[ Page 189 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Press release concerning budgetary matters. Mr. Schroeder — 190

Mr. Speaker — 190

Mr. Smith — 190

Mr. Speaker — 190

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Juvenile delinquents and Human Resources programmes. Mr. Bennett — 190

Housing of juveniles in Empress Hotel. Mr. McClelland — 190

Purchase and rezoning of Casa Loma property. Mr. L. A., Williams — 191

Use of Laws Declaratory Act. Mr. Curtis — 191

Contingency plan for school disruption. Mr. Wallace — 191

Loose policies in Human Resources. Mrs. Jordan — 192

Establishment of public service grievance board. Mr. Gardom — 192

Suspension of Human Resources programmes. Mr. Schroeder — 193

Environmental dangers from aerosol containers. Mr. Rolston — 193

Victoria Highlands sewerage facilities study. Mr. Wallace — 193

Throne speech debate

Mr. Gibson — 194

Ms. Brown — 196

Mr. Curtis — 202

Mr. Gardom — 208

Mr. Phillips — 213

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 219

Mr. Lewis — 222

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislature, I've got a very pleasant duty to perform today and a very pleasant and surprising introduction to make to the House.

Back in 1949 when I first entered the House, there were quite a number of Members here, but today there are only two of us left who came in at that time — Frank Calder, the Hon. Member for Atlin, and myself. At that time he was classed as the baby of the House. I've known Frank for these 26 years. I've worked with him. At times I've tried to match him up, but Frank was very particular, and went on for 26 years without being caught: (Laughter.)

But a few years ago he made a trip to Japan. Now I don't know why he made that trip to Japan, or what happened. But a short time ago a visitor from Japan was here and the other day I was introduced to the surprise; I was asked to be a witness, along with Mary Christiansen and my wife, at a very enjoyable ceremony.

I would like to introduce Mrs. Frank Calder to you today.

I am sure that that response means you wish them the very best for the future. Mrs. Frank Calder's name happens to be Tammy. I hope that we make her a pleasant welcome to British Columbia.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members, I have great pleasure in introducing to you and asking you to welcome the No. 1 alderman from the City of Vancouver, Mike Harcourt.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, we have two visitors with us today, seated on the floor, whom I'd like to introduce: my counterpart from one of the other provinces, a Minister of Highways. As we all know in the house, it takes just a little bit more courage, a little bit more intelligence, a little more sensitivity to hold that post — and a little bit more capability. (Laughter.) But it does give me great pleasure .... We have two visitors: the Hon. Eiling Kramer, Minister of Highways from Saskatchewan, is with us today and I would ask you to make him welcome. Also, with Mr. Kramer is his executive assistant, Martin Semchuk, who was also an MLA in Saskatchewan from 1960 to 1964.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, it's my good fortune to represent a constituency which encompasses three school districts — Surrey,
Langley and Abbotsford, at least parts of those districts. We have a group of teachers from each of those areas today and on behalf of my colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) as well, I'd like to introduce them with the leaders of their delegations: Mr. Wayne Anthony from Abbotsford district, Doris Hahn from Surrey and Brahm Sahadeo from Langley. I'd like the House to make them all welcome, please.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, as you know, one of the most excellent high schools in B.C. Is the Pitt Meadows Senior Secondary School, and Mike Siddiby, John Hofmann and John Collins, teachers, are in the gallery with the first delegation of 35 students. Another delegation in another hour will be in the gallery from Pitt Meadows Senior Secondary.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, we have the pleasure today of having the second group of students who contested for the privilege of being here under the Education in Democracy, in writing essays. They come from a wide area of British Columbia — some from South Okanagan constituency, some from the Mackenzie constituency, some from the Comox constituency, some from the Alberni constituency and actually some from Boundary-Similkameen. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the majority of the group here today come from the sunny Okanagan.

We are very, very pleased that they were winners in this particular contest. This contest is sponsored by the Council of Forest Industries and radio station CKNW in Vancouver. I would like the assembly to welcome this hard-working group of students to our session here this afternoon. I know they are all very interested and look forward to taking a lot of information and interest back to their colleagues back in their respective constituencies.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery this afternoon are three representatives from the Comox District Teachers Federation. They are here this afternoon to observe us in session. I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Art Tindill, president of the group; Mr. Doug McRae, vice-president, and Mr. Darryl Pippin, secretary.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, before one of the Liberal Members welcomes everyone else, I would like to draw to your attention and that of the House the fact that we also have teachers with us today from Saanich School District 63.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that there are teachers in the

[ Page 190 ]

gallery today from Victoria School District 61. But in passing, I would also like to state that later on in the day, in the gallery — in my particular family it's a pretty big day — we are going to have my two youngest children who are 20 today, no longer teenagers in the family.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey — shall we take it as read? (Laughter.)

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): With searching eyes, Mr. Speaker, I found one lonely soul in the gallery who has not yet been introduced and I would like to bid him or her the most gracious welcome to this assembly.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) refused to answer questions during question period, and she cited as her reasons that she could not answer questions that were related to budgetary matters before the release of the budget. Yet today, under today's date, we have a press release which involves itself almost entirely with budgetary matters. I'm asking the House: is there a double standard here?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that the House has any obligation to decide or to rule upon the question of answering questions in question period. That is the prerogative of the person concerned, as to how and when he answers questions. I cannot force compliance with that. It's a rule of the House.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On the same point of order then, Mr. Speaker. It would appear to me that the proper way to handle a question such as that would be to take it as notice rather than to suggest to the House that we are prohibited from answering because of the fact that the budget will be placed before the House within a few days.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the intent of making a statement like that would be to in effect say: "I'm taking it as notice; at some stage it is going to be answered." That's what I take from the remark made by the Hon. Minister.

I can't deal with matters that happened outside the House unless the thing is before me and there is a definite point of procedure that you can point to on that question. Otherwise, we're dealing in sort of a vague generality at the moment.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't even seen what you're talking about.

Oral questions.

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS AND
HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMMES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources with respect to the Minister's remarks at the University of British Columbia, as quoted in The Daily Colonist, wherein the Minister stated that a review of programmes in his department is underway to determine among other things what cutbacks in programmes might be undertaken. Can the Minister assure the House that the programmes and facilities of his department for the care and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders will not be subject to these cutbacks?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can't be responsible for what appears in the newspaper. I did not use the phrase "cutback." I said we were evaluating programmes; I at no time suggested that there would be any cutbacks at all. We're talking about evaluation.

MR. BENNETT: A recent report, then, from Surrey has shown that juveniles 16 and under committed over 1,300 offences in 1974 in Surrey alone, compared to 1,800 for all other adults. Has the Minister received this report, and is the Minister going to take any action on its content?

HON. MR. LEVI: I've obtained a copy of the report and I'll be looking at it. I recently got back from travelling so I haven't had a chance to read it.

HOUSING OF JUVENILES
IN EMPRESS HOTEL

MR. McCLELLAND: With regard to juvenile delinquents, could the Minister advise us whether or not it's true that hard-core juvenile delinquents — or perhaps I should say any juvenile delinquents — have been housed in Victoria's Empress Hotel at the expense of the Department of Human Resources?

HON. MR. LEVI: That's a serious question, is it, Mr. Member?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not aware of such a.... I'm certainly prepared to find out for you.

MR. McCLELLAND: I take it the Minister has agreed that he'll look into that.

[ Page 191 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'll take it as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if he would also at the same time look into how much if any of the $50,000 or better that was paid out to the Empress Hotel, as is in public accounts, was charged to housing either delinquents or other people under the Department of Human Resources.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'll certainly do it.

PURCHASE AND REZONING
OF CASA LOMA PROPERTY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): To the Hon. Minister of Housing with reference to the mortgage which the Government of British Columbia holds on the Casa Loma property. Would the Minister be prepared to table the purchase agreement which is recited in that mortgage?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll consider that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: While the Minister is considering that matter I wonder if he would advise whether or not the government's acquisition of the Casa Loma property is subject to the obligation of the vendors to have the property rezoned in some way.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'll explain that, Mr. Member. There are 33 units of the 125 that are commercial units inasmuch as they are motel units. There is a stipulation that would give the government a prerogative, subject to the rezoning of those units.

Even if they are not rezoned we would probably want to proceed because we have a commitment from Central Mortgage and Housing for almost $3 million under section 43. We also have under that the 50-50 cost-sharing of operation expenses. It would be a considerable loss to this province and to the many senior citizens who are writing in and phoning for accommodation of this type, particularly those who are writing in with connection with Casa Loma.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Then, Mr. Speaker, in view of the explanation from the Minister — which was not quite an answer - is he prepared to make the purchase agreement public so the municipality of Burnaby will not need to proceed with its rezoning application, as reported in the paper last night, since it is not a condition of purchase?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I've already answered that question.

USE OF LAWS
DECLARATORY ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same subject to the Minister of Housing, are we to assume then that the amendment to the Laws Declaratory Act, which permits the Crown and its agencies to ignore the rezoning process in local government matters, will be employed in this instance?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To the paranoid Member, I would....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's only permitted in the press. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: My information is that one could....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please! Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that? Would the Hon. Minister withdraw the use of the word?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, I will, unlike the Members from that side, give unqualified withdrawal of that remark if it offends the Member or the Members of this House — unlike those people as they fiddle around about such matters for five minutes.

CONTINGENCY PLAN
FOR SCHOOL DISRUPTION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Education. Inasmuch as education is costing $600 million a year and is a heavy burden on homeowners, and since the students in Victoria are not receiving the education that has been paid for because of a labour dispute in which the students are innocent victims, could I ask the Minister what contingency plan the Minister has to ensure that students continue to receive the education that is being paid for?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, don't pass the buck. Come

[ Page 192 ]

on! Let's have an answer.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I am as concerned as you are when the students have their educational services interrupted. I know you are as well aware as I am of the intricacies of a labour-management situation. At this time I know that the school board and the teachers are doing everything they can to give some educational services, although it may not be, of course, what we want to see at this time.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and I are in constant contact as to what is happening in this particular scene. As you know, until assistance is asked of the Minister, we cannot move at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask then if the Minister is making any provisions for the children of either single-parent families or of cases where father and mother are both out at work in the daytime? Could that not come under some human consideration, regardless of the labour problem?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am certainly willing to discuss with the school board, whom I think would be the ones to bring this to my attention. I don't know the individual cases; but if the school board has deep concern about this and wishes to discuss it with me, I am willing to discuss it.

LOOSE POLICIES
IN HUMAN RESOURCES

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to a question to the Minister of Human Resources in reference to an article in The Province on February 22, 1975, and referred to earlier in The Daily Colonist. Since the Minister has admitted the possibility that loose policies had contributed to your department's overrun, could the Minister advise the House in what areas these loose policies have developed or he feels they have developed?

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEVI: I don't recall using the phrase "loose policies." That's your characterization of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think Members are well aware that you cannot refer to newspaper articles as a basis of a question. It says so clearly.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister deny...?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member did so, but because I didn't correct her doesn't mean that it's permissible.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Hon. Minister deny that he used the term "loose policies" during that interview and speech at UBC?

HON. MR. LEVI: I just said that I don't recall using the words "loose policies." I was talking about an evaluation of the programmes in the department. Since we've been the government we have introduced several new programmes. What we are attempting to do is to evaluate them. That includes day care, special services to children, therapeutic foster homes, services to adults and to the handicapped. We are evaluating these programmes.

ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC
SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Provincial Secretary, have you yet established the public service grievance board under the Public Service Act?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Will it be your intention, Mr. Minister, to appoint the board in the near future in order to enable it to hear the appeal of Dr. Stanley Knight?

HON. MR. HALL: While the Member can't technically ask about the future, Mr. Speaker, I will tell him that I have, since last November, been actively talking to candidates and others for the position of chairperson. I hope that in the very near future I will be in a position to make some sort of statement about the chairperson of that board.

MR. GARDOM: Would it be possible, Mr. Minister, in this situation for this particular individual to have his rights maintained so that he could make an appeal?

HON. MR. HALL: I don't think there is any infringement of rights in the case referred, but as it's obviously before the Public Service Commission now I think it would be out of order for me to make any comment on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Provincial Secretary when it is executive's intention to implement laws passed by this Legislature which grant rights to civil servants?

HON. MR. HALL: ...answer to that rhetorical, hypothetical question.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's in order in any event.

[ Page 193 ]

SUSPENSION OF
HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMMES

MR. SCHROEDER: This question is for the Minister of Human Resources. Since you are expecting evaluation reports on various programmes, have your department's activities in such programmes as senior citizens' transportation and day-care programmes been suspended?

HON. MR. LEVI: You're a really remarkable bunch over there. I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know.

HON. MR. LEVI: I really don't know. You're damned right I don't know. We're talking about evaluating programmes. There's no suggestion that the programmes have been stopped. We are evaluating them, looking at them, seeing what has been happening in there. That's not related to anything we know specifically about because we are now looking at them. We are broadening programmes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't beat around the bush.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: But the Minister hasn't answered the question. Since this evaluation is going on, have you cut back in any areas such as day care or senior citizen transportation programmes? Are they ongoing or have you stopped them? That's the question.

HON. MR. LEVI: I said in the beginning that we were not talking about cutting back; we were talking about evaluating, so one could presume that they are still ongoing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is the Minister putting more money into those programmes right now?

HON. MR. LEVI: What do you want me to do? Do you want me to stop the programmes?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm suggesting you have stopped the programmes, and you're not admitting it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. LEVI: You know, that kind of question that you've just asked is as asinine as the previous question about whether we're putting up kids in the Empress Hotel.

ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS
FROM AEROSOL CONTAINERS

MR. ROLSTON: A question to the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services. People have been anxious for years about the buildup of the ozone particles in the outer atmosphere, and there's a possible linkup to the use of aerosol containers. Could you tell this House what is happening? How great is this threat? Could you bring us up to date on this? Also: what percentage of these containers actually contain anything, a product?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, the scientific community is concerned about the gas in the aerosol containers destroying the ozone, which may lead to skin cancer, but I'm more concerned about the possible crop damage it can do to the world. The scientific community has not yet made a complete evaluation of the danger. However, I think aerosol containers are perhaps one of the most wasteful forms of packaging there is in the world today. For one thing, they are about 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent product. I tested that myself.

Interjections.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, they could be really called a Socred-type container.

Mr. Speaker, it may be of interest to the House to know that the nozzle on the aerosol can — when you purchase it you are contributing to that fine, upstanding American, Mr. Abplanalp, who is one of Mr. Nixon's closest friends. So every time you buy one, you're contributing to him and his ilk.

VICTORIA HIGHLANDS
SEWERAGE FACILITIES STUDY

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask the Minister of Housing, with regard to the Highlands Development in the Victoria area: inasmuch as your Deputy, when asked about the development, replied "I only work here," could the Minister tell the House if prior to the....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's one of the few Deputies left.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's not fair — you are attacking the civil servants.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just quoting his department,

[ Page 194 ]

Mr. Minister.

Could the Minister tell the House if, prior to the purchase of the 1,200 acres, there was a specific study done as to how sewerage facilities would be installed in that area?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, studies are being undertaken, but I would point out that a great deal of the initiative, especially in the early acquisitions, was from the Capital Regional District, and their expertise and their planning department recommended each and every acquisition that was made in the Highlands area.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, during the question period, on two or three occasions, you reminded the Members who were asking questions that they couldn't refer to what appears in the press: what happens outside of this assembly is not of concern inside this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not what I said. In any case, if you want the rule, it is very simply stated on page 147 of Beauchesne, copies of which you have all been supplied, where it says: "A question, oral or written, must not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true." This has happened on three occasions today, that clippings from newspaper have been the basis for the information. That is, of course, not the way that questions should be asked, as Beauchesne points out. That's simply what the point is all about.

MR. CHABOT: My point, Mr. Speaker, is that you have said that what appears in newspapers shouldn't necessarily be taken as true in this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I didn't say that. The point of the rule, very simply, is that you must not use what is in the paper as a basis for your question, because you must take primary responsibility, yourself, for the authenticity and not use somebody else as a basis for your question. You must take that primary responsibility for the question you ask.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker, that you can't necessarily accept it as accurate in some instances, but in a decision you brought down on February 20, in which you said that in view of a patent misunderstanding of the constitutional procedure of prorogation which was evidenced on the part of some Members on Monday in statements....

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but that has nothing to do with question period, so you're quite out of order. Will the Hon. Member please sit down so that we can get on with business of the House?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please sit down? Would the Hon. Member be seated? Then we can get on with the business.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, at the hour of adjournment last night I was told that I have something under eight minutes until the government-imposed guillotine falls.

In any event, I had been talking as quickly as I could and I'll try and do so for the rest of my remarks.

I had gotten onto the subject of democratic institutions which I think are as important as any subject for us to consider in this House, and I've been going through a little bit of the government's record. It's done some good things in that, but it's done some bad things too, Mr. Speaker. One of them I want to draw attention to now is the British Columbia government B.C. News.

Now I don't know whether this is a newspaper to which we can refer in the House or not, but it certainly should be one because it contains a lot of questionable articles and what you might call slanted news. I want to draw attention to one line in the January number. Referring to the B.C. News, its contents "represent a consolidation of departmental news releases and related information provided by information staffs in the departments concerned."

Mr. Speaker, I want to know why its contents don't also include opposition party press releases about the matters referred to in that newspaper. This newspaper, Mr. Speaker, is paid for by taxpayers' money, raised by this Legislature, which happens to have more than one party in it. The fact that the private propaganda of one party is going out in this B.C. government newspaper is not a good thing for a democratic institution.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Ban your own paper — the Sun.

MR. GIBSON: Government propaganda.

I want to go on and talk about the regular use of inquiries — what the regular use of inquiries should be as a supplement to problems turned up by his House. There can be no more useful task to the judges or other distinguished citizens of this province than to dig into some of these things rather than lesser legal matters they might be engaged in. Look at the matters of public interest which have come up so far in this session. The Columbia River: is it a good deal?

[ Page 195 ]

What were the downstream benefits? Were they good enough? The flood control, the B.C. damage, the environmental damage, the peaking power: what can be done to remedy this? And are the charges of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) against former civil servants justified, and what was the role of the previous government? It's a case for an inquiry, very clearly.

Chickens and eggs, Mr. Speaker; backroom muscle on chickens and eggs — and we recall that so well from last year; the veracity and good name of truth, and truthfulness of several British Columbia citizens who filed affidavits, or of the Premier of this province: clearly a case for an inquiry.

Casa Loma: that deal stinks, Mr. Speaker. That's clearly a case for an inquiry.

This government simply has to get off the pose of covering up those things that make it uncomfortable, and revealing only the information it finds it comfortable to reveal.

I want to speak about legislative procedure in the few minutes remaining.

We need more committee work and more independence in this Legislature. We need committees that have some freedom to roam around the activities of the government rather than be guided by the narrow terms of reference that are laid down for us. In the Legislative committee on education last session, I think some good work was done on collective bargaining. But we had no right in that committee to get inside the Department of Education and say: "What's going on in this administration? Why are there problems in this department?" That's just an example of the stringent terms of reference that are put on these committees and the inability we have to follow the lines we would like.

I would like to refer very briefly to what I consider a potential abuse of the so-called rule of anticipation, whereby some items inscribed on the order paper can prohibit debate for the balance of the session on those particular items. Now, Mr. Speaker, that may be very well when they're government orders and we can be reasonably sure they're going to be called for debate. But on the matter of the Skagit in the last session, this House was virtually precluded from discussing the Skagit — which would have been an embarrassment to the government to discuss — by the fact that there had been inscribed on the order paper, by a government backbencher, a resolution relating to the Skagit. We all knew that that resolution was never going to be called. I won't speculate on the motives for setting it down, but I will say that it had the effect of gagging this House on the subject of the Skagit for the entirety of the last session. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it might be a useful thing for you to inquire into whether the rule of anticipation might not be modified in such a way as to relate it precisely to government orders.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Legislature might do well to study Alberta and Ottawa and other jurisdictions on the question of a statutory instruments committee, a standing committee of this House which would look at regulations promulgated under the various Acts of the Legislature to ensure that they are within the four corners of the legislation that have been passed, and within the competency of the government agency. We all know how these regulations come out in the B.C. Gazette like sausages in a sausage machine, and it's all too seldom that people have time to scrutinize them carefully. A statutory instruments committee could do just that.

As a new Member to this House — this may not be a need felt by Members who have been here longer — I feel strongly the need for what you might call a Beauchesne for British Columbia, a reconsolidation and updating of Speakers' rulings in the British Columbia Legislature so that we might have a current reference to consult.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It has just been suggested by some of my colleagues that it might be called Dowding for the B.C. Legislature. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Not if I can help it. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I would suggest, too, to the Speaker that when he is considering procedures of this House, he might look into the practice of statements by Ministers prior to the question period. These statements are currently given by leave, but what is not given by leave is the right of the opposition parties to respond in kind, not necessarily in an argumentative fashion, but to have a chance to comment in this chamber on the comment that was made by the government.

In other words, the issue is the same as it is with the B.C. News. The opposition must have a chance of fair comment in any form when the government has a chance for a comment. I would think that the parties should be able to get together and work out reasonable ground rules, as has been possible in other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, these kinds of democratic institutions, I think you would agree, provide the underpinnings of not only the freedoms of Members of this House, but of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I think that about completes my time and I think that is an appropriate point....

AN HON. MEMBER: The light isn't on.

MR. GIBSON: I see the green light isn't on yet.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Try and say something just to fill in the space. (Laughter.)

[ Page 196 ]

MR. GIBSON: My, my. I will recap very quickly before I sit down.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Try to say something nice for a change.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member for Shuswap says, "say something nice." And I will say something nice, Mr. Speaker.

The throne speech contains a lot of good things. I've tried to pay some attention to that in my remarks. But it overlooks the fundamental problems of British Columbia, as we all know. It overlooks the questions of employment. The word "mining, " as I pointed out yesterday, isn't used once in the speech. Rent control isn't referred to. Indian claims aren't referred to, which is a shocking disgrace for that party above all which has spoken so strongly of these things in the past. I took the opportunity to go over local issues relating to my riding and I hope that the Ministers concerned took note of them and will take them into consideration. I saw some of them making notes.

I spoke about the alternate throne speech put forward by the leader of my party. He made some very good suggestions. First and foremost, the repeal of Bill 31, which I think should be at the top of this Legislature's priority list this year because the investments and exploration in the mining industry is just not happening.

I called for complete registration of foreign-owned land in British Columbia rather than simply the registration at time of transfer, as is presently the case.

I called for a coherent statement of government policy, through the means of a White Paper, in several areas of great concern to British Columbia. First of all, the policy on resource exploitation, its timing; secondly, upgrading, and manufacturing of the resource concerned, the employment base, world competitive factors, and so on. I called for a White Paper on population growth in British Columbia, its rate, the probably location of people, what the government could do to encourage settlements in less crowded areas. I called for a White Paper on housing objectives, because we currently are in the dark as to exactly where the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) thinks he should go.

As an assistance to Members of this Legislature, and for a general public dialogue in British Columbia, I called for the formation of an economic council of British Columbia which would be able to give us an annual report on the British Columbia economy — an impartial annual report, into the piece of puffery which comes out in connection with the budget every year — which could investigate resource economics, the place of B.C. In Confederation — just what kind of a deal we are getting out of Confederation and how we want to bargain for it — the impact of tariffs in this province, the impact of foreign investment in this province, agricultural economics and marketing boards, and so on.

Finally I suggested, and I hope the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is listening, that it is imperative that this government at this point start to release the data on the wage settlements it is making with the public service as the largest employer in British Columbia. The rumours are flying around that some of those settlements are in excess of 40 per cent, that the averages are running over 20 per cent with a COLA clause stacked on top. It is right and proper that for the information of this Legislature, in considering the budget, the Provincial Secretary reveal those figures. He's not revealing anything new to the components with whom he is still bargaining. They know all these things. The only people who don't know these things are the public concerned.

I'll say once again, Mr. Speaker, that under planning all of these things has to be our concern for democratic institutions. I hope that you might take some note of the suggestions I made for the conduct of business in this House.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): It's a pleasure for me to take my place in this throne debate. The Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who sits beside me suggested that this would be an ideal time for me to make a leadership speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: She pointed out that there were certainly enough delegates here to warrant such a thing. However, my modesty deters me, and I'm not going to do so. Instead, I would once again like to speak on behalf of the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard and deal with a subject which is most important to the residents of that area at this time. That is the subject of shelter — housing, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I would like to remind this House that 75 per cent of the people living in that constituency are presently tenants. They do not own their own homes and, in fact, the percentage is increasing and has increased since 1972. For this reason, therefore, I must confess that I was a little bit dismayed by the statement of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Bennett) which appeared in the December 4 issue of the Sun, in which he said: "We should encourage people to own a part of B.C. as a right that will make them responsible citizens."

Was the hon. leader suggesting that because people are tenants they're irresponsible and that in fact they are second-class citizens?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): You said it. You

[ Page 197 ]

said it.

MS. BROWN: This statement was further compounded, Mr. Speaker, by an additional statement by that same person which was carried in the February 13 issue of the Sun, which said: "I can't imagine anyone fighting or going to war when they don't own land, when they are only a tenant in their own country."

Of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of tenants in this country have indeed fought not in one but in two or more wars to protect this country, and a number of these veterans are still tenants, many of whom reside in the constituency of Burrard.

I think that statement of the leader of the official opposition did a disservice to those veterans everywhere who have gone to war and who have fought to protect this country for him, as well as for all of us.

The other question which comes to mind, of course, is whether he is anticipating another war. Is the leader of the official opposition suggesting that soon there will be a war, and that the only way of preparing for it is to ensure that there are no tenants remaining in this land?

The fact of the matter is that tenants presently living in Vancouver, and in the Burrard constituency, as everywhere, have been victims of a very destructive process on the part of unconscionable landlords in the past, and it was this fact that forced the government to introduce an Act to stabilize rents. The Act was an attempt to protect the tenants who, in fact, are quite defenceless and have no say and cannot influence in any way what rents should be charged for their accommodation.

As you will agree, Mr. Speaker, shelter is not just a basic right. It is much too important to the welfare of the individual to be left in the hands of any one sector of the community. It was this reason, therefore, that prompted me, at the last session of this House, and again in this session, to introduce a private Member's bill asking for collective bargaining rights for tenants. Now as this bill is presently on the order paper I cannot discuss it any further.

Another suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, and he seems to be quite an authority on housing, is that the housing shortage can be solved by massive construction of new housing by private enterprise. I'm wondering whether that private enterprise and the private interests to which that Member was referring will cover, for example, companies like Gemstar. Now Gemstar, Mr. Speaker, is a Belgium-controlled conglomerate which owns a corporation based in Winnipeg, known as BACM Industries, and this corporation has been in the process of acquiring and hoarding land in and around the Vancouver area.

Another company, which is Calgary based, is New West Development; and these two corporations between them have been recently entering into the Vancouver market and, through their subsidiaries, acquiring land and hoarding it in and around the Vancouver area.

Then there is the Western Realty project, another Calgary-based company. And, of course, I wouldn't like to leave out our own B.C. companies such as Marathon Realty, Daon Developments and Imperial Ventures. What these companies are able to do, of course, is to maintain the artificial price on land, making it so expensive that development, even by other members of the private sector, becomes difficult. It is this ability on the part of the private sector to create artificial shortages and to play around with the value and the price of land that contributes, more than anything else, to the shortage that presently exists, and results in the ludicrous situation of a market of surplus lumber, a market of surplus builders and surplus carpenters; yet the cost of building homes is going up. The cost of land is going up.

The profits of these companies are also going up: Block Bros., 53 per cent in 1974 over 1973; Daon Developments, profits 70 per cent in 1974 over 1973; New West, 125 per cent in 1974 over 1973; Wall & Redekop, 160 per cent in 1974 over 1973.

I'd like to quote from an unpublished book by Donald Gundstein, which says:

"To talk about a housing market is really stretching the truth, for on one side may sit a gigantic, vertically integrated development conglomerate, controlling all aspects of building from land assembly to servicing and subdividing, from construction to selling, with its legion of lawyers, tax specialists, accountants, financial consultants, engineers and technicians, figuring every conceivable way to squeeze every last penny of profit from their product.

"On the other side is a young couple, barely able to make a down-payment, with little knowledge about housing or construction. It is hard to imagine this one-sided situation producing anything like a fair transaction."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the opposition suggests that this is the way to solve the shortage of houses and the housing crisis presently in existence in the cities.

If we are really serious about the crisis, we should first of all identify for whom the crisis exists. The February 15 issue of the Financial Post carries on its front page an article stating that this was a buyers' market for housing. It went on to elaborate that there were a number of houses presently waiting to be sold. What this indicates, and what we have always known, is that there has never been a housing crisis for the rich or the near-rich.

We also know that the private sector is not

[ Page 198 ]

interested in social housing. It is not interested in supplying housing to people on fixed incomes, to senior citizens, to the working poor, or even to those people who, for all intents and purposes, are considered to have an adequate income. Therefore, the supply of social housing has to be the responsibility of government. Housing is too vital a need; people cannot be left without adequate shelter.

The first way in which we can do this, Mr. Speaker, is to look at the whole business of the cost of money and the cost of mortgages. This government has to involve itself in a meaningful and massive way in the mortgage market.

I was very pleased to see the Lieutenant-Governor mention in his Speech from the Throne that we are going to participate in the development of a financial institution which would be responsive to the needs of the people and would be for the people of this province. It is my hope that the first priority of this institution would be mortgages and that this institution would see itself as a tool through which it would become possible for people on average incomes or even on fixed incomes to secure mortgages at a very low rate of interest.

The B.C. credit union, on a very limited scale through its CUPAC programme (CUPAC Services Ltd.), has already moved into this field. They should not be expected to do it all on their own; it is much too large a field for the credit union to handle.

The other area with which this government must concern itself is the encouragement of the development of non-profit cooperative housing. I'm not here speaking about new housing; I'm speaking about existing housing. There are many older apartment blocks and many older multiple dwellings which are presently coming onto the market. The owners of those buildings have decided that it's no longer possible to make the large and unconscionable profits that they used to make, so they have put them up for sale.

I feel that it should be one of the priorities of this government to encourage the tenants presently living in those apartment blocks and multiple dwellings to come together and form non-profit cooperatives to purchase those buildings for themselves. If necessary, we should be prepared to give them seed money so that they can afford the down-payment. If necessary, we should be prepared to give them the advice and to help them in every way to secure low-interest mortgages and to encourage them to do the financing for themselves. This would not be creating any new housing, but it would give some security to the people presently living there. It would stabilize the community.

I think that as a government we are doing an excellent job in terms of our second-mortgage programme. I think we are doing an excellent job in terms of helping people to purchase their first home.

But this is another area and it is one that would encourage people to continue living where they seem to want to live and where they are enjoying their living.

Many of these houses and many of these older blocks, when they are sold, are torn down. Then they are replaced with condominiums and high-priced units — in the Kitsilano area ranging from $70,000 to $110,000. People who are presently paying rents between $175 and $200 a month have to move out of the area and they cannot afford to move into these new units which replace the units in which they were previously sheltered.

In addition, I think we should continue our dialogue with the municipalities to encourage them to take a more active part in using some of the programmes which are presently at their disposal. There is far more that they could do in terms of the duplexing programme, for example.

They could improve their zoning and their building codes to make it easier for people to take advantage of this excellent programme, which, in fact, would secure a lot of new housing and increase density without over-increasing it in many of these areas.

Like the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), the Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), and in line with the very moving statement of the Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk), which he made last night, 1, too, would like to say a word or two about International Women's Year.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on the steps that you have taken to celebrate this year. I am referring, of course, to the complement of women recently hired by your office to be Sergeant-at-Arms staff. I would like to assure you that, knowing how deeply you respect tradition, we realize that it must have been very hard for you to break the tradition which has maintained that Sergeant-at-Arms staff in this chamber should be male. So I would like to say again how pleased we are that you have set the tone for this year. I'd like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very gratified to hear the Lieutenant-Governor mention that legislation would be introduced this year to eliminate discriminatory practices applicable to women. I am glad that this government has decided not to treat International Women's Year in the way in which the federal government has; that we are not going to be treated to a round of conferences, a round of newspaper, radio and television ads asking us, "Why not?"; that the money which is available is going to go into genuine programmes, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) outlined yesterday; that the funds will be given directly to grassroots groups to be used in developing programmes which they identify as being of real need to the community of women in

[ Page 199 ]

this province.

I am glad that the provincial government has not taken the attitude which the federal government has demonstrated through its ads, namely that it is women's own fault that they are not equal today. I'm glad that the provincial government recognizes that there are some basic legislative, as well as institutional and social, reasons for the inequalities which presently exist.

It is my hope that this year will see an end to a lot of the annoying little pieces of legislation which really just serve to irritate us because they are so senseless. I am referring to an Act on which I have spoken on many occasions, the Change of Name Act. It's a silly little piece of legislation, yet we seem to be having the most difficult time getting rid of it. I hope that this year the department responsible for this piece of legislation will finally get it together and see to it that it is amended.

If a person, be she married or single, should decide that she wants to change her name, why should she be prevented from doing so once it can be demonstrated that her reasons for wanting to do so are not criminal ones? This Act is an insult to all married women in this province, and I hope that before this year is out we will see it amended.

It is also my hope that this year will see implemented in this province a real programme dealing with the early detection of breast cancer. B.C. has the highest incidence of breast cancer in North America. The figures vary from one in seven, to one in 11, to one in 15 — I don't know which one is accurate. This is not just a simple little illness, Mr. Speaker; 60 per cent of the people who have this disease die from it within five years.

Now there's a lot of controversy swirling around as to just what is the best way of treating it, whether we should have mastectomies, whether we should use chemotherapy, whether we should change our diet — what we should do. The one thing about which there is absolutely no controversy is that early detection is the best way of getting rid of this cancer, that the sooner it can be identified, the better the chance a women has of being able to beat it. Early detection can cut the mortality rate, we have been told, down to as low as 10 per cent.

It is going to cost money — there is no question about it. I am not going to say whether it calls for large sums of money or little sums of money, because you do not place a dollar sign on people's lives, Mr. Speaker, and life is what we are talking about.

We do not have a programme — no, I'm sorry, that was a misstatement: the early detection programme has not been implemented — it's still being discussed.

In our inaction in this matter, what happens is that every day there are more and more women in this province who are developing cancer of the breast, who are not aware of it. I think we have a moral responsibility regardless of what we may think about women and about their usefulness to this society at large. We have a moral responsibility to invest in this early detection system to at least give them a fighting chance in dealing with this killer.

It is my hope that this year will see some legislation introduced that will build some real income security into the lives of those women who remain at home. Most of the women in this province are not in the work force; they are at home.

All of the women in this province who marry, at one time or another, if they decide to have families, are at home for a period of time. Presently there is no income support protection for them, and if, by chance, through death or desertion or abandonment, or whatever, they should be deprived of the income of their spouse, they have no alternative but to turn to the welfare services.

We extol the virtues of motherhood. We write poems and songs about it, yet we penalize the women who choose to spend their lives doing the very things that we maintain are the highest possible calling that they have in life. Whether it be through ICBC, whether it be through this new financial institution that the Lieutenant-Governor mentioned, or through some other source, let us hope that this is the year that some kind of income support legislation is introduced so that for a period of time, even a short period of time, when the spouse in the home finds herself deprived of all income, there will be a sum of money to help her re-educate, retrain, or in some way revitalize herself so that she can go on to become independent and self-sufficient once again.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is the year when we will take a serious look at the women between the ages of 50 and 60 and 65. In transition houses all around this province, in women's centres, in status-for-women offices, at information centres, women in this particular age group are turning up. Their children have left home. Their husbands for one reason or another have left them or have died, or whatever, and they are ready to re-enter the labour force — or they may not be ready to re-enter the labour force. The only thing we know for sure is that at age 50 they find themselves with nothing, and they turn up asking for help, for counselling, for guidance, for retraining, or whatever, and the only thing we know is that there is no other resource in the community for that particular group of women.

These women are our mothers, Mr. Speaker, and your mothers. We can identify them; now we need to identify their needs, and I think that this is the year that we should seriously start doing that through the Department of Human Resources, through the Department of Education, and certainly through the Department of Health, because their health is also an area of major concern. This is the period when all illnesses, real or imagined, start surfacing and when

[ Page 200 ]

large sums of money are put out for drugs and medical care and for intermediate care, and for other kinds of treatment.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is the year when we will develop some kind of service for immigrant women. In our community in Vancouver and throughout this province we have large groups of immigrant women who have no resources to help them with their language problems, their legal problems, With integrating into the community, with making cultural and employment adjustments, or whatever.

The immigrant woman is in a double bind. I don't want to focus primarily on her because I recognize that it's the whole immigrant family that's in a bind. Usually the immigrant man is allowed into the country because he has certain skills; he has a profession. When he comes here he finds that our licensing laws demand that he study for two more years, or that he trains for three more years, before he can work at his profession. So he has to take a low-paying job and she has to deal with poverty.

She finds her children in schools where they can't handle the language because they do not speak English. She finds herself unable to deal with the language. And the whole family is in crisis. But these women in particular are surfacing; their needs are surfacing as a real force throughout the community. It is time that some kind of service on her behalf, preferably developed by her, should be encouraged by this government.

Once the transition has been successfully made, it has been demonstrated that these women make a major and positive contribution to the country and to the community. So it is in the province's best interest to assist them in making this transition as quickly and smoothly as possible.

It is my hope that this is the year when the apprenticeship programmes of this province, through the Department of Labour, will really start opening themselves up and addressing themselves to the needs of single parents, to the needs of women who have to make it on their own. There are many areas in which women are willing to work, are capable of working, but they need apprenticeship training. The apprenticeship training area is a tough nut to crack, and the only people who can crack it are the government. So I hope that this year we will finally do that, thus allowing more and more women to benefit from these excellent programmes sponsored by the Department of Labour and the Department of Education.

This is the year, Mr. Speaker, when I hope that we are going to have a greatly expanded child-care service for school-age children — what we refer to as the latch-key programme — not just for children whose parents work. We have seen that the latch-key programme is a good socialization experience for all children, and they should be available to any child who wants to avail herself or himself of it. It makes sense for working parents.

What we are fighting is a new phenomenon — the young delinquents surfacing — because with children between the ages of 9 and 10 and 15, sometimes their parents are students. This problem is surfacing in the university areas, for example, because their parents are at school and we haven't got this kind of latch-key programme for these children; so they are at home for extended periods of time by themselves. So it's the children of students as well as the children of working parents that we should address ourselves to.

As I mentioned earlier, housing is a major concern. It is an extremely difficult thing still for single parents to secure mortgage money if they want to purchase. Even if they have excellent jobs they still have to have a signature. There are still a number of mortgage companies demanding that they have a signature of a male, any male. It doesn't even have to be a relative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any old male?

MS. BROWN: Yes, just any old male.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we are finding that rental accommodation for these people can still discriminate against their children. I have a letter here, signed by the property administrator of Victory Holdings, from the Chateau Magnifique Apartment, which reads:

"We have noticed that some tenants have kept pets in their suites. We hereby strongly advise that pets and children are not allowed in this apartment building."

And this is still permitted, even with our new amended Landlord and Tenant Act. This is a crucial area which we must deal with this year.

This year, too, we have to come to grips with the fact that women are still being ripped off by the pension schemes in existence in this province and elsewhere. We have to introduce legislation which absolutely prohibits this kind of discrimination towards women in pension benefits which are under our jurisdiction. I realize there are a number of pension plans operating in this province over which we have no jurisdiction, and I also realize that our own pension plan administered through the civil servants has no discrimination at all in it. It has all been cleaned up.

But there are a number of other pension plans that we do have jurisdiction over that demand that women pay more and benefit less, and that women contribute more and receive less in benefits. In fact, what we are doing through our pension plan is subsidizing the men of this province, and we are tired of it. I hope that inequity will be ended this year.

This is the year, Mr. Speaker, when hopefully the

[ Page 201 ]

government will introduce legislation which will ensure that domestics and agricultural workers are covered by the Minimum Wage Act as well as by all other labour legislation in this province. Now the Labour and Justice committee travelled and listened to a lot of horrendous stories about what happens to people who are not covered by our Payment of Wages Act, what happens to people who are not covered by Workers' Compensation, what happens to people who are not covered by the Minimum Wage Act. All of these people are not women, but this is a year when we can use the concept of International Women's Year to deal with this, the struggles of the domestics and the agricultural workers, and to cover them with our legislation.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that there will be any argument from anyone if we point out that this province, compared with the federal government and compared with other provinces, will have been seen to move further than either of these two jurisdictions in terms of trying to eliminate discrimination that has always traditionally existed against women. Our human rights legislation was one of the first pieces of legislation introduced, and it is good legislation. True, the code needs strengthening in some areas, but it is good legislation.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Programme, which was introduced by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), is good, and we are looking forward to seeing that programme work. I think the appointment of Gene Errington to be responsible for International Women's Year planning is excellent. I think the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has got to be lauded for introducing a section 1n his department dealing specifically with the economic developments of women. I think one has to compliment the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). He's trying to get more women into his department.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): He sure is! (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: I think that the effort by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) in terms of funding transition houses and picking up the tab for so many women's centres around the province, for expanding child-care services in the province, is excellent, and he has to be lauded.

I think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the excellent work that she is doing with the appointment of Riva Dexter to look at the whole sex stereotyping in the schools and in the textbooks is excellent, and she has to be lauded.

I think the work being done by the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) throughout this area has to be lauded.

There is no question that many departments have been moving in the direction. True it is a struggle and the struggle continues. But the Lieutenant-Governor stated that there will be intensified departmental activities on behalf of women, and I certainly look forward, and all of us look forward, to these intensified activities in every department. This year gives us the opportunity and it gives us the impetus to introduce some real legislation.

Let us pull all those Acts off the book. Let us look through them — this is through the Attorney-General's department. Let us pick up the discriminatory clauses and wipe them out. Let us deal effectively with the whole concept of the equality of spouses in marital unions. Let us deal with the division of family property in a fair and equitable way. Let us have no Murdock decisions being handed down in this province. Let us not pretend either that this government is doing it just for this year because, in fact, this government did not need International Women's Year.

We started two years ago, very slowly and with halting steps, but we started, and hopefully we will be gathering momentum, which is more certainly than can be said of the federal government with its long-promised debate on abortion laws, for which we are still waiting; with its long-promised federal human rights legislation, for which we are still waiting; with its long-promised coverage of the pension plan for housewives, for which we are still waiting — and waiting and waiting. All we get in exchange are buttons asking us "Why not?"

It is my hope that this is the year in which we will seek out and identify the special needs of rural women, women in isolated areas in the province — women on farms, women in the north, the doubly disadvantaged women — and that we will develop the programme, the policies and, if necessary, the legislation to meet these special needs.

I have always believed and I still believe that the quickest, most efficient and most competent way in which to meet the many and varied needs of women in this province, the quickest, the smoothest, and most reliable method of achieving our stated goals of true equality between men and women, is by instituting a department with full responsibility for achieving those ends. A Minister of women's rights is the vehicle we need. It is the vehicle that we must have if we are to ensure that women realize their full potential in this century in this province.

The final area of the Lieutenant-Governor's speech which I would like to deal with applies to the statement by the government: "We are prepared to share our good fortune in the state of present world food shortages." I laud this statement and look forward to some really meaningful way in which we are going to do this. I have no idea how we're going to do it because this information has not been shared with us at this point. I'm hoping, however, that it

[ Page 202 ]

means more than just sending grain or just sending food to these countries presently in the grip of famine. Everyone knows how important it is to feed hungry people. But we also know that it is much more important to help those people to be able to feed themselves.

You know, as we do, Mr. Speaker, that we can keep sending grain year in and year out. We can send our 28 million eggs rather than let them rot. We can send our beef rather than have it butchered and buried. But that is really not the secret of those countries' need. They have enough land to grow their own food, and they can grow their own food. But in fact what they're using that land to do is to grow food to export to us rather than for use for themselves. A lot of this land is being used to grow coffee for export, is being used to grow sugar for export, is being used to grow rubber — being used to grow things that we in the western world need to keep us fat and sassy while those people are going without.

Jeffrey Barclough, in his article in the New York Review of January 23, pointed out that we, the 6 per cent of the world's population, consume 33.3 per cent of the world's energy.

Lester Brown's article was quoted by the Liberal Member last night. He also pointed out that last year in the United States they spent $3 billion — they paid people not to grow food. What I would like to add is that in Canada, over that same period of time, we took 4 million acres of wheat out of production and we paid farmers $40 million to switch to forage.

The Swahilian region of Africa has thousands of acres designated for agribusiness to produce raw materials for the Western world, not food. We found that the production of food has declined in those areas from 6,000 tons in 1967 down to 1,500 tons in 1973.

There are two myths which we have to deal with: one is that the food shortage is a direct result of over-population; the other is that there is an overall shortage of food. Neither of these is true.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

As Mr. Brown pointed out: "The problem is in the inequity of distribution. Hunger is caused by plunder, not by scarcity."

I certainly hope that in our plan for dealing with the hunger of the hungry nations of the world we will address ourselves to the plunder, that we will not try to treat this tumour of the brain with an aspirin.

We can send food, but we must do more than that. We have to talk about how we readjust our demands on the food market, how we cut down our consumption, how we can justify four to seven pounds of cereal going into the production of one pound of meat just because we like grain-fed beef better than we like grass-fed beef. How can we accept the fact that last year 140 million tons of grain were consumed in North America by cattle, by sheep, by pigs and by poultry while people are going hungry?

Let us use this opportunity to look at our consumption, to examine why we need so much of the world's production, and to see if somehow we can become more responsible in our eating habits which, incidentally, are not more nutritious, are not even wiser. We are dropping dead all over the place from high cholesterol and from bad hearts. We are so rational that we live in a society in which it is cheaper to buy beer than it is to buy milk. That is the kind of stupid thing we are doing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Milk is a better buy.

MS. BROWN: It's a better buy, but it is still cheaper to buy beer.

Now if we can deal with this, if we can deal with the whole concept of multinational agribusiness and what they are doing in these developing countries, if we can get these countries back to producing their own food, then we would be doing them a much greater service than by continuing to send them the one-third of 1 per cent of the surplus food, which we are presently doing.

We have got to get at the reason; we have got to know the causes for the shortage, for the hunger and the starvation. That is what we have to address ourselves to. That is certainly what I hope my government means when it says that through new proposed legislation we are going to share our good fortunes with those parts of the world which are suffering from food shortages.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it has been a pleasure speaking in support of the Lieutenant-Governor's speech. It is a speech which has outlined services to people and the continued dedication of this government to the people of this province. Thank you, and a very happy International Women's Year to you.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): It's a pleasure to take my place in the debate on the Speech from the Throne today. Before making a few comments as a Member of the official opposition, I would like to echo earlier tributes which have been paid to the late Ned DeBeck, who served this chamber and this province for so many years. I imagine that all of us, from the longest-serving Members of this House to the new MLAs who came here in the fall of 1972, will have our own individual memories of his quiet dignity, his warmth and his good humour, as well as his dedication to the legislative process. Indeed, as others have said, this House is the poorer as a result of his death.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in preparation for today and as

[ Page 203 ]

a result of the fact that at least one Member of the cabinet enjoys reminding me about earlier speeches, I decided to have a look at some of my earlier speeches. I don't propose to read many of them, but I have some comments I made when I first joined this 30th parliament of the British Columbia Legislature in the fall of 1972. These comments from Hansard on October 19, 1972, seem to me to be even more valid today than they were at that time, some 28 months ago. There are some four paragraphs and they are brief:

It is tragically ironic in my view that many of those persons who enthusiastically turned away from the previous government to support socialism for this interim period are now the first to be disillusioned and feel most keenly the results of out-of-control inflation and the spectre of increased unemployment.

Quoting again from October of that year:

In conclusion, may I express my concern for the future, concerns which have arisen from the contents of the throne speech (of that year) and the contents of interviews given and policy statements made and answers given to questions by the press. First, taxation. I am concerned there will be an even greater tax burden on the people of this province by this new government — a burden which will stifle initiative and cause very real difficulties among those persons that this government states it wants to help.

Secondly, fiscal responsibility. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that there is a lack of financial understanding on the part of key Members of this government and an inability to set priorities and think them through carefully and with caution — again before bringing them to this House.

Thirdly, growth of government. We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be exposed in British Columbia to an unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy, preventing the ordinary citizen from ready access to his elected representatives.

Fourthly, and finally, responsibility of government. We are concerned that the Ministers of the Crown do not yet fully appreciate the heavy responsibility of government which has been placed upon them — the responsibility which at times places a restricting obstacle on their desire to make pronouncements on the future direction of this province. I congratulate the government (as I did at that time), but I urge the government in these critical weeks and months to be careful, to be cautious.

October of 1972.

And so you will see, Mr. Speaker — the caustic comments of the Premier and some of his cabinet and back bench notwithstanding — that my basic opposition to this government and to its attempt to drastically alter the lifestyle and economy of this province remains unchanged.

Now as a relatively new member of the British Columbia Social Credit Party, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the House and the people of the province that I have not been alone in making a major decision regarding political affiliation. It's taking place all over British Columbia as this party gathers support from former Conservatives, former liberals, from those who had no political affiliation and, indeed, from a number of people who enthusiastically supported the NDP at one time.

What frightens this government and the party in power at the present time is that they know this. They also know very well that these individuals all over British Columbia are bringing new ideas, revitalization and an enthusiasm which was admittedly and obviously flagging in the last years of the former government.

This is now 1975; it is no longer August, 1972, and these citizens say, as I say, this government has been tested. It has been tested in British Columbia in its capability to manage the affairs of this province, and it has been found — with one or two notable exceptions — to be not what the majority of people wanted, expected or deserved. That is why I am here, Mr. Speaker.

Now we have in 1975 a new Speech from the Throne. Clearly, as I indicated in 1972, there is very widespread concern, even greater reason for concern, about unemployment, the philosophy which appears to guide this government, disillusionment on the part of many citizens, an incredible lack of fiscal responsibility and the responsibility which comes with government.

Two areas of provincial government's activity which are of particular concern to me, namely education and municipal affairs, as you will note, Mr. Speaker, received briefest possible mention in the speech this year. You'll note that there were, being very generous, about 2 1/2 lines in the short section on housing, urban and municipal affairs which touched on local government. The specific reference was to the Sewerage Facilities Financial Assistance Act, and I acknowledge that this is a good programme. However, a great deal more should have been said about the staggering increase in local government costs.

It's very clear to us, and to many people in British Columbia, that the present government has no well-thought-out, carefully prepared and, most importantly, effective formula to help municipalities as the dollar crunch becomes even tighter.

In education — and I'm sorry the Minister responsible for education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has left the House at this time — a mere six or seven lines of type for this vital and extremely expensive department of government — the largest single item in public spending at the provincial level, traditionally. Six, seven, at the most eight pathetic lines for education, with an extremely brief passing reference to the question of pupil-teacher ratio, about which

[ Page 204 ]

we've heard so much in the past.

Well, Mr. Speaker, borrowing from another Member of this House — not presenting my own budget, because that would be out of order — what the Speech from the Throne for 1975 should have said on the subject of education is something along these lines: the government now recognizes and admits that it has failed miserably in the complex and demanding operation of our educational system. The Department of Education is in need of being declared a disaster area. Further, the government recognizes and admits that the Minister of Education, a pleasant person and well-intentioned, has nonetheless proven to be a disappointment, a disappointment in virtually everything she has attempted associated with her portfolio. This is the Minister who had all the easy answers and solutions for our education ills prior to the summer of 1972. Her performance since that time has been less than sparkling and innovative. As a result we now have a situation where there is this widespread disappointment, where there is anger and frustration on the part of many individuals involved in educational matters in B.C. — parents, teachers, school trustees, education administrators, university personnel and the public at large.

The throne speech, therefore, Mr. Speaker, should have gone on to admit the failure I have outlined for you and to announce that this Minister is resigning her portfolio forthwith in the best interest of that which she has espoused in her years in the House — the educational system of British Columbia.

It is to be regretted that this is a government of broken promises in education. The single most disturbing aspect, I feel, relates to the removal of education costs  from property tax. That, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as one who's been interested for a long time in the affairs of British Columbia, was one of the the most important planks in the platform of the NDP in the summer of 1972, stated very clearly by the Minister in this House a few months earlier when she was in opposition.

One short paragraph from Hansard for March 13, 1972, page 775 — since we enjoy being reminded of speeches. The opposition critic for education at that time said in part, and without interfering with the context:

We in our party advocate the removal of property taxation for school purposes, even if the Minister doesn't. It's quite obvious with the type of legislation he's bringing in that the average taxpayer who finds his tax bill increasing every year because of lack of aid from this government in other areas in the municipality in services which they must put in, it's quite obvious that the taxpayer is not going to support any increased taxation for schools. It's a natural reaction and the Minister must be aware of this. It's his responsibility to provide the money for a proper education, and our party firmly believes that property taxation must be removed when it comes to educational services.

March of 1972, Perhaps a few other reminders will be of assistance to the Members of the government today — this one from a Canadian Press story carried in the Victoria Times on September 10, 1973. This is a full year after the NDP formed its government. I'll read just the first paragraph. I think that is all that is necessary. It's a CP story datelined Coquitlam, the headline: "School Tax To Go Within Five Years."

"Premier Dave Barrett said Sunday 'school tax will be completely removed from land by spring and from homes within five years.' "

September 10, 1973: five years; that was the timetable in that month of 1973, as announced, not by the Minister of Education in opposition, but announced by the Premier and Minister of Finance of the present government.

This same five-year goal was referred to by the present Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who is also not in the House at the moment. This is one year earlier. That's according to a feature interview which appeared in the Victoria Daily Colonist on Sunday, October 8, 1972. The government, as you will recall, had been in office for just a few weeks.

"In addition to thato municipalities will be able to finance a lot of projects themselves because we will remove school tax from residential and farmland. Removal of the school tax from residential and farmland, he (the present Minister of Municipal Affairs) says, will be accomplished over a period of five years. Revenue lost from that source will be paid by the provincial government out of the income tax revenue and this will give municipalities the much needed additional revenue to cope with things that had to be ignored until now." Five years again, Mr. Speaker.

From The Province, August 17, 1972, another example of this promise. It's a brief story headed: "Education Tax Pledge" — it refers to the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. D. Stupich) as he was seeking election in the constituency of Nanaimo. It quotes him as saying, Wednesday, that his party is committed to removing the education tax from property within five years of taking office. This individual told a gathering of Gabriola Island residents earlier in the day: "The NDP would remove the property tax share of education financing at the rate of $30 million a year." He said: "The property tax share of education financing is between $125 million and $175 million a year. The final part of the story: "B.C. Is rich enough to eliminate this cost on a gradual basis."

What has happened to those confident promises of 1972 and 1973? Well ' in my view, it is readily apparent that the NDP has finally come to a

[ Page 205 ]

realization of the hard facts of financial life — the hard facts of life in government. Because what appeared so easy to advocate in opposition, and even during the first 12 months of this government's term, is now recognized and admitted to be an extremely expensive and apparently, under this government, a virtually unattainable goal.

When combined with increased costs of general local government, the higher education tax bill facing property owners in the province for this year can only be described as a staggering blow to owners and tenants alike, because they do pay property tax through their rent, as we know. It will be a source of the most tremendous disappointment to those who were led to believe that in the area of taxation this government actually meant what it said, but such is not the case.

I could quote examples from a number of school boards which have supplied me with information on request with regard to the likely increase in the education tax bill on property. The education tax bill alone in Vancouver could be, at the minimum, $63 to $65 on an average, ordinary, single-family dwelling. In Victoria, several dollars more.

I emphasize that this, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of education alone. It has nothing whatever to do with the increases now facing municipal councils and regional districts for the provision of services for which they are responsible.

I realize that it's dangerous to make predictions. But as we come down to the wire in this debate in preparation for the budget speech on Friday, I'm prepared to make a couple of predictions.

Recognizing that school and local property taxes are heading into the stratosphere for 1975, the Minister of Finance will announce a significant increase in the homeowner grant and/or the resource grant and probably a very small increase in the per capita grant to municipalities. He'll announce the increases with great pride.

But some months later, when all the local government and school costs and the costs- to property, to owners and to tenants are finally computed at the municipal and regional district level, there will still be a very dramatic shortfall between this transfer of provincial revenue and the amount required to finance municipalities and school districts out of the property tax.

We've had a problem for decades in British Columbia concerning the cost of operating municipalities and school boards, but, in the colloquial, we ain't seen nothing yet.

Getting back to the pupil-teacher ratio again, there is a general feeling of disappointment and confusion. One quick example from School District 68 in Nanaimo. In 1974, in compliance with the request or instruction to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio by 1.5 per cent, the Nanaimo school district added

Approximately $300,000 to its annual budget — $300,000 in a relatively small school district. The province made a grant to cover that cost. But what is important and significant and what has to be realized is that the district concerned hired additional teachers. You don't hire teachers in a short term, only to turf them out because there is no money in the following fiscal year.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): One can accept criticism when it's justified, but when a Member makes a completely inaccurate statement I do ask it to be corrected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister rises on a point of order. She's entitled to correct a statement that was attributed to her.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: All right, I'll leave it to the end of the speech. As a matter of fact, I'll leave it until I have my opportunity on the floor, okay?

MR. CURTIS: We have been told on several occasions that the present Minister of Education will have quite a bit to tell us when she participates in the budget debate, and that's fair enough.

I make the point again, however, that school districts following the instruction or request of the Department of Education did hire the teachers necessary to reduce the PTR (pupil-teacher ratio). As we sit today, they wonder precisely where the money is coming from in the next fiscal year, in the next school year. If the Minister can reassure us when she rises to participate in one of the debates, then I'm sure that will be very welcome news indeed.

I was interested in receiving today a copy of her press release which was given to a number of teachers' organizations that visited the city today. It says in part:

"'However, it is neither reasonable nor rational to expect a continuation of the programme'" — the PTR — "'when rampant inflation is coupled with the worst recession in years.

"'I think any reasonable person will agree that in the short period of time this government has been in office we have done everything we possibly could to improve education in the province by way of financial assistance to all levels of education, observing that other segments of our society — the sick, the aged and the poor — also have legitimate claims on our fiscal resources.'"

I must ask then about priorities. What about the Casa Loma priority, the Can-Cel priority, the shares in Westcoast Transmission? Is that a priority? The shares in British Columbia Telephone — is that a priority to come ahead of education? Plateau Mills —

[ Page 206 ]

is that a priority ahead of education? The loan from the Arabs which was probably made at one point over what could have been received in Canada or the United States market at about the same time. Is that a priority over education? What about the $30,000 cabinet table? Does that take precedence over education in British Columbia?

MR. PHILLIPS: It sleeps three.

MR. CURTIS: The statement goes on:

"Mrs. Dailly said that in the meeting with the teachers she reiterated the statement on budgeting made in Prince George on January 25 because her remarks have been grossly misinterpreted and have led some people to believe that the government intends to curtail educational expenditure."

Quoting the Minister in her own release: "The very opposite is true...I have already announced that the government grants to school districts will be higher than ever before." With inflation, they will have to be higher than ever before. But will they meet the shortfall?

If the remarks from Prince George were grossly misinterpreted then they were misinterpreted by many very careful, intelligent and well-informed individuals in education and outside of education.

I think that the Minister will have to be extremely careful in her remarks to this House and to the people of British Columbia as she attempts to straighten out the confusion. The confusion is not with the people of B.C.; I suggest the confusion is with the Minister of Education.

There is another area of government responsibility which I feel merits a few moments today, and that is the relationship between the Department of Municipal Affairs and other provincial departments or agencies now operating in B.C. I continue to have very real misgivings, as I've said before in this House, about the attitude of the NDP as a party toward local government, and I include municipalities and regional districts.

I wonder if we could pose the following questions: how effective is the present Minister in cabinet discussions relating to local government? What roadblocks does he encounter when he advances a particular position which is of direct concern to municipalities in the province? How often is his department, or are his senior staff people, short-circuited, or perhaps even excluded, when policy discussions are taking place which will have a major impact on our cities, our districts, towns and villages? It is necessary to ask, I think, and to continue to ask, that with his background as a former planner in this province, what degree of direct involvement does the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) have in matters which have been clearly, over the years, properly within the jurisdiction of the Department of Municipal Affairs.

There is one very — the Minister of typefaces, yes, the Minister of typewriters — interesting comparison which can be made to support the validity of this concern. Quoting briefly from an address by the present Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to the Union of B.C. Municipalities' convention in Prince George, September, 1973, we read this: "I believe the government legislation in municipal matters is an indication that we wish, and are prepared to give, more flexibility to local governments."

That's one side of the story. However, in a letter from the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, over the signature of the director, A.D. Crerar, and addressed to the then Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Prettie, this November 23, 1973, we read the following. To explain the context to you, Mr. Speaker, it deals with proper natural resource management, the Land Commission, and the secretariat. The key sentence, and one which should be carefully heard by every municipal council, by every mayor, alderman and regional district director, and by the people who look to those individuals to serve them in elected office, is this: "Needless to say, my own personal view is that these matters are too important to be left to purely local decision-making." A very real conflict of opinion between how one Minister views local government and the view expressed by a well-paid, senior official of the ELUC.

So we have to ask: what about other departments and agencies and their contact and consultation with Municipal Affairs — Housing, the Land Commission, the Attorney-General's department with regard to a number of matters, including, as the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) outlined yesterday, the Surrey refinery? Is. that consultation? Is that full and frank discussion with local government? Obviously, it is not. It isn't open government. It is shut tight.

I think that it is time the UBCM came to a full realization of this conflict of opinion within the provincial government. If the UBCM is to effectively serve the principle of local government, if it is to advance the interests of residents at the municipal and regional district level, the level so often referred to as that closest to the people, then the UBCM must view some of this government's actions with very real doubts. While, admittedly, they have polite and friendly interviews with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and while he's readily accessible, that's one thing; but what is taking place in other parts of the legislative buildings? What other decisions are being made which are not available to senior people in the Municipal Affairs department, or perhaps even to the Minister himself?

I would like to advance one proposition: when it

[ Page 207 ]

forms a new government in this province, I'm going to urge the British Columbia Social Credit Party to establish the highest possible level of cooperation consultation and close liaison with all units of local government — free and frank discussion — as well as with other agencies and departments. We've had degrees of cooperation rising and falling in the recent and distant past, but I believe that it has rarely reached the ideal.

Unpleasant as it may be for those Members of the cabinet who serve as directors of B.C. Hydro, I must also refer today to one constituency matter. That is the widespread interruption of electric power which occurred over a very large part of the Saanich Peninsula on the evening of February 11 and lasted until very late the following morning — almost noon, in fact. "Outrage" is the word I've heard used most frequently in connection with the power disruption which started, understandably and naturally enough, with a large tree falling across power lines in the area of West Saanich Road.

At the very least, some 20,000 peninsula residents waited between 12 and 14 hours for their power to be restored through a night which was, fortunately, not one of extreme cold. No other single event in the constituency I represent in this House has brought so many telephone calls and letters and personal comments of protest. I can guess that the files of B.C. Hydro here in Victoria and Vancouver carry many similar objections to this unreasonably long and apparently unnecessary major power interruption. In all, probably 5,000 individual residential and business units were left without heat and light. Because of the dependency in many cases on electric pumps for water, they were left without water service, including a number of elderly patients in the Saanich Peninsula extended-care hospital on Mt. Newton Cross Road, Incidentally, it was due only to the efforts of the Canadian Armed Forces base at Esquimalt that breakfast was served to those patients, and to Glendale Hospital. Thanks to the lunch which was served to those same patients that day, the patients at least were able to receive two hot meals at the regular time.

My purpose in raising this matter in the House is not, I emphasize, to wildly condemn either B.C. Hydro or the union, local 150 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, but to point out to the Members, to plead with the Members to realize that this case in point deserves the most careful review by both parties.

The refusal of Hydro workers, which has been reported, to turn out outside their working hours after the power interruption is attributed directly to their negotiations with Hydro. Now one resident took a much stronger position when he wrote to the union, sending a copy, and saying:

"People do not care about the finer points of your disagreement with B.C. Hydro. But they care very much that you could be a party to a situation which forced people to spend the night in cold and darkness, with a deliberate disregard for human life."

The resident went on in his letter to say:

"There is a great difference between reasonable bargaining and childish extortion. The people of this district feel that when Hydro executives and union leaders are accepting the pay of responsible adults, then they should act accordingly."

In School District 63, which covers the peninsula, I have a report from the administration office there regarding the power failure: nine schools were closed the following day; 2,824 students unable to attend; 132 teachers not attending. The school district administration office was unable to operate until after lunch. Because of this power failure, 2,824 students lost a day of schooling. The board, in this time of critical shortage of money for education, will pay out — the taxpayer will pay out — in excess of $13,000 in salaries to staff who wanted but were unable to perform their duties.

It was felt by the board that:

"If we had been notified at the time of the power failure, we could have redirected teachers and some students to other schools, and could have notified parents and teachers earlier in order to reduce the confusion. As it was, the word didn't come until about 6:30 the next morning when the custodians reported that power in the respective schools was out." This is admittedly a local issue, but it's one that I know will not be forgotten by Saanich Peninsula people. I also think it is indicative of a general malaise in our province today. There has to be a better way to conduct the always-delicate negotiation process between labour and management. This was not a strike situation; it was the result of a breakdown in mutual agreement between labour, and management to continue to provide essential services while negotiations are in progress. The people who pay the bill, who depend on continued electrical service, who expect it and are entitled to it, except in a time of major disaster, should receive far better treatment than 20,000 or more citizens in my constituency received on the night of February 11 and 12.

I've talked about feelings of anger and frustration and outrage in British Columbia today. It's certainly not limited to school boards, to teachers or to residents deprived of their power supply. As far as I've been able to determine, it can be easily identified in many parts of the province and with so many of our citizens, even among a number who voted for that party in 1972, because they now realize the full significance of the harm which 21/2 years of this government has done to our province. Other Members

[ Page 208 ]

of the House will be aware of the fact that it has to be said that this government has not met the test. The government has not met the test.

There are some citizens who say, in effect, that we don't really object to the fact that you are socialists; it is your general incompetence which troubles us the most. It's a fact that you've introduced an exploded bureaucracy at tremendously increased costs. It's a fact that you've introduced your task forces, your consultants, your experts, your research teams, your think tanks with little or nothing to think about. It's the amount of money that you have been prepared to throw around with little or no idea of where the money is going. It is the harm which you have done to our province, to our people, to our economy through mismanagement and through amateurism. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the legacy of the NDP on the basis of its time in office so far.

The Speech from the Throne may well have been longer this year but it still told us very little about the problems in the province today, 1975 — not August of 1972 or before, In those areas where this government has fallen so badly short of the mark, I think it is a poor document with which to start this legislative session, and I cannot support it.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): First of all, I'd like to pay my personal respects to the memory of two very great worshipers of the parliamentary process: Mr. Ned DeBeck, who will certainly be well-remembered for his very thoughtful and never-ending contribution to the dignity of this chamber. I think we can all recall his very fair-minded counsel and assistance for any of those who sought it.

I'd also like to pay my respects to the memory of Senator Arthur Laing, who had the continuing capacity to endure the hurly-burly and thoughtlessness of political life without ever questioning or demeaning the process itself. He was a very great Canadian and he always strove and sought for the betterment and improvement of all Canadians.

I'd like to extend my sincere sympathies to the families and next of kin of these two very fine gentlemen.

The throne speech made somewhat scanty but prophetic reference to election reform. It's conceivable that an election is not too far around the corner. I was glad to notice His Honour's reference to the word "rights" when referring to electoral reform. He said:

In order to reform our electoral system and provide greater opportunity for people to exercise their rights in a democracy, a new Provincial Elections Act will be brought forward.

It's going to be very interesting to see what form this statute will take. If it is to be detailment of expenses, I would say fine and dandy; open donors, most satisfactory; more seats — personally, I think very few are needed. I think that we're grossly over-governed not only in this province but in this country as it now is. But where these seats are going to be is going to be extremely interesting. Are they going to be established by an independent commission or is it going to be a matter of governmental gerrymandering? We certainly hope not the latter.

It's also going to be very noteworthy and interesting to see what regard the government is going to have to the basic concept that, under any democratic system, the vote of one person should be equal to the vote of another. Under the Canadian Bill of Rights, Canadian citizens are supposed to be entitled to equality before the law. It says:

"It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms: namely, the right of the individual to equality before the law and to protection of the law."

Well, one can readily see that a Provincial Elections Act is a law. To this point there certainly has not been equality under the law insofar as the equality of votes. We find that it takes about seven times the vote of an individual in, say, Vancouver East or in some of the more heavily congested ridings to elect one individual that it w would, say, in Columbia River. There would be a comparison, say, of about 22 to 1 with the constituency of Atlin.

I think it could well be argued that the existing B.C. elections Act is contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights. It would be a most interesting programme for the Attorney-General to see if that could be tested in the courts. I don't know why the voters in certain large ridings should have to find that their representation is worth a 7th or a 22nd or a 15th or a 10th of voters in less congested ridings. All of these people pay the same kind of taxes, if not more. They have the same responsibilities and the same duties as other citizens. They certainly should be entitled to the same rights of representation.

The test in British Columbia should be one of fairness and equality. One man equals one vote. The way it has been is not that way. We've had a straight tilt insofar as the elections Act is concerned. Let us hope that this is not going to continue.

Another provision which I think should be in the new Act is that, unless a government is defeated on the floor, there should be fixed election dates. There is no need to saddle the province with $3 million or $4 million or $5 million or $6 million worth of continuing expense every three years just to satiate the political appetite of any one person, whoever he or she may be.

Order on the ballot has always been a great

[ Page 209 ]

problem here. It always seems that the government candidates are first on the ballot. That's a goofy situation. It should be alphabetical or, perhaps even fairer, chosen by lot, I think that there should be a complete ban on unwarranted departmental advertising once the election writ is issued. That has been used to buck up the fortunes of backsliding Ministers. I would suggest that, once the election writ is issued, there should be a complete ban.

If any advertising follows the issuance of the election writ, injunctive processes should be able to issue and the Ministers concerned should be subject to public account and personal lawsuits, and repayment to the Treasury of any amount spent on such advertising. This so-called governmental advertising, in which the real purpose is obviously for the propagation of political office, is not only utterly unethical, Mr. Speaker, but it should be made completely illegal.

The public, I think, should be given a much more in-depth choice of both candidate and party. For far too long British Columbia has been ruled by a minority, and the public should be entitled to list their preferences of candidates, with an overall majority of 51 per cent required to win. I say return to the alternative voting system that was utilized in British Columbia in 1952 and 1953, so B.C. would be able to have as its legislators people who are more truly representative of the wishes of the greatest number of our people. That, indeed, would be a declaration of democracy.

There are very substantial policy differences and philosophy differences in this province, Mr. Speaker. I would say that it is not at all unfair, but completely democratic, to suggest that the wishes of the majority of our people should be paramount, and they should have a better opportunity to express majority sentiments and make a majority choice than they have at the present time.

Now this could well work to the disadvantage of some political parties. It could well work to the disadvantage of some of the current elected representatives, but it would certainly better express the will of the people, and that's what it's supposed to be all about. I tell you, if this ever went to public plebiscite at the present time, the public's response would be a resounding "yes" to this suggestion.

There has been a lot of discussion about integrity in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and integrity should be a governmental quality, and never an issue. But when integrity becomes a governmental issue, the process becomes demeaned and, I'd say, irrespective of the outcome. When integrity is the issue and the executive fails to act upon it, or acts adversely to it, indeed, the more the process becomes demeaned. The resultant public reaction is one of disdain, not only, unfortunately, for the legislators, but for the process itself, which is more unfortunate.

A public laissez-faire develops a nihilistic attitude, a response of: "So what? They're all the same!" It ends up just being another kick in the withers to both the parliamentary and the participatory concept of democracy. So many of the public become fed up as a result, and they just don't care. They feel cheated; they feel cheated, rightfully SO.

I'd say that the two greatest single questions in the minds of the general public today are: are we getting value from our government and our elected representatives? Are we getting value from our civil servants? Secondly: are the programmes of our government responsive in meeting the needs and desires of our society as a whole?

Well, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the former question is far more apolitical than the answer to the second one. The public's response to the former question, I think, would be a resounding "no." They, indeed, question the value they are getting from their elected representatives and from their civil service, The public are quite prepared to tolerate error, but they wish value. The outward activities of government are on view. It is not a question of bi-weekly newspaper accounts delivered three days later; programmes and policies are subject to tri-media coverage with all sorts of editorial content. But usually this is after the fact. That which is aired is usually made available by those who are inquiring having to go through the very few doors that are open to them, The executive and the administrative are past masters when it comes to establishing barriers and roadblocks in front of those doors — motivated, I suppose, by political survivalist on the one hand, and by feat or pride or shame or lack of capacity, or a combination of all four, on the other.

Finding the facts today is a real cat-and-mouse situation, and so the result is that the public encounters conflicts in statements; they encounter a diversity in cost, a duplication of services, increased expense, multiplication of taxes — move direct levies and indirect. And all the time the public are trying to survive through political stratagems that seem to be calculated to divide, conquer and squander.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Yet the public still asks one question. They still plaintively ask one question: are we getting value? Well, the government, with all the facts at its disposal and all the resources at its disposal, they always say yes. The opposition, with the few facts at their disposal, they usually say no. Neither are totally correct, and the public don't accept either viewpoint 100 per cent.

Surely the job is to build into the government

[ Page 210 ]

process some proper, independent accountability mechanism — someone to independently watchdog both the government and the civil service — someone with the power and the ability to report to the public about the excesses of either — I'd say a body with complete responsibility to account, one with complete freedom of access to record.

So if value is not received, if the piper doesn't play the tune, then those who had imposed upon them the legal responsibility to pay the piper will become entitled to know about that. That's the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is entitled to rights, too.

But has this ever been the genuine approach of governments in this province? The answer has to be no. With a rather calculated overstatement of the obvious, the Premier had a great ranging discussion about what he has done here to bring about more open government.

Well, there's no question that the present administration did bring us up to 1803 by introducing a Hansard. If they want the Order of the Dogwood for that, fine and dandy; we can give it to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: They brought in an....

MR. SPEAKER: The administration didn't bring in Hansard; the Speaker did.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, Mr. Speaker, you always like to have a little credit.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want anyone to think that Hansard has anything to do with the government. Hansard has nothing to do with the government, as you well know.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I would tend to think that if the government hadn't wanted a Hansard, there might not be one.

MR. SPEAKER: They might have stopped it, but they didn't. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: They didn't want one?

MR. SPEAKER: I said they might have stopped it, but they didn't.

MR. GARDOM: I hope this is on your time and not mine, Mr. Speaker.

We see that the government seems to be in favour of an oral question period. That's very good in concept but somewhat farcical in practice.

We also see that the government has seen fit to appoint an opposition Member as chairman of the public accounts committee.

But there's nothing startling or new in these three items that I've been talking about; there's nothing innovative there. They're hardly the greatest inventions since the wheel. They're just following procedures that have been adopted and followed in other areas for years and years and years — just bringing the process into the present century. To say that this constitutes governmental accountability is nothing more than window-dressing.

We still do not find, Mr. Speaker — a point that you've made quite often yourself, and most excellently, I may say, in dealing with questions — the, situation of a Minister having to answer questions, such as you found in your peregrination to India in the Lok Sabha where there is a responsibility upon Ministers of the Crown to answer questions. Indeed, that would be a welcome procedure in this House.

But let us look at the conduct of the government in the last session, which was the longest one in the history of our province. It existed without a private Member's day, Mr. Speaker.

The longest session in the province seemed- to carry on without discussing 24 resolutions affecting matters and problems as serious as marketing boards, the flooding of the Skagit Valley — as another Member mentioned earlier today — the opposition to nuclear weapons, development of the Victoria harbour, the University Endowment Lands and the expansion of studies of the Okanagan water basin.

The longest session of the year concluded with 82 unanswered questions on the order paper, 15 of those dealing with questions on the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and its financial organization and 28 of those questions to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — 43 in total. Those two Ministers were responsible for not answering 43 out of 82 questions which died on the order paper in the longest session in the history of this province.

Some open government, Mr. Speaker, with question after question taken as notice and subsequently ignored.

We ran into the blatantly preposterous situation in the last session where the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — whom I think is aptly misnamed — when he was the head of ICBC, sat through his estimates, never volunteering to this House any reasons as to why a difference in opinion or philosophy between Mr. Bortnick, the head of ICBC, and Mr. Adams, its administrative executive ' should result in the resignation of Mr. Adams and by him being paid by B.C. taxpayers for 18 months and receiving $50,000 of public money without lifting a finger for it. We heard today that some fellow was thrown off welfare because he spent his accident settlement moneys in Acapulco. Well, I would gainsay that Mr. Adams could get to Acapulco

[ Page 211 ]

20 times plus on his $50,000.

The curiosities, Mr. Speaker, are inevitable. What sort of expensive philosophy is this of Mr. Bortnick's that the taxpayer is saddled with? Why should the philosophical interests of Mr. Bortnick have to be assuaged out of the public purse of this province at such terrific expense? We have to ask: how many more philosophical differences and at what cost and what value has the public received from this type of thing? Is it going to be the lifestyle of the province that philosophical differences between administrative personnel are to result in resignations that are going to be financed at such terrific public expense? Are the public getting value out of something like this?

In the fall of last year I drew to the attention of the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) that there were terrifically serious problems in B.C. Rail. Estimates were proving three times higher than people bid upon; we find estimates of $5.2 million to do a job resulting in an estimate of $20 million to complete.

I drew the attention of the Minister Without Portfolio to the Minty report, which was scathing of the accounting procedures and the audit procedures.

I asked him the question, Mr. Speaker, as to whether he's prepared to order a judicial inquiry into the accounting and estimating and bidding procedures of B.C. Rail, and he said the matter was being considered. It was being considered and it was being reviewed and I would like to ask: how was it considered; how has it been reviewed; what is going on, and what, indeed, has gone on?

We've got to look at the government's adventures into business, Mr. Speaker, into the private sector. We find Hydro, B.C. Rail, Can-Cel, Ocean Falls, Dehy Products, ICBC, Dunhill, Plateau Mills, Panco, on and on. Yorkshire Trust — I suppose that's going to be the next one to come down the line. Yet all of these Crown endeavours seem to be exempted from the usual safeguards that are offered the public and shareholders under our B.C. Companies Act. Surely to goodness it's ludicrous to suggest that there should be greater protections available under the law in a $10,000 private company than for the shareholders of these enormous public corporations, who are the taxpayers. And the shareholders, Mr. Speaker: 70 per cent of them are not and never ever will be socialists in this province, make no mistake of that fact at all.

The advent of this government into the public sector has not served to democratize the public corporations but has made them more totalitarian and less accountable in the economic sense if nothing else. Surely to goodness they should be under the same rules of conduct and account that is called for by the rest of the laws of the province.

MR. GIBSON: Stronger rules.

MR. GARDOM: Stronger rules, as my colleague from North Vancouver states. The policies and the programmes, the expense projections, the accounting procedures, the methods of letting contracts, the capital projections and the income estimates of these companies are never subject to proper public scrutiny. The NDP hasn't lessened the problems of governmental accountability, but they have compounded it. That's the big difference between the socialist in power and the socialist out of power. When he is out of power, he says: "Let the sunshine in." Let the sunshine in until you get into power and then, zot! Down comes the blind. These Crown corporations should be forced to operate as all other government departments do in that their budgets and expenditures and costs and estimates should be before the public, openly declared, openly debated, and subject to full public scrutiny. That's exactly what we need.

Now if there were these safeguards, if there were independent watchdogs, not only would the public have a better, if not a proper, sense of security, but the more cautious the executive and the civil service would be because they would know....

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Hey, fellas, do this in your own time. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: They would know that their mistakes, be they deliberate or inadvertent, would be aired and they would be able to better rationalize their actions because they would know by law that they would be held to account. The public, Mr. Speaker, would obviously receive better value and the public interest would obviously be better served.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the longest and most expensive lawsuit in the history of the province — it started way back in 1967 — ground to a halt in December following 396 days of court hearing, and a decision resulted. This involved a $51 million claim for extra construction costs resulting from the speed-up of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and Peace River power project.

I'd like to refer to three short quotations from an article in the Vancouver Sun by Mr. Robert Sarti, reporting upon the judgment:

"Mr. Justice James Macdonald cited evidence that Shrum had promised Bennett that Hydro would not have to pay extra to ensure Peace power by fall, 1968. Asked whether he had obliged Shrum to make the promise about not paying extra, Bennett told The Vancouver Sun: 'I don't remember anything like that.' Was he

[ Page 212 ]

saying no promise was made? 'How could I remember all those things from those days?'

"'Sometime — the defence does not establish the date — but at the end of May or early in June, 1966, Dr. Shrum gave the Premier the commitment that if Hydro paid for the fifth unit at Burrard, it would not pay for acceleration — speed up — on the Portage Mountain Peace project,' the judge said. The judge added that key Hydro officials were not advised for some months of Shrum's commitment to Bennett."

The last quotation:

"The developing problem could have been avoided by Hydro seeking, although it would involve some embarrassment, release from the commitment to the government, or through abandoning Peace power in 1968."

Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe there was a mistake. Maybe a judgment decision went sour. I'm not suggesting for a second that that which happened wasn't totally legitimate. But let the public be told. The public are prepared to tolerate error, but they are fully entitled to know. B.C. Hydro is their company; it's their money.

Have they received value for this $51 million bill? The $51 million, more than the estimates of no end of the portfolios in this House; was that expenditure warranted? Was this speed-up in the public interest? Is this $51 million bill over and above the contract price? Have there been $51 million of benefits received? If not, how much are the benefits that are received? Maybe there are lots of intangibles. If so, exactly what are they? Was this decision ever made public — to speed up? If not, why not? What are the net results? Perhaps, through luck, circumstance, rising inflation, this $51 million bill might have proven to be a bonanza. It might even prove to be a break-even point; or it could well prove to be a boondoggle.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member, I am not sure on this point: is this matter you are discussing to do with an appeal presently before the courts?

MR. GARDOM: No, I am just discussing the judgment of Mr. Justice James Macdonald of the B.C. Supreme Court.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that not under appeal now?

MR. GARDOM: Not that I am aware of.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no knowledge. I just wondered, before we went any further.

MR. GARDOM: So, as I say, has this $51 million bill proven to be a bonanza, a break-even or a boondoggle? But nobody knows but the select few.

I put this question! doesn't somebody have a public responsibility to validate the decision, catalogue the facts and put them on the table? Surely to goodness, national security or public decency aren't involved. I say let the public have the facts; it is their money, and they are more interested in the money than the politics of the situation. I'd say that if full information is not able to be volunteered by those responsible in the former administration or by the present administration, or if files are not made open and available to the press, then, once again, the only route would appear to be an impartial inquiry by a supreme court judge. But has the public received $51 million of value?

Those questions are in front of them now and they have the right to request answers, and they have, even more sacredly, the right to expect answers.

Now very serious questions of integrity were raised by the Liberal leader and by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). As I said at the outset of this talk, executive inaction is not any cure for that.

In the first situation mentioned to the House, the public have before them statements and affidavits; they have judicial pronouncements and sworn testimony. Contra, they have not under oath contradictory assertions of the Premier of the province.

In the second situation there has been an allegation of secret dealings with a clear implication of impropriety on the part of the administrators of Hydro, and that has been given by the most powerful Member of the executive of this province outside of the Premier. Contra to it, there has been the denial, a call to account and a welcoming of an inquiry by the public servant, the former chief administrative officer of Hydro — the two people involved.

Well, with such matters not proceeding to inquiry in the open, and independent inquiry, once again, Mr. Speaker, the public has to ask: are they getting value? What the public wants is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. They are entitled to that and they have not received it.

One editorialist likened such things as to a mackerel beached and lying in the sun — mighty olfactory — and the public wants to see that it is got rid of.

We have serious differences here — not in policy, not in philosophy, but in fact, in factual account, and very, very serious inferences emanating from them. The highest morality has to be the aim and responsibility of the government. It has the power to act at all times and when the duty to act presents itself, as it has here, it is a breach of each if it doesn't. That's the position that this government is in right now.

[ Page 213 ]

Very, very forceful positions and arguments were raised by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. He asked: should the — can the — Columbia River Treaty be renegotiated? He insisted that it should be renegotiated. Can it be? Have we been taken to the cleaners? Can we claim those downstream peaking benefits? We have read very conflicting positions to the contrary. Should this not itself be a subject of a special commission of this government, set up as a task force to find out, make its deliberations public and, once again, ensure that the public are entitled to value?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say that greater, not less, is the need for public accountability under this administration. The greater is the need for this government to produce full, instead of selected reports. The greater is the need for independent access to the books and records of all these Crown corporations and Crown businesses.

The greater is the responsibility of this government to establish the office of an auditor-general to screen and reveal bad values, government excesses and waste. It would also serve to keep not only the government but also the departments of government on their toes. As its companion in accountability, why not institute a provincial ombudsman to help the citizens wade through the various snarls of bureaucratic delay, red tape and inaction, and report on all sorts of malactions?

We not only should but we must let the sunshine in and make public the findings of all boards and tribunals. We have to establish a set of uniform and consistent rules for administrative procedure.

I'd say it is right, not as a privilege in the Province of British Columbia, that the public is entitled to value. Let them have the true account, the complete account, and not a selective account.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is certainly a pleasure for me to take my place in this throne speech debate this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can do it in 40 minutes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to say that I'm sorry the Premier is not in the Legislature this afternoon, but I suppose he's out putting the final touches on the budget...

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): He's not.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...which will be brought in on Friday next, and knowing the way the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) performs, he's probably still changing it and won't make up his mind about exactly what's going to be in it until the very, very last moment.

But I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm certainly pleased to see in the Legislature this afternoon the Minister of typewriters.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the Premier is out figuring how he's going to live up to some of his budget promises of last year, like how to remove school taxes from property.

I notice in this particular throne speech debate that the back bench of the socialist party is very itchy to get on their feet and speak because it may be the last time they have the opportunity before going to an election. But I notice they're being crowded out by the cabinet in this particular debate. All the heavies of the cabinet have been on their feet espousing the policies which are going to be brought down in the budget on Friday, but not really saying too much about heir own particular portfolio.

Before I start, Mr. Speaker, there is just one other word I want to say and that is that I am certainly very proud this afternoon and in all the time past and in the future, to be associated with the 10 Members of the Social Credit caucus. I want to say that I'm proud to be associated with them, and I'm proud of our leader, and I want to say that this group are interested in seeing responsible government return to British Columbia. We're not interested in showmanship...

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That'll get you. Watch your back.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...buffoonery, but we're interested in good responsible government for the Province of British Columbia. I want to say that we will work and devote all of our energies to restoring that responsible government to this great province, this great free-enterprise Province of British Columbia.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He's going to take on Hall.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to talk for just a moment this afternoon about a subject which is certainly on the lips of the Premier a tremendous amount lately, and indeed a great deal of attention is being given to it by all of Canada and indeed the world, and that is energy. I want to talk for just a few moments about the energy we have the greatest amount of in British Columbia, and that is natural gas.

Our Premier, Mr. Speaker, seems intent on building up the image, in the Province of British Columbia, and indeed throughout all of Canada, that

[ Page 214 ]

British Columbia has been giving her natural resources away, in the way of natural gas, and that no return to the province from this resource was being given prior to our Premier coming in on his great white horse, as it were, and making some changes.

I think I must say that the Premier seems to use in this image that he's trying to build up one of Hitler's old thoughts; and that is that if you tell a lie often enough people will start believing it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that is definitely out of order and unparliamentary to suggest that any Member would deliberately tell lies in this House. Would the Hon. Member...?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have not accused anybody of telling a lie. I am merely saying that this was how Hitler rose to power. He kept telling lies often enough, and pretty soon the people did believe it. If you feel that I have said the Premier is telling a lie, I will certainly withdraw it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That's how the Socreds stayed in power.

MR. PHILLIPS: Anyway, the Premier is trying to build up this image in the Province of British Columbia. But the fact of the matter is that when gas was discovered in the early '50s in northeastern British Columbia, there had to be a market created. Had no market been created, there would have been no more exploration. There would have been no scrubbing plants built, and there would have been no pipelines built.

The people of the interior, northern and lower mainland parts of British Columbia would not have had the advantage for some 20-odd years of using and having the benefits of using natural gas.

Without sales there would have been no revenue and consequently no more exploration. The pipeline would not have been able to go ahead because there was not sufficient market in the northeastern part of British Columbia to even warrant the building of small gathering systems or the building of scrubbing plants in that area.

In order for the rest of British Columbia to reap the benefits of this natural resource, these scrubbing plants and these pipelines had to be built. Even then the market in British Columbia would not support the tremendous expenditure to bring the gas on stream. But if they had, the residents of British Columbia would have been paying approximately three times as much for the use of that natural resource as they have been during the past 20 years. Larger markets in the United States had to be found to warrant the tremendous expenditures at that time.

I want you to realize, Mr. Speaker, that this was in the mid '50s, The building of the pipeline, of the scrubbing Plant and of the gathering systems did two things. It allowed the residents of British Columbia to have the advantage of cheap natural gas for the past 20 years. It ensured further exploration and a guarantee that we would have that natural gas for some time to come.

It was the building of this pipeline and the use of natural gas that created a lot of the prosperity we in British Columbia have known over the past 20 years, mainly in the lower mainland. Long-term contracts had to be negotiated at that time to warrant the tremendous expenditure of millions and millions of dollars.

No one at that time could foresee the inflation factor that has been brought in mainly since the mid 60s. I want to say at this time that it is government — not the people, not business — which creates inflation. Unfortunately, it is only governments which are able to reap the profits of inflation. It's not the individuals. It's not the small businessman. It's not the multinational corporations. It's not the land holders. It is only the government that profits from inflation.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Not local governments, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not even in the early 60s was inflation a major factor, Inflation was hardly mentioned in Canada until the St. Lawrence Seaway settlement, that famous settlement of the workers on the St. Lawrence Seaway which afforded them upwards of a 30 per cent increase. Not until that time did inflation really become a problem in Canada.

I think we must bear these facts in mind, because the value of a dollar today is a lot less than the value of a dollar when these pipelines were built and when these gas contracts were negotiated.

HON. MR. LAUK: You don't believe that, do you?

MR. PHILLIPS: All you have to do is to look at energy prices around the world at that time. Let's go back and realize what the energy prices were around the world when these contracts were negotiated.

Are we to say that the Arabs were giving their oil away? I haven't heard anybody mention that. And it has only been within the last 18 months that the Arab nations have increased their price for oil. Are the people of that country going to uprise against the leaders of those countries and condemn them for giving their oil away?

I think we have to be entirely realistic in this situation and realize the past history. I'm sure that had that group been in power, the citizens of British Columbia would not have had the advantage of using that natural gas and of enjoying the standard of living

[ Page 215 ]

they have enjoyed over the past 20 years.

No one, not even the greatest economists of that day, could foresee the situation we are in today. No one could foresee the rapid rate of inflation. No one could foresee the energy crisis that we face today.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): We did.

MR. PHILLIPS: No one knew that the Arab countries were going to inflate and increase the price of their oil to the industrialized world to the rate that it has been today. No one in their wildest dreams could see this.

I wonder what situation this province would be in today had we listened to the opposition of the day, even in the early '60s, when they said that the Peace River power dam should not go ahead until 1984. That was the thinking and that was all of the input into looking to the future by the opposition of the day. Yet today they are building additional dams on that same Peace River to supply the requirements. Where would British Columbia be today if it had not been for the foresight, the courage, the determination and the financial ability of the previous administration to go ahead with that particular project?

But times have changed, Mr. Speaker, and the value of the dollar has changed. I said in this Legislature in the spring of 1973 that our gas contracts with the United States should be renegotiated. I think if you check the Hansard you will find I was one of the first Members in this Legislature to say that those contracts should be renegotiated. I'm glad to see that the Premier and the government have taken by advice and done something about it.

Mr. Speaker, today we seem to be pulling out of thin air the prices we want for our natural gas. The price of natural gas should be tied to the price of a barrel of oil. The price of our natural gas per 1,000 cubic feet and the BTU it has should be tied to a barrel of oil on today's market. Then we will be comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. This province, certainly, should reap the benefit of their energy on the same basis as any other country is reaping the benefit from their oil, comparable BTU.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Is that the Socred position?

MR. PHILLIPS: What was the position of our Premier in the spring sitting of this Legislature last? He wanted to give all of the natural resources of British Columbia to Ottawa. Now, because Ottawa wants to share in the profits from our natural gas, he is condemning them. Yet less than 12 months ago that very same Premier said in this House that he would give all of our energy resources to Ottawa. He would let Ottawa control it; he would let Ottawa have the say as to how much would be charged and how much the people of this province would have to pay for it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On what condition?

MR. PHILLIPS: He wanted to give it away, Mr. Speaker, to the very people whom today he is condemning. This is the same Premier who, in the House just recently, lauded the Pattullo government on the waste of over $1.5 million in drilling a dry well at Commotion Creek.

Our Premier seems to have a great deal of hindsight.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Tell the whole truth.

MR. PHILLIPS: Even then, sometimes he closes the eyes that are in the back of his head. This is the Premier who is going to Ottawa to deal on the price of our natural resources. This is the same Premier who, in most of his negotiations with Ottawa since becoming Premier, has been skinned by Ottawa.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Has Dan Campbell stopped writing your speeches?

MR. PHILLIPS: The reason that he has been skinned by Ottawa is because when you go to Ottawa you are dealing with professionals who know what they are talking about, who have done their research and are able to negotiate. Our Premier goes to Ottawa not prepared to negotiate, not having done his research, but wanting to rely on his buffoonery.

What we want in our dealings with Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, is good, hard, solid bargaining, not buffoonery.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Like 32 cents a thousand.

MR. PHILLIPS: Our Premier is trying to find a fall guy for his own incompetence in being able to deal with Ottawa. All I can say is thank heaven that he didn't give the natural resources of this province to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, this is the social worker; he's the one who keeps claiming that he's the social worker who is the great financial expert. Well, I hope that he will be completely honest with the people of this province and let them see exactly what the situation is with regard to their natural resources.

The natural resource policies of the socialist government have been a complete failure. Even though the Premier can try to brainwash the people, the people can try to blame Ottawa, the Premier can lash out at the multinational corporations, but who

[ Page 216 ]

are the people who are really suffering, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. LAUK: Just table your speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Last year there was a 30 per cent increase in the price of natural gas to a householder — a 30 per cent increase in the price of natural gas to householders.

Is this why, Mr. Speaker, the Premier can claim such a great profit from the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. because the residents of this province are providing him with a big portion of that profit? The residents of this province — the housewives, the pensioners, the widows, the poor, those on Mincome and the unemployed — they are the people, through an indirect tax of this government, who are providing a large amount of that profit.

In the same year, Mr. Speaker, a 30 per cent increase in the price of hydro — another indirect tax on the people of this province. And yet this Premier wants to stand in this Legislature and go throughout the width and breadth of this great province and tell the people that they're reaping benefits from their natural resources, that they're now getting the benefits they should have got, when all the time they're paying 30 per cent more for their hydro, and they're paying 30 per cent more for that natural gas which the Premier says is supposed to be returning more profit to them.

HON. MR. KING: Is Angus your brother?

MR. PHILLIPS: If our natural gas is returning more profit to them, why are they not seeing it in the bills that they pay?

No, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have to tell the taxpayers of this province the true stories. We're paying more for gasoline. Every time I drive into a gas pump now to fill my car up I say: "Give me 10 gallons of collision insurance." Because that's what I'm doing. I'm paying a premium to operate that car until that tank of gas is gone. I'm paying a premium to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia every time I fill up my automobile.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten cents a gallon!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm paying for my insurance while I'm using up that tankful of gas. Yes, Mr. Speaker: "fill her up; give me 10 gallons of collision insurance." All the time the cost of running this provincial government is increasing to staggering amounts — to staggering amounts.

Is that how the people of this province are reaping the benefit of their natural resources? Unemployment at an all-time high, a 16 per cent increase in those receiving social assurance, 30 per cent increase in hydro, 30 per cent increase in the price of natural gas.... Oh, Mr. Speaker, our Premier and the cabinet should be proud of what they've done in the last two and a half years. They should be proud.

Why, Mr. Speaker, if the previous administration was giving the natural resources of this province away, was the kitty so full? Why is it now, if we're supposed to be reaping so much more benefit from our natural resources, that the kitty is empty?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's not empty.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why is it, Mr. Speaker? If the kitty's not empty, how come we're going to the Arabs to borrow $100 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred. Don't exaggerate.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that not all of the back bench agree with their Premier.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You're against Mincome.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was very interested, the other afternoon, to hear the Member who moved the Speech from the Throne tell in glowing terms in this Legislature how much this province reaps from natural resources as compared with the great provinces of Ontario and Quebec. And I agreed with him, because I've said the same thing in this House before. I just want to quote from his speech, Mr. Speaker.

The announcement that royalties imposed on natural resources would be no longer deductible for federal tax purposes was a direct attack on this province in particular as we had just passed the Mineral Royalties Act when the announcement came down.

The federal government was aware that the impact of this announcement in Ontario and Quebec, where the major Liberal support base lies, would be minimal because (note this) those provinces have refined the practice to a high art of giving away their resources with very little return to the people.

That was said by the Member who moved the Speech from the Throne, and I am quoting out of Hansard. What did he say further? He said:

For example, and the most recent examples I have from the Canada Year Book are 1969 (Not 1972, but 1969, before this great government came in and started reaping the benefits, so-called, of our natural resources) unfortunately, I believe the same proportion exists today — during that year, the gross natural resource revenue for the Province of Ontario was $54 million, while the gross revenue for Quebec from natural resources was $ 66 million. In British Columbia, (Now mark this, Mr. Speaker) gross revenue from

[ Page 217 ]

natural resources during the same period was $127 million, more than both those provinces combined.

Yet our Premier tries to go around this province and say that the previous administration was giving the natural resources away. Well, if they were giving them away in British Columbia, what in heaven's name were they doing in Ontario and Quebec? They must have been paying them to take them away, not only giving them away.

He goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House before, in Ontario and Quebec they both have more resources, more mineral reserves than the Province of British Columbia.

Direct revenues from natural resources, formerly a small percentage of the gross revenue of those eastern provinces, are 2 per cent in the case of Quebec and 1.6 per cent in the case of Ontario. But direct natural resource revenues in British Columbia are 12 per cent of our gross income and increasing.

Now if those facts are true, and he says they're taken from Statistics Canada, tell me, Mr. Speaker, how in heaven's name anybody in their right mind can go through this province and say that the previous administration was giving the natural resources away? It just doesn't add up. It's a myth, and they're trying to build up that image because any increase they get from natural resources is being squandered by that government who are incapable of good sound fiscal management of the taxpayers' money or of the money received from natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a moment about housing in this province.

MR. CHABOT: No Minister!

MR. PHILLIPS: This government has failed, and failed miserably, Mr. Speaker, in its attempt to provide adequate housing in British Columbia. Urban housing starts in 1974, January to the end of November, were 22,234 units. In 1973, the same period, January to November, 24,782 — 2,548 more starts in the same period in 1973 than in 1974.

This is after the Premier and the Minister of Housing made a great to-do last year in the throne speech and in the budget speech about how the Department of Housing was going to solve all of the housing problems in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: How many houses did the Socreds build? Not one.

MR. PHILLIPS: In doing this, in trying to fulfil their promise which they have failed miserably to do, they have used the big-club approach to force individuals and municipalities to do the things the way the government wants them to do.

In some of the acquisitions of partly developed projects, Dunhill Development or the Department of Housing has paid little or no attention to small contractors, while in other instances they have had Dunhill negotiate on their behalf for cost increases, in trying so hard to fulfil their obligations that they made in the throne speech and the budget speech last year.

On the other hand, in some instances, Dunhill has gone out and negotiated cost increases with no regard for the future end owners of these projects. The Department of Housing and Dunhill Development have used every means at their disposal to achieve their ends — whether they were moral or immoral has no place in their negotiations. As long as it's within the law, whether it's moral or immoral doesn't seem to matter.

Mr. Speaker, in the case of Meadowbrook, several buildings in the last stages of development were not cited in accordance with the plans in the original land-use contract taken out by the original contractor. Mr. Speaker, in this instance, work was ordered stopped by the building inspector, but the builder refused to accept the letter which was sent by double-registered mail. The big club of government swung, and the job carried on.

Dunhill Development in many instances paid no attention whatsoever to local government. Even though house locations were moved to save money on backfill, Dunhill Development did not step in.

It's no wonder that Dunhill Development was able to show a profit of some $2 million-plus last year. In most instances in the Meadowbrook project there was a 35 per cent increase in the total package cost to the buyer from the prices in the original land-use contract. It was Dunhill Development that justified these increases to the District of Coquitlam.

In this same project in some instances, because of changes made in the placing of foundations, windows had to be blocked out to make the best of a poor situation. In others, carports and fences had to be shifted. In still others there was no satisfactory solution. This was condoned by Dunhill Development. In some cases, windows were too close to adjacent units to meet safety standards.

Can't we expect more from this great corporation that was purchased by the Minister of Housing?

In some cases there was a complete loss of privacy in some of those units...

HON. MR. LAUK: Are the sidewalks swept?

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and complete loss of their usable yard area. Most of these errors took place after Dunhill had made the purchase from North Road Housing Co. Ltd.

Dunhill Development was purchased by this government for $5.8 million. As I said in the Legislature last year — and the financial statement

[ Page 218 ]

shows it — the assets of Dunhill at that particular time were $2,978,982.

HON. MR. LAUK: There's no one in the press gallery; they'll catch it later.

MR. PHILLIPS: The taxpayers of this province were ripped off to the tune of $2.9 million.

And what did our Minister of Housing say, Mr. Speaker? "Oh," he said, "several of their lands are going to be sold. They're going to be sold and there's going to be a profit of $1 million." That profit of $2 million came off of the backs of the potential home buyers in this province.

Even this year....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You find anything in the province or the lower mainland that sells for that price today.

MR. PHILLIPS: Even this year in the financial statement of Dunhill Development, which is an audited financial statement, the value of the company is only $4,990,459.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: After one year of operation and after ripping the homeowners of the province off to the point of $2 million, the company in their financial statement still is not worth what the Minister of Housing paid for it in its original case — $5.8 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. PHILLIPS: And I don't know whether we'll ever get to the bottom of this Dunhill thing because it's being kept out of the courts....

MR. CHABOT: It's a scandal.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's being kept out of the courts today because of a lawsuit between the Premier and a radio station....

MR. CHABOT: It's a scandal, that's what it is.

MR. PHILLIPS: It seems to me a crying shame that it takes that long to get justice accomplished in this province when our Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is saying what a great job he's doing. Why does it take nearly 12 months to get this case before the courts? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. This government doesn't want that case to be settled. They don't want the taxpayers of this province to know the true story behind Dunhill Development. They don't want the taxpayers of this province to know what went on before Dunhill Development was purchased....

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think that this Member is inferring that there's interference with the courts. I would ask him to withdraw that. I think that is an insidious remark.

MR. PHILLIPS: I asked the question, Mr. Speaker, and I will repeat it: why does it take so long to have things done in this province? Why does this court case not come to court?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I realize the government is the party, but you are the Attorney-General; you are the one who oversees the administration of justice in this province.

I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. As long as they can keep it before the courts, the taxpayers of this province will never have the right to know exactly what is behind Dunhill Developments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the Hon. Member is permitted to impute anything to the courts in any debate, as you see also on page 361 of May, which I have read out to you. Therefore, it would be quite inappropriate, without a motion made by you in writing, where you attribute anything to the courts of this land.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Attorney-General, overseer of justice in this province, to get this case to the courts so there can be a decision made, and so that the acquisition of Dunhill by the Department of Housing can be debated in this Legislature so we can find out what is back of all this.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: This government was going to go ahead and censure me because of the allegations I made in this Legislature. But the motion was withdrawn because the government didn't want to go ahead with it because I would be calling witnesses.

I wanted to get to the problem of Dunhill, but it is before the courts. All I am asking is that the Attorney-General do something to get that case settled so the people of this province can make an intelligent....

Interjection.

[ Page 219 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you — I bet you'd like to interfere in all practices, like the police system, the appointing of judges in the hands of the Attorney-General. You seem to be doing everything else.

If justice is going to be done by recall of that suit.... I have been trying to have it brought to court. I wouldn't want it hanging over my head. If I had a civil suit against me that would.... I'd be asking for it be brought into the courts. I don't know why the Premier has not asked that it be brought into the courts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please! Hon. Members, may I advise the Hon. Members that civil cases before the courts are handled by the parties themselves and by the court itself, and the dates for hearing trials of and the procedures that take place have nothing to do with the government? It is in the hands of the courts, and it would be inappropriate for the Hon. Member to be making references that, in effect, criticize the courts.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not going to get into a long dissertation of how civil cases can be delayed. Being a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do how long civil cases can be delayed by a mere sniff of the nose on someone's part.

This government will never allow this admission because they don't want it before the courts. They don't want it before the courts because they want to use it for a smut and smear campaign during the forthcoming election. All there have to be are allegations, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: All you need is a fresh typewriter.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Speaker, this government has some awesome power, and the Department of Housing is using it when it comes to acquiring land for that department. The government has successfully deceived some of the landowners in the Burke Mountain area by using an undercover agent to acquire that land.

No, the truth will out about what is happening in the Department of Housing one day, and I would like to have the Minister of Housing assure me that the federal government is going to contribute in all of the senior citizen housing projects that he is acquiring, and that none of the federal government aid will be held up because of some of the negotiations that have gone on previously between the contractor and the owner. I want the Minister of Housing to assure me that before Dunhill Development steps in to buy any project that is underway, some search is done to ensure that all of the work that has been charged to the project was actually done on the project.

MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the Hon. Member's time is completed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to summarize by saying....

AN HON. MEMBER: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

MR. PHILLIPS: I realize that the cabinet and the back bench squirm when I'm telling the facts in the House; and I'm telling the true facts in this House. They sit there and they squirm and they're glad to see me conclude my speech, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the people of British Columbia will know the true facts, will not believe the myths they are trying to spread throughout this province; and some day the people of this province will learn the true facts behind Dunhill Developments.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, as usual, it's a pleasure to take part in the throne speech debate. The throne speech this year certainly makes it worthwhile to take part in the debate; it's one of the best I've heard in this House.

Naturally, the official opposition doesn't seem to agree. Their speeches have been just incredulous. I think they're going to have to get a new theme song, They're just going to have to get a new theme song; that old one they had about the NDP is breaking up that old gang of mine — there's another one they can use now.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Well, I'd like to join in a battle of wits with that Member, but I never fight with an unarmed man.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: His Honour referred to changes, long-overdue changes, in the justice system. I was interested particularly in that reference to the changes in the justice system. The others have been well covered and I won't be bothered talking about them. The interest stems from being an employee, some years ago, of the B.C. Penitentiary, and working for some time in Kamloops as a volunteer parole officer with the John Howard Society.

It seemed to me that the only time there were really significant changes in the justice system or in the laws was about every 15 or 20 years when an attempt was made to have these changes. Then it was forgotten about for another 15 or 20 years. This is why I and a lot of people welcome the setting up of the Justice Development Commission and the local justice boards in this province.

[ Page 220 ]

The one in Kamloops is working fine. They've had several meetings; they've hired a co-coordinator and they're soon going into public meetings. Representations on there are from the legal profession, the judges, service organizations and the public. This means there will be a local group in each area keeping their fingers on the pulse of the delivery of justice in the province, watching for soft spots that may develop or that weren't noticed before, and bringing these recommendations to the justice commission and to the Attorney-General. They will end up in this House being debated to bring in the necessary changes. Remedial legislation can then be handled at every sitting of the House rather than every 15 or 20 years.

The other thing I liked to see in the speech was a legislative committee to set out terms of reference for an inquiry into forest tenures. Most of these old-time tenures, I know, are on the coast. But there's a large one in my riding, close to a town that was dying — and I'll speak about it later — the town of Blue River. Those people can't understand why that timber has sat there since 1905-1910 with no cutting being done and no employment coming out. The way those tenures are written makes it almost impossible to get them back again. Who owns it now? IT&T is the major shareholder in Rayonier.

I'm hopeful that this committee will find some way in their efforts so we can get these old tenures back into public use, back to the taxpayers where they belong, and so that use can be made of them and employment provided by this system.

I was also interested in His Honour's reference to electoral reform. We've heard quite a few comments on that. We heard the Leader of the Opposition speak on electoral reform and the redrawing of electoral boundaries by the royal commission route. But what is the record of the party that he now leads?

In 1966 that previous government ignored the report of the Angus commission on boundaries. The boundaries of the ridings in this province were changed right in this chamber. They set up a commission under his dad. They investigated the situation of the boundaries, brought in a report and were totally ignored by that bunch. Now they are calling for it to be done by a royal commission.

Remember the transferable ballot introduced by the coalition to block the party I belong to from becoming government at that time? That was a real boomerang because the Liberal-Conservative coalition got the Social Credit government for 20 years and went through the total destruction of their credibility and their party's in this province. They'll be in that same position for a long time to come.

And what happened to the transferable ballot once they had been elected on it? They never went to the polls with it again. But now they are talking about an alternative system of voting.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Immediately after the first election. It was a short term.

I'm sorry that I'm going to have to bring a few facts into what I have to say because I know facts confuse the opposition. They give them headaches; they give them trouble. But we heard the perpetual, ongoing dissertation from the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) on the mining industry. He took us through the closure of all the mines right back to the Yukon gold rush, I think, and apparently it was all due to Bill 31, the Mineral Royalties Act. He completely ignored the fact that Japan has cut back 15 per cent on all the orders. He completely ignored the fact that copper is now 50 cents a pound instead of $1.30 as it was last year.

According to my information and the press reports from the officials of the company, unlike the doom and gloom that he's talking about of no mines ever opening again in the province, one of the richest copper deposits is situated about 12 miles west of Kamloops. According to the president of the company, if copper has bottomed out at its present price, they are hopeful that they will begin their development this year. Afton Mines Ltd., the company that apparently knows and has ignored the propaganda of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, knows that they can get along with this government and won't have any problem.

The companies said, and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines said, that $140 million was going to be brought in by this legislation. And the opposition agreed — $140 million. Well, the figures show for the first nine nineths of the year that we can expect approximately $13 million. Somewhere in the range of $13 million. It's too close to the end of the year to calculate it exactly yet, but that was what the first nine months' figures showed. They could have gotten these figures. They're all on record at the Department of Mines.

It is also on record that the industry earned a net profit of $230 million in 1973. The indications show that there is going to be a healthy profit from 1974 for most of the operations; not the up-and-down operation at Jordan Mines that's gone through this up-and-down situation before. But that Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), along with the rest of the opposition, have been screaming about no development and mines closing down. I hope it doesn't give them a headache but I just have to give a few facts on these mine closures.

If we go back to 1970, there were two mines closed in 1970 involving 309 employees being laid off. And 1971, that was a bad year, because the figures show that seven mines closed in 1971 and 873 miners were out of work as the result of a shutdown. In 1972, three mines closed down and 454 miners

[ Page 221 ]

lost their jobs. In 1973, two mines closed down and 187 more miners were out of work. All of this was before the mineral tax Act; all of this before Bill 31. In one year, in 1971, seven mines closed down and 873 miners were out of work. In 1974, the last year of the records, four mines closed, among them Jordan River, among them the played-out Britannia, for a loss of 680 jobs. But this was still not up to the record year of 1971 where 873 lost their jobs and seven mines closed down. They did it all without the help of Bill 31 — never had a bit of help. They shut down on their own.

MR. LEWIS: They never mentioned that. They have a short memory.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'd like to make a few references to my own riding. We have the opposition talking about how this government does nothing, it doesn't do anything for anybody, it hasn't done anything here, it hasn't done anything there. I'd just like somebody to try and make up a list of what was done for the people of Kamloops by the previous Member, the one who was called the biggest gun in the Social Credit cabinet. We got Highway I through the riding, and the federal government paid half. They built Highway 5 and conveniently left out all the bridges. Other than that, I think it would take a very, very short list.

MR. LEWIS: In Prince George they built a bridge and didn't have a highway.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Kamloops tried for four years under Social Credit to get an addition to their hospital and got nowhere.

HON. MR. LAUK: Didn't he expand his church at that time?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: What is the situation now after two and a half years of this government? There is a whole floor on Royal Inland Hospital. A breast cancer screening situation has been announced and there is an installation there. There is a 100-bed hospital to be built this year for extended care in Brocklehurst, and we've never had one before.

How did you get a hospital under Social Credit? During the campaign, you took a tape recorder to the meetings where the Minister of Health was speaking. That was the way you got it. Then you sent it into the House to have somebody play it back. That is the way Clearwater got their little hospital, and it is the only way they ever would have got their little hospital.

The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) has been attacked, but I think the record is very clear that in one year's operation under that Minister, with a new department that Social Credit never would have formed, the record is excellent. The Minister has done an excellent job, and some of it is being done in Kamloops.

In this one riding, after the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) had the dike built to protect the people of Oak Hills, we inherited over 50 lots in that project with the purchase of Dunhill Corp. Then the opposition said: "The lease system is no good. People want to own their land. Nobody is ever going to lease any lots." There are two of those lots left in Oak Hills behind that dike — only two.

Some of the people who are building have taken advantage of the government mortgage at an interest rate matched to their income. There are 2,000 acres set aside on the north side of the valley in reserve for future housing. There are 70 acres right in the centre of town that have the engineering studies finished and hopefully will be on their way before too long. No ghettos, no Raymar.

There is none of that kind of housing, but mixed housing with individual rentals, townhouses, condominiums — a good mixture so that we don't have a unit that you can drive by and say: "There's where all the poor people live." I think it's a first-class idea to mix them that way.

Kamloops has had 13 grants under the recreational facilities fund for a total of $1,850,000.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Who brought that in? I think it was our government that brought in that Act too.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There are 13 complexes in Kamloops now, and nine of them would not have been built without these funds. They are scattered from Logan Lake to Clearwater, which puts 100 or 125 miles in between. The Chuchuwayha Indian band is putting up a sportsplex with a grant from this fund. So we've got curling rinks and swimming pools, and we've got ice and hockey rinks in these small communities scattered through the riding as well as in Kamloops itself that we would never have had before, I repeat, under that previous government. There is just no way we could.

There is also another thing we have in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District that I know quite well we would have never got under the previous government. We have the first regional district library system to be started in this province on a cooperative basis for funding between the provincial government and the regional district. The cost is shared. There is a central library depot in Kamloops and there are branch libraries that have opened at Barriere, Clearwater, and one is going in at Logan Lake. There are six or seven more planned, and all of it done in cooperation — not confrontation but

[ Page 222 ]

cooperation.

Kamloops was the recipient last spring of over $500,000 worth of diking to protect the citizens in that area during the time and trouble with the civic strike. The job had to be done and the government did it.

It was two years ago that I stood in this House and talked about the small community of Blue River, 160 miles north of Kamloops on No. 5 highway, which was at that time dying. The deal that was made with the Lands and Forests Minister (Mr. Williston) of that previous administration resulted in three sawmills closing in Blue River and the machinery being moved out. The town started into a steady decline that went on for years.

They couldn't keep tourists there to fish the surrounding lakes. One of the main reasons was that they had no liquor outlet, There was no employment so the employees had to move. There was no one coming in, so the values of the properties dropped and they got very little for their homes. That government was willing to see that community completely wither away, an important connecting link on the highway to Edmonton.

What's the situation now? There's a sawmill having the last of its machinery installed this month, and it should start sawing in March if all goes well. It will make at least 70 jobs. The present lumber market isn't going to affect its operation because it's a specialty cedar mill. After the owner put over $300,000 of his own money and was broke and couldn't finish the mill, and all the private institutions turned him down, a $200,000 loan from the B.C. Development Corp. is finishing the mill and going to get it into production and supply those jobs.

HON. MR. LAUK: And there are cases like that all over the province, my friend.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: An application for a liquor agency is being considered in this little community. Last month they moved in a 12 x 50-ft. trailer, outfitted as a library, as part of the library system. They never had one before, They now have 8.5 acres of waterfront park that they had no hope of getting before, purchased by this government.

Yet they stand and say, "You're not doing anything; you're letting everything go down the drain; you're ruining the province." Don't try to tell it to the people of Blue River. They've dissolved their board of trade and I think they are going to start an NDP club to represent them.

Well, I know that the time limits are cutting down on all of us, so with those few remarks, thank you very much and I will make way for another to speak.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I am extremely proud to stand in this House, representing the wonderful riding of Shuswap. Traditionally, when a Member stands in the throne speech, he thinks about concerns in his riding and tries to get the message across to the House that he is doing a good job in Victoria.

At this time I am going to take a little bit different tack. I feel that more important things have come to the fore. Some of the statements made by the opposition and some of the stands taken by the opposition I think need clarifying.

Since becoming elected and coming here as a farm boy, a quiet boy who is not used to the type of thing that happens in this House, I have had to stop and assess what has been going on.

MR. WALLACE: Honest.

MR. LEWIS: I always understood that opposition was constructive and positive. And, boy, was this farm boy ever fooled, I'll tell you that. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: You're not the first one.

MR. LEWIS: When I look at the opposition down there over the past 2 1/2 years, and look for something constructive, I find it very difficult. But I have a message for the free-enterprise people of this province: If they want a constructive opposition in this province, if they want something to happen where they know there's an opposition there and it is doing some prodding in a constructive manner, I would suggest they take a good look at the Conservative Party.

MR. WALLACE: Hear, hear! I'll buy that.

MR. LEWIS: There is no way I can agree with that Member's philosophy, but at least he is a constructive opposition Member in this House.

HON. MR. LAUK: He's a good doctor, too.

MR. LEWIS: I take a look at the group at the far end of the House and I hear their talk right around the riding and around the province. They refer to them as "Wishy-washy Willy's Woeful Wonders." I will have to agree with them 100 per cent.

Then we take a look at the Liberal Party and we say, "Oh, that Member is knowledgeable in chicken matters." In my opinion, he's a chicken-matter leader, and he's certainly demonstrated it in this House.

They talk about excessive spending by this government. They say, "Oh, they spend too much money and they're not responsible." Well, I want to ask the people of this province and the opposition what they want to do away with. We'll make a list and we'll start down that list.

[ Page 223 ]

How about agriculture? Would you want to do away with the money that was spent with the administration of the Land Commission? Would you want to do away with the farm income assurance programme? Go out in the ridings and tell the people that. Would you like to do away with the expanded programmes under ALDA which expanded the programmes so that they could be used for many other things and doubled the amount of money that was available? Would you like to do away with the Agricultural Credit Act? No way! It's not a positive opposition at all, The Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) got up and said, "I'm proud of this party, every one of them. I like them." Well, I'll tell you right now that he had better stop and do a little assessing after the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) and the attack he made on the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) this afternoon. I say it was disgraceful, vindictive and uncalled for.

HON. MR LAUK: Shocking!

MR. LEWIS: I heard one of the Hon. Members in this House say that women have to be twice as good as men before they can hold down an important position. Well, I'll tell you right now that that Minister is twice as good as any Minister of Education that party ever brought forward. Are they saying that they want to return to the black days, the real black days, when there was no construction of classrooms...?

MR. PHILLIPS: What's wrong with black?

MR. LEWIS: Well, really black. A freeze on all the facilities for recreation.

Let's carry on to the Attorney-General's department. Would you like to do away with the Energy Commission? Maybe they would; maybe some of their friends are being hurt. But I'm telling you right now that the people in this province are benefiting from the Attorney-General's department and from the actions of the B.C. Energy Commission.

Would you like to go back to the old days with the liquor administration board? Would they?

I even hear them saying now, "Well, we've taken a second look at the Landlord and Tenant Act. You know, it's not so bad." It's amazing how, after a while, when they start to get the reaction of the people of this province, their views change.

They say that education is suffering in this province. Well, I make no bones about it; I support this Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and I feel that she is doing a first-class job. Certainly teachers are concerned about education, but who isn't concerned about education? Who isn't concerned about many of our other problems? This government has made some real steps in education and we are going to see some real dramatic ones in the future. But everything doesn't happen in two years.

MR. PHILLIPS: Three giant steps backwards!

MR. LEWIS: The increase in the numbers of teachers who have been hired in this province since we've been elected is 3,700 teachers. The number of pupils per teacher has dropped in this province. Yet you have the gall and the nerve to stand up and condemn the Minister of Education who has done a far better job than anyone you could ever bring forward. Nigh on $91 million in school construction alone this year; 751 new classrooms; 56 libraries; 51 gymnasiums — many of those are the things you had a freeze on. You thought the kids were going to dry up and go away.

Human Resources. What programmes do you want to do away with? I've heard you hollering and screaming in the papers. You go out in your ridings and say, "I want to do away with day care." Mincome. How many old-age pensioners are going to shake your hand if you tell them you want to do away with Mincome? Pharmacare — all wasteful programmes. Youth programmes. Assistance for the mentally retarded. I have some of those in my own riding — two different projects — one in Armstrong and one in Salmon Arm.

I attended a meeting where people were pleading for some assistance in this field. When I told them that it would be forthcoming, they almost laughed — they couldn't believe it. Well, I will tell you, they've got assistance. There's much more needed, but a breakthrough has been made.

Highways. How many of you want to say to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) that he spent too much money? Construction or maintenance?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Nobody'll ever say that, not even your own Members.

MR. LEWIS: It's amazing to me — I see more opposition Members going over and sitting by the Minister of Highways than government Members. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That's no accident.

MR. LEWIS: Lands and Forests. They scream and holler about doing away with Can-Cel. Let's see if they go out in the ridings and say that they want Can-Cel abolished come election time.

HON. MR. LEA: They said it.

MR. LEWIS: How about the Eden fire?

[ Page 224 ]

Forty-eight hours after that disaster, an announcement was made by the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) and the Premier that those people would be compensated 100 per cent for loss. I want to stand in this House and say that I'm proud of the actions taken by the Minister and the Premier. I think that they've been more than fair. As a matter of fact, I've had criticism from some people saying so and so got too much. Well, those appraisals were done by independent appraisers so that we couldn't be told either way that we did too much or too little. No way would they have had that treatment. Look at the Columbia River treaty and the type of treatment people received there.

HON. MR. LAUK: Shocking! Shameful!

MR. LEWIS: The forest products stabilization Act. The opposition Members are even being very careful not to condemn that bill now because they're finding that many of the smaller mills can open up and operate.

So go out in the ridings and tell them: "Do away with that bill. Let Weyerhaeuser and MacMillan Bloedel charge whatever they want for their product and pay the producer what they want to pay out." Try it.

HON. MR. LAUK: They don't want free enterprise.

MR. LEWIS: Municipal Affairs. How would you like to do away with the sewerage facilities Act? We're sure wasting money: We're cleaning up some of the mess that you guys created after 20 years of neglect.

Provincial bargaining rights for the employees of this province. I've heard it said that there's wasteful spending going on. But I'll tell you, it's time that society realizes that the people who work in the public sector are worth as much as the people who are out in the private sector. There are some very qualified civil servants.

I was fortunate enough to work for the past government as a civil servant, God bless 'em. (Laughter.) They talk about the firing of Dr. Knight. Dr. Knight wasn't fired; he was hired on a short tenure to see how capable he was. He didn't cut the mustard. He's gone. (Laughter.)

When I worked for the....

MR. PHILLIPS: You own a chicken and if they don't lay any eggs, they're gone.

MR. LEWIS: When I worked for that Social Credit government, do you know what happened?

MR. PHILLIPS: Lay up or put up!

MR. LEWIS: I worked on crews where the men came in at nighttime, and there was the foreman waiting for them when they got off the truck. And he said: "Sorry, you're not wanted any longer. Your six months are up; you had your probation period. Good-bye. Hope it isn't too tough a winter."

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not saying much for your own work. (Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: An employee of your government attended a political rally in Kamloops where Tommy Douglas was speaking — a man in a foreman's position, a high position, and who was well-respected by everybody in the community. The next day he got his walking papers. Don't start talking about integrity in government and the Minister's ability and the rights to work with the civil servants of this province.

I say that if that Minister doesn't screen our employees and doesn't see that they're doing a good job, then she's neglecting her responsibilities — not because she weeds out the ones who aren't producing.

Fish and Wildlife. It's tremendous how we can waste so darn much money in this province. We've increased the staff; we've started making prosecutions and bringing in people who have been shooting game out of season. A terrible waste of money.

Park acquisitions. I don't see any opposition Members standing up in this House and saying: "Mr. Minister, you spent too much money on parks in my riding." They haven't got the guts to because maybe he may slow down. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: You have in my riding. You spent too much.

MR. LEWIS: How about the recreational facilities fund? Come to my riding any day and say, "I want to do away with the recreational facilities fund. They're spending too much money on recreation. Those people should be out on the street causing problems instead of playing in those facilities."

I'll tell you right now that I had no hesitation in supporting this government in regard to their handling of finances in this province. I can't say every cent because there's bound to be some slip-up somewhere. But just about every bit of this money has been spent for people; it's been spent for their needs. It has not been spent on corporations and tax giveaways and the type of thing that's happened in the past. Maybe this is why there are so many woes being spread by the opposition.

I'll stand on our record come election time, and I'll stand up and I'll say how I feel about it and how proud I am of the job this government has done. I feel real bad about missing out on my chance to speak up for my riding in this debate, but I'm going to have a chance in the estimates. I'll have a chance in

[ Page 225 ]

the budget debate.

MR. CHABOT: This is more important.

MR. LEWIS: I just wanted the people in this province to really know the facts, to take a look at the waste and ask themselves if they want that waste cutback, if they want to do away with the things that I've mentioned. You know, they spend no end of time attacking the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), but I'll bet there isn't one of them who will go to their riding and say: "He's spending too much money on such and such a programme in my riding."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Sanford moves adjournment of the debate,

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Cocke presented the first annual report of the B.C. Medical Centre.

Mr. Curtis withdrew question 75, standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.