[ Page 407 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible breach of conduct by ICBC official.

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 407

Routine proceedings

Affirmative Action Plan Act (Bill 37). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 408

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act (Bill 38).

Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 408

Oral questions

Fruit Growers Mutual loss reserves and insurance on government vehicles. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 408

Qualifications of Mr. Don Sharpe as Autoplan agent.

Mr. Bennett — 408

Rejection of Mr. Sharpe by Ray Hadfield.

Mr. McClelland — 409

Possible increase in the consumer price of milk.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 409

Number of Kamloops agents dropping out of ICBC.

Mr. Morrison — 410

Possible amalgamation of Oak Bay with other municipalities.

Mr. Wallace — 410

Purchase of property in Victoria.

Mr. Hartley — 410

Cost of Autoplan for government vehicles.

Mr. Bennett — 410

Reinstatement of Mr. John Bremer.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 410

Third TV channel in British Columbia.

Mr. McGeer — 411

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 412

Mr. McClelland — 427

Mr. Skelly — 438

Appendix — 444

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of students from Norfolk House School in Victoria and I would like the House to welcome them in the appropriate manner.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): We have on the floor of the House two labourers in the vineyard of legal reform with the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, Keith Farquhar and Arthur Close. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, there are a group of thespians visiting us from New Brunswick. Mr. Lerner, their leader, is also bringing us special greetings and, I understand, a very special gift from the Premier of New Brunswick. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Lerner and the group of thespians from New Brunswick.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I join in welcoming the delegation from New Brunswick, that being my native province.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The gift from the Premier of New Brunswick to the Premier of British Columbia amounts to 40 pounds of lobster. I am recommending, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the gift tax, that the gift be forwarded to the legislative restaurant. (Laughter.)

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I don't think that it's right to anticipate another gift to the House until we have at least expressed thanks for the last gift that was given to the House, namely this booklet. I would like to refer you all to page 18 because it's a very interesting transcript where it says that the Master took Levi to lunch. I know that it's the same Levi because it says he was a tax collector and that when it was all over, Levi got up and left everything, including the bill. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before proceeding, I wanted to advise you on the question that was raised in the House by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I'm not going to burden the House with the lengthy explanation of the problems that relate to publication in the press and the question of privilege, other than to say that I'd be pleased to table it with the House. I do want to just briefly read from the first page and the last page of my decision on the matter, because it's only fair that it be given to the House.

The Hon. Member for Langley has raised the question of privilege relating to words contained in The Province newspaper, February 19, 1974. That article was read to the House yesterday. The newspaper article relates to charges made by the Hon. Member concerning one Gordon Root and an alleged conflict of interest involving that person as a publisher of a newspaper in which it is alleged that an advertisement was published by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, of which corporation Mr. Root is a director.

It then gives the following alleged reply from Mr. Root to the newspaper:

"In comment on McClelland's charge, Root said Monday night that the MLA is a 'cheap, two-bit politician.'

" 'I have nothing to do with the placement of any advertising by ICBC,' Root said. 'I had no knowledge of this advertising being placed until it appeared in the paper.' "

The question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member is that he has been attacked in the public press and insulted by Mr. Root. He proposes that Mr. Root be forced by the Minister concerned publicly to apologize and, perhaps because it's such a serious breach of conduct, to resign, to use his words.

I had an opportunity to consider the matter closely and to consult with learned advisers and to review May, Beauchesne, and Speakers' Decisions bearing on the subject of comments made outside the House reflecting on a Member.

The question of the relationship of the press to parliament is a vital and important one, balancing on the one hand the freedom of the press to comment objectively as it chooses, as against unjustified assaults and contempts against parliament on the other hand.

One could recite many alleged breaches of privileges to be noted in the press in its day-by-day continuing account on parliamentary matters. The test can best be illustrated as follows. A privileges committee could well say that a calculating insult against Members by a commentator, although actionable in the courts, does not impair their legislative functions, whereas the same commentator, by alleging falsely that a Member was quitting politics, could well impair the ability of the Member to deal with his constituents' needs or indeed to serve them effectively.

Where the matter involves press reports of attacks by individuals against a Member, May states in the 18th edition at page 163:

"It may be doubted whether it is entirely consistent with the general practice of the House or with natural justice for the House on the strength of a report in a newspaper, and without hearing the accused party, to declare

[ Page 408 ]

that the offence has been committed."

That issue would usually devolve upon a committee. In other words, it's not for me at this stage to make a judgment on the matter, no matter how much I respect the opinion or the statement made by the Hon. Member.

It is clear that parliamentary privilege, as the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux stated in the House of Commons on June 9, 1969,

"includes the right of Hon. Members of the House of Commons to exercise their responsibilities and to discharge their duties as Members without undue interference. The question is whether newspaper comments referred to by the Hon. Member for St. John's East" — in that case — "constitutes such undue interference as to be tantamount to a breach of privilege."

In summing up my conclusions on this particular matter, under usage according to May's 18th edition:

"When a complaint of breach of privilege is raised, the Speaker has to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out which would justify such proceedings taking precedence over the other business of the House."

The cases listed as examples in May at page 148 all relate to Members in relation to the discharge of their duties, be it the Speaker, chairmen of committees or allegations of corruption against Members in the execution of their duties. It is noted that the key is that the reflections may tend to interfere with the Member's capacity to carry out his or her duties.

The imputation complained of by the Hon. Member for Langley cannot be said to require the suspension of the other routine or precedent matters to deal with it other than by normal motion. It is for the House to consider the gravity or disposition of this manner of insult in the normal course of House proceedings, but the sting of insult displayed in this newspaper, although strong, could hardly deter the Hon. Member or any Member from carrying out his or her duties.

There are many examples in the press of gratuitous insults to Members, and were the business of the House set aside to deal with each of them, not much else would be pursued.

Although the words complained of would be unparliamentary if uttered here, I must find that they do not fulfil the urgency aspect required by the case as cited. They nonetheless could well find a place on the motion paper for deliberation in the normal course of proceedings of the House.

Thank you, Hon. Members. I'll table the full reasons, which give all the cases on the matter that I can collect, in the House for the Members to study. (See appendix).

Introduction of bills.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 37, Affirmative Action Plan Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

FRUIT GROWERS MUTUAL
LOSS RESERVES AND
INSURANCE ON GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked me a question regarding Fruit Growers Mutual and the loss reserves. The question as recorded in the pinks is: the loss reserves which were assumed in the purchase were stated to be $100,000 and have subsequently proved to be $400,000.

First of all I want to state that the ICBC did not take over the effective operation of the Fruit Growers Mutual until January 1 of this year. The final annual statement of the company has not yet been presented to the directors of Fruit Growers Mutual; therefore it can't be made public until that happens. But I want to assure him that under our agreement with the Fruit Growers Mutual, the maximum possible cost to ICBC is $140,000 and we expect it to be less than that.

The other question that was asked a couple of days ago, I think by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), was with reference to the insurance of government vehicles — the number and so on. There are 9,552 government vehicles separated into 23 different sections, departments and so on. About 80 per cent of the premiums have already been paid and the remaining 20 per cent are on their way in — I expect, Ministers. So that's the situation.

QUALIFICATIONS OF MR. DON SHARPE
AS AUTOPLAN AGENT

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications: To clarify a discussion that's been going on in the House, was Mr. Don Sharpe one of the recognized Autoplan agents when he took the

[ Page 409 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is the situation with regard to Don Sharpe: I checked with the Superintendent of Insurance, at least I had someone check, and I was officially informed that Mr. Sharpe applied for the licence November 29. He wrote the Insurance Council of B.C. exams about December 10. He was issued a licence by the superintendent December 23. He was confirmed as licensed by the Insurance Council of B.C. December 21. He was never rejected at any stage by the superintendent's office of the Insurance Council which is a professional group of his peers appointed by the government,

MR. BENNETT: My question was: was Mr. Don Sharpe one of the recognized Autoplan agents when he took the Autoplan training seminar prior to December 31?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What was the question?

MR. BENNETT: Was he an agent then? Was he one of the recognized Autoplan agents when he took the Autoplan training seminar?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think so. I don't know. I couldn't answer that question.

MR. BENNETT: Will the Minister take it as notice because I'd like to find out how you get to take the training seminar if you're not on the list as one of the recognized agents.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I say, I'll check. When I get the pinks tomorrow, I'll check.

REJECTION OF MR. SHARPE
BY RAY HADFIELD

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that Mr. Sharpe was never rejected by the Superintendent of Insurance, or whoever it was that he mentioned. The question I'd like to ask is: was Mr. Sharpe ever rejected by Ray Hadfield, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Ray Hadfield has nothing whatever to do with the appointment of agents for the ICBC. How could he be rejected by him? He has nothing whatever to do with it.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Supplementary on the same subject. Surely though, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles would have some comment with respect to Mr. Sharpe or any other agent with respect to the handling of licence plate decals. That is the question which the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) wanted to put, and which I put.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. The operation is that anyone who is licensed by ICBC carries with that licence the right to issue the decals.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Was Mr. Sharpe ever rejected by ICBC with respect to serving as an agent prior to his later accreditation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to my knowledge.

POSSIBLE INCREASE IN THE
CONSUMER PRICE OF MILK

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. With respect to the Farm Income Assurance Programme being established in the milk industry, would the Minister of Agriculture indicate whether or not with the commencement of that plan there is likely to be an increase in the consumer price of milk?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): There may be one at the same time, but it would have nothing to do with the Income Assurance Plan. I might just as well say right now that the feed costs have shown an alarming increase even in the month of February and there is an indication that the formula, the one that has been in effect for many years, may call for an increase in the consumer price in the month of March.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: One supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. If we are then to face an increase in the consumer price of milk, would the Minister indicate what effect that might have upon the federal subsidy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think the Members are well aware that any such increase, when it is calculated, must first be communicated to the federal government and agreement reached with them that is in line with the formula arrangement. There will be no increase until the federal government has been made aware and agrees.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Has the Government of Canada given any indication that in circumstances such as this they're prepared to extend the subsidy under a subsequent agreement?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There have been, I think, three increases in the consumer price since we made this agreement with Ottawa. Ottawa has agreed in

[ Page 410 ]

NUMBER OF KAMLOOPS AGENTS
DROPPING OUT OF ICBC

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could he tell the House how many agents have dropped out of the ICBC plan in Kamloops prior to the appointment of Mr. Sharpe?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know whether any dropped out or not. I don't know.

POSSIBLE AMALGAMATION
OF OAK BAY WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I seek clarification of an answer which the Minister of Municipal Affairs gave to a question I asked the other day about the potential or possible amalgamation of Oak Bay with other municipalities? He added that there would be no referendum, but there would be a vote of the people. I wonder if he could explain to me more clearly what that answer meant. And if there is further consideration being given, will in fact the residents of the municipality be consulted? If so, how does he plan to consult them when the newspapers are on strike?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Well, of course, you're a little premature. There's been no suggestion that there's any action to be taken immediately at this time. There will be a vote by the residents as to what decision they wish in regard to any amalgamation.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the Minister answered the degree to which there would be consultations with the people concerned, prior to simply being presented with a vote of any kind. Could we be assured that there will be consultations on the widest possible scale for all concerned prior to a vote?

HON. MR. LORIMER: In all amalgamations there is a committee appointed representing all communities involved, representing the regional districts involved, representing any improvement areas that may be there. This committee studies the problem, has open meetings and then subsequently sends a report to my office. So there are plenty of discussion periods.

Probably it is a question of four or five months; then if it is decided that amalgamation is the right course to take, then there is the vote of the people.

PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN VICTORIA

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) asked a question yesterday with regard to the purchase of property in the Victoria area. I haven't all the details. I believe there is some substance to his question, but I believe the whole answer would come properly under written question 156. We will supply it this way in writing.

MR. SPEAKER: The written answer, of course, is the way or route. He shouldn't be asking oral questions on it.

COST OF AUTOPLAN FOR
GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

MR. BENNETT: My question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. He gave some information to a question asked the other day about government vehicles, but the other part of my question is, what was the total amount of money the provincial government was paying for its Autoplan premiums? He didn't give an answer to that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are a whole series of different amounts, as I said. I'd have to add them up. I haven't got the figures with me.

MR. BENNETT: Ninety-five hundred vehicles.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. BENNETT: Do you have a close figure?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A matter that is too large for oral answer should be filed in the form of a return.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're entitled to an answer or to have an explanation. Would you like to put it on the order paper?

REINSTATEMENT OF MR. JOHN BREMER

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would like to ask the Premier whether he has discussed with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) the representations which have been made by the general advisory board of the Commission on Education, who urged him to reinstate Mr. John Bremer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've received the letter but we've not had a detailed discussion on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister, as his letter indicating that he was

[ Page 411 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, since I do make a practice of acknowledging all my letters and then following through on them, I am aware that I have answered that and I hope to meet with the Minister shortly to discuss that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Premier answers his correspondence. Could he indicate what "shortly" means?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I really don't know that that is a proper question, if you look in the rules.

THIRD TV CHANNEL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Has he been in contact with Mr. Pierre Juneau, head of the CRTC, with regard to a third television channel in British Columbia? If so, what was the nature of the communication?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad you asked the question, my friend. I'm glad you asked the question. This is my file with Mr. Juneau....

MR. McGEER: Would you table the correspondence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, we can't. You asked the question. You'll get your answer. There's a telegram in here. Here it is!

On May 28 last, I had only been given this office I think a week earlier, and there was a hearing to be held so I sent a telegram to Mr. Juneau on May 20, 1973, and it was addressed to Mr. Pierre Juneau, Chairman, Canadian Radio-Television Commission, Metcalfe Street, Ottawa.

DEAR MR. JUNEAU, WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION HAS FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THE CANADIAN RADIO AND TELEVISION COMMISSION SEEKING PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A TELEVISION STATION IN VICTORIA ON CHANNEL 10. THIS GOVERNMENT WELCOMES ANY MOVE BY THE CBC WHICH WOULD RESULT IN IMPROVED SERVICE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND. FOR THIS REASON WE DECLARE OUR SUPPORT OF THE CBC APPLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT PUBLIC TELEVISION SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED, AND ON CONDITION THAT THE CBC WILL ESTABLISH A STUDIO IN VICTORIA SUPERIOR TO ANY EXISTING TELEVISION STUDIO IN OUR CAPITAL CITY. WE DO FEEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE SUCH A FACILITY IN THE CAPITAL CITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE BRITISH COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT HAS RECENTLY SET UP A NEW DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS. PART OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NEW DEPARTMENT WILL BE TO EXAMINE THE WHOLE COMMUNICATIONS FIELD IN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. UNTIL WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS JOB, WE ASK THAT THERE BE A MORATORIUM ON THE GRANTING OF ANY FURTHER TELEVISION LICENCES TO COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN VANCOUVER. FURTHER TO OUR SUPPORT OF THE CBC APPLICATION FOR CHANNEL 10 IN VICTORIA, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS CHANNEL WAS SET ASIDE FOR USE BY THE PUBLIC SYSTEM IN VICTORIA AS EARLY AS 1956, AND WE WOULD URGE THAT THIS ATTITUDE BE MAINTAINED AND THE LICENCE GRANTED TO CBC.

Signed by myself. And I received an acknowledgment of that from Mr. Juneau.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The time of the question period is being used up by a lengthy answer. He should give a prompt answer summarizing, I think, so that other people have the privilege of asking questions as well.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: If I had wanted the Minister to read the correspondence, I'd have asked him to.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought you wanted the information. The usual course would be to put a question on the order paper, or a motion asking for a return of the correspondence.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, you've told us on many occasions the questions should be brief, and so should the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Quite. I agree with you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He asked me if I had any correspondence. This is what I thought he wanted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member asked for correspondence or the reply that was given, then he should give it, and I heard the Hon. Member who just complained ask for the date of the letter or whatever communication back, so I presume....

[ Page 412 ]

MR. CHABOT: How could you hear me?

MR. SPEAKER: I can hear you very often, unfortunately. (Laughter.) Does the Hon. Member want that letter tabled?

MR. McGEER: I would like all that correspondence tabled, Mr. Speaker, as I said right at the commencement, because obviously the Members of the House can't get the gist of the nature of the Minister's communication if he hasn't prepared a summary to give to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I suggest the Hon. Member put a motion on for a return of all correspondence.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It is a pleasure once again to take my place in this traditional debate, where the Crown has come asking the Legislative Assembly for the funds to keep this province going in the next 12 months.

I think it was a great budget speech, delivered by a great Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), with great style. But, Mr. Speaker, there is something about what's been going on in this House in the last two years that is completely new. Not since the days of John Hart have we had a Premier who sat in this House and listened to the debate from both sides of the House as much as the present Premier of British Columbia does.

For 20 years I sat across the way, 13 of them as Leader of the Opposition, and not once did that Premier of the Province (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) in those days sit and listen to a speech I made right through. Not once. Can you imagine what that Premier has had to suffer through from that group over there the last two years?

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I thought I should draw the attention of the public to the fact that once again in this province we have a Premier who spends as much time as he possibly can in this House.

But, the budget speech. As I say, with each passing year it gets easier to support the budget speech in this House this last two years, and I listened to the debate across the way.

Look what's in the budget speech. How can you vote against it, in all conscience? Introduction of a $30 renters' grant to residents up to age 65. An equivalent increase in the elderly citizens' renters grant bringing this up to $80 annually. Are you against that?

An allocation of $15 million for the removal of education taxes from residential property, with homeowners to receive between $30 or $40 towards reduction of school taxes. Against that?

The Housing Department budget up $75 million, including $50 million for land assembly and services. Ten million dollars for construction of 1,600 homes for elderly citizens — about double the previous year's allocation. Forty million dollars for first and second mortgages for homes. Ten million dollars for guaranteed income plans for farmers. Ten million dollars for the development of agricultural products secondary industry. Ten million dollars for the British Columbia Medical Centre. Continuation of the community recreation facilities construction programme through the provision of another $10 million in capital funds — to help municipalities, to help the people.

People budgets — I listened last night about people budgets. Aren't renters of this province people? Aren't the elderly citizens of this province people? Isn't the removal of education taxes going to help people? Isn't housing for people? — $75 million!

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, "You forgot — about people." He didn't read the budget. He didn't read the budget. There's $40 million for first and second mortgages for homes. Who are going to live in the homes? — people. A sum of $10 million for a guaranteed income plan for farmers — aren't farmers people?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Right. So are the people in the nursing homes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A sum of $10 million for the British Columbia Medical Centre. Are you against that, Mr. Doctor? Are you opposed to that?

Community Recreation Facilities Construction Programme: $10 million capital funds. Who's the recreation for? People.

A sum of $10,500,000 for the funding of the Pharmacare programme of free prescription drugs for residents aged 65 and over. Won't that help people? You bet your life it will!

MR. WALLACE: What about the people in the nursing homes?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A sum of $80 million for Mincome which now includes all residents aged 60 and above and handicapped. Aren't those people? A sum of $80 million.

Appropriation of $15 million to cover the cost of administration of justice in municipalities — justice for people.

Reforestation funding: now here, I guess, you could say it isn't for people. Reforestation funding more than doubled — a new high of $12,925,000.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the

[ Page 413 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver-Point Grey): What about nursing homes?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And you sit there demanding new programmes in addition to the new programmes that are in here. You sit there and you say, "But the percentage for education has gone down."

Now what you're suggesting is that the government freeze the percentage in every single area of government in perpetuity. That's what you're suggesting. That's what you're suggesting.

MR. WALLACE: No, we're not.

MR. McGEER: What about the social services?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Would you then mean that you couldn't bring in any new programmes, that you couldn't start up any new roads? Hard, doctrinaire inflexibility!

MR. WALLACE: Nonsense.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Every time you're adding new programmes.... If you're going to maintain the percentage of the budget in every department as it was, then you can't introduce a single new concept or a single new programme. Now let's face it; that's the first thing you have to understand. There would be not a single new programme — standstill, freeze, stay as you are! There would be no Pharmacare here in this province if that had been adopted. There would be no Medicare in this province; there'd be no hospital insurance; there'd be no housing; there'd be no recreation programme.

You'd be back in the 19th century if you adopted that attitude. That's how phony every argument you've given against the budget has been. Stay as you are, hard, inflexible, standstill; don't move; don't do anything different; don't have new programmes. The people of this province elected us to bring in the new programmes and that's what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago I gave a speech in this House and I remember I gave a couple of quotes. There are a lot of new Members in the House since then. I think they should hear those quotes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Are you going to recycle a whole speech?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. This is a particularly appropriate part when I face this united private enterprise group across there and they cling desperately to this myth. They've had some bad company over the years.

Listen to this quote: "The American system of ours — call it Americanism, call it capitalism, call it what you like — gives each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it."

Sound pretty good? Sounds great to you, doesn't it? Do you know who said that? Al Capone, the Chicago gangster of the 1930s, that's who said that. "Capitalism...gives each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it with both hands and make the most of it." Al Capone, Chicago gangster, circa 1928-1938.

Here's another quote, and I've heard almost the identical words from some of the people over there: "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient or rather the sole possible economic order." Who said that?— Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler, that's who said that. I thought it should remind you, when you get up and give these speeches about the greatness of the free-enterprise system, just the kind of company you've been.... It's all right.

MR. WALLACE: I just asked, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling as to whether it is parliamentary conduct to compare the Members of the opposition to Al Capone and Adolf Hitler.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Hon. Minister did not compare the Members of this House with either of those individuals.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You missed the point.

MR. SPEAKER: Was there any intention to say that they were in any way similar?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister says, "No." I accept his word and I'm sure the Hon. Member would.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, speaking further to the point, he said that he had heard exactly the same words from our Members as was quoted from these two people who had no respect for the law. I think the comparison and innuendo is odious and certainly we have the highest respect for the law on this side of the House, not the two persons whom he quoted.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite sure that the fact that two people, one who is odious and one who is not,

[ Page 414 ]

MR. WALLACE: Well, what's the point of saying it? Why say it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All kinds of people support free enterprise.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But, Mr. Speaker, the opposition....

AN HON. MEMBER: No innuendo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no innuendo, I'll be very kind, I can assure you of that. It's a happy day. It's a happy day.

But we've heard opposition with the three "I"s. I don't mind the first one: opposition by incompetence. I don't mind that. But I do object to opposition by insult and innuendo. I do object to opposition by insult and innuendo.

MR. McGEER: You would never do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This House is the political mother of every Member. When I listen to some of the stuff that comes from across the way, I'm reminded very much of Shakespeare when he's talking about the seven ages of man. He talks about the babes, mewling and puking in their mothers' arms. That's the kind of opposition we've been getting across the way — the opposition of babes mewling and puking in the mother of parliament — your mother of parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that's an appropriate parliamentary expression to describe anybody, certainly not in this House. I would ask the Hon. Member to please withdraw it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, I'll withdraw it. All right, all right.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition has been completely irresponsible and, as I say, I resent the opposition by insult and innuendo: the things they've said about individual Members in this House; the things they've said outside this House about the attitudes of this government; what you can expect from this government; what this government has done about its legislation.

I just want to remind the opposition of some of the political history of this country. I want you to go back to the first Social Credit government in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the world. It was in Alberta. In their first two years of office they brought in some interesting legislation, and I want the people to know that never in the history of Canada has any other government brought in that kind of legislation. Certainly no CCF or NDP government has ever brought in that kind of legislation. It was brought in by a Social Credit government.

Here's one called the Press Act, 1937 session, Social Credit government:

"Whereas it is expedient in the public interest, the newspapers published in the province should furnish to the people of the province statements made by the authority of the government of the province as to the true and exact objects of the policy of the government and as to the hindrance to or difficulties in achieving such objects to the end that the people may be informed with respect thereto."

Then it goes on down the line to say exactly what the newspapers can do, how they're going to be handled, what they have to print, what they couldn't print, and the fact that they had to take direction from the government of the day.

That was Social Credit legislation. No CCF government ever brought in legislation like that. No NDP government has ever brought in legislation like that.

There was another bill the same year: An Act to Provide for the Restriction of the Civil Rights of Certain Persons. And you go around this province talking about this government and its attitudes to people when you belong to a party that brought into a parliament in this country an act entitled: An Act to Provide for the Restriction of the Civil Rights of Certain Persons.

"Any person who is an employee of a bank and is required to be licensed," and so on, "shall not while licensed for any reason be capable of bringing, maintaining or defending any action in any court of civil jurisdiction in the province which has for its object the enforcement of any claim either in law or equity."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No CCF government and no NDP government has ever brought in the kind of legislation that was brought in by the Social Credit government in the province.

My Liberal friends have produced some good legislation in their day, produced some great premiers and great prime ministers, but there's a piece of legislation on the statute books of Saskatchewan, and I know of no other jurisdiction in this country anywhere, anytime, where any government brought

[ Page 415 ]

They had been in office for five years. Their full constitutional period was up in 1943, and they brought a bill into the House, pushed it through their House, to extend their term of office for another year. They pushed the bill through the House to extend their term from the constitutional five years to six years. No CCF government ever did that. That was 1943 in Saskatchewan — there's the bill there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What happened in 1944?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Liberals in Saskatchewan did that. It never happened in any other government in any other jurisdiction in this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened in the next election?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What happened in the next election? Well, they took that year and they went to the people and they got clobbered.

Let's go back to the Social Credit government in Alberta. They brought in legislation to confine a group to certain limited areas in the province because of their religious convictions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, not Social Credit!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The Hutterites. No CCF government ever did that. No NDP government ever did that. Because they were Hutterites, because they had certain religious convictions, they had to stay within this compound, within this area on the map. If they got so many people in there that they had to have more land, they could not acquire, purchase, live on any property within any circumscribed distance of that first piece of property.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) know that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, that's the kind of legislation that other parties have produced. No CCF government or NDP government has ever produced that kind of legislation and they never will. They never will! After all your insulting innuendoes you've been peddling to the people of this province, tell them that, will you? Tell them that!

It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that I have a great belief in our parliamentary system. I campaigned in the last session guaranteeing that changes would be made in this House: oral question periods — we've got an oral question period; a full Hansard — we've got a full Hansard; continuing committees — we've got continuing committees.

I went through 20 years of a government that year by year was making our system more difficult to operate. I had hoped that in their time in opposition they would learn something of the value of our system, why it must be preserved and how it needs the co-operation of every Member of the House in order to make it work. But I have found that since they're in opposition they're continuing the same attitude in opposition as they did in government. They don't want this system to work because they're worse in opposition than they were in government.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the criticisms we've heard about the budget and what we've done, that other party would have allowed northern British Columbia to die economically. A year ago you were shouting about jobs. You're the kind of people who would abandon jobs. We move to maintain and provide the jobs, and you start spreading the doom and gloom stuff about socialism. You fail to see the great new programmes and policies, plus the enrichment of the existing policies this government has brought in.

I listened to the speeches made by the three opposition leaders. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) said the government is overestimating revenues, but he still wants us to spend some more.

The spokesman for the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer) says the government is underestimating revenues and he says the Liberals would have spent more money no matter what, but he must have read the Premier's budget speech, because when you go to the Vancouver Province, which I have here, and look at this report, you find that he was going to spend more.

The leader of the Tories (Mr. Wallace), who is not there, says we are underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures. He wants us to spend more money and reduce taxes at the same time.

All three of them were going off in three different directions.

I'm sorry my friend from the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) isn't in his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's seceded.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to talk to him about this secession.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's only five opposition Members in the House. How about a vote of non-confidence in the opposition?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: While he was here, he said: "In view of the fact that the Cariboo citizens did not vote for this government, and as their elected representative I voted against these three laws, I want the monopoly Autoplan not to be applied in the Cariboo riding." He said that, yes. But then the

[ Page 416 ]

I want to talk about something that's been discussed in the House, raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I quote from The Province:

"Social Credit MLA Robert McClelland thinks Insurance Corporation of B.C. (ICBC) vice-president" — well, he's not a vice-president — "Gordon Root should be forced to make a public apology for calling McClelland 'a cheap, two-bit politician.'

"McClelland raised in the Legislature Wednesday a question of privilege relating to Root's remarks as quoted in The Province Tuesday morning. Root was commenting on suggestions by McClelland earlier that it was inappropriate for a newspaper owned by Root, the Juan de Fuca News Review, to accept ICBC advertising."

I don't want to talk about the fact that Mr. Root called the Member a cheap, two-bit politician. I want to refer to the fact that he raised it....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I don't think a Member should read or quote an insult to the House against another Member — in other words, use a newspaper as his weapon to do what he could not do directly, and I would ask you to refrain from that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I apologize. He questioned the right of Mr. Root to have such ads in a paper with which he's associated. Well, here's the Fraser Valley News Herald, which is owned by that Member. He's a member of the Langley Publishing Company or whatever it is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you have any association with that paper? Are you a paper boy for that paper? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hansard shows, Mr. Speaker that I said, "They might even be in your newspaper. I don't know — are they?" And the Hon. Member said yes. You said yes; they were in your newspaper. The constitution which I refer you to allows you to have ads in a paper which you own, even though you are a Member of this House, because it's a company, and the constitution extends in the same way to Crown corporations, in exactly the same way.

And while I could have got up and raised a big fuss about the fact that this paper — which you said was your paper, according to Hansard, and in which you've admitted involvement in the past — was receiving funds from the insurance corporation. But I knew that the Constitution Act allowed that to happen.

I would never be a party to doing the sort of thing in which you have participated in this particular instance, because of the fact that a man who had nothing whatever to do with the placing of ads, done in the normal way by a normal advertising agency, put in every single paper in the province to the best of my knowledge.... And to raise that issue the way you did, I think you just fail to realize the protection under the constitution for people like yourself, and people who happen to work for a Crown corporation.

I'd like to give a report on the Department of Transport and Communications. You know, on February 14, the Reverend Norman K. Archer read a prayer, and I asked him for it afterwards. Part of the prayer said in talking of the Members, asking that they be given wisdom in their decisions, understanding in their thinking, love in their decisions, understanding in their thinking, wisdom in their attitudes, and mercy in their judgments: "As your servants here sincerely desire to do right, make it plain to them." Then he said: "Knowing that criticism will come, help them to take from it what is helpful and to forgive what is unjust." And I assure you, I take what I can that's helpful and I forgive you for anything that is unjust.

I want to assure the House that the aircraft log will be tabled as usual, with regard to government aircraft. And as long as I am the Minister it will be tabled every year. I would like the Members to take the aircraft log this year and work it out with the aircraft log of, say three years ago, and find out what percentage of the flights were made by Ministers in the last 12 months, and what percentage of the flights were made by Ministers three years ago. Because these aircraft are being used by the public service of this province...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...to pursue their duties and their jobs more expeditiously than has ever been the case before. Added to that, of course, is the fact the aircraft are providing a vital back-up ambulance service, as I said it would. This is only the beginning. I think we all must be proud of that B.C. government pilot reported in The Province of February 18; there's a picture of the Richmond ambulance crew removing an incubator and baby from the government jet.

Now, I get the gibes from across the way about riding around in this jet. I've been on that jet twice. Twice since it arrived in this province. I didn't even see the jet until it had been in the province for at least five months. It is there to serve the purpose of

[ Page 417 ]

"A B.C. government air ambulance jet successfully completed a mercy flight out of Terrace Sunday, only a week after that airport had been closed to jets because of poor runway conditions.

"Pilot Colin Clark said a low pass over the airport confirmed that the runway is in terrible condition.

"He doubted that the Cessna Citation jet could have landed had it been fully loaded.

"The emergency was touched off when baby Eric Dumais, born Friday in Kitimat General Hospital, developed acute breathing problems.

"The infant was taken 36 miles to Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace in an incubator.

"There, pediatrician Dr. K.O. Asampe examined the baby and then telephoned Dr. Gordon Pirie, associate professor of pediatrics at University of B.C. for advice.

"Pirie said it appeared the baby needed the facilities of the neonatal nursery at the Vancouver General Hospital for further intensive investigation.

"The two doctors agreed that the baby could not stand up to the two-hour bus trip to Prince Rupert or the stopover at Sandspit, conditions required on commercial flights.

"The Air-Sea Rescue" — that's the federal — "was called but all its planes were tied up in a search for a downed aircraft in the Kamloops area.

"The B.C. government Air-O-Vac service was then notified and Clark and co-pilot Gordon Beddoes were on their way to Vancouver in 20 minutes to pick up Dr. Pirie.

"Despite the hazardous conditions at Terrace airport, the flight was completed without incident.

"The baby, son of Philip and Huguette Dumais of Kitimat, is now doing well in the Vancouver General Hospital."

That is a pretty good pilot we have serving the people of British Columbia.

There was some criticism of the fact that those jets cost us $600,000 apiece. There have been about, I think, 18 flights until today, many of them similar to that. It has already earned $600,000 for the people of this province.

When the estimates were tabled, one of the writers drew attention to vote 245, and he remarked that this had gone up from $29,000, last year's expenses, to $385,000 this year. He said "interesting." That wasn't the interesting factor of that particular vote. The interesting factor is that for the first time in the history of British Columbia there is a vote in estimates indicating to the people of this province how much it costs to operate these aircraft. The first time in the history it has ever been shown In the estimates of the province! An open government. Do you know where it used to be?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where, where?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Roads, bridges and wharves, in the Department of Highways. Roads, bridges and wharves, is where it used to be hidden. The operating costs, the capital costs, the whole thing. Roads, bridges and ferries is where the money was shown.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Your highway in the sky.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There were three employees of the Forest Service shown, and that was the $29,000. When I became the Minister I brought them both together into the one department.

MR. WALLACE: Always looking back! Look forward.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. I'm making comparisons. Well, don't you want the information published in the...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WALLACE: We know how bad they were. Let's go forward and not look back.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All right, but you have got to know the reason for the change, otherwise you can't explain it to people.

Anyway, we found, for instance, that people were employed by the government who had been employed by the government for 28 years as "temporary." And we said: "Look, M has been there for five years, put him on permanent." That's why the staff is up from 326.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: They were listed as "equipment" in my department. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And that's why they're listed there. Speaking of what happened, that turbo-prop Beechcraft we have, it cost $600,000 to upgrade that thing and that was hidden in wharves, bridges and ferries.

I would like to remind you too, that two of the old Beechcraft, one was donated to the BCIT for the use of the students in their work, and the other is just being readied to fly down to Castlegar to be used by the aeronautical course in the Selkirk College down there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Motor

[ Page 418 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you explain his views?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's what I can't figure out. That's what upset me when I heard he wanted to secede from British Columbia, and he didn't want Autoplan anywhere near him. I couldn't believe it, Alex. I really couldn't. You cut me to the quick. You hurt me. You upset me. Just that for family relations, Alex. (Laughter.)

But I notice that the mayor of Quesnel, the mayor of this Cariboo town, has called local MLA Alex Fraser "irresponsible" for saying that Cariboo wants to pull out of B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And he's a roar to the viewers! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know. But that's what he thought of Fraser's statement during the recent budget debate. "Mayor Kingley replies: 'I don't know that it merits any comment, but that is irresponsible conduct for a public person to say.' " He says that he's a good friend, but he thinks he's being frivolous.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They say he was. But, you know, what hurt me more than anything was that pile of letters from the Chamber of Commerce in Quesnel asking me to please put a claims centre in there — copies to Alex Fraser.

I have letters from garage people in Quesnel. But do you know what Herbie Moser said when he said "keep out of Cariboo?" He wrote me a letter — two letters — asking me if I would please bring ICBC into the Cariboo constituency full blast — in Quesnel and in 100 Mile House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Was it signed by a relative?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It was signed Alex Fraser.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: June 21, 1973. Then there is a letter to the president of the insurance corporation, September 24. "I would therefore ask you to reconsider your decision regarding a branch office in Quesnel." So it's obvious. Alex, you had better get back home. You are getting out of touch with your constituents.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He's just a fickle friend. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to talk about a subject relative to motor vehicles. I've tabled the motor vehicle annual report, and there are a few figures I would like to take notice of.

When accidents happen we find that of 59,000 accidents, 56,000 of them take place on asphalt roads — so it is not the roads that are to blame; 34,000 of them take place on clear days. So I think it is obvious that there is something other than the weather and the roads that are causing accidents in the Province of British Columbia. I think it must be people.

I draw your attention to page 23, and I took two excerpts from it. The number of accidents between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. right through the year — we find there are 4,400 accidents between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. That's when people are going to work.

You take the two hours when they are coming home from work, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. — 10,200 accidents. The same people. So it's obvious that people are going to have to be extra careful after a tough day in the office or on the job. They're a little more tired, not quite as sharp, and I appeal to them to be extra careful driving home from the office or their work, because that's obviously when most of the accidents happen.

There's one interesting statistic I would like to draw your attention to. There are 429 people in the Province of British Columbia over the age of 90 still carrying valid drivers' licences. I think they have an exceptionally good non-accident record. I think there's one in the House, as a matter of fact.

I want to talk about this matter of seat belts. As you know, one of the most distressing aspects of the Motor Vehicle Branch's responsibilities is the recording of the traffic accident statistics. I am sorry to say that these continue to climb at an alarming rate. In 1972 there were 716 British Columbians killed and 23,000 injured on our roads. Last year's figures are not completely tabulated yet but it appears that our dead will total 825, and up to October we had 21,000 injured in motor vehicle accidents.

A recent meeting of the Deputy Ministers of Health from all the provinces pointed out that something can be done to reduce these terrible figures, which represent human tragedies. The Deputies pointed to Australia where mandatory seat-belt legislation sharply reduced the dead and injured statistics arising from traffic accidents. These

[ Page 419 ]

These same officials report that the motor vehicle accident is the leading cause of potential years of life lost before the age of 70. In 1971, the figures show that traffic fatalities cost citizens of this country 212,000 man-years of life lost by those who died before the age of 70.

This represents about 12.7 per cent of the total of the potential years of life loss before age 70, compared with only 11.5 per cent for heart disease.

There are areas in the United States that are now considering mandatory seat belt legislation, with the full support of the U.S. government. I suggest to you, in the light of this recommendation, unanimously from the Ministers of Health, that we seriously consider the possibility of mandatory seat belt legislation in this province, because it would have a significant impact on our tragically high traffic toll.

I am asking you to consider it. Let me know what your feelings are about the mandatory aspects of seat belts. The illustration is there in Australia where it is mandatory. I am not saying I am going to bring it in. I want your reaction to it.

I noticed an editorial in The Vancouver Sun which talks about this being the right of the individual to determine whether or not he is going to wear a seat belt. The inference is that it is nobody else's business whether or not you wear a seat belt.

I can't accept that attitude, that it is nobody else's business whether you wear a seat belt. If you are not wearing a seat belt, and you are involved in either a fatal accident or an accident in which you are badly injured, it affects many other aspects of our society. It not only affects the insurance rate, but if you're the breadwinner of the family and you are killed, it means probably an addition of a whole family to the social welfare roll.

If you and a number of people are badly injured, it means that badly needed hospital beds are being occupied that might be required by other people who could have had the use of them had the individual been wearing his seat belt.

So there's a public interest in whether or not you wear a seat belt. I'm certainly developing the habit of hooking up my seat belt every time I get into my car. I always urge every citizen to do the same, and I want each of you to consider it — the impact, the possibility of bringing in such legislation in this province — and let me have your thoughts on it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How do you enforce that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there's a fine system. It's not a step I'll take lightly and I certainly want the fullest possible input from everyone. Education is partly the way and the realization that it is everybody's business and that it does have an impact on many facets of our society other than the individual that's concerned.

Motor Vehicle testing: I'll leave that until the Estimates.

Ferries: I hope you notice that the CPR has boosted the ferry rates. We haven't boosted ours. But I want you to notice how small the story was in the paper when the CPR boosted their rate. If we were to boost our rates, there would be a page 1 headline about so big right across the front.

For the nine months to December 31, 1973, the net operating loss on the B.C. Ferries system was $8,242,000. We do need back-up service, better vessels in the whole ferry system. There's one in for refit now; there's one being stretched. If anything happens to one of the others, we're in trouble and sailings have to be delayed. I'm sorry that back-up vessels haven't been provided.

The call for tenders on the new ferries closes on March 5. Incidentally, someone told me that on the radio last night it was reported that the tender for the new ferries had gone to Seattle. That's absolute balderdash. First of all, the bids don't close until March 5, and the bidding was limited to B.C. companies.

I think we have to look at the situation with regard to the cost of these ferries, and the continued refusal of the federal government to treat the west coast of Canada in the same way that it treats the east coast of Canada.

The first thing I did as Minister of Highways was to take down the "B.C.-1" sign and put up the "Trans-Canada" sign, as a symbol that we in this province are proud of Canada, want to remain part of Canada and will do all we can to help Canada. But by the same token, we expect a fair deal from the rest of Canada and a fair assessment of our problems.

We have tremendous transportation problems in the west coast of Canada. I just wanted to tell the House what happens on the east coast of Canada and what the federal authorities do with regard to transportation.

For the year ending March 31, 1973, the federal government spent some $58 million on ferry and shipping services in Canada. The 1973-74 estimates place the cost for this year at $61 million. An increasing proportion of these funds go to the Canadian National for their Atlantic region services — $44 million in 1973 and $50 million in 1974. Of the $13 million...that's in addition to what the CN get. Of the $13 million being expended by the Minister of Transport and the CTC as operating subsidy, less than 6 per cent of the funds are for

[ Page 420 ]

From recent statements made by the federal government, it would appear to be established policy that the federal government intends to not only continue their present financial involvement in east coast ferry services but to expand them to provide a higher level of service for the traffic demands. The new ferry services agency which the federals have set up will oversee this expansion.

In addition to these direct payments, the Ministry of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission also make indirect expenditures in the form of studies on these services.

A study was completed in the summer of 1973 by M. Menderson, chief regulatory, legislative unit of the division of the Economics Branch of the Canadian Transport Commission into the implications of the extension of transport subsidies to the water and air modes in the Atlantic region. The report was presented to the federal-provincial committee on Atlantic region transportation in July and August, 1973.

In September, 1973, the federal government committed itself to extension of the westbound subsidy — that's from the eastern seaboard to central Canada — for certain eligible commodities moving by truck or rail under the MFRA or ARFRA. The rate of assistance will be increased from 30 per cent to 50 per cent.

Then I want to quote you from a statement of Mr. Marchand:

"A new east coast ferry services agency was announced by Mr. Marchand in October, 1973, under the direction of the joint Minister of Transport-CN committee. Major objectives of the new administration will be coordination, improvement and expansion of existing services to meet expected increased traffic in years ahead, as well as the immediate unprecedented influx of traffic which the present system is attempting to handle."

We could be talking about B.C. We're in exactly the same position.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll come to that in a minute.

"Creation is coupled with MOT's plans for purchase of new vessels and related plans for construction of new terminal and passenger cargo handling facilities."

That's on the east coast. They won't give us a subsidy or help of any kind. They insist that we pay the 17 per cent federal sales tax on every terminal construction facility on the west coast.

"Mr. Jamieson said, 'There's an obvious necessity for an overall programme expansion of services to meet the needs of regional growth and industry, tourism and commerce.' " That's from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, October 13, 1973.

CP Rail have requested a subsidy from the federal government to aid the operation of the Saint John-Digby service. I know for a fact that the federal government provided a subsidy to the CPR for the terminal facilities at the Digby end of that particular terminal of that particular operation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is that between provinces?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's between provinces. But our runs are very similar to their runs. In 1970, the capital expenditures for the ferry and coastal services were $31 million — that's operating capital and grants. In 1973 they were $51 million. They pay debentures of up to $58 million.

For the Saint John-N.B-Digby ferry, it was $3 million; it was $15 million for the N.B.-P.E.I. service and $6.9 million for the Saint John-Digby ferry service.

But in the Province of Ontario — solely within the Province of Ontario — $3 million was given to aid construction of ferries and terminals for Tobermory-South Bay Mouth service. For the Province of Quebec, $3 million went to aid construction of ice-breaker type ferry vessels. And they got a $3 million DREE grant on top of that, strictly within the province.

I have a list of all of the ferry services. There's one: Owen Sound to a Manitoulin Island in Georgian Bay, Ontario. In 1970 they were getting $49,000; in 1969 they got $213,000. Pelee Island to the mainland, Ontario — in 1971 it was $88,000 and in 1970, $88,000.

In this province, we get three grants, two in the northland navigation and one that's for six per cent. They're now taking a survey of the total transportation needs.

I suggest, because ours is not a profit-making operation, that we have tremendous transportation problems on the west coast, and I suggest that we need a better deal out of the feds than we're now getting.

Some of those smaller ferries were acquired by the previous administration — I'm not condemning them for it because the ferry service had to be kept going. I'll give you an example of what it's costing the people of British Columbia. This is a privately operated ferry — the Island Princess. I think that's the one that runs from Beaver Cove to Kelsey Bay. The purchase price paid to Gulf Island Navigation in 1969 was $457,000. The contract for conversion at Burrard Drydock to increase from 20 cars to 50 cars cost $940,000. The extras for the conversion contract were $81,000. The J.K. Cell conversion design fee and expenses were $37,000. Three Rolls-Royce

[ Page 421 ]

That's the kind of expenses we're faced with in this province for keeping these smaller ferries operating, and that's why I suggest that my friends across the way get on the phone and phone their friends in Ottawa and tell them it's time we had a better deal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I've raised it at a joint meeting and Mr. Marchand has said he'd be glad to meet with me. I wrote him a letter a month or so ago asking when he could set up a date to meet with me to discuss this face to face. I got a reply from an assistant saying to wait until the middle of February and he would let me know. That's where it sits now.

I'll leave the date of processing till estimates.

Communications objectives. I think I should point out that part of the presentation I made at the federal-provincial meeting said: "British Columbians expect the federal authority to return to our province the same rights enjoyed by other provinces, namely the right to control and, if desired, to own their own telephone system." I think the important thing is the right to regulate the telephone systems within our own province. Seven of the provinces already have that right. The three that haven't are Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia. I can't imagine any federal government refusing to one province the same rights enjoyed by other provinces in Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, only three of the seven provinces own them — that's the three prairie provinces. But there are four other provinces that have the right of regulation within the province. We used to have that in British Columbia. Until 1916 the telephone system was regulated within the Province of British Columbia. It was a federal Act passed declaring it to be for the general benefits of Canada, and so on. I'm simply asking them to return that right, which was taken away in 1916, back to the Province of British Columbia.

As an interesting sidelight as to why we should have the right to regulate, there's a letter I received from the Liberal Party in British Columbia. It's a copy of a letter sent to the customer service of the B.C. Telephone Company, 768 Seymour Street, Vancouver:

"Dear Sir:

"Our telephones were transferred October 29. Our new number is 736-2331. Directory Assistance is still giving out the old number, six weeks after the move. We have phoned you at least 10 times on this matter and have been assured each time the error would be corrected.

"Yours very truly,

President, Liberal Party of British Columbia."

If we had the right to regulation in this province, I could get after them about the poor service they're giving the Liberal Party in British Columbia.

Briefly I want to outline the communications objectives as I see them in the Province of British Columbia. These are long-term objectives to be attained by the province. They do not delineate the means by which the province will reach these objectives. Further, because of concern for national unity, these objectives must be considered as being interrelated and be taken together rather than in isolation.

It shall be a communications objective of the Province of British Columbia that expansion of communications facilities will be such as to serve the orderly development of the Province according to provincial priorities, and hence do a provincial determination of the programme for furnishing telecommunications, broadcast and cable distribution facilities in British Columbia.

Another goal is universal access to ensure the availability to British Columbians of electronic means for acquiring and exchanging information which is relevant to the worldwide interest. The Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) was talking about living in the north. Part of the problem of getting people to settle in the north is that sense of isolation that is part of living there.

The people in the north are just as much entitled to adequate TV service and the rest of it as the people who live in the lower mainland or the lower half of Vancouver Island. But as it has been operating in the past, with that far-off Ottawa control, somebody applies for a cablevision area, they say yes — and it's usually the most lucrative areas, as they were picked up first. They have no realization that there must be balance in the granting of cablevision licences.

If they're going to be given the lucrative lower mainland area, then there must be cross-subsidization, so these same people accept the responsibility for carrying adequate television service into the northern areas of British Columbia. And that is what I mean by universal access.

Provincial development. Electronic communications means we develop throughout the province to meet the social, cultural, educational and economic requirements of the province.

Regional interests. To facilitate the development of regional interests and talent within the province by utilizing electronic communication means.

National unity. To foster national unity through

[ Page 422 ]

Freedom of expression. To preserve freedom of expression in material transmitted for public dissemination.

Privacy. To preserve confidentiality of material transmitted for private dissemination.

Canadian ownership. To promote Canadian ownership of common carriers, broadcasting and cable distribution undertakings.

National policy. To have an effective voice in the formulation of national and communications policy, and effective input to federal matters which bear upon the Province of British Columbia.

Those generally are the communications objectives. We will move step by step in our meetings with other provinces and with the federal government so that we can achieve an adequate communications policy for the Province of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as my final topic I would like to turn to something which has been a subject of some questioning in this House: the matter of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

I think we should look at some of the history of what has happened. The day after the election of 1972, which took place August 30, the Insurance Bureau of Canada had a meeting in Vancouver. On September 11, four days before this government was sworn in, they started to move and to change the conditions under which they had been operating the insurance industry in this province.

Here is a copy of a letter put out by the Insurance Exchange, dated September 11, 1972. The Insurance Exchange is a medium set up by the private insurance companies under which any agent who had been turned down by one company on writing insurance for any person in the province could refer this particular application to the Insurance Exchange to be taken up by this Insurance Exchange, operating on behalf of all of the companies and written at a lower commission to the agents, by the way. But the requirement was that some company must have turned down the writing of that policy on that individual.

On September 11, four days before we became the government, out went a letter. "The Exchange governing and management committees have approved, effective immediately, automatic access to the Exchange without the requirement of having a declining company."

That was the beginning of the troubles within the Insurance Exchange. From that day on, the pressure was on me to get involved in supporting the insurance market in the Province of British Columbia.

Week by week, company after company referred more and more cases to the Insurance Exchange to the point where the Insurance Exchange simply couldn't handle it. Eventually, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, I had to commit public funds to maintain adequate insurance coverage for the people of the Province of British Columbia. This, despite the fact that on February 1, 1973, in a letter to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the B.C. advisory committee of the Insurance Bureau said, "We believe an uninterrupted insurance market is essential for consumers in British Columbia, and in our discussions with Mr. Strachan last fall we pledged to make every effort to ensure this."

And they did do that in the fall when I asked them in. Before we even started to write the legislation they gave me verbal assurance that there would be a market there continuously.

On February 12, I received a letter:

"As indicated previously to you, the insurance industry wish your government to know there will be no lack of market for the motoring public during this transition period. We do, however, feel it is important that we discuss it with you at an early date."

Well, of course, we didn't get the continued co-operation. There was a $100,000 advertising plan. We had to support the Insurance Exchange. We were notified they were going to get out of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund.

As I said earlier in this House, premiums were collected right up to the last day of February. Part of those premiums were to cover that particular insurance provision. They are still collecting money because, under the operations of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, they have the right of recovery.

I have a letter here, addressed to me, saying:

"Five years ago our son was involved in a car accident. He was not covered by insurance and the results were he was sued. This was put in the hands of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. He has been paying since then, with the threat that he would lose his licence.

"I understand this company is no longer in business. He got a bill again today. Does he have to pay this?"

How many people they are still collecting from I don't know, but it is obvious they are still collecting. As I say, on November 11 they got right out of the field despite the fact they collected premiums with a portion of that premium given to the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. I know this: the man said the other day that it's almost broke. That's not the point. They accepted part of that premium for the full year.

The other day this matter of interest was raised of whether we are going to pay interest on the moneys that ICBC had received and was it going to be returned? Starting last June, the private insurance companies started sending out letters to their clients, and these letters said: "Your current automobile insurance policy expires on October 31" — or November 8, or December 14. "We suggest you send

[ Page 423 ]

I didn't hear a single comment from across the way about the fact that these insurance companies, these private insurance companies which were collecting this premium three, four, five months ahead of date, weren't paying interest on the money they were receiving.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) ask that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I mentioned the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. I want you to notice how that was handled. The previous administration passed an Act some years ago, a section of which was never proclaimed, which earmarked public funds for just such a service. We are now utilizing earmarked public funds out of motor vehicle licence plates for the provision of an automobile insurance service that is part of the law of the Province of British Columbia.

There have been lots of quotes about the insurance of government vehicles.

Incidentally, I was going to mention the rates. I made a mistake a year ago. I admit frankly to the fact that I did make a mistake. When I was being asked across the way what the rates were going to be, I said we would have to wait until the green book came out before I could tell you. I should never have made that statement, because, sitting back in Toronto, were the people who make up the green book. They thought to themselves, "Aha, we can fix him. He's waiting for the green book. We'll hold the green book up." And they held the green book up....

But that wasn't all. When it was published it did not contain the figures for the Province of British Columbia. It's for the preceding year. They're required to give those figures.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What do you mean they had no business? Here's a quote from the underwriters' magazine talking about the green book:

"The green book is the key. The green book is at the very heart of the rate-making process. The forerunner of the present green book was issued over 40 years ago and it has developed over the intervening years until today it is regarded as one of the most comprehensive exhibits of automobile insurance statistical data anywhere in the world."

That's not the important point as to their position. All insurers are required by law — by law — to file their data in a prescribed form with the statistical division of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, who act as the statistical agency for the superintendents of insurance.

When Carl Wilkin, the IBC actuary issues the green book, he does so not as the actuary for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, but as the actuary for the provincial superintendents. And they refused to publish those figures. Now I could probably have got involved in a long court case, but that wouldn't have done us any good. So we contacted them and asked them to live up to the law. What happened?

The best we could get out of them was that they supplied the raw data, the tapes. They refused to provide the programme that goes with the tapes. We had to start without that basic information which was a very necessary part of arriving at the rate structure. But we made it.

You know, there was another reason that I wouldn't quote rates a year ago. There used to be an Attorney-General in this province and he introduced a piece of legislation affecting automobile insurance — the Hon. Leslie Peterson. Here I refer you to the Victoria Times of March 25, 1969 — this is five years ago — and he was bringing in a piece of automobile insurance legislation.

"B.C. Auto Insurance Plan Shifts Emphasis to Humans. Peterson Sees Premium Drop.

"The Legislature Monday gave first reading to about 150 clauses in two government bills which will revolutionize auto insurance coverage. Attorney-General Peterson, who introduced the bill, told reporters the combination of compulsory insurance" — that nasty word, compulsory — "limited no-fault compensation and lifting of the first $250 repair cost for every auto involved in collisions, should reduce present minimum rates by as much as 25 per cent."

"Compulsory... reduced rates...25 per cent, " Peterson said. That's why I would not make a statement. You check, after all. It's all in Hansard under here. I said, "I'll wait for the green book." I remembered what Peterson had said, that the rates would go down by 25 per cent. What else did he say?

"Peterson said, under the proposed insurance plan in this bill, the representative rates in Vancouver would be showing a reduction of 28 percent and 21 percent respectively. If you do not choose to buy collision and so on, the reduction in premiums is estimated to range from 15 to 35 per cent."

But what did industry say? What did the insurance industry say about this compulsory insurance? E. Burns of Toronto, chairman of a special committee set up by the Insurance Bureau of Canada: what did he say? Compulsory! He said, "We say God bless them; if the Socreds brought in compulsory insurance, we say God bless them."

We bring in compulsory insurance — it's horrible!

[ Page 424 ]

It's the end of the world! It's horrible! Further on the same man said: "The industry does not object to the compulsory nature of the insurance because we long ago gave up the concept that it shouldn't be compulsory." That it shouldn't be compulsory! — long ago gave up the concept!

Then we get the sort of nonsense afterwards and, I tell you, this is why I didn't say what the rates would be last year — because, despite Peterson's statement that it'd go down by 28 per cent, the next year it went up by 12 per cent. The year after that it went up by 6 per cent and had they been here this year, it would have gone up by 22 per cent.

You know, Mr. Speaker, despite all our problems with the green book, we managed to get the operation going. We first established the broad principle of operation, checked with the data available, then worked out specific details through careful examination of circumstances after the rates had been published.

I discovered that in many cases the published rates didn't mean a thing. And in the peripheral groups — remember that one million of the vehicles are passenger cars; they're covered by the same rates as were first published — but the peripheral areas — the fleets, the trucks, the so on — once we met with the truck fleet owners we discovered that the published rates didn't mean a thing, and that's why we moved to change them.

But the Member for Okanagan said that it was hard to compare rates with those from the private insurance companies as people had no way of knowing what the rates would have been. That's true, but I'm telling you they would have been up about 22 per cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there have been problems, yes. And the reason I say they're up 22 per cent is that if you want to read the Automotive Retailer for October, you'll find a list of reports from the companies with regard to their losses for the last year. It indicates that they were paying out $11 and so on for every $10 they took in. But the agents have done a fine job. A few have had problems coping with the new system.

I have a letter here from a woman saying that she went to one agency in Victoria and was quoted $129. She went to a second agency and she was quoted $117. She went to a third agency and was quoted $109. She went to the Motor Vehicle Branch, and they too quoted $109. So it's obvious that some of the agents are having a problem in arriving at the right rate, and it upsets me when I hear agents quoting a higher rate than it should be, because that could be where part of our problem about increased rates is coming from.

We ran into problems with claims centres. Partly it was municipalities refusing to allow zoning and rezoning, partly it was the availability of property.

But I want the House to know that the previous administration, in any operation, any construction job, anything, never went to the municipalities for permits, for discussion, for zoning or anything else. They just went ahead and did it. But we declared we would work with the municipalities.

I'll give you one example. There's one municipality where there's a piece of property here that's been zoned light industrial or commercial. The piece of property here has been zoned light industrial or commercial. We wanted a piece of property between it. It would have to be zoned light industrial or commercial. They refused it.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Where was it zoned? Where was the municipality? Where was it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no, it wasn't agriculture. It was zoned residential. But on each side of the piece of property we wanted, there it was, right in the middle; they refused us the right to rezone. Many of the municipalities have co-operated, but I want to tell you that there have been a few problems with regard to claims centres. I can talk about them later during estimates. But I want to impress on the people the fact that the previous administration went right ahead, didn't ask for zoning permits, rezoning, work permits, building permits or anything else.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's not nonsense! That's the record. You check with the municipalities and you'll find that out.

With regard to the claims centres — once they're in operation — I reiterate what I said the other day: there will be claims facilities available as of 12:01, March 1.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada made a statement January 29 in The Globe and Mail:

"As an initial step, the industry-wide Insurance Bureau of Canada has formed a steering committee to develop a programme for establishing a network of drive-in claims or appraisal centres across Ontario. These would process car damage and collision claims and the actual repair work would be done at accredited garages."

Notice the words "accredited garages." Not any garage — accredited garages. It is what the Insurance Bureau of Canada is prepared to pay; that's what that means. You'd better believe it.

"The move is intended to speed up car repairs and reduce claims costs to insurance companies." They say it would take 150 to 180 drive-ins to cover the province adequately.

I'd like to talk briefly about the auto-body shops

[ Page 425 ]

Here's one getting $12 a hour, 3.5 per cent for materials and 20 per cent for paint. Here's another one: $12 an hour, 3.65 per cent for materials, 25 per cent for paint. This big one has four separate operations and they charge different rates in each. The same operation at one of their places gets $12 an hour for labour, 4.94 per cent for materials, 20.8 per cent for paint. Another one gets $12 for labour, 3 per cent for materials, 13 per cent for paint.

You go down the list — $12, $12, $12...$14, with 8 per cent for materials and only 7 per cent on paint, so there is an upset there. Here's one at $12, with 2 per cent for materials, 18 per cent for paint. One, and one only, gets $15, but only 1 per cent for materials and only 15 per cent for paint. The rest are 12, 12, 12, 14 and 12. We are offering them $14, 5 per cent materials, 20 per cent on paint.

More than 50 per cent of the shops in the province have already agreed to accept that, and I am quite sure that by March 1 a great many more will accept that very reasonable rate.

I want to talk about some other aspects. I can't talk about the law case that's now before the courts, because as you know the companies involved are taking us to court. But I think the people of British Columbia should know who the companies are that are saying to the people of this province, "You do not have the right to do certain things with regard to automobile insurance."

They are: the Allstate Insurance Company, headquarters at Northbrook, Illinois; the Bankers and Traders Insurance Company, headquarters in Australia; the Canada Accident and Fire Insurance Company, headquarters at London, England; the Cornhill Insurance Company, headquarters at London, England; the Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance Company, headquarters at Wassa, Wisconsin; the Federated Mutual Insurance, headquarters at Owatona, Minnesota; the Fidelity Insurance Company of Canada, headquarters at Baltimore, Maryland; the General Accident Insurance Company of Canada, headquarters at Perth, Scotland...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the unkindest cut of all. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, the unkindest cut of all.

...the Great American Insurance Company, New York, N.Y.; the Guardian Insurance Company of Canada, headquarters at London, England; the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford, Connecticut; Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Boston, Mass.; London Insurance, London, England; the Maryland Casualty Company, headquarters at Baltimore, Maryland; the Pearl Insurance Company, headquarters at London, England; the Phoenix Insurance Company, headquarters in New York; Prudential Insurance Company, headquarters at London, England; Reliance Insurance Company of Philadelphia, headquarters at Philadelphia; the Royal General Insurance Company of Canada, headquarters at Newark, New Jersey; the Saint Paul Fire Marine Insurance Company, headquarters at Saint Paul, Minnesota; the Security Mutual Casualty Company, Chicago, Illinois; the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, headquarters at Bloomington, Illinois; the Travellers Indemnity Company of Canada, headquarters at Hartford, Connecticut.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Is that in Canada?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to call your attention to the people who are taking the people of B.C. to court to tell us that we can't do the job that we are now doing.

Now, time is moving on. I had intended to go into some other aspects of the Autoplan. I had intended to read many of the letters I have received, complimenting us on the Autoplan. But I want to quote a couple of news clippings.

"Insurance Official Praises Autoplan.

"Autoplan is a good plan, an official of one of B.C.'s oldest and one of Canada's biggest insurance firms told the annual convention of the B.C. Truck Loggers Association on Thursday."

That was Mr. R.J. Maitland, on January 18, in The Vancouver Sun.

"The president of the Insurance Agents Association, Hamilton defended ICBC's performance. 'You've got to remember this is the biggest insurance company in Canada. A fantastic job has been done to get it along as well as it has and to make a number of changes. It's a big job, done extremely well, but now we're down to the crunch."'

Mr. Hamilton also said, in his "President's Corner" in the most recent issue of the agents' magazine:

"Although it is still too early for any across-the-board verdict, initial returns would seem to bear out what many of us have been saying all along. Those who have picked up the ball and are running with it — especially those strategically located at advantageous locations

[ Page 426 ]

— appear to be doing rather well indeed. Others are reasonably satisfied and a few seem to be falling behind. Certainly, we would not have assented to any proposition which we would have thought would have denied any agent a fair shot at making a dollar."

Mr. Hamilton gave some advice to the agents. He said:

"They have met most of our principal demands and now I think it is up to all of us to stop fussing and get down to serious work.

"I think we have come further than anyone expected, especially when you consider the latest concessions which were spelled out in our bulletin of January 11. If we really go after business now, I see no reason why we cannot make out just as well as we have in the past."

We've met with them continuously. I've had to make changes to the Motor-vehicle Act to make sure that they had access to the kind of market that I felt they should have. I have made these changes in close co-operation with the insurance agents as a part of the plan. Now, Mr. Speaker, the plan will go ahead — make no mistake.

But I am concerned about the opposition and their attitude. The attitude of the opposition was announced on January 8, 1974 — not by the opposition leader, but by Mr. Ian Meyer, chairman of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, in an interview. He said:

"The opposition political parties in B.C. have assured the industry that if they become government they will restore competitive pricing by allowing the private companies to compete with the government on auto insurance."

They didn't announce it — the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada announced the policy of the three opposition parties.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Same difference!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They said "yes sir; yes sir; yes sir" to that list of companies that I just read out. They said "yes sir; yes sir; yes sir." We know whose side they're on, and it's not the side of the people of British Columbia!

This Autoplan, as I've said, has its problems. But I challenge any person to go over to the Royal Bank building, walk through those nine floors, see the tremendous job that has been done in organization and putting that plan into operation, and not feel proud that it happened in the Province of British Columbia.

It's one of the most magnificent development jobs ever done anywhere in any industry, anywhere in North America. As British Columbians I suggest to you that instead of your determination to tear this thing down, to attempt to destroy it, belittle it and undermine it, you get behind it and realize that it's not my plan. That company does not belong to me, it doesn't belong to this government — it belongs to all the people of the Province of British Columbia!

Mr. Speaker, opposition has responsibilities too. I was Leader of the Opposition for years. There were times when I could have taken political advantage of some proposals.

I remember a time when there was an attack made on the financial stability of this province by a Vancouver newspaper. Talk to the former Premier about that. There was an attack on the financial stability of this province. I was Leader of the Opposition. Had I acted as irresponsibly as that group over there has acted in the last two years I would have joined that attack on the financial stability of this province. But I recognized I had some responsibility to this province that overrides everything and I refused to be part of that attack. I said it simply wasn't true what the enemies of that government were saying.

Another time, when the government came in with a proposal for the Bank of British Columbia, I could have gone out and badmouthed it, said it wouldn't work, said it shouldn't work; it should be left to the big bankers in the east. I could have done all that but I recognized a bank with its headquarters in British Columbia would add a new factor to the financial fabric and strength of the Province of British Columbia. I supported that bank right down the line because it would bring benefit to the people of the Province of British Columbia, because it would change the whole financial fabric and strength of this province.

I suggest to you people across the way that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia will have an even greater impact. We've agreed it will always be there; not one of them would do away with it. But I suggest to you the setting up of this insurance company in British Columbia has changed the fabric of the financial structure of this province and strengthened it immeasurably. In the years ahead, it will bring great benefit to all of the people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it's not the time for the kind of opposition we've been getting to this and many other problems that face us. I suggest it's time that we had some responsible opposition. I think it's time they realized that these are troubled times in which we live, no matter who's the government.

MR. McCLELLAND: We'll be back; we'll be back.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mister, you won't get re-elected next election, let alone your government.

[ Page 427 ]

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Eat the words, eat them!

MR. STRACHAN: Because the people will never support a party that indulges in opposition by insult, innuendo and destruction. They never will, they never will.

My friend (Mr. McClelland) across the way, who's about to follow me, raised the issue of Gordon Root making a statement to the press when he's employed by a Crown agency. I want my friend to look at vote 1 in the estimates. It's a vote out of which all of the people who work within this Legislative Assembly are paid, and the people who are paid out of that particular vote are responsible to this Legislative Assembly.

If you want to raise matters of privilege in a way that would really be meaningful, I suggest you go back and check the statements of two people who were paid out of vote 1: a Mrs. Grace McCarthy and a Mr. Dan Campbell. Look at the things they said about this government when they were being paid out of the public purse of this government, out of the legislative vote. The things they said about individuals in this government and this government as a whole far exceeded that picayune statement you were referring to. I suggest that if you really want to realign the responsibilities....

I remember when I was Leader of the Opposition that I had somebody working for me who wrote a letter to the editor once, not as my assistant but just as plain John Wood. I was told that that wasn't the thing to do.

Now, just go back and check what the people who have been paid out of vote 1 have been saying about individuals in this government and this government; then bring that in as a motion of privilege. Then you'll be serving as loyal opposition, doing your homework, doing your job and helping make this place.

I ask you each and every one of you to remember my early words. This is the only system we have and we've got to make it work. It's time that official opposition realized that unless they are prepared to help make this system, they can only succeed in destroying it. That may be their objective, I don't know, but I prefer to give them every benefit or give them all the help they need too. And they need plenty. This is the government of all of the people of this province; this is our House. Let's get on with the job.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I've enjoyed this brief interlude this afternoon. Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in this budget debate, for which we've been gathered to discuss.

I'd like first of all to welcome the newest Member to our assembly, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I hope you enjoy it as much as we do.

I also want to congratulate the Minister of Transport and Communications for another fine performance. Not much substance but he was in good form.

I hope, too, to be able to deal with some of the things that he said as I deliver my speech today and talk about some of the comments he made about his departments, and perhaps even the department he doesn't head anymore which took up a lot of his time.

I was surprised at the introduction of this budget to find the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and myself have at least one thing in common.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, we do. I lost weight too; probably we have two things in common, then, Mr. Member. But the real thing that we have in common is that neither of us is an expert in government financing. But even as a non-expert, Mr. Speaker, I can recognize that the budget we're considering today is an irresponsible budget — irresponsible in its irrelevancy. It bears no relevance to the actual revenues that will be collected; it bears no relevance to the actual funds which will be expended; and it sure bears no relevance to the needs of the people of British Columbia.

The official opposition presented a motion of non-confidence in this government's programme as outlined in its throne speech because there was no indication at that time of programmes for people. To the shame of the Minister of Finance, that non-confidence motion has proved to be right on. The budget is a total failure as it relates to the needs of people, particularly in the Departments of Education and Health.

There is no doubt that the budget is big; it's the biggest budget ever in this province and the Minister of Finance has attempted to perpetrate the myth that bigger is better. But bigger isn't worth a plugged nickel if the people of this province don't benefit from that bigness. In this budget the people in need of intermediate health care, for instance, and the youngsters in need of a decent education, for instance, have been cut off from the good life.

As a non-expert in government financing, I'd like to ask a few questions about government financing socialist style.

How does it help the people of British Columbia to push the inflationary cycle out of control by an explosion of its own bureaucracy? The growth of government in the 17 months of socialist control in this province is incredible and it shows no sign of slowing down. The public service has been expanded by more than 8,000 positions and there is a stampede

[ Page 428 ]

What this mushrooming bureaucracy means to all of us as taxpayers of this province, coupled with the other factors of inflation, is that the real gains in our economy don't go where they're needed to take care of the social problems and the other needs of this province. Instead, all of the gains in the economy are lost, wasted on the exploding costs of government itself. How does that help the people of British Columbia?

The budgetary increases in Health and Education particularly have been gobbled up by the increased costs of operating the apparatus. I wonder how that helps the people of British Columbia? The Premier himself, Mr. Speaker, has acknowledged his government's shortcomings in programmes for education by announcing on a hotline show and in other places that if a school district can prove its need for additional funds, he'll make those funds available by special warrant.

The Leader of the Opposition has raised the question that perhaps there's some impropriety about this and that it's against the rules to do that kind of budgeting. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, that kind of educational non-planning can only lead to discrimination in education throughout this province.

It becomes the kind of situation where the school district which makes its case best — which pleads, hat in hand, its case best — gets the best break for school financing. Somebody described it the other day as squeaky-wheel budgeting. That's not the kind of budgeting we want in British Columbia for the needs of our children. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, there is no possible way that that kind of spending can be kept under control. There are no controls, because we don't know what the budget estimates are.

No, Mr. Speaker, there are no advances in education in this budget, and I wonder how that helps the people of British Columbia.

In real advances in health care too, the budget stands still. Of the $115 million increase in the budget for delivery of health care, $95 million of that $115 million is swallowed up by increased payments to hospitals and increased payments to doctors: $80 million in increased payments to hospitals, $15 million in increased payments to doctors.

The budget takes care of salary increases and the population growth and that's all. It stands still in relation to any new programmes for health care.

Mr. Speaker, the real shame of this budget in relation to health care is that it fails miserably in its debt to the thousands of British Columbians who are caught in that squeeze between acute care and extended care. There is $1 million, Mr. Speaker, in that budget for intermediate care — $1 million. What a slap in the face for those people who are shut out of the health care delivery system through no fault of their own — $1 million!

We travelled around this province, Mr. Speaker, and there were a number of Members in this House today who will recall the committee discussing home-care delivery and things like that. When we travelled, we found that there was a recurring theme. It was pointed out very clearly by people in all walks of life, in the medical profession, outside the medical profession, people who were consumers of the service. Wherever we went we found that those people noticed a glaring deficiency in the delivery of health care in this province — a very serious gap in the levels of care being offered — an entire segment of society which was being forgotten in the publicly sponsored and prepaid hospital and health care scheme.

The people who are left in this grey area of health care — and the Member from Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) knows about it as well: she was with us — are suffering financially, psychologically and medically, because of the neglect by the people's government of British Columbia.

The people of British Columbia told our committee very clearly and very forcefully, Mr. Speaker, what they wanted. And the committee in turn told this Legislature, very clearly and very forcefully, what those people had told us to tell this Legislature. The government obviously wasn't listening. They didn't get that message, regardless of the manner, the clear manner, in which it was presented.

No, Mr. Speaker, this budget doesn't have any answers to those questions that people who want decent health care at all its levels at no financial penalty are asking.

What we wanted to see, Mr. Speaker, and what we should have seen, was some kind of action in this field. Instead, we have seen this government betraying its commitment once again. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars for that blatantly political report, the Foulkes Report, but not one nickel for people. Peanuts for people.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) mentioned was the matter of spending more money. But I suggest it has nothing really to do with spending more money. It has to do with spending money correctly in the distribution of the money we have already. It certainly doesn't have to do with wasting those gains in our economy by the exploding bureaucracy of government itself.

The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, has displayed his amazing financial genius again in his incredible bungling of the assessment picture in this province. My God, if nothing else, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 429 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think it's usual not to debate in detail a question of that sort. It is now before a committee of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not debating anything in detail, Mr. Speaker. We asked whether or not we were going to be stifled in this debate to even talk about assessments, which was one of the reasons we placed an amendment to the motion that went forward in this House. We were assured that we wouldn't be stifled. I have no intention of debating the assessment picture or the procedure in detail or in anything else.

The only thing I want to talk about is the Minister's handling of the question, which is completely outside his jurisdiction — to some degree at least.

All I want to ask the Minister of Finance is whether he has any idea of the kind of grief that he has put the people of British Columbia through because of his actions with regard to Bill 71. Does the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) understand the kind of grief that the people of this province are going through because of Bill 71?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): No, no.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't think she does. Does she know what kind of people are facing tax increases in this province? Tax increases have doubled and tripled, increases that she just shrugged off in this House the other day — shrugged off increases to old-age pensioners.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Widows, people looking forward to retirement, young couples holding a piece of property until they can afford to build a home — I wonder if she understands.

Here are a few letters that I received about this whole assessment question. I won't read them all at this time. I wanted to show you the kind of concern that's in this province. There is a box of letters that came into the office of the Leader of the Opposition. These letters, some 600 of them, came to my office directly; so obviously there's some concern. At least there's some concern being expressed to the Member for Langley with regard to assessments in this province.

I do want to read a couple of these letters — at least parts of them — so we know beyond doubt the kind of people that are being affected in this province. Here is a couple in White Rock who said:

"We're sending you a copy of our appeal to call attention to the hardship which the NDP government's land policy is causing ourselves among many others. Bills 42 and 71 are proving to be highly inequitable, by penalizing people who have worked hard and looked after their affairs responsibly over the years."

Here's another family in the Municipality of Langley who say the cost of owning a home is becoming so high that it is virtually prohibitive for a great percentage of the population to even consider becoming homeowners. And there is this kind of thing, a 300 per cent increase in taxes. That is a leading contributor to the problem.

"We have received our 1974 notice of assessment for our property and find that there is an increase of almost 100 per cent over last year. We feel this is unfair. Thirty years ago we bought the acreage with the intention of spending the rest of our days here. We've not changed our minds. We are not speculators. Like many others, our five acres are caught in the land freeze, so there is no opportunity to do anything with that property, even if we did wish to do so. We don't feel this property has increased in value by 100 percent.

"My husband retires this summer and on his fixed income it will be difficult to pay the taxes as they now stand, especially if the mill rate increases asexpected.

Here's one, this appeal goes from $3,000 to $7,700.

"The property is a family farm," this lady tells me, "left to me by my mother for the care of my retarded brother. The land is now frozen farmland. I made 240 bales of hay this year and I intend to farm as soon as I can afford the expense of barn and animals. I'm not a land speculator as this has been a family farm since 1947. Therefore I wish to appeal my land assessment increase.

"In 1951 my first husband purchased this 10-acre small holding under the Veterans' Land Settlement Act and upon his death I inherited this property. I'm just mentioning this to point out the fact that there was no speculation involved with the purchase of this land.

"I understand that the Assessment Equalization Act, Bill 71 — the amendments — was aimed at obtaining extra revenue from land developers and speculators. I'm a homeowner whose home happens to be built on 10 acres which can't be classified as a farm or subdivided into smaller parcels."

And they go on and on and on and on, Mr. Speaker.

This one is a kind of a classic, I thought. It's from Langley again, and it says:

"Dear Mr. McClelland:

[ Page 430 ]

"What a fine mess this is. When I phoned my own MLA from Vancouver South, Mrs. Daisy somebody, she said she'd do what she could to help, but then she all but told me that if I was well enough off to own 6.7 acres of undeveloped land and a house in town, I should either be glad to pay the taxes or sell."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that's all right for that Member's opinion, I guess. The letter continues:

"We want to keep this beautifully treed property for our own retirement 15 years hence, but with the expected taxes now with a $700 increase, there is little hope. We have appealed on certain grounds."

They go on and on and on and on like that, Mr. Speaker, and there are about 600 letters just like that. There's not one speculator in the whole bundle of letters — not one. There's not one rip-off artist, Mr. Speaker, in that whole bundle of letters — just people — people who expected much better treatment from this "people's government."

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): What did Peter Jenowin say to the court of appeal?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, maybe we can talk about Peter Jenowin and the court of appeal. I was going to save this for a little later, but since we've had a lot of questions about conflict of interest in this House as time has gone on, since this government took over, I'd like to mention the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who talked about my concerns in this House with what I consider to be a breach of privilege.

I might add that I have taken the Speaker's advice and I've given a notice of motion to this House, because the Speaker has said that's the way it should be handled and that's the way I intend to handle it — within the rules of this House.

If the Minister of Transport and Communications doesn't understand the difference between a private citizen, a Member of this Legislative Assembly who is not on the government side, and a highly paid and highly placed official of a Crown corporation, then there's something wrong with his morality.

I'd like to know from the Minister of Finance and the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) whether there isn't something wrong with the concept of a chairman of a local court of revision, namely Dewdney — and I want to apologize to the person in question because he's a good friend of mine — but I want to say that there's something wrong when the chairman of a local court of revision can also be the chairman of the British Columbia Assessment Appeal Board. Now, he's been put into the kind of position where he has to rule on his own rulings. Now, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's wrong.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's what I'd like to ask this government. I don't think it's right, Mr. Member for Dewdney, and I think it should be changed right away.

HON. MR. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It is.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm glad to hear that assurance from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I hope you'll tell the Member for Dewdney.

Mr. Speaker, I'll continue, if I may, with my speech on the budget debate. I really appreciate the comment from the Minister of Municipal Affairs for that.

I've pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that there are no speculators, no rip-off artists, no big developers involved in these letters that we've received from people in municipalities all over the province.

For some reason — and I don't understand the reasoning — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) thinks that he has solved all the problems by fiddling around with the rules and announcing new rules on radio hotline shows. In so doing, however, the Minister of Finance has attempted, in a move that is becoming much too prevalent with this government, to shift the blame for the whole mess to the local assessors and to the chief assessment commissioner.

I would remind the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, that you can't fix up bad laws with excuses. Excuses don't make up for shabby treatment of British Columbia taxpayers.

The Minister tried to patch something with a Band-aid that needed major surgery. He blamed the assessors, yet assessor after assessor after assessor in this province are now saying that they had no clear directives from Victoria. I suggest they didn't get any directives from Victoria because nobody could figure out how to administer such obviously bad legislation.

The municipality of Langley saw the problems that would be created by this legislation — very early, I might add — and threatened not to carry out the kind of legislation that would cause unbelievable financial discrimination through Langley's taxpayers. When they threatened that kind of action — in fact, when they even mentioned that kind of action — the municipality was told in no uncertain terms to toe the line or else.

Langley has proof in writing that the assessors were to use two acres as a residential component on a non-agricultural acreage — in writing from Victoria. Yet the Minister says the assessors are to blame. Five acres, he said on the hotline, was the component to be considered.

The Minister of Finance says he never intervened

[ Page 431 ]

The Minister suggests that in this session, and he's mentioned it in his budget speech, he's going to come up with legislation that offers a deferral of taxes. Well, deferral is not the answer to spiralling taxes this year. It won't do a thing for those people. We're going to be hit with crippling — and I mean crippling — tax increases this year.

I'm more than a little concerned about the whole business of deferral of taxes because I fear that many people — senior citizens in particular — will enter into deferral agreements without realizing the consequences. I fear that with the kind of wildly escalating inflation rates that we're paying in British Columbia now, a five-year tax remission of this sort, plus interest and perhaps maybe even some kind of a penalty to go on top of the interest, would make it financially prohibitive for senior citizens and small business to ever redeem their property which has been mortgaged to the government because of this tax deferral. Deferral, in fact, could work out to be a mortgage in reverse that grows larger by the month — a first mortgage which could be foreclosed at the time of death of the owner.

Mr. Speaker, I'm extremely pleased that we will have an all-party committee studying the whole question of assessment and taxation. I think it's about time, because there are changes needed. We all accept that, especially those of us who have been in the municipal field for varying lengths of time. We know that there are changes needed. We'll accept those changes if they're logical and responsible.

There are questions, however, that need to be answered as well. I'd like to — well, I'll wait until the committee meets, Mr. Speaker. I notice you reaching for your microphone so I'll forgo that subject.

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to say that I naturally don't like to curtail a Member's right to debate, but the Hon. Member himself had a motion on the order paper that deals with all this subject of what transpired between the department of government and any municipal assessor in relation to all letters, documents, et cetera to do with the Assessment Equalization Act so in effect he would be debating his own motion, if that's still on the book.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll debate it again when the motion is called.

I think, though, that the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the Minister of Finance and others in this House have failed to understand that assessments are really relevant. Limits were imposed to protect homeowners from the artificial and inflationary increases in value through no fault of the homeowner, so any new legislation must keep those protections, in one way or another. This government has taken those protections out and they've replaced them with nothing, and that is the problem in British Columbia today.

Mr. Speaker, I notice in the budget that all grants for narcotic addiction treatment facilities are cut out. I can't find any allotment anywhere in the budget for any kind of new programmes in this area either. Here is another urgent need that is being shunted aside into a maze of commissions and studies and confusion while people are dying in this province of drug and alcohol dependency.

The greatest favour that this government could do for the people of British Columbia, in my opinion, would be first of all to start diverting some of its unconscionable liquor profits into treatment programmes for drug and alcohol abuse.

Secondly, this government should get rid of its ineffective and farcical Alcohol and Drug Commission, particularly the chairman, Peter Stein, whose actions and public statements since the commission was formed have proved to the people of B.C. that this young man holds out no hope for the alcoholics and drug addicts in this province, and whose irresponsible theories, if they ever become part of government policy — and I sometimes fear these dangerous philosophies may already be shared by the government — would ensure that British Columbia would continue to lead this country in numbers of drug addicts, in numbers of alcoholics, and that alcoholics and drug addicts would continue to die before their time in the Province of British Columbia.

The whole question of drug and alcohol dependency treatment in this province has been jeopardized, not necessarily because of government inaction but government ineptitude. The Government of British Columbia is rushing off in two directions at once. The alcoholics and drug addicts of this province are the tragic victims of what apparently is a struggle for power within government departments, a tug-of-war between two departments of this government.

If I could briefly set the stage, Mr. Speaker, what we have on the one hand is the Alcohol and Drug Commission under the direction of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). That's where Peter Stein and his commission comes in.

I noticed a report of a recent seminar in Vancouver sponsored by the University of British Columbia to deal with the whole problem of drug abuse particularly. The headline in that newspaper article was, "Officials Clash Over Compulsory Treatment"! The first paragraph says, "A tussle is underway among B.C. government officials over possible introduction of the most radical drug laws in Canada and perhaps North America." No doubt there's a tussle underway. I think it's affecting adversely the coordination of any kind of

[ Page 432 ]

I thought the House might be interested today to hear some of the philosophies of the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. He told this same seminar: "I have a strong belief that we have no reason for optimism in regard to successful use of any kind of treatment."

Can you imagine that? He said successful treatment is virtually non-existent anyway so what's the point of having any kind of treatment at all? He's the chairman, Mr. Speaker, of the Alcohol and Drug Commission in this province. On the Jack Webster programme recently on CJOR radio in Vancouver he was asked about an influx of drug addicts in British Columbia if his philosophies about freely available heroin were implemented. His reply was, "We've got 70 per cent of the addicts in B.C. now; we might as well have the rest."

Can you believe that kind of incredibly irresponsible statement from a man who is the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission in this province? All he really wants to do is sit around with his social worker colleagues and rap about the problem. Figures they'll get some answers that way.

What does Mr. Stein say about alcoholism? Well, he says, "Alcoholics in the advanced stages of the illness are not receptive to treatment programmes and only a very small percentage recover. Through education programmes, we'll change the lifestyle of alcoholics and will enable them to return to controlled drinking." What utter claptrap from the man who is the chairman of the British Columbia Alcohol and Drug Commission, a man who can point to virtually no experience in this field and certainly can point to no successes anywhere in this field.

Since the establishment of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, a few hundred thousand dollars have been spent. Not one programme has resulted out of that few hundred thousand dollars. This commission has done nothing since its inception except to issue that one policy statement I mentioned earlier, a statement which started out with an admission of defeat and worked down from there.

What else has our Alcohol and Drug Commission said? Well, I recall one time when he told in no uncertain terms the students at John Oliver school in Vancouver, when he was a member of the LeDain commission, that marijuana should be legalized. The chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. Those statements were the subject of some very serious concern among the students of that school and there was quite an extensive story on it in the student newspaper which some Members of this House might be interested in.

The Alcohol and Drug Commission has no programmes and no real philosophies except, perhaps, its chairman's own philosophies. I reject those stated philosophies with all of my enthusiasm. I want to know how this government can justify the chairman's appointment in view of his known biases. How can you justify that kind of approach?

I said earlier that this government was stumbling around in two directions with regard to policy in this field. The second direction is that taken by Dr. Malcolm A. Matheson in a section on drug addicts in the recent Task Force on Correctional Services and Facilities' report prepared under the direction of the Attorney-General's department. The two approaches by the Human Resources Department and by the Attorney-General's Department are diametrically opposed to each other.

I just happen to believe, as a personal belief that the Matheson proposals make a good deal of sense and are a good starting point for a programme for drug dependency at least. There are modifications I would prefer to see; we'll talk about those at some more appropriate point, perhaps during the estimates. But the point is we should ask why the Matheson study was even necessary.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) when he spoke the other day in the House, made reference to the fact that too often in this province research is being done holus-bolus and money is being spent on research that isn't necessary; money being spent when material is already available if we would only look for it.

Well, I'd suggest we had all of the material contained in the Matheson Report. We've got reports going back to September, 1970, prepared by H.F. Hoskin, who was once the director of the Narcotic Addiction Foundation. It is so close to the Matheson report that even charts used by the Matheson report are almost duplicated in that 1970 report. So that research was certainly available to Dr. Matheson and the Attorney-General's department.

The Provincial Secretary's conference of 1968 contains virtually all of the material which we now find in the Matheson report. The Provincial Secretary's conference on drug dependency again in October of 1969; once again, nearly all of the material contained in the Matheson report could be found in one or another of these reports.

Here was a brief to the Hon. John Munro, Minister of Health and Welfare, An Assessment of the Current Drug Dependency Situation, Capabilities and Requirements, from January, 1969. Virtually all of the material, once again, that's in the Matheson report are in this and other reports. It's virtually word for word; items researched as many as six or seven years ago are now contained in the Matheson report as revelations of a new deal for drug addicts in British Columbia.

These reports, I suggest, are evidence that responsible British Columbians have been virtually pleading with the federal government to take heed of the warnings about drug and alcohol dependency and

[ Page 433 ]

I think our mistake over the years has been in relying or at least thinking we could rely on the federal government to take some kind of action. That proved to be folly and certainly untrue. Probably the people concerned should have directed their efforts to the provincial government instead.

But nevertheless, I don't see any money in this budget anywhere. And I've looked. I've looked from front to back, and I can't find any money anywhere for programmes today. Instead, we have Mr. Stein going one way and Mr. Matheson going the other way.

We find in this province today existing agencies in the field of drug and alcohol dependency under harassment by this commission of government. Here on the one hand we have Dr. Matheson proposing a programme that is going to require all of the trained people possible in this province and on the other hand we have the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission frightening those people out of the field.

I mentioned that people were dying in this province, and it is true. I had a gentleman in my office the other day who told me, on good authority — he works with alcoholics every day of the week — who said that at least four deaths have taken place in the greater Victoria area in recent months, not only from alcoholism but from a combination of pills and booze.

I was told a story that day about an alcoholic who was on a drunk, who fell down because he was drunk, and broke his ribs. He went for treatment and, one way or another, ended up with about 50 pills to treat his pain. Well, I think you can all guess the rest. He was dead before very long.

I'm told by people in the field that this problem of dual drug dependency....

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Are you charging a doctor of malpractice?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not charging anyone with malpractice, Mr. Speaker. I'm explaining a situation which is occurring day after day in this province, and I would expect the Minister of Health would be concerned enough to listen because he must know that the problem exists.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet on the other side of this House is absolutely paranoid. They don't understand when a Member is attempting to bring up an honest problem before the floor of this House. I have no charges to lay. I think the people who are working in the hospitals of this province, I think the people who are working in the fields of alcohol dependency, I think the people who are working in the fields of drug dependency in this province are doing a whale of a job and should be commended for it. And I just said so.

I'm telling you it is this government that is not living up to its responsibility. What's the matter with you, Mr. Minister? Why don't you sit back and open your ears? Sit back and open your ears, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. COCKE: Johnny-come-lately; your predecessors did nothing.

MR. McCLELLAND: This problem of dual drug dependency — and the Minister of Health obviously has no concern for it — is reaching terrible proportions in this province. I'm told it is becoming so common in British Columbia that it is often just shrugged off again because it is so common.

But it might be well for this House to know that about 45 per cent of alcoholics coming into treatment programmes these days do suffer not just from alcoholism but from dual drug dependency. And people are dying from it in this province.

Yet our Alcohol and Drug Commission is content to sit back and hold meetings and espouse some strange philosophies which are jeopardizing everything that has been done in the past. The commissioner says nothing will work so nothing should be done. Well, anybody can make that kind of irresponsible statement, but the people who are out there working with alcoholics and drug addicts know that many advances have been made. Many good programmes have been developed.

In alcoholism, in this province, for instance, we could point to a programme at Cominco which was developed about 15 years ago, I believe. It's an industrial alcoholism programme and there are many of them around this province now, and they are working. In fact, the Cominco programme is claiming 83 per cent recovery. Yet the chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Commission says there is no hope, that treatments won't work so it's no use having them any more.

There are many successful patterns to follow. Alberta and Ontario are leading the nation in their approaches to alcoholism. Yet officials in Ontario, the last we heard, have said that Mr. Stein hasn't even been in contact with them since assuming his new position. He's been rapping with his social worker colleagues; that's what he's been doing. Rapping; no action.

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably smoking joints.

[ Page 434 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Alcoholism and drug abuse in this province is not improving, so I think we had better start sorting out our priorities, sorting out our directions pretty soon.

Is Mr. Stein, with Mr. Levi's blessing, going to be allowed to go full steam ahead, regardless of the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's) task force report? That's the question we want answered. And they better be answered, Mr. Speaker.

Just briefly, in this whole matter of drug and alcohol dependency, I find it distressing that proposals for structures in the Matheson report contain no provision for inclusion of educators in any of the planning or a recognition of education as a major role in the whole approach. I believe in the long run that education is the only approach that can be taken in this whole matter.

MR. ROLSTON: Hear, hear.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Member. The Member for Dewdney agrees with me almost all the way through these comments on alcohol and drug dependency, and I think I can count on that.

For far too long Canadians have been looking on drug dependency as a problem which is much too complex, much too difficult to understand and incapable of solution, as we see from the comments from the chairman of this Alcohol and Drug Commission. But to the contrary, the non-medical use of drugs is both understandable and is capable of solution. If we take any other approach in this province we are in dereliction of our duty.

While we may be accused of oversimplification, I went to some people who have been involved in the drug dependency field for a long time and asked them how you could best explain this whole problem, how you could identify the problem in lay terms, because I don't understand the medical terms they use and I'm sure most British Columbians don't. I was told that the four areas of identification of this whole problem are vulnerability, problem, promise and environment. If one examines the evidence — and there is lots of evidence — from thousands of case histories, one would find first of all that there is a vulnerable person with whom, so far, we are unable to predetermine either the type of vulnerability or his immunity.

Secondly, obviously he or she has a problem, regardless of what that problem is.

Thirdly, there exists some kind of a substance which promises at least one of the following: delay, escape, oblivion, euphoria, instant happiness, relief from tension, or a sense of accomplishment or superiority.

Fourthly, that a person functions in an environment which guarantees three things: an easy availability of the substance, the drug or alcohol; a subculture of like personalities who are also users; and last, but certainly not least, a society or community which gives at least tacit approval to such behaviour.

So given these four factors, the door to drug involvement and dependency is always open. If you break the chain, society then is well along the way to achieving a solution to this national dilemma. It must be approached on a national basis in the long run as well. Once again our government should be vigorously approaching Ottawa to develop a national drug policy.

So we have seen that society must find a way of breaking one or more links in this dependency chain. But I think we must also first of all accept a truth that is not easy to bear, Mr. Speaker, but a truth nevertheless: few, if any, users who are really addicted have any desire to cease that dependency. They seek only one goal: to be legally maintained on the drug of their choice on their terms. We may choose to ignore that fact but it is a fact, nevertheless, in my opinion.

We may decide as a solution to build and operate hospitals and clinics in every area of this nation. But until that dependent person reaches the point where he or she can no longer tolerate their individual situation and voluntarily abstain, all that can be achieved is a continuing drug-maintenance programme.

We've heard about a drug-maintenance programme in this province, and I suggest that that kind of programme will achieve absolutely nothing. The only ultimate solution for long-range purposes lies in education. It must start in the primary grades, Madam Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), in all schools; and preferably on a national basis.

The plan will ensure that children understand the implications and complexities of not just drug use and alcohol use, but the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood, the human body in all its complexities and the medical and social consequences of abuse of all kinds — and of not only drugs, but any other kind of substance.

They'll learn to recognize and encourage the timid, the introverted, the ungifted; recognize the importance of their life goals; strive in their lifetime to achieve a better balance between affluence and poverty; understand the role of the law and law-enforcement agencies in the maintenance of an orderly society; understand that society must have ethical and moral standards to survive, and most important, Mr. Speaker, that the human mind in its natural state is far superior to a mind stimulated by chemical substances or artificial means.

The tragedy in this whole country, Mr. Speaker, is that scant attention is being paid to this problem and scant attention will continue to be paid to this

[ Page 435 ]

In addition to the suggestions about education, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge this government to scrap the Alcohol and Drug Commission; scrap it! It's proved to be an utter failure. I think we should take the whole question of alcohol and drug dependency out of the Attorney-General's department, out of the Human Resources department, and put it into the Health department where it belongs.

Once that's done, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest that the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources be instructed immediately to deal with the Matheson proposals, and that the committee be authorized to visit Alberta in order to study the programmes that have been developed there for the treatment of alcoholism.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, that committee could kill two birds with one stone. It could be asked at the same time to study the Alberta nursing home programme. It can then report and make recommendations on both of these very urgent problems at its earliest possible opportunity. I strongly recommend that the government take those recommendations with all the seriousness with which they've been given.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many other areas of failure evidenced in this budget that it's very hard to know what to deal with next. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, for instance.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): We've already heard about that.

MR. McCLELLAND: The millions of dollars which will be required to take up the slack for the 45, or 50, or 60, or 70 — or whatever the figure is now — major changes in rates.... The millions of dollars it's going to take to take up the slack for those changes, to provide for the insurance premiums for the thousands of government cars — we finally found out that there are about 9,500 government cars to be insured in this province — how much money, $18 million? — $9 million?

Where is it in the budget, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications? It isn't in the budget. Where is it? $18 million? It isn't there. It's covered up somewhere, because it sure isn't in the budget. No provision.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on! Mr. Speaker, the Minister stood up in his place today and said, "Everything's fine over at icky-bicky." Everything's fine over there. We're going to have everyone insured in time. Nobody's going to be without their insurance on March 1. I've heard, Mr. Speaker, that there are a lot of people unhappy out there — a lot of people.

They tell us that 50 to 70 per cent of the people coming into the agents' offices are unhappy; they're unhappy over this great development.

We find out from talking to people that other than the under-aged drivers, hardly anybody is saving any money. Hardly anybody really saves any money.

The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) the other day brought in some kind of a hypothetical case of a truck driver or something that was going to get cheaper insurance. Well, he must have been hauling goods from Kamloops to Vancouver on a bicycle, because he sure wasn't driving a truck.

I'll tell you that commercial vehicle operators in this province have got huge increases of 50 and 75 and 80 per cent in their insurance rates, despite the fact that the Minister and the Premier fiddled around with the rates and brought them down somewhat. Some of them are facing 100 per cent, that's right. And what happens to those people? The Minister has told us all about a fancy scheme that he has.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): They used to be NDP voters.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, they used to be NDP voters. He told us all about a fancy rebate scheme that we're going to have for fleets in this province. Well, do you know that under that scheme, Mr. Speaker, in two years time, given the correct kind of a driving record, those fleet operators could end up paying a 200 per cent surcharge.

Perhaps I could relate — since the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has already spoken in this debate — to an envelope he got in the mail today, which was out of one of the newspapers. There was the phone number of the ICBC and the comment at the bottom: "Please call us if you ever have any problems. After all, this is your company. You're the boss." Well, they wrote on the bottom of that: "Please sell the company." Signed, "The Boss."

You know, we heard over the radio a few days ago that anybody caught in the squeeze without insurance between this period now when their insurance expires and March 1, when the ICBC insurance takes over, are going to get free insurance. Do you know that they're getting free insurance? Nobody in British Columbia is getting free insurance from ICBC. The minimum they pay, Mr. Speaker, is $10. That's the charge they must pay if they want that free insurance.

If they want to have any collision coverage on their car, if they'd like to be protected in that area and if they're forced to be protected in that area because their finance company tells them to, well, there's another $10 charge. So nobody's getting any free insurance in this province, Mr. Speaker. It's a bunch of nonsense.

The political interference by this government in

[ Page 436 ]

Even after that decision, there's a good chance we'll get another decision the day after that.

Mr. Speaker, what other failures do we see in this province? You know, I might say too that the people in this province wanted the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to work, and so does the opposition want the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to work.

Everybody in this province wants the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to work. Okay? But I'll tell you that unless this government gets its house in order, the ICBC won't be the benefit to people that you think it's going to be. Instead, it's going to be a continual drain on the taxpayers of this province, unless you get your house in order and you do it pretty quick.

MR. GARDOM: It's a millstone around their necks.

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure! It's a millstone around the necks of the people of British Columbia. Sure, we'd allow competition in the field. You know, the Minister makes much about the fact that he didn't get much co-operation from the people in the insurance industry. Good grief! What did you expect from them? You stole their whole industry. You've confiscated an entire industry in British Columbia, and then you expected the industry to co-operate with you. What do you expect? You cut a person's throat and then you want to....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm a very trusting person. I trust everybody.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister said in this House, Mr. Speaker, that he asked for that continued co-operation or they promised that continued co-operation "before I even started to write the legislation." Those were his words. Well, they had reason to believe at that time that they'd be allowed to stay in business in this province.

The Premier of British Columbia, in a letter that was read in this House not too long ago, told one of his constituents that he would allow the insurance people to stay in the business and compete freely with the provincial auto insurance corporation. That's what he told the people. That's why they promised you co-operation at that time.

You talk about the rate structure. The Minister talks about the rate structure, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what that government promised the people of British Columbia?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Better get your application in soon.

MR. McCLELLAND: That government promised the people of British Columbia car insurance for $25. Where is it?

MR. FRASER: Put up or shut up.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is it? Where is that car insurance for $25? What else is failing in this province, Mr. Speaker, and why?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You are.

MR. McCLELLAND: The rip-off of taxpayers' money to repatriate developers who have run companies into the ground — that's the kind of repatriation we're getting from this stockbroker Premier of British Columbia, to repatriate artificially depressed shares by picking on the bones of widows and pensioners in this province. That's the kind of repatriation we're being offered in this province.

The Dunhill mess, the downhill mess — the mess in regard to British Columbia Hydro and its sale of surplus assets. At least $1 million, perhaps $2 million, worth of assets have been sold by this province without benefit of any kind of tender whatsoever.

The Minister promised me an answer to those questions; I hope he gives them to me pretty soon. I hope he'll halt that sale, pay the company off and open that up to tenders so that public business can be done in public.

While I'm on the subject and while the Minister is still considering this whole question, I'd like him to look into the relationship of a company called Alaska Junk Company of Seattle, Washington, in regard to this whole surplus disposal by Hydro. I'd like him to check....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's a serious question, Mr. Speaker — are our assets going out of this country? Now, you're against that; you've said you're against that for years and years.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Attorney-General thinks it funny. I'd like you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to also check into the operation of the removal of those assets at Jordan River and to find out whether or not in fact we've jobbed that out to

[ Page 437 ]

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'm giving you a little more information. Okay?

I'd like you to check on the price. I think the people of British Columbia have a right to know what price is paid for those assets. Was it $60,000? That's what I want to know.

Mr. Speaker, we've talked about conflicts of interest, particularly as they relate to this government's pension for employing ex-NDP candidates, friends and hangers-on in positions of influence in this province.

We've talked about the Premier's remarkable interference in various departments. There's another indication in The Province this morning, in the famous chicken-and-egg war where the Premier has deliberately interfered over the head of one of his Ministers — because, I assume, of pressure from one of his backbenchers — with a board, an agency responsibly set up by this province. He threatened the people involved and issued quotas out of the Premier's office. Regardless of the fact that the Premier was told that those quotas couldn't possibly be met, the Premier deliberately interfered once again.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in his talks early today said, "Look at us — we're guaranteeing incomes for farmers." I'd like to ask how many farmers have signed up for that plan.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Look on the order paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: I will. The Minister stood in his place, Mr. Speaker, and said, "Look at us, we're guaranteeing loans to assist farmers." Where are they? Where are those loans? How many loans have been given to farmers since that announcement was made? Not one, Mr. Speaker — not one.

That Minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) have said, "We're saving the farmers of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. McCLELLAND: We're saving them for what is right. How does the Minister answer the fact that one dairy farmer in British Columbia every two-and-one-half days is going out of business? From March to December, 109 dairy farmers quit in this province. And that government is saving the farmers? Some saviour.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: After 20 years, they've had it.

MR. McCLELLAND: The cruellest hope of all in this budget is the Premier's hollow promise that this budget contains no new taxes for individuals. Well, it contains no new taxes for individuals if you don't happen to own a home in British Columbia and are faced with tax increases of several hundred per cent — no new taxes there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why do you say that?

MR. McCLELLAND: Because it's a fact, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Where have you been? Your taxes are going up.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Your wages went up.

MR. McCLELLAND: No new taxes in this budget. I wanted to ask a question, too, but the Minister left. When we're talking about this political interference in Crown corporations and things like that, I wanted to ask the Minister how much influence that famous insurance man, the man with all the wide experience in insurance, Mr. John Mika, has had to do with some of this interference. How much actual influence has this widely known insurance expert had in the setting of rates? How much influence has he had in the appointment of certain people to jobs and to positions with ICBC? Just a question I thought we might ask.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're strong on questions and short on answers.

MR. McCLELLAND: You're short on answers, Mr. Attorney-General. We don't get any answers from that government and that's why we have to ask so many questions, because you don't have the answers or you're not prepared to give them to the people of British Columbia. If you understand your role, we understand ours and it is to bring questions before this Legislature so that the people of British Columbia can get those answers. Are you against that? Are you against the Legislature? I hope not.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The only answers we get are at cabinet meetings.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there are no new taxes contained in this budget if you don't happen to be a small businessman in this province, faced with increased corporation taxes, increased assessments again. There are no new taxes if you

[ Page 438 ]

There are no taxes if you don't happen to be an automobile owner and are faced with triple rates for your automobile insurance.

There are no new taxes for individuals, Mr. Speaker, if you don't happen to use natural gas, which is going to go up, we're told, within the very near future. The consumer of natural gas in this province is going to pay extra for that service. There are no new taxes if you don't happen to use natural gas.

There are no new taxes if you don't happen to have electric lights in your house, because I expect that we'll be seeing some increases in Hydro rates before very long.

HON. MR. COCKE: On what do you base that?

MR. McCLELLAND: There are no new taxes, Mr. Speaker, if you don't happen to be a senior citizen who hasn't had the cost of living increases given by the federal government passed on to him, who happens to be caught in this inflationary squeeze which this government is perpetuating.

HON. MR. COCKE: Where else have you got Mincome in this country?

MR. McCLELLAND: There are no new taxes, Mr. Speaker, if you don't happen to be a worker on fixed income in this province caught in the inflationary squeeze.

In fact there are no new taxes for individuals unless you happen to be alive and living in British Columbia. Then, you can bet, there'll be lots of new taxes contained in this budget.

This budget fails to meet the needs of British Columbia today. I don't find any difficulty whatsoever in saying that I can't support its approval.

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): How many days late — three days late?

Interjection.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): He's retired anyway; he doesn't have anything to worry about.

The former Member for Cariboo thought it was a fine speech.

I appreciate the opportunity to take my place in this debate and to support the motion that you should leave the chair.

MR. GARDOM: Fascinating speech.

MR. SKELLY: I would also like to welcome the new Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to the House and to congratulate him.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Minister, listen to him now, listen to him.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. SKELLY: I haven't even got to the forestry section of this speech yet.

I would like to welcome the new Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, along with the rest of the Members on my bench, and to congratulate him on his speech. If that was an example of the new Liberal approach to constructive criticism, I think it was a good example. I'm sure that Members of this party were as impressed as I was with the tremendous increase of leadership potential in the Liberal benches.

It's been an interesting budget debate, Mr. Speaker. There was not much to refer back to in the Social Credit speeches in the last few days. But I would like to refer to the speech by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I should call it a sermon or a homily. I have to watch out now that he's behind me; I think he read the speech before I began to make it.

Most of his speech is pure mythology. That Member implied, Mr. Speaker, that capitalists are responsible entirely for the development of this province, and that socialists were just parasites. Talk about invective, irresponsibility, insults — that was an insult to every Member in this House. It was a pile of hogwash and, Mr. Speaker, that Member can really spread it. (Laughter.)

Just to set the record straight, my family has been in this country for six generations. They were driven out of their homeland by the British. They came over to this country in timber ships as ballast. For six generations they worked in the forests of this country in Lower Canada, the Ottawa Valley, and in the forest industries of British Columbia.

They've invested far more than most of the so-called capitalists, and they've never taken anything out. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud of my family's contribution to this province and to this country. I'm proud to say that all of my family is socialist through and through.

On Monday we were also entertained, but less enlightened, by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan). She criticized this party for its attack on business, and she criticized me particularly for what she believes to be an attack on the forest industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I told the foresters in Kelowna last weekend....

[ Page 439 ]

MRS. JORDAN: They listened.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Well, I wanted them to listen. That was one of the reasons for the speech. Maybe my opinion will have some effect on him.

MR. GARDOM: Did he write it?

MR. SKELLY: It was written by me. In my speech in Kelowna, I simply challenged the industry. I told them that as far as I was concerned, if private enterprise wishes to continue in the forest industry, they should do so as competitors. What possible objection could the Member for North Okanagan have to a statement like that? Isn't that the same thing her leader and her Members are asking for the insurance industry?

What kind of a pogo-stick opposition is that, Mr. Speaker? They make illogical jumps around from place to place and 90 per cent of the time they don't know whether they're up or down. I'll stand by the opinions I expressed at the meeting in Kelowna, whether they represent government policy or not.

I'll go even further to suggest that this government should repatriate all of our forest resources, not just to rationalize planning and management, but also to make sure that the smaller loggers and the processors are able to compete in the industry on the same basis as the big five forest giants.

At the present time the big five are able to lever prices on log markets down because they have access to timber on the older tenures and Crown grants. They pay less revenue to the Crown from the timber cut on the old tenures and Crown grants, and they can write off the paper losses in their logging operations against profits on processing, as none of the smaller, less-integrated companies can do. Because of this they can keep log prices so low that the smaller operators can barely survive.

In addition, companies like CPR have large interests in MacMillan Bloedel. When M & B wants to dry up the rail car market, they can do it. They control the chip market using the same pressure, or the fact that they can dry up the barges; they can dry up the rail cars. So I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that I do stand by the opinions I expressed in Kelowna, and I do believe them to be true.

I'd like to quote something from Colin Beale's resource industry newsletter of January 14, 1974, which I believe supports my opinions. It says: "A generation of Social Credit politicians, and a generation of what we like to think of as neutral civil servants, walked arm and arm through the woods of British Columbia implementing the Socred forest policy." And that policy according to the quotation in Beale's newsletter was that of "carving the province up into six pieces, giving some six industrial giants an exclusive in each area, and then having the nerve to call it free enterprise."

There never has been free enterprise in the forest industry in this province, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: He was quoting the president of a United States firm with interests in B.C. But that doesn't make it any less true.

Mr. Speaker, none of us on this side of the House, none of us in this party, intend to attack the forest industry. After all, it's the economic foundation of this province. None of us would like to see it founder. This is particularly true of my constituency. I would hate to see the forest industry in my constituency founder, because it's the bread and butter for all the people in Alberni.

But this government's policy has benefited Alberni constituency. Those industries are profiting as never before, and this government's policy is developing the services and facilities in Alberni constituency to support the new wealth of the forest industry.

In Gold River, Mr. Speaker, the administration has built a new bridge over the Gold River, the scene of several tragic accidents in the past. It's also established a 73-acre park in Gold River that those people have been waiting for for years and years, and they received no satisfaction under the former government. They've got a new recreation centre going in in Gold River to expand the recreational opportunities of the people in that area — a new skating rink, a new recreation complex in Tahsis under capital grant programmes for recreational facilities that we never had before in this province until this government came in.

But in spite of the renewed interest shown by the government in these communities since they came to power, there is a great deal more that has to be accomplished. Last spring, I asked the Minister of Highways in my throne speech debate contribution to get to work on the Tahsis-Gold River Road as quickly as possible. This road is the only convenient access that residents of Tahsis have to the outside world and it's a necessary route for freight into the village of Tahsis.

I realize that the road goes through some of the most rugged country in the World, and that there are problems associated with the route. But I would like to see a beginning made on the construction of that road as soon as possible, preferably within the next year or two.

I'm pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, that the estimates of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) have been increased to provide more than 70 new conservation officers. We hear a lot of comments from Members on the other benches that

[ Page 440 ]

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: There'll be 69 or 70 new conservation officers this year, and there's been a 250 per cent increase in the number of conservation officers in this province since this government took power. This was one of the recommendations of our Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries last year, and it must be rewarding for other committee members, as it is for me, to see that this portion of our report has been taken seriously by the government.

I believe that a strong case can be made for locating at least two of these conservation officers in Alberni constituency — one at Gold River and one on the west coast in Ucluelet or Tofino.

There's been an increasing interest over the past few years in the fish and wildlife of the northern and western Vancouver Island areas, both from the point of view of sportsmen, and also from the point of view of the forest industry.

The conservation office is stationed at Gold River. It's strategically placed to patrol the Nimpkish Valley and to assist the federal Fisheries officer in patrolling the Nootka Sound area. His presence would help to reduce resource conflict and to assure a continuing abundance of fish and wildlife in that area.

The officer in the Tofino-Ucluelet area would be able to assist the present conservation officer at Port Alberni, who patrols a vast region of Vancouver Island stretching from Cameron Lake to Nitinat Lake in the south and to Nootka Sound in the north.

Because of the lack of support in the previous government, because of the lack of staff on the Recreation and Conservation branch, that previous conservation officer in Port Alberni was unable to do the job as effectively as he would like to do it. And I hope to see somebody appointed to that area to assist him in the very near future.

The west coast area has been deluged with tourists because of the creation of the west coast national park and I've received countless reports from local residents that tourists are catching far more than their possession limits of fish and shellfish. They are processing them in the area and then removing them from the country.

I'm not opposed to tourists who come in to enjoy the fish and the wildlife resources of our province, but I am opposed to that small greedy group that comes in and abuses our fish and wildlife resources and then get off because we don't have the enforcement facilities because of the neglect of the previous government.

The only way to prevent this abuse, to prevent this, is to appoint a new conservation officer, and I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken steps in his estimate to make sure that those people are appointed.

I also note that there's a substantial increase in the operating budget for Fish and Wildlife Branch under vote 230, which will get the staff far more of the mobility which they require in handling of their resource.

In the past two years, this government has been in office, the department's estimates have increased by 300 per cent to enable those people to do the job they've been appointed to do. That's a record to be proud of Mr. Minister, and I challenge the people on the benches opposite, to vote against that or to call that part of the budget inflationary.

While I'm on the subject of the west coast Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention the effect on the west coast, that the Pacific Rim National Park will have. That park has generated a massive influx of tourists and has taxed the services of that area to the limit. The price of land and housing has increased drastically.

New developments on the fringes of Tofino and Ucluelet have created a need for sewage and water services. The Tofino hospital requires expansion, partly to accommodate the increase in resident population and partly to accommodate the tourists who will be coming into that area.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Travel Industry has commissioned a study of the area in conjunction with the Canadian Tourist Commission, and I hope when that study is complete, the province will provide additional funds for services outside the park and that they will demand some participation in the funding of these services from the Federal Parks Branch.

After all, the park has caused a great deal of personal and economic dislocation on the west coast and I feel that this was the result of the haste and the lack of forethought on the part of the previous government in entering the west coast National Park agreement.

When the agreement was signed, and the Act was passed, none of the people on the coast had any idea as to how the government was planning to proceed with purchases. Some residents, when the park was first announced, approached the government and sold out for a very low price, because they were told that everyone within the first phase of the park would be bought out or expropriated by a fixed date, and all the buildings would be levelled.

But as time went on, the rules changed in the middle of the game. The National Parks Branch

[ Page 441 ]

I'll give you one example of the personal look, dislocation and confusion surrounding the establishment of the national park. A man and his family purchased a fairly large parcel and a sawmill near Long Beach airport just before the park agreement was announced. Because of the confusion surrounding the establishment of the park, he didn't consider the park proposal a threat to his investment. There had been rumors of a national park in the area since about 1925.

But this man is very co-operative and he agreed to sell his property and move outside the park and he purchased another parcel just outside the park boundary, rebuilt his sawmill, built another house. But what the government didn't tell him was that they had a wildlife refuge planned for that area and now the government has approached him and wants to expropriate him again. Mr. Speaker, that's a rotten way to treat people.

MR. WALLACE: They've been saying that for a long while about expropriation, but nobody listens.

MR. SKELLY: I don't mind expropriating people, providing they know in advance what's going to happen to them provided something is done to re-accommodate them elsewhere. But that's just rotten planning, when a man is relocated outside the park in an area that's projected for a wild fowl refuge and the same government comes back who knew that that refuge was going to be established and demands that he relocate again, but this time they are not willing to help him.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have some kind of an obligation to that man to relocate him, to allow him to set up his mill again and renew his life as he was carrying it on before the park was established.

Mr. Speaker, I'm totally in favour of the establishment of that national park. I support it 100 per cent. I'm totally in favour of establishing a wildlife refuge on the coast. We've needed wild fowl refuges like that for years. But really people are far more important, too, and I feel that the new government should do something to reverse the high-handed approach used by the last government in acquiring land in the national park.

Contrast the approach used by the government of Prince Edward Island in the Federal East Point National Park proposal in Prince Edward Island. The government of that area commissioned a study and the needs of the people within the proposed park boundaries, and they promised to hold public meetings before any agreement was finalized with the federal government. In addition the Prince Edward Island government demanded that the federal government permit people to live out their lives in the East Point area, and that they be permitted to follow their traditional pursuits, such as fishing and Irish moss gathering. Also that they be free of interference from tourists in the process of their everyday lives.

What I would like to see is the immediate finalization of land purchases in phase I, the negotiation of an agreement with the federal government to obtain cost-sharing on public and recreation facilities outside the park boundaries.

I also feel that this government, in conjunction with the federal government, should hold public hearings in the area and that they should consult with residents and the Indian bands before any final agreement is reached on phase III of the national park proposal, the west coast trail section.

Again, while I'm on the subject of the west coast, I'd like to say that I'm certain that every resident of my constituency will welcome the announcement of the Minister of Health, that a province-wide ambulance service is to be established.

Emergency services are a major problem for west coast communities. When there's an accident in a village such as Kyuquot or Bamfield requiring treatment, not available in those communities, it's extremely difficult to get patients to hospitals over many miles of open water or over logging roads.

In small villages such as Ucluelet, a very small village is expected to shoulder the ambulance load for a whole area that has a tremendous influx of tourists during the summer months. There are approximately 14 logging camps in the Nootka Sound region and several Indian reserves that have no emergency facilities at all.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Tofino Coast Guard ship will not ordinarily go north of Estevan Point and the Coast Guard from Quatsino Sound has difficulty crossing the open stretch around Cape Cook around into Kyuquot Sound. As a result, during the worst weather conditions, there is no way that an injured, or critically-ill resident can be taken from Nootka Sound points or Kyuquot Sound Point to medical centres at Tahsis or Gold River.

When the Minister is planning his ambulance service, I hope that he will give special consideration to these coastal areas that are not accessible under certain weather conditions, either by land or by air.

In the case of the Nootka-Kyuquot Sound area, I feel that either the Coast Guard should provide the service, and the federal government should be forced to pay for that service or if the federal government can't be convinced, then the Minister should give consideration to providing a marine

[ Page 442 ]

Mr. Speaker, the present budget provides generous increases that provide needed assistance to the more established communities in our riding. Port Alberni, Parksville, and Qualicum Beach. For example, the Minister of Highways visited those communities twice during the last year, and he is aware of the longstanding highway problems which exist in the area. Particularly during the peak tourist period.

I'm hopeful that a part of the increase in the Minister's (Hon. Mr. Lea) estimates will be used to relieve the bottleneck created by west coast park traffic through the village of Parksville, and that money will be spent to improve the alignment along the Cameron Lake section of the Alberni Highway.

While I am on the subject of highways, I would like to mention that I concur fully with the Minister's new policy of refusing permission for the construction of shopping centres along highways. This has been a real problem in areas such as Parksville — in fact, in areas all along the Island Highway — where lax zoning bylaws passed by municipalities and regional districts have allowed the construction of residences, commercial developments and shopping centres which have constricted those highways and, as a result, the province is being called upon to build new bypasses when there is no provision along those bypasses for any further protection. I hope in the very near future that policy will become the subject of legislation in this House.

The Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District fully supports this policy as well. I understand even the Vancouver Province has editorialized on it and they support it. I hope the Minister has been encouraged by the backing he has received from the public and that we can expect legislation to cover that policy within the very near future.

I also expect, Mr. Speaker, that communities in the Alberni riding will be enthusiastic about the new sums made available for housing programmes. Because of the policies of the previous government, because of the inaction it fostered within municipalities, we have a housing crisis in Port Alberni that is at least as critical as any in the province, although on a smaller scale than in the large, urban areas of Vancouver and Victoria.

I'm pleased to announce that the Minister has promised to spend two days in Port Alberni on March 3 and 4 to tour the community, to meet all the groups concerned with housing and to discuss publicly his plans to alleviate their problems.

Residents of Port Alberni have always been interested, enthusiastic and active in public affairs. They have senior citizens' housing and public recreation programmes that are second to none in British Columbia. And, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Alberni Valley welcome the renewed interest of the government in that region; an interest which is reflected not simply in visits of government Ministers to the area but which is followed up by the fact that the budget is being expanded and programmes developed which will assist the citizens in that community in realizing the objectives they have worked so hard for.

Before I close, I would like to make a final comment which I feel is important to mention. I agree with some Members opposite that the form of the budget hasn't changed significantly over the past years. There are the same statements about tremendous increases in revenue from our resources, about personal tax concessions such as the homeowner grant and the new renters' grant; there are the same list of praises we have heard so often about industrial growth, increases in population, employment, the value of factory shipments and the Gross Provincial Product. In most areas of provincial expenditure the budget has simply been increased to account for higher costs in those areas, although large expenditures have been proposed for needs unmet by the previous government in such areas as housing and reforestation.

What is new and exciting in this budget, Mr. Speaker, is the challenge it delivers to the people of this province, to the institutions and the local governments of this province. After all, it appears there are basically two budgets. The first one is this programme budget which deals with the day-to-day operation, the day-to-day spending of the province. The other is not detailed but challenges our citizens to make a case for government funds.

I risk a prediction — although at times I get in trouble for making predictions — that the future will see more and more of this Part II type of budget: a budget which says to the people of this province, "Make a case for funds, demonstrate a need for funds and money will be available."

I agree that the squeaky wheel should get greased as far as local governments are concerned. I can't see anything wrong with that type of a challenge. If those local governments can't make a case for funds or are incapable of making a case for funds, then the local people who see a need for those programmes, who see a need for changes in programmes should change those local governments and elect people who can make a case for the money.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It is a political statement, and I think some examples might be worthwhile. I've served on school boards in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. SKELLY: Only one. I stand corrected; I've served on a school board in this province. When I was

[ Page 443 ]

I don't think that's a creative and innovative way of budgeting in local government. I was guilty of the same thing myself. I'm not saying the rest of the trustees are irresponsible; I'm saying that previous government created a situation where local governments weren't able to be creative. They had no challenges to respond to.

I think some examples might be worthwhile in the field of municipal affairs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) last year told the Greater Vancouver Regional District that they must be prepared to assume a part of the deficit of the greater Vancouver regional transit system. I think it was equal to something like 2 mills on the school tax assessment.

Well, immediately you heard cries from some of the municipalities in greater Vancouver that this was going to result in an increase in property taxes.

But I don't think that was necessarily the way they had to go about raising that deficit or paying off that deficit. A more innovative response to the Minister's statement would have been for the GVRD to ask what basic changes we can make so that our urban transport can succeed, so that it won't have a deficit. Why don't we encourage employers in downtown Vancouver, instead of providing free parking for their employees, to give them an equivalent amount in transit passes so they will use the transit system more and more? We don't have to have a deficit.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: There is no daylight saving time.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: It will have to be next week.

The GVRD is a very creative organization, and we've seen that in their studies of local government and citizen participation in the field of local decision-making; we've seen it in their housing studies. I think they could respond to the Minister's challenge in the same creative, innovative way, and think they plan to do that.

A second example. When several members of the UBC Alumni Association came to visit government Members in this Legislature, they were accompanied by Dr. Lian Finn. I believe the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned Dr. Finn in his speech; he's the Dean of Applied Sciences. The dean suggested to government Members that faculties at the university were willing to respond in terms of restructuring programmes and research priorities to accommodate changes in government policies. That challenge was well-received by the caucus Members, as the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) pointed out in his speech on February 13.

I was pleased to see the Minister of Finance on budget day, when he was making his budget speech, respond to that challenge and tell that Dean of Applied Sciences that if the universities come to the government with programmes, programmes to improve the quality of education at the university, programmes that are responsive to the needs of the seventies, programmes that are innovative and that are creative, then that money will be available. I like that kind of budgeting. I like that kind of challenge being delivered to people out there, being delivered to institutions, local governments, citizens of this province. I like to see the kind of response we got from Dr. Finn and that he's willing to respond.

The same challenge was thrown out to the public school districts. The Department of Education programme budget was increased by $67 million this year, which is more than any previous government ever did. It's the challenge part of that Education budget that I like. I like to see the Minister of Finance tell those local governments and local trustees that if you really do need money to change the pupil-teacher ratio in your districts, you come down and make a case for it and the money is available.

When did the previous government ever make a challenge to local governments like that one? Just read back in the columns of the Sun, The Province, the urban newspapers, and you will find that every year the BCSTA came down to that previous government and they went away with nothing. This year they came down and they got a challenge: you make a case for it and it is yours. That's the best type of budgeting I've seen for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a transitional one. Part of it is the same type of programme budget that we used to hear extolled by the Social Credit Members, although they appear to have changed their tune. But the second part, the challenge budget, is a budget of the '70s. As I said, it makes demands on our citizens, on our local governments, and on our institutions. It demands that a case be made for money, that they demonstrate the need for expenditures beyond the basic programmes. Mr. Speaker, I do have faith in the people of British Columbia. I'm certain that they'll respond creatively to this budget and I support the motion that you do now leave the chair.

Hon. Mr. Radford moves adjournment of the

[ Page 444 ]

Motion approved.

Mr. Phillips asks leave of the House to present further documents with regard to his talk in the House yesterday afternoon.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following item is referred to on page 407:

Mr. Speaker delivered a reserved decision as follows:

Honourable Members — The Honourable Member for Langley has raised the question of privilege relating to words contained in The Province newspaper for February 19, 1974, which he has laid on the table in accordance with the procedure outlined in May, 18th edition, page 159, and it has been read out to the House.

The newspaper article relates to charges made by the honourable member concerning one Gordon Root and an alleged conflict of interest involving that person as the publisher of a newspaper in which it is alleged an advertisement was published by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia of which Corporation Mr. Root is a director.

It then gives the following alleged reply from Mr. Root to the newspaper:

"In comment on McClelland's charge, Root said Monday night that the M.L.A. is a 'cheap, two-bit politician'."

"I have nothing to do with the placement of any advertising by ICBC," Root said. "I had no knowledge of this advertising being placed until it appeared in the paper."

The question of privilege raised by the honourable member is that he has been attacked in the public press and insulted by Mr. Root. He proposes that Mr. Root be forced by the Minister concerned publicly to apologize and "perhaps because it's such a serious breach of conduct," to resign.

I have had an opportunity to consider the matter closely and to consult with learned advisers and to review May, Beauchesne, and Speakers' decisions bearing on the subject of comments made outside the House reflecting on a member.

The question of the relationship of the press to Parliament is a vital and important one, balancing on the one hand the freedom of the press to comment objectively as it chooses, as against unjustified assaults and contempts against Parliament on the other hand.

One could recite many alleged breaches of privilege to be noted in the press in its day-by-day continuing account of parliamentary matters. The test can best be illustrated as follows: A privileges committee could well say that a calculating insult against members by a commentator, although actionable in the Courts, does not impair their legislative functions, whereas the same commentator by alleging falsely that a member was quitting politics could well impair the ability of the member to deal with his constituents' needs or indeed to serve them effectively.

Where the matter involves press reports of attacks by individuals against a

[ Page 445 ]

APPENDIX

"...it may be doubted whether it is entirely consistent with the general practice of the House or with natural justice for the House on the strength of a report in a newspaper, and without hearing the accused party, to declare that the offence has been committed." That issue would usually devolve upon a committee.

To quote the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux in the House of Commons votes and proceedings on June 9, 1969:

"It is clear that parliamentary privilege includes the right of Honourable Members of the House of Commons to exercise their responsibilities and to discharge their duties as members without undue interference. The question is whether the newspaper comments referred to by the Honourable Member for St. John's East constitute such undue interference as to be tantamount to a breach of privilege."

Privilege has been defined as the sum of the fundamental rights enjoyed by each House collectively and by members of each House individually without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. May, in the 17th edition of his Parliamentary Practice, page 43, states: "When any of these rights and immunities, both of the members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of Parliament."

Generally speaking, the newspaper articles considered to exceed the bounds of fair comment on parliamentary activities have been judged over the years as being in the nature of contempt of Court and have been held to constitute breaches of parliamentary privilege. The question is to determine whether in this particular case the article quoted by the honourable Member for St. John's East goes beyond the limits of fair comment, whether it offends the privileges of Parliament, or whether it interferes with the rights and immunities of individual members in the exercise of their parliamentary duties.

Citation 113 of Beauchesne's 4th edition states that: "An attack in a newspaper article is not a breach of privilege, unless it comes within the definition of privileges...."

Beauchesne then gives the following examples of breaches of privilege: "Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to Parliament and interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of members."

In paragraph (3) of citation 108 Beauchesne says: "...but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House."

Paragraph (4) of that same citation: "Scandalous charges or imputations directed against members of a Select Committee are equivalent to libelous charges brought against the House itself...."

I indicated this afternoon that when one considers the matter of parliamentary privilege in relation to newspaper comments, two conflicting interests must be taken into account. The first is the privilege of honourable members to exercise their duties free from undue interference. The second is the freedom of the press in relation to its reporting of parliamentary activities. On this point I should like to refer to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton reported at page 4434 of Hansard of June 18, 1964. This ruling reads, in part, as follows: "It seems to me that if this editorial referred in general terms to Members of Parliament none of us, I suppose, would be so thin-skinned that we could not accept some rather healthy criticism...."

At the same time I would suggest that the language used is very strong and might well be considered to constitute contempt of Parliament. Against this there has to be weighed the requirements of a free press reporting and commenting objectively on parliamentary activities.

[ Page 446 ]

APPENDIX

It is not the Speaker's function to decide whether or not the matter complained of constitutes a breach of privilege or contempt, but only to determine whether or not the complaint meets the conditions which justify its taking precedence over all other business. A matter of privilege may also be raised by way of motion, of which notice is required, in which case it takes its place in the normal order of business, and it is open to a member to proceed in such a way should his complaint be found by the Speaker not to justify cessation of routine matters to take it up.

The boundary between breach of privilege and legitimate political comment has in recent times become narrow.

In the British House in 1963, in dealing with a complaint alleging a libel of members, a Committee of Privileges reported:

"Your Committee recognise that it is the duty of the House to deal with such reflections upon members as tend, or may tend, to undermine public respect for and confidence in the House itself as an institution. But they think that when the effect of particular imputations is under consideration, regard must be had to the importance of preserving freedom of speech in matters of political controversy and also, in cases of ambiguity, to the intention of the Speaker. It seems to them particularly important that the law of parliamentary privilege should not, except in the clearest case, be invoked so as to inhibit or discourage the formation and free expression of opinion outside the House by members equally with other citizens in relation to the conduct of the affairs of the nation.

"It has long been accepted that neither House of Parliament has any power to create new privileges. Your Committee believe that it would be contrary to the interest of the House and of the public to widen the interpretation of its privileges especially in matters affecting freedom of speech. Your Committee and the House are not concerned with setting standards for political controversy or for the propriety, accuracy or taste of speeches made on public platforms outside Parliament. They are concerned only with the protection of the reputation, the character and the good name of the House itself. It is in that respect only and for that limited purpose that they are concerned with imputations against the conduct of individual members. (H.C. 246, 1963-64.)"

A Select Committee appointed to examine the whole question in the British House recommended inter alia, that "where a member has a remedy in the Courts he should not be permitted to invoke the penal jurisdiction of the House" and "complaints of a trivial character should be dismissed without benefit of investigation" (see An Encyclopedia of Parliament, 4th edition, page 599.)

Be that as it may, reflecting on a member in the fashion complained of here still can be treated as a libel and a violation of the rights of the House. The gravity or otherwise of the calumny may be judged in due course by the House or indeed by a civil Court since it occurred out of doors. The question is, should the Speaker consider it so emergent as to justify cessation of the priority matters now in process?

Bourinot says at page 306, 4th edition:

"The Speakers of the English Commons have decided that 'in order to entitle a question of privilege to precedence over the Orders of the Day, it should be some subject which has recently arisen, and which clearly involves the privileges of the House and calls for its immediate interposition'."

In a case involving charges in a newspaper against certain members of the House, the motion brought forward was ruled not to be a motion of privilege because it was not a matter requiring immediate consideration. (see Bourinot, page 307.

May's 18th edition at page 226 states:

"Under usage when a complaint of breach of privilege is raised the Speaker has to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out which would justify such proceedings taking precedence over the other business of the House."

[ Page 447 ]

APPENDIX

The cases listed as examples in May 18th edition, page 148, all relate to members in relation to their discharge of duties, be it the Speaker, Chairmen of Committees, or allegations of corruption against members in the execution of their duties, but it is to be noted that the key is that the reflections may tend to interfere with the member's capacity to carry out his or her duties.

The imputation complained of by the Honourable Member for Langley cannot be said to require the suspension of other routine or precedent matters to deal with it other than by normal motion. It is for the House to consider the gravity or disposition of this manner of insult in the normal course of House proceedings but the sting of insult displayed in this newspaper, although strong, could hardly deter the honourable member or any member from carrying out his or her duties.

There are many examples in the press of gratuitous insults to members and were the business of the House set aside to deal with each of them not much else would be pursued.

Although the words complained of would be unparliamentary if uttered here, I must find that they do not fulfil the urgency aspect required by the cases cited. They nonetheless could well find a place on the motion paper for deliberation in the normal course of proceedings of the House.

                                                                                                                        G. H. DOWDING, Speaker