[ Page 211 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Allocation of speaking time. Mr. Cocke — 211

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 211

Mr. King — 211

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 212

Mr. Mussallem — 212

Mr. Speaker — 212

Statement

Details re federal-provincial job-finding programme report.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 212

Mr. Wallace — 213

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Student summer employment. Mr. King — 213

Conflict of interest in B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Hon. Mr. Curtis answers — 214

B.C. Railway strike. Mr. Gibson — 214

Permanent docking facilities for Gabriola Island. Mr. Wallace — 214

Appointment of ex Social Credit minister as new B.C.R. head.

Mr. Lauk — 215

Passage of special warrant for universities' grants.

Mrs. Dailly — 215

Funds for correcting hospital wage discrepancy.

Ms. Brown — 216

Return of $600 cheque to employment programmes branch.

Hon. Mr. Williams answers — 216

Throne speech debate

Hon. Mr. McClelland — 216

Mr. Barber — 221

Mr. Strongman — 224

Mr. Levi — 228

Mr. Loewen — 233

Mr. Macdonald — 236

Mr. Bawtree — 242

Mr. Kerster  — 244

Division on address of the Lieutenant-Governor — 246

Privilege

Derogatory statements about hon. member. Mr. Chabot — 246

Mr. King — 247

Mr. Barber — 247

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon are 12 representatives of the B.C. Student Federation representing 70,000 students from the province, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Also sitting in the gallery is a group of English-language students from the Burnaby adult education group, and I would like to ask the House to welcome them.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): I would like to take this opportunity to ask this assembly to join me in welcoming Mr. Ben Van Rhyn and granddaughter Marcia, who are in the gallery this afternoon. Mr. Van Rhyn has for many years served his community, and is still serving as an alderman on the council of the district municipality of Houston. Please join me in welcoming Mr. Ben Van Rhyn and his granddaughter Marcia.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this House to welcome friends who have come over especially for this afternoon — Mr. and Mrs. Dirk de Rover.

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a very good friend of mine who made the trip from Cranbrook to attend the House this afternoon. I would like to ask you to welcome Mike Fenwick.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Before me and before the House is a list of speakers that was agreed to — or not agreed to, I should say; it wasn't agreed to — that was presented by the government Whip this afternoon. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that we have been strangely silent, because we have been trying very hard to make the Whip system work in this assembly. In doing so, we don't find it very much in the favour at all of the opposition.

As a matter of fact, this afternoon, after yesterday afternoon's experience, where we had 70 minutes out of the four-hour period, this afternoon we have been afforded two speakers back to back — and that's all for the opposition side. We would prefer to rely on the integrity of the Chair for the throne, budget and other debates if in fact this is the way the government or the members of the Socred caucus lean on their Whip. I cannot work as Whip or make the Whip system work if this is the kind of treatment we get.

In the first place, two of our speakers should not be back to back in this way. Later in the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, they have afforded three government members opportunity to speak — one minister, a member, another member, and then we get to one of our speakers. Then immediately after that, another one of our speakers; then three more government members. Mr. Speaker, that would again mean that 70 minutes out of a time of four hours this afternoon would be afforded us by the government, and I think it is a disgrace.

Now if we can get some kind of consideration from the government that we are going to be afforded ample time to put forward our case, then we will try our very best to make the Whip system work. I have every feeling that the government Whip is trying his best — but somebody somewhere is leaning very hard on the government Whip for him to come up with this kind of a disgraceful speaking order today.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I would suggest that the Whips get together and work out a formula whereby speaking assignments can be made in relation to the number of members in the House. There should be an automatic ratio in relation to those who have spoken in the debate. It's a new House with many new members who wish an opportunity to speak in this debate. I would hope that after proceedings start today the Whips could get together and, if there is any difficulty, could work out a formula whereby speakers are assigned on the ratio of representation in the House.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the opposition has reported to our caucus that he had assumed precisely that that was under way. In fact, there was some agreement after consultation between the Whips. The Premier's statement is well taken. There are some new members who wish to participate and it was our understanding as a result of a report from our Whip that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who is a new member also, would have an opportunity to speak today. But it's altogether unacceptable that we have three government members, then two opposition members, and finally in conclusion three government members again. That's a completely new approach in this Legislature and completely unacceptable to the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: The ham in the sandwich.

MR. KING: The ham in the sandwich is correct, in terms of my good friend from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and my good friend from Vancouver Burrard (Mr. Levi). I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that is altogether inappropriate and unfair.

[ Page 212 ]

I certainly would agree that if the Whips, on the basis of the consensus which seems to be evident in this House — a spirit of good will — if they, while the Minister of Health is speaking, are prepared to come back with a more realistic and more fair speaking order, that would be acceptable too.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want the impression to be left that there has been an advantage over and above the percentage to government members so far in this debate. In fact, it's clear that so far for the percentage of members in this House, they have been given a lesser opportunity than that of the total opposition to participate in the throne debate.

I would hate to see the deterioration of the Whip system as I witnessed it in the last parliament when the government Whip was not able to make a proper deal with the opposition. I would hope that when the first member is speaking the Whips can get together and keep their dispute off the floor of the House, and make sure that we take in the total throne debate when allocating the number of speakers allocated from the opposition and the government — the total opportunity in the throne debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Rather than get involved in a debate, hon. members, on this matter this afternoon, which is taking up the time of the House and those that wish to participate in the debate, I'll ask the government Whip if he has any offers or suggestions to make to the House at this time. Then I will comment further.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that nobody leaned on me in any way, shape or form. There are certain things that a government Whip has responsibilities for and I have tried my utmost to put these in order. Now if they are not in order — and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said to me a short while ago that they were not acceptable to him — I would be very glad to meet with him. I think we can argue those things out quite easily.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not prepared to make a decision on the matter since it is one that could be resolved by the official opposition and the government through the Whip system. But I would suggest to the Whips that they meet as soon as possible, perhaps while the first speaker is taking his place in the debate or whenever it is convenient — but before this afternoon concludes — and try to come to some reasonable solution to the problem.

I follow the tradition of past Speakers, and that is that as a courtesy to both sides of the House you prepare a list of speakers for the day which I try to then call upon in relation to the order on that list. It is an unwritten rule within the operation of the House. If within the next little while the Whips who represent the government and the opposition come to me with that list, I will certainly be more than willing to accommodate that situation for the remainder of the afternoon and in any further debate.

I think you must take into consideration the fact that quite often, because of sickness or some other problem, a person who was scheduled to speak is not present at that time, and I am handed an amended list. It happens all the time — I am prepared to accept that today. I think that if the Whips will meet and bring me a report, I will be prepared to look at that and report to the House.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Davis tables the aircraft log for government aircraft for the year January 1 to December 31, 1975.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Rather than taking the time of the House during question period, I would like to make this statement in response to a question which was posed by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) to the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) on Monday last.

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, the Vancouver Province carried a news story which stated in part:

"A secret provincial government report harshly criticizes federal ineffectiveness in employment programmes and recommends B.C. pull out of a joint job-finding experiment."

The news story went on to say that the so-called secret report was prepared by a committee of public servants from the Departments of Labour and Human Resources. Inasmuch as neither the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), nor I were aware of such a report, we have each initiated our own inquiries to determine what was the basis of the news story. On behalf of my colleague and myself, I would like to report to the House on the outcome of our inquiries.

We find that the report was, in fact, a working paper entitled "Analysis of and recommendations for the Province of British Columbia's participation in the community employment strategy." It was prepared by staff members of the two departments — not, I might add, by senior staff members — and was referred to their superiors for further consideration.

In the Department of Labour, the working paper reached the level of associate deputy minister of the manpower division, who rejected the report as it was

[ Page 213 ]

then constituted. Therefore the report was not passed on to my deputy minister, nor to me. I am informed by my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, that in his department the working paper was drawn to the attention of his deputy minister but that it was considered unsatisfactory and was never forwarded to the minister.

Subsequent to the publication of the story in the Vancouver Province I personally reviewed the working paper. Beyond the fact that it contains mis-statements of fact with respect to provincial policies, it expresses improper criticism of the federal government with respect to federal efforts to initiate and develop community employment strategy in the form of pilot projects in the cities of Kamloops and Nanaimo. Unfortunately, this criticism having been made public has had the effect of denigrating the efforts of those persons who have been involved in those two projects. My colleague and I do not abide this criticism. We wish to make it abundantly clear that the contents of this paper in no way reflect the view of the Departments of Labour and Human Resources, nor that of the Government of British Columbia.

The subject of manpower strategy generally, including manpower training and community employment strategy, is one of serious concern to the two senior levels of government. Discussions have taken place at the ministerial and deputy ministerial levels and these will continue at meetings which are scheduled for the month of May. I have today forwarded a copy of this statement to the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Robert Andras, so that he will know that our participation in these meetings will in no way be compromised by the contents of this staff discussion paper and that our desire, in concert with the other provinces, to discuss these matters with the federal government openly and productively will remain undiminished.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief, Mr. Speaker. It is a courtesy on this side of the House to respond to ministerial statements and, since I initiated the statement, I would like to make a brief comment.

First of all, the clear and well-researched response of the minister is deeply appreciated in the same way that we appreciated the notice of a statement to be made by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) the other day. This kind of rapport and harmony which is developing in this House I hope will be maintained.

In regard to the issue itself, I would like to be on record as saying that the unemployment problem and the challenge to manpower in this province, indeed across Canada, is, as the minister says, one of serious concern and a major one if unemployment is to be appreciably affected in any way. I can only assure the minister that, in the light of his statement, we appreciate his approach to the federal level and his writing to the minister to correct the misunderstanding that must inevitably have arisen from the question I asked.

I would just like to add that any way that we can assist on this side of the House to promote better programmes to create employment as a result of federal-provincial cooperation will certainly have our strongest support.

Oral questions.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): A question to the hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams): I wonder if the hon. minister can inform the House whether or not the phase two of the student summer employment programme which was announced in a press release from the Department of Labour on February 9 has been turned down by Treasury Board.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thank the hon. member for his question. A similar question was posed in the House two days ago, and I responded then.

I will repeat that phase two of the government's phase of seasonal employment has not been turned down by treasury. I hope to have a full statement on it within the week. As a matter of fact, material went to my office from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) only this morning.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the Department of Labour to continue with phase two as announced in the event that phase two is turned down by Treasury Board?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes. Phase one is already underway, and moneys have been committed to it. There will be no change in phase one. I wish to assure the House that phase two will go ahead. The decision is already made by Treasury Board. Tomorrow is budget, and it will be announced following that event.

MR. KING: One more supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I have a card here which presumably is the notification to those people who might participate in phase one of the programme. It was mailed out on the 16th of this month, and the notice on it indicates that all applications must be received by March 26. That seems like precious little time for applications for student employees to be put forward. I wonder if the minister would consider extending the limits on this programme.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have

[ Page 214 ]

already asked the director of the programme to extend the time.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN B.C.
HOUSING MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked in question period if I was aware of allegations of potential conflict of interest concerning senior officials of the B.C. Housing Management Commission in setting up a private strata title management firm. I undertook to report further to the House.

I would like to inform the member and the House, Mr. Speaker, that two employees of BCHMC have today been suspended without pay, effective immediately, pending further investigation and an interview with one of the individuals, hopefully before the end of this week. The second person, apparently concerned in this matter, is on vacation and we are making every effort to reach him. For clarity's sake, I would emphasize that these are not commissioners, but rather employees of the commission.

In a statement which was forwarded to me by one of them, it is indicated that the two in February of this year considered setting up some kind of strata management firm — a small firm. It is further reported the incorporation documents were signed on March 10, 1976, just over two weeks ago. It would appear also that the solicitor acting for the individuals in the setting up of the firm cautioned at that time against possible conflict of interest. In fact, on the same date as the actual signing of incorporation, that is March 18, one of the two decided to sign over his interest in the firm.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of our first examination the formation of this small company, in my view, is one of foolishness rather than a contrived attempt to misuse a position with BCHMC. But that fact notwithstanding, I feel that I had no choice but to order the immediate suspension of the two individuals. The matter remains under review and consideration, and I will be reporting further to the House.

B.C. RAILWAY STRIKE

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, just on that subject — I thank the minister for his prompt report to the House, and hope that he will keep us posted as his investigation proceeds.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), those being the two cabinet representatives on the board of the B.C. Railway, and since the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), is a neutral party in this matter...I would like to ask the Premier to speak on behalf of management. I have sent him notice of this question: is it correct that the B.C. Railway turned down an offer by the Teamsters union of binding arbitration which would have, presumably, brought a speedy resolution to this vexatious dispute which is causing so much trouble? If so, why did the government take that action?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano: for the first time in some time the Premier is not a director or the president of the railway, and as such does not give direction to the management of the railway. I would feel that you should ask your question of the minister, who is a director, when he returns to this House. By way of notification, so the members may know, both ministers are meeting with the railway management this afternoon. I would hope that they will make a statement or respond to the member's question when he raises it at the first opportunity Monday.

PERMANENT DOCKING FACILITIES
FOR GABRIOLA ISLAND

MR. WALLACE: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications with regard to future plans for this ferry service between Horseshoe Bay and Vancouver Island. In light of the minister's recent announcement that "makeshift ramps will be ready this summer to service the super-ferries on that run", I would like to ask the minister: has a decision been finalized to locate the permanent docking facilities on Gabriola Island? I emphasize the word permanent.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer, relative to Gabriola Island, is no. I have, however, met with the West Vancouver city council, and will next Monday meet with the Nanaimo City Council, relative to the temporary ramps at Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay. In their case no final decision has been made. However, we are discussing this matter with the municipalities first.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister: since past evidence indicates a divided feeling among the residents of Gabriola Island, has the minister recently arranged any meeting with the residents, or is he about to arrange such a meeting in addition to meeting with the councils he just mentioned?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it would certainly be my intention to meet with the residents

[ Page 215 ]

of Gabriola, but first I would want to have the support of the government in that connection.

APPOINTMENT OF EX-SOCIAL CREDIT
MINISTER AS NEW BCR HEAD

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Premier as presiding member of the executive council.

In 1973 the Comptroller-General reported that the B.C. Rail auditors had been unduly restricted by Mr. Gunderson. In '74 the auditor resigned and was suspended from the Institute of Chartered Accountants. In '75 the new auditors certified that previous deficits totalling $52.7 million in the B.C. Railway had been hidden from the public. Documents relating to this have all been tabled in the House.

Can the Premier now tell the House whether the government is considering appointing as president of the railway a former defeated Social Credit cabinet minister who was a director of the railway at the time these deficits were hidden?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the first member for Vancouver Centre, the government has made no decision on any new directors or any change in management of any Crown corporations at the moment.

MR. LAUK: Is the hon. Premier and his cabinet considering the appointment of this gentleman in question?

MR. SPEAKER: The question, Mr. Member, as you know, is asking the cabinet to make a statement on something that is speculative at this time. I would think that they could rightfully defer to answer that question if they so desire.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not fair.

Interjections.

PASSAGE OF SPECIAL WARRANT
FOR UNIVERSITIES' GRANTS

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, this is to the hon. Premier. As the Premier is aware, having sat in the House for the last few days, two members of his Treasury Board seem unaware of the reasons for the passage of special warrants. As the Premier is a member of the Treasury Board, I would like to ask him if he can tell the House why the special warrant for grants to universities was passed for $7.5 million and what the urgency was in the passage of those grants.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member for Burnaby North: the Minister of Education is here to whom the original question was asked and perhaps he is prepared to give an answer.

MRS. DAILLY: He didn't know before.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Well, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Burnaby North, I said that as soon as information was available I would make a statement to the House. I have now received a breakdown of how the money should be apportioned by the universities council. We had....

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): What was the emergency?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition will just bear with me for a moment, the universities council had indicated to the government that the universities had undertaken commitments of a contractual nature which were beyond their fiscal resources and we asked the firm of Price Waterhouse to go in and determine what the extent of these contractual commitments were. We've received word from Price Waterhouse, we have obtained a breakdown of the funds from the universities council, we have now notified the three universities, and the breakdown of funds is: to Simon Fraser University, $1,836,750, the University of Victoria $1,113,450; and to the University of British Columbia $4,549,800.

MR. KING: Shocking!

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that we finally have a breakdown of that warrant. May I ask the hon. minister, though: when you went before Treasury Board in cabinet with this special warrant, did you have to at that time await the information from Price Waterhouse or did you just get a blank cheque for $7.5 million?

HON. MR. McGEER: Price Waterhouse were investigating the matter at the time and had given the government....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 216 ]

FUNDS FOR CORRECTING
HOSPITAL WAGE DISCREPANCY

MS. BROWN: To the Minister of Health, through you, Mr. Speaker: has the Department of Health released to the B.C. hospitals, or authorized the release, of sufficient funds for the hospitals to meet the terms of the employees' union agreement for correcting the wage discrepancy against female employees in the B.C. hospital system?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Burrard, I'm the first speaker slated this afternoon and I'll be making a statement at that time if she'll listen.

RETURN OF $600 CHEQUE TO
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES BRANCH

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took on notice a question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition dealing with the issuance of a $600 cheque to the North Peace constituency association. I've had the opportunity of examining the records of the office of the Minister of Labour and I'm surprised the question has been asked.

It appears that a cheque was issued on May 30, 1975, and was sent directly to the association by the Department of Finance. The association alleges that the cheque was returned to them in June of 1975. No cheque was ever received by the Department of Labour or by the minister's office. As a result, an examination was made and it was found that the cheque had never been negotiated. In order to assist the government in clearing up this matter, the North Peace constituency association entered into an indemnity bond in the amount of $600. This permitted the Department of Finance to issue a new cheque and then to cancel the cheque and balance the account. This was all completed as of January, 1976.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder they lost money.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The question period is now over, hon. members.

MR. LAUK: I have a point of privilege affecting the members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have noted that during question periods there have been four ministers absent. We understand perfectly on this side of the House that at times ministers must be absent on important matters of government business, but I feel that the only access to ministers that is effective is through question period, which is why we, as a government, brought in question period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: The problem is doubly compounded, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that most of these ministers....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the problem is doubly compounded by the fact that most of the ministers absent and, in fact, most of the ministers on that side of the House, hold double or triple portfolios.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you're infringing on the rules of the House. It's not a matter of privilege that you're raising....

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of privilege in this House affecting those backbenchers and these MLAs on this side of the House. We are not effective MLAs without those ministers in their seats.

Interjections.

Orders of the day.

(continued debate)

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate you on the important position you have been given by this Legislative Assembly and also to congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who now has a gavel to pound on his desk. (Laughter.)

I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support the throne speech. Despite the recognition by this government of the horrendous mess inherited by us from the previous government, we gave this House a very positive throne speech. Despite the recognition that the incompetence and the ineptness of the previous government will be a serious burden for the people of the future of this province, the throne speech simply accepts that as a fact and then says: "Let's get on and do the job. Let's start rebuilding. Let's put ICBC together. Let's restore confidence. Let's bring investors back to British Columbia." In other words, Mr. Speaker, let's get British Columbia moving again.

[ Page 217 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the three and a half years of NDP government were years of disaster for British Columbia, years of destruction, years of irresponsibility, years of a blind allegiance to a philosophy that unchecked could have led this province to bankruptcy, and almost did.

Mr. Speaker, I support this throne speech because its priorities are for people. The throne speech says that it wants to make more welfare money available for those people who need it. What's wrong with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What's wrong with that? The throne speech says that this government intends to provide jobs instead of welfare. What's wrong with that? The throne speech says that this government intends to provide the benefits of Mincome for people aged 55 to 59. Are you against that on that side of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're all ready to vote against it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if they vote against this speech, they'll also be voting against Mincome for every single-parent family in this province. They'll vote against it. Do you know why they'll vote against it, Mr. Speaker? Because they know that the former government could have made these benefits available if they had been interested in people instead of public relations — if they hadn't been so busy stumbling over their $100 million clerical errors. If that government had have been truly interested in people, it would have had its priorities straight and made these benefits available, because they could have been made available, instead of worrying about how many secretaries they get in their caucus, instead of putting forward phony amendments to the throne speech, instead of staging shallow political manoeuvres like they did on opening day.

The opposition should get behind our great people programmes — get behind those programmes and help us to get on with the job. That's what you're there for.

What else does this throne speech say about programmes for people? Well, I'll tell you it says that in these times of runaway inflation we are asking that all of us in this House show an example to the people of British Columbia — all of us, including the people in the opposition. Mr. Speaker, the opposition is against that, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The opposition says it's okay for the people, but don't ask us for any restraint — no way. All we're asking, Mr. Speaker, is that all of us demonstrate that we're prepared to share the burden of restraint in inflationary times. You can't honestly vote against that.

The throne speech says that we'll have an auditor-general in this province for people. The throne speech says we'll have an ombudsman in this province for people. The throne speech says we'll make job opportunities available for people. The throne speech says there will be tax relief for seniors — people priorities, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech says we'll make job opportunities available — for people! The throne speech says there will be tax relief for seniors — people priorities, Mr. Speaker. The throne speech says there'll be housing opportunities — for people! The throne speech says there'll be consumer legislation — for people! The throne speech says there'll be incentives for safe driving in this province — for people! No wonder I am supporting this speech. It's the best throne speech we have ever seen in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to comment on some of the remarks that have been made in earlier debate, first of all by the previous Health minister, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who criticized this government's plans to wind down the British Columbia Medical Centre. We didn't make that decision frivolously, Mr. Speaker. We made it in consultation with a lot of people who are involved in the delivery of health care in this province, and it was made with the understanding that even those people involved in BCMC have understood that their role was not what they had hoped it would be, was seriously impaired by the former government, that it would not work and, in fact, was not working.

We determined that there was a better, more effective and, yes, a less expensive method of delivering the kind of health care needs that this province must have for the future. The decision was not made lightly, but it was made with resolve and at the same time it was made with positive alternatives, about which I will be speaking a little later.

The former Health minister praised the architects who have done so much work on the BCMC concept. He said not to change anything because, he said, change is delay. He said that's cost us multi-millions and millions of dollars in this province. Well, the delays that the former government set up have cost us millions of dollars. The proposals that we are offering the people of this province will not only save us millions of dollars but we'll get health care facilities

[ Page 218 ]

built, and built now. You know, the former Health minister talks about architects, and there's been millions of dollars, as we've said, spent on planning and so-called priorities. We were paying, as a people, from the tax revenues of this province, $50,000 a month to the architect who was working for BCMC....

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): How much?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Fifty thousand dollars a month, and we never added one hospital bed for that $50,000 a month, soon to escalate to $100,000 a month. And who was the architect? A well-known and renowned architect in this province, Mr. Arthur Erickson, who, incidentally, is also in charge of a project that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser), has some knowledge of, and which started out at about $40 million and is now going up to $150 million — the Vancouver Building — for which we have only a hole in the ground.

In this great and glorious ad during the election campaign it says: "Read what prominent British Columbians have to say about the record of the Barrett government." And who is prominent in the picture in that ad? None other than Arthur Erickson.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder why?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No wonder. No wonder he supported the government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The former Minister of Health said the other day that it would take years and years to put together another consortium like that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, at that cost, thank God. We'll get the job done. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Jack Christensen and the members of the British Columbia Medical Centre board of directors. Mr. Christensen put in service far beyond the call of duty.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver Burrard): It's about time you thanked him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: At least I had the courtesy to call those people in and talk to them. That's something you never did in your life. They did all they could, Mr. Speaker. They did all they could in the face of impossible conditions. They had their hands tied by the former government and, in fact, they had the rug pulled out from under them, but that's not their fault. So this government wishes to thank them for their service.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education) How was that rug pulled out from under them?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that's for another debate. But before I go on to tell you about the positive plans that we want to present for the health care of this province, I would like to respond also to a couple of questions raised by the MLA for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the leader of the Conservative Party.

I don't think that member does this province much of a service, Mr. Speaker, when he allows his political rhetoric to carry him off into periods of irresponsibility with regard to the needs of health care in British Columbia. That member, Mr. Speaker, as much as said that people are dying in the streets because of lack of facilities in this city.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I didn't say that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on! Read Hansard.

MR. WALLACE: I said they are dying on the heart surgery list.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, where are they dying — on the streets?

Mr. Speaker, he talks about the heart-surgery unit at Victoria General Hospital. In the interests of the previous government, the people at Victoria General and everyone else connected with the health-care field, I feel an obligation that this matter must be straightened up in front of this House.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Tell us about your vice squad.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The open-heart surgery programme provided by the Royal Jubilee Hospital is a good programme. There is, Mr. Speaker, some discussion that the Victoria General Hospital would like to have that programme expanded.

MR. WALLACE: The Jubilee Hospital, not the General.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The Jubilee, I'm sorry. However, Mr. Speaker, no submission as to an expansion of that programme has ever been received by the Department of Health of British Columbia. Never. We have asked for a submission. We have been told that we can expect one, in the hospital's words, "as soon as possible."

[ Page 219 ]

I'd like to ask that member how he expects to act on a situation that has not yet come before the government, and for which we are waiting submissions now.

MR. WALLACE: You've had discussions.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we've asked for a submission....

MR. WALLACE: You've had discussions!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: We have been in office....

MR. WALLACE: You've had discussions; don't distort the facts.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I've had discussions with that member, too, on a number of occasions...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: ...and they've been very fruitful discussions.

We are waiting a submission from the Jubilee Hospital. When we get it, you can bet we'll act on it as a responsible government should. The submission is complete in almost every aspect, except for some problems with engineering drawings, and we're waiting for the solution of that.

That member, Mr. Speaker, owes it to his own constituents to make sure that he knows those facts before he gets up and talks about people dying on the streets. Complete irresponsibility!

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say "dying on the streets". Don't distort the record.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The submission is an application to expand from four cases to six cases per week. As a matter of fact, most weeks that heart unit now does five cases.

The submission will take a realistic approach to the workload of that hospital, and will provide better scheduling and better organization of resources.

Let me just tell 'you how the caseload has increased and what has been done at that hospital. From 1973 when there were 50 cases in a half-year, we had 199 cases last year. This year we've had 45 to 50 cases in only 10 weeks. That's a pretty good record.

There is a waiting list of some 44 patients only, at the present time. The waiting list varies from one to two weeks or as long as three months, depending upon the urgency. Those patients who require immediate attention are given priority, and the doctors have that responsibility.

A surgeon, as that member well knows, may book a patient in on July 29 for open-heart surgery, but if that patient suddenly becomes an emergency, a team will be put together right away, and that member knows it, and that operation will be carried on even at night if necessary. And that member knows it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: That does not always happen.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This costs about $2,000 to pay for overtime staff, but it's done. It's a rare occasion that a patient has to wait the full three months, a rare occasion indeed.

I know that there was a great deal made of this matter during the election campaign by both doctors and by members of other parties, but the situation is not nearly what that member paints, and I'm proud of what the people in the health-care team are doing.

In the Vancouver General Hospital I'm informed now that there's only a waiting list of about 14 people for open-heart surgery. In fact, since they are doing one operation a day there is, in effect, no waiting list.

MR. WALLACE: I wasn't talking about Vancouver.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to let you know.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I just wanted to let him know what's going on all over this great province of ours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member talks about cost containment. Again, if he has any concern about the people and the needs of this province then he'll back this government up in attempting to curtail costs in health care, because he knows that it's a national crisis right now, the escalation of health-care costs.

In 1974-75 there was a 34 per cent increase in the costs of hospital services in this province. In 1975-76, another 33 per cent increase. In the last two years payment for hospital operating costs increased by 80 per cent, and at the indicated rate of escalation, would double in 2 1/2 years. That member knows that the resources of this province won't stand that kind of escalation and that we must find ways of providing better care at better prices.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you talk about

[ Page 220 ]

intermediate care?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Doctors' payments, Mr. Speaker, increased 31 per cent, 1975-76 over '74-'75. That kind of increase can't be stood much longer either.

The member quoted my letter of February 10 in which I asked the hospitals to contain their costs as much as possible, and in which I said that it wouldn't automatically be assumed that the government would be able to pick up all of the deficits incurred by hospitals throughout this province.

The member conveniently forgot to quote a further letter that I sent to the hospitals in which I said that this government would pick up two-thirds of the cost of the deficits of all of the hospitals in this province. A major dollar commitment to health-care. The member forgot to quote that letter.

The member talked about the financial formula for hospitals. I agree with him that it's out-dated and needs to be streamlined. But we've been in office in this province for three months. How do you expect us to come up with a brand new hospital financing formula in three months? Mr. Speaker, it's a total impossibility, but it will be a commitment of this government.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): It took them three years to mess it up.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's right. It took them three years to mess it up, and it will take us six or seven months to clean things up.

Mr. Speaker, the member talked too about the problems that we've had in implementing the anti- discrimination agreement for female employees in hospitals, and the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) as well. I wish to say yes, there has been a problem.

There was an agreement negotiated by the previous government to bring female hospital workers up to parity with their male counterparts. It was decided that in the interim period, during which a job evaluation report would be done and approved by all sides concerned, there would be a payment made of $37.50 per month per person to bring them up to that standard.

That payment was never committed, or it was committed but never fulfilled by the previous government, which had the opportunity to do it. When we got into office it was still on our desks, not implemented and not paid. Not implemented and not paid, Mr. Speaker.

We had to settle this problem, and we attempted to settle it as quickly as possible, and we did. Mr. Speaker, we made available the $37.50 to all of the people who were on the approved budgets of the hospitals throughout the province. A dispute arose because the hospitals had employees on their staffs who were not approved under their budgets, and for whom we felt we could not commit that money and accept as part of the two-thirds deficit that we were going to pick up.

The dispute got to the point, Mr. Speaker, where the hospital union — the hospitals wouldn't make the payments — had served strike notice on a couple of hospitals and was going to take work-stoppage action on the 31st of this month.

It was decided, because we wanted to settle this matter as quickly as possible, Mr. Speaker, and because we wanted to make sure there was no interruption of work at the hospitals of this province, that this government would send cheques to the hospitals covering all of the deficits, all of the $37.50 for all of the employees.

Mr. Speaker, a telegram went out to all hospitals today, those hospitals which were disputing the amount of money they received. The telegram says:

RE ANTI-DISCRIMINATORY PAYMENT FEMALE PARITY, ADDITIONAL CHEQUE BEING PROCESSED FOR YOUR HOSPITAL TO MEET TOTAL REQUIREMENT FOR $37.50 PAYMENT AS PER THE REPORT. THE MINISTER OF HEALTH HAS DIRECTED THAT EVERY EFFORT BE MADE TO MAKE PAYMENT TO EMPLOYERS PRIOR TO MARCH 31, 1976.

Mr. Speaker, we've also given instructions to those hospitals who weren't in dispute to make that payment prior to March 31, 1976, as well.

We have been assured by the health labour relations association that we will have their full cooperation, and we have been assured by the union that there will be no work stoppage on the 31st over this matter.

Mr. Speaker, this cabinet was sworn in on December 22, 1975. I am proud of the work that this government has done in that short time, and certainly proud of the approvals that this government has given me, as Minister of Health, for the health-care plans that we've announced after just three months in office.

We've made a major commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the upgrading of facilities for the Cancer Research Institute in Vancouver, totalling some $15 million. We've made a major commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the upgrading of the Grace Maternity Hospital — I notice you are waiting for something from Fort St. John in there, making notes.

Mr. Speaker, we've made a major commitment to the establishment of a new emergency department at Vancouver General. We've made a major commitment to upgrade the teaching facilities in the major teaching hospitals in this province.

We've made a major commitment, Mr. Speaker, to graduate more British Columbia medical students in this province, and we've made a major commitment

[ Page 221 ]

to build a provincial children's hospital in this province now, not at some time in the future. That hospital will be under construction this year. A task force has been set up to decide the site, the method of financing and the construction formula. Mr. Speaker, I asked that task force to report to me in 60 days. I'm proud to say that they've had about three meetings already and the chairman of that task force has phoned me and said: "We'll have that report ready for you before 60 days."

Mr. Speaker, the previous government couldn't deliver because mainly of its incredibly sloppy budgetary procedures, and its complete lack of economic planning.

Maybe that former government, Mr. Speaker, wanted to be a government for the people, but it failed. It turned out to be a government against the people. It failed because it closed its eyes to the need to build a sound and lasting economic base from which to launch those programmes for people.

I support this throne speech and its priorities for people, and I promise you and the people of this province, that this government won't fail, that this government will deliver, and that this government will get this province moving again.

MR. WALLACE: Point of privilege. I think it is the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker, that when a member has had his speech in the House distorted, that he has the courtesy and the right to offer a correction, and I would wish to point out that the Minister of Health twice in his speech stated that yesterday I said that people were dying in the streets, which is completely incorrect. I stated that people on the waiting list for heart surgery at the Royal Jubilee Hospital had died in the process of waiting. This was a statement I quoted from the specialists who have made that public statement, and the minister's representation of what I was reported to have said was incorrect.

On the same basis, a check as recently as today shows that there are almost 100 people on the waiting list, not the 40 that the minister states.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. The Whips have met and made out a new list for speaking order, and the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) has agreed to relinquish his place in this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Whip. I have an amended list of speakers, and I'll now call upon the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber).

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Thank you very much, if I may express it first of all to my colleague, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf). I appreciate the courtesy and thoughtfulness, and I am happy for the new arrangement between the two Whips.

I would like to express, if I may as well, my congratulations, Mr. Speaker, for your own election; my congratulations, further, to the Deputy Speaker, and generally to all of those members of the House.

I would like to express a more personal note, if I may, as well. This one is personal appreciation to the members of my own caucus for the very warm and very generous reception I've had as a new member of this caucus. It certainly makes it a great deal easier to become oriented to the work in this House, and I would like to express now to you, friends, my gratitude for that. If I may continue along those lines, and just as sincerely, to thank the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and to thank the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace), and if I may say it, most especially the leader of the government, the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) for the very generous and very much appreciated courtesies that have been shown to me as a new member of this House. It means more than you may realize, Mr. Premier, to come into a House with considerable personal anxiety and to be treated decently and with respect. I like that very much.

Mostly though, to end my list of thanks, I want to thank — and I recognize many of the faces today — the remarkable and perhaps risk-taking people of Victoria who have sent the youngest member they have ever sent to this House — who have sent the first member of our party to sit in this House for 42 years. You've taken the risk. I hope you feel it justified in three or four years time, and I thank you very personally, very much, for that particular confidence.

I'd like to speak very briefly if I might, Mr. Speaker, about this Legislature itself. It may well be because I'm 26 years old, have a gleam in my eye, and, perhaps fairly enough, have been criticized for being too idealistic sometimes, but there are some practices in this House that I don't understand. I would like to list them, if I may, and occasionally over the next few weeks become enlightened and receive some kind of understanding, or perhaps, if it's possible, observe a couple of changes anyway. As a native son of Victoria, I've spent many, many hours of my life in those galleries and, in considerable sympathy with those of you who are there now, I want to say that, just like you, there's a lot of stuff that goes on down here in the pit, in the big House, that seems pretty odd sometimes.

The first thing I would like to express a personal feeling about is that I believe there really is far too much rudeness and hostility in this House, and I don't understand why that should be necessary. I appreciate as much as anyone witty and quick repartee. I've read Mr. Churchill's speeches as well, have stolen some of his lines and admire the fast wit and admire the clever response, admire that use of language. What I can't admire at all neither here as a

[ Page 222 ]

member, nor there formerly as an observer, is the too frequently boorish and quite unnecessary rudeness in this House.

They were constantly calling one another dumb and stupid, that every mistake of government is somehow an act of tyranny, or that every criticism of the opposition is somehow the act of a wild and irresponsible opposition. I think that is really unnecessary.

We call for one another's resignations all the time in here; the House has been sitting for less than two weeks. I think that's awfully silly. Every one of us is here legitimately; every one of us was sent here on purpose. That we're constantly abusing one another in that fashion does no more, I think, than confirm in public opinion that maybe none of us should be here if we're going to behave in that way.

There's a second question, and that is that body and that stream of repetitiousness that occurs in this House. Again, I think each of us on both sides of this House is equally culpable. You may note, Mr. Speaker, that I was the only member of the backbench who did not participate in the ICBC debate. That was entirely purposeful. I had nothing original to say; I had nothing new to add. All of the arguments had been made 101 times, effectively and well on both sides of the House.

I spoke to our Whip about this and expressed my personal unwillingness to participate in that debate, because as a member of the galleries for years I had heard too many of the members of this House wasting one another's time repeating one another's arguments. I have considerable respect for our Whip, and my respect only increased when he told me that I was not to be compelled to speak if I did not feel it was necessary, and that I should vote according to my conscience. I did so. I don't understand why so much repetitiousness, why we're constantly stealing one another's lines and repeating one another's arguments.

Thirdly, I'm concerned, as a member of this House, about our use of language. In a House in a Legislature like this, where, if I may say it, every vote is a foregone conclusion, language itself is the only instrument we possess; there is none other. There's no violence in this House. We do know how the votes are going to occur and, accordingly, the only instrument, the only tool, the only vehicle, the only means we possess is that gift of language itself.

I'd like to repeat, if I may, that it seems to me that very often our debates in this House lack symmetry, they lack proportion, they lack balance. We go on in extremes again and again and again, and I don't understand it. I mentioned just a moment ago — and it's the only time I'd like to repeat myself — that I think we make a mistake when we, in opposition, say with such fire and such anger that every act and every mistake of the government is an act of tyranny. When we do that, the word "tyranny" loses its meaning. Similarly, when on your part every time you feel we make a criticism it's a wild, irresponsible and reprehensible criticism — then the word "responsible" loses its meaning also. I don't know why we do this to one another. It adds to the stature of neither of us, and I wish it didn't happen.

Every time we give a speech, it's a tirade. Every time a burst of hot air rushes across the room, it becomes a hurricane. How come? Where is the proportion, where is the modest balance? I wish it were here more. I think our words when we were genuinely angry would have more weight if, in contrast to them, the less weight and the less anger was seen more often.

I accuse all of us of overextending, overreaching and exaggerating. I think we do that too much. It's almost like crying wolf, Mr. Minister. It really is. Again, I think on both sides of the House we are equally culpable, and I speak as the youngest member who has spent, as a native son, years in those galleries.

Finally, I want to comment, if I may, on what I've discovered to be the quite extraordinary demands made on the members of this Legislature. The demands on both sides — and I'm sure most especially on the members of the cabinet — on time, on simple human time, and on energy, on knowledge and competence. I think it's just remarkable that any of you put up with it for more than a year or two. I don't know how any member of the House does it. I've been appalled to discover, since elected to this House, just what people expect of the members of this House. I think sometimes members of the Legislature are often treated like public property, a sort of sidewalk on which the public may walk whenever they wish.

I don't mean this — speaking briefly, if I may through you, Mr. Speaker, to the gallery — to sound like I'm sorry for myself. I think it's a great challenge we've got, but I really wish that in some special way every member of the public might have the same knowledge that every member of this Legislature does. It's an extraordinarily demanding job, more than I knew. And now that I'm here, I know it for sure.

I wish therefore, if I may, in absolute sincerity to say to every member of this House that I have more respect for you now that I'm here than I ever did before, because now that I'm here I know just what you have to go through. It's a very, very tough job.

I put this, if I may, and I speak from the heart to the members of the government: I honestly wish you would not make it any tougher by reducing staff or services or facilities. I don't think that serves any purpose at all. I wish you wouldn't make it any harder on any member of this Legislature by engaging in those reductions. I believe it's a false economy. I believe it demeans every member of this Legislature,

[ Page 223 ]

and I wish you wouldn't do it.

I'd like to speak now, if I may, on the Speech from the Throne itself. I'd like to start out by noting, if I may, that I believe credit should be given where it's due. In my opinion, there is much that is creditable about this speech. There are criticisms that also, I think, can fairly be made about it, but they've been made and I won't repeat them. I share them; I will vote upon them. Outside the House, I guess I've spoken on them.

Within the House, many members of the Legislature have spoken articulately and at considerable length; I won't repeat them. I will, though, perhaps if only for the novelty of it, tell you what I like about it.

I think that, first of all, the suggestion of an auditor-general is excellent; it's excellent. It's overdue; it's urgently needed. What I ask of the government is that you appoint someone in that capacity of national stature, someone who will win the respect of every citizen in this province, someone who has no political connections at all, whose background and integrity, whose competence is so outstanding that none of us will be able to do anything but rise in our seats when the announcement is made and applaud it. I hope that the appointment of an auditor-general will be as far removed from politics as any government appointment possibly could be, and that members of the government give us someone of whom we can be proud.

I make the same request in speaking to my second matter in this particular debate — that of the ombudsman. This, too, is an excellent, overdue and urgently needed appointment. I wish our guys had done it. I wish your guys had done it before; I'm glad you're doing it now. Again, though, if I might stress it, give us someone of national stature. Don't let the appointment of an ombudsman degenerate into a partisan debate. Give us someone whom no one will dispute can do an outstanding job.

In return, I would like to offer some personal help. My office in Victoria opened on February 28 — a community services operation. We provide in Victoria, at 1020 Blanshard Street, through the services of 20 trained and able volunteers, an ombudsman service for the people of this riding. I want to offer the experience, the records, the facilities and the services of that office to yourselves as government and that ombudsman as a person when she or he is appointed.

Since February 28 more than 150 people have come through that door asking for help. I might point out, in advice to that ombudsman in the terms of reference that you will develop for him, that most of the people who have come forward are old people, and that the bulk of the problems they have, the queries they put, the questions they have, are those of people who simply don't understand how the system works. It's confusing and it's incomprehensible. We spend most of our time helping them find their way through it. We spend all of our time helping them obtain the decisions and the benefits that are rightfully theirs. If our small experience in Victoria in running that service can be of assistance to you in government determining those terms of reference for the ombudsman, it's offered and it's yours.

Finally, I'd like to speak, if I may, on the question of removing taxes from seniors, and through you, Mr. Speaker, address myself to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis). This, too, I personally welcome. I know it's welcomed by many of the seniors in my constituency. But there are a number of questions not answered, and perhaps properly so, in the Speech from the Throne and that I would put now — and as it happens, the critic for Municipal Affairs on our party's behalf will put repeatedly in the future — regarding policy, regarding terms of reference. I would start, if I may, to put a couple of those questions today.

I would presume — and I don't mean this sarcastically — that that legislation to remove taxes from the homes of seniors is not designed to benefit J.V. Clyne and other senior citizens who are well off, who are in no need of any subsidy whatsoever.

I look forward to statements from the Minister of Municipal Affairs or from the Premier about the rules, about the eligibility, about the financial ceilings. Will there be a means test? Who will administer it? What financial levels will be established? What will be lost from the treasury when these taxes are removed from general revenue and how will that loss be made good?

Many of the seniors that I represent in Victoria do, in fact, look forward to this, and I do personally on their behalf. But we need to know those things as quickly as you can tell us about them. We need to know what those policies and terms of reference will be, and, generally, as members of this Legislature, to know, again, where the money will be made up and how when those taxes are removed from the general rolls.

Finally, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to speak very briefly about what I think is the most profound conflict in this Legislature. I really do believe that we operate with poor or little economy in this House, that debates are long-winded and silly. I believe that much more importantly we should spend our time in this House confronting problems, not confronting one another. Were we to spend more time confronting problems, and not one another, I think the people's business would be dealt with a lot more effectively and expeditiously.

There is another kind of conflict, though, and it does centre around the question of values. It won't be

[ Page 224 ]

ever resolved here in this House because we come here, I think, largely, with static and fixed positions. We certainly, though, do represent the perhaps little-less-static and little-less-fixed positions of the people who sent us here in the first place.

In Victoria a person who ran successfully, as it turned out, for a seat in this Legislature, during his nomination speech spoke passionately on behalf of the people who have sent him to this House and said: "You know, there are people out there who believe that profit is a dirty word, who believe that profit is a bad thing and it should not be an adequate or substantial enough motivation. Well, I tell them tonight they're wrong." Further in his nomination speech he said: "You know, to me, profit isn't a four-letter word; loss is." Well, he has since suffered a lot of embarrassment for that statement, but I think it typifies and gives better example and clarity to the basic conflict, I suppose, of values here. I wish there weren't such conflict, but it does exist.

To me, four-letter words of far greater significance than the word "loss", as a businessman might see it, are words like "fear" and "lies" and "hate" — those are four-letter words of real stature and significance, words that I wish were not in the language at all.

They are words with which I think we should be more concerned than just always, always, always the black ink at the bottom of the line that says profit or the red ink that says loss. I believe the government is not just a business enterprise and it shouldn't be run like just any other business enterprise. I believe, and I speak from my heart when I say it, that government is also a moral enterprise. It is a moral enterprise.

I'm proud of the fact that when for 10 years I worked in Victoria on a number of youth programmes, although we were criticized for almost everything under the sun, we were never criticized for our budget work. Cool-Aid, the project about which I am speaking more specifically, came in on budget or slightly under budget. And we heard a lot of bad stuff about Cool-Aid but we never heard that the books were wrong. I respect that.

I, as much as any member of this House, as an organizer, as a person who has been active in this community, who has spent years trying to raise the pennies that we tried to raise to run the services, which is to be despised and which is now part of the bandwagon onto which everyone has jumped, recognize the need to count the pennies pretty closely. But as much as I do that, so too may I say it again that there are questions of moral dimension that arise in this House that cannot be handled by answers of business dimension.

Government is a moral enterprise as well, and I wish to give warning in conclusion that in my term of office here in this House I will be standing repeatedly — repeatedly — on the principle that we are occasionally called to make moral decisions. I think, and I hope very much, that we make those moral decisions with some integrity and with not much politics. And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I also believe that speeches should be as short as possible and, having said as much as I can constructively add to this debate, I thank you for your attention and conclude.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this, British Columbia's 31st parliament, as the second member representing the constituency of Vancouver South, to support the speech from the throne. I am honoured to be in this House and to undertake the privilege and obligation to work with all the honoured members elected to serve our great province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make note that two of my three children along with my wife are in attendance today to see their father give his maiden speech. I hope that I am successful.

At this time I wish to pay tribute to the government benches and congratulate our Premier, the Hon. W.R. Bennett, in his judicious selection of our government cabinet. These honourable men bring to this parliament a rich storehouse of ability and dedication. Working in harmony with all government members, I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia will once again take her deserved place as a home of progress, prosperity and security for all. To the people of my home riding, Vancouver South, I extend my sincere thanks for electing me to this responsible office. The men, women and children of Vancouver South have a right to expect the best of my efforts and experience, and today in this House, Mr. Speaker, I affirm once again my determination to justify their expectations.

It would be folly, I believe, to embark on the serious tasks that lie ahead under the delusion that success can be achieved solely by the efforts of a few, be they individuals or government groups. This House functions, after all, as a parliamentary democracy. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that their responsibilities are serious indeed. It will demand a sober dedication if they are to discharge them and their obligations to the people of this province.

As with government the sworn duty of the loyal opposition is to serve all the people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I enjoin all the hon. members of the opposition to acknowledge that although our political philosophies differ, we are united at least by a common goal of achieving a better life for all British Columbians.

British Columbia is a vast province of startling contrasts. It will therefore interest this House to discover that the riding of Vancouver South is, in fact, a minor image much condensed of our province itself. A two-member riding, Vancouver South is

[ Page 225 ]

comparatively small in size — that is, in area — but very large when considering the number of people living within its borders. Its boundaries extend from the University Endowment Lands in the west to Burnaby in the east, south from 49th Avenue and Kingsway to the bustling Fraser River. Like our province, Vancouver South is a complete cross-section of people and lifestyles. It is a mosaic of almost every race, creed and colour: Japanese, Irish, Sikh, Finns, Chinese, English, Germans, Poles, Icelanders, Italians, Scots and Ukrainians, who all contribute their rich culture and unique influence to the warm pulse of the life in Vancouver South. I certainly hope I haven't missed anyone.

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in the last election my running mate, Stephen Rogers, and myself were among the few provincial candidates to publish campaign literature in three languages — English, Chinese and Punjabi.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: I said "few".

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I see.

MR. STRONGMAN: I have the honour to serve a riding that contributes substantially to the productivity and prosperity of British Columbia. Vancouver South is the site of small industry ranging from the sawmills, commercial fishing and boat works on the Fraser to large industrial and manufacturing employers such as Canadian White Pine, Standard General Construction and Ocean Cement.

The busy commercial streets reveal hundreds of small private businesses, lumber companies, retailers large and small, from huge shopping centres to family bakeries and bookstores.

Vancouver South is a stable, hard-working family-oriented riding. Again, like our province, it presents great contrasts in economic lifestyles, ages and occupations. It is the locale for many large schools, from public schools to high schools, including Langara College. It is also an area where many senior citizen homes and lodges are found that are supported by service clubs, ethnic groups and religious organizations.

Mr. Speaker, having introduced the riding of Vancouver South to this House, and today pledging once again my determination to represent its people with awareness and concern, I believe it timely to acquaint the hon. members with the fundamental reasons why I entered political life in this province.

A top priority reason is my growing alarm concerning the economic future of British Columbia. In my view, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia will never attain her great potential economically unless and until we overcome two major barriers.

Firstly, British Columbia must achieve stable labour-management relations. I will be blunt. To our buyers around the world, to potential investors, British Columbia has a bad reputation. Strikes, lockouts, wildcat walkouts, hundreds of man-hours lost, millions of dollars lost, our bad labour-management reputation is costing us dearly. Look at the facts.

British Columbia's economy still relies almost completely upon natural resource industries. In this vital area our instability has resulted in our becoming a secondary supplier, called upon only when other, more reliable sources have dried up. The fact is our buyers simply can't rely on us to deliver the goods.

British Columbia enjoys the highest wage scale in Canada. That is a very laudable position. But as our wages are going up, our productivity is going down. As recently as March 23, this week, the federal Department of Regional Economic Development released its working paper pointing out that while all other Canadian provinces are on the way to economic recovery, B.C. is still mired in recession — "mired in recession". DREE states it is "pessimistic about the chances of early recovery."

DREE figures reveal lumber, pulp and paper production down for the second year in a row, mining production down for the second year in a row, oil production down 23 per cent, fishing production down nearly $30 million. But unemployment is up. It is up to 8.3, nearly 1 per cent over the national average.

Mr. Speaker, I remind this House that forestry alone accounts for 44 per cent of our total economy, mining and primary metals another 11 per cent.

These facts are real. The consequences are real, and the responsibility for turning this province around is ours. The time for decision is now.

Mr. Speaker, it is my unshakeable conviction that this government must act swiftly to restore labour management stability to this province. I believe this government must address itself to new definitions in the area of vital service industries. To this end, British Columbia's major economic enterprise must be viewed as vital services to the people.

Today B.C. is still, to our great disadvantage, almost totally dependent upon our natural resource industries for economic survival. Think about it. Surely such major industries as forestry, mining and their support services of rail, trucking and ferries are just as vital to the people of B.C. as hospitals, police and firemen.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that to define many of our major resource industries as vital services would be a sane, productive first step in restoring British Columbia's good reputation as a primary supplier.

Government must view the prevention of strikes as a top priority. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about our survival. Both management and labour must be

[ Page 226 ]

educated to the consequences — and I repeat, both management and labour — must be educated to the consequences of irresponsible action. As vital service legislation becomes reality, I am confident that labour and management will double and redouble their efforts to reach agreement swiftly and privately. Strikes will cease to be inevitable. They could become a rarity.

The second concern regarding the economic development of this province, Mr. Speaker, lies in the area of secondary industry. Again I'll be blunt. We don't have any — or very little. Furthermore, it is our fault. Due to our chronically unstable labour-management climate, our bad reputation, we have failed miserably to attract a base of light industry, manufacturing services, and the wide variety of secondary industry that provides an important economic cushion in times of primary industry strikes or slowdowns.

Look to Ontario, to Alberta, not that much older than British Columbia, still major producers of natural resources, but both with growing, comfortable cushions of economic secondary industry.

MR. LAUK: In Alberta.

MR. STRONGMAN: In Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, we must end labour-management strife, offer a stable climate for secondary industry and then, and only then, will British Columbia become the province with the highest wages, the best labour-management relations and the most productive with the fewest strike days in this nation.

In this year 1976, as British Columbia's 31st Parliament convenes, I think it's vital that all members, regardless of parties, pause quite frequently to remember two real truths: first of all, it's 1976; not 1946, '56, '66. The electorate in this province, in this nation, is in a serious mood. It expects the government to lead, and members to work hard. They demand intelligent, effective performances, and they'd better get it. The consequences of failure are enormous.

Secondly, I wish to remind members of this House that we are here to serve the people, not to rule them. We are not here to play games while the people pay the bills. We're not here to flatter our egos, strike poses for the press, keep a running score sheet of clever ripostes across the floor. It is 1976, Mr. Speaker, and this parliament must grow up and face up to it.

Virtually instantaneous news coverage has produced an electorate who now can see and measure the results of political ineptitudes and arrogance, here at home and in nations around the world. As democracy and leadership topple in foreign lands, Canadians are now ready, even eager, to accept tough, political decisions regarding spending.

Legislators are now better paid than ever. They now have a moral obligation to learn constantly on the job to keep up with the changing realities of the world and the changing realities of life in this province. A tough assignment? You bet it is, and in 1976 we had better be up to it.

I'm convinced British Columbia can stave off the calamities that have befallen others. I believe most British Columbians want government to lead the way, to promote and proclaim the value of individual incentive, individual responsibility. The December election proved that this is the mood in British Columbia today. But we must lead: we must have the self-discipline to lead; we must show the example of responsibility, restraint and informed decision-making.

As legislators we must continually ask ourselves if decisions are made and legislation enacted as a result of pressures by a noisy few. For too long now governments have made knee-jerk decisions catering to the well-orchestrated pressures of self-interest minority groups. The result — not the most good for the most people, but rather a free ride for a few, tough sledding for the rest of us.

As I outlined earlier, the riding I serve, Vancouver South, is a challenging mixture of races, philosophies, lifestyles and viewpoints. In electing its two members, this large and diverse riding chose Stephen Rogers, an airline pilot, and myself, a paint manufacturer. Obviously, on fundamental tenets of political belief we share common views. However, much like the contrasts of Vancouver South, we approach given situations and problems from the standpoint of our own lifetime experiences. This is as it should be and so, I believe, should the makeup of this Legislature be.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Legislatures must be a blend of individual principles, expertise and philosophies. Good elections produce this blend. No government body should be made up entirely of social workers, nor entirely of paint manufacturers. In fact, I would venture to say they should not even be made up entirely of lawyers. (Laughter.)

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): What about car dealers?

MR. STRONGMAN: Viewing this House, I'm convinced the December election produced this vital blend. The members chosen really do, in fact, represent all the values and the viewpoints of the people of British Columbia.

We have been given the mandate to lead. Let's all of us get down to that job.

[ Page 227 ]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Three members of the cabinet are here to hear this important speech. Shocking!

MR. STRONGMAN: I would at this time, Mr. Speaker, touch briefly on goals I hope to achieve for British Columbia and, more specifically, for people in Vancouver South.

I would address myself first to the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), and to congratulate him on the announced task force to determine solid-core programmes to return relevant education — the three Rs back to our schools. This is encouraging news to parents and children, for it promises that, regardless of post-secondary education — whether on-the-job training, university or technical schools — people, children of Vancouver South will be better able to read, write and think, and therefore be more competent to take their place in the adult world.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to constructive communication with the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). I was particularly pleased at the overriding theme that government payments to only to those in genuine need were the highlights of our Speech from the Throne.

Also it is encouraging to see that in the speech our government is going to work towards removing taxes on homes for senior citizens. I was pleased to see the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) agree with that particular platform in the speech.

Also in the speech, under the Department of Human Resources, I noticed that we're going to extend aid to those in genuine need beyond the age limits now in place. A remarkable step for a government just coming into power, to indicate that they are willing to move Mincome and benefits like that to even more people.

To me, though, one of the most important things that seems to have been overlooked by many in the throne speech is that the assistance to people under the Mincome Act is going to be extended to all single-parent families. I, sir, am extremely pleased at that type of legislation.

The people of British Columbia, certainly including the people of Vancouver South, have responded enthusiastically to this government's throne speech, especially with regard to housing. Indeed, the hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) faces a serious and pressing shortage of living accommodation. I am encouraged, therefore, by the government's plan with the theme: all of the people can have the opportunity to own their own home and the land under it.

MR. LAUK: He says there is no shortage in Burnaby.

MR. STRONGMAN: I recently read a newspaper report indicating housing starts up 85 per cent from the same period last year. I find this to be a very heartening situation indeed, demonstrating the return of confidence to investors and developers following the election of a free-enterprise, responsible government to our province.

I hope I may make helpful suggestions to the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), especially in the area of rapid transit.

I think it was summed up very nicely in The Vancouver Sun on March 6, 1976, by staff writer Hal Leiren, in the third paragraph of this article:

"Unfortunately, the previous provincial government and its bureau of transit, which was ran as a personal vendetta against the lower mainland, screwed around with rapid transit until the voters threw out the government. Rapid transit, which should have been well along toward implementation, is no nearer a reality now than three years ago, expensive studies notwithstanding."

I would like to urge the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications to move quickly and decisively to change that particular condition in the lower mainland of British Columbia.

To the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser): I would urge the construction of a bridge over the Fraser from north Delta to Annacis Island and Burnaby. As many of you people realize, people line up for a half-hour to 45 minutes every morning — that is, in good weather — to cross the Pattullo Bridge from the north Delta area. We in Vancouver South have three bridges crossing the Fraser at this time. The traffic is enormous. I believe that a bridge further east would help to alleviate the traffic conditions that we find in our particular constituency, take traffic off streets ill designed to carry it.

I will approach the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) on the top-priority need for an industrial liquid waste disposal plant. If we as a province are to attract secondary industry into the lower mainland area, it is absolutely essential that an industrial liquid waste disposal facility be implemented as soon as possible. This particular plant has been bandied about, a political football, for at least 16 years that I know about. I've been told by people in municipal government that it has been talked about for 30 years. I am urging the hon. Minister of Environment to do something about it in the next year or two.

Disposing of waste such as this is becoming an increasingly more difficult and expensive item. If something is not done soon, industries that require this type of disposal — for example, plating firms, dry cleaners, food processing, chemical converters, and a myriad of other industries that have this type of waste — are going to avoid the lower mainland in their future plans, or, indeed, move away from the

[ Page 228 ]

area if they are situated there now.

I intend, Mr. Speaker, to meet with the hon. Minister of Travel and Recreation (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) with regard to the growing need for a recreation- and community-centre service, including a complete community centre complex in the Marpole area. Little or no facility exists today in that area which has had a major change from old, small single-family dwellings to low-rise apartments which house many, many families with children. These people require a community centre within their area so they can get to it quickly and easily.

Recreational needs are great in the Killarney area and the Champlain Heights area as well, where children are many and expensive summer vacations are few. In this regard I intend to approach the minister to implement the pilot programme — this is the Minister of Recreation and our Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — directed at 13 to 17-year-olds during the summer months. These children tend to avoid the playground programmes that are available to them because of the obvious stigmatism involved with having to associate with children much younger than themselves. These people, children 13 to 17, find time heavy on their hands. I am urging that we, on a pilot-programme basis, attempt to do something to take time off their hands and make their summer more interesting. I believe it will be a great saving to the community, because anyone here — and I think there are a number of us who have children in that age group — will realize that 13 to 17-year-olds with nothing to do can get into trouble.

Throughout the course of my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to convey a cohesive theme; it is that this 31st parliament serves an electorate in a serious mood, an informed electorate out of patience with posturing, waffling and incompetence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. STRONGMAN: It is an electorate paying heavily for, and therefore entitled to, genuine leadership. It is worthwhile to heed the words of Sir Winston Churchill — and I am paraphrasing; this is not a quotation — the democracy is the most demanding, the most frustrating, at times the most inefficient form of government; it is also the best. Thank, Mr. Speaker.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your new appointment. I look forward to seeing you chair the Committee of the Whole. I trust that we can count on you to use the gavel and not to use your shoe, but I guess we shall have to wait and see. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whichever one is handy.

MR. LEVI: I would also like to congratulate the previous speaker Mr. Strongman, who is from Vancouver South, a riding that I used to represent; and the Attorney-General, (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who has finally come in from out of the cold; and the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who appears to be left out in the cold. (Laughter.) The rest of the people I wanted to talk about aren't here so there's not much point in dealing with them.

In terms of the throne speech and the whole principle of restraint, there are some inconsistencies that puzzle me, particularly in view of a report that was released by the Department of Economic Development in March. At that time the minister said that the NDP government placed the following obstacles in front of private industry: confusion, a breakdown of confidence, unrealistic taxation policies, and incompetence. Yet the report starts off by saying the British Columbia economy has withstood the shocks of world recession and the major work stoppages of 1975 surprisingly well. Personal income growth estimated at 16 per cent was the major factor contributing to the anticipated 10 per cent nominal growth in the gross provincial product. The test of the relative strength of the province's economy is the fact that employment increased by approximately 3 per cent with a net addition of 29,000 jobs over the previous year. This compares to a gain of 2 per cent for the nation as a whole.

The increase in employment was not sufficient to cover the increase in the labour force; however, the result was the general satisfactory condition of the economy, as certainly indicated by a newspaper — no less than the Vancouver Sun — which headed it: "B.C. is Still On Top." We heard from the previous speaker, and from many speakers on the other side, that we have to get the economy moving, and yet the report from the minister's office indicates that the economy is doing very well, particularly in terms of the rest of this country. Of course, it is not difficult to understand this.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's all right, Mr. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen); you'll have a chance to speak. It's difficult to understand the way the minister goes from one way to the other, our Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), because probably what is happening here is that Arthur's writing the notes and he's not reading them properly.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's writing cheques.

[ Page 229 ]

MR. LEVI: Oh, you should talk about that one, Mr. Premier. You should talk about that one. Tsk, tsk, tsk! You never even apologized, did you? You never even apologized.

HON. MR. BENNETT: For what?

MR. LEVI: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the part-time Minister of Agriculture....

HON. MR. BENNETT: For what, for what?

MR. LEVI: Keep quiet, keep quiet.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Tell us about the $100 million mistake, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Oh, we're going to get to that in a minute. The part-time Minister of Agriculture —  and that is what he is, a part-time minister. This is a bit of a shame, considering that his predecessor was the one who did such a tremendous job, and now because he is a part-time minister he's giving an indication to the farmers that your day is past. He doesn't see it as a very difficult job to do at all. It's something that he could probably spend very little time on. Consequently, he hasn't been attending too many meetings to meet the farmers.

There was an interesting meeting last Monday. Now I don't really want to get going at you, Mr. Speaker. After all, you were the member that was there, but we must be impartial., you're in the Chair. But you had the unfortunate job of having to represent him, and it seems that many people are going to have to represent the minister because it doesn't seem as though he really wants to meet or deal with the farmers at all. That's in contradistinction to the extremely beautiful job that was done by the former Minister of Agriculture. (Mr. Stupich).

I noticed a few weeks ago that the Minister of Labour was very uncharacteristically paranoid about the Liberal federal government. He was particularly annoyed at his former Liberal leader, who was questioning some of the basic tenets of the free enterprise system. He was concerned about regulations and he talked about the free market system. Yet Trudeau had some interesting things to say about that. The important thing is, in terms of this budget, it deals with restraint, and if you're going to be for restraint, then you have to be for the kind of things that are offered in some respects in the Anti-Inflation Board. But the minister was having trouble with the people in Ottawa.

What's interesting in the throne speech is that there's going to be an amendment put in to prevent the Minister of Finance from investing in common shares. You know, the Premier's new-found friend, Peter the Red from Alberta, doesn't seem to have those kinds of hang-ups. That's, of course, because he's much more experienced and really has done very well in the kind of involvement he's had in having the government participate in the private sector.

I'm sure that the members on the other side are familiar with the company known as the Alberta Energy Company, whose common stocks traded last Tuesday — this is about three weeks ago now — at $10. The government is participating on an equity basis of 50 per cent, and put in some $75 million.

That kind of success they're having in Alberta reminds me that we had as a government when we were there a similar success with Can-Cel. I hope, Mr. Minister of Forestry, that we're not going to witness in the next few months a gigantic giveaway to some of your friends in the Noranda operation.

But I would suspect that that will happen, because the commitment from those people over there is that the private enterprise system must prevail over all. And why not? After all, you've got millionaires' row over there. They've got six or seven millionaires, seven new car dealers, at least one used car dealer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Williston's going to be the one.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): No overruns.

MR. LEVI: So we can see that if we're not careful we're going to head towards a gigantic giveaway of the resources of this province again. Why, we even have the minister responsible for mines talking about, "well, it's not so bad to do some mining in the parks." What he should do is go back and read some of the press statements and clippings when the debates in this House used to take place on "mining is not so bad in the parks."

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Don't you like mining?

MR. LEVI: Oh, I'm sure you do. What you should do for us is to release the report that your department has done and then we'll see whether it's in the best interests of this province to have mining in the parks.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does Gracey say about that?

MR. LEVI: Of course, we don't know what the provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is going to say about that, because she is responsible for parks. We've got one minister saying one thing and another

[ Page 230 ]

minister not saying anything at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier promised no mining in the parks during the election.

MR. LEVI: I just want to talk for a minute about the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Now there's an interesting man if I ever saw one. I can remember when he sat over on this side of the House that he was the master of the un-fact — not the fact, but the un-fact. The other day we had him making a bombastic speech, bombastic garbage. He's the minister of bombast. He's the minister that makes statements on the basis of a swift tour through the underworld. He made some of the most incredible statements, and, believe it or not, he not only got me upset but he got the Chief of Police of Victoria upset, so upset that they had to meet with him and straighten him out.

The great tragedy with that, Mr. Attorney-General, is that I'm sure that you could have given him a clue or two. In fact you probably could introduce him to CLEU, the Co-coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, and they'd tell him what's happening.

But you know, that minister, the minister of bombast, he talked this afternoon about the great efforts that he's making towards equalizing the working conditions for women. You know, it was the New Democratic Party government that finally tackled that problem, after 20 years of indifference by the previous Socred government, and all we got from him this afternoon was a little wiffle-waffle — a little wiffle-waffle.

But I want to talk about another theme. The theme that seems to appeal to the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) who spoke this afternoon. He likes the theme that we must only assist people who need to be assisted. There's a new word now and it's called "dire" need. Only people in "dire" need should get something. I would like to just quote, before I discuss the handicapped pension problem, a speech made by the Minister of Welfare — I'm sorry, the Minister of Labour — (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he was a member of the Liberal party, in October, 1972.

MS. BROWN: He was never a Liberal.

MR. LEVI: Oh, he was a Liberal. He sat just down past there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how you get into cabinet.

MR. LEVI: But he said...and I think it's worthwhile quoting this. This was during the debate on the introduction of the Handicapped Persons' Income Assistant Act, and in case the minister wants to write down the reference, it's October 26, 1972, page 363. You see one of the wonders of democracy. We were in this government not more than six weeks and we had a Hansard.

As I was saying, this afternoon the minister indicated directions had been given to staff within his jurisdiction (he was referring to the Minister of Human Resources) to make certain reviews of cases which are marginal. I assumed that the impact of that would deal with those people who are entitled to assistance under the Social Assistance Act.

The reason I have raised this is I recently had occasion to be concerned about the granting of pension rights to a person under the federal Act. And to my dismay, I got a copy of the regulations, and then I got a copy of the interpretation of definitions under the regulations. And I must say that this is most impossible for me to believe that interpretations of this rigidity would have been produced by anyone in 1972.

Therefore, I rise at this time considering the regulatory section of this bill to ask the minister if the instructions that he has already given to his staff with regard to social assistance will somehow or other be committed to writing so that the staff in considering future applications for assistance under this Act will have a similar freedom of discretion.

But the case that I had to concern myself with was a woman in my constituency who was receiving benefits under the Social Assistance Act and who applied to get disabled Person's benefits.

Now, it's only a few additional dollars (this is '72 we're talking about) — miserable, I think $5 was all that she could possibly get. She went through the medical examinations...review board, and applied the rigid definition as to whether the impairment was total or whether it was permanent, or whether it was major. And I happen to know this woman and there is no question from any ordinary view of her particular case that she was a handicapped person, and she needed every possible assistance that should be given. I just trust that the regulations that the minister will produce will ensure that we can obviate some of the problems that are obviously created by rigid interpretations which are given under the federal Act. Well, Mr. Member, we're talking about the Canada Assistance Plan and, you know, your colleague just along the way, he appears to feel that everybody on the handicapped pension are a bunch of rip-off artists. You know, he's the one that's quoted as saying that everybody that has a bellyache or needs to go to the bathroom has somehow gotten on the handicapped persons income assistance.

He hasn't produced any facts, and I hope that if he finds such people he will immediately eliminate them. He said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

[ Page 231 ]

MR. LEVI: When? March 9. Mr. Member, you know you said it. I mean, every time you open your mouth you say something like that. You said it; let's accept that you said it. What you've really done in fact is that you're somehow suggesting that the medical committee that approved handicapped pensions in some way was not doing its job, and that people were getting on who had the bellyache, or had to go to the bathroom. That is what you were suggesting.

You know as well as I do, at least you should by now know, that if you're going to apply for the handicapped pension you've got to get a doctor's certificate. Now if you're going to suggest that the doctors are setting you up, then you must go to the medical association and say: "There's something going on, because all we're getting on this pension are people who have to go to the bathroom or have the bellyache." What utter nonsense!

You know, your ambition is to become the Ronald Reagan of Surrey and that's really very nice. That's an incredible ambition. He wants to be.... You know, McKitka is probably just going to beat you out by a head.

But you know what? There's a young Bill, and he's sitting there, and he's got a former Liberal leadership candidate sitting over there, he's got a former Liberal member sitting over there and another Liberal member sitting over there. He's got a former leader of the Liberal party sitting over there. He's surrounded by all these people.

MR. G. R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Where are the Socreds?

MR. LEVI: Oh, there's a Conservative over there; right, I missed him. One over there, the Minister of Environment. Don't lean over too far, Allan; you might fall over. There we have it — the Premier surrounded by all of his good friends who ran away from the sinking ships, and sooner or later they're going to climb all over you.

You said, and this is the theme this afternoon, that you're doing it for people. You're not doing it for people; you're doing it to people.

You announced during the election: "We won't touch Mincome. We're going to improve it; we're going to give them more money." And the first step is that you're going to take money away from them. You're going to introduce a test which was already there practically in terms of the imputed assets, and you know it — well in place for almost a year. But you have the facts, I'm sure. Do you know actually of a case of somebody that is sitting with $100,000 in his safety deposit box? Do you actually know of such a case, Mr. Minister? Maybe it's Bill Bennett sitting there, but now do you actually know such...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's as truthful as anything else you say.

MR. LEVI: Is it as truthful as anything else that he says? Oh, tut tut — $100,000 in a safety deposit box. But he knows the case, and I am sure that he has advised them to take it out of the safety deposit box and to invest it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Please, Mr. Member! I hate to interrupt you, but you've been a member of this House for quite some time. I think that you know the proper procedure is to address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you're quite right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That way we....

MR. LEVI: Yes, I'll keep looking at you from time to time. Well, what you're interested in doing, you want to do things for people.

The important thing about doing things for people is that you really do something in terms of what their needs are. We have at the moment...and previous speakers over there have talked about how you are going to continue the Mincome programme. Now how is that going to be possible when on April 1, 1976, you are going to have a difference between people over the age of 65, people under the age of 65 and the handicapped? You are not going to pass on the same payment. So that's not the same. That's Mincome.

What you're going to do is you're going to go back to the means testing. You're going to go all the way back to 1972 when you had the highest rates in this country — $191. Yes, it's true, but you were only a little boy then, Mr. Member. You don't remember that. You weren't in the House either then, were you, Mr. Speaker?

But, you know, one of the great questions in terms of that great programme that his father had.... It was called the provincial supplementary social assistance, the old-age assistance. It was going to pay up to $191. There was a question asked in the House: "Well, how many people were getting this wonderful amount of money?" And, remember, we had 205,000 senior citizens in the province at that time. Better listen to this, Mr. Premier. Twelve hundred and eighty people were receiving $191. There were 1,280 people! You didn't know that, did you? No, you didn't know that. But you learn. You have to read Hansard.

And then by December we found that, in fact, there were 107,000 people who needed to get

[ Page 232 ]

supplements up to $100 a month to live some kind of a decent life.

Already we see from over there that what's going to happen is that it's going backwards. Now he remembers, our Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — and he looks extremely well, and I would like to congratulate him. But you remember there were 1,280 people receiving $191 a month...and the kind of speeches made by the now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who was very upset about that. He is now going to be a party to the means-test introduction in this province, and they're going to do things for people. They sure are, Mr. Minister. They're going to do things for people. That has always been the practice. If you're poor, then you're going to get it.

You know, the former Premier (Mr. W.A.C. Bennett) under the previous Social Credit government was very touchy about poor people. He didn't like to refer to them as poor people. He said that they are not poor. They are really working poor, but the only problem is they don't have enough income. He said that in this House in April of 1973. "They don't have enough income." Yet in the previous October, 1972, six weeks after he ceased being the Premier, his party introduced a Mincome bill in which they were going to pay $225 a month to the people — to the little people. That was six weeks after he ceased being the Premier. Why? Because he felt they should have more income. But in 20 years — in 20 years of government — he really didn't do anything.

And you, Mr. Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker, you are going to be reminded of the speeches that you made in this House about those kinds of situations. Yes, you are going to be reminded. Even though you come from West Vancouver–Howe Sound, people over there have needs too. There are large numbers of senior citizens who are not going to be happy with the kind of policies that have already been introduced by this government. You are out to punish people. That's what you are setting out to do.

MR. STRONGMAN: Not true. Not true.

HON. W.S. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Not true.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, he doesn't say that with very much energy. You've got to be a bit more enthusiastic about that or you'll remain in that seat for the rest of the four years. You've got to be very careful about that, Mr. Member. You've got to bang your desk like the Premier does, even though the Minister of Public Works winces every time you do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. LEVI: Ah, there we are! You see. There we are.

MR. LEA: That's how he got in.

MR. LEVI: So you see, Mr. Speaker, if the theme of the budget speech is restraint and we are going to have restraint related to the economy, the people who are going to feel the restraint first are the little people and the poor people, and we know for sure that we're going back to where it was in 1972. That I think is an extremely shameful kind of affair when we have brought people in this province to the expectation who are in receipt of Mincome and handicap allowance that they can live lives of dignity, and that they do not have to go through a means test in terms of a handicap pension where the difference between whether you can walk or crawl is going to be the criterion for receiving the handicapped pension.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: And the minister goes: "Oh, oh, oh!" Well, that's what you said in your speech in 1972. You've forgotten, Mr. Minister. You know, you've moved up to the cabinet ranks and all of a sudden you've got complete amnesia. You have forgotten how you used to stand over here and talk about that. Oh, don't shake your head; you must never deny it.

We produced for the people in this province. We produced for the old people and the handicapped.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Produced a deficit? You'll finish up with $25 to $30 million saved in your department. Don't worry about that.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: But do you know, we can't expect much more from the people over there — after all, that's millionaires' row, used-car row. What else have they got? Oh, the gentleman with the funereal aspect there, he also is in business.

But the thing is: which one of them, of all of them, has got a heart? I think the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has a heart. He has a good heart. After all, he was the mayor of a small community that was neglected by the previous Social Credit government for 20-odd years — he has a heart. But who else among all those people has a heart? The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), she has a heart. Turn around and show us your heart. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech talks consistently about restraint. It has ignored the report of the Department of Economic Development, as it ignored

[ Page 233 ]

the kind of progress that has been made in social programmes. I think that I certainly can't support this. It's very difficult for me not to be able to support it. After all, in the last three months I have watched the incomes of people being reduced because of the kinds of policies that they have and that seem to be in the future. But which one of them is going to stand up and say in very real terms that he is for people and will not be part of doing it to people? Which one of them is?

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in this place as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. I might add that I am the first new member this constituency has sent to Victoria in some 20 years. This means that my constituents have done me a great honour.

AN HON. MEMBER: The last one tried to be a Speaker here.

MR. LOEWEN: I would like to take this opportunity to make my words in this House an assurance to all, and I repeat "all," the electors of Burnaby-Edmonds that I have accepted their mandate with both gratitude and humility. The commitments I made to them during the election campaign are very much in my heart, and I am determined to see that they are carried out.

In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I must acknowledge the very fact that my constituents retained their previous member for some 20 years is a tribute to him. I would be delighted if they saw fit to honour me for the same number of years.

This House, of course, was particularly familiar with the previous member for Burnaby-Edmonds since he occupied the Speaker's chair for the past three years. He has served Burnaby-Edmonds faithfully, and he has served this House faithfully and it pleases me to have this opportunity to pay my respects to him in this place.

Now to turn to the present. My warmest congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, on your election. Yours is a most difficult and demanding role. However, I have complete confidence that you will bring high honour to your office. This being my first term in parliament I shall undoubtedly be leaning heavily on your wisdom.

May I briefly congratulate all members of all parties on both sides on their election, including those of our opposition — who are just leaving — who I believe are most delighted at being relieved of their responsibilities of the past years. I am confident that they will all join me in pledging to bring a new degree of responsibility and maturity to this Legislature.

I wish to congratulate the Premier on his choices for cabinet posts. I think it took an exceptionally brilliant leader to spot something none of the rest of us would have suspected — for example, that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) had an ear for ICBC. And when the Premier wanted someone with a good supply of shovels, well, we're all sure he couldn't but accept a man who runs a chain of garden supply shops. Incidentally, I have approached the hon. member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in an attempt to negotiate an exclusive franchise on a shovel. There's a tremendous interest in Burnaby-Edmonds in making shovels.

But seriously, this government has some hard decisions ahead of it and it is only natural that some of our ministers will draw fire. We already know the Premier can stand up under fire. He has demonstrated that again and again, and in a calm way — he handled demonstrators in a cabinet room — and in many of the forthright statements he has made about the needs we have in British Columbia to bite the bullet that the previous government fired at us and get on with the job of restoring fiscal responsibility.

Incidentally, in case someone misunderstands, I have the greatest respect for both the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who have faced their extremely difficult decisions under all the irresponsible opposition we have been receiving from the opposition.

We are already getting strong leadership, too, from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). I am tempted to name the whole cabinet.

I heartily endorse the proposed legislation which will establish the office of auditor-general for the first time in the history of British Columbia. The auditor-general is to be an independent watchdog to guard over the finances of this province. Positive people's legislation from a positive government.

Mr. Speaker, the riding I have the honour to serve is, roughly speaking, triangular in shape with the base of that triangle being the border between Burnaby and New Westminster, extending from the north arm of the Fraser River through to the Lougheed Highway, and the upper point of the triangle to the west where Canada Way runs into Douglas and intersects the Great Northern Railway line just south of the Lougheed Highway.

My riding is not a very large one, nor is it particularly industrialized. I think it is best characterized as a rapidly growing residential area with a generous measure of small, independent businesses. In effect, then, it is very much like the dozens of other small communities of 30,000, and growing, that have an unusually strong sense of permanence.

Our key resource is not a mine or mill or great industry around which the town is built. Our key

[ Page 234 ]

resource in Burnaby-Edmonds is the people who live there, people with hopes, ambitions and frustrations, struggling with the realities of life. Many of our people work in Vancouver. They're very conscious and very concerned about the growing pains of the big city. They see rapidly rising big-city taxes, big-city crime, big-city congestion, big-city housing problems and big-city educational problems. And frankly, they don't want any of them.

The people of my constituency want to see that their homes retail their present values without being threatened by undesirable encroachments. They want their children to go to decent schools. They want to keep the good recreational facilities they already have. They want adequate public services and good transportation. They are not asking for the moon; they're asking for the right to live peaceful, dignified, productive lives, and a place where they can raise their children without fear.

One of the things we need most in Burnaby-Edmonds is adequate transportation facilities. We not only need good roads into the area, but good roads through and around the area. The two major north and south axis roads to this constituency from Vancouver, Canada Way and Southeast Marine Drive, are both carrying far too heavy a traffic load. Much of this traffic is seeping into our residential streets as people attempt to discover shortcuts. The result is a threat to public safety.

In the north I ask the government to get on with the completion of the Stormont interchange, a new, partly built route which goes from the freeway through New Westminster to McBride Boulevard, and one which will take much of the strain away from Canada Way. In the south we have had promises from both past governments, and the one before that, to complete the widening to four lanes of Southeast Marine from the Vancouver boundary through to New Westminster. Surely this is no longer an option; it is a necessity, not only for Burnaby-Edmonds but for the entire area east of Vancouver.

Incidentally, during the election campaign I was informed that Marine Drive was already being built. We said: "We don't see any construction." Then we were told that the flags were up, so I took half a dozen runs down that highway and I didn't find any little markers, any little flags, at all.

My constituents are also concerned about public transportation. We know that this government is deeply aware of the need to conserve energy in Canada. I respectfully suggest that one of the ways this could be accomplished is to improve public transportation to the point where it offers an attractive alternative to the use of automobiles for commuting. May I add that we have many senior citizens in Burnaby-Edmonds who are highly dependent on public transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Burnaby-Edmonds are also gravely concerned about the independent-school issue. The whole principle of freedom and religious liberty suggests that, above all, parents should have the right to choose the type of school and the type of education they want for their children.

The only philosophical right that government has in respect to education is to make sure that the standard of education in all of our schools is maintained at a high level.

It seems deplorable to me in this day and age mothers should have to go to work to raise extra money to pay for the education of their children in private schools of their choice while they are forced to pay taxes to maintain a public school system they cannot, for one reason or another, accept.

There is nothing snobbish about this. It is not fair to shrug off their needs by saying that if they don't like it they should send their children to public schools. Many of these private schools offer a strong alternative to the public school system and have earned the profound respect of educators and the public. In fact, a survey commissioned by the B.C. Teachers Federation shows that a clear and significant majority of B.C. citizens believe that public funds should be used to partially cover the cost of independent schools.

These schools contribute to the communities they serve by providing high moral standards which I sometimes wish the public school system would try to copy.

I am not suggesting total support, but I am suggesting that this government should make a generous move in that direction, and I was pleased to note, extremely pleased to note, that such a move was suggested in the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity in my first appearance in this House to touch briefly on the needs of the people of Burnaby-Edmonds. Perhaps some hon. members in the opposition will view my remarks with a degree of cynicism. They may say: "This man talks of fiscal restraint. Yet on his first appearance as a speaker he has his hand out for government funds."

Let me say most emphatically that what I am talking about today is not the icing on the cake. I'm talking about some of the basic key issues for the people of my constituency. Each constituency, each section of the province will have its own set of priorities. An agricultural area may need one thing; a mining or a forestry area something else; a fishing area something else again. But my constituency isn't that complex.

As I said before, people are our biggest resource, and so the priorities of my residential-type constituency must be people-oriented, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the services to our people must be equally important in the scheme of things with the services to our industry, our resources and

[ Page 235 ]

our small businesses.

Let me give you just one more example of the type of thing I mean. The people of Burnaby-Edmonds have no law courts within their area. They are served by the courthouse in New Westminster. I think we all agree that it is important to the quality of community life that justice be handled with efficiency and dispatch.

Yet these New Westminster facilities are hopelessly crowded and antiquated. Indeed, the entire set-up could conceivably bog down completely.

The heating facilities are in such danger of expiring that there were numerous occasions this past winter when employees actually strapped hot-water bottles to their bodies to keep warm. My parents, I understand, heated bricks, and they put them under their feet when they went out in a sleigh in wintertime. Here we have, in this day and age, employees at a courthouse actually strapping hot-water bottles to their bodies in order to keep warm. That has to be an obvious priority.

Our Premier has emphasized over and over again that the free ride is over. The free ride is over. The people of this province must do what any family must do when it finds itself overspent. They must tighten the purse strings and re-examine their spending priorities.

It is my belief, Mr. Speaker — and this is the very core of the remarks I am making today — that each member of this Legislature has a very grave and a very serious responsibility to communicate the need for fiscal responsibility down into his constituency, and a further responsibility to communicate the basic priority needs of his constituency up to the treasury.

With this in mind I set my constituency organization in motion to try to get a thorough and frank exchange of information and ideas going between all interested individuals and groups within the area. I want our people to become involved, to recognize that government isn't just a bunch of people over in Victoria who are trying to ram their ideas down people's throats or fight with each other and that government, if it is to work effectively and democratically, must continue to get feedback from the people and must continue to provide people with full and factual reasoning behind their decisions.

It is obvious that many of the programmes that we wish we could launch immediately are delayed — I repeat, delayed — because of the fiscal mismanagement and irresponsibility of the previous administration.

We must, however, set our priorities and make it clear to the public that we are moving onward and upward. I trust we have the support of the opposition in these programmes.

Some people may say: "Well, we're getting plenty of feedback from the people but you don't listen." I maintain we are listening, but perhaps we should search for additional ways to keep the dialogue going. I do not regard the demonstrations against the ICBC rate increases as proof that government policy is wrong. At the same time, we must recognize that they mean that communication has not been as complete as we would like. I am adding this particularly for the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) because he was either not present the other day or not listening too well.

I consider the amendment to the throne speech simply a political ploy. The hon. member for New Westminster in his motion of amendment suggests three points: firstly, that ICBC rates were oppressive. We cannot make costs go up or down; we can simply do our best to improve the ICBC operation, hon. member. The suggestion that the rates are oppressive is an obvious admission by the hon. member for New Westminster that ICBC was a mistake — a tragic experiment. I repeat: a tragic experiment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He knew it, too.

MR. COCKE: Are you going to continue it?

Interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: Secondly, hon. members, he suggests there is unfair treatment to northern and interior drivers. I enjoy repeating these three points, Mr. Speaker, because they so obviously point out to the hon. member's mistakes. Obviously the member for New Westminster again does not know his facts, The rates in the north and the interior are lower than the rates in the lower mainland.

Thirdly, he suggests discrimination against those under 25 years of age. The member knows full well that the Premier has come out in favour of a rebate for those under 25 years.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The defence minister.

Interjections.

MR. LOEWEN: I think if we had the time to take each individual through all the alternatives open to the government in this matter and placed them in a position of trying to find a better, more logical alternative, they would have to reluctantly conclude, as this government reluctantly concluded — I say reluctantly because I know there was a great deal of agonizing over the matter — that there really was no other alternative. So this business of communication must go on.

I think, hon. members of this House, it would be making a grave mistake if they felt that communications was merely the job of the publicity people in the minister's office or the press. Communication is our business; it is the business of

[ Page 236 ]

every single member in this House. It must take place at the grass-roots level.

I am deeply concerned by polarization. Some people tell me this is a natural part of the political process, that polarization is not only inevitable but even necessary. I do not believe that. I cannot believe that a properly functioning democracy consists of one-half of the people battling the other half. I think we have to find more mechanisms that will lead toward a rational and informed consensus on key issues.

As long as I am in this House, Mr. Speaker, and as long as the people of Burnaby-Edmonds support me, I am going to make it my No. 1 priority to communicate the needs — the needs — of my people to this government and to communicate the policies of this government to all the people. That may sound trite, but I would warn all hon. members that communication is the most difficult task before us. Indeed, it is said that the former Premier of this province washed away more than a 12,000-vote majority in his own constituency because he failed to communicate. Mr. Speaker, my case rests.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I need help!

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure do!

MR. MACDONALD: I think the Premier ought to call that by-election and let the people decide who should be the other member for Vancouver East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Look at the Constitution Act, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Did you look that up?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Call the by-election. (Laughter.) What are you afraid of?

HON. MR. BENNETT: All we're waiting for is a proper enumeration.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, now, now, Mr. Premier. Mr. Speaker, would you explain to the Premier that enumeration can take place quite easily after the writ is out and it can be done by Mr. Morton, who is a very capable public servant, in seven or 10 days? Enumeration is fine. I don't know. Why should you be so afraid? You are afraid of something, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: And yet I am trying to observe the injunction of the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber); I don't want to get into an argument, even with the Premier of the province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Then don't.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to congratulate the new members and you, Mr. Speaker, particularly, on your elevation to that post.

Mind you, I lost an election there (laughter) but I'm not even sure — I'll try to be a good loser — I'm not even sure I should have run for the job. I'm already a member of the Diners' Club. (Laughter.) But I'll be a good loser, Mr. Speaker. I do want to congratulate all of the new members.

I hope they don't see too many ghosts and devils and enemies out there. Oh, yes, Soviet Russia is over there, that's true. But you make your own Premier, you know, look like a flaming radical. (Laughter.) You've got me thinking now that he is somewhere to the left of Genghis Khan, and this is confusing to all of us.

The last speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen), spoke about ICBC again, and I don't want to say more than just reply to him — to this effect. People say that ICBC was a mess, eh? It was a mess. Yes, yes, go on, let's hear you — and yet you know in this great social experiment that was put together in a very short space of time, and which you people will not dare to dismantle, we gave the people of the Province of British Columbia the lowest automobile insurance rates in British Columbia. Now you call that a mess, eh? To you, you're okay — to the bottom line boys that's a mess. That's a mess, eh?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: As a social democrat, it seems to me that one of the obligations of government is to provide the basic services for people, and I include among the basic services not only education and health and shelter, but transportation. We are proud of ICBC, and we are proud of the fact that we gave those low rates; we know there were some kinks in that organization that were being straightened out, and should be straightened out, and

[ Page 237 ]

there were growing pains. But it was an experiment which the people...if you dare to dismantle it, I tell you, that the people of British Columbia will throw you out.

Go ahead, do it! Call in the private insurance companies; you've already hiked the rates up there. I promised I wouldn't speak about ICBC. Don't see all those enemies. Get together down there and hold hands and try to contact the living. Try to contact the real people out there.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is continuing the message of this government, which is, attack, attack, attack on the opposition. The Minister of Health, the one who's getting quite a lot of assistance from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), quite a lot of assistance from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer)....

AN HON. MEMBER: From the Chief of Police.

MR. MACDONALD: Attack, attack! But he uses phrases, Mr. Speaker, like "bankruptcy" — that this province was on the verge of bankruptcy — which is really irresponsible coming from the lips of any cabinet minister. If you look at the total financial health of the Province of British Columbia as we left it on December 11, you'll find the soundest province in Canada, the only province that did not — whether there would have been a deficit or not — the only province in Canada that brought down balanced budgets in the three years when we were government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you say that's not true, eh? Every one balanced! The only province in Canada that increased the public assets, which are the common heritage of all of the people of the province during those years, by over a million dollars. When you go around and call it things like "we are on the verge of bankruptcy," you are doing a disservice; you are trying to hide the inadequacies of your government. You're cutting off people's services and you are trying to blame it on the NDP by crying bankruptcy. I tell you that what you are doing is running down the triple-A credit rating that this province has, and always had under the NDP, and you are doing the province a disservice in the credit markets of the world.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Just beginning to salvage it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: And what a tangle, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, that bus thing was, eh? Oh, that was bad. You know, you said it was a tangle and that we were creating chaos, and so forth. Very bad, eh? You see the headline you get, Mr. Minister, when you attacked our tiger? You attacked Tiger Lorimer. You wouldn't have dared to make that kind of a speech if the tiger would have been here.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would have been asleep.

MR. MACDONALD: You would have woken him up. He would have eaten you up. Yes, you would never have dared make that kind of attack. Love that tiger! That tiger was the strap hangers' friend. And you pick up two pages of the same paper this morning and you see the negative, destructive attack of the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, and over there you see "Bus Riders Find New Horizons." And it tells the story of accomplishment of James Lorimer, which will never be equaled in this province, and you have that. Look what it says: "Vancouver area suburbanites waiting patiently for the long-heralded age of rapid transit."

They are getting a preview of rapid transit benefits on the buses. There are 127 buses running to the suburb communities outside of the city of Vancouver right now that never had that service before, and James Lorimer, to his credit, has been saving highway costs and saving pollution in the atmosphere from excessive gasoline fumes.

Mr. Minister, all he did was on the attack. Let me tell you now that you're the one who's on trial. If you can begin to emulate the record of your predecessor, you will be a proud man. Don't forget everybody hasn't got the money to ride around in big limousines and call taxis and go by jet plane here and there. There are people out there to whom the public transit services are a social necessity, and if you neglect that portfolio — and you've shown no indication yet of anything constructive in that field in your speech, Mr. Minister — then the tiger will be back and he will eat you up.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see the Premier, but one of the things that I was going to say to him I'll say anyway.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Where's your leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Right here.

MR. MACDONALD: I think that one of the most discreditable things that happened since December 11th was the increase in the allowable rent increase on the tenants of this province from 8 to 10.6 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right!

MR. MACDONALD: And you know what you did in that? You did it very early in your administration, on December 31, and you had before you massive

[ Page 238 ]

reports of the Jaffery Commission. You say that you're the bottom line guys and that you read the...that you want to go on facts and figures. Yet you have this report there amply showing that 8 per cent was the maximum allowable rent increase. And in a period of inflation, without any facts or studies whatsoever, you gave the landlords another 2.6 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that that decision, which was made on December 31, put into the hands of the landlords another $5 million out of the pockets of hard-pressed tenants in this province.

MR. LAUK: A Christmas gift.

MR. MACDONALD: It was an election payoff, let's make no mistake about that. One by one.... Yes, sure the landlords supported you and they've been richly rewarded and this government that says it has sound finance, sound financial ability, goes on facts that contribute nothing whatsoever towards that unjustified increase on the backs of the tenants. It's $3 or $4 on the average for every suite in this province, and it was a giveaway and it was an election payoff.

I call on that government right now, if you're interested in fighting inflation — through you, Mr. Speaker — roll those rents back from the 10.6 back to the 8 per cent.

I was going to also say something to the Premier about his new guy that he's hired to correlate the advertising and public relations of the Government of B.C., because this worries me. It worries me very much. This is not an outside advertising agency I'm talking about. It's somebody who's coming in by the name of Dave Brown, who was Premier Bennett's personal ad man.

AN HON. MEMBER: One of the faithful.

MR. MACDONALD: One of the faithful, one of the hacks, and he is going to correlate the information services of government. I think we're in great danger, Mr. Speaker, of managed news coming out of this government. I would have no objection, say to fluoridation of the liquor supply, but I'm certainly opposed to fluoridation of the news supply in this province.

I think we're entering a very dangerous phase in this province where governmental secrecy will be increased, when news releases will all be coming out of one source, where the ministers will have their remarks vetted and launderized before they're released to the public.

We call on this government for freedom of information. I think, Mr. Speaker, there ought to be on the statute books of this province, a Freedom of Information Act. You know, we went a long way in the three and a half years we were in government in opening up the processes of government to the people whose servant we are. If we had, as they have in countries such as Sweden, a Freedom of Information Act, where public documents could be scrutinized by the public who are in the beneficiaries of the process, who own the paper, who supply the ink, then I think that we could begin to say that we have open government.

But when you go to a Social Credit advertising man to correlate your government services, I'm worried about the future of government information in this province. I think you're heading in the direction of closet government and secrecy and away from the sunshine of which both myself and the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) used to boast. I get a little bit uptight still seeing him sitting over there, you know.

I like to be a good loser, but he took my secretary, my car, my salary, my office, and then one night I looked in on the television and saw him in a corduroy suit and I said: "My gosh, the son of a gun has got my suit." (Laughter.)

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): You left a mouse under the rug, too.

MR. MACDONALD: I say we've got to open up the processes of government and we should have a Freedom of Information Act in this province where people could not only see the final result, but they could see the reports back and forth, the arguments back and forth on a particular decision, which after all are public documents. They then can weigh properly the decision-making process to avoid even the taint or suggestion of corruption anywhere in the governmental processes. That process should be open to the people whose servants we are, and I am worried even that the traditional openness and release procedures of the budget speech would be restricted by this government. I think that's a shame and a mistake and I think it's an indication of a trend which I would like to see checked without further delay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to.... I see the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in her place and I'd like to chide her a little bit. I'm sure she won't mind. I'll be very careful to remember what the member for Victoria said. I won't quote the remarks, but you came out against Habitat. You said in your nice interview, through you, Mr. Speaker, that Habitat was a waste of money. Finding out things that are already known and that kind of thing, and I would like to suggest that that's too narrow and provincial a point of view.

You know, I think the city of Vancouver should be proud...even in financial terms, that about $8.5 million will be spent in our area, provided by the

[ Page 239 ]

federal government.

We have some costs, too, the extra policing costs, as the Attorney-General knows, but here we're welcoming to Vancouver all of the nations that make up the United Nations of the world and some observer nations as well. It is far better in an age where we see the arms race carried on in a mindless fashion to the point where $300 billion have been spent on weapons of destruction by all the countries of the world, it's far better that these countries of the world get together round the table, socialize, have some interchange and also try to do a little problem-solving on these very desperate problems of population growth. I see the Whip nodding his head. I always liked the way the Whip nods his head. I think whenever the name of the Devil is mentioned he always nods his head (laughter) because he takes the position that courtesy cost you nothing. (Laughter.) You can never tell.

I do plead with this government to take a positive approach to the Habitat conference. Bullets are no substitutes for words, and I think it's very important that all of the nations of the world do as much talking to one another and problem-solving results.

Now I'm on to.... My notes are all mixed up so I'm going to have to make up the rest of this speech.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't see the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Waterland) here at the present time, but I want to refer to the 300 or so bulk agents of oil products in the province of British Columbia, because here is a persecuted group. I'm not talking now about the service station operators. I'm talking about the people who have to buy their own truck, employ their own men, so-called independent businessmen — and the former member for Omineca knows what I'm talking about — the bulk agents. They are supposedly independent businessmen but they are so much under the control of the international oil companies that they can lose their business licence on 24 hours' notice.

Right now in the city of Trail that happened just the other day and the poor fellow who lost his licence on 24 hours' notice went to jail because he had the nerve to try to break into the business that he had been operating, in deliveries to gasoline stations and to individual customers. There's all kinds of literature on the subject of the protection that is needed by these independent businessmen. And the Premier said: "We want to encourage enterprise — small, medium, large businesses — to build and make a fair return."

Mr. Speaker, these bulk agents who are being squeezed, and of whom the Energy Commission of the province of British Columbia knows the full story at the present time, deserve some kind of a charter written of their rights — the right to have their commissions arbitrated in a fair manner — because at the present time those commissions vary all over the lot. Somebody gets this, but if the oil company can squeeze them down and threaten them with the cancellation of his business licence in 24 hours...and he loses his truck. His employees lose their jobs. He's lost his business. With that kind of a sword hanging over these people they're not independent business people at all.

Mr. Speaker, maybe we didn't do enough. Let's admit that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Obviously.

MR. MACDONALD: On the desk of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) right now is a very thorough report and recommendation on the protection, not only of these people but also on the protection that can be extended to the service station dealers in the province of British Columbia to save them from excessive costs and insecurity and reduce over a period of time the number of service stations competing one with another in a kind of wasteful manner and kind of threatening their livelihood.

That report, which promises many good things in terms of the protection of this vital segment of the oil industry, and gives them some kind of recognition in terms of the rights they ought to have against the oil companies, is lying right now on the desk of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). And I might have left a copy in my own office, Mr. Attorney-General. If I have, I am going to send Adrian to pick it up, because I haven't got one myself — I just remember it.

But those recommendations should be executed and we should extend to these independent business people.... Look what the Mackenzie report said about them, in the Alberta one in 1968:

"In most industries such protection has not been necessary. However, in the integrated oil industry, where its supply is largely controlled by the gigantic international companies with monopolistic characteristics, the individual operator has practically no bargaining power. In these circumstances the oil companies have prepared with clever draftsmanship a web of contract ties which are unconscionable in their cumulative effect, and which are harshly enforced."

And that is taking place now in the Province of British Columbia.

I am afraid that in the Minister of Transport and Communications, in the energy field, we have not a tiger but a mouse because he came out.... I find the quote right here; he said on January 28, 1976: "The province has no way of preventing gasoline price

[ Page 240 ]

increases."

Mr. Speaker, during our term of office we held down the average price of gasoline at the pump to the motorists of this province by 2 or 3 cents per gallon over a period of two years, and in section 67 of the Energy Act the power was there.

For this minister to come into office and say that we have no way to prevent the unconscionable rises in the price of gasoline at the pump is simply that he hasn't looked at the history of what we did. He has not read the Energy Act, which we left behind for his perusal and which is still on the statute books of this province.

That minister has gone down, representing the Province of British Columbia, to the Energy conference in Ottawa. He has come back and said that there is no way we can do anything in this country about the increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil. He shouldn't have said that. He should not have said that. What he has done is simply knuckled under to the international oil companies, because they want the Arab price for a barrel of crude oil.

We have seen the price of a barrel of crude oil go up in the last three and a half years from $3 a barrel to now they are shooting towards $10 a barrel. But the costs of production of oil in Canada have not gone up threefold or more in that period of time. The wages of the oil workers have not gone up three and a half times in that period of time. The Canadian costs are down and yet the oil companies are saying to us that they must have that money to explore, and that they have to have the Arab price of the barrel of oil. This government has knuckled under and accepted that kind of an argument.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: You have not fought it. I read the statements of the minister when he came back and said that there's nothing we can do about it. He said: "But they need the money to explore in the north and in the Mackenzie River Valley." And look what some of the oil companies are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you shocked by it, though?

MR. MACDONALD: Are they putting their money into the exploration for new supplies? Some. But look at this kind of a headline that you see in the paper: "Gulf Oil Starts Work on $500 Million Project." That's good, eh? This is the free enterprise that you people support. That $500 million project is a real estate development project outside of the city of Montreal. At the same time as they were putting Gulf Oil, which has been bribing foreign emissaries and members of government, possibly in Canada, but certainly in other parts of the world, and that has been admitted and proved.... This great international company comes into Canada and instead of investing back in the exploration and drilling process in this country — the profits that we are pouring into their hands — they invest it in a real estate project where they think they can make a little more money.

My message to the government is this: don't go back to Ottawa and sit around with the Hon. Alastair Gillespie and agree to increases in that crude price of oil and see our own prices...somebody said they would hit $1 a gallon if this process goes — and it will at the pumps. Don't let that.... Put up a fight! Don't be a mouse. Be a bit of a tiger! Maintain the price control at the pump in the Province of British Columbia, as we did, and make sure that the profits of the international oil companies, which we generate, are put back into the good earth of the province of British Columbia, as we did with natural gas. How they decried — how unbusinesslike the NDP government was. What a mess!

You know, at the present time — and I think we should be proud to reflect on this — in the Peace River country they have the best.... The hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is beginning to shake his head. I say that they have the best drilling season in the Peace River for oil and gas that we have ever had in the province of British Columbia as the result of the NDP government.

Up in the Peace River right now — and you know this, Mr. Speaker — there are 33 rigs drilling. Somewhere I put down the figures, but I think I can remember them: one oil well drilled up to March 6; 34 successful natural gas wells drilled and ready to produce, and 20 dry holes. Total of 55. That is a magnificent record of activity in a businesslike way, sparked by the NDP government which you people decried so badly.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much time I have left, but possibly I could take a little bit of advice from the Chair on that question.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it isn't always the time limit; it's just how long I can last. I could run out of ideas here any minute now.

But, you know, if there is a great big difference between this side of the House and the Social Credit Party, it's that we believe that the rich resources of the province of British Columbia should yield public revenues and be returned to the people of the province.

You know, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests.... Mr. Minister of Mines, do you know what's happening to the price of...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Try the Minister of Health —

[ Page 241 ]

you'll still be wrong.

MR. MACDONALD: All right. He knows who I'm talking about. The hon. minister I'm talking to is the one that should be raising the royalty on coal right now, because, you know, the export price of our coal, which comes down through the Kaiser Resources Ltd. and is shipped out of the province — and I have the exact profit of that company before me — has gone away up in the price at port, at sea water. The price has gone up. The NDP government had the vision and the courage to impose a royalty. You don't like that word "royalty", but we love it because that's a bit of a return to the people of the province from their own resources. You don't like that word; leave it all to the big companies. Kaiser Resources in the last year sees its profits tripled, and made net earnings in 1975 of $71 million.

Now if you people want to go on up and down this province and in this House shouting about bankruptcy, as the Minister of Health did, saying what ruin we left, what ruinous state the finances were in, so we're going to cut back this, we're going to cut back that, we've got to redraw the definition of the handicapped in case somebody sneaks through.... That's what you're doing,

I tell you that there is resource revenue out there that belongs to the people, and should be collected into the public coffers of this province. You ought to immediately increase the royalty on coal exported out of this province to Japan — and not tomorrow, today.

Don't be afraid of giving a little bit of the.... Don't be like the lawyer who said that he hated to see a fine estate frittered away on the beneficiaries. Don't be afraid to see some of the resource riches of this province frittered away on the people of the province. Don't get scared about 2 1/2 cents on the price of copper, take off a copper royalty and pretend that 2 1/2 cents was the problem with all the copper mines in the province. That's ridiculous! Two and a half cents never affected those copper mines.

Our Bill 31 was a modest royalty. It was modest in terms....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Sure it was.

Two and a half cents on the price of copper, and the price of copper at 50 cents, which was — that's what it came to, 2 1/2 cents — 5 per cent, the same amount as the sales tax. That price of copper has already, since the beginning of 1976, gone up about 10 cents on the London Metal Exchange.

The mining industry in British Columbia, while they cry, is in good shape for the most part, and there is resource revenue there. I tell you that if you are prepared to lift all rents and royalties on the resources that belong to the people, and shut them out of all of the markets of the world without any rents or royalties back to the people, then British Columbia would become the last banana republic in the whole wide world.

You hold those resources in trust to create the funds in the public revenues for secondary industry, for health and education, the hospitals and the social services the people of this country so badly need.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a recycled 1966 speech.

MR. MACDONALD: With some changes in the meantime, hon. member, because never did the resource revenues of this province increase so much back to the people of the province as they did in the three years of NDP government.

It's more than a speech; it's a speech as to the resources of which you people are now the trustees, and trustees only. But it is a speech that is backed up with solid accomplishment during those years of NDP government.

I wanted to sit down by saying that that's a pretty basic issue and that there's been too much in this debate on the throne speech — attack, attack, attack upon the finances of the province, as if there is no fate worse than death. There are people out there....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: We do not intend to be a negative, destructive opposition. But what we have seen in this throne debate is far too much of the face of a negative, destructive government. We say to you that if you can emulate in your term of office the record of accomplishment of three and a half years of NDP government in all of these departments of government, you will be re-elected. If you can match our record, you will be elected.

But bear in mind that we have left, and we are proud to have left, in this province great monuments to social progress along the road to human freedom. You are on trial in department after department just to do as well as your predecessor before you. You are on trial. The people are watching; the people will judge you. Match the record and you will be all right. But if you bring to a stop the social progress and the resource development that was accomplished under the NDP, you will be judged and found wanting in the next election.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before I call upon the next speaker in this debate I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) if she can inform me of the ordinary daily adjournment this afternoon.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary):

[ Page 242 ]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to ask the House to rise this evening at six and return tomorrow at two.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take my place in this debate, I would first like to formally offer my best wishes and congratulations to you, Sir, and to the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) on his appointment as Deputy Speaker.

I would ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the members of this House join me in congratulating some young people from my riding, the Salmon Arm Senior Secondary School team, commonly known as the Jewels, who have just recently won the championship for the eighth time in 16 years.

Mr. Speaker, and hon. members, I am very proud to be speaking for the first time in this House today representing the constituency of Shuswap. I am also very happy to be supporting a government which is concerned with people — which is concerned with people and not just with building enormous bureaucratic organizations which dissipate our hard-earned tax dollars with little or no effective return.

The area I represent is as diverse as any in this province, not only in topography and its economy, but also in the problems affecting its citizens. I have had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of living in the Shuswap area nearly all my life and I have seen the many changes that have taken place. I have roamed the mountains and knew when the rivers and streams could be used for swimming or drinking without fear of any man-made pollution.

I knew the area when there were no operating mines, few farms and even fewer logging operations. Poor roads, little in the way of public services and no jobs were also the norm of that day. The improvements we see today are due to the increased productivity of our farms and the utilization of our natural resources.

My riding, Mr. Speaker, has become the principal dairy-producing area in the interior of the province and includes many of the largest and most modern dairy farms on the mainland of B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. BAWTREE: The Shuswap riding has also produced many of the top-selling animals at the provincial bull sale. One ranch in Salmon Arm has consistently for many, many years been at or near the top in their offerings of animals at that sale.

The grand champion polled Hereford this year, Mr. Speaker, at that sale came from my riding. The grand champion horned Hereford bull also was fitted in my riding.

I am happy to see that some integrated land-management plans are finally this year coming into being. This multiple-use concept will greatly aid the ranching industry, as well as adequately provide for logging and recreational use. These are some of the changes that have taken place in just one person's lifetime.

The lumbering industry has also seen many changes down through the years. We presently have one or more mills at Adams Lake, Chase, Tappen, Monte Lake, Canoe, Malakwa, Enderby and Armstrong. These mills, Mr. Speaker, all have chipping facilities and the ability to produce chips far in excess of the market available. This production, in excess of the local pulp mill's demand, is presently going up in smoke and represents many, many dollars which could be helping to supply services for people, and it's just one of the problems in the industry to which we must address ourselves.

Another area, Mr. Speaker, where we are experiencing a great deal of waste is in the natural losses in our forests. Fires, blowdown and insects destroy an enormous quantity of merchantable timber every year, and probably everyone has seen the ravages of the Tussock moth up the North Thompson and along the Shuswap Lake. It would be advantageous, Mr. Speaker, to find a way to remove this material which otherwise is wasted wherever it occurs, as I am sure the income could always be used for the benefit of the people of this province.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Shuswap riding is dependent to a very large extent on the forest industry, and it is essential that we reverse the trend that has been happening in this resource industry over the last two years. The trend has been to little or no profits, a poor employment picture and ever-increasing costs. Labour is always one of the items causing increased cost, but our hard-working people, putting in long hours in all weather harvesting this resource, are still getting less than most of our government employees. A most unsatisfactory situation when the people creating 50 per cent of the wealth of this province are getting less than their fair share of that wealth.

I am happy to see, Mr. Speaker, that this government will attempt to moderate the rapid increases that have taken place in the public sector and which will allow our resource industry workers to catch up to the workers in the public sector. There are many factors affecting the cost in the forest industry, higher-priced energy, lower-quality raw material, less accessibility to that raw material, to mention just a few of the ones over which there is little control.

There are many cost areas that can be controlled, and I would like to mention just one of these, the Workers' Compensation Board. The Workers' Compensation Board of B.C. regulations and

[ Page 243 ]

assessments have increased excessively in the last few years with the administration costs alone now twice as much per claim as Ontario and 60 per cent more than the neighbouring province of Alberta.

The forest industry has spent many millions of dollars on roll-over protective devices in the last few years, dollars which very often produced at best a very questionable advantage and, in some cases, actually increased the hazard to the operators — $50 million is the estimated cost of noise control in the forest industry and in many instances, this could be achieved by ear-protecting devices along. This $50 million the industry or the province can ill afford at this time.

I am happy to see that the past chairman of the WCB is no longer with us and that an administrative survey is presently being carried out. There is great need to restore confidence in the industry so that the operators can believe that they will be given a fair hearing and a chance to contribute to policies which indeed will reduce the accident rate in the forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, one of nature's greatest displays takes place in my riding and I refer to the Adams River salmon run. This salmon run in peak years has up to one million salmon on the few acres of spawning beds. This is one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the world, and one that we must guard very jealously. Mr. Speaker, one can learn from observing the salmon, from hatching to adulthood. They are similar, hon. members, to some people.

When they are young and inexperienced, they often make their way downstream tail first, pointed in the wrong direction, and they don't know where they are going. As they become more experienced they make a complete turn around. They become free-enterprisers, and they watch where they are going; they mature and grow up, and thus become useful to all mankind.

Sicamous and the Shuswap Lake area is called the houseboat capital of the world, and rightly so. There are few areas that can surpass it for this kind of recreation. There are approximately 1,000 miles of coastline along which one can travel with a houseboat, vast areas where you can still see the black bears and the eagles and the ospreys.

You will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker, that the native birds of prey on the Shuswap appear to be once again overcoming the effects of DDT and hatching a reasonable number of young.

The tourist industry is extremely important to my riding, and yet this, too, is experiencing very serious problems. From 1973 to 1975 the campgrounds and trailer parks decreased in number from 1,038 down to 694, a decrease of over 30 per cent in just over three years. This was brought about by high taxes and very stiff competition from government campsites that received an average $1.15 per night, yet cost the taxpayers of B.C. approximately $8 per night.

It is estimated that 40 per cent of our campsite users are non-residents, and therefore, under our present policies, the people of B.C. are subsidizing to a great degree the out-of-province tourists.

While it is of great concern to myself and to the people involved, the fact that many private operators are going out of business may not be as great a loss in the long run as the many beach and water-access areas which have been available to the travelling public and are rapidly being eliminated as these businesses fold.

It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that we find a solution to these problems. We must find a way for the private arm of the tourist industry to live in harmony with the government operations, as we need these private entrepreneurs to preserve our beach areas and supply the ski resorts, the riding stables, golf courses, and maintain the high level of facilities being demanded by the holidaying public.

Hon. members, I know that all highways in this province have deteriorated in the last three years, but I would make a strong plea to the hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) that in order to have a tourist industry, we need roads tourists can drive on.

If our forest industry is to continue to produce the wealth in order to supply the hospitals, schools, welfare, Mincome, and all the other needs of the people of this province, we must have our roads and bridges upgraded immediately, or we will very soon come to a grinding halt.

On the subject of health care, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that two of the smaller cities in my constituency, Enderby and Armstrong, have a great deal of public participation and facilities in nearly all aspects of the health-care field.

They have low-rental accommodation for seniors, boarding homes, intermediate care and acute care, everything except extended-care facilities, a lack that I will be discussing with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in order to try and find a solution. I am happy that the hon. minister has made the commitment to provide more extended-care beds in this province as our economy improves.

Another area of health care I would like to mention is the need for some ambulance service to serve the area on Highway 97 between Vernon and Kamloops, an area centred around Falkland and West Cove, with many logging and ranching operations but no emergency ambulance service.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a new look at financing in the hospital field be taken to encourage greater thrift on the part of the local hospital boards.

I am extremely pleased that the throne speech stated we would be making Crown land available in order that people of this province would be able to own their own home and the land on which it sits.

The Shuswap riding presents many, many

[ Page 244 ]

problems in developing land for residential purposes. Nearly all the flat-bottomed valley bottoms are generally fairly narrow and have rivers or streams running through them. They are ideal for agricultural purposes and therefore should be preserved for this purpose. Under the legislation previously introduced called Bill 42, we saw in Shuswap riding an artificial scarcity of land created which caused in a three-year period a greater loss of land for agricultural purposes than ever before in our history in a similar period of time.

It will not be easy, as I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, to provide home sites in the Shuswap, but it must be done. It will take a great deal of desire and imagination on the part of all the people involved before we adequately solve this problem. However, by the announced policy of providing Crown land and with the cooperation of all levels of government we will not only provide land for our people to own, but we will also remove much of the pressure from our agricultural lands.

There are many potential problem areas, particularly around the Shuswap Lake. Probably none is as acute as the area around Blind Bay. It is about this area that I will be discussing the problems with all the great many departments that are interested in water quality.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly touch on our educational system where many weaknesses have been in evidence in all areas of the province. Of course, the Shuswap area is experiencing the same problems. Many of the parents are concerned that their children are not being as prepared as they might expect to take their place in society. There is great concern expressed by these parents and, indeed, by many of the students, about the lack of discipline and lack of standards in the schools, which inhibit their proper preparedness for entering our higher educational system or entering the future labour market.

I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has already indicated he will be taking some action to correct these problems in our educational system. If this is done, then many of my constituents in the Shuswap who have been considering private schools will once again feel that they will get the quality and kind of education they desire and deserve.

Many members on the other side of the House have indicated that we on this side are too concerned with balancing the budget. They say we should not worry that we have insufficient money to pay for some of the programmes. Mr. Speaker, there will never be a shortage of worthwhile projects; there will never be a shortage of needs among the citizens of our community. The real question becomes: what programmes have what priorities?

To say that we should try to satisfy all these programmes without regard to any monetary constraints is the height of irresponsibility. It is not must money, Mr. Speaker. It is not just money we are talking about, it is the burden on future generations.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, in closing I would like to say that my main reason for seeking the onerous position of representing the people of Shuswap was to try and relieve our children and grandchildren of having to pay the day-to-day operating costs which are the legitimate responsibility of today's citizens. Under the changes already announced, such as those for ICBC and others which we will all help formulate, I am convinced that my children and your children will be relieved of this burden.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker and hon. members, before I express those thoughts I believe appropriate to this moment, I would like to emphasize that I doubt that, in spite of any outward appearance of any self-possession or composure, many new members of this assembly have risen for the first time to speak without their knees trembling at least slightly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KERSTER: I bring you all greetings from the people of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and electoral area B, whom I am privileged and honoured to represent as their newly elected member of this assembly — a little late on my arrival, maybe, but better late than never.

I don't think it's necessary or particularly appropriate on this occasion to go into lengthy detail or rhetoric regarding our constituency or its particular problems. Our needs and desires, our problems and their necessary solutions will surface and be sought after seriously in the very near future.

There is no doubt that we all face very depressing times and difficult decisions which will place enormous strain on both the moral and physical fibre of this assembly and everyone in this province. In fact, you know, the understanding and support of the people of British Columbia will be one of the most significant factors if we are to be successful in emerging from the confusion of inflation, unemployment and labour unrest. But by necessity, this government must lead with frankness, openness and vigour. By necessity we must lead with vigour and example. Therefore all of us must devote ourselves to provincial, rather than party, aims in our best effort to solve our present problems.

I believe this can be achieved, Mr. Speaker, by efficient and wise action in this assembly coupled, as it must be, with good hard work and temporary sacrifice. Success is much more attainable through tact and good common sense than it will ever be

[ Page 245 ]

through vain and unprofitable conversation. This won't lead to any discovery of an instant cure-all, but it will assist us to avoid plunging recklessly into any programmes for the sake of winning public favour. Now many of the main objectives of this government are the same...as the Coquitlam constituency. We have an enormous task ahead of us to deal with the many matters which affect the lives of every British Columbian. We are challenged with the responsibility of supplying housing at reasonable cost, and reducing the cost of housing through the availability of land, land that we can own and call our own.

We must also achieve a balance of supply and demand to stabilize these costs as we continue to house British Columbians in the decades to come. You know, it's imperative, if the individual enterprise way of life is to survive, that we find ways to expand freedom, not contract it. This is the great challenge which confronts us in the last quarter of this twentieth century. This is the real responsibility of government. To do this, government must work in many areas to assist individuals to expand their freedoms and their opportunities, for the good of all British Columbians.

The forest industry must be assisted to enable it to compete in the world market, and to provide jobs for British Columbians. We must — and I say we must — end punitive legislation against mining companies to encourage renewed exploration for natural resources. We must not exploit those resources with no thought for future generations, but we must be concerned for those of us who are here now, and the future that we have a right to expect.

British Columbians also have a right to expect educational opportunities. They must be afforded the facilities to expand their knowledge and apply it for the betterment of all British Columbians. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for their initiative in increasing the size of the medical school facilities at the University of British Columbia. These ministers in their foresight have created opportunities for more individuals to further develop their medical horizons. But educational opportunity must go beyond the public school system. The government recognizes its responsibility to assist those who desire to gain their education through an independent school system. It's committed to provide financial assistance to those groups, while diligently charting a sensible standard of curriculum, so as to assure a well-educated populace.

It's time to restore a sense of purpose to community colleges and universities in this province. It's time to develop these institutions so they have direction. It's time to develop them so they provide valuable initiative to all who wish to better their level of education. Further, both teachers and school boards must be recognized for the valuable contribution they are able to make in the operation of our educational system. The heavy hand of Victoria must not destroy the public awareness and participation in our school system.

We've reached the point in our social and educational development where free enterprise must make a concerted effort to better enlighten the public regarding the essential importance of individual initiative and its relationship to freedom. Socialists have seized the opportunity at almost every level of education to plant the seeds of their doctrine of the welfare state firmly in the minds of the young and the elderly alike. The proponents of the independent and personal-incentive way of life, while still in the majority, have not resorted to these tactics. We must, and will in the future, keep the public informed of the advantages of freedom through the openness of government, and the disadvantages of being lulled into falling, or completely slipping away, into a welfare state.

I am very proud to endorse the legislation calling for the establishment of an ombudsman for British Columbia. This is a positive step in guaranteeing the rights of all citizens against the weight of big government. The former administration talked about an ombudsman for years. But there lies the difference between our two parties.

If you would listen instead of talking, Mr. Member, you would get a message here. The difference lies in that you spent three and a half years talking about it; now we're doing something about it.

We believe in positive action, not negative action, not lofty theories. I think those theories might best be described as "the mirage that draws travelers a little further into the desert".

MR. LAUK: Who's going to be the ombudsman?

MR. KERSTER: The proposed British Columbia Guaranteed Additional Income for Need Act, which will extend benefits to qualifying people in the 55 to 59 age group, and all single-parent families, is further evidence of the concern of our government for those in genuine need. Third place in social aid to the needy is not good enough. Third place is not good enough. We must return this province to its rightful place as the leader in Canada in the areas of income assistance.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: I might remind that honourable heckler that the position we held prior to 1972 was just that.

For the first time this province will have an auditor-general. The finances of the province will be safeguarded by the independent office, and financial

[ Page 246 ]

mismanagement, such as occurred over the past three and a half years, will never be repeated.

Positive policies from a government that cares about its people.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Right on! Right on!

MR. KERSTER: However, it must be clearly understood that the principles of the British Columbia Social Credit Party are not negotiable. There are no bargains with any sector for the sake of public opinion. Once a sound and secure foundation is restored, we can dedicate ourselves to the future, always remembering, first and foremost, that government is ourselves and not some alien power over us. Only in this resolve, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, can we assure a free and varied society in which there is room for tolerance and understanding. That's a lesson for you right there: tolerance, listening, and understanding. All people to lead happy, honourable and useful lives, without systems of rigid uniformity in our lifestyle which, traditionally has been free.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Without the power-mongers.

MR. KERSTER: In closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take licence and paraphrase some advice given to a new member of parliament by an experienced parliamentarian many years ago at Westminster, the mother of parliaments. This is some advice that the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).... Richard Sheils so advised Benjamin Disraeli: "Don't pretend to be a genius in the first session. Speak, and speak briefly. Try to be dull." Well, some members over there won't have to expend much effort in that regard. "Only argue and reason imperfectly. Otherwise you may be considered a wit."

MR. SPEAKER: The question is:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of this present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 33

NAYS — 18

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. E. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty and that this order have precedence over all other business except Introduction of Bills until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents the first annual report of the Universities Council of British Columbia, 1974-1975.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Yesterday I heard a report on a Victoria radio station in which the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) made derogatory and libelous statements against a member of this House by stating that the member, while stating in this chamber, was less than sober. This libelous statement has seriously maligned a member of this House and thrown a cloak of suspicion over the actions of all members.

The second member for Victoria talked this afternoon about conduct of members in this House. I would suggest that his colleagues have a responsibility to inform him of the proper conduct of a member.

In the years that I have been a member of this House I have never witnessed such a despicable and vicious attack against a member of this House. His statement, Mr. Speaker, has aroused public suspicion

[ Page 247 ]

on the activities of all members of this chamber. Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to this statement of this member, I must ask him to apologize to the House for his irresponsible statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you did mention that this was a report that you heard of something that was said outside of the House, but I'll take the matter under advisement.

MR. KING: I would like to make this point, Mr. Speaker. While I never heard the report that has been referred to, it was brought to my attention by members of the press gallery. I pointed out to them that it is not customary for members to comment on the private conduct of any hon. members of this House, or indeed of the precinct.

Some new members, I presume, are not too cognizant of the rules that more or less go unwritten in the Legislature. Certainly, I have taken responsibility for apprising all our members of that approach that has been historically recognized in the Legislature.

However, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that sobriety is not always a reference to any alcohol, or that kind of thing. I understand there was a statement....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make my point if I may, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. KING: I understand there was a reference made which was by a radio announcer. I think a number of members in this debate have talked about a more sober approach to the duties which all of have in this House.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that no member of this House on the basis of some radio report is within his rights to stand and make comment without evidence on matters which occurred outside this House, and I think it's quite improper to ask apologies without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. I certainly reject the proposition put forward by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I've listened.... Be seated, please, for one moment. Hon. members, I have listened to the matter that was raised by the hon. member for Columbia River and I have listened to the reply from the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have no intentions of ruling upon the matter this evening. I think it's something, as I said, I will take under advisement. I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, and I would suggest that until I can give you a report on it that we allow the matter to sit as it is.

MR. BARBER: May I make a comment?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. BARBER: In reply to the hon. member for Columbia River, at no time during my remarks did I name any member of this House. I was asked to do so and I refused to do so consistently. I would have thought that very improper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: As a new member...indeed, I made an observation which I'm now informed was not correct. I apologize for making that observation. I apologize to yourself and to every member of this House and I do so without hesitation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the matter.

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents the first annual report of the British Columbia Institute of Technology covering its first 10 years of existence.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the following reports: 20th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, year ended March 31, 1975; 40th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Public Service Superannuation Act, year ended March 31, 1975; 36th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Municipal Superannuation Act, year ended December 31, 1974; 7th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the College Pension Act, year ended August 31, 1975; 34th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Teachers' Pension Act, year ended December 31, 1974; 15th annual report of the business done under the Public Service Group Insurance Act, policy year July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5: 57 p.m.