CONTENTS

Sayward Valley residents' petition. Mr. Fraser — 605

Statement Campaign contribution. Hon. Mr. Levi — 605

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Escapees from Island View Centre. Mr. Phillips — 609

Casa Loma Motel purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 609

Casa Loma property appraisals. Mr. L.A. Williams — 610

Cypress Park ski lift tenders. Mr. Wallace — 610

Fraudulent welfare applications. Mr. Smith — 611

Proposed elections Act. Mr. Gibson — 611

Education department blacklist. Mr. Schroeder — 611

ICBC payments to employees. Mr. Gardom — 611

Income assurance plan funds. Mrs. Jordan — 611

Appendix — 640

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Presenting petitions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: You are permitted to state very briefly in some way the purpose of the petition, Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"Whereas a large number of residents of the village of Sayward in the Sayward Valley have signed a petition expressing deep concern that decision on the future of logging operations on northern Vancouver Island might be made at the sole discretion of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, and whereas these residents have concerns which are not simply to petition on behalf of any private company but rather the concerns which will follow with respect to jobs, housing and community investments which will be lost if any current options for the total ban on logging in the Tsitika-Schoen are followed."

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of good friends of mine in the gallery, Mr. and Mrs. Drouin from Fernie, along with my wife.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a lady who has given tremendous service over the years to the community in Victoria, particularly to the senior citizens. Recently in a competition sponsored by The Victorian newspaper, she was given the award of person of the year by a large margin over all the other competitors. She's a lady who in many ways has served the people of Victoria very well. For example, she spent a lot of time looking after the returning prisoners of war some years ago.

I would like the House to give a warm welcome to Mrs. Annie McVie.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today Mr. and Mrs. Bill Murdoch, from the fair City of Revelstoke. I would like the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming 25 students from Madeira Park School at Pender Harbour, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Vern Wishlove, Mr. Fred Horton, Mrs. Peter and Mr. Meyer.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I would ask the Members of the House to make welcome with me a group of students from Windsor Senior Secondary in North Vancouver. The students today are accompanied by two of their teachers, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Fair.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, seated in the Members' gallery is a gentleman from Vanderhoof, Mr. Gene Trubach. Mr. Trubach is the government agent and also an alderman for Vanderhoof, and I would ask everyone to welcome him.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this morning on radio CKNW at 9 o'clock Mr. Gary Bannerman, a hotline commentator, stated that I had received a cheque from Mr. Joe Hargitt in the amount of $200, and that I had deposited that cheque in my personal account.

Last week, I believe on Thursday afternoon, March 6, 1975, my executive assistant, Mr. Ray Wargo, informed me that he had had a telephone call from Mr. Bannerman in which Mr. Bannerman stated that he wished to talk to me on a personal matter involving a cancelled cheque which he had in his possession.

I discussed this with Mr. Wargo and placed a call to Mr. Bannerman at 9 a.m. the following morning. However, we were unable to discuss the issue because Mr. Bannerman was going on the air. A subsequent call was placed at noon that same day, and Mr. Bannerman told me of the cheque he had in his possession, signed by Joe Hargitt. Mr. Bannerman suggested that accepting the cheque and depositing it to my personal account constituted an indiscretion because I was a cabinet Minister. However, I pointed out to Mr. Bannerman that I did not become a Minister in the cabinet until September 15, 1972. He characterized my action as an indiscretion because of Joe Hargitt's previous criminal record.

I informed the Premier of my conservation with Mr. Bannerman at the first available opportunity and gave the Premier all of the information contained in this statement.

[ Page 606 ]

I have worked in the corrections field for approximately 17 years. The nature of the work is intensive and involves working with men and women in prisons or on parole, and with those who come to my office for counselling.

The question at issue here is whether a politician should accept moneys from persons with criminal records. I have devoted my professional life to assisting in the rehabilitation of people who have been in conflict with the law. For me to reject a donation on the basis that someone has a criminal record would be against everything I have said to people I have worked with; that is, that acceptance in the community is extremely important. If a man has paid society's penalty, surely to treat him otherwise destroys the whole purpose of rehabilitation. I recall receiving a cheque from Mr. Joe Hargitt in the amount of $200 prior to September 6, 1972. The cheque I accepted as a political donation. The provincial election was over and we were involved in a federal campaign. In respect to that federal campaign, two cheques were made out on a joint account which I share with Gloria, my wife. One cheque in the amount of $100, dated September 15, was issued to the Vancouver Centre federal NDP constituency, and he second cheque in the amount of $100, dated September 5, was made payable to Mr. Joseph Denofreo who worked as the organizer in the Vancouver-Burrard provincial campaign. The money was given to him to help him defray the expenses for the federal campaign in which he was going to work.

I view these two actions as legitimate dispersal of political donations to the NDP federal electoral campaign activities.

I impress upon you that at no time did I accept funds for my personal use or for the personal use of my family. I also impress upon you that at no time has Mr. Hargitt received any consideration from me as a result of his political donation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have deposited with you the two original cancelled cheques from the joint bank account to which I referred earlier, and I will now table a copy of those cheques with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, in responding to the Minister's statement on a matter which should be of grave concern to the House, it seems to me that the Minister has overlooked one very important point. It is not a question of whether the Minister, prior to his appointment to cabinet, accepted a donation or not.

The fact is that the....

MR. SPEAKER: What is the Hon. Member rising on — a point of privilege?

MR. CURTIS: A point of privilege — replying to the Minister's statement.

MR. SPEAKER: You have no right to reply to the Minister's statement, but you do have a right to raise point of privilege under parliamentary law. You must raise your point of privilege and tell us what it is, not embark on a speech either criticizing the Hon. Member or in any way impugning him.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, prior to the sitting of the House, as a matter of courtesy to you, I indicated I wished to rise on a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: You are always entitled to, and that's a courtesy I welcome when you ask me that.

I do point out that you didn't indicate what your purpose was, other than to rise on a point of privilege relating to the Hon. Minister. But you have not stated the point of your privilege, because privileges are things that are clearly defined in parliamentary law.

MR. CURTIS: I am en route to that. In view of the widespread public discussion today, may I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement?

Leave granted.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your assistance. (Laughter.)

It seems to us that it is vital that this matter now be brought before the House, in view of the very widespread public discussion on radio today and the charges which have been made by Mr. Gary Bannerman on CKNW on a programme today.

As I was about to say before I encountered your guidance, Mr. Speaker, it seems that it is not relevant to discuss whether the Minister accepted a donation after his election and prior to his appointment as a member of the cabinet, but rather, under the Provincial Elections Act, section 172:

"No payment, expect in respect of the personal expenses of the candidate, and no advance, loan or deposit shall be made by or on behalf of any candidate at an election before or during or after the election on account of or in respect of the election otherwise than through his official agent."

This seems to be the vital point, Mr. Speaker.

The questionable donation and the questionable acceptance of that donation is something which the House should address itself to.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Member that we've had a statement from the Minister indicating....

Interjections.

[ Page 607 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: I understand that I have leave from the House to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: You have leave to state your point of privilege, of course, but....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. Minister has indicated to you and to the House that the payment he was referring to was used in a federal election campaign.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that there's no need in this House to ask leave to make a point of privilege. That's a privilege of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You are the ones who asked for leave....

MR. McCLELLAND: The Member for Saanich and the Islands asked leave to make a statement in response to the Minister's statement and was given leave by this House. It's your duty to allow him to finish that statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: In the McKeough situation — the McKeough case in the Province of Ontario — I would draw your attention and that of the House to the fact that Mr. Darcy McKeough as Minister of Municipal Affairs approved a subdivision housing scheme being built by a company in which members of his family were reportedly shareholders. The opposition asked questions about it, and to cut the story to the shortest possible point, the Minister in question in that provincial House resigned his portfolio solely on the basis of the charges being made against him in the press.

He was not requested to do so by the House; he apparently was not requested to do so by the Premier. He resigned on the basis that he could not hold the cabinet post until his name had been cleared.

We must have a judicial inquiry in this respect, Mr. Speaker, and I respectfully ask, through you, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who is not in his seat, that action be taken forthwith to conduct the most complete and detailed judicial inquiry into the allegations which have been made in the public....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What are the allegations?

MR. CURTIS: I am coming to the allegations in just a moment: violation of the Provincial Elections Act and, certainly, impropriety in the 48 hours or 72 hours of elation following a provincial election in which a Member has been elected.

Mr. Bannerman has stated publicly again that he made a number of attempts to contact the Minister to give him an opportunity to clarify the situation and to appear on the programme to straighten the situation out if, indeed, that's possible.

With your permission, therefore, with leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I would table the transcript of Mr. Gary Bannerman's statement today, which relates to the divorce company in question; to the $200 cheque which was donated by Mr. Joe Hargitt; the accompanying telegram — or a telegram which arrived at about the same time — which says: "Congratulations. Outrageous bribe to follow," and the indication by Mr. Bannerman that at that time Universal Divorce Financing was starting to go through "its corporate nightmares."

The indication is very clearly, on the basis of Mr. Bannerman's research and his statements today, that two days following the provincial election the Minister did, in fact, receive...or at least the cheque was en route to him at that time. It was endorsed. It was endorsed and put in the Minister's account, his personal account. The cheque was made out to Norman Levi, in the amount of $200. The endorsation on the back of the cheque, according to the photocopy available to us, is "Norman Levi for deposit only."

The statement is virtually complete. I ask leave to table the documents.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in line with the precedent of following the official opposition in this matter, I would like simply to state briefly that the Minister's statement is something that we in no way wish to comment on critically....

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member asking for leave to make a statement? There's no motion before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: First, we would not want to comment until we've had a full opportunity to

[ Page 608 ]

study the wording of the Minister's statement.

Briefly, however, there are a couple of points which we trust before the end of question period or at the end of question period he might comment upon. The first is the direct relationship between the incoming cheque of $200 and the outgoing cheques to federal campaigns. Certainly a contribution was made to a federal campaign, but we do not see the direct linkage. We would question whether or not the cheque was given for campaign purposes, which the Minister has not made clear. Indeed, it has not been made clear by Mr. Bannerman either. It may well be that no politician can accept a cheque from anyone in that election period, I don't know. There is need for further clarification on that.

The third point I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, is really directed to the Premier. He has promised us a new election expenses Act, and I would like to make sure that we get it soon. Election expenses are a problem for every politician of every party and that's why no one wishes to comment too quickly upon any individual situation such as this. If we had an Act which made more clear some of the things that one can and one cannot do, as has been promised by this government, perhaps problems of this nature would be avoided.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will only say that it's curious that $103 million passes so easily, and $200 seems to be a matter upon which there is such comment.

MR. SPEAKER: May the Premier have leave to make a statement?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all, let me say that the Minister approached me and informed me that he had received a phone call from the radio commentator as outlined by the Minister. I asked the Minister to recall the events to me. He did, and he subsequently informed me that the sequence of events did take place as he has outlined here in the House.

I took the matter most seriously and did not comment upon it until the Minister presented me with the two cancelled cheques. Upon seeing those cancelled cheques, I suggested that he make a statement in the House.

As I understand it, no allegation of criminal wrongdoing was made against the Minister by the radio commentator. It appears that innuendo has been the focus of the radio commentator and the focus of the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis.). If there is a question of criminal behaviour, then, of course, access to the courts is open to anyone. That is exactly correct, Mr. Member. If someone feels that that is what has taken place, they then have access to the law as it stands. But to stand in this House and leave innuendo without any responsibility behind it, Mr. Speaker, leaves a great deal to be desired.

Secondly, in terms of an elections Act itself, it is a commitment of this government to ensure that there is a new elections Act, and hopefully with that new elections Act the day of the bagman will be over forever in this province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Until the next election.

MR. SPEAKER: For the record, Hon. Members, I've asked the Member for Saanich and the Islands if he is making a charge in the document that he presented to the House.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is out of order, if I may say so.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the Hon. Member that any imputation or innuendo against any other Member is a charge. If you are making a charge, I think the House has the right to know.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I will reply as accurately as I can to assist you in this matter. The matter has been discussed considerably in public today and has now come to this House this afternoon, where, indeed, I feel it properly belongs. We are calling for a judicial inquiry to determine if the Minister acted improperly as a newly elected MLA. If that is determined, then other steps will be obvious to the Minister and to this House and the people of B.C.

We have the Darcy McKeough instance which I cited for you, and we also have the John Munro situation in the federal House, where....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Lay a charge and let the courts decide.

MR. CURTIS: You asked for my statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I asked for simply one question, and you are not prepared to take it as your personal statement.

MR. CURTIS: The other example is, I think, most important, Sir, and that relates to the question. Mr. Munro is accused of his campaign committee — not Mr. Munro — accepting donations from the SIU. We have money here which appears, on the basis of public statements made today, to have passed

[ Page 609 ]

through the hands of the Minister of Human Resources. We filed the cheque with the House and that is the matter which should be of concern, with respect, to you, to this House and to the people of this province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Aside from all the other matters that have been discussed in the past few minutes, it occurs to me that there may have been a breach of the privileges of Members of this House by persons outside this House.

I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, would take it under advisement and let this House know what appropriate action it might take if such privileges have been breached.

MR. SPEAKER: I will examine the matter.

Oral questions.

ESCAPEES FROM ISLAND VIEW CENTRE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Human Resources. Would the Minister advise me what position Mr. Frank Murphy holds in the operation of the Island View Centre?

HON. MR. LEVI: He is the principal of the school there and has been so for many years.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister advise the House how many persons have escaped from this institution?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Another supplementary for notice also: would you advise the House how many persons have escaped more than once and how many crimes have been committed by those persons while they were escaped from this institution?

MR. SPEAKER: Obviously this is a question for either a return or for an order paper question because of the research that would be needed to get the answer. You can't expect any person to answer that question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would think, since this subject is of great controversy on the island today, that the Minister would have done this research and had these answers ready for the Legislature. He should know them. The fact is that there are possible charges being laid against him ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS:...by the mayor of Duncan, and he should have had these questions ready for the House.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): He's been principal there for 20 years.

CASA LOMA MOTEL PURCHASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker. A week ago the Minister took on notice my question as to whether the government had applied for its....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) would shut up. Good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What are you going to dredge up now?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Something to put your ferry in, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the Minister of Housing took on notice my question as to whether the government had applied for its loan from CMHC before the liens on the property were cancelled. Could he confirm the evidence that while the lien holders were trying to decide on how to share a sum which left them eventually only 40 cents on the dollar, Casa Loma was negotiating a deal with the provincial government and Dunhill which, if we can believe the Minister's statement, may have given them a profit of up to $700,000?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The Hon. Member who has just asked this question has, in the first instance, I think, raised this question intimating that there was some $1 million discrepancy between the price agreed to by the department and the price that the property was allegedly offered for. I have not seen him document this claim. It may or may not be a fact; it may or may not have an explanation. I would attempt to deal with these questions, but I think they are full of some rather hypothetical statements. I would like to know on what basis he is claiming some discrepancy or profit of $700,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The discrepancy is, I believe, higher than the Minister mentioned. He says

[ Page 610 ]

$700,000 and I say $1 million. It's a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, it is a substantial amount of money.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I didn't say anything.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. The Minister says he doesn't say anything. That's too true. Nevertheless, the question is this: at the time the lien holders were settling for 40 cents on the dollar, was the government negotiating with Casa Loma for the purchase of this property which ultimately — and the Minister and I agree here — left the Casa Loma principals with substantial profits?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If he is taking that question again on notice after a week or two weeks of questioning on this matter, may I ask him, then, specifically on what date the department's proposal-call screening committee considered the purchase of the Casa Loma property and on what date they made their decision to purchase?

CASA LOMA PROPERTY APPRAISALS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Would the Minister advise the House whether or not his department or Dunhill was in receipt of appraisals of the Casa Loma property other than that prepared by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I am informed that a quantity survey was done, I believe by an independent quantity surveyor.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Who?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'd have to take the question as notice now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, so that there is no misunderstanding, I would like to direct the Minister to this. I am concerned about an appraisal of market value. Would the Minister please take that as notice? Was the Minister of Housing aware that the quantitative survey he is referring to was paid 50 per cent by the contractors and the subcontractors - the prime contractor and the subcontractors — who did not even get 50 cents on the dollar for that quantitative survey? Is that the survey he is referring to?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I will take that question as notice. But I see in that an allegation that a quantity surveyor could be influenced by the person who is paying him. Mr. Member, that is a very serious charge and I defy you to make that outside of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Housing to withdraw that charge. I made no charge whatsoever about a quantitative survey, but the quantitative survey that he's talking about was paid for 50 per cent....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No backtracking!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not backtracking at all! You made an allegation. I'm asking you to withdraw it, because all I said was that the survey you were referring to — the same quantitative survey that was paid for 50 per cent by the owners of Casa Loma and 50 per cent by the prime contractor and the subcontractors to determine exactly how much work was done — pointed out that the swimming pool and the sauna were zero completed....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Is this a question?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking the Minister of Housing to withdraw the charge that I made an allegation against the quantitative survey.

MR. SPEAKER: You know that you can't ask another Member to withdraw his statement. You can contradict him, if you wish. That's the rule.

CYPRESS PARK SKI LIFT TENDERS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Recreation and Conservation a question regarding the acceptance of a bid to produce a ski lift at Cypress Provincial Park. Why was the bid of Murray-Latta Ltd. accepted, when it was the fourth out of five bids and approximately $250,000 above the lowest bid?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Member, chairlifts are technical, complex pieces of equipment, and some exacting Canadian standards are applicable to them. This was a recommendation from a consultant and from my department, and the lowest bidder is not necessarily acceptable. This was also informed that way in the tenders that were presented to all the bidders.

MR. WALLACE: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister confirm the evidence that's been given to me that in fact Murray-Latta Ltd. has the least experience of all the five bidders, in terms of the number of ski lifts that they have constructed?

[ Page 611 ]

HON. MR. RADFORD: Murray-Latta has installed ski lifts in Manning Park. The downtime on those facilities over seven years has been one day on one lift, six days on the other lift.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're horizontal lifts — that's why.

FRAUDULENT WELFARE APPLICATIONS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Is the Hon. Minister aware that one Mr. Kenneth Mayea of Duncan applied for and received welfare benefits from his department shortly after receiving a cheque for $25,000 as a result of a raffle or that type of windfall profit?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll take the question as notice.

PROPOSED ELECTIONS ACT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier to confirm an indication that I thought I understood earlier on today: would the Premier confirm that there will indeed be a new provincial elections Act before the next election?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, barring any unforeseen event, I expect that there will be an elections Act submitted to this House this session, and then, hopefully, there will be a great deal of discussion on the Act. We would welcome amendments and anything to improve it to assist us. We'd welcome participation by the lawyers in the House to correct the wording.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BLACKLIST

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. What kind of an information bank or information source of any kind has replaced the alleged blacklist since May of 1974, to ensure the protection of school districts and students against teachers who, in the Minister's own words, "for good reasons, clearly should not be hired"?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): We are continuing to rely on the basic employer-employee relationships between the field superintendent, the school board and the teachers of the district. There is no one specific informational bank. But, as I said yesterday, because of the concern expressed about the guidelines on this whole matter the trustees, the teachers and our department will be working on that and I'll certainly be glad to inform you on it.

MR. SCHROEDER: A short supplementary. What kind of rehabilitation programme is in effect for teachers who perhaps were previously on blacklists because of cancelled certificates or expulsion from the B.C. Teachers Federation or illness or incompetence, or any other reason? Is there a rehabilitation programme?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Of course, that depends on each individual case —  on what the particular reason was. I think the B.C. Teachers Federation will take the responsibility if they can give me that information, and with our assistance.

ICBC PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES

MR. GARDOM: A question to the Minister of Transport. I'd like to ask the Hon. Minister if there were any payments made by way of income, salary or otherwise by ICBC to its employees or officers, outside and beyond the figures in the return that you filed a few days ago?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You'll have to explain that question.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister filed a return a few days ago indicating the salary schedule of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. I'm asking the Hon. Minister if there are any salaries or income paid over and above that salary schedule.

HON. MR, STRACHAN: I'd have to check on that. As you know, there was a 10 per cent increase given, I think, last June with the permission of the Labour Relations Board.

MR. GARDOM: Your statement stated December.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know, but I'd have to check. I'm not sure, but I doubt it though. There are laws that affect us changing....

INCOME ASSURANCE PLAN FUNDS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, if the Minister of Transport would sit down.

When did the Minister first become aware that he was short of money for the 1974 income assurance plan negotiations?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have not yet become aware that I am short of money for the 1974.... (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: In light of the Minister's statement that he's not yet aware that he's short of

[ Page 612 ]

money for the 1974 negotiations, would he explain to the House why the negotiations between the cattle producers negotiating team and the government are at a stalemate pending a meeting with the Minister and the Premier and Minister of Finance about more funds to meet the government's commitments to this group that should have taken place two weeks ago?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tell them we'll go back to their programmes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not sure whether Hansard caught that. I think it's an excellent answer. We should go back to the programme that was in effect when the previous administration was in office.

Mr. Speaker, negotiations are not at a stalemate. Negotiations are continuing and will continue, and will only have reached conclusion when both parties have reached an amicable agreement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): It gives me a great deal of pleasure once again to have the opportunity of speaking in a debate. I don't take as many opportunities as I used to when I was on the other side of the House, but I find now that actions speak truer than words.

Before starting in I would like to say that I believe the president of the Mining Association of British Columbia is in the gallery today, along with a couple of others. I'd like to welcome them to the House. I hope the House welcomes them as well.

I want to say how sorry I am that I don't see my old friend Ned DeBeck sitting at the table. The first time I knew Ned DeBeck was back in the '40s when he was inspector of credit unions. I happened to be treasurer of the credit union in Rossland at that time, and we got along very well.

Also, in regard to Mr. Art Laing: I offer my sympathies to his family. Mr. Laing gave, I guess, his whole life to the public and passed away, I think, prematurely. It's unfortunate that he was not able to sit back and watch others doing the work that he paved the way for.

This is the budget debate. You wouldn't know it by most of what you hear. A budget is set up to cover the financing of the operations of government. It is set up to cover the needs of the people. I know that many people may disagree with the priorities in the budget. I sometimes would like to see some of the priorities which I think should come first take a lead, but we're living in a democracy. We have so much money and we've got such a large province to look after. The needs of the people throughout the province must be dealt with.

In my area there are a few priorities I would like to have come first. I would hope that the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) will be able to build that hospital in Sparwood before too long.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) for his efforts in my area with regard to wildlife which is a very important resource in that whole area. I notice that he was just up there a few days ago feeding 2,300 elk at 14 feeding stations.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): He was? All by himself?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't know whether he was forking the hay or exactly what he was doing. Nevertheless, I think this is a step in the right direction. During other years, much of the wildlife, due to the fact that they're wandering around, have a lot of casualties among them, especially along the railroad tracks. I want to say that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, I think, is doing a very worthwhile job.

There are other priorities. The previous government set up certain priorities. When we got in as government we set our priorities, and our priorities were people. Our first priority was senior citizens. We set up Mincome for our senior citizens, which the previous government felt they could not afford.

We've given Pharmacare to those over 65; we've given Mincome to those between 60 and 65. This has got to come out of the revenue, and this is how you divide your budget up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this an election speech?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Some people look at it one way and others will look at it another way. But I'm certain that these priorities were very worthwhile, and I'm sure that the people who have received these benefits feel that this government has placed people in top priority.

Health is another question that receives high priority in this government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Like the nursing homes, Leo?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I feel that we're not moving fast enough sometimes.

MR. WALLACE: I like that.

[ Page 613 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm sure the Hon. Minister would like to move a lot faster, too, in regard to chronic care, intermediate care and these areas that concern the health of the people.

Education receives great priority in the budget, and I suppose rightly so because education is something that is looking after the young people and the future generations, the people who will be sitting in this House after we are gone.

Recreation has received a great priority by this government. Many, many small communities have benefited from the grants made out of our recreation fund — many small communities that never had those facilities before — something for the young people to do in those small communities. Now they can have a skating rink. Now they can have a ski hill. When we look at Canal Flats, Yahk, Sparwood, Elkford, and all those small places that have been receiving grants for recreational purposes, I think this government should be given a great deal of credit.

Welfare. A lot of people talk about welfare as if welfare only started since this government came to power. We in the New Democratic Party only believe that welfare should have to be paid to those people who are unable to look after themselves — to mothers with children to look after. There is no doubt about it that we have inherited welfare which covers a far greater perspective than that — welfare that has been given to people because the system under which we operate failed to provide them with a job when they would have worked.

Sometimes we have conditioned these people to the point now when they would sooner be on welfare than be at a job. But this is not the thinking of the New Democratic Party. When we organized the CCF originally, our motto was: "From him according to his ability, and to him according to his needs."

That motto holds good today, but don't forget that we are living under a system that fails to provide the jobs. In spite of the fact that the so-called free enterprisers across there tell us to leave free enterprise free to do whatever they like and they will look after the unemployed — they'll see that everybody is working.... If that is so, why have we come back to this same situation year after year?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Since I have been in here, from 1949, I don't think one single year has passed that unemployment has not been a problem before this House.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment has been a problem continually. The only time that I can remember that unemployment wasn't a problem was when we had a war, and at that time we were under somewhat of a managed economy. We were destroying the goods and we kept everybody busy doing that. I think that it's a sad situation when we've got to destroy our goods in order to keep up a false price structure that we have today.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What about Jordan River?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment....

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) says: "Go to Alberta."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We are victims in this province of ...

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP.

HON. MR. NIMSICK:... trade outside of our country.

MR. PHILLIPS: Aren't they victims of that in the Yukon?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You bet, and they've got unemployment in the Yukon and they've got unemployment....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Go up there and find out what's going on.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They've got unemployment in the United States. When you see statements like this:

"Seattle — Every Tuesday and Friday, despite the cold, two lines of several hundred persons form outside a storefront in a poor section of this city. One line is made up of men, the other women. These are breadlines, something nearly all Americans thought vanished along with the soup kitchens of the great Depression."

MR. PHILLIPS: You're happy about that, are you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Then you look at headlines like: "Desperate Jobless Clog U.S. Highways." I went through the last Depression, and I saw headlines like that back in those times.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now you're creating another one.

[ Page 614 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If you'd just quit chirping for a few minutes, I might be able to explain the facts of life to you. Then, maybe you will ...

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know them; that's your problem. You don't know the facts of life.

HON. MR. NIMSICK:... understand what the New Democratic Party really means.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please! Would the Hon. Member please quit chirping? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment is a disease of capitalism. It cannot be cured under that system. When you talk about the free enterprise system being able to put people to work.... When we came to the last Depression, and a half-dozen recessions since that, who did they always run to when those problems came up? Who did they bring the unemployment problems to? To the government, and asked the government to solve their problems. They didn't solve their problems themselves, and they've got no intention because they can't do it unless they waste the goods.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): That's right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Something that we should ask ourselves is: when are we going to get rid of this cancerous thing called unemployment that is always with us — every year?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Every year that comes along — unemployment is the situation. It repeats itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know as much about the economy as I do about flying, and I've never been off the ground.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There has to be a change coming in this world, and you're not going to do it by the province. The only thing a budget like we have placed before you can do is to use every dollar that you can have in the budget in order to give as much work as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wish the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) would quit punctuating the speech. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Any solution of this problem would have to be done as if you were a total country, and it would have to be done on the federal level. As long as we're victims of foreign interests, as long as we're victims of having to trade with other countries — and this is something I'm always perturbed about: the fact that we produce lots of lumber, or we produce anything....

Just take lumber, for an example. We're paying $100 a thousand for it, and all of a sudden, because somebody in some other country wants to pay $300 a thousand, then our people have got to pay $300 a thousand at the same time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Your free enterprise system would sell all the lumber outside the country and leave you without any of it. Our price structure is working under a supply and demand system - waste and destroy. We'll waste goods in order to hold up the price. We did it in the '30s and we'll do it today. We'll restrict production in order to hold up price, not because people get enough to eat. We did it in the '30s and we do it today. I remember in the '30s when they dumped 3.5 million pigs into the Mississippi just to hold up an artificial price, when they turned down every second row of cotton, when they burned piles of oranges to keep the price up.

It's only a few years ago that we paid the farmer not to grow wheat. Your Liberal government did that a short time ago. It's not long ago since we paid 59 cents a pound to the farmer for butter and we built up millions of pounds surplus. We didn't give that back to our own people at a lower price. No, the only countries that we could sell it to were Poland, Russia and those countries that are on those type of economies — at 25 cents a pound after we paid 50 cents a pound for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Those people over there would deplete every bit of our resources as quickly as they could. That is the reason, of course, that we have come to the situation with the energy question. That is the reason that we have decided, in many instances — even previous governments — that we had to go to planning, because if we didn't plan we would destroy and use up all our resources and have none left for either ourselves or future generations.

I'd like to quote a section here in regard to an investigation made by the United States. They state that we must have planning if we're going to solve our problems. We've got to plan the use of our natural resources in such a way that we will look after all the needs of the people.

I was at a dinner not too long ago, and they were talking about the gas and oil. They said we should throw it wide open and leave the free enterprisers the opportunity of doing what they wanted and that they

[ Page 615 ]

would really find the oil.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Will you talk about mining before you sit down?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, petroleum is a part of my department, Mr. Member. I'm just speaking on it at the present time.

When we did leave it wide open to the oil companies to exploit petroleum as fast as they wanted to exploit it, we have arrived at a situation where your own Minister in Ottawa the other day said that we are going to be short of natural gas in a very short time.

The mining industry is another industry that has to be planned in regard to the depletion of our natural resources. The federal government is doing something towards this as well, and I'd just like to quote you something from the federal government. They have several alternatives, and this is toward the mineral policy for Canada. They are thinking of evaluating the resource throughout the whole country and, on top of that, seeing that the resource is depleted or exploited in such a way that not only our needs will be looked after but those of future generations as well. I'd like to quote a few pieces from this report:

"Postponed development will permit higher returns for minerals in the future. Canada is in danger of depleting its minerals too rapidly. Minerals left in the ground will not become obsolete through new discoveries elsewhere, substitution or technological change. Postponed development will permit better benefits from minerals in future. Other economic activities will compensate, both nationally and regionally, for delayed growth in the mineral sector if further mining development is postponed."

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Tell that to the miners who are out of work.

MR. FRASER: Give us your policy! Don't read the federal policy.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I helped to draw up that policy, Mr. Member — I was down at a Mines Ministers' conference.

Your attitude would be to mine everything that you can find as quickly as you can. You'd think that the ore was going bad. I'm sure that the mining companies that didn't bring those three or four operations that could have been in production at this time.... I'm sure that many of them are glad they didn't bring them into production at the metals' price you're receiving today.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your legislation — Bill 31.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In the last 100 years we've had 500 operating metal mines in the Province of British Columbia. We've got 27 left. The rest have vanished.

AN HON. MEMBER: And none have opened in three years.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh yes, I signed a couple of production leases lately and mines will be opening up. But I don't think that is the sole question. The question is that you try to make us believe that the legislation we brought forward is creating all mine closures, when in the last 100 years 477 mines have closed down because they've run out of ore — they've depleted the ore completely.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You say that mineral claims have come down. Mineral claims are no real criteria as to the progress of mining. You'd be surprised how many of those mineral claims were only held without doing anything with them. Then when we placed a rental on them, they gave them up because they felt they were of no value to them. The thousands of claims that were in operation, many of them were just sitting there without effort being made to explore for ore and see what they could do with them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And the claims are down. I expected that when I brought in the rentals rule.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did tell you that at the time. I expected that the number of claims would be down.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Where's the $100 million you lost? You lost it in your calculations.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I never calculated it. I said I'd bring in $20 million. It was the Mining Association of British Columbia that said we were going to bring in $150 million from our royalties.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, they said so. But I could look ahead better than they did and see that

[ Page 616 ]

the price of metals would not hold. I'm not in the business, as they are. I don't know why they would think the metal price was going to hold up, especially copper prices, in view of the fact that when Allende was head of Chile, a good deal of the copper he shipped out was hijacked on the high seas, from what I can understand — it was held up from delivery. When he was killed it was thrown on the market, and this is one of the reasons why the price of copper went down so quickly.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

Coal is a good prospect today. I'd just like to quote a few instances from the copper producers of the world:

"...thus the dollar price index for metals, published by the economists, showed a price drop of 13.8 per cent for the fourth quarter alone, and a 26.5 per cent drop for 1974.

"In the United States, while we find copper deliveries up to September always showed a surplus in relation to production, the situation changed in October and large surpluses appeared at the production level. This was indicated by a progressive increase in stock which became quite large at the end of the year since stocks tripled in size from the end of September to the end of December — from 61,500 short tons at the end of September to 194,000 tons at the end of December. Refined copper stock, nevertheless, rose from 400,000 to 445,000 short tons during the same period.

"In summary, during the fourth quarter of 1974 the producer situation worsened in all countries. Prices at the end of the year, in real value, were at the lowest level reached during preceding depressions, while production costs continued to be affected by the worldwide inflation and the rise in the cost of energy and transportation.

"By the end of the third quarter, the LME prices had moreover fallen below the marginal production costs, as was indicated by the announcement that certain mines, in particular in Canada and the United States, were to be closed. It was under these conditions that a CIPEC conference of ministers, convened in extraordinary session in Paris on November 18 and 19, 1974, decided to implement a policy for the reduction of shipments, and consequently to reduce the surpluses which were affecting the market in the first stage, which became effective as of the beginning of December."

This gives you an idea that this copper situation is worldwide. It's not due to the legislation that we brought out in British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: How about gold?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If you know Bralorne, you know full well why Bralorne will not open.

MR. GIBSON: Then why have they spent $2 million there in the last year?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was in the hopes that they would find out that it's not feasible to open Bralorne.

MR. GIBSON: It's not feasible because of Bill 31, and you know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, that's not so.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): That's nonsense, and you know it. That's nonsense.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I quote again:

"In view of the special situation of the Japanese market, the CIPEC countries have given priority to reducing their shipments to this country. The percentage of reduction in exports to Japan, which was only slightly more than 10 per cent in December, will thus progressively increase and will reach almost 30 per cent in January."

So even the future in copper for this year doesn't look too good. But, for goodness' sake, don't blame it on royalties.

The North West Territories do have a royalty on the production of minerals. When I was over in London, I sat in on the London Metal Exchange, and ...

MRS. JORDAN: Have you been to London, too, at the taxpayers' expense?

HON. MR. NIMSICK:...it's marvelous how they set the price of metals each day. It's like a big roulette wheel, where everybody sits around there ...

MRS. JORDAN: That's where you got your training for the budget.

HON. MR. NIMSICK:...and they start quoting prices. The last quote is the price of the metal for that day. It seems to me that we should find some more rational way of....

Interjection.

[ Page 617 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: is it something like an auction? Yes. We need a more rational way of setting the price of metals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It seems to me that one of the problems that has created a lot of consternation, and which the mining companies have put up quite a struggle against, is the royalty bill.

Royalties are not new. Royalties were on the metal that they took out of Mexico back in the 1500s — the King of Spain put royalties on it.

MR. GIBSON: You had the Inquisition back then too, you know.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So it's not something that's new. We've had royalties on oil and gas for years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When one independent operator deals with another independent operator in mining, they charge royalties. The CPR charges royalties if they lease out or farm out any of their mineral claims. If any of you had a mineral claim and you farmed it out to somebody else, you would ask for a royalty. If it's good enough....

MR. GIBSON: They share the profit.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, they don't share the profits — it's royalties in most cases. When you're talking about the Jordan River mine, it has had a problem ever since it was started. It goes back to 1916, when Cominco at that time had done a certain amount of work on it. But Cominco never opened that mine; Sunlock opened it for a while, and then they leased it out to Cowichan....

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're the biggest problem they've got now.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They leased it out to Cowichan Copper, but all the time that it was leased out they were paying royalties right off the top.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Are you going to reduce royalties?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They were paying royalties right off the top to Cominco. When Petchney took over, they had plenty of money, but he couldn't see with the price of copper that it was going to go any place. They closed down Coast Copper, and nobody said Coast Copper was closed down because of royalties. The mine near Wardner was closed down — they ran out of ore. There were less mines closed down in 1974 than 1971.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Less mines to close down.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So don't try and tell me that royalties .... If it's proper for private industry to charge royalties to each other, then it should be proper for the government to charge a royalty.

Don't forget: a royalty is not a tax. It is a charge for the product that is being depleted from out of the ground. It's only a one-chance resource — you only get the one chance at it, because once it's taken out it is gone for good except for what they recycle.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We say that royalties should be a charge the same as you pay for your picks and your shovels, your reagents — it should be a charge in the same manner. I want you to understand that it is not a tax.

The attitude taken by the federal government is one that has caused some concern.

MR. FRASER: Never mind that. Talk about the provincial government.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: All right, I'll tell you one more story.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Last year when I brought the Prospectors Assistance Act before this House, everybody discredited it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yet we had so many applications for assistance that you'd be surprised — 200 applications! Some people tried to let on that we weren't careful whom we gave it to. There were only 73 of those that were successful in getting the grants, because we did not intend to give the money to people if they were not going to use it for the purpose for which it was given. This year the amount of money in the budget has gone up to $300,000 for prospectors' assistance, and I am sure that that will not be enough. When the people try to tell you that the prospectors are not interested in this assistance Act, they're completely wrong.

The attitude taken by the federal government in regard to the deducibility of royalties is unfortunate, since it not only places them in the position of imposing double taxation but they are also imposing double standards in regard to the treatment of the

[ Page 618 ]

provincial government versus private industry. A private mining operation that mines a property owned by another private company or individual is allowed to deduct the royalties they pay to the private company as a cost of operation before federal taxes. It is my opinion that such double standards are not only unjust but unconstitutional.

In spite of what the federal government is doing, we in British Columbia will allow the companies to deduct royalties as a cost of operation in the same way that they deduct the cost of their reagents, picks, shovels, et cetera. This means that the B.C. government will allow the deducibility of royalties under the Mining Tax Act and of royalties and mining tax under the Income Tax Act in calculating income under these Acts, retroactive to May 6, 1974. There will be amendments coming forward during this session to do that. The amendments do not come under my department but that of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). In the budget he announced that this would be done, because we feel that double taxation is not a fair shot at all. That's exactly what the federal government is doing; and I hope that the federal government will see the light and allow the deducibility of royalties before federal income tax.

Now I'm not going to go into any depth in the mining field, because as you well know I had a meeting with the chamber of mines a short time ago. It was in the papers. I had them in my office. They left, and I told them that they had to write down any real objections. If I were to go further and make statements, they may think that they were going through an exercise in futility, and I wouldn't want to lead them to think that they were going through any exercise like that. At the present time I see no changes, but if they can prove to me that they've got some changes that will lead us to the same end, then maybe we might look at them. We will look at them.

MR. FRASER: I can recommend one right now: get rid of the Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, they've been trying to get rid of me for many years, but that's a little difficult to do. I remember when the Social Credit celebrated for two weeks one time, thinking that I was defeated, and I ended up by winning. So it's pretty difficult to get rid of me. I guess, when the time comes, when I get too old, I'll have to quit in order to give you an opportunity to not have me in the House.

MR. CHABOT: Are you going to run next time?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That will be considered in due course, Mr. Member.

MR. FRASER: Just a month from now. Just a month from now: that's all you've got.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think that, as the Premier said, an election this year if some situation came up — but otherwise there will be no election this year. We've always believed that a government should stay in for four years. I know Social Credit had the idea that they could run every three years and make it, but the last time they didn't make it.

MR. FRASER: The public figure that you've been here too long, anyway.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to say that I'm quite certain that the mining industry will be doing very well, once they are convinced....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to thank you very much.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I know that it's traditional that Members, when they begin to speak in a debate such as this, tell the people in the House that it's a pleasure to be standing here in this debate. For me it's not so much of a pleasure. In fact, I'm a little sad that I have to consider this kind of a budget and sad that our Finance Minister is attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia by presenting a budget that not only fails in every major area of need but in many areas is a slap in the face of the taxpayers who are going to have to dig deeper and deeper and deeper into their pockets to pay for the government's folly.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Finance Minister has lost control of the economy of this province, that fiscal planning in this province is now nothing but a fond dream, and that the Finance Minister is building the hopes of this province on a cloud of inflationary promises.

Premier Barrett calls this budget a "job-security budget." What a cruel joke that is on the 107,000 people who are officially out of work in this province. What a cruel joke, Mr. Speaker, on the taxpayers who have to pick up an ever-increasing share of the spending load of this wildly inflationary $3.2 billion budget — a 48 per cent increase in spending by a Finance Minister who only weeks ago said that his government was practising restraint. Some restraint, Mr. Speaker.

The lack of restraint is particularly shameful because of the staggering rate of inflation. Instead of presenting any kind of an example and recognizing the dangers of pushing inflation to greater heights, this government instead has built its future revenue hopes on the continuation of the inflationary spiral.

[ Page 619 ]

Without inflation this budget will not work; the revenues won't be available to meet these unbelievable increases in spending.

An example of the spending which is out of control is in the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi's) department. Its $516 million is up almost $250 million from last year's estimates. If we see another $100 million overrun, that figure goes up to $350 million. It is significant that one of the largest increases in revenue estimated in this budget is the $211 million from the federal government, a large portion of which will no doubt be for the increased costs of welfare. In effect, that's a clear admission that this government is forcing more and more people onto social assistance by its lack of real job opportunity policies.

Some job-security budget! Instead it is spend, spend, spend, with no guidelines, no planning and no programme. The cruelest joke of all is that the government is planning on a continuation of inflation to make its spending proposals work.

During debate earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the non-confidence motion that the official opposition put forward, we had the opportunity to outline many of the failings of this budget: its failure to stimulate job opportunities; the bitter pill that the Finance Minister is forcing and jamming down the throats of the municipalities, with no assistance. I won't repeat the arguments we used there in advancing that expression of no confidence in the Finance Minister, but I do wish to respond briefly, at least, to a few of the remarks made by previous speakers in this debate.

First of all, all of us, I am sure, were extremely disappointed in the lack of attention focused in the budget on the desperate need for an expansion of intermediate-care facilities — not one nickel in the budget earmarked for intermediate care.

It is great for the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to stand in this debate and brag about the millions of dollars he's going to spend on the B.C. Medical Centre. That's fine. But there's not a nickel for the thousands of British Columbians who have been cut out of the health-care delivery system through no fault of their own.

It's fine for the Minister to talk about an expanded home-care programme. That programme is a good programme (it was started by the previous government), but the intermediate-care facilities must be developed in conjunction with the home-care services and not in isolation, as the Minister seems to want to do. Even in the last budget there was a token $1 million earmarked for intermediate care, but not one nickel in this budget. Once again, it's a cruel joke played on those people who are penalized both financially and psychologically because they are caught in that vast grey area, the twilight zone of health services.

Nobody expects, as the Minister himself said in the House, to develop a system overnight. But there was a good start with the pilot programme of intermediate-care facilities started, again, by the previous government with, I believe, 550 beds now on stream.

We don't expect that system to be developed overnight, but this government has been in power for going on to three years and absolutely nothing has been done to alleviate the critical need in the intermediate-care area, despite the promises and despite the urgent recommendations of an all-party committee of this House. There's not one nickel in this budget to fill an urgent social need that should be top priority but has drawn a total blank in the NDP's priority list.

I found it incredible, too, that the Municipal Affairs Minister used his time in this budget debate to threaten local government — threaten local government. It's even more unbelievable, considering the slap in the face that local government has been given in the budget. But there he was, praising a budget that completely and totally ignores municipal needs, praising the government that refuses to accept the municipalities as partners in the growth of this province — smiling, joking and cracking one-liners in the debate, all the while kicking the municipalities square in the teeth. Some Municipal Affairs Minister!

I'd like to have more to say about these specific problems of our municipalities during the debate on the Minister's estimates, but for now I will just express my deep concern about that Minister's attitudes towards the municipalities to whom he is responsible: laying on the wood, the big-stick approach, rather than a cooperative approach to seek solutions to urgent problems. Knock off the threats and start developing some meaningful revenue-sharing proposals so that local government can accept their fair share of programmes, like housing proposals, so that they have the means with which to accept those proposals without bankrupting the local taxpayers.

All we've seen so far is an iffy pie-in-the-sky dream by the Finance Minister built on a bed of quicksand, not on some solid foundation that will ensure the continuation of benefits over the long term for the municipal governments of this province.

And the Housing Minister, Mr. Speaker.... None of the Ministers are in the House today, and that's unfortunate.

MR. CHABOT: Emergency cabinet meeting.

MR. McCLELLAND: Emergency cabinet meeting on the follies of the government. Some of the Ministers are here; I am sorry, Madam Minister.

The Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) as well responds to need with threats. In fact, that is becoming the habit of this government. Ask the Housing Minister why his housing policy is a disaster

[ Page 620 ]

and he pouts and retreats and rages and blames everybody but himself and his government. The former government is to blame; the federal government is to blame; the regional governments are to blame; the local government is to blame. Well, I suggest that it's time that that Minister stood up and accepted the blame for himself and his government for the housing crisis in British Columbia. Quit trying to hide behind phony excuses.

I've said many times in this House that too many programmes are being advanced by this government because of the ideological urges that overcome the Members of the government from the Premier on down — even down as far as the Housing Minister. And that's pretty far down. Consider the way the Housing Minister responds to an innocent little question from a person who wanted to know — and it's a legitimate question — why licensed real estate agents weren't allowed to have the opportunity to sell units in the Meadowbrook subdivision in the Premier's home constituency of Coquitlam. That's a simple question, and it could have been given a simple answer. Why aren't licensed real estate agents allowed to sell some of these units?

There was a letter sent to the Premier asking this, and the Housing Minister answered the letter on February 25, 1975. Here's what he said. Speaking of Meadowbrook:

"For your information, this innovative project was marketed by the Dunhill Development Corp. Dunhill has an experienced, in-house marketing branch and it is the Department of Housing's policy to utilize their experience in marketing large developments produced under the leasehold and conversion mortgage loan programme." That's okay so far. Then he goes on to say:

"For your information, we find it unnecessary to have our dwellings or land marketed by licensed real estate salesmen now or in the future. We feel it's high time we took control of the real estate in this province."

What kind of a statement is that from that Housing Minister? If that isn't an ideological urge getting in the way of sound programmes, then I don't know what it is. "It's high time we took control of the real estate in this province." We no longer have a democratic government in this province; we have government by threat, government by coercion and government by blackmail.

I would like to speak for just a moment about a serious problem which is disturbing more and more British Columbians. It's a problem which the Human Resources Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi) seems either unable or unwilling to tackle. The problem has to do with juvenile delinquency.

In Surrey, for instance, according to a recent survey which was done by the community, young people of 16 and under in 1974 committed 1,325 offences. That's compared to just over 1,900 offences by adults in the same year. Those are alarming figures which will be preliminary to some very serious crime problems in the future if nothing is done. And nothing is being done.

The government's efforts to rehabilitate young people in the community are commendable, but those efforts are going to fail, sure as anything, unless this government recognizes that there is a very hard-core element of juvenile delinquency which does exist in this province and that certain juvenile delinquents cannot be rehabilitated outside of some structured environment. This government forces those young people back into the very environment which spawned their problems to begin with, an environment with which they cannot cope.

There's a perfect example in the constituency of South Peace River where two young girls were released back into the community from Willingdon School for Girls when it was closed down. When it had already been proved that they couldn't cope with that environment, they were sent back into that community, burned down two schools and, presumably, still are not being dealt with adequately.

MR. PHILLIPS: The taxpayers had to pay.

MR. McCLELLAND: The taxpayers had to pay for those schools, and the question might be to the Human Resources Minister: is this budget large enough to enable him to reimburse the community for the $3 million in damage that those young people caused?

We heard just this morning of the mayor of Duncan having to take the serious action of threatening to sue the Human Resources Minister because of the wave of vandalism in his community. Nothing is being done.

Some time ago I asked the Minister for Human Resources in this House about juvenile delinquents being housed in the Empress Hotel, and I was ridiculed for even asking the question. The Minister never answered my question. He said only that there was no evidence contained in some out-of-date public accounts — public accounts which did not, and do not, reflect the period for which I was concerned. No answer from the Minister, Mr. Speaker. No answer whatsoever.

Regardless of whether or not juveniles have been housed in the Empress Hotel, or in a motel up in Cranbrook, or in Penticton, or in Courtenay, or in Duncan, or in a hotel somewhere else, or any other kind of a facility like that, the point is that there is no facility to deal with the minority of young people who are considered to be hard-core delinquents. Facilities don't exist, and that means that we're not living up, as a government, to the responsibilities we

[ Page 621 ]

have toward those young people. It's as simple as that.

I'd like to take a few moments to read to you from some of the comments made by various lower mainland elected officials who gathered together this last month to discuss this urgent problem. These aren't rednecks who want to lock juveniles away in a dungeon; these are concerned citizens who see a problem and want some solutions.

The mayor of Chilliwack says:

"A holding unit for the troublesome few must be an urgent priority for the government. The police need some support to be able to put some teeth into the laws."

Here's another one. An alderman from Burnaby, Doreen Lawson, wife of the Senator, the Member for Columbia River's (Mr. Chabot's) friend....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Her recommendation is that there must be a short-term closed remand home on the lower mainland and more court sentences resulting in responsible retributive services to their victims. Says Mrs. Lawson:

"Juvenile delinquency in Burnaby has increased in 1973 and again in 1974. I am very concerned that our present system has not been able to cope with the increasing degree of violence and the high rate of recidivism."

Here's the acting chief constable, Kiery, of the Corporation of the City of New Westminster. He said he's been arguing for some time for the need for a remand home for juveniles.

"My concern is for the recidivist, the one we arrest for breaking and entering, and he's let go only to steal a car, and again let go, only to smash up some community facility." That's what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Here's the mayor of West Vancouver:

"....the need for positive preventative service and, secondly, the need for remand homes to cope with those juveniles who are dangerous in one way or another to themselves or to the community."

The mayor of the City of Langley: need for remand homes for hard-core delinquents. No jail, he says, for delinquents. He doesn't want jails but he does want some facility to deal with those young people who need help.

Over and over again. Phil Ranger is an alderman from Port Moody, I believe.

"Juvenile age should be lowered. Restitution should be made. Remand facilities are inadequate. The police and the authorities are powerless to deal with the juvenile."

Here's the district judge, Judge Goulet, of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

"As a member of the judiciary I must resist the temptation to express my personal views as to the kind of legislation, but I might say that from the point of view of a judge the prospect of dealing more effectively with juvenile delinquency lies in more and better resources and programmes, particularly for the hardened 15- or 16-year-old repeater, rather than changing the legislation."

So once again we see the judge, too, concerned about the problem and wanting to develop the kind of facilities that we need desperately in this province and which, instead of providing, we are closing down. Closing it down.

There's another serious problem in this province. It is what I consider to be the contempt that the Members of this government are showing for the legislative process and for the need to respond honestly and straightforwardly to questions from Members of the opposition. The contempt starts at the Premier's desk and permeates the entire cabinet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he's implying by his remarks that the Hon. Members of this House have been dishonest in their responses.

MR. McCLELLAND: I've said, Mr. Speaker, and I'll repeat it for you, that there is a need for Members of this government to respond straightforwardly and honestly to questions asked by the opposition Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm asking the Hon. Member if he's suggesting that Hon. Members have been dishonest.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's on the record. I have said, and I'll say it again, that there's a need to respond honestly and straightforwardly to the questions by the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have also said that there is contempt on the part of many of those Members of government.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): On a point of order. I would like to know how that Member would expect anyone to respond straightforwardly to a question when the type of question he puts forward is always innuendo....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it starts at the Premier's desk and goes all the way through the cabinet.

[ Page 622 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On the point of order, I would point out to the Hon. Member that I'm taking it for granted that the Hon. Member for Langley is not suggesting there have been any dishonest answers to date. He's merely calling for honest answers. As long as the Hon. Member does not impute that any of the answers have been dishonest in the past, then I would ask him to continue.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest that you wait until I continue. I've said only so far that there is a need to respond honestly and straightforwardly. I believe that is correct and I'm sure that you agree with that as the Deputy Speaker of this House.

The contempt that I speak about starts with the outrageous treatment by the Premier of this province in the so-called chicken-and-egg war. That Premier has placed a cloud of suspicion over the highest position in this province for the first time in my memory. In that same debate the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was forced to develop a case of selective amnesia to protect the excesses of his Premier. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) flip-flopped around a phony issue in connection with the Columbia River treaty until his credibility was in a shambles.

The Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), who has a different answer every day to the same question, is a Minister whose performance would be a joke if his job wasn't so important to the people of this province — people who need housing and need it desperately.

I must not conclude without mentioning the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who has completely and irrevocably lost the confidence of every thinking British Columbian. I wish he had stayed in the House just a moment longer because I wish to ask him to apologize to a fine Canadian company which he maliciously maligned the other evening in this House. First of all, I would ask him to apologize. Secondly, I want to lay some facts on the table about the company which was maligned by that Minister — Premier Cablevision.

Columbia Broadcasting System of the United States owns 18.999 per cent of Premier Cablevision, and it's prohibited by federal law from owning any more. The Minister of Transport and Communications knew that, yet he stood in this House and tried to mislead the people of this House into believing that Premier Cablevision was owned and controlled by an American....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is truly out of order in imputing an improper motive to the assembly. I would ask him to withdraw the imputation that the Minister was misleading the House or attempting to mislead the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, he was clearly misleading the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I've asked the Hon. Member...and the Hon. Member understands the rules of parliament — that you may not impute an improper motive to any other Member of this assembly. I would ask him to withdraw any imputation that he was attempting to or did mislead his House.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm addressing the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. I'll withdraw it, but I must tell the House that that Minister did create a cloud of doubt about this company by saying in this House, implying in his House, that Premier Cablevision was controlled by an American company. Mr. Speaker, that isn't fair to that company, and it's false. Yet the Minister stood in this House and gave that information out.

The Welsh group of companies which is Canadian — Vancouver-based, Vancouver-born, Vancouver-built — owns 28 per cent of Premier Cablevision, based against the 18.9 per cent base owned by Columbia Broadcasting System. That's 28 per cent owned by the Welsh group.

And who are the directors of this company — some American bogey men? Sidney Welsh: chairman of the board, country of residence — Canada; Bud Shepherd, president, Canada; Gordon Gillie, director, Canada; Patrick Keeley, director, Canada; Robert Sutherland, director, Canada; George McKeyne, director, Canada; W. Garth Pither, director, Canada; John M. Byrd, director, Canada.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many American directors on Can-Cel?

MR. McCLELLAND: How many American directors on Can-Cel, the government-owned corporation? And through whom do we market our pulp in this province? A black-marketeering profiteer in New York! By the province's own corporation!

There's not an American on that board of directors, Mr. Speaker. Sure, the company is expanding all over the world. The Minister stood up and said they are expanding in Ireland, expanding in Hawaii. Of course they are. That company developed cablevision for the world. It developed it in Vancouver. It was the first company, I believe, along with another company in the United States which ever even heard of cablevision. The name "cablevision" was invented by that company. Sure, they are expanding all over the world. Are you, Mr.

[ Page 623 ]

Speaker, against a pioneering British Columbia company exporting its technological expertise to other parts of the world?

AN HON. MEMBER: I guess they are.

MR. McCLELLAND: If they are, what a selfish, insular attitude that would be.

MR. PHILLIPS: If it creates employment in British Columbia, they are against it.

MR. McCLELLAND: This company which the Minister attempted to tell us was controlled by Americans.... Listen to this in their most recent report from the board of directors:

"Premier also acquired 100,000 shares of Northwest Sports Enterprises Ltd., a holding company for the wholly-owned Vancouver Canucks NHL hockey club. These shares were part of a controlled block..." I hope you are listening to this, Mr. Speaker, because it is important.

"...acquired to effect repatriation of controlling ownership of the Vancouver Canucks from the United States." That is the Canadian company that that Minister maligned in this House, Mr. Speaker.

And still it goes on. The whole fiasco was an irresponsible attack...I won't say it was by an irresponsible Minister. It goes on and on. With respect to the future policy on policy cancellations at ICBC, which I raised in this House some time ago as well, I asked that Minister whether or not ICBC had ever cancelled any policies of renters who were single, unemployed, living common law, under 30, or any combination of those. The Minister said that ICBC has not cancelled any tenant package policies because of an insured person being unmarried and under the age of 30. "I am informed that ICBC has never cancelled the insurance of any person who is unemployed. I am informed that ICBC has never cancelled the insurance policy of anyone who is married and living common-law."

I happen to have a notice of cancellation here, Mr. Speaker, for two people in Fort Langley who were living common-law and who were unemployed and who had their insurance cancelled, their tenant package cancelled. I happen to have a notice of cancellation here.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): What for?

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): What reason?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to use up my own time, please, if you don't mind.

It's a policy which was cancelled — on a young person, under the age of 30 and single. That company is afraid to come forward and tell its name because it is afraid of the retribution that government might place upon that company. That is what the state of this government has come to.

I also have a policy which was returned. This gentleman isn't afraid to have his name used. It is Frank Rogers Insurance Agency. He has a policy which was returned, not cancelled but returned. It says:

" As agreed in our telephone conversation of yesterday's date, we are returning the above application which we are unable to accept.

(Signed) Bob Johnson."

The letter from Frank Rogers Insurance Agency says:

"After sending in a tenant's package application to ICBC, I received a phone call from Bob Johnson..."

Bob Johnson is in the general underwriting department of ICBC in Vancouver in the head office.

"...telling me that the corporation's new policy was not to accept any single people who are tenants and under age 30, that I would be getting a memo to this effect shortly."

He said that if he allowed the application to go through, it would only be cancelled anyway. From Bob Johnson of ICBC.

The contempt for this Legislature by this government is clear. I say that the people of this province are fed up with that kind of action. They want this government to stop stick-handling around the truth and start telling us some answers to questions.

HON. MR. LEA: File the letter. File the letter.

MR. McCLELLAND: The most shameful example of them all is the action today of the Human Resources Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi). That Minister accepted $200 as a campaign donation from a person, a source, with a very questionable background. The Minister had a week's time to reveal to this House that that donation was made after he was told by the radio hotliner that that information was in his hands. He had a week's time. He went to the Premier. He didn't tell this House at that time. He involved the Premier.

The question we want to ask is: was there a conspiracy of silence between the Minister of Human Resources and the Premier? The cancelled cheques that that Minister sent as his political donation to somebody else don't have anything to do with anything. The only conclusion — at least, the most innocent conclusion — that we can come to in this whole affair is that the Minister of Human Resources

[ Page 624 ]

is as stupid in the handling of his own affairs as he is in the handling of his department. That is the most innocent conclusion, Mr. Speaker. But the most serious conclusion we can come to is that there was a violation of the elections Act, section 172.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It would seem to me that there is a pretty fair argument for that Minister to clear up that question, or for at least a judicial inquiry into the whole mess to make sure that question, above all, is cleared up.

But there are other questions as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows that, first of all, this question was referred to me by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and, secondly, that a personal attack on a Minister or any Member of this House is not permitted in the fashion on which the Hon. Member is embarking.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am stating facts, and that is all I am stating.

MR. SPEAKER: You are obviously not stating facts.

MR. McCLELLAND: The documents were tabled in this House; of course they are facts.

HON. MR. LEA: Table those!

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), by his own admission in this House today, accepted that $200 donation after the election. Then after a telegram was sent....

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is not....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to continue with my speech, please?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I will not allow you to continue making attacks on another Member unless you are prepared to make a motion.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: You know the rule. I have recited it in this House many times.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you don't know the rule. I am talking about admissions that were made in this House today. I am making no attacks on anyone. The Minister admitted today that he accepted a $200 donation after the election was over.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. You can read it in Hansard.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right. It's in Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is saying that it had to do with a provincial election, and there was federal election on at the time. He stated in his statement that it referred to the federal election.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you are more mixed up than the Minister is.

MR. SPEAKER: Now the Hon. Member is attempting to do indirectly what he cannot do, except by a motion, in this House.

MR. McCLELLAND: You are not the Minister of defence in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have the duty....

MR. McCLELLAND: This is a shocking attempt by you, Mr. Speaker, to stifle free speech in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: And I don't propose to do so. I do say that the Hon. Member cannot make charges of a personal character against any other Member in this House in the fashion you are embarking upon.

MR. McCLELLAND: I have made no charges against that Member. Now Mr. Speaker, I hope you are counting this on my time.

MR. SPEAKER: You have just finished stating that this Hon. Member of the House had received some money for a provincial election....

MR. McCLELLAND: He admitted it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure he did. He said it himself in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not my understanding of the statement. I have looked at his statement because I am studying the question raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it was accepted after the provincial election; the money was accepted after the provincial election, immediately after. The Minister has accepted that, hasn't he? Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the Hon. Members abstain from personal attacks ...

[ Page 625 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:...in this manner and that the speaker do what I've asked him to do on this question before you start embarking on this course, which is only fair to any other Member of this House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue to the people of British Columbia, a very important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Then please address yourself to it according to the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And that doesn't mean the way you are doing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Because, Mr. Speaker, that money was accepted after the election, the provincial election, it is no longer a political donation but an effort to gain favour.

MR. LEWIS: Shame!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the donor deliberately held off making that donation until he was sure the candidate was elected and it seemed as if he would be a Minister. He deliberately held off making that, and we can only assume that if the candidate had not been elected to this provincial Legislature that donation would never have been made. So there are two steps that the official opposition insist on happening. The first is that the Minister must resign as a Minister. There is no choice until it's clear. There is ample opportunity for the Minister to study what has happened in other jurisdictions, ample precedent for that. The Minister must resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Sommers case?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that Member mentions the Sommers case. That case involved some carpeting, I believe — I wasn't here then — $500 or something. The company involved never got the government contract, but that Member went to jail and he served his time and paid his penalty. And that should be the end of it. He has paid his penalty.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, and during that time the NDP was very vocal in asking for a judicial inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that I wish to deal with this question, and you are starting in on a course which I say, under the rules, would not be accepted. And it won't be accepted for the simple reason that the proper way, if you are laying any charges and asserting any facts, is that you must do so in accordance with the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: Can we no longer ask for a judicial inquiry in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: That means you must make a motion, and do it at the proper time, on a question of privilege. You haven't done that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, am I correct that you have now discovered a rule which says that a Member can no longer ask for a judicial inquiry into an affair which is of vital interest to everyone in this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Not if it includes allegations against an Hon. Member of this House, because it only becomes secondary about the inquiry. The proper way to do it is to put a motion on the order paper, a substantive motion in relation to the conduct of another Member. In the meantime, until you....

MR. McCLELLAND: The allegations were made outside this House. I have two requests of the Minister: first of all the official opposition wishes him to resign, and we think he must. We want a judicial inquiry into this whole matter. But resign he must or he, too, shows complete contempt for this House and for the people of British Columbia.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, gee whiz, I thought we were on a motion dealing with the budget, but I find that the opposition speakers don't really seem to have too much interest in the motion before the House, a motion which has provoked a wide variety of responses from the opposition. I've listened with great interest to the comments the opposition Members have made, both inside the House and out.

First of all, before commenting on some of the speeches I've heard in the House, I'd like to give some views on what I think of the budget. I think it's a very, very excellent budget, one that, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) indicated, is designed to serve the needs of people.

The opposition, I think, supports the old Keynesian economic theory that when times get tough and there's a recession looming, that's the time to subsidize big business — their friends in industry — or the rather archaic theory that some of the benefits will trickle down to the people who are hardest hit by unemployment and by recessions, high inflation

[ Page 626 ]

periods and so on.

We, I think, for the first time in Canada have reversed that approach to a time of high unemployment, one which is being witnessed throughout the world, not only in Canada. We have brought in a budget which gave the lie to the allegations and suggestions made by the opposition that the province, in fact, was on the rocks, that the Minister of Finance was in trouble and had squandered away surpluses and so on.

Quite the contrary, we come in with a very, very strong budget, a budget designed to serve people, to create employment programmes, to increase assistance to education, to health care and so on. The poor opposition is kind of in a bind — they don't know where to turn, then — so we get a variety of inconsistent responses.

Mr. Speaker, some of the statements that have been made are that the surplus which this government found in 1972 when we were elected has been depleted. We had something like $95 million in reserve, which the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) — and I give him due credit — secured for this province. But far from that amount being depleted, we now have a surplus which has increased to $157 million in reserve. Yet even though it's contained in black and white in the budget, the opposition refuses to acknowledge that and makes rather wild statements to the effect that the province is in trouble financially.

MR. LEWIS: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: I think what's even more significant than a surplus of some millions of dollars is the position we find ourselves in with respect to the demand parity bonds that were outstanding when we assumed office as a new government in 1972. The budget states on page 7: "During the past 12 months, we have further reduced the amount of the parity demand debt by $36 million, from $179.5 million to a total of $141.5 million." That is the kind of sound fiscal management that this government was elected to bring to the province; that is the kind of sound management we have achieved.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't recall — those people bought it back.

HON. MR. KING: I can understand the wild opposition screaming — the leather-lunged Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) doesn't like to see this kind of thing. He thinks wild statements will erase it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The people bring them back.

HON. MR. KING: Unfortunately, there is a day of reckoning. The truth does have to be met, and the truth will out.

Now, of course, I'm rather amused by the opposition. I'm used to their wild reactions. I think they're amusing.

MR. PHILLIPS: The taxpayers don't think it's amusing.

HON. MR. KING: I think the Premier categorized them in a way. He called them "gloom-and-doom boys." I disagree with him. I think he was right on the budget completely, except in categorizing those people as "gloom-and-doom boys." I thought of them as a funeral procession on the way out. Then, in thinking more about it, I decided that perhaps that wasn't the most appropriate description either. I wonder now if they wouldn't be best referred to as a wedding ceremony, because when I look at that party I think of something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue.

Something old: obviously little Danny Campbell's still in there, still cranking the economic handle. Something new: well, Billy-boy — I guess that's new. Something borrowed: the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis), I think, would fit that categorization — he's been around. Something blue, of course: the last speaker from Langley (Mr. McClelland) was pretty blue after the last convention. I think that's perhaps the best description of them.

HON. MR. LEA: You thought you could buy that nomination.

HON. MR. KING: We've found a very negative response from the opposition, and I regret that because I think the people of the province really do expect a rational discussion of the economic state of the province and of what's contained in the budget.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) mustered the integrity and the courtesy to say it's the first honest budget that the province has ever seen. He made that statement, and so did the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace). Yet we have the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) saying it's contempt of the House because it misleads the people.

That is the kind of phrase they rely on, Mr. Speaker, but it just shows you the inconsistency of the response. It's very difficult for them to come to grips with any deep and searching criticism of this budget, basically because it is a budget that does provide for the needs of the people in a time of

[ Page 627 ]

difficult economic circumstances throughout the world, unquestionably.

I would like to make some points in dealing with the budget insofar as my own riding of Revelstoke-Slocan is concerned. For the first time the small communities in the rural areas of British Columbia are receiving some attention in terms of recreational opportunities which are equitable with the major urban areas. For the first time the small municipalities are receiving assistance with the costly sewer setups that they are being obliged to build. For the first time, although some people like to avoid it and to bypass it, the municipalities have had their formula for developing the per capita amended so that it can be computed on a current basis. This is providing real help to the communities, to say nothing of the revenue that will flow to them as a result of, for the first time, participating in direct revenue-sharing with the provincial government in terms of our resources.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is the money this year?

HON. MR. KING: I always enjoy the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). I think he is one of the nicest little chaps on that side of the House because at least, when he makes the wild statements, he has a twinkle in his eye. He has a sense of humour, whereas the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).... You know, I really think he believes it, and that's a bit frightening.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right on!

HON. MR. KING: But the Member for Columbia River at least has a twinkle in his eye and a sense o humour, and he knows that he's had service in his constituency that was never possible before. I think he would disagree with the Member for Langley when he makes the charge that this government intimidates and blackmails municipalities. I would object to that if any of my colleagues indulged in that kind of conduct because I remember all too well....

MR. GARDOM: You'd kick the blank out of them!

HON. MR. KING: Do you want to come to my office? (Laughter.)

I remember all too well the dissertations of the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) when, once every two and a half years preceding the election, he used to make his rural tour in grand style in the black Cadillac. He used to pop his head out and say to the chamber of commerce: "So long as you have an opposition Member, the roads are not going to be fixed. You're not going to get this ferry or this road until you get a Member on the government team." And you people now have the colossal gall and the brass to stand here and tell us that we intimidate municipalities? Shame on you, I say. Shame on you! You've got short memories and a number of other afflictions that I won't mention today.

Mr. Speaker, I think the municipalities in this province are getting a good service today, contrasted with what they had just two and a half short years ago. It intrigues me that on the one hand we are attacked for an inflationary budget — too much money. They say we are calling upon money that can't possibly be anticipated and projected. Well, that shows a lack of confidence in the strength of the economy of British Columbia. I say that any political party which puts forward that view is not fit to govern in this province, and I think they will remain in opposition.

But the point is that we do have a strong economy, and investment is up in this province. The work force for the first time has exceeded one million workers; we are, in fact, the highest-paid province in this nation. I think these are things to be proud of. We have an excellent standard of living. While it is true that we are experiencing a soft lumber market created mainly by a lull in construction projects south of the border, at least we are mounting immediate programmes to mitigate the impact of the unemployment in that sector.

I'd just like to mention this question again of expenditures. I think it was the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who got up and made the point about huge departmental increases. That's quite true. I think it is worthwhile to note those increases. Certainly there has been a tremendous increase in the Department of Labour, although it is one of the smaller budgeted departments in government. But do you know that we have succeeded in increasing the number of young people under apprenticeship training by some 6,000 in the two and a half years that we have been in office? We have almost doubled the number of people under apprenticeship training, and that requires facilities to house them. It requires teachers to teach, and so on. This cannot be accomplished without increased expenditures.

When we had a government that was just confounded with inertia for 20 years and failed to keep pace with the needs for training in all of the areas of government, then, of course, it requires large capital outlays initially to develop the facilities to accommodate the needs of industry today.

Now another aspect of the training dollars that I don't think is commonly known — and yet it's quite significant in terms of our budget and in terms of our obligation to provide skilled workers in the province — relates to the empty-chair policy that used to be witnessed in this province as far as federal /provincial

[ Page 628 ]

cooperation was concerned. Somebody talked about arrogance in this House. Not only did the former Premier and most of his cabinet Ministers turn their backs on questioners, but he wouldn't even deign to sit down with the Prime Minister of Canada and discuss the interests of British Columbia. I say that you have short memories. You have very short memories.

Nevertheless, we did find in my own department — and I suspect that this runs the whole gamut of government — that because of the inertia of that gang over there we are losing literally millions of dollars for federal funding that we should have been entitled to.

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the DREE programme?

HON. MR. KING: As a matter of fact, of the total budget for training in this nation, British Columbia was only receiving 8 per cent compared to some 30 and 40 per cent in Ontario and Quebec. It was simply because of, well, either the inertia or perhaps the ignorance of those Ministers who should have been asserting British Columbia's interests and demanding equality of treatment. So we have been able to improve the formula for provincial funding and we are, as a result, realizing a greater inflow of federal dollars for the purposes of training in this province.

The opposition seem to come back frequently to an overrun in the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi's) department — $103 million. That's a lot of money. I would expect the opposition to question it. Nevertheless, it's been explained adequately quite a number of times. But they seem to be rather obsessed by that overrun, despite the fact that their own former Minister (Mr. Gaglardi) of — I forget what they called it under that group over there....

MR. LEWIS: What was his name?

HON. MR. KING: Somebody suggested to me a while ago that when they conducted a war on poverty, the former Minister started throwing rocks at beggars. But whatever it was, he admitted to an overrun in his department. Yet they find it absolutely abhorrent that we witness the same thing.

I wonder how it is that an overrun of $103 million, fully accounted for on new programmes, good programmes, to assist old-age people.... I wonder how it is that that bothers them so much, while at the same time an expenditure of $800 million on the Columbia River treaty dams to provide storage, mainly, and the generation of electricity south of the border for the Americans — one which the Premier and Minister of Finance of that day assured the people of British Columbia would cost them nothing — I wonder how they can remain mute on that. In fact, a couple of them sat in that cabinet and were a party to that agreement.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is sensitive about it, but I think he's perhaps oversensitive. It seems to me all the time that whenever the Columbia River disaster is brought up, the Member for Columbia River takes it personally. He thinks they're talking about him. I want to assure him that Frank Greenwood never developed that phrase, "The Columbia River disaster." That refers to the treaty rather than to the Member.

This is the kind of double standard we've come to expect from the official opposition. I think it's regrettable. I think it would have been much more positive had they addressed themselves to really taking a detailed look at the budget, considering the programmes that are provided therein and perhaps suggesting some change of priority, some change of thrust. That would have been a reasonable and a responsible approach to take; but it seems that we haven't got a hope of really expecting anything too rational or too responsible from the Social Credit Party.

There's one other area of my own department that I think is significant in terms of the approach the opposition is taking, where they condemn the large increases in salaries, in the provision of staff, for the various departments. We should just analyse that for a bit. I think that my own department, as I say, is easy to analyse; it's very small. It's not too complicated in terms of financing, and so on. So it is interesting that we have expanded our budget from some $7 million when we took over in 1972 to $18 million in the current year.

We have not only provided the staff to give effect to the laws that protect minimum standards for workers but we've certainly amended those laws to a degree that requires more sophisticated training to determine noise levels; more training which allows the kind of expertise which can investigate and determine whether toxic materials, new acids and processes in

[ Page 629 ]

industry are in any way injurious to workers' health. All this, of course, costs dollars. But when you have to put an evaluation on the health of workers of British Columbia and, indeed, the citizens of British Columbia, as opposed to straight dollar value, why, this government makes no apology for ensuring that we are providing the very, very best level in inspection and the standards of care in the province.

Mr. Speaker, the Members across the way have talked about the government's responsibility in terms of creating high expectations by wage demands that were negotiated with our public employees. I want to say that all of those contracts are not completed as yet, and it's a fundamental rule of industrial relations to anyone familiar with the area that it serves no one too well to develop the rumour mill and to reveal information before a total programme is put together and all contracts in an industry are settled. That's the kind of climate that can create whipsawing. It's the kind of climate which the Members are expressing concern about and yet helping to generate. I really don't think that's too responsible.

The average increases are not available as yet, but I would suggest that some of the statements that have been made by opposition Members are really not too thoughtful and not too well researched. Of course, that's the usual.

But, you know, in the private sector this past year, to mention Burrard for just one, we had settlements that were pretty spectacular. Yet I didn't find any of the opposition Members expressing concern that the private sector had developed a new benchmark for wages in this province that could be held as inflationary. I didn't find, indeed, representatives of the employers council publicly condemning those inflationary wage increases. Not only at Burrard Drydocks, Mr. Speaker, but in the service area, which is certainly not traditionally one of the pacesetters, we found very, very spectacular wage increases in the last year. So I just wonder if the preoccupation with the levels of wages in the public service is to some degree a political motivation rather than an economic one.

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that I think it helps to discuss and put into perspective after we listen to the rather wild and rather — oh, I don't know what I'd describe them as — rather wild and rather woolly statements of the people on that other side.

Now there are a number of other things I would like to mention again. The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), particularly, does bother me by the language he uses in this House. I suppose we should come to expect it, and personally I don't bother with points of order to ask him to be a bit more respectful or to respect the parliamentary process any more. I think that shouldn't have to be drawn to the attention of Members of this House; they should have enough respect for each other's views, whether or not you agree.

Yet it seems he's always on the verge of imputing something illicit, something improper to various Members of the government. I want to suggest to Members of the opposition that this is hardly a way to build up your political fortunes in the province. I doubt whether the people of the province will be attracted to that kind of an innuendo campaign.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING: Someone suggested — I think it was the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — after questioning the motivation and the integrity of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the Premier, and various other assorted Ministers, that he was very concerned with law and order in this province. Indeed, that was the main thrust of his speech — law and order. Directed at whom? The juveniles.

He wants the institutionalized approach back; presumably Brannan Lake, Willingdon School for Girls, and the whole lot. Perhaps he wasn't in the House in the days when Members of our party raised pretty hair-raising stories about the kind of treatment that young people got in those institutions.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): And some Social Credit backbenchers.

HON. MR. KING: And some Social Credit backbenchers who were concerned.

I wonder about his perspective when he advocates that kind of approach. At the same time, through his conduct and through his whole delivery in this House, he seeks to discredit and besmirch the character and the integrity of Members of the government. I think that one has to question the perspective and the attitude of someone who takes that approach.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to sit down here, before dealing with other areas of my department that I could mention. I think rather I'll wait and talk about the policies and the precise expenditures of the Department of Labour in a more detailed way in the estimates.

Before I do sit down I would like to just deliver to the House my impression of the Social Credit Party.

MRS. JORDAN: Start talking about what your department's doing, instead of mudslinging. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: We'll be considering that, Mr. Speaker, when my estimates are considered. I'm looking forward to a really searching analysis by the Member for North Okanagan. I'm really looking

[ Page 630 ]

forward to a searching analysis from her.

You know, I didn't want to be too severe or too harsh with the opposition. Therefore in describing them and giving my reaction to the total scene, I thought I'd wax a bit poetic, just so no one would take it too seriously. I have looked at them, and I've listened to them in the House, and I've heard all their criticism, Mr. Speaker, and this was the best reaction that I could come up with:

They sprang up from the outback, this Social Credit crew, And printed funny money — now Major Douglas do eschew.
With fundamentalist vigour and financial theories fine, They abandoned cold Alberta for B.C.'s sunny clime.
First maxi-WAC, then mini, combined the old and new To harangue B.C.'s good people with Flying Phil and crew.
With great financial vision and Axel Wenner-Gren They squandered our resources — and seek the chance again.
But the people want no replay, need our water, wood and coal —
The great Columbia sell-out put them 800 million in the hole.
Make no mistake about them, they're the same old jaded gang —
From Mac-Blob's ex-directors to Boy Wonder, son of Fang! (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: I'd just like to say how much I appreciated the Minister's poetry, but I wonder if he thinks it's worth ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Are you on a point of order?

MRS. JORDAN:...his $50,000 a year salary and his $25,000-a-year expense account!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): You had your chance and you blew it.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate on the budget and to present some of the views and concerns of the people in Alberni riding concerning the budget. I must admit that the Minister of Labour is a tough act to follow, and I don't have anywhere near the kind of poetry and poetic sentiment he has expressed.

MRS. JORDAN: Let's try being a responsible Member.

MR. SKELLY: I'm very happy that the Member for North Okanagan got up in between, because she's no problem at all.

As far as the budget is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the people of my riding appreciate that for the first time in 23 years this budget is honest and direct. There are none of the attempts to overstate expenditures and to underestimate revenues in order to create the illusion — in fact the lie — of good fiscal management. This budget comes closer than any other in the past 23 years to making realistic projections about provincial income and drawing the line on government spending in relation to that realistic projection of income.

We've been criticized, Mr. Speaker, for presenting an inflationary budget in a period when we should be holding the line on expenditures, but this budget does hold the line, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the criticism from some Members opposite that we are increasing people's taxes: taxes on such things as social services, income tax, hotel room taxes and taxes on cigarettes and liquor. There has been no increase whatsoever in the rate of taxation in those areas. Certainly revenues in those areas of the economy have increased dramatically, but those increases are a consequence either of growth in the economy or of higher prices, not of a higher tax burden.

For example, the average gross weekly wage of a British Columbian in 1971 was $152.50. In 1974 it increased to about $200, an increase of about 33 per cent. Over the same period the labour force has increased by approximately 150,000 people. As the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) well knows, if there is more take-home pay to tax, then obviously, logically, there is going to be more revenue to the province.

The number of hotel rooms in 1971 was 16,000. I am talking about the number of hotel rooms approved by the Department of Travel Industry. They went up to 18,000 rooms in 1974. Naturally, and logically, with an increase in the amount of accommodation available, there will be an increase in provincial revenues from that source.

The Members should remember, although they don't like to hear history recorded on that side of the House.... But the fact is that they are history, just like that of Social Credit in Alberta. They are a closed book in this province as well. They don't like to hear about the past, but it was that group that created such things as the hotel tax in the first place. When they did create that people tax back in 1971, they did it to deprive municipalities such as Vancouver of a new source of revenue.

Big Daddy wasn't what you would call an original thinker as far as taxation goes. He didn't want to

[ Page 631 ]

tamper with the huge profits of big companies like the natural resource companies operating in that field. They were already taxed through the free-enterprise education fund. So when the little municipalities came up with a worthwhile source of revenue from tourists, he was mighty quick in snatching it away from them. I might add that when Vancouver proposed that hotel room tax back in 1971, this government threatened to deprive them of a $1 per capita tax for tourist purposes.

These taxes that the Member for Cariboo calls "people taxes" have increased in the estimates, but only because the volume of items taxed is increasing as well. It is important to put this on the record, because the estimates of revenue from the sources that that Member mentioned — liquor, sales taxes, personal income taxes and hotel taxes — now reflect a little more honestly the actual revenue anticipated from those sources. When he says that people taxes are up $445 million in the estimates, the Member for Cariboo is attempting to suggest that we are increasing the tax burden on the people of this province. When he is doing that, he is using phony statistics and a phony argument to mislead the people of British Columbia about this government.

MR. WALLACE: You did put up the price of gas, though.

MR. SKELLY: One increase in the price of gas. That Member suggested that we were increasing the rates of taxation right across the board, which is a phony argument using phony statistics from a phony-money opposition.

A cursory analysis of public accounts reveals the opposite. In 1966 total revenue from minerals in British Columbia was $36 million. In 1972, thankfully the last full year of Social Credit administration, it had reached $57 million, an increase of 36 per cent over those seven years. In the first nine months of the last fiscal year, 1974-75, our revenues from minerals had increased to $116 million, a 103 per cent increase in mineral revenues over the last year of the Social Credit administration.

Lands, Forests and Water Resources revenue showed the same pattern over the years since 1966. In that year Lands, Forests and Water Resources revenues were $61 million. By 1972, again the last year of Social Credit administration, they had increased to $88 million, an increase of only 44 per cent over a seven-year period. Forest revenues to the province increased by 78 per cent in 1973 alone. The figures for the first nine months of fiscal 1974-5 show that we are still 78 per cent ahead of the last full year of Social Credit administration.

The point is that the figures clearly show that we are increasing resource revenues as promised in our party's election platform. The burden of paying for services to people in this province is being shifted from people to natural resources where it belongs. I call on the opposition, especially the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Cariboo, to quit distorting the facts and misleading the people of this province.

I would like to go on, Mr. Speaker, from the budget itself to certain areas of expenditure that have a particular effect on my riding.

The first of these is highways. As the Minister well knows, there are several remote communities in the Alberni constituency that have no suitable access at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder, did the Hon. Member say that someone had deliberately misled the House?

MR. SKELLY: No, I asked them to quit misleading the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It certainly is not unparliamentary to say "misleading, " but it is to say "deliberately misleading."

MR. SKELLY: I didn't say they deliberately misled the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I apologize.

MR. SKELLY: I was just saying that they misled the House, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister well knows, there are several remote communities in Alberni constituency that have no suitable access at all except over industrial or forest roads. Residents in these communities must rely on expensive or time-consuming modes of transportation such as aircraft or ships as a means of obtaining the basic necessities of life, including food and clothing, and also the services of government departments such as Health, Human Resources and Education.

Tahsis and Zeballos, on the north coast of Vancouver Island, are two of the communities I'm referring to. Since the NDP government has come to office, we have assisted these communities much more than was the case in the past. We have spent over $200,000 in improvements in engineering on the road between Gold River and Tahsis and another $15,000 to improve the road between Zeballos and the Nimpkish Valley. This type of assistance was never available under the previous government.

We have also provided to Gold River and Tahsis community recreation facilities funds to improve the quality of recreation available in single-industry towns and to make them more attractive to workers and their families.

[ Page 632 ]

MR. GARDOM: Is this your election speech?

MR. SKELLY: We have also made funds and equipment available for ambulance services in those remote areas, another service that was not available under the previous Socred government.

But I believe that additional emphasis must be placed on provincial services to these communities. More must be done to enhance the quality of life in these industrial towns. By improving the standard and quality of life, we will keep people in those areas. We will slow down the pattern of people going to remote towns just to earn money, then returning to urban centres to spend it. This type of turnover of employees is costly both to employers operating industrial towns and to the province because of the distortion it creates in the economy.

The type of services I would like to see improved are highways, to permit people to move in and out of these areas more freely.... These will also attract tourists, which will in turn create a demand for services which are totally lacking in many of these towns, services such as hotels, motels, marinas, park and picnic facilities and smaller retail stores and restaurants.

We should also be providing television rebroadcasting facilities and more assistance to cultural groups to travel in these remote areas. A few years ago there was an excellent programme developed in the states of Washington and Oregon, which was called the 15 programme because it was based on small community colleges along the Interstate 5 Highway. These community colleges provided funds jointly to permit artists, craftsmen, musicians, et cetera, to travel back and forth between colleges along that highway route. Artists and performers required very little in the way of travelling and living expenses but, in spite of its low cost, the programme was instrumental in broadening the experience of people in the communities that sponsored it. It supported local artists and assisted in developing and promoting new talent.

I think that a similar programme in British Columbia's remote communities would be an excellent idea. If the province spent a small amount of money to assist artists and performers to travel around to remote communities, we would reduce the need of people, again, to travel to urban centres for entertainment.

MR. GARDOM: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) has the power to do that right now.

MR. SKELLY: I'm working on that, Mr. Member.

I mentioned television and radio rebroadcasting, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the province to take a very serious look at services to small communities on Vancouver Island such as those in my constituency.

At the present time, people of the larger areas such as Vancouver and Victoria are over-served by television and radio broadcasting media, but the majority of communities in my riding receive poor reception, very little programme choice or, in many cases, no reception at all.

The Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) had Barrie Clark do an analysis of the problem, and a report was presented to the department. But until now very little has been done to expand the coverage of broadcasting media throughout the province. This is a particular problem, as I say, in remote communities, and the Minister himself recognized the contribution that broadcasting can play in stabilizing population in those communities when he made his presentation to a recent meeting of Ministers of Communications.

It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that Ottawa has very little, if any, interest in improving the situation in remote areas of B.C. So I believe the provincial Department of Communications should step in immediately to assist smaller communities to develop television and radio receiving and rebroadcasting systems.

MR. WALLACE: Ottawa doesn't even know they're there.

MR. SKELLY: Ottawa didn't even know the Province of British Columbia was here as far as communications go, Mr. Member, until this province developed their own Ministry of Communications, something that was totally ignored under the previous government.

I'm asking this Minister of Communications to take a look at the Clark report, to take a look at some of the facilities that are already available under government control such as B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro, and possibly the Highways department, to see if we can use those facilities to provide increased television rebroadcasting and radio rebroadcasting to remote areas of the province. It seems strange to me that if the federal government is willing to shoot satellites up to serve the northern part of Canada.... We have an Anik satellite flying around delivering television programmes to places like Pangnirtung and Tuktoyaktuk, when places within 100 miles of Vancouver don't get any television service at all. That's typical of the federal government's concern for the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Are you talking about the federal Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Pelletier)?

In his budget speech the Premier indicated that a portion of any increase in provincial natural gas revenues will be allocated to municipalities on per

[ Page 633 ]

capita basis depending upon the amount of the price increase. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the fact that those figures were expressed in per capita terms does not mean that these funds will be allocated on a per capita base exclusively. I think that that would simply accentuate the distortion that already exists because of our present population distribution.

A good part of those funds should be allocated to smaller communities throughout the province. Many of those communities do not have the tax base that the metropolitan areas have, and many cannot even provide the basic minimum level of municipal services, such as sewers and water mains, under the present taxation and grant structure. So I believe that that increase in natural gas revenue, when it comes, should not be allocated primarily on a per capita basis but should be allocated on the basis of need.

The provision of basic municipal services brings me to a final point that I would like to mention today, Mr. Speaker, and that is the question of federal/provincial assistance for providing services in areas where demand on existing services has been dramatically increased as a result of the creation of Pacific Rim National Park. While I am referring specifically to the communities of Tofino, Ucluelet and Bamfield, the creation of the park also affects communities such as Parksville, Qualicum Beach and Port Alberni, which are experiencing an influx of tourists as a result of the creation of that park.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

At the present time over 100,000 travelers visit Pacific Rim Park every year, and about 28,000 cars. This is expected to increase to almost 400,000 in six years, and by 1991 just under one million visitors are expected. When the park was originally established in 1966 under the Social Credit government, absolutely no forethought was given to problems which might arise in Tofino, Ucluelet, Bamfield and the west coast region as a result of the tourist impact. But we are now faced with the problem and I don't think this government is responding quickly enough.

We have had studies done on the area to assess the impact of tourism both on the west coast and throughout central Vancouver Island, but there must be some immediate action on these studies to reduce the problems which central Vancouver Island is already experiencing as a result of the seasonal tourist invasion which has the effect each year of doubling the population on the west coast.

What I feel, Mr. Speaker, is that the Department of Travel Industry should immediately set up a tourist information bureau and an accommodation agency in central Vancouver Island. This should be done preferably on the Island Highway, south of Parksville. This office should be staffed by provincially-employed travel counsellors and they should book accommodation for travellers at cost. The governments of Australia and New Zealand already do this at the present time, and I'm not suggesting that the government should enter into the travel agency business on a commission basis. I'm simply suggesting that we assist the smaller motel and hotel owners by providing a reservation service that they would not otherwise provide because it is too costly to pay travel agents' commissions.

This service would also benefit tourists, many of whom do not make accommodation inquiries prior to their trip. According to studies done in the area I'm referring to, that accounts for almost 50 per cent of the people who travel there; 50 per cent don't bother to make any advance arrangements at all before they travel to the west coast. If these people have a means of determining before they drive to Tofino or Ucluelet that accommodation on the west coast is fully committed, they can be redirected to accommodation in central Vancouver Island areas such as Parksville, Qualicum Beach, or in Port Alberni until space near the park becomes available.

I believe that people in this province have been too slow in recognizing the growth of the tourist industry and its benefit to the provincial economy. The provincial government has also been slow to respond, most probably because the direct revenues to the province are not readily identifiable, although studies have been done which show a significant amount of sales, personal income and corporate taxes derived from the tourist industry.

So I would like to see a little more responsiveness, a little more awareness on the part of the government to the needs of the tourist industry, and much more participation in services to tourists and to tourist-oriented businesses, most of which are operated by small B.C. resident operators.

Another area affected by the tourist impact of the national park is the demand on basic municipal services. Studies have shown that the growth in population in the west coast area could be up to an increase of 7,000 people by 1991. This will require new housing, new schools, new hospitals and other social services. It will also require a complete redevelopment of present basic municipal services such as sewer and water systems.

The Government of British Columbia must recognize that these services are overtaxed right now and that within a very few years the situation will become desperate. I'm calling on the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), as well as the Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall), to treat this as a special area, an area of immediate need, and to pressure the federal government to recognize its responsibilities to assist in the financing of basic municipal services in the west coast area.

[ Page 634 ]

I will have more to say about specific problems in Alberni riding during the debate on the various estimates. There are a great many problems experienced by communities in my riding, but I do appreciate that Ministers are working at these problems and are taking steps to solve them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I rise with pleasure to take my place in the budget debate this afternoon.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, that's more than some people can do across there.

MRS. JORDAN: I lasted longer than you will as a Minister and I wasn't paid $50,000 a year, either.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: At least youth is on our side.

My friend from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised a question with regard to certain correspondence with regard to the tourist centre in Golden. He seems to have a great deal of trouble keeping track of his correspondence, but I have a letter here to him that was dated November 15, 1974, relating to this matter. If he wishes to have a copy, he's welcome. After the new government has gone to all the expense of providing the Members of the opposition with secretaries and all sorts of help — including the research help — they don't appear to spend very much time either researching or keeping track of their own and their constituents' records. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett) tried to make a great to-do about some furnishings ordered for his suite. I have a letter, of which I could table a copy with the House, signed by the Leader of the Opposition, W.R. Bennett, and addressed to myself wherein he writes to me and asks that the accordion partitions be removed and that the office space be redesigned. He encloses two or three diagrams as to how it should be done. I

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): That was for our new Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now after he's done that, after he has gone so far as to put down in writing what he would like to have, he is so chintzy that he gets up and tries to make capital out of us spending money at his request.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw the term "chintzy." I don't think that's a parliamentary term.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I will withdraw the term "chintzy."

MR. GARDOM: What does it mean?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's a term Premier Aberhart used to use, but I will withdraw it. Selecting any term or any phrase from that crew is poor taste — I admit it.

If the Leader of the Opposition would like to have a copy of the letter that he wrote to me several months ago and the diagrams suggesting different ways we could reorganize the office space, he's welcome to it.

MR. BENNETT: That was to accommodate our new Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: After we do everything we can to accommodate them, then they'll stand up here and decry the fact that we have done the very thing that they've requested.

Now, the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) yesterday was criticizing the fact that we were building in his riding a fine tourist centre.

MR. CHABOT: Hamburger steak house.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: He calls it a hamburger steak house. That's on his head, but I'm sure that the mayor of Golden and the citizens of Golden will not agree with him.

Golden is on the Trans-Canada Highway. Anyone coming into British Columbia from any other part of Canada by road, travelling on the No. I highway, comes in through the Trans-Canada Highway by this beautiful tourist information centre, and I think it's a credit to this province.

The Member for Columbia River said we should spend $1,500 and build an outhouse. That's typical Social Credit thinking. That's the way this province was run for 20 years, with $1,500 outhouses.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A one-holer or a two-holer?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is an eight-holer. It's a fine, well-designed building. We had to go to tenders twice. The first time that we called tenders there was one tender. We called tenders six months later and there were several tenders. Interestingly enough, the second call for tenders brought us in better prices than the first call.

MR. CHABOT: At $85 a square foot.

[ Page 635 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Around the hole.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I brought along two folders that display the building and its setting in the pine trees. There's also a sketch showing the layout, and I'd be pleased to pass these about. If the Member for Columbia River is not proud, I'm sure that every other Member in the House feels that this is the type of facility that we should be building and should continue to build.

I am sure that the business community in Golden — the hotel operators, and other business firms, the cafes — and all of the residents in Columbia riding would be mighty happy, and are happy, that we have built that fine type of structure so that people coming from other parts of Canada, reaching out to the gateway of the Pacific, coming in on the Trans-Canada Highway, will get a first-class impression of this prosperous province, this province that is moving ahead, welcoming tourists, welcoming one of British Columbia's greatest industries. But the doom-and-gloom boys cannot even see good in a fine building like that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell us about the Glenshiel.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, you folks were just as far wrong on that as everything else you have ever picked up. The Glenshiel has proven to be a first-class investment.

MR. FRASER: Tell us about the $25 car insurance.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, your constituents got more than a $25 discount this year, my friend from Cariboo. They got more than a $25 discount. This is the one province in the Dominion of Canada where insurance rates were reduced. In your riding, your rates were reduced by better than $25 per vehicle. You should be up there commending the government and commending the Minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who has done this sort of thing. In the 20 years that we had Social Credit, what happened to car insurance? The rates went up, up, up. At the finish, the people turned that tired old Social Credit government out and said: "Let's bring in a government that will act not for insurance companies but for all of the people."

MR. PHILLIPS: Give me a discount for collision insurance.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear anyone across the way commend my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), for the very fine job that he is doing in agriculture. I will just use one or two examples.

MR. FRASER: Tell us about your department. He told us about his. He hasn't got anything to talk about.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Throughout the North American continent the production of milk is down, but British Columbia is the one province in Canada, the one part of the North American continent, where the production of milk is up. Under Social Credit, the production of milk went down, down, down. Under the New Democratic Party, the production of one of nature's best foods, milk, is going up, up, up.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're milking the taxpayers.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That is a great credit to the Minister of Agriculture. True, it was very difficult for the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) and it was very difficult for the Member for Omineca (Mr. Shelford) when they were Ministers of Agriculture, because old pinch-penny Big Daddy would give them no money for the farmers.

What was the budget under the last year of Social Credit? What was the budget we inherited? Eleven million dollars for farming. What is it today? Approximately six times that. That shows that we have faith in the farmers of this province. The farmers, when it comes to the next election, I'm sure, will demonstrate that they have faith in this little government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Minister of Agriculture has proven that he has courage. He passed legislation with regard to land. He has been able to keep the developers off the farm and keep the farmers on the farm. The production is going up. I think this is a great credit to our fine Minister and my desk mate, the Minister of Agriculture.

There are certain areas that this government has moved into that that government would never touch. One is consumer services. I don't believe that that previous government wanted to have the type of ombudsman that we have in consumer services. They didn't want someone to stand up there and fight for the little people against the insurance companies or against the used-car salesmen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, sir.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We try to represent all the people. We know that if he is an honest used-car salesman, he has nothing to fear from the Hon. Ms. Young of Consumer Services. But, for those who do fear, that is why we have a Department of Consumer Services. The Hon. Ms. Young is doing a first-class job taking up problems of average people and defending

[ Page 636 ]

them from the type of businesses that prey on people who are in no position to defend themselves.

MR. PHILLIPS: She should be concerned with the misleading advertising that your government is putting out.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I would like to say a word about the Department of Municipal Affairs. Over the years, in the 20 years of Social Credit, we found public transit going down, down, down. Public transit was going bankrupt.

MR. GARDOM: What happened to rapid transit, Bill?

MR. FRASER: What is it doing now?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We found that the Island transit had to be taken over by the employees. They came to us and asked if we would make it part of a public transit system.

This is what is happening. Public transit is a modern way to go and the right way to go.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It's all right. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has many new buses on stream; they'll be here. But through public transit, Mr. Speaker, we get far greater value for the amount of petroleum resources that are used and we create far less pollution.... Oh, you're an expert in creating pollution, you are. They ought to pipe it and heat the building with it.

People can move about much more freely; there is far less tension, far fewer heart attacks, because people can ride to and from work with a lot less stress and strain.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, who writes that stuff?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey and Mr. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), I would just like to refer to a little incident that happened when the Department of Public Works was working with Municipal Affairs acquiring land for public transit. In March of this year we expropriated a piece of land adjacent to Lonsdale for the ferry transit. Prior to the Department of Public Works taking the necessary steps to expropriate this land a developer had taken out an option, put down $50,000. We had the land appraised. He had offered to buy it for $1.5 million. We said: "Okay, if you offered to buy it for $1.5 million, we will allow you a 20 per cent markup. We'll give you $1.8 million." He had a $50,000 deposit with his option. We allowed him a $20,000 markup, and what happened? The mayor of North Vancouver, Mayor Reid, and the city council of North Vancouver pushed through a change in the ....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Twenty per cent. They pushed through the right for this developer to have that property rezoned. So what is he asking now? A price of $5 million. Now this is what we are up against when you have municipal councils that would sooner help a developer make a fast buck than see your government help that municipality provide better public transit for their citizens and all the citizens of the province.

MR. GIBSON: What are you going to do with that land anyway? You haven't made a move in a year.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) will be reporting on that. There is an overall plan and it's a good plan, certainly for the benefit of all the members of the metropolitan area of Vancouver.

Now the City of Vancouver has not done that. Any time that we wished land in Vancouver, the City of Vancouver in no way has up zoned it or upgraded it and forced us to pay money. I think it is on the head of the City of North Vancouver, the mayor and the council, that they allowed that developer to try to take your little government and your taxpayers' dollars. We have no intention of seeing the taxpayers ripped off in that sort of a deal in this province.

MR. GIBSON: But what are you going to do with that 17 acres right in the heart of town?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now my colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), has brought in new vision and hope for fish and wildlife and all the conservationists in this province. His budget....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: His budget has increased.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about Public Works?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, that's right. You laugh, but remember that fish, wildlife — deer, elk, moose — don't vote. The environment doesn't vote, and the environment and these creatures of the environment are in your and my trust. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation understands and appreciates it, and this government understands and appreciates it.

[ Page 637 ]

MR. FRASER: How about the grizzly bears and porcupines?

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the wolves?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: They speak pretty well for themselves, those wolves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) not keep interrupting the Hon. Minister, please?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We inherited a department with a budget of some $10 million. This year it has increased to almost five times that. What is he doing with it?

The previous government had 70 conservation officers. We plan on having 174 and, furthermore, providing them with four-wheel drives and with gasoline to operate the equipment with. The number of prosecutions has gone up several fold. (Laughter.) Not only have we....

AN HON. MEMBER: Give the Minister a drink of water.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Not only have we increased the number of conservation officers to improve the quality of game management in this riding, we have also increased the number of biologists from 37 to 78 so that we can plan better....

MR. FRASER: What did you give them that for?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: It's in the book. If you fellows were going through the estimates, and if you were doing your job as a constructive opposition rather than kicking and objecting, spreading that gloom and doom, you'd be up there commending this government for the fine job that it is doing.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad we're getting through to the boys.

I noticed in The Similkameen Spotlight, in the Christmas message, they stated that the government has lost the confidence of the investors — that they are destroying investor confidence in this province. You know, that editor had as little knowledge of the facts of life as that opposition.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, he's one of my constituents.

This document, Mr. Speaker, is the black book of the Social Credit and Commonwealth Trust. In this book is a list of the many people who lost — some of them their life savings — in the mismanagement of Commonwealth Trust. This was something which the Social Credit government, to their shame, allowed to happen. At least in Alberta the Alberta government outlawed the sale of the various types of savings plans and so on in Commonwealth Trust. The new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) should be concerned, because 25 per cent of the 564 people who lost money in Commonwealth Trust resided in his riding. Twenty-five per cent of the people who lost money in Commonwealth Trust resided in South Okanagan.

MR. BENNETT: How many have lost money in mining shares since you became government?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If the editor of that paper and those people sitting across there call the debacle of Commonwealth Trust inspiring investors' confidence in this province, that isn't the way we see it. That isn't the way we see it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a very fair analogy, we inherited a similar situation with Col-Cel. When we formed the government, Col-Cel had served notice that it was filing bankruptcy. Weyerhaeuser, a great American timber corporation, said they would take it over. How? They would guarantee the bonded indebtedness, the $68 million of bonds that were held by the banks and the trust companies. But how about the common stock and the preferred stock? "Oh," they said, "that will go down the tube." So we said: "Yes, another Commonwealth Trust."

To the credit of the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams), he said: "We cannot let that happen." He called Weyerhaeuser in and asked them what their plans would be. He said: "Col-Cel for almost 20 years has lost money. How do you plan to make it pay if they couldn't?"

"Oh," they said, "that's very simple. There's a quarter billion dollars worth of assets and what we will do is simply this: we'll let the common stock and the preferred stock go down the tube and we'll shut down the northern operation."

MR. BENNETT: Is this the same way you figured out the $25 insurance?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: "We'll shut down the northern operation. There's enough money in the Kootenay operation to pay off that $68 million of bonded indebtedness to the banks and the trust companies."

What did the Minister of Lands and Forests and the cabinet say? They said: "That cannot happen in B.C. The previous government in 20 years created far

[ Page 638 ]

too many ghost towns. We want no more ghost towns in British Columbia."

So the new government backed the suggestion and advice of the Minister of Lands and Forests. Not only did we guarantee the bonded indebtedness, but we guaranteed the shares, the common stock, the preferred stock of the little people.

This brings me to my next point, Mr. Speaker. The reason I quoted The Similkameen Spotlight was that a business lady who had put away a portion of her life savings for her retirement had invested in Col-Cel, and this is a letter that she wrote to the editor of The Similkameen Spotlight. If anyone wishes a copy of the letter, Mr. Speaker, I've photocopies here.

MR. CHABOT: What's the date of the newspaper?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: December 18, 1974. "Dear Editor:

"Recently your Christmas message in the December 18 Spotlight came to my attention. Part of your editorial stated: 'This government has lost the confidence of the investor, and the consensus is that the people in Victoria running our government cannot be trusted.'

"Mr. Editor, may I tell you that in 1967 I invested $1,800 and bought 100 shares in Columbia Cellulose. When this company decided to go bankrupt, I felt that I should be in the same position as those people who had invested in Commonwealth Trust. The government of that day, Social Credit, stood by and allowed the shareholders to lose their investments. I thought that the same thing would happen to the investors in Columbia Cellulose.

"Imagine then how I felt when the present government, the NDP, stepped in and said, in effect, to Columbia Cellulose: 'You can sell your company to us, and we will protect the jobs of the workers and the savings of the small investors.' "

This is what they said.

MR. McCLELLAND: Signed by Mrs. Hartley.

HON. MR. LEA: Signed, Agnes Kripps.

HON. MR. HARTLEY:

"Furthermore, they doubled my holdings, so that today I now have 200 shares in Can-Cel and the prospect of increasing the dividend year by year.

"We know, of course, that $1,800 means little to a wealthy investor, but to a small person, a retired widow such as I, dividends on such an investment represent a welcome addition to my annual income.

"The NDP government's claim to be a people's government in such cases as this proves to me that this is no idle claim. You will understand, then, that I cannot agree with your remarks in the editorial in question. Further, it is my considered opinion that many of the citizens of B.C. have, like me, confidence in the people who are presently running the Government of the Province of British Columbia. (Signed)

"Yours sincerely, S.R. Etterstrom."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that that is the proof of the pudding. On one hand, under Social Credit, the people who make so much noise about investor confidence allow almost 600 people to lose a good bit of their life savings. Looking through this list of those some 147 residents of South Okanagan, in looking over the names, I wondered if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) recognized the names Roy Owen and Stella Owen. He should recognize them, because Roy Owen was the chap who nominated his daddy when he got the first Social Credit nomination in 1952, and that's the kind of kick in the teeth he got from Big Daddy. He lost his savings in Commonwealth Trust.

We should all be concerned in protecting the encouraging people's savings. This government is concerned. The fact that we took the position we did in Ocean Falls...

MR. CHABOT: Casa Loma.

HON. MR. HARTLEY:...Columbia Cellulose, and in many other operations.... And there will be more, because we believe, rather than allowing the great international corporations to come up and pick up bankrupt B.C. companies, that it's better that this government guarantee them. Then the earnings from those resources are here to be distributed among all of the people of the province.

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the poor little contractors in Casa Loma?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, $50 million this year out of Can-Cel. That's pretty good — $50 million.

Now over there, and from their lackeys, we hear them talking about a new system of voting — that we should bring in alternate voting. Now I think that that is really the height of unmitigated gall: talking about our not having a clear majority.

MR. BENNETT: Who said that?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker: we don't have more than 50 per cent of the overall vote of the province, but when did their government or any previous government have more

[ Page 639 ]

than 50 per cent of the vote? When you have more than two political parties running, it is virtually impossible. So what are some of your friends advocating now? They're advocating that we go back to the old one-two-three system of voting so that they can vote first choice, second choice and third choice.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to draw to the attention of our friends across the way what happened in....

MR. BENNETT: Who was saying that?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, we'll go back a little further than 1952. Since 1933 the New Democratic Party and the forerunner, the CCF, have pretty well polled 30 per cent or better of the vote. In 1941 the Liberals had 30 per cent of the popular vote of the province, and they elected 20 Members. The Conservatives elected 12 Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about David Lewis.

HON. MR, HARTLEY: But the CCF, with the highest percentage of votes, elected 14 Members, and from this 14-Member group they forced the old-line party into coalition.

This was done with a minority group, but a group that had the largest percentage of votes in this province back in 1941, and we didn't hear any of those people saying: "Well, look, you people don't have a majority."

Now in 1952, what was the score then? In 1952, what percentage of the total vote did the Social Credit Party have? They had 30.18 per cent and the CCF in 1952 had over 4 per cent more than Social Credit, and yet the Social Credit, with that phony system of voting, were allowed to form the government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's how we inherited Social Credit: it was a second-look, second-choice government and for 20 years, Mr. Speaker, we had a second-rate government that put the rights of the privileged few above the rights and privileges of the majority of the people.

Mr. L.A. Williams moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Strachan from the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of Members to compose the select standing committees of the House for the present session presented the committee's report, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. King files answer to question 20. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Lauk files answer to question 95. (See appendix.)

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Very briefly, among the documents filed by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) earlier today were photostated copies of cheques relating to the matter which was discussed earlier. My understanding is that it is practice, when tabling material of this kind with the House, that both the front and back of the cheque.... It's probably an oversight on the part of the Minister, but I would point out that in both instances, cheque 138 and cheque 115, we just have the face of the cheque.

HON. MR. LEVI: The cheques are in the Speaker's office and you can get them copied there, I'm sure.

MR. SPEAKER: I will be glad to furnish a copy and see that it's tabled with the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:29 p.m.

[ Page 640 ]

APPENDIX

REPORT

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Room, March 13, 1975 MR. SPEAKER:

Your Special Committee appointed February 18 to prepare and report lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of this House for the present Session begs to report and recommend that the personnel of the Select Standing Committees of the House for the present Session be as follows:

STANDING ORDERS AND PRIVATE BILLS-Messrs. G. H. Anderson (Convener), Cummings, Dent, Gabelmann, Lockstead, Mrs. Webster, the Hon. Ernest Hall, the Hon. A. B. Macdonald, Messrs. Smith, Chabot, and Gardom.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-Messrs. Fraser (Convener), Cummings, Rolston, Gorst, Kelly, Skelly, Mrs. Webster, the Hon. Phyllis Young, the Hon. Gary Lauk, the Hon. A. A. Nunweiler, Messrs. Bennett, Morrison, Curtis, and McGeer.

AGRICULTURE-Messrs. G. H. Anderson (Convener), Cummings, Steves, Kelly, Lewis, Liden, Ms. Sanford, the Hon. David Stupich, Mrs. Jordan, Messrs. Curtis, L. A. Williams, and Wallace.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING-Ms. Sanford (Convener), Ms. Brown, Messrs. D'Arcy, Liden, Gorst, Rolston, the Hon. Lorne Nicolson the Hon. James Lorimer, the Hon. A. A. Nunweiler, Messrs. Curtis, Phillips, L. A. Williams, and Wallace.

LABOUR AND JUSTICE-Messrs. G. H. Anderson (Convener), Barnes, Ms. Brown, Messrs. D'Arcy, Dent, Gabelmann, the Hon. A. B. Macdonald, the Hon. William King, Messrs. Smith, Fraser, D. A. Anderson, and Wallace.

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN RESOURCES-Ms. Brown (Convener), Messrs. Barnes, Calder, Gabelmann, Rolston, Lewis, the Hon. Eileen Dailly, the Hon. Dennis Cocke, the Hon. Norman Levi, Messrs. McClelland, Schroeder, Richter, Gibson, and Wallace.

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS-Messrs. Steves (Convener), Calder, Gorst, Kelly, Barnes, the Hon. William Hartley, the Hon. Graham Lea, the Hon. R. M. Strachan, the Hon. A. A. Nunweiler, Messrs. Morrison, McClelland, Schroeder, and Gibson.

ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCES-Messrs. D'Arcy (Convener), Lockstead, Liden, Lewis, Skelly, Steves, the Hon. Leo Nimsick, the Hon. Jack Radford, the Hon. Robert Williams, Messrs. Chabot, Richter, Fraser, Gibson, and Wallace.

Respectfully submitted.

R. M. STRACHAN, Acting Chairman

20 Mr. Bennett asked the Hon. the Minister of Labour the following question:

With respect to the Labour Research Bulletin for the calendar year 1974, what were the circulated figures, by month, of man-days lost through strikes or lockouts and, if there were any adjustments made which in any way changed the published bulletin, what was the reason for the change?

The Hon. W. S. King replied as follows:

"The circulated figures, by month, of man-days lost through strikes or lockouts for the calendar year are: January, 43,950; February, 48,969; March, 78,061 ;

[ Page 641 ]

April, 51,905; May, 765,915; June, 898,177; July, 148,554; August, 101,315; September, 116,102; October, 104,953; November, 16,254; December. 26,979.

"At the time of circulation, the figures were preliminary figures and were subsequently adjusted.

"The reason for such adjustment was that the preliminary figures were updated as more accurate information became available."

95 Mr. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Economic Development the following questions:

With respect to 16 resources studies announced in September 1974-

1. What is the target date for completion of each of the studies?
2. How many persons, not otherwise Provincial employees, have been engaged to perform each of these studies?
3. What is the estimated total cost of each of these studies?

The Hon. G. V. Lauk replied as follows:

"1. All studies are scheduled for completion by June 30, 1975.

2. Twenty.

3. The total cost to the Province of British Columbia will be approximately $500.000."