[ Page 259 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Sessional Reports Suspension Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 259

An Act to Amend the Corrections Act (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 259

Oral Questions

Proposed steel industry for British Columbia. Mr. Phillips — 259

B.C. Ferries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 259

Throne speech debate. Mr. McGeer — 263

Mr. Curtis — 271

Mr. Richter — 276

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 281

Division on address to the Lieutenant-Governor — 289

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1973

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers

Introduction of bills.

SESSIONAL REPORTS SUSPENSION
ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall moves introduction and first reading of Bill 20 intituled Sessional Reports Suspension Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 20 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
CORRECTIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Corrections Act.

Bill 24 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bid welcome to the House two very kindly visitors from the State of Tennessee, and I would like all Members to join with me in displaying some degree of northern hospitality. I'd like to introduce to the House Miss Cindy Montgomery and Senator Brown Aires. Senator Aires is a Republican senator in the state senate, which I understand consists of 33 people: 13 Republican, 19 Democrat and one independent. Senator Aires is the caucus chairman.

Oral questions.

PROPOSED STEEL INDUSTRY
FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). With regard to the proposed steel industry for the Province of British Columbia, would the Minister advise me if he intends to form a company in British Columbia whereby the people in British Columbia can buy shares to participate in the profits of this company and would he, similar to the Alberta energy company which is….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member, I think the question is irregular, unless there is some indication and a statement by the Member that that is present policy. If it is present policy of such and such intention, that's one thing; if you have no evidence of that, then the question is irregular.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's been announced that it's the government's intention. It is present policy. Would you allow the Minister to answer, if he will?

MR. SPEAKER: Well it's up to the Minister, but I do feel it's irregular unless there's some fact that you're basing your question on.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce): My department is still carrying on a review, Mr. Speaker, of all different possibilities with respect to a steel industry in the Province of British Columbia. I think it would be unfair to make any statement now and raise expectations or lower expectations. We will have in due course announcements to be made with respect to the reviews that we're presently carrying on.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't see how you can have a supplementary on what is clearly evidenced to be out of order under our standing orders.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have a supplementary question on the same subject then, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister advise if any studies are being done with regard to the effect that the steel mill will have on the ecology of Kitimat and surrounding areas?

HON. MR. LAUK: Not by my department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister tell me if there are any surveys done with regard to a proposed railway into the Kitimat area to carry the coal from….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think, in fairness to the other Members, that as you're embarking on another question, the next Member should be recognized.

B.C. FERRIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Minister of Communications Mr. Speaker. With reference to the statement of the Minister of Communications' that B.C. Ferries had recommended the retention of a particular United

[ Page 260 ]

States firm because that firm, and I believe I quote correctly, "has already constructed ships of a design that was very close to that which would best serve the needs of the people of B.C.," could I ask him what are the special design features of the Washington State ferries which he referred to?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's a fairly lengthy question, I wonder if you'd repeat it, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure. I did try to catch your attention, Mr. Minister, at the beginning.

With reference to the Minister's statement yesterday indicating that B.C. Ferries had recommended the retention of a particular designing firm of U.S. naval architects because that firm — I believe I'm quoting him correctly — "has already constructed ships of a design that was very close to that which would best serve the needs of the people of B.C.," could I ask him, what are the special design features of the Washington State ferries which he referred to?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've made that particular statement public several times in the past few months. I don't know whether the Member reads the papers or not, but I indicated very clearly that what we are moving into is a period of double-ended ferries so that ferries no longer have to back out of any particular berthing area. Which then means that when a ferry leaves one side the cars drive onto that ferry and they stop. When the ferry gets to the other side, the ferry stops (Laughter) and the cars drive off.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You better stop when you're ahead.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Then, after all the cars are off, other cars will drive straight on. Then that ferry leaves that berth and it doesn't have to back out. It drives straight out and straight across the water and straight in to where it stops. The double-ended ferry has propulsion at each end and it also has different facilities with regard to truck facilities and so on that we don't have now.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd point out to the Hon. Minister that the television is not on; he'll have to do it with words. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask whether the original proposal, which was put to the Canada Steamship Inspection Service, I believe late in August, involved a reduction in life-saving capacity, and did it involve a utilization of a single rather than a double bottom for these ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A single rather than a what?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Double bottom.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At no time was there any suggestion that any ferry of that size have a single hull. At no time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The first part of the question on safety?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At no time has there been any suggestion that there be any abandonment of any necessary safety precautions. As a matter of fact, it's my suggestion to you that the submissions that were made to Ottawa will provide a much safer ferry system than is possible anywhere else.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well may I ask the Minister, as a final question, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the original design proposals put to the Canada Steamship Inspection Service involved a reduction in the number of liferafts on board to the point where less than 10 per cent of the capacity of the ferry would be able to be catered to if the ferry got into difficulties and they were forced to abandon ship?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, the number of liferafts is increased.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Over your original proposal?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Over existing.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. If I could just state, before I ask the question, that I spent some considerable time on the phone with CSI this morning, and the answers they give are somewhat different from the answers just given by the Minister, and I would like to ask a question.

The information I would like the Minister to correct, if it is wrong, is that there will be no liferaft davits to lower liferafts into the water; the only access to the liferafts will be by rope ladder down the side of the ship.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't answer that question. But I am going to read to you now…

Mr. Member, I could stand here and say some things about the people who have been to you, but I am not going to be that kind of Member in this House. I will not do that — with regard to their experience and work that they have done — I am not going to do that. But I am going to read into the record the letter which was sent as a backup to the

[ Page 261 ]

brief…

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right. Come on, now. All right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. On a point of order…

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right. I'm going to read into the record the letter that was sent…

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister be seated, please? There is a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Two Scotch tempers.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you be silent on the point of order, please? Proceed.

MR. WALLACE: Rather on a point of personal privilege could I ask the Member to withdraw the implication that I have some personal attempt at insulting people in making a statement regarding public safety?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the Hon. Minister will retract that statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At no time did I infer or make any statement against your integrity in any way, shape or form.

MR. SPEAKER: Does that satisfy the Hon. Member?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And if perchance you mistook anything that I said, then I certainly withdraw that. At no time would I think of doing anything like that because, as you know, I consider you a very forthright and upright person whom I admire very much.

However, with regard to the proposals, this was a letter dated August 28 of this year, sent to the deputy chairman of the Board of Steamship Inspection, Ministry of Transport:

"Further to our meetings of August 22 and 23 with yourself and members of the Board of Canadian Steamship Inspection to discuss the above-mentioned design proposal. After reviewing our notes taken during the meeting…"

Remember, these were meetings discussing and examining the whole requirements of the ferry system and what kind of ferries. And let me tell you, there are ferries in the water now owned by B.C. Ferries, built to specifications, that haven't got double hulls. Let me tell you that right now.

" 1. The ferry hull below the main deck will be fitted with two additional bulkheads to provide for a full three-compartment subdivision."

Not a single ferry anywhere plying these waters has that as a feature.

"2. The double bottom originally proposed to be in the way of the engine room only will be extended as far to the ferry ends as is practicable, taking into consideration the fine hull form at the ferry ends."

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It did! It did! They want to extend it.

"3. Water screens will not be required in the vehicle decks. However the vehicle decks sprinkler system will be served by three pumps, one of which will be independently driven by its own diesel engine."

At the present time, none of the ferries have three pumps. They've got two — an additional safety feature there.

"4. Fire insulation to A60 standards to be applied to the passenger deck."

That is the passenger accommodation deck immediately above the upper vehicle deck.

" 5. All lifesaving equipment exclusive of lifejackets shall be located on the sun deck and shall be the Class 6 requirement for a 1,500-passenger licence and the crew complement. The equipment shall comprise: Class 1 diesel-powered lifeboats, one port and one starboard, each operated by gravity lowering davits; 40 throw-over slide-type 25-man inflatable life rafts, 20 port, 20 starboard, in groups of three or four; suitable life raft embarkation ladders to be provided."

"The brief and drawing proposed that (1) anchor without retrieving and windlassing shall be installed. We now propose to install two anchors, one at each end of the ferry, also without retrieving windlasses; however, the anchor weights…and so on…. A spare anchor could be maintained ashore.

"Because this design of ferry is double-ended, that is there is a propeller, rudder and steering-gear at each end of the ferry, we seek exemption from being required to install an emergency steering-gear."

When you've already got two sets of steering-gears, why should you have an emergency gear?

Interjection.

[ Page 262 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Any kind of steering-gear would help them, but that's by the way.

"The proposed design of railings referred to in the brief as being the United States Coastguard standards are acceptable for installation about the perimeter of the passenger decks. The proposed design of fire doors referred to in the brief are acceptable, providing that door-to-frame gaskets are fitted and zone bulkhead doors have shot bolts. Radar sets will be provided, one per wheelhouse. A gyro compass which is the exemption from being required to install an echo-sounder which is approved for a proposed crew…

"Other than specifically mentioned, the foregoing intention is to design and build the proposed…ferry to regulations of the Board of Canadian Steamship Inspection, and also to build and maintain the ferries to the rules and requirements of the Classification Society and commence detailed preparation of drawings," and so on.

The reply:

"1. Agreed.

"2. Agreed, subject to the board's satisfaction as to the fore-and-aft extension of the double bottoms and upon examination of the drawings.

"3. Agreed, each pump to be capable of providing water at an approved pressure to all nozzles in at least two zones of the system.

"4. Agreed.

"5. Agreed, with respect to the boats, subject to examination of the drawings and satisfactory tests.

"6. Agreed.

"7. Agreed, but two sources of power to be provided.

"8. Agreed.

"9. Agreed, those to be of approved type.

"10. Agreed.

"11. Agreed.

"12. The matter of the echo sounder has been taken up with our Vancouver office and it has been decided that this equipment should be fitted."

No question, it will be done.

"13. The crew is approved subject to the requirements of the safe manning regulations and concurrence of the regional office. All crew members are to be certified lifeboat men, the requirement of certified lifeboat men to be provided for each life raft is waived. Please note…"

MR. WALLACE: What was that last part that was waived?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The requirement that a certified lifeboat man be provided for each life raft is waived.

"Please note, the board reserves the right to rule on any details of the foregoing which may arise in the future and on any subject not touched on therein."

The date of that is September 12, 1973.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. That's right. Now there is the situation.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, my question still hasn't been answered about the davits, and we may get to that in a minute. But my concern, Mr. Speaker, is not so much with the ship as with the safety of the people on the ship. We will all remember — and you needn't shake your head — the safest ship ever built didn't survive its maiden voyage, you might remember, with some considerable loss of life. I think it is very important that, no matter how safe the ship is made, the Minister hasn't answered the question as to what will happen if people have to get off the ship because the liferafts will not be lowered into the water, according to the information I have been given. Are there to be any davits…?

MR. SPEAKER: I think we have gathered the gist of your question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The gist of the question is that nothing will be done on these ferries…. And, Mr. Member, I want you to appreciate that nobody is more concerned with the safety of the passengers on these ferries than I am. That is my prime consideration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have just read them into the record. I've just read them into the record.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you inferring that the Minister is not telling the truth?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, every question that has been asked, I have answered. If you want to question my words you can go right ahead and question my words, but at no time, at no time will I allow a ship to sail these waters unless it is safe according to the allowances of the Canadian Steamship Inspection. At no time. And I want that Member to come to my office the minute this thing is adjourned and I'll tell him a few things that I'm not prepared to repeat in this House right now.

[ Page 263 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: Why did you cut me off?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because you raised things in this House that I don't want to talk about publicly.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker…

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: And there's more to come. (Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I wonder if I could be invited to that meeting? (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I want to thank my colleague from Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) for adjourning the debate on my behalf yesterday. You know, Mr. Speaker, I've sat in this House for a good many years and, under the former administration, I was never once able to adjourn a debate successfully.

MR. SPEAKER: We were tempted when you were away. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Well, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for resisting that. But you'll be sorry before I'm finished.

We're going to vote later on today as to whether to thank His Honour. Most of us are in a very sentimental frame of mind about His Honour and the gracious chatelaine for the wonderful dinner that they hosted for the MLAs last night. We do thank His Honour for that.

As for the motion we're debating, Mr. Speaker, I really think we should send His Honour a message of sympathy because it must be an ordeal for him to come down into this House. I don't for one minute want to take away from the splendor of opening day. The pageantry was really magnificent. I don't think the buildings and the gardens have ever looked better. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) should be complimented on that.

When the Hyack Battery went to work, Mr. Speaker, I was looking to see if there were any editors of Barron's magazine ducking under the bushes.

But I thought that the travel agents that were gathered on the lawn made a wonderful backdrop. I know why they were here, Mr. Speaker; they were all anxious to get a chunk of the action next summer. I thought the Provincial Secretary did show good judgment in not inviting the travel agents inside because the main event was a disappointment. But they were there, no doubt hoping to get some of the cabinet Ministers' business next year.

You know, as soon as the travel agents' convention was over we had a convention — I believe it's still going on — at the Empress Hotel of the architects. I think probably they want to be close to the action. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the next group to have their convention here will be the interior decorators.

Now mind you, Mr. Speaker, all of the cabinet Ministers didn't go travelling this summer. Some of them stayed home. I want to talk first of all about the ones that did stay home, because they were unquestionably the busiest — at least on government business. Some of them were shopping. One of them was the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams.) He's bought a few things, Mr. Speaker. He's bought a newsprint plant; he's bought a pulp mill; he's bought a planer mill.

I'll tell you what I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker. I'm hoping that what he's going to do is what he did when he was the minister of condominiums. I hope that he's going to sell all of those businesses off at a bloated profit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a capitalist for you.

MR. McGEER: Well, I don't know; some of the profits might go if we were to put all of the family on the payroll. I've got one question for the Minister, looking back on his record with condominiums, and that is: Is granny going to be on the greenchain, Mr. Minister? (Laughter.)

Well, the Minister of Highways or Transport or whatever it is (Hon. Mr. Strachan)…I'm sorry that he's gone out to check his correspondence because he was doing some shopping this summer too. Mr. Speaker, who would have thought, in all those years when that Minister was attacking the Hon. Phil Gaglardi for having his jet, that he was bent on buying two himself. The former Minister leased a Lear, but he secured two Citations — two Citations. Mr. Speaker, those are the only citations that he's ever going to get.

Because of that I think we ought to follow the practice of Canadian Pacific Airlines and name these two Citation jet aircraft. I think we should call one "The Spirit of Bob" and the other "The Empress of Ann." His and hers. Those jets were expensive, Mr. Speaker. The former Minister of Highways (Mr. Gaglardi) leased a Lear for $5,000 a month. We could have had that jet of his for 30 years for the cost of those two very expensive and luxurious aircraft.

[ Page 264 ]

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, while one Minister was buying up businesses, that Minister stayed home trying to learn to run one. We've had inflationary and injudicious settlements in British Columbia. The ferry settlement was one of them. If that is a sample of how this government is going to run all the government businesses in the future, I would advise the people of British Columbia to start by driving carefully. I don't know what lies in store in the broad range of insurance and labour relations with the many forest operations the government is into if that's an example of what we have to look forward to.

Well, there have been some changes in the House, Mr. Speaker, and one of them, of course, is the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett.) He's a neighbour of ours over here. We like him very much. He's made an excellent impression on everyone. They all speak well of him. Mr. Speaker, they say he takes after his mother. (Laughter.)

We've had some changes on the cabinet benches too. I suppose that the most predictable one was the elevation of the Second Member for Vancouver Centre to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk).

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You better believe it.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a time when this portfolio was taken seriously. That was many years ago. I think, with the sort of string of Ministers we've had lately, that it roughly corresponds to the Post Office in some other jurisdictions. When the Socreds had their Minister in office they were really worried about how to make Waldo look good. Well, the new Premier solved that problem, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

But I want to give the Minister a word of advice if I may. That is: defend the government, Mr. Minister, but never with your fists. I thought the Minister, when he was a backbencher, always kept a close eye on what the other Ministers were doing. I think he got some itchy feet when he saw them all winging off to Europe this summer. So he's rolled up his sleeves and he's gone to work. Keep it up, Mr. Minister, and you'll get that trip to Spokane in 1975. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'll look forward to that.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce): They want a historical exhibit down there.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm sorry the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) isn't here. You know, I really looked forward to hearing more from him, because I know he had a lot to tell with all the lands that he visited this summer. For that Minister, going back to England is old hat. But he went to most of the capitals of Europe and wound up in Israel in the Middle East. I thought that was very nice for the Minister to have that experience.

I don't know whether he was trying to compensate for the last time we had a cabinet Minister visit the Middle East; some of the Members will recall when Mr. Loffmark went to Egypt. I believe it was the Vancouver Sun that contacted him when he was in Cairo and he had the breathless news that he was continuing on around the world because he was going to save $25 or $40.

HON. MR. BARRETT: $40.

MR. McGEER: The Premier well remembers. I don't know if our Minister of Human Resources gave that kind of consideration to his travels. He might have saved the public a few dollars if he'd carried on around the world. Then, of course, he could have discussed poverty in the breadth of the whole world seen instead of just half the world.

Mr. Speaker, the horde has been in for a year now. I really think that it's more like a posse making a pretty half-hearted pursuit of some of the social problems of British Columbia. There's the odd fist-shaking at the bad guy capitalist. But so far we haven't really made important inroads. It's just too comfortable in the saddle.

Of course, the Attorney General himself made clear where all the fat cats are in British Columbia today; they are over there on the government front benches, and I must say there has been very little belt tightening on that side.

The shape of the NDP has changed, Mr. Speaker. No more of these heart-rending speeches on behalf of the poor of British Columbia. Gone are the attacks on all the patronage in British Columbia. Instead of that, we are hearing about what wonderful fellows all the NDP friends are. One can never say that the NDP fail to learn in opposition. I doubt that any government in the future will ever be able to challenge the NDP's patronage record. No one should know better than my friends on the right.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I want to talk about one set of appointments — just the back end. The only time we are appointed. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I want to talk about where one set

[ Page 265 ]

of these appointments went, and that was to the Energy Commission. I thought the Attorney General was very quick to praise the efforts of his former colleague in the House, Mr. Rhodes. We didn't get to know one of the other members, Mr. Johannessen, as well as Mr. Rhodes because he kept being defeated as an NDP candidate and never got to the House. I liked Mr. Rhodes as a Member; I thought he was an excellent Member. I think he and his staff conducted the energy hearings in an exemplary fashion.

I thought the report was well written, but I don't think anybody here should be under the delusion that this was an objective, arm's length review of the energy situation by a dispassionate expert. This was written by a former NDP MLA who I am certain was in constant contact with the Attorney General. And where, though the former Member from Delta was defeated many years ago — before these energy problems came under debate — there was a surprising similarity between the views of that commissioner and the speeches of the Attorney General when he was in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the principle recommendation of this energy board report is that there be a provincial Crown agency to engage in the production, processing, transmission and marketing of natural gas. The declared purpose of that Crown agency is to increase the price of natural gas, and the commissioners, in that report, accused Westcoast of keeping the price of natural gas low. The commissioners even tracked down evidence given by the president of Westcoast before the Federal Power Commission in the United States. They smoked him out and they reported some of his testimony in that report. I have read the energy board report from cover to cover several times now and this piece of testimony sticks out in my mind. The president said, not before this energy board, but he said, "The objective of Westcoast representations before arbitration boards will be to retain wellhead prices at the lowest possible level."

Furthermore, he said it was in West coast's best interests "to keep the cost of gas at as low a level as possible." Mr. Speaker, that is a dirty capitalist trick. Imagine that! Conspiring to keep the costs of a basic commodity low! And the proposal was to form a Crown corporation to end all of that silly capitalist nonsense. I mean, how can we pay for the cabinet Ministers' offices if we go around trying to keep the prices low?

I appeared before the commission, and I believe I was the only witness who was there to speak on behalf of the consumers of British Columbia, saying the objective should be to get the price of natural gas down. After all, Mr. Speaker, that natural gas is our resource — the resource of the people of British Columbia. Our citizens should get the benefit of that resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. McGEER: Right on! By increasing the price to them by 70 per cent, Mr. Speaker, is that how you bring the benefits to them?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Let's talk about what we should do. The Energy Commission talked about the B.C. dilemma, but they didn't really get the dilemma right. The dilemma is: how do you have your cake and eat it, too? Because the gas is there in the ground; it is quite within the reach of this government or any other government to pay a full and fair return on the price of that gas to those who risk their capital and explore, or to the government if it wishes to take on that responsibility, to pay the cost of building pipelines, the staff required to distribute it, and still cut the price of that gas substantially to the consumer in British Columbia.

I don't know what kind of socialism it is to bring in a report recommending the increase of gas prices through a Crown corporation; I don't know what kind of socialism it is. I do know this: it isn't going to help the consumers of British Columbia — not one little bit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't be too sure of that.

MR. McGEER: Despite the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we obviously have ample supplies of natural gas in this province for our own people for some years to come, the prices to the residential user in this province are by no means cheap. For 10,000 cubic feet, Calgary pays $5.76; Regina pays $8.46; Oakland pays $7.30; Seattle pays $11.90; Toronto pays $13.98, but Vancouver pays $14.07 and Prince George pays $15.40. Are we getting the benefit of our natural gas now when we are paying among the higher prices? And is the proposal of the government to try to gouge the public of British Columbia even further really in the interest of the public? Again and again and again, the commission made the point that the regulatory agencies in the United States were working to keep the price low to the consumers in that country.

Ever hear of such nonsense as that, Mr. Speaker? Would we have regulatory agencies here in British Columbia that would do such a dangerous thing? Well, I tell you we used to have one — the Public Utilities Commission. Anybody remember that? The only time the government Members ever remembered it when they were in opposition was when they thought of a certain defeated cabinet Minister.

The powers were gradually stripped from the PUC until all that was left were cemeteries. Then even that died. So there was the PUC in British Columbia that

[ Page 266 ]

should have been doing the job that the Energy Commission complained about — getting the cost of the natural gas down to the consumers — stripped of its powers by both the opposition and the government. And you only have to see what the relative costs of natural gas are in Vancouver compared with some other major cities in Canada and in the United States to realize the importance of a regulatory agency divorced from the partisan politics of the province.

During all these years the B.C. Hydro was returning bloated profits on its natural gas sales, only one-third of the natural gas they distributed went to residential consumers, but it contributed half the profits from natural gas.

The confidential figures of the B.C. Hydro, when they were finally released by the Premier — I thanked him previously for this — showed that in 1972, during the calendar year, Hydro made $9.7 million on gas and only $9.8 million on electricity — and yet electricity sales were between 4 and 5 times as great as those for natural gas.

The B.C. Hydro's principle competitor, Inland Natural Gas, without the goading of a Public Utilities Commission, with a less efficient distribution system, fewer customers, was nevertheless able to distribute natural gas to the people of the Interior of British Columbia at a substantially lower price than the B.C. Hydro and at the same time return a handsome profit on their own investment.

Mr. Speaker, changes must come about in how we handle our natural gas resource; but we categorically reject the philosophy of the NDP government, which is to raise the price and gouge the B.C. customer even more than he has been gouged before.

If the resource is as valuable as it's claimed — and I believe and accept that it is — then that resource should not be exported to the United States for profit, no matter how large that profit may be. Instead, it should be retained for the use of future British Columbians. We should let our export contracts lapse when the time is up. The provincial government should forget about high profits from natural gas and just let the people of this province have their resource at what the cost of exploring for it and distributing it happens to be.

It is essential that there be a regulation of the retail prices to protect the consumer of this province, set up in such a way that it is completely divorced from the partisan politics of the day. It if is to be a Public Utilities Commission or an Energy Commission, let that be as independent politically as it is possible to make such a commission. Give it as its mandate the objective of low energy distribution to the people of British Columbia, not subsidizing socialist schemes of any kind, or other forms of energy as the B.C. Hydro did when it was not regulated by the public.

The Energy Commission, I think, was quite correct in suggesting that we should raise the price for export for those export commitments we already have. The place to do this is at the wellhead.

We don't want in British Columbia any federal export taxes of the kind proposed for Alberta and its oil. In order to do that, we should certainly stand behind a principle in this House that resources belong to the province and taxes on those resources come to the province, not to the federal government.

So it probably is that the imposition has to be put on the wellhead to get a proper return for what we export. But if that's to be the case, and extra revenues come to government, then they should be returned, possibly by subsidizing the distribution of that gas to an equivalent extent so the public of British Columbia are getting their resource for the price it costs to search it out, to carry and distribute it.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Here, here.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm glad the Attorney General agrees to that. But, Mr. Attorney General, that wasn't the thrust of the report nor the intent of the Crown corporation that was to be established. And the other course is to put a different form of royalties, so much per therm — equivalent energy value if you like — and take that money and see that the people in British Columbia who are using that gas don't suffer from that added imposition.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Here, here.

MR. McGEER: The remainder of the gas for the future; forget about the idea of exporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government is finding out there are many conflicts of interest inherent in taking a government post. The dilemma the government will have to cope with as far as natural gas is concerned is only one of many. When one gets into the realm of trying to establish policy for Crown corporations, when those corporations should be operating as independent entities, you're going to find Minister after Minister in the impossible position of trying to ride both sides of the fence at once.

No one, Mr. Speaker, has taken on more conflicting responsibilities than the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). I want to mention just one of these because he's also the Minister in charge of reducing pollution. I suppose no one, when he was in opposition, made more extreme speeches on the subject of the pollution that exists in British Columbia than that particular Minister. Now he's in government, and when you get right down to it, Mr. Speaker, he hasn't done a thing in his time in office.

[ Page 267 ]

We're continuing one of the most abysmal practices that we could possibly have in this province, which is slash burning. Jurisdictions with common sense abandoned this long, long ago. Hon. Members may recall a film I arranged to be shown in one of the committee rooms about how slash should be disposed of. There are machines that can be taken into the bush that will make mulch and fertilizer out of slash, rendering it completely unnecessary for it to be burned.

There are two problems with slash burning. The first and most obvious one is that you burn slash in the fall when you get the warm, dry weather, when you have inversion layers that guarantee massive pollution of the atmosphere. The slash burning in the fall would easily, in the short time that it goes on, produce far more air pollution than all other forms of air pollution all the year round. Slash burning is number one.

Secondly, there is the danger of fire. Usually it's just been forest fires, but this year it burned right down into residential communities, destroying farms and homes in the Salmon Arm area. And I was astonished after all of that, Mr. Speaker, to find that the Member from that area (Mr. Lewis) was saying the Forest Service ought to be more careful in the future.

The reason you elect new governments and change the politicians is so the politicians will change the policies. The public has no access to the civil service. If it's the policy of the Forest Service to burn slash, the only way that policy can be changed is by direct action of the Minister and by his government. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it takes some guts, but if we're ever going to remove this silly fire hazard in the fall and enjoy a little clean air in the autumn, that step has to be taken. Do it.

Mr. Speaker, you may be interested to know that I travelled a little this summer too, but it wasn't at public expense. I was in Japan and had the honour of giving some lectures there, and was indeed shown incredible hospitality by the people who are noted for being the world's best hosts.

One of the places that the Japanese people showed me with great pride was the oldest public school in the world. It was built during the feudal age of Japan, at a time when free education for the commoner was unheard of there as it was in Britain, the United States and Canada, and most countries of the world. The Japanese people regard this first free public school in the world with awe.

It all started with a feudal governor named Akito Mitsumatsa, a very far-sighted educator. Mr. Speaker, what he did was to set aside the whole fiefdom around the location of the school and turn the property income over to the school itself. The policy, which is recorded in Japanese history, is that this was done to protect the people who would benefit from that education — the commoners of Japan — from the vagaries of politics should he be moved to another location.

I don't need to emphasize to you what that tradition did for the country of Japan. It now has one of the finest educational systems in the world.

The counterpart of Akito Mitsumatsa in British Columbia was Henry Esson Young. He was a cabinet Minister in the McBride government. Essondale was named after him. He wrote the legislation for our universities and established the concept of the endowment land for the universities of this province.

He didn't quite go as far as Akito Mitsumatsa because, for reasons I don't understand, he never transferred the title. But Henry Esson Young's concept remained free from politics for a period of 65 years in this province. Only with the entry of the New Democratic Party has this concept been torn down by lesser men.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair for me to lay all the blame at the doorstep of the new Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), but the fact remains that in his first statement, and one of the few that he has made on the subject of his cabinet responsibilities, he's established himself as one of the greatest enemies of education in the province's history.

He announced that three tracts of land would be developed for subsidized housing — not that a man should own his land, which has been one of the most precious traditions of North American, but that the government should own it like in a collective farm — that the government should own it, not the individual. He mentioned three tracts of land for this socialist experiment. One was the Blair rifle range, which is mostly owned by the federal government. The second was the university endowment land. The third, Mr. Speaker, was a site in North Burnaby, the old Vancouver Cemetery site.

What most Members don't realise is that the provincial government obtained this land. The City of Vancouver did a swap because Burnaby didn't think it appropriate to bury Vancouver's dead on a beautiful location on Burnaby mountain. They transferred the title to 65 acres of their land on False Creek and, by resolution of the Vancouver City Council, $410,000 was authorized to be paid to the provincial government plus the North Burnaby site. Then the government of the day promised that land to Simon Fraser University.

But Simon Fraser University has never been given the land. I would hate to think that the Minister of housing would try to steal from the universities of this province land which rightly has been set aside for them, in order to engage in an experiment of leasing for subsidized housing.

I guess the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) put it better than anyone could

[ Page 268 ]

have, Mr. Speaker, in putting before that Minister what his responsibilities are. He is not teaching a high school class any longer. He has power and he has responsibilities. But what has happened between that Minister and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is that by their statements they have poured gasoline on the fires of inflation for housing in this province.

Their efforts have not produced one single lot for the people of British Columbia, either to lease or to buy. What they have done is to sabre-rattle and to threaten, to bring down legislation which has been so grossly defective that they have taken it back to amend it. Because that land which is in private hands now — and which seems to be the only vehicle at the moment for new housing — appears to be in such limited supply, the cost of new land has gone soaring. As those costs have gone soaring, so have the cost of used houses. And as that's gone soaring, it has been harder and harder to get rental accommodation.

As my colleague, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, said, "If you come to British Columbia today, where there has been a greater inflation in housing costs than anywhere else in Canada…"

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Bring your home with you.

MR. McGEER: …bring your home with you, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) says, and I think he's right. Or bring a tent because you're not going to get rental accommodation. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Henry Block knew what he was doing.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: A very sharp man — sending that letter of congratulation to the Premier. He knew that he has pure gold in his hand with those 2,000 lots all ready to go.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Think of the paper profits that went to Henry Block with that legislation. Where was more land going to come from? You'd better believe he liked that Act.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Profits were up 71 per cent, thanks to the NDP government.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Sales are up too.

MR. McGEER: I am sure they were.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Of course they were. The cost of everything has skyrocketed. You only have to sell half as many houses today to have sales that are higher than they were last year. It doesn't make sense.

Well, it's the number of units you sell times the selling price, Mr. Member. I think a grade 2 student could figure that one out, and I think that the cabinet had better figure it out too…

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: …because the people in this province legitimately want housing, and the NDP government, by their policies, are denying it. We are going to continue to have inflation as long as this nonsense over on the government benches continues.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there is only one way for the government to go now: that is to go and start buying land from municipalities. There's lots of it available — Surrey, Delta, North Vancouver, Burnaby, Vancouver city. There isn't any place where there isn't land available to the provincial government to buy.

You don't have to steal the land from the universities that you've never given title to the people who should really have it. Go and buy your own land from the municipalities and pay them a fair price. And when you've bought that land, put in the services; when you've done that, sell it.

Mr. Speaker, the most important purchase that anybody makes in a lifetime is his home. It's the one thing he buys that goes up in value. It's the best way to save. I didn't always agree with the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), as everyone knows, but he was absolutely right on this. He insisted year after year after year that this was the most important thing. I absolutely agree with him. But that's what is being taken away by the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) — the right of a man to own his own home and get the land for it at a reasonable price.

I suggest we set aside $50 million right now for that purpose. I heard a gasp from behind me, but Mr. Speaker, I'm going to talk a little bit about the income figures for the province later on and you'll see that today in British Columbia, with the revenues rolling in because of inflation, this amount of money is relatively small.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

[ Page 269 ]

But the one thing, Mr. Speaker: It's nice to see you in the chair, Sir…is to be certain that in the future, as in the past, the citizen of British Columbia with modest income can look forward to owning his home in the future, that in this province of abundant land, abundant trees and an abundance of skilled labour that those things can be combined to give each citizen of this province the castle which he deserves. In this way we can be luckier than in other jurisdictions, but not when we blunder along the way the present government has done in the year it's been in office.

I want to deal just briefly with the western conference that was attended by so many of our Ministers. I enjoyed watching them on television, it was a great show. I saw the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Premier, and so on, doing the best they could to hold their own with the Ministers of other governments from western Canada. And everybody had a chance to see how well they did, so I won't pass comment. But I will say that I was disappointed in the approach taken by the new government with regard to western destiny. I thought that the government was off on the wrong track when it should have kept hammering at the most important central theme that this province has needed to have since it entered Confederation. It couldn't have been better summed up than by the submission by the Pattullo government of 1938 to the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, and I want to read one paragraph of that because it sums it all up and the situation hasn't changed today:

"British Columbia at the present time is hampered by the national policy of Canada which has emphasized the development of manufacturing industries in the east at the expense of primary industries. It is estimated that approximately 80 percent of the manufactured commodities imported in the Province of British Columbia is imported from eastern Canada, while approximately 75 per cent of our main primary products, apart from agriculture, is sold in open competition on the world markets. This means that British Columbia has to buy in a protected market, and sell in an unprotected market. In other words, to buy in the dearest market and sell in the cheapest."

How much does it cost us in British Columbia each year to buy in the dearest market and sell in the cheapest?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The Minister says $200 million. Mr. Speaker, I submit that he's wrong. That figure is 10 times too low. It is closer to $2 billion, and may even be double that. All right. Mr. Speaker, my figures are taken from the only comprehensive study which I know has been done on this subject. A book was written about it — 1972. It was the Shearer Study on the prospects of our entering a north Atlantic common market. We have tried for some years to get the national government to institute a comprehensive study of the cost of tariffs in this country. I think you can appreciate why the federal government has ducked this particular question; it's simply going to be too embarrassing to find out the truth. But there is no reason why this government cannot institute a study and gather its own information. We sell abroad about 50 per cent of our gross provincial product. We are able to sell up to the level of external tariffs by our foreign competitors. In other words, we can take aluminum to ingots, but not the fabricated goods. We can take forest products to pulp and newsprint, but not to paper. And our industry is limited in its horizons by the tariff erected by foreign nations. What we have to do, all of us, regardless of party, in this province is hammer away at the one thing which limits the destiny of this province, and indeed of all of western Canada.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): The Liberal Party.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Member, listen to what your leader has to say nationally, and then be ashamed on this subject.

I tell you, that if western Canada is to reach its destiny, and if British Columbia is to be more than a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, and is really to be able to produce those sophisticated goods with high labour content and high wages, then it must stop this business of trying to get its revenues by selling off natural gas, or copper concentrates, or coal, or whatever it is that those countries that have erected tariffs against us want in the way of raw goods to produce their sophisticated products for their own people. It requires everything that all of us have got. It requires more than speeches of the opposition. It requires the resources of the government to gather together the ammunition through which the Ministers or the Members of the opposition, the businessmen and the public of this province can take their case to the nation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I said I would say just a word or two about the finances of the province. I do so because the Premier promised that if he was handling the budget, in the same way that the former Minister of Finance handled it, he would be the first to correct the manner of giving the public inadequate, incomplete or inaccurate information and would bring down a supplementary budget. Well, it's just a little bit fuzzy isn't it, Mr. Speaker? Never a supplementary budget. Just a little bit fuzzy. But you

[ Page 270 ]

see, Mr. Speaker, it's the same old thing. You know….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He never said "a supplementary budget." Well, Mr. Speaker, we'll be waiting anxiously to hear them.

Mr. Speaker, we had a famous legal case in British Columbia in this past year, where an American was sentenced to jail for presenting to the people of British Columbia a false prospectus. And what that sports promoter did was to say he wanted $3 million for one purpose and then he used it for another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that the one that fooled Capozzi?

MR. McGEER: That's not hard. (Laughter.) I think Capozzi did all right out of it.

But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the budgets that we've had handed down would never have passed that court of law, that the public of British Columbia is entitled to have a full and frank disclosure of its state of finances, and that every government should be prepared to use the full resources at its command to implement the programmes that the people have been waiting for.

And when we talk about the inadequacies to our education system — the lack of chronic care facilities, the lack of housing, the lack of appropriate care for our senior citizens — always the impression is left that the will is there; our hearts are big but our pocketbooks are empty. Let it be known, Mr. Speaker, that the pocketbooks of the Province of British Columbia are bulging as they have never bulged before.

This year the revenues of this province will be close to $2 billion. I said when I brought down my Liberal budget this spring that I would be at least a $100 million closer to the true revenues of the province than the Premier. And I'm willing to lay at hundred-to-one odds with anybody now that I'm right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah ha! No takers.

MR. McGEER: The Premier's budget, I said, was at least $130 million below what it could have been and I've changed that figure now to $270 million. Because when there is inflation revenues roll into government…always happens…income taxes, corporation tax, dollars are worth less, and it just comes pouring in. So the government has adequate resources to take care of those people who are suffering because of this inflation.

The government doesn't suffer during…governments like inflation, Mr. Speaker. They really do. It makes the bonds that are out less valuable; it makes their current revenues greater. People wonder why governments are always equivocal; they say that they're going to fight, you know, but they just shadowbox with inflation. I'll tell you what. They like it. It brings a lot of money into government.

The NDP is enjoying its revenue. But the people are without housing — the pensioners, those who are chronically ill, those who had hoped to buy a home and nearly had it made a year ago; they're not enjoying inflation. No programme in this province should be held back today for lack of money. Everyone should understand that.

The Premier will have his chance later on today to revise his spending upward, to look after the people of British Columbia so that we'll know the socialist missionaries, who came to government in this province to do good, haven't wound up doing well.

I hope that people realize that we have swung from one extreme in this province to another, and that extremism is not the way, in British Columbia or in any other jurisdiction. One doesn't have to be brilliant to govern well on behalf of the people. One only has to have common sense, a big heart and a willingness to reform.

I think that the Members, my colleagues in the House on the Liberal benches, despite the slings and arrows of three opposition groups in the House, have consistently preached the course of common sense and reform, have tried to say that the political vehicle of British Columbia should be driven down the middle of the road and not be skirting into the ditch on the right or the left as people swing from one extreme to the other.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) has set forward a course of action for the environment and has championed the fight for the Skagit Valley. My colleague in Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has laid down a course for human rights in this province. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has consistently enunciated the wisest policies for natural resource development and the agricultural industry in the province.

Of course, our Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has explained to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) how we should genuinely rehabilitate people by looking after their needs. Today I think the public of British Columbia is coming to recognize that his championing of keeping the tankers out of our coast of British Columbia wasn't just a silly political caper.

And so, Mr. Speaker, we say to you that, much as we regret it, we cannot support the Speech from the Throne.

The Premier is crestfallen. But you know in the old days, when the Speech from the Throne had nothing in it, at least there was some good political flimflam from Bill Clancy, and I think we ought to

[ Page 271 ]

get back. We should have either content or flimflam; but when we have got neither, it's dull and it makes debate difficult.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well I don't know whether we should adjourn the debate now and take a vote. It looks like the opposition might do better than we'd expected. But I won't adjourn the House, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that I might keep up my record of not succeeding.

And in any event, we want to hear the Premier's statement about the bouncing resources of the province, and what he means to do for the little people of British Columbia, the things that he talked about so eloquently when he was in opposition, but which cannot be found in this Speech from the Throne. We say once more that the only way to drive, in the future of this province, is down the middle of the road. We shall not support the Speech from the Throne.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and to spend what I hope will be a reasonably short time in making a few observations, which are relevant to the Speech from the Throne and the business of this Legislature.

Incidentally, I am pleased to draw to the attention of the House the students of Mount Douglas Secondary School who are taking part in a tour of the legislative buildings today. Their arrival is, if I may say, most timely.

Quite naturally I want to offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) as he assumes the duties of interim leader of this provincial party. I think that I reflect the opinion of many Members of this House when I say that he is held in very high regard by all of us, on both sides, for his qualities of frankness, his objectivity in debate — most of the time (Laughter) — his concern….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's my leader.

MR. CURTIS: …his concern for the rights of the individual, his compassion for the disadvantaged and, most importantly perhaps, his almost unlimited energy.

MR. McGEER: It sounds like Agnew's endorsement of Nixon. (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: I think that should be retracted, Mr. Speaker. That draws an inference which I find very unpleasant.

It's a pleasure to note that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay is gradually losing his Scottish brogue. It is becoming less distinct and I can report that he no longer swears at me in Gaelic. (Laughter.) He still swears, but at least it is in English and I can understand precisely what he is saying.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to the newly-elected Hon. Member for Okanagan South (Mr. Bennett). You know, he joins this House at a most interesting time in British Columbia politics, and he brings with him into this chamber a rather mixed legacy: He is the son of an eminent British Columbian and, I think, the odds-on favourite to succeed his father as the leader of a political party in British Columbia, a political party which was thoroughly rejected by the electors of this province just over one year ago. (Laughter.)

If he is successful in shaking loose from some of the rather strange and reactionary elements which infiltrated that party and rose to prominence within the former government, particularly in the last few years, then he may well have a bright and promising future. If he fails in that particular and vital task then I would think that he and his party will continue to wander in the British Columbia wilderness for a few more years and then eventually disappear from the scene altogether.

May I associate myself with previous participants in this debate who have spoken very positively about the travelling select committees. I can only comment, of course, with first-hand knowledge on the committees on Agriculture and Municipal Matters. In both instances, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the Members representing all parties in this House are now better informed and more qualified representatives as a result of our weeks of studies, hearings and tours.

I think, frankly, that purely partisan considerations took second place to individual attitudes and the search always for a consensus. It was a refreshing and an extremely valuable experience to move away from what I feel is the rigidity and rather structured atmosphere of this legislative precinct into what the previous speaker has referred to on more than one occasion as the "real world" where we can actually encounter and discuss individual problems and attitudes, where we can talk with people first-hand, where they have no nervousness with respect to coming to Victoria and the parliament buildings, but rather meeting them on their ground and hearing what they have to say.

Of the two groups with which I travelled, it is fair to identify the committee on Agriculture as having, I think, the more difficult and complex assignment, stretching over a number of weeks, from Cranbrook to Smithers, from Oliver to Fort St. John.

I'm sorry he's not in the House, Mr. Speaker; I told him yesterday that I intended to compliment him and I shall do so. With your permission, I shall

[ Page 272 ]

await his taking his place. I want to, very sincerely, compliment the Chairman of the committee on Agriculture, the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), for his enthusiastic and, most importantly, his impartial leadership of our group. He set a very demanding pace, as others have observed, but no one could ask for a more fair or dedicated or enthusiastic chairman.

I don't intend to stand here and claim to be a crash-course expert on agriculture; that has not been my background. It is clearly evident that the problems facing the producers of food in British Columbia today are among the most serious to which this House must direct its attention, demanding prompt and decisive action by the government.

Many of our farmers, our orchardists and ranchers are demoralized and uncertain about the future. They are frustrated by past action or inactions and legislation. In so many instances, on the basis of our personal contact with them and figures they filed with us, they labour for far less than the minimum wage which this government boasts about so often. They are in debt. They have little hope of breaking free. Their capital costs and operating expenses are escalating at an alarming rate.

I am particularly concerned, and I believe others must be, Mr. Speaker, about the situation with respect to the younger farmer — those under 40. I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and his cabinet colleagues to do all in their power to reverse this distressing trend away from the farm, to make the situation more attractive, if at least not more tolerable, for the young family farm unit.

My own riding has a fair farming element, and, as must be the case throughout the province, there are young men and women well-trained, perfectly physically capable of assuming the agricultural activities started by their parents or their grandparents who are asking today with very real doubt if they should continue in the same work.

This disillusionment, this uncertainty, is apparently crystalized in a brief report prepared for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, released, I think, within the last ten days or two weeks. It says in part: "Young farmers in nearby Delta are stricken with a sense of futility and they are turning away from agriculture because they are uncertain about the future of farming."

Admittedly there are rather unique pressures in that particular part of the lower mainland, but this same sense of futility to a lesser or greater extent will be found in other parts of the province.

This party will enthusiastically support any carefully prepared and positive legislation introduced by the government to keep family farm units operating with a reasonable return to the producer.

There is another matter affecting a number of young adults in British Columbia and I must spend a few minutes bringing this to the attention of the House. As the previous speaker, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), and several others have commented in the last number of days, we have a housing crisis in British Columbia, particularly as it relates to the young family.

We have a newly-appointed Minister responsible for housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) who I hope will have a fully-operative department. I am sorry that he, too, is not in the House this afternoon. We can only hope that this Minister had the enthusiastic support of all the Members of the cabinet as he tackles this massive job ahead of him. It is a massive task and I am not entirely convinced that he can measure up to it.

In dealing with the subject, my first instinct, Mr. Speaker, was to seek out and deluge you with as much statistical data as time would permit. Frankly, I think that would serve about as much purpose as the many accounts of statistics given to interminable housing conferences, conventions, seminars and weekend retreats over the past several years.

Despite all the brave words and the endless suggestions, the situation has steadily deteriorated until now not just low-income families who can be helped through public housing efforts but a growing proportion of the middle-income group are finding themselves removed from homeownership capability. In many cases they are also in a most precarious rental situation.

This is, perhaps, the most disturbing development of all for it represents, again as the previous speaker observed, an erosion of our traditional way of living in British Columbia. The average new family formation in the province is being forced into high-priced rental accommodation in apartment-type dwelling units with virtually no hope of purchasing their own lot upon which to build their own home.

Mr. Speaker, just over 10 or 12 years ago — 1960, 1961, 1962 — that would have been an unthinkable situation. In 1960, it was still possible for a young family, newly married with one or two children, to locate in a new two- or three-bedroom home with all that they required, for a down payment of $1,200 to $1,500. That was probably about 10 per cent of the end purchase price of the house and the lot. It is hardly necessary to point out that their interest rate, as well, was in the neighbourhood of 6, 61/4, 61/2, 63/4 per cent — something they could manage.

Today, serviced lots, which represent the young couple's down payment on a home, are selling locally in greater Victoria at a minimum of $10,000 and in most areas at $15,000 plus. And even with both working in a two-wage-earner situation, this is a huge sum of money for the average married team to amass.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

Another example from Burnaby: serviced lots

[ Page 273 ]

today are in the $15,000 to $20,000 range, with the result that, almost incredibly, the average, moderate, new home is approaching the $50,000 mark. There are examples of $25,000 and up for building lots. They are certainly not that unique, they have been referred to earlier this week, and they are to be found in a number of parts of the province.

It is a distressing truth that one of the major contributing factors to this rapid increase in land values has been the agricultural land reserve. Preservation of farmland is a desirable goal, but if that land is not to be built upon for housing purposes, then the government must assist in the provision of other land where housing can be located, and at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, it is to help these young, middle-income families to attain a home of their own that immediate, positive and massive programmes of land assembly and servicing must be undertaken by the two senior levels of government. The initiative is clearly up to this particular government, to the newly-appointed Minister, and the time is now.

I am fearful that some of the land assembly schemes which he currently has under consideration are too long term. They have much to recommend them, and they may prove to be of real assistance 10, or 12, or 15 years from now. But, Mr. Speaker, what about the short term? What about short-term, immediately implemented, land assembly schemes? Thus far we know of none, so through you to the new Minister, Mr. Speaker, although he's not here, I hope he's not arranging or planning even one more housing seminar, or conference, or weekend, and if the federal government is to set one up in British Columbia, I hope he's successful in having it abandoned. Surely the two governments have virtually all the information they require, and now all that is needed is action.

As the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) said on Monday, I believe, "Housing is a scandal in British Columbia today." And here is word of another seminar, this one proposed by the University of British Columbia on Friday, October 5 — Land Banking Investment in the Future. I note that the Minister is scheduled to speak to the conference but, and I quote from the pamphlet, "This one-day programme will deal with such questions as: 'What is land banking?' 'Why might it be needed?' 'What are its advantages and its disadvantages?' 'What are the major policy questions, i.e. long-term and short- term goals, administrative structures, financing principles, pricing schemes, disposal policies, et cetera?' "

Mr. Speaker, all that information is available. We don't need another one-day or two-day seminar on a subject which has been virtually talked to death in British Columbia in the last several years.

Now I know it is easy to fall into the trap of offering the one magical solution to a problem which is extremely complex throughout its total spectrum. Nevertheless, I believe that land assembly is the key to unlock far more problems than any other forms of government intervention in British Columbia in the housing field ever can. And, Mr. Speaker, again, some of those land assembly programmes must be put together and made available in the shortest, possible time.

Now, Sir, another new Minister in charge of consumer affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) has a very great challenge ahead of her, and we wish her well in that assignment, through you. There is abundant evidence now to indicate that the federal Food Prices Review Board is nothing short of an absolute catastrophe, and I hope that this soon-to-be-created portfolio in this province will meet with considerably more success.

We observe that the Minister has been very quiet thus far in this session, and we shall await her remarks, or legislation which she introduces, with interest and look for legislation which directs itself not only to protection of the consumer, Madam Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, but which recognizes the fact that in British Columbia there are many reputable and responsible individuals engaged in selling goods and services who will be happy to work with her and with her department, to express their opinions, to give you the background of their knowledge, to recommend ways in which the less desirable elements in the buyer-seller relationship can be neutralized or corrected.

I know there are men and women at the retail level in food, in appliances, clothing, home furnishings and automobiles, who can contribute to her study of a given situation. And it is to be hoped, really to be hoped, that she will take advantage of that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, now that this government has settled into office, apparently comfortably, I earnestly await positive statements and, where applicable, legislation dealing with these few matters among many.

A second try at a bill concerning conflict of interest and public disclosure by elected and appointed officials at all levels of government within the control of this jurisdiction. It is unfortunate that the government was somehow intimidated or frightened to proceed with its bill in the spring session. I was very sorry when the Attorney General found it necessary to pull the bill. Again, Mr. Speaker, if a public official has nothing to hide, then that same public official has nothing to fear.

Foreign ownership of land. This is a matter of urgent concern and the time, I think, has long since passed when the present government should have brought to this House more positive moves. I spoke in support of restrictions in the 1972 general election campaign, we urged action again during the spring session, we've spoken about it a number of times

[ Page 274 ]

since, and still nothing has been done. Nothing has been brought to this House with respect to controlling foreign ownership of this beautiful province of ours. The need is apparent. The government can examine similar legislation in a number of jurisdictions. The examples are to be found easily elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, why the delay?

Interdepartmental contact, coordination and cooperation. The situation, I think, has improved somewhat, but we still encounter instances throughout the province where one department of government apparently is unable to, or unwilling to, talk to another. And individual Members of this House, based on the experience of their own ridings, on both sides of the House, can cite examples in those ridings, and they have done so. This is a challenge to the Premier, to the Provincial Secretary, and to every Minister, and I wish them well in it.

Other matters not referred to in the Speech from the Throne, and apparently therefore not high on the list of priorities of this supposedly people-oriented government, Mr. Speaker, include no ombudsman, still no right to sue the Crown, still no Auditor General operating completely beyond the reach of government interference, still no human rights Act.

I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that we got down to the legislation, and saw in black and white precisely what this government intends to do about these very points which were so popular with them before they came to power.

Another travelling committee, and I referred to it very briefly, Mr. Speaker, was the one dealing with the Gulf Islands. The principle of the Island Trust or commission is a good one, and I subscribe to the committee report. I understand that the chairman of the Capital Regional District is in shock now that the report has been released, but that was to be expected. I think that many islanders, regardless of political affiliation, will subscribe to the basic principle of a Gulf Islands Trust. However, again we must not have an unreasonable delay. If the government is prepared to accept this concept, this principle, then I would urge that it get busy immediately with the necessary legislation. The Gulf Islanders have been kept waiting for a long time. They've been left in a state of uncertainty, in limbo, as it were, for a number of years while the former government, and now the present government and the municipal matters committee, consider their fate.

I think I should remind the House, because time does slip by so quickly, Mr. Speaker, that it was October 28, 1969, four years ago short of a few weeks, when the establishment of a 10-acre minimum subdivision restriction was announced on Saltspring Island and the outer Gulf Islands, and on the same day, a similar restriction on, particularly Gabriola Island, but those islands within the Nanaimo Regional District. Community plans have been prepared since that time. There has been tremendous community participation in the preparation of those plans, with literally scores of men and women turning out night after night to work on plans which they believed to be in the best interests of their particular island.

Now, if those plans are not acceptable to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), to his cabinet colleagues and to the government, then I think that statement should be made at the earliest possible opportunity, and the recommendation with respect to a trust introduced also at the first opportunity. They must not be left in a continuing state of uncertainty for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

There are problems on the Gulf Islands, Mr. Speaker, and your committee, or the committee assigned by this House to the task of looking at them, encountered many. One of the problems is the diversity of the islands themselves, from a large, relatively urban-type situation, such as Ganges on Saltspring Island, to more remote and less populated islands such as Lasqueti.

But, Mr. Speaker, the developers are still at it. From the Vancouver Sun on August 22 of this year, a three-quarter page newspaper ad:

"Sea lovers live here. Sheltered between Vancouver and Victoria is…" and that is how it's printed "…is hundreds of islands of incomparable beauty. The finest marine playground in Canada. Property in these Gulf Islands is becoming the most sought-after international investment today. For this reason, the B.C. government is severely restricting new development."

Elsewhere in the advertisement, I quote:

There's no doubt the Gulf Islands are the answer to close marine recreation and will become increasingly popular to a point where land will be unobtainable. Last of the great locations. Now available, for the first time this year, 11 choice recreation properties: two ocean-front, $23,500; five lakefront, $8,700 to $15,000; four ocean-view, $11,400 to $12,490.

That's the Magic Lake Estates organization with respect to North Pender Island.

It was in 1968, Mr. Speaker, 1968 and 1969, that I first spoke out against developments of that size, of that magnitude, on the Gulf Islands, and so I subscribed to the report. I appreciate that a number of people resident in the Gulf Islands will be very unhappy with the recommendations of the so-called Nunweiler committee report. But we cannot just walk away from it and say, "Okay, in the spring we'll get busy with legislation," or, "Sometime next year we'll look at this trust."

The question mark has been hovering over the Gulf Islands for far too long. Now that this report has been filed and the essence of an idea presented to this

[ Page 275 ]

House, I sincerely hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and others will move quickly to reject it or to endorse it, whichever they see fit.

Mr. Speaker, although other Members have spoken about the British Columbia Ferry Authority, particularly regarding this summer's most unfortunate interruption of services and the Minister's "gun-to-my-head" statement — a statement, incidentally, which will live with him for the rest of his political life — I want to touch on two or three other aspects of the service and leave the question of the strike for some other time.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister responsible, I agree and concede that Vancouver Island residents have no fully justifiable reason to expect preferential treatment in ferry lineups. That suggestion is clearly not practical. But what is possible, however, is some form of optional car-reservation system open to all, regardless of their place of residence, whether this is their first visit to British Columbia or whether they have lived on Vancouver Island or some other part of British Columbia all their lives.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a certain percentage of automobile spaces on each sailing could and should be set aside for space reservation by telephone. Now these spaces could be held for, say, 30 minutes prior to sailing time. If they're not taken up by then, a half-hour before sailing, they would be released to the general traffic waiting.

There should be a nominal charge for this convenience, perhaps an extra dollar or two, to be added to the regular automobile fare. I can only guess that the additional revenue from this reservation source would perhaps assist greatly in offsetting the extra cost to the authority. I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not advocating a total reservation system by any means, but a percentage of spaces on every sailing, Vancouver to Nanaimo and Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen, where reservations would be accepted.

In many instances, I think the typical Vancouver Island or mainland driver would not need to reserve and, there, wouldn't have to spend that extra money. But if he or she is on a tight schedule for business purposes or to keep a personal appointment or responding to a family emergency in Victoria, Nanaimo or Vancouver, then the means should be available for that particular driver to be as reasonably certain as possible of getting on board a particular sailing.

Secondly, in this age of the ubiquitous credit card, Mr. Speaker, surely this convenient form of paying a bill could also go to sea aboard our ferry system. Acceptance of the principle of travel credit cards along with Chargex for cafeteria and dining room meals should surely be easily arranged by the ferry authority. There must be many occasions when a family returning from a vacation of a few days or a few weeks, or a passenger making a last-minute emergency trip, is simply short of cash; it happens to all of us.

The average family, as we all know, can do the following things with a credit card: buy gasoline for the car, stay in a motel or a hotel, go shopping and buy a variety of goods, eat in many restaurants — all with a credit card. But it cannot use that credit card in a dining room or cafeteria on board a British Columbia ferry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, many of the points made by many of the previous participants in this debate I feel have been constructive, interesting and thought-provoking. As a new Member, however, I still question the necessity of protracted debate such as this going on for many days in the absence of the bulk of the government's current legislative programme.

I think it's when specific material is put before us that we're then able to get down to the serious business for which we were sent here. For that reason, I've refrained from raising several matters in these remarks, some of them relating to my constituency, in favour of taking them to the Minister concerned.

I hope this government, in spite of its relaxed and casual attitude, is not in the process of settling too comfortably into the task of administrating the affairs of British Columbia. Surely they must know, as we do and as our citizens know, that there's a vast amount of work to be undertaken for this province. Thus far in this session we have yet to see any significant evidence of the vitality and enthusiasm with which this government indicated it would operate.

There is much to be done and, as one Member of the opposition, I hope that very few days pass by before we're presented with specific, carefully considered, detailed and positive legislation which will permit us to get on with our job.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by our leader when he spoke in this debate, this party will continue to offer logical, constructive and positive opposition. When we feel that the government's policies are in the best interests of our citizens, then we shall unashamedly and frankly support those policies.

At the same time, we shall introduce, as we have already, private Members' bills designed to outline, to convey, our party's attitudes and priorities. But when we disagree with this government and its policies or its proposals, Mr. Speaker, then the government can expect a most vigorous and positive opposition. That, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of the parliamentary system, and that's why we are here.

[ Page 276 ]

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment you again, as I usually do, on the method by which you keep us rascals in order. I think that probably your greatest task is on the government side of the House, as we witnessed today.

I want to also express my pleasure at being invited this year to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Quebec. It was a very fine experience meeting as many legislators from across Canada as were there, and there was a good contingent of them. I made a contribution to that August body. While I have some apprehension as to the powers that that body might have, I think it is a clearing house for thoughts and ideas. I hope that some of these can be incorporated into the procedures of the various legislatures across the country.

I want to join with the others in wishing the new cabinet Ministers well, even though their stay may be very short. The experience, I am sure, will be of great benefit to them.

I want to also compliment the mover and seconder of this motion that is presently before the House. The mover gave us a very historical background of the history of farming. It took a matter of about 15 minutes. The seconder took about 20 minutes on NDP bouquets to the government. I have a copy, as you will notice, Mr. Speaker, of the speech that was delivered by His Honour, for fear of making mistakes. I think, probably, the speech in itself was probably the greatest mistake.

Interjections.

MR. RICHTER: The lack of content is very obvious. It again shows that the programme that we have to look forward to will be the legislative programme. We have no direction as to what is coming up in the legislation. Consequently we have no means of knowing what to prepare for. Fortunately a few pieces of legislation came in yesterday.

I want to compliment the new Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), who I can assure you is going to be of a great deal of assistance to this little opposition — official opposition — on this side of the House. It's a real pleasure to have the Member with us and I commend him highly on his remarks the other day. I hope that I can say as much in such a brief time as he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

MR. RICHTER: I would like to make a few remarks about my constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, and some of the important matters that I think should again be brought to the attention of the government. In 1972, with the general election, we had many of the NDP Members from the opposition at that time in the area to support their candidate.

There is a little matter known as the Penticton bypass that I have brought up in this House for the last 20 years. I'm wondering what is going to happen; whether we're going to ever see this bypass, which seemed to be, at the time of the election, a very simple problem to resolve. This problem was not as simple as this present government thinks it is and consequently, nothing has come about.

We have Okanagan Mountain Park.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: No I didn't. That's not solving the problem of the Penticton bypass.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Stop interrupting the Member.

MR. RICHTER: The Okanagan Mountain Park was of course a fait accompli prior to this government. However, a great to-do was made in the announcements about what was going to happen at this park. It's a very rugged piece of land, which I think should be as a wilderness. I don't think anything has to be done by way of building roads into it or making any access other than what is there already, because the cry today is for wilderness areas and that is one area that I think could be well left as a wilderness area.

Rural electrification programme. We need rural electrification in the areas where the ranchers live and are some distance from main powerlines.

The health services in Similkameen I've taken up with the Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke). He promises that the matter is being looked at and studies are being made, but the fact is that we have the problem there today. Something has to be done and done very, very soon to take care of those people who are not able to make their way to where the doctors and hospitals are located. I'm sure that the Minister will…

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well that certainly proves that the Minister did listen to the representations that were made to him and I thank him for that effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been home in a while, have you?

MR. RICHTER: Yes I have, but I haven't been sick.

[ Page 277 ]

I've had a number of complaints from my constituency — and I would like to direct this to the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). This is a matter which has been brought to my attention. I wasn't aware of it, but it's been brought to my attention that, because of the immediate vicinity of the international border in the Rock Creek area, quite a number of transients, whether they are foreign transients or our own Canadian transients, are taking up living quarters in abandoned shacks and so on. The problem is that the people are opposed to having these people occupy the bathing holes along the river there and not wear bathing trunks at least. The promiscuity and the nudity that goes on there is something to behold, they say. (Laughter.) I almost think that maybe I should make a trip into my constituency in that area.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to answer that one. The claim is that the police force are not getting the backing they need from the Attorney General's Department. This I don't know, but I do bring it to the attention of the Attorney General.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll be up there tomorrow.

MR. RICHTER: Now in relation to an invitation that was extended to us the other day by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) regarding land use. Of course, with the blanket freeze that went on, it didn't necessarily confine itself to agricultural land totally. All lands were taken in. My concern is the methods used in designating the classification of this land.

There are areas that would appear, and probably prove as far as soil tests are concerned, as being agricultural land. But there are a number of other factors which have a bearing on the viability of that land and those are the soil type, the availability of irrigation at an economical rate and the types of crops which can be produced and which will return a viable remuneration to the farmer. These are areas that I feel definitely should have further attention. In so doing, your classification on many, many pieces of property will fall much below that in which the soil type alone was the criteria in classification.

I want to say something about marketing boards which were brought up by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) in relation to the broiler marketing board. Of course we have the problems with a tree fruit marketing board and two factions.

Marketing boards, in their original concept, were a method by which the producers could control their production and the marketing of that commodity in concert with the demand. But today, with the fruit board and the breakaway group, we have nothing more than the tearing down of an institution — well, it may not at all times proven to be the best method; it was a method in which improvements could be brought in by those who were in charge. In many cases, I have criticized them for not bringing in newer methods in the marketing of their fruit.

But what is happening today — and I'm sorry that the Minister of Agriculture isn't here — we have seen very, very little intervention by the government in trying to resolve this problem, or assist in some way in resolving this battle. Last weekend we had fruit seized that was coming to the coast. I know that this is against the tree fruits marketing board scheme, but it appears to me that the government is sitting idly by, hoping that these two adversaries will tear each other apart to the point that the government will have to step in, form a Crown corporation and say, "Well you can't resolve your own problems. You can't run your own business. We'll run it for you. We'll do the marketing. We'll tell you what to grow." And again we will have the socialist philosophy of control of production.

I have read the agricultural committee's report and I disagree in one or two areas with this report, particularly in relation to the control of grazing, where it has been referred to the Department of Agriculture. Whether the government takes this action or not, is yet to be seen; but if they do they're going to have a greater problem on their hands then than they have now, because you're going to have two departments attempting to administer grazing land which can also be timber land. I have the firm conviction that, where we have multiple use, it should be that one department operates that resource area, whether it's grazing, timber or land.

As far as the sheep-killing plant is concerned, that may have been a good idea a few years ago but, through the wildlife groups, the federation of wildlife, they have virtually eliminated domestic sheep grazing on the ranges. Today we have only small flocks, and to have enough of a home-produced resource, by way of lambs or of mutton as far as that's concerned, to maintain a packing house it just isn't in British Columbia. And any of the packing houses that are here today can readily process these animals. I know this. I have been connected with this industry for quite a few years and I know that there is no problem there. However, those are only minor items and are really of not too much concern.

Our forest policies — or, let us say, threatened policies — in relation to a revised stumpage appraisal have brought a flood of mail to my desk. I can see a great number of problems that the forestry industries are going to be faced with, especially where there are low-grade stands of timber and where they are attempting to salvage decadent trees and trees of low productivity as far as lumber is concerned, top-grade

[ Page 278 ]

lumber. The Interior is probably the area in which there is more of this type of timber than there is in the rain forest. There is a very great degree of concern in that particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I have chosen just a few topics to discuss today. On the matter of housing, which has been mentioned many times in this Legislature and of recent date, there was a statement of our Premier concerning housing in August when he said that the housing situation had gone from bad to terrible in British Columbia during his administration's first year in office and was going to get worse. The fact is that many disruptive moves of the NDP-installed bureaucracy have done untold damage to the housing inventory of British Columbia and, indeed, to the initiative to get action.

The leasehold land, which was spoken of today, for residences and the emphasis on public housing are proven failures in every jurisdiction that has tried it in the past. It is not the answer to a mixed stock of housing. The lead time for getting housing projects of any size under way to take advantage of any of the economies of scale has drastically lengthened in practical terms.

The 1973 construction year must be considered a wipeout, and the prospects for 1974 are totally clouded. Housing initiatives announced thus far by the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) — and I'm sorry he is not in the House — such as the university endowment lands fiasco, have not clarified the picture at all.

Municipal planners are at a standstill and are trying to determine where residential housing should be permitted. Central control of housing initiative is simply bogging the system down. Small operators, who make up a substantial part of the housing production sector, are simply not proceeding because they cannot stand any bureaucratic delays, with their limited capital resources.

True to form, the socialists have continued the ideological hang-up they have had that only the public sector can produce housing at a price one can afford to pay.

As far as welfare is concerned, Mr. Premier, your government has added greatly to the inflationary fire in this province. The psychology of inflation is dominating the labour scene in particular. The Mincome plan is a sham. Last year a $17.12 increase to the old-age security, a Canada-guaranteed income supplement, was absorbed by the British Columbia government. The recent $9.02 increase announced is simply passing along the federal old-age security increases.

In short, using 14 per cent as the increase in the cost-of-living index since last year, the bare minimum for senior citizens should be $228 per month. The guaranteed income bill has been amended to reflect the 14 per cent increase. In the case of senior citizens it has increased to reflect a 14 per cent increase on $225 — making the current position of this party on income to those over 65 to $250 per month.

Further, in the social assistance handbook, of which all Members have a copy, on page 3 under "eligibility" and on page 5 under "transient" there is a passport to prosperity. As a matter of fact, an invitation contained in the pamphlet is becoming a passport for transients from all over Canada and the United States. Furthermore, the community councils being established reflect the welfare workers' point of view entirely.

We have in British Columbia now a welfare state on a scale never before contemplated. The investment climate in this province has seen a very great decrease of interest by investors from outside the province, who could come here and invest their capital, develop resources and help the economy of this province. With the exception of the so-called Northern Development Plan which, in fact, was a negotiated programme between the BCR and the CNR, together with the socialist adventurism into business involvement, there has not been in a year a single major economic initiative in British Columbia.

The lack of initiative involves the public sector as well for, with the exception of public works and highways contracts, which were either underway or announced, there are no public works or highway initiatives underway at the present time, with the exception of the millions which the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) has described as necessary for the renovation of the parliament buildings.

Mining has been cut virtually in half. There was an announcement in August that the recording of mineral claims in the first six months of 1973 is down 50 per cent from what it was a year ago. The August sale of oil and gas rights stood at just approximately 50 per cent of the sale at the same period of August, 1972. The return of the parity bonds is a further indicator of the growing lack of confidence in British Columbia finance.

Consumerism. While the NDP in Ottawa are decrying the prices review board as a toothless creature, the Minister of consumer affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) in British Columbia goes on province-wide television to admit that she has no tools to do the job. The Hon. Minister does have, however, the salary, the office and the executive assistant to go along with her non-programme.

Successive increases in milk prices and egg prices have been met with a deafening silence on the part of the consumer affairs Minister. Furthermore, her quoted answer to high meat prices is simply to "buy cheaper cuts." I would presume that wieners are a cheaper form of meat, but the price of wieners has risen 32 per cent.

Using the United States as an example, and because it is considered the richest country in the

[ Page 279 ]

world — on earth…I suppose that would include also the space platform that they have up there. No, it was just the workers that came down yesterday. It is interesting to examine wages of the Ministers and associate bureaucrats with wage levels in the United States.

Based on median family incomes in 1972, only 7 per cent of the family incomes reported exceeded $25,000. It is therefore obvious that the bureaucratic positions created by the NDP government are extending well beyond market levels and exceed those median figures established in the richest country on earth.

I think it is wise to bog down the salary levels established by the NDP to a per-day allowance, which is more readily appreciated by the man on the street. Top deputies start at $175 per day; horizontally-promoted deputies start at $150 per day; top deputies are fixed at $190 per day. The salaries and expenses allowance of the Premier, based only on 330 days of work per year, is $210 per day. In his case, this involves substantial tax exemptions. Exempted are (a) $18,000 expenses, (b) $13,500 sessional indemnity exempt. That's a total of $31,500 in exemptions.

There is a rip off in British Columbia but it is taking place across the desks of the NDP Ministers. Comparable figures for Crown agencies involved in insurance, Hydro, BCR and the Energy Board are known.

In addition to fixed-salary situations, a whole range of per diem allowances have been involved in the Liquor Control Board, the Land Commission insurance board and a number of other boards which are to be established. These range anywhere up to $300 per day. These so-called advisory commissions are simply further outlets for talented NDP Members. The amounts of lard in the NDP superstructure are so great, that even Fotheringham is wincing a little.

AN HON. MEMBER: The gravy train.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, since this government has been in office for a year, I have prepared a socialist report card and I want to stick very closely to the report card. Most people in British Columbia wanted to give the new government a fair chance and so were really not willing to give any ratings to their performance. However, now, after one year in office, the basic ratings which can be assigned to the activities and thoughts of this government are quite glaringly obvious.

The first subject, number one — sanctity of contracts.

The government has shown total disdain for the sanctity of previous agreements. Security of tenure in the forest and mining industries, based upon long-standing agreements, is clearly in jeopardy. The philosophy behind the PNE deal, even it's not proclaimed, is dangerous. The massive increase for leas fees and taxation on small recreational holdings is alarming. Bad faith on the part of any government is an extremely dangerous characteristic. The rating: Failure!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, oh!

MR. RICHTER: Number two, bureaucracy. Nearly 6,000 people have been added to the payrolls of the civil service in just 12 months of socialist government. The handmaiden of bureaucracy under socialism is patronage. Rampant bureaucracy is bad enough, but the blatant patronage with which the NDP has been associated is unforgivable. Rating: Failure!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. RICHTER: Inflation control. The basic source of all inflation is government attitude and action. While inflation is worldwide, the inflationary forces in British Columbia were let loose by extravagant salary increases, extravagant labour agreements. The chickens are coming home to roost now, because groups like the teachers have simply cited the agreements made with other members of the public service as the whole reason for inflationary increases rising upwards to 15 per cent.

Inflation is as much psychological as it is mechanical, and the socialist government of British Columbia has, by example, done more to flame inflation in British Columbia than any other government in Canada. Your rating: Failure!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. RICHTER: The subject matter of number four, freedom of association. The Public Works Fair Employment Act is an example of discrimination on a wide scale. It is really designed to have government the determiner of whether or not a person will have a free right to join or not to join a trade union, and no amount of special exemptions, like those offered by the moving business, can hide the true intent of this bill, as it has been practised in the field. The doubletalk by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) cannot camouflage that freedom of association in British Columbia is no longer the guiding philosophical direction of this government. Your rating is: A failure!

Fair taxation. The immediate 20 per cent increase on large and small businesses alike, when the surplus position of the government is admitted to be high, is simply discrimination against one sector of the economy. The idea of cause and effect seems to play no part in the socialist understanding of the

[ Page 280 ]

economy. Who can deny that the taxation directly applied provincially will cause an increase in the price paid by every British Columbia consumer? Similarly, the new taxation levels applied to amendments to the Assessment Equalization Act and municipalities will cause prices to rise for every man on the street. Indeed, the discrimination against commercial enterprises will cause many small businesses to go under, and again your rating is failure.

Investment climate. Already mining claims in British Columbia are down 50 per cent over the previous year, which I mentioned previously. Bids for exploration leases in the natural gas and petroleum industries of British Columbia were down 50 per cent in August this year over last year. There is not one single new capital investment in the forest industry, except that which you made by your royal commissions…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why don't you read the papers?

MR. RICHTER: …and your Crown corporations. In spite of the fact that prices for forest products are at an all time high and the demand for pulp products is at an all time high in the world's history, it is ridiculous that rationing of pulp products is taking place at a time when the British Columbia potential is being ignored by the investment world. Again, your rating is: Failure!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. You're failing.

MR. RICHTER: On the subject of housing. Initiatives by the government in throwing a maze of red tape around land use planning in British Columbia, have caused an artificial scarcity in home sites. The NDP have a hang-up that only the public sector can provide adequate housing, in spite of the fact that public housing ventures in socialist countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway are proven failures, and waiting lists for public rental accommodations can be up as high as seven and eight years. No wonder even the Premier admits, and I quote: "The housing picture in British Columbia has gone from bad to worse." Again your rating is a failure.

Subject: decentralized government. The NDP has shown that the socialists can't govern without absolute central control. All the legislation points in the direction of central control. Municipalities and regional districts have had their local decision-making process stripped from them. Central control and planning is the hang-up of all socialists, and nowhere is it more in evidence than in British Columbia. Your rating is a failure.

Efficiency in economy. No amount of picture-taking by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) can hide the extravagance of the government offices. The little government for the little people of British Columbia has proven itself to be a government of creature comforts. Even the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) must have blushed when he said the other day, "Forgive us our small extravagances."

MRS. JORDAN: Right on.

MR. RICHTER: Again your rating is failure.

The Speech from the Throne this session, and the one last session, in no way indicated what the legislative programme of the government was to be. The budget last spring was not a true disclosure of the government's spending intentions. Special warrants for major expenditures have come from behind the green doors at the end of this building in a flood.

Order-in-council government is practised on a scale that makes a mockery of the rights of this Legislature. When one recalls the statements about orders-in-council made by the government opposite when it was in opposition, the record they have made so far is cynical and hypocritical. Again, your rating is a failure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And your speech is a failure.

MR. RICHTER: The subject: fair compensation. Fair compensation for land required for the public purposes is no longer policy in British Columbia. My colleague from down in the Liberal benches today gave quite a dissertation on that very fact. An entire industry — the insurance industry — was wiped out without fair compensation, despite the fact that, while acting as Leader of the Opposition, the Premier promised proper compensation to people who wrote him about the future of the insurance business under a socialist government. His letter to the concerned people in the industry proved to be meaningless. As Member after Member opposite gets up, seeking the takeover of yet another industry, is it any wonder, with the record of the fair compensation they have built up to date, that there is fear everywhere in British Columbia? Again your rating is a failure.

Federal-provincial deals. The agreement tabled in the House this last week on railway development in British Columbia, is a classic example of poor financial management on the part of the government. In the agreement, they forgot all the claims to federal sharing for the capital investment in the BCR (formerly the PGE). In return they will be sharing the capital costs of all the new railway extensions in British Columbia. They will enter the normally federally-financed harbour business at Prince Rupert and they will cost the British Columbia taxpayers in the provincial sense, tens of millions of dollars.

[ Page 281 ]

The former government had an arrangement which would have provided that the federal government bear the full cost of all CNR lines in the province; the former government sought federal sharing for the rail extensions to the BCR, sharing which is not a precedent because it had been done in other provinces. The former government, as well, had no intention of relinquishing any claims to recovering some of the capital costs already spent on the PGE.

Interjection.

MR. RICHTER: Yes, the federal Minister, the Hon. Mr. Marchand, certainly saw the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) opposite coming, and he took him on a ride. Your rating in that particular area again is a failure.

In the public school system of British Columbia, any individual getting a report card such as this one would be asked to repeat the year. However, no one in their right mind would ask the government opposite to repeat the year they have had with the record they have displayed to date. In the public school system, with a failing grade like this one, there would probably be a recommendation for special classes or special remedial work.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the disease that the Members have opposite is incurable. They have a basic hang-up that individuals in a free society are not to be trusted with the decision-making process and that only the government, surrounded by high-priced help, can do the job. In the post-secondary educational world, a record such as that hung up by the Members opposite would be cause for the university community to tell the students, "Further course work in this subject is likely to be unrewarding." In former years, in the university community, they would have been awarded a BAC degree: Bounced At Christmas. Unfortunately, that degree cannot be awarded by this Legislature.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the people of British Columbia will be awarding that degree to the government opposite, whether the tests come at Christmastime or any other time.

As a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) went to South Okanagan and stated clearly that the election is really an opportunity for the people to pass upon the record of the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, they did. And, very shortly, we here in this House will pass upon the record of this government.

I can assure you that the official opposition will be assigning a failing grade by voting against the Speech from the Throne, which was so vacant in content, so lacking in the spelling out of the government's direction, and so typical of what we have now come to expect from the socialists opposite. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to be able to participate in this debate. But I must say that I'm surprised at the former speaker and at the marks he gave out to the cabinet Members. It seems there's a great deal of competition among the opposition benches, the Social Credit party, to determine which one of them can become leader. One of the methods they've devised, obviously, is a new form of game. We have the Bingo game and now we're playing school. The message I got from the Hon. teacher across the way was that he wanted to bring back the strap.

But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't impressed with his assignment of grades. He seemed pleased; he was impressed with the fact that he could stand up and point to this government and say that in his opinion we've been failures.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that I accept his opinion with grace. But I would have worried had he said we were passing, because with that kind of approval we would then have been able to say that we were just as bad as the former government. As long as the Social Credit Party says we're a failure, we're okay.

Everything they stand for, everything they went out to do in this province, they claim they did the best. I'm almost embarrassed on behalf of that Member, embarrassed by the fact that he got up in this House and said for 20 years he's been trying to get a road in his constituency and he wasn't successful. Now, if that isn't failure, I don't know what is.

I've enjoyed the remarks of the other Members in the House during the debate. I always enjoy the good doctor from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who used to be a Liberal leader. He hasn't forgotten that experience; every once in a while it comes charging back through him, still giving out budgets, gratuitous advice. I enjoy his evaluation of the financial structure of the Province of British Columbia.

Got a new Liberal leader this year; a little bit more petulant than he was a year ago, a little bit more picayune than he was a year ago, and, in the South Okanagan, a lot less votes than they got a year ago. They are a disaster, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Party of British Columbia should be moved, seats and all, right over to the museum. They should be taken over there and housed and given comfort so they can be a living museum piece for a once-great party.

Now what is it down to? Ten per cent. But what did the candidate say in South Okanagan? He said," I'm not fighting the Barrett government. Everywhere I go I'm fighting Trudeau." Well, that's his problem.

But anyway, I noticed, too, that the Member said the people in South Okanagan gave a resounding expression of what they thought of politics in British Columbia. Social Credit dropped from 51 per cent

[ Page 282 ]

down to 39 per cent. That's some expression; that's some expression. With that kind of drop across the Province of British Columbia, we would have to move you in with the Liberals as museum pieces. But you're a great gang and you're all really trying very hard.

Who's going to get control of the Social Credit free-enterprise fund?

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Gunderson. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that Member shouldn't speak; he's out of his seat. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But anyway, Mr. Speaker, that's what it's really all about. Who's going to control those campaign funds? And really, why don't you come out and say how much is involved in those campaign funds and who's running the show now since the old guard is gone and who signs the cheques for the Social Credit education fund?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You do? You're so new, they wouldn't even let you in on a board meeting. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other comments related to some of the things suggested in the debate.

First of all, I want to thank the Members who have really adapted in their own way to what we hope is the new style of politics in British Columbia. I want to thank the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) who yesterday, in his duties as an MLA, stayed in his constituency, examined what the problem was and offered help on his behalf — the best he could do. He phoned my office twice and gave my office information as to that situation as it developed. I want to thank him publicly.

Other Members throughout the last year in their committee activities have said things publicly that I acknowledge. Certainly the first year we've had with committees has not been perfect, but it has not been a failure. I noticed that even the Leader of the Opposition did not suggest the committee work was a failure. I'm pleased with the fact that all-party committees did go throughout the province and that the fears of the former government never came into existence. Those committees were not used as political platforms by any single Member of any party, and I want to thank all the members of those committees who worked very, very hard.

I did go to the eastern premiers' conference as was mentioned by the former leader of the Liberal Party. But I didn't go with much help from the present leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I want to quote to you some of the remarks made on July 20 by the present leader of the Liberal Party. He said, "The coming Calgary Western Economic Opportunities Conference is little more than a chance for provincial politicians to provide gratuitous advice to the federal government." That was B.C. Liberal leader, David Anderson. He said, "It was interesting and useful to know what the premiers felt about these topics, but it didn't really need to make any difference to the federal politicians."

And then your own party had a conference, and the expression from your own party, which was once great in power in western Canada, was that the "federal government is not listening to the west." And then you are the leader of the provincial party and you in effect say, "Don't listen to these people, they're just provincial premiers." These premiers are the expression of the people of western Canada.

The Western Economic Opportunities Conference gave us an opportunity to vent feelings that people deeply feel, right across the western part of this country, against the federal government. And the conference, even if it accomplished nothing specific in terms of crossing the t's and dotting the i's, it created an atmosphere of dialogue between the federal government and the west, and that alone goes some way in easing the tensions for those would-be separatists in western Canada.

For years in this province we were subject to a premier who deliberately inflamed feelings between Ottawa and British Columbia as a basis to gather together political support. And when this government goes out of its way — not eliminating all the differences of opinion between Ottawa and British Columbia — but when this government goes out of its way to ensure its cooperation in a new manner, unseen in 20 years in this province, and when this government says we want to cooperate with Ottawa, and then to have the leader of the Liberal Party — and in terms of the federal government we're dealing with the Liberal party — say these kinds of things, then I say it's a disservice to British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I find quite frankly the Member becomes more petty every day. Yesterday I had to subscribe a description to his remarks about the oil spill; quite frankly he was childish yesterday, absolutely childish. Mr. Member, I've restrained myself from observations about your role in this House, but quite frankly, if anybody's a failure you are certainly the one to be pointed at more than anyone else. But enough of that.

I can't help but think there are people who feel some things beyond partisan politics, and perhaps more and more of those people will have their feelings expressed within that party over the long

[ Page 283 ]

haul.

Now there has been some criticism of Mincome. I'm really amused by the official opposition's attitude toward Mincome. It's a hand-wringing, "me too" sort of syndrome. "Why if they'd only let us back into power we'd have done it and we'd have given more." Twenty years, and they still have the nerve, Mr. Speaker, they still have the nerve to come back in this House and claim that they would have done better with the Mincome programme.

In September of 1972 there were 17,600 people who, in any way possible, were eligible under the former government to receive the maximum that they were giving at that time of $191. In September, 1973, Mr. Speaker, there are now 97,136 people over the age of 65 receiving the protection of guaranteed income.

There's been an increase, Mr. Speaker, of 79,536 people. Are they trying to tell us, Mr. Speaker, that those 79,000 people would have been cared for under the Social Credit means test, needs test, "mummy" test, "move" test?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Mummy" test?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Many of you remember it. Yes, the mummy test. I'm glad you asked that question. I'm glad you asked that because the mummy test, you will remember, was the description by that the former Minister of Human Resources, Mr. P.A. Gaglardi, who was known to have opulent furniture at one time. Mr. Speaker, it was read in the House by the former Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), describing how a crippled person would be eligible for that guaranteed income programme. They couldn't walk, they couldn't move, they couldn't feed themselves, the whole description ended up that if they were wrapped in bandages from head to toe and were a mummy in a wheelchair, they would be eligible under the former government. That was the mummy means test, Mr. Speaker.

Everybody who is handicapped now receives the guaranteed minimum income, and why not? And to say in this House and leave the impression that they would have done better!

There's no point in reading many of the letters that have come in from people, many of whom voted for the former government, saying how much they appreciated the fact that this programme was initiated. And now, Mr. Speaker, we've dropped it down to age 60, without federal government help.

We earnestly hope that our pioneering in this regard will lead the federal government to share in costing. We hope that. But I say this right now, that if the federal government wishes to say to the rest of Canada, "We cannot help the wealthy provinces drop the age down to 60, but our first move will be to drop the age down to 60 in the Maritimes," or the poor parts of Canada, then I say on behalf of this government that we welcome that decision for those people of those poor areas.

If they can't do it in terms of helping us here in British Columbia, then let them show their concern for other jurisdictions across this country by supporting a programme such as this, down to age 60, in the Maritimes and other poverty areas. I'd far rather see the money spent that way than in subsidies in other jurisdictions that are really ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I did make some comments about calling the government of Quebec a "white-mouse government." I meant what I said. I feel quite honestly that sometimes there's a great gap of frankness in exchange of opinions between governments in this country. The Bourassa government, in my opinion, is a white-mouse government. They have made a monstrously stupid deal in the James Bay deal. IT&T has had a timber deal that is absolutely shocking and, as a result of those policies, the income of the government of Quebec will be lessened, and because it's lessened, equalization payments remain high.

I say again, I'm not opposed to equalization payments, but we live in a very political world in Canada and I feel that I'd be remiss in my duty, as Premier of this province, to point out that I thoroughly disagree with the handling of the resources of the Province of Quebec, which reflects in funds being drained from other wealthier parts of Canada into subsidizing that province while other programmes could be initiated for poorer provinces and poorer people.

And if this is interpreted as being anti-Quebec, let me clear it now. I am not anti-Quebec; I am pro-Canadian. And I will say these things about any provincial government that I think is mishandling resources anywhere in this country to the detriment of the rest of the Canadians.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even your own party?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, even my own party if I disagree with them. I've been known to do that in the past. And in terms of you being safe in this particular regard, fortunately in Canada there isn't another Social Credit regime left. The people of Canada have caught up with that.

Although there is a revival, and an extremely dangerous revival in my opinion, under one Mr. Dupuis, a former Liberal, who is running a vigorous campaign as the leader of the Ralliement des Creditistes, or the Social Credit Party in Quebec. He's a very dangerous person, in my opinion.

And the very fact that there's an absence of a viable NDP alternative in Quebec is also dangerous. The Parti Quebecois in my opinion has gone off on a

[ Page 284 ]

phony trail. The idea that a province should separate as a means of resolving its problems is absolutely stupid. The Parti Quebecois has gone off on this little myth dream kick of separation and its actions in that sense, in my opinion, are delaying a more normal development of politics in the Province of Quebec. I would urge those people in Quebec to examine the folly of the Parti Quebecois' essential policy of separating from Canada. It does Quebec no good and it does the rest of this country no good.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard something of a discussion around corporate profits and lack of investment in the Province of British Columbia, how bad things are and how bad they wish things would be. You know, Mr. Speaker, they try as hard as they can to give us the impression that poor big business is being downtrodden by the masses who represent the socialist party; that if we only let big business alone…sob…things would be much better for them. You know, Mr. Speaker, we've seen this story spread right across British Columbia. They even use their CBC free time to tell this story. Imagine, using a publicly-owned television station to attack public ownership. Talk about hypocrisy!

But anyway, doom and gloom — the doom and gloom gang. They are trying to start a whole new revival of the black armband.

You know, Mr. Speaker, business in British Columbia grew at a breakneck speed. The Vancouver Sun, one of my favourite newspapers, published on its business pages of September 4, 1973, a review of the corporate profits in the Province of British Columbia, one year under the NDP and I am almost embarrassed to read this. (Laughter.) I am almost embarrassed to read this. Obviously we haven't been taxing enough. But if the newspapers promise not to print again this story of the fantastic return on investment dollars in the Province of British Columbia, I'll share it with the House.

The Member over there is trying to indicate that we increased the corporate income tax by 20 per cent. We went up two points, from 10 to 12. The feds dropped 9 per cent on manufactured goods. This is what happened in British Columbia: companies in this survey related the last year gained 120 per cent in earnings in the last three months.

You want to talk about inflation, Mr. Speaker? I've heard them talk about inflation but not once have I heard the opposition Members say one single word about unconscionable profits, in some instances earnings going up 128 per cent in three months. That's where inflation comes from.

Don't you think that rapid increase in prices and this kind of profit picture has something to do with inflation? Don't tell me that the market has grown by 128 per cent in the Province of British Columbia. Nonsense! Across-Canada surveys show the rise is 38 per cent right across this country in terms of profit in one year. So if you want to fight inflation, how about cutting prices? We have never heard that appeal. All we hear is cut wages, keep wages down, don't give workers a return for their funds. Never heard once from the opposition an appeal to cut the prices.

MacMillan Bloedel, under socialists, their profit increased in one year 175 per cent. Cominco, that poverty-stricken little withering arm of the poor, downtrodden CPR, where their president said that we wouldn't give Cominco welfare. Guess why. I am a social worker and I have seen a lot of welfare cases and there's no way Cominco comes in the welfare category. Their profits went up 52 per cent. B.C. Forest Products — 158 per cent.

Placer Developments — oh, you've heard it all about the mining industry. You know what we have done to the mining industry? We have scared them all away to the bank. (Laughter.) Placer Developments up 548 per cent profits in one year and they are crying for the mining companies, Mr. Speaker. You can only get crying like that when you go out and hire banshees; it can't happen by natural feeling. They have to be hired wailers and mourners to cry for a forest industry that in one instance is showing a 548 per cent increase in profit in one year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Professional mourners.

HON. MR. BARRETT: B.C. Packers, 228 per cent. "Not bad for packing it away," the Member says. B.C. Sugar — things are pretty sweet for them, Mr. Speaker — 124 per cent. Dawson Developments, 399 per cent. Bethlehem Copper, another mining company — Oh, oh! Woe! (Laughter.) Bethlehem Copper, 361 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Crown Zellerbach, 132 per cent; Weldwood, 112 per cent. Big business is really being hurt by the socialist hordes. We haven't done our homework. Look at this. We have increased taxes and they are still making all these profits. They are crying all the way down in their martinis in the Vancouver Club.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between us and the opposition. They represent the big vested interests in the Province of British Columbia and we represent the ordinary people of the Province of British Columbia. They come in here and cry for the big companies. My, even the Vancouver Sun listed all of these figures — I noticed that Pacific Press wasn't included on the list. (Laughter.) But I think they have had a pretty good year, too.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I feel kind of sorry for the opposition. Why, today the Member even attacked the Minister Without Portfolio. You know

[ Page 285 ]

what he said, Mr. Speaker? "She's only a Minister Without Portfolio. Why, she hasn't got the tools to get the job done." That's what he said, Mr. Speaker. Isn't that incredible? Why, we've said we're going to bring in a bill and make her a full cabinet Minister. But I never once heard him talk about the three women Ministers Without Portfolio that he sat with in cabinet. For six years! They were never given anything more to do except to come in on opening day in a different gown every year. What a game that was.

When we asked questions about that the former premier would get up and say, "Well, I can't give them a full cabinet post because they have duties at home." Mr. Speaker, I have been chosen as the male chauvinist of the year, but I have never said anything quite that bad. Men or women of our group are not chosen because of their being men or women; they are chosen to perform tasks as human beings and they will be assigned those tasks on that basis. And that's the way it is.

Oh, well, then there's the energy board report. We heard the analysis from my very good friend, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I'm not quite clear as to what they are getting at Mr. Member through you, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that we should keep the price down for all the customers so that we can keep the price down for the B.C. users? We export 70 per cent of the gas we produce. Well, I'll tell you this…

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I try. I am not a masochist but I do try to listen to all of your speeches. I find it very difficult to understand…. Oh, that's okay, Bob. (Laughter.) That's okay, Bob. This is just the good stuff. Don't you believe what he said about the way to vote in cabinet if you don't agree with me. (Laughter.)

As for you, you are not supposed to tell cabinet secrets. (Laughter.)

But, Mr. Speaker, what about the natural gas? It is underpriced. Westcoast Transmission agrees. Everybody agrees. Who brought in that underpricing policy? That former government that sits in the opposition benches. The energy board report tells us that we are losing — producers, consumers, the people of British Columbia — are losing $100 million a year. Now, they tell us they are good businessmen. Well, if losing $100 million a year on just one item in a raw material resource inventory is good business, then those fellows should have been kicked out of office long before they were.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: $100 million a year. We will fight to increase the price of gas and we will fight to see that no longer will the ordinary people of British Columbia sell their resources to subsidize citizens in a foreign country.

Subsidize industries in a foreign country, subsidize communities in a foreign country, and have agreements that when there is a loss of production we have to suffer equally with our foreign customers? Mr. Speaker, I hope that the federal government will do what they know must be done and I hope that they will tell us, through their National Energy Board, that no way will industries of British Columbia suffer because of the export policy; the shortages will be made up on the other side of the border and that we here in British Columbia can have a guaranteed supply of our own resource.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Anything less would be a failure on that federal government's part to recognize the needs of this province of ours.

There has been some discussion about finance. When we came into office there were $250 million worth of parity bonds out there. An awful lot of money floating around. $250 million worth of, in effect, cash.

It was far too much money.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: IOUs, exactly, Mr. Member. You and the Member for Point Grey and the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr. W.A.C. Bennett) consistently pointed out the danger of having that amount of cash floating around on an IOU basis.

What have we done? Since coming to office we have reduced that sum from $253,525,000 in one year down to $179,515,000. We have reduced the outstanding parity-bond total by $74 million. In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, that much demand money hanging around was too much debt over the heads of the people of British Columbia. It is our intention to further reduce the parity-bond total as soon as it is fiscally sound to do so.

But there were people around who still wanted to invest in British Columbia so we issued that parity-bond issue this August. We raised the interest rates, but not as high as what is available commercially. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, there is so much confidence in this new Government of British Columbia that within 10 days that $25 million worth of parity bonds were completely sold out. Not a penny of advertising.

Interjection.

[ Page 286 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Too high an interest at 7 per cent? Well, you know what money costs today. We're at least two points a better bond and people are still showing confidence in this government by going out and buying those bonds on that basis. Mr. Speaker, you remember the kind of television commercials we used to see: the flowing rivers, beautiful children, subdivisions, the great beautiful Province of British Columbia. "Buy the parity bonds." No promotion. They know that it's solid under this administration — and within 10 days it was sold out.

They also tried to leave the impression that somehow this government is not able to handle fiscal matters. The very, very vicious comments, in some instances, by the members of the Social Credit Party are almost bitter and spiteful.

I want to review with you in the House some of the experiences I had when I visited Wall Street. And this was after the Barron's article where they called me the "Allende of the North". I told them, Mr. Speaker, that if they kept on writing stuff like that they'd ruin their credit rating in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, after hearing some of the comments of the opposition, I was tempted to go into your office and ask for your advice on how I could move a motion of non-confidence in the opposition.

As a result of my visit to New York we have assurances from five of the largest banking houses in Wall Street that they will stand ready to loan money to the province in world markets whenever we wish. These five are: The First Boston Corporation, Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Halsey, Stuart & Co.; Merrill Lynch; and Salomon Brothers. Since my visit to New York we have had follow-up visits from Kuhn, Loeb; and Salomon; a visit from Halsey, Stuart is planned shortly. They'd like to loan us money.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of my European trip the German banks, the Deutsche Kommunalbank, the Deutsche Bank, and the Commerzbank, stand ready to loan money to the Province of British Columbia at any time. We've had a visit in Victoria from the Commerce Bank of the Federal Republic of Germany.

In New York, Mr. Speaker, we visited two important bond and security rating agencies. Moody's. You remember the great throne debate we had about Moody's. I remember that one too. I thought they were talking about that old steam engine in Port Moody until I finally figured out what it was. They came back and we got that motel rating from Moody's: three stars, clean sheets. I don't know about the books but the sheets were clean anyway.

We went and I saw Moody's and had a good talk with them. Standard and Poor's. Both agencies rated B.C. bonds the highest available out of the United States. Both agencies assured me that they had no intention of changing these ratings because of the new government. We have AAA (Triple A), the highest outside. As a matter of fact, Mr. Esokait, the retiring president of Moody's, whom I had scheduled 15 minutes with, after a little over an hour of exchanging philosophical and political opinions as well as financial opinions, stated to me and to the Deputy Minister of Finance that if Moody's ever changed their system to allow the highest American ratings to go outside the United States, British Columbia would be the first jurisdiction to receive the new higher rate — under the new government, Mr. Speaker, under the new government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the comments about raiding the revenue surplus built up so cautiously by the former government. They have accused us in every comer of this province of spending money "like a drunken sailor." They have not used a new expression because that one was handed down by their former leader, who is still their present leader and wishes to be their future leader at arm's length.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have spent money on Mincome, we've spent money on schools, we've spent money on hospitals. When I came in as Minister of Finance I had to report that there was $98 million cash in the bank. We've spent all that money, Mr. Speaker, that they've moaned and cried and complained about — some of it in their ridings. And I have to announce today that in spending money that way our reserves of $98 million are no longer at that figure. They're now at $135 million.

Mr. Speaker, we are opening six new government agencies: one at Campbell River, one at Chilliwack, one at 100 Mile House…

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Chilliwack?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, at Chilliwack. Too long has that area been underserviced, including this year. (Laughter.) Campbell River, Chilliwack, 100 Mile House.

AN HON. MEMBER: 100 Mile House! Oh.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's close to Williams Lake. I don't think I'll be going back to Williams Lake. Fort St. John — never had a government agent. Where are the Peace Rivers now? Fort St. John. We're opening up a government agency in Fort St. John.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Oh, go on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There he is. (Laughter.) Oh, how delightful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! When an Hon. Member crosses the floor to another party he should

[ Page 287 ]

notify the Speaker. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, might I humbly suggest that in that case the obligation would be to notify the party first.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Queen Charlotte City. Port Hardy. And we are now negotiating to open another one at Cassiar. We're planning an agency at Ucluelet, the Town of Houston and Stewart. And that great constituency of Atlin will have two government agents after the neglect of all these years.

Mr. Speaker, I have some other notes here about a Mr. Basford. Oh yes, the federal Minister from downtown Vancouver, praising the B.C. Land Commission Act. I don't want to read that, Mr. Speaker, it might be embarrassing to somebody.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some other myths that the opposition has been trying to create.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you define Mr. Basford in that category, my friend, you will have to explain that at some other meeting.

Capital investment. My, Mr. Speaker, the stories they have been telling have been enough to curl your hat. (Laughter.) They've been going around crying gloom and doom that capital investment, that lifeblood of providing jobs in the Province of British Columbia, is being drained away.

What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? In 1971 under the Social Credit administration, $3,722 million was expended for capital investment in the Province of British Columbia. I know, when the members of the Social Credit Party hear these figures, they will no longer tell little fibs or give little bits of misinformation that capital investment is drying up. It is the same civil servants that give them the figures when they were the government that have given us these figures today. 1971: $3,722 million; 1972: the last year of Social Credit, thank heaven, $3,726 million. In that one year, an increase of 0.1 per cent.

The first year of socialism in British Columbia: the "Doom and Gloom boys, what do they tell you? "Oh, it's bad." This year, Mr. Speaker, considering the expenditures up to this date, the department, with it's mid-term estimates, comes in with a conservative figure of $4,114 million — an increase of 10.4 per cent of capital investment in the Province of British Columbia.

They say: "Where are they; where is the investment?" The former speaker said, "Where is it? Why, it's so bad that nothing is happening." So I had the department draw up a little list of things that are happening.

Selected annual investments in British Columbia, 1973: First on the list is Labbatt Breweries, $6 million modernizing underway; Canadian Fishing Company, $4.25 million reconstruction in Prince Rupert; Hiram Walker, $1,775,000 warehouse addition; Columbia Brewing, $1 million bottling shop underway. What's happening, Mr. Attorney General?

MR. PHILLIPS: They know we're coming back.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Attorney General, this reveals to me that the party that started out with happiness and joy of the people, as a result of the last election, is still continuing this year.

Mr. Speaker, textile mills: Westmills Carpets Ltd. in Kelowna, $1.6 million. Isn't that the fellow who's involved now in the subdivision in Point Roberts? He used to be a Member here — that's right, he always had two feet in his mouth, both running shoes. Oh yes, I remember him. Oh yes, yes, yes. He's the fellow at High Croft Towers.

Wood industries, Mr. Speaker — this is going to untwirl your hat: North Central Plywoods, $3.8 million; Riverside Forest Products — that's in Lumby, not Essondale — $2 million; B.C. Forest Products, $10 million at Mackenzie — B.C. Forest Products, one of those giants that's supposed to be packing it up because of that Minister. What are you doing? You're scaring them into investment.

MacMillan Bloedel, $8 million, a new wood room facility — and that will provide another 214 jobs; Westland Metals Ltd., $1 million; B.C. Rail — yes, we're going to spend $4.8 million on a car-building plant; Canada Wire, $2 million; Haida Cement, $22 million; Truroc Gypsum, $5 million; Rocla Concrete, $1.5 million; Canadian Occidental Petroleum, Hooker Chemicals Division — you know, the oil companies that are leaving as fast as they can, Mr. Speaker, according to the opposition — a multi-million dollar addition underway.

Dupont of Canada, Ashcroft, $3.7 million; Erco Industries, $1.5 million; National Harbours Board, $23.5 million — unbelievable. All this is happening. West Coast Transmission: $31 million they're going to spend under the socialists in the first year. Shhh…don't tell any of the NDP constituency organizations about that.

But, Mr. Speaker, here it is, list after list — $4,114 million in one year — a 10 per cent increase in capital investment. And any time you ever hear, Mr. Speaker, any one of those opposition Members ever again saying that capital investment is not taking place in British Columbia, would you please chide them on my behalf and say, "Gang, get the truth because your credibility is already strained."

If there's anything I wouldn't like to see happen along with the death of the Liberal Party in British

[ Page 288 ]

Columbia, it is the demise of Social Credit. Who would we have left to kick around, Mr. Speaker, the poor little Tory party? That would be totally unfair, Mr. Speaker, totally unfair. I just don't like to spend all my time kicking Tories around; they've had a bad enough time in this province in the last few years as it is.

Mr. Speaker, what about employment? Oh, I'm sorry that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is not here. I really am sorry he's not here. You know how he used to get up and say: "Jobs, jobs, where are the jobs?" Oh, it was a fantastic performance. At that time he was still thinking of running for the leadership. Now he doesn't say that any more, He's looking around to see what kind of horse to put his money on. Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't mean to pick that analogy of horses and I apologize…what kind of jet to follow. Well, Phil is out there, Mr. Speaker. What effect does that have among that cohesive group?

I remember…I should be allowed these personal moments, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) I can remember when we sat there as a lonely little group and we were ripping our guts out fighting over leadership. Oh, what a, great game that was. We were lining up delegates to the convention. We'd slip out of the House and make a phone call up-country and find out…"how many have you got?" "How's it look?" Oh, it's going great.

I come back into the House and smile and see the other guy run out and take his phone call.

Oh, we spent a year doing that, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) And it was miserable. And you know what used to make us laugh? The former Premier would get up and say, "Watch your back, watch your back." (Laughter.) Then he'd say: "Who's supporting who today? Would the real leader please stand up?" Remember those? Mr. Speaker, permit me a slight personal indulgence. Would the real leader please stand up? (Laughter.) Whatever happened to Lovely Les or Blackie Bob — all those aspirants? Oh, yes, good old Al — and he was a good MLA.

Now what's happening? While you're sitting in here punishing yourself, listening to this speech, Phil's out there on the phone. (Laughter.) He's everywhere. (Laughter.) And, is he ever hot stuff on the hustings, gang!

Can't you see him now like he was in North Vancouver? Washing his hands with the present group, saying, "Yes, we made a few little mistakes"? Like Lady MacBeth, "Out, out damn spot." Then, describing his, own modesty, "Art not without ambition, but without illness that should attend it," says he. Oh, Shakespeare knew that party well. (Laughter.)

Don't worry, gang; no matter what happens, keep this in your heart: you have my complete sympathy; I've gone through it all. And if you ever need counselling, please come down to my office. I will help you all I can the way your former leader helped me. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that brief, personal excursion. I want to talk about my friend, who's back. Jobs. (Laughter.)

In 1972, Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He was out phoning? (Laughter.) What a thing to say. He hasn't even got 50 members in Columbia River, let alone 50 delegates. Now don't pick on him. Leave him alone; he's got enough problems.

Jobs. In August, 1972, there were 916,000 people employed in the Province of British Columbia. In August, 1973, there were 983,000. Mr. Speaker, that's a 7.3 per cent increase in the number of employed — 67,000 new jobs in one year — 67,000 jobs in one year under the NDP in British Columbia. I'm sure you'll go out and tell the Social Credit constituencies about that.

Unemployment under Social Credit in their last month in power in the year 1972: there were 62,000 unemployed in the Province of British Columbia. In August, 1973, Mr. Speaker, 47,000 people were unemployed — a drop of. 24.2 per cent under the NDP.

The unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, under Social Credit was 6.3 per cent in August, 1972. In August, 1973, it's down to one of our lowest of 4.6 per cent under the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, our labour force very quietly passed the one million mark for the first time in the history of this province. In August, 1972, there were 1,030,000 people, an increase of 5.3 per cent, in our labour force.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this, and I want to say it very clearly: these amazing figures do not reflect Social Credit policy or NDP policy per se. We are a provincial administration in a very, very happy circumstance with magnificent resources and extremely productive people. We have passed through what must be described as a boom year, and any Finance Minister can look like a wizard under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker — even me.

Now let's get it straight. We are largely an exporting province and we largely export raw materials. If we continue on that path, we will be subject to the vagaries of the market as we have been in the past under Social Credit. What distinguishes this administration from the former administration is that it says loud and clear that the price of doing business for our resources in the Province of British Columbia is: (1) a good price, not underselling — like natural gas, and (2) maximizing the resource here in British Columbia so that jobs are provided here.

[ Page 289 ]

Mr. Speaker, we've made a major thrust in that regard and we intend to go further. I want to say that we have been subject to flim-flam in the past and there has been a whole generation that has been educated on flim-flam in the past. But I welcome an intelligent, frank and open debate on fiscal matters, as the Member for Point Grey has always wanted in this House.

We are going into another surplus year. We have overspent in some of the budget areas, but that will not materially affect the surplus that we anticipate.

The first call on the surplus funds, Mr. Speaker, will be in the area of housing. The second call on those surplus funds, Mr. Speaker, will be in the area of chronic care. And I say to my very good friend, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke): tell Dr. Foulkes to take all the time he needs, even if it's an extra month or an extra six weeks, because when his report comes in, we intend to act on those recommendations that outline a blueprint for better health care for the people of British Columbia. Once we embark on that path, it will set the pattern for British Columbia for another two generations.

So tell him to deliberate with all the time that he needs; but assure him that the people of this province have provided the money to take care of those less-fortunate people. That will be one of our priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak this long. I have enjoyed very much the years I've spent in this House. I've now spent one year as Premier of this province. It is an honour and a privilege. I don't know how circumstances ever come to coalesce in one person's life to lead him to a role to play that was totally unexpected — whether highly desired or not, totally unexpected.

I've enjoyed the year and I've enjoyed the hard work, and I've enjoyed the efforts that everybody right across this province in all political parties have put in under our parliamentary system to make the government work.

But I want to, at this moment, pay a special appreciation to my own family, who have been more than tolerant with me, and to my cabinet colleagues, some of whom, Mr. Speaker, are frankly working too hard. I am concerned about their health, but they will not slow down in office. That honestly does concern me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the backbenchers and I want to thank my party. But most of all I want to thank those pioneers who came together 40 years ago this fall to form the cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It was a party of great dreams, a party of great ideals. We hope in our own way, being given the privilege to govern, that we can live up to those dreams and to those hopes.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone in this House to support the speech from His Honour, and I now move that the question be put.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the question is that the following address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: "We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, in session assembled, beg leave to thank your Honour for the gracious speech which your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session."

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

NAYS — 16

PAIRED

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could get some direction from the Premier as to the order of business for tomorrow.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we propose to deal with the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Cocke) legislation and the Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) legislation tomorrow, in that order. It may switch between the AG and the Minister of Health, but it will be those two Ministers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.