where the area is, and take some immediate steps to alleviate the economic doldrums that that area is in at the present time — economic doldrums, Mr. Speaker, caused mainly by the policies of this government.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one more plea to the government to look closely at its policies, not only for what they will do today but for what they will do to the future of this province and, if possible, to set an example to the rest of our country that will lead in curbing, what I have said before, is our number one enemy, inflation.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, since the previous speaker has already entered the leadership contest, at least in terms of making comments on it and seemingly campaigning on behalf of one of the MLAs, I thought it might be worthwhile to offer some of my comments before I start in on my main speech.

While I was sitting here waiting for my opportunity to speak, I was looking at the order paper and I was amazed at the number of questions that have already been asked after only four or five days in session. I believe 98 questions are already on the order paper and about 10 bills or so, or a little more than 10 bills.

Now, if assigning one point for a question and two points for a bill, I've determined where all of our potential leadership contenders stand in regard to asking questions or to putting bills on the order paper and this is the result: In first place, with 25 points is Mr. Fraser. Now, unfortunately, Mr. Fraser hasn't declared himself yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member refer to Members by constituency.

MR. DENT: I'm sorry. The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. SPEAKER: No advertising, I mean.

[ Page 93 ]

MR. DENT: In second position is the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) with 20 points. He is a declared candidate, so of the declared candidates, he would appear to be the front runner. In third place, the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) with 15 points; and inasmuch as the lady Member for that constituency has not yet declared herself, she is not actually yet in the running. In fourth position is the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) with 12 points — and I might point out that the fourth Member is declared. In fifth position, undeclared, is the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) with 11 points. In sixth position is the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) with 9 points. In seventh position is the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), my first choice, with 6 points — I'm going to have to talk to him. Tied for eighth position are the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Smith) and the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), each with 4 points.

I want to congratulate those who are leading the group on this statistical return at the moment. Mind you, there are other considerations as well. But I just thought, since the previous speaker had sort of entered upon this discussion, that I would follow up as well.

Mr. Speaker, Skeena constituency, which I have the pleasure to represent, is the keystone constituency in the whole current development programme taking place in northern British Columbia. Skeena constituency has felt the positive impact of the present NDP government more than any other constituency in British Columbia. In order to dramatize this impact on Skeena, I will outline in some detail various ways in which the New Democratic Party government of this province has made such a remarkable impact on Skeena.

First, I would just like to give you a few facts about our riding. There are four main centres: Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers and Hazelton. Other polls include a good number of Indian reserves. The total number of voters was about 18,000 in the recent election and, therefore, I would calculate that the population of the constituency is in excess of 50,000; I think it's probably higher than that. About one-third of the population would be in the Terrace area, about one-third in Kitimat and then the rest spread out over the rest of the riding.

The main highway running through the riding is Highway 16, running east to west from Prince George to Prince Rupert. It runs along the Bulkley Valley, first in the eastern part of the riding and then along the Skeena River.

Now, in order to consider the positive impact that the government has had on this constituency and on the centres in the riding, on the various parts of the riding, I'll start first by just mentioning what might not be otherwise an important thing, but I think it's important.

I'm beginning with the Attorney General's department and the appointment of a new judge in Terrace. I wish this new judge, who has just recently been appointed by the Attorney General's department, every success as he now takes upon himself this very important task in Terrace. The administration of justice is, without a doubt, one of the most demanding, exacting jobs that any person can have and I think we would wish success to all of the magistrates, all of the judges throughout the province in this kind of work. But it's part of the impact of the government on our constituency.

Similarly, this has been the centennial of the founding of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Again, this is part of the responsibility of the Attorney General's department and it has an impact in our riding. I'm very pleased with the work that the RCMP have done in the Skeena constituency. They have a very difficult task because there are many people coming and going in the riding. There's a fair amount of turnover, especially in certain industrial jobs and so on, and it's a difficult task to sort of relate to the people on a continuing basis. I think that they've done a first-rate job.

However, I would ask the Attorney General, as I have asked before, that there be an increase in probation services, especially for young people, first offenders. I think, when it comes to the administration of justice, that every effort that can be made to assist a young person before he gets started on a career of crime is a benefit, not only to that young person but to the whole of society; it's money well spent. Again, as I said, I would request that there be an increase in probation services, especially for young offenders.

Education. Since October 1, 1972, the Department of Education has approved $2,350,835 under section 190 of the Public Schools Act for school building in School Districts 88, Skeena-Cassiar; 80, Kitimat; and 54, Smithers. This includes a new junior secondary in Thornhill, just across the river from Terrace, additions and renovations to Mt. Elizabeth Secondary School in Kitimat and minor additions to other schools, including three gym additions to elementary schools in Terrace. The construction of most of the projects included in the above total is still underway.

Now I wonder whether this would have happened under the previous government, whether this construction would now be underway had the other government, that was in power until last August, remained in power.

When our government came to power, they set upon a policy of deliberately ensuring that there are adequate school facilities and other kinds of facilities available to the people of the province. This is just a

[ Page 94 ]

concrete example of the attitude of the government in this kind of situation.

But there are little things that are important. For example, it gets very cold in some parts of our riding and the previous regulations made it impossible to transport even young children to school if they had to walk a certain distance — even if it was 20 or 30 below zero. However, on the initiative of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), there was money provided for extra busing to ensure that children would not have to walk in sub-zero weather, even for a relatively short distance to school. This is just a little thing, but it shows the kind of concern that the Minister of Education has for the people and for the problems that they face.

[Mr. Fraser in the chair]

Health Services. We have four hospitals in Skeena constituency: in Smithers, Hazelton, Terrace and Kitimat. There is presently under construction an expansion and renovation to the Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers, costing $2,345,000. This work is presently underway. In Hazelton, Terrace and Kitimat bylaws have been approved for expansion work to those three hospitals and is expected to get started next year. In Hazelton there will be a new hospital costing $2,100,000; in Terrace it will be an addition to provide 15 acute-care beds and 15 psychiatric beds, costing $2 million; in Kitimat it is to complete some unfinished areas for some 35 extended care beds and diagnostic equipment and the amount will be approximately $527,000. All four hospitals in my constituency are having the work done that they need to have done, and again this is the concrete dramatization of the difference between the previous government and our government. This is in my constituency. These are the people whom I see every day. They are going to have the kind of hospital facilities that they require. But again, there are the little things. These are just projects, and projects don't mean too much in human terms.

But there are a number of little things that have happened, too. In the Skeena View Hospital, which is a mental health facility, an extension of Riverview designed for elderly men, they have just added or are in the process of adding ten new staff. Eight of this new staff have just arrived. The Minister visited the riding early in July. He saw the need and the request was made — the order was given, if you like — and the increase in staff was forthcoming.

There is a little tie-up at the moment in the civil service for the last two, but this is not the fault of the Minister and it is expected to be cleared up shortly.

Also, the clothing allowance for…

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does the Hon. Speaker have a copy of the standing orders of the House before him?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not before me.

MR. SMITH: You have them there, though, Sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think you have a point of order, Mr. Member. Carry on.

MR. DENT: Right. I needed a breath anyway. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. DENT: Those men who are in the Skeena View Mental Health facility now receive $120 each for clothing allowance. This again is a new thing introduced by the present government. It may seem like a little thing, but it is really a very important thing and a very human thing to those men who are there and to other people in other mental health institutions through the province. It's a further thing that I think is, again, one of the things that isn't noticed — there's not much news about it — but it gives an idea of our style of government and how we operate.

A letter was sent to me by a Mrs. Constance Holly, who is a coordinator of a task force consisting of personnel from the Health Department, from BCHIS, from Human Resources and, at one point, someone from the Attorney General's department — from probation services. This task force invited me to meet with them when they were in Smithers in order to get an understanding of what they were doing in that part of the country.

Now they were on their way through the riding, actually to Houston; but since many of the services for Houston originate in Skeena, they asked me if I wouldn't mind participating with them. This task force was very well selected. The personnel that were in this group were very personable people and very conscientious and extremely sincere in their efforts to improve health care and human care, generally, in the north.

The very fact that there were two departments — and at one point, three — working together and cooperating together to solve human problems made a tremendous impression on people with whom they came in contact. Here was a group of people with no prejudices about…. They weren't trying to build empires for themselves or anything. They were concerned people anxious to see that the people in these communities, and especially at Houston, received good health care.

Again, it illustrates the human approach of our present government, and of their impact in my constituency.

[ Page 95 ]

At this particular point I am going to mention the students' summer employment programme because this was mainly under the direction of the Minister of Health as well. This programme went over very well in our riding. There were a number of young people employed by the various government departments and also in the hospitals in the constituency. The whole project met with nothing but approval and praise from the people in the area. These young people were gainfully employed and gained a great experience while working in these institutions for the government departments, and I trust that this programme will be repeated again next year.

I think that this programme had a great deal to do with the fact that you heard very little about student unrest or youth unrest during this past summer. Our government showed a positive interest in young people of high school age and above in my constituency.

Human Resources. We have an institution in Smithers known as the Northern Training Centre. Now the Northern Training Centre is a facility for mentally-retarded young adults mainly; maybe some of you did not know of its existence. This institution was undergoing considerable problems up to the time that our government came to power and in the early months after we had come to power.

But again, the Department of Human Resources, in particular the Minister of Human Resources, gave this a great deal of his personal attention. And it took a lot of thinking about the right way to solve it; it was not done quickly or hastily or by any autocratic or dictatorial methods. It was done in consultation with the people in Smithers — I was involved in those consultations — and it was done in consultation with the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded.

The solution that was finally arrived at was one that was completely acceptable to all people involved: it was to have the institution administered by a board appointed by an organization known as the Smithers Community Resources Committee. The community, the people in the community, are now the ones who have the responsibility for this institution, and they are taking a tremendous personal and human interest in the way it is run and in the young people that are in this institution.

Again, it is not the kind of thing that makes the headlines — like tunnels and things like that — but it is the kind of thing that shows the kind of government that we are and the kind of interest that, in particular, the Department of Human Resources is showing.

I would like to personally, at this point, say that I believe that the young — and most of them are young — social workers that are working in my constituency are some of the finest young people that I have ever met, and are dedicated and conscientious in doing their job. In the Smithers area in particular they showed a great interest in this whole thing, and worked this thing through on a very human basis. I was proud that we were able to be part of that operation.

I could mention Mincome under Human Resources because, after all, we have a fair number of old-age pensioners, of people that are over 60, who will now benefit from this programme. But since it is something that affects the whole of the province I am not going to dwell on it, other than to say that the older people are genuinely grateful that they can enjoy at least a little more of a decent living than they had before, and that's something.

Indian Affairs. A number of things have happened over the past year that have affected people of the native population in my constituency. For example, they are now able to benefit from the Home Acquisition Grant, and that was an action of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and of the government.

There is a particular project that is of great interest to people especially in two of the native villages in my constituency — Hartley Bay and Kitimat Village: that is the projected cannery to be operated by the North Coast Indian Co-op which we hope will be finalized in the near future. The manager, the chairman of the board for this co-op, is from Hartley Bay in my constituency, and one of the chief directors is from Kitimat Village. They are taking a very strong personal interest in this whole operation.

Also, I have faith that the native Indian people will soon benefit more from provincial services such as improved roads and so on to native villages. There are a couple in particular that I have been asking for attention to, and I have been assured by the Highways Minister that consideration would be given. The two in particular are Fort Babine — which is remote and was cut off on the ground all of last winter, and was supplied by air during that period — and the road from the City of Kitimat to Kitimat Village. I am very confident that the Highways Minister will take some action on these two matters.

Highways Department. I might point out before I move on to Highways that I was very impressed with the speech of the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) yesterday. She certainly has shown, I think, a good understanding of the most important facet of native-non-native relationships — and that is the cultural gap, the cultural barrier.

I was the co-chairman of the Integration Council in the Cariboo for two years, and we addressed ourselves to that very thing — the cultural alienation. Really, the long-term solution is the building of many bridges between the two groups — so many bridges, in fact, that there doesn't even appear to be a bridge any more. I think that's happening through groups like the B.C. Association of Non-Status Indians, the

[ Page 96 ]

Union of B.C. Chiefs and many other organizations — the friendship centres, and so on. There's very rapid growth in crossing this cultural barrier, and I hope that there won't be too many years go by before there isn't any more cultural barrier between us. But there will be the respect, nevertheless, for cultural values and traditions.

Highways. We have been very fortunate in Skeena; not only have we had a considerable amount of money spent on school facilities and hospital facilities, but we have also had a considerable amount of money spent on highway construction. The one thing that really makes me happy about the highway work that is going on in the riding is that it is not tied to politics any more. If the work needs to be done it is being done. At least, I have a couple of things that I want to get done; but the work that is being done isn't sort of being hampered or slowed or interfered with for political reasons.

The bridge across the Skeena River at Terrace is now under construction and it appears that it will be in soon. The steel work will begin in March. I might point out that this bridge was promised by the previous government every election for the last 20 years, and now the bridge is under construction. I might point out that I think credit should be given where it is due.

AN HON. MEMBER: Build a tunnel.

MR. DENT: I think that credit should be given where it is due, and that is that the former Member for Skeena constituency, Dudley Little, worked very, very hard for that bridge and I am just sorry that he did not live to see the day when it would be completed. But I think the credit should be given to him for that bridge.

We have 10 bridge projects either under construction or projected shortly. Six of them are now under construction, and they are in the section from Terrace west, to connect with some work that was coming from Rupert. Also, a number of highway projects are under construction. It is very difficult terrain and they are very costly projects; however, it is going forward. The total amount of contracts is in excess, I would say, of $9 million either under way or about to be under way.

Now, again there is the human thing and I think that this is the really important thing. The Minister of Highways came into my constituency and we flew over the area in a helicopter and looked at some of the projects that were under way. Then we met in a hotel room set apart so that people could come and make appointments. A number of people came in and they were really impressed with the fact that they could come in and they could present their problem to the Highways Minister and to the chief engineer, who was with him, and to the Deputy Minister of Highways. They felt this was really something, that they had access and that they could discuss their problem freely with him.

MR. CHABOT: Well.

MR. DENT: I might point out that the Hon. Minister of Highways showed a good understanding, a real understanding of the needs of Skeena. Of course, he is from the neighbouring riding of Prince Rupert and therefore has a little better knowledge, but we were very pleased with his trip through the riding.

Municipal affairs. Again we had a visit from the Minister of Municipal Affairs who came into the riding to look at some of the problems firsthand. I am not going to comment any further than that except to say that, like the Minister of Highways and like the other Ministers who came in, he took a personal interest in the kinds of problems that we were facing and has therefore a much better understanding than might have otherwise been the case.

MR. CHABOT: Well, well.

MR. DENT: But I would make a plea, and I am sure that the person who is presently occupying the Speaker's chair, the Hon. Member for Cariboo, would agree with me and other Members of this House would agree that it is time for a more equitable distribution of provincial funds to the municipalities. They have been living under a very bad formula for a long time, and the district of Terrace in particular is having great difficulties, great difficulties, as a result of the fact that they are in such a poor financial position because of the present financing formula.

I just want to give you an example of how it works out. Because of the fact that they have such a poor financial position resulting from a low asset tax base and a high cost of putting in services, they have not been able to take action on a road which is considered a secondary road passing through the municipality and connecting with a road we call the East Kalem road. This is a logging road coming in from one of Colcel's operations and has a number of houses along the road as well. They have not been able to pave it simply because they can't raise enough money to pave it. Now it is a 50-50 deal — if the municipality puts up 50 per cent, then the provincial government will put up the other 50 per cent. That may seem like a very good formula, a very good deal, but the fact is that with all the demands upon them they simply cannot raise the money to pave that section of road.

Now the Department of Highways had indicated that when the time came, when the municipality decided that this piece of road should be paved, they would go ahead and pave additional miles of the same road outside the municipality — the so-called East

[ Page 97 ]

Kalem Road or Kalem Road. So that project has been held up because of the lack of money that the district of Terrace has. Now there is tremendous traffic on this road, and it is building up steadily. In fact, people have told me that it is the most heavily travelled road in the whole of the Skeena constituency, other than the main highway, but it is very dusty. Even if you oil it, the oil doesn't do any good for long because of the heavy logging trucks. They soon break the road up when it rains and so on, and pretty soon you are back to a very dusty situation.

There was an article appeared in the paper just a short time ago which illustrates the problem. The headline was "Petition started over boy's death."

A boy of about 11 was walking home, he was sort of half-carrying his bicycle, which was broken, and he was struck by a vehicle and killed because the driver couldn't see him for the dust. Now, this is not the fault of the Department of Highways, or the fault of the municipality, or the fault of anyone. It is a fault, in my judgment, of the fact that action could be taken in a heavily crowded situation like that if the district municipality had a better deal financially. It actually comes down to that, because then they could go ahead with their 50 per cent, or they could put up the needed money, and the road could be paved at least out through where the houses are. Visibility would be greatly improved, and so on.

But again, it is this human concern. I understand from the Minister that they now are making provision for consideration of safety on the highways of British Columbia in a more formal manner. In my opinion, this is long overdue, long overdue. One of the highest priorities in highway and road construction should be safety.

In Skeena constituency, we have some very dangerous pieces of road. The highway itself follows the Skeena river for some distance, and many cars have gone off the road into the Skeena River and people have been drowned. Just a few months ago, two small children were drowned when the car their mother was driving left the highway. A guardrail is needed along the highway.

It seems to me that before more money is spent in the lower mainland repaving and repaving streets that have been paved over so many times they have six or seven feet of pavement on them. I think by now we need some safety engineering done in our constituency to protect people's lives, such as building a guardrail along that road or else, in some other way, providing for a safer highway. Similarly with back roads; I have two roads where they are actually grading the rock, the bare rock. There is no gravel on the roads, and this is common throughout the province. Now this makes for dangerous highways because there are large rocks sticking up and people turn suddenly to miss some of these rocks, especially when they come suddenly over a little hill. Again, the person occupying the Speaker's chair is well familiar with that problem in his riding, and also Kamloops — in fact, throughout the province.

People on the lower mainland have no idea of the dangerous conditions under which many people in the country have to drive. I believe that if there is now going to be an engineer responsible for safety in the Highways department, he should immediately press the government to establish safer roads and highways as a priority. This would itself get a lot more work done in our constituencies in the country.

One of the things that is happening that I would like to press for, or about to happen, is that they are soon going to be building a highway connecting Highway 16 to Stewart to connect up with the Stewart-Cassiar highway. It is imminent. In fact, it is my understanding that the Highways department has selected the Kitwanga Valley as the route for this highway, and a bridge is projected to be built across the Skeena River at Kitwanga.

I just want to mention the fact, too, that I had my first protest meeting in the riding a couple of days ago — the night before last — and it was the people of Hazelton, three communities, and Mr. Cyril Shelford was there. Basically, what the meeting was about was that they wanted to have the Highways department locate the highway up the Kispiox Valley. I have asked the department for information on why they decided this route rather than that one. No doubt we will resolve that hassle, and certainly the people of Hazelton are angry, the people of Hazelton have a right to be heard.

MR. CHABOT: 160 of them — the whole town.

MR. DENT: What I am concerned about is this: the decision is going to have to be made quickly, and I would strongly urge that it be a first-class highway immediately, and the reason is this. There is bumper-to-bumper traffic on the old Kitwanga road, especially on the long weekends, trying to get through to Stewart, and the road is not built for this. It is an old twisting logging road and is not designed for heavy public traffic at all.

If the Department of Highways simply follow the idea of maybe improving the road by putting a little gravel on and taking a couple of turns out here or turns out there, that is not going to help at all. We need a first-class highway through there now, immediately. As I said, the location will have to be determined, a decision made quickly, and then the work started, not on an improved road, but rather on a first-class highway.

MR. CHABOT: I notice that the Minister's not present.

[ Page 98 ]

MR. DENT: Recreation and conservation. Again the government has taken action in regard to my part of the country, in Skeena riding; the conservation staff, Fish and Wildlife staff, has been doubled in the last year with a regional protection officer, a regional fisheries biologist, a regional supervisor and another conservation officer to add to the present staff of three conservation officers. It's still not enough. It's a good start, but it's still not enough.

The previous government completely starved the Fish and Wildlife and Conservation departments in the past. The result is there is a depletion of fish and game in the north; all kinds of abuses were taking place simply because there were no people to properly protect the area and provide the proper supervision for the area.

I get all kinds of requests asking for more conservation staff to ensure that a proper job is done in this department. The men working in the field are doing a first-rate job under difficult conditions, often having to travel over large wilderness areas, under very primitive conditions, sometimes flying in bad weather and so on, and more staff are needed.

One of the things that's going to stabilize the work force and the whole population of the north is better recreational facilities. I'm happy to say that again the government has moved decisively in this area. As far as Skeena is concerned, we received for the district of Terrace a grant of $180,000 from the recreational facilities fund to assist in the construction of a new swimming pool, which is now under construction. In Thornhill, across the river, we have a very active community group that have been literally building a community hall with their bare hands with the money they could raise themselves. They receive a grant of $31,000 and they're happy about this because finally they can put the roof on and maybe start using it before the snow flies. Again, the government has come and assisted them in this project.

In Hazelton, the Skeena ice arena — they call it the Skeena ice arena in Hazelton — received a grant of $30,000. They're a very conscientious, hardworking group of people who have put forward a great deal of voluntary labour and donated materials to try to get this facility finished, and again the government was able to assist them to the amount of $30,000. So the impact by this department is obvious.

Public Works. We had a visit this summer by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), who spent a day or two of his holidays in my constituency. I wouldn't really call them holidays because he spent his time going around looking at public works, buildings, and so on in the constituency.

AN HON. MEMBER: In government aircraft.

MR. DENT: No, he didn't. He came up on the Queen of Prince Rupert and travelled by car through the riding — his own car too, I might point out. He caught some fish, I also might add, while he was in the constituency.

We have a new building under construction in Smithers, costing $1.7 million, which will house all of the government services for the region. This building is slated for completion in November. It was started under the previous government and is due soon to be occupied by the government services.

I just want to relate something about the Public Works Minister while he was in the riding. While he was looking around at some of the buildings, personnel at the Skeena View Hospital — because the Skeena View Hospital is a building that is owned by the Public Works Department — pointed out to him that the boiler was not adequate for the winter. He said, "Okay," and he sent some notes down, and they are now installing a new boiler, I discovered today…

MR. CHABOT: Did he buy the hotel up there?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. DENT:…be sure that there is adequate hot water for this facility during this coming winter. And again, it's these little things, the attention to these little details that makes the difference to so many people.

Housing. The Minister for housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is presently involved in negotiations with three of the municipalities to my knowledge, Terrace, Kitimat, and Smithers. They have purchased property in Smithers and are presently negotiating with the town of Smithers in order to develop some of this property for housing.

In Terrace a request has been made by the district of Terrace for senior citizens' housing and negotiations are presently under way with the provincial government for suitable property.

In Kitimat, we're hopeful that Alcan will part with some of the property that it owns and that this will be made available to the provincial government so that in cooperation with the City of Kitimat, at the request of the Kitimat mayor, some housing developments can take place there as well. So again, we are receiving active concern by the new Minister of housing and by his staff.

Railways. The project superintendent has bought a house in Terrace for the CNR. There will shortly be moving into Terrace surveyors and draughtsmen, and they will be going to work on the new rail link connecting Terrace to the B.C. Rail line at Groundhog. That's action! That's a tangible proof that our government is able to get things done. They've been talking about this rail line in that part of the country for 50 years and now it's happening;

[ Page 99 ]

it's actually happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who started it?

MR. DENT: We did. (Laughter.) In a cooperative relationship with the federal government, this project is now underway and is going to have a great impact on the whole of the development of the northwest.

There are five phases to the programme that the government is involved in; the rail programme is only one of them. There are other parts to the programme as well. There was the acquisition of Can-Cel, or Colcel. I would like to quote the words of Frank Howard in saying that the action of the government in taking over Colcel, in acquiring Colcel, stopped the area from becoming a depressed area, a seriously depressed area, even a "ghost town" in the words of Frank Howard; Terrace could very well have become a ghost town if it had not been for the action of the government in that transaction.

Colcel is now operating very vigorously. According to recent reports, they have shown a profit of some $4 million and are now beginning to grapple with the many problems where attention was not given by the previous board of directors.

Now I would say that the Minister has picked some very good people to be on the board of directors for Colcel. However, I would request that action be taken to get some of the local trade unions involved on the board of directors, someone who is a member of the trade unions and who lives in the area and who works in the area and understands the problems. All of the board of directors, however confident they may be in management, do not live in that area, and we need one person, at least, on the board of directors who lives there. We would even settle for somebody who lives in Castlegar.

This rail line will open up tremendous industrial development, tremendous mining development. A little to the north of my constituency, in Atlin riding in the district of Stikine, is the largest copper deposit in North America. This copper deposit will not be able to be exploited through Canadian ports and through Canadian rail lines. I would add a warning that I added in my speech last year — that there are some very active chambers of commerce in the American ports, notably in Wrango, who would like those ports to be used as exit ports for B.C. natural resources. I'm happy to say that the present governments of British Columbia and Canada are resisting every overture from that direction and that they will be insisting that the raw materials from these mines and from that area go down Canadian rail lines to Canadian ports and be processed by secondary industry in B.C. We're hopeful that in the not-too-distant future a copper smelter will be established at Kitimat, so that both primary and secondary processing can take place in that region.

Labour. I was interested in the words of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in regard to labour, and I find it unbelievable in this day and age that somebody would still have that attitude. Similarly with the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I thought the Member for Chilliwack was a student of the Bible and had some understanding of basic human principles. A great part of the trade union movement, I might point out, was originated in the Methodist movement, which is a Christian religious movement, and the whole idea of the trade union movement was to try to get better working conditions and better pay for people who were producing the goods and services that we enjoy in our high standard of living.

Now for 20 years, our labour force has been remarkably patient. They have had to endure an attitude which borders on Fascism at times. Now, I didn't say that it was Fascist or intended to be Fascist; it's nothing of the kind. I'm saying that it was bordering on it, and I want to describe to you how it works.

Now, in our society we live in a free country. All of us are human beings who, under God, are born free and equal. At least that's my understanding. It's quite all right from some people's point of view for a group of individuals to band together and form a business. They don't even give each other a full vote; they base it on the number of shares they own. They do, at least, recognize the right to do this, and it's been recognized for some time.

We have professional organizations that have the right to organize: doctors have been organized for centuries; lawyers have been organized for centuries; the tradesmen have been organized for many hundreds of years. Suddenly, the last people to be able to get organized — or more recently — are the industrial workers, the most exploited people in society. If they decide to speak up on their own behalf, they're looked upon as if to say, "Why don't you shut up? Why don't you keep quiet? You're not supposed to have the same rights as the rest of us."

I'm very confident that the new legislation that we're going to introduce in this session will mark, you might say, the emancipation in many ways of the industrial workers of British Columbia. It will be something equivalent to the emancipation of the workers in British Columbia so that they will be finally recognized as having the same rights as the businessman has, or a doctor has, or anyone else — even clergymen for that matter.

Certainly in my constituency they are looking forward to this legislation with great interest. I'm very proud of the fact that most of the men, most of the women, most of the people who support me in my constituency are the working people of the constituency.

[ Page 100 ]

I don't say business people aren't working people. Certainly they are; certainly they put forward a great effort. But they should also recognize the fact that the people who work with their hands and people who do the clerical work are also workers and entitled to their share of the goods and services that are produced, to be treated with courtesy and respect in our economy and our society.

Finally, I would like to conclude with just two more things. One is agriculture. We also had the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) in our constituency. Again, there was that personal thing where he got around and talked to as many people as he could personally and looked at the problems. We don't have a very big agricultural sector in Skeena, but there he was, looking into it, finding out what it was all about, taking notes, talking to the cattlemen, talking to the ranchers, discovering their problems. They're much more confident now that he really understands them and that he is really interested in what they have to face.

Then we have the two committees who came into the riding. The agricultural committee came, and again, there was that listening, that attempting to understand the problems that were in that area of Smithers.

The forestries and fisheries committee came to Terrace. They walked up and down all the streams and looked at all the places where there seemed to be abuses of logging practices. They took a personal interest, and again, that made an impact.

Now, if you take all of these things together, all of the things that I've outlined, they add up to a tremendous catalogue of interest and of actions on behalf of Skeena constituency. That impact has been felt by every single person in my riding.

I don't want to leave out the opposition; they came to the riding too. In fact, I turned up at a cattlemen's association meeting; I was looking for the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. I ran into the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). They're involved in agriculture too. I give credit where it's due: they were coming in to have a look for themselves from an opposition point of view. That's good; that's the way the system works. They also turned up in Terrace at a truck loggers' meeting. Again, there is that interest.

We also had a recent visit by the former Premier of the province, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, who was accompanied by two MLAs. I think they were MLAs — one of them was named Dan Campbell and one was named Grace McCarthy. (Laughter.) However, they turned up and they all gave political speeches and tore me and the government to pieces and so on. But that's part of the game, it's part of the process and I guess we have to accept that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you forgive them?

MR. DENT: Of course. I want to conclude by offering a suggestion. Everybody is really concerned about political strategy today, about what should be done with the opposition. I want to just share with you my theory of what should be done with the opposition.

All the Socreds should join the Conservative Party. They should have a leadership contest and decide who's going to be the leader, Scott Wallace or Mr. Curtis. We trust that Mr. Curtis will win. Then the Liberals can go out of business. Two of them can join the new reconstituted Conservative Party; the other three can come to the NDP. The defeated person from the Conservatives can also come to our party, and that would create a two-party system in the House.

Interjection.

MR. DENT: I'll leave that to speculation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Two preachers in a row — that's something. We'll have the offering.

It's a pleasure to be here. I don't think we have to have any jokes after that little exposition. I congratulate you again, Sir, in your office and I think it's an honour for all of us to take part in this debate. Also I would like to congratulate His Honour Walter Owen, our new Lieutenant-Governor, on his elevation. I don't know if many people realize that His Honour was the first premier of the Older Boys' Parliament of British Columbia who sat over there 49 years ago. Yours truly was a member and my father was a member and next year they're celebrating their 50th anniversary.

We have some anxiety, Mr. Speaker, that you want us in our 50th year to invite the weaker sex into the group and we're considering that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. ROLSTON: But things are changing. We're told that this is an apocalyptic age; we're in a time of great change.

I'd just like to say a few things about my riding of Dewdney. We finally had the opening of the Mission Bridge. It's taken many, many years. Some people thought it was a bridge over troubled waters, and there were a few problems. You're all welcome to take what we call the circuit route now: out either the north side or the south side of the river and over the bridge and back down to the big city.

The Premier was invited. The Premier said it was a thrill to be there. It was the only time as an MLA, sir, that he had ever been invited to the opening of a

[ Page 101 ]

bridge. (Laughter.) But he was glad to be at that event.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or was it Mr. Lea?

MR. ROLSTON: We had the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) who was born in Mission — I believe that is right, sir — and it was a really great time.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What about Mr. Mussallem?

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Mussallem was there. We invited my predecessor and I think he even sold some cars; I'm not sure. (Laughter.) It was a very happy day and he was asked to say a few words and I think everybody was very happy.

There are a lot of exciting things happening in the riding, of course. I sometimes feel spoiled that we got nearly $1 million this year in park expansion. We are putting in 350 new campsites in the riding: at Alouette; in Golden Ears Park at Maple Ridge; at Rolley Lake in Mission. The previous government got the park, but we're putting in the facilities for 110 campsites at a place called David Lake. Then down in Harrison, at Sasquatch Park, for those of you who like looking for Sasquatches, there'll be 110 new campsites in that area.

This, I think, is just a beginning of an indication in the kind of demands made on the ridings outside, but very near, metropolitan Vancouver that need better recreation facilities. We could go on describing this.

One thing I might caution, incidentally, in the cabinet benches is that we do need to coordinate what we plan and what the actual needs are. At times, it isn't always that sure whether the departments are involved in these processes. I know that if I make this appeal now, as we plan for the employment of students next summer, we will make good and sure that there is good coordination and proper use of people.

Of course, in the riding we have some very exciting things that are happening. I could categorize these, but I just want to tell you about the Seabird Island Indian Reserve. Archie Charles is the chief, a very highly-respected Canadian citizen, a man who, I think, more than many a leader, has seen the development of a very, very large island in the middle of the Fraser River. Over 3,000 acres have been cultivated; the trees have been taken down; and together with some other interests, they have seen the cultivation of this and are now putting corn and many, many other crops.

I think it's a credit to the Seabird Island people that, as they develop their second large heifer ranch and produce stand, they hope to have a gas station and other stands along the new Agassiz-Haig Highway. This is the kind of new transition of these people in this age that preachers call "an apocalyptic age" — which simply is an age of very, very rapid social change.

We would like to describe many other things in the riding, but I think it's kind of important that we press on to the things that are happening in the province at large. I cannot help but remind the Premier — I don't know if he realizes it — that Andres Wines have just signed a tentative agreement with the District of Mission to re-assemble or at least to expand their plant, which will be a very large plant, out at Mission. This is something that we've been working with and I think this is an indication of the kind of enterprise that your government wants to see throughout the province.

Now, the throne speech. I said that it's a time of fantastic social change. If there's anything that I think is really essential which, as a new MLA, I have seen in my first 12 months, it is that governments have got to govern. They're not here to follow what happens; they are not here to just in a somewhat blind and reflective way deal with the kind of chaos and the pressure groups that seem to be obviously around it. I think that this government is really beginning to do this, really trying to deal.

But there's been a great deal of chaos, Mr. Speaker, as we took office. Chaos in land. We have passed, with our land legislation, the mechanism to begin to deal with the immense chaos that land and land use and the misuse of land have seen over the last decade in this province.

We'll receive a report (a very excellent report, I understand) on Friday on energy. I would say that this is even a more immense discussion — the whole energy thing in this province. It's pretty shocking, Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) correctly, to hear from him that there wasn't even enough crude oil for us to do our highway paving this summer because of the energy problems and the lack of crude oil available to this government. Whether that was a political move, I don't know, but that to me surely is urgent.

We've heard yesterday from the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on the crisis in fuel. I read in the paper this morning kind of a cute poem, but a pretty cynical thing, which said, "You can fuel some of the people some of the time, but you can't fuel all of the people all of the time." That, Mr. Speaker, is pretty serious. That's pretty alarming. That might be true of Oregon or Massachusetts, but I'm afraid that's going to be true of British Columbia in a very short time. Hopefully, that is not true. At times you wonder if that's the only way to reach people, that it becomes that serious. I don't know.

Let's talk about education. We are trying to deal with the fantastic changes in education. Mr. Bremer

[ Page 102 ]

has gone throughout the Fraser Valley dropping ideas here and there but also as a catalyst stimulating ideas from the people. He and a group are working on the idea of a university without walls. I think it's a very exciting concept, a concept which is not new, Mr. Speaker — it's evolved over a decade or so in the United Kingdom. But who needs walls? Who needs expensive facilities? We're here, and I think the people of the Fraser Valley are very eager to learn. They're very eager with proper libraries and proper instruction.

MR. SMITH: Upstairs on the third floor.

MR. ROLSTON: We'll get to the third floor. But this is part of the educational transition that I think that we're into. I think it's important that we do have catalysts and that we do ask why we go to school. I was a fellow who really constantly questioned why I was going to school. People told me I went to school to get a job; I wouldn't believe it when you think of where I am now.

There are a lot of things that I think we've got to be asking. We're asking questions of the government as to the morality of the single car in this province, using an awful lot of space, an awful lot of fuel, clogging up the streets of the big cities.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did you bring your car here?

MR. ROLSTON: I don't sell cars, no. But we are asking that there be a more appropriate alternative to the single car and to other modes of transportation.

Are we bringing in legislation? I think human legislation on the labour-management relations…. What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that governments must point the way, not just respond to what has happened or is happening around them, but be able to give direction. We say in the church "to be prophetic," which is to say accurately what is happening about life right now.

We have a lot of people in the public service. I'm told there are over 30,000 people. I am told that the morale in the public service at times hasn't been too exciting. I spent time this summer with the chairman of Canada's Public Service Commission who said that over the last 15 years many of the best, most capable people left this province. They just weren't stimulated. It wasn't just the lack of money, it's just that the stimulating climate was not as exciting as in other parts of Canada. I believe that this is changing. I believe that the public service is hiring some very creative people. We're going to have to raid other jurisdictions, but that's fine as long as we get people who can really give the leadership and the management that is necessary as a public service team in this province.

I'm asking that as we deal with this apocalyptic age we live in, we have much more research, Mr. Speaker, than we appear at times to have. I think it absolutely essential that we have the seminars like the seminar here on the nuclear question. The pro and the con experts should be brought in, and I think it's important that the common people off the streets be a part of these discussions and express their feelings and not just be overwhelmed by the technocrats. I think that it's important that we involve our universities more.

Mr. Speaker, I went to the University of British Columbia this summer hoping to find out how you make charcoal and how we could maybe use much of the waste. We waste 150,000 board feet per day of wood products in my riding. It was hoped that we could make charcoal out of this, that we could gasify the charcoal and that this could be a way of producing steam and electricity. I found out that U.B.C. research is able to show us some of the way. I would like to see a more obvious practical application at the university in research. I get kind of cryptic letters back from the university. I just somehow can't get into this, but I hope that there will be a more obvious relationship between post-secondary and the practical, urgent demands of research for this age.

I'm very pleased that we, through Bill 182, will be giving collective bargaining to the public service. More than that, I hope that this is kind of a catalyst, kind of the incentive that surely is necessary to help them to feel that what they're doing is good, is decent, is essential, is part of the largest management team in this province.

I think it's a credit to our Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) that 900 people applied for the jobs in the secretariat — 900 people, Mr. Speaker, some very, very capable people. I think this reflects, though, some of the real problems. I just assumed in becoming an MLA that our government would have an inventory system on land. I thought that was elementary. If these Members are in business, inventory control is just essential if you're to know what your profit position is. There is no way today, and this was checked yesterday by phoning the Lands Department, of knowing where, in a given area, various departments of government hold land. I just can't believe this. We're now setting up a system, Mr. Speaker, to figure that out. But believe me, that to me is sloppy. If that's free enterprise, I just can't be part of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's business know-how.

MR. ROLSTON: That's business know-how. Along with this, Mr. Speaker, up until now we have no sensible system for purchasing land. Presumably a big business would have a central buying agency for buying land. Again, Block Brothers have it. They have the National Realtors' Guide or something, but we

[ Page 103 ]

have no such thing here. I am asking, Mr. Speaker, very simply for imagination. I expect hard work. I think we should expect to pay people who work hard and who are imaginative to work in the public service. I know we are getting this. It's like a catalyst, you attract many other people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in travelling around the province with the municipal matters committee and also the welfare and education committee, it would appear that not everybody communicates with each other. Now, even us MLAs have this problem and sometimes in the cabinet we have this problem, but that will improve. But on a much larger scale you have various departments. We've found that ferries just blindly move people from A to B. Whether this is hurting B doesn't seem to matter, but their job, I guess, is simply to move people from Tsawwassen, let's say, to Galiano Island. The fact that Galiano Island can't deal with those people, the fact that the little marine park — a very nice marine park — is totally saturated on a Friday night with people…. The ferries somehow — this is just a microcosm — have to collaborate and work with other agencies to say, "Sorry, Montague Harbour is filled; there would be no point in going onto this island."

This is true of Hydro, this is true of Agriculture, Lands, Water, Forests, Recreation and Conservation, Highways and I'm sure I've left out other agencies. I'm hoping that the secretariat will be one of the catalysts in a business-like way to get people to meet each other, to work out some kind of sharing, so that we just don't walk over each other.

In my riding, for instance, B.C. Hydro is going from one end to the other with the great big Mica transmission towers. I found out that very few other agencies were consulted. This is really before my time and yet, you know, at the same time parks somehow haven't been talking with hydro and land use. Now gradually they are, and we are going to insist that they work more cooperatively together.

The Gulf Islands really was just an indication of where I thought there were agencies and departments that somehow operate in isolation. They must somehow operate together. Now I think, Mr. Speaker, somehow our head has to be a computer. We are expected to have information on a gamut of things, and maybe that's unrealistic for some of us, but I think it should be expected of other departments. This government wants to see that there is a secretary who can somehow work everybody in on the decisions, in a meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder at times if it wouldn't be wise for some kind of decentralization of all the government departments over here in Victoria, on this little peninsula. This peninsula is getting pretty crowded and I am glad to see the poultry science is moving over to Abbotsford. I would sure like to see forestry moved over to my riding, or to some of the other ridings, where, you know, after all we have the nurseries and the forestry anyway, and in corrections, and I am glad that part of the Department of Health is over in Vancouver. But it would seem that this is kind of obvious. I notice that in Ontario they are seriously considering decentralizing some of the very large departments of government. After all we have Telex, we have Telpak, we have television, we have, goodness knows, lots of communicating devices to have instant communication throughout this province.

About this building and about the third floor of this building, I gather the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), is going to say something tomorrow, but I think he should be complimented on what he has done to this chamber and to this building. I just assumed that this is a legislative building. At times, Mr. Speaker, I got the impression that it was an old fashioned bank, like the old banks of twenty years ago, you go downstairs and pay your money to the keeper. This is a legislative building. This is where the cabinet and the legislators presumably should have quarters; it's where people and deputations can come and be heard and have a space; where cabinet Ministers don't have to tear across town to get their files and their appointments. They are together in this building, which Mr. Rattenbury conceived of, and I think in a very creative way. We can do a much more businesslike job. So I gather that the Minister of Public Works has this in mind. He is trying to fix up the third floor on both sides and make it possible for deputations and a more efficient operation.

I am quite happy with my quarters, although I gather some of my colleagues would prefer to have a single room. But I think the whole job is that we want to do again a creative and good job as legislators.

I think we also should thank the government for the money we can now use for a secretary in the riding. I found this very helpful while we are over here. People continue to phone, groups come, mail comes, and somehow this process has to continue.

I just want to maybe boast for a minute that I hope by November 1 will be part of the Mission Memorial Centre Building which, with the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), we have conceived, as a group of people in Mission, of one shopping centre for all human services. I don't know why it is, but usually, Mr. Speaker — and I am sure it is true in Victoria — that Human Resources will be a mile away from the Department of Manpower, there is no relationship between the two at all, and that Mental Health is a great…you know, they are all fragmented all over the city. We are bringing Mental Health, Public Health, the Drop-in Centre for Teenagers, a Day-Care Centre, Native Indian Affairs, Human Resources, my

[ Page 104 ]

offices — and I hope the MP's offices — under one roof so that people know where to go and where they really can be helped. This I see as one of the forerunners of the Minister's community resource centres.

Now housing. Housing is pretty serious. Incidentally I just bought my first house in my life. I had to eventually leave the manse and bought a little bungalow in Mission, and it certainly was an experience. I think this government wants to make it very clear that we realize that most of the people now in this province are renting, that the relationship between the landlord on one hand and the tenant on the other hand is a very important relationship and unfortunately it hasn't been a very good relationship at times recently. We will be meeting many of these people this week. We hope that we have set up appeal boards, or that municipalities are setting up appeal boards, so that renters can get together, that rent increases will be known, that they'll be visibly posted on bulletin boards.

I personally congratulate the City of Vancouver that I think is very concerned about this. When it comes to the changeover of apartments to condominiums, they have put a freeze on these changes for one year, and I think they should be congratulated. One of the aldermen was up in the Speaker's gallery.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious thing. One of the Member's that used to sit in the previous administration across from me, I understand, was part of a group that bought Highcroft Towers. I understand that the rents at one time in that building were very reasonable, but now I know the very excessive prices that have been asked for those condominiums in Highcroft Towers. I think that's shocking.

MR. CHABOT: Talk to your Minister.

MR. ROLSTON: I know two ladies who are 90 years old, Mr. Speaker, who are being forced, at 90 years old, to buy into a condominium. I think that's shocking. And incidentally, I am a rural MLA, but I share the anguish of these people. We, as a government, have made about a thousand loans per month and about a thousand grants per month to people who are hoping to purchase their homes. This is continuing.

MRS. JORDAN: What policy is that?

MR. ROLSTON: The previous policy. Our Minister is buying land, acquiring land, and hoping to set up land that will be available for housing. We are told that we need 30,000 units in the lower Fraser Valley per year. That's an incredible thing. We are told that people are moving into this province and the pressure on the lower mainland is greater than any other part in North America. I spent a few weeks in Toronto but it's even worse in Vancouver. So the whole business of land, of service land is a very urgent thing. It should be known in this Legislature that we are concerned, that we are anxious about people who over decades seem to hoard land, they don't release land, they play the old game of controlling supply and the land obviously goes up — and this is very true in my riding — and we somehow have to deal with this. Now maybe we have to just release land as a government, on very attractive conditions, very quickly. Mr. Speaker, it should be known in this Legislature that good old Tory Ontario is leasing land for housing, did you know that? Ontario….

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. ROLSTON:…through its home plan has a very expansive leasing programme, both through the home plan, but also through their Hydro, they are leasing land and they have also set up quite a set up for co-op. I would like to see much more in the way of co-op housing, I think throughout the country there is in the great social change in housing, the fantastic number of young couples that are ready for housing. I just hope and certainly will pray for the Minister of Housing. He's got an immense job ahead of him.

Agriculture. Last night the Land Commission met in Maple Ridge. I understand it was a very large and a very excellent meeting. A lot of people even wanted to opt into agriculture land. I think it is very important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the criteria for deciding on agricultural land reserves is largely based on federal agriculture information: on soil, on climate, on slope, on rainfall, et cetera.

I think it is also very important that we have to have some caution, Mr. Speaker, that at times regional districts and their demands on land look to be more important than the federal agriculture department information.

Surely the suitable land that is not likely to grow a lot of food should be used for shelter, and that includes an awful lot of property in my riding. Surely the intent of Bill 42 was to reserve the most likely high food-producing land. We are told that we'll produce much more food on this capable land than we have in the past. I went to Agassiz about 10 days ago and the fellow who was crowned the "Corn King of Agassiz" told me that he can produce twice as much corn now as he did 12 years ago; the yield of corn is twice as much per acre as it was 12 years ago.

Labour. I understand that it would be great to be on labour, but I simply want to hope that the cynical and nearly fatalistic attitudes at times between labour and management are overcome by this more human and new legislation.

[ Page 105 ]

We are being entertained tonight by a large forest company.

This is very important for us to talk to these people. We want to have some contact, some kind of trust with these people.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: The food will be good. But it is also equally important, Mr. Speaker, to have the same identification and trust with the large number of people in the labour unions. And also the larger number of people, Mr. Speaker, who are not organized at all, the great unorganized, the great number who have no…

MR. WALLACE: 58 per cent.

MR. ROLSTON: …collective agreement…. Yes, 58 per cent…who unlike most of us have no collective agreement, no kind of recognition for what they are doing.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, I think it's important that we really prepare for this legislation, that we get beyond the political barricade to see that there is a real humanist between these large groups. After all, the money is coming from the same log.

Last night I talked to a contract faller and also to a man who is able to put about 40 million feet of lumber into the Fraser River each year. I just hope that these people, along with the IWA, respect each other and have some sense of appreciation for the wealth that is coming out of that same log.

Mr. Speaker, I went with nine other MLAs on a boat this summer. The boat was called the Edgewater Fortune. The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, (Mr. Brousson), I understand, arranged for the charter of this ship, the Edgewater Fortune, and we cruised throughout the Gulf Islands looking at land use. Again, Mr. Speaker, it's a case where agencies somehow don't always share in a cooperative way…manage these Gulf Islands.

We saw many, many subdivisions that somehow had been allowed to happen — maybe like an unwanted pregnancy — that somehow have got out of control. What is kind of sad, Mr. Speaker, is that while they might look reasonably attractive now with maybe only 15 per cent of the island under subdivision, if these were fully allowed to develop, I somehow see it as a nightmare — a nightmare in transportation, a nightmare in the lack of water and a nightmare in the lack of sewage — but also just a nightmare in congestion of people on a very beautiful set of islands.

You know, it's a set of islands that none of us had anything to do with the creation of. By some fluke of history we just happened to grow up in this beautiful province. I know there will be recommendations that I can't speak of right now at this moment in the House, but that I think in a very creative way — and, incidentally, we reached a real consensus on these recommendations — will add to the management and to the wise use of land.

You know, Mr. Speaker, if you look in the Old Testament you will see that land use is pretty important. The Jewish nation, the Hebrew nation, had a concept called Mizpah. Mr. Speaker, Mizpah is simply a Hebrew word for righteousness, which really means to use in a straight way. They had the concept of land as a gift, an inheritance. It was not a gift in the sense that we inherit something and we possess it — or we have a title or a deed that we frame — that seems to be very important.

The Jew was a nomad, but the Jew knew that the land was given to him as a gift to use, not to possess — not to buy a lot up on Hornby Island and wait for 10 years until it is three times its value or more — but to enjoy, to grow crops on, to retire on.

You see, the Hebrew nation saw this really as its welfare system. This was the guaranteed annual income that the Jewish people devised. It is a very brilliant system. Now it was neglected. If you read the prophet Amos and the prophet Micah you will hear his chastisement of that neglect. We all know the story of Nathoph and the stealing of the vineyards, and there could be many other instances in the Hebrew history.

But my point in raising this is, surely the use of the land is more vital than the possession of the land, than the ownership of the land. Presumably the vineyard is for use and for productivity rather than possession.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close with some thoughts on health care. I think we all seem sort of healthy this afternoon. We have had a committee that has travelled throughout the province. I think we have a very capable Minister of Health who, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I think made a very bold announcement this summer on Shaughnessy Hospital — obviously one of the most difficult.

I gather, in talking to him, that this is one of the most difficult decisions our administration has had to make to date. But I think we have solved the political impasse. I think we really now have the vital making of a very impressive teaching facility down in the community around the Shaughnessy Hospital. This has all kinds of advantages, I think, over the university. It has the space and, I understand, we even get some money from the federal government to update the facilities to make them even more presentable.

Mr. Speaker, surely there is nothing more essential to our well-being than to be healthy. Surely health

[ Page 106 ]

means wholeness, means peace of mind. We talk about self-esteem. As a committee we travelled throughout the province and we saw a lot of people who were trying to help in this wholeness and this feeling, but somehow we are getting short-circuited.

We were told yesterday or two days ago by several Members, including the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), about the short-circuiting that this government feels from the federal government in Ottawa. Now the two Liberal MLAs, I hope, can take a message to Ottawa: that surely if we can sit down and decide that we want people to be healthy, we would hope that this healing process could be as quick and as natural as possible — that we can get cost-sharing on other levels of health care.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, as businessmen, as counselors, as legislators, that is not asking too much of Ottawa. We are told that there is cost-sharing on acute care which runs up to, what $80 a day? In my riding it is around $45 a day. That is pretty expensive. In my experience as a pastor going into hospitals, between 10 and 20 per cent of the people — and I think our committee would concur — could be into a lower, maybe more normal and sensible, level of health care.

Yet we are not allowed any cost-sharing. I just can't understand that. Obviously, for the first few years, Mr. Speaker, it will cost Ottawa a bit more money, and it will cost us a bit more too because we will have to provide a variety of facilities. But surely in the long run it means that less-expensive acute-care beds and more hospitals can be built.

Surely — even more important than that — in human terms it means the continuity with the home. We know in education, in religion, in correction, in any discipline, that the home should presumably have a very significant role — not just the parents, but all of the gathered family.

Somehow we feel short-circuited, Mr. Speaker, in health care. You know, Grandma goes into acute care and eventually into extended care because there is nothing else for her. If she is lucky enough, of course, to have other private income, to be fairly wealthy — or if she maybe is on social assistance, she is provided for. But we found — and this was the key understanding of our committee — that if you are not on welfare or if you are not fairly well off, you just fall between the cracks in alternatives to the acute- or extended-care medicine.

So our Members are recommending — and I think we have unanimity on a report which, presumably, is going to all Members shortly and was tabled in the House last night — that there has to be a variety of health care; that we have to provide an equitable form of paying for this — and by equitable I mean just or fair; that we have to see that the paramedics, the drugs, the appliances, which we presumably use in acute care and extended care, can also be used in the home and even in nursing homes so that these people can, in a normal and natural human way, be restored to their fullness as people.

I just can't think of anything that is more essential than that appeal tonight. We are told that a fantastic amount of money is spent on health care — that an awful lot of it is just because people are in acute care because there is no other place for them to go. We are told that there are some exciting proposals. In fact, in Penticton we saw some very exciting alternatives; but at times you wonder if there couldn't be a greater help from this government and also, certainly, from the federal government in cost-sharing.

Let me just digress for a minute. In Penticton you, in a sense, can look at various levels of care within the same complex. The forefathers of this complex saw that it was downtown where the shops are, the churches, the recreational centres, so there could be continuity for these people — that they can come in and feel that they are part of the downtown, familiar part of Penticton.

But what is significant, Mr. Speaker, is that you move, in a sense, into an apartment. Over a period of years, as you lose grip with life and with yourself, you are able to move, maybe, into a personal care facility. Then gradually from that you might be able to get into an extended-care hospital — all this in the same complex, all with the continuity that is so vital to life, companionship and friends. Surely this appeal can be multiplied throughout this province. But what we do need as politicians is better help from Ottawa.

The Minister of Health flew a kite. Four months ago he flew a kite and wondered if $5 might be an appropriate per diem charge for extended care. I understand he saw that as some of that money could be shared and used in other levels of hospitalization which we can't provide at this time. There certainly has been exciting discussion of that, and I think we are reaching a very reasonable consensus on this.

I think we have to point out, Mr. Speaker, this $5 or $4 or whatever is fine if the person does have the $210 Mincome or other income and that his spouse would have the same. We can see difficulties with people who are again below age 65 now or in the future age 60.

We, Mr. Speaker, except for the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), all agree that there should be no profit motive in the delivery of health care in this province. And I think that's exciting, that's democracy, and I think that we should be able to use the same finance formulas for seeing that there are other lower, more appropriate levels of care.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about a lot of things. It's a privilege to be here. I just want finally to make maybe some kind of a prophetic comment that I think it's pretty important for us, as we move ahead, as we look at the energy report this Friday to somehow remember that some jurisdictions south of us have possibly grown too fast. Some jurisdictions

[ Page 107 ]

maybe have just grown and spent on themselves and are now in a sense crying to us for some kind of help.

Mr. Speaker, you know that is a theological problem and I certainly hope that this weekend, as we look at this report, as we ask about the pollution that is in our province, the housing problem that is in this province, some of the straitjackets that we seem to get into between groups, the real serious tensions that are taking place in family living and the breakdown of the family, that we guard against moving too fast in a too disruptive way; that we make sure that the team — the legislators here and also the 30-odd thousand people in the public service — work and work together in a creative way to deal with what is happening and, in a sense, project ahead of what's happening rather than just pick up the pieces.

I think we should know that we are under new management, I think under very capable management. There will be times when the backbench will maybe go after the occasional cabinet Minister to see that the job is being done right. I have come here not just to protect my political skin but to get a job done for the very wonderful people of Dewdney. I am very glad to make this contribution tonight in response to His Honour's speech. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Hartley moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of privilege. During the question period on Monday a question was asked as follows by the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter): "Does the planning for northern railway development involve in any way a federal government contribution by way of bonds for capital purposes rather than cash-sharing and has the provincial government been advised of any interest rates which would apply to any federal sharing by way of debt?" And it was directed to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) who replied, Mr. Speaker, "It is a straight agreement between two governments." If the Member wishes I will file all the details of the signed agreement.

Well, we've had two press releases filed with the House, glossy press releases, and I am wondering if we could get a copy of the agreement filed with the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House if I may respond to the Member, there is another agreement, a segment of the detailed agreement itself. The original copy is in B.C. Rail head office. I've asked for a copy to be sent over. As soon as I receive it I will file that as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.