[ Page 3779 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministry of Environment Act (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Rogers.

Introduction and first reading –– 3779

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act (Bill 57). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 3779

Ministerial Statement

Legionnaire's disease in Terrace.

Hon. Mr. Mair ; –– 3779

Oral Questions

Vogel report on Eckardt commission. Mr. Lauk –– 3780

Mr. Macdonald –– 3781

Provincial implementation of OAP supplement. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 3782

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Chabot)

On vote 155: minister's office –– 3782

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Hyndman

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Lockstead

On vote 157: lands and housing –– 3792

Ms. Brown

On vote 158: parks and outdoor recreation –– 3792

Mr. Howard

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 125: minister's office –– 3792

Mr. Lea

Division on Chairman's ruling –– 3801

Mr. Hyndman

Division on the motion that the member for Prince Rupert be heard –– 3804

Matter of Privilege

Release of member's speech before appearing in the Blues.

Mr. Passarell –– 3805

Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act (Bill 58). Hon. Mr. McGeer

Introduction and first reading –– 3805

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to introductions, having already pronounced on the dress code for the Legislature I must observe that the minister on my right appears to be attired, if I may say so, for the wrong arena. On that note, possibly he may wish to retire to re-attire.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be prepared for any circumstance today, so I'll be taking questions in the House and in the corridors.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, on a serious note but certainly a delightful day, I would like to advise you that we have a special guest in British Columbia today, Mr. Henrik Have from Copenhagen. Mr. Have is on a two-year journey throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico. He arrived in British Columbia a month ago and has since that time been spending his hours happily visiting the interior of our province.

It will interest members to know that he was in the Royal Danish Army for 29 years, retiring six years ago as a captain, and is now seeing the world as a centennial project. I would like to ask the House to welcome Mr. Have to British Columbia and to our Legislature.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Claude Ellis, who is visiting us from Regina. Mr. Ellis, by the way, was the CCF Member of Parliament for Regina city from 1953 to 1958. With Mr. Ellis is his wife, Bessie Ellis. She was an NDP candidate in Lethbridge in the federal riding in 1974. I hope the House will give them a rousing welcome.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in our galleries today are Mr. and Mrs. Eric Robertson. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM. Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce two of our leading citizens in Maple Ridge, Mr. and Mrs. Clappison. With them are two lovely young ladies from the British Isles: Fay Hood of Great Driffield, Humberside, and Julia Towns, Alderley Edge, Cheshire. May I ask the House to bid them welcome.

Orders of the Day

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and that the question period be postponed for 30 minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, firstly, to gain the floor the member would need leave. The member cannot seek the floor to make the motion initially.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker cannot rule a person out of order once having sought the floor. Are you going to recognize me or not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion requires notice, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, if that kind of a motion requires notice, I ask Mr. Speaker to take the matter under review. I won't challenge the Speaker, but I ask that you review that. I don't think it does.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Rogers presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministry of Environment Act.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act.

Bill 57 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a short ministerial statement.

DEPUTY MINISTER: Proceed, hon. minister.

LEGIONNAIRES' DISEASE IN TERRACE

HON. MR. MAIR: As members of the House may know, a few days ago it became apparent that a 67-year-old man had been admitted to hospital in Terrace with what originally appeared to be severe pneumonia, and was later diagnosed as legionnaires' disease. In fact, he went to hospital on June 9, apparently with pneumonia, as I said. His physician, Dr. Redpath, immediately considered the possibility of legionnaires' disease and promptly sent off the required blood specimens. The results confirmed his diagnosis. Due to the early and accurate diagnosis and correct choice of antibiotic, happily the patient is now almost fully recovered. He is recuperating at home.

This has raised some speculation about this disease. Of course. much has been learned about it since it was first recognized after an outbreak following an American Legion convention in Philadelphia in 1976. It occurs in two main forms: a mild fever with muscle aches, and the more severe condition with pneumonia predominating. It is rarely, if ever, spread from person to person. Most cases are sporadic, although outbreaks tend to attract much attention. Common factors have been identified in some outbreaks, such as contaminated aerosols from air conditioning systems and excavation. The disease appears to occur more commonly with advancing age, and has also been associated with cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption.

I am sure that the members of this chamber would join me in congratulating Dr. Redpath for his astute diagnosis and treatment. I might also say that the ministry is obtaining further information on this case and will report back to the House in due course.

[ Page 3780 ]

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK: My question is to the hon. Attorney-General. With reference to the statement made in the House yesterday about the Eckardt report, sworn declarations were appended from Florence Tamoto and Susan Thomson. Were any other sworn declarations taken during the course of the investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

MR. LAUK: Why were no sworn declarations taken from the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Larry Eckardt?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it was felt by the interviewers that there was no need for such declarations. The declaration was tendered by Susan Thomson at her request and that of her counsel.

MR. LAUK: Did the minister's officials indicate why they felt there was no need to obtain sworn declarations?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Did the Attorney-General ask his officials why no sworn declarations were taken and why there was no need?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I was advised that the interviews were conducted and that complete responses were given by the persons interviewed. If a declaration had been the desire of the person interviewed, it would have been accepted.

MR. LAUK: Were the interviews with those individuals recorded by electronic recording or taken down in detailed minutes?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not aware of the answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. I'd be happy to take it as notice.

MR. LAUK: There are two letters dated June 15: one is from Mr. Prior, production manager of the government printing bureau, and the other is from Mr. McMinn, director of surveys and mapping in the Ministry of Environment. They indicate that all the material in the interim report — the Eckardt report — was available on June 16 and that no changes were made thereafter. Were statements taken from these gentlemen, and were these statements recorded?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The two gentlemen involved were interviewed, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not the statements were recorded — I don't know the answer to that question.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General undertake to take that question as notice?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be pleased to, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Prior and Mr. McMinn say that all the material was available to the Queen's Printer on June 16, yet the report is dated June 17, 1978. What reason did the minister's investigation find for the discrepancy between the dates?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If the member had taken the time to read the statement I made yesterday, he would have found that both Mr. Prior and Mr. McMinn indicated that their letters were inaccurate.

MR. LAUK: In fact, a change had been made to the report on June 18 and possibly afterwards. Did the Attorney-General's investigation indicate why there is a discrepancy in those dates — from the date of the transmittal of the letters?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have the answer to that question; I'll have to take it as notice.

MR. LAUK: On January It, 1980, the acting chief electoral officer, Robert Patterson, stated that the boundaries of the Little Mountain constituency were altered to include the notorious "finger" after the interim report was completed on June 17. Patterson stated further that this was the only change. Was Mr. Patterson interviewed in the course of the internal investigation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, he was.

MR. LAUK: Was a statutory declaration or a recording of that evidence taken from Mr. Patterson, in view of the conflict between his statements and the conclusions of Mr. Vogel, which were presented to this House yesterday?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know if the interview of Mr. Patterson was recorded or not. I'll be happy to take that question as notice. It's obvious from the statement which I gave yesterday that Mr. Patterson's statement of June 11 was inaccurate.

MR. LAUK: Or it is obvious that your report is inaccurate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the member has any information that the report was inaccurate, would he please provide me with it.

MR. LAUK: I just have.

Mr. Robert Patterson was a member of the commission, was he not? Was he associated with the commission staff? He made the statement. The statement has not been denied. There has been no contradiction of that statement.

I have a new question to the minister. In view of the fact that it is clear that Larry Eckardt made the decision on the "finger" on June 18, after the report was completed, what explanation did Eckardt give for this thirteenth-hour change in the boundaries?

HON., MR. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the report was not completed by the commissioner until the Monday, when it was finally completed by his staff, and that the material was submitted to the Queen's Printer on the Tuesday.

MR. LAUK: The Monday being which date?

Interjection.

[ Page 3781 ]

MR. LAUK: Oh, you want me to figure it out. Okay.

I'll repeat the question. The decision to change the boundaries of the Vancouver–Little Mountain riding was made on the 18th. That was a day before the notorious meeting in the hotel. This change was made on the 18th according to your report. What explanation did Eckardt give to your investigators with respect to that change? Why did he make it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that he told the interviewer exactly what he had stated publicly — namely, that based upon the matters which he considered appropriate, and which are spelled out in his report, he settled upon the boundaries for the ridings in the greater Vancouver area on that morning.

MR. LAUK: As a result of the interviews of the investigators in this case, did Eckardt indicate that that was the only change and that he made it on June 18?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Did the Attorney-General not find that a little bit curious — at least curious enough to ask his deputy why this was not canvassed with the commissioner?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member's questions correctly, he misinterprets my responses and the report, Judge Eckardt was asked about this and he gave us answers and I've just responded to them.

MR. LAUK: It's indicated by the Attorney-General's own answer that Eckardt made the decision to change what was apparently an already completed report, as far as boundaries were concerned, on June 18. The only change made was the notorious finger. Surely he could explain why he made that change to the only boundary line in all 54 or 57 — whatever it is — constituencies.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, again I must say that the member has not taken the time to read my report, because that's not what was said in the report.

MR. LAUK: The report gave the impression that more than one change was made on June 18, when, in fact, you have indicated today that only one change had been made. Was the explanation...?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, that was not my response to the question at all, Mr. Speaker. In response to the member's question, I said that the judge advised the interviewers that he settled on the boundaries for ridings in greater Vancouver on that day.

MR. LAUK: Was the explanation from Mr. Eckardt taken in writing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. LAUK: Did the internal inquiry establish whether, on the evening of June 19, the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and Eckardt spent any time alone together — not in the presence of commission staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The inquiry indicated, as Mr. Vogel said in the report, that the commissioner met with Mrs. McCarthy very briefly in the dining room of Delta's Laurel Point Inn, and subsequently in the hotel room with the commission staff.

MR. LAUK: As a result of this inquiry, was it determined whether that minister spent any time alone with Mr. Eckardt at the Laurel Point Inn that evening, not in the presence of commission staff?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't reviewed the minutes of an interview of the Hon. Grace McCarthy, then Provincial Secretary. I would be happy to take that question as notice.

MR. LAUK: Did the inquiry establish a detailed chronology of just who was present with the Minister of Human Resources and Mr. Eckardt in the Laurel Point Inn, and for what periods of time, on the evening of June 19?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the report — if the member would take the time to read it — will indicate who was present during the course of those meetings. As far as the time that was spent is concerned, I don't believe that any record was kept of that.

MR. LAUK: By public accounts vouchers, Mr. Speaker, it's indicated — at least on the surface — that commission staff may not have been present during part of the meeting between the minister and the commissioner. Did the internal investigation reveal this?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only refer the member to the report.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General on the same subject. In view of the fact that the report finds that Miss Thomson is to be believed and Miss Tamoto not, based upon theSun day night business, and the fact Miss Tamoto didn't say for sure that it was on Sunday night, why was there no investigation as to whether or not the Provincial Secretary put her finger on a map and indicated she wanted a change, at some other time or place — even before June 16: even on the 15th, the Saturday, in Vancouver, or at any other time? The report demolishes Miss Tamoto by really following a red herring as to what she did not depose; she did depose that the finger was put on the map that's what she was told.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the member would take the time to read the report carefully — and he obviously has not — he would know that the investigation was undertaken because of Miss Tamoto's declaration that the conversation which she was alleged to have had with Miss Thomson was denied. With respect to the other matter, Miss Tamoto did depose as to her belief that the matter took place in a hotel room in Victoria on that particular evening.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a further question to the Attorney-General. In view of what you have said, are you contemplating charges against Miss Tamoto for swearing a false declaration and committing public mischief?

[ Page 3782 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that's an improper question to pose to the Attorney-General in this particular case. But I'm happy to say, as far as Miss Tamoto is concerned, that during the course of the investigation it was not possible to uncover any circumstances which would have suggested that she was improperly motivated in swearing the declaration.

MR. MACDONALD: On a further question to the Attorney-General, in view of the fact, as solicited by my learned friend from Vancouver Centre, that you have had sworn testimony from only two people, that you have not dealt with other times and places where this instruction to add the finger might have been done, and that all of your evidence is secret and to simply an official, not a judge, will the Attorney-General recommend to this House that Larry Eckardt be called before the bar of this House to answer such questions as may be put to him by the members of this House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the specific question posed by the member is no. If, in the course of the inquiry conducted by competent officials of the Ministry of the Attorney-General, evidence had been uncovered indicating there were any improprieties or breach of the law in any aspect of the Eckardt commission, or in the performance of any member of this House or the public with respect to the commission's responsibilities, then otherwise would be the case.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to respond to questions taken as notice yesterday in oral question period.

Leave granted.

PROVINCIAL IMPLEMENTATION
OF OAP SUPPLEMENT

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) asked this question: "Can the minister assure the House that the criteria for all means-tested programs have been adjusted in such a way as to ensure that each family receiving the supplement now has $35 more in their pockets as a result of the federally approved increase?" I am pleased to tell the hon. member and all members of this House, as I stated earlier in the year, that in all circumstances where a family unit includes a member in receipt of old-age security/guaranteed income supplement, the GAIN benefits have been adjusted to allow the extra $35 to be passed on to the client.

This second question was asked by the same member: "Would the minister check to find out whether a person receiving the supplement who is married to someone who is receiving a handicap pension is not finding that the $35 is being deducted from the handicap pension rather than from the seniors themselves...?" The $35 is passed on without deduction from the handicapped allowance. I would like to give the House an example. In April 1980 the maximum allowance for a couple where, one is handicapped and the other is in receipt of the old-age security/guaranteed income supplement was $728.28 a month. In July 1980 this same couple would receive a maximum of $778.36 a month. The increase of $50.08 represents the additional $35 passed on as indicated earlier, the quarterly increase in the federal guaranteed income supplement and the provincial quarterly increase to those on handicapped benefits.

For the edification of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who has asked the question before about the passing on of federal benefits to our senior citizens, there was only one time in the past few years when that was not done. I thought it would be of very great interest to the hon. member to realize that that was during the NDP administration in April 1973.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a short while ago you ruled that points of order must be raised after question period. Is that true?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is in our standing orders, hon. member.

MR. LEA: May I ask then if it slipped your mind, Your Honour, when you allowed the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) three points of order during today's question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, in any case when a point of order is raised, it is the responsibility of the Chair to first hear the point of order. The points of order in this case were very brief and by the time the point was made the member had sat down. The reason is that it does not take up an inordinate amount of time in question period. In this matter that was not the case.

MR. LEA: So the ruling is that it's the length of time, and not the question period, with points of order. It's how long you take with your point of order in question period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It's not? Gee, that's confusing, sir.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was making a comment in jest as he was leaving. Was he?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 155: minister's office, $148,047.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a few more questions to bring to the minister's attention. The first one concerns vehicles in parks. In the last few years we've seen a definite increase in accessibility of four-by-fours into provincial parklands.

[ Page 3783 ]

There is a definite need to increase some type of special routing for four-wheel drives so they don't go around our provincial parks carving up the wilderness. Mr. Kirshaw of the Okanagan Parks Society in Summerland wrote a letter to the minister in January 1980. He also put out a press release about the need for regulating off-highway vehicles from doing continual damage to the environment of our provincial parks. I would certainly hope that the minister might be able to make some type of special allocation for four-by-fours.

The next point I'd like to bring up, Mr. Chairman, is river parks. There is also a definite need to develop some type of river provincial park system in our province. The minister did talk about this on April 14 at a convention with some environmentalists. He stated that river parks might become a reality in four years, that legislation might be brought in around 1983. I would certainly offer my support to the minister concerning river parks, because there is a definite need for them. As a suggestion to the hon. minister, this could also be based on the same type of procedure that the federal government uses with heritage river sites, making a park out of that section.

I'd also like to bring to the minister's attention — and he may already be aware of this — the need for urban parks. In the state of Washington they've just brought in a bill that will establish urban parks in areas of over 25,000 people. The minister might also need to review the state of Washington's bill concerning urban parks. It might be a good thought to try to implement one in the province of British Columbia.

Two last topics I'd like to talk about, Mr. Chairman, concern parks and islands. The first one is Sidney Island. Has the minister ever visited Sidney Island?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. PASSARELL: Good. I certainly hope that the minister would take a further interest in Sidney Island. Just to reiterate some aspects of it, the provincial government does have a provincial park on the tip of the island, as well as a marine park. But the entire island is a reward that the province of British Columbia should be able to use as a provincial park. The cost of the island is presently just a little bit over $3 million. If the province could pick up this island it would be a definite benefit to the parks system of the province.

Among the reasons are its close proximity to the capital and lower mainland regions and its natural setting. Wildlife on the island — which is in the Gulf Islands — is abundant: deer, peacock, bald eagles. It would be a shame if this island were sold to land developers and the wildlife destroyed to a certain extent. It could also be a good gimmick for the province to have a provincial park on the entire Sidney Island. They could run little ferries over from the port of Sidney, and use some of the money that would be generated from the 10- or 15-minute boat trip to the island. As another suggestion, if the minister does proceed with picking up the tab on Sidney Island before it's turned over for real estate development, it would be a good example for the province to ban motor vehicles on this island park similar to the Mackinac National Park in the Great Lakes, where there are no motorized vehicles allowed on the island itself.

There have been a number of letters. There has been a committee struck for a number of years, debating, trying to influence the government to take over the entire SidneyIsland for a provincial park. There was an article in the Victoria Times of April 2, 1980, in which "Sidney Island Park Deal Has National Backing" was the headline. A Mr. Richard Pratt of the Canadian Nature Federation wrote to the Premier giving seven reasons why Sidney Island should be turned over to the province as a provincial park. As well, there have been numerous letters directed to the minister — specifically, letters from Miss Pamela Jones of the Sidney Island Committee. I have had conversations in his office, with him and his staff, concerning the Sidney Island park project.

Lastly, I'd like to talk to the minister about the Mount Brent development in the Penticton region. There was a letter of February 29. 1980, by Mr. Bob Nixon of the Sierra Club, stating the need to develop improved parks in the area. I have had good contact with Me. Podmore of the Lands, Parks and Housing ministry's branch in Kamloops. He's been very considerate, Mr. Chairman. In supplying information and in discussing this matter. One of the problems right now is that there is a definite need for a public hearing on the matter and that environmental concerns and issues be met. The Penticton Indian band has voiced strong concern concerning the development in the Mount Brent area — provincial park aspect — and I would certainly hope that the issues raised by the band aren't ignored by the minister.

Also there is Moresby Island. There was a letter directed to the Minister on May 27, 1980, from Mr. Bruce Elkin of Bowen Island, who asks the minister to stop the destruction of the wilderness area by clear-cut logging. Earlier this morning we discussed forest development in provincial parks.

That concludes my opening remarks concerning the parks issues. I have raised a series of questions and I certainly hope the minister will be able to offer some constructive criticism or suggestions on the issues that I have raised this morning and this afternoon.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll attempt to be brief and respond to the questions that have been put to me by the member for Atlin. First of all, let me say that while the member talks about cutbacks in dollar allocations for the parks branch. I have some difficulty with his reasoning, or the way he arrives at those figures. I don't know where that member was when Bill 5 was passed in the Legislature, which makes an allocation of.... I think I'll have to read it to the member.

Bill 5, Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1980, says: "An amount not exceeding $6.5 million to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing for accelerated park development." Does the member think that with this kind of allocation for accelerated park development there has been a cutback? I guess the member also doesn't recognize that we have received $2 million from the Crown Land Fund for acquisition of land for parks. He doesn't recognize that regional parks and, hopefully, community parks as well will be funded out of the Crown Land Fund.

So there hasn't been a cutback, Mr. Member; there's been a tremendous acceleration of dollars allocated for parks in British Columbia. In my opening statement I talked about the three-year program: $21 million has been allocated for parks in this province, for the next three years. Never before in the history of this province has such a sum been allocated

[ Page 3784 ]

for parks — and the member talks about a cutback! I don't know where he's at most of the time.

In my opening statement I talked about the 1,800 new campsites, the 3,000 new picnic sites, the 2,500 kilometres of trails and the 19 group camping areas which will be established in this province. There hasn't been a cutback. There has been a tremendous acceleration of development, as far as parks are concerned, since this little minister has had parks under his jurisdiction. We have approximately 120 projects to which we will be applying the $21 million over the next three years.

I don't know whether the member does selective reading or whether he has a selective memory. He talks about an article by Mr. Stainsby in B.C. Outdoors. You know, that's the trashiest article I've ever read; it's full of trash, lies and inaccuracies. I corrected that. That's why I say the member either has a selective memory or he does selective reading. I don't think he read the May issue, I believe it was, of B.C. Outdoors, in which I responded to the inaccuracies that appeared in the B.C. Outdoors magazine on which the member built his whole case on the question of park fees.

For the record, I'll have to read my reply, in case the member didn't read it. In case his memory has failed, I'll think I'll refresh his memory. On March 20, 1980, I wrote to Mr. Stainsby. It took him a couple of months to publish it; I think he was waiting for a Bierman cartoon to put along with it. I said:

"Dear Mr. Stainsby:

"Further to your article on provincial campsite fees, I trust you will publish this letter in order that the public will have proper information on this subject.

"The private sector does not set the public campsite fee in this province. I have not met with the industry on this subject. A staff review was conducted with the industry, but I must advise that this meeting, which dealt with a range of subjects, took place after the rates for provincial parks had been established by order-in-council early last fall. Claims by the industry that it established the fees are nonsense.

"Fees for provincial parks are determined by historical rates, comparison with rates in other provinces, and the cost of operating campsites in the parks. Fee levels in this province are comparable to other provinces, such as Ontario, $5; Nova Scotia, $4; New Brunswick, $4 and $5. On the whole, considering the service provided, Alberta is the only other province in Canada which could be seen as having a more reasonable rate.

"The charges of $3 and $5 at our campsites do not constitute an outrageous increase in fees. In fact, considering the changes in dollar values and the increased earning power of the population, these fees are approximately equal in real terms to the $2 fee which was in effect in parks as far back as 1972. Even discounting these facts and assuming that the dollar had the same value, I doubt very much that a change in the actual price from $2 in 1972 to $3 and $5 in 1980, a period of eight years, can be claimed to be punitive.

"In paying a campsite fee the public is not paying twice for facilities. The cost of acquiring and developing parks is paid for by all the people out of the revenues of the province. This is appropriate because even though not all the people in the province use parks, it is in the interest of all our citizens to ensure the provision of adequate access to our lands and waters and scenic and natural features.

"In the case of operating costs, however, it is deemed appropriate that the users should bear a portion of the operating costs. What we consider to be a fair portion of the operating costs is between 50 and 60 percent. In fact, without such fees, we'd have to raise additional revenue from all the people to pay for those who are using the parks. With the revised fee rates, campers will now be paying approximately 60 percent of the cost of providing necessary services at the campsite. This includes such costs as firewood, garbage collection, patrol and policing, and the numerous related services which go towards providing a pleasant vacationing environment for our users.

"Senior citizens and handicapped people are not being charged camping fees, and have not been charged since 1975, since the election of a Social Credit government in British Columbia.

"On the matter of the handicapped, to the best of my knowledge, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that offers these citizens free use of campsites in provincial parks. I would like to point out that, in addition to the above, school groups, Scouts, Girl Guides, church groups and all related youth-oriented educational and training events have always got, and will continue to get, free use of group sites in the provincial park system.

"The positive policies of this government are clearly illustrated in this year's budget. In this coming year a total of $7.1 million will be spent on new facilities. This is one of the largest capital budgets in the history of provincial parks. Furthermore, it is not a one-year but a three-year program, which will see the creation of many additional camping and day-use facilities, as well as a number of new parks."

So that's the response to many of the erroneous statements made by Mr. Stainsby in B.C. Outdoors. Mr. Stainsby even went on to say we were going to escalate some of the parks from zero dollars to $5. This is, again, an inaccuracy, because none of our fees were escalated to that degree. It all depends on the amount of development. That's what determines the end-price of campers' fees, which certainly don't pay the full cost of maintenance.

The national government has also had a recent campsite fee increase. Daily camping fees in national parks will jump to $4.50 from $3 in a campground with standard services, to $7 from $5 per campsite equipped with individual electricity outlets, and to $8 from $6 per site with individual electricity sewer and water outlets. A $3 fee is also being introduced for unserviced camping areas. In other words, they're suggesting that all their campsites will be charged for. We have a great number of ours that are primitive in nature, and they are free to the tourists and to British Columbians as well.

Now we're looking at the changing of the regulations pertaining to ATVs. Cabinet will give some consideration later this year to possible amendments to the legislation later. The member mentions urban parks. Well, I guess you could call those regional district parks or community parks. We tend not to call them urban parks. We do fund regional parks in British Columbia and some of those are in the

[ Page 3785 ]

confines of urban centres. We're looking at the possibility of funding community parks.

We made a major acquisition at Sidney Island last year to complement the provincial park that we already have established there. After the latest acquisition of private land which we made there, which cost, if I remember correctly, about $300,000 — I indicated to the group that we have other areas of higher priority than Sidney Island. Sidney Island is $3 million, which is a lot of money. I understand that the federal government is looking at the possibility of it being a national park. I don't know how serious they are. Nevertheless, I wish those that are part of the Save Sidney Island group well in their endeavours. I offer them moral support, but not financial support, because we have other land acquisitions of a more urgent nature in other parts of the province. It's a luxury-type park. It's one which has access only by boats. It's one, I'm sure, that will never see a ferry service, as has been suggested by the member for Atlin. It's a park that can only be reached by owning a boat. There are some of us who can't afford a boat and consequently are excluded from the ability to utilize this luxury park at Sidney Island.

The question of Brent Mountain is under review.

MR. PASSARELL: In regard to the minister's opening remarks concerning the cutbacks, I would suggest that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing read his estimates. If he did read them, he would certainly see the cutbacks from last year to this year. They're in black and white. You can't kid around them. The figures from this green book here, that was given to every one of the MLAs, certainly don't lie. I hope that the minister is not trying to imply that. The figures in this are absurd figures. The figures are shown and I stated that this morning. So I certainly hope that the minister, before he gets up and says that there aren't any cutbacks, reads page 146 and specifically the items that I brought showing where the cutbacks were. You can't get around it — a figure for last year that's higher than this year is a cutback.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there are no cutbacks. I tried to explain in my opening remarks that the expenditures shown for regional parks that were contained within the estimates last year are not in the estimates this year because the funds will come from the Crown Land Fund. It might appear to the layman that there is a cutback. Essentially there isn't a cutback; there's a major escalation. You tend to forget the $6.5 million that was contained in Bill 5. Forget the kind of allocation we'll be giving the regional parks this year. Just add the $6.5 million in the special appropriation bill, and you'll see that there is a tremendous escalation in dollars that have been allocated to parks.

MR. GABELMANN: The only escalation, Mr. Chairman, that I can detect is an escalation in verbiage from the minister. It's interesting that when he defends the "modest increases" in fees for camping sites, he talks about the inflated dollar and the fact that in today's terms the fee is not much different than the original fees were eight or ten years ago. In fact that's true — we have an inflated dollar — but I wish he would use the same argument when he talks about increases in the overall budget. If it works in one case, it should work in the other.

The fact is that parks have been and are starved for funding in this province, and one only needs to talk to people who work in the parks to have that proven; one only needs to talk to the people who are charged with the responsibility of collecting....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Name names!

MR. GABELMANN: Members of your staff, Mr. Minister. That should be enough for you. I'm quite prepared to name names. The names will be very obvious to the minister when he checks who works, for example, at Ruckle Park. You have two people at Ruckle for the three summer months, and that's all. Do you know what that leads to, Mr. Chairman, in that particular campsite? It leads to people going into the bush and ripping out trees for firewood and doing all kinds of destructive activity in the park itself because no firewood can be provided. When you ask the minister's staff why no firewood can be provided, they say it's because there aren't enough staff — they're shortchanged for funds. That's the real bottom line.

Not only are the parks not properly serviced in terms of staff for the regular maintenance, but there is also some destruction of those parks going on while there are campers in there because they have to scrounge for their own firewood. Most campers aren't going in there with chainsaws in the first place, and the kind of firewood they end up getting is not the appropriate thing to do. I get very personal evidence of that, as someone who spends a fair amount of time camping. Last summer I noticed the same thing in the San Josef Bay campsite in the southern part of Cape Scott Park, where for some reason there is very little driftwood for firewood. Many of those seaside campsites are okay because there is driftwood for firewood, but in that particular one the beaches are clean. So what we have is people going into the bush and chopping down trees at random. Why? Because there aren't enough park staff to go in and take the proper trees or some windfalls or whatever is appropriate to take out for firewood. Why? Because there isn't enough money.

Simply put, Mr. Chairman, the minister has been unable to persuade his colleagues, unable to persuade Treasury Board that there should be some increased funding for parks. Why is that? Because he's not interested. Proof of why he's not interested: I remember the speech he made in this House some years ago when he talked about there being more parks than anything else in his riding. It was a long speech about too many parks in Columbia River, and the implication of those comments was that he wasn't much interested in parks. The implication of his policy over the last few years is that he still hasn't demonstrated any interest at all.

Further proof of either inadequate interest or inadequate funding: there are still no public campsites on northern Vancouver Island. Recreational vehicles by the score, by the hundreds, probably this year by the thousands are going onto the new North Island Highway, and where do they camp? Wherever they can go off into the bush, on logging roads, wherever they can find on the side of the road, or on municipal streets in Port Hardy. Does the minister not concern himself with the forest fire danger, just to pick one problem that occurs when you allow that kind of random camping? I know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is concerned about it; I know the forest companies are concerned about it to the point where the forest companies themselves provide more campsites than does the government in that area. They're afraid of the potential damage to the environment and to the forest particularly from fire, but not just from fire.

[ Page 3786 ]

I made a plea last summer for the minister to embark on a recreational vehicle and campsite program on northern Vancouver Island. We've got nothing there now and no indication yet that.... What are all these dollars you argue you've got doing? How many of them are going into the North Island for campsites? Not very many. The money in Cape Scott Park, if that's what you want to argue, is maintenance dollars, totally inadequate to provide the kind of services required.

This is the final point I want to make. There have been changes in the style of summer recreation in the last ten years with the advent of motorized camping homes, but more and more people are wanting to go back to the kind of camping that existed in the fifties when you didn't travel with all the luxury gear, you didn't require electrical hookups and all the modern conveniences to the point of having television in your camper. Frankly, I know the parks branch would like to do more, but I don't think they have been given the kind of encouragement from the minister or funding from the government to provide that kind of alternate camping. It does exist here and there. I mentioned Ruckle Park earlier. That is a kind of solution to that particular desire, but there isn't very much of it around the province; where people :an get a couple of hundred yards or a mile away from the road so they have to actually pack everything in — that kind of camping. Regarding the development of camping in canoe areas, the Bowron Lakes chain is a good example of the kind of development that could occur on many other river and lake chains in the province.

I'll conclude by saying that I have a total lack of confidence in the minister, and a total lack of any assurance that he cares at all about parks. His public statements of concern, when talking about his ministry, always relate to Crown land sales — getting Crown land into the hands of individuals. That seems to be his priority concern, not housing, which we talked about yesterday, or parks, which we are talking about today. You are an absolute failure at the job, Mr. Minister. You don't like it; you don't want it. Why don't you give it to somebody who does like it and does want it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I love parks and that is why we have probably one of the largest allocations for land acquisition and development in the history of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: In 1970 dollars?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, 1980 dollars.

I visited Ruckle Park and know it fairly well. It's a beautiful park. I wasn't aware — no one has written me a letter saying there is a shortage of firewood and some problems with staffing. However, we are prepared to look at that, Mr. Member.

You mentioned Cape Scott. In our three-year allocation for campsite and park development we have earmarked $500,000 for Cape Scott park — one of the major allocations in the province.

MRS. WALLACE: I guess we're on the third round of this minister's estimates at this point in time. I want to continue along the lines of the previous speaker relative to the maintenance of the parks and the short-staffing. The number of young people who are unemployed in this province during the summer would certainly indicate to me that the minister should be looking at utilizing some of those people to ensure that the parks are maintained in proper order. Instead of that, he seems to have been going in a direction to get rid of summer help in the parks.

One of the measures he has taken is to introduce the grouped garbage cans rather than having a garbage can at each campsite. That has resulted in people simply not taking their garbage to those grouped cans but leaving a bag in the campsite where the crows get at it and by the time the next tenant comes along the campsite is littered with garbage. I felt that I would like to bring that to the minister's attention. The grouped garbage cans are certainly not working. Maybe they should work, but they're not working. It means that it takes a little longer to collect the garbage from the garbage trucks going around if you have a garbage can at each campsite, but putting them in a group away from the campsite simply isn't working. Maybe that's a commentary on people who should be taking that garbage there, but the fact remains that they aren't taking it there; they're leaving it in the campsite, the birds and squirrels are getting at it and it's making a real mess of those campsites for the next tenant.

Another concern I have is the little envelopes that are now being used to collect the fees, instead of having the park attendant come along in the morning to wish you a good morning, collect your fee and tell you where the good fishing places are, a good thing to do for the day and the weather forecast. You no longer have that kind of personal contact. You have this little envelope that you put the money in and you fill out a questionnaire.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: This is Manning Park.

It certainly leaves open the opportunity not to pay if people so desire. It has taken away the personal touch that adds a lot to the value of our parks and attracts tourists — having those people come around and visit and collect the money personally. Of course, if you don't have the right money you send a cheque off to the minister in this envelope. I presume you have to put a stamp on it as well. It doesn't say that it goes postage free.

The minister has just talked about how this is the first province in Canada to make campsites free for handicapped people. I think that's great, but it's interesting to notice that on this envelope it says: "To validate, complete the following: amount enclosed, or B.C. senior citizen." Nothing about handicapped.

MS. BROWN: They're not accepting it.

MRS. WALLACE: That's right. Just recently we had a particular case straightened out, thanks to members of that minister's staff, where it was just refused to a handicapped person. Surely if you're going to do it by envelope, at least do it right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We'll refund it.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they're giving them a refund in this instance. But you know, that sort of thing shouldn't happen. If you're going to give it to handicapped people, then give it to handicapped people, and work out some way of making sure that this happens, and certainly at least that

[ Page 3787 ]

alternative should be put on the envelope as well, because there's nothing there to indicate that parks are free for the handicapped.

I'd like to talk a little about the state of the parks this year. Even on a Friday, which is the beginning of a weekend, when people are out in the parks the garbage cans are full. The toilets are in a dastardly condition. You simply don't have enough staff to do the job. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) referred to your famous speech — or infamous speech — when you were Minister of Mines about how we had too many parks....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I wasn't the Minister of Mines.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, somebody was the Minister of Mines. We had too many parks — more parks per person than.... I think it indicates your attitude towards parks, Mr. Minister, because you really don't seem to be interested in keeping them attractive. I'm surprised the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) isn't after you, because certainly it's deteriorating from the tourist attractions having parks so ill-kept and with no personal contact at all with any attendant there. It's not really doing anything to upgrade our tourist trade if we don't keep those parks clean and attractive. And it's not happening. Now maybe you don't use the parks, Mr. Minister; I don't know. But if you did, you would find that this was the case.

I guess I have made this plea in the House every year since I've been here. I keep making it, and the minister keeps saying no. But I'm going to make it again. You have to be at Gordon Bay Park at Lake Cowichan on Thursday night to get a site. It needs enlarging, and you say no, you won't enlarge it.

I've talked about the need for a park at Skutz Falls. That's a very beautiful area along the Cowichan River part way between Duncan and Cowichan Lake. It's an area that's used extensively by campers now.

AN HON. MEMBER: For fishing.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, it's good for fishing, That's right.

MS. BROWN: You could call it the Jimmy Chabot Park.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, we'd even let you call it the Jimmy Chabot Park if you would officially make it a park, because what it is now is an area where campers come in, but there are no controls or regulations. The local residents in the vicinity are very concerned about the fire hazard. It's a grassy field; if you've been there you will realize this is true. That grass grows up, dies down, and it's just tinder-dry and ready to go — one match and you've got a fire. There are some real concerns about that particular area. And it is a needed park, because our parks are always overflowing in that particular area.

I've talked to you — and certainly a lot of the local government people have — about the need for a trailer park, camper site, tenting place somewhere close to Duncan. Of course, in my mind the ideal spot is that strip of land which is up for long-term lease from the native Indian people between the Cowichan River and the Village Green Inn. It is a beautiful acreage within walking distance of Duncan and right on the highway, and it would provide a tremendous boon to that area if we were to have a place right there on the highway where campers, trailers and tenters could pull in and set up camp. It wouldn't be an expensive camp to institute because it's already beautifully treed, the underbrush is fairly well cleared out and the roadways are all in. It would take very little expense to make that into a very adequate park, and a very valuable asset to the tourist industry and to the Cowichan Valley.

I've contacted you about my concerns about establishing a park along Mill Bay where the virgin timber stand is. Now you've written back and indicated that it's not suitable for a regional park. I asked you why it wasn't suitable. I've had no answer to that letter. For whatever reason, you think it shouldn't be a regional park.

That brings up another point. We had a very interesting thing happen in our area. We get very little money for regional parks in the Cowichan Valley. Last year we got a cheque for $600 from this minister. With it was a very interesting covering letter. It said: "Would you please use this money to advertise the fact that the provincial government contributes to regional parks." When it came before the local regional board, a motion was put that they use the money to buy a sign along the highway to say that the provincial government contributes to regional parks. It was voted down, because they didn't think $600 would cover the sign. Do you know what they did? They took that money and put a sign in each of the two parks to say that the government contributes to regional parks. That's the kind of cooperation we're getting from this minister as far as parks in the Cowichan Valley go.

I raise this every year and ask for some consideration to be given to those areas, particularly Gordon Bay Park, Skutz Falls, the Mill Bay area and a trailer campsite in the vicinity of Duncan. I always get the answer "no." The minister tells me that he's got all this extra money. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) told us that when he introduced his bill. None of it comes to the Cowichan Valley. I'm getting a little discouraged with that minister. It really is a beautiful area. If you don't like the Cowichan Valley just because I happen to represent it, at least remember that it's part of one of the greatest tourist attractions that B.C. has. If you're going to bring tourists into this area, we have to have parks. For that reason, if for none other. I would ask you to consider giving us some assistance in those parks.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to report to the minister that on Sunday last I attended the annual general meeting of the Valhalla Park Society. I wish to make the following announcement. The Valhalla Park is now a class A park in the minds of the people of the Slocan Valley, the Kootenays, the outdoor people in the province of British Columbia and probably many others.

I'm glad to see that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is here. He is a good attender in this House; it's pretty reliable that he will be here. The Minister of Forests and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) look upon themselves as being the revenue-producers in this province. I want to point out to that minister that there is no need for him to feel that he is a second-class citizen in terms of the various ministerial responsibilities. The parks are revenue producers in this province, and let there be no mistake about that. When we look

[ Page 3788 ]

at the potential for the parks in this province to generate revenue and to add to the gross provincial product, the highest and best use of a good part of the land in this province would be for parks.

I want to speak very strongly in support of the government's catching up with the people in terms of what the best land use is. Recently in Valhalla Park there has been an extension of a moratorium on logging, which was first granted in 1977. Prior to that there were other delays and decisions on whether or not to log and build logging roads into the Valhallas. That moratorium has recently been extended. I think it expires in December 1980. Some investigation has been made of this. What it really boils down to in its simplest terms is that if you take that annual allowable cut and you spread the number of potential acres out over the harvesting cycle, it really means about 100 acres of land per year that could be logged and about ten jobs a year. That's its use if you use it in terms of logging. This entire area is a very important area.

When a person travels.... I've only been briefly to one very limited locale in Europe, but even with that brief exposure to Europe there is a feeling of awe when one looks at an old palace that was built in the 1500s or something else that dates back, a cathedral etc. In British Columbia we don't have cathedrals that date back 300 or 400 years, but we do have cathedrals in this province. The cathedrals in this province are those beautiful high alpine areas, the beautiful wild beaches and the many things we show when we pump dollars into advertising promotions and themes for bringing tourists to British Columbia, such as "Super, Natural British Columbia" and the theme for this year which I was privileged to watch along with the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan).

Mr. Chairman, things are happening in the Valhallas. I'm afraid that government is running behind the people and the developments that are happening. The old mining area of Sandon is having hundreds of visitors per day to a volunteer museum — and these are all logged, all documented. Last year we tried to get some sort of cooperation out of some government department. We didn't care if it came from Parks, Highways, or from whom, but we wanted some portable toilets, because there were no facilities in the area and there were hundreds of people visiting that area each day. All of those requests fell on deaf ears, with the result that people up there took matters into their own hands and they built the facilities which really should have been provided by the government. They could easily have been provided by the government had there been some kind of aggressive and up-to-date knowledge of what really is happening in that area.

The explosion of yellow licence plates in the East and West Kootenays is something rather remarkable. I can remember ten years ago travelling up to Sandon on a weekend in the middle of the summer and maybe seeing one or two other people there — if you spent the whole day there. Now there are cars going back and forth. There's a little restaurant that has started up there in one of the old buildings. There is a splendid opportunity to have some multiple use of that area. There is mining going on there. There is living activity going on up in Sandon. There is logging. What the people up there want is some say in terms of where the logging should be and a general plan. With a great deal of planning and thought — which has been going on for ten years by the people who live, log and mine in that area — the Valhalla area on the west side of Slocan Lake should become a class A park. As I say, the people there have decided it is a class A park.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, other things are happening. At the north and south ends of Slocan Lake there are sandy beaches. On the south end the sandy beach is unfortunately covered by a sawmill and a booming ground. At the north end it is occupied by an enterprise called the Valhalla Lakeside Resort, which the owners want to sell or subdivide, or do something, because they simply are not making money in its present use. There is the opportunity to purchase that sandy beach there, and I would recommend that the government do precisely that. The regional district of Central Kootenay has debated this twice in their regular meetings. They've spent a great deal of time on it, particularly the regional district director for that area, Mr. Conrad Evans. They have written to the government and asked that the government at least do a thorough investigation of the possibility of buying this and maybe making some fair offer. No one is asking that government expropriate the land; no one is asking that the government make an unreasonable offer for the land, or that it be held up to ransom.

I've talked to local people, and, frankly, local people in the ministry, in the regional parks office, are not too encouraging on this. I would say that.... Well, I would back their opinions and respect them maybe 99 percent of the time, but I must really disagree, because you just don't have this kind of opportunity anywhere else on that lake. As I say, things are moving very quickly. I think that in the future, if we don't take the splendid opportunity to take this piece of land, to develop it in a very sensitive way, and to exploit that piece of land as a park, and as something which will be a revenue-producer for the area....

I'd like the minister to realize that a study was done by the University of Calgary on the area, and just as an example they said that if the visitors to Sandon — just the visitors who logged in at the Sandon Museum, which is in a little, old abandoned house, full of artifacts — could be induced to stay in the area for only three days and spend $20 per day — I don't know about the three days, but $20 per day is a pretty conservative figure — it would be a $1.5 million infusion of capital into that area. I think that the potential is much greater than that; I know it is.

Right now the ministry has had the Valhalla proposal before it for some time. It was even before our government. There are requests and support from the village of New Denver, which endorses the proposal. I know that the local regional district director endorses the proposal. The MLA endorses the proposal. The Member of Parliament endorses the proposal. The people endorse it.

Mr. Chairman, we also endorse logging and mining where they can take place on the eastern shore. We say that the western shore of Slocan Lake in the Valhallas is one the cathedrals of British Columbia, and that it should be preserved. In increasing numbers, people are coming to recognize that this has a value, and that it has an economic value. The people of the area argue that their economic interests would be best served in terms of a full development of that region, the Valhallas being the central focus of the region. There are many other amenities, such as the old Sandon site. The old Valhalla resort, a private piece of property on the north end of the lake, has a beautiful sand beach; I think it

[ Page 3789 ]

could serve much better than the expansion of the Roseberry Park campsite. People are still coming into that campsite, although it was closed this year. They are coming in; they are parking on the side of the road, and so on. We're short of camping facilities. The local chamber of commerce, which supports the whole proposal, has even gone ahead and created its own campsite, because the Roseberry campsite is insufficient to handle the demand in that particular area.

For all these reasons, I submit to the minister that his ministry, particularly Parks, is not a revenue consumer. It could be a revenue producer, in terms of generating and stimulating the economies of areas which are in transition. These are traditionally mining areas in which mining will continue to play a very important role, and to which people will go to discover the living heritage of this province. I would ask the minister to show his strongest support for theValhalla proposal in all its ramifications, which touch both the area designated to be the Valhallas and the other areas.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just briefly in response, we have no aspirations to establish a park at Sandon. We have a major commitment in your constituency to acquire a property at Midge Creek, which is before the courts. We expect to have an answer in the latter part of September of this year. It will be a major acquisition for park development in your riding.

Valhalla is a matter that's still under consideration and under review. Hopefully, if we ever get out of here, I'll have an opportunity to visit that corner of the province, and I will familiarize myself with the Valhalla area.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) talked about the regional district not getting any funds under the Regional Parks Act. Well, I guess if you don't apply you don't get funds. There is an allocation there: one-third of the contribution is towards the acquisition of land, and one-third of the contribution is towards development of the park. Unless the regional district makes an application.... If they have the function of a regional park, then they have to apply if they want to acquire some land. Then we take it into consideration, and we grant money. I don't know what the $600 is for. I would guess that if the regional district didn't want the $600 or didn't need the $600, they could have sent it back to me, and I would have put it into some other park development project.

She argues for higher camping fees by saying that we should escalate our staffing in the operation of our campsites. The more staff you engage, the more costs are incurred. Then you've got that 50 percent to 60 percent of the operating costs that you attempt to achieve from fees. So more staff means more costs and possibly higher fees.

We presently have 400 permanent staff in the operation of parks in the province. We engage as many as 3,000 auxiliary staff in the summer months. Under the Youth Employment Program, I believe we have about 400 staff engaged in the parks. We also have a youth crew of approximately 420 building trails in the parks. So we have a fairly large contingent of employees during the heavy tourist season.

The member is persistent in her demands for the development of certain parks in her riding, and we will certainly take her suggestions under consideration.

MR. NICOLSON: I wish to thank the minister for volunteering information about Midge Creek. I'd ask the minister if he's proceeding under the Partition of Property Act.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has indicated that what I said was not true, and I just want to run through the business of the $600. The Cowichan Valley Regional District received a form from the ministry which they filled out and sent in to be ministry. They received from the ministry the cheque for $600 accompanied by a request to acknowledge the assistance in any park-promotional material. Now, if that's not exactly what I said.... I can get you a copy of the letter if you wish.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, could I have leave to make an introduction before I get into the minister's estimates?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like the House to extend with me a welcome to one of the more colourful personalities who were part of the NDP government when they were in power, one who became Associate Minister of Mines, Hart Horn, who is visiting Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a request to the minister of three issues I would like him to give serious consideration to. I would like him to adopt a policy which that forward-thinking member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) had when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, and that was the purchase of the CNR right-of-way from Victoria to Deerholme. At that period it was proposed that it be held either as a bike path or a hiking trail. The most important part is that the right-of-way should be maintained and should be held by the province to ensure that in future access for rapid transit to the Western Community will be available. The more northwestern part of the line, I imagine, will and can be associated into the parks branch, but the part from Victoria at least to Sooke should be held for development of rapid transit.

Many members of this province are finding a complete lack of camping facilities in the general areas throughout the province. I would like the minister to view the area from Victoria west towards Sooke. For years we had a private campsite at the Juan de Fuca trailer park that was an overnight campsite for many tents and trailers and weekend campers, but since last year that particular area has been transferred to a recreational park and they've been doing a lot of renovation, so there are no camping facilities — provincial or otherwise — from the Victoria area west towards the Port Renfrew area. What is happening is that a lot of weekend campers are parking along the road and trespassing on a lot of private land out there. In many cases, because there are no facilities, the hygiene is in the bushes and not to be desired.

There is one provincial park out there, which is a day camp, the French Beach Park; possibly it could be made into a campsite for overnighters or weekenders. I bring to the minister's attention that there is a definite need in that area for campsites for the expanding population of the Victoria area.

Third and last, I would like to bring to the minister's attention — I tried to raise this with the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and he told me that all the responsibility lies with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — the signing system that they are developing for the parks in British Columbia. These are the brown and black signs with a lot of little plaques. Now the

[ Page 3790 ]

Minister of Transportation and Highways told me that he has just given you permission to put these signs up. I would like to bring to the minister's attention that they are not effective. If you're driving along at 80 kilometres an hour, you can read the name of what is coming up.

One example is Goldstream Park. You drive along and you know it is Goldstream Park, but it isn't until you get to the sign and see the small print that you realize that it is a provincial park. I feel that these signs should be there for the motoring public. When they are driving along they shouldn't have to wait until they are right on top of it to realize that it is a provincial park and that they should slow down to make a left turn. If you miss it you are past it and it is hard to get back.

I bring these three particular problems from my area to the minister. I hope that he will give them very serious consideration. If you could kind of guarantee the people of greater Victoria that you will get the CNR right-of-way by the end of this week, we'll wait for the next two weeks for the rest.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll make a quick response, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been asleep since he was elected on May 10, 1979, or where he has been.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, personal allusions are not allowed. We are discussing the estimates. Please contain your remarks to the vote before us.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's been a matter of public information for some considerable time that we're negotiating on the acquisition of the old CNR right-of-way all the way up to Deerholme. We've been negotiating for some considerable time. I don't know where the member has been. Nevertheless, it is a matter of public information.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There's nothing secret. I'm sure I've had a press release about it.

We are negotiating for the acquisition of this land. We have received an appraisal of late. I think we're down to the final strokes of negotiations in the acquisition of this property.

We have no intentions of developing any campsites between here and Sooke. I guess the Capital Regional District has the park function and, it being in a more urban setting, we would leave that kind of development to them.

This year we have earmarked $350,000 for the construction of campsites at French Beach Park.

MR. MITCHELL: I am quite happy to hear that you are still negotiating the CNR right-of-way, but you have been negotiating since 1975. We would definitely feel more assured as long as it is still on stream and definitely will be held for development.

While I am on my feet could I ask which way the $300,000 is going to be spent? Will it be spent on overnight camping sites?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think so many negatives have been uttered this afternoon about British Columbia's provincial park system that it is time somebody who actively camps in them stood up and talked very briefly about the facts. May I say that I am very proud, as a member of the government side, to be able to recount firsthand my experiences this summer in seven of our provincial parks: Monck Park on Nicola Lake; Agate Bay Park on Shuswap Lake; Manning Park — there are five or six superior parks around Manning Park; Skagit Valley Park; Nicolum River Park; Kawkawa Lake Park; and Cultus Lake Park.

What I have to say now is based on the experience of my family and I camping this summer in the time we've had. Let me tell you a few facts, Mr. Chairman, after what the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) had to say. I dare say I've spent more time camping in these parks this summer than she and her seatmates put together. They are outstanding.

Interjections.

MR. HYNDMAN: Oh, how the truth hurts. They are outstanding provincial parks.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask all hon. members to come to order, and I'll remind the hon. second member for Vancouver South that we are on the estimates of the minister and, as I mentioned earlier, personal allusions are not in order. The member continues on vote 155.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to continue my discussion about parks. It's always interesting how, when the facts start to come out, some people in here get very noisy and very uncomfortable. For the record may I say that those are outstanding provincial parks. They are clean; they are very well maintained; they are tidy; they are very well staffed. If some of those chattering nabobs to your left, Mr. Chairman, would spend some time in them, they would find lots of staff around during the course of a day or a weekend. They would find lots of staff around doing repairs and maintenance, checking the wood supply and checking on tickets, quite contrary to what the member would tell you.

Interjections.

MR. HYNDMAN: If that little group of nattering nabobs on your left, Mr. Chairman, would like some comparison, could I suggest that they go down to Hozameen Park, which is also in the Skagit Valley — it is a Washington state park — and compare within the five-mile radius the Washington state Hozameen Park and British Columbia's Skagit Valley Park. British Columbia has an outstanding park by comparison; it's far superior.

It's just unfortunate that members to your left, particularly the member for Cowichan-Malahat, couldn't find one positive thing to say about our provincial parks in these estimates. They are congenitally unable to say anything positive about a superior park program. I'm telling you, Mr. Minister, that it is an outstanding system and it's very well run. You and your staff should be very proud of it.

MS. SANFORD: After that speech from the member for Vancouver South.... Oh, he's gone. He got on the record and he's gone.

[ Page 3791 ]

During the estimates of the Ministry of Environment I raised a question with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) concerning the Qualicum River and the silting taking place in that river as a result of extensive logging along the river. The result has been a problem at the Qualicum hatchery. There is great concern at the Qualicum hatchery as a result of the silting that is currently taking place in the river. Attempts were made to have the land in question purchased by the federal government.

I asked the Minister of Environment what the intentions of the provincial government were at this time with respect to the acquisition of that property. That property is now slated for subdivision development. The Minister of Environment indicated that the government is looking at the possibility of purchasing property in that area. I would like to ask the minister responsible for Lands if the ministry is presently negotiating to purchase property along the Qualicum, particularly in the area where the subdivision is slated. How much land is being negotiated if, in fact, they are negotiating? What is the intention of the government if they purchase? Will they set it aside as park property or recreational land?

The Minister of Environment also indicated that the problem was really more extensive than the area which had been logged and which is now slated for subdivision. I am wondering if the Ministry of Lands is looking at extensive purchases along the Qualicum. I would like some specific answers from the minister on that.

The other issue is one that I also raised the other day with the Minister of Environment. This Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing must be taken to task on the decision that he unilaterally made with respect to the granting of a log-dumping permit to Mac-Blo over the objections of the....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are we going back to Lands now?

MS. SANFORD: You're the same minister, aren't you? Aren't you responsible for...?

MR. SKELLY: He's not responsible at all.

MS. SANFORD: He's not responsible. I see.

With respect to the decision that was made by the minister — a straight political decision — there had been an application for an oyster lease in the area. The people in the Ministry of Lands were trying to work out a solution to the conflict that exists in that area. But the minister, along with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and some of his senior officials, met in the minister's office and at that time a decision was made — I assume under some pressure from Mac-Blo — to grant a permit to dump logs in one of the prime oyster-growing areas of the world. Even his own officials in the Courtenay office and in the offices here in Victoria were unaware of this political decision made by the minister as a result of meeting with the Mac and Blo officials. The minister, in my view, stands condemned for that decision. I do not understand, Mr. Chairman, why it was necessary for the minister to meet personally with Mac and Blo officials when, at the same time, his own departmental officials were attempting to resolve that problem. They had spent a great deal of time trying to come up with solutions, and out of the blue a decision is made by the minister to grant Mac and Blo exactly what they want.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All I really have to say is one word, and the minister will know the whole topic immediately, because we have discussed this personally and privately on a number of occasions. That word, of course, is Okeover.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okeover.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh. You want me to answer that one?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You know all the answers. He's got it. But for the record, I think we'd better just do the little number here — so we don't have just one word in Hansard.

As the minister is aware, I did raise this matter under the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, and that minister agreed with us that that area should be preserved for mariculture. This minister, while a decision has not been made, has before him a proposal to put in this monstrous park.

The regional district has suggested to the ministry alternate sites for the type of park the minister wants to put into this area. That portion of Okeover will remain open to public use, but everybody in the world must know by now that the coming industry in British Columbia is mariculture. That area happens to be the prime mariculture area in British Columbia and it must be preserved. So all I'm suggesting to the minister — and I know what the minister's answer to this is, because we've discussed this many times, but I suspect I'm going to hear it again — is that he seriously consider implementing the recommendations put forward by the regional district of Powell River. Everybody will be happy with that solution, including the minister, the government, the MLA, the mayor — everybody in town.

MS. SANFORD: I just wanted to point out to the minister that he was going to answer some of the points that I had raised, and I was hoping that he would do it now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, in response to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), on the question of Okeover Park, you know, you exaggerate to a certain degree about the size of the park. It's a small proposal we have put forward. I think it's about 20 campsites. You know that's small acreage. I forget the acreage now, whether it's ten acres.... It's a very small site.

We've had discussions with the director of the marine resource branch because we recognize the importance of mariculture and its future. We certainly would not want to disrupt the future potential of mariculture by the establishment of a campsite there. But the director of marine resources agrees that, because of the buffer zone that we've left on the shore front, what we had proposed would not pose any danger whatsoever.

We have some problems. The matter is under review at this time. There is some difference of opinion between the city of Powell River and the regional district. They're at loggerheads as to whether the representatives on the regional district from the city of Powell River should have a right to vote on a project that is outside the city. So now we find ourselves with two warring factions. I know that's probably a little strongly worded, but we have a serious difference of opinion between the representatives from the city on the regional district and the rural directors of the regional district. So we're at that impasse now. But I want to assure you,

[ Page 3792 ]

Mr. Member, that the views of the people in that region will be paramount in the making of this decision. However, it's under review, and we hope that those differences of opinion between the city and the regional district will be resolved so that we can go one way or the other.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked a question related to the possibility of my ministry acquiring land adjacent to the Qualicum River for the protection of the fishery habitat. In most instances my ministry is involved in acquisition of land for park purposes. The Ministry of Environment now has a fund called the Conservation Trust Fund, in which it is allocated certain funds annually based on demands from the Crown Land Fund. The minister determines the priorities of the expenditure of those funds. It's brand new. I don't know the urgency of the suggestion you've made, or whether there's a subdivision on the drawing boards ready to go. I don't know, but nevertheless, the Conservation Trust Fund was created for the purpose of acquiring prime lands for the protection of wildlife and fisheries. I think the question, with the allocation and the fund having been established, could best be put to my colleague the Minister of Environment, because he does have a financial allocation there.

MS. SANFORD: Buckley Bay?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, there was a meeting in the office of the Minister of Environment. I want to assure you that there was no pressure put upon me by anyone. There were representatives of MacMillan Bloedel at that meeting. They didn't pressure me. You suggested that possibly there was some pressure. We discussed the issue, whether there was a possibility of the site endangering the mariculture in the Buckley Bay area. We had the director of marine resources there. There was no firm consensus that it would endanger the oyster-growing activities in that area.

The site you are talking about, which is a dry-land sort foreshore lease, is an old coal dump. It's adjacent to the ferry slip leading to Denman Island. It's one in which a great variety of precautions will be taken by the company in its dry-land log-sorting operation. It's not a question of booming and shifting around loose logs; it's bundled logs which will be removed fairly quickly from the site. We determined that the foreshore lease will not endanger the oyster-growing activities in that region, because of all the precautions that are being taken. There will also be monitoring of the water quality and....

MS. SANFORD: Just like Buttle Lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, if you can start comparing acids and minerals and junk coming out of a mine with bundled logs, I guess you're entitled to do that. Nevertheless, I concluded that there would be no danger and therefore the foreshore lease was issued.

Vote 155 approved.

Vote 156: administration, $3,549,950 — approved.

On Vote 157: lands and housing, $38,764,768.

MS. BROWN: Just a very brief reminder that the minister has promised to let me have the manual for B.C. Housing Management.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, absolutely. I make a commitment; I live by my commitments.

MS. BROWN: I know, but when?

HON. MR. CHABOT: When do you want it?

MS. BROWN: Now.

Vote 157 approved.

On vote 158: parks and outdoor recreation, $21,989,022,

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, part of vote 158, reading from the text and description of it, provides for, among other things, "education programs for the out-of-doors." I wonder if the minister could use some of the funds herein to engage the member for Vancouver South in an educational program about parliamentary practice so he'll understand it better. Then maybe he can spend his whole time out-of-doors in the parks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not within the scope of the debate.

Vote 158 approved.

Vote 159: ministry enterprises, $1,927,621 — approved.

Vote 160: building occupancy charges, $2,081,000 — approved.

Vote 161: computer and consulting charges, $857,512 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HUMAN RESOURCES

On vote 125: minister's office, $212,051.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm really pleased to rise in my place to address the Ministry of Human Resources. It's a very special vote, I think, a vote that touches all British Columbians, and a ministry that touches the lives of all British Columbians. May I just say that I'd like to just quickly review where we've been in the ministry in the Year of the Child and Family, where we are at the present and where we're going in the future. I'll just say a few words.

As members of the Legislature will appreciate, this is a very large ministry. It has a very great number of programs and responsibilities. I will not touch on them all, but I hope that we will have a chance to discuss many of them while the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources are underway.

I believe that this was the only jurisdiction in the world that adopted the "and Family" to the Year of the Child under the United Nations' declaration. I know that that was not a title that sat well with at least one member of this House, but I think, in retrospect, we can appreciate the fact that the Year of the Child was well celebrated in British Columbia. To try to have separated the child from the family would indeed have been a mistake, in terms of addressing the needs of children in British Columbia.

[ Page 3793 ]

In that year we honoured many who gave and give unselfishly of their time and efforts on behalf of children and families in our province. We recognize our partnership in the ministry with this army of volunteers, and several hundred people were honoured by a Year of the Child and Family award in that year.

In that year we had an all-out attack on child abuse and neglect in the province. This will continue, has continued, and will be continued in this ministry as the years go on. I think one of the highlights of that particular war on child abuse was the child-abuse manual which was printed, It was the result of an interministerial committee. The Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Education all had a part in putting together the child abuse manual. It has been recognized as being one of the most thorough — probably the most thorough — document on child abuse and neglect for professionals and laypeople alike that has ever been printed in. this province. Many provinces and different states have written for copies of the child-abuse manual.

Coupled with the child-abuse manual was the ministry's training program, which is designed to assist staff in dealing with child-abuse problems. It is also designed to extend to other professionals — people who are in other ministries, members of the community, the hospitals, the police, public health staffs, the schools and all interested citizens — a training program which, again, will be continued and has been given, really, a very high priority in the ministry.

The Year of the Child and Family saw the introduction of the Helpline for Children — the Zenith number — Zenith 1234, where children can phone a 24-hour toll-free service — the first in Canada. Parents, people who are neighbours to abused children, relatives or any professional who has knowledge of a child who has been abused can report that incident of child abuse or neglect. It has been looked at by professionals and by city and state representatives from throughout North America. I'd like to say here and now, Mr. Chairman, that it has saved lives in the province of British Columbia, We have received reports of abuse and neglect; they have been acted upon speedily.

In 1979 we also saw the expansion of Parents in Crisis. All of these programs are part of the attack on child abuse and neglect in our province.

The Year of the Child also brought the CHANCE program. This program does just that: it gives a chance to handicapped youngsters who heretofore have not had an opportunity to be in the regular school system. It is a joint program with the Ministry of Education to provide personal attendance in the school for handicapped children. It's a $3.7 million program, and it is the first time in this province that the handicapped have had that opportunity. Heretofore they've had the opportunity in terms of having assistance at the home, or else they have had to do without educational opportunities altogether. I am pleased that the Ministry of Education and myself have been able to work together on this very vital program, the CHANCE program for the handicapped.

Services for the mentally handicapped have been updated by the appointment of regional coordinators, who are now, I think, very well ensconced and cognizant of these young people and children and older mentally-handicapped. We have undertaken feasibility studies at Tranquille and Woodlands; that is under way at the present time. We have seen an increase of 37 percent in the subsidy for those young people who are mentally handicapped and who are in achievement centres. We've seen the development of local resources — group homes for the retarded in region 7, the Prince Rupert–Bulkley Valley region; in region 5, the Prince George Cariboo region; and also in the lower mainland.

We have gone further than ever before in a move to support independent living, which was introduced, as you know, by the former minister, the hon. first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). We continue to further independent living for the mentally handicapped in the province of British Columbia.

The Year of the Child and Family also saw life-planning for children in care. In that permanent plan, that life-plan for children in care who cannot go back to their natural parents, we in the ministry have insisted that we have a life-plan for children so they will not go from pillar to post throughout the system, in one foster-care home after another. Paying tribute to that is the tracking system for children, which I did refer to in the estimates last year. That really ensures a regular review for every child in care. It's very, very important. Life-books for children were given to each child in care in the Year of the Child and Family. Again, we did emphasize throughout the year, and will emphasize in the years to come, that every effort must be made to offer stability and security to each child as early as possible.

Then we saw the special-needs adoption campaign, which brought an awareness to the people of British Columbia that there are some special-needs children. They need very special care, a very special effort; in fact. they take more effort because of their handicap and because of their special circumstances. That special-needs awareness campaign has really resulted in an awareness within the province and a response from the public which has pleased all of us.

We've responded to the need to assist the boat people. As you know, the settlement of the boat people has been a partnership with the federal government. The Ministry of Labour, which has responsibility for that, and the Ministry of Human Resources have worked with them. We feel that that has been a very well-organized and very well-done program by our ministry as well as the Ministry of Labour in this government. We've had great cooperation, of course, from the federal government under whose responsibility the settle ment of boat people actually falls. In this case, I would like to just note that the response from the public — the world cry that went out to the boat people.... I don't think that very many other jurisdictions responded better than did the province of British Columbia.

Then we saw through the past year and a half a strengthening of family services in the province. The Infant Development Program was expanded in the Kootenays and the Vancouver-Richmond area. We've received input from many community organizations and from individuals for the Family and Child Service Act. Over 1,200 submissions were received, either verbally or by mail. That resulted in Bill 45, which is now before the House, Mr. Chairman. I know that you don't want me to refer to that, but may I just refer to the effort that the ministry received from the community in order to bring that act to fruition and before the House in this legislative session.

We've changed the financial eligibility test for family support services. The allowable income levels were increased an average of 17 percent, and we had special services for children cease to be income-tested. That resulted in an expenditure by government of perhaps over $1 million, but it

[ Page 3794 ]

certainly took a terrific pressure off some of the people who had very special concerns over those special services.

The emergency shelter policy was expanded, and this was particularly important to the smaller communities who couldn't afford.... Because of the numbers of women and children who would use a shelter for battered wives and children, they had a smaller use. There was a formula adopted to provide assistance to women and children in the smaller communities. I'm proud that that was brought in, because it gives counselling services in addition to accommodation costs in the smaller communities, and it makes each smaller community as available for that kind of service as are the cities of Victoria and Vancouver.

There were increases in income'assistance in 1979 and again in 1980. In 1979 these amounted to $31 million and in 1980 they amounted to $24 million. I'd just like to say that that total of $55 million has made quite a difference to that group of people in our society that need extra help and that come to the Ministry of Human Resources in time of need.

In May 1980 the basic GAIN increases amounted to around 8.6 percent. The comforts allowance increased from $40 to $50 per month. This past year the Christmas bonus was doubled from $25 to $50. There was an 8 percent increase in day-care subsidies in May 1980. Most important of all, I think, was the broadening of the categories in the day-care service — the higher rates for children under three years and the establishment of a brand-new category of 18 months to 36 months for group day care. I think this will give a very excellent service and tremendous capability for independence, particularly for single parents with very tiny children who need that extra day-care assistance.

SAFER benefits. I really can't speak enough of the SAFER program. I know that sometimes when a benefit comes to the people of British Columbia or to any group of people through tax dollars, we tend to take it for granted. The SAFER program has been one of the most extraordinary initiatives to be taken by any government. The maximum rent levels for SAFER benefits were raised this year from $205 to $225 for a single, and $225 to $245 for couples. The $35 federal GIS increase was passed along to seniors receiving the GAIN supplement. The foster care rate increase, amounting to approximately $2 million, was initiated in October 1979.

That's talking about money. Let me tell you a couple of things about the Awareness Week for Human Resources. I know there was a lot of criticism from the other side of the House on the Awareness Week for Human Resources. Awareness Week was the week which was set aside to tell people about the services and the programs which this ministry undertakes on behalf of all people. I'll just give you three examples.

Firstly, there was a 22-year-old paraplegic, a young man in a wheelchair. The Ministry of Human Resources was the catalyst to bring that young man together with the people who can assist him with recreation, housing and so on. He was very much with his father, and his father is getting elderly. I think we did a good service in that regard.

I can tell you about many fractured families in the province of British Columbia who keep thinking that the Ministry of Human Resources is really just a place to get income assistance. Their term is welfare. They found out through Awareness Week that it isn't only for income assistance, but it is for keeping families together and giving services to those people.

We identified in that week a little boy whose appearance was greatly impaired by very poor teeth and a very difficult jaw problem. His appearance is being greatly improved with orthodontia work through our special health needs grant. We probably wouldn't have found this had it not been for that week.

I just want to say again that I don't think there's anything wrong with telling about the services that are available for people. I think those services that we're very proud of in British Columbia will continue to tell that story.

Joint Labour and Human Resources programs have been excellent. I'd like to pay tribute to the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the former Minister of Labour, who established, along with the Ministry of Human Resources, the capability of finding jobs for younger income assistance clients and having the subsidies that are available through the Ministry of Labour assist those young recipients.

I'd like to say a word or two on the task force on juvenile prostitution, which was established some months ago, long before the furor that happened in the media — a furor that has been well deserved. Surely there isn't anyone in this House or anywhere in British Columbia that can tolerate the juvenile prostitution problem that we have seen publicized in the West End. Before the publication of all that was evident, we had an interministerial committee set up, which was a very capable committee. They had many community meetings. They covered education, police, the Ministry of Human Resources and many community services in the area of the West End. There are some very hard-working people, many volunteers and many good professionals. They did very good work in defining the problem and excellent work in getting together.

At the time — in the spring — we felt there was something missing in all of that, that it perhaps lacked some sort of coordination. I was in touch with the mayor of the city of Vancouver and asked him if he wouldn't share in the idea of appointing someone who would be able to bring these people together so that they could positively address this situation. So this joint city and provincial government idea of a coordinator was born. I am pleased to tell you of the appointment of Ted Oliver, the retired deputy chief of police for the province of British Columbia.

He has been able to bring a continuity. He knows the needs of that community. He facilitates access to the Attorney-General, the ministers of Education, Health and Human Resources, and the mayor of the city of Vancouver. There is instant and good coordination with each and every one of those ministries and the City of Vancouver. I believe that has made a real difference to the handling of that problem in the West End of Vancouver.

I have said and I repeat that juvenile prostitution will not be tolerated. We will do everything we can to stop juvenile prostitution in Vancouver. As you know, Mr. Chairman, in the meeting in the last couple of weeks of myself and the Attorney-General with the Hon. Jean Chretien, he promised to amend the Criminal Code by October of this year. He has given that undertaking to us. We believe that he will carry it out. We also believe that all of the things we have done, including the task force and the appointment of the coordinator, have been good things. We have had success stories. We have had young people leave the streets and change their lifestyle. But, unfortunately, as quickly as we take one juvenile off the street another one comes on to take his or her

[ Page 3795 ]

place; we are doing, at best, a patchwork job. That patchwork job, as I say, cannot be tolerated. We must change the Criminal Code. The Attorney-General and myself will continue to press for positive programs and for alleviation. And we will certainly be holding the federal government to their commitment to change the Criminal Code.

At the present time the ministry has two or three programs on the go which I think I would like to share with the House. I think that all of us in this House recognize the plight of the single parent in this province. I think that all of us have had letters from those who are in the position of having been left bereft of funds. with children more likely than not, and having no opportunity at all to make a new life for themselves because, unfortunately, there has not been sufficient money left, and sometimes there are many debts when the spouse takes off. I have thought for all of these years and I continue to believe that there has been an impossible situation imposed upon very many people in that predicament in this province because we simply haven't had a proper program for the enforcement of maintenance orders. Let me just explain to you what we are doing in our ministry.

In cooperation with the Ministry of the Attorney-General, we are putting together a program which would see that the payments that are made to spouses would be paid into a financial entity. I can't think of anything more sad than the situation where people part — for the very many reasons that people break up marriages and seek divorces — and find that in that separation or divorce situation they hold children as pawns in a very emotional game when it comes to the payment of maintenance to those spouses.

I look to families where husbands are required by court order to pay wives a certain amount of money. The first month goes by and the money is there. It may be there in the second month. Then in the third month those payments cease and the spouse is left having to take her husband to court because that money is not there. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we all certainly know of very many examples of tragic cases where the spouse has really been beaten down by the effort and by the incredible harassment that goes on in trying to collect that kind of maintenance. I think the saddest of all are those children in the province of British Columbia who are told that because their father didn't come through with the maintenance this month they're not going to get that football, or they're not able to go on that holiday, or they're not able to do one thing or the other. What we really have is a very emotional problem. In our ministry we're seeing traumatic problems day after day in other areas. We're seeing the emotionally disturbed child, and we're seeing the children who need extra attention and extra dollars.

If I were to be talking to you just about dollars, I think we could say that there would always be some way that that could be alleviated. But we're talking about writing off children in the province of British Columbia. We're talking about children who will grow up under harassment, vindictiveness and in a venomous atmosphere; they should not have to tolerate that kind of upbringing. I'd like to take that atmosphere away from those children and let the parent get on with rebuilding her own life. I say "her" because it is mostly women who are in this position; if there are exceptions to that rule, and I believe there are, then know that my words cover them as well. Where the court has ordered maintenance, let that payment of maintenance go into a financial entity, which takes all the personalities out of it. That's what we are trying to work through at the present time.

It's not a unique idea. It has been tried in the state of Washington and it has been tried in, I believe, two other states in the United States, besides the state of Hawaii. It has worked. It takes all the personalities out of it: when the people decide to part, they part. They are not held together with a dollar bill, and their children are not held up and kept in, as I say, that state of harassment that goes on between two spouses who are really only talking to each other about money and nothing else. It has nothing to do with interfering with the visiting rights of parents, but it has everything to do with alleviating that pressure on the family home when a child is told that the maintenance money has not come and that their standard of living will be even lower. In the next few months we hope that we will be able to bring to the House and present to the people of British Columbia the opportunity and capability to those who, because of circumstances, are parting.... They will then have the opportunity to go on with rebuilding their lives.

I'd like to talk about another program which we in the ministry are very excited about. Concerning the program for income-assistance recipients, I will not have all the details together until September, but I would like to talk about one phase of it — that is, the job action program which we have started in the ministry. Some time ago I had the opportunity to see such a program in action in the United States, and it was an exciting one to watch. It was a program that, in a three-week period, carried out motivation retraining. The program took in people who had been in jail, and who had records, and who had been on an income-assistance program for some time, and it came out with an 85 percent success rate. I'd like to tell you that this unique and exciting concept, the three-week training program, has in the past three months been tried as a pilot project in the province of British Columbia. I'm happy to tell you that an improved — I'd like to think it has improved — program initiated by the ministry has resulted in an 80 percent success rate.

I notice that my time is getting close to the end. I have other things I would like to talk about. Perhaps in my answers I will be able to enlarge on that program and on others.

But at this time I would like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to introduce my assistant deputy minister E.L. Northup, who is with me on the floor of the House today, and Bob Whitmore, the assistant comptroller. I know that some of the members will miss John Noble, our deputy minister, who would usually be beside me. Mr. Noble is on his vacation and, I'm pleased to tell you, has been visiting Hong Kong and has attended the international conference of Social Services Congress, as well as visiting an Asian refugee camp. We miss him, and we will welcome him back, but I know that Mr. Northup and Mr. Whitmore will be able to provide all the answers to questions from the opposition and from members on the government side.

Could I also just pay tribute to my office staff, In this ministry you need a heaping lot of diplomacy and a desire to help; my office staff has that in spades. I'd also like to say that the executive directors and Buntie Marshall in the Belmont Building reach out to 5,000 people in the 200 offices of the Ministry of Human Resources. Before the sun goes down tonight we will have spent two million of the taxpayers' dollars on the Ministry of Human Resources.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I have not touched all programs, but I look forward to constructive criticism and constructive suggestions on how to continue to serve the families and children in this great province of British Columbia.

[ Page 3796 ]

MR. LEA: To help you, Mr. Chairman, I should inform you that on the minister's office vote, it's the intention of the official opposition to break it up into two parts — one dealing with the minister's duties as Deputy Premier, and the other dealing with her duties as the Minister of Human Resources. We will be dealing, as the official opposition, with the Deputy Premier's duties prior to her Human Resources duties.

First of all, I'd like to take the minister's mind back to June 19, 1978 and ask the minister if she recalls some of the details surrounding her meeting with Larry Eckardt on that evening. The minister, it's reported, had dinner at the Laurel Point Inn that evening, and at some point during that meeting met with Larry Eckardt and others and from there proceeded to a room to meet with still others — and some of the same, as I understand it. I wonder if the minister, in her duties as Deputy Premier, could outline to us her recollection of that evening, beginning from the time she first met Larry Eckardt and members of the commission staff.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you'd ask the member for Prince Rupert whether he mentioned the meeting at Laurel Point. Did you mention that? I don't know what day the 19th was.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be very pleased to answer what I have answered publicly before about my knowledge of that evening. As you know, the Captain Cook Bicentennial was on that evening, and as Provincial Secretary I had responsibility for the Captain Cook Bicentennial. I had a commitment that evening and I believe it was a reception on board a Japanese sail-training ship at Ogden Point. The reception was to begin at 6:30 and it was to end at 8:30. If I recall, the House was sitting until 6, and I also had an invitation and a commitment to join personal friends for dinner at Laurel Point. I joined them for dinner and was in the dining room at Laurel Point. You have to remember that I am going back 24 months and some.

If I recall, at that time Judge Eckardt came up to the table. I greeted him and he suggested that he would like me to meet his staff. So I said that after I'd had a quick dinner, I was going to a reception, but I'd be pleased to pop in and say something to them. I did. I don't know who I met. There was more than one person in the room and I didn't go very far into the room. I thanked them and I dashed away because I had to attend the reception at Ogden Point. I took the people I had joined for dinner, the McRoberts, with me. That was the recollection of the time I spent in Laurel Point and the encounter and greeting the hon. Judge.

MR. LEA: Is Larry Eckardt still a judge?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As far as I know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. LEA: Oh, you don't know whether he's a judge? I just wonder. You keep referring to him as a judge, as I notice your colleagues do. I just want to ascertain whether indeed he is a judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would really be outside the scope of the vote before us, hon. member.

MR. LEA: No, not really.

On January 12, 1978, an order-in-council was passed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, setting out under the Public Inquiries Act the appointment of the commissioner of the Eckardt commission. It was signed by the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Travel Industry — at that time the acting one, Mr. Wolfe — and by the Premier, W.R. Bennett.

From that date forward until that meeting on June 19, 1978, did the minister ever have an occasion to either meet with Larry Eckardt privately or to talk with Larry Eckardt? Did the Deputy Premier have an opportunity to talk, between this January 12, 1978, date and that meeting in the Laurel Point hotel? Did you ever have a private conversation with him?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would not have any recollection now of that, although I can tell you that I have known Judge Eckardt for some years, and it would be like you asking me if I've had a private conversation with you in the last year or even the last five years. Did I have one in 1978? I may have had, but at no time did I ever have a conversation with Judge Eckardt regarding his responsibilities in terms of the report, which the government had commissioned.

MR. LEA: It seems a little strange, but I'm sure there's an explanation for the fact that, having known Larry Eckardt for years, at this point you wouldn't know whether he's a judge or not. It seems a little strange.

Would the minister describe Larry Eckardt as an active Social Credit member or an active Social Credit supporter? Of course, an active one take part in pushing and helping Social Credit in any way.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Please let me just say, in reference to the member's concern about whether or not I refer to Judge Eckardt as "judge," I believe that Larry Eckardt's reputation as a judge is such that I would refer to him as Judge Eckardt even though he does not practice on the bench. I don't find that strange at all. That is a term of respect; I do have great respect for Larry Eckardt, and I continue to have.

You asked whether he was an active Social Credit member or supporter. I always assumed, because he sought the nomination at one time, that he supported our party. I was president of the Social Credit Party, as you probably would know, between the time of 1973 and 1975. In that time I was not aware of him being actively involved in any kind of activity concerning political organizing or active political work, as you would suggest. I personally don't know of that.

MR. LEA: I think it's important that we try to find out the relationship between Larry Eckardt and the Social Credit government, because of the questions that have arisen over the discrepancies in people's recollections of this royal commission, and the tabling of the report, and whether new maps have been made, or whether they hadn't been made.

Is the minister aware of at any time since the Social Credit became government in December 1975, up until January 12, 1978, when Mr. Eckardt was appointed, whether Mr. Eckardt had ever in any way approached Social Credit cabinet ministers, making suggestions as to senior people within the department should be gotten rid of because they were hired

[ Page 3797 ]

by the NDP? Did you have any recollection or any knowledge of that?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any recollection of that.

MR. LEA: Is it that you have no recollection of it or that you don't know whether it happened? You don't know whether that happened. Possibly it would be beneficial to us all if the minister would check with some of her colleagues to find out whether indeed that had happened. I'm a little surprised that that sort of checking wasn't done, Mr. Chairman, prior to a person being appointed to a very sensitive position of bringing in electoral reform, especially when that person had at one time been a Social Credit candidate. I think that that would even call for a closer check.

I suggest that the minister check with two ministers who are still within the cabinet, although neither has the same duties they once had.

I wonder if the minister would check with the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), and the past Attorney-General — the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — to see whether either one of those gentlemen had received a memo or a letter from Mr. Larry Eckardt — or from the minister herself. Maybe her recollection isn't that good in that area either. Would she do that? Would she check with both of those gentlemen to see whether they had ever received, either directly from Larry Eckardt or from the minister herself, a request by Larry Eckardt that senior people within the Attorney-General's office be let go because of their political affiliation not being Social Credit but being something else?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister, I would point out to all hon. members that standing order 61(2) indicates that speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly related to the item or clause under consideration. The Chair is having great difficulty relating this debate to the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources or the responsibility of the Deputy Premier. I ask all hon. members to be reminded that we must be strictly relevant in committee.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased you've made that statement. I'd like to make one too, in response to yours and also in response to the hon. member for Prince Rupert. I have no difficulty in responding to any questions that might be asked of me about my responsibilities as Provincial Secretary in this government during the years that I was Provincial Secretary and carried the responsibility for bringing an electoral reform and redistribution report to this House. I have no hesitation in responding to questions in terms of the debate that went on during that time. This House debated the bill that flowed from the redistribution report very well.

During the time that I was Provincial Secretary and had that responsibility, as a member of the government that had responsibility for that report, I was very pleased to bring that report to the House. I was very pleased to respond to the questions that were then undertaken by the official opposition. I find that the line of questioning and the innuendo contained in these last few questions from the hon. member for Prince Rupert are not at all part of my responsibilities, even when I had that responsibility under the Ministry of the

Provincial Secretary. The hon. member cannot question me on that, as I know and he knows. I have tried to answer the questions he has started under the terms of the position of Deputy Premier and I'd be pleased to answer any responsibility that I would have.

I did not deliver the electoral report under my auspices as Deputy Premier. I delivered the report to this House as Provincial Secretary. I did not deliver it in this year, either as Deputy Premier or Provincial Secretary. So I would suggest, particularly because of the typical kind of questioning and innuendo that is implied in the questioning coming from that hon. member for Prince Rupert, that we keep strictly to the vote of the Deputy Premier and the Ministry of Human Resources. I will be very pleased to answer any questions in that reward, as I have honestly done on all occasions that I've been asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members are reminded, as the minister has stated, that we can only discuss the administrative action of the ministry that is before us now, that being the Ministry of Human Resources and the office of Deputy Premier.

MR. LEA: I understood we were discussing the vote on the minister's office, which includes both Deputy Premier and the Minister of Human Resources.

The minister didn't answer my question. Is she aware that from that date in December 1975 up until the time of Larry Eckardt's appointment on January 12, 1978, that there was at least one memo to the then Attorney-General, now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), from Larry Eckardt or through the minister's office? Between December 22, 1975, and January 12, 1978, Larry Eckardt solicited the Attorney-General of this province to get rid of a senior staff person because that senior staff person was not a member of the Social Credit Party but, indeed, belonged to another political party, he thought. Is the minister aware of that solicitation by Larry Eckardt to the then Attorney-General?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I have to say that that question might be relevant if we were discussing the estimates of the Attorney-General. Clearly we are not. Vote 125, the minister's office, has been called and is before us now. All our standing orders will really allow us to debate are the administrative actions of the Minister of Human Resources and the Deputy Premier, not the administrative actions of the Attorney-General.

MR. LEA: I'm not asking about the administrative actions of the Attorney-General; I'm asking about the administrative duties of the Deputy Premier. Did the Deputy Premier make a solicitation to the then Attorney-General on behalf of Larry Eckardt to get rid of a senior person in the Attorney-General's office because the person was dangerous and not a member of the Social Credit Party or a supporter of the Social Credit Party?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I've already answered that member's question by saying that I don't recall any such submissions being made, and I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that these are 1980-81 estimates that we are debating and the member is referring to something that he alludes or imagines or suggests was happening some-

[ Page 3798 ]

where in 1975. Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that the opposition would like to get into a procedural wrangle, and that's what they would like to have happen today. I'm saying to you that I am responsible for my responsibilities in this government and I will answer to them — and I have answered clearly and honestly on all occasions — but I don't plan to answer the kind of line of questioning and innuendo which is implied in the questioning from the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) in terms of something that he imagines, because there is no answer for that kind of questioning.

Now I say again, I will now be responsible, as I have always been in this House, for those responsibilities under my responsibility and I will answer for them. These are my estimates and I plan to be here as long as you wish to be here to answer them, but I do not plan to go back in any way to answer those questions under my responsibility as Provincial Secretary, because what that member and what the opposition obviously have planned and what they wish to do, is to go through all of the interrogation that was done during the debate on the bill under my jurisdiction when I was Provincial Secretary. That was well debated, and the charges of gerrymandering were laid then — and are laid at the foot, I take it, of every Provincial Secretary across this country when they file any redistribution bill. We debated it then and, Mr. Chairman, that debate is over. It was in 1978 or whenever it was, and it is behind us. We're now in 1980 and I'm happy to answer any questions that they would like to put before me.

MR. LEA: I should ask the minister for a withdrawal, but I won't.

At least the minister didn't deny having knowledge of that memo to the Attorney-General from Mr. Eckardt; she just says she can't recollect it. While being interviewed for a CBC program by Scott Dixon in Mexico, Mr. Larry Eckardt said in Mexico that he had made several last-minute changes to riding boundaries in his 1978 Electoral Reform Commission Report, including a controversial addition to Vancouver–Little Mountain, but not because of government interference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must remind you once again, we have had the estimates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who is responsible for the Election Act. Those estimates have passed; we are now on vote 125, the office of the Ministry of Human Resources and Deputy Premier.

MR. LEA: I'm dealing with the Deputy Premier part.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I fail to find how debate as you're suggesting can be relevant under this vote.

MR. LEA: I'm dealing with the Deputy Premier, not the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, you would then have to satisfy the Chair that, in fact, you're dealing with an item where the Premier has assigned duties to the Deputy Premier.

MR. LEA: No, it's up to her to deny it. I assume that as Deputy Premier she has wide-ranging, all-encompassing duties assigned to her by the Premier — the same as other Deputy Premiers. If we want to become selective, then, of course, questions can be evaded. I don't intend to do that and I don't think the minister intends to.

In the report yesterday brought into this House, and to questions of the Attorney-General today in the House, he said that there had been only one change made to the Electoral Reform Report after June 16. Mr. Eckardt in Mexico said there had been several changes made, one of them being Grace's Finger, as it is described — one of them. Mr. Eckardt says there were several; now we have a report saying there was only one. Could the Deputy Premier tell us: were there several or was there just one?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't know. How should I know? It's his report, not mine.

MR. LEA: Oh, it's his report, not yours.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't decided that yet.

MR. LEA: That's still to be decided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must insist, this is becoming quite irrelevant, and we have our standing orders. They're the orders of our House; they're the orders that bind us, that contain our scope of debate, and I fail to see how the hon. member can carry on with debate about an item that would be under another minister's vote.

MR. LEA: I ask the Deputy Premier: when the Premier's out of town, does she take on the duties of Premier as Deputy Premier?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I accept that responsibility, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: We'll come back to this. Let's deal with some responsibilities that the Deputy Premier had when the Premier was out of town in Japan during the dirty tricks affair. Let's deal with that, because we now know, and we want to be specific, what the duties were when the Deputy Premier was in charge of this province during the absence of the Premier in Japan, when the dirty tricks affair first came to light.

I would like the Deputy Premier, from her recollection, to describe the sequence of events that she went through as Deputy Premier in the absence of the Premier, during that time in this province, when she was in charge. The Premier, of course, wasn't here. The Deputy Premier was in charge, step by step, every inch of the way. Could the Deputy Premier tell me who made the decision to fire the caucus staff of the Social Credit during that time?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has the time frame wrong. I was not without the Premier in the province at the time the caucus staff was fired. But all caucus matters are done and looked after by the chairman of caucus, as the member for Prince Rupert full well knows.

MR. LEA: Could the Deputy Premier tell us why George Lenko left the service of government?

[ Page 3799 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Lenko was my executive assistant, and Mr. Lenkc, resigned from the office of executive assistant.

MR. LEA: Did he give the Deputy Premier any reasons for his resignation?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think the reasons that Mr. Lenko left the office.... I haven't his permission to make them public. I will try to get his permission, but I think if Mr. Lenko wishes to give those reasons, he may do so.

MR. LEA: Bill 38, the bill that brought in the legislation putting into effect the report made by Mr. Eckardt, was brought into the House, if my memory serves me correctly, one day after. The report was brought in on the 20th, and Bill 38, dealing with the report, was brought in the following day. Could the Deputy Premier tell me how it's possible to get a report on the 20th and bring in very complicated legislation to deal with that report the following day?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Elections Act is under the purview of the Provincial Secretary, hon. member, and we have discussed his estimates.

MR. LEA: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the duties of the Deputy Premier.

Does the Deputy Premier have no duties whatsoever when the Premier is in town? Is she indeed the Deputy Premier? Does she have any duties whatsoever? How is it possible that the Deputy Premier brought in a bill one day after the Eckardt report was submitted to her? How could that be? The first time she's seen the report she said: "I got it an hour ago." The next day, bang, there's the legislation. How is that possible?

Mr. Chairman, Bob Patterson, deputy chief electoral officer for B.C. and chief researcher for the Eckardt commission has said that Gracie's Finger was never in any of the Vancouver–Little Mountain boundary proposals submitted to the commission, that it was not in the material that went to Eckardt by June 16, and that he never saw the Finger until after the report was tabled in the Legislature June 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, we are discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources and the office of Deputy Premier. You continue to relate to the estimates and to the administrative actions of the Provincial Secretary. You are now discussing legislation that has passed through this House. I cannot find any of it relevant, and I am bound by our standing orders to maintain relevance in debate. There's no way that the Chair can allow debate to continue on estimates when the debate is not relevant to the estimates before us.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Premier said she'd be perfectly willing to answer all questions pertaining to this. She just said that a few minutes ago. I don't think she needs any help. She's doing fine on her own. The fact is that on the 16th, when the material from the Eckardt commission came over to Victoria, the little Finger was not in that report. Lo and behold, it appeared in the report when it was tabled in the House on the 20th. So here is a brand new report. It would have been one thing if the legislation that was brought in on the 21st dealt with the material that came over from Vancouver on the 16th, but that isn't even enough of an excuse. The legislation that was brought in on the 21st dealt with the fact that Grace's Finger was a reality in that report. Can the Deputy Premier explain to us how the government managed to bring in a bill one day, when they had only just received the completed report the day before — one hour before she tabled it in the House, she says? Can she explain that inconsistency in common sense? How could it have happened?

The Deputy Premier says that she knows Larry Eckardt so well that she speaks to him occasionally but can't remember when she speaks to him. She knows him that well. She can't recall whether she spoke to him between January 12, 1978, and June 19, 1978, however. She can't remember whether she had a private phone call with him, She can't recall whether she met with him. She knows him so well that she doesn't know he is a judge. It seems impossible, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I ask again: can the Deputy Premier tell us how the legislation that was brought in on June 21, 1978, could possibly have been ready, when she just got the report an hour before she tabled it in the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The questioning is out of order. The second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman).

MR. LEA: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver South.

MR. LEA: Look, we don't need to have a Deputy Premier protected by the Chair. It's a setup.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Firstly, I will ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) to withdraw the remarks he made.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, in my view it is shameful to interrupt a member who has the floor and an exchange is going, when it is completely customary to recognize that member. That is a total break with custom, and in my view that is interrupting debate in a shameful way. I do not think that I should be the one to apologize for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am asking the member for the second time to withdraw the remarks made to the Chair.

MR. LAUK: As is my right I am asking the Chair to indicate under which standing orders the Chair is requiring the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The allegation clearly made by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was that the Chair was interfering. I ask that member to withdraw for the third time.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that it was shameful to interrupt a member who had the floor. I believe that to be true. As far as I am concerned, I do not know on what

[ Page 3800 ]

grounds you are asking me to withdraw. If the Chair has construed from my remarks some offence to the Chair, I wish the Chairman would be kind enough to describe precisely what offence you took.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference clearly made by the member was that the Chair was interfering in debate. That is an affront to the House. I ask the member to withdraw any imputation that the Chair was acting in an improper manner. Would the member give that withdrawal?

MR. KING: I implied no improper motive to the Chair, but I implied a break with tradition, a break with procedure. I think it is entirely possible to be critical without implying improper motives. That is my point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clearly, if the member is not implying an improper motive on the part of the Chair, the matter is closed.

Secondly, in regard to the question by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the question is clearly out of order in this debate. The member was advised that questions regarding legislation or previous responsibilities of a minister are not to be covered in this particular debate. That is a guiding principle of committee with which that member is very familiar, a principle which was referred to on numerous occasions by the previous Chairman. The member chose to disregard the questions.

MR. LEA: How do you know that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I too have a speaker in the office.

The question being clearly out of order and the member not wishing to deter from his approach, I then recognized the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) in hopes that he would be in order.

MR. LEA: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One point of order at a time. The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Clearly we have a dilemma here, Mr. Speaker. Either the minister is the Deputy Premier or she is not. Either she got the position for a political sop.... Either she is one thing or the other. Either it was a political sop to pay off somebody for election work, or she is indeed the Deputy Premier. And I want a ruling on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, hon. members, the member currently before us for estimates is the Minister of Human Resources and the Deputy Premier....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we will entertain one point of order at a time.

MR. KING: Don't get so testy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke for the last time that approaches like that to the Chair will not be tolerated.

MR. KING: I thought you had concluded and I rose on a point of order, and I don't appreciate being insulted either. If we could have some two-way courtesy here, I'd appreciate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LEA: We understand a setup when we see one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair should not have to tolerate this kind of approach from any member from either side. Now we're dealing firstly with the point of order raised by the member for Prince Rupert, and we are dealing with a minister who has two areas of responsibility, that of Deputy Premier and that of Minister of Human Resources. In neither case does the questioning referred to by the member for Prince Rupert fall within either one of those categories. That should clarify the matter — hopefully. We have just completed the estimates of the minister responsible for electoral reform. We are now dealing with the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Human Resources.

Hon. members, the rules that guide us arc very clear. Now the next point of order is....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same point of order....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan) was in the chair. I was in the midst of asking a question when you, Mr. Chairman, took your place, and the member for Prince George left. I asked the question. You had no sooner even got the seat warm and I had asked my question.... I was sitting.... I'd like to show you. I sat down — like this — and you said: "That's out of order. The member for Vancouver South. " Now, Mr. Chairman, if that was not deliberate, I'd like to know what deliberate is. I tell you, there isn't anybody in here.... Let them all be judge and jury. We know what's going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, notwithstanding the point made by the member, which may have very much appeared that way to the member and to anyone else, the fact of the matter is that the Chair cannot recognize questions which are out of order. That question clearly was out of order.

MR. LAUK: Would the Chair indicate what the question was that the member for Prince Rupert asked of the Deputy Premier that was out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is improper, hon. member, to ask questions of the Chair, particularly now that we....

MR. LAUK: You have ruled something out of order. Could you state what question it is that is out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, what I ruled out of order was that the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was clearly out of order.

MR. LAUK: I challenge that ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

[ Page 3801 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

MR. LAUK: Point of order. The question upon which the Chair is challenged has to be put to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, a division has been called. Your point....

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question upon which the Chair of the committee is being challenged must be put to the House. It was not put to the House. Therefore the House cannot vote on it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the decision of the Chair was challenged. The Chairman reported to the House that the decision of the Chair had been challenged. The Chair then put the question to the House, the House voted on it, the Chair deemed that the yeas had the vote and a division was subsequently called. The motion was in order.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS 20

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, because there seems to be some confusion, it would appear to be a most appropriate time to review May, seventeenth edition, which says on page 739: "General restrictions on debate in Committee of Supply. The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor action for which a minister is not responsible." Hon. members, I'm sure that bearing that in mind will help guide our deliberations somewhat.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise relates to the proceedings in committee before Your Honour reached the Chair. Prior to that time, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was asking questions of the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). The Deputy Premier was replying, and at one point in her reply she said she would be quite happy to answer any questions about her activity during the time she was Provincial Secretary, which is the time we were talking about. That's what she said, and she attracted the committee into going in that direction. It was only when the questioning got to be politically sensitive, in her opinion, and she felt herself trapped.... The Deputy Premier has her political finger in every political pie in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: It was only when the questions started to strike home that someone got to Mr. Speaker and asked Mr. Speaker to salvage the situation. Mr. Chairman, you are permitting the office of Mr. Speaker to be dragged in the mud by this gang of thugs over here.

Interjections.

(Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would call all hon. members attention to the fact that the Chair is standing. Anyone who speaks from this point on will immediately be removed from committee.

Hon. members, first I must ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw the term "thugs" in relation to other members. Would the member withdraw.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: I waited until the Chair sat down, you will notice. Mr. Chairman. If they are not thugs, what are they?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must....

MR. HOWARD: Only if the Chair finds that remark offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It does, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Out of respect for the office of the Chair I will withdraw it. They're still a gang, they're still a cover-up group, and the Deputy Premier has dragged the office of the Speaker into this situation, and that's a shameful course of events in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it does not make the role of the Chairman of this committee any easier when asking for withdrawal on one point if a member breaches another point with another word which is also on our list of words not to be used as unparliamentary; that is "cover-up." I appreciate the member's withdrawal of his earlier remarks, and we now return to debate on vote 125.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, in the course of these important estimates I would like to spend a few minutes

[ Page 3802 ]

discussing with the minister, and hopefully the House, the problems of autistic children, and in particular the work of the Laurel House Society in Vancouver. I have a series of questions for the minister, generally in the area of future prospects for further work that might be done and assistance provided to all of those suffering from or helping to deal with the problem of autism, and also in the area of helping to support and advance the work of the Laurel House Society.

The reason I wish to spend some time on this topic is that very little is known or understood about autism. I think the biggest problem facing those who have children in their family afflicted with autism — or, indeed, older persons — is the fact that very few of the public know, understand or appreciate what autism is, and the often lonely and very substantial battle that must be waged by those who hope to cure or rehabilitate children or persons suffering from autism. In a few brief minutes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to attempt to better acquaint the House and its members with autism, the problem, and then to make some remarks about the very fine work being done by the Laurel House Society, its staff, its directors, its volunteer parents and, hopefully, elicit from the minister — looking forward into the next year as well as reviewing the year behind — some helpful comment and direction as to paths that can be followed by all of those wanting to help in the battle to treat autism and make its cure more effective.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I think the single biggest problem facing those who would attempt to deal with autism is that so little is known about it or understood about it in the public at large or indeed in professional medical care circles. I suspect that few members of this assembly have heard the phrase; I suspect that fewer know persons or families afflicted with or dealing with the problem of autism. I say "families" because when only one member of a family is so afflicted — usually a young person, a child — my research tells me that it then becomes an entirely family commitment and battle in the effort to help that child on a path of recovery.

Autism is a very complicated disorder. It is not easily explained, Mr. Chairman. Unlike ailments or diseases which have become relatively well known and well understood in the public — for example, tuberculosis, polio, cancer and influenza — autism is a little-known, little-understood disorder that is hard to describe. Mr. Chairman, if somebody is suffering from a broken leg, he can easily tell you what that disorder or problem is. If someone has a child or a member of the family suffering from autism, it is a difficult, lengthy and technical job to explain what the disorder is. That's part of the problem facing those who would battle autism, Mr. Chairman, because it is so little understood, because the gravity of the disorder is little appreciated. Society at large, the public, all of us, not knowing much about it or understanding it, by inclination are not much concerned to devote our attention and energy in an effort to help the battle to cure autism or to make its treatment more effective.

So I would like, briefly, to now try to better define what autism is, particularly in the case of autistic children. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that in your own experience you, sir, may well have come across the situation because you had, as part of your career, considerable work experience dealing with handicapped children and those suffering from some of the more severe and difficult disorders. I'd like to refer to a working definition of autistic children as adopted by the National Society for Autistic Children, and as approved by the National Society for Autistic Children professional advisory board in 1973. It's one of the best explanations that I have come across of the problem of autism. In part, the general definition reads as follows:

"The term 'autistic children' as used by the National Society for Autistic Children shall include persons, regardless of age, with severe disorders of communication and behaviour, whose disability became manifest during the early developmental stages of childhood. A combination of some or all of the following behaviours characterize the autistic child. These behaviours vary from child to child and time to time in severity and manner."

So, Mr. Chairman, usually it's a disorder found among children. In a moment I'm going to recite the nine most frequent characteristics. It is a combination of some or all of these that are found in children with autistic problems. These disorders or atypical behaviours vary from child to child. In the case of the particular child, they vary from time to time in severity and manner. That means that there are no two similar cases. For example, in a place like Laurel House a dozen children are being treated who to the visitor would be displaying quite separate problems. Over a period of time a particular child might go through a cycle of displaying to a greater or lesser extent some or all of the following forms of disorder. I would now like to commence a further quote from the working definition of the following nine general characteristics of autism:

"1) Severely impaired speech or complete lack of speech.

"2) Impaired or complete lack of relatedness and social inaccessibility to children, parents and adults.

"3) Extreme distress, for no discernible reason, due to minor changes in the environment.

"4) Lack of intellectual development or retardation in certain areas, sometimes accompanied by normal or superior abilities in other areas.

"5) Repetitive or peculiar use of toys and objects in an inappropriate manner and/or similar repetitive and peculiar body motions such as incessant rocking.

"6) Unusual reaction to perceptual stimuli, such as seeming not to hear certain sounds and overreacting to others, e.g. holding hands over ears or 'looking through' objects, poor eye contact, unable to perform certain gross and/or fine motor activities — walking with a peculiar gait, limpness in fingers, inability to hold a pencil appropriately.

"7) Onset of disorder at birth or apparent normal early development followed by deterioration in functioning.

"8) Hyperactivity or passivity.

"9) Apparent insensitivity to pain."

The best I can do in simple terms, Mr. Chairman, having spent some time at Laurel House Society in an effort to educate myself about this disorder and help the Laurel House Society, is to say that the typical kind of case would be one in which, to the observation of the parent or family, the child suddenly began to behave and act in a most peculiar or unusual manner. There were difficulties relating to any human beings, including the family. Sometimes there was an apparent insensitivity to pain and some very severe self-abuse. There were cases in which ultimately usually the

[ Page 3803 ]

mother must contact somebody and simply say: "I don't know what's happening. I'm virtually panic-stricken. Something is wrong with my child and nobody can tell me what it is." There has been remarkably little work in development in the battle to treat autism, Mr. Chairman, largely because only recently have we come to recognize autism as a separate and distinct disorder and to then begin to catalogue the problem and to research approaches to solution.

Members can appreciate that it is a mysterious form of disorder and difficult to describe. When it afflicts a family it usually afflicts a child. The disorder is so severe that probably the entire time and resource of the family is devoted to helping this one child battle this ailment. For every child with the disorder, in my experience, there is a family and relatives all pitching in in a very substantial way to help.

That brings me to the work of the Laurel House Society located on West 15th Avenue in Vancouver. It is located in an older home that has been adapted to the needs of treatment. For some time now the Laurel House Society has been prepared to receive children from all over the province suffering from this disorder and has been something of a provincial centre for treatment of children suffering from autism. The location of the society is convenient in that it is relatively convenient to UBC and the availability of the research and personnel functions on campus. It's reasonably convenient to those in social work and rehabilitative and medical professions in Vancouver who come to Laurel House Society as part of their work.

Certainly I commend a visit to any members who in Vancouver would have an hour or two to spend at Laurel House. On short notice the staff are excellent at making available a highly instructive tour of Laurel House and the work that's going on there. It's simply an outstanding group of devoted staff and volunteers working their hearts out to help young children with a very severe disorder. Laurel House Society is making effective use of every square inch of space available. Because very often the problem involves children having difficulty in sound comprehension, and the treatment often involves dealing with children who are unusually noisy or reactive, special sound panelling and sometimes special child-proofing of the rooms and educational areas are required.

That brings me to one of my pleas to the minister, and I suspect, because I've had the chance to have a very sympathetic hearing from her over the last year about the needs of Laurel House.... She's aware of my concern that we all help Laurel House in its search for a better facility. By "better" I mean a custom-designed facility — not an adapted older home, but a custom-designed facility which needn't be grandiose, but which can be a facility designed to enable the staff and. children who must live in during the treatment period to be able to work together in an atmosphere as effectively designed as possible, to enable the staff, the parents who often go there to help and the children to work together daily through their sessions toward their goal of improvement.

To date the society has had tremendous volunteer input from parents and citizens concerned about the problem of autism. The society itself is at the stage where it's — to use the old phrase — bursting at the seams, both in terms of children being handled and staff being available and also that the best adaptation that can be made of an older home has now been made. I think the time has come, it can be fairly said, for Laurel House properly to be searching for a new and modern facility.

A strong effort is going to be made in the private sector and by those concerned about Laurel House to raise funding to help with this project. The estimate is in the order of $750,000, exclusive of land cost, to pay the cost of a new, specially designed facility. To date the provincial government has been helpful in assistance. The minister's predecessor, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), was also most sympathetic to the needs of Laurel House. My hope is that in the year ahead some additional pathways can be charted to assist Laurel House Society in its search for financial aid for a new facility.

Part of the difficulty here is that there are really three ministries which, in the normal course, would be associated with the work of Laurel House Society. Obviously the Ministry of Human Resources is one. Because autism is a learning disorder and often in part reflects itself in the school system, the Ministry of Education has some quite normal concern with the problem. The Ministry of Health also does, it being a form of physical as well as emotional disorder, in some cases requiring medical care.

It seems to me that one could probably start with any one of those ministries in the search for further financial assistance for Laurel House Society in terms of a new facility, but that probably the Ministry of Human Resources is the most appropriate place to start. One of the comments I would find helpful from the minister would be the route she might suggest Laurel House Society take in terms of really wanting to approach three ministries and make them aware of Laurel House Society's goals and desires, yet feeling Human Resources is the practical place to start. I know that Laurel House Society's directors are concerned to know the best way of approaching three ministries and whether Human Resources is the best place to start.

In commenting on Laurel House Society, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to praise the work of Mrs. Dorothy Ewen, who has recently retired after some years as the executive director of Laurel House Society. She has done a very fine job for Laurel House Society. I am pleased to understand that she continues her work in the Ministry of Human Resources. She is a valuable addition there, but obviously a great loss to Laurel House Society. I certainly found her to ~e a most friendly, helpful and patient executive director in acquainting me with the problems of autism and the needs of Laurel House Society.

Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, the other point I'd like to make — and I think the minister is aware of this from her own research — is that fortunately there is one aspect of autism which commends our time and attention: it is a disorder which gives hope for cure and treatment; that is to say, the application of resources for rehabilitation and treatment generally does produce not just progress but very often substantial progress. It is the kind of disorder in which, if society is prepared to invest the resources and the dollars towards treatment facilities, usually there is a very high percentage of improvement and, in some cases, an almost complete — if this is the correct word — cure. Fortunately it is the kind of disorder for which in many ways society does reap benefit, from the input of the human resource and the financial resource, as distinguished from other unfortunate disorders about which we have to face the fact that we have a very stiff uphill battle in terms of producing any improvement for the affected child or patient.

The treatment of autism requires great patience and understanding. I think the very best thing that all members can do to help in the battle against autism is to somehow

[ Page 3804 ]

acquaint themselves with the disorder. As I say, I think that the biggest battle against autism lies in educating our society about the disorder, in the impact it has on lives and on families, and about the fact that children, particularly, do respond very well to effective treatment.

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that I could best put it this way: I think we have reached the stage in our society where the very serious diseases of cancer, tuberculosis and polio, to name three.... Generally society understands the serious nature of these problems, is sympathetic and always willing to help. It is my hope that perhaps over the years our society will come to understand and know as much about the problems of autism, and in so knowing and understanding, will be prepared to pitch in and help with what has been a very lonely battle for the families affected.

I know that the present minister has given to me very unstintingly of her time and interest as I have researched this problem. Now that he's in the chamber, I again pay tribute also to her predecessor, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has visited the Laurel House Society and spent some considerable time going through it, I believe on two occasions.

Mr. Chairman, that is probably the conclusion of my remarks on this somewhat specialized topic, but I think it is a topic of very great importance. I think any of us who know families with a child afflicted with autism will know something of the disorder and the very lonely, difficult and patient battle being waged by those families to help those children.

In view of the time, however, may I move that the committee.... If the minister prefers, I'd be delighted. I see the minister rising, and if she's able now, I'd be just delighted to take my seat and have her comments on my remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 37, which says that when two members rise to speak, someone may move a motion that a certain one be heard. I therefore move that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) be now heard.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 29

Mr. Howard requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a few remarks to the problems of autism which have been brought to the floor of the Legislature by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). I note the keen interest from the members of the opposition, because most of them have left the House, and I think it's rather sad, Mr. Chairman, when we talk about autistic children in this House....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is so; they're walking out in droves.

[Mr. Chairman rose.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is anything but order in this chamber at this time, and I would ask that all members respect the member who has the floor, the hon. minister.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue to discuss the problems of autism and those parents who have to deal with the problems of autistic children. Because it can be done with better time tomorrow, I would like to move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm rising under standing order 42 to correct a statement made by the Deputy Premier that most of the opposition members have left the room. This was not correct, and I would like the record to show that the minister was not telling the truth.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, we have on numerous occasions discussed the appropriateness of section 42. It is merely to correct statements attributed to members and not from members. If we were to entertain this, as you can appreciate, statements would be made back and forth. Hon. members, each member in this chamber is responsible for his or her own statements, and we can only rise under section 42 when we're correcting a statement that was attributed to ourselves. Hon. member, while the statement may not be agreeable to the member now standing....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

[ Page 3805 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That may or may not be the case, hon. member, but nevertheless, there is no ground for the member to seek the floor on a point of order under standing order 42, and the Chair has been instructed to report at this time.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, may I have some guidance? How does one correct a statement? Would you tell me what standing order then would it be possible to cite in trying to correct a statement which is inaccurate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member raises a valid point. That is why we have the opportunity for debate in this House. There will be ample opportunity, hon. member, for you to make that point abundantly clear when we continue in committee at another time. I am sure that the member will take advantage of that opportunity.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported a resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

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

MR. PASSARELL: I rise on a matter of privilege or a point of order, as deemed acceptable by the Speaker, in his judgment. This is strictly a technical matter, and I would deem the matter to be decided by the Chair. I rise at the first opportunity on a matter of conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a member of this House in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair my independence in the future performance of my duties. It may be treated as a breach of privilege.

A speech I made this morning regarding the Church of Scientology was conveyed directly from the Hansard office to the church a few minutes after I spoke. The contents of my speech were transmitted directly from Hansard outside of this House to the Church of Scientology hours before the contents of the speech appeared in the Blues. The Hansard official, Mr. Peter Robbins, made judgment upon my speech in this House through his direct transmission to an official of the church. I would appeal to the Speaker to take this matter under his judgment and advise this House of the proper procedure to deal with this matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Without prejudicing the case of the member, I undertake to do so. The matter raised by the member is indeed a serious one. I will undertake to communicate such back to him. I understand, as well, that the member has risen either on a point of order or a matter of privilege. That will be taken into account as well by the Chair. I'll report back forthwith to the member.

Introduction of Bills

MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. McGeer presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications Act.

Bill 58 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.