[ Page 5631 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Vancouver Resources Board. Mr. Macdonald –– 5631

ICBC collision coverage. Mr. Cocke –– 5632

Replacement of Wilkinson Road jail. Mr. Wallace –– 5632

Funding for rapid transit. Mr. Lauk –– 5633

Legal Services Commission. Mr. Macdonald –– 5633

Joint Committee on Housing. Mr. Nicolson –– 5633

Possible electricity rate increases. Mr. Wallace –– 5634

Soil Conservation Act (Bill 57) Committee stage.

On section 4 amendment.

Mrs. Wallace –– 5635

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5635

On section 9.

Mrs. Wallace –– 5635

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 5635

Report and third reading –– 5636

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) . Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 5636

Appendix –– 5663

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is Mr. Charlie English. Mr. English is from Darlington County, Durham, England. He flew out from England to visit us and be with us, He's staying with his sister in Oak Bay. He's at that glorious age of 85 and I'd like the House to bid him a warm welcome.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Ed Hepting. Mr. Hepting is the co-chairman of the Vancouver Resources Board union and is from the great constituency of Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on occasion in my travels I meet a number of clergymen and, in the past, I've introduced some of my acquaintances to the House. Today I have the honour of introducing a very special friend, Rabbi Abrami, who said the prayer today.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): In the gallery today is a senior child-care worker employed at the Mary Hill Centre - a children's treatment centre - in the Coquitlam constituency, Audrey Fondrick. She's here representing four other workers of the centre: John Fitzpatrick, Sherry Sall, Dolores Piro, and Anna Camozzi. I would ask the House to also make her welcome.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Yes, I'm sure that Audrey is here with the new Jolly Jumper for the hon. member for Coquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce Mr. Bob Harris, an employee of the Vancouver Resources Board. I would also like to introduce in the gallery today a long-time resident of Vancouver Centre and a first-class member of the executive of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia for Vancouver Centre, Mrs. Thelma Pankiw. Would the House make her and Mr. Harris welcome?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today Ron and Jean Quibell from Nottinghamshire, England, accompanied by Mrs. Velma Wilson. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have in the House today Mr. Don McGregor, who is a lifetime resident of my riding in Powell River. Mr. Speaker, the House may be interested to know that Mr. McGregor's father, Lieutenant-Colonel John McGregor, is the holder of the Victoria Cross with the Second Canadian Mounted Rifles.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, three members of my constituency, who are on vacation, are visiting us today. They are: Gloria Greenfield, who is a shop steward with the Vancouver Resources Board; David Morgan, who is the first vice-president of CUPE 881, a union of the Vancouver Resources Board; and Len Hexter, who is president of the VMREU, which is also a union with the Vancouver Resources Board.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, here to observe the proceedings today is Dave McIntyre, who is the assistant secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour. I'd like the House to welcome him.

Oral questions.

VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Provincial Secretary: is it not true that there was a meeting of the six Social Credit MLAs from Vancouver to discuss their differences about the Vancouver Resources Board and Bill 65?

MR. SPEAKER: That's an improper question, hon. member.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I will take your advice. I agree; it is a most improper question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it's a perfectly factual question as to whether that meeting took place. Can we not ask whether there was a meeting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you stopped beating your wife?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver East, I think, is very well aware of the fact that questions he asks the minister are something that come within her official duties as a minister of the Crown. Certainly the question that you posed is not within the scope of her official duties as a minister.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to take the time of question period, but I would say that if we have official duties here, we have official duties in relation to the legislation coming before this House. I say the

[ Page 5632 ]

question is perfectly proper, and it's obvious that there are differences that are being submerged.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, your opinion is not well taken. It is not a proper question.

ICBC COLLISION COVERAGE

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I have a question for the Minister of Education in charge of ICBC. There's been a tremendous drop in collision coverage that has created a situation where our streets and our highways look like moving junkyards at the moment. Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has made collision coverage....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if I could have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: You have the floor, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has made collision coverage a preserve of the rich, what does he plan to do about danger on the streets?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the only effect of the policy of making collision optional has been to reduce the number of accidents and increase the safety on the streets.

MR. COCKE: I would indicate that there have been, as a matter of fact, marginally more accidents. The problem is that the victims of those accidents are not being fixed. I ask the minister again: what is he doing about danger on our streets?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping the very positive trends that have been established under Social Credit can be carried on into the future.

MR. BARRETT: That's good news for Surrey Dodge.

REPLACEMENT OF WILKINSON ROAD JAIL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General with regard to one further escape from Wilkinson Road jail and a subsequent hostage-taking incident and, in view of the minister's former answer to my question on August 10, in which he stated: "Replacement of Wilkinson Road, as it presently stands, is second in priority to the phasing out of Oakalla, but that does not mean that we are not concerned with the problem at Wilkinson." Since the recent escape occurred while the jail was overcrowded with 105 inmates, which is well above the average population, and in the light of these continuing problems of security, is the minister giving any reconsideration to giving the replacement of Wilkinson Road jail equal priority to the replacement of Oakalla?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In response to that question, I would like to make a couple of points with the hon. member. First of all, the security and programme procedures are being reviewed at Wilkinson Road and I requested this information and I received it this morning. There will be controlled experiments to involve the use of guard dogs on the perimeter. There will be a review of the programme procedures concerning recreation, use of the gym, the nature of supervision, and so forth, plus a proposal to use closed-circuit television to improve surveillance. I understand that the most recent incident was escalated because Wilkinson was holding four escapees from William Head as well as the two escapees from Wilkinson Road.

I would like to say this to the hon. member: the statement that was made before in the House stands, but that does not mean that Wilkinson Road will not receive an emphasis, but the highest emphasis is going to be placed upon Oakalla. I would think that the emphasis that we should be directing ourselves to vis-à-vis Wilkinson Road would be to establish additional remand facilities on Vancouver Island. I'm very much in favour of doing that and the ministry is giving consideration to it, but I think by virtue of taking some of the stress off Oakalla, that in itself will have a response action to taking some of the problem difficulties away from Wilkinson.

But I've got to say this: I think that in British Columbia a succession of governments have been very remiss insofar as their capital expenditures for prisons are concerned, and that goes back for 25 years. I mentioned to'the hon. member that this government has addressed itself to the problem, it does recognize it, and we're going to move along in the direction that I've indicated.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's detailed answer and it just shows that it helps to give the minister notice of questions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, I didna get your notice. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Oh, you didna get my notice? Well, I gave notice to the minister's assistant to his assistant to his executive assistant.

[ Page 5633 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've got to find out who that is. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is very much appreciated, particularly in relation to remand prisoners, because I gather it's the mixing of remand and convicted prisoners that causes a problem.

There is another problem regarding PCs, and I'm not referring to Progressive Conservatives. (Laughter.) I'm referring to those in protective custody.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Which side are the PCs on - which side of the wall?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Joe Clark!

MR. WALLACE: No, he doesn't need protective custody. Is there any possibility, since this is an ongoing problem in all our jails, that a separate facility can be created? Does the minister have any plans to develop a separate facility for those persons requiring protective custody, since this is a constant source of unrest and friction within the total population of both Wilkinson Road and other jails?

HON. MR. GARDOM: That is an interesting suggestion. It has not yet come to my desk from the professionals in the field, but I will certainly request that they take a look at that suggestion.

I think that you hit the nail on the head; at least this is where my thinking is. I think that if we can start adequately separating the remand population from the sentence population throughout the province we can overcome most of our problems, because it's the remand population which includes most of the more difficult criminal element. They're only a potentially criminal element; they are only charged, of course.

MR. LAUK: That's right, Mr. Speaker. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty, like the four Social Credit MLAs who breached the Constitution Act.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question, hon. member?

FUNDING FOR RAPID TRANSIT

MR. LAUK: My question is to the hon. Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there is a report that the mayor of the city of Vancouver does not consider the PNE expenditures proposed to be of higher priority than expenditures from the provincial government with respect to rapid transit, has she received any formal communication from the mayor with respect to funding for rapid transit? Is she aware of any other minister of her cabinet receiving such a formal request?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to both questions, Mr. Speaker, is no.

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION

MR. MACDONALD: This question is to the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that due to the failure of the government to make official appointments to the Legal Services Commission since September 1, 20 days ago, the commission is now defunct, and it only has two members and cannot operate?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, will he refer to the Act that states that a quorum of three is necessary for meetings and that quorum is impossible to be found due to the incompetence of the government in failing to make those appointments to that body, to the police commission and to the Law Reform Commission?

MR. BARRETT: I'll answer that. They'll make the law retroactive.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Humbug!

JOINT COMMITTEE ON

HOUSING

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. As the minister was chairman of the Joint Committee. . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question seems to be to the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation. If the members in this end of the chamber would restrain themselves, we could hear the question.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister was the chairman on the Joint Committee on Housing and had contact with all the people who appeared before the committee. Could the minister inform the House when it will be possible to make the transcripts available?

AN HON. MEMBER: Come clean, Sam!

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you would agree that question is out of order, inasmuch as it should be

[ Page 5634 ]

addressed to the minister responsible for housing.

MR. LAUK: You're hiding.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The fact is that I was not a member of the executive council at the time that I was chairman of that committee. The material resulting from the hearings of the committee was turned over to that minister, Hon. Mr. Curtis. The matter rests in his hands, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: What are you trying to hide?

MR. NICOLSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister was chairman of the committee, and the difficulty seems to be in getting permission from the persons who appeared before the committee, or at least making contact with them. Since I'm sure that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation is in a better position to do this, having met with these people, would the minister not undertake to finish up the job that he initiated as chairman of this committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, Sam!

POSSIBLE ELECTRICITY RATE

INCREASES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. On Wednesday, September 14,1977, 1 asked the minister whether it was likely that any further increases in electricity rates and service charges would be implemented before the end of the fiscal year, March 31,1978. The minister said he could not comment on that. The chairman of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, Mr. Bonner, stated yesterday to a reporter that increases in electricity rates and service charges are a real possibility in the new year. Can the minister tell the House if he is aware of this likely policy of B.C. Hydro?

MR. BARRETT: He's got to check with Mr. Bonner first.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is asking whether this is a matter of government policy. No decision along these lines has been taken by the government.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, perhaps, to clarify the minister's answer, I could ask him if he personally has had discussions with the chairman of B.C. Hydro on this subject and, if so, how recently.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I'm a member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro. Costs are discussed at every meeting and, of course, ways and means in which revenue can be raised in order to cover those costs, b but there have been no specific discussions about rate increases in recent months.

MR. WALLACE: I have another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If these discussions have taken place and the chairman has made the statement he has made, can I ask the minister if there is some deadline by which a decision will be made about future increases? We had increases as recently as March of this year, and I'm trying to determine what relation these have to such further proposals as capital borrowing for the Revelstoke Dam. When will a decision likely be made by B.C. Hydro around the boardroom table -including this director - as to the likelihood of increases being added in the near future?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there is no deadline. However, toward the end of the year, recommendations will undoubtedly be made by the staff of B.C. Hydro to the directors. I might add that the capital programme of B.C. Hydro is being reduced to some extent, so one of the pressures, at least, in the direction of rate increases is somewhat subsiding.

MR. WALLACE: On a final supplementary, could the minister give us any idea what approximate area of percentage increase is being discussed, if it should be necessary next year?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be most unwise of me at this time to attempt to guess what order of magnitude of increase might take place if, in fact, an increase were to come about.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 57.

SOIL CONSERVATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 57; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Back to the land, my friends.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 1, line 6, standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

[ Page 5635 ]

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I would like to ask the minister the reason for the change. Was it simply an oversight or is this a change in thinking?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the reason for the change on section 1, line 6 is because of the amendments that were put into section 10.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I move an amendment to section 1, line 17, standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: The same question, Mr. Chairman: was this an oversight or is this a change in thinking?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Same answer, Mr. Chairman. We felt it was better set out in section 10.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 1, line 22, standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MRS. WALLACE: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I considered the amendment that was on the order paper....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat wishes to speak on the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: I touched on the reason for moving this amendment yesterday when we discussed this in second reading. But the amendment simply broadens the degree allowed in appeal. The old Act, which this replaces, specified that any person could appeal any decision reached under this Act. This Act for some reason changes it so that only the applicant is allowed that privilege. To me, this is very unfair. It's weighted in favour of the applicant only and does not allow the same right in the eyes of the law to people other than the person applying.

Therefore I would urge the minister to consider accepting this amendment to change the wording back to the original concept of "person." Any person affected could apply, and not only the applicant could appeal any decision.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I considered the amendment that the member for Cowichan-Malahat put on the order paper. I'm sure she recognizes that the purpose of the bill is to provide more effective control. Under section 4, if I can relate back to section 3, the local authority has to have approval of granting that permit by the Land Commission. Also the applicant has to comply with the regulations. Now that, Mr. Chairman, having that authority and that responsibility, would review all aspects of an application presented to it, prior to allowing the local authority to issue a permit.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that is basically the protection that is needed when an applicant applies. If the decision is not to grant the permit at the local authority level, they can appeal to the minister, but if the Land Commission says that the permit should not be allowed, their decision is final.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to again draw to the minister's attention the fact that the maximum penalty allowed under section 9 is $500 a day. While these offences are being tried in court, I would assume - or certainly it's the same situation as any judicial case - this is less than is provided for under other legislation - for example, the Summary Convictions Act. I am concerned that he is still leaving the $500 in there and I just want to make the case again that I think this is too low.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of the $500 is for a continuing offence - it's a $500-a-day penalty. With regard to the Summary Convictions Act where a person commits an offence, they, in effect, under section 9 (l) , are subject to the Summary Convictions Act which would be the total of $2,000 maximum.

On the other section, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind that anybody who is in contravention of the terms and conditions of the permit can be forced to rehabilitate the land at considerable expense to himself.

[ Page 5636 ]

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 10 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Section 11 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 57, Soil Conservation Act, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. HEWITT: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 57, Soil Conservation Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 65.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, when I moved adjournment of this debate last night, I was dealing with the history of how we came to the debating of Bill 65 at this time. I would like to continue in the same vein. Before doing so, I would like to read into the record a telegram which was sent to all of the Vancouver MLAs on September 20,1977. It came from the board of school trustees for the Vancouver school district. It says:

RE PROPOSED BILL 65 LEGISLATION TO ABOLISH THE VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD: THE BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF DISTRICT 39 VANCOUVER WISHES TO INFORM

ALL MEMBERS OF THE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY WHO REPRESENT THE CITY OF VANCOUVER OF THE BOARD'S DEEP CONCERN ABOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF VANCOUVER, PARTICULARLY ITS YOUTH. THE VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD HAS DEVELOPED AN INCREASINGLY POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE LIAISON WITH THE VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD IN WHICH THERE IS STRONG LOCAL INVOLVEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY RELATED TO PROGRAMMES FOR CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS IN NEED. ALL TRUSTEES HAVE GRAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE PROPOSED ABANDONMENT OF THIS TEAM APPROACH TO RESOLVING LOCAL SOCIAL PROBLEMS. WE FEAR THAT IMPORTANT SERVICES TO OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN WILL BE DENIED AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION. WE JOIN WITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS IN OUR CITY IN OPPOSING THIS LEGISLATION AND URGE YOU TO OPPOSE IT ALSO. THE ABOLITION OF THE VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD WOULD BE, IN OUR OPINION, A RETROGRADE STEP IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES TO THIS CITY. WE WISH TO REGISTER OUR CONCERN ON BEHALF OF PARENTS AND CHILDREN IN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM. MEMBERS OF OUR BOARD AND ITS OFFICIALS WILL BE PLEASED TO MEET WITH YOU TO PROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS REGARDING THIS EXTREMELY VITAL MATTER. MARGARET ANDREWS, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES, DISTRICT 39, VANCOUVER.

Mr. Speaker, one of the statements made by the Minister of Human Resources is that the opposition to Bill 65 is coming from a small vocal minority in the city of Vancouver. I think that there is ample evidence to prove that in this, as in so many other things, he is again incorrect. I would also like to read into the record a couple of telegrams which I received this morning. One is from Bill Hennessey, community worker at the First United Church, which is, as you may not know, Mr. Speaker, a church in the downtown area of the city of Vancouver. It reads as follows:

HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH A LOT OF POOR PEOPLE IN DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER TODAY AND THEY'RE ALL PULLING FOR YOU IN YOUR FIGHT ON THEIR BEHALF. MAY GOD GIVE YOU THE STRENGTH TO CARRY ON YOUR BATTLE. BILL HENNESSEY, COMMUNITY WORKER, FIRST UNITED CHURCH.

Another telegram, Mr. Speaker, is from the regional council of the International Woodworkers of America. It reads as follows:

DEAR MS. BROWN, I'M INSTRUCTED BY

[ Page 5637 ]

UNANIMOUS ACTION OF THE DELEGATES AND OFFICERS ASSEMBLED IN CONVENTION TO INFORM YOU THAT THE CONVENTION ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING MOTION "THAT THIS CONVENTION SEND A TELEGRAM TO

ROSEMARY BROWN SUPPORTING HER IN HER FILIBUSTER ON THE VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD." BEST WISHES ON YOUR ENDEAVOUR. YOURS FRATERNALLY, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, REGIONAL COUNCIL NO. j, T. WYMAN TRINEER, SECRETARY-TREASURER.

The third telegram, Mr. Speaker, is from the Pine Street Clinic, and I will be talking more about the Pine Street Clinic as I get along, because it's one of the community groups which were served by the Vancouver Resources Board. It says very simply: "Keep it up, Rosemary. Good work. Signed, the staff, Pine Street Clinic."

The fourth telegram is from an individual. I have no idea who the person is, but it says: "We support you 100 per cent. Do we all have to suffer? Good luck. Margaret Burneski, West Seventh Avenue." It's not even from someone in my own riding. I just wanted to read those things into the record, Mr. Speaker, before continuing with my statements of last night.

I started out by talking about June 22. June 22 is going to go down in history in the city of Vancouver because it was such a really horrible day for so many people. As you will remember, I told you first of all about the anonymous phone call which was left on my answering service, and then I went on to read into the record a letter from the minister, a memo from the deputy minister, and also a memo to the staff from Mr. Schreck.

In the afternoon, at the beginning of the session, Bill 65 was introduced. I think everyone should know what is contained in Bill 65, so I am going to read it into the record:

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:

I . Section 1 of the Community Resources Board Act is amended by inserting the following after the definition of "director": 11 government" includes the bargaining agent for government under the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the bureau under the Public Service Act.

2. The Act is further amended by inserting the following after section 24: 24 (l) The Vancouver Resources Board is a corporation, and, in addition to the powers of a corporation under the Interpretation Act, the corporation may acquire, hold, dispose of, mortgage or pledge real property.

(2) The Companies Act does not apply to the corporation.

3. The Act is further amended by renumbering section 60 as section 70 and inserting the following after section S9:

60. An agreement entered into or liability assumed by the Vancouver Resources Board on or after June 22,1977, is unenforceable unless approved in writing by the director."

You remember in section 1 the definition of "director" became "government."

61. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate a transfer date for the purposes of this Act.

62. (1) The director shall exercise the power and authority of the board of directors of the Vancouver Resources Board from the date this section comes into force to the transfer date. (2) The term of office of each member of the board of directors of the Vancouver Resources Board is terminated on the date this section comes into force.

63. On the transfer date

(a) sections 24, 24A, 60 and 62 of the Act are repealed.

(b) the Vancouver Resources Board is dissolved.

(c) every right, title, estate, or interest of the Vancouver Resources Board, including a right under agreement made by the Vancouver Resources Board, is vested in the government.

(d) The government assumes all liabilities of the Vancouver Resources Board."

Mr. Speaker, the real reason I'm reading this into the record is because I'm sure that there are many members on the government side who, if they really knew what was in this Act, could not possibly support it. Certainly the Vancouver members of the government side, if they knew what was in this Act, could not support it.

"64. (1) On the transfer date. . .

MR. SPEAKER: I must caution the member from reading into the record on the basis that she is presently doing. All of these sections of the Act will be debated when we become involved in the committee stage of the bill, hon. member. The bill is before the House for the examination of all of the members of the House and cannot be dealt with at this particular stage section by section. I think the hon. member can appreciate that. The subject before the House on the debate at the present time is on the principle of the bill, not on the individual sections.

[ Page 5638 ]

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I believe that when Mr. Speaker is addressing a member, they are supposed to show respect and be seated while the Speaker is raising the point of order, but they will be recognized immediately upon the Speaker concluding his point of order in bringing this to their attention. That is to say, if a speaker were to sit down while a point of order was being raised, they would be recognized, of course, and they wouldn't lose their place in their debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) chastising the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard?

MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. SPEAKER: If that is the case, then I take exception to that because I think that is the position of the Speaker. Certainly the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) will be recognized.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you a concern that I have. This concern is that there are members in this House who will be voting on this particular piece of legislation who may not have read it. How are we going to deal with that dilemma?

MR. SPEAKER: By simply suggesting to the hon. members that they thoroughly read the bill which is before the House, but not by discussing the bill section by section or by reading it back to them verbatim, hon. member. I think you realize that the debate in second reading is on the principle of the bill. As long as you are within the ambit of that debate, I'm sure you will be allowed to continue.

MS. BROWN: I certainly appreciate your recommendations and I will follow them very closely by now asking the members of the House, in particular the Vancouver MLAs on the government side of the House, to please read Bill 65.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: There are none of them here. We have another dilemma. Oh, the Attorney-General is here. Through you, Mr. Speaker, he probably would take a message to the other Vancouver MLAs at their next meeting when they meet to discuss their dilemma surrounding Bill 65 that it would probably help their discussion if they first read the bill.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I draw your attention to standing order 40 (l) . 1 advise the House that members whom this hon. member is referring to are out of this House on official government business with members of her own party. I would suggest that she not speak disrespectfully of their attendance to their duties.

MS. BROWN: First of all, may I thank the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) for reminding me that the members who are away from the House are away on official government business? I'm not too sure what happened to the member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . I don't think he's on that government committee. I don't think the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is on that committee either. I could be wrong. Maybe the member for North Okanagan would bring me up to date on that too. I'm not sure about the two members for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman and' Mr. Rogers) . I think one is on the committee but I don't think the other one is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gone to Harvard.

MS. BROWN: Gone to Harvard, I see. That probably has to do with saving the Vancouver Resources Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Now back to the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN: Yes. I certainly do appreciate the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) bringing that information to my attention. Let the record show, nonetheless, that a number of the Vancouver MLAs were not present when I made my suggestion that they read the bill, and so I may be forced to make that suggestion again at a later date.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, okay, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in the afternoon or the early evening of that same date, June 22 - a very long day it was indeed - there was a regular meeting of the Vancouver Resources Board in Vancouver. I attended that meeting and would like to report on it very briefly. At that meeting, the chairman of the board read the letter from the minister dissolving the board. A number of members on the board made responses. One of the chairman's official appointments, Mrs. Pam Glass, stated that she was shocked. That was her response: she was shocked. She suggested that the board should start to educate all the members of the Legislature, about the serious implications of the dilution of services that would result from the destruction of the Vancouver Resources Board.

Alderman Darlene Mazari said that it was ironic,

[ Page 5639 ]

and that in fact Bill 65 would be turning the services back to the 1950s. We would once again be centralized and clients would be dealing with a faceless bureaucracy. She said that she did not agree that the reasons given by the minister had any bearing in relationship to the fact. If the minister were concerned about high standards and upgrading the standards of services to people, he would start by upgrading the standards elsewhere in the province, not by degrading the standards in Vancouver.

None of the people, Mr. Speaker, were placed on the board by the New Democratic Party. As I said, Mrs. Glass was put on by the minister himself; Alderman Mazari was on as a member of the social services committee of city council, as is Alderman Marguerite Ford. Her statement was that she resented the time and effort put in over the years to make the Vancouver Resources Board work, which was being wiped out now without any notice. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not even have the courtesy to notify the members of the Vancouver Resources Board of his intention to dismantle the board.

MR. WALLACE: You stand alone, Bill. Isn't that great?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Fantastic.

MS. BROWN: But I'm not going to chastise him for lack of courtesy, because lack of courtesy is one of the least concerns that we have at this time in dealing with the Minister of Human Resources. In any event, Alderman Ford went on to say that she did not subscribe to any of the reasons given. The ones specifically which she resented were the ones dealing with efficiency and costs. She said that Vancouver, in fact, would end up with more bureaucracy and less service. In any event, the service would be less sensitive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they call you a loner, Bill, if you sit there on your own all day?

MS. BROWN: The other member of the board, Mr. Fowler, who is a member of the Parks Board and sits on the VRB as such, said that in fact the citizens will be losers, and so would the volunteers - this, of course, coming from a government that is supposed to be so much in support of volunteers. Mr. Fowler went on to say that he felt that citizen participation was essential and that this was going to be destroyed with the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board.

Then Mr. Pratt's statement was that it was a retreat - that bill 65 was a retreat from the concept of enlightened social services. A retreat. He said it was a downgrading of the level of services. He brought to the attention of everyone that this was a non-partisan board. He questioned the reasons for the minister's decisions, and what were the intentions of the minister.

I want to state here, Mr. Speaker, that I'm reading from notes because I too attended that meeting. Yes, and I'm quite willing to table my notes if it would help the minister come to any kind of logical decision about the Vancouver Resources Board.

I too attended that meeting and made it my business to make notes of what was said by each member of the Vancouver Resources Board as they responded to Mr. Fenwick's reading of the letter. That was all that the chairman did. He read the letter. He asked for responses from the various members of the board, and then he read the press statement which the board had prepared for release. I read the press statement into the records last night.

It was at that meeting, Mr. Speaker, that I was asked what it was that the official opposition members could do to help to save the Vancouver Resources Board. I made my commitment to speak in support of the Vancouver Resources Board and in opposition to Bill 65 for as long as it was humanly possible for me to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you and I want to share with the House the reasons I gave for this decision. I said that I would be speaking at great length in order to give the minister an opportunity to reconsider his position, because at that time, rightfully or wrongfully, I assumed that Bill 65 was dropped on the floor of this House in an act of pique; that in fact the minister was responding to the very open and frank way in which the people of Vancouver had made very clear to him that they were dissatisfied with the statements being made by him in the press about the delivery of services and about the decrease and cutbacks in services to the people of the city of Vancouver. That was my first reason - to give the minister an opportunity to reconsider, to get over his fit of pique, to throw his little temper tantrum and cool down.

The second reason I gave was that it would give the community an opportunity to get its message to the government.

MR. WALLACE: The government's got the message.

MS. BROWN: What is the government doing with the message?

MR. WALLACE: They've left him on his own!

MS. BROWN: The loneliness, Mr. Speaker, of the power! Having defeated. everyone around him, having staked his job on the line, threatened everyone, run roughshod over his entire cabinet, he ends up sitting by himself. Nobody but the Attorney-General (Hon.

[ Page 5640 ]

Mr. Gardom) , who almost disagreed with him - but didn't quite - so vehemently that we in the opposition thought we'd have to rush over to save his life when we saw the rage with which the Attorney-General was responding to him, walks by. We were going to call upon the services of the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) to go and save the minister, and now he's all alone. You've won the battle and you've lost the war. You've learned a lesson that so many other power-hungry people ahead of you have learned. You could have learned from their experience. Who do you have sitting with you? Is that the new Social Credit? That's the wing that's going to split off? Is that what it's going to be? Well, you haven't got very much going for you.

So, Mr. Speaker, that was my second reason - to give the community an opportunity to get its message to the government. In fact the minister was very co-operative in this, b, because it took him three months to beat his government into submission. It was three months before they would take his ultimatum seriously and decide to bring this piece of legislation onto the floor of this House. During the period of that time, the community has made its position known to the government, and I'm going to deal with that in more detail later on.

Mr. Speaker, the other and final reason given was that I believed it was important that every single member of the government should know what this Vancouver Resources Board legislation was all about. I believe that every single member over there has to take responsibility for this regressive and destructive piece of legislation - every member. When I'm through speaking, no member is going to be able to say that they didn't know what they were voting about, because I intend to stand here and tell them and tell them until they hear.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): We can't hear you.

MS. BROWN: That's because you've been dealing with too many people who can't hear, right? Try to deal with the living for a change, Mr. Member, and maybe you'll be able to hear.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that it is my intention to remain in order. I am not going to be out of order, unlike the Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Phillips) who rambled all over the block for hours upon boring hours upon boring hours when he debated Bill 42. 1 am not going to do that. I am going to deal with the principle of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a born bore.

MS. BROWN: He is a boring bore. I am going to stay in order. I'm not going to ramble all over the block. I'm going to obey the rules and not abuse them.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to deal with the delivery of social services in this province in its full context, not just for the Vancouver Resources Board, because I don't believe that you can isolate the Vancouver Resources Board from the other acts of incompetence and ineptness coming out of this Ministry of Human Resources under this incompetent and inept minister. So I'm going to put the Vancouver Resources Board in its context, because Bill 65 is just a part of the whole that sees us, as I said before, in the ninth month of the year still without an annual report out of that ministry. He talks about accountability, he talks about competence and all those other statements that he made.

To disappoint the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) , I'm not going to be frivolous or repetitious. This is a serious issue and I'm going to take a long, hard, serious look at it. I'm going to share with this House everything that I'm looking at and thinking about. By the time this debate is over the House will know almost as much about the delivery of services to people as I do, because I intend to share all of it with them.

Mr. Speaker, although, unlike the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , my speech was not written for me and I have no typewritten text to hand out to the press, there are a few people whom I would like to thank for their assistance in helping me prepare to take my place in this debate.

First of all, I would like to thank the 27,000 people in Vancouver who took the time to sign the petition which the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) tried to table in this House, and which was ruled out of order. In one day, in a matter of hours, these 27,000 people signed that petition. I would like to thank them for that because it certainly refutes the minister's statement about the vocal minority which is in opposition to this bill.

I would also like to thank the 76 community organizations who signed that petition, and I want to read them into the record:

The Bank of Montreal, that great socialist institution.

The Royal Bank, community branch, which is in the downtown eastside area - now that may be socialist, because they're dealing with poor people.

Vancouver city council, elected by the citizens of Vancouver. Vancouver Parks Board.

Vancouver School Board. All those are elected representatives of the citizens of Vancouver.

The United Way of Greater Vancouver, which has years and years of experience in delivering services to the people of Vancouver. The Minister of Human Resources couldn't begin to understand the things that the United Way of Greater Vancouver has done

[ Page 5641 ]

for the citizens of Vancouver. Neighbourhood Services Association of Greater Vancouver. Volunteer Bureau of Greater Vancouver.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I don't know, Mr. Member. I certainly hope that you're not one of that handful of people still left in this province who believe anything that that government says. I certainly hope not, because they've certainly not carried through on any of their promises they've made to date with the exception of the destruction of the Vancouver Resources Board.

Strathcona Community Centre.

Planned Parenthood of Vancouver.

The B.C. Federation of Women.

Shaughnessy-Arbutus-Kerrisdale Community Resources Advisory Board.

The metropolitan council of the United Church.

The Vancouver Status of Women.

The Downtown Eastside Residents Association, who certainly know more about the delivery of services to poor people than that minister will ever know anything about.

The First United Church. You know, it's interesting that one of the criticisms we often hear voiced about the church is that it's not involved enough in the everyday life and the day-to-day existence of people. Well, that criticism certainly doesn't apply to the churches in the Vancouver area. They have been very vocal in support of the Vancouver Resources Board. They have helped to make the Vancouver Resources Board work and they have done everything that they can to see the life of the Vancouver Resources Board spared. We've been told that prayer changes things, but I guess the Minister of Human Resources doesn't come under that category.

The Fraserview Area Society.

Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood House.

Britannia Community Services Centre.

I'm going to be talking in detail about what all of these 76 organizations do because the minister doesn't know what these organizations do. I'm going to be sharing that information with him. I would have liked to have been able to share that information with the Vancouver MLAs who are a part of the government, but none of them are here. So maybe they'll never know, but then it doesn't matter because the chances are none of them will be back after the next election anyway.

Central City Mission. What a record Central City Mission has. What a profound record of service to people in need. How could anyone refer to Central City Mission as a vocal minority? They've had very little, ever, about anything, but always they have acted. Their actions, Mr. Speaker: that's wherein their greatness lies.

The Red Door Rental Aid Society.

Little Mountain Area Human Resources Society.

Killarney Life skills.

Grandview-Woodlands Community Resources Advisory Board.

Renfrew-Collingwood Citizens Association.

The B.C. Association of Social Workers. I'm really proud of that one because I can remember there was a time in this province when the B.C. Association of Social Workers would not stick its neck out for anyone. It couldn't. It was so thoroughly intimidated by previous ministers of welfare that social workers in this province never stuck their necks out on behalf of anyone. There were some notable exceptions -Bridget Moran, for example. Her job was cut off as soon as her mouth was shut. She's never been rehired by that great Minister of Rehabilitat ion of Social Improvement, Mr. P.A. Gaglardi, the one who we understand is re-emerging as leader of the party, that Social Credit coalition over there. So the B.C. Association of Social Workers has come a long way and I'm really proud of them.

Kitsilano Neighbourhood House.

Killarney-Champlain Citizens of Action Association.

Door Is Open.

New Hope Centre.

Strathcona Community Care Team.

Kitsilano Community Forum.

The Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement. You smile. They could teach you a thing or two, Mr. Minister, about the delivery of services to people in need. They certainly could. That's right, they have taught me. I wish they could have taught you something.

Dug Out Day Care Centre. You have certainly done everything you can to destroy delivery of day care services in the province, so I guess you don't care about that one.

Fairview-Mount Pleasant Community Resources Advisory Board.

West End Information Centre.

Transition House. You have certainly' shown that you don't care about women, so I don't think that you care about the fact that Transition House is opposed to Bill 65.

Tonari Gumi. That is the Japanese Volunteers Community Association.

Seniors Friendly Comer.

Multilingual Orientation Services Association for Immigrant Communities, Mosaic. You don't care about immigrants either. You were the person who said that if Quebec separated the welfare costs in Vancouver and B.C. would go down. You don't care about Quebec. How could you care about immigrants?

[ Page 5642 ]

Unitarian Family Life Centre.

Mount Pleasant Family Life Centre.

Se Ta Co Na Community Resources Advisory Board.

Marpole-Oakridge Community Resources Advisory Board.

Family Place. I am going to talk a great deal about Family Place when I get around to that. That is really an idea that you should be supporting. You are so committed to the family, and your policies are doing so much to destroy it.

Lookout.

St. Paul's Church.

MR. MACDONALD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. A member of the House is reading the newspaper in the chamber and that's against the rules. That member knows better, I'm sure.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure, hon. member, that all members from time to time have read newspapers on the floor of this House, which is not within the keeping of the rules of the House. When it is brought to the Speaker's attention, I must ask hon. members to follow the rules of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: If you don't mind.

MR. SPEAKER: I would just add, hon. members, seeing that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has brought the matter to the floor of the House, that in the future the Speaker will pay very close attention to those who wish to bring newspapers into the House, and treat all members on an equal basis.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I do apologize for reading a newspaper in the House. I had assumed since the first member for Vancouver-Burrard had announced her intention to filibuster, which of course is a clear breach of the rules of the House, that the rules had been suspended.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it's okay for the member for Kamloops to read the newspaper in the House. He's obviously not interested in the delivery of social services in this province. He certainly has no reputation for compassion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard will proceed to the principle of Bill 65.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I thought I was staying on the principle when I mentioned that one of the members of the government who introduced Bill 65....

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, you were interrupted by a couple of points of order.

MS. BROWN: Sorry. I was just saying that I thought that I was on the principle of the bill when I mentioned that one of the members of the government who introduced Bill 65 had so little care for the content of the bill that he's reading the newspaper instead of listening. I really thought I was still on the principle when I brought that matter to your attention.

I'm still reading this list of organizations who have been dismissed in such a cavalier manner by the Minister of Human Resources and referred to as a "vocal minority."

Second Mile Club.

The South Vancouver Community Association.

The St. James Social Service

Union Gospel Mission.

Downtown Community Health Society.

United Native Nations, local 108.

MS. SANFORD: Who wants this bill?

MS. BROWN: Nobody but the Minister of Human Resources and his government. It took him three months to beat it into submission so that they would accept it. That's who wants the bill - nobody.

The Mental Patients' Association - another group that I look forward to discussing at great length in this debate because of the really innovative way in which they have approached the whole area of treatment of mental patients in the community.

Cedar Cottage-Kensington Community Resources Advisory Board.

Crossreach Project of Vancouver - that's the senior citizens' project.

Gastown Residence for Men.

Downtown Eastside Women's centre.

Vancouver Rape Relief Collective.

Point Grey Community Resources Advisory Board. Neither of the members for Vancouver-Point Grey are here.

Hastings Sunrise Action Council.

Vancouver Women's Health Collective.

West End Community Council.

Chown Adult Day Care Centre.

Greater Vancouver Federated Anti-Poverty Groups , certainly a group that the minister should be listening to if he took the responsibilities of his department seriously.

SORWUC. That is the Service, Office and Retail Workers Union of Canada, a really brave little union, doing great things.

Ray Can Co-operative.

Mount Pleasant Teen Centre.

Committee of Progressive Electors.

West End Community Resources Advisory Board.

[ Page 5643 ]

Marpole-Oakridge Area Council.

Marine and Boilermakers Industrial Union, local 1.

B.C. Federation of Labour.

Vancouver and District Labour Council.

The Three Vancouver Resources Board unions.

Those are 76 organizations, Mr. Speaker, who sponsored the petition which was signed by 27,000 people in a matter of a few hours one Saturday - all in opposition to Bill 65 - people to whom I'd like to say thanks for their assistance in the preparation of my taking my place in this debate.

I'd also Eke to thank the members of the Vancouver Resources Board. I don't know how many people know who they are or where they come from, but there is Marianne Fowler, who is a park commissioner; Alderman Marguerite Ford, a councillor of the city of Vancouver; the vice-chairman is Pamela Glass, who was appointed to the board by the Minister of Human Resources; Alderman Darlene Mazari, another councillor of the city of Vancouver; school trustee David Pratt; a businessman, Mr. Murray Leif, again appointed to the resources board by the Minister of Human Resources. And of course there's Mr. Ron Fenwick, the chairman of the board, also appointed by the minister, but who, as the minister described in his opening statements on Friday, "is little more than a puppet of a manipulative administration."

I would like to thank the members of the Vancouver Resources Board for their assistance. I'd also like to thank all the people who are part of the Save the Vancouver Resources Board Committee, and who have tried by various means to get the message through to this government. They failed, as the members of the Vancouver Resources Board have failed, as the members of the 76 organizations have failed, as have the official opposition, the Liberals and Conservatives. Bullying power works. If you're dealing with a bully, you're going to get bullied. There isn't any question in anyone's mind that the Minister of Human Resources, who bullied and beat his government into submission for three months, is going to succeed in his avowed task of dismantling and destroying the Vancouver Resources Board. When it's done, it's going to be the responsibility of his entire government, not just himself.

I also want to thank the B.C. Federation of Labour and all the CUPE locals, other locals and other unions, as well as the hundreds of people who wrote letters, telephoned, sent cables, sent notes, gave advice and information so that I could be prepared for this really hopeless task on which I've embarked.

I want to say to them, through you, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill, that I received everything - all of the information, all of the advice, all of the notes, cables, telephone calls, letters. I want to thank them and tell them that I intend to use it all, because, in fact, without their co-operation there would be no information for me to use. The seven boxes of material that I've managed to accumulate over the past three months came from everywhere. It wasn't mine. It wouldn't have existed except for the co-operation of all these people whom the minister dismisses as a vocal minority.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize a couple of things about what I'm doing - the futility and the hopelessness of it. A group visited our caucus last week, and at that time they said: "What do you think about Bill 65?" 1 said: "I believe in miracles, because my life has been filled with them." The miracle I was hoping for to save the Vancouver Resources Board didn't materialize. I still believe in miracles, and I'm really sorry that the miracle to save the Vancouver Resources Board did not materialize. Because, you know, it doesn't matter how many debates we win on the floor of the House. As long as we're the opposition, we lose every vote.

I guess that's the message we have to get out to the citizens of Vancouver. The Vancouver Resources Board is going to die because we are the opposition. Yet I'm going to stand here and I'm going to debate, because this debate must take place. Every member of the government who votes must vote with the full knowledge of all the facts. They must vote after having time to think and inwardly digest all the information which has been made accessible to me over the last six months and which I intend to share with them. No one is going to be able to cop out of this by saying that they didn't know, that they didn't hear, that they didn't understand, because I'm going to go very slowly and carefully. Before the debate is over, every member of the government will understand the full consequences of the seriousness of their action when they vote on this bill.

I wish the members of the minister's ministry were here to hear this debate too, because they're the ones who carry out his instructions and they're the ones who advise him. I think they would have benefited from some of the information which I'm going to share with the House. Maybe he'll pass the message along to them or maybe they'll read the Hansard, I don't know. But if there had been some way to make it possible for the members of the ministry to have been here, I think that would have been a good idea.

I'm going to start by answering the question: what is the Vancouver Resources Board? The 1976 annual report of the Vancouver Resources Board tells us that the Vancouver Resources Board was founded on the principles of the integration of multiple services, the decentralization of social service delivery and involvement of the community. That, Mr. Speaker, is what was terminated when Bill 65 was dropped on the floor of this House at 2 p.m. on June 22.

Well, a couple of other things happened and I want to get back to my timetable. On Thursday, June 23, the associate deputy minister requested personnel

[ Page 5644 ]

records from the VRB staff so as to begin the takeover. This was prior to the introduction of second reading and was clearly an illegal act. The minister had no right to authorize that and the deputy minister had no right to carry it through. The bill had not gone through second reading; it had not been debated on the floor of this House; it had not been passed; it had not been proclaimed. Clearly it was an act of illegality to begin the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board on Thursday, June 23. Quite rightly, this request was denied.

Now the minister interprets such denial as an act of impertinence on the part of the VRB staff, but in fact the minister was involved in an act of illegality. Denying him his request was the only honourable thing for the staff to do.

On Friday, June 24, the chairman of the Vancouver Resources Board and the manager decided to take the case to the people. They went about it in an unusual way, I guess, but it certainly was a way that gets heard. They went on the Jack Webster radio programme. Whether you like him or not, nobody can deny that people listen to Jack Webster. If you want to take your case into a public arena, I guess that's as good a way of doing it as any other.

On Sunday, June 26, a meeting of 400 people came together at the Hastings-Sunrise Community Centre to protest Bill 65. That was three and a half days after the legislation was brought down in this House. This again is a group that the minister refers to as a "vocal minority." "Nobody is really opposed to the dismantling of the VRB, " he tells us, "just a vocal minority - nobody, really."

On Monday, June 27, the manager of the VRB suggested to the minister that there should be a comparison of audits, that the Vancouver Resources Board was willing for its audited statements to be compared with that of other Human Resources offices around the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Compare apples with apples.

MR. BARRETT: Would you like some juice?

MS. BROWN: No, I'm fine. Thanks very much, Dave.

The minister didn't take him up on this offer, because if he did it would have been embarrassing indeed for the Department of Human Resources. As I say, we find ourselves in the ninth month in the year of our Lord, 1977, still waiting for an annual report. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the annual report should be down in time to be discussed under the estimates of the minister's department.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right. The minister is yawning. But that's okay. He's tired. I understand. He's not yawning because he's bored. He'd better not be yawning because he's bored because this is a learning experience for him. I'm attempting to do the impossible; I'm attempting to educate the Minister of Human Resources. I intend to hang in there until I get some sign that the minister is learning something, and I do not consider a yawn to be a sign.

MR. WALLACE: You believe in miracles, do you?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I do.

On Wednesday, June 29, there was a demonstration in front of the parliament buildings, and the Premier of the province agreed to a meeting with the Vancouver Resources Board Committee and the directors. Through all of this period, the letters were coming in to all of the MLAs in the Vancouver area. All of the Vancouver MLAs, opposition as well as government, were in receipt of letters from people supporting the continuation of the Vancouver Resources Board. Letters were going to the Premier; I know, because I received carbon copies. Letters were going to the minister; I know, again, because I received carbon copies.

I'm going to read a few of these letters - not all of them; just a hundred or so - into the record. Specifically, I'm going to read the ones that were sent to the minister and to the Premier, so that the world can know that the people did try to contact their government; that the citizens of Vancouver, the largest city in this province, did try to speak to their government, and their government didn't hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: The vocal majority.

MS. BROWN: The vocal majority did speak, and the government didn't hear. The Premier ran for cover - Brussels, or wherever; I'm not sure where he is at this point.

MR. WALLACE: Neither is he.

MS. BROWN: Neither is he - thank you. He left the whole matter, washed his hands of it. Didn't somebody else do that once? Yes. The Premier of this province, when appealed to by the citizens of the city of Vancouver, washed his hands of the whole affair and ran for cover.

On Wednesday, July 6, there was a meeting of the VRB directors with the planning and priorities committee of cabinet. At that time, they received a promise that the Minister of Human Resources would meet with the directors to discuss alternatives. I'm showing you all of the legitimate steps and all of the logical steps that were taken - the responsible action on the part of the VRB directors on behalf of the job which they were supposed to carry through. This was

[ Page 5645 ]

followed up with a letter which was sent by the chairman, Mr. Fenwick, to the Premier, answering some of the questions. I want to read that letter into the record. Last night you heard a "Dear Mr. Fenwick" letter and you heard a "Dear Staff" letter. Now you're going to hear a "Dear Sir" letter. It's dated July 7,1977, and was sent the day after the board met with cabinet. "The Hon. William R. Bennett, Premier of British Columbia, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. "Dear Sir:

"I would like to thank you, Mr. Premier, and the members of your planning and priorities committee, for the opportunity to meet with you and discuss our views. Several concerns were expressed by members of your committee which I hope you will find answered in this communication. I am grateful to several of the VRB staff for their quick research, which produced the material for this report.

"The question of senior staff salaries has been raised. The following will show that the senior staff salaries in the VRB are the same as those in the Ministry of Human Resources. Some confusion may result from job titles. A local office supervisor is called a team co-ordinator in the VRB, and a district office supervisor in the ministry. The next level is called an area manager in the VRB, and a regional director in the ministry. This title was recently changed to regional manager in the ministry."

I'm not sure about all of these changes of name and why it was necessary, but, for better or for worse, this is it.

"The third and highest supervisory level next to the deputy is called regional manager and chief executive officer in the VRB, while the counterpart in the ministry is called executive director.

"The following table shows the comparable salaries at 1976 rate. (The VRB has just concluded negotiating a 5 per cent increase for 1977. The Public Service Commission is still negotiating.) "

The salary range for VRB regional manager, which, as we were told, is the same as executive director, was $2,718 - the executive director went from $2,250 to $2,920; area manager, which is the same as regional director, went from $2,105 to $2,448 - the ministry's title, regional director, went from $1,850 to $2,330; team co-ordinator went from $1,585 to $1,842 - district office supervisor, which is the ministry's title for the same job, went from $1,624 to $1,897.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this for a month or a year?

MS. BROWN: That was per month. These are your top-level bureaucrats - the mandarins, I guess you would call them.

"Much more important than salaries is the question of how the VRB or an alternative encourages community involvement and volunteerism. As explained in our brief of July 6, there are two types of volunteers in Vancouver: volunteers who participate in advisory boards to review budgets and oversee the bureaucracy, as well as volunteers who provide direct service to clients, such as drivers, et cetera. Advisory boards become frustrated and realize that they are useless unless someone acts on their advice. The bureaucracy will not respond to advisory boards unless it pleases them as long as the only effective route for complaint is up the pecking order to Victoria.

"Volunteers who work with clients by driving children or visiting shut-ins require support. The Volunteer Bureau of Greater Vancouver recommends that training, staff supervision and assistance be supplied to volunteers. The VRB allocates staff to this function and staff cutbacks would not permit such assignments. Consequently, the VRB maintains an irreducible minimum position that staff and administration must be accountable to a lay board, which is in turn accountable to the minister."

Now one of the complaints that the minister had in his "nothing" speech on Friday had to do with accountability. I believe that a lot of the nonsense that we heard on Friday is really based on lack of information. The minister honestly does not know what is going on in his ministry. He knows even less about what is going on around the province, and certainly with the resource boards in Vancouver.

"Questions have been raised concerning the VRB's operation of the PREP and investigators' programme. The VRB operates an investigation team with six investigators. I understand that the income assistance division of the ministry produced a report in mid-1976 that favourably compared investigation efforts between the regions of the ministry and the VRB. The VRB does insist on reporting statistics on conviction."

I'm going to deal at a further time, Mr. Speaker, with this business of fraud and some of the accusations put out by the minister. I'm going to give the facts, because we certainly don't get any facts from the minister.

"The PREP programme in Vancouver is directly supervised by a staff person from the

[ Page 5646 ]

ministry who was hired and is supervised by the programme director, Mr. Stew. Any problems with these programmes have been resolved."

This was on July 7 that the chairman, Mr. Fenwick, was saying this, but of course the minister continues to complain about problems with the PREP programme.

"We have been asked to compare staffing and workloads between the Burnaby office and the VRB. I should mention that the VRB personnel and accounting departments provided the logistical services required in the recent ministry takeover of welfare in lower mainland municipalities. The VRB produces the income assistance cheque for these municipalities. Consequently we have the detailed information necessary for the requested comparison.

"The caseload statistics in the following table come from the VRB computer system which produces the cheques. The number of staff have been verified by the VRB field accounting team, which provided training in the municipalities."

When I get around to discussing budgets and the difference between the budget of the VRB and the budget of the ministry, one of the things you are going to find, Mr. Speaker, is that the Ministry of Human Resources hides a lot of its expenses in the VRB budget. Certainly using VRB people to train Human Resources staff is one of the ways in which this is done, but I'm going to go into that in more detail when I deal specifically with the business of finance and budgets.

Incidentally, the Vancouver Resources Board budget is supposed to be coming up for approval before the department tomorrow morning at 9:30. I'm kind of curious to see how the minister is going to deal with that in view of the fact that Bill 65 is before the House and no decision has been made about it. Is he going to accept the budget and then turn around and blame the VRB for everything over the next year, or is he not going to accept the budget? What is he going to do with it? We will have to wait until after 9:30 a.m. tomorrow to find out what the ministry does with the VRB budget.

For purposes of comparison, we show similar statistics for VRB neighbourhood offices of similar size. Here are your statistics, and it is broken down into welfare cases, staff assigned to these cases, and the average caseload. These statistics are for Burnaby, June, 1977: welfare cases, 2,473; staff assigned, 15; average caseload, 166. 1 really envy a caseload like that when I think back on the size of the caseload I had when I worked with the Children's Aid in the late 1950s. I would have considered a caseload of 166 a blessing. Anyway, we are going back to the good old days, aren't we?

MR. BARRETT: Mine was 275 cases in 1953.

MS. BROWN: Good heavens. You had a small caseload. You should have worked with Children's Aid and then you would have really known what a caseload was. That's the problem with the young people today, Mr. Member - life is too easy for them. They should have been social workers back in the old days. Well, they are going to be - back to the old days. That's where we are going after Bill 65.

MR. BARRETT: I got $210 per month.

MS. BROWN: You got $210 per month? I only got $198.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you're a woman.

MS. BROWN: Oh, that explains it. Anyway, we are back to the old days. After Bill 65, men are going back to $210 and women back to $198 - horrible. I'll continue with the statistics, and this is for June. Fairview-Mount Pleasant: caseload 2,382; staff assigned , 1 2 ; average caseload, 198. Richmond -Shaughnessy-Arbutus: caseload 42; staff assigned, 3; average caseload, 140. Kerrisdale: caseload, 357; staff assigned, 2; average caseload, 178.

A report was produced in the ministry on May 5,1977, that indicated that as of January, the average child welfare caseload outside of Vancouver was 54.7 cases per worker. Now I don't know who wrote the minister's speech, but that certainly wasn't in it. We were told a lot about how lucky Vancouver was and how overindulged Vancouver was by having so many workers and such a low average caseload, yet we find that in the ministry itself there sits a report which says that outside of the Vancouver area the child welfare caseload is 54.7.

This allows an MHR - that's a member of Human Resources - worker to devote an average of 2.8 hours per case each month, including transportation. It is not realistic to expect effective family counselling or child welfare work to be done in such little time each month. There is a desperate need to increase social work staff in all areas of the province. I'm going to give you some examples, Mr. Speaker, as I go along about some of the really terrible things that are happening out there in the province as a result of the lack of staff.

As I said 11'm not going to talk about the VRB in isolation. I'm going to be discussing the whole delivery of services to people as is reflected through Bill 65, which is the destruction of community input and the destruction of community involvement.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member realizes that the canvassing of the whole ministry is not part and parcel of Bill 65 which is before us. Certainly as

[ Page 5647 ]

long as she remains relevant and relates her debate to Bill 65, she is in order.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will pay very close attention to your very kind direction.

"The Vancouver Resources Board inherited a richer child welfare staff complement when it absorbed the Vancouver Children's Aid Society. This complement permits an average of 7.8 hours of staff time to be spent on each case each month, a significant portion of which is devoted to preventing family break-up."

This is what the minister tells us he's so committed to - preventing family break-up.

"The VRB child welfare staffing meets the standards set by the Child Welfare League of America. All areas of the province should meet these standards."

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the comments about the rest of the province are direct quotes from this letter; these are not my comments.

"I would like to comment also on'the need for unique services in each community. Rural types of communities have problems, nobody disputes that, but they really are not the same problems."

The minister should know that, but if he doesn't, again, I'm going to try to give him some examples to demonstrate the differences.

"Social problems unique to B.C.'s major city - the west coast major port - require solutions designed for our problems. For example, the VRB must assign one social worker to the Vancouver General Hospital to deal with clients referred to VGH by officers throughout the provinces."

I could be wrong about this, but I don't really think there are any other major referral hospitals in B.C., are there, Mr. Member? Than VGH? No. So this is unique, then, this business of most people being referred to VGH. Do you agree with that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Royal Columbian.

MS. BROWN: That's a major referral hospital, is it? Actually, I just thought of another one -Riverview, I would imagine.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MS. BROWN: Oh, Riverview is not a major referral hospital?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Different type. You'd be familiar with that.

MS. BROWN: Yes, I'm very familiar with it. I make it my business, Mr. Member, to understand about need and people in need. I wish you would do the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a whole wing waiting for you, Bill.

MS. BROWN: It continues:

"The VRB has to assign a social worker to VGH for that specific purpose. The VRB has to assign a team to the downtown core - the Gastown team, they're called - to deal with the large number of runaway children drawn to Vancouver."

We've certainly been hearing a lot about that over the last few months.

"The VRB must deal with large urban service systems, such as probation and public health, which differ from their counterparts in rural areas. Vancouver is not special; it is different, as any area is different. Services must meet need. Needs cannot be changed to match standard services, "

At least, this is the way the chairman of the VRB feels. The minister, I'm sure, differs.

"The preceding comments address several of the concerns expressed in yesterday's meeting. We would like to hold further discussions to seek a solution to any problems you perceive. The irreducible minimum position is that staff and administration must be accountable to a lay board, which in turn is accountable to the minister. We recognize that there is room for profitable discussion within the limits of this position. We hope to hold these discussions with you."

This is the letter sent July 7. If you will remember, Mr. Speaker, from his speech on Friday, the Minister of Human Resources himself referred to this letter, and at that time made a statement which I'm sure he will want to correct. His statement was that he received a copy of the letter from Mr. Fenwick, while Mr. Fenwick was out of town. He went on to say that he didn't believe that Mr. Fenwick had written the letter. Do you remember, Mr. Minister, making that statement in your speech on Friday? No? You don't remember?

MR. LAUK: What story are you telling today, Bill?

MS. BROWN: The fact is, of course, that Mr. Fenwick was in town. He had met with the Premier on the day before, July 6, and he did sign the original of the letter himself.

Interjection.

[ Page 5648 ]

MS. BROWN: He may have called the minister "Bill, " and that's one of the reasons probably why the board is being dissolved. Maybe he doesn't want to be called "Bill." Maybe he wants to be called "King, " too.

MR. BARRETT: Well, one has to be a dauphin.

MS. BROWN: Anyway, the minister can't remember, but he did make that comment.

I don't think we have a quorum, Mr. Speaker. Do you think we have a quorum? Let's call for a count. The Digger just returned.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member continues with the debate, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not counting the Speaker, we had a quorum. Counting the Speaker, we have no quorum.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member would not want to lose her place in the debate by bringing that to the hon. Speaker's attention.

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. I just wondered aloud whether we had a quorum.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, demonstrations followed over the next two months.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Is anybody listening?

MR. SPEAKER: Continue, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I'm going back to my agenda.

Demonstrations followed over the next two months, but no one from the government would meet with the Vancouver Resources Board directors, as promised. A commitment was given by the Premier that the Minister of Human Resources would meet with the directors of the Vancouver Resources Board, and that commitment was not honoured. Over the next two months, despite the letters, the phone calls, the cables and everything else, nobody from the government would meet with the Vancouver Resources Board directors.

The minister said that his prerequisite to any meeting would have to be an acceptance of Bill 65. You made that absolutely clear, didn't you? Unless they were prepared to accept Bill 65 and sit and talk about how it could be implemented, you would not be interested in meeting with them. Do you deny that? You don't deny it. Let the record show that the minister does not deny that over the two months when the members of the directors of the Vancouver Resources Board tried to meet with him, he refused to meet with them. He absolutely refused to meet with them unless they were prepared to accept Bill 65 as a fait accompli. This despite a commitment given to the directors by the Premier that the minister would meet with them. The city of Vancouver, one of the largest communities in the province, was treated in this shabby way by this government.

Mr. Speaker, when I gave you the definition for the Vancouver Resources Board, if you will remember, it talked about integration of services, decentralization of services and involvement of community. I want to start out by talking about one of those topics now, and that is that Bill 65 will result in a loss of community. I want to talk about the loss of community which will result from implementing Bill 65.

Mr. Speaker, the spectre of insecurity hangs over our culture. The key and compelling words of our generation are disorganization, disintegration, breakdown and loss of community. Concentration on the possibilities or probabilities or breakdown range from the scribblings of writers high in ivory towers to the reports of social workers on the streets of Vancouver. The intellectuals scour modern literature to uncover this shadow existence.

Disintegration and loss of community is a theme in virtually every major novel of this century - Thomas Mann's work, Kafka, Joseph Heller, Doris Lessing, Hugh Maclennan, and even Vancouver's own George Bowring. As sociologist Robert Nesbitt wrote: "The natural state of 20th-century man is anxiety." We need only to look at the headlines of the papers today to prove this case in point. The issues are: unemployment; the loss of thrift; the loss of national unity; the devastating disintegration of values; the strangeness and unpredictability of a future which seems to be bleak, short of energy, peace, and community of interests. Dealing with anxiety, insecurity, and loss of community has become a major function of politicians and certainly of the members of this House, because we can see it even in a relatively trivial event. For example, the recognition that there exists anxiety and insecurity is implied in the recent trip made by the Provincial Secretary.

She worries that British Columbians are so unhappy that they need to be given pep talks and encouragement to express even that most simple and graceful indication of security and community - the friendly smile. And she's right in a way. Because we live in such difficult times, smiles do not come easily or naturally, except maybe to the Minister of Human Resources as he watches the death of community involvement in Vancouver.

It is probably imperative then that this government coach and cajole its subjects into smiles.

[ Page 5649 ]

The sense of loss and alienation is so real that it is almost tangible. The inquietude of our time, Mr. Speaker, is symbolized by a sense of homelessness. We have come to expect with Rolke that: Who has no home now Will not build one anymore. Who is alone now Will remain alone. Perhaps the poets express it best, but most pessimistically. What are the poets saying these days? I want to show to you a couple of lines from a poem entitled "The Seventies." The world begins to sink in holding less, And soft in spots, contracting limits, Some would say overripe. When it happens then, no infinite dreams, Only infinite fantasies. The future begins to decay around the edges. Even men in white suits seem sombre. The bride gowns are sequined from other eras. I read biographies mostly. Dressed up against a black backdrop, one concentrates on natural disasters. Chinese earthquakes are a way of humanizing an uncomfortable society, Which does not yet seem to have caught the spirit of the age. Old stars appear on midnight talk shows. Millions wait for Hope or Sinatra to die. Idols of nostalgia, evidence of our own mortality, Prove that darker forces rule the world. Narcissism extends its sway. Every "me" cries out. The child-beater and heroin addict says: "It was a cry for help." Personality triumphs over principle. It is not an age of courage. Behind honour, corruption; beyond dishonour, publicity. All the world's a stage, and we're gossips in it. Beyond small circles a dangerous world hidden, Striking out of the night from fear. We lock our doors, And stuff the cracks with rags and cults, peeking out, For behind the door, We're clients, consumers. Blame each other and settle for private agony. Give him a stroke. Gently now, for the bruises bruise easily. Lesions occur and lesions kill. Mr. Speaker, this decade is taking shape, developing its shape and meaning. There is a recognition of a finite, limited world. For the first time in this century, masses of people really believe that the future holds less, not more. Environmentalists were saying a few years ago: "If we don't act, then. . . Now they're saying: "When it happens, then. . . Gradually, reluctantly, against hope, the mood is becoming more sombre.

Mr. Speaker, it's interesting how interested the Minister of Human Resources is when I speak to him in terms of his small and tiny action and the place it has in the world as a whole and certainly in this province as a whole. But I'm going to keep on speaking in the hope that despite himself, someone will hear.

MR. SPEAKER: I would hope, hon. member, that you will stay just a little closer to the principle of Bill 65 or relate your remarks to the principle of the bill. It is not the time for a complete debate on the Ministry of Human Resources or the minister's Ministry. It is a time to relate your remarks to the bill that is before the House. As long as your remarks relate to the bill, you remain in order, hon. member,

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was relating to the House extensively the very intimate qualities of the minister's actions with respect to Bill 65, and was not discussing the department.

MR. KEMPF: What's your point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Is there something wrong with the plumbing over there, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: If you have a point of order, please state it, hon. member,

MR. LAUK: I was just going to say that Mr. Speaker referred to the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard's speech as dealing with the department. She wasn't dealing with the department, she was dealing with the intimate qualities of the minister's acts with Bill 65. It had nothing to do with the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when dealing with the VRB and Bill 6S, you're dealing really with the whole Ministry of Human Resources in microcosm.

MR. KEMPF: You're getting a well-earned rest, are you, Rosemary?

MR. COCKE: You're dealing with the entire Ministry of Human Resources in microcosm, because almost everything that applies to the rest of the ministry applies in a smaller matter to the VRB. So we contend, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Vancouver-Burrard is adhering to the rules and is very

[ Page 5650 ]

closely relating to Bill 65.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the points of order made by both the hon. members. I think it's just a matter that occasionally I have to draw that member back a little closer to the principle of Bill 65. That is the job of the Speaker, unfortunately, and I must exercise my discretion in that respect.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I think that was very well said by yourself. I wouldn't want the Speaker to gain the impression that members of the opposition....

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have a point of order?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I understand fully why you interrupted the speaker, and I wouldn't want you to gain the impression that members of the opposition resent those interruptions at all.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure they don't.

MR. LAUK: I just thought I'd add that.

MS. BROWN: I certainly appreciate the points of orders raised by my hon. colleague and would like to encourage him to do so whenever.... (Laughter.) But in all seriousness, they were correct.

The minister asked yesterday: "What does justice have to do with the Vancouver Resources Board?" and you're asking me today: "What does loss of community have to do with the Vancouver Resources Board?" It has everything to do with the Vancouver Resources Board. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I had tied it in very clearly. But I hadn't, so I'll have to go back and do my tying all over again. So I'm going to tie it in all over again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not want to abuse the rules of the House or the other members.

MS. BROWN: No, no. I'm just clarifying the link between the loss of community, which I am discussing, and Bill 65.

The 1976 annual report of the Vancouver Resources Board tells us that the Vancouver Resources Board was founded on the principles of the integration of multiple services, the decentralization of social service delivery and the involvement of community. Bill 65, which will dissolve the Vancouver Resources Board, will result in the loss of community. That, Mr. Speaker, is the link.

I'll just wait while the transfer takes place.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Moving right along, that is where the link between loss of community and Bill 65 comes in, Mr. Minister. So I'm completely in order, and I'm hoping that you will understand what Bill 65 means in terms of loss of community.

There is neither theological optimism nor ecstatic joy. No one any longer believes in unlimited opportunities. This recognition of a finite and none-too-pleasant future feeds both fatalism and nostalgia.

During the early part of this decade, there was a fascination with the '50s. This was, I think, in part a rejection of the '60s, a reaction against the activism and movements of that decade. But the nostalgia for the '50s has now been expanded into a nostalgia for any era with costumes. The future begins to decay around the edges and all other periods seem brighter and more golden. This is one of the reasons why the minister is trying to turn back the clock of time. That is the link: he is going back into the '50s. We are going back to the social worker of the '50s; we are going back to the delivery of social services of the '50s - a preoccupation with the era of the '50s. That's the link.

People are now dressing up in vanished styles. Even the hair-do is a little bit vanished. It's not the kind of hair style that was encouraged in the '60s where all the men wore their hair to their shoulders. But the nostalgia is not so much for the social past as for individuals and moods. Biographies are popular reading material, more than ever before. Biographies are the guide to the past and the costumes are only the props.

Fatalism has become a secular faith which rivals all the cults. Popular culture concentrates on natural disasters, real or fictional - sharks such as in Jaws, the earthquake such as in China. These kinds of things, again a link with the past - the kinds of things that we're doing now as is manifested through this minister's determination to drive the delivery of social services in Vancouver back into the Gaglardi era, and even before. Fatalism, Mr. Speaker, in its turn, nourishes narcissism. Certainly this minister has more than his share of that.

You know the story of Narcissus, don't you? Narcissus was the god who saw his face reflected in the water and fell in love with himself. Do you remember? He spent so much of his time looking at his reflection in the water that he eventually died of starvation. He couldn't tear himself away from that beautiful face in the water even to go and eat. I think he represents Surrey, but I couldn't be quite sure about that.

Someone, Mr. Speaker - I think it was Tom Wolfe - coined the phrase "the me generation." We need ministers of government who teach us to smile. We need psychologists to teach us to be assertive. The scope of the scale of narcissism is quite broad.

[ Page 5651 ]

One of the things I'm doing is challenging the minds of everybody in this Legislature. You really are going to have to stretch it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I'm stretching it to relate it to the bill and I'm trying very hard.

MS. BROWN: That's right, and it's a challenge I know you are going to be able to rise to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I shouldn't succeed, I might have to ask you to get back to the principle of the bill, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Sure, but I have infinite faith in you, Mr. Speaker.

Great vanities, Mr. Speaker, great crimes all produce heroes. We feed on gossip, the most selfish form of communication, and relish in its lies. We expect people to know our secret lives and hidden vices, and mass industries seem to cater to that. We assume that all is covered with a mask and that we are being lied to. Sometimes that assumption is correct. Behind emblems of virtue are the realities of vice.

Look at the books on the secret lives of the great - every American president, for example. Harding has a biography written about him; Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Kennedy, the Johnsons - all the politicians. Worst of all is that we are not shocked by any of this.

The licence of government has been extended because we are immune and we are thick-skinned. We are no longer shocked by the actions of government. This is the reason, Mr. Speaker, why we are so shocked that the citizens of Vancouver are rebelling in such an open, honest, vocal and frank way to this piece of legislation. When the minister introduced it, he really believed that the community had become so immune to licence in government that he would get away with Bill 65 with just a word or two from what he likes to refer to as a "vocal minority."

In fact, what happened was 27,000 signatures in less than a day. That Saturday, when that petition was being circulated, I conducted my usual business around the city of Vancouver and I didn't run into a petitioner once. I'm sure there were a lot of people who were in a similar situation. So the petition didn't get on every single street corner or in every possible place. Despite all of that, 27,000 people signed it; 27,000 people said that they protested the loss of community which would result from the implementing of Bill 6S.

Mr. Speaker, we are returning to a society of intense competition. Educators remark on the aggressiveness of students who seek good marks by any means and by the lack of interest in rules or reasons. It is the semblance and the symbol which seem to count the most. In a world of less and less, those who have some feel superior. We are going through a thoroughly materialistic period of our lives.

That is why any kind of attack on volunteerism has to be challenged. Really, people who do something for nothing are so rare in our society that they have to be protected. They are an endangered species. They have to be protected in the same way that we fight to protect the whale and the baby seal. We have to put up the same kind of battle for them that Sealand is putting up for the life of Miracle. That really is what this debate is all about.

Mr. Speaker, this is also an era of mysteries. Those who cannot bear the isolation and alienation of existence go out in search of some personal panacea. Those who believe that there is no authenticity among people - only masks - are often inclined to go further and seek something behind it all. There is a mass search for meaning and community in a world which seems to have no meaning.

For many, this thirst for meaning is quenched in the adoption of some cults. You know all about the cults - cults which have no possibility of ever being more than a small part of reality; absolute answers in a narrow framework. There are empty holes in our life and we fill the vacuums to shut them out. There are so many empty holes in our lives that in some instances it seems that we are in the era of locked doors and anxious looks.

Again, I'm going to quote from Kafka because I really like him, and I think you probably do, too, because I know you're a man of letters. He said: "I am separated from all things by a hollow space and I do not even reach to its boundaries." The sense of alienation and anonymous existence is terrifying and methodical reality for millions. That sense of alienation and that sense of isolation was something that the Vancouver Resources Board addressed itself to. That's what community involvement was all about, Mr. Speaker - dealing with each person's sense of their alienation and isolation. That is what the minister failed to take into account when he introduced Bill 65, and why he thought he could sneak it in and get it over with without anyone in Vancouver saying anything about it.

Mr. Speaker, the cults which people adopt in order to fill these holes are, of course, inadequate. They're consumer items purchased rather than chosen; they're acquired, rather than obtained or adopted naturally. We do not study or meditate our way into these groups, but we buy our way in. Almost all of these cults are premised on the assumption that reality is in ourselves, inside us, under layers of masks. We're continually grasping at fantasies, at faint hopes, and at Achillesiastic dreams. This, too, exemplifies the loss of community and the spiritual hunger we feel cannot be satisfied through the ordinary functional ties and relationship of our social life. We must understand the root causes of this passion for cults.

[ Page 5652 ]

At the same time, human relationships - the interaction between individuals and between individuals and groups - have become mechanical and one-dimensional. We are so alienated, so separated from one another, that even communication is not assumed. Thus almost any act, from child-beating to heroin addiction, really is regarded as a justified cry for help. The act of communication may be violent - it may even be anti-social - but the fact that communication is difficult and requires some methods once again indicates the loss of community in our society. In close-knit, humanized communities, communication is not difficult.

I think one of the most interesting things that came through to me in the letters which I received from people who were in receipt of social services in the Vancouver area was the number of people who said that for once they could communicate with their social worker; that because there was one worker for the entire family they were dealing with somebody who knew them, knew their family, and related to the family as a unit, not as an isolated case or as a problem. This is the way it used to be in what the minister likes to think about as "the good old days." You don't have going into the home now a worker to take care of the child who is a delinquent, another one to deal with somebody with mental health problems, another one to deal with somebody who is ill. You don't have three, four, or five workers going into a family anymore. You have one worker communicating and setting up a genuine system of communication between himself or herself and that family. In that respect, the Vancouver Resources Board is an oasis in the desert of society today.

In our society, Mr. Speaker, we have replaced the public with publicity; the exchange of ideas with advertising; the sense of dialogue with the atomized cacophony of extreme messages. This is characteristic of breakdown and of disintegration of mankind's greatest achievement - language. This atomization deeply and disastrously affects our social service system. We find ourselves faced with narrower and narrower specialization. Each problem requires a special agency. Each individual becomes a prospective client for a special social agency. The importance of this is often misconstrued. It is not that we are becoming a welfare state, but rather that the loss of community is making it more and more difficult for general solutions to be found and implemented.

This, Mr. Speaker, certainly is the experience of human resource departments throughout the province. As individuals, so many people are distrustful that they are even frightened to seek help, except from the narrowest of specialists. Their needs may be great, but the fear that help itself will be threatening is almost, or frequently, greater.

Finally, the inexorable engines of industry and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is sharpening class lines. Distinctions in taste, in disposable wealth, in costume and position are more easily seen than they were a few years ago. Thus the fundamental reality of class division is often obscured by myriad status distinctions. Too many people in our society distinguish between degrees of pleasure rather than between degrees of power.

That, Mr. Speaker, is why we're here today, because I don't believe we really have a clear indication of power. Nobody would believe you if you told them that it is possible for one person to take on the city of Vancouver and beat it. But it's happening, isn't it? The Minister of Human Resources, despite all of the cries, despite all of the letters, despite the signatures, petitions, despite everything - statements made by the mayor, resolutions passed by city council, by the school trustees, by 76 community organizations - was able to say to his government: "It's the city of Vancouver or it's me." And the city of Vancouver lost. That's why we're going to have to get a better understanding of power and how it works.

The measure of life for many is not power and responsibility, because power is concentrated in the hands of so few. Many people have given up hope of ever exercising control over their lives and are attempting to content themselves with the vicarious enjoyment of living through others. The most popular and profitable magazines these days are gossip magazines like People, which provide the powerless with a glimpse of those who have power. I guess it's a big thing, isn't it, that the next issue of People we pick up might have a picture of the Minister of Human Resources on the cover? Big deal. It doesn't matter that in order to get there he had to shatter the delivery of services to people. It doesn't matter that in order to get there he had to ride roughshod over his own government. All that matters, I guess, is that he gets there. Consequently we admire performers rather than achievers.

Public figures are measured by self-advertisement rather than achievement. Even our Premier, who is in Brussels or somewhere else when this important debate is taking place, is better known as a runner than a politician. There are more pictures of him in his jogging outfit than there surely are of him participating in decisions that influence the lives of people. The path of fame, as this minister has learned, is through notoriety rather than through public service. That's why we have Bill 65 before us today.

Somewhere in here is the interview which he gave soon after the election when he returned to Holland for a visit, I had to have it translated for me, because it was given in Dutch, but his aim in life is to be Premier of this province. That's what he's admitted to.

Since he's not the Minister of Energy, Transport

[ Page 5653 ]

and Communications and has no ferries to sell, he's not the Minister of Finance and can't raise the sales tax, and he's the minister responsible for services to the poor, what's he going to do? To get where he has to go and where he wants to go, he has to ride roughshod over the poor. He has to ride roughshod over the citizens of Vancouver. He's proven that he can ride roughshod over his government, when the Premier is away anyway. So he's number two. One person stands in his way now. It's going to be interesting to see how he deals with that one, but he will. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on him, but I'm not a betting woman. The member for Vancouver East is putting his money on him, aren't you?

MR. MACDONALD: I'm putting my money on the old grey mare.

MS. BROWN: What I'm concerned about is once he becomes Premier, is he going to be satisfied with that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, back to the principle of Bill 65.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for drawing that to my attention. I got distracted for a minute, talking about notoriety rather than public service and the fact that that is a path which the minister is using through Bill 65. Bill 65 is a notorious Act, and that is the path the minister is using toward the leadership of his party and what he thinks will eventually be the Premiership of this province.

As an aside, I just said I wondered, once he became Premier, what his next step would be.

However, I do not take these symptoms lightly because, once again, they indicate social breakdown rather than cohesion, the separation of people rather than the bringing together of people, the absence of choice and control rather than the exercise of choice and control. That's what Vancouver had under the Vancouver Resources Board. We had the exercise of choice and control.

And all of this, Mr. Speaker, that I've been saying to you till now relates very directly to the problem at hand, Bill 65, the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board. Now I know that what I've been saying does not sound original. Well, it isn't. The worrying over alienation, the loss of community, social disintegration is hardly noticed, really, unless it's manifested in some bizarre way as we're experiencing, for example, in the growth of child pornography and this kind of thing. Other than that, it's hardly noticed. We take it for granted; we assume this is the way that life is. In fact, there is a tendency to view those who raise these questions as being tiresome.

1 see the minister yawning continually, and he considers what I'm saying as tiresome. But that is because he really doesn't understand the significance of Bill 65. 1 really don't think he knows what he is doing with this piece of legislation. And that, Mr. Speaker, is why I have embarked on this task. One of the reasons, as I pointed out, of the three reasons certainly was to try and teach the minister, to help him see how destructive this Act is going to be. However, just because a problem has been with us for a long time doesn't make it any less of a problem

There is a celebrated passage in Madame Bovary -and I know you've read it; you're probably a scholar of Flaubert; I'm sure he's one of your favourites -where the author, irritated by a character who doesn't understand that clichés may reflect the most passionate sincerity, allows himself to complain. Oh, I know you are certainly a great fan of Flaubert.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You enjoyed Kafka. Oh, yes. Well, this is why I'm sharing these things with you. And this is a quote, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Couldn't we share them in a different forum?

MS. BROWN: Yes, withdraw Bill 65 and I'll be willing to share these ideas with you in a different forum.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What's Kafka and Madame Bovary got to do with Bill 65?

MS. BROWN: Are you ready? Okay, the minister is not ready. I have some more teaching to do.

"He could not distinguish, this experienced man, the dissimilarity of sentiment beneath the sameness of expression, as if the fullness of feelings did not sometimes spill out through the emptiest of metaphors, since no one ever can give the exact measure of his needs or ideas or sorrows and since human speech is like a cracked cauldron on which beat out tunes for dancing bears when we wish to attract the sympathy of the stars."

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Had I known, Mr. Speaker, that he was one of your favourites, I would have included more quotes.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I greatly fear that the government and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in particular does not understand this. They have not heard the cries, the complaints, the criticisms and the demands of the

[ Page 5654 ]

powerless in our society many, many times. With their tin ears, it all sounds so familiar. That people need and demand more direct participation is considered a tiresome cliché by some members of this government. Centralization, centralization, centralization - it's the only thing they understand.

How, for example, does it happen that the minister, who a few years ago was such a great proponent of citizen participation, should now have become so rigid and dogmatic a state centralist? I wonder if he recalls the kinds of pleas he made to the Surrey municipal council for the South Surrey planning committee. This all has to do with Bill 65. Mr. Speaker, members of this House should be aware that not very long ago the citizens of South Surrey felt that municipal and regional planning was not taking into consideration the needs and aspirations of the community.

They feared a loss of community in Surrey. What they did, Mr. Speaker, was to form a broadly based organization which requested the Surrey municipal council and the GVRD to support them in a project to draw up a plan that was more community oriented. Do you remember that, Mr. Minister? They were called the South Surrey planning committee. Do you remember that? All is not lost; the minister remembers. In those days, the minister did not disdain the concerns which he now rides roughshod over.

In those days you believed in community involvement. You believed in a sense of community. You recognized the loss of community that threatened Surrey in those days. I wonder what has happened to the minister since that time. There is some saying about power corrupting, but I guess if I said that power corrupts I would have to withdraw that, wouldn't I? Okay, I am not going to say that the minister is corrupted by power, because I want to stay in order. Whether I believe that or not is incidental. I'm not going to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker, the causes of this sense of loss are many and certainly precede this government, which nevertheless seems bent on accelerating the trend rather than creatively seeking to reverse it. Two important causes which have bearing on the present debate and have been discussed by many of those most seriously involved in finding solutions.... We can go all the way back to the French sociologist Derkheim, for example, who, at the beginning of this century, noted that suicide and insanity, two measures of social disintegration, "are typically found in those areas of society in which moral and social individualism is the greatest." Those were his findings and they are still borne out today.

Individualism is an extreme creed. Certainly as it is practised by some of the members of the government - and I'm not going to call any names - and by some Social Credit philosophers it has resulted in masses of normless, unattached, insecure individuals losing their capacity for independent and creative living. Extreme individualism, selfishness and personal ambition are the touchstones of the capitalist mentality. Again, this has everything to do with Bill 65. Just follow me, Mr. Speaker. You are going to get there eventually. Just keep with me.

The cost of this individualism, selfishness and personal ambition is a loss of moral and social involvement with others. That is what Bill 65 demonstrates. Bill 65 is a clear demonstration of that loss of moral and social involvement or the loss of the commitment to moral and social involvement with others. All too many individuals who have been inculcated with this extremist philosophy become prey to anxiety. As established social contacts are weakened by the all-powerful market mechanisms and fewer individuals have secure interpersonal relations to give their lives meaning and stability, their anxiety grows.

Mr. Speaker, the pioneering studies of industrial alienation of Elton and Mayo at the Western Electric plant found that modern industrial organization tends to predispose workers towards anxiety and unhappiness.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Most interesting, hon. member, but I can't quite see how it relates to Bill 65 at this point in time.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I'm going to start again, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to try and show you how it relates, In the annual report of 1976 of the Vancouver Resources Board, it reads as follows: "The Vancouver Resources Board was founded on the principles of the integration of multiple services, the decentralization of social service delivery and the involvement of community." Bill 65, if passed by this House, proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor and implemented, will result in the loss of community. That is the link. I am discussing the loss of community. Okay? Okay.

When you talk about the loss of community, you have to talk about the people in a community. All I am doing is drawing for you some examples and some illustrations. Because I know that I'm dealing with a learned community here, I am calling upon references with which we're all familiar. That's all. Okay?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, they wrote: "Forced back upon himself, with no immediate or real social duties, the individual becomes prey to unhappy and obsessive personal preoccupations."

Maybe there is one other, thing I should repeat, and that is that the Vancouver Resources Board, with its community involvement and with its localization of services in neighbourhoods, was one way of dealing with the alienation and isolation of the individual. That is the link when I talk about an individual's

[ Page 5655 ]

alienation, isolation and anxiety. That's one thing I'm talking about, okay.

There is something about the nature of modern industry that inevitably creates a sense of void and aloneness. The worker experiences a profound loss of security, uncertainty in his actual living and in the background of his thinking. The sources of this loss of community are undoubtedly numerous, but it is particularly important that we recognize the features of the community which contribute, for it was here that the New Democratic Party made a genuine and largely successful. effort to fight back against this community dislocation and this loss of sense of community.

So what you are getting and what is beginning to come through to you is an understanding of really what the Vancouver Resources Board, like all the other community resources boards, was all about. It's not and really wasn't intended to be just a different way of practising social work. It really was a genuine attempt to deal with one of the most serious threats to the community - namely, the sense of isolation and alienation of its individual members.

In a fit of pique and in an ambitious rage, that is being destroyed by a minister who does not have and has never had a desire to understand what it's all about. I hope he sleeps well. I hope he's sleeping well. Oh, he's awake again. That's okay; go back to sleep.

It's important that the colleagues from Vancouver hear, and they're not here. It's important that the minister hear, and he's sleeping. It doesn't matter, because you know who is listening?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: The citizens of Vancouver and the Speaker - that"s who's listening. Now the Speaker can't vote in Vancouver in the next election, but the citizens can and the citizens will. So let the minister sleep: rockabye baby, on the treetop; when the wind blows, the cradle will rock. When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall. Ha, ha! Down will come baby, cradle and all. So let the minister sleep.

Mr. Speaker, there are innumerable studies of the urban community which point to the process of alienation. The urban mode of life can create solitary souls - individuals uprooted from customs and contacts - confronted with a social void and faced with the reality of weakened and obscured restraint on personal conduct. Personal existence and social solidarity in the urban community appear to hang by a slender thread. There are only fragile, fleeting and tenuous relationships between people. Unfortunately, these connections are mostly based on commercial exchange. Even those tenuous ties are a subject of seemingly impersonal, powerful and distant forces, over which neither the individual nor the neighbourhood has control.

I'm not saying that the urban community does not fight back or that the urban community and urban neighbourhoods are weak and helpless against this psychic imperialism of modern domination. They can and they do. Certainly in Vancouver, the resources board is one of the ways in which we try to fight back.

We read of the beleaguered pride and toughness characteristic of New York City dwellers, who face the most terrible and terrifying of urban environments. There is a pride and a creativity - an almost existential willingness or willfulness to continue under the most oppressive conditions.

We read of the citizens of our sister city on the Pacific, San Francisco, where, in response to a severe water shortage, the people voluntarily cut back consumption by 40 per cent, thus placing that city government in an ironic bind - the people were more public-spirited in the face of adversity than the government expected. I'm sure you remember when they said, "conserve water, take a bath with a friend" - that ad that they ran for a while. Then they found that they didn't need it any more, because everyone took them literally.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we can look in our own province, at our own city of Vancouver, where tenants continue to nag and struggle and fight for decent living conditions and the respect and dignity which is an unalienable right of all people, women as well as men. These tenants will not go away and they will not give up. Again, in support of the Vancouver Resources Board, the Red Door was certainly one group that deals with tenants which supported the petition asking for the withdrawal of this piece of legislation.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that those who have come to understand and value the Vancouver Resources Board are not going to go away either. In the Vancouver Resources Board, a new sense of community was being created in the face of great adversity, and the adversity of this society and those who dominate it. In fact, the minister is too late. If he had wanted to destroy that sense of community, he should have done it two years ago. But it's too late. The Vancouver Resources Board has had an opportunity to shake itself down.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let the record show that the Leader of the Opposition has just arrived.

MS. BROWN: Let the record show....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I thought maybe the Leader of the Opposition had a point of

[ Page 5656 ]

order. Yes, thank you. I'd appreciate it.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the minister has already been warned about reading newspapers in the House. It is a rule of this House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I see no newspapers and that is not a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: That is a newspaper and it's a rule of this House. If that's not a newspaper, I don't know what it is. Mr. Speaker, it is a long-standing practice in this House that newspapers are not held up and read in this House. He was warned earlier by a previous Speaker today. The Speaker gave a ruling today on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did like hell.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, now he's swearing in the House, you see that? He's swearing in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I believe you are being frivolous at this point in time.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't think swearing in this Legislature is frivolous and I think you owe an apology to this House for using that kind of language.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Neither is abuse of the rules of the House, hon. member. I believe....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is a ruling that members cannot read newspapers in this House. That was clearly spelled out by the Speaker earlier today, and I want you to warn the minister to stick to the rules of this House.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Fun and games.

MR. BARRETT: It's contempt for the Chair -going right ahead and flaunting the rules of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair will check the Blues to ascertain the Speaker's ruling earlier today.

MR. BARRETT: If you want to take a recess, go right ahead; but I'm not going to allow this to continue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One point of order at a time, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you have a point of order. I want a ruling on that - not waiting for the Blues.

You check the Blues right now. Adjourn the House for five minutes. Don't tolerate abuse of the House that way. If he's reading "help wanted" ads, he can do it outside.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the Speaker did indicate earlier that newspapers should not be read in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Looking for "property for sale" from widows.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would also caution any member who is reading newspapers in the House that this is against the rules of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Smarten up.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, along with the previous Speaker today, have indicated to the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , that he should not be reading a newspaper. He stated, and we heard it across the floor of the House: "Go to hell." Are you going to rule, or is he going to continue to break the rules?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Speaker has cautioned the members of this House against reading newspapers and I think that is.... If you wish, I will....

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has told the Chair to go to hell. Now bring him to order, Mr. Speaker. It's despicable behaviour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to quote from the 17th edition of May, page 460:

"Members are not to read books, newspapers, or letters in their places. This rule, however, may now be understood with some limitations, for although it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books and letters may be referred to by members preparing to speak" - I would presume that means at some future time - "but ought not to be read for amusement or for business unconnected with the debate."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to withdraw his remarks, whether they were directed at you or me. God will decide the direction, not the minister, and I ask him to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If there was a remark that offended an hon. member of this House, would the minister kindly withdraw?

HON. MR. MAIR: I wouldn't for the world offend

[ Page 5657 ]

the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. I certainly did not intend you to hear that I told him to go to hell,

MR. BARRETT: Are you withdrawing or aren't you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you kindly withdraw?

HON. MR. MAIR: Sure.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the hon. minister kindly withdraw the implication that offends the member - the words?

HON. MR. MAIR: The implication that the member might go to hell?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Anything you've said that may have offended the member.

HON. MR. MAIR: Anything said that might have offended the Leader of the Opposition, I withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Now go wash your mouth out with soap.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to compliment you on the competent way in which you are handling the points of order. I certainly appreciate that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure you do, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I would like to encourage you to take the care and deliberation that's always necessary in seriously considering these points of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: No swearing.

HON. MR. MAIR: He swore the other day. I thought it was parliamentary. If he could swear, I figured I could.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): And I withdrew without being requested.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please take your seat. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor. Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: I'd like to, Mr. Speaker.

It must have startled this government that the arbitrary actions of the Ministry of Human Resources would have provoked such a broad reaction. The response has cut across all geographic barriers - as my letters will prove when I start reading them - all class lines, and certainly all political ideologies. From Kitsilano to Kerrisdale, from bureaucrats to business people, labour and just plain people, from groups of street workers to the city council itself.... What is the reason for this? The reason is that the importance of some sort of community, some sort of struggle to regain that sense of being a part of things, that belief that there are needs and that people can help, is not confined to a few. In fact, it is the feeling of the many; it is the feeling of the multitude. The only place where there is any concentration of ignorance and insensitivity seems to be this Legislature.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First of all, drawing your attention to standing order 1:

"In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be allowed as far as they may be applicable to this House." When your attention was drawn to the reading by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of newspapers, which he has continued to do, you cited Sir Erskine May. I fortunately have, courtesy of the library, a copy of the 19th edition, which is the most current practice. I refer you to page 434, Mr. Speaker:

"On Reading of Books, et cetera.

"Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places. This rule, however, must be understood with some limitations, for although it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books or letters may be referred to by members preparing to speak."

Therefore newspapers are absolutely a no-no, whereas it is permissible, for instance, for a person who is trying to keep up on parliamentary practice to read such books as Erskine May's. The minister is flagrantly making the job of the Chair, I think, very difficult. I think that he should show courtesy and put that newspaper away, as he is showing disrespect for the Chair and indeed making the job of one of his own colleagues most difficult.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your point of order is well taken. I would like to quote for you from May, 17th edition, page 467:

"Comparatively little use has been made by the Chair of the power of naming a member who obstructs the business of the House while misusing the forms of the House. Where obstruction takes the form of persistence in tedious repetition by a member, either in his

[ Page 5658 ]

own arguments or the arguments used by other members in debate, the House of Commons standing order 22 empowers the Chair, after calling the attention of the House or the committee to the member's conduct, to direct him to discontinue his speech."

I would say that tedious points of order fall within that purview.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, are you ruling that my reading from Sir Erskine May, the 19th edition, when I point out to you that under standing order I we are bound by rules in this House, is being tedious? Where our rules are silent we are bound to follow the most current practice. The most current practice is standing order 19. 1 would say, Mr. Speaker, that you are baiting, and I will not stand for it. I'm a member of this House, and I demand respect in this House from all members.

Mr. Speaker, I have very calmly drawn to your attention that your authority is being challenged by that minister over there. You should not be trying to kill the messenger; you should be going after that minister and enforcing the rules of this House. I ask you to do so. That minister is showing contempt for your position and, by showing contempt for your position, he is showing contempt for all members of this House. I take great exception to that.

HON. MR. MAIR: Tear up your rule book!

[Deputy Speaker rises.)

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker resumes his seat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is the job of the Chair, as you correctly stated, to enforce the rules of the House. It is also the job of the Chair when, in the Chair's opinion, the rules of the House in any form are being misused. I am merely calling your attention to this.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, what makes it particularly provoking in this instance is that you have already given direction to the member to cease reading the newspaper. He's flaunting your authority, sir - twice he's been warned. I think that when the Speaker gives a ruling, when you ask this member to respect your ruling, then we should ask a minister to respect the ruling as well. I think that's only appropriate

Interjections,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is very difficult for the Chair to ascertain whether or not a document is being used in the preparation of a future speech or not. In such a case, I would have to go to the earliest English instruction. I would caution the members not to read newspapers in this House for their own pleasure, as is pointed out. I have no knowledge whether the member is reading a newspaper or not reading a newspaper, hon. member. I have cautioned members of the House not to do that.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention once again to standing order 1. "In all cases not provided for hereafter" - that is, in our standing orders - "the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House." At this time, the most current issue of Sir Erskine May is the 19th edition. On page 434, it says: "This rule, however, must now be understood with some limitations; for although it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books or letters may be referred to by members preparing to speak. . . .- It makes an exception in the case of books and letters, Mr. Speaker. I submit that it is still very clear in the case of newspapers. Further, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the point, direction has been given to the minister twice now and the minister did not really respond. I find it just a little bit much to have it alluded to that perhaps I have been raising a tedious or repetitious point of order ...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: when, indeed, a member has already openly and flagrantly abused it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please take your seat, hon. member. There is a ruling by Mr. Speaker Dowding that standing order 1, when it refers to "at the time, " means when standing order I was adopted, not at this point in time, at present. That is why you are able, at any point in time, to refer to any of the authorities.

MR. BARRETT: That is absolutely correct, but the point that you made and the ruling that you made is that reading newspapers, whether or not it was in preparation for a speech, is not permitted in the House, and the minister was told twice. He made some comments, which he withdrew, about the direction that the Chair or myself should go which were total. . -

HON. MR. MAIR: No, it was about you.

MR. BARRETT: What did you say about me?

[ Page 5659 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: I suggested a direction you might go - to greater warmth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you see, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not understand, because he's new here, that the practice is more important than the members of the day.

HON. MR. MAIR: Has Rosemary had enough rest?

MR. BARRETT: The minister was instructed by the Chair not to read a newspaper and he flaunted the Chair twice. The only course of action the Chair has is to give him a stern warning or to ask him to leave the chamber if he can't obey the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I read you the paragraph from the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May at the centre of the page, entitled: "Reading Of Books, Et Cetera"? This is the way the paragraph is written: "Members are not to read books, newspapers or letters in their places. This rule, however, " and that includes newspapers as well, , 'must now be understood with some limitations; for although it is still irregular to read newspapers, any books or letters may be referred to by members preparing to speak. . ." That is exactly the same as the quotation in the 17th edition of May, and I so rule.

MRS. JORDAN: Due to the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) chose to rise on his feet again on a point of order, I would bring to your attention that your ruling just given is for the second time on this particular point of order. It has been my observation that since it was brought to the minister's attention, he has not transgressed that ruling and he has not read his paper. I would hope that we would get on with the business of the House.

MS. BROWN: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) for raising a point of order so that I could have a little rest. I really appreciate that, Madam Member. Thank you very much. I feel better too, so I really appreciate that.

Also the disintegration of the government is a very, very sad thing to witness, don't you think?

MR. WALLACE: Not really.

MS. BROWN: Well, you know, here we have the Speaker trying to maintain order. We have the minister of corpulent affairs flaunting his integrity, Mr. Speaker, all of which benefits me and leads me to believe that he is very opposed to Bill 65 and the

Minister of Human Resources, which is the reason that he is giving grounds for all of these points of orders. They are falling apart over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now back to the relevance of Bill 65, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: And Bill 65, Mr. Speaker, is one of the causes of that disintegration that is going on over there. That's one of the causes of it.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The anti-people bill, that's right. I'm in order; I'm sticking to Bill 65. In fact, in order to get Bill 65 through and onto the floor of this House, the Minister of Human Resources had to know that he was jeopardizing the seats of the members of his caucus and cabinet who represent Vancouver constituencies. He had to know that, and he went out and openly, flagrantly and deliberately placed those seats in jeopardy. That's telling you something about the disintegration of that government over there. I don't like to see anything disintegrate, even a lousy government, but I am happy to see it happening. I think I just contradicted myself. I'm not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MS. BROWN: I did? Thank you, hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that many people who live long distances from Vancouver and who inhabit small towns and villages of this province are also disturbed by this action which affects Vancouver. Whatever the different perspectives between those who live in the city and those who live in the country, they both understand one thing, and that is that a viable social life requires a sense of community. They also understand that the Vancouver Resources Board was a step towards establishing and strengthening the community. The ice age of pessimism which this government seems so eager to construct is not approved of by anyone, certainly not by everyone. Everyone recognizes that the coldness and calculation of this mastodon government tends to put the blight of frost-bite on all initiatives towards reconstructing a sense of community. That's what Bill 65 is all about.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the shadowy apprehension of estrangement and anxiety pollutes the very air we breath. That is why the concept of a community-oriented, controlled and administered set of public services had such appeal and was so important to the community of Vancouver. That is why the actions of this government cannot but engender a sense of morbid restlessness among many who would never come directly in contact with the Vancouver Resources Board.

[ Page 5660 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair. J

Mr. Speaker, one has to remember that people find a sense of security and meaning in many things, even in some things in which they do not directly participate. There are many people who understand that Vancouver had something available, something which they themselves might never need to utilize. This added to their sense of security - the knowledge that within one's neighbourhood were people who cared, the knowledge that within one's neighbourhood were individuals who were exercising their duties responsibly, individuals who were creating networks which functioned according to community needs and standards. That was the kind of intangible comprehension that encouraged and encourages everyone.

A second cause of the current endemic anxiety that I want to look at is the role of the state. The quest for community, Mr. Speaker, cannot be isolated from the larger systems of authority which prevail in this society. 'the government is a highly systematized and concentrated centre of power and authority.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, twice today, regrettably, the Chair has had to draw attention to the minister of ... what is it again? -the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) , about reading newspapers. Now the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is adopting the same practice that has already been censured from the Chair, and I would ask the Chair to make the minister aware of that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, there is a lot of information in here which is very valuable to me for research purposes, so I'm just glancing at that section only.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe it's permissible for hon. members to refer to documents and papers in preparation for a reply.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, he's got it open to the comic page. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition's eyesight is much better than anyone else's in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're just identifying his speech, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: It would seem to me, hon. members, that if it's the intent of the Legislature to censure every member who has a book in his or her band, or a paper at any time, I can be as observant as you wish the Chair to be. In cases like that, anyone I observe with a newspaper or a magazine or a book will be immediately requested - if it is apparent that it's something they should not be using in the House - to refrain from doing that. Now there has to be a bit of leniency with respect to the interpretation of that rule in order to allow the process of the chamber to continue, and members to at the same time continue with the work that they have. In some jurisdictions you would find that many members would be continually absent from the chamber if it were not for doing some work at their desks.

MR. BARRETT: Books are okay. Books are good for the mind; newspapers aren't.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has always placed a very liberal interpretation on the rule, hon. member, and I would hope that all members would be guided by what they consider to be proper decorum on the floor of the House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was just about to rise in my defence again, and you interrupted her.

MR. SPEAKER: I've recognized the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) .

MS. BROWN: I don't know if you know, Mr. Speaker, but sisterhood is powerful. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention.

Anyway, I would really like the record to, show that during this very important debate that the Minister of Human Resources was reading the newspaper. I think that's....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. That is are improper observation.

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry. He wasn't reading the newspaper.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was reading the funnies.

MR. COCKE: He was reading your news release.

MS. BROWN: He was reading my what? My news release. That's okay. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to talk about the state.

I use the word "state." But of course I'm referring to the government. It has to do with Bill 65 because I'm dealing specifically with the exercise of power by the government in terms of the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board, which is what Bill 65 is all about.

I may mention, Mr. Speaker, that government is a highly systemized and concentrated centre of power

[ Page 5661 ]

and authority in British Columbia, and we certainly have come to see just how concentrated and powerful it is when the concentrated efforts of the citizenry of the largest city of this province has had no impact whatsoever on this government in terms of an issue which is of vital importance to them. The people of the city of Vancouver, as well as their elected representatives at all levels, have spoken in support of the Vancouver Resources Board and have voiced their opposition to Bill 65. The government has chosen to ignore this and to pursue its course of dismantling those boards.

For more and more individuals, the kinds of interpersonal and organizational relationships within our communities have lost their historic function of mediation between people and the larger ends of our civilization. What this means is that the quality and kind of organizational activities are relatively less significant than they were. For while people may participate in a community or in an organization, and though sociologists have determined that an astonishing number of people do not participate at all, this participation is not real and it's not at the centre of things. Participation is a kind of peripheral participation that the minister spoke about on Friday when he said that the boards can advise, they can operate in an advisory capacity, they can give advice. That is not where the action is. People know this; they're not stupid. They know that you can give advice but you can't force somebody to accept it. There's a very direct difference between the Vancouver Resources Board and the kinds of responsibilities that it had and the kind of structure that the minister has recommended where they could come over and give him advice, which he would then proceed to ignore.

Mr. Speaker, I want to digress from my notes just for a minute. I thought about that this afternoon when the prayer was being said. One of the regrets I had about that prayer, the one given by Rabbi Leo Abramil was that the Minister of Human Resources was not in his seat and did not have the opportunity to hear it. So I want to read it to him. It doesn't have to go into the record. I don't care if Hansard doesn't Want to carry this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the prayer has not very much to do with the relation to Bill 65 unless the hon. member can relate her remarks to the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I'm going to show you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: It's a relevant quote.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to show you how the prayer is related to Bill 65.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm quite wiling to listen, as long as it's relative to the principle of the bill.

MS. BROWN: I know you're willing to listen, and this is the reason why I'm doing it. I'm going to start out by reminding you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill 65 calls for the abolition of the Vancouver Resources Board. I want to remind you that the Vancouver Resources Board deals with the delivery of social services to people in need. Okay? Now, listen to the prayer:

"Complacency can be worse than wretchedness or indifference when the welfare of human beings is at stake. We cannot be satisfied, therefore, with token gestures of good will when human needs are not met.

"Let us not be satisfied until every handcuff of poverty is unlocked and work-starved people no longer walk the streets in search of jobs that do not exist.

"Let us not be satisfied until all men and women and children have food and the basic necessities essential to their well-being.

"Let us not be satisfied until all citizens of this country are given the same opportunity to educate themselves and acquire the knowledge and skills which will enable them to live with dignity and honour in our competitive society, be satisfied until the broken lives in some of our suburbs and the broken spirits on the reservations are given a chance to improve their lot and destiny.

"Let us not be satisfied until all race-baiters disappear from our midst, until all bigots tremble away in silence, until brotherhood and equality become more than meaningless words on the political platforms of the representatives of the people.

"Let us not be satisfied until members of parliament and men and women everywhere are imbued with the passion, the justice and equity.

"In the words of the ancient Hebrew scripture: 'Every man will sit under his own vine in victory and none shall make them afraid.'

"God of all creation, we ask your blessing for our country, for the men and women who have been entrusted with the responsibility of legislation and government and for all who exercise just and rightful authority.

"May they administer all affairs of state with fairness and equity so that peace and security, justice and freedom may forever abide in our midst."

Mr. Speaker, that is what is threatened by the implementation of Bill 65. Bill 65 shows a lack of concern and regard for those issues which were raised so beautifully in that prayer today. I make it my business to try to get into this House as often as possible for the prayer, because I am always curious

[ Page 5662 ]

to find out what the men and women of God want us to do. That's a special curiosity of mine. I always come in here to find what blessing they are bringing down on us each day.

Mr. Speaker, despite what the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) may say, I've been sitting in this House since 1972, and I have not heard a more relevant, timely or beautiful prayer. It is a beautiful prayer. There are a number of people in Vancouver and throughout this province who would wish that the Minister of Human Resources would try to implement ...

MR. MUSSALLEM: He means it. You just don't understand his point of view, that's all.

MS. BROWN: Greater love hath no man than this, that the member for Dewdney would lay down his life for the Minister of Human Resources. Does he really believe that the Minister of Human Resources is not going to be satisfied until every handcuff of poverty is unlocked? Do you really believe that? Do you really think he cares? I am not going to sit down because, Mr. Member, you will have your turn. It's your government. You've got the numbers; you'll have your turn.

Mr. Speaker, I had to digress just to read that into the record and to read it to the Minister of Human Resources, because it's such a timely prayer and so relevant at this time.

Okay, I'm going to go back and talk about community, and this all has to do with Bill 65. To put it another way, social and community activity is not nearly so integrative as it once was.

"In earlier times, there was an intimate relationship between the groups and organization in which people participated in the indispensable economic and protective functions of human existence. We cannot bemoan the loss of the past, and we cannot sink into a futile nostalgia. But we can point out the fact that several centuries ago, participation in a church or religious congregation was indeed participation in some of the central and critical social responsibilities and decisions affecting the community."

That's what brought to mind the prayer. Because if you'll remember, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that certainly one of the criticisms that has been levelled against the church is that it hasn't participated actively in the day-to-day existence of people's lives. My comment was that this certainly did not apply to many of the churches in the Vancouver area who have made their voices heard in this debate. It certainly would not apply to Rabbi Leo Abrami, who gave us that beautiful prayer today which dealt specifically with the day-to-day existence of people's lives.

A century ago, Mr. Speaker, in the cities and larger towns, the local pub was more than just the centre of drinking and entertainment. I heard the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on the radio this morning saying that he certainly looked forward to seeing the neighbourhood pubs become more than just a centre of drinking and entertainment. But in centuries gone by, the pub served as an important place where information was exchanged, where bargaining and trade took place, and where social and political problems were discussed.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the United Kingdom it was the Conservatives who were in favour of liberalizing the drinking laws because they believed that it would have significant political benefit. In the Canadian prairie communities of just a few short years ago, before the encroachment of agro-business, the local co-operatives served the same function. They were a kind of school, a political forum and a place through which welfare and charity were delivered.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is that there used to be an intimate conjunction between social groups that were small enough to infuse the individual's life with a sense of membership in the larger institutions and goals of society. For the overwhelming majority of people until quite recently, this structure of economic and social life rested upon, and even pre-supposed, the existence of the small social and local groups within which the cravings for psychological security and identification, and the sense of participation could be satisfied.

That's what your resource boards were, neighbourhood-oriented small groups. The co-operative, the church, the pub, all drew upon and held allegiance of the people, not because these organizations had any superior impulses to love and protect, to nourish and cherish individuals. The conflict and the oppression of individuals could be quite severe. In fact, local churches could be, and were, the hotbeds of controversy and harmony as many novelists have pointed out through the ages. No, these organizations held allegiance because they possessed a virtually indispensable relationship to the economic and political order.

The social problems of birth, death, courtship and marriage, problems of employment and unemployment, of infirmity and old age were met -however inadequately, they were met - through the networks and associations which existed as part and parcel of these organizations. It's sort of like the resources board concept, Mr. Speaker.

The advancement of capitalism and the state, whose duty it was to protect, extend and rationalize that capitalism, laid waste much of this social interconnection. Nonetheless, I'm not going to stand here and blame capitalism or the capitalist governments for this. That would be an idiotic rebuke

[ Page 5663 ]

to the past; and, of course, the capitalists are only conforming to the compulsions which are necessary to its existence.

The effects of this transformation on the groups and associations in the community have nonetheless become the detached from functional relevance to the larger social and economic decision of society. The small, local community groups have ceased to play a determining role in questions of welfare, recreation, economic production or distribution except through the community resources board concept.

Listen to this again, Mr. Speaker. The small, local community groups have ceased to play a determining role in the questions of welfare, recreation, economic production or distribution except as manifest in the community resources board concept. And that is what is being threatened by Bill 65. And that's what we in the opposition are trying to stop when we oppose Bill 65, and that's what the Vancouver school board was trying to stop when it moved its resolution, and the city council, and those 76 community groups, and the 27,000 people who signed the petition, and all the people who wrote the letters and made the phone calls and sent the notes. That's what they are trying to stop.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House Leader and move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

APPENDIX

57 The Hon. J. J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 57) intituled Soil Conservation Act, to amend as follows:

Section 1, line 6 (dealing with the definition of "fill"): By deleting the comma and all the words after "land" and substituting "in an agricultural land reserve;".

Section 1, line 17 (dealing with the definition of "remove"): By deleting the comma and all the words after "reserve".

Section 1, line 21 (dealing with the definition of "soil"): By adding "or the Placer Mining Act" after "Mineral Act".

Section 10, fines 2 to 4: By deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

" (2) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, subject to prescribed terms and conditions, exempt from this Act the removal of soil or placing of fill

(a) from or on the right-of-way of a highway or drainage work, or

(b) for the purpose of clearing, preparing, or cultivating land in accordance with good agricultural practice, or

(c) for the bona fide purpose of carrying out a farming or horticultural operation designated by the regulations."

57 Mrs. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 57) intituled Soil Conservation Act, to amend as follows:

Section 4, line 1: By deleting the words "an applicant" and substituting the words "a person".