[ Page 175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Legislature Indemnities and Expenses Tribunal Act (Bill 31) .

Mr. Skelly. Introduction and first reading — 175

Oral questions

Return of $600 cheque to employment programmes branch. Mr. King — 175

Irregularities in egg marketing. Mr. Wallace — 175

Conflict of interest in B.C. Housing Management Commission. Mr. Gibson — 175

Recycling programme in greater Victoria. Mr. Barber — 176

Michell farm purchase. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 176

FIA scheme for blueberry growers. Mrs. Wallace — 176

Expansion of northern ferry service. Mr. Lockstead — 177

Grants to universities. Mrs. Dailly — 177

Zoom photography of legislative protestors. Mr. Macdonald — 177

Cancer research grant. Mr. Cocke — 178

Throne speech debate

Mr. Wallace — 178

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 188

Mr. Barnes — 194

Mr. Kahl — 201

Ms. Sanford — 203

Mr. Hewitt — 207

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon we will have as our guests in the gallery a group of students from Qualicum Beach Secondary School who are here under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Eric McMurray. I'd like to ask the members to make the students welcome.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will join me in welcoming a person — in keeping with some remarks I had to say the other day regarding committees — a chairman of the Scholarship Committee for Medical Research, also professor of microbiology of the Faculty of Science, vice-chairman of the B.C. Health Research Fund, vice-president of the Cancer Control Agency of B.C. and a panel member for the review of cancer grants: the National Cancer Institute of Canada, Professor Dr. Julia Levi, who is our guest today.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today — and members may have noticed his presence yesterday as well — is Mr. Jeff McKelvey, the executive director of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I was very pleased to learn a few weeks ago that the present president of UBCM, Mayor Muni Evers of New Westminster, has arranged for the UBCM to have a much greater presence in the legislative buildings and in the gallery during this session in order that all members may have contact with the UBCM for exchange of ideas. Would the House welcome him, please?

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of senior citizens from Burnaby who are all members of the community-centred College for the Retired. Thank you very much.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon, and I trust the House will join me, in welcoming the students from McPherson Park Junior Secondary School, and their lovely teacher, seated in the balcony this afternoon.

Introduction of bills.

LEGISLATIVE INDEMNITIES
AND EXPENSES TRIBUNAL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, Bill 31, Legislative Indemnities and Expenses Tribunal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RETURN OF $600 CHEQUE TO
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES BRANCH

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Labour: I would ask the minister whether or not a cheque in the amount of $600 has been returned to the Department of Labour employment programmes branch by one Mr. Brandl of the North Peace constituency association.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): I will take the question as notice.

IRREGULARITIES IN EGG MARKETING

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask a Big Brother question of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) inasmuch as a northern egg producer has stated, and claims to have affidavits, that private detectives working for the B.C. Egg Marketing Board have secretly taken photographs on his farm of trucks being loaded with eggs and of eggs being delivered to the local stores.

Could I ask the minister if he is aware of this practice, or has any complaint been lodged with him because of this practice?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): In answer to the member's question: just what I read in the paper.

MR. WALLACE: Well, supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the minister, having read that in the paper, is just as disturbed as I am that this kind of tactic might be used. I wonder if the minister can tell the House what steps he's taking to clarify the issue and, if it exists, bring it to an immediate halt.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, I'll be looking into it.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN
B.C. HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware of allegations of potential conflict of interest concerning senior officials of the B.C. Housing Management Commission in setting up a private strata titles management firm, and is he

[ Page 176 ]

prepared to ensure a full investigation of such potential conflicts in this specific case and in all areas of his department?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, I would like to thank him for notifying me just a few minutes ago of his intention to ask this question. To the hon. member, yes, I was made aware of this allegation yesterday and had discussed it with senior representatives of the Department of Housing. The matter is under early investigation, this specific matter. Indeed, I think as we are able to appoint other members to the B.C. Housing Management Commission board, we can identify possible areas of conflict of interest and spell them out quite clearly.

I would emphasize that at this point, Mr. Speaker, the question is just that. It is an allegation and it is under review. It is known to myself and known to the Deputy Minister of Housing and the associate deputy.

MR. GIBSON: Just on a short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would undertake to submit a report of the results of the investigation to the House, assuming we're in session at the time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would undertake to report to the House, perhaps verbally, once we have had an opportunity to investigate the matter.

RECYCLING PROGRAMME
IN GREATER VICTORIA

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the hon. Minister of Environment. Do you support the operations of the regional recycling project in greater Victoria, sir?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): To the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I would regard that as a matter of policy at this time. The concept of recycling has been endorsed by the department, although not necessarily specifically to this area referred.

MR. BARBER: Would you permit a supplemental?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Member.

MR. BARBER: Are you aware, sir, of the consideration presently being given by the capital regional district to curtail the operation of the regional recycling project, and, if you are aware of this, given that the regional recycling project serves more than 30,000 residents in greater Victoria, and that it is on any scale the most successful operation of its kind in British Columbia, is the minister willing to intervene with the capital regional district to ensure the continued work and support of this recycling programme?

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the member for Victoria, if this information is available to him, would offer it to me at my office, and I can assure you that he will get a reasonable response.

MICHELL FARM PURCHASE

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, while on my feet, if I may, in answer to a question raised by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with regard to the purchase of the Michell farm, in answer to questions asked previously, the former owner of the farm, Mr. Gordon Michell, approached the B.C. Land Commission to consider purchasing his farm on February 28, 1975. An appraisal was undertaken by the lands management branch and on October 21, 1975, Mr. Michell was offered and accepted the price of $440,000 subject to Treasury Board approval, which was given November 17, 1975.

The purchase agreement was signed November 15, 1975. The price paid for the property breaks down to approximately $3,300 per acre with improvements valued at $97,000. The Member for Oak Bay had asked if other bids had been made. That information is not immediately available since it would be between the owner of the farm and any other private properties. But, indeed, Mr. Michell did approach the B.C. Land Commission with reference to this and, for all intents and purposes, the agreement was concluded November 25, 1975.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask a quick supplementary? I very much appreciate the full, precise information the Minister has provided. I just wonder if the appraisal by the lands branch...was that the one and only appraisal? There was no independent appraisal by anybody outside of government, I take it.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr., Speaker, to the Member for Oak Bay: the appraisal was undertaken by Mr. D.J. Clark, AACI, who was appointed by the Department of Lands management branch. The appraisal given suggested that the acreage at that time had a value of approximately $4,800 per acre.

FIA SCHEME
FOR BLUEBERRY GROWERS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I would ask him a question relative to the Farm Income

[ Page 177 ]

Assurance scheme. I understand negotiations have been proceeding between the department and the Federation of Agriculture relative to a scheme for blueberries. Could the minister answer me whether or not he has given his approval to the negotiations that have been completed for blueberries?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to thank the member for her concern. We are looking at it.

MRS. WALLACE: A supplementary, please. Have you approved it yet?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, it hasn't been approved yet. We are studying it.

MRS. WALLACE: A further supplemental. Could I ask, then, regarding the sheep growers, their similar scheme: has that one been approved?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, we're studying the sheep growers...I mean the sheep growers' assistance programme. Yes, we are studying it.

MRS. WALLACE: Supplemental further: your study, has it been approved, Mr. Minister? That is my question: have you approved it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's being looked at and we're going to make a decision very shortly.

EXPANSION OF
NORTHERN FERRY SERVICE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A question to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. In view of the sale of the Prince George which was to be used to meet requests for regular service from Kitimat, Ocean Falls and other northern communities, is the ministry going to use the Queen of Surrey to expand northern ferry service this summer once she becomes available for this planned purpose?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): This possibility is under consideration along with a lot of others.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary. What are the minister's intentions regarding the Queen of Surrey?

HON. MR. DAVIS: They will be determined once the results of various investigations come in.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister going to continue to ignore the transportation needs of the people of the B.C. coast?

MR. SPEAKER: That's a statement, not a question, Mr. Member.

GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Finance: according to the Audit Act, special warrants should only be issued if they are urgently and immediately required for the public good. My question to the Hon. Minister of Finance is: would he explain to the House the urgency and the immediate requirement for issuing special warrant 687, which was $7,500,000 for grants to universities?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member: I'll be happy to take that question as notice.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It should really be redirected to the Minister of Education.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplemental. May I ask the Minister of Finance, then: are special warrants brought forward before the cabinet without the cabinet or even the Minister of Finance knowing what they are for?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no. That type of warrant, of course, first goes before Treasury Board for approval. I said I'd take the original question as notice.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question from the hon. member for Burnaby North, is the minister aware that under the Audit Act there must be a report to the Minister of Finance before it's referred to the Treasury Board? That's in accordance with the section. Is the minister aware of that section, and was such a report made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister took the question as notice. I would think that that was the type of question you might follow up after he has answered the original one, hon. member.

ZOOM PHOTOGRAPHY OF
LEGISLATIVE PROTESTORS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General a question. There were no zoom cameras when the women's rights group were in front of the Legislature, but there were when the ICBC protestors held a

[ Page 178 ]

peaceful demonstration on the legislative lawn. Is it your policy to allow security officers to use zoom cameras from apertures of this building and intimidate peaceful demonstrations on the legislative lawn?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In response to the hon. member's question, I am unaware of the cameras, zoom or otherwise, which you are referring to, but I would not think that we have ever had a citizen of this province intimidated on the lawn in front of this Legislature.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Will the hon. Attorney-General inquire into it? — because there were such cameras in the hands of police officers at the time of the ICBC demonstration. I'm suggesting that there's a civil liberties issue here involved and that the policy of the government should be stated to this House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll take a look at it, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental on this issue. In fact, the police chief in Victoria reported that the very purpose of taking the pictures was to identify anybody who subsequently in the demonstration might cause disorder. This was raised in the local press and discussed, and I'd like to ask the Attorney-General, and I assume he will take my word as an honourable gentleman, that it was confirmed by the police chief that, yes, they were taking photos and that if the demonstrators did not come before the police for any reason afterwards, the photos were destroyed.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he would not consider that as an invasion of civil rights — to be photographed under threat — and, secondly, whether in the light of that dangerous precedent he will, in fact, take the matter up with the Victoria police very soon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The hon. member — and I certainly do take his word — has much more knowledge of the matter in question than I have and, as I have stated to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), I will certainly look into it.

CANCER RESEARCH GRANT

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a number of days have gone by and I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary if, in fact, she has withdrawn the grant from Dr. Henry Richards.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: To the Hon, member: I did say a couple of days ago that I would report to the House after my department had reassessed it. I will keep that promise. When the department has reassessed that grant I shall report to the House.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
(continued debate)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just want to carry on from the few comments I made last night about the political atmosphere which brings us all to this Legislature and the very important recognition which I think we should all have of the politically divided nature of this province at the present time.

While, as I said earlier, I fully respect these decisions by the voter, I think it would help us all perhaps to produce productive legislation if we recognized some of the thinking which is quite prevalent in this province.

Many people believe that the NDP had a heart but no head; and many people believe that the Social Credit Party has a head but no heart. I agree that this is an exaggerated appraisal of the situation, but I think that it does reflect a remarkable amount of thinking in this province. My good friend the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) put it another way on a television interview. He said that the NDP knew the value of everything but the price of nothing, and that the Social Credit Party knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. I think that again is an exaggeration, but it's a trend and the kind of thinking that you run into in this province time and time again among the voters.

I hope the general thrust of this government will not be to simply blame the NDP for all the problems of this province, including the fiscal mismanagement, and use that as some perpetual excuse for the next four years to avoid carrying out the kind of programmes to which they are committed. Whatever the financial difficulties of this province, any fair-minded person cannot overlook the national and international economic recession which has not only been very severe but also is much slower to improve than even the experts have predicted. But, as I say, there are many people who looked upon the NDP as well-motivated reformers with a strong social conscience but who were inept and irresponsible in the administration of financial affairs.

On the other hand, the Social Credit members have the image of being hard-nosed businessmen and capable administrators who know the value of a dollar but, in the minds of some people, the value of little else, and their basic businesslike credo is that there's only one colour of ink, and that is black — regardless of the effect that that attitude and

[ Page 179 ]

conviction has on the people of this province.

I quoted last night from the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) remarks on Friday — and I won't impose on the House by repeating them again — but I think the thrust of these remarks is very disturbing, that education and health are to be deprived of funding and that the sole excuse will be the financial debt created by ICBC. It is somewhat surprising that this government appears to have an absolutely unholy dread of the word "deficit", in much the same way, I suppose, as we all have a dread of the word "cancer". The fact is that sooner or later, unfortunately, cancer affects some people in the population, and similarly in the economic world there are bad times when deficits have to be the manner in which the financing of the province is carried out.

Now I'm in agreement with the basic concept that if deficit financing can be avoided, certainly that would surely be the wish of all of us. It is certainly the No. 1 desirable approach to the managing of this province. I don't want to deal at great length on financial matters today with the budget only a few days away, but I think in this, the first debate, it should be clearly understood that I am concerned that the deficit position of the province will be used to excuse the failure of this government to take on many of the programmes to which it has made a verbal commitment in the election, and to that kind of commitment that many members have made in their speeches.

In touching on the subject of finance, Mr. Speaker, I think there was a very interesting article in The Vancouver Sun by one of our lady members of the press gallery. She touched on this aspect of financing which, over the years, has seen the removal of surpluses from an operating budget being used in large gobs of money to build, admittedly, well-needed facilities such as ferries and other capital expenditures. She points out in this article that these ferries, and other structures and enterprises involving large sums of capital expenditure, are used over a period of time for many people — 10 or 20 years from now. It seems quite unreasonable to try to find that kind of financing from the operating surplus from year to year. I'm sure later on in estimates or in the budget debate that in some detail we'll get into such matters as the financing of ferries.

The writer makes the point very clear: she says there are good and logical reasons for borrowing for capital expenditure. Fixed assets are usually productive over a period of time, so there's a rational economic move to pay for them over a period of time instead of penalizing the taxpayers in one year through a drastic reduction in services to pay for something that their children and grandchildren will be using.

I think the last comment was most interesting because, apparently, one economist has said that this approach to financing is not only pre-Gladstonian but is pre-Cambrian. I think maybe we should catch up with some of the more modern ideas as to how modern governments should attempt to solve their financial problems and at the same time provide much-needed social services.

I repeat: I am no keener than the government is, or any one of us is privately, to have to go into debt to achieve certain objectives. But we cannot accept what appears to be the concept of this government — and I'm willing to be corrected by the light of events. But at the moment, from the throne speech and from some of the comments that have been made, particularly by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), it would look as though this province will be denied an adequate...not even any kind of super or elevated standard of services in health, education and human resources, but will possibly be denied even an adequate level of service because the government insists on having only black ink on the balance sheet. I'll have more to say about that when we get to the hospital field.

There seems to me to be, Mr. Speaker, an element of contradiction in the throne speech, because we talk about restraint as the main theme, yet there are various parts of the speech which suggest that not only will the government reduce its revenue in various ways, but it will be embarking on some programmes that will cost a lot of money.

For example, if we remove all property tax from homeowners over 65, there is no statement of cost. But whatever the cost is, it is loss of revenue to the present sources of government revenue.

I notice that one of the Vancouver newspapers calculated that, taking Vancouver as an average, it would amount to $32 million lost revenue.

As I said yesterday evening, the election campaign made various commitments for costly programmes, some of them much-needed programmes, but the government preached financial gloom and doom and has confirmed that we have a deficit position. It does seem a little unusual to be promoting programmes that cost a lot of money and, at the same time, to be implementing other moves which result in a reduction of government revenue.

We would like to make useful contributions to the House in debate on legislation, and what we would like to see is social reform and human progress in conjunction with sound financial management. If that's what the throne speech is trying to say, then, of course, we will be much encouraged.

The election platform left the government with quite a few escape clauses, stating that certain programmes would be carried out when money was available or when the economy recovered. Again, I say that this seems to leave a great deal of uncertainty, particularly after we read the throne speech, because there are elements of the election

[ Page 180 ]

platform that were considered fairly important — if we judge by the Premier's emphasis on some of them — and they are not even mentioned in the throne speech.

I have to question the accuracy of some of the advertising, because we had the large red ads saying that property tax would be removed from all owners over 65, and yet in an interview...and I have a clipping from the Victoria Colonist on November 6 which I'd like to quote:

"Mr. Bennett said he favoured a programme to allow persons over 65 years of age and the handicapped to avoid having to pay property taxes and school taxes. Based on a means test, the programme would incorporate many existing programmes such as the homeowner grant."

Now, Mr. Speaker, the very large full-page ads that the party used in the election campaign to promote this programme show very, very clearly in three lines in huge letters: "no property taxes on homes of those 65 and over," but there's not a mention anywhere in this ad about a means test. Now I'm not here to argue whether there should or shouldn't be a means test at this point. I'm simply asking: is this truth in advertising?

We have other very important matters that were omitted from the throne speech, particularly the issue of the rescinding of mineral royalties, which again would mean a loss of somewhere around $20 to $25 million in revenue.

I would like to touch on the question of women's affairs. I think that the visit we had yesterday — or the day before — by thy women of this province, in my view, has to rank as one of the best organized and orderly and perhaps most reasonable groups that have come to the Legislature in the years that I've been here.

I agree with some of the comments made from this side of the House last night, that whether we understand it or appreciate it, or even recognize it, the issues that women quite legitimately are asking society to consider, in my view, are certainly not debatable as to the principles involved. The details and the mechanics of some of their proposals certainly merit a lot of consideration.

But how anyone in this House or in the province can argue against some of the basic principles that were involved and included in the brief, I don't know. They stated, among other things, very clearly that responsible government deals not only with the economy but with the human beings who live and work within the economy, and if one-half of that population is not receiving fair and equal treatment because of their sex, it is the responsibility of government to introduce policies and legislation that will eliminate that kind of discrimination. I can't think of anything that is fairer and clearer and more accurate than that.

There are one or two particular areas in their brief, Mr. Speaker, which I think deserve specific mention. This province should be very proud and grateful to have somebody of the calibre of Mr. Berger, not only for the very efficient hearings which he carried out, but for the very clear and easily understood way in which he wrote his reports — and, in particular, his sixth report on family and children's law is very readable and very clear.

I think it brings into focus many of the areas which, if dealt with correctly, will be of a most preventive nature and will avoid some of the problems at the other end of juvenile delinquency and broken homes, and all the social turmoil and social cost which results from the inadequacy of much of our present legislation in this area.

The question of community property, while it again has many very obvious practical difficulties in implementation, I would say in principle surely is not debatable. The astonishing verdict in the Murdoch case seems to have aroused the interest of a large number of people — not just women, but those who are interested in a more just society. It seems to me that Mr. Berger in the way in which he spelled it out has added greatly to the potential for public discussions, for dialogue with legislators, and hopefully for ultimate legislation.

I think the women's policy and the brief on education also covers many valid points from which we can't run away. I would agree with them that it would be well to re-appoint the special adviser to the Minister of Education on sex discrimination, or some similar position or approach to the problem.

But in passing I think again that any fair-minded person would have to ask the question that, with the first step during International Women's Year, to start looking at these problems of discrimination against women, trying to find out some of the basic facts — never mind what we're going to do about them. Just let's get them established to a degree which I think does not pertain at the present time.

After one year to abolish the two offices, the coordinator and the one I've just mentioned, I think it is really regrettable because the kind of work that was attempted in International Women's Year, as I read it and as I listened to non-politicians, was really the start of work to look at discrimination against women, not the end. It seemed to me that it is rather urgent that the government take a second look. But I'm not suggesting necessarily to re-instate exactly the situation which was terminated of the two workers, or the two offices. I'm simply saying that the ladies who came to this House this week and this very clear, short, well-documented brief are evidence enough that surely the government must move to set up some branch or agency of government to continue the work that was started in International Women's Year

[ Page 181 ]

with even the simplest specific purpose of relating to different departments of government.

We'll be talking at a later debate, no doubt, on the child-care centres and the problems of child care. I think the whole issue of human rights was put into focus very well in the section dealing with what has come to be known as equal pay for equal work. But the ladies have put it much more clearly, because they call it equal pay for work of equal value. This is a problem which I am sure the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is well aware of in relation to some of the jobs in hospital where men and women don't do exactly the same job but they certainly do the same job in regard to equal value of that job. The Minister is faced with a very serious problem at the present time in the financing of hospitals because of the attempt to pay women the same wage for equal-value work in hospitals. I'm sure that issue will arise several times during this session.

I just want to end my remarks on the status-of-women issue by saying that equal opportunities just do not exist for women in government service. The statistics are quite impressive. With 37,701 persons in the British Columbia public service, there are no female deputy ministers, there are no female associate deputy ministers, and there are only eight women at the salary level of programme manager 1 and above.

The British Columbia public service is the structure which translates policy-making into administrative action, and, although there are no women involved at the decision-making level, these administrative actions affect the quality of life of women throughout this province. I'm just quoting from the brief because it states it so well:

"As the largest employer of women in British Columbia, the provincial government has an obligation to set an example to the private sector by eliminating employment discrimination within the public service."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with one or two other appraisals or one or two other subjects arising from the throne speech. I notice that one of the other items that was highlighted in the election campaign was the removal of succession duties and gift tax. This has not been mentioned in the throne speech. I am wondering if the government has had second thoughts in this regard.

To return, just for a moment, to the question of the apparent contradictions in the budget. The government anticipates no great increase in revenue. Yet, however worthwhile the plan — such as the plan for those in need between 55 and 59 years of age and single-parent families — I wonder, again, if one of his ministers would respond in this debate and say what the proposed or expected costs of this programme would be. In the same way, I have asked about the cost of removing property tax from all those over 65.

I think the question of priorities has to be faced fairly and squarely. If this province is having the financial difficulties it is having, and if, as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says, programmes in Education and Health will suffer from lack of funds, I just have to ask the question.

I have no ill will against millionaires; they're obviously much smarter than I am. But is it right and fair? Is it a reasonable assessment of priorities if we take property tax off wealthy people living in very expensive homes and then turn around and say to many people in real need for a variety of causes beyond their control: "Well, I am sorry but we can't provide the facility, the medical care or the education or the child-care centre or whatever."? Does that make sense?

I have to say that while we are in favour, as a party, of removing education tax from property — and that is part of our election platform — we just have to ask this question: is the Premier not suggesting priorities which could be better allocated?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: There's an interjection from one of the members, Mr. Speaker. I am not for a moment overlooking the real need of some people in the 65-and-over age group where perhaps some graded kind of a system related to income could be worked out. I'm just a little concerned. It may be just simply the words that have been used in the advertising, or as on page 3 of the throne speech says, that the government will work towards removing taxes on the homes of senior citizens 65 and over. "This year you will be asked to take a major step toward achieving this goal."

All I am saying is that if we are in difficult financial circumstances.... And I would like to touch on some of the problems that are arising in the Victoria area because of financial problems. All I am trying to point out is that if we have financial problems of that degree affecting some people in serious need, maybe there is reason to either specify in clearer terms what the government has in relation to this removal of property tax, or perhaps delay implementation of the initial moves.

I want to compliment the government on some of the very worthwhile, positive measures that are outlined in the throne speech. The description of electoral reform with redistribution of boundaries, and a good, new, up-to-date look at the whole question of election expenses and spending are excellent. I appreciate the government's commitment that this will be introduced prior to the next election. The driver-incentive plan makes great sense.

I couldn't agree more with the Member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) who pointed out that we have short-term plans and long-term plans, and the only

[ Page 182 ]

likely successful long-term plan to cut down on the cost of car insurance is to find ways and means of preventing accidents. I know it sounds almost just too obvious to be said, but I think we sometimes lose sight of the basic requirement when we get all uptight about a specific premium or a specific segment of the bigger issue.

The idea of having an ombudsman is certainly one which, unfortunately, is necessary. Again, for the very reason stated by the Lieutenant-Govern or in the throne speech, that the individual in society today more and more needs protection against big government, I regret, for that reason, that we need an ombudsman, but indeed we do.

The auditor-general: it will be very difficult for anyone in this province to suggest that we don't need an auditor-general, in the light of recent events.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: I liked the government's emphasis on taking initiatives in the area of Indian affairs. I notice as recently as today that there is a report by the department of human rights pointing out the urgent need for government to look at Indian affairs on the widest possible basis. It states that even the survival of the Indian race itself is at stake unless there is a more active effort by government not only to solve the land problem, but to deal in the widest possible ways with discrimination, housing, health and a variety of other very basic issues as they affect the Indian people,

We have seen many examples in recent years of discrimination affecting them — even the simplest matters of renting because of race, or renting because they have children, or obtaining service in public places which the ordinary non-Indian takes for granted in our society. I applaud the government for these efforts.

I would like to repeat a question that I asked in question period because I think it's very significant. I'm talking about the fact that this government, quite rightly, is very concerned about the Minister of Finance or any minister having the unilateral right to buy shares on the stock exchange, I keep coming back to this point, and I make no apologies for repetition: I feel that we apparently do not have the money to provide many of the social programmes that are badly needed, or even to maintain some of them.

I'm not just talking about expanded social programmes — and again I'll be referring later on to the Victoria scene. In Victoria it is not a question of not being able to expand; we can hardly hang on to what we have, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. So what I'm saying is that we're short of money: the government doesn't like to borrow; it doesn't like deficits; and in principle it's opposed to any dabbling in the stock markets. I agree with that attitude.

Now as far as I can determine from my investigations, the government owns about 1.1 million shares of B.C. Tel, which sell at the moment at around $11.50. The Westcoast Transmission shares of 1.15 million are selling at around $23.50. That adds up to just something less than $40 million.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Premier interjects across the floor that the B.C. Tel shares are a part of the pension fund, presumably, of provincial government employees. One of them.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): One of the trust funds controlled by government.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that if the Revenue Act is to be changed to prevent a practice which the government opposes, I just wondered if it wouldn't be an opportune time to sell the shares and use that money to close the deficit, or close it in part.

The other part of the throne speech which is a little distressing is the fact that the economic depression related to international circumstances is recognized. Forest revenue is down by around $100 million, according to Clarkson, Gordon.

There is an article on the front page of today's newspaper reporting a major federal study which suggests that the economic recovery in British Columbia will lag behind that of the rest of Canada. It isn't all black because — and this is a horrible pun, I guess, I didn't intend — the situation isn't all black because the coal outlook is very good.

But there's no question, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment is now at 8.9 per cent in British Columbia. Paper production was down 23.4 per cent and, of course, lumber production I have already referred to. One of the most interesting elements in this economic report is that in the manufacturing sector of our economy in British Columbia the average wage is 30 per cent higher than the average wage in the rest of Canada.

I would have to suggest that we all take a long look at the tremendous impact of trying to manufacture goods in competition with other producers in other provinces and in other countries when even within our own country British Columbia's average wage is 30 per cent higher and must inevitably make the end product more costly.

The throne speech quite rightly emphasizes the problems of inflation. Publicly, before the House sat, the Premier had appealed to cooperation from all parties in this province in trying to fight what is the most serious problem facing the people of British

[ Page 183 ]

Columbia.

I just want to say, for my part, that we will make every effort to support this government on its anti-inflation measures. We would just like to make two points. One is that we would like to think that whatever plan is brought before this House, or whatever legislation is brought before this House, that it be more carefully and more adequately prepared than some of the federal examples we've witnessed. Secondly, that as far as is humanly possible, the legislation should be fair and equitable in its impact on all parties concerned. We all know that the labour movement demonstrated in Ottawa two days ago, and it's quite clear that if the controls programme is failing — and I'm not saying that it is, but if it is, and there are some reasons to suspect that it is failing — it seems to be because the programme is clearly all wage control and not very much price control.

The Premier stated on February 26, and there was a report in the newspapers on the 27th that he would be signing an agreement with the federal government on controls in the public sector shortly. I want to pose a question. Almost a month has gone by and that agreement hasn't been signed. I think B.C. and one other province — I'm not sure of the other province; I think it's Nova Scotia — only two provinces have not signed an agreement. I'm wondering if the delay has anything to do with the fact that Ontario's agreement with the federal government has been declared unconstitutional.

Here again, I'm attempting to take an objective and non-partisan position when I ask this question. This isn't meant to score political points. I think it's important to find out if our delay in signing an agreement is a wise one, because why sign an agreement which may well breach federal-provincial constitutional law? If that's why the minister is delaying signing the agreement, that's a very reasonable explanation. Or is there another explanation?

I talked a moment ago about the need for an ombudsman to protect the individual from large government, and I see another little contradiction in the throne speech where it states: "An independent agency will be established to monitor the pricing decisions made by all public service agencies and corporations." Here we're setting up another agency of government when, at the same time, we're trying — or at least we hope we're trying — to minimize the size of government.

The whole question of price freezes was not mentioned in the throne speech, although under the heading of "anti-inflation measures" obviously this would be one element. I wonder if, since the government removed the price freeze on food and drugs, the government is carrying out any monitoring process of its own as a means of being well informed and up-to-date as to what prices are doing, and thus be in a position to intervene again, as the former government did, if the need appears justified.

The throne speech talks about unemployment, as indeed it should. It states: "The government will act to rekindle the economy and create new jobs so badly needed."

Who could agree more with that? But I have to ask the question as to how.... The Premier smiles, and I've heard this question tossed back and forth across this House by illustrious members such as the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who has a unique way of pronouncing the word "jobs".

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, we would like to know more about the general direction in which the government intends to go in creating jobs. Is it by secondary industry? I've already alluded to the high wages that are paid in the manufacturing sector in this province. It would seem to me a dim prospect to try and expand the manufacturing industry when overhead costs in the form of wages are far above the national average. Does the government plan to put forward incentives and subsidies to the private sector? The former Social Credit government always took refuge in saying they didn't believe in hothouse industries. I remember the present Premier's father using that word on more than one occasion, and it might well be a justified position. Again we have to say, from this side of the House, that some blunt acknowledgement that unemployment is a problem is one thing, but we would like to know in which direction the government is moving to solve the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: What about expansion of service industries, particularly when we think of areas such as tourism and recreation? Later on in the session we must look at the whole relationship of the B.C. ferry system to the tourist industry.

The throne speech talks at some length about federal-provincial relations, and I wonder what the government is doing about the subject of tariffs and freight rates, because whenever this question has been asked in the past of the former government, and the former, former government, we usually got the answer that of course these terrible politicians in Ottawa have a freight rate system which makes it twice as expensive to send goods from west to east as it does from east to west. So I hope, when the throne speech talks about the vigorous approach to federal-provincial relations, that this whole question of tariffs and freight rates will be high on the priority list of topics.

I had hoped, although we are running out of time, I suppose, that some of the ministers on that side of the House would give us some specifies about the attempt to create jobs through the enlargement and

[ Page 184 ]

diversification of our economy. I'm sorry that the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is out of the House at the moment, because there's a very interesting bill being debated in the federal House, Bill C6 1. It is an attempt to ensure that...coastal vessels is the term, I understand, referring to cargo ships that will carry goods between British Columbia ports and eastern Canada...that they be made in British Columbia and have the entire crew consist of Canadian citizens, a somewhat similar version of the Jones Act in the United States.

I was disappointed to hear the provincial Minister of Transportation and Communications bring forward reasons that made it unacceptable to him because of the increased costs which he foresaw on goods carried on these ships. It seems to me we've proven ourselves capable in British Columbia of being very excellent ship-builders, and if we're trying to create jobs, surely this is one area where we can establish a world reputation and keep a workforce working, and at the same time create a merchant marine. This should surely be one of the subjects where federal-provincial relationships should be going ahead at a great rate.

The Premier is making a note, I see, and I would appreciate it, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Transport and Communications would let us know if at least he is in active contact with the federal government at the present time while Bill C61 is being debated in Ottawa.

I've mentioned the mining and the Mineral Royalties Act which was not mentioned in the throne speech. We have another headline in the newspapers today which says that the mines are losing their shirts to government. I quote an article entitled: "Mines Losing Shirt to Government." It says:

"While the return to shareholders of 21 operating mining companies in British Columbia fell from $131 million to $103 million in 1975, the total pay-out by the companies to the three levels of government rose 6 per cent to $148 million. Figures released by the association showed that as well as the $148 million pay-out by companies, governments collected $59.9 million from employees, which was up from $54.9 million in 1974. The industry return as a whole was 10.6 per cent, down from 12.7 per cent in 1974."

These facts and figures are the result of a survey conducted by Price Waterhouse and Co. I know the government holds the company in high respect because they just had them do a very excellent study of the B.C. ferry system.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled to a little more about government policy on the mining industry than we have received in the throne speech. It was a very important priority in the election campaign, and the government, so far in this session, has been strangely silent on the issue. Now what will its policy be? It's quite obvious as a primary industry, and with a great number of secondary spin-offs, that mining is vital to the economy of British Columbia. I would hope that very soon, presumably in the budget speech, we are to have some clear outline of the government policy so that we can debate it intelligently in this House.

I'm also sorry that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is out of the House at the present time, because British Columbia as of this day is in very serious trouble, first of all with the strike in B.C. Rail and the strike that developed yesterday among the truckers in British Columbia. As the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) interjects so correctly, the reason the minister isn't in the House is that he's out trying to solve the strike. I acknowledge that fact, and for the sake of all of us and for the sake of British Columbia, I wish the minister great success in his efforts.

But I wonder also if the government is not evading some of the crucial issues in regard to the labour-management scene by being more specific as to its policy on essential services.

I notice that in the campaign it was stated that: "The Social Credit Party would ban the right to strike by police and firemen, making their contract negotiations subject to compulsory arbitration." I'm quoting the writer Neale Adams in The Vancouver Sun, December 10.

I have another quotation from The Vancouver Sun of November 6. This doesn't have a by-line, but the statement says the following:

"Asked if a Socred government would take away from the public service the right to strike, Mr. Bennett said his government would take a look at essential services. He said: 'I am convinced in my own mind that essential services must not be interrupted.'"

That's a pretty firm indication by the Premier that he is aware of the damage which arises from strikes in essential services, and I was eager to ask the Minister of Labour, were he in the House, of the accuracy of a statement in the newspaper today regarding the very serious B.C. Rail strike.

It's an article in The Province entitled "Rail Talks a Shambles" and the rather important paragraph in the article states as follows:

"The Teamsters' Union apparently tried to get something going in weekend talks when their top man, Senator Ed Lawson, intimated quite clearly that his group would be willing to opt for binding arbitration in their dispute."

As the article goes on to say, that's quite an astounding statement for a labour leader, certainly of the experience and stature of Ed Lawson, in light of the union's position over a long period of time to resist the concept of compulsory arbitration which is

[ Page 185 ]

binding.

I wonder if someone on that side of the House later on in this debate will give the people of this province some indication of their policy in regard to essential services, and which services they regard as essential, and, more particularly, whether or not in this particular strike an offer by the union to accept compulsory arbitration was rejected.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say a few things about our health services in this province, and particularly our problems in the greater Victoria area, where I reside and represent one of the ridings.

I hope we are not again facing what I call the "black ink paranoia" by this government that has existed in years gone by in this province. Because that specific issue is perhaps the major, if not the only reason, I'm standing here today. It was the incentive to try to have health services in this province, and particularly in Victoria, improved. That was back in 1967.

Before I try to put things in focus, it might be very interesting for the members to hear a letter that appeared in The Victorian on February 2. The letter reads:

"I have just read reports on the facilities available at the Royal Jubilee Hospital. My wife was taken by ambulance to the emergency ward on January 13, and remained in a bed in the hall all day, where they took blood tests. They brought her some lunch on a tray, and I fed her some custard with a spoon. After several hours they took her up to the fourth floor where they wheeled her into a lecture room and parked her against the blackboard. They wheeled a small table in with a child's bell on it for her to tap, if she could reach it. Next morning I was informed that she died in her sleep."

This is the kind of situation that highlights — and could be repeated a hundred and a thousand times over — the deplorable hospital facilities in the greater Victoria area.

We have this kind of situation outlined in the letter. We have middle-aged men, with wives and families, dying because they cannot get access to the kind of heart surgery which the records show has about a 95 per cent success rate, and sustaining these persons with coronary artery disease and enabling them to stay as independent, self-sustaining breadwinners in a family situation.

As I said a moment ago, not only are we not expanding the kind of facilities which scientific research has made possible; we are barely hanging on to the situation we are now in. In recent weeks it has become quite obvious that all the large, main, acute hospitals in the lower mainland and in Victoria are going to be undergoing, to some degree, lesser or greater cutbacks in service, and the kind of incident which I read about of the person dying in a classroom because there was no proper room at the hospital, and the young men dying because they cannot have their heart disease treated, that will increase. I can't see how anything else can happen with all the facts and figures that the hospitals are putting before us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get one thing very clearly placed on the record: the hospital staffs in this province are people of the highest motivation, and they perform under the most difficult circumstances in a way which I think none of us could criticize. The occupancy rate, and I'm more familiar with Victoria than Vancouver, is always in the high 90s, even when the hospital accreditation service in Canada believes that anything over 85 per cent occupancy threatens the standard of care. But our hospitals have a 90 per cent occupancy or more, and when we have beds in the hall and beds in the classrooms and beds in every corner of the buildings, it's obvious that at times occupation goes above 100 per cent.

Yet in this statement I am about to make, and I have checked out as recently as this morning, there are hospitals in this province where as many as 100 employees are not approved — and I use the word "approved" very advisedly — are not approved for inclusion in the budget by the Department of Health. One of the reasons that some 90 hospitals have threatened strike action arises from the fact that moneys paid to the hospitals are calculated on the basis of approved staff. So the administrators of hospitals are faced with this incredible dilemma: do they cut back on service which they can safely provide with approved staff, or do they take on the staff which they truly need to try and meet the need which exists in the community? If they take on the staff to meet the demand, then budgeting problems become acute.

In the case of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, and in light of the letter which the Minister of Health sent to the hospitals a few weeks ago making it very plain.... The letter was dated February 10. The Hon. R.H. McClelland wrote to all hospitals asking them to "restrain costs," and I quote the letter: "without impairing services to the sick."

Mr. Speaker, that's a little bit like asking somebody to dig the garden but don't strain your back. How you can cut back services when the hospitals are operating under the circumstances I've outlines and suggest that you're not reducing the standard of care to the sick...I just don't know. That is a contradiction in terms.

But the Minister's letter went on to state:

"I am not in a position to give you any assurance that adjustments will be made for any 1975 deficits. I wish to make it clear that the normal procedure followed in past years where government has absorbed part, and sometimes all, of the annual deficit incurred by hospitals will not automatically be repeated at the end of

[ Page 186 ]

1976. Funds made available by government for payments to hospitals will be included in approved budgets.

"Therefore I feel it is important that it be understood it can no longer be assumed that government will automatically be responsible for year-end deficits."

The Minister goes on, but I don't want to take too much time of the House.

But the minister goes on to state, in effect, that hospitals should try to operate in 1976 on their 1975 funds available. Again, with the greatest of respect, I don't think there is anybody in this chamber who could live in 1976 on their 1975 income, and certainly with the legitimate aspirations of the hospital employees to have access to free collective bargaining, you just can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.

When hospital employees bargain, as they are entitled to do, and receive a fair return for their skills, that increase, perhaps, amounts to almost 20 per cent, which I believe is the figure presently being negotiated, and I believe that 1974 and 1975 increases were somewhere in the same neighbourhood.

Now these costs are rising and they are continuing to rise and I agree with the Premier that one has to make every effort to encourage restraint. But at the same time we have to try and appreciate what our primary priorities are and what some of the top priorities of any modern government should be. In my view — and I hope in the course of debate that members from the government side will comment — it is my view that the approach taken to date by this government has been cold and calculating and, as far as the hospitals are concerned, it is utterly heartless.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. WALLACE: And the minister says "nonsense."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Garbage!

MR. WALLACE: And he says "garbage," too. Would you like to add a few more words?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'll talk to you tomorrow.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, that I should be so lucky that you would be willing to talk to me about it. I have written to you, my friend. I have been to your office. You had a letter on March 4, 1976, from me and this is March 24, and I haven't had the courtesy of a reply. So don't give me "garbage." If there's anybody talking garbage in this House on health it's you, not me.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Garbage in and garbage out.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Did I treat you unkindly in my office?

MR. WALLACE: I am saying....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Were you able to come and sit with me in my office?

MR. WALLACE: That's right, and I was able to write a letter asking desperately for some decision about some of the Victoria problems, and at this moment, three weeks later, I haven't had the courtesy of an acknowledgement.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't even seen the letter yet. How did you send it?

MR. VEITCH: By carrier pigeon.

MR. WALLACE: Now, Mr. Speaker, I try very hard to be fair and objective and look at the facts and quote the figures. The deficit of the acute hospitals in this province as of the end of this month is $11 million — the total deficit, by and large, of the acute hospitals. How can the minister tell me I am talking garbage...?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You're wrong here.

MR. WALLACE: I said the approximate round figure for the main large hospitals. I am not suggesting for a moment that it's right on the $11 million. I am saying that I can tell you one thing for sure, and I have checked it out today, and that is that the deficit at the Royal Jubilee Hospital is just over $1 million. I can tell you that hospitals, in attempting to show fiscal responsibility and good management techniques, get halfway through the year before this government gives them an approval of any kind of budget.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about the last government?

MR. WALLACE: Well, don't blame them. You're doing exactly the same thing. Here we are again, Mr. Speaker. Whenever we provide evidence, the excuse is always going to be what the last government did. I want to know what your government is going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Stick around and

[ Page 187 ]

you'll see.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the government isn't prepared to look at things in a fair and objective way in relation to the financial facts and the needs of people who require hospital care in this province. As I mentioned last evening, back in 1974 the Premier, when he was leader of the official opposition, asked the government of that day why they were doing nothing about intermediate care. And I stand here in 1976 and ask this Premier why isn't he doing anything about intermediate care.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: It's not even mentioned in the throne speech and it happens to be one of the keys to the whole solution of the hospital problem. Admittedly there are shortages of acute hospital beds and there are other areas of preventive medicine which are desperately needing action. But the one outstanding segment of the total hospital picture which is crucial to any kind of rational and economic solution is the provision of intermediate care and, here again in the throne speech, not a mention. I could refer back also to some of the Social Credit campaign ads which said that top priority would be given to the construction of community nursing homes to fill this very vital requirement.

I would just like to say how glad I am at the stand, so far, that I've seen taken by two of the back-bench members of the government, I'm referring to the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) and the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) who have certainly taken a public stand. There was a very strong statement on December 15, four days after election day, by the first member for Victoria. The heading reads: "Bawlf Demands Action." It said: "He will demand immediate action from the new provincial government to cure Victoria's critical hospital bed shortage." I find that encouraging.

I've also had conversations with the member for Esquimalt. I know that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) is also very eager that we should keep this hospital issue above partisan politics, and have the MLAs.... Of course, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who represents Saanich and the Islands, is more than welcome to any combined effort we would make. But I realize that he has a twin portfolio and it would be much more difficult for him than for the rest of us representing greater Victoria ridings to make some very serious and dedicated attempt to solve what is a rapidly deteriorating situation.

The last point I would like to touch upon, Mr. Speaker, is the whole question of the ferry system. I'm delighted that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is back in the House.

The minister has been letting us know for some weeks now that the ferry system financially is having its problems. It is easy to understand that. I think rates have been the same since 1963. We're now having to go through inflationary times, and it's now 1976; it's not surprising that there are some problems. But I would like to sound one or two notes as a person who lives on the Island, represents constituents on the Island and has to travel between Vancouver Island and the mainland not as a luxury, but as an essential part of the job I'm elected to do.

I've already referred to the financing methods which I think should cease under this government, and that is that capital sums of money required to either construct new ships or ferry terminals, or plants of any kind, should not be financed out of operating surpluses, using money which would, I hope, otherwise be made available for some of the programmes in Health, Education and Human Resources, which are so frequently discussed in this House in this debate and which are about, in many areas, to be reduced. I recognize that there is a deficit and that the ferry system cannot continue to be operated in this way.

I have noticed that the Minister is very clever. He had told the public of British Columbia that to break even, the rates would have to be tripled or quadrupled. So I suppose when he announces that they are only going to be doubled, we'll all say: "Thank God." It's the old game of making the possible solution sound twice or three times as bad as the one you really have in mind.

MR. G, F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): He should give lessons to the Minister of Education.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have one point, and I don't want to spend a long time on the ferries report, but one thing that I sense that's so central to the report, and which barely receives any mention, is the automatic assumption that the use of the ferries will continue to increase by X per cent. I agree that it would have to be an estimate, but I see very little in the report to acknowledge that increased rates might decrease the number of vehicles, or at least level off the use of the ferries at the same number.

The report goes out of its way.... I acknowledge and congratulate the minister in being very frank in his introduction to the report. He says:

"This examination does not constitute an audit of B.C. Ferries. Many of the figures contained in this report are estimates, and those relating to wage negotiations, fuel prices and traffic volumes depend upon a number of assumptions which are largely conjectural in nature."

[ Page 188 ]

Price Waterhouse repeats that same message:

"The estimates contain important assumptions, such as those relating to wage negotiations which have only just commenced, fuel prices and traffic volumes. The actual 1976-77 revenue and expenditures could be significantly changed from the estimates depending on the validity of these assumptions."

So while I'm sure these figures will be referred to again and again in the budget debate and in estimates, I think it's important at the outset to get that fact established, that we're dealing with many factors which are merely assumptions or conjectures.

I would hope, if the minister enters this debate on the throne speech, that he would give us some comment on the projected use or increased use of the ferry system if rates are increased, or whether he has two or three options — that if you double them, the use will be such and such; if you triple them, or if you increase it by 50 per cent...or whatever, because there's one very important figure in that report. It states that the average passenger-vehicle revenues have increased by an average of 10 per cent over the past five years. But in 1975-76 the vehicle growth was 5 per cent, the passenger growth was 3.7 per cent, and that's with the rates as they are right now. So I think the whole concept of appearing to increase rates simply to reduce the deficit has some very dangerous fallacies if we assume that everybody will continue to use it as frequently if you triple or quadruple the rates.

I think we have to remember the $1.49 concept, that the only reason prices are reduced in stores is to try and attract more people in. I think the reverse can happen — that if you put the price up too high, the customers don't show.

So I hope that as part of the minister's plans for the ferries that he will look at the question of incentives in an attempt to increase the use of ferries at times where they are customarily not well filled. On top of the figures I have just quoted, the report says that the B.C. ferry system itself estimates in 1975-76 an increase of 10 per cent in summer traffic and 15 per cent in off-season traffic. This seems to me a very optimistic estimate.

The last point I think is very well worthwhile making, because it relates to another principle that we've touched on this afternoon, and that's unemployment. The ferries report makes it plain that scheduled overtime is normal, that the scheduling of employees takes into regular, continuing account the fact that most, if not all, of them work overtime and have negotiated a 35-hour week.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't object to anybody, as an employee, trying to get the best bargain they can for their labour. That's what collective bargaining is all about. But I think to take this approach, that a 35-hour week will be the accepted norm on the ferry system and then pay a high number of the employees overtime, raises many questions.

At the bottom of page 10 of the report, talking about eliminating overtime — excuse me, on a previous page — the point is made on page 9 about regularly scheduled overtime. If overtime on the ferries was eliminated, B.C. Ferries would have to hire between 400 and 600 new employees. The next sentence really stops you short in your tracks: "This in itself would not significantly increase costs. It could cause a substantial reduction in the take-home pay of the employees who would no longer be working overtime."

The report, just to finish that paragraph, reads that B.C. Ferries believes that such a reduction in take-home pay would not be acceptable to the affected employees, and that some alternative arrangements would be required.

But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this should be brought out for public discussion and a lot of debate in this House, because we're talking about unemployment, and on the Island it is as serious as in any other part of British Columbia. Here we have one area where a collective agreement has provided a work week of 35 hours when the job just cannot be done in 35 hours.

I know I will win no popularity contest with the present employees on the ferries when I say that from the economy's point of view as a whole, if any employee wants to negotiate 35 hours, it should not be with the little reassuring condition that, of course, the job cannot be done in that time and that they will automatically be paid overtime at a much higher rate. It seems to me, both ethically and economically, to make a great deal more sense that if it's a 35-hour week, so be it. If you need another 400 to 600 employees to complete the monthly work, or the weekly work, or the daily work, then this would provide much-needed employment.

Mr. Speaker, I realize I've talked a long time, but as the one representative of the party in this House, I feel that it is not unreasonable to try and cover what I see to be many of the main issues arising from the throne speech. I appreciate your very courteous attention to my efforts.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place in this debate and to make a few observations which I trust will be of interest to you.

May I first of all, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your elevation to Speaker of this Legislature, and also, with your permission, to your Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). I wish both of you well in maintaining relative order and calm in this occasionally stressful place.

Perhaps as someone who's been here for just a

[ Page 189 ]

short while longer than the new members, I could offer my own congratulations to newly elected members from December 11th on both sides of the House. I know that they will come to feel, as I did very quickly, that it is indeed a privilege to participate in the activities on the floor of this assembly, and to represent a provincial constituency, even when the workload is heavy and the hours are long and the days seem to stretch on into a typically beautiful Saanich and the Islands spring.

Before I turn to the main point I wish to make today I think that it should be noticed that the government caucus offers, among other talents, extremely strong representation in terms of previous municipal and/or regional district experience and, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I certainly welcome that aspect of the talent and skill which is being brought to the government side of this House.

I realize that you are not a member of the caucus, Mr. Speaker, but I note also that you've had municipal experience. The list for the government side includes the hon. members for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree), Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt), Kootenay (Mr. Haddad), Fort George (Mr. Lloyd), Victoria (Mr. Bawlf), Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), the Minister of Consumer Services, Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Health, Omineca (Mr. Kempf), Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Labour, Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the Minister of Human Resources, and Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), Minister of Highways & Public Works. Indeed, I'm very pleased that the Minister of Highways & Public Works shares with me another little note regarding local government in British Columbia and that is life membership in the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I think that when representatives of the UBCM are appearing before the caucus or a committee of caucus or the municipal affairs committee they will have very sympathetic hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I have found that there are so many things that I would like to speak about today that I really want to narrow down to just one or two, participating in this debate and hitting on what I think may be one of the problem areas which typifies the problems which we have all encountered. I have found, as I am sure that all other ministers in this new government have found, that we have inherited an almost incredible mess — a mess, Mr. Speaker. Quite apart from preparing for this session in terms of estimates and legislation, from meeting with all the delegations which understandably seek appointments with new ministers in a new government after a general election, a significant portion of our time has been taken up in an effort to untangle so many of the problems which were left by the departing government.

We are quite clearly, quite accurately described, for the first part of our mandate at least, as a clean-up crew, I think that activity, unfortunately, is going to have to carry on for several months before we're able to introduce the policies and programmes which we believe are important to the people of British Columbia and the province as a whole.

Last Friday, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), in his capacity as minister responsible for ICBC, graphically outlined, and then a number of us debated, the difficulties with which he was faced in his first weeks of ministry. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure him, through you, he is not alone,

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Oh, poor fellow.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In both departments — in housing and municipal affairs — we continue to uncover an incredibly long list of unfinished tasks, instances of poorly considered or uncoordinated activities. It would be tempting indeed to talk today for as long as the clock would permit to outline all of them. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a few minutes to speak to you and to the House about public transit and motor coach service as operated by the Province of British Columbia, because, in my view, it is typical of the problems which confronted this new government in its first 90 days in office.

I was pleased to note, as my later remarks will, I hope indicate, in the throne speech the statement by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: "Members of this assembly will be asked to consider legislation which will establish for the first time a provincial auditor-general. This office will provide an independent watchdog over the finances of the province which will guard us against errors of the past." Errors of the past — and they can be documented in my departments as well.

During the month of February, as you know, Mr. Speaker, it was revealed in Clarkson, Gordon and Co's report to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) that capital expenditures and firm commitments — firm commitments, not far off in the distance — had exceeded the amount authorized by this Legislature of $42 million.

Now of this, Mr. Speaker, $25,274,161 has been provided in recent weeks by special warrant to meet bills which were stacking up in the Department of Municipal Affairs, or in the various consultants' firms associated with some of the transit activities of this province.

Detailed discussion of departmental estimates will take place later on during this session, and government fiscal policy will be revealed at the time of the presentation of the budget by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

Nevertheless, as the minister responsible, as of December 22 last, for the administration of transit

[ Page 190 ]

services, I feel obliged at the earliest opportunity — which is today — to report to this House on the state of affairs as I found them on assuming office.

With your permission, just a little bit of background relating to statutes, Mr. Speaker. There are several Acts which are intended to govern or guide the minister responsible for transit. The Provincial Transit Fund Act, which was originally known as the Third Crossing Fund Act, in 1968 placed $27 million aside in a fund for, as I say, the third crossing. This was given a name change in 1974 and, Mr. Speaker, the $27 million was completely expended by that group over there, by the NDP government.

The Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act was adopted in 1972 to provide assistance to municipalities and regional districts involved in public transit. The Transit Services Act, adopted in 1974, is the principal Act, as I see it, governing transit activities; and by order-in-council, as it will be realized, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the minister charged with the administration of this Act.

The members will know that the minister so designated has very wide powers under this Act, and it's my intention, Mr. Speaker, to introduce — at an appropriate time — amendments which will have the effect of limiting these very powers. So much for the legislation.

In view of the many millions of dollars, multi-millions of dollars of public funds being expended or committed on public transit, motor-coach operation and so on, it seems that one would naturally expect to find a fairly sophisticated organization, a structure in place to ensure that expenditures were in accordance with amounts authorized by this House, and that the activity was conducted in an orderly and efficient manner.

Does that not seem reasonable? It's a multi-million dollar operation; you'd have that kind of structure in place, and you would make sure all the parts were working all together and coordination was there. No, it was not.

It is my hope, and I think it's the hope of this government, that the gross over-expenditures which have now come to light in recent weeks were not a deliberate disregard of the budgetary constraints placed on the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) in the approved estimates for his department for the fiscal year just ending.

It's been very difficult for us, Mr. Speaker, to evaluate the activities of those who were in elected positions of responsibility, let alone justify the logic of some of the decisions taken or decisions left on the table.

For example: the former Minister of Municipal Affairs in the New Democratic government, through the bureau of transit, acquired a number of formerly independent bus companies. It's a lengthy list. It seemed, as we were uncovering it, to go on and on.

Now these are Victoria-based companies, almost without exception, under an umbrella established by the former government, an umbrella company named TS Holdings Limited, and the list includes — and these are all provincial companies, owned by the Crown: Vancouver Island Transit Ltd., Thompson-Okanagan Transit Ltd., VIT Holdings Ltd., Vancouver Island Transportation Co. Ltd., Vancouver Island Coach Lines Ltd., Imperial Charter Service Co. Ltd., Gray Line and Empress Taxi and Sightseeing Co. Ltd., British Columbia Parlour Car Tours Ltd., and British Columbia Tours Ltd.

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, we are still, to the very best of our ability, and with the assistance of senior departmental people, trying to determine the rationale behind all of these acquisitions. Some of them are understandable; all of them are not.

The position is much the same in centres such as Prince Rupert, Kamloops, Trail and others. But here, Mr. Speaker, in the case of these communities, other than metro Vancouver and metro Victoria, the real tragedy is that transit planning in those communities remained in a turmoil, an absolute turmoil, caused first of all by meddling in local affairs and not establishing proper relations with the municipal council or the regional districts, or both in some cases, and also by the almost total absence of any organizational structure to administer the acquisitions.

I found it necessary, Mr. Speaker, very soon after assuming my duties, to seek approval....

AN HON. MEMBER: To take a bus ride?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You took the province for a ride, all right! I found it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to seek cabinet approval for the appointment of a special adviser, W.K. Smith, retired Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, for a period of three months at least.

Cabinet quickly granted that approval and I hoped that Mr. Smith would be in a position to examine a variety of programmes and policies relating to the Department of Municipal Affairs.

I can tell you and this House that the very large percentage of his time, and others in the department, has been taken up with sorting out this transit tangle which was left.

We have a situation that would read as poor fiction. I think that it must be especially frustrating to municipal councils and residents of a number of communities. But Kamloops is just one, Mr. Minister. Kamloops comes to mind immediately. These communities now must wait, unfortunately, for the provision of transit service. I regret that the delay has occurred, particularly when expectations were raised to the point where individuals expected to see, Mr.

[ Page 191 ]

Member, a bus coming around the comer within the next day or two. The vehicles are there, the men are able to operate the system — just hang on, stay tuned, Mr. Member.

Again, Mr. Speaker, negotiations were not complete. All the pieces of the operation were not put together, and still the impression was given by the former government that the service was about to start. It was: "Okay, gentlemen and ladies, we'll have the bus running down the street in just a few days."

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Then you fellows came in.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Members of the former government in this House, in my view, Mr. Speaker, should apologize to individuals in those communities, for permitting the communities to be misled, to expect transit service when some of them at least, Mr. Speaker, knew that the service could not be provided right away and when it was known, as with ICBC, that the money was not there to pay for the service. We'll see if there's an apology....

Well, Mr. Speaker, now it's important, I think, to turn to the part played by British Columbia Hydro. While I have no responsibility for B.C. Hydro in this House, that being the responsibility of the Minister of Transport and Communications, I want to speak about that Crown corporation in the context of its transit activities only.

MR. LAUK: Got his permission?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As a matter of fact, I don't know how you handled it, but we're very courteous to each other. As a matter of courtesy I checked with the Minister of Transport and Communications and indicated to him in advance that this was what I intended to do. I'm speaking about Hydro transit only, Mr. Speaker.

The transit division of B.C. Hydro employs something in excess of 3,500 individuals in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria, engaged in all areas of what we commonly call public transportation. Many of these people have long and valuable experience in this field, years of experience built up in the operation of buses, trolley buses and other vehicles, and it's difficult for me as a new Minister in a new government to understand why some recognition was not given to this fund of knowledge and expertise — why it was ignored or overlooked.

It's very clear from the record which has been made available to me that there was no intention whatever at any time on the part of my predecessor in this ministry of consulting or permitting the consultation — meaningful consultation, at least — with the knowledgeable people of Hydro Transit, Pacific Stage Lines, Vancouver Island Coach Lines, or anyone else fully familiar with transit problems in British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, relating to an acquisition which took place — I'm subject to correction a month or two either way — about 18 months ago, the general manager of that particular transit operation came to my office — it was the first time he had been near a minister's office — regarding a government acquisition in transit.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What was his name? What was his name?

HON. MR. CURTIS: So that's the problem, one of the problems that we have encountered: this disregard of British Columbia Hydro's transit capabilities and expertise. Similarly, and this is of concern to me, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and its member municipalities, and the capital regional district and its member municipalities, were almost totally ignored. The member last night spoke about this. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) spoke about this with respect to the city of North Vancouver, and he nods in agreement. That's just one case, Mr. Member, of member municipalities and the regional districts almost totally ignored by those responsible for transit through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

They wanted to contribute. They were willing to expend the effort to put positive input into transit planning in the areas which they represent, Small wonder that the elected people at the local government level became completely frustrated in their efforts to resolve the many problems relating to regional transit. In fact, as I said earlier, that frustration extended into the most senior offices of B.C. Hydro itself.

MR. LAUK: Why don't you tell us his name?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You'll hear in due course, Mr. Member. You had three and a half years. We haven't had three and a half months.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the interjection is so poor as to be beyond humour. We have some solutions. But first of all we have to uncover the problems, and that is what we have been doing for these 90 days plus.

I want to go back to 1973, Mr. Speaker, to briefly quote from a letter from the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, to Mr. David Cass-Beggs, chairman of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority: "... and it would appear that things were going to work very, very well. I write to...."

[ Page 192 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it was probably before the pension. We'll never really know, will we?

"I write to officially advise you and the board of directors of the public transportation programmes of the province of British Columbia, and to outline how we would wish these to relate to the various transit and motor coach operations of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority."

At the bottom of this first page of the letter from Mr. Lorimer to Mr. Cass-Beggs:

"We will be pleased to maintain close liaison with the B.C. Hydro managers of Victoria and Vancouver transit operations in this programme."

And the closing paragraph:

"In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are anxious to go forward with our new objectives for public transit in British Columbia. We are well into the difficult stage of working out the organizational form, responsibilities and financial arrangements for public transit. May I close with the thought that we have the continuing cooperation and assistance of B.C. Hydro during the programme. Yours sincerely."

That was May 8, 1973.

MR. GIBSON: Would you table that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This is my working copy. I'll certainly table the letter, happily., Mr. Member. That was May, 1973.

MR. LAUK: '73? What are you going to do?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Several days later the alarm went up, This is a memorandum from Mr. David Cass-Beggs, to Mr. J.W. Wilson, in B.C. Hydro. Attached is a copy of the Hon. James G. Lorimer's letter of May 8.

"The letter makes it abundantly clear that while the physical operation, maintenance and financial responsibility for the public transit systems is to remain, at least for the time being, with B.C. Hydro, all matters pertaining to the design and planning of the system are transferred to the bureau of transit."

Later in the letter:

"At no point does the letter" — that is, Mr. Lorimer's — "suggest that the bureau is in any sense advisory to the transportation authority, namely, B.C. Hydro. It is quite clear that in all matters but day-to-day operation, the bureau has been given the management prerogatives. It is quite unrealistic to assume that Hydro or the board of directors have in fact any latitude in this matter. This position, as spelled out in the letter, is entirely new to me. Possibly all the details were determined before I assumed the appointment as chairman. If I had been informed of the plans at an earlier stage I would certainly have pointed out the more obvious difficulties in proceeding in this fashion.

"The great difficulty I see in this procedure is that management" — of Hydro, that is, Mr. Speaker — "is, in effect, decapitated, and B.C. Hydro and the board of Hydro are left with financial responsibility, and responsibility in the eyes of the public for running a system which in fact it does not control, The board is going to be in a position of rubber-stamping programmes. While it is quite possible to maintain the day-to-day operations of the system, it will soon become evident to both the employees and the public that B.C. Hydro is, in effect, not in control."

Interesting close to this letter, this memorandum from Mr. Cass-Beggs to Mr. Wilson:

"The foregoing is material which I may embody in a letter to the minister, after considerable editing, and probably, no doubt, toning down. It expresses my present view of the situation which, however, may be modified by discussion with yourself and others who have a better appreciation of the problems in B.C. and of the government's solution to them."

Well, Mr. Speaker, that was 1973....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The suggestion from the minister to the chairman of Hydro at that time was that everything was going to be great, communication was going to be fine. It did not work out, Mr. Speaker. It did not work out.

MR. GIBSON: Are you going to table the letter?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Here is a letter to me from J.W. Wilson, director of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. This is January 7, as we started to sort out this incredible situation relating to transit, commitments made in other communities, the problems with Hydro, and the problems with the companies which had been acquired:

"Dear Mr. Curtis:

"Following my visit to you in your office yesterday, I write to document a number of the matters which we discussed.

"Despite constant prodding, the last government never made its position clear on Hydro's transit deficits, although it was understood from the beginning that Hydro would not be left to carry the mounting deficit.

[ Page 193 ]

The most precise statement we ever got is recorded in the board minutes of September 8, 1975: 'The minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources informed the directors that B.C. Hydro can expect to receive a total of not less than $12 million as a transit subsidy front the Crown for the current fiscal year.'

"We were never, at any time, informed of the broader plans of the bureau of transit or its overall budget."

And the closing paragraph of this particular letter:

"I trust that these comments will be of assistance to you.

"If we had spent some time in the classic bureaucratic exercise of protecting our rear during the last three years we would have been able to provide you with many examples of the cavalier treatment which the Hydro transit operation received from the bureau backed by its minister."

A minister, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, who was also of course, as you know, on the Hydro board of directors.

AN HON. MEMBER: A real tiger.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This brought me to write to the Premier and members of this cabinet on January 14, pointing out the mess that we had uncovered.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Right on!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have at great length, and I think time prohibits me from reading it, a memorandum from William H. Boyce, C.A., departmental comptroller in the Department of Municipal Affairs, January 16, 1976.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Boyce, finally given an opportunity by a new minister, by a newly appointed deputy minister, to get down to the bottom of the transit confusion in British Columbia, says at the bottom of the first page:

"It should be pointed out that while the writer has not at this point gone beyond the point of reclassifying for immediate purposes the status of various types of financial involvements, he has at the same time gathered a wealth of background information concerning the basic concepts of the bureau of transit services, its organizational pattern, its personnel, and its long-range plans. Much of this information, I feel sure, was prepared for your predecessor, Mr. Lorimer, but has not been known generally to other officers of the Department of Municipal Affairs.

"It is evident, I think, that new channels of communication are required in addition to new standards of financial control."

This is a career public servant speaking: "new standards of financial control."

"As departmental comptroller, I would be interested in pursuing this latter function as soon as the question of authority and future bureau of transit services activity is clarified..."

Mr. Speaker, this is only part of the story.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Same old mess.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "...without in any way detracting from the seriousness or extent of the other areas of expenditures which were not approved by this House."

Not approved by this Legislature.

HON, MR. BENNETT: Shocking!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Let me recite just a few facts relating to the Burrard Inlet ferries which you didn't hear about during the last session, during any discussion, but which you've learned something about through the news media.

Commitments and actual expenditures made by the former government amounted to $19 million for the construction of ferries and docking facilities. It's estimated that a further expenditure of $10 million would be required before these ferries will become operational. These amounts do not include, Mr. Member, any allowance for any operating deficits which may arise from the operation of these ferries. Nor do they include any amounts which inevitably are going to have to be expended for bus service connections at both terminals, North Vancouver city and in Vancouver, and other related activities.

I think we conclude that the amount of operating loss is going to be substantial, In view of the amount expended to date, in view of a very careful review undertaken by British Columbia Hydro, by the Department of Municipal Affairs, information provided by the bureau of transit, it appeared that really we had no choice, Mr. Speaker, but to continue with the project. I hope it will be a good project.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hope it will be a good project, but that does not excuse the former government for spending money without the authority of this Legislature. That's what makes me angry, and that's what makes the people of British Columbia angry — expenditure without authority.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic

[ Page 194 ]

Development): Dictatorships!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Expenditure without authority. I hope the service will prove satisfactory, and I hope the service will be well used by the people of B.C., but that does not erase the initial error.

MR. MACDONALD: You should ask for a transfer.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, my reference to the ferries, being just part of the story, refers to the fact that while a capital over-expenditure of $42 million for a variety of transit activities, including the ferries, is exceedingly high — $42 million over-expenditure — it is not as high....

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. CURTIS: A $42 million over-expenditure in money spent for commitments made by the former government for transit, including ferries. It does not include the projected operating deficits of all the various systems, including Hydro, for the coming year, which are estimated to be in the area of $60 million, and that figure could be low.

The total transit programme, Mr. Speaker, the total transit programme over the past two or three years by that government when it was sitting over here can best be described as a galaxy of errors. A galaxy of errors! There is no excuse for ignoring the authority and supremacy of this Legislature. We have under study several proposals relating to transit planning and operation...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Backward politics.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...and to relate these more closely to areas which the transit systems will serve, possibly through the creation, and I emphasize possibly, through the creation of a Crown corporation which will have substantial input, active input, and representation from the municipalities and/or regional districts involved where transit systems will be in operation.

Let no member on that side of the House suggest otherwise. This government is cognizant of, is aware of and recognizes the importance of public transit, motor-coach service — whatever form it may take — not only in the two metropolitan areas, but in other parts of the province as well.

Within the limits of our resources, and where there is proven public demand, transit or motor-coach service will be provided. But to reflect again briefly on the past, Mr. Speaker, that group, having decided to greatly expand transit services in the metro areas and in other communities in British Columbia.... Did it never occur to the former government — to the former Minister of Municipal Affairs — that very careful, well-prepared coordination was essential if the expansion was to take place in proper sequence and with the best possible use of public dollars? Not the NDP's dollars, public dollars — that's what we're here for.

Where was the accountability? Where was the accountability, Mr. Speaker? Where was the realization that the bills had to be paid? I was presented with stacks of invoices within a few days of taking office, mainly related to the Burrard ferry system, bills which had not been paid from October and earlier, during that group's administration.

Of far greater importance than the dollars themselves is the degree to which this Legislature was ignored and circumvented. Never again, Mr. Speaker, never again, regardless of the party in power, should British Columbia approach this or any other problem in the manner which we have uncovered in the last 90 days in the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Never again! Never again should that type of authority, that broad authority, be given to one minister or two ministers, and certainly never again should one branch of one department of the provincial government be permitted to conceive, to commit funds for and to partially activate new and extremely costly programmes in almost total isolation and without regard for the supremacy and the spending authority of this Legislature.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order. I have no wish to interrupt the minister in the course of his very interesting speech, but I would ask him.... He cited a number of documents: first a letter which he specifically agreed to table; thereafter a letter from Mr. Cass-Beggs to Mr. Wilson; a further letter to the minister from an author I did not hear, and then further, a memorandum from Mr. William Boyce of January 16, 1976, and another which he might consider private, a letter from the minister to the Premier and his cabinet colleagues. I wonder if he would be prepared to table these documents in the Legislature.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the one to which I referred relating to my memorandum to the Premier and members of the cabinet is, I consider, a confidential document. I will certainly table those documents which I feel will be of assistance to the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Yes. I was looking at the list that we had on the end tables, Mr. Speaker, and it confused me. I thought there was a typographical error, and I guess I was right, according to the list. That's fine. Just give me a

[ Page 195 ]

second, please.

First of all, I would like to recognize the presence of a friend, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't really quite ready, but I am getting ready. I've got to find out the name of the person, and I want to ask the House's indulgence while I attempt to do what is, perhaps, a little irregular in attempting to....

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you're not ready, do you want to come back tomorrow?

MR. BARNES: That's all right now, Mr. Premier. You be nice. I stand in good humour this afternoon.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're never ready.

MR. BARNES: I don't intend to say anything that would be uncomplimentary; I merely wish to stand up and make a few observations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House if it would permit me to recognize the presence of a person whom I haven't seen for about 27 years. I am not sure if he and his wife are in the galleries this afternoon, but I know they were scheduled to be here.

Dr. Thomas N. Poulson, PhD., professor at Portland State University, was in the graduating class, along with myself and his wife, in June of 1949, a long time ago. I forgot he existed until he came in the chamber the other day. At least, he was outside, and he said: "Do you remember me?" It is amazing how some people get old — I look the same, but I don't know what happened to him. His two fine teenage children were with him, one daughter and one son. I would just like, for the record, to recognize his attendance in the proceedings of this Legislature yesterday. I believe he may have been here at one time or the other, and I am going to send him a copy of Hansard so that he will know that one of his ex-classmates is now doing a service on a broader scale instead of on the football field. That was a long time ago.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want me to write your speech?

MR. BARNES: Now you behave yourself.

I promised, Mr. Speaker, that I would only stand to make some observations, and make no attempt to be insulting or demeaning, because I feel that this is a very serious time that we are faced with. I am very cognizant of the throne speech and the points that were attempted to be put forward by the Lieutenant-Governor in giving direction to the government.

I can assure you that my impression of that document, lean though it was in some areas, but not in all areas.... Certainly it didn't leave anything to be desired; it had something to say. Not to be suggesting that it hasn't considerable way to go, because I think you had some 100 things that you intended to do during the campaign of last December, and which you suggested we could all look forward to seeing. I don't expect that it will happen overnight.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Five years.

MR. BARNES: I am just going to comment this afternoon on some of the things as I saw them and not go through again those promises, at least not all of them, although they were considerable.

I listened with great interest last night to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who took the time to enumerate one by one the many promises that the government intended to follow through with. But let's just take a look at a list of some of the excerpts I took from the throne speech.

I must say, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, if your government is able to follow through unerringly with this limited plan, I'll have a very difficult time voting against you.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't believe this House should be divided. I think we are all here to do the people's business, and I don't think there is anyone in this House that would disagree. Sometimes we get carried away and we yell for "division". We want to try and expose certain members of this House as having partisan views, not willing to work collectively towards the furtherance of various forms of work that we've all been charged to carry out.

Here is a statement, the first one I note from the throne speech debate:

"British Columbia is in a period when both government and the private sector must practise restraint, when the demands that each makes on the other must be reduced, and all must strive to bring greater effort to bear on the problems which beset our province, Leaders in both sectors must set the example...."

Now how can I vote against something like that, Mr. Speaker?

Let's take a took at some examples. The government, ICBC — we discussed that already on an amendment. (Laughter.) I don't want to raise that, Mr. Speaker, but, you know, let me see what I've got here on that. I might have something here that might help us to elucidate a bit. Oh, here is an interesting....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hallucinate?

MR. BARNES: No, not hallucinate — elucidate, or something like that.

The Anti-Inflation Board was raised as a matter of serious concern by the B.C. Teachers Federation in

[ Page 196 ]

their newsletter just recently, and they were upset. Now they represent the working people. Now this is a group of people who are out to make sure that our youngsters receive a proper opportunity, through training and education, to participate in our economy and in our society. But these teachers are very upset.

They agree with the idea that both government and the private sector should work together collectively to try and exercise restraint, but the government has got them upset. They're worried. They feel that they have been given one side of the proposition and the principle that we should work collectively because they're suspicious that the Premier, and certain of his cabinet ministers, made a trip back to Ottawa and made a deal with the Anti-Inflation Board.

I know you wouldn't do it, and I don't believe you did it, Mr. Premier, because there is no evidence of it in anything I've read from your office. But they're upset. They think that there was. They believe that somebody said ICBC should be exempt from the AIB but that we're stuck.

Now I don't know how that happened, but the idea that you have here in your throne speech makes sense, and I agree with it. I don't want to find any faults.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

MR. BARNES: I am sure that the Hon. Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) will be glad to jump up and try to clarify this to us, and I am sure that the people from BCTF as well will be just as anxious to hear your explanation.

But I'll tell you that most important of all of this, the drivers of British Columbia are going to be interested to hear what you've got to say, because they're the ones who have to pay.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: The BCTF is only saying that they think that you have two standards: one for yourselves and one for the working man.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: But as far as the people who have the insurance out there, who can't afford to buy proper coverage — because, you know, it costs too much money — they're just barely getting by. They bought PL and PD; that's all they can afford — property damage and public liability. That just barely gets them through so they won't get sued for their last sou, but they can't afford to buy any collision, not at those prices. Don't start to talk about comprehensive.

You know what you've done? You say: "Well, we're making it possible for you to have alternatives. You have a choice now. Nothing is compulsory, exactly..."

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Nothing is free, either.

MR. BARNES: "...just a little bit. So we say you can choose." But you've actually forced people to become criminals because they're now breaking the law. They are being forced to be irresponsible. Pardon me, I guess they're not breaking the law, because you're not making it necessary for them to have collision. I'm sorry, I'll retract that, Mr. Speaker.

But you have made it totally incumbent upon them to decide whether they are going to protect the public, and you know that you should take that responsibility.

But that's quite an interesting thing that you've done anyway, because what has happened is that even the agents are getting more money when you've cut them down. You say, "Well, you're getting less percentage now." But less percentage of more is still more.

Anyway, I liked what you said in your throne speech. It was an excellent statement. I would like to support it, but if we were voting section by section, I would have no say on that particular count: "Not this time. But don't give up."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, there's another one:

"My government agrees that security of employment is the only effective income security that a free citizen can afford for the vast majority of its citizens."

Well, again, I think that we should all have job security. But not all of us out there agree that that's the case either. Again, the hon. member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) — I believe that's the correct constituency, the Minister of Consumer Services — doesn't even need travel expenses. He doesn't have to worry about it. Doesn't need an automobile on behalf of the people because he's in good shape. But just let me take a look at some of the people who aren't.

West End Services to Seniors. That's a group in my riding. They've been doing all kinds of things; they're very upset.

HON. MR. MAIR: Have you got a car, Emery?

MR. BARNES: Getting our priorities straight. This is for those 65 and up. I think there's something also in this long speech that says "we're going to look after those senior citizens, too." We'll see, I might get around to that. I just want to make a few points; I'm

[ Page 197 ]

not going to stay too long, Mr. Speaker, Don't worry. I think you get the message.

They say that about 400 of our west-end people, fragile elderly citizens, are in danger of losing considerable essential attention from the West End Senior Citizens Service, and if that happens we shall all scream at the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

AN HON. MEMBER: Not again!

MR. BARNES: I don't think that they should pick on him. I'm sure he's getting pressure from his colleagues to cut costs.

HON. MR. MAIR: Pick on the people that caused the problem.

MR. BARNES: It is very difficult, I'm sure, for people who think of balancing budgets and actuarial charts and schedules. It gets difficult because they think in terms of: "Well, if we're going to expand something, we've got to find some way to generate something." I guess it's difficult, when it comes to people, to find out what you're generating. You've got to try and say: "Well, how do we equate human values?" Also, Mr. Speaker, I noticed something about human values in that throne speech. There was some reference to youth as being our most important resource. But now how do you equate that attitude with that one where you tell them they will be relegated to something less than equal citizens when it comes to automobile insurance if they are 25 years of age and under? That's confusing, but I'm sure that you've got it all worked out on your charts.

I didn't bother to bring in the large box of petitions that I have from these people. But, as I told you the other day, they aren't going to forget. Believe me, they won't. I think you should be concerned about that because I don't think you went out on a campaign to unjustly treat these young people. I think you sincerely were attempting to work out a scheme whereby you could live in good conscience and with responsibility for providing a programme that would work for the people of British Columbia. But you just don't understand.

MR, J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): We will; stick around.

MR. BARNES: It's not a question of, I think, entirely malicious intent — although you are capable of being ruthless if you're put to it. I know that.

Let me tell you something, my friends. I don't think any of us in here really want to do any harm to our constituents. It's just that sometimes we think that we are personally ordained — privately, singularly or collectively — with this exclusive skill and right to do the directing, and sometimes when we get like that we don't listen any more. I know that we don't mean to not listen; we just get carried away with our own ambition, with our own plans.

But we should listen. You had people standing out there trying to knock the door down to tell you: "Don't raise those rates."

HON. MR. MAIR: You fumbled it.

MR. BARNES: Don't raise those rates.

MR. KEMPF: Don't you agree with that?

MR. BARNES: Let me tell you, my friends, we'll see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Half the province is still NDP.

MR. BARNES: That's all right. "Recognizes the urgent need to look after the health care needs of all the province's young people," it says, "Our greatest resource." Well, that really doesn't need very much comment. Not if you're a young person, and especially those who are really in need of enlightenment in our schools.

You know, when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) stands up and says to those people who were here for the women's rally the other day: "Look, I was appalled" — pardon me, you may not have been appalled, but you used something to that extent — "that my son would take a cooking course. He must be nuts. The guy is crazy...."

I think he meant that well; he meant what he said. But like I said before, we've got to educate the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: You know, that's all; we've just got to educate.

Now you know, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, you and I should really compare notes some time because I have three daughters and one son. You see, I had to be adjusted and developed early. I had to learn, because I was a football player — all that he-man stuff you know — raised down in the States where you get 'em, boy. You know, you tear 'em up. Then I get all these daughters — all these daughters come along, you see. So I had to get an education at an early age. You must have all sons.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Two and two.

MR, BARNES: What, aren't your daughters

[ Page 198 ]

talking yet? (Laughter.) You just wait my friend. That's all right, we all got to have a good time; we all gotta learn. I'm sure in the end the people of British Columbia will benefit. (Laughter.)

That's all right.

But that's right. We're not going to get irresponsible in this House, and I'm sure that although you rather hastily dismissed that young lady that was the adviser to the Department of Education on sexism...I think you fired her and hired her, wasn't it? But she's not doing anything, is she? He brought her back until June?

Well, what you should do really is say: "Look, we've looked it over and, really, maybe there is some validity in having ongoing investigations in that." Even if there's the remotest possibility that young people are being "teached" that they can relate to each other purely on sexual impressions and interpretations instead of as human beings, we want to try and rectify that; and if there are any of those books around, any literature that would cause young people's minds to be confused, we want to change it. Oh yes, it's very cheap too. She's working by herself, isn't she? Not that much money involved.

Why would you do that? You guys shouldn't do that. That's not nice, you know, not really nice at all.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: But I would think that you would be very anxious to save that programme like.... Mr. Member from Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), somehow this afternoon you're my favorite. Maybe it's because you have one of the most important portfolios of all. I'm going to ask you some other things too, related to consumers.

He's talking about the days, Mr. Speaker, before we involved ourselves in the serious business of taking care of the public's affairs. You see, we used to do all kinds of little things on the side, and I'm sure we will continue to have enlightening experiences in exchange.

I would suggest that you might want to seriously think about this adviser to the Department of Education who now has a job until June but no terms of reference in relation to what she was doing before she was discharged. Because what she was doing, in fact, was ancillary to your portfolio. She was helping you, because if she is successful in uncovering any evidence that there are misleading concepts being developed or perpetrated in the school system that impairs the thinking of young people in respect to their sex, then I would think you would be very concerned.

You know what you would do? You may be the leader in the field of liberating the minds of all of our young people from being brainwashed by those commercialists who try and tell them that "sex is where it's at, so forget about your mind and your morality and your soul; all we want to do is exploit." You might be able to save them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah?

MR. BARNES: Oh, yes, you might save them.

Now you know that some of your colleagues over there have exploited young ladies' legs, because they sell cars. They do sell cars, and I can tell you right now without looking at any paper, just right now — just go get a paper. We'll find somebody with pretty legs relaxing on top of a car trying to sell it. Now why is she sitting on top of the car? Why is she posing on top of the car?

Now you say you don't want that to happen. I know you don't want it to happen, but you've got to nail these guys and try and do it in a constructive way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's put you on top of the car and see what happens.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, you know, I said I wouldn't get excited because we're really just talking here you know, exchanging.... We've got a lot of work to do, and I think we should work together and try and communicate and share views and be positive about it, be as constructive as possible — if I can come to it for the hon. first or second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I may not get to it because I'm very poorly organized, as you know. I just let it all sort of go, you see. (Laughter.)

But I do have some notes here that relate to her particular decisions of recent date, and it's just a matter of whether I find them in time, because I set myself on a little bit of a limit. I don't want to talk too long.

It had to do with the termination of — what was it called? — the provincial coordinator for the Status of Women. Something to do with International Women's Year, I think it was. Again, like I say, we have great pressures to bear at all times, and sometimes we are quite hasty. But, you know, when this House reaches a point of rigidity when it can no longer reverse decisions and make changes and recognize misguided information and so forth — as you were fortunately able to reconsider respecting a recent grant of some $17,000 for a non-medical programme that you discovered was medical (laughter) — then I suggest that there is still some hope for the status of women.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: You never know. There may be some hope for them yet.

Now, not being in the government and having very

[ Page 199 ]

few lines of really significant liaison with the government, I have to express my humility and appreciation for you giving me attention. I do appreciate you listening and I hope that you will take under advisement the possibility of maybe reviewing again with the cabinet, in the very near future, the very serious repercussions of that decision to withdraw funds for a very important organization, and I don't think that it was a very costly one in the first place, in terms of economy. I think it was very, very modest when you consider the extent of the work that was being done.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Did you look at their brief, Madam Member? It was incredible the things that they were doing — the Status of Women. If I can find it (laughter) I would like to just read some of the things that they were doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You've read it, yes. Well, maybe we'll just do it for the record. (Laughter.)

I'll tell you, I sometimes remind myself of that absent-minded guy. I think he was a second cousin of Sherlock Holmes. I saw this thing on "Carry On." I don't watch television at nights, but I have been known to watch a few. Well, someone went in and complained to this inspector that there was a difficult problem that would need to be solved and he said: "Okay, that's fine. Sit down." He had books all over the place. On the floor was debris, bags and what not, here and there, but no filing cabinets. Things all over. The person began to speak and explain the situation.

He says: "Hold it! Hold it! I think I've got a clue. Hang on." So he proceeds, Mr. Speaker, to look underneath his desk, in his pockets, in his coat, all over the place, and finally he says: "Hold it!" And he looked underneath this piece of paper on the edge of the desk and said: "Ah, here it is, just what we were looking for." Now that's his filing system. Somehow, as long as no one moved anything he found it.

Now you be patient with me (laughter) and I'll find what I'm looking for. Here it is. Well, since he's read it, I'm not going to go through it all...

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: ...but it is incredible. It really is incredible. (Laughter.)

This brief contains...let's see. Oh, there are at least 12 or 15 pages of various programmes that they've been doing. Oh, no, that's the hon. member for South Peace — or is it North Peace? Which is it? Where is that hon. member a Minister of...what is your portfolio?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: South.

MR. BARNES: Now you've got Agriculture and you've got Economic Development, I think.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Oh, boy! How he used to dominate this side of the House. That guy would stand up there for 10 or 15 hours at a time (laughter) telling you that he was looking for his papers. (Laughter.) Incredible!

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's all right. That's all right. The people will have their just dues. They will have their just dues.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Number five on my list. To guarantee continuance of old-age pension supplements, The government will make the necessary adjustments to ensure that payments go only to those in genuine need. Now I've got to find my notes on that one. I've just got to because you see the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).... Now I'm going to get into the handicapped ones. That's really incredible. Maybe I'll read that one too.

"Social assistance cutbacks: The employables who move into low unemployment areas will no longer be eligible for welfare."

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Can I see the definition for what a low-unemployment area is? You've got that available, of course.

MR. LAUK: Since they've taken office — everywhere.

MR. BARNES: I'm sure that would have nothing to do with the freedom of movement in this free society of ours.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: The Department of Human Resources is drawing up maps designating low-employment areas, and Vancouver is being considered as one area where transients will be denied welfare. I know that is designed specifically to get rid of the first and second members for Vancouver Centre. You know, that's the kind of people we have there. You're trying to get rid of us — trying to get

[ Page 200 ]

Mr. Lau in here after all. (Laughter.) You know that you can't do that against our constituents.

We have lots of people who are moving in that Vancouver Centre riding all the time — people who are being moved out by the mayor and by the mayor's council, told that they are going to rezone so they are going to let them build a condominium there in one day. Those people can't find any stability, and you are telling them that they can't even have any subsistence if they live in the areas where there are people who are moving. That's not right. You talk about the privacy of the people in private sectors, and then you come imposing on the rights of people who live where they want to live. That's not right. So come on, that's taking bureaucracy a little too far.

You said you were going to be concerned about the people.

MR. LAUK: Work camps.

MR. BARNES: So what kind of concern have you really? What kind of concern? A team of 12 eligibility investigators will roam the province, investigation alleged welfare infractions. Isn't that something? Man, oh, man! What are we coming to? I hope you get what you're after. Persons disqualified from unemployment insurance will not be eligible for welfare. Boy! Tough!

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Well, that wouldn't hurt. The member from...Terrace is it? — Cyril Shelford? Well, it was a little while ago that I think he was trying to claim some, when he was a member in the Legislature and got defeated. Who was that? Maybe it wasn't him. Skillings it was; I know it was one of those hon. members of the past. But you see, maybe we should come out with some welfare or something for us, because we are only here a short time,

AN HON. MEMBER: Get him a shovel, a retroactive shovel.

MR. BARNES: Yes, well....

People waiting for unemployment insurance may receive welfare for a maximum of two weeks, How did you come up with that figure? Why not 2½ weeks? Be reasonable! Or do you think you could make it a week and a half? Well, anyway, you've come up with all these figures; you've been doing it with ICBC, you may as well keep doing it.

You sure know how to emasculate their human dignity. You show no respect whatsoever for human individuality. Put them all together — two weeks here, a week there — it doesn't make any difference. Oh, man, oh, man!

Then we go right here on the list — regulations for the handicapped persons. He said that income on large programmes have been tightened to include only those with permanent disabilities. And, by God, I'd hate to see anybody who's half-dead. If you're in half-trouble, that's no good; go all the way and you get nothing. If you have a mental problem and you're impaired, and you are not seriously handicapped, that's too bad; it's not permanent. There's always hope that you might be able to be rehabilitated. That's what you're saying, isn't it? It's too cold, my friend, but I know you mean well. Again, you are trying to do the right thing.

Go ahead and save your dollars, my friend — show no respect for compassion. Allow no room, no flexibility. Close the door; get those books balanced.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it's just incredible, you know — such a beautiful throne speech. Indeed, one which I am desperately trying to find some way in which I would vote for it, because I would like to hold the government to that. I would like to hold them to that, but if they keep behaving the way they are, I just can't see how they can possibly come through.

Now they've got a cute little situation here. They are going to have what they call the B.C. Deficit Repayment Act. Well, you know....

HON. MR. MAIR: It's your Act; I hope you vote for it.

MR. BARNES: Let me see if I can find something on that.

The Premier has said, shortly after taking office, that he didn't think that Crown corporations should receive any subsidy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that!

MR. BARNES: Yes, he did. He is against grants of any sort to any kind of group that should be able to make it on its own, except for those that might be politically expedient from time to time. (Laughter.)

Now take a look at the transit system. For instance, he said that they have traditionally lost the odd dollar here and there, so we'll just carry on. He doesn't dare try to do anything else.

B.C. Hydro. Well, he inherited that thing from his daddy, and he stole it from the private sector. So he's got to carry that tradition on.

But when it comes to ICBC — oh, no, no, no! What we'll do is subsidize it only because we are committed to a responsibility to the public. But what we are really saying is that we'll make it appear as

[ Page 201 ]

though we are subsidizing, but we will over-subsidize it. We will subsidize it so much that it will have to keep its rates up in order to fool the people that it really needed that money. Now it's got a surplus! I bet you right now it's got a surplus. It will always have a surplus, and you will probably find some way to divert the funds from ICBC from time to time to try and make it look good.

But you don't need all that money you just got. You never needed it. But you had to get rid of it; you had to put it somewhere to make the thing look good for the big sham that you pulled with the auditing firm of "Clark and Gardson." (Laughter.) How do you say it? Clarkson, Gordon. I sound like the minister from North Peace.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: We've had our problems, but okay....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: I think that bill, which you intend to bring down eventually — that is now down — to show where we were over-expended must have been a real challenge for you to try and find some way to — make it look good.

We stood here the other day and asked about an order-in-council. I still don't know what happened to that $7.5 million, but the minister said: "We just got that as a sort of.... I'll look into it — I'll take it as notice." Now you could have done that with no telling how many millions in order to make it look good. You see, you didn't need all that money. That's a real disheartening thing to do to the people, making them think that there's a crisis when there really isn't.

Anyway, I don't think you are doing anything other than what is political, After all, you are all politicians and you were elected by your ability to survive, all of you, no matter who you have to get in from time to time — it may be each other. I'm sure that's going to happen as the back bench gets bored with sitting over there and watching you guys make all these decisions and carrying on, and not including them because you're moving so fast with a plan that I'm sure was well contrived before many of you ever got in here.

But okay. You don't seem to be so congenial any more. Before you were giving me nice warm smiles and everything; now you're sitting over there looking all gloomy. You'd think I was saying something that was out of place. I thank you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate a smile every now and then.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Member, may I remind you that you have just two minutes left on your allotted time, according to the rules?

MR. BARNES: Okay. I couldn't think of a finer note to end on, Mr. Speaker, As I was pointing out, there are many, many inequities in the throne speech that emasculate the human sector of the private sector, but does a very good job of showing rationalizations on behalf of the government for doing so.

But what about this one last part? "Discuss the concerns of our Indians". Isn't that something? "Our Indians." Who do they belong to — us? Who was here first? Maybe the government is the Indians, instead of the Indians being the government, Anyway, that's in the throne speech; if you look it up. It says "our Indians." Look it up. You want me to find it? You go and look. I think it was probably a typographical error; I don't think you meant that. But it certainly doesn't look good. It doesn't look good and it's a little bit of an insight into, perhaps, some careless thinking — paternalism or something like that. "Our Indians." Imagine that!

Mr. Speaker, we don't own each other. We're collectively here to do the business of the people, and we respect each and every one as individuals — men, women, all of us; children, too. Now what is this? I don't want to hear that any more and I hope that you people will be more careful.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is up and I appreciate the indulgence that has been shown me while I tried to find my way. But I think that in future weeks, as we go along, we will find that the good spirit in which we have conducted business up to now will continue. I'll look forward to being part of that continued cooperation. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd like to take just a minute of the House's time to encourage the member who has just spoken to cultivate the habit of addressing the Chair. Part of the problem of maintaining order in this House, as you would expect the Chair to do, is caused by direct confrontation across the House, and the reason why the rule exists is to avoid just exactly that.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks yesterday I was remiss in not congratulating the Deputy Speaker. I will take the opportunity to do that now. Congratulations.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why isn't Dave Barrett here listening to his MLA?

MR. KAHL: I don't know. Where is your leader?

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: I must say I'm proud to have two of

[ Page 202 ]

my constituents in this House as members, the last speaker and the Hon, member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). I would welcome them to this House. I do hope that I will never have the opportunity to welcome a third constituent of mine to this House.

Hon. members, I'm proud to be here to represent the people of Esquimalt, and I'm proud to be part of the Social Credit government.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: Well, maybe the cabinet never talked to the backbenchers in your party, but it does in ours, and we consider ourselves part of the government.

My riding has many wonderful characteristics. On opening day we in Esquimalt were proud to share several of them with you.

The band that played on opening day was from Royal Roads Military College, the only military college in western Canada, and I am proud to say that it is in my riding. I will take this opportunity to thank Royal Roads and the commandant, Captain Peers, for their participation.

Also in the opening speech, the Lieutenant-Governor said that our province was visited by the president of the United World College (Lord Louis Mountbatten) . He was here to attend the opening of the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, this college is an institution which draws young people from all over the world and strengthens and maintains good international relations. I am pleased and proud to say that this, too, is in my riding. Also in my riding I have approximately 50,000 residents — 50,000 residents without any acute-care facilities. During the past three years the population of my riding has increased tremendously and not only were no new health-care facilities built but, Mr. Speaker, the only institution providing care for children, known as the Pacific Centre for Human Development, had its budget cut. I am told by the director that the budget was cut in 1973 and 1974 and again in 1975, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: This was all, all of it, from the government who cared about the people.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What people?

MR. KAHL: That's what they said. Cared about themselves! A budget cut and a staff cut to the children in need. Those members who were responsible in the former administration should apologize to the children of my constituency and, indeed, they should apologize to all the children in the greater Victoria area.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't do that, did you, Norm?

MR. KAHL: This centre and the children are indebted today to the present Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) for his foresight in planning and willingness to stabilize the funding for that institution. I take this opportunity on their behalf to thank that hon. minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: Early in the term of the NDP a group of residents from the Port Renfrew area sent a petition to the then Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), the Member for New Westminster. Did I get that right?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Where is he?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he is not here.

MR. KAHL: Well, he shouldn't be here. They sent the petition because they needed desperately a diagnostic clinic. As of December 11, 1975, no positive results were indicated to the citizens that anything would be forthcoming. Nothing.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just like Cumberland.

MR. KAHL: Not even a courtesy letter. You talk about getting courtesy letters over there. I made references in my speech yesterday to the choosing of a site in the greater Victoria area for the building of an acute-care hospital. Mr. Speaker, I must say that neither of the two sites the former administration gave serious consideration to are, in my view, worthy of any consideration. Population growth statistics compiled by the capital regional board indicate that the Colwood-Langford area is the fastest growing area in greater Victoria. I would suggest that our hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) can do much better. I will be pleased to gather information for him as to why and how a hospital site in my constituency can be obtained at no cost to the people of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: And that site will be located in the heart of the projected 100,000 population in my constituency. That site was available when your government was looking for sites in the greater Victoria area.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time on housing. Recently we have read in the newspaper of the projected Dunhill Development plan. This plan

[ Page 203 ]

was to build and develop accommodation for 22,000 people. This plan was begun by the former administration. Land was assembled, plans were made and the local people were never involved in the decisions of that planning. Never! That is an example of the NDP and their big government and the heavy hand of the state that paid no attention to the wishes of the residents of the community.

Mr. Speaker, in my constituency many people are concerned about the pot-hole policy of the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Lea).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KAHL: For three years the Highways department, directed by the member for Prince Rupert, planned, stalled, stalled and planned over building a new four-lane highway from Thetis Lake overpass to the Town and Country shopping centre.

For three years nothing was done to alleviate the horrendous traffic congestion that exists each day on that section of public highway. I guess the pot-hole was too big.

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: Then, just before the election, hon. members, we saw his department blasting rock in the area and, at the same time, surveyors were milling around, people were hanging red flags, orange tapes, all over the trees.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yellow machinery.

MR. KAHL: At the same time, the NDP candidate indicated publicly that the NDP proposed a $5 million expansion to that section of the road.

Well, as the administrators found out, it's easy to propose but she's tough to implement. You found that out. They found that their programme of witchcraft socialism....

Interjections.

MR. KAHL: With the total resources of this great province at their disposal, they found that their theories are easily made, but the test is in making those theories operational. They couldn't do it, and the people told them on December 11th they couldn't do it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: One-time government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not kidding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to offer my congratulations as well on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of this House.

I've already congratulated personally the election of Mr. Speaker, who is not in the House at the moment, in his office, but would like to do so publicly, and, in addition, to welcome all of the new members in this Legislature,

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on behalf of Comox riding, which is a large, beautiful constituency. I don't know if you are aware of the size of Comox constituency, but it covers about one-third of the area of Vancouver Island and presents diverse problems which provide a great deal of variety for its Member of the Legislative Assembly.

The riding has pulp mills, sawmills, fishing and logging and mining industries. It has a lot of recreational attractions which bring skiers to the area in winter to ski at Forbidden Plateau, and it attracts fishermen and recreationists to the area in the summer.

The islands of Hornby, Denman, Quadra, Cortes, Read, Cormorant, on which is situated the community of Alert Bay, and Malcolm, on which Sointula is located, add to the diversity and the work of the MLA, as they all have unique, special interests and special problems.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The nine incorporated communities in Comox constituency all have similar problems and yet very different problems. I've had representations from some of the representatives of the smaller communities, the incorporated ones, asking me to pass on to the new government, as soon as possible in this Legislature, that they in no way — contrary to what was stated by the member for Omineca (Mr., Kempf) the other day — they in no way want to see the disparity fund done away with. No way.

They have found that the assistance which was extended to them through the Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act, and particularly the section under that Act called the disparity fund, has been a tremendous assistance to them. Although it hasn't solved all their financial problems by any stretch of the imagination, it has been a great boost in the arm for them.

Just look at a community like Alert Bay. Do you know that Alert Bay raises only $900 per mill — $900? Now how can a community possibly expect to provide the services to the people within that community with that kind of fund-raising at their disposal?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why did your government let it get so bad?

MS. SANFORD: They introduced the disparity fund. They introduced the Natural Gas Revenue

[ Page 204 ]

Sharing Act, Mr. Member, and that is why that community has asked me specifically to pass this on to the new government,

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: It's been a tremendous difficulty to them.

Port Alice, one of the other smaller communities on the north end of Vancouver Island, having suffered two slides within two years, is anxiously waiting for the new government to make a decision about its future before the rains start again next fall. Now we've seen some publicity recently on this in which the elected member from up there has gone to the news media in order to inform the people of the province that they are concerned about their future. They don't want to have the new government undertake a whole new series of studies on the situation at Port Alice. They would like a decision made just as quickly as possible.

MR. CHABOT: Like the Cumberland Hospital.

MS. SANFORD: There have been studies done. Now I appreciate the new government wants to do some more work in terms of having a look at the situation, the back of the community of Port Alice — look at the mountainside itself, and come to a decision. But I'm appealing, on behalf of those residents, that that decision be made as quickly as possible so that whatever work is necessary can be undertaken this spring so that it'll be completed by the time the rains come in the fall.

You know, in areas like that, there is no doubt that the logging practices which were utilized years and years ago, and which have left such a mess on the hillside near Port Alice, have an effect. We are seeing the kind of run-off and slide conditions created because of the logging practices of that time.

Port Alice, in my view, should never have been located in that particular location, and I think that engineers of that time, had they been consulted sufficiently, would have advised the government that that community should never have been placed at its present location. Again, I appeal for an early decision with respect to the future of Port Alice.

The community of Alert Bay was also affected by a slide, although it didn't receive the same publicity that Port Alice did where it was necessary to evacuate everyone. But Alert Bay was affected as well, and they have requested from the new government that when the engineers are in Port Alice doing their work, they also go to Alert Bay to prepare a study to advise the government and the municipality of Alert Bay as to what kind of work has to be undertaken to ensure that further slides don't occur there.

They have been to the Department of Water Resources and have been turned down. They are now appealing to the Department of Municipal Affairs, asking for some help in order to have an engineer come in and give them some advice so that that council can undertake the work necessary, with the help of the provincial government, to ensure that people will not have to suffer as they did last year when their homes were washed away.

Alert Bay can't pay for its own study — $900 in a mill. They can't afford it, and must, out of necessity, appeal to the government in order to give them assistance.

In addition to those two areas which were affected severely last year, the area of Sayward was affected by flooding, extensive flooding. Last fall the provincial government of that time declared the area a disaster area. Trailers were moved in to house the people, and, hopefully, the new government will now undertake some work in that area to try to avoid the kind of catastrophe that took place.

There again is a situation where subdivisions were approved by the Department of Highways which should never have been approved. Any engineer would advise the government that that is a flood area and that people who are located in that particular area are likely to be affected by flooding.

It's nothing new in the Sayward Valley. Floods have been happening there for years and years and years, and yet just a few years ago subdivisions were still being approved, and, as a result, we have the kind of disaster which affected so many people in the Sayward Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the Minister of Municipal Affairs then?

MS. SANFORD: I wonder — or the Minister of Highways. In my opinion, the government will have to take some action in order to relocate some of the people who were so severely affected during this last flood. I've been in contact with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and have suggested to him, as he now has the responsibility for the lands department, that the lands department locate alternate sites for these people.

There is a Crown land area in the Sayward Valley which is not affected by flooding. It's up on a bench. I am recommending to the Minister of Environment that land be exchanged for the flood-plain areas so that people can be relocated in a bench area where they are not going to be facing that kind of flooding again.

It would be a simple matter to create a subdivision on the bench area. The area is located close to hydro and close to roads. It would be no problem at all and I am encouraging the Minister of Environment — I am sorry he is not here in the House — to undertake to ensure that this land exchange takes place as soon as

[ Page 205 ]

possible.

One of the common comments that I hear when I am in the north end of the island refers to what they call the "incredible gap". They are referring to the fact that although there are 12,000 people living in the north end of the island they still do not have a public road. It is high time that road is completed, and I am appealing again on behalf of those residents, and I can't emphasize enough how important the completion of the public road to the north end of the island is to them.

MR. VEITCH: Did you ask last year?

MS. SANFORD: I am appealing to the government not to cut back in any way on the completion of that road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: There were seven contracts on the road from the north end of the Island from the Port McNeill area to be awarded. Five of those have been awarded, and currently there is $13 million worth of construction taking place at the south end of that route; i.e., the Sayward end. But there are two remaining contracts to be awarded — between Woss Camp and Sitika River.

I am asking, I am urging, I am appealing to the new government not to cut back on the awarding of those contracts. They must be given out now so that the road can be completed. It's no wonder the people of the north end of the Island are concerned about that "incredible gap". It was in 1956 when the then Minister of Highways, Mr. P.A. Gaglardi, was campaigning for the then candidate for Comox constituency, Mr. Dan Campbell, that the highway was announced to the people of the north end of the Island. In 1956!

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MS. SANFORD: But it was not until just before the election in 1972 that work was started.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): You had three years to build it.

M S. SANFORD: There is potential for development in the north end of the Island. There are 12,000 people there now and the population is growing at a fantastic rate as it is in many other parts of the province. But there is an increasing number of people who are travelling up the Nimpkish Valley even though there are still 50 miles of graveled, logging road over which they have to travel, to enjoy the recreational opportunities in that beautiful valley. People are now travelling to the north end of the Island, sometimes taking the ferry and sometimes driving what they call the "back road" in order to enjoy the recreational opportunities afforded them in the new Cape Scott provincial park — a beautiful, unique, rugged park.

People are attempting to get in there to travel through it by foot, back-packing in increasing numbers. With the purchase last year by the B.C. Development Corp. of an industrial park in the Bear Cove area at Port Hardy, the potential for development has increased. The Bear Cove industrial site purchased by the government is a natural deep-sea port and the residents of the north end of the Island are looking forward to working with the new government to formulate plans for the development of the site.

I appeal to the Department of Economic Development, to the Minister (Hon. Mr. Phillips), to begin now to consult on a regular basis with the north Island elected people on the development of the provincially owned industrial site.

Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier this afternoon from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) with respect to transit buses and he mentioned ferries. But I notice that he did not mention at all the railway which has received a lot of attention in the last little while.

I would like to let the House know that there were recent public hearings conducted in Courtenay and then later in Victoria on the subject of the CPR's application to abandon all rail service north of Parksville to Courtenay and to abandon the passenger service on the entire line.

You know, there was tremendous interest shown by the public at these hearings, and I think that this interest is indicative of the growing public awareness of the need for transportation other than by the private automobile.

It doesn't look very hopeful, based on the activities of the new government to date, but there is unanimous agreement from briefs and individuals having little else in common that the CTC should not be permitted to abandon the E & N rail line north of Parksville,

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. SANFORD: Groups of all kinds agreed on this issue: Western Mines; the Vancouver Island Chamber of Commerce; the Non-Status Indian Association; the dairymen; the beef-growers; the Campbell River and District Labour Council; the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona and the NDP MLAs for the Island...

AN HON. MEMBER: Same thing.

MS. SANFORD: ...all called on the railway

[ Page 206 ]

committee of the transport commission to disallow the application. I doubt if there's any other public issue that could draw such a consensus of opinion from such diverse groups.

The Hon. Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and myself presented a 30-page brief to the commission on the second day of hearings in Courtenay. At that time we called on the commission to order the CPR to repair immediately the trestles which have been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they were unsafe, with the result that the service north of Parksville was discontinued as of July last year.

In addition we called upon the Canadian Transport Commission — the railway committee — to reject the CPR application to abandon passenger service on the entire line.

Our brief outlined the statutory as well as the public-interest arguments for our position. We pointed out to the commissioners that the people of Vancouver Island have paid dearly for the E & N Railway and have a right to expect in return a decent service. When one-quarter of Vancouver Island — an outright grant of over $700,000 — when generous tax concessions and mineral rights on that land were given to Dunsmuir and Associates for the construction of a rail line from Esquimalt to Nanaimo, the people of B.C. paid very dearly for the rail line.

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost Levi's overrun.

MS. SANFORD: The CPR bought the rail line in 1905 and is still, through its various subsidiaries, making handsome profits from land and timber. To give the House some idea of what the railway has cost the citizens of B.C., I would like to quote just one short section from our brief.

"In his 1956 report, Mr. Justice Sloan estimated the value of timber remaining on the then remaining 470,000 acres at $108 million." That was the value of the timber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Might pay for ICBC.

MS. SANFORD: And that, Mr. Speaker, is based on the stumpage value of $9 per thousand board feet. The most recent figure for the weighted average stumpage — that is all aspects — and these are figures from the Vancouver forest district in a B.C. Forest Service report, is not $9 as it was in 1956 but it is now $14.61 per unit, or roughly $24.35 per thousand board feet.

Do you know what that means? Do you know what that means? If we worked out today what the value of the timber on that land grant is we would find a value of timber in excess of $1 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's in timber alone.

MS. SANFORD: In timber alone. And this is what the people of British Columbia have paid for that railway service, to construct and continuously operate a rail line on Vancouver Island.

The public interest in this subject has been tremendous on Vancouver Island. We've had representatives from elected councils and regional boards, from up and down the island, making appearances at the CTC hearings.

But, Mr., Speaker, there was not one representative at the hearings, at any point during the two-and-a-half weeks that they were taking place, from the Social Credit Party. Not one. Not even the Island Social Credit MLAs were there. The Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis), was not there; and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is an Island representative, and who talked today about ferries and transit, was not there. They didn't appear. Is that issue not important enough for them to at least make an appearance at the hearings, to listen, to hear what's going on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Busy cleaning up the mess you left behind.

MS. SANFORD: Where was the member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) ? He wasn't there. Or the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl)? He wasn't there. This is one of the most important issues on Vancouver Island at this time, and they didn't even make an appearance.

But, at the same time, Mr., Speaker, I must compliment the legal counsel for the government, Mel Smith, who did an excellent job in his presentation to the commissioners.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of concern about the programmes and services to people, which have already been eliminated in Comox constituency since that government took office. I am alarmed about the short-sightedness of this government in meeting the needs of the people. The moves are heartless, and I mentioned the other day that "heartless" is one of the terms that I hear most often from my own constituency. And they indicate a philosophy towards social services which is even more backward than that displayed by the previous Socred administration, And that's going some, Mr. Speaker. Backward, that's what they are. Backward!

I assume that we're going to see, all over the province, headlines like the one that appeared this week in the Campbell River paper: "Day-care Centre May Face Closure". There is one programme after another that has been cut. And it's short-sighted, Mr., Speaker.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Shocking!

AN HON. MEMBER: Even your dad is ashamed.

[ Page 207 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the moves do not even make economic sense, because society will pay dearly in the future because of the damage which results from those cuts. The cost in human suffering caused by the elimination of so many of the excellent programmes produced during the past three years will be at least met by the future cost in dollars to this society in rehabilitation programmes. This government clearly understands the desires of its big business friends, Mr. Speaker, but has no understanding of any of the people.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: In future debates in this House, I will be taking up with the various ministers responsible, with the government responsible, some of the cuts that have directly affected people in my constituency. Thank you.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I, like many others in this House, would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Speaker of this House, and also to congratulate the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.

As one of the new backbenchers, I would like to congratulate the other backbenchers in this assembly. We've got a lot to learn. It's amazing, I think — quite an experience — to be exposed to the actions of this House. I think we learn quickly, as the opposition saw yesterday and the day before in responding to an irresponsible amendment to the throne. And I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the back bench will continue to respond to irresponsible comments from the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to rise as a newly elected member for Boundary-Similkameen. On this occasion I would like to first pay tribute to a member who previously held this seat, Mr. Frank Richter.

Frank Richter certainly served the people of this province, hon. members, for a long time. Frank Richter was born and raised in the Similkameen country. His early education was in Keremeos and he worked on the ranches in that country. He knew the people and he knew their particular needs, and he represented them well for over 22 years. He was first elected in June, 1953. He was subsequently re-elected in '56, '60, '66, '69 and 1972, a record I don't think that many of the opposition would even dare to hope to meet.

He served as Minister of Agriculture from 1960 to 1968, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Commercial Transport from '68 to '72. He was well respected.

There is a freedom of choice, dear gentlemen — I hope you'll remember that — in this country of ours.

As the Minister of Agriculture he initiated range-management programmes to resolve the conflicts between agriculture and wildlife interests. As Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources he was responsible for the legislation.... Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon. members might listen to this, because it is important.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'd remind you that there is a tradition in the House to remain silent when a person is making their first major speech on the floor of the House. Would you accord this tradition to the member?

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I don't object to the response from the opposition side of the House, but in paying tribute to a man who served the people for 22 years, I think they could show their courtesy to that gentleman.

Frank Richter was Minister of Agriculture and he initiated range-management programmes to resolve the conflicts between agricultural and wildlife interests.

He was Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, and he was responsible for legislation which enabled a viable natural gas industry to develop.

During his time as Minister of Commercial Development he served as chairman of the B.C. Harbours Board and he was involved in the development of Roberts Bank.

Mr. Speaker, these are a few examples of the man's devotion to his office and to the people of this province.

Frank Richter was a quiet and gentle man, but he was a man who was admired by the people of Boundary-Similkameen, who he served so ably over the years.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this assembly, the people of Boundary-Similkameen, the people of this province, I would like to express our appreciation and gratitude to Frank Richter for a job well done. We wish him good health and happiness in the coming years.

M r. Speaker, the electoral area of Boundary-Similkameen represents one of the larger constituencies in this province. It reaches almost to Princeton on the west, Trout Creek to the north and Christina Lake to the east, and to the Canadian-American border on the south.

In the Similkameen country we have mining, farming and cattle ranches, and the beautiful orchards of the Keremeos-Creston area. In the southern end of

[ Page 208 ]

the Okanagan Valley from Trout Creek to Osoyoos we have some of the most productive orchards in Canada. We have a grape-growing industry and our vineyards are producing grapes of the highest quality. We also have a fast-growing wine industry in the Okanagan, an industry that works in conjunction with the local growers and, to help ensure the livelihood of those growers, a market for their product and good quality wines for the consumers of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: That's not what the Minister of Education said.

MR. HEWITT: Well, I'm trying to train him. He's a lawyer like you are and hopefully we'll get there. That's all in jest. The only thing different is you stand up so long I assume you're a lawyer.

In Boundary country we have the cattle ranches of the Anarchist Mountain, mining and logging in the Rock Creek and Greenwood areas, and the beautiful Sunshine Valley where the farmers produce excellent ground crops such as potatoes, onions and tomatoes.

On the eastern boundary of the riding is Christina Lake, one of the most beautiful recreation areas in the province.

In the riding there are a number of municipalities — from the largest, Penticton, to the smallest of Midway. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear in the throne speech, that this government recognizes the concern by municipalities, whatever their size, about the ever-increasing costs for local government. As a former alderman of the city of Penticton and a director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, I can only say their concern and need is real and the proposed revenue-sharing outlined in the throne speech is most welcome.

The south Okanagan and the Boundary country is a unique recreation area for all seasons. We have two beautiful skiing areas: Apex Alpine near Penticton and Baldy Mountain near Osoyoos. We have one of the most beautiful alpine areas in the province, one for hiking, camping and fishing: the Cathedral Parks of the Similkameen. The tourist activity in the summer is second to none in this province. Penticton, Osoyoos, Christina Lakes are places which are known throughout Canada for their beautiful lakes and beaches. However, in the Okanagan Valley there is a delicate balance of nature. The southern portion of the Okanagan has as little as 10 to 13 inches of rain a year. Water, therefore, is a very precious commodity.

We recognize the need to protect our watershed, our lakes, our streams, from pollution. Okanagan, Skaha, Vaseux and Osoyoos Lakes can be seriously affected by poor management of our water resources. Tourism, one of our major industries, could be curtailed if we don't ensure the protection of our lakes and streams. I am pleased that this government has established a Ministry of Environment, and I was pleased to attend the signing of the Okanagan basin implementation treaty by our minister, the Hon. Jim Nielsen, and the federal member, the Hon. Jean Marchand. The people of my riding will follow the development of this provincial-federal agreement with interest and anticipation that this ongoing programme will protect the beautiful lakes of the Okanagan Valley.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of traffic throughout the Okanagan Valley on Highway 97 is a major one; however, it is of special concern to the residents of Penticton. The city has been working towards a bypass or alternate route with the Department of Highways for a number of years, with very little success. I would ask the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), on behalf of the people of Penticton and the surrounding areas, to give consideration to an early construction date of an alternate route.

I have mentioned earlier in this speech about the agricultural make-up of the Boundary-Similkameen district. The people who operate the farms, the orchards, the vineyards, the cattle ranches, are individualist’s — men and women who work hard as primary producers. They look for no favours or benefits, but at present they are faced with hardships; in some instances, due to a depressed market condition on one hand and the agricultural land freeze on the other. I would ask this assembly to give serious consideration to any steps that can be taken to protect the people involved in the primary industry of agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, the matter of housing is of great concern to all communities throughout my riding and, I'm sure, throughout the province as a whole. I am pleased that the throne speech has outlined this government's position on the use of Crown land for housing. It is the responsibility of this assembly to enable British Columbians to have the opportunity to own their own land. I am proud to be part of a government that believes in the private ownership of land as opposed to state-owned housing.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the question of Indian cut-off lands. In doing research for this speech, I came across the following quote from a speech made in this House in 1967, nine years ago: "We cannot hide from this responsibility and we cannot fulfil our role in this assembly by ignoring the plight of this segment of our community." The member was referring to the native people of this province.

There are, I believe, 188 Indian bands involved with land claims, and approximately 22 Indian bands involved with the cut-off lands in British Columbia. In Boundary-Similkameen the land question is a serious matter. The Penticton Indian band has some 15,000 acres of cut-off lands in dispute. The Osoyoos Indian band has 72 acres of cut-off land.

The native people of my constituency in the

[ Page 209 ]

Similkameen Valley, the Penticton Indian band and the Osoyoos Indian band, and I'm sure all native people, will be pleased that this government, in cooperation with the federal government — and it is necessary that this matter is a joint provincial-federal venture, not just a provincial approach — this government, with the federal government, will make a determined effort to resolve the matter of cut-off lands and land claims.

Let all members of this assembly cooperate and work diligently towards an early solution.

Hon. Mr., McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presents the report of the Department of Environment, Water Resources, for the year ending December 31, 1975, and the Department of Environment, Land Service, annual report for the year ending December 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Williams presents the second annual report of the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia for the year ending December 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr., Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia for 1975; the report on Security Interests and Real Property and Remedies and Default; and the report on Debtor-Creditor Relationships.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.