[ Page 477 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Possible interference with the privileges of the Member for Columbia

River. Mr. Chabot — 477

Mr. Speaker — 477

Routine proceeding

An Act to Amend the Labour Code of British Columbia Act (Bill 40).

Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 478

The Association of British Columbia Homemakers Services Act (Bill

41). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 478

An Act to Amend the Public Works Fair Employment Act (Bill 42). Mr.

McClelland.

Introduction and first reading — 478

Oral questions

Possible prosecution of uninsured vehicle owners.

Mr. Bennett — 479

Egg Marketing Board claim against Mr. Kovachich.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 479

Victoria Press strike.

Mr. Wallace — 479

Government takeover of cost of administration of justice in municipalities.

Mr. Curtis — 480

Mining royalties.

Mr. Gibson — 480

Suspension of Western Pacific Trust Company.

Mr. Gardom — 480

Possible cancellation of provincial agreement with Greyhound Bus

Lines.

Mr. McClelland — 480

Government purchases of bus lines.

Mr. Morrison — 480

New appointment to Broiler Marketing Board.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 481

Composition of cabinet committee on oil refineries.

Mr. Wallace — 481

Date for implementation of Drivers' Insurance Plan.

Mr. Curtis — 481

Date for meeting re Indian land claims.

Mr. Gardom — 482

Progress of plans re Annacis Island crossing.

Mr. McClelland — 482

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Gardom — 482

Mr. Chabot — 491

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 501

Division — 507

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 507

Privilege

Reservation of Mr. Speaker's decision. Mr. Chabot — 507

Statement

Withdrawal of offending words. Hon. Mr. Lauk — 508

Mr. Speaker — 508

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): We have with us today a class of 35 students from the Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, accompanied by Professor Balmer. They are political science students studying the British parliamentary system in British Columbia. I had the pleasure of talking to them this morning at some length, and I assured them that this would be a very interesting sitting with an interesting question period. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the decorations worn in the House today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), myself, the Premier and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) are courtesy of the Lake Cowichan Senior Secondary model parliament. Oh, Mr. Speaker, I see you have one, too. This is a tradition of theirs. For over 20 years the school has been sending their social studies class down to watch us in action. They're not in the gallery now, but they will be later. I would ask the House to thank them and welcome them.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Hamish Scott, formerly of Kimberley, now living in Creston.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege, and I'd like to state the matter very briefly.

As you so eloquently described in your judgment last Thursday, February 21, as reported in Votes and Proceedings, Members' parliamentary privileges includes the right of the Members "to exercise their responsibilities and to discharge their duties as Members without undue interference."

Beauchesne defines parliamentary privilege in citation 113 of the fourth edition as interference of any kind with their official duties. Bourinot, on page 306, fourth edition, was eloquently cited by the Speaker again in the February 21, 1974, Votes and Proceedings as follows:

"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.'"

Mr. Speaker Dowding also defines a breach of privilege as one which tends to interfere with a Member's capacity to carry out his or her duties. May, in chapter V, 18th edition, describes privileges enjoyed by Members of this assembly as including (a) freedom of speech (Page 70) and (b) freedom from arrest and molestation (page 89).

It is clear, therefore, that on Friday, February 22, 1974, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) interfered with the privileges of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) when he said: "You're going to be in jail." The Minister threatened the Member for Columbia River with incarceration, and in reporting the incident the Minister stated that the file was stolen, leaving the impression that these were stolen by the Member for Columbia River.

I want to state positively that I was not aware as to where these documents originated. The fact that these statements were printed in the Saturday, February 23, 1974 edition of the Vancouver Sun pages 1 and 13, and the fact that the Vancouver Sun agrees that the threat was heard by reporters make the case for an immediate apology even more compelling.

I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule accordingly. I have documented this matter by the appropriate authorities from May, Beauchesne, Bourinot and your own judgment of Thursday, February 21, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: There is one aspect of this that does concern me now that the Hon. Member has raised it. That is: what is the position with regard to those events that occur in the corridor after the session is finished for the day? I am not aware on that point precisely, and naturally I would want to study that aspect of your complaint.

Also, because what transpires between Members is, of course, a serious matter, I would want time to consider it in detail. I think it is only fair both to the Speaker and to yourself that the matter be gone into and canvassed — certainly for the Hon. Minister who is, in effect, involved in the thing too. We have obviously a need for urgent consideration by the Speaker. I will give that consideration to it as rapidly as possible.

May I say also that I would like to draw the attention of the Members to an error that occurred in those three-and-a-half pages in that very copy of Votes and Proceedings of February 21, for which I want to apologize on behalf of the...I don't know whether it was the Clerk's office or the Queen's Printer. But I note that by inadvertence they fail to show the proper quotation marks for the lengthy reasons of three-and-a-half pages that were given in that edition — the quotation marks around the remarks of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. Although he'd

[ Page 478 ]

given a 1,200 word decision in the House of Commons on this whole question of privilege, the printers inadvertently left out the proper place for the quotation marks, and most of those remarks are his rather than mine. I would like to correct the record on that, because I notice that someone in the press has already been attacking me on those, and they didn't realize they were really attacking Speaker Lamoureux. I'm sure they wouldn't want to have done that.

At the top of page three of the reasons shown in February 21, at the end of the second paragraph is where the quotation marks should go. Actually I can't claim credit for most of the, I think, very fine reasoning that is implicit in that particular decision of Speaker Lamoureux. It is well worth all the reading.

I'd like to draw to the attention of the House another point that I think is deplorable. In the same edition of the Sun, which had about 1,200 words on this subject, it said, "Speaker Rules Out Root Retort Probe," as the headline. Then it says: "Speaker Gordon Dowding ruled Thursday an official of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. calling a Socred Member a name" — and I won't go into that again — "did not warrant examination by a legislative committee on privileges."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no knowledge of the document you are reading from, and I wonder whether we would have the....

MR. SPEAKER: I'll table this in the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The procedure we followed last week, I believe, was for a Clerk to read out offending articles from the newspapers.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm reading it out. A Member can read out an offending article or else the Clerk can do it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would just like to ask then, Sir, whether or not this is being read in its entirety.

MR. SPEAKER: No, you can read it in its entirety later. I'm just going to tell you that it says that the Speaker said that it "did not warrant examination by a legislative committee on privileges."

I draw to the attention of Members very clearly that it said in my reasons: "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 it taking precedence." That's the whole question.

Now, if the press can't read that properly then obviously they need reading lessons. It's clear that that is not my duty to decide whether a probe shall go on or not; it is for the House.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of order. I'd like to refer you to Votes and Proceedings dated February 22, where it says that I tabled "further documents relating to the Dunhill Development Corporation." I'd like to say that the documents I tabled were relating to the government finances, the question of leaks in cabinet, and the whole deal dealing with government finances — not Dunhill Development Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with the Hon. Member. I checked that this morning when I noted that wording. That will be changed in the Journals, because when I looked at the blue copies it appeared clear that you were relating it to some matter in your speech. That will be cleared up.

Any other points of privilege? Any other matters of privilege? Can we go on with the business of the House?

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Labour Code of British Columbia 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.

THE ASSOCIATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA HOMEMAKER SERVICES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 41, The Association of British Columbia Homemaker Services 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
PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. McClelland, Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Public Works Fair Employment 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.

POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF
UNINSURED VEHICLE OWNERS

[ Page 479 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: in regard to prosecution procedures against registered vehicle owners who have not purchased through ICBC as of next Saturday, will they be automatically prosecuted because they are registered in the broad files of the computer?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Will they be prosecuted simply because they're not recorded in the broad files of the computer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Everything.

MR. BENNETT: Will they be prosecuted as registered vehicle owners, but not having already bought their insurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, they may not be driving a car. The only stipulation is that you have valid insurance — and we didn't pass that law, it's been enforced for some years — and that you have valid decals on the car — and we didn't pass that regulation either. That's the law as it is.

MR. BENNETT: Registered vehicle owners who haven't purchased ICBC insurance, will the RCMP be given lists of these vehicles?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I said, a person may not wish to register the car at this time. They may not wish to buy insurance on the car. You don't have to. Only if you are driving a car on a public highway then the laws, as they have for many years, state two things: (1) You must have insurance. (2) You must have a valid licence plate or valid decals.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members Beauchesne says at page 147 that questions must not seek a solution to a legal proposition such as interpretation of the statutes, or for the purpose of argument or other reasons ask the government questions that are really for the law officers.

Are there any other supplementals on that same question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'd like to direct a supplemental question to the same Minister. Persons found driving on March 1 who have been unable to obtain their insurance, will they be prosecuted?

MR. SPEAKER: That applies to the same reasons in Beauchesne; that's for a magistrate not for a Minister.

EGG MARKETING BOARD CLAIM
AGAINST MR. KOVACHICH.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: may I ask the Premier whether on October 26, 1972, at a meeting in his office, the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board was asked to substantially reduce their financial claim against a Mr. Sy Kovachich, an NDP supporter from Taber Lake in the Fort George constituency, as referred to and subsequently commented upon by the Premier in the Province newspaper on February 21 and 22.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, they were not asked or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything. I suggested to them that they were acting like children and it would be far better for their industry if they got together with their lawyers. They did get together with their lawyers and settled the matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Premier then, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: whether he is denying then that he told the Members of the Egg Marketing Board to draw up an agreement incorporating such reduced charges against Mr. Kovachich.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I told no one to draft an agreement. I suggested they get together with their attorneys and come up with some agreement because they were acting like children, in my opinion.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. the Premier: did the Premier in fact suggest to the people in question that certain quotas should be instituted in the Interior for the growers in question?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. I did not suggest certain quotas. I suggested that they were acting like children and that they should get together and resolve this problem.

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we've had four questions on the one subject. Other members have other questions. Perhaps we could come back later.

VICTORIA PRESS STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Labour: in view of his eminent success in settling the engineer-custodian strike in Vancouver, would he please say whether he

[ Page 480 ]

could offer the same kind of service to settle the Victoria Press strike which has now been going on three months in Victoria.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his vote of confidence in the effectiveness of the Department of Labour, but I don't like to speculate on what success we may achieve should we intervene.

The difference between the two disputes is that one was a very serious matter in terms of disruption of some 30,000 school children. I don't think one could hardly say that the situation in the Victoria Press strike is particularly disruptive to the community at large. There is a newspaper service.

Similarly, there has been no overture to this department by either of the parties involved, as there was in the school situation in Vancouver. So unless I have some indication from the parties that they want further assistance from the Department of Labour — and I would point out that we already have a mediation officer — then I'm not prepared to impose myself.

GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF COST
OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
IN MUNICIPALITIES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier and Minister of Finance, with a very brief preamble with your permission. In 1972 the cost of courts to municipalities in British Columbia — the administering of justice — was approximately $5.6 million. The revenue from fines in the same year, Mr. Speaker, was approximately $4.8 million; I don't have the 1973 figures as yet. What action does the Premier and Minister of Finance intend to take to correct the impression which appeared in this advertisement in the Vancouver Province, February 21? — "As previously announced, the government will be assuming the costs — $15 million — of administration of justice in municipalities. These costs were formerly borne by local ratepayers."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this matter is presently under consideration by cabinet in terms of the difference of funds. That's a report I have from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). I missed the last cabinet meeting when it was discussed.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the answer: it doesn't seem to direct itself to the mistaken impression, or the incorrect impression, given in the newspapers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice until I get the rest of the information.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary on the whole question, Mr. Speaker, with your permission: will fine revenues be transferred in part or totally to the municipality when this changeover takes place?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's still under consideration, Mr. Member. I'll take that part as notice too.

MINING ROYALTIES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of Mines: in view of the widespread concern and great difference in the public estimates of the economic impact of the proposed mining royalty, would the Minister consider referring Bill 31 to a special committee of the House for the hearing of expert testimony?

MR. SPEAKER: It's really not in order. I don't think it becomes argumentative as to the solution of the problem. I think you can ask a question, but I don't think you can suggest a remedy.

SUSPENSION OF
WESTERN PACIFIC TRUST COMPANY

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker: in the report of the inspector of trust companies of January 31 of this year it says: "Western Pacific Trust Company is presently suspended." Why?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice, Mr. Member.

POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF PROVINCIAL
AGREEMENT WITH GREYHOUND BUS LINES

MR. McCLELLAND: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: is your department or any other department of government making plans to cancel the agreement which Greyhound Lines of Canada has with the province to operate a transportation system within provincial boundaries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check on that. I have no knowledge of any such proposal, but I'll check.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, as a supplementary....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Was it cancel the Greyhound...?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

[ Page 481 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister is taking it as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, could I ask a supplementary so he could take the supplementary as notice as well?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When a question is taken as notice, I don't know how anyone can ask a supplemental until they get the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: This is correct. Actually the supplemental can sit patiently on the sidelines waiting for the answer.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
OF BUS LINES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question also to the Minister of Transport and Communications. While he is checking out the last one, would he find out if they are in the process of negotiating or buying any other bus lines in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I can assure you that I am not in the process of buying any bus lines anywhere in the Province of British Columbia.

NEW APPOINTMENT TO
BROILER MARKETING BOARD

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Agriculture: in the case of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permits, could I ask the Minister whether he told representatives of the Broiler Marketing Board that he was acting on orders from the Premier with respect to the appointment of an Interior broiler man to the board?

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is a question here as to whether the advice that is given to any members of the cabinet can be discussed on the floor of the House. Is there any reference on that, Hon. Member?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With deference to your decision, I am not asking for a statement of what happened within cabinet; I'm asking whether or not I could have confirmation of a statement made outside cabinet regarding instructions from the Premier on this point.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): No.

COMPOSITION OF CABINET
COMMITTEE ON OIL REFINERIES

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Education, regarding the cabinet committee studying oil refineries in British Columbia: how often has this committee met, who are the cabinet members on the committee, and when can we expect a report?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): The cabinet committee was not specified. When I spoke last night on the mainland I did not say it specifically was studying oil refineries. I said it was a cabinet committee that was concerned about the overall petroleum needs of the province, and I was reporting to that committee on what was taking place in Burnaby North at this time.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Surely this House is entitled to ask who the cabinet members are of such an important committee. Could we know the names of the Ministers?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm sorry; I missed that part of your question. The Members are the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), myself, the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

DATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF DRIVERS' INSURANCE PLAN

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications: has a date been set yet for full implementation of the Drivers' Insurance Plan in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sometime in March the information and the requests and so on will be going out to every driver in the province.

MR. CURTIS: Well, has a date been set on which this will take full effect?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sometime in March. I'd have to check on the date.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does that suggest, then, that within a very few weeks the present drivers' licences will no longer be valid, and one will have to have the drivers' insurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Your licence will still be valid.

MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking of drivers' insurance — the $10 insurance.

[ Page 482 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I say, it will be within a few weeks — sometime in March.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right after the House prorogues.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you guaranteeing the House will prorogue in March? (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, then, to the Minister: does the Minister not agree that many drivers in British Columbia are not yet aware of that part of the total auto insurance–drivers' insurance package?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They will be given adequate time in which to conform with requirements. I can't imagine anyone in the province who is not familiar with it, really.

DATE FOR MEETING
RE INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Human Resources: I gather that the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Hon. Jean Chretien) are very desirous of meeting this government concerning the land claims question. Has any meeting time yet been established?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of meetings at which myself and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) have been present, and we are at present waiting to report to cabinet. I was out of the province last week and it wasn't possible to do so.

PROGRESS OF PLANS
RE ANNACIS ISLAND CROSSING

MR. McCLELLAND: A question for the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker: would the Minister advise the House at what stage the plans for a new crossing of the Fraser River at Annacis Island are now?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): There are no definite plans as to location. I have people looking at different sites.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is the Minister in consultation with local government members in Delta about this whole problem? I understand there is some concern in Delta about what is going on.

HON. MR. LEA: It depends which article you read and which edition of the newspaper. I have no way of knowing whether the mayor of Delta is correct in his first remarks to the press or the last.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I asked a simple question. I asked the Minister whether or not his department was in consultation with local government officials in Delta.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't take responsibility for the answers, too — just the questions.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I would like to ask the question, again: is the department in consultation with the local government members in Delta? It is a fairly simple question and requires only a simple answer.

HON. MR. LEA: My department officials are in constant contact with all of their counterparts, technically, in those communities.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You know, we progressed from prayers today, into points of privilege, points of order, and then into the question period, and on the whole the House is still in rather a charming frame of mind. I just wonder why, because this doesn't usually happen over here.

So often a person's first statement illustrates very clear and correct observations, Mr. Speaker, as it was with my new colleague, the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), on the very first day he was on the floor of the House, via the kind invitation of the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) — and we thank him for that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Premier does not invite anyone on the floor. I invite them.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. We thank you then, Mr. Speaker — it was very kind of you. But the Premier took the credit for it.

MR. SPEAKER: That may be a point of privilege. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: However, on the very first day that he was here, Mr. Speaker, he leaned over to me and his very first words to me were these: "Is there any time limit on debate?" This, of all things, Mr. Speaker, when one of our own Members was talking! I thought that was going a little far.

I would very much like to congratulate the new Member and indeed wish him well, and say that, notwithstanding the great ideological and philosophical differences that exist in this chamber,

[ Page 483 ]

all of the Members are trying their level best to do what they can in the interests of the beliefs that they hold and the constituencies they represent. I wish him a very fruitful period of time in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia.

I don't really wish to miss this rather golden opportunity, Hon. Members, to compliment you, Mr. Speaker, because you receive few compliments, and perhaps deserve less. (Laughter.) However, I wish to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, upon the way you have really embroidered your lifestyle into the history of this province. I'm referring to the nice jackets you have produced for the Hansard staff, specifically the crest.

You know, that crest is really deserving of a few words of comment, because it consists, Hon. Members, if you have not taken a look at it, of four scenarios. At the bottom are the parliament buildings — Hartley's Halls — with the lights off. (Laughter.) At the middle right of the crest are the mace and gavel — they are very neatly crossed, apparently exorcising each other. At the middle left are the scales of justice, but of all things, Mr. Speaker, they are evenly balanced. I would tend to think, Hon. Members, that when we are sitting in here 38 to 17, we might have had a little bit of a tilt.

However, at the top is the pièce de résistance. There is something which purports, Mr. Speaker, to be a Speaker's hat, but if the Hon. Members would take a very close look at that, by the most remarkable coincidence it looks surprisingly like a seagull! (Laughter.) All of which must prove that, either by accident or design, the very dominant traits of the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Speaker) are not easily dispelled.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have a series of notes and even poems from interested British Columbians. Here's one and it is signed "Stranded."

"Spring has sprung,
The grass is riz,
I wonder where
My insurance is."

And here is a letter to Ann Landers:

"When I sleeper, I dreamer. When I dreamer, I Bremer. What should I do — sleep less, dream less, or Breme less?"

Signed: "Dilly Dally Dailly."

(Laughter.)

And this is the type of wire we might expect from the Agent-General in London:

"ADMIRAL STERLING. AHOY, HORDE!

(That's a naval expression)

BAGS PACKED, PASSAGE BOOKED, TELL ME WHEN. P.S. BEST WISHES TO BOB AND ANNE."

(Laughter).

Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it just the luck of the draw that the vote of the Agent-General has increased 30 per cent and is up $40,000 from last year? That's an awful lot of lolly and we perhaps might be bidding the Hon. Minister of Transport(Hon. Mr. Strachan) bon voyage before too very long.

Here's the final one, and this is signed by "The Miners of B.C." It is from Forest Lawn Cemetery to the Minister of Mines. "Thanks for sending us a wreath with your bill." (Laughter.)

I think that's very kind of him to provide that.

Mr. Speaker, without any question of a doubt the most determined publicist that we have in the Province of British Columbia today is the Premier — and if you look at it in the plural, the Premier and his Minister of Finance. "It's the biggest budget ever!" says the Premier, and "No tax increases!" says the Minister of Finance. He had his blue suit on, his sincere tie, and all of that. It was a very interesting production.

And all was well in Hordesville, as witness the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Both he and the other Members of the government side were pounding their backbenches and sort of quietly humming to themselves — onward to our socialistic Valhalla, to their Elysian fields of control — designating and regulating and centralizing and bureaucratizing, all at fabulous cost and enormous loss to the individual in this province whose occupational and economic freedoms are being eroded day by day.

I'd say, Mr. Speaker, there is far more than serious threat and potential fear to free competitive economy in this province for the restrictions have arrived; they are no longer fiction, no longer fancy or fallacy and no longer socialistic dreams. They are now cold, hard bitter socialist facts. And in so many areas and fields of endeavour self-initiative has either already been curtailed or legislative enactments have been designated to curtail it. Witness the very extravagant powers existing in so many of the statutes that have come into being since this government took over a year and a bit ago: the Land Act, the Energy Act, the mining Act, the housing legislation, the labour code, the development corporation, petroleum corporation and the capital tax Act.

And what a mechanism that one is, the capital tax Act. It provides a means for almost unlimited taxation. All the government has to do is snap its fingers to change the rate. At times this indeed makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the leaders in our business and proprietorship community? Have they become spineless, voiceless and rubberized, or some combination of all three?

I was speaking to some of them just after the budget was handed down last year. I asked them if they were aware of the resource industry information Act; and they were not. I explained to them that this was a part of NDP policy in their campaign materials and it would give the government the power to totally inquire into the books of any resource corporation in the Province of British Columbia to determine whether or not, in the view of the

[ Page 484 ]

government, that resource corporation was paying its proper share to public revenues. They thought this was a terrible thing. Indeed so, and they're happy that this was not enacted.

But we got exactly the same thing in the capital tax Act. And they said, "Oh, well, we can live with the assessment. It's not too big and no doubt they'll pass it on to the consumer anyway." But, Mr. Speaker, there are wider powers to snoop and to enforce under the capital tax Act than we find under the federal Income Tax Act. And without any question of a doubt it does the complete job of the resource industry information statute which was proposed and a part of NDP policy.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Hartley) much enjoys that; he likes to have that kind of control and that is why we part company philosophically — as I'd like to develop a little bit more as I carry on with this talk.

Any time this government even selectively, industry by industry or corporation by corporation, wishes to increase the flow of revenues under this capital tax Act, it can. And the Hon. Minister and the other Ministers are nodding their heads and wishing that would happen.

Okay. Then I asked these business leaders, "Well what about car insurance? You see what's happened to that?" "Well," they said, "car insurance is sort of like a parking meter; it's never been a hero of mine anyway." But, Mr. Speaker, the car insurance industry in the Province of British Columbia was a lawful, needful, taxpaying, non-polluting industry. It was subject to government control and government regulation. It was certainly paying its way and doing its job, and with some competition and with far greater efficiency than anything yet demonstrated, or ever will be demonstrated by the administrative catastrophe that we're now seeing at the ICBC.

I'd say without doubt this will produce the greatest administrative hash in the history of this province. So many business people — merchants and proprietors, corporate people, property owners — were not concerned about what happened to the car insurance industry because they felt it could never happen to them. But now we find these things have occasioned — in the instance of that, in the instance of the terrific controls on land, of the fantastic controls in revenue that will be coming to the government from the mining industry, the government is actually bleeding it white. And those people who feel that the direction of this government is not as strong as it was, Mr. Speaker, have never ever read or accepted the Waffle Manifesto.

That Waffle Manifesto, I recall, Mr. Speaker, was signed by the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett); it was signed by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald); it was signed by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly); it was signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer); and it was signed by yourself (Mr. Speaker). It's been followed in principle to the letter in B.C.

Sure, some of these mechanisms are being sugar coated; maybe there's some sort of intra-party skirmishes to smokescreen away that which is really happening, but the course of this government is to blind-alley B.C., essentially isolate it from the economic and philosophical direction of the rest of the continent, and follow the precepts of what I consider to be a very dangerous document.

But even more alarming, of even more concern, is the fact the concepts of this manifesto are considered too mild and too bland and I'd say too pablum-my to be endorsed by the likes of say, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water (and air) Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or his supporters in the socialistic caucus or the socialistic party. Those people are not the few; they're not the few, but the many. They are in abundance. I'd say at this point that the on-staff, self-proclaimed, professional intellectuals and some of these socialistic labour leaders who form so well left of Waffle, they belong to that group. And it's unfortunate that they do.

Here's an interesting letter from Sid Thompson. He's the president of the International Woodworkers of America. It's dated January 3, 1974. It went to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and copies went to all Members. It indicates copies to all B.C. MLAs. He said this:

"Employers and companies have no conscience and are only concerned with making money. The government would be in a position through controlling our natural resources in bringing about a different standard of behaviour among the employers in the forest industry whether they liked it or not."

And that is the kind of thinking these people have. But I'd say, Mr. Speaker, thank the Lord for the CCF and NDP workingmen, the business people, and the proprietors in this particular party — and the trade unionists, numbers of them, and the landowners, numbers of them, who are quickly shifting from socialistic ranks and looking for other political homes where their individual efforts and enterprises are welcomed and can receive the degree of individual reward that they are entitled to. Because these people and no end of former NDP voters are very concerned about a free, competitive economy, providing it is free, competing and economical. They are concerned about the free competitive enterprise system disappearing. And those people have very good cause to be concerned because that seems to be the ultimate goal of this government: to see free competitive enterprise disappear — it's certainly the declared and never

[ Page 485 ]

disavowed goal of the self-declared socialistic moderates who signed this Waffle Manifesto, including the Hon. Premier who's never renounced it — to have state control.

For anyone to suggest that the extremists in his ranks, who I'd say are building power bases like the pharaohs built pyramids, for anyone to suggest they want anything less is absolute nonsense.

A writer said this, and I'd like to paraphrase it: "Free competitive enterprise system provides choice. It's a system of values and attitudes and that permits individual motivation, excitement, personal freedom, variety and a capacity for excellence." But those attributes do not flourish in a centrally planned, controlled system such as we have here and such as we're heading more and more into here.

The sales pitch of the socialist is this: We'll direct you. We'll designate you and design your lifestyle for you. And in exchange for your freedom, we'll provide you with security at a level and in a manner selected by us, and by us directing and regulating your efforts and taking from you as, when and how as we shall determine.

Here's a quotation by Edward Gibbon. He was talking about the decline and fall of Athens. I think it's most appropriate. "In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life and they lost it all — security, comfort and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them. When the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free." I say we're not only facing, but practising that kind of escape from freedom today in British Columbia.

Those people in the province, whose heads are in the sand should take them out and they've got to shore up their convictions and go to work to prevent the continuance of policies and do something to prevent inheriting by default a second and a more ruinous and radical socialistic term of office than the one B.C. faces at the present time.

As I said, the Premier is a determined publicist and he likes his work. He's very charming at it, particularly when making fallacies sound like fact. "No tax increases, " he said. Well, he artfully ignored the extra moneys the householders got to pay by virtue of this government once again giving the municipalities the Oliver Twist thin soup treatment, and they're absolutely two-bucking them out of existence.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier groans. Here's some interesting figures. In 1970, the per capita grant was $30. In 1970, the provincial revenues were $1,165 million. In 1973, the grant went up $2. Last year the revenues went up to $1,722 million. In other words, the revenues went up 48 per cent. If the per capita grant had kept pace with that, it should have gone up to $44 from $30, not from $30 to $32.

Now, we find the municipal grant once again just increasing by $2. But, Mr. Speaker, the provincial revenues are now up to $2,177 million. That's nearly a 90 per cent increase over the 1970 level of $1,165 million.

So the proper thing to do, obviously, is to tie the municipal grant into provincial revenues and if that occasioned, the municipalities today, instead of receiving $34 from this government, would be receiving what they are entitled to. What's more, Mr. Speaker, what they absolutely need to operate, they should be receiving $57.

The Premier artfully ignores when he talks about no tax increases the huge extra sums the landowners are going to have to pay by virtue of soaring assessments. He ignores the extra revenues from the SS and A tax by virtue of the price increases on all commodities and the fantastic amount of money that that will bring in.

He forgets about the extra income from higher charges to domestic and commercial natural gas users, and it's a very peculiar thing to me, Mr. Speaker, that this increase is not announced prior to this debate so it can be discussed properly on the floor of this House, so people in the province can know just what kind of a tax whack they're going to expect there.

He artfully ignores talking about the extra dollars the government will receive from higher insurance rates. Fleet surcharges, for example, could be doubled at the end of this year. Not too much talk about this enormous amount of swag from liquor profits. They're swollen out of all proportion, Mr. Speaker, $97 million profit, but that doesn't take in the sales tax, another $5 million there — $103 million net profit.

Higher land registry, court registry, registrar of company charges. The latter is up over 100 per cent. These kind of services apparently are no longer to be considered public services by this government but are becoming revenue sources. And the mining tax. I'm very sorry that I can't talk about that, but I think it would be most appropriate perhaps if we had a minute's silence for that industry.

You know, as the late James Butterfield said, Mr. Speaker, "It doesn't take long for a fallacy handled by a determined publicist to almost become in the minds of the people a divine revelation."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Are you against copper royalties?

MR. GARDOM: Against compromises? Certainly not. Oh, copper royalties! Oh, yes, within reason, Mr. Minister, certainly within reason. But not to the extent that you intend to go. Not to the extent that you intend to go. I think that the people of B.C.

[ Page 486 ]

should be very introspective and examine and take a very good look at what this so-called fallacy of no tax increase is, because it's neither divine nor a revelation, and it's just not fact because B.C. Is facing whopping tax increases this year.

All the while, this government, somewhat following one of the gospels of the former government continues to soft pedal the enormous raises in our per capita debt. It continues to soft pedal the red ink in which Hydro finds itself and the staggering load which we're going to be sloughing off to future generations.

The debt position of the province is growing like Topsy. I say alarming, not only because it's so high but because it's a runaway increase. I'm going to inform some of the Hon. Members of five years' figures here. I want you to listen to the way they escalate.

Again using 1969, '70, '71, '72 and '73. In 1965, Mr. Speaker, the net debt, after taking off sinking funds and assuming also that all of these sinking funds are at par, it's rather strange to note, that the only sinking funds listed as being par in the budget are those ones which are slightly over. It makes one rather question the silence concerning the other sinking funds.

However, the net debt in 1965 was $1,459 million; per capita debt, $816. Hydro during that period, $984 million. In 1969, a whopping jump in the four years, net debt $2,250 million; the per capita debt, $1,067 and the Hydro net debt of the portion of the net debt of the province was $1,648 million,

I'll just refer again to these figures in the order that I've been doing so as not to take up too much of the time of the Members. 1970, net debt, $2,531 million; per capita, $ 1,111; Hydro's share of the net debt, $1,761 million. In 1971, net debt, $2,696 million; per capita, $1,205; Hydro's share, $1,940 million. In 1972, $2,910 million; per capita, $1,269; Hydro $2,039 million. In 1973, and when we're talking about that we may as well add in the $500 million that's in front of the House now. You'll find the net debt essentially, as of January, 1974, $3,629 million. Hydro's portion of that $2,669 million, and the per capita debt is $1,537.

So from 1965 until now — and true this is not all of this government's responsibility, but I'm going to talk a little about that in a moment — the provincial debt rose from 1965 until now, from $1,459 million to $3,629 million, which is nearly 250 per cent, 2.5 times higher. The Hydro debt rose from $984 million to $2,699 million, about a 275 per cent increase in nine years. The per capita debt rose from $816 to $1,537 — nearly doubled in nine years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, at birth a child owes $1,537 in B.C., and I say what a way that is to start a life. You know, perhaps there should be tacked onto every crib in every maternity ward in the province these words, "Congratulations, baby, you owe Dave Barrett $1,537." They better get their paper route applications in a hurry, I'll tell you that.

But if you start to take a comparison between the fixed assets and the debts, it's also pretty darn interesting. Since you took over, since this government took over, the fixed assets in 1972 were $1,425 million. Now they're up to $1,565 million. So there's been an increase in the fixed assets of $140 million since this government's taken over.

But the net debt, it's increased from $2,910 million to $3,629 million. So we find an asset increase of $140 million, but we find a debt increase of $269 million. The per capita increase since you people have taken over is the most dramatic one of all. In 1972, it was $1,269, and now it's $1,537, or $268 more during that period of time.

Every NDP day what do we get? A mile deeper into debt. This is over an $11 per month increase in the per capita debt since you took over.

Now the huge reserves. We hear about these all the time. But is this government using any portion of those to pay our way or are you just burdening, saddling the future generations with this very staggering load. Still, the public, Mr. Speaker, and all the Members of this House unfortunately, continue to be without proper means to analyse or inspect the budgetary expenditures and proposals or the economic direction or performance of the Crown corporations or of the companies that have been bought over by the NDP.

We don't have in the Province of B.C. any true or proper accountability in any sense of the word. This is highly disturbing, particularly in view of the figures that I have related to the Hon. Members.

In private companies or in public companies, directors have very well-defined responsibilities and duties. They have responsibilities to account to their shareholders, not only of what has happened but what will happen.

Insofar as these government Crown corporations or government companies are concerned, pretty well all of this is still right under the rug. It's the people's money, Mr. Speaker, and they have the right to know before the fact as to how it's going to be spent. I'd just like to illustrate one point to emphasize that last statement.

On September 19 of last year I placed this question on the order paper to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan); I asked him this, Mr. Speaker, on September 19 of last year, and this is very significant: "What are the amounts of capital cost expenditure expended to date, and for what purpose, by or for the British Columbia Insurance Corporation — furnishing full particulars; and also, what are its capital cost expenditures so far estimated or projected for the future — furnishing all particulars?"

[ Page 487 ]

It's the type of thing the public are entitled to. It's the type of thing this House is entitled to. It's just common, good-sense business to have that kind of information.

Day after day that question sat on the order paper, Mr. Speaker. I then attempted to bring it into question period. In that particular session you were not quite as close to the gavel as you are in this one and you permitted the question — somewhat in different terms, perhaps. But there were no answers; and it was going to be taken as notice, Mr. Speaker; and then we got into rather a confrontation towards the end of the session when the Minister was illustrating how he was doing his level best to give every single, solitary bit of information he could to the general public about this ICBC.

So he said, "You've got your answer," on the day we prorogued. "You've got your answer" — and he sat down with a big smile, and what it was was just political trickery, Mr. Speaker.

I asked him what the capital cost expenditures of this corporation were, and do you know what the reply was? The Hon. R.M. Strachan replies as follows — tabled this as an answer on the final day — the Hon. R.M. Strachan replies as follows: "Annual report to be tabled in 1974."

Now is that an explanation of how public funds are going to be used or not going to be used? I say to you that it is not. And the thing that gives me a great deal of....

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member?

MR. GARDOM: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to say that I don't think, in talking about another Member of the House, we should call it political trickery.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I said that it involved....

MR. SPEAKER: I'd hate it to involve another committee of privileges. The Minister is out of his seat. It would seem to me that it's a little strong.

MR. GARDOM: Well, political humbug...what would you call it?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't know what that means, so we're safe on that one, I guess,

MR. GARDOM: Beauchesne hasn't got the humbug?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. GARDOM: The thing that gives me the greatest of concern about this, Mr. Speaker, is that car insurance is going to be this government's plum and panacea to the general public come the next election. They're going to the public on car insurance only. They are.

They're going to offer the general public cheaper car insurance — yes siree! They're going to do that. It's odd that they're not even prepared to applaud about that. I'll tell you the way they're going to do it. This is something that was sort of — can I use the word snuck in?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Sidled in, Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the session in the omnibus bill. Aha, what came into the omnibus bill? — a provision came into the omnibus bill that B.C. Hydro would have to go under ICBC.

Well, for all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Hydro, as you well recall from your lengthy and learned experience in the practice of law, was for all practical purposes a self-insurer. Aha, but it an't no mo. That's right. It's got to go under ICBC.

So what happens? The Insurance Corporation is losing money. Big Dave goes up and says, "How much does it cost to insure a dam? Put up the premiums on the dam." It's going to be a little like the homeowner grant. The electric light bulb in the Province of B.C. is going to subsidize car insurance and make no mistake of it. Make no mistake of it.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: This is a prophecy I'm delighted to stand by, and it will be correct. It will be correct.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the $2,669 million that Hydro is going to owe — or does owe, I should say — now with that $500 million loan it's going to get in this session.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, Hydro has got to pay the interest it owes out of its earnings. From our electric, light and gas bills — that's their income — we find there's about $10 million or $20 million left in the kitty each year for profit. But Hydro has some deficits some years, so we could well be mortgaged into perpetuity.

Just for purposes of comparison I'm going to say there's an average of $10 million as a profit. That's on the high side. I understand it's around $20 million this year and it was about $10 million a couple of years ago, but an average $10 million would be high. But even if we used that $10 million profit each year to repay capital, it will only take, Mr. Speaker, another 266 years — another 266 years! — to liquidate the indebtedness. That would be the year 2240.

[ Page 488 ]

I'd say that by then Hydro's pyramids — notwithstanding Hydro power — would probably be as dead as a dodo bird.

It's very interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, how this Hydro debt — which is fantastic — has been labelled over the years. First it was called "contingent liability." Then it was relabeled "indirect debt" — then "a self-liquidating asset." Then in 1968, Mr. Speaker, we ran into the best Clancyism of all and it was called a "self-liquidating guaranteed investment."

These people criticized poor old Bill, but they call it the same thing now. It seems that he must have done good work for them.

But whether it warms Mr. Clancy's heart, Mr. Speaker, or chills yours, or vice versa, a debt is still a debt; by any other name it certainly doesn't smell any sweeter — all fanciful revelations of the Premier or the old premier notwithstanding.

It's interesting further to take a look at the debt-servicing expense of Hydro. It too is astronomic. There was $124 million of interest paid last year — interest alone, $124 million. It boils down to $10.3 million a month — $340,000 a day for interest — $14,166 an hour, or $236 a minute. That is what is paid out of B.C. for interest for Hydro every minute, every hour, 24 hours a day.

I'd like to extend congratulations to the government for some of the social programmes that they have initiated. Again, unfortunately, I do wish that they wouldn't continue to overemphasize the centralistic structure. But I think they're getting too rosy a glow, Mr. Speaker, when they start talking only of Mincome and Pharmacare and the inquiry into the forest industry and the Berger commission into the field of family relations.

All of these were programmes that were enunciated from these desks over here. I also congratulate them but think again they perhaps are taking too rosy a glow for the fact that they have improved the attitudes to education and health. They've come through with pretty lukewarm performances there.

I don't want them to think, Mr. Speaker — which seems to be prevalent for them today — that they have made anything like the strides they should have, because this government is still branded with just about all of the noes of the former administration: still no ombudsman, no auditor-general, no proper accountability of Crown corporations or government companies; no province-wide legal aid; no to an effective restructuring of the cabinet, having a Premier premiering and a Minister of Finance financing; still no to a Minister of Fisheries; still no to a Minister of the Environment; no to civilized liquor laws and detoxification centres or effective programmes for rehabilitation; still no to province-wide motor vehicle testing or province-wide compulsory driver education; still no action — proper action — to $1-a-day care for the aged and the chronics whose life savings are being squandered and dissipated; still no to equal and fair treatment for our Indian people.

We had the annual tough talk from the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) and it was well received. But we need a little more than smoke signals. Sure, that's been Liberal policy for a long time, what he was enunciating — it may be Liberal policy. Whatever it may be, it's needed and it's got to be done. What we need is action there.

Still no to proper recognition of your revenue responsibilities to municipalities and of their very greatly increased need; still no to improvements against vicious and arbitrary expropriation laws.

Look at the commissions we've had there. Surely to goodness we're not going to have to have another commission to have a bill. We had the Clyne Royal Commission on Expropriation, Mr. Speaker. We had the Law Reform Commission come out with one of the most excellent reports of its kind anywhere in the world. And this government, what are they doing? — nothing.

It's about time they pulled the cork out of that bottle and produced something. It's pretty miserable kind of mean vinegar that we've received in that field so far.

They're still not getting with it, Mr. Speaker, and doing an effective or properly administered and priority job with education and hospitals. Witness the talk of the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) and other people in this House. Let's not have more plans. Just let's get in there with our hammer and saw and get something started.

Still we don't have a war against violence and big crime, and all of these are on a fantastic upsurge. Still no to cleaning off the lard in so many departments of government. Instead, they're increasing it: 3,614 more government employees — an 11.8 per cent increase over last year. That has nothing to do with the Crown corporations whatsoever. What are the increases there? Will we ever get to find that out? I suppose not.

Still no also to the reform of an outdated and outmoded elections Act, where the vote of one citizen is worth 20 over the vote of another. I'd certainly dare them to bring in the preferential ballot in B.C. I'd certainly dare this government to bring in the preferential ballot in B.C. That would be pretty good times for the Liberal Party if they did that.

Still no, Mr. Speaker, to any effective rights against the Crown. I'm not talking about that toothless wonder that was earlier introduced in this session, which is a proclamation bill.

B.C. people have got to realize that it is still no to this government recognizing — as well, another very important factor — assistance to separate schools; still no to any kind of effective or economic assistance to

[ Page 489 ]

the log-jams of traffic or the muck of pollution; no to stopping the dragging of an anchor in our research needs. We've got to stop that.

Instead of these things — instead of "doing" — you are structuring and you are regulating and you are designating and you are controlling, but you are not doing. You are building a bureaucratic jungle that would make a psychedelic experience look like a Sunday school picnic.

What B.C. wants is better government, not more. Your budget and your philosophies are not providing it; I would say to the contrary.

I think the busiest commission that you are going to have this year is the Boundaries Commission. That is under the Alberta–British Columbia Boundary Maintenance Act. Oddly enough, the cabinet Minister whose responsibility to carry forth the provisions of that Act is the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) again.

But the strength of our province, Mr. Speaker, has been that in its various regions, though in many cases they didn't endure fair or equal treatment, they consolidated and stuck together and wanted to do so within the provincial framework. The sense of province was strong, and the provincial interest was foremost. But the policies of this government are not advancing that; witness Golden, and Chilliwack we heard from, and Fernie and Cranbrook and Quesnel. One perhaps wonders who's next.

It's very disquieting and unfortunate and wrong, but it's the policies of this government that have brought these secession instincts to the fore.

We might have Coquitlam wanting to join Latvia, or something or other. It would be Latvia's loss if the Premier were still the Member. Or Richmond could secede to Moravia; that would be interesting as well.

I have a couple of other topics that I would like to mention before I do sit down. One of the biggest and certainly one of the most vicious businesses we have is big crime; and spawning from big crime, violent crime.

It is estimated that the drug narcotic traffic business — if you could use that term, which I'd rather not do for that horrible kind of endeavour — has a figure of about $175 million a year. Violent crime and big crime is rampant. There are muggings, there's rape, there's murder, stabbings and armed robberies. They are all on the up.

It is about time, Mr. Speaker, that we went to war against this. For that we need an immediate ingestion of funds; we need an increased, better trained and more specialized staff and the best equipment that technology can provide. Whatever we are doing has got to be done immediately — immediately! I say that this is critical. Double the original cost may be high, but it is nothing compared to the enormous savings in social damage.

I would also advocate public education and public relations programmes concerning the meaning and the function of the police and of their various branches and activities, specifically with a view to better informing the youngsters in our communities.

We are living today in a time of permissive society. It seems to me that no end of publicity is always given to these anti-police situations. I do wish that the media would report a little more of the day-by-day routine of the police, the assistance they provide, the good works they do and the help they furnish in attending accidents and fires, putting cold water on domestic outbreaks and taking care of the many, many tragedies which are a very infrequent occurrence to the general public, but are day-by-day routine to the officers. In most cases it is rather unpleasant and sometimes very highly dangerous work.

They are not looked upon as they should be, as friends of society. There may be a campaign and maybe there isn't, I don't know, but in one way or another it seems that they are looked upon as establishment protectors. They are subject to no end of criticism by many in the civil liberties field, perhaps justified. But there does not seem to be any kind of effective or rational counteractive programme.

This is one coming from society as a whole, so I think it perhaps should come from government or from the force, or at least start there. We have got to have civil liberty, and the police do a lot to preserve that very thing. If they transgress the groundrules, they have got to be stopped and told about that very loudly and clearly. But I think there should also be very equal emphasis upon their good deeds.

There is an attitude that is very widespread; it is that civil liberty sometimes is to be construed more as civil licence, with the right to break all of the mores and the customs of society. Those extremes are unnecessary and unwanted and unwarranted in B.C. So I think it would be a very good thing if we had a practical and pleasant programme of public education in the function and duties and activities of the police. This could be well prepared with visual aids, concentrated programmes of lectures in the schools; it could be interesting; I'm sure it would be well attended and helpful for all concerned.

Most of us were brought up to believe that the police were good guys. I think we think they are, but certainly their PR is showing. No doubt we have got, perhaps, the best forces in the world today, but I think we should all know exactly how and why.

The last thing I am going to say is a few words about unthinking, unprepared and unready-to-rectify man. I am going to talk not about the possibility, but about the probability of death, of people being asphyxiated, of jumping to the ground from storeys high in the air, and of being burned.

I'm going to talk about the tragic experiences in

[ Page 490 ]

other areas and about, unfortunately, our own gross neglect to benefit by these tragic experiences in other areas and, I would say, of the culpable guilt of politicians in not insisting that effective precautionary measures be taken. There wouldn't be a hand in here that would be spotless, Mr. Speaker, unless we not only speak out but enact safeguards. That is the cost of power: responsibility to act. It is quite easy for me over here to talk, but I can't put the wheels in motion. You people over there can and you have got to do it, and you have got to do it now.

I'd like to mention the most recent.... and there is a very ghastly headline and story: "Sao Paulo Skyscraper Fire. It gutted a 25-storey building...nearly 200 deaths. Victims were cooked in billowing flames...they jumped to their death. Eighty per cent of the lives were lost because of panic; people were trampled, trapped in their rooms. Inadequate sprinkling system...fire stairs 11 inches wide...built with flammable plastic...not enough firemen. Rescue ladders reached only halfway up."

That might be applicable to many things we could have happen in this province today. That grisly story could be Vancouver, Victoria or other centres in B.C. at any time. I would like to ask what has effectively been done to eliminate the probability of the horror of fire racing through huge buildings now dominating our skylines. I would say precious little, if any.

We cannot, as people responsible for initiative, permit this potential for tragedy to exist unchecked. There must be an unqualified mandate from this assembly to the municipalities and cities in B.C. Insisting upon amendments to the Municipal Act and the city charters to enable all city and municipal authorities to immediately enact and enforce safety measures for existing highrises, and not permit, under any circumstances, the construction of any new multi-level building without contemporary fire precautions being installed.

I am fully aware that this government by order-in-council — I believe in the fall of last year — enacted that the National Building Code of 1970 was to be utilized for all new structures. Fine. Thank the Lord that you did that; it was the correct thing to do.

But I am talking about the existing structures. How many highrises, how many office buildings, how many of the larger apartment buildings and hotels in B.C. today can plead guilty to many of the following: inadequate or no fire escapes; single central staircases; no, or inadequate, fire extinguishers and sprinkling systems; inadequate or no secondary back-up alarms and fire and smoke detection devices; locked fire doors; bound hoses; sealed stairways; inflammable construction surfaces and substances in furnishings; heat-sensitive elevator openings; no emergency power systems for communication facilities; helpless firefighting or lifesaving equipment.

Unless I'm incorrect, I believe the Victoria ladder truck goes up seven storeys, and the Vancouver one goes up 11. What happens if you are above that?

No drills! No manuals! No instruction to the tenants or to the occupants or to anybody! What to do if horror does strike?

Some of these buildings, Mr. Speaker, are just glorified furnaces, and ghastly consequences could ensue from fires in them.

As I said, we cannot blame the National Building Code; it does enact good measures. And I understand that the fire-prevention authorities in the Province of B.C. feel that is does not go far enough. As I said, congratulations for bringing that in. But that is of no help at all to the existing structures.

We have got a very dangerous situation, Mr. Speaker, and this is what I recommend: we have got to insist that a set of standards be established for existing structures, and that they be brought into date — not just up to date, but into date — and kept in continuing and good order.

In every apartment and hotel or office building in the province there should be by law an established fire procedure, and it should be set forth, and people should know about it. It should be printed. It should be tacked on the walls. It should be kept up to date, and it should include drills and a rehearsal of procedures in the event of problems and, as I say, kept current. Keep out of the elevators. Leave by stairways if you can. If you are trapped, unplug the appliances, close your door, get on a balcony if you happen to have one. Keep out of the elevators.

By law we should insist that there be adequate emergency lighting and adequate alarms and fire detection devices. These must be installed.

I was involved — and fortunately there wasn't any problem at all — in one of the newer buildings in Vancouver. It was only five years old. It is a delightful building. A problem happened at B.C. Hydro; generators went out and all the lights went out, and they blacked out in most of the buildings in the general area of Georgia, Granville, Burrard, in Vancouver. This particular building has got fire extinguishers on the walls — fine and dandy. Sure, it's got electric elevators, fine and dandy, and it's air conditioned.

There is one way out. You can't work the windows. There's a fire problem because they open automatically if there's a fire; you would go down the inner stairwell. It was absolutely coal black — no emergency lighting at all.

It doesn't take too much for panic to happen under those circumstances. Today there are no plans, no indications of something being done, and it is not expensive to install an emergency lighting procedure.

The local fire departments also, Mr. Speaker, should be more fully cognizant, if they are not already, as to the preventive and fire-outbreak

[ Page 491 ]

procedures in every such structure.

Fire safety consciousness includes these things: a complete sprinkling system; smoke-detection devices; a number of sealed-off fire zones as the building would increase in height; emergency power for lighting the interior stairs in escapes and elevators; elevator systems which can be converted to manual operation so that they don't open automatically at a fire floor and everybody is immediately asphyxiated; smoke-free passages and exits; reserve water-storage tanks for sprinkling and stand pipes.

All of these systems should be monitored and controlled and there should be some effective drills. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, if there is a tinderbox situation, which I think there could well be, and we do nothing about it, that could well be considered criminal.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, in closing, it appears to me that this government's philosophy is pretty well directed to the absolute control of our natural resources and elimination of the free, competitive enterprise system. I don't agree with that philosophy. It seems that this government's priorities are primarily to that end, and it is missing the immediate needs of the people of B.C. In the areas that I have mentioned this afternoon. I would have expected the government's attitude and the government's philosophy in the first instance, but I am very sad that it is missing its priority direction, and by virtue of that I find it not possible to support the budget.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Members for their attention. It has been a pleasure to speak once again for the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): It is again a pleasure for me to rise in my place and speak on behalf of the people I represent in that great riding of Columbia River.

It is really unfortunate...I find it rather difficult to speak when there are only 11 or 12 Members across the way, because I'm accustomed to a little bit of heckling...

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'm here.

MR. CHABOT: ...and jeering. I'm glad you are here, Mr. Minister of Conservation and Recreation. You are one of the few Ministers who are here.

I want first of all to speak about matters of concern within my constituency before going on to a detailed analysis of the budget and its provisions and lack of provisions.

The first matter I want to raise is the question, the controversy, that exists at this moment on the renaming of a lake in my constituency — the renaming of Kinbasket Lake to McNaughton Lake by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

There is the feeling within my constituency, and I'm sure within the community of Revelstoke as well, that this was the action of a callous and insensitive Minister, a Minister that really has no appreciation for the preservation of this historical Indian name. I think the Minister really needs a short lesson in the history of the naming of this particular lake, and I propose to give it to him at this time,

The lake was named.... Excuse me, I want to welcome the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) back. He was absent for a couple of days last week. Welcome back, Mr. Member.

The lake was named way back in 1866, 108 years ago, by one Walter Moberly, a surveyor, who was surveying a route at the time for the transcontinental railway. One of the provisions that brought British Columbia into Confederation was the promise by the national government of establishing a rail link from sea to sea. And Walter Moberly was in the process of finding that route. He was the man who named the lake after Kinbasket.

Now we see this historical name being destroyed by the Minister. I think it is important that we look back and see what Walter Moberly has to say in his journals about Kinbasket. In his journal he said:

"We crossed the Columbia River and in a short distance came to a little camp of Shuswap Indians where I met their headman, Kinbasket. I now negotiated with him for two little canoes made of the bark of the spruce and for his assistance to take me down river. Kinbasket was a very good Indian. I found him always reliable. We ran many rapids and portaged others, and came to a lake which I named Kinbasket Lake, much to the old chief's delight."

It's a small band of Indians who came up from Adams Lake, way down there near Salmon Arm, about the turn of the century, about 1800, and moved into boat encampment and on to Kinbasket Lake. It was a band of Indians who had suffered tremendous hardships establishing themselves in that remote and difficult area, difficult as far as weather is concerned and snow conditions. But they were willing to settle that part of the province in the early days to help the early settlers. In recognition of their help they had a lake named after their chief, which is now being destroyed.

Even the grave of the old chief is along the banks of the Columbia River, close to the lake that was named after him. We have direct descendants in my constituency, in the Windemere Valley, of the old chief.

I want to say, about this particular name

[ Page 492 ]

Kinbasket, that it was back in the late '60s that I approached the government in the first instance to ensure that they didn't change the name when the flooding took place behind Mica. I suggested to the government of the day that the name Kinbasket be retained, and I'd hoped that it would have been retained, but apparently it hasn't been.

Yet the Minister set up a committee called the Mica Basin study group, headed by one Ken Farquarson, to go out and look at the possible utilization of land surrounding the lake. That was in July of last year. They held public meetings at places such as Valemount, Revelstoke and Golden, and they were told at the two meetings, in particular at Revelstoke and Golden, by a motion of the people, a unanimous motion of the people, that they should retain this name Kinbasket. It was unanimous at both places. Yet just one month later, after these public meetings were held, we find that the Minister, on his own motion, decided to change the name of the lake to McNaughton Lake.

What is the purpose? What is the objective, then, of sending this task force out into the field if you are not going to listen to the opinions expressed by the people at these public meetings? Why waste the taxpayers' dollars if you are not going to listen? I think the Minister should have checked with McNaughton to see whether he wanted his name on that body of water.

In view of the fact that he was an opponent of the Columbia River treaty, I'm sure it's not doing his name justice by renaming the lake to McNaughton.

If the Minister has an affection for the name McNaughton, certainly there must be some unnamed mountains in this province. In fact, I can think of one body of water that maybe should be named after McNaughton and that's behind the Libby Reservoir. It's a bastardization of three names: Kootenay, Canada and USA — Koocanusa Lake. I think that's a terrible name and I think it was a name brought in by the former government; a name that should be removed and, instead, put the name of McNaughton over the Libby pondage. Then the Minister will have satisfied his whim of naming some body of water by the name of McNaughton.

I have a letter here from one of my constituents, and I'm sure the Minister has received many letters on this issue. This one I think pretty clearly outlines the feeling of the people in the area as to the renaming of this lake. I think it's important that it go into the record because it's so clear.

"Dear Mr. Williams:

"I and most of the people in Golden are disappointed at your refusal to reconsider retaining the name of Kinbasket Lake for the lake behind Mica Dam. Whatever happened to the NDP slogan that it listens to the people? The people here want Kinbasket. You and you alone want McNaughton.

"As one who has known General McNaughton personally, even if only briefly, I know full well that you're not doing his memory any favour by ramming his name down the throats of people who prefer the old historical name for their lake and who will retain the old name regardless of any decisions you may make to the NDP's detriment and your own infamy.

"A similar situation prevails in Banff. If one goes there and asks for the location of Eisenhower Mountain, one gets a blank stare. 'Oh, you mean Castle Mountain.'"

That pretty clearly describes it. All you have to do is go up the steps to the dining room right now. There's an etching on the wall. Just below it there's a little name plate put up by the Speaker's office or someone through the Speaker's direction. Below it, it says Castle Mountain. Even they will not recognize the new name of Eisenhower Mountain, just as the people in the Columbia region will not recognize the name of McNaughton.

He goes on:

"You evidently don't seem to realize General McNaughton was against the whole idea of dams on the Columbia as it benefited no one except the Americans, and for a cut rate at that. Your attempt to get his blessings second-hand by foisting his name on a part of the project, and against the wishes of the local population at that, is sheer insolence on your part.

"Should you not change your mind, then I strongly recommend that you never show your face in these parts. You'll get a dunking in Kinbasket Lake which you'll never forget. The mountain people in this area have their own techniques of handling arrogant Ministers who get too big for their britches." (Laughter.)

I think that was pretty clearly put by one of my constituents to the Minister; it clearly describes the feeling within my constituency on the renaming of Kinbasket Lake to McNaughton Lake. It is quite evident to me that the Minister has no respect and no feeling for the Indian people who still live in my constituency and who are direct descendants of old Chief Kinbasket. It's a pretty callous action, Mr. Speaker.

We've seen the attitude of that government relative to the native people. It wasn't too long ago that the first native ever was appointed to the cabinet. He didn't last too long. They kicked him out on his ear; that's what they did. That's all that government thinks of the Indian people in this province. Now they're destroying an historical Indian name. And no justification.

In an attempt to appease the people in the area,

[ Page 493 ]

the Minister has offered a little bit of tokenism. The Minister has consented to calling one of the arms in the lake Kinbasket Arm. Tokenism of the worst sort, Mr. Speaker, that's what it is. It's not good enough.

I want to urge the Minister — and I'm sure he has some people here who will convey this message to him — that we want that lake changed back to Kinbasket. We want him to show some respect for the native people of this province. We want him to show some respect for the history of this province as well.

The people I represent would consider that the most vicious piece of legislation which has had the most serious ramifications on the people of my constituency is Bill 71. I have never in the 11 years that I've represented my constituency seen such an outcry from the residents against Bill 71.

Bill 71, of course, stems back to the philosophy of that government and the philosophy of that party as well. I think that philosophy was clearly described when the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) spoke under the Land Commission Act in which she said that her party is against the private ownership of land. They're against the private ownership of land.

We see shades of the Land Commission Act in Bill 71. We see shades of what the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has had to say, because the Minister of Agriculture says they have ways of persuasion by taxation to push people off land. That's exactly the attempt being made by the implementation of Bill 71. They want to run people off the land; they want the Crown to control all land in this province.

We have in my constituency this year 697 appeals against assessments, assessments that were dramatically increased by the implementation of Bill 71. When you look at the kind of appeals there were the previous year in 1973, only 143, you can realize the dramatic increase, the dramatic concern of the people in my constituency. There were 554 more opposed to Bill 71.

I have received a whole series of letters on the matter — and I'm not about to read all the letters — but there are two or three very short ones which I wanted to comment on. One here is a copy sent to me. It was sent to the Minister of Finance:

"Dear Sir:

"We are writing to you concerning the assessment made on this property which has been doubled this year. No improvements whatever have been done to them, and myself and wife who are on fixed income (old-age pensioners) feel this is out of line. We do not mind paying a fair share of land taxes, but to be doubled on unimproved land is just too much."

I received many letters similar to that from working people. Some other old-age pensioners have written me as well. It's the little people who are being hurt in my riding by Bill 71. Here's a small businessman writing to me:

"We wish to register our request to appeal the 1974 assessment notice for the above-mentioned property."

He's sending me a copy of the letter which he sent to the tax assessor in the Town of Golden.

"We feel the increase of 1,200 per cent from $500 to $6,000 is not only exorbitant but completely out of reason. We expect to hear from you as to the time and place that our appeal will be heard. Thank you for your consideration in this matter."

The third letter is a copy sent to me; letter to the Minister of Finance:

"Speaking on behalf of the Invermere District Curling Club, we are, to say the least, thunderstruck and speechless as to why the assessment on our curling club is so outrageous. This is a community recreation facility and non-profit organization.

"Further, we would like to point out that this is the only curling rink north of Kimberley that is operating in the east Kootenays. Taxation based on these assessments will force the closure of this community recreational facility."

Look at the new assessment they've received. In 1973 it was $1,210 on land. It has been increased to $10,250 — about a 900 per cent increase. We see the increase on improvements from $6,000 to $16,000, an increase which they can't possibly pay because they're experiencing difficulty in paying the tax bill on the previous assessment.

Maybe their only salvation is to suggest to the provincial government that they take over the operation of this recreational facility. Turn it over lock, stock and barrel to the provincial government; that's what they should do. That's what the government wants: they want to run people out, run them off the land, run them out of their businesses.

It's clearly evident to me that Bill 71 was intended to get revenge against the business community of British Columbia. It has hurt the small landowners, it has hurt the small businessmen in this province, and in my constituency we've got a lot of small businesses and small landowners. We have a lot of seasonal and marginal and tourist-oriented businesses that find it difficult to make a living. We see the Premier now trying to bail out by blaming the assessors for misinterpreting his directives or the intent and purpose of Bill 71.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.

MR. CHABOT: It's most shameful — certainly it is — that the Premier has to blame someone else for the shortcomings of his administration.

The vast majority of the business people in my

[ Page 494 ]

constituency who have investments of $100,000 or $150,000 and who work long hours as well make substantially less than the Premier of British Columbia does with no investment at all.

I want to suggest to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that deferral, as has been suggested by the government, is really not the answer. It's really not the answer to the problem that the small people in this province are facing. Because of its tinkering with the assessment structure, and its continued tinkering through statements from the Minister of Finance's office, we find that the whole situation of equalization of assessments in the province has been shaken, and shaken very badly.

What we really need, Mr. Speaker, is a moratorium on assessments in British Columbia at the present time. I think assessments should be maintained at last year's levels until such time as a full-fledged, independent survey of how assessments should be structured in this province takes place. There should be a fully independent survey carried out of ways and means of bringing in a fair means of assessing and taxing people in this province. I hope that it will be the recommendation of the select standing committee as well that there be a moratorium on assessments at this time, and that there be a complete, independent, intensive survey of ways and means of assessments and taxation in this province.

I assure you that Bill 71 has affected a lot more poor people in my constituency than it has affected what you describe as wealthy ones. We don't have wealthy people in my constituency. There are none as wealthy as you are, Mr. Attorney-General — none.

I think you shouldn't attempt to seek revenge. You indicated very clearly, and I'll point it out later, that the intent and purpose of Bill 71 was revenge against the business community. You clarified that point in your statement, Mr. Attorney-General, just a couple of moments ago, that you want revenge against the people with money and in the business community as well.

When the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was speaking, he talked very briefly about a study that was underway in my constituency some time ago last year, in which it's rumoured that there's going to be established a very massive wilderness park, extending from the community of Kimberley northwards to possibly the Bugaboo mountain range, which is a distance of 150 miles, covering thousands of square miles of the constituency.

The Minister in speaking didn't really define too much as to what his intentions are, but he did say that he wants to protect the drainages in the west Kootenays of Fry Creek, Carney Creek and Hamill Creek. Then on the other side, in the east Kootenays, he wants to protect the Skookumchuck River, Findlay Creek, Dutch Creek and Toby Creek.

In asking him a question during the question period the same day that he spoke, I asked him if he was going to table the Purcell Range study. The Minister said that he would, in due course. However, the report's been in the Minister's hands for some considerable time. In view of the fact that it's of growing concern to the people in my constituency — not only the report but the application of the report and the government's intentions on this study — I think it's important that the Minister file this study as quickly as possible. He's had the study since last September and nothing's happened.

In fact, he was accused just last December by one of the biologists of sitting on the report. The biologist said:

"'I'm very unhappy with the situation and so are a lot of other people around here,' Harvey Hadresak said in an interview here Saturday. He was referring to a report finished in September which resulted from the biggest resource study ever undertaken in B.C. 'I understand that it is now being duplicated for distribution to the study participants, but it probably won't get to them for three weeks or maybe a month."'

He made that statement on December 4. This is almost two months later and the report hasn't seen the light of day. The Minister is unwilling to release this report even though he's had it for some considerable time. I think he should release it so that we can establish really what he's talking about. Is he talking about single-use purpose land in the Purcells — these thousands of square miles — or is it going to be multi-use, a fully integrated use of land in the Purcell Range? Certainly there is concern as to where the boundaries will be on this Purcell Range programme.

There is concern about existing jobs in the constituency as well. I'm not going to suggest that there's not a need for protection of these creek drainages. There certainly is, but I don't think that it's absolutely necessary to throw a blanket wilderness park over the entire Purcell Range from Kimberley north to the Bugaboo Provincial Park. There is a need for an integrated use of this land. There's a need for a programme of range improvement in the Purcells which would help in turn the agricultural base and also big game populations in the area.

There is, in my constituency, a substantial number of parks already. We have three national parks — Glacier National Park, Yoho and Kootenay. We also have three large class A provincial parks — the Assiniboine, the Bugaboo and Hamber provincial parks. We have an abundance of parks. Really, if the government makes the entire Purcells from the upper St. Mary's River through northwards a distance of 100 to 150 miles a park, they might as well change the name of my constituency from Columbia River to

[ Page 495 ]

Parks constituency, B.C., because we'll have all the parks in the province.

I think that there's a genuine concern and a genuine need for some specific statements from the Minister concerned as to his intentions, in what regions, or whether it's going to be a blanket establishment of a wilderness park along the Purcell Range, because there is concern that jobs might disappear if this is made an entirely wilderness area.

I think there's room for integrated land use in the Purcells. There's room for agriculture. There's room for mining. There's room for logging. There's room for wildlife and there's room for recreation as well. I think the government should clarify its position and stop keeping the people in suspense on their intentions as to the establishment of this wilderness park.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), when he was speaking in the Legislature not too many days ago, suggested that the cabinet was leaking. He suggested that there were cabinet leaks.

Now, if there are cabinet leaks — and it appears there are — I think it is important that we remind those cabinet Ministers that they've taken an oath of secrecy. They have a responsibility to uphold that oath of office. They appear to be falling down or forgetting that oath of secrecy that was bestowed on them by the Lieutenant-Governor of this province.

It wasn't too long ago we read in an eastern investment newsletter, almost detail by detail, the full implications of the new royalty tax bill which was introduced by the Minister against mines. We read it about three weeks before the bill was introduced in this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious breach of privilege: a message bill, a money bill being distributed in the investment world and the investment houses of Toronto and New York before the Members of this Legislative Assembly have an opportunity of seeing the legislation. That's a serious breach. Ministers have resigned for less.

I think the sad situation about this is that with these kind of leaks it gives certain individuals an opportunity to take advantage of a situation. I think that's most unfair. I just want to remind the cabinet to pay heed to that oath of secrecy they took when they became Ministers.

The Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) herself admits that the caucus has leaks and that she is going to attempt to plug the leaks in her caucus. If she was here this afternoon, she would be in her place nodding her head and agreeing with me when I say there are cabinet leaks; she would agree with me wholeheartedly because she knows that there are leaks in the caucus as well. Don't only plug the leaks in your caucus; plug the leaks in your cabinet as well.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A very leaky bunch.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) distributed some pretty elaborate pieces of photography just last session, I believe it was, showing the efforts the government was taking to plug the leaks in the roof of this building. It's a pretty leaky place when you have a leaky roof, a leaky caucus and a leaky cabinet as well. There's a need for changes.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's a leaky ship.

MR. CHABOT: I want to speak very briefly about Plateau Mills: it hasn't been discussed too much of late. The one point that comes to mind, of course, in relationship to the takeover of Plateau Mills was a statement made by the now Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in which he levelled a very serious accusation against the forest industry of this province because of the prices they were charging for lumber in British Columbia. He said the forest industry of British Columbia is criminally irresponsible by gouging the public to the extent they are, by charging the same price for lumber in British Columbia as they charge on the international market.

I asked him at the time the government was in the process of taking over Col-Cel: if they did take over the sawmill, would they in turn give a break to the people of British Columbia on lumber prices? All I received in answer was silence. "We'll take it under consideration."

Now that they've been operating Plateau Mills, are they going to be charged by the Minister of Transportation and Communications of being criminally irresponsible by gouging the consumers of British Columbia, by charging international prices on the domestic market? If they are, in view of this serious charge made by the Minister, I think there is a need for an investigation by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) to see whether the Government of British Columbia is ripping off the taxpayers on lumber prices. I assure you they are.

They are a government of double standards. They can hurl accusations at other people; they can say, don't do as I do but do as I say.

I think they have a responsibility, if they really believe lumber prices are too high in British Columbia, to set the example. They've got the vehicle to do so.

We all remember very well the kind of pressure tactics, the kind of strong-arm tactics used in the takeover of Plateau Mills: $2 million less than what they could receive on the open market. The small shareholders in Vanderhoof were ripped off by that government.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): They were happy. What are you talking about?

[ Page 496 ]

MR. CHABOT: Strong-arm tactics by big brother government.

Now we see the same kind of strong-arm tactics being utilized by the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) regarding the B.C. Research Council. Instead of grants, when they give them money now, they want a piece of the action. They want a piece of Tech West; a piece of the action. It doesn't want to maintain a free and independent research organization in this province. The government wants to control....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do they want that?

MR. CHABOT: I'll tell you why they want it. It was very clearly stated when one reads the statements from the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). This is what he has to say: "If new technology or marketing information becomes available through the efforts of government-sponsored research, that technology and that information should be made available exclusively to publicly-owned industries."

Now we can see why the government wants a piece of the action. New technology and new procedure could be adopted or adapted into a pulp mill enterprise or into a logging show or into a sawmill operation. The government wants it for its exclusive use and its own sawmills and its own logging operations and its own pulp mills. They want to exclude private industry from the benefits of the research being done by the B.C. Research and Tech West. More strong-arm tactics by that government.

I was rather interested in an article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun, the Premier's favourite newspaper, on January 29, 1974.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's going to take it over.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, he has the power to take it over, certainly; he's got the power. The Department of Transportation and Communications Act gives you the power.

I was interested in an article dealing with Brannan Lake School. I remember that school being debated in this House on numerous occasions. There were some terrible, terrible charges made. But I think the key to this is the headline: "Brannan Lake — The horror stories were never true." That is quite an extensive article and researched by one Paul Musgrove, the Sun staff reporter. He did quite a thorough study of conditions at Brannan Lake.

When he says, "...where never true," I look back at some of the statements made by some of the former Members of the CCF Party, the NDP. One social worker who was the welfare critic is now the Premier: Barrett. "Barrett, his party's critic on welfare services, charged the government is not providing any plan for mentally disturbed children other than sending them to jail." He suggested that Brannan Lake was a jail.

That great freedom fighter from Grand Forks also used to speak on Brannan Lake. It says: "Brannan Lake boys' industrial school has seriously contributed to B.C. juvenile delinquency, the Legislature was told Thursday, Mrs. Lois Haggen, the CCF MLA for Grand Forks–Greenwood, said the problem results from overcrowding and inadequate treatment." Of course, the Minister against mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) lashed Brannan Lake too. The Minister against mines lambasted Brannan Lake School.

It is pretty interesting to see this article. I'm not going to read you the entire article; it's all good stuff.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: "The halls are wide, well lit and painted a variety of bright colours." I'm not going to suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that there was not overcrowding in Brannan Lake. I'm not going to suggest that at all, because I agree that there was overcrowding at one stage.

"One stairwell is so gaudy it causes the unwary visitor to miss a step. In fact, it looks almost like a high school. Really.

"For many years, the name Brannan Lake has been one to conjure with youth in trouble with the law. Stories of brutal guards, beatings, overcrowding, and violent inmates were passed from one young wrongdoer to the next. Of course, the worst stories are always told by the neighbourhood hero who had been there.

"The stories in one form or another are still around. But the staff of the Island Youth Centre, formerly known as Brannan Lake School for Boys, says it never was like that."

It never was like that — overcrowding, yes, but mistreatment, no. There was no mistreatment. The Member from Kootenay (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Minister against mines, used to charge brutality in his statements about Brannan Lake and its administration, certainly. But now you've made him a Minister against mines for his statements on Brannan Lake school.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Where's your clipping on that?

MR. CHABOT: Do you want me to table them? I have some.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Brutality? When did the Minister charge brutality? When did anyone ever charge brutality? Come on!

MR. CHABOT: I'll table them. (Laughter.)

[ Page 497 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Apologize!

MR. CHABOT: No, I won't apologize at all, because I have clippings. I have several more clippings. I have about 20-25 clippings on the attacks that you and your Minister against mines and Miss Lois Haggen have made on Brannan Lake School.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of this budget which is not likely to be lost sight of by the people of British Columbia.

It is the traditional and normal feelings on the part of the taxpayers that their contributions to government will be designed to deliver people services. I think that a government has a primary responsibility of taking only that amount of taxation which is required for people services. If it is a prudent government it establishes some portion of its income in reserve accounts.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the revenue picture in British Columbia has been exceedingly bright, because of the world market prices on lumber and on metal as well, and because of the impact of inflationary trends on such tax sources as sales tax, the income tax, the land tax and the corporation tax.

As we've moved into the taxation year of 1973 it became obvious that there was a tremendous forward thrust established in the economy as the result of previous decisions in both the private and public sectors. Tax revenues from the forest industry increased by over $100 million. The sales tax quickly reflected the price situation and by March, 1973, it increased by over $30 million from the previous year. By the end of the third quarter the 14 per cent average increase in industrial wages was reflected in an upward lift on income taxes which by March 31, 1973, were up by $55 million.

However, this government has made no attempt whatsoever to reduce taxes. More important, this increased revenue is being drained off by the government and is not reflected in an increased level of services within British Columbia.

Last year new highway construction ground to a halt. The vocational schools slated for the Fraser Valley and the east Kootenays — where are they? They're still on the drawing board. They've been cancelled out by this government when they came into office.

MR. PHILLIPS: Frozen.

MR. CHABOT: Now the Minister, after her friends have been touring the east Kootenays and the west Kootenays for some considerable time, came up with the answer at last. I told her just last spring while speaking in this Legislature as to where the vocational school in the east Kootenays should be located. I told her it should be located in the vicinity of Cranbrook and Kimberley because it's the focal centre of the east Kootenays. Yet the Minister stood in her place and argued that there was a need for an integration between the southern Alberta Institute of Technology and a vocational school in the east Kootenays and that it was more desirable to be placed in the vicinity of Fernie.

I told her at that time that I concurred with the decision and the research put out by the former government. They had stated that there was a need for a vocational school in the east Kootenays and that its location would be in the vicinity of Cranbrook and Kimberley.

Now you've been given a report, after the spending of thousands of taxpayers' dollars, which confirms what I tried to tell you about a year ago about the location of the vocational school.

There has been all this delay. There has been all this inaction while the matter was researched by a task force of friends.

Where is the hospital construction that was promised for Cumberland? Where is the promised hospital for the north Saanich area? These two programmes were cancelled as well. There's no construction there.

We see the expenditure of Public Works almost entirely devoted to the renovation of this building and for housing of the army of civil servants that have been engaged since this government came to office. An army of 8,000 have been hired. You need a lot of rooms to house 8,000 civil servants. That's where the budget of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) is going at this particular time.

The government has applied in an extravagant way the revenues which it enjoys for the purpose of ventures into the business community. Its allocations are almost entirely the result of order-in-council authorizations.

This Legislature is denied the right to vote significant amounts of supply for the operation of the Crown. For example, in this current fiscal year the government has allocated from general funds a commitment to business of $44.2 million, and is negotiating a further $28.6 million of general funds for business experiments.

In short, since this government last met in the Legislature, $72.8 million in tax revenues have been diverted from people services to experiments with business. In addition, new Crown corporations have had advanced to them a total of $25 million. Icky-Bicky (ICBC) got $20.5 million; Ocean Falls Corporation got $3 million; the alfalfa cubing plant, I

[ Page 498 ]

believe it is, got $1.5 million.

These investment loans, advances or whatever in a single year represent an allocation of $97.8 million of public funds outside the control of this Legislature. The shocking thing about all these funds is that the elected representatives of people cannot express their opinions and cannot get answers from the government as to justification for the allocation and the spending of these tax dollars — the people's dollars. Mr. Premier, they're not your dollars, they're not the cabinet's dollars — they're people dollars!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want us to cancel one of the alfalfa cubing plants? No? Why don't you get one of your leaders over there?

MR. CHABOT: Icky-Bicky was advanced $20.5 million. Why couldn't Icky-Bicky have gone out on the open market like all other institutions to borrow its own money? Instead of that you've loaned them cheap taxpayer dollars.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't call the taxpayers' dollars cheap!

MR. CHABOT: I'm not calling them cheap. You've loaned it in cheap interest, Mr. Premier. Had Icky-Bicky gone on the open market, you would have paid substantially more interest than what you're charging them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame! Calling the taxpayers dollars' cheap.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Shame!

MR. CHABOT: You can attempt to twist all you want, Mr. Premier. You're very capable in that respect, I have to admit. You're a great twister of the facts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'll press on.

Mr. Speaker, this massive use of tax revenues for other than services to people was certainly vigorously opposed by Members of our party. There is no evidence either that the government understands the further principle of managing tax dollars which are, in fact, trust moneys. That's what they are.

The government has a responsibility to manage the economy such that commitments made by parliament will not over the long run destroy the ability of future parliaments to deliver a high level of services to the people of this province. There is every evidence that decisions made by this government, in fact, will seriously affect the ongoing ability of this province to enjoy what it has always enjoyed for the past 20 years — the highest level of per capita spending on people services that existed anywhere in this nation.

During the past 12 months, three very basic industries in the province have been devastated by indecision, by uncertainty as to the tax loads they will be called upon to bear and, indeed, by the basic philosophical attitude of the government on the private ownership of land and the means of production.

Mining activity has been severely struck down. I think the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) very clearly described what has happened to the mining industry in his talk.

There were no new major initiatives in the forest industry. Our number one industry in this province had no new initiatives in 1973, and nothing is apparent in 1974. And the reason for that is the indecision and the constant threat of that government that they have over the industry of threatening to extract more taxes from the industry. It is the indecision of bringing down clear-cut policies that would allow the business community to forge on and create new jobs and expand the economy of British Columbia for the benefit of British Columbians.

The implications for the future revenue prospects of this province, looking at '75, '76, '77 and '78, are very disturbing. The lead time required for massive investment in each of three critical areas — forestry, mining and housing — is extremely important, because these things are not built overnight. In all these areas there is a fundamental lack of decision-making on the part of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot escape the notice of the people of this province that in 1973, and going on to 1974, we have had a wiped out year as far as mining expansion, forestry expansion, and housing as well. This wipe out of capital investment in these three areas will reflect itself in budgets of the future — the budget of '76, the budget of '77 and the budget of '78.

Now, I ask you: where is the expertise which the government has engaged in taking over Dunhill? Where are these great experts who have been retained for a period of two years — the people who are going to advise the government in ways and means of establishing low-cost housing in British Columbia?

We saw their first move just a few days ago. Just a few days ago they attempted to take over an unfinished large housing project. And they were scooped, they were out-manoeuvred, they were out-negotiated by one of the private development companies in British Columbia. They fumbled, and they fumbled badly.

Interjection.

[ Page 499 ]

MR. CHABOT: Yes, as my colleague said, they took over the wrong one.

You've engaged these people at elaborate salaries and expense accounts for the next two years, and in their first attempt to do something about housing in British Columbia they fumbled, and they fumbled badly.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this budget, I have to ask myself: where is that open government? Where is that government that has told the people so many times — they've forgotten that slogan, though — "trust us." That slogan is out of the Premier's vocabulary now. He doesn't repeat that one.

Another word that's slowly disappearing from his vocabulary is "open government." That's not an open government. It was clearly demonstrated last fall when they refused to answer questions put on the order paper. Never in the history of this parliament have so many written questions remained unanswered. Forty questions unanswered — is that an indication, Mr. Speaker, of an open government? Or is that an indication of a government that is unwilling to provide answers to the people of this province?

Now, I wonder, is that a government that is anti-Interior of British Columbia? The B.C. Energy Commission not too long ago authorized a 30 per cent increase in the rates on natural gas in the Interior of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Thirty per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did it go up in Vancouver?

MR. CHABOT: And I understand at the moment that the Interior is looking forward to a 30 per cent increase in natural gas rates at this very time. I'm watching very carefully to see the kind of percentage increase that government's going to apply in the Vancouver area, because I've heard it's in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent. It's in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent.

Now, the government has a responsibility to ensure fair treatment to the taxpayers of this province and not to show bias against the Interior of British Columbia by allowing cheaper gas rates in the Vancouver area.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the budget, it's impressive, as far as figures are concerned. It has very impressive figures.

There's a lot of political trash in it, though, that should never be seen in a budget. The budget fails to tackle the number one problem in this province and in this country, and that is inflation. That budget is probably the most inflationary budget that will ever be introduced anywhere in this nation. It is an inflationary budget; it is a budget that tells nothing; it is a budget that is not in the best long-term interests of people of British Columbia.

The Government of Manitoba just a few days ago brought down what I consider to be a responsible budget — a budget in the neighbourhood of 15 to 16 per cent increase in projected expenditures. That's a responsible budget. But a 28 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker, is an inflationary budget.

The government should have decreased taxes — they have ample opportunity and ample revenues to do so. That government and all governments, in fact, in Canada have a responsibility to show direction by their actions, by their initiatives, to counteract inflationary spirals that exist, not only in Canada, but to a greater degree in British Columbia.

The inflationary spiral in British Columbia is greater today and will be in 1974 than in any other economic region in this country. This is the budget that does little for health, education, and welfare.

The budget of 1972-73 for health, education and welfare contributed 73.7 per cent for people's services. We find that this budget is contributing only 66 per cent. What a drastic fall in the allocation of dollars.

We see the same thing with education. The former government's last budget showed a contribution of 30.37 per cent for education. And we were severely condemned in that election by the B.C. Federation of Teachers as a government for our inadequate allocation of the percentage of the budget towards education. Yet in two years we see the decrease here to 25.48 per cent of the budget only directed towards education.

Are we really discussing a budget at this time? I want to tell you that this budget is a hollow document. It is hollow, indeed, because come next fiscal year you won't even recognize the allocation of public funds by what has been set down in the estimates in this Legislature, because the government has a new approach to finance. They tell the school districts, they tell the universities: "Oh, we'll give you bucks. Come begging. Come to the door. Come knocking on the door and we'll discuss it, we'll give you a few bucks, and then you go away and say we're great guys."

That's the kind of fiscal actions that we see in British Columbia today. They want everybody to come knocking on the door, beg a little, we'll give you a little. That's no way to show fiscal responsibility, Mr. Minister of Finance.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tin cup.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. They used to talk about tin cup Medicare. I remember that very well, and now they have twisted it a little bit. They want everybody to come in with their tin cup, as the

[ Page 500 ]

Member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) suggested.

The way the budget should be handled in British Columbia is by people appealing to the government for assistance, not by clear-cut, fair lines, by clear-cut allocations that are fair to all regions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Special privileges.

MR. CHABOT: It is the squeaking wheels that get the grease, and that's not the way budgetary allocations should be made in British Columbia. I certainly hope that is not the attitude of that government over there.

We're waiting, Mr. Premier. There's nothing in that budget that tells us where that steel mill is going to be located. I remember when you took that fancy, elaborate trip over to Europe. You were wined and dined in the best restaurants — Buckingham Palace....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Attacking the Queen and her guests! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you take your Chargex?

MR. CHABOT: He didn't even need a Chargex card. But he came back, I remember, from Britain and Europe. I don't remember if he went to Williams Lake first or after — I really don't know, but that's immaterial, I think.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Are you against the Crown?

MR. CHABOT: Now, I don't know if there's collusion here, Mr. Speaker, between the leader of the Conservative Party and the Premier, but I never suggested that.... I don't know where these negative statements about disrespect for the Queen and the Crown come from. Just because I come from Quebec, I have great belief in the Crown and the Queen.

MR. WALLACE: Good!

MR. CHABOT: But the Premier came back with a great promise of a steel mill. It was only going to be a matter of weeks until the announcement was made — we were going to have a steel mill in British Columbia. Well, we've been waiting for months, Mr. Premier, and it's no closer to becoming a reality today than prior to your going to Europe. Where is that steel mill? Do you want a trip somewhere else in the world to look for steel financing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Japan.

MR. CHABOT: Is the Premier going to go on another lavish junket somewhere to bring a steel mill to British Columbia? The people of British Columbia are waiting. They've been waiting for a long time, they'll still be waiting and I think they'll be waiting for a long time yet.

The Premier also made a trip — he made several trips, I wasn't going to mention that — but he made a trip to Montreal not too long ago. He visited with Réné Levesque and he called him a great Canadian — those are his words, not mine. Réné Levesque is the number one separatist in Canada, number one man who wants to destroy Canada as we see it today.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that man is from the Cariboo.

HON. MR. LEA (Minister of Highways): Rene Fraser.

MR. CHABOT: Yet we find the Premier of British Columbia having a love-in with Réné Levesque in Montreal. It's shocking that the taxpayers' dollars should be spent for the Premier to go on a junket to Montreal to talk to the number one man who wants to destroy Canada. He wants to destroy Canada and the Premier calls him a great Canadian. He is the betrayer of this country, and the Premier of British Columbia shouldn't be seen in his company!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, Alec, I can't reach you any more.

MR. CHABOT: Now, we've seen this government in office for 18 months. There have been no clear-cut policies laid down. There's been no semblance of direction for the business community so that the business community can expand and grow to provide jobs (laughter) for the people of British Columbia. There's a genuine need for you to tell the people what your attitude is towards the mining industry and whether you're going to back off from this complete destruction bill you have in the Legislature, which I'm not going to discuss, Mr. Speaker, and also the lack of clear-cut policies in the forest industry is forcing the status quo in that industry, and it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that way. That government is failing the people of British Columbia.

This budget does not fulfil the hopes and aspirations of the majority of British Columbians. It's a hollow document; it's not worthy of support, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Awww.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

[ Page 501 ]

MS. SANFORD: I would just like to correct a statement made by the previous speaker. I understood him to say that construction on hospitals at Cumberland had been halted. I would like to inform the House that plans are progressing as quickly as possible in order to have built in Cumberland a diagnostic and treatment centre as well as an intermediate-care facility, all at government expense. Thank you.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I can't understand the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who says this budget has nothing for anybody.

For the Liberal Party, it has the removal of the 5 per cent sales tax on secondhand clothes. (Laughter.)

For the Social Credit Party, in an attempt to improve the quality of our opposition, it has the removal of the 5 per cent sales tax on books. (Laughter.)

For the Conservative Party it has additional funds for wildlife conservation, so that endangered species like the trumpeter swan or the Anscombe Conservatives shall not perish from our landscape. (Laughter.)

And for the NDP it has perfect marks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the new Member to the Legislature (Mr. Gibson) and wish him a successful career here.

I want to briefly discuss the mysterious case of the purloined letter. They used to say that when a perfect gentleman found somebody else's mail, he would return it unread. If it was just a gentleman, the gentleman would pick up these letters and he would read it and he would nevertheless return it in a plain brown envelope. But a near-gentleman who finds somebody else's mail reads it and says: "Oh, maybe I can make use of this at some time in the future." But the Hon. Member for Columbia River reads this purloined letter and he says: "Oh, another government takeover — of Tech West."

This is what he was talking about a little bit this afternoon. Well, for his information, we can't take over Tech West. It is a wholly owned public company at the present time. (Laughter.) Even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) can hardly be expected to take over Tech West, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the B.C. Research Council.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's take over the CBC.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Member mentioned Brannan Lake. This is something that this government ought to be proud of and can be proud of. When we came in, Hon. Members, there were 208 boys crowded into Brannan Lake, and now there are 64. And the Willingdon School for Girls has passed away from the life of British Columbia forever. That's a little indication of some of the progress we've been making in the area of social and penal reform in this Province of British Columbia.

I'm glad to see that the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) who had that great headline that he threatens to pull the Cariboo riding out of the Province of British Columbia, is in his place. I don't think the Pied Piper of Quesnel can even get some of the rats and mice to follow him on that. But he did have some support.

I want to talk for a minute about this business. Really these people, and I include that Hon. Member, are doing no service to this Province of British Columbia engaging in this kind of separatist, destructive talk about this province. People are fighting to get into this province.

People are fighting to get into this province, where we have the lowest unemployment rate of anywhere in the Dominion of Canada — the lowest unemployment rate of anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. And those who engage in that kind of talk are little British Columbians who ought to think first.

You know, the only people who are critical of this great Province of British Columbia are the Social Credit Members. They are prepared to yield to no one in their love of this province, provided it doesn't interfere with their political ambitions. They're little British Columbians who engage and encourage that kind of talk — spoilers of the dream. Political spoilers!

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) says that he doesn't want certain laws to operate in his riding. Bill 71. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: when you have unequal assessments — and unequal assessments were built up by the Social Credit Party over 20 years — you have a multitude of evils following in that train. And the people who benefit least from unequal assessments are the ordinary people, including the ordinary people of Cariboo.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Just as long as that's all the reference you have to that subject... Because I think there's something on the order paper.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is, Mr. Speaker, and that's all I'm going to say about the heritage of unequal assessments that this government inherited from the Social Credit government.

Bill 42, an Act to preserve the green space of the Province of British Columbia. If the Hon. Member for Cariboo wants ribbon development, if he wants smoke stacks in the Cariboo, if he wants to turn that verdant area of British Columbia into a greater Chicago, if he wants the cowboys of the Cariboo to be punching cows for absentee foreign landowners, he

[ Page 502 ]

ought to be opposed to Bill 42.

And of course he opposes Autoplan.

In the Vancouver Sun, Friday, it says this — and I want to read this because this is important; this is the kind of thing opposition Members are imposing — it says about Autoplan:

"The infusion of millions of dollars daily by the Insurance Corporation of B.C. into the Vancouver money market is welcomed by Vancouver money men. 'The ability of the Vancouver money market to absorb the funds helps establish Vancouver as a major financial centre and should encourage large corporate lenders and borrowers to consider settling here,' said one banker. 'In the past we've had more borrowers than lenders here,' he added, 'and it's good to see a big lender now.'"

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Another banker said that formerly much of this premium income went to eastern-based insurance companies for investment in eastern markets. This government is prepared to build up social capital in this province, to build up a stock of social capital which, at the moment in the case of ICBC, stands at social capital to the value of $74,517,000.

It will see that that is reinvested into the social lifestream of the province in our industry, in our schools and in our hospitals, to shake off here in British Columbia the bondage of the economic royalists, and to free this country from the entanglements of the international insurance monopoly once and for all.

Of course there are growing pains in an experiment of that size. But I took a quotation the other day from Thomas Carlisle. Thomas Carlisle, the great writer, wrote: "It is singular how long the rotten will hold together provided you do not handle it roughly. So loath are men to quit their old ways and, conquering indolence and inertia, venture anew."

Well, I want to say that this government is not afraid to rouse the dogs of property privilege in the interests of the people of this province. What you condemn in Autoplan is a great new programme which will give this province and the people of this province not only better service and better rates...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hogwash, hogwash!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...but a stock of social capital which we never had before when we have been a pawn in the international money markets.

I just want to say one or two words about the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which has been mentioned very briefly in this debate. There's nothing in the budget showing that we received — the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — $50,000 as seed capital, because we turned around and within a month — speaking as a director of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation — paid that back into the public Treasury.

Instead of the old situation where we were receiving as a province 14 per cent royalty on our natural gas, we will be receiving approximately 45 per cent of the value of that natural gas. We're not doing this with a big bureaucracy; possibly 25 employees in the B.C. Petroleum Corporation should be about the level.

We passed through shoals of one kind or another in that endeavour to receive a proper return on our natural gas NEB, the 105 per cent formula conservation — but we've arrived at the point now where the experiment has been a success and where the people's gas is flowing through the people's meters.

For the first time...and the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) mentioned increased prices. The increase in price charged by the Columbia Gas Company, which supplies gas from Alberta to the consumers in the southeastern part of British Columbia, has been about 70 per cent in the last few months; whereas somebody said the increase in the inland system has been about 30 per cent.

Even at that, in terms of BTUs the price of natural gas in the province of British Columbia is substantially below the price of furnace oil — fuel oil.

You have to go by the BTUs. You have about six gallons of gas required to make 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas. On that basis the comparative price — let's take in Kelowna, where I made a note of it — for natural gas at the present time, with the price of fuel oil of 29 cents, should be $1.74. In fact, it is $1.30 under the new rate scheduled, so it's approximately 44 cents under the comparable fuel value, which is furnace oil.

I wanted to say one or two words before going on about the National Energy Conference.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The National Energy Conference was a great disappointment to the people of British Columbia. We put off for the sake of 60 days — under the leadership of Trudeau who failed to show leadership on that occasion — the resumption of control of the Canadian economy by the international oil companies. Because after that 60-day period, when all the momentum is gone out of the great proposals for one price across Canada, when the momentum is gone out of all of the federal proposals, we will be back under the control of the international oil companies. I think, in that respect, that the National Energy Conference was a big

[ Page 503 ]

disappointment. Whether or not it is even reconvened is a question mark today in view of the failure of leadership on behalf of the federal government.

Yet we in British Columbia, in the case of natural gas, with our model — and I hope it will be a model for all of Canada — the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, have shown how even if you will not accept nationalization.... For my own part I have no objection whatsoever. In fact, I favour nationalization by Canada of all of the energy resources of this country from natural gas to oil to uranium to coal.

If we don't take that step in order to preserve our integrity and to return to the people a fair break in these fields. At least Canada should follow the model that British Columbia has established and let the returns on all of these valuable natural resources pass through a public company so that the people of Canada can begin to share in the abundant returns from their natural resources that we in British Columbia are already bringing to them.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A 16 per cent increase in price.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again, wrong again.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I see the Hon. Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) is in his seat, and he asked a question today about the cost of the justice programme.

MR. McGEER: Tell us the cost of the gas.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me say this about the Liberal Party before I leave the question of gas. How long have they been the Government of Canada? How long were we selling to the Americans our natural gas at 32 cents per thousand cubic feet? If there was ever a rip-off of the Canadian public for the benefit of international gas companies and utility companies it was that. And the Liberal Party and the Social Credit Party of British Columbia were at the forefront of that rip-off.

If you're opposed to the programme we proposed in the natural-gas field, then get up and speak against it and vote against it. But I'm telling you, it's beginning to return to the people of this province a little bit of their just desserts out of the export of their natural resources.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In the budget — and speaking as Attorney-General — I want to say that for the first time there is a full commitment in this province to improving the quality of justice in the Province of British Columbia. To clarify the point raised by the Hon. Member, I think the budget gives $15 million in that particular vote. To get the true picture you must take from that that we will be receiving under the proposals about $8.5 million in fine revenue that is now being collected in the municipalities. But there is, nevertheless, in this year toward the improvement of the quality of justice all through this Province of British Columbia about $6.6 million. Negotiations in respect to some municipalities have not been concluded at the present time.

MR. FRASER: Let the Premier change his ad then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a never-before commitment to the administration of justice and to the quality of justice in this province. It is an attempt to catch up on an antiquated justice system which was neglected under Social Credit for 20 years and an attempt to go forward from that point.

I know the quality of justice is, in a sense, an abstract thing. It's not something you can roll between your fingers or maybe taste, but it's a very necessary ingredient in the life of the people of British Columbia: to introduce some element of fairness, to get away from that backlog of cases stacked up back-to-back, to attempt to even out throughout the Province of British Columbia the justice service, to make it fair, and to bring it into the shanty-town courthouse facilities that exist in many, many parts of this province.

In talking about the backlog, I'll take one example of a particularly dangerous crime. We've had round-ups where the RCMP officers have brought in traffickers in hard heroin. Under the bail reform Act of the federal parliament, which I'm not criticizing, we found these accused out on bail. Another round-up takes place a year and a half later and some of the same names pop up in that round-up.

We believe in the bail system, but as part of the reformation of the whole business of justice we have to grapple with this in terms of a new service. I think we need a bail supervision service so that the idealistic standards that are set in the bail reform Act can be lived up to. But there would be monitoring and supervising and checking so that someone who is engaged in a crime dangerous to the community does not have the opportunity to continue that crime pending trial.

That's just one of the multitude of examples of things that have to be done in the justice field. Wherever possible, we want to let people out on bail.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): When we let one out on bail, that's always the problem.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's always the problem. Therefore I think what is needed is some

[ Page 504 ]

bail supervision that comes before the probation phase and enables a judge who grants bail to have some kind of check in the meantime with respect to those who are out pending trail.

The problem is more serious because of the delays which, in the City of Vancouver, are between 17 and 28 months in the case of people charged with a serious crime. This is part of the thing we're facing. But it is also dangerous in that often many of the people do not show up. A judge and jury meet for a trial and the accused does not show up. We've had a great many of what you might call "no-shows" in the justice system, particularly in and about the City of Vancouver.

Speed up the process, but have bail supervision as an additional service.

We see in the total justice picture — as part of the reform we are engaged on — the failure of the prisons. We have of the total population maybe 95 per cent who come out of jail anyway. Of those who go to jail at the present time, about 60 per cent are repeaters; they've been there before. The person coming out of jail after long, bitter, lonely, alienated years behind bars returns to his community not safer in terms of that community but more dangerous. Criminals are made not born, and so many of them are made by our criminal justice system and by our jail system.

I have no doubt there is a percentage, maybe 20 per cent or so, who are maybe classified as vicious or dangerous or violent. But for the rest of them there has to be a phasing out of the jail system and alternatives developed to imprisonment and incarceration. It is along that road, which basically is a road for safer communities, on which we are embarked as part of our justice system.

I want to mention one thing in which I think we are subject to criticism in the justice system and say one or two words about it. That's the order-in-council committal. We do have a tremendous need in this province for forensic services. I hope, before the end of this session, Mr. Speaker, the House will be able to give consideration to legislation in this regard.

We have people who are mentally unstable, who get caught up in the criminal justice system and are remanded by a judge. Whether or not this is legally the position is something for the court to say and I don't want to comment on that. We have to protect society in the period pending trail but we also have to protect the accused. We are catching the 30-day remands on a far greater scale than we have ever done before the make sure that only people are committed where there's a question of safety involved either to that individual or to the community. We've cut back on a number of those.

The fact of the matter is we don't have psychiatrists to come back into court and be able to testify in these cases. I know my friend, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), is considering the general question of the availability of medical services in the country, including psychiatrists. But I think it is most unfortunate that, in a province of over two million people at the present time, the public services are starved so that we can't find psychiatrists who have the time to join the public service and be willing to take part in a court hearing on some of these cases.

We are determined to de-criminalize the justice system. We don't want to see mentally-incapable people put through the criminal justice system.

Of those who go to jail at the present time, maybe 10 per cent, as some surveys show, have a diagnosable psychiatric illness. Others are feeble-minded or emotionally distraught who get caught up in the criminal process. And of course, there are the addicts and the alcoholics.

But at the same time let me say that we have to be very careful — and that's why I'm talking about orders-in-council at the present time — that there is due process and that people are not taken out of the criminal justice system without some safeguards in that system and subjected to confinement against their will under some kind of therapeutic tyranny, without due process or an opportunity to be heard or to appeal their cases. So it's to that kind of a question that we should address ourselves as a Legislature to see if we can't establish — and I think the Ministry of Health is the department where this should be done, in co-operation with the Attorney-General's department — adequate forensic services auxiliary to the court.

I think nevertheless that there should be safeguards, because I'm talking about these people who are not really criminals. There is a review panel under District Judge Keenleyside, but he sees the longer-term patients, not those who are awaiting trial and remanded by a judge for 30 days or something of that kind. It's in that area that the greatest problem crops up at the present time.

I think when we look at the people we're dealing with here that society should permit deviation unless there is an actual threat to somebody else's life or safety. In other words, I think we have to defend the right to be different. I think the only right that society has to confine some person against his will is if it is to protect people from actual harm, and when I say that I mean harm that is significant and measurable and not simply inconvenience or nuisance.

That is another kind of problem that I hope we'll address ourselves to, hopefully at this end of the Legislature.

I wanted to say that the reform in the justice field — and I'll say this very briefly, as I listened to the speech for the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) — is not just a matter of improving the facilities or the courts. It's also a matter of improving the laws.

[ Page 505 ]

We legislators have had a challenge handed to us arising out of the judgment in Murdoch v. Murdoch which points up the archaic laws in some fields under which we're living at the present time, That was the case where a wife, after 25 years of marriage, after contributing labour on the farm and on the ranch, after through her mother she contributed capital, after a break-up of the marriage and an altercation with her husband that left her in hospital, was told by the Supreme Court of Canada that she had no legal or equitable interest in the property they built up over that period of time. That was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, but in the course of that, Mr. Justice Laskin, who is now the Chief Justice of Canada — a magnificent appointment, if I may say so — said this in dissenting:

"No doubt legislative action may be the better way to lay down policies and prescribe the conditions under which, and the extent to which, spouses should share in property acquired by either or both during marriage."

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the present Chief Justice has thrown out a challenge to us as legislators, and I am sure the Berger commission, which is now actively at work in the field considering these problems, will bring back recommendations. I would hope that within a year we will be able to introduce some fairness and equity into the property laws as they affect husband and wife, and to right before too long this ancient legal wrong.

I want to say a little bit about the budget and the tremendous housing proposals that are made in it. After 20 years of pushing by this opposition for resources of the community and the government to be poured into the housing field, we have for the first time a real commitment in this budget.

I want to say something too about the little people who are being hurt out in the housing field. Part of it concerns the Department of the Attorney-General, I guess, and real estate as well.

There are fortune hunters in the real estate field who buy a house, present an appraisal to the owner, and then get another appraisal when they have acquired the house — a different appraisal and a higher appraisal — and they mortgage the house. Often they finance it to the hilt under the second appraisal, and then they sell it off. Or there are fortune hunters or speculators — call them what you will — who wash in the housing field at the present time in the Province of British Columbia, as they do on the stock market, where they sell stock back and forth, one company to another company or one individual to another company in order to buck up the price. That kind of washing is happening in the very tragically crowded housing market that we have in British Columbia at the present time.

We have pitifully few tools to do anything to protect people from this kind of speculation, but it certainly is increasing the price of homes wherever it is occurring. We have the tools that the person should disclose that he's trading on his own account. We have a tool in that if it is a building operation then they have to produce financial statements. We have the reform that was introduced into the Landlord and Tenant Act whereby rents cannot be raised for a period of one year, which to some extent is checking those who would buy the house, jack up the rent, and then sell the house after financing it to the hilt under the new rent structure.

I regret that some of the credit unions in the past and some of the mortgage companies have been, rather than helping people, helping some of these operations which have profited only speculators in scarce housing resources that are badly needed in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

I think that we need to take as a Legislature again, either through some inquiry of a legislative committee or possibly through the Law Reform Commission or possibly a royal commission, an inquiry that will not be too long delayed so we can look at the whole matter of multiple connections and look at the question of appraisals, and what standards, if any, apply to appraisals. Too many people have had a real estate agent come to their door and say, "Here's an appraisal of your house." That appraisal two weeks later, when the sale has been made, has been coming from another source and of course it is entirely different and entirely higher.

We have to look at the whole business as to whether there's not additional protection in our real estate laws, whether we can help to democratize the real estate profession and protect the salesman, whether the rates of commission are fair and whether multiple chain commissions, which are built into the cost of housing in this province, are fair and in the public interest, and whether or not the municipalities have a role to play in the exchange and listing of housing.

I don't want to get into particular cases at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I think you'll find that it's a fairly common practice in the lower mainland of the Province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I would hope too, Mr. Speaker, if I could change the subject for a minute, that this Legislature will address itself to the question of honesty in government. We've heard some of the people, more in the municipalities than anywhere else, say that they would rather quit than have a disclosure bill in respect to their assets. But really, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter we're dealing with of real substance. I don't think we can afford, as legislators or as municipal councillors, to have even the suspicion of government by influence peddling, or government by

[ Page 506 ]

crony. I think even the MLAs that are here today must agree that they have to be, like Calpurnia, about suspicion. We had the inquiry into Surrey a short while ago, and the commissioner, Donald White, had this to say. He spoke of

"the necessity for complete disclosure and candidness at all times where one conducts even private business in the open. When such a person is a public official, then suspicions are allayed."

I say it's in the interest of us as legislators and it's in the interest of the municipal councillors that their assets should be out in the open and known so that there will be full disclosure by the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you back off?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Everybody agreed that we would take a year.

I don't underestimate for a moment the importance of the subject that we're talking about today. There are various ways to deal with it. One is by the principal of avoidance — get rid of your holdings. Another is by the principal of disclosure. But, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the only way to go is to make the public the judge and jury — let there be full disclosure, let the sun shine in, and in that way we can restore confidence in the democratic process.

MR. SMITH: There's a bill on the order paper concerning public disclosure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 34, the Public Trustee Act, I believe is a matter dealing with disclosure. I would ask the Hon. Attorney-General not to discuss anything that is covered by this bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, at 5:20 on this Monday afternoon, we're discussing a great budget for the people of the Province of British Columbia. I know that governments can make mistakes and that Ministers of Finance can err.

MR. SMITH: But Attorneys-General? Never.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The immortal Dante Alighieri, in his Divine Comedy, tells us that the sins and omissions of the cold-hearted man and the warm-hearted man are weighed in different scales by divine justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Premier and the Minister of Finance of the Province of British Columbia is big all over, and he's warm all over, especially around the regions of the heart. Whatever you may say about this budget, it has heart. Better the occasional faults of a social democratic government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a fake business government frozen in the ice of its indifference to everything but the dollar bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, but the young J.S. Woodsworth...

MR. McGEER: A new executive assistant?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...the founder of the CCF, torn between the paths of politics and the church, and troubled with the thoughts that would not let him rest, he wrote these words in his book, My Neighbour, when he was a young man:

"If through indifference or selfishness we protest, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' there comes the inexorable reply: 'The voice of my brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.'

"Someone is responsible. Every unjustly treated man, every defenceless women, every neglected child has a neighbour somewhere."

And he asked himself, "Am I that neighbour?" Well, I think the thought that would not let him rest ought to discomfort us a little.

Point by point and item by item the philosophy and the human compassion of J.S. Woodsworth animates this budget:

Minimum incomes for senior citizens, that none may fall into squalid poverty in the last years of life.

Pharmacare for senior citizens, that life-saving and life-prolonging medicines may be theirs.

People's landbanks, so that increasingly people may have homes to call their own.

Unemployment never so low in this province. Employment never so high, that people in an abundant economy may be productive and hold their heads high.

Replanted forests, so that the generations that spring from our loins may love the wild beauty of this province as we do.

Financial incentives to cultural and recreational programmes, that people may live lives enriched and full.

Repatriation of our great industries and resources through sound taxation and investment policies.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I promise not to cry.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is a great people's budget. No longer is this province on the auction block. No longer is this province a treasure house of resources to be broken into by every international mountebank. British Columbia's

[ Page 507 ]

no longer for sale. Run it up your flag pole, (Laughter) shout it from your roof, tell it to your children — B.C. is not for sale.

With few and honourable exceptions, opposition Members have greeted this budget with negative, doubting, destructive criticism. Over here we're NDPers; we don't belong to any organized party. (Laughter.) But we NDPers believe in British Columbia, its people and its promise.

We scorn the natterers and the carpers and the snappers on the other side of the House. Let the Socreds wail and gnash their teeth; we support unstoppable goals. The rest of Canada is watching, not only with interest, Mr. Speaker, but with envy. They are saying: "Westward, look, the land is bright!"

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to close the debate on a great people's budget for the Province of British Columbia, which is a landmark that will be remembered not only by the people of the province that live here today, but a landmark that will be remembered by generations to come.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm convinced!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I ask that the question be put.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, sadly I must put the question that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 35

NAYS — 17

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 2: $ 202,100

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. King files the answer to question 35.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, could you tell us what the order will be tomorrow?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is my understanding, with the shared agreement, that we would go to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) tomorrow, and then Wednesday's business.... I have to attend a conference for the next two-and-a-half days. As soon as I come back we'll do the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, further to my point of privilege raised a little earlier in the day, I have another statement in the consideration of my point of privilege regarding statements made outside the House. I'm presently in consultation with legal counsel as to whether this statement should be dealt with inside this House or through outside jurisdictions. I would appreciate it if you would reserve your decision until such time as this decision has been made.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, I'll be prepared to do that. At least, I should not say that; that would be incorrect. All I can do is proceed on with the matter unless the Hon. Member wishes to withdraw it from my consideration. In those circumstances I could. But I'm impelled by my duties in the chair to decide a matter that has been put to me.

On the other hand, if I make some finding on the matter, it still requires a motion from a Member for it to be proceeded with. All I can do is examine the question put to me, and put to the House, and decide whether it is urgent or not. If I decide that it is urgent and should be taken up immediately, and I must come to that as quickly as possible under our rules,

[ Page 508 ]

then you have the decision to make as to whether you intend to put a motion to this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that mandatory?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there's no doubt about mandatory. Let me explain first to the Members so there is no misunderstanding.

When a matter of privilege is raised, the authorities say that I must deal with it as quickly as possible. Secondly, it must be raised as quickly as possible or it expires, as it were, because of the delay, therefore I must be quick about what I am doing, and also the member must be quick if he intends to pursue a matter of privilege. Therefore, I can't sit on the sidelines.

As soon as I come to a decision of what the facts mean in terms of a prima facie case, then you must decide whether you are going to put a motion or not. And I must come to that decision as quickly as possible.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances then, in view of the fact that you must deal with the point of privilege as quickly as possible, probably I will withdraw the statement at this time and deal with it as a motion on the order paper at a later date, if necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that I am not deciding that he hasn't got a point of privilege. Far from it. I'm considering the whole thing with great care. The Member concerned in this matter, the Member for Vancouver-Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk): do you wish to make a statement or intercession to this?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could relieve the situation. In terms of the statement raised by the Hon. Member, I wish to withdraw that statement. He indicated clearly that I made a statement in the corridor respecting his going to jail. I wish to withdraw that statement. It was an intemperate statement to make.

I apologize to the Member for making it, and I wish to inform the House that if I have caused him any embarrassment, I'm sorry. At the time, you must understand, Mr. Speaker, I was very angry because of the possession of the document in the person's hand. The origin of how he got it, I still don't know. But the statement was completely intemperate and I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I don't know where that leaves the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) on this matter, but as far as I am concerned I still must carry on my duties, unless the Hon. Member wishes to make any statement in regard to that.

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw my point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. That relieves me of an all-night job, and I must say I congratulate both Members on their temperance and good sense.

Hon. Mr. Radford files answers to questions 77, 116, 87 and 41.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions 22, 9, 24, 96, 49, 25, 15 and 153 in the form of a return.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:38 p.m.