[ Page 167 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Economic sanctions against B.C. forest industry. Mr. Chabot — 167

Tenders on new ferry. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 168

Shortage of grain cars on B.C. Railway. Mr. Phillips — 170

Sampling of meat for residual antibiotic material. Mrs. Jordan . — 170

Throne speech debate Hon. Mr. Stupich — 171

Mrs. Jordan — 177

Privilege Political influence. Hon. Mr. Hall — 187

Telephone bugging. Hon. Mr. Lauk — 187

Routine proceedings Mr. Gabelmann — 187

Mr. Williams — 194

Mr. Morrison — 201

Farm Income Assurance Act (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Stupich Introduction and first reading — 205

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure this afternoon of introducing to the House, as a consequence of a bloodless or nearly bloodless coup which occurred last Friday evening, the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in British Columbia on my left.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I want to join in congratulating my good friend across the way on his elevation to high office, however brief that tenure may be.

I want to draw to the attention of the House once again, as I have done for, I think, every year in the last 22, that we have in the gallery today a group of students along with their teacher from that great constituency of mine.

You know, I've always said that my constituents are the best educated politically in the province. In the gallery today we have the students from the Cowichan Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. Thompson, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in the gallery today a group of legislators from the House of Representatives in Tennessee, who have come up to look at our Provincial Museum and also to watch our House in operation.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join with the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in expressing our appreciation to the fine students he has in the area that he represents. And I'd like to thank them very much for the flowers, and particularly for the fact that they have shown no discrimination between their Member and myself by way of colour.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS AGAINST
B.C. FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. A statement made by the former Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) last spring stated that the increases in the price of lumber constituted criminal irresponsibility on the part of lumber manufacturers in British Columbia, and that if this trend persisted there would be economic controls imposed on these companies.

I'm wondering whether the Minister would like to tell us, in view of the continuing high price of lumber in British Columbia, whether that government proposes economic controls or sanctions against the forest industry of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, that…(mike not on).

M R. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Certainly prices have gone down, but not significantly — you know it yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: I want to ask another supplementary question. The Minister expressed great concern just last spring. I'm wondering whether the Minister is concerned, in view of the fact that this government has taken over several sawmills in British Columbia since coming into office — namely, Columbia Cellulose and Plateau Mills.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. This is not a time for speeches; that occurs during the throne speech.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering, in view of the continuing high price of lumber in British Columbia, whether they're going to give some assistance or some relief to those people who buy lumber in British Columbia by the establishment, basically, of a two-price system. Show your concern or repudiate that Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: I gather that the supplementary question, in effect, is exactly the same as the main question, which is: are you instituting controls?

MR. CHABOT: No, whether it's going to institute controls. The second question or supplementary question is: are you going to establish a two-price system, particularly to the people of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be fairly clear that government policy is to see that there is a greater return from the resources, and, government in turn will see that that is distributed in a reasonable way. In that sense, we are looking at increased royalties in that particular sector to benefit all of the people of British Columbia.

[ Page 168 ]

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. The Minister says that they're looking at increased royalties and stumpage in the forest industry. Does he not realize, or will he say that that will bring about cheaper lumber costs in British Columbia by the increase in royalties and stumpage?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It will mean a more equitable return to all of the people of British Columbia from that particular sector.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member would defer to this Member who has…is it a supplemental on the same subject?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I hope it's better than the last one. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), among other things, has suddenly become a judge in this House on the content of the questions.

The supplemental question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has to do with this same matter of the impost against the lumber industry. The Minister introduced, through his department, a new stumpage-appraisal system. It was to go into effect, but has not been implemented at the present time.

I understand that the Minister is looking into the whole matter again and that he may revise that particular system and the rates that will be imposed. Will the Minister indicate to the House when he intends to tell the industry the position, and what will be the new rate of stumpage appraisals in the Province of British Columbia? When can we expect that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I did answer the question last week, and I indicated that I would advise the House at the time.

TENDERS ON NEW FERRY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) with reference to the story about a new B.C. Ferries ferry order. May I ask whether or not tenders were called so that British Columbia naval architects would have an opportunity of bidding on this ferry which apparently, according to the Friday news story, is going to a Seattle naval architects firm?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I hadn't seen that particular news story until this morning. At no time have I said that any contract or tender has been awarded.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, did you ask for tenders?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute, don't panic and I'll give you the correct answer. Don't leave, don't run away, stay right there.

Competitive estimates were obtained — this is in a report dated May 24, 1973 — competitive estimates have been obtained from the Victoria, B.C., naval architects, CELL (Case Existological Laboratories Ltd.) for design fees for a trailer ship and a 274-car ferry. These are…and then it gives the costs submitted by them. They were also asked for the time required for design, ready for tender, and it gives the time.

The same thing was asked of another firm and we find that the amount of money being asked to provide this and the time required to do the job is much less with a firm whose plans were in this place the other day.

No one has yet been awarded the tender. When I arrive at a decision — and I have this material to digest before I arrive at a decision — it will then be made public. But submissions were called for, and that's the result of the submission.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do I understand the Minister correctly, Mr. Speaker, that the design firm from Seattle which presented the displays last week received British Columbia government money to prepare those designs and prepare those models and that it was because of the estimate for that preparatory work that you turned down the British Columbia firm?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On May 24 there had been absolutely nothing done in any way, shape or form by any firm.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That was a holiday, that's why.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: May 24, if you check the calendar, was not a holiday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Since then…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's how far out you are; you don't even know the date of the holidays. You're on holidays all the time — you must be. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Since then, has any British Columbia money, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Minister, been expended for designs of any ferries — or at least for designs of any ferry — by this Seattle firm? Have they received any money from us? Or has the British Columbia firm received money to

[ Page 169 ]

do the type of work that you talked of?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not the type of work involved in this.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Any other type? What type?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you will just give me I haven't sat down. I haven't even started to sit down. Just give me time to answer your question fully.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you both address the Chair?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Submissions were made. It was determined that submissions should be made to Ottawa on the basis of design of new ferries. This firm did that job, but that is not to say they did any of the detailed work involved in this call for tender that I referred to. That is not the job that has yet been awarded. They did do some work on the basis of their experience in other fields, and related to a B.C. naval architect also. Submissions were made to Ottawa because we wanted some approval for a new type of design. And they did that work. That's all that's been done.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I try to find out, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, whether or not there has been any payment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, certainly. They did their job and they got paid for it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well the payment, then, occurred subsequent to May 24, and it was for design work on this particular ferry, and it was payment by the British Columbia taxpayer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It wasn't just for the work that I referred to, that I read out to you. It wasn't for that work at all. It was for preparing sketches for submission to the federal government, and these were only sketches, nothing whatever to do with the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work, and I would ask you to realize that. The sum that was paid to this firm was $10,000 which was….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's better now. Let's go.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I've no compunction about giving that. It is a minuscule sum compared to the $30 or $40 million that will be spent in British Columbia for construction of the ferry. That's the main thrust of the whole thing: the fact that the ferry will be built in British Columbia, not the $10,000 that went to a firm with the knowledge, the experience, the innovative capability — and recognize that innovative capability, please. And they made this submission to Ottawa, because we have to go through them for any change or acceptance of design capability, the safety features, the safety factors, the whole bit. They did that job because of their special qualifications. And they got paid $10,000. I don't know whether they've been paid yet or not….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now that we have discovered that this firm has been paid $10,000, and then the Minister went on to say that there would be a ship constructed on the basis of the sketching plans that were done….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't said that yet.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well I thought you said about all those jobs in B.C.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay. Well on what date will we have a decision on the construction of this ship?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the House understands the answer, even if the Member doesn't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's important, Mr. Speaker, that he recognizes the difference between designing and construction. You just finished up by asking at what stage will we know when construction is going to start. The construction will start after the plans are drawn. Once this work I outlined to you to start with is done, it is on the basis of that that you call tenders for construction. You see? What you are talking about now are two different things. Three different things, really.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right. Three things.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Three things.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Okay.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And the step we are now moving into is determining….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's step two.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Step two. We've had submissions on the cost of preparing these plans and the time that it will take both of those firms to

[ Page 170 ]

prepare them. It is on that basis I must make a decision as to which one will be taken, and then it will be tendered for construction.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But there is only one firm.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've only said one firm did the sketching.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SHORTAGE OF GRAIN CARS ON
BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In my constituency over the weekend I've been informed there is a great shortage of grain cars on the British Columbia Railway. It is hampering the taking off of the crop by the local farmers. Has the Minister of Agriculture intervened, or would he intervene on behalf of the farmers of the Peace River area in talking to the President of the British Columbia Railway and ask him if he could take some urgent steps to alleviate this situation?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): This is a very serious problem in that part of the province, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), would comment on the request that was made by the president or the manager of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to have either Highways department trucks or other form of government trucks used in the absence of these grain cars to help to ship the grain? I understand that it was promised that the matter would be canvassed. Could you tell us what has happened with regard to that?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, Highways department trucks, while they have been used in emergencies are useful only for very short hauls. The load they can carry is much too small to be of any use in the problem described by the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

SAMPLING OF MEAT FOR
RESIDUAL ANTIBIOTIC MATERIAL

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope I do better at the races than I'm doing in this question-and-answer period.

I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. If he will recall, in the spring session I brought to his attention and asked a question in regard to the sampling of domestic meat in British Columbia for residual antibiotic material. He couldn't answer it at the time, but said that he would take it as notice and advise the House and myself of whether or not there was sampling of domestic meat for antibiotic residuals going on in British Columbia and what the results of these would be. Now I can't find any record of his answer and I sent this through to the department.

So my question today — and it has again come up — is, has there been sampling of domestic meat for antibiotic residuals in British Columbia over the last year, and are they going on now, and have they found any examples of these residual antibiotics in the meat?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall the question being raised and it is one that could well be put on the order paper. It is a federal programme. Any sampling that is done in Canada, and it is being done all the time, of course, would be conducted by federal authorities. They don't consult with me about it; they might inform my department. But if there is any sampling done in any specific area of the country or any specific area of British Columbia, I am just not aware of it or of the timing of this sampling. As I say, it is a question that could be put on the order paper and then I could give an answer in detail.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand and is the House to understand from the Minister's statement that he is not aware of any programme going on in British Columbia, that in this period of six months he's not even seen fit to inquire about a matter that is of real public concern as to whether or not these residuals are in domestic meat that is being sold over the counters in British Columbia, and that you are adopting a "let the federal government do it and if they advise me I'll know" attitude?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I am not sure what the question was, Mr. Speaker, but if it was: do I know whether such work is carried on by the federal government, if that was the question, then my answer is yes. If the Hon. Member is asking am I satisfied that the federal government is doing the best job possible under the circumstances to guard the health of Canadian citizens, then my answer is yes. If it was any other question than that, I missed it completely, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, my question is: does this Minister know what is going on about residual antibiotics in the Province of British

[ Page 171 ]

Columbia in domestic meat…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think his answer is most inadequate.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, question time is finished so there are no more answers.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'd like to join with those Members who have spoken already in welcoming to the executive council the new Members appointed to the cabinet, and would also join in welcoming the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett).

If I could just comment briefly on the question that was left unanswered, if indeed it was a question, Mr. Speaker. I think it was more in the way of a political speech, which surprised me a bit in that that particular Member, I understand, will be speaking later in this debate. However, I think I made it plain, Mr. Speaker, I know that testing is going on, I know that it is being done by the federal government and I am satisfied that whether it is done in every part of the Dominion of Canada at the same time on a daily, weekly or monthly basis, I'm satisfied that the job is being done well. And I think the record that the Canadian government and its services have made, in comparison to what is going on in the rest of the world as a whole, is something to be looked on with pride by the Canadian citizen rather than something that should be looked down upon, as was indicated by the Hon. Member for South Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you mean North Okanagan.

HON. MR. STUPICH: North Okanagan. My apologies. I really do apologize. (Laughter.) You know there is really no worse thing in this House than to compare a Member with the Hon. Member for North Okanagan in remarks of that kind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to make that accusation. It is perfectly obvious every time she speaks. If you want a proper answer, ask a proper question and that answer will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, we've gone on now for some time discussing the opening speech. It was indicated well before the House came together, and has been indicated since, that there are two very important topics to be discussed in this House — one agriculture and one labour. Yet in the debate so far, most of the discussion about agriculture — the needs of the agricultural industry, the needs of the farmers themselves — has been from the government side of the House, from the backbenchers and from the cabinet alike, very little contributed by the Members of the opposition. Very little, except to say that the remarks in the opening speech were general remarks. And I don't know what anyone would really expect in an opening speech other than general remarks.

To say, as this particular speech did, that legislation would be introduced to rationalize credit systems for primary agriculture, to encourage secondary and tertiary agricultural industries, to join with producers to provide means of achieving some stabilization of farm income, is being quite explicit in describing the sort of legislation that the government intended to introduce in this session.

And in speaking thus on the opening day, the Lieutenant-Governor was, I think, in a way, inviting some suggestions from the opposite side of the House as to how they thought these general principles, the aims, the problems as they were identified by people in the time between the sessions…as these problems were identified, that we were asking for, perhaps, some suggestions from the other side of the House as to how these things might be achieved — whether they were indeed the main problems in the agricultural industry, or whether there were other problems perhaps more important and were left out of the opening speech. We've heard none of those, to the best of my recollection — and I've tried to be in here as much as possible — very little in the way of suggestions as to what could be done.

I recognize there's some problem there because of the position the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture found itself in and the fact that the report was tabled only late last week. Nevertheless, I certainly hoped, Mr. Speaker, and I expected that there would be something from those Members on the other side of the House who were not members of the committee, that they might have felt free to give the government advice, perhaps along these lines or along other lines. But of course, as is so often the case, we have been quite disappointed in the suggestions as they came to us from the other side of the House.

In the spring session, Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal of talk about agriculture, but it was confined almost entirely to one bill, Bill 42 at that time, now the Land Commission Act. It has been praised. It has been criticized. It has been damned; been praised by people from all walks of life, and criticized by people from all walks as well.

I have one newspaper story here where a chap by the name of Basford, whose name is not unfamiliar to

[ Page 172 ]

the second opposition party in the House, I suppose. And the headline says "Basford Praises B.C. for Land Commission Act." Now, of course, it's praise not unmixed with criticism, but he does, in general principles at least, praise the Land Commission Act and points out "the desire to get proper land-use techniques can only be applied through this sort of action by the provinces." This is the kind of planning which has been desperately lacking in this country.

Certainly I find myself in agreement, on this point at least, with Mr. Basford, and I was hoping that some of the Members opposite also might feel the same way.

Concern from some members of the community that while they thought the Land Commission Act was designed to do something worthwhile, was very important, that it has failed because it has not stopped the subdivision of farmland. A letter here from one writer who says that in spite of the legislation which she thought was going to save good quality farmland, she sees evidence of farmland still being subdivided, being lost to future food production.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that a lot of this was in progress, a lot of it had gone to this extent. We knew this at the time; we recognized it; we discussed it. A lot of this had gone to the extent that it just couldn't be stopped. However, by bringing in the legislation at the time that we did, we at least indicated that there was going to be a halt to a loss of this exceptionally good farmland which is so scarce in this Province of British Columbia.

Some concern also that we acted hastily; we could have waited. I recall — and I think I said this in the spring — I recall standing in this House in 1964 and urging the Minister of Agriculture of that day to do something to halt the loss of farmland through subdivision and to industrial construction, and being told at the time the government was concerned; the government wanted to act, but they couldn't do anything until the matter was studied further. That was in 1964.

When we came to office, of course, we found that there was very little progress made in this except within the department where it was obvious that many of the members of the staff had been working on this, I was going to say hopefully, but more often, Mr. Speaker, it was hopelessly, because although they tried from time to time to get something going in the way of legislation that would protect farmland, they tried in vain.

By waiting another year for further studies, we would have lost another 20,000 acres. Those are the statistics; that's the rate at which it was going, and the rate was increasing. By waiting two more years for further studies, then of course, it would have been at least 40,000 acres. The longer we waited, the more difficult the problem would have become and the more farmland would have been lost.

We've been accused of driving up prices of farmland. Mr. Speaker, this is just like panic buying of beef in grocery stores. Prices have gone up. They have not gone up only in British Columbia. Now, some of these people who are so concerned about what is happening in British Columbia, and can't see beyond our borders, don't seem to realize that jurisdictions all over the world — all over Canada, all over the United States, all over the world — have had this same problem of rapidly escalating land prices. They've had it, Mr. Speaker, because in this time of inflation one hedge against inflation, and everybody will be advised to do this if they have financial advisers, one of the hedges against inflation is to invest in land.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke at a Federation of Agriculture convention in November of last year, and in response to a question that had been raised just prior to that meeting, advised people who were contemplating investing in farmland with a view to subdividing it, that maybe they had better go slow. Some of them took that advice, most of them did, I think.

I'm now advising those who are investing in land, which they think will not be within the farmland reserve, not to invest in that land with the hope of making great capital gains because the government is aware of what has been happening. The government is aware that a substantial amount of land outside of the proposed reserves is being bought up, not with a view of building today or tomorrow, but with a view to holding it until they are able to sell it at a fantastic gain. The government is aware of this; and when the government is aware, has the power to act, and as we have shown in many instances, has the will to act, we will see that those land prices come down to where they are reasonable for people who want to build homes on it.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and give many examples as to what is happening in other parts of the world. Just one note here: in Denmark, where the sale of agricultural land has been very severely restricted…not just restricted so that people who are not farming can't buy it, but restricted so that even farmers can own only a certain limited amount of land, only the land that they can, as farm operators, farm profitably, economically, and manage successfully. Not that they are able to buy this land with the hope that they will be able to invest in it and perhaps sell it at a profit at some later date.

The same thing is happening all over the European continent; it's happening in Ireland, it's happening in the States — price of land escalating rapidly; government after government taking steps to try to control it.

Mr. Speaker, since the Land Commission did become established, and it wasn't named until late

[ Page 173 ]

May or June of 1973, they have made some progress. Together with representatives of the Department of Agriculture, they've travelled around British Columbia, met 24 of the 28 regional districts with the responsibility of taking these plans that have been suggested, making the changes that they want to make to adjust them to suit the more local needs as they know them — the explicit needs, the boundaries of the communities. And they report to me that by the target date — that is within 90 days within proclamation of the particular section — by that target date, four regional districts will have their plans deposited with the Land Commission for approval by the cabinet, another six within another 30 days. That will be 10 out of the 24; 14 of them by the end of the calendar year. That is the plan at the moment. They feel that many will be able to meet these targets quite easily.

They have found that in spite of all of the criticism, in spite of the attempt by some people to raise public concern about this legislation, and in spite of the fact that there still is some very real public concern about the legislation — they have found as they have an opportunity to discuss the legislation, the purposes of the legislation and the way in which it is going to work, a greater and greater public acceptance of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if I could move to another topic for a moment. I mentioned this in my opening remarks, and that is the topic of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The report was tabled last week. It was a good report, Mr. Speaker.

I want to compliment the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture who gave up their time this year between sessions. Apart from the Members of the cabinet, and apart from myself in that I wasn't able to attend all of the meetings as much as I wanted to, the attendance, apart from cabinet Ministers, was very good.

The feeling in the agricultural community…the fact that the farmers were able to meet with this committee on their home ground, to discuss their problems with them, that the members of the committee were knowledgeable enough about the problems in agriculture to answer their questions, to ask questions, to receive their comments, to receive them obviously with a view to listening and making note of them, and the report when it was finally drafted, I think says something for the way in which it did work this year, and I think the House is to be complimented for having named that committee and for having given it the task that it did give it between the spring and the fall sessions in 1973.

The committee laboured. The committee put a lot into it, they did good work. The report of the committee has been tabled, it has been reported on in the press. There is one thing that I would mention and I don't know whether this was in the press — it was certainly in the report. But the committee did make a point of welcoming the contribution made by the staff of the Department of Agriculture. They used the staff quite extensively on their travels throughout the province to make arrangements. They found them willing to help on every occasion. The time of day didn't really seem to make any difference to any of them; they found the staff — and I think this is general throughout the province — to be very good in helping the committee in every way possible.

I would just like to say a word, because they may be left out, for the staff in headquarters here in the Douglas Building right across the street. While they didn't get too involved with the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, I do want to say that they, too, in the past year (to my knowledge they've been here just over a year) have really put themselves into the programmes that have been evolving since this administration has been in office.

Of course, I have no way of knowing what they did before. I don't know, for example, that the Deputy before my time used to arrive regularly in his office at 7:30 in the morning, and I don't know, I suppose, regularly leaves by 6:00. They don't know, for example, that you can't go into that department on a Saturday without finding some members of the staff there. They don't know that I have been there as late as 7:30 on a Sunday evening and have left the building with some members of the staff still there. They don't know that my own secretary, for example, when I chastised her for coming in regularly at 7:30 in the morning and suggested that I would report her to the union, said that she is appointed by order-in-council and is not concerned about any reports to the union.

I certainly want to express my appreciation to not only the staff out in the field that helped the committee so much but the staff here at headquarters who have put so much into the programmes that have been developing over the year and whose work will be reflected in the work from here on.

One subject that has been very much to the fore in the past year, Mr. Speaker, has been the question of marketing boards.

A few words, first of all, about the poultry marketing board and, I suppose, in particular about what was described as a war between B.C. and Manitoba. You will recall that there were some people in the province who were importing eggs at a lower price from the Province of Manitoba than they could get here in this province. At the time, I went on the air, in the papers, publicly supporting the B.C. Egg Marketing Board, urging producers and wholesalers to support the industry here in the Province of British Columbia, warning people that if we let down our own industry we wouldn't be letting down the poultry producers, we would be letting down the consumers in the Province of British

[ Page 174 ]

Columbia.

I said then that if eggs were temporarily cheaper in some other jurisdiction and were imported into the Province of British Columbia, if we brought those eggs in and sacrificed our own industry, let it go under at a time when cheaper eggs were available from someplace else, eventually the day would come when those cheaper eggs would not be available and when the B.C. consumer would be at the mercy of egg producers in some other province or country and would have to pay whatever price was asked at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize how prophetic my words would be. The latest report I have, dated the week ending September 8, shows that egg prices to the consumer varied in Canada from a high of 99 to a low of 81, a spread of 18 cents. Highest was in the Province of Newfoundland which you might feel is something exceptional, 93 was the price in Ontario, and the lowest province of all was the Province of British Columbia where eggs were on sale for 81 cents a dozen — 18 cents lower than the highest. This, in itself, justified the support that we urged consumers to give to the British Columbia egg-producing industry.

A word about CEMA. I was asked many times when British Columbia was going to join the national egg marketing agency. I did report on it publicly; I am not sure that it was picked up widely. But last week an order-in-council was put through and British Columbia is now the 10th province to become a member of the national egg marketing agency. I am particularly anxious to do this because the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, on many occasions has indicated that he is not interested in talking about income stabilization in Canada for any commodity group unless the producers themselves are willing to talk about orderly marketing for the whole nation, not just province by province. We are now part of the only national plan that is currently in existence. The turkey board has indicated to me that they, too, are ready to sign the agreement, so it will not be long before we are part of a 10-member turkey national marketing plan as well.

Earlier in this debate one of the Members from my own side of the House raised some questions about broiler production in the Interior. As he said at the time, I have been in touch with the broiler group, urging them to encourage some production in the Interior of the province. The Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) didn't realize at the time but I had a study going on by the staff in the Department of Agriculture. I just received their report on Friday and read it yesterday. If I could just read the last paragraph, Mr. Speaker:

"It would seem that a poultry processing plant in the Interior is a necessity and only awaits the addition of broiler permit or quota to become practical.

"The broiler board should have been aware long ago that prospective broiler producers in the Interior should have the opportunity of producing for the lucrative broiler-chicken market and allowed this area to become a part of the industry."

Mr. Speaker, certainly I concur wholeheartedly in that report and expect that the report will not be long in getting back to the industry.

Just two more notes about marketing boards. A year ago when I came in, there was a great quarrel going on between the Grape Marketing Board and the purchasers of their product. The price was resolved last year; a formula for arriving at a price was resolved this year, so everything seems to be going along quite satisfactorily. I have had a letter from the chairman of the winery association to say that they are getting along very well with the growers right now.

But perhaps of more interest to the wine connoisseurs in the province, I may say that at one reception about a year ago where the Lieutenant-Governor of the day was serving imported wine, I suggested to him that they should be serving B.C. wine. Since then, the Lieutenant-Governor's secretary has made a point of drawing my attention to the fact that we have always had B.C. wine and only B.C. wine served when he has been entertaining in Victoria here. What he does out of Victoria, I don't know.

There have been some comments about the quality of B.C. wine. I would like to read a letter that I, again, just read yesterday:

"I am sure that you will be pleased to hear that two of our 100 per cent British Columbia-produced products have recently received awards of distinction at the International Wine Fair held in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia between August 24 and September 2."

So our wine, Mr. Speaker….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What wines?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't think I should advertise the wine; I'll let anybody know who wants to know. There are two 100 per cent B.C. wines and I'll let you know privately what kinds they were.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Let's see, what constituency is yours?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, my father came from Yugoslavia, and I think, from what I knew of him

[ Page 175 ]

when he was alive, they are quite the connoisseurs in Yugoslavia. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there is one other marketing board that by its actions and actions against it has attracted a lot of heat, perhaps not very much light, in recent months. That is the activity of the B.C. Fruit Board.

It was indicated earlier, I believe, that several studies were going on. Of course, the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was looking into this and spent a lot of time hearing representations from many people who knew all there was to know about the fruit-growing industry and the problems thereof. They all had the only solutions that would really work.

They were working on it; the B.C. Federation of Agriculture had commissioned a study; my own department had engaged the services of Dr. Claude Hudson, a consulting economist, one with a great deal of experience working for the federal government and the United Nations in different parts of the world, to do what he calls, "An Economic Study of the Tree Fruit Industry in British Columbia." This is not the printed draft — copies are being printed — but at least I do have a copy of the final draft ready and would like to quote briefly from this report at this time. It's a study, of course, as far as he could in the some seven weeks that were at his disposal, to analyse what has been happening in the tree fruit industry, to analyse what is happening now, and to make recommendations as to the future.

He goes into quite a lot of detail as to how he finds the industry right now: "The state of the industry is not as bad as some people would portray it, but not nearly as good as it should be." He points out, for example, that one measure of what is happening is the percentage of Farm Credit Corporation loans in arrears: 11 per cent in 1963 and 1964; up to a high of 14 per cent in 1972; down to 11 per cent in 1973 — still very high. But he points out also that the Farm Credit Corporation has never had to foreclose a loan to an Okanagan orchardist, which is in sharp contrast to a total of 916 commercial failures reported by Statistics Canada as having occurred in business and industry in British Columbia in the five years, 1968 to 1972. Bad, but not as bad as it might be.

On page 103, I'll read from the conclusion: "The importance of the fruit industry itself provides the economic base for an annual contribution to the Okanagan economy of about $50 million." I emphasize that, at this point, simply to point out the necessity to save the farmland in the Okanagan: a $50 million contribution to the economy of that area, and that is under somewhat depressed present conditions.

Sales performance. He gets into the question as to whether B.C. Tree Fruits is really doing it's job, whether it could be done better otherwise. He comes to the conclusion that it is doing a good job:

"A comparison of the performance of B.C. Tree Fruits with a large fruit marketing cooperative in the northwest United States and Ontario confirms that B.C. Tree Fruits' net returns to growers were significantly higher than net returns to growers of the other marketing organizations."

We're doing much better, in spite of more difficult circumstances, more difficult circumstances, in that a major part of our crop has to be exported beyond the fruit producing areas whereas, in the case of the United States and in the case of Ontario, they are producing largely for local market.

One heading "Half Truths Damaging the Industry."

"It is a matter of real concern that some growers have been making a deliberate attempt to destroy the confidence of other growers and the general public in the orderly marketing concept. While one can sympathize with individuals who are ardent believers of a free enterprise system, it is unthinkable that they should be allowed either to destroy a marketing system which has functioned well or to use it as an umbrella for their own private profit at the expense of others."

Talking about sales outlets, there's been some confusion I know in the minds of many of the people who have written me, and who feel that the sales outlets are very restricted. In numbering them:

"In marketing the 80 per cent of its apple production surplus to B.C. requirements, B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd. sells to 132 wholesalers and chain store supply depots located in 45 cities and towns in western Canada, and to 124 wholesalers and chain store supply depots in 56 cities and towns in eastern Canada — quite a different marketing problem from that confronting apple growers in Ontario and Quebec, where the producing areas are within easy reach of large urban markets."

Packing house renovations. Here he feels is one of the areas where much could be done: "Most of the existing packing facilities were built well before 1950. Many indications of obsolescence, and yet no financing available within their own organization to do much about it." He suggests a revamping of that organization. He suggests there be government assistance for that but, before there's any move of any kind, he recommends that, in order to clear the air for the community as a whole, as well as for the growers themselves, the government make arrangements for a grower plebiscite to confirm their support for continuation of a centrally controlled industry with one-desk selling.

In summary then, his recommendations: First, his concern. Some people complain about a very low return for their crop and there are figures in here showing that some producers of Golden Delicious apples, as they say, are getting 1.5 cents a pound for the product they deliver while others are getting 7.5

[ Page 176 ]

cents; and the same holds true for all the other varieties. There's a very low figure and a higher figure — I'm not going to say a very high figure, but certainly much higher. And when you consider that the high is five times the low figure, you can see that there's just no hope for the person at the low levels to be making any kind of a living at all, even if the one at the top levels is doing well.

Part of the reason for this is the type and age of trees. Last spring we changed the ALDA legislation so that it could be used to replant orchards. He's suggesting that this be more widely used and that the application of ALDA be talked about a good deal more so that people will be making use of it.

He feels there could be a lot more in the way of orchard management advice go out. This follows one of the recommendations of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture, who while they expressed their appreciation for everything the staff had done, pointed out also that in almost every area of the province and in almost every commodity group, the staff were shortchanged — they were understaffed, if I might use that word. He's recommending, in the case of the fruit industry itself, that there be a very substantial increase in the staff available and that the staff be widely engaged in advisory services, trying to show people how they can be helping themselves even under present conditions, let alone under improved conditions.

Market and supply-demand. Questions that we're faced with competition from outside sources, the fact that we have to sell a very large portion of our product outside the producing areas of our own province and there suggests a price stabilization programme, And of course this was referred to in the opening speech.

Amalgamation of packing facilities. Right now, with some 14 cooperative organizations and some four independents — each one of them arguing with the other as to who can do the better job and how the job should be done; when any one of them puts in a new piece of equipment that will enable them to do the job more efficiently, the other 17 feel that they all have to have it in order to continue getting support from their growers or the growers will leave them and go to the others — with all of these problems, suggests that there be an amalgamation of the packing facilities; that there be five co-ops instead of the present 18 organizations — one co-op for each of the producing areas, i.e., one for each of the four producing areas in the Okanagan Valley and one for the Kootenay area, that the government encourage this and that the government help in financing construction of improved equipment so that they'll be able to handle the job more efficiently. But even apart from that, the simple amalgamation itself, according to his calculations, would save one cent a pound. When you consider that the packing house charges approximately four cents a pound, what he is suggesting is a 25 per cent saving in costs at the packing house level, a very substantial saving.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I apologize that the printed report isn't ready yet; it will be very soon I hope. The draft report is ready, and anyone who cares to have the draft report is welcome to it. I'll table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose report is it.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose report?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Dr. Hudson.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Just pass it around.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Whatever you like. I'd rather like to get this one back sometime because I've made a lot of…

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Table it? Would you prefer it? I'll table it, but in the meantime you could take it down to Mr. Anderson for a start…

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister asks leave to table the document. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize now for absenting myself from the House tomorrow through to Friday. It's a time when I would rather not be away, and yet I must be in Ottawa. The federal Minister of Agriculture (Hon. E. Whelan) has invited the provincial Ministers of Agriculture to talk about several things and the Prime Minister of Canada (Rt. Hon. P.E. Trudeau) has indicated to some extent what the nature of the discussions will be.

The federal Minister of Agriculture has said there's no shortage of food, that we can produce ten times as much as we need; the Prime Minister has said we are to talk about ways of increasing food production. So I think all this indicates that Ottawa doesn't really know why they're calling us there, except that they want to talk to us and, hopefully, to listen.

There was some indication in the Calgary conference that the federal government was ready to talk about stabilization of farm income, but there was very little talking about it. There's indication now that they are ready to talk because, in this quotation from the Prime Minister, he uses the words "Government producer-financed income stabilization

[ Page 177 ]

programme." So hopefully we're going to talk about some provincial government-federal government involvement in a plan that will help stabilize farm income and certainly, as the Minister of Agriculture for British Columbia, I'm going back there to tell the federal Minister that B.C. is ready to move ahead on this, as was indicated in the opening speech.

We're going ahead anyway. The opening speech makes that quite clear. We hope that Ottawa will choose to come along with us.

Beyond that, again at the Calgary conference, there was an admission from the federal government that there needed to be some rationalization of the credit that is available to farmers. So many different plans of wide variety are available in so many different provinces — even a wide variety within provinces — so that farmers in need of credit hardly know where to go in order to get the credit that they needed for a particular programme — a rationalization is seriously needed. There was some admission by the federal government of this problem that something should be done, and yet absolutely no discussion on it at the Calgary conference.

I'm going back to that conference. Again, I'm not clear, when you listen to the remarks of the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Agriculture, just what they are going to propose about this, if anything at all, really. But I'm going back there ready to say that B.C., on its own if necessary, is ready to go ahead with a rationalization of credit for farmers in the Province of British Columbia.

The third thing in the programme — and again there's been some indication, but only an indication, that the federal government might participate in this — that there should be some expansion of agricultural secondary and tertiary industry, and that in order to achieve this, if we're to achieve it with primary farm products, there must be some willingness and some financing put into this programme by the provincial and federal governments. Again, as was promised in the opening speech, whether or not the federal government is willing to move, ready to move at this time, the Province of British Columbia is ready to go ahead.

Mr. Speaker, after all this time of talking, of being aware of the problems, recognizing the problems, we've identified the problems here in British Columbia. The select standing committee heard them all over the province; the Members haven't been saying much about it in this session, but there's opportunity yet and there will be further opportunity in the debate.

We know some of the problems here in the Province of British Columbia. We said when we introduced the legislation to save farmland that the next step would be to make it possible for farmers not to go on subsidizing the consumers as they have in the past. And that's the way these subsidies have worked, Mr. Speaker — it's not a case of subsidizing farmers; it's farmers who, through their long hours of work, their hope that someday they might get something out of it, who are the ones that have been subsidizing cheap food for the consumers in this province, in this country and often throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, we promised in the spring session, when we said we would save land, that the time had come when the farmer was going to quit doing the subsidizing, that it was the responsibility of the community as a whole to make sure that farmers also had a right to a decent standard of living, and that their ability to earn that decent standard of living should not depend upon the possibility that one day they might be able to sell their land off for subdivision.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would start by saying that I am very pleased to once again take my seat in this Legislature, representing the people of the North Okanagan with a view to expressing their concerns as they directly affect them within our constituency, and to express their concerns and suggestions as they feel the provincial government might better handle the problems and concerns of people in British Columbia.

I'd like to comment on the Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party's (Mr. D.A. Anderson) comments and welcome the new Conservative Party Leader (Mr. Wallace). I see why they received such a hearty welcome from the Liberals because they have seemed, Mr. Speaker, to have so much in common, that they're being known as diminishing numbers. However, we join with them and we hope that the Liberals are not going to suffer the same fate.

I'd like to offer an encouraging word to that dejected little group on the left, but it's very difficult to know what to say to people who are standing at their own demise. I did meet a young 12-year-old boy on this weekend, and he had read the paper and he wrote a little poem. Maybe it says very simply and better than I how they feel:

"The Liberal crew once stood at six,

Now they find that they're in quite a fix.

When once they thought they had a solid five,

They find that now there is just four alive."

And he had a great big question mark.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well I told you, Mr. Member, that I wanted to express some sort of concern for you.

Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the Agriculture Minister's (Hon. Mr. Stupich) speech when he comes back. I guess he's out announcing the new policy on a further land grab in British Columbia that he referred to in his speech. I would hope that that Minister or

[ Page 178 ]

his colleagues will clarify the situation, which in fact can be described as a "bomb" that he dropped in this House this afternoon.

Are we to understand from that Minister's veiled remarks on private ownership of homeland in British Columbia that once more there will be an extension of land grab by this socialist government? Is he saying to the young people of British Columbia: Don't buy a home today, because we are going to forcefully devalue private properties held in British Columbia? Is he saying to them: Rent now, and wait for state housing? Are this Minister and this government, Mr. Speaker, also saying to the older people of British Columbia: Sell, sell, sell today and get what you can out of the equity that you've spent your life putting into your home, because we are going to forcefully devalue your private property in the name of state socialism?

Is the Minister saying to the new people coming to British Columbia, young and old: Don't buy a private home in British Columbia. We don't believe in private home ownership. We are going to forcefully devalue the equity of those homes and what you pay today will be less than half tomorrow. Wait, rent in British Columbia and then wait for state homes? Is he saying very clearly to the people of British Columbia that the day of a fair return on your investment in your home, that is often made throughout a lifetime, is in fact gone forever, and that this socialist government is taking one more step and force devaluating private homes and privately-held family lands in British Columbia?

I ask that Minister to clarify this situation, because there are going to be a lot of concerned families in this province in a few hours when that release is out. And there is a very concerned opposition because we do not believe that this government has a mandate to make virtual serfs of the people in their own homes in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to lend my voice in welcoming the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett). It's a delight for me, as one of the elected representatives in the whole Okanagan Valley, to see his outstanding victory in that crucial by-election, and it was a crucial by-election, because indeed the future of politics in British Columbia was determined at that time. The people spoke very clearly that they would not buy in British Columbia a destruction of their individual rights and a destruction of the way of life that they had worked so hard to build up in the name of a philosophy that is foreign to British Columbia.

I look forward to working with this Member; I think it is good for the Okanagan. We have a united front and we will be able to bring to this government's attention its very strong obligation in continuing the work of the Okanagan water basin study.

We are of a united opinion that this $2 million study, which is coming to a conclusion now and which was initiated by the former Social Credit administration, has imposed a serious responsibility on all senior levels of government. The first is to see, before that final report is brought in, that it is taken to public hearing.

The Minister isn't here, but I am pleased that he has acceded to this request of mine, so that the public can have an opportunity to really analyse what the various sociologists and economists and scientists had to say about the future of the Okanagan valley, and so that they can determine in their own words before the final report, whether or not they agree, whether they wish to make any additions or whether they seriously question some of the contents.

When that final report is brought down, we will stand together as united Members in the Okanagan Valley to encourage the provincial government to set up a logical and encompassing vehicle that will represent the valley from the border to the Revelstoke area, through which these programmes must be undertaken to assure a future for the Okanagan on a socially desirable basis and a sound economic basis and on a so-called, non-polluting basis, and in a way that will conserve our water resources and our land resources to the benefit not only of today's people who are living in the valley, but to the future generation.

This is going to be a very big job, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to require not only a united vehicle through which the people and the government can talk, but it is going to require a great deal of financial input. It would be grossly unfair for any level of government to say to the people of the Okanagan: "This is your baby. We financed the report; now you do the job."

There is a very small population in the Okanagan possessing and occupying one of the most vital pieces of land and water area not only in British Columbia, but perhaps in Canada. It is far too much to expect these people to bear the financial burden that will be required in water management, land management and pollution control in that area.

So, as I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we will be standing together to bring a united voice from the Okanagan and, I am sure, the voice of concerned citizens all over British Columbia who use this area as a playground and a hobby area, who get their enjoyment from seeing our apple trees and our water…to their benefit without any of the labour. It is hoped that they will respond to our call for financial assistance and technical input from the two senior levels of government. This should be initiated as soon as the report is complete and decisions made by the current provincial government.

I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to extend my best wishes to the new chief. We are almost getting a government with all chiefs and no workers. You've

[ Page 179 ]

got an equal balance. I wish you well.

I will be the first to criticize you if I feel you are abusing your office or the privileges that go with office, but I also shall be the first to compliment you if you are able to bring some sort of sense and coordination to the very unsettled financial conditions and social conditions that are arising very rapidly in British Columbia in this year of 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment the government — I believe it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), who used his outside circuit rather than this House. But he did announce the long overdue provision of the previous government to phase out a portion of Oakalla Prison and to turn those lands over to the Municipality of Burnaby as a park area.

We would hope that the government will follow through on the initial plans that were evolved by the former Social Credit administration to phase out the whole of the prison, and that those lands and those buildings, if the buildings are repairable, should be turned over to the people in that area for recreational and park purposes.

Surely there could be no higher mark of man's ability to overcome some of his major social problems than to be able to convert a dastardly prison into a stimulating and exciting and people-oriented recreational area.

With that, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit government had, as the Minister will know from his files, in correlation with the Oakalla programme, a policy throughout the province whereby outdated and outmoded provincial government buildings and strategic and unused provincial government land should be turned over to regional districts and involved municipalities, providing they had a programme of development for recreational purposes for those buildings and those lands. I would hope, in complimenting them on the Oakalla situation, that they would indeed accept my suggestion and continue with this programme around the whole province.

I would like to say a word or two, Mr. Speaker, about the committees that have been travelling through the province this summer, and that were started by this administration. I think that all Members of the House approached these committees and the committee structure with enthusiasm and with a genuine desire to hear concentrated views from the public, and also from those who are out in other areas of the province who work in the various fields…and that these views as they were brought in would truly shape the policies and future policies of this government, and for the people of British Columbia.

I also believe that every Member of the opposition, regardless of their party, was determined to be non-political in their actions on the committee, and their conduct. They did recognize that there were obviously deep ideological differences among them, but they were determined not to use the committees themselves as a political platform.

Certainly there is no doubt in my mind that on the two committees in which I had the opportunity to serve, this was carried out by all opposition Members — not only in determination to work, but to work in a spirit of good will, and to make these committees worthwhile.

However, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that it became increasingly disappointing to myself and, I am sure, to other Members on the health and welfare committee that what the committee was, in fact, was not a listening post for the public and an avenue through which the public could speak to their government, but straight window-dressing. What we were actually doing was trying to correct theoretically independent information of what the government already intended to do and had, in fact, already been drafting its legislative programme to meet.

I don't like to say it but I think we must admit that this health committee was poorly organized. Repeatedly we were told that many bona fide health units and many volunteers in the health field and many professionals in the health field wanted to appear before that committee. They had either not heard of the hearing or if they had, Mr. Speaker, they had the great time of one to two days to prepare their briefs. This in spite of the fact that the chairman knew fully two months before the committee hearings started that this was the direction in which the provincial government was going to go. There was certainly a good month's time between the time that the committee hearings and terms of reference were announced and the time that the committee actually got on the road.

The attendance by the Members on the health committee was certainly not as outstanding as it was on the other committee in which I served, the agricultural committee, but by and large it was reasonably good, with the exception of the Ministers. I regret to say that when those Ministers did appear — and they were extremely rare occasions…not one on the road for one of the Ministers — they tried to influence the committee and to influence the hearing, in terms of some political grandstanding on the part of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and in terms of asking unrelated questions or questions that had previously been canvassed a short time before they appeared at the hearings.

Then, when the time came to draft the final report of the health and welfare committee, to find that the Ministers tried extremely hard, in part successfully, to influence the findings of the committee, then I think that they bring the whole matter of travelling legislative committees in British Columbia into

[ Page 180 ]

serious question.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this must prove ultimately frustrating and disillusioning to the public, who really had something they wanted to say, and to the members of those committees who really wanted to listen and who really wanted to make constructive and serious recommendations to the government.

I have no objection to travelling committees, providing the people who work in the sectors in which the committee hearings are concerned, and who have a vital interest, or who have something they want to say, have ample opportunities to know of the hearings — where they will take place and when they may appear, so that they can adequately prepare their briefs and their views. I have no objection to Ministers sitting on these committees. I have no objection to them having a vote during the discussions of the committee. But I suggest that they should take a passive role as far as political appearances are concerned.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, I believe that they should follow the attitudes and examples set by the MLAs on the other committees, not use them as political grandstanding platforms, and not use them as a way of trying to mould the committee reports to fit into their preconceived legislation.

I would suggest that any Minister who sits on any of these committees not be paid the additional $1,000 stipend. I opposed that in the beginning and certainly, if there is no other reason to discontinue it, the attendance of the Ministers during the health and welfare hearings should be ample reason to discontinue that extra bonus. It should be the Minister's interest and he should consider it part of his concern as a Minister, and part of his responsibility as a Minister, to attend those hearings and to use them as an avenue through which he or she can learn.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member, I think you are aware that the matters that are before a committee are for the committee itself and not for the House. We only have knowledge of what transpires in committee from the report returned to the House. How the committee conducts its business is the concern of the committee and not of the House Therefore, I would draw your attention to the fact that it is actually out of order to, in effect, give your own report of those matters that occur in committee. If matters occur in committee that are important to that committee, that is the place to settle them within the discretion vested in the committee from the House.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and your leniency. I think you will agree that I overcome any transgression of the rules and that I am making recommendations to the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as to how the whole committee structure might be better re-established in the fall. That is, of course, that the Ministers not be paid for sitting on the committees in general and, secondly, that Ministers, while being able to participate in the discussions of the committees, should not have a final vote in the work of the report of the committee.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in discussing the committees for the future, that this government must come to grips and make a decision in relationship to the committees. If you want to use them and the general political benefits that can accrue from them, then I suggest that you are entitled to do this; but you also have to learn to live with them.

The committees, by their terms of reference, are not set up to, in fact, preach or report what the government wants to say or hear. The committees are designed to listen and to bring in a report based on what they hear in relation to their terms of reference. Whether or not the government accepts that report, or whether or not the government chooses to use that report as a means of influencing their own legislation, is entirely the government's responsibility. It is then the prerogative of the members of the committee to approach the government in whichever manner they wish to, as far as whether they agree that the government didn't accept the recommendations or that the government did — and praise them for it.

So I leave that thought with you, Mr. Speaker. We would like to see the continuation of the committee system if, in fact, it has value to the people of British Columbia and with those further provisos. I would only sum it up by saying that, in essence, we would like to see the Ministers behave themselves when they are on those committees.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, we have listened to this Member breaking the rules by discussing the committees; secondly, we have had to listen to her suggesting that there has been influence by committee members, and now she suggests that we behave ourselves on committee. I really don't think that that kind of language should be acceptable in this House, and I would ask to have it withdrawn. I am asking her to withdraw that — the suggestion that there was influence borne….

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Hon. Minister objecting to the fact that she has to behave herself as a Minister?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I most certainly do.

MRS. JORDAN: But I hope she will attend the meetings more regularly.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think Hon. Members should make imputations against each other —

[ Page 181 ]

certainly not against Ministers, as well as other Members.

MRS, JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the debate has centred largely around management and labour in this session, and the government has made it very clear that it considers this its major priority. In that relation we have discussed legal rights of strikes; we have discussed problems relating to their possible solution. But as the battle in this Legislature rages on, Mr. Speaker, so does inflation in the Province of British Columbia. I would suggest that in this dramatic shuffle there is a group of people in this province who is thoroughly lost, and those are the senior citizens.

To suggest that I was stunned last week when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) outlined what can only be described as a rather dry and dreary report to this House on the reasons why he is worth $46,000 a year to the taxpayers of British Columbia, and reveals no emergency help or long-term planned help for the senior citizens of this province, is to be an under-estimation. If you listened to his speech you saw that he revealed a complete lack of programming in relation to the senior citizens and a complete lack of programming in relation to assisting those on what is commonly called "welfare" to get off the rolls and seek and find gainful and rewarding employment.

He talked a little about the expansion of the day-care programme, which was the previous administration's programme. The negotiations that he did bring to fruition were all but completed at the change of government. I welcome the increase to day-care programmes, but where were his plans and the evidence of his actions in getting people to work in British Columbia?

Two significant statements that he made, in my view, were the complete admission that he had dismally failed in this area, and that he had made no steps — in fact, had lost ground — in seeking assistance and cooperation from the private sector in providing job opportunities for the handicapped and those who are less fortunate and those who are on welfare. I think it proves that his instant cancellation of the previous administration's programme of job opportunities, training on-the-job and make-work projects with the private sector was not done with thought and it was not done with planning; it was done in a moment of political temperament which may have been very satisfying to himself but was hardly satisfying to those in need and was, in fact, as evidenced with his own figures, very damaging to those in need.

I would suggest that it serves, without a shadow of a doubt, as proof that he meant what he said when he said that he would stamp out every vestige of individual enterprise in the Province of British Columbia and that he would, in fact, provide jobs through government at the taxpayers' expense.

If you examine his figures, that's exactly what he did. He, in essence, robbed Peter to pay Paul. He showed a saving in his department in one sector but failed to show the costs to the other departments who did the employing — all of which, Mr. Speaker, again must be taken out of the taxpayers, the hard-working taxpayers' pockets in the Province of British Columbia.

He has done nothing in nearly a year of $46,000 to relieve this situation, to create jobs for handicapped, to create employment opportunities on a part-time basis for those over 60, or to get people off the taxpayer rolls and into independent and well-paying jobs in the private sector.

All he has done is to perpetrate his philosophy of "big brother" government, making people dependent on government for jobs as well as welfare…and that the people of this province will pay for it by digging ever deeper into their pockets to meet the mounting costs of living and the rising taxes that they'll have to impose in order to meet these programmes in another two or three years. But perhaps even more startling, and I admire his candour for it, was his admission that the government itself was, in fact, indulging in extravagances.

Now I won't repeat these extravagances. We are aware of them and the people of British Columbia are becoming more aware of them. But that he should make such a lame-duck plea, a flippant remark about these extravagances, as to say, "Forgive us our little sins; forgive us our little extravagances."

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how that Minister grew up, but I would suggest that in my book, $46,000 a year plus expenses…$1,000 per committee without attendance…nearly $2 million in party hack fees…travelling to England without legitimate reason at public expense — and I am sure the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is aware of that — jetting around the province to visit the constituency that he represents by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)…the extravagant renovations that are going on in this building, not at the foundation level where my priority would be, but in the Ministers' offices…the telephone bugging….

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: …deals in the forest industry. Little extravagances? In my book they are big extravagances.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: And when I listen to the Hon. Minister….

[ Page 182 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. I take it that you said that there is telephone bugging.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) can answer that question.

MR. SPEAKER: I am concerned about the….

MRS. JORDAN: …he is also speaking for all the other cabinet Ministers. But all I can say, Mr. Speaker, in summing this point up, is that he should be so flippant and callous in his attitude, and that he should consider the things I have outlined as little extravagances — I wonder, in fact, who he is, and if he might not well qualify for that well-known position of Mr. Nixon's tutor.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia we have an example of a rags-to-riches government, and that government is enjoying its riches not through performance and not through merit, but at the taxpayers' expense. The taxpayers are deeply concerned about this and so is this official opposition.

Within the Minister's department and through the extravagances of this government and through the policies that they have carried out in contributing to exorbitant wage increases and the role that they have played inflaming inflation in British Columbia — and they can't accept the blame for all the inflation, but indeed they have done nothing to help curb inflation — and by removing the controls that were previously on and by their own actions, they have set up a situation which is hurting a lot of people in British Columbia, but it's frustrating and frightening to the senior citizens of this province.

I would ask this government and the Minister to heed the warnings that we gave him last year. I outlined to him then the problems that the senior citizens in this province were going to face. The cost of food was spiralling; rents were spiralling. Housing for senior citizens is becoming increasingly short with urban redevelopment…and this by the admission of the Premier because of the policies of this government, where housing starts are down.

I urge the Premier and Minister of Finance of this province to look at the situation. If he wouldn't take our word for it, then let him look out now and see what is happening. Let it not be said that there is none so blind in the Province of British Columbia as a Premier who will not see. The senior citizens of this province are in a desperate state, and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) revealed no assistance to them at all.

The Mincome programme, which he enjoys patting himself on the back in pride about, has in fact proved to be futile and a futile assistance to most of the citizens of this province. Many were led to believe that they, if they were over 65, would be receiving $200 a month. This simply was not so. The little bit that was turned over to those senior citizens who qualified through a means test was merely a passing on of withheld funds from the federal government.

With this in mind I call upon the government to recognize the emergency situation in British Columbia now where the senior citizens do not, in general, have enough money to provide for their basic food and shelter, and to institute a programme of inflation bonus food coupons this month, next month and for the next few months. Make it even $10 a month for senior citizens, and make these coupons redeemable at any legitimate grocery store throughout the Province of British Columbia, and allow these senior citizens to use this as a basic way of meeting their basic food needs in relation to the rapidly rising costs.

Such a food bonus programme would not affect their eligibility under Mincome, if indeed they are eligible; it would apply to all senior citizens over 65 in the Province of British Columbia. And it would not affect their tax situation, either provincially or federally because it would not be classed as income under the Income Tax Act.

It would not affect the federal-provincial cost sharing with the provincial government. Therefore these inflationary food bonus coupons would not, in fact, be a double cost to the provincial taxpayer.

Along with this effort to help them meet their basic food requirements, as a second step, I would challenge the government, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his cabinet, to raise the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act.

In the last session, Mr. Speaker, I pleaded with the Premier to raise the $50, that was started by the Social Credit administration, to $100 in 1973, recognizing that elderly citizens are facing astronomical rent increases and, as I mentioned before, acute housing shortages because of urban renewal and because of the lack of new buildings starts in British Columbia.

He would not accept this advice then. But I urge him now to look out into British Columbia and see what is happening and to raise that elderly renters grant Act, amend it and bring that grant up to $100 a month, applicable to 1973, to any responsible person or member of a family that qualifies as a senior citizen. Then, Mr. Speaker, we'll at least be helping them to hold their own when they're caught in a vice between the public, between labour, between management, between international problems over which they have no control.

Mr. Speaker, they don't have time to wait for public housing. They don't have time to wait for prices to come down. When you're 65, when you're 60, every moment counts. Let's help them get on with living instead of struggling to survive in a

[ Page 183 ]

situation over which they have no control and very little voice.

Along with that, Mr. Speaker…and I would mention, for your information, that in the estimates of March 31, 1974, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) revealed that $3,500,000 would give $50 a month to every senior citizen renter in the Province of British Columbia who qualified. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we double that and allow for a slight increase in the senior citizen population, we're still only talking about $8 million, of which he's already budgeted $3,500,000, Surely when we're talking about office renovations and silk couches and curtains to the tune of $2 million, Mr. Speaker, we can afford to use a little reasonable restraint, to go a little slower and take some of this money and divert it to where it is most needed.

Mr. Speaker, along with that I would urge the government, as a third emergency measure to help the senior citizens of this province, if they won't accept the bill that I've put in the last two sessions and will put in again tomorrow, to draft their own Act which would, in essence, grant a cash grant of up to $500 to begin with to elderly citizens in British Columbia for home repair.

Mr. Speaker, the health committee report, which I'm sure you've read, puts strong emphasis on keeping elderly people in their homes through health measures. If they're losing their sight, then the committee recommended homemakers to assist them — community involvement. But it isn't going to do the elderly citizens nor the health programme nor the taxpayers of this province much good to keep older people in their homes if, in fact, those homes are falling down around their ears.

Just as we get old as people and we break down, so houses get old and break down. Mr. Speaker, if you've ever got a quotation on a paint job for one of the small little houses in Vancouver that are on 25-ft. lots, you'll know that the paint alone, if it's of any quality, comes to well over $200. That's without the labour to apply this paint.

If the government instituted this programme now, there are many elderly citizens in British Columbia who have broken steps, who are living in unsafe homes with faulty wiring, who have leaky roofs and whose general well-being would be greatly improved if the peeling paint were repaired. They simply cannot afford it.

That's not just the elderly citizens who are receiving Mincome, Mr. Speaker. There are many elderly citizens who worked very hard and were very prudent and saved a small amount of money and who own their own homes and who perhaps have a car, thinking that they could enjoy their retirement years, and now find that merely keeping up the home is, in fact, taking away their little extra money with which they could have a holiday or with which perhaps they could have a roast of beef instead of hamburger.

Mr. Speaker, on this subject, I believe that if the government undertook this programme, they would show an opening of their minds in the policy of where they're going to go in senior citizen housing. I've long advocated that masses and masses of public housing, whether for young people or middle-aged people or senior citizens, is wrong and it leads to human stifling and moral breakdown. I think to have a policy that is obviously gearing itself to tucking senior citizens away in senior citizen housing projects which are state owned and which the state provides and are part of the socialist philosophy, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Our thrust in British Columbia for senior citizen housing should be to keep elderly people in their own homes as long as they want to stay there and as long as they are able. As health services increase, as the pilot project in the Kamloops area in the Okanagan have proven, that ability will be lengthened through such things as meals-on-wheels and some type of assistance in the major housecleaning areas of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased, after I had spoken to deaf ears twice in this House, to see in the paper that at the welfare conference Mr. Walter Turnbull, who was the former deputy postmaster general in the federal government and who is now 77 years old and who, perhaps, can speak out more eloquently than most elderly citizens because of his experience in government, his knowledge in government and because of his age, said that he disputed contentions that old people generally are happy with accommodation in homes for the aged.

People living in homes for the aged built under the National Housing Act amount to about 3 per cent of Canadians over 65 years old. He said that no doubt the trend will be more and more towards homes for the aged because governments like to hand out building contracts. Those are his words, Mr. Speaker. He said that most elderly people prefer to stay at home if they can, and if they could find money to repair them. That is where government aid should be directed.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I talked about this in this House, I believe it myself and I was very pleased to see that this knowledgeable gentleman who is now himself a senior citizen, Walter Turnbull, made a point of stating publicly this position. I think we must take every opportunity to allow senior citizens to enjoy their homes, to use them, to putter around in their homes, which are very much a part of their social activities in older years. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the government do, right now, bring in a programme of home-repair assistance to the elderly people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few

[ Page 184 ]

minutes on the Indian situation, as it it's commonly called in the Province of British Columbia. I think that in doing this, you're talking about the interaction between the native Indian people of British Columbia and the province itself as it is represented by the NDP government today.

This, of course, must also, I'm sorry to say, involved the situation of the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). I don't intend to repeat the concerns of the official opposition as they were outlined by my colleague for Langley (Mr. McClelland) so adequately the other day. But I do wish to point out that the action of the Premier of the province and his colleagues in this case — and as one example, Mr. Speaker, in another case that I will outline — can only lead to an air of suspicion, first because the Premier has been involved for many years in public life…and in the instance of his department of Indian affairs, he knows from his own experience that the federal Department of Indian Affairs could, at the most charitable description, be described as a fiasco.

He knew, as we all know, that the desire of the majority of Indian people in Canada and in British Columbia has been to stand on an equal footing with other Canadian citizens, enjoying the same rights, the same privileges and the same responsibilities as their fellow Canadians.

They have also pointed out, as do many other groups in our society, they do have special problems with which they need special help. But in spite of this knowledge, the Premier created a Minister whose sole responsibility was for Indian activities — in essence, a department of Indian affairs — and he placed the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) in charge.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier prides himself on being a social worker and a man who is sensitive to human needs, human strengths, and human failings, and he had worked with the Hon. Member for Atlin for 12 years in this House. He knew, and we knew, this Member well. We knew of his great strength and, as he is a human being, we knew of his weaknesses, as each of us know of each other. We knew of his service to this Province and he knew, and the Premier of this province knew, and we knew where this Member stood in relation to culture, and in relation to his views on Indian rights, not only in British Columbia but in Canada. Certainly not all of us agreed with him all the time, but all of us — and many people outside this chamber — respected this Member. And yet now, with a completely inadequate explanation, this Member has been unceremoniously dismissed from the cabinet, and we must ask why.

We must ask whether or not in fact the Premier was flying a political kite to set up an Indian affairs department that he thought might prove more popular than he had anticipated, and to put the Hon. Member in charge as an astute political move. He then found that this kite was not popular, and that the only way out and the easiest way out was to fire the Minister — to make that Minister a scapegoat.

Or did the Premier find that the Member for Atlin, who had always been very frank about his position…

AN HON. MEMBER: Very frank.

MRS. JORDAN: …in fact, to be unwilling to back down from that position and proved, in fact, to be unwilling, as he always was, to toe a party line? And did he prove, in fact, to be a man who might well reveal policies of this government towards the Indian people? And did he, in fact, just prove too hot to handle?

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia and this official opposition want a better explanation than they have received. We want to express our respect to the Member for Atlin, and our acknowledgement of his service to the public of British Columbia. But what we also ask is: what is the policy of the government of British Columbia? To date, we have heard nothing but glib phrases and seen nothing but a few unrelated giveaways that put a few dollars into the Indian peoples' pockets without any thought to their future. How concerned about the native people is this government?

Mr. Speaker, in my time in public life I have had many opportunities to work with native Indian people on some of their programmes, and I have never seen a group of people who are so boxed in by regulations, tossed about by bureaucracy, and tied up with red-tape in my life. I suspect there are no other people in the world that find themselves in quite this situation. The Premier knows this and so does the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), yet what is their policy? We have seen their policy in relation to the Hon. Member for Atlin, and now we see the actions of that Minister stirring up greater concern. We must ask if they, in fact, are going to add one more brick to the suspected house for Indians that Barrett is building and serve as another concrete example of why the Indian people in British Columbia are growing concerned and very uneasy about their future under the NDP government, and how, by their own words, they must look with some suspicion at any so-called assistance that the NDP government offers. Like B.C. farmers, they might ask, "What is the real reason?"

Mr. Speaker, I bring to you as an example the conduct of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), as he acted when he was Minister of Highways, with the Qualicum band of Indians. The band, after an open discussion with that Minister in which the band thought that they were receiving a sympathetic hearing regarding their concerns for highways and regarding their concerns for their possession of their artifacts, were stunned to receive a letter from the

[ Page 185 ]

Minister. I will quote that letter, Mr. Speaker. The Minister, in taking a very rigid stand, stated:

"The Department of Highways must have, by law, the same rights and control on reserve lands, including expropriation for highway purposes, as are vested in the department in the case of non-Indian lands."

In his second letter, Mr. Speaker, dated April 27, 1973, the then Minister of Highways, the current Minister of Communications, stated: "I am afraid the proposal that some form of three-party agreement, under which individual Indian bands would be able to opt in and out, would not be satisfactory." And then he adds, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will listen very carefully to this, and I quote:

"I might add that this continual problem of non-co-operation from some of the Indian bands, where we are desirous of co-operating, makes the department less receptive to the requests of Indian bands who require some help and roadwork from the department."

Mr. Speaker, the letter in itself is a disgrace, but that Minister knows full well, innocent-looking though those concessions were, that he was acting for the Indian bands; that they would, in fact, if the Indian bands had conceded, had long-term effects, not only on their own band but on all bands in British Columbia, and very wide effects as to what the Indian bands in British Columbia enjoy in the way of legal rights in the protection of their property and the possession of their property. Yet, with full knowledge of this, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications took a rigid stand with one little band, the Qualicum band, in their efforts to work out a road problem; a stand that, if they had agreed, would have destroyed many more of their rights and protections without them even knowing it.

On the top of this type of subtle power play, the Minister had the audacity to threaten them, and to tell them that if they wouldn't cooperate in making these minor concessions, which in fact had far-reaching implications, this government would not be prepared to co-operate with other Indian bands, whether or not their discussions related to legitimate concerns. In other words, he was going to punish them for not doing what he wanted them to do. This Minister, who admitted publicly that the ferry workers put a shotgun to his head, had in fact tried to put a shotgun to the head of a small little Indian band in the Province of British Columbia, a gun that was loaded, a gun that would have in fact destroyed the rights of the Indians under the BNA Act, the Indian Act, and destroyed their one little Act that helps them hold on to the control of their land, the Trespass Act. We must ask, Mr. Speaker, if there is no limit in the hunger for power of this Minister, and is there no limit to the actions that this government will take in trying to get their own way?

Mr. Speaker, these are just two examples of why the Indian people of British Columbia are concerned, and why they want some answers, and why they, in their own words, are looking with suspicion on the actions of this government. Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that in dealing with the whole of the so-called Indian problem, in spite of any political maneuverings that go on by any government, the whole issue is wrapped up in the fundamental issue of land.

The high-handed, wheeler-dealer attitude of that Minister will not work and can only serve to foster greater distrust and can only serve to complicate the native Indians' already complicated position. And in trying to destroy the BNA Act we have to recommend in trying to stop the Minister from doing this, that this Act, as it affects Indians, is a fundamental bill as well that clearly spells out the federal power.

Unfortunately, however, this Act is also used both ways against the Indian people. The federal government uses it to protect their jurisdiction and provinces use it to deny responsibility for any help to Indian people in a wide range of services. And sadly caught in the middle of this legislative plague are the Indian people who still must often look to the same BNA Act for the fundamental protection of their land.

No matter how attractive the offers of government or how well-meaning the concerned offers of the public, we in British Columbia and in Canada must come to grips with the land issue and the Indian question. Anything else is playing around with surface fluff and isn't going to solve the problem. I suggest that the present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) had better not ignore the real issue of the land question by applying simplistic administrative procedures and trying also to use high pressure tactics on the Indian people.

Sooner or later the people of Canada have to face the land question and land independence. I don't think any provincial government, particularly in light of the current situation today, can wait for the federal government any longer. No longer can provincial governments hide behind the idea that the BNA Act makes the federal government the sole government responsible for solving the land question.

If you review the situation, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that, in all, land title is conferred by the provinces in the name of the Crown. In turn the Crown, in the right of the province, must ultimately be in a position to confer title against which no outstanding Indian land claim could apply. In short, the provinces must get themselves into a position with the titles that they claim jurisdiction to confer are in fact theirs to confer in the first place. They can't honestly continue to do that in British Columbia or in any province unless and until the

[ Page 186 ]

Indian land claims are settled.

The provinces, when one considers their right to confer title and their responsibility which theirs to ensure its validity, are at least partners with the federal government in negotiating with the Indian people for the settlement of the Indian land question.

Mr. Speaker, let's face facts. This question will ultimately be settled with money; I don't think we should kid ourselves in any way. The Indian people must be given compensation for any land which they held, in my view. For years the province has not been giving people, in fact, a clean title. If we face those two facts we can come to grips with the question.

I realize that financially we are talking about a very sizable sum of money. But the fact that the debt today is great is not going to make the problem go away, so let's get on with the job and start now. Frankly, I have no doubt that the Indian people in British Columbia would be reasonable.

I think, in talking about how this settlement could be made, that we have to recognize that obviously in 1871 in British Columbia land was not worth what it is today. Obviously the Indian people at that time did not occupy every square inch of the land in British Columbia. However, it is equally true that, unlike the United States, we did not claim British Columbia by right of occupancy and we ourselves have not yet occupied all of British Columbia. However, if we could negotiate a final cash settlement, many fundamental Indian and other Canadian problems would be on their way to being solved.

As a beginning, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we might consider some agreed variations to the following formula upon which we could get started. If we accept that British Columbia is approximately 366,000 square miles in area, and if we assume on the basis of historical facts that in 1871 value of the land in British Columbia was worth $1,000 a square mile, or approximately $1.60 per acre, and we know that the Crown — somewhat in question — in the right of the province granted title to the land in those early years at from $1 to $2 an acre, the 1871 evaluation of all British Columbia land would be approximately $366 million. If we considered loss of opportunity over the last 100 years, and it must be taken into account, we could take a factor — for example, I'll use the factor of' 10 — and this would set the 1973 value of Indian land in British Columbia at $3,066 billion.

If we realistically agreed that perhaps one-half of British Columbia was, in fact, occupied by the Indians at that time, we are talking about a compensation price in the order of $1.83 billion. Assuming that the Indian people would keep all of the already existing reserve land, it might well be possible to round this figure off at around $1.5 billion. Then, Mr. Speaker, in terms, of repayment, if we used the parity bond interest at 6.5 per cent, we would find that the Indian land-claim earning capacity would be approximately $100 million annually. If you translate that money into economic action programmes for the Indian people of British Columbia, $100 million annually is a significant and substantial figure.

I think, in suggesting this formula, and for the reasons I outlined before, that it would be realistic for British Columbia to share this figure 20/80 with the federal government. If we did that, the annual cost to the province would be approximately $20 million.

In suggesting how you raise $20 million, I would suggest that we might well consider a rollover tax on all shares traded in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. If the latter idea were chosen, a one per cent rollover tax on the shares traded in 1972 would net approximately $8 million and the remainder could come from general revenue. Obviously, future growth of shares traded on the stock market in British Columbia would have a general lessening impact on the amount of money that would have to come from general revenue over the years.

In any event, if you examine the figures of this government with $125 million surplus for this year, $12 million should not be too difficult to find.

Mr. Speaker, against a gross provincial product of nearly $12 million during 1972 and the solid and stable position in which British Columbia was in 1972, it would appear that this suggestion should at least be a reasonable formula from which this government and the people of British Columbia can start thinking in terms of settling the Indian land question once and for all and provide, in so doing, the economic action programme for the Indians with their own money, which they can administer themselves, and from which they can gain great economic benefits in their own industries themselves.

That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that there isn't still a need in areas for special consideration and special problems. But as we on this side of the House stand for fair and equitable treatment of the farmers in British Columbia so adversely affected by Bill 42, so we in Social Credit stand not only for fair and equitable treatment of the Indian people of British Columbia but for honesty and factual independence of the Indian people.

AN HON. MEMBER: A change of heart.

MRS. JORDAN: I offer this formula, or a variation of this formula, as a point from which serious negotiations can begin and also to point out to ourselves and the people of British Columbia the facts that, while we are indeed talking about a great deal of money in itself the debt will not decrease in the future.

I suggest this also to point out, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 187 ]

this generation in this time of great tax revenues must use these tax revenues, not for short term giveaways but for the long term benefit of all the people in British Columbia; and that we must now at this time when social attitudes — even when the attitude of the federal government and when financial reserves have never been so right — come to grips with this problem and to settle, once and for all, this fundamental issue.

The climate is right. The finances are there. Believe that the Indian people are there. I would urge this government, instead of playing the silly games that we have seen through the actions of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and the Premier of this province in his treatment of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), get down to business to do something to restore the confidence of the Indian people, and to give them the legitimate avenue through which they can undertake, with their own money, their own economic and social development programme.

Mr. Speaker, you've been very patient and I thank you for your time. I should like to go into matters of agriculture, when the bills come before this House, and at that time express the views of the constituency I represent in relation to their direct needs. Thank you.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, regretfully I want to rise to correct some statements that were made.

There was a vast catalogue of accusations against this government. I want to categorically deny two of them at this moment. Firstly, that cabinet Ministers involved themselves in using political influence to determine the course of the reports from the standing committees; and secondly, that Ministers serving on committees have got "a thousand dollars," I think were the words. Regretfully, I'm going to have to read the Member's speech — a hymn of hate if ever I saw one; if ever I heard one. That should be sufficient reason for any increase in salary for the Provincial Secretary — and deal with the matters as they come up in Hansard.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I regretfully too must rise on a point of personal privilege. The implication in the lady Member's recent speech was that I was involved in some way in telephone bugging or at least could give an explanation of it.

Telephone bugging is described under the Criminal Code — and the allegation would be a charge of a criminal nature — as "the surreptitious interception or recording of private telephone conversation or conversations." I have not been involved in any way in that kind of operation. If the lady Member is referring to a newspaper story, or alluding to a newspaper story that occurred some months ago, the press covered it carefully and all the facts were set out. I'm sure the lady Member didn't mean to impute a criminal charge and I know she regrets her statement now, but I wanted to correct Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out for the benefit of Hon. Members that, if there's a scintilla of evidence available that anyone's telephone is bugged, I want you to indicate that evidence immediately to the Speaker, under whose jurisdiction the introduction of telephones in the building is in charge. The B.C. Telephone Company, under my instructions, installed telephones. If there is any such evidence, or you want any assurance, please feel free to meet with the Speaker on that question.

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

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I believe the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) is in Russia at the present time.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I meant Seymour.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): They're both good Members.

MR. GABELMANN: The speech that we've just heard for the last hour-and-a-quarter, Mr. Speaker, is one that makes me very, very sad. Not only were the allegations made against various cabinet Ministers and various committee members, but some very, very serious things were said about senior citizens in British Columbia. And coming from that particular political party, Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely sickening to hear.

The comments that were made that this government isn't concerned about senior citizens, that this government isn't doing things for those people who are so disadvantaged in our society are nothing short of sad; nothing short of sad when she and her government had 20 years to do something and they did nothing whatsoever. At least in our year or so, Mr. Speaker, we've begun to do something. It's not nearly adequate. It's got a long way to go. But we have made a beginning and I think that the senior citizens out there would have been mightily offended by that previous speech.

HON. MR. HALL: Within six weeks of coming to office.

MR. GABELMANN: We did more in the first six weeks than they did in the last 10 years.

[ Page 188 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about a number of items this afternoon in discussing the throne speech debate. I wanted, first of all, to begin by talking about the buildings, the procedures, the session, and how MLAs fit into this whole traditional mould.

As someone who still hasn't reached thirty, I'm very out of tune with the kind of things that happen, both on the floor of this House and outside the House in terms of official functions and the things that have gone on that I suppose are carryovers from the days several hundred years ago in Britain, the lord-and-master attitude, the attitude of class, the attitude that there was those who ruled and those who were ruled.

Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking of events like the opening of this Legislature, at which time we were allowed — we didn't have to but we were allowed — to stand on the steps of the building and watch a military happening, despite the fact that the militarists were cadets, most of them I suppose in their teens. That was a disturbing day for me, Mr. Speaker, because it happened shortly after the military coup in Chile, and I found the parallels frightening.

When I saw what looked to me like carbines — I'm sure they were empty but they still looked pretty threatening — in the hands of those teenagers, I was pretty shaken up because it brought home to me the fragility of democracy; it brought home to me the horror of what happened in Chile and what has happened in many, many countries around the world. I would hope that in future days, Mr. Speaker, we in this province and the rest of us across this country can perhaps do away with military presence, with military connotations, not only at the opening ceremonies of this Legislature but at all other public events in this province. It offends me, Mr. Speaker.

I want to talk about the fact that we now have two sessions per year, the fact that we have two openings per year of this Legislature and the fact that we get two salaries per year. It doesn't really make much sense to me that we have this parliament opened in January and then opened again in September. It seems to me it would make much more sense if we had one opening per year and, if it was required, we could have two or three or however many sittings we required during that year. But really, we need only to have one session per year, in the strict sense of that word, Mr. Speaker, although we may well want to sit on two, three or four occasions throughout the year. We then don't need to have a special opening.

Nor do we have to have, Mr. Speaker, a system where we are paid for sitting at our desks in this chamber. It seems absurd to me, when I spent four hours and sometimes six hours a day in this chamber in some weeks of the year, that my salary is being paid for that particular function, when in fact 90 per cent of my work, 90 per cent of my activity is out in my constituency as representing constituents' problems. I can do 90 per cent of my work without ever coming into this chamber, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the fact that we are here to draft and to prepare and to consider legislation, in a sense our most important priority. But the role of Members has changed over the last few years.

I'm not sure, obviously, what it was like years ago, but, from what I understand, in years gone by the primary job that a Member had was in fact to consider legislation, was in fact to consider estimates of the government. That's no longer the case, Mr. Speaker. The real job of MLAs currently is acting as ombudsmen within their own constituencies. That's where we do all our work, that's where we spend most of our time and I think we should recognize that fact when we devise systems for payment to MLAs.

It seems absurd to me, Mr. Speaker, if I have to spend a day in my constituency attending some function or looking after some problem, that it costs me $100 off my salary. That's absolutely absurd, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a system we should do away with.

My suggestion would be that we simply pay MLAs an annual salary. If they don't come into the House, the public will soon learn that, because the press will dutifully report the fact that a certain MLA or MLAs are not attending the session — and in some cases that could perhaps cost the government a vote in this House. So I'm sure that attendance would be similar to the kind of attendance we now have.

Let's rationalize this whole procedure. I think, if only so that we understand that our job is not only to be here to consider legislation and estimates, but also to represent the people out there who have a great many problems and concerns.

Mr. Speaker, in order to do that job, of representing and in order to do that job of considering, we need to have additional staff or support or back-up — I call it staff, which is a word I don't like. We really need to have a full-time secretary in our constituencies. We made some advances — we've got a part-time secretary now for our constituencies. I told my secretary not to work during the session because she's been working so hard the last three or four months, and I've been paying far below the minimum wage if she would ever tell me how many hours she's actually worked. The amount of money that's being paid for that secretary is just not sufficient for the amount of work that is required from her.

In addition to that kind of secretarial help we also really need to have some kind of professional research

[ Page 189 ]

back-up. It's impossible, Mr. Speaker, for me to read all of my mail, much less do any raw research or much less do any thinking. It's impossible for me to keep up with the volume of briefs and correspondence and issues that go on in this province. I would like to be able to have someone working with me who could assist in much the same way as the Members of Parliament do in Ottawa and, of course, in many other legislatures around the world.

I'll leave that, Mr. Speaker. It's a plea I remember raising in the spring session and we made some advances. It's a plea I expect to be raising at every session of the Legislature as we go on, because I don't expect that we'll get to a situation where we are all happy, but I do hope that some changes can be made in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I have several things to talk about, but I want first of all to deal with some problems in the Okanagan Valley. I had no idea that today I would be following the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and also speaking on the same day as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). The Okanagan Valley is an area that currently is unrepresentative by government Members. It's an area that suffers from a lot of other problems as well, Mr. Speaker. The valley has some very limited capacities. It has a limited amount of water, it has a limited amount of space, and as a result it faces problems that are unique to itself alone. There's really no other area in British Columbia that has the kind of problems that do exist in the Okanagan. We think of the Okanagan — those of us from the urban areas — as being a rural area. In fact, in many senses of the word, the Okanagan Valley is a very, very urban area. I think when we talk about solutions to population pressures and when we talk about solutions to transportation problems in that valley, we have to think of the valley as being an urban area.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of discussion about widening Highway 97, creating a four-lane freeway from the Okanagan border right through to the Trans-Canada Highway in the north part. Mr. Speaker, it would be a tragedy if we did that. Much of the movement, outside of the tourist season, is limited; it's from Penticton to Kelowna or from Osoyoos to Vernon, and it's limited travel between specific communities in that valley. Rather than spending the millions and millions of dollars that would be required on highway projects in that valley, perhaps we should be considering some rapid water transit in that valley. It's well suited. Initially in the early days, of course, water transit was a major solution to transit and transportation problems in that valley. I think perhaps we should seriously consider coming back to those kinds of solutions.

We're also going to have to consider population limits in that valley, Mr. Speaker, because there is only so much water and there's only so much land. Already too much of it has been lost to the real estate developers who have created gas stations and motels and commercial establishments. Thousands of acres of very, very valuable farmland which we cannot afford to lose and fortunately will not be losing any more has already gone out of existence. But for that population in that valley to expand very much more, there would have to be further demands on farmland and that, Mr. Speaker, cannot be allowed to happen.

Consider very seriously what I consider is a mistaken direction that the federal government is embarked on, and that is the regional expansion programme that has created a great deal of industrial development in the north-central part of the valley, creating additional pressures, particularly on water sources and water supply. I think that perhaps we had better look to different solutions for that valley, Mr. Speaker. The emphasis on the Okanagan must be on agriculture. Without agriculture, it would not be the kind of tourist resort area that it is now. Everything we do should be aimed at preserving and encouraging the agricultural industry in that valley, not other forms of industry.

Mr. Speaker, I want too to talk, just for a moment or two, about recreational activities in the province. I want again to make a plea, as I did in the spring session, Mr. Speaker, to the Ministers who are responsible for recreation and for land, and to ask them to take a serious look at what's happening in Indian Arm. Fortunately we've been able to restrict the development that was threatened earlier in the spring because of the pressure that came from a lot of people. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are now pressures on the GVRD from a number of municipalities to have that area turned over to the District of North Vancouver. I can't think of a worse fate for Indian Arm than to have it turned over to the District of North Vancouver. It should in fact be created into a combination land-marine park. It is an ideal area for future recreational needs in the urban area of Vancouver, and I would ask particularly that that Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) find ways to make sure that that area is not further despoiled and to find ways to make sure that at some future date a park in fact will be created.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

Mr. Speaker, during the summer holidays I spent a bit of time travelling around the province on holiday, doing a bit of camping, doing a bit of canoeing, and doing a bit of wilderness camping. I find that's an area that hasn't been considered much by either of

[ Page 190 ]

the governments that have been in power in this province. We still exist with the mentality of the 50s in terms of our recreational needs. Most of the campsites that are created by the Parks Branch, very nice campsites though they are, are designed for the camping needs that were evident in the late 50s and early 60s. At that time, I think, we had one of the finest campsite systems, perhaps outside of the State of Oregon, that existed anywhere in North America. But, Mr. Speaker, the need for that type of campsite has begun to diminish, in my view. When you travel around the province in summertime, you'll find that these campsites are filled with trucks and trailers; they're filled with Winnebagos, almost all of them, of course, with foreign licence plates. I must say that, even as radical a statement as it was, I do have some strong sympathy for the comment made by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) when he said that we'd seriously have to look at having some kind of two-tourist system, if not a two-price system, which would allow British Columbians and Canadians to have first priority and first access to these camping facilities which are now inundated by people from other countries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, returning to the campsites themselves, they are not designed either for campers or for trailers or trucks. The problem with them now is that they're caught in a never-never land in between those two types of recreational use. What it seems to me that the Parks Branch should be looking at is to create separate kinds of facilities for Winnebagos, for self-contained units, for campers and for trailers. It must create specific parks for those kinds of units and an entirely different kind of park for campers, for people who want to put a tent on their back and climb into the mountains and disappear and get away from the rat race for a while. The Parks Branch should be involved in programmes that allow that kind of use.

It should also be involved, even though the canoeing facilities are limited in this province because of our terrain and the nature of the waterways, with furthering the programme that's been started in the Bowron Lakes chain, quite successfully in my view, and further that programme wherever it's possible in the waterways through British Columbia. If a survey hasn't yet been undertaken on potential canoe routes throughout B.C. by the Parks Branch, then I would suggest to the Minister that he ask them to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, talking just briefly about Bowron Lakes, I found it a bit disturbing. I wanted in my week's holiday on those lakes to get away from people. But the Parks Branch, I guess because of fire hazard problems, has decided that in those areas people must camp together. It's funny; unfortunately it makes me do nothing but laugh when I think about it. Every so often where there's a spot for the canoeist to pull up and camp overnight, there's a little area cleared, perhaps 50 or 60 feet wide and 10 or 20 feet deep, off the water, and in that area any number of campers have to camp. Quite frankly, the tents are cheek-by-jowl. It really was so bad, Mr. Speaker, that I violated Parks Branch policy and in fact stayed in non-camping areas, which I understand, though we weren't told, is quite against the rules. Perhaps when the Parks Branch is considering those kinds of facilities they should consider the fact that people are going camping and canoeing to get away from people — that's what we want to do when we go out there. Let's not have camp facilities on a cheek-by-jowl basis. I'd like to talk a lot longer about that, Mr. Speaker, but my time's going to be limited if I speak as long as I want on every topic.

I want to deal with some transportation and urban problems as related to North Vancouver in particular. First of all, even though he's not in the House, I wanted to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) indeed for providing bus service. It's provided as of September 1 in my constituency, except that I guess there was some delay because of problems back east, and it is now beginning October 19.

That bus service is deeply appreciated by every resident, of the Seymour area particularly, in North Vancouver and I am absolutely convinced that it is going to be saving householders a great deal of money because they won't now be faced with the necessity of maintaining a second car. There is a unanimity of feeling in that area that the government has done a very, very fine thing by providing a comprehensive and excellent bus service for many parts of the North Shore.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some remarks that were made by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson). I didn't know he was going to be away when I was speaking. I didn't know that he would not be representing his constituents at this session of the Legislature but, nevertheless, I do want to make some comments.

He suggested that he had changed his mind from his views a year ago that free buses, perhaps, were an answer to the urban transit problem. Many of us in this party have been for a long time suggesting that free bus transportation is essential if public transit is ever going to work in this society; it is essential if we are ever going to save the millions and millions of

[ Page 191 ]

dollars that go into, not just building the freeways and the bridges, but into the land that is required to have those freeways, that go into the social costs that freeways create.

There are solutions other than automobiles. One of those immediate solutions is the use of free buses, in my view. It shouldn't just be tried between Vancouver and the North Shore, as much as that idea appeals to me, living on the North Shore; it should be tried throughout the lower mainland because it is a system that, although it may not prove to be financially successful when you look at it on a project basis; it will be successful because the costs of the automobile are unmeasured in our society and anything we do to reduce the use of the automobile will, in fact, save society money and a lot of other things as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we are moving far too slowly on other transit solutions in the greater Vancouver area. The Municipal Affairs Department is moving very, very quickly but the co-operation from some of the private interests and some of the municipalities has not been nearly good enough in my view. We must move very quickly on water transit across Burrard Inlet. We must make sure that those railway tracks that belong to private interests and other corporations in the lower mainland area are there to serve the people of Greater Vancouver. We must make sure that the CPR does what we say with its tracks running along Burrard Inlet, because those tracks are essential, in my view, to a proper transit system in the lower mainland.

One final small item, about transit, Mr. Speaker, and that refers to bicycles. I just want to put a little word in the Minister of Highway's (Hon. Mr. Lea) ears that, next time he is down in Oregon, he should watch very carefully the number of cyclists who ride the bicycle paths alongside many of the state highways in that state. He might also inquire as to how much money is raised to build those bicycle paths by the use of one per cent, I believe it is, of the tax dollars raised by the gasoline tax.

Bicycle paths are something that we haven't considered very seriously in this province. There are a number of very ideal locations for that use, I think, not only for recreational purposes but also in some cases for transportation purposes. One of the areas that I personally would like to see bicycle paths built on in the first instance is along the Sechelt Peninsula between Langdale and Earl's Cove. I think that would be an ideal project for the Minister of Highways and not nearly as expensive as that monstrosity along the Upper Levels that he is now, unfortunately, engaged in building.

I want to deal very briefly again with the housing problems. I am not going to go into an analysis or minalysis of what I think is happening because a number of other speakers in the debate have done that. Obviously, there is a problem. The fact is that investment money is not being channeled into housing at this stage because a greater return on that investment can be made on that money in other projects. That sentence by itself is, in my view, a damning indictment of capitalism, particularly as it applies to particular needs like housing.

We need new solutions. I don't know that any of us really knows what the solutions are. I suspect that many of the things that we try to do will, in 50 or 60 years, prove to have been the wrong thing to do, but we are going to have to begin to do something.

The municipality of Coquitlam is now experimenting with zero lot lines; as a result housing lots are going to be a lot smaller and still have the same kind of garden space. If that kind of solution is required.

Perhaps we need smaller lots. Maybe a return to the 33-ft. lot in tight urban areas is going to happen. Maybe it would be a good thing. I don't like it, but maybe row-housing of some form. Maybe a greater investment in condominiums, multiple dwelling homes. I don't know. I suspect that the major problem still relates to land.

I just want to cite a personal example that I find absolutely reprehensible in this society.

I bought a house three years and two months ago and I paid a fairly heavy price for it. I didn't have to use any of my own money because I was able to borrow the full amount of money that I needed; so that there was no investment on my part. I pay a monthly mortgage, very much like a rent…no investment on my part. In three years, that house is now worth $20,000 to $30,000 more than it was when I bought it — three years. I am making somewhere around $10,000 a year, Mr. Speaker, on no investment. I should not be making that kind of money on my personal home; it's criminal for that to happen.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talked about land costs going up and she blamed Bill 42. If she would look at land costs throughout Canada, the United States and, in fact, throughout Europe, particularly in Great Britain, she would see that this is a universal phenomenon and it's not in any way related to the problems created, as she thinks, by Bill 42.

The fact, Mr. Speaker., that the profit motive is involved in housing is what the problem is. The fact that the District of North Vancouver can auction its land and the price can reach levels now of between $26,000 and $30,000 per building lot, Mr. Speaker, is

[ Page 192 ]

criminal. I'm not exactly sure how to deal with it but we must find ways to put an end to that kind of practice. It's criminal that building lots are costing $30,000 when average incomes are still around $7,000 or $8,000 a year in this society.

Maybe the government has got to be involved in building homes. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested air should be owned privately. Air was given to us by God, or whoever we believe gave it to us, and so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned. I believe that it's going to take us decades and decades to reverse that mentality and that attitude in this society — and I have it too — that we all think we have to own a chunk of land and until we own that chunk of land, until we own a house, we've actually not made it.

We have got to reverse that philosophy, Mr. Speaker. I'm not suggesting that this government will have the time to be able do that; I think it's a thing that has to happen throughout North America over a great many years. But I think it's important that people begin to talk about the fact that there is no real difference between land and air and we would think it absurd and insane if air were owned privately. I think it's the same situation for land.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some problems that are created by the current landlord-and-tenant legislation. I'm not going to dwell on it, other than to say that I think amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act are overdue. I'm hopeful that amendments, or changes, or a new Act or whatever is required, will be introduced at the earliest possible time.

It's a very, very pressing problem in most urban areas. I know I get a great deal of correspondence from tenants in North Vancouver and I know the tenants' organization is in fact becoming a stronger organization because of the inability of the current legislation to deal properly with tenants' rights.

One of the first things that we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is make mandatory that municipalities set up rental grievance boards. We cannot allow them to do it only if they want to. Those rental grievance boards are absolutely essential and they must be made mandatory in every community.

The important thing that has to come into the legislation as well is that there be stated in the legislation in some way a clause forcing landlords to give written, just cause for eviction. Too many tenants are being evicted, as the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) pointed out here in the House the other day, because a friend of the landlord, or because someone who might be willing to pay a little bit more money is prepared to rent that particular suite, and some cases phony and in some cases very flimsy excuses are made to the tenants that they have to leave. Just cause for eviction must be written into that legislation.

And the third thing, again a minor thing I just want to mention, is the whole question of tenants voting in municipalities. Tenants must be put on voters' lists. We must find a way to enumerate tenants for all elections, whether they're federal, provincial, or municipal, and we must also make sure that tenants have the right to vote on money bylaws within municipalities because, as everyone agrees, they pay taxes just the same as everyone else.

One of the other items I'd like to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is an item that I haven't, until these past few months, had much experience with: the whole question of chiropractors. I know that my personal view for all of my life, I guess, has been that if they are not quacks there is certainly something funny about chiropractors. But I keep running into constituents of mine who have been treated by chiropractors and have had remarkable success with particular ailments, absolutely remarkable success with ailments that appear to be untreatable, if that's a word, by medical doctors.

Now, I'm very conscious of the fact that there is an intense dispute between the medical profession on one hand and the chiropractors on the other hand. I would hope that in the years to come we can in some way help to bring those two groups together because, even though they are very different in their function, they do both provide important services to the community. I believe there must be a way that we can find to involve the chiropractor as a more respected part of our medical service.

I think perhaps one of the solutions is to have the chiropractor made a part of the referral process. The obvious retort to that is: doctors aren't going to refer patients to chiropractors because they think they're not suitable people. I think the trust thing that we might try to create could perhaps begin to deal with that.

Currently in B.C. there is a $100 limit for families and a $50 limit for individuals for chiropractic treatment. That means, in effect, eight visits a year that society is prepared to pay. In many cases, people have to go once or twice a week to receive proper treatment. I would like us to find a way that if the family medical doctor, perhaps through the community health care clinic, thinks it is worthwhile for his or her particular patient to have chiropractic treatment and to have the x-rays that are so important a part of that process, that could then be covered by Medicare.

I would hope that the Department of Health will find a way to resolve the conflict and will find a way to make chiropractic services more available to those people who genuinely are in need of those kind of services.

Mr. Speaker, just two more points; one is a very

[ Page 193 ]

small one and then I'll conclude with a larger point. The small one is that we're finding in our community more and more interest groups being created, interest groups on the environment and on civil rights and on a whole range of human problems. I think those groups are a very important part of the whole democratic process.

It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that groups should be funded by government on a project basis, even though in many cases the project or the study will produce results contrary to government policy. I think the Secretary of State in Ottawa had much the same kind of idea when he began some of his programmes through LIP and OFY. We must, I think, provide cash and assistance on a no-deal basis, saying to the people: Here's the money; you go ahead. If the results of the particular study indicate that such-and-such a problem is happening and that government policy is wrong on this problem, they should be allowed to state that fact and conduct that study or survey on money provided by the government. I think that is an important departure in our society, but one I think we should consider.

For example, I think it's very important that groups like SPEC be allowed to conduct projects telling us why it's wrong to build our ferries in a certain location. I think it's important for groups like SPEC to tell us why it's wrong for B.C. Ferries to be dumping some of its effluent into the Strait of Georgia. I think they should be funded by us to do those projects. I think that's an important feature that our democratic system can well stand.

The final topic I want to talk about before winding up is the whole question of human rights, which is one that has received a great deal of publicity in some of its particular aspects over the last several years throughout North America, particularly. The emphasis has been primarily on the question of women's rights. Earlier in the 1960s the question at that time, primarily in the United States, was on the question of the rights of minorities, particularly the black population. In B.C. today there is a great deal of discussion of the rights of the Indian minority.

Mr. Speaker, even though I'm very very much in favour of the concept of a women's Ministry — and I have voted for that position at the party convention — I think perhaps we should begin to look at human rights from a slightly different point of view: that every human right being violated has to do with the whole economic system. It has to do with the fact that society requires a group of people, large or small, to be the underlings in that society.

It was very clear in its blatant form in the United States during the days of slavery. It was necessary in those days to have a group of underlings and it was, in fact, a very deliberately set up slave system in parts of the United States.

We really haven't changed, Mr. Speaker, in substance, from a slavery system. In fact, we have coated it with all kinds of gloss, we have pretended that everybody is equal, but we still find people who will be weaker than other groups in society and we find ways of putting them down. We find ways of using them. That happens to blacks, it happens to minorities of every kind, and it doesn't really matter what the ethnic or cultural background of the people is. What happens throughout the world is that the smaller group gets stepped upon. I think that we should understand that that's part of the old slavery system.

That's part of the old capitalist system too. Capitalism depends on competition; it depends on people climbing as much as they can over each other's backs. It's the whole basis of that ethic. I'm not talking about the specific use of capital; I'm talking about the ethic: the ethic that says some people are better than others; the ethic that says, "I'm all right. Why don't you look after yourself?"; the ethic that says people must look after themselves because we're not going to look after them — if they can't look after themselves, tough luck.

We've coated that in nice glossy terms; we've created equal-rights legislation; we've provided services and facilities for some of the downtrodden groups in our society — but we haven't yet got at the basic problems. It's nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the subjugation women suffer in our society. The case has been made repeatedly, it has been made in this Legislature, it's been made in a great many books, it's been made by a great many people around the world, that, in fact, women are subjugated.

Again I want to bring to the attention of the House the book that the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) referred to in her comments the other day, the book that John Kenneth Galbraith has just written called Economics and the Public Purpose. Atlantic Monthly has reprinted one of the chapters from that book in which Galbraith very, very lucidly discusses the problems women face in our society.

He relates them, almost in a Marxist sense, right back to economic problems: if the American housewife was paid for her services, she would be receiving a salary of an average of $13,000 per year. In fact, those housewives are not receiving anything like that. Those women who are forced, for a variety of reasons, to enter the labour force are continually discriminated against.

Just in passing, I'm very very pleased about the arrangements that have been made between Kathleen Ruff of the Human Rights Commission and the two Vancouver dailies to end their sexist discrimination in their want ad columns. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm concerned that the more we patch up these little problems the more we're going to miss the basic problem: that under the kind of society we exist in

[ Page 194 ]

and under the capitalist ethic, it is essential that some people be better than other people. As I see it, we're going to be continually finding the weakest group and using them to be our servants in one way or another, as very clearly women are our servants today.

I want to just repeat the four essential items that Galbraith says are required for the beginning of the emancipation of women. The first thing he suggests is that provision for child care must be created and must be fully available to all the mothers in our society. That's a direction this government has embarked upon and it is a fine direction. I don't believe we're spending nearly as much money as we could and must spend, not only because it's good for those children in those centres and not only because it's good for the income for those children in those centres and not only cases, but because it allows the woman to be free in one very important sense. I very much support what Galbraith says about providing professional care for children.

Secondly, he says a greater individual choice in the work week and work year are required for the emancipation of women. I agree with that conclusion as well, Mr. Speaker. We've been locked into a society, into a system that says — I said this in the spring session — that you work five days a week, eight hours a day, and you work 50 weeks a year and when you've put in a number of years you can reduce that 50 weeks to 49 and 48 and hopefully you can reduce it to 46 if you really bust your gut and work for 30 years or something. Why don't we get away from that whole locked-in system and allow people to work whenever they please, to work maybe a greater number of hours.

I come from the trade union movement, Mr. Speaker, and I had some disagreements with the trade union movement about sticking to eight hours a day. Maybe 12 hours a day for two days a week is a greater schedule for some people; if so, they should be allowed to have that. Women particularly need that more than men do because they're locked into other problems: the question of child rearing, the question of wanting to be at home with the children more time than they can be if they're forced to work five eights. Mr. Speaker, that's a solution that I think we can provide in legislation by amending some of the current laws that do tend to lock us into traditional methods.

A third area that we have to give very, very specific consideration to is the whole question of the male monopoly of the better jobs. The fact that we look around this Legislature and 50 out of 55 are men; the fact that we turn to the civil service and almost all the senior civil servants are men; the fact we go to look for at corporations, they're men; we look to the trade union movement, it's men. Men run this society, whether we like it or not. I don't particularly like it, Mr. Speaker. I would prefer that some kind of balance existed, for my own purposes, because I don't think that we as males are that capable of running this society and this system on our own. I would like to be able to share that kind of responsibility with women. But also, of course, it provides them an opportunity to make some kind of fulfilment out of their own lives which many many people, particularly women, are denied in this society.

The fourth and final thing, Mr. Speaker, that Galbraith recommends, is that the requisite educational opportunity must be provided for women. We see discrimination against women right from kindergarten all the way through to post-graduate courses. The girls are taught in school that they're going to be mothers. They don't play doctor; they play nurse. They go into high school or junior high school; they don't take industrial arts if they're interested in hammering nails, they take home economics and vice versa. That kind of discrimination that exists in the school system must be dealt with and it must be dealt with as quickly as we can, because it's going to take us generations to get away from that system and the results of that system.

Universities again, the technical jobs, you just expect that the engineering faculty at the university is going to be male-dominated; in fact, it is. That's a system that I'm not very happy about: I know the women in our society aren't very happy about it. I would recommend very strongly to Members of this House, and in fact to members of the public, that they try and get hold of the current issue of the Atlantic Monthly and read Galbraith's article because I found it very, very illuminating.

Mr. Speaker, that's all I want to say today because I've taken 45 minutes and that's far too long, as the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) knows. I would like to end by saying that in the future debates in this fall session I intend to be quite actively involved, particularly in the labour and agricultural bills. Two of my very deep interests are in those particular subjects. I've refrained from commenting on them because I think we'll probably have ample opportunity during the debates on legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I must congratulate the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) on the care with which he composed his remarks and the content of what he has just said. I listened very carefully and I am certain that he will join with us in opposing the motion which we are currently debating.

[ Page 195 ]

If I ever heard one Member on the government side chronicle the reasons why the backbenchers on the government side should oppose this motion, I can't imagine a better job than was done by the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Point after point after point he showed why this government, in this Speech from the Throne, has failed to deliver the promise which just barely a year ago, it held out to the people of this province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems is they've lost the vigour they had when they sat over here. And now they've become comfortable in the seats of power. A year ago they weren't quite sure how they touched those levers of power, and they were a little sensitive, they were new, they were prepared to try things, they approached the job tenderly but with vigour that they brought from this side of the House.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): We know where the fat cats are.

MR. WILLIAMS: But now they all sit over there relaxed. They know how to handle everything. They know how to control the "nervous McNellys" of the press gallery; they know how to turn them on and turn them off. (Laughter.)

We had a perfect example of it the other day when the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) rose in his place. Why, he was in his best pastoral style.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He delivered a wonderful sermon. The only problem is that I discussed it with some people on this side of the House who happen to be experts in the field and they tell me two things: first of all, they weren't sure whether he was talking about resurrection or reincarnation; secondly, his congregation was bound to dwindle. That style is no longer modern, Mr. Attorney General.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You should have seen the collections. (Laughter.)

MR. WILLIAMS: That's the problem. You see you had your eye fixed too firmly on the collection plate and you forgot the message. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, before I turn to matters that I wish to raise in this debate, I would like to record my personal thanks and appreciation to the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) for the job that he did as chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. A lot has been said about the work of that committee and I don't intend to bore the House again with additional details. I don't intend to tell any of the stories that could be told as a result of our travels throughout the province, but I do want to say that the Member for Kamloops undertook the task of chairmanship with vigour and he was a real slave driver.

On most days, we began our work about 8:30 in the morning and on most days we were still in session at 11 o'clock at night. It was due to his organizational skill and ability that we were able to…

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, we didn't get paid overtime…that we were able to do as much as we did in five short weeks and produce a report which I hope all the members will read and understand.

In so doing, I would also like to record my thanks to one other group and that is the ranchers, the farmers, the members of the agricultural community in this province who responded to the opportunity that was made available to them this year by the tours of the agricultural committee. Each area of the province that we visited produced significant numbers of agriculturalists, people actively engaged in farming. They brought before the committee carefully prepared briefs. They were prepared to answer our questions and they gave willingly of their time in order to assist us in the task that this House placed before us. In many cases, they took us on tours of their areas so that we could be oriented to the matters that they would be discussing with us in the public hearings. They did this, as I say, on their own time and at their own expense, and to them I think this House owes a vote of thanks.

It has become popular to congratulate the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) on his recent election and I certainly want to do so. He joins a very elite club, the only club in British Columbia with limited membership, 55, open to both sexes. So elite, as a matter of fact, that you don't pay to join, you get paid for belonging and that's a pretty fair indication of how elite it can be.

But, so far as this House is concerned, I say to the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) you know, it may be that we've only got five women in this House, but if you take four of them, I think they balance the abilities of the 50 men; and if you take the five of them they certainly outweigh us. So I don't think that the lady members have to have any concern.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six — six of them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well you count the way you want to count. But I do say to the Member for South Okanagan that I trust that he comes equipped with a thick skin, although, mind you, the barbs from the other side of the floor are not very sharp these days. Perhaps what you need more, Mr. Member, is a thick

[ Page 196 ]

inner skin so that you can withstand those jabs of conscience that you may receive, from time to time, as you take your place in this House and listen to some of the remarks which are made by people on whom you rely for support. That's the most difficult part of all.

Now I notice the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is here and, before I delve directly into the matter of the throne speech, there are a couple of constituency problems that I want to raise with Ministers, and in particular with the Minister of Highways.

Mr. Speaker, we have in my constituency an area known as Garibaldi. Garibaldi is very well known. First, there's one area — the Garibaldi community. Recently, back in February, 1972, a subdivision was allowed on a portion of Rubble Creek.

In August of 1972 a second application for such a subdivision was placed before the Department of Highways and was refused. It was refused because of the exercise of a discretion which the Department of Highways has in such matters. It subsequently resulted in the matter coming before the courts of British Columbia, and I know the Minister knows the case whereof I speak.

Now I am not pleading for the subdivider or making any comments as to the decision made by Mr. Justice Berger, but I do wish to ask the Minister what he proposed to do about the situation, which was made so clear by the testimony introduced in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by the witnesses for the Department of Highways.

Let me recite this to you, Mr. Speaker. In 1855 there was a catastrophic slide at Rubble Creek. Tons upon tons of material came down from the mountain slope, covering the valley floor to the depth of 150 feet, diverting the course of the Cheakamus River and creating two new lakes. That was in 1855. This is the area of which I speak. And it was because of that slide in 1855 that the official of the Department of Highways was constrained to refuse the second application for a subdivision in this area.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Was it reported?

MR. WILLIAMS: It was reported, Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Member's benefit, back in 1952 when Dr. Matthews, who is the head of the Department of Geology for the University of British Columbia, produced a paper in which he described what took place back in 1855.

Well, it is interesting to note that the condition that existed at the time of the slide in 1955 still exists today.

The distinguished and learned judge, in his reasons for judgment, describes what the situation is, based upon the evidence of the witnesses for the Department of Highways, and I read, Mr. Speaker:

"….so Dr. Matthews says this: 'There was a catastrophic slide in 1855 and it inundated the fan of Rubble Creek.' He, the doctor, says, 'The barrier may collapse again and inundate the fan again; that is the danger. Nothing has changed since 1855. It is not a case where the whole mountain has collapsed; the barrier is still there. It is a steep rock cliff 1,500 feet in height. It may come down again; therefore it is not safe to allow the subdivision to go ahead.'

"He, Dr. Matthews, said: 'A catastrophic slide such as occurred in 1855 would take place without warning. Those living in the subdivision would have no chance of escape, there would inevitably be loss of life and their homes would be destroyed. There is a promontory at the mouth of the gulley. It would not,' according to Dr. Matthews, 'offer any protection for the subdivision.' "

That's what the judge found the facts to be, based upon the evidence of the witnesses for the Department of Highways, and it formed the basis for the judgment of Mr. Justice Berger. The judge also said, "Finally, accepting the possibility of a slide, it is clear that nothing can be done to contain such a slide."

The honourable judge then goes on to discuss what the responsibility of the Department of Highways is under such circumstances. He concluded that the Department of Highways, quite properly acting in the public interest, had a responsibility to disallow the application for a subdivision, and I don't quarrel with this. The judge found, and he says — and I quote on that matter of public interest:

"Where questions of public safety arise, the public interest cannot be confined to the interests of unascertained purchasers. There is a higher public interest — the interest the community has in preserving the lives of all the people living in the subdivision including dependents and children of the purchasers of lots, and that higher public interest comprehends successors and title to the immediate purchase and, of course, their dependents."

The judge questions, "Ought they to be warned; will they be warned; will they be told, and who is going to tell them?" The judge continues and says, "It will be a catastrophic disaster, involving loss of life and the destruction of a community."

Now, Mr. Speaker, the point of all this is that we are not just concerned as to whether a subdivider was to be permitted to go ahead and create a few lots for sale for the construction of homes — summer homes or winter homes — as the case may be. But I ask the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) — and I trust that when he has an opportunity to rise in his place in

[ Page 197 ]

this debate that he will give us an answer…knowing all this now, with this evidence clearly before him and his department…evidence which his own department produced, evidence which has been available since 1952 — what is the department going to do for the existing community of Garibaldi, for the owners of the 26 lots which were permitted by the Department of Highways to be subdivided in February of 1972 and for the community, which has existed for many, many years before that time?

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have the main highway link north of the Pemberton valley. We have the B.C. Railway line. We have the B.C. Hydro power transmission lines and we have the B.C. Hydro dam at the south end of Daisy Lake. All are in jeopardy because of the possibility of this slide, which the judge finds to be of such a magnitude as to justify refusal to create a subdivision.

What will happen if it goes again, if a similar slide occurs, as occurred 100 or so years ago? Does it wipe out the dam at Daisy Lake? If it does, that whole lake goes down the Cheakamus valley. And if that whole lake goes down the Cheakamus valley and joins the Squamish, I would suggest that the town of Squamish is gone. At least, if it's not, the department should take care to concern itself with what the effects will be of such a catastrophe.

This is not just a possibility which may occur in some geological time frame. The evidence of the distinguished geologists who appeared before Mr. Justice Berger indicated that it could happen next year, 100 years from now or 1,000 years from now. But it could happen next year without warning.

I would like to know, on behalf of the citizens of the community of Garibaldi and those who depend upon the accesses through that narrow valley — upon those people who may suffer as a consequence of such a disaster downstream from the Garibaldi area — what the Department of Highways proposes to do?

Also in my constituency is another place that bears the name Garibaldi, and I speak of Garibaldi Park. I want to raise some matters with the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) with regard to that little problem. Garibaldi Park is one of our major provincial parks, one whose name is known internationally largely because of the success that the government of British Columbia has had in publicising that park and its attractions.

About 10 per cent of Garibaldi Park has ever been developed, and principally in the Diamond Head and Black Tusk area. It is a park which has attractions of a mountainous nature which equal anything which may be found elsewhere in the world. Switzerland, which capitalizes on such scenic beauty, would be jealous to have what we have in Garibaldi Park, particularly at Diamond Head.

But what is happening? In spite of the promotion that has been done by the Department of Travel Industry and other departments over the years, in spite of the beautiful pictures that are displayed from time to time in places throughout this province of the beauties of Garibaldi Park, we find that Diamond Head is being closed down.

Diamond Head is one of the only mountain areas accessible other than by hiking. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister wants to chat with me across the floor, and I know that's against the rules and you wouldn't permit him to do it. So I just hope that when the Minister has the opportunity, he too will rise in his place and tell the Members of the House that what I am saying is wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is absolutely right, and he has never done that himself either.

MR. WILLIAMS: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I'd never think of doing such a thing and I certainly wish he would make it clear to the people in the Squamish area who have expressed the most severe criticism of the Minister for this decision. The fact of the matter is, as I say, that Diamond Head is an area that can be visited by people who are not able to hike in the mountains because you can be transported to Diamond Head and enjoy the scenic beauty there by vehicle. In April, the resort at Garibaldi accommodated 300 people-days.

This is not a rich man's paradise, Mr. Speaker: accommodation, including your meals, at Garibaldi costs $13.50 a day.

MR. McGEER: He's against the working man.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, the working man. As a matter of fact, there were 200 people-days in August and there are 200 or 300 people in Diamond Head every weekend.

It is incomprehensible that the government would not do everything they possibly could to improve the access to Diamond Head and to improve the facilities there because it is the gateway, if you are a serious hiker, whether it be summer or winter, to a beautiful mountain playground, an area which we should be promoting in this province and bringing people from all over North America and the rest of the world, just as it's done in Switzerland.

I was recently in Switzerland and wherever you go there, you see signs which encourage you to go to Zermatt and all these wonderful places in the Alps. They'll take you up the Matterhorn for a fraction of the cost that it used to be. Yet we don't seem to be capitalizing on this.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a matter of some concern. Let me assure you that I

[ Page 198 ]

didn't go to Switzerland at the expense of the government, but if it's necessary in order to keep Diamond Head open to send that Minister to Switzerland so he can see what's done with mountainous regions, send him. Then when you get there, send us back a message. When you go there, Mr. Minister, would you please bring us back careful details of the place in Switzerland like Diamond Head that they only open in the daytime for day-trips only. You can't stay overnight. If you go up the mountain and it starts to snow, it's too bad, you can't stay overnight because there are no facilities. Day-trips only. Let 'em freeze to death. That's the way you're treating Diamond Head.

Mr. Speaker, if the government can spend the kind of money it's spending to refurbish this chamber and Ministers' offices — this is costing thousands of dollars — I would think that the paltry sum of $25,000 or $30,000 which is required to refurbish the chalet at Diamond Head could be accomplished and lost in the budget of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley).

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would you like to ask the Member (Mr. McGeer) if he would let me make my speech and then he can make his. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I thought you were the caucus chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't mind him feeding me lines, but when he steals the lines and throws them across the floor, it interferes with my…(Laughter).

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. Well, I think we should spend $80,000 refurbishing the Diamond Head chalet, and we should show the federal government that they can waste their money on the Prime Minister, but we're going to spend it at Diamond Head and make it a place where hikers and skiers can go and enjoy the marvels of nature and say, "My government did it for me." That's the kind of thing that we want from this government. You should be the leader.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't want to treat this matter in a light vein because it's a very serious one. I know that the Minister will view it that way too. I just think that the decision to shut down the chalet at Diamond Head should be reconsidered and steps taken to improve the facilities in such a time that they can be utilized this winter. And if you have any trouble with the Department of Highways about keeping that road open, you just come and see me and we'll both go and see the Minister together.

Now I notice the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is in his seat. I don't really have anything to say for him except I want to thank him for correcting the record this afternoon following the remarks of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). When I heard what she said, I began to doubt that the report in the press about the taping equipment you had on your telephone might have been in error and I'm glad you corrected that.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he didn't tell the whole story. The fact of the matter is the Premier phoned up and said, "Gary, I understand you've got a tape machine hooked up to your phone."

Gary said, "Yes."

The Premier said, "Get rid of it."

Gary said, "But…."

The Premier said, "No buts."

Gary said, "But, Mr. Premier, no one ever calls me." (Laughter).

So, you see, you can't bug an empty line.

HON. MR. LAUK: How does he know about that conversation? (Laughter).

MR. WILLIAMS: Because I had a bug on it too.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've got some serious problems in this province and I'm afraid that this government, in its new-found comfort, is not paying attention to them.

We had the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) this afternoon speak about housing. We had the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) the other day raise the question of housing. I want to raise it too. It's a scandal what's going on in this province.

Last Saturday, in West Vancouver, I saw a young man and his wife standing in front of a pay phone in my constituency, shooting dimes in it like it was a slot machine, phoning a list that they had from the classified ads section of the newspaper of accommodations for rent. The only trouble is, like the slot machines of Las Vegas, they kept turning up with the wrong lemon — they never got the jackpot. That's no way to run a ship. And this government should do something about it.

We've got a Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who for several months has been charged with the specific responsibility of housing, and we haven't seen one programme come out of that Minister yet. In the Speech from the Throne that we're debating now, what are we promised? A Ministry of Housing. They're going to make him the Minister of the Department of Housing, going to give

[ Page 199 ]

him a portfolio — that's worth more money to him — plus a Deputy Minister and an assistant Deputy Minister and an Associate Deputy Minister and all the paraphernalia of a department. And that Mr. Speaker won't build one housing unit, not one.

We've had discussions about, oh, we're going to form a land bank. The people I know who are in need of housing, when they hear you talk about land bank, just say one thing: how do I make a withdrawal? That's the kind of programme we require — something that produces housing units.

Sure it's a scandal; it's a scandal of the private sector that we have this situation. Housing has for too long been considered a plaything for the investor. The federal government has got a serious responsibility in this regard. How ridiculous it was for them several years ago to make it possible for people to invest in apartments, charging up any loss from such a venture against their other income. And when they took away that tax gimmick, it apparently shut off the flow of investment capital into the housing field. Shocking. But what are you doing about it? Nothing.

In the paper yesterday we find that the council of Oak Bay is having a serious debate tonight. What's the problem? The government has offered to buy a little over nine acres of land from Oak Bay for $900,000. That's $100,000 an acre the government is offering to buy land to form the base for 200 housing units. Well, that's $4,500 per housing unit for land cost. Listen, that's a good move; maybe the government is doing something.

But then you read on: the Mayor of Oak Bay indicates that the provincial offer was first made to council early July and aldermen then asked for more details about the type of housing and possible building dates. The mayor goes on to say:

"We have met with the municipal Minister and he wants us to get involved in expensive studies if we indicate interest. The government had made no further proposal beyond that in the first letter from Municipal Affairs Minister, James Lorimer. His letter promised no fewer than 200 units of about 1,200 square feet each, the municipal right to buy back the property at cost if development plans weren't approved, partial payment of taxes until the property was developed and then full payment?"

The government doesn't even have any plans for what it's going to do with this nine acres if it gets them. That's no way to build a house, Mr. Minister, to you Mr. Speaker. Why doesn't the government, with ten facilities that it has at its command, produce a plan for that nine acres, or for any acreage in Oak Bay, or in Victoria, or in Esquimalt, or in Vancouver, or in Delta, or wherever the case may be, then go and sit down with the local council and say: this is what we want to do. This is what we want to build. This is what we are prepared to pay. This is how we will service the property. This is how we will transport the people who will come to live in this area from the place of their abode to their place of work. This is how we will assist you with the other demands upon the municipality because of the housing development that we intend to produce and then, with that programme put before the local government, be in a position to negotiate with that government for the acquisition of needed lands, and get on with the building. That's the way the package should be put together.

The Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) criticized the fact that North Vancouver city had land upon which it was apparently making a profit. This belongs to the city. If the government wants to take advantage of that particular land, why doesn't it go to the city with the proposal? There was one in North Vancouver that this government was going to deal with, namely Blair rifle range, but North Vancouver immediately said, "Who's going to supply the services to Blair rifle range?" And we haven't heard anything from the government with regard to that proposal since.

This government must meet with the local governments of this province if they intend to solve the housing crisis. You are never going to be in a position to force housing down the throats of local government, and you are never going to overcome some of the building difficulties that must be overcome in the project.

But there's another thing that must be done, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the government must make arrangements to acquire materials and labour in sufficient quantities to ensure that the number of housing units needed in this province can be supplied, and I suspect that the number of housing units required in this province is in excess of 50,000 at this very moment. Now, we have a precedent for this, a precedent established by the previous administration when they embarked upon the building of the Peace River Dam. That was when they got together with the contractors, they got together with the trade unions involved in construction, and they concluded an arrangement whereby for that particular project they would have fixed prices and they would have no work stoppages. I would suggest that since the government is now the owner of lumber mills it should be possible to acquire materials for the construction of housing accommodation under such a programme at somewhat less than the current market prices. Yes, it is a form of subsidy, no question about it, but we are never going to solve the existing housing crisis unless the government gets busy and applies some form of subsidy to the problem. Most important, you are not going to solve the problem unless the government gets out of its comfortable chairs, regains some of the vigour that it had when it was on this side of the

[ Page 200 ]

floor, and gets on with the job.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, it's not the chair that you occupy in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister through you, it's that comfortable feeling you have as you walk through the halls of power.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the comfortable few.

Now, it is true that there are other problems which accompany this housing one, and I must join with the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) in expressing to the government my serious regret that they have seen fit to kill the programme for the construction of a new crossing under the harbour of Vancouver. You are never going to solve that problem of transportation with public transit or otherwise unless you build another crossing, and at the rate we are going the Lions Gate Bridge is going to fall down before this government gets moving. As you drive across Lions Gate Bridge today, every expansion joint in the bridge and every expansion joint in the bridge road is out of whack. Your car goes thump, thump, thump, like you are driving over railway ties, and when you strike the middle span section of the bridge, if it is the slightest bit wet, it is dangerous beyond belief. It is now a situation where I suggest that if you are in danger of a rear-end collision on the centre span of the Lions Gate Bridge, the safest course for you to follow is to have the rear-end collision, because if you apply your brakes, the likelihood is that you will go out of control and go across the lanes into oncoming traffic. It's just that bad.

Now, this is not the fault of this government. This is the result of the years and years of procrastination, delay and neglect of the previous administration. But, Mr. Speaker, you're the government. You've inherited it, the ball's in your hand, and if the government of a year ago had not taken the position that they had with respect to the then proposed crossing of the harbour, that crossing would be 20 per cent complete now. As it presently stands, it may be years before you even get the crossing back on the track with assistance from the federal government. I predict, Mr. Speaker, that when Mr. Parker completes his study of transportation requirements for the metropolitan Vancouver area, he will suggest that you have that or a similar crossing. I would think it may not be too late for this government to recant and see whether it can't get that programme started again.

I have one more subject that I want to raise. We had an interesting speech by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) today. We have in the throne speech a promise of legislation which is going to ease the economic plight which is facing many of our farmers and renters in British Columbia, and I hope that the legislation works. As the result of the studies made this summer I am convinced that the farming community needs the assistance of government in this regard. I am concerned about what we are doing when we help the producer and still allow the prices of all of our foods to go unchecked.

We have a letter from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would change the name of his department. I think it is disgusting to speak of humans as resources — something to be exploited. Couldn't you just call it the Department of People? That's what we all are, you know. Anyway, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has sent out this letter about Mincome. People on Mincome are going to get $9 more a month. Practically everybody appreciates that all the Minister is doing is that this time he is passing on to the Mincome recipients the full benefit of the federal increase.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it was $17 last time, and he didn't bother passing it along to the Mincome people. At any rate, this went into general revenue. So we got this $9 increase of Mincome. It's as phony as a $9 bill, but it is a $9 increase.

This is going to old-age pensioners. We've got a government which is now accepting the proposition that the cost of gas is going to go up — that seems to be assured — at the consumer level. The cost of everything is going up, but that doesn't seem to matter. We find that last March the price of eggs went up 7 cents a dozen when we were in this House, and that was supposed to get the farmer even so he was making a little money in his operation. Costs of eggs have increasingly gone up about four or five times since then, but that's all to cover the increased cost of the feed that the farmer has to feed his chickens. So the farmer isn't getting any more money out of that; he is just getting his costs paid, if we can believe what we are told. And yet the end price is going up all the time.

This summer when we were travelling with the agricultural committee, particularly in the last week, we had representatives of the wholesalers and the retailers come before us and they said, "Well, we are not making any money. The wholesalers are not making any money. Our mark-up is just a little wee bit and just covers the cost of enough postage stamps and rubber bands." Then we got the retailer before us and they weren't making any money. They had all these wages to pay, and they had the loss and everything else in perishable products, and they weren't making any money. And the farmer is not

[ Page 201 ]

making any money, Mr. Speaker. I just wonder where it is all going.

So while the government has this concern for the producers of our foodstuffs and while the government indicates that it is willing to employ people like Dr. Hudson to do the kind of job he did in reporting on the economic study of the tree fruit industry — and based upon my brief reading of it this afternoon, it was an excellent job — while that is being done, do you suppose that the Hon. Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Ms. Young) responsible for consumer affairs, who I assume soon will become the Minister of the department to bear that name, could perhaps encourage the government to create a special committee of this House and to attach to that committee economists and accountants of prestige?

Let's for once and for all look into the subject in this province of why food costs as much as it costs. Is a dozen eggs properly priced at 81 cents or 86 cents or 87 cents or whatever it happens to be? Let's do an examination. Is the producer getting his share? Does it cost as much to get it from the chicken to the store as everybody says it costs? Because whenever you ask each individual segment of the food production industry, nobody's making any money; but the consumer is sure paying.

The consumer, Mr. Speaker, is in many cases the Mincome recipient and the worker on hourly wages — and all of us who are facing the rising cost of food.

Now the federal government has dodged this completely, and no credit to them for that. You know, the Prime Minister has apparently abdicated his responsibility, with regard to this particular problem, to Mrs. Plumptre. Well, I don't think that the Government of British Columbia should accept that. We've got an aggressive Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Ms. Young) who I know understands the problem, and if she becomes the Minister of the department, I know she'll want to do something about it.

I would just like to see an announcement at this session that we're going to examine into the cost of products, that we're going to call these retail people before the committee — and the wholesalers, the transporters, the producers and the processors — and we're going to find out in British Columbia why it costs as much to buy any of our food commodities as it presently does. And if, as a consequence of this examination, we find that there are some inordinate profits being taken, then let the government determine what should be done to stop that.

If, on the other hand, it is found that at each level, each necessary stage from producer to consumer, there is no inordinate charge being made for the service that is rendered, then at least we'll know what we face and we'll be able to adjust our lives and our economy and the responsibility of government to our Mincome recipients accordingly.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure for me to participate in this debate on the throne speech and to stand in this House as representative of the beautiful City of Victoria.

First, let me express my disappointment in this Speech from the Throne. There is so little definite information contained in it that it reminds me of the Speech from the Throne in the spring session.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: You should have seen the ones you threw away, is that it?

In that session both the mover and seconder talked at great length about a bill of rights. Where is it? Can we expect the same fate for the few things promised in this Speech from the Throne?

What will happen to the religious freedom for union members? Will it die on its way to the Legislature? Is this speech as meaningless as the last one was? Apparently so.

I'd like to ask at this time if it is the future intention of the government to continue its budgetary approach by orders-in-council, by simply confirming those facts that have been done in the past. The money has been spent without budget, without estimate and, in many cases, without even having been called for tenders. They have simply gone ahead, done what they wanted to do, spent any amount of money that was necessary and then they've covered it by an order-in-council.

It seems very difficult nowadays to find out how many people are on the staff in this building. This afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) talked about his staff. I'd like to tell you the story of one of the very senior civil servants who is also concerned. Each Monday morning he telephones his office and he asks for himself. If the secretary says he hasn't come in yet, he goes to work. What a way to have to live.

Interjections.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Name names.

MR. MORRISON: But this government is hiring consultants, advisers, researchers in great numbers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you know that to be true, you have an obligation to inform the government.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: No one knows where to find anybody anymore.

[ Page 202 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't know the facts.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: We play musical offices around here almost daily. The tremendous increase in the bureaucracy around this building and in the City of Victoria is hard to calculate. Office space throughout the whole city is becoming very difficult to find and every day there are new rumours of proposed acquisitions of office space in buildings which will be converted for government use.

While I'm on the subject of offices, I would like to say how impressed I am with the results of the west wing of the third floor of this building and of the two offices, in particular, which have just opened. If these are samples of what is in store for the rest of the third floor, then I'd like to take this opportunity to invite the public to come and see them, to come and look at the renovations on the balance of that floor, so that they can judge for themselves if these are excessively expensive.

I'd like also to tell the public about the welfare offices in the Belmont Building. It appears that we've taken all seven floors and the basement, excluding the ground floor, for welfare. It would appear it is our intention to be a little bit like Sweden and ultimately have the ratio of social workers to those on welfare at one to one.

Recently, we've had confirmed that the insurance corporation has purchased for a claims office a building on Douglas Street formerly occupied by Johnson Terminals at 3300 Douglas Street — and that's in Saanich. We are told that they will require a building of $0.5 million for this new claims centre.

I don't question that this is necessary, but I would like to ask: do they intend to pay Saanich the same taxes as currently paid by Johnson Terminals, or will they give them a grant in lieu of taxes of 15 mills to the municipality?

AN HON. MEMBER: Subsidize the programme. Subsidize the programme.

MR. MORRISON: With regard to housing, which we all admit is critical, this NDP government has admitted that housing has gone from bad to worse in the year in which they've been in power. Of course, one of the main problems is that no municipality knows any more exactly what powers they have and, therefore, orderly development and orderly building of new houses has practically stopped in many municipalities.

Our Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) talks at great length — at least, our proposed Minister of Housing talks at great length — about subsidized housing, and most of us agree that some form of subsidized housing is probably necessary. But the municipalities won't know who pays the taxes. Will these subsidized houses pay taxes at normal rates or, again, will they be given a grant of 15 mills in lieu of taxes?

Does this government intend to subsidize the land cost? Then do they subsidize the building costs? And then does the public in each tax area continue to subsidize the development? Because the housing will not pay the same taxes as other householders — in other words, their fair share of taxes.

While we're talking about subsidized houses, I'd like to know who decides who will live in this housing. Will it be eventually decided that only those on welfare will live in subsidized housing, or will workers also get help? There appears to be a tremendous number of problems involved in this subsidized housing situation. It would appear also that this government has not thoroughly thought out the solution to these problems, just as they have demonstrated in Oak Bay that they really don't know what to do with the nine acres, even if they do get it. And for housing costs, nine acres at $200,000 is a pretty expensive piece of property for 200 houses — or 200 units.

On the subject of inflation, I'd like to ask this government what examples they have given of their desire to hold back inflation in the areas in which they have some control. Instead of demonstrating an active desire to contain inflation they have taken the opposite tack; that of increasing their own pay, improving their own offices, enlarging their own staffs and giving excessive settlements — as an example, the excessive settlement in the illegal strike of the ferry workers.

It becomes very difficult for a government to try and tell other people what they can do to control inflation but on the issues that they themselves can control, do nothing but feed the fires of inflation. It's very difficult for a man like our Minister of whatever he does now to tell people they can't have 10 or 15 or 20 per cent, when he's had nearly a 100 per cent increase in his salary. Even the teachers today are asking for large increases based on the argument that others have had large increases, and why shouldn't they?

Well it's a pretty sound argument, but any responsible discussion of this government's performance over the past year must include the irresponsible contributions it has made to inflation generally, and the inflation psychology set loose upon our people.

Politicians everywhere are trying to place the blame for inflation on everyone, and everything else but in their own policies. Mr. Barrett blames Ottawa and general world conditions. The economic fact is that governments and governments alone are the sole foundation upon which inflation grows or is put to rest.

[ Page 203 ]

On the Canadian scene, successive finance Ministers have done two things, they have consistently budgeted for deficits and they have encouraged the growth of the money supply beyond the gross national product. That is 9 per cent versus the 5 to 6 per cent growth of the national product.

The previous administration set realistic guidelines for British Columbia at 6.5 per cent. This growth guideline was consistent with the approximate 6 per cent increase in the British Columbia gross national product. Furthermore, the British Columbia government suggested repeatedly to the federal government that this incomes policy should apply across the nation. As a matter of fact, the previous finance Minister suggested that it should apply to prices and interest rates as well.

These inflation warnings were clearly not understood as being the only sane method of bringing the inflationary fires under control. This government has done nothing but add gallon after gallon of gasoline to the already fiery inflation problem.

They abandoned the incomes policy guidelines. They established excessive salaries for politicians. Their increase for bureaucratic staff was as much as 25 to 30 per cent beyond the marketplace. They encouraged the municipal level of government to abandon salary guidelines, and they did it with a will, particularly in Surrey. They established an inflationary settlement through gun-at-the-head tactics in the ferry strike, and I am sure everyone else will look to that settlement for their guidelines.

They issued a blank cheque to the Teachers' Federation. A cheque which the teachers have quickly endorsed, and the province is now faced with perhaps an additional $36 million for additional teaching salaries, with demands racing upwards towards 15 per cent. In addition, the teaching profession has requested a further 3,000 teachers. Using the current median of $11,000, the cost faced by British Columbia for just teachers' salaries increases could approach $70 million in this single year.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MORRISON: They offered municipalities inflated prices for land, and here in this Victoria constituency, $350,000 for a Postage-stamp size lot. Artificial scarcity created by the Land Commission Act has inflated house values in the Vancouver and Victoria area as much as 25 per cent in the last four months. Changes in the Equalization Assessment Act will bring highly-inflationary increases in taxation upon small businesses, within and without municipal boundaries, and the NDP offices seem unable to understand that these inflationary tax increases will simply be passed along to the public, because most of these businesses are consumer-orientated, or service-orientated businesses.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you cutting the price of cars?

MR. MORRISON: I am not in the automobile business, sir.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you ever cut the price of cars?

MR. MORRISON: Yes, I did. As a matter of fact there were some years we sold them for less than we paid for them. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: And I can prove it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: After a year, the evidence is in. The jury is not out any longer. This government has been convicted in the court of public opinion on all counts. Inflation has become the chief trademark of the Barrett government's first 12 months in office. No amount of ducking by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) can cause the public any longer to ignore the irresponsible record of this government on the question of inflation.

In the last session, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) talked briefly about his transportation proposals for the City of Victoria, and the new buses which were expected. They were in such a hurry to get the buses that we couldn't wait for them to be properly tendered. The need was so great that they had to go ahead with the order, and I would like to ask him now: Where are those buses? What has happened to the increased service that we were promised? And further: where is the people mover? This great new proposal which was to move large volumes of people easily throughout the downtown core of the City of Victoria. I don't believe there have been any further discussions with the city since that time.

It's obvious that we need new parking facilities. It's obvious that we need some better method of moving the people from this building in particular, throughout the city, and yet what is happening? As far as I can find out, nothing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want us to spend money and add to inflation?

[ Page 204 ]

MR. MORRISON: We have seen one or two of these new flexible buses on the streets in Vancouver, but at this date I have no recollection of having seen a new bus in the City of Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: Where are they? Well I was in the parking garage a couple of days ago and they hadn't seen them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you went to Vancouver once in a while you should use public transit.

MR. MORRISON: Well you ride in a Cadillac too. I don't think I would apologize for that. I've seen you in it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: A Cadillac by a different name. (Laughter.)

MR. MORRISON: And a Ford dealer ought to know. (Laughter.) Where was the need for the rush? Why haven't we got some concrete proposals for the city council? And if we are to get a regional rapid transit system, what happens to Vancouver Island Coach Lines, Southwest Coach Lines at Sooke, and Pacific Commuter serving the Saanich Peninsula? Will they go to the wall like other small businesses under the socialist government? We have had what is termed "structured dialogue" and it is continuing between the city and the provincial government re a civic auditorium.

I suggest that the dialogue be a little less structured, and some physical evidence presented. As the capital of British Columbia, Victoria attracts many conventions and business seminars. In Edmonton and Regina, provincial governments have assisted greatly in providing adequate facilities to welcome similar visitors to their capital cities. It wouldn't be a bad idea if the NDP provided some leadership here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You made a wise decision withdrawing from the leadership race.

MR. MORRISON: The City of Victoria has shown initiative in commencing work on the inner harbour causeway promenade at sea level. Has the provincial government come through with its share of the cost, or is it waiting until the job is completed? I believe that $200,000 was promised and approved by the Treasury Board, but as of this day the city has not received the money. When will they get it?

The old Crystal Gardens still hangs in tattered limbo. The provincial government said it was going to build a regional transit system on the site, but has not added to the original statement in months. Are they, or are they not going to do something? In the spring session I talked about the Minister of Finance as a "frustrated Monopoly player" and how he had produced a Tinker-toy budget, and events have proved me right. Millions of dollars, over $20 million have been voted in special warrants and other authorizations never budgeted and never considered prior to the budget. The historical right of this Legislature to vote supply to the Crown has been seriously eroded.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: Charles I of England lost his head for the same thing. But since the spring session I have discovered that the government offices has a Marxian socialist's version of bingo. They play bingo with the resource picture and the future of British Columbia. Into the rolling bingo cage have gone all the ideas of the Waffle Manifesto, and your Ministers in an uncoordinated way reach for their bingo ball. Already this session, by statements made by Members opposite and their paid hacks and party flacks…

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please!

MR. MORRISON: We know the bingo game has…

MR. SPEAKER: May I remind the Hon. Member, all of you in fact, that we are not supposed to read speeches because we really don't know who the author of a speech is, and that's why we have extemporaneous speeches in the House. I would urge that all Members try as best they can to speak on their own without the assistance of too copious notes.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your attention. But if I had been allowed adequate time I would have been happy to have elaborated on my copious notes, but in the interest of time I have chosen to try and speed it up…

MR. SPEAKER: We appreciate that.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: Here is just a partial list of all the bingo balls we have now in the cage. Fish processing take-over. Gas plant take-over. Panco Chicken take-over, and I suppose Colonel Sanders is probably next. A sheep-killing plant, transoceanic ships and cruise ships operation; compulsory student unions; salaried doctors; coal industry, land control, property

[ Page 205 ]

insurance, fire insurance and industrial insurance.

Here's an example of how the game is played. Under the 'B' for bureaucrats: 56 more party hacks. Under the 'I': insurance blank cheque — $5 million for a start. Under the N: new offices, new drapes, new carpets, et cetera — $3 million for a start. Under the 'G': government takeover, Plateau Mills — $7 million for a start. Under 'O': overrun — $500,000 for a special account for a small land secretariat of 85 for a start. BINGO! How's that for a start to this new game? And all the Members opposite, including the backbench, want to play and to get their sticky fingers in the game.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to teach you and, through you, the government opposite a new word. I know they've learned a lot of new words in the last year, but the one I'd like to teach you is "overhead". Overhead is a very misunderstood word, but most business people soon know what it means, for if they don't, they go broke.

Overhead is normally between gross and net, and if you don't know the difference between "gross' and "net," then the lesson in overhead is a waste of time. However, if overhead is not too high, a business will have some net profit. And with good management, this is what our provincial budget should show. But everything points to a budgetary deficit in the future because the inflationary direction you are taking will quickly dissolve any surplus we may still have, and economies should be practised quickly. Thank you.

Mr. Nunweiler moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. A.A. Nunweiler of the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters presented the first report, which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. Lea files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Levi files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Stupich files answers to questions.

Introduction of bills.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farm Income Insurance Act.

Bill 9 read a first time and ordered to placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:13 p.m.

ERRATUM

Page 22, column Z line 2 7 should read: sent a copy of her letter to the Premier. She says