1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 83 ]

FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.N. CHANT (1st - Victoria): Thank you. Mr. Speaker,

once again we are gathered together to transact the affairs of the

great Province of British Columbia, and I also want to express my

pleasure in seeing you again in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and we know

that from past experience you will fulfil the purposes and functions of

the Chair with the proper decorum and certainly in the best keeping of

the traditions of this House. Also, at this time I would like to

welcome the new members to the House, one and all, a new experience for

you, I am sure indeed you will find it a very interesting experience.

The old saying is still very, very true that it is quite different when

you are inside looking out than outside looking in, and this applies to

the Legislature also.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been inside a long time.

MR. CHANT: The responsibilities of office bring about often

times a different renewed viewpoint in regard to how things and matters

can be accomplished. Also, Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the

speeches of the mover and the seconder in particular. These are the two

most difficult speeches to make in the House, in my opinion. You have

to break the ice so to speak, and in view of the fact that they did, I

am sure, great credit both to themselves, to the House and to the party

which they represent, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of the small

section of the

Social Credit members on the opposite side of the House, but not in

opposition to the Government, while they may appear small in numbers to

the Opposition, I want to assure everyone that they will accomplish a

great deal more in promoting the best interests and helping along with

the good government of this Province, than what the members of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition will.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want them to get contaminated, do you.

MR. CHANT: Well I'm quite sure, Mr. Speaker, there isn't much

danger of contamination, not as far as we're concerned. Whatever

they're worried about is something of their problem, not ours. Mr.

Speaker, there is evidence, though, in the results of our last election

in the Province that in some instances it is quite possible that the

pen is more potent than the pencil. I'll just leave it at that comment.

You take your own viewpoint. Thank you. We will show, instead of having

a Liberal sextuplet, we've now got the Liberal quintuplets, and I've no

doubt that they will try their utmost to represent the government down

in Ottawa and their policies. However, Mr. Speaker, I'll have more to

say about that a little later on.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say and, you might

say, a short report to make in regard to the Department of Public

Works. Mr. Speaker, you have the Annual Report of the Department of

Public Works before you and the honourable members of the House.

Although this covers the fiscal year '68 and '69 it becomes readily

apparent from a perusal of it that the work of the Department is

increasing very rapidly, and I might add that the period of time

between the March of this last year and the present has seen the pace

accelerated correspondingly. At the present time our design commission

has some 75 projects at various stages of design, while our

construction division has 175 projects in various stages of

construction and completion.

I was particularly impressed during the delivery of the Speech from

the Throne with the number of times mention was made of Government

measures in which the Department, although not specifically mentioned,

had played a major role. For instance, the improvements which have been

made to the lighting and sound system in this Chamber. I know that we

can one and all be heard quite clearly and distinctly irrespective of

the pitch and tone of voice, and this was not always possible before

this installation was brought in.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back the past. (laughter)

MR.CHANT: …and also it allows a tape recording, and these

were carried out under the supervision of the staff in the Department

of Public Works, and I want to give them credit for having given a

great deal of thought and study and they had a deadline to meet, Mr.

Speaker, which was not easy to come by. Deadlines are always difficult,

particularly when it involves planning and obtaining materials and

equipment and so forth, but they made the deadline and there is a whole

lot of equipment and connections under this carpet which are not visual.

Over 1,000 accommodations for elderly citizens, as mentioned on page

6, came about after the Department of Public Works staff members had

examined and given constructive criticism of the plan. The stocking of

lakes — the hatchery-raised fish, as mentioned, brings in the

Department of Public Works also. We designed and built the Kootenay

Hatchery and are now doing preliminary investigations and studies for

suitable water supplies for another hatchery. There has been rapid

progress in the construction of new vocational schools as mentioned on

page 8, and substantial additions to others. These schools are playing

an increasingly important role in training of skilled people for the

commercial and industrial development going on in this Province, and

our Department is proud of its

part in designing and building these

schools. You will note also, Mr. Speaker, the reference to the Motor

Vehicle Testing Station, on page 9. Here again the Department played a

major part, and so it goes. British Columbia Youth Development Centre

at Woodlands School, Replacement Centre at Maillardville and a number

of others. All these and others and many more occupy the attention of

the Department of Public Works staff. Much of what we do is taken for

granted. However, the fact that a smooth function is achieved is our

satisfaction.

I should make mention, Mr. Speaker, of the reference on page 7 to

the British Columbia Building. Planning is proceeding in an orderly and

competent manner. This is a very large undertaking, and while much has

been done more remains to be done. As you've learned, the principal

consultants have been appointed. I'm pleased to inform you that the

Management Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of the Deputy

Minister of Public Works has seen fit to recommend, and the Policy

Committee composed of Mrs. McCarthy the honourable Member for Vancouver

Little Mountain, and also the Honourable the Attorney-General and

myself, as a committee have seen fit to accept that British Columbia

expertise is sufficiently experienced

[ Page 84 ]

and competent to handle this project. This

building, with a floor area estimated at approximately 2,000,000 square

feet and which will accommodate a population of upwards of about 8,000

workers, is a challenge to all of us. The architectural and engineering

professions of British Columbia are meeting this challenge and will

mature and thus be prepared to meet future challenges and undertake

other projects possibly of the same size, whatever they may be. At the

present time the programme is engaging our attention. This, said so

easily, is a complex matter. It is basically a comprehensive analysis

of functions and space requirements for all users, taking into

consideration the period from now up to the turn of the century. We are

a Government that looks ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another monument.

MR. CHANT: We have to plan — well, that's what you're lacking

in, of course — we have to plan for the future. All ancillary and

support facilities requiring programming — these are derived in part

from data gained while studying the various occupant organizations and

in part from projections into the future. These include such things as

data processing and computer centre, communication centre, mail centre,

food services, commercial services, truck and service access, vertical

transportation for freight and people….

AN HON. MEMBER: Political climbers.

MR. CHANT: Vertical is — you know the meanings, my good

friend — and it isn't down, like you have experienced recently. ….and

vertical transportation for people and freight and even the garbage and

paper disposal becomes a major item in a building of this size.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because it's too big.

MR. CHANT: …. In a project of this size and complexity it

is essential that everyone concerned work from the same set of facts

and requirements. The programme must not overlap or duplicate. The

architects, the engineers, the Government and the major occupants must

co-ordinate to work from a single base. Research and programming must

be well done — this is not one of the rapid processes. It is

painstaking but its proper execution will result in saving several per

cent of the construction and operating costs, and this project will

proceed in an orderly manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh when, when, when, when?

MR. CHANT: It's going ahead now, Mr. Speaker. It's progressing, Mr. Speaker, it's progressing.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Government that doesn't believe in centralization.

MR. CHANT: So, Mr. Speaker, while the honourable members are

trying to find a little fun out of this, and so forth, nevertheless we

are proceeding and going ahead with a building which I am sure the

people of British Columbia will indeed be proud of.

AN HON. MEMBER: What will be the year of pride?

MR. CHANT: Well these things come when you don't expect them, that's your worry. Yes, they got it, Mr. Speaker.

There is one point I omitted, Mr. Speaker, which I intended to

mention also, and that was the building programme not only throughout

the Province, which is the largest that we've ever had, but right in

the capital city of British Columbia, in Victoria, in which the

electors of this City, and I appreciated it very much, saw fit to elect

my colleague and myself again with a good strong majority, greater,

greater than ever, which speaks well for the Government policy and its

administration. After all, this speaks louder than Opposition's

criticism.

The capital city of Victoria has under way and completed — nearing

completion — in recent years the museum complex, the Eric Martin

Institute, the Glendale Institute for Retarded Children, and also the

Victoria Vocational School. Now these four projects when completed,

some of them are finished, others are in process and getting along

quite well, and the Vocational School will be added to in capacity, its

capacity will be added to as required. But these projects have cost in

the neighbourhood of almost $30,000,000 and this is no mean undertaking

in the capital city.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes when buildings are planned and

undertaken the public doesn't realize the amount of detail and planning

that has to go into public buildings, and the tremendous amount of work

that goes on behind the scenes, and even while they are under

construction, the multitude of materials and equipment that has to go

into them. I want to repeat again, Mr. Speaker, as I have previously in

this House, that we have been successful in the Department in

constructing buildings and not having nearly as much extras involved as

is usually found in private trade and business, and I again want to

give credit to my Department Staff in having reached this point,

because at one time in the history of the Province it was considered

normal to have ten and twenty per cent extras on buildings. We've

managed to keep them down to around two and three per cent, and some of

these are highly technical buildings like the science building that we

planned and built for the Victoria University. Mr. Speaker, we live in

an era of rapid change and evolution — this on a scale unknown in human

history. Evolution is change and change is evolution, you can relate

them together. Possibly you don't know the difference, Mr. Member. We

might take a little time when we're not in the House and I can explain

it to you. Change and evolution are health — the aspects of healthy

living. Young people, middle-aged people and the older people are all

acutely aware of this. Now on occasion some younger people, because of

inexperience, temporarily think they are more acutely aware of these

problems than older people. This is not so. Older persons have

experienced the ever-changing facts of life and been a part and parcel

of it, and still are, and have contributed to the changes, and are

still contributing. Mr. Speaker, an inescapable fact of life is that

the young people of today will very soon become the older people of

tomorrow. This is the…. (laughter) Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact is,

maybe some of the honourable members have forgotten when they were

young already — I haven't.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were old all your life.

MR. CHANT: Possibly you have short memories which you should give a little exercise to.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's better the second time around.

[ Page 85 ]

MR. CHANT: Yes, we can remember very well as younger people we thought we had all the answers — I did also when I was a young person.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why you were Social Credit.

MR. CHANT: Yes, and it's a better answer than anything you ever had.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the challenge today is for all of us,

whether older or younger or middle aged, the challenge is to use our

brains — this is the challenge. This is the challenge that we are faced

with and, along with that, common sense to ever work for, and promote

healthy change in our affairs — not immaturely resorting to blind

destruction of ourselves and surroundings. This is not the direction to

go. Therefore, when we have criticism let us have constructive

criticism, and this from all age levels. Oh you better look happy, Mr.

Member from Cowichan-Newcastle — don't look so downcast. Let us have

constructive criticism from all age levels, including yours, dear

friend, including yours. The opportunity and scope was never greater in

recorded human history. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think to solve many of

our problems, if the human race had the good sense to open the door

rather than trying to smash it down it would attain much better

results. Let us not destroy to build. Let us build. Mr. Speaker, we are

a part and parcel of the past and tradition — we cannot escape it, and

there's a great amount of that past which is good. Some of us need

adapting and changing to our modern-day times.

You know, Mr. Speaker, history is replete with numerous examples of

civilizations and nations rising to high eminence and then diminishing.

A fact of history — it even happens in industry — I just point out one

little simile, as many of you possibly know. If you don't, I'll repeat

it. As a younger person and even at the present time, there's something

that has always intrigued me all my life and that is motive power. In

fact I don't mind telling you about my first tractor back in 1917. My

father thought I was very foolish when I did this. Now remember, back

in that time and shortly after, there was a make of tractor on the

market known as the Rumley Oil Pull. Now it was a very successful

machine in its time, but you know what happened. They thought they had

topped the design and the development in that field and they sat back

and didn't keep up with the times, and it was only a matter of a

relatively few years — ten or fifteen years — until the machines were

out of date and they were absorbed by another company. Yes, this is

what happens if we don't move ahead with the times and at this point,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say God forbid that we ever move backward with

Socialism.

With the dim beginnings and concepts of the dim beginnings of human

history at this time, Mr. Speaker, democracy and free enterprise has

risen to great heights. It has risen to great heights, and it is

because of democracy, the concept of democracy and free enterprise,

even with its mistakes, that we have attained a great deal of the

eminence and good conditions which we now enjoy not only in our

Province but in many parts of the world today. Nevertheless, there are

problems which still remain to be solved and always will be. We find a

condition today existing in our affairs where money power dominates the

economy of the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go….

MR. CHANT: Yes, and you'd be wise to listen because this is

something very pertinent at the present time, Mr. Speaker, and

something that involves all of us, and which doesn't require silly

replies to enlighten people. It requires some deep thinking, possibly

deeper than some of you have gone into. When I say that monetary power

dominates the world I simply mean this, that monetary power rides in

the saddle, while the production of goods and services is compelled to

watch and be subservient. This condition has to be reversed to bring

about a proper norm and balance in our economy. If you're going to

build a good building you must first put a solid foundation under the

building. This is essential.

We know the fluctuations that are taking place in our economy today

in many fields and also in the monetary mechanism. Things are not in a

sound condition. Therefore it's wise to look to the foundation, and for

the benefit of our Liberal friends and the Opposition, I will ask them

to give heed to the Honourable Mackenzie King's statement back in '35 — it's fundamental. "Until you restore to government" — that would be the

Bank of Canada in so far as Canada is concerned — "the control and

issue of money and credit, and it's recognized as its foremost and most

sacred responsibility all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and

Democracy are idle and futile." In other words, your governments become

the instruments of money power unless this is vested, and the power to

monetize is the key to money power, and the power to monetize belongs

to the Federal Government, and it has been let out to private banking,

and Mackenzie King said it must be restored to our central bank as a

government function. This is basic…. and trying to apply a cure to

the symptoms of the problem will not cure the problem. The building is

cracking around the windows and in the walls and floors because of a

poor foundation. You can forever and a day keep patching it up, oh yes

it will help out and temporarily get you by, but it isn't dealing with

the problem. This is what we are faced with today, Mr. Speaker, and the

honourable member over here, he doesn't know what he is talking about

anyways….

AN HON. MEMBER: He never has….

MR. CHANT: ….so Mr. Speaker, this is the field, and while I

know it is not in Provincial jurisdiction, and I say it should not be

either, it is a Federal Government responsibility. But instead of being

led down the path into Fabian socialism like it's happening, I'm

afraid, in Ottawa today it's all too evident — these are steps which

should be taken to keep our free enterprise and democratic system and

way of life alive and give it a chance to live, move and have its

being. After all, this is a statement that many Social Crediters have

made and it stands good now, and will in the future. "Whatever is

physically possible and desirable can, should and must be made

financially possible."

As long as the Federal Government follows the path it is following

today, we will have to confine ourselves, Mr. Speaker, to policies that

emanate there because we are law-abiding and we will follow policies as

they exist in the country, because we are law abiding. No use, Mr.

Speaker, to offer the people of the country a choice between inflation

and deflation. That is not a cure. You still have the disease.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to accept either one of these as a

solution to your problems. There is the middle way, the intelligent way

— not to bring the economy to a smash stop like it's talked of today.

Oh, you have to have a whole lot of unemployment and so forth like that

and slow down, because of the foolish suggestions that we had too much

money, when every mother's son was running around wondering how

[ Page 86 ]

he could pay his bills. This is what happened — you

know it. There is this needed, and that needed and one other needed,

and there is the physical capacity to do it but still we're told that

insofar as the monetary mechanism is concerned, it's not financially

possible. Now the over-all Social Credit concept says, the monetary

system can serve humanity and industry in a free enterprise economy in

a manner that makes these things intelligently and physically possible.

Well…. (don't ask silly questions, be intelligent for a change, after

all, any ten-year old child could give you an answer to that). You

build them when the facilities are available and the means are possible

to do it, and the need is there.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that I have pretty well used up the time that I

have anticipated, and I am not going to continue for a long time,

because this subject can take a great deal of time if you want to go

into it in depth and I have no intention of doing that at the present

time, but I do want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that Canada today is

standing at the cross roads in Federal Government. We have evidence of

changes and policies taking place which I think are not healthy for our

country, are very unhealthy. Mr. Speaker, these policies have been

enunciated and are being followed by the present government in Ottawa.

First of all, we have the significance of our heritage and

traditions removed from our flag, the next we have the Queen's portrait

being removed or taken from our currency. Then we have a multiplication

of high-priced advisors advising the Prime Minister of Canada, and

following that we have Benson's White Paper, which is not a paper of

taxation but a paper of confiscation…. (applause)…. and I would say

as sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, if these

policies are put into effect, you're headed into a socialist republic.

I'm afraid it's being done with plan, intent and purpose. It's not just

incidental. I'm sorry to say this. I don't think it is incidental. I

think it's being done with intent and the old saying is very true — you

can always tell the way the wind blows by the way the straw bends. Any

of you that know agriculture, and agriculture is in difficulty today, I

am not going to deal with that, but….

AN HON. MEMBER: That is profound!

MR. CHANT: ….but, yes it is, it's quite profound if you don't realize it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former leader is not a Republican.

MR. CHANT: ….truth is truth, it doesn't make any difference how old it is.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will say this, that Social Credit offers the

people, not only of British Columbia but of Canada, a better way, a

sensible way, an intelligent way of life that fits the facts and needs

of life, and we have it Mr. Speaker, right in the Province of British

Columbia, within the limits of our jurisdiction. British Columbia has

set an extremely good example to the rest of Canada and to North

America, and credit to where credit is due. Our Minister of Finance in

British Columbia has no peer in North America. In spite of obstacles

placed in his way, his record of foresight and success has not been

equalled in any of our lifetimes…and, Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech

is but a brief outline of what has been accomplished in this Province,

plus a quick look at the future by a Government which puts people

first, and I recommend. Mr. Speaker, to every member of this House,

that be gives it his unstinted support. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, it is with a

great deal of pleasure that I rise as a new member for New Westminster.

First let me say that I am also mindful of in whose footsteps I follow.

The former member, Rae Eddie, gave a real account of himself on behalf

of his constituency and, indeed, his constituents. My work, Mr.

Speaker, will be to try to do my best to carry on as Rae would want for

the best interests of our people, our Province and New Westminster, the

Royal City. Prior to leaving the Royal City, I spoke to Rae Eddie and

he asked me to extend his best regards to all his old friends and

colleagues in the House.

By the way, he referred to this area as overseas…. (laughter)….

If I understand him correctly, it would seem to me that one place is

isolated from the other, and that therefore the term overseas is

appropriate. In New Westminster we were reminded of a move that

occurred in 1868, when the Legislative Council moved to Victoria,

leaving the first capital, New Westminster, to its own devices. Little

did our forefathers think that over a hundred years later a policy of

isolation would be renewed. In any case, being the hub of the Province,

we pay our respects to the newer areas, and we do hope that you will,

from time to time, remember from whence you came.

Our city has been a service-oriented area in this Province and we

are proud of our role. The contribution of the people of New

Westminster to the good and welfare of the Province has been an

enviable record. We ask at this time, why the Government tends not to

return the favour? An example of this treatment of our constituency by

the Government and the Department of Municipal Affairs can be seen in

Connaught Heights. Connaught Heights district, originally known as

DL170, was absorbed by New Westminster after assurances by what we

thought were people responsible for Government decisions, that

assistance in upgrading services in that area would be forthcoming. We

amalgamated, and we learned that neglect of the old district was to be

perpetuated. We felt able to carry our end of the load, and now we find

that our share is 100 per cent.

In bringing this to the attention of these assembled, Mr. Speaker, I

feel that we can expect to get some help for sewers, sidewalks, and

roads. Following which, we will forgive and forget those promises we

feel were broken. History has proven that nothing is gained by double

standards and treatment of people, whether it be geographical or on a

basis of religion or race. Let this Government, then, deliberate on New

Westminster, this corner of its Province. "Amalgamate and save." I got

that quote from the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. We ask — save what?

In New Westminster, as is the case elsewhere, the school finance

formula is working a hardship. Because of the age of our district, we

have a very high percentage of senior and highly-qualified teachers. We

have taken a great deal of pride in building an excellent teaching

force. Naturally, our costs per teaching unit is uncontrollably high.

We are being penalized by a system that is patently unfair. A system of

this sort, where the teaching units are allowed to go to a certain

limit — and our teachers are all well paid because of the fact that

they are highly-qualified — as far as we are concerned has hurt us, not

helped us. Now, a great many

[ Page 87 ]

people in New Westminster and these are young

people I'm talking about, have been impaired. This resource — and young

people, after all, are our most important resource — must not be

neglected any longer. Now recent declarations regarding education have

been ignored by the very people who made them. What are the citizens to

think? Does this Government not care, or is it broke? If it doesn't

care — why, and if it's broke — how?

Maybe I could read you a small quote from the Vancouver Sun , clipped on July 9th, 1969. At this time the Vancouver Sun

wrote, and this is dealing with this matter of why we vote, "Provincial

contingent liabilities and guaranteed debt increased by 120 million to

a total of 2.1 billion of the total fiscal year ending last March the

31st. Three of the Province's Crown Corporations showed substantial

increases in their borrowing, according to the B.C. Financial and

Economic Review for the period. B.C. Hydro's debt increased by 85.1

million in the twelve-month period"…. and so on and on it goes until

it gets down to the end and it says, "The indebtedness of the seven

municipal organizations whose borrowing is guaranteed by the

government, was reduced however, during this period." I think that this

might be significant, if we think of it in the context of where is the

money going.

Going back into history, you'll find that the Royal Columbian

Hospital is one of the two original hospitals in this Province. The

service to humanity provided by this institution has been nothing short

of great. For years the people of New Westminster kept their hospital

up as best they could, not only for their own use, but for the people

in the surrounding areas. I have one or two historical pictures, Mr.

Speaker, and these are history because it's a 1912 hospital at this

point. There is another shot, Mr. Speaker, of this particular hospital.

Now I have many more, but I won't deal with them for a moment. The

Royal Columbian, is still our most important life-saving institution.

The obvious devotion of the staff goes without saying, working as they

do in undesirable surroundings, the least that we can say in describing

the place and its condition. Upgrading, Mr. Speaker, must be the order

of the day….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear!

MR. COCKE: ….The Honourable the Prime Minister said, I

believe, on one occasion a short time ago in parliament, "Let's take

British Columbia into the 70's." I would ask those assembled to let's

take New Westminster out of 1912. I understand from the former speaker

that $30,000,000 has been spent in the capital city. Let's spend a few

dollars in New Westminster to take it out of an archaic time.

Now, back in 1954, the annual report that is on file in this

library, reads in part, and I quote, "Steps are also being initiated

for a long range programme of planning for the hospitals, keeping in

mind the need for replacement of all facilities and the provision of

new ones to keep pace with the growth of the area and the ever changing

aspects in development in the field of medicine." Let's just for a

moment, if you don't mind, review the pictures that I showed you a

moment ago. Here's one, here's another. In a ward such as this, three

weeks ago, the leg of a bed fell through the floor. This is our

hospital in the golden age of 1970.

I would ask my colleague if he would call a page and possibly send

one or two of these pictures over to the Honourable the Minister of

Health, and this is a picture that I'm sure hasn't changed since 1912.

It was taken now, but it is still the same thing.

Now this hospital accepts 20 per cent of the emergencies for the

Province. These emergencies come from Vancouver east to Hope. How can

our Government refuse to move in in an area as obvious and so vital?

The value of the Columbian has been proved over and over, not only in

course the speed of getting to a hospital predicates this whole thing,

but it is also the excellent care afforded by a devoted staff. The

tradition goes back a long way. In 1886 when Vancouver burned, the

people brought their injured to the Royal Columbian through the bush of

Burnaby, now the only thing that is holding our hospital down is the

bush of confusion resulting from bureaucracy.

Prior to February the 10th, 1967, when the Premier announced the

setting up of Regional Hospital Districts throughout the Province, New

Westminster carried the load of the hospital for over a hundred years.

Now the Regional District, the South East Planning Group, the

Honourable the Minister of Health, are all involved. What do we have?

The greatest game of catch the hot potatoes that we have ever seen. To

transport the correspondence and the minutes of meetings, I'm perfectly

sure, you'd require a mighty vehicle.

I can give you a short

summary of some of the things that have

happened since 1967, but I would like you to bear in mind that in 1964

our district, New Westminster, in cooperation with surrounding areas,

did a study and began making a move toward building. But then we

thought that the day of dawning was February 10th, 1967, and this, I

think, is a significant date, because at last we felt we were going to

move and move ahead. In May of 1967 a modular unit programme was

referred to B.C.H.I.S. and the then the Honourable Minister of Health

concurred with our proposal to construct a new hospital with a maximum

of 684 beds subject, of course, to the concurrence of the Vancouver

Regional Hospital District at that time. However, the feasibility study

that was conducted by the architects in June at the insistence of

B.C.H.I.S. seemed not to get too much of a play. In July we had

suggested immediate expansion needs and these seemed to be acceptable,

but in August nothing much happened again except the fact that maybe we

would be allocated money from the $51,000,000 that would come from the

by-law if it was passed. We continued to pursue this modular unit

planning.

I can go on into November of '67 and February of '68, getting

involved with different committees and different groups all the time.

You see this is the trouble with bureaucracy, nobody can really make a

decision without everybody making the decision at the same time, and

it's almost impossible to get everybody to make the decision at the

same time. So in March of '68 we once again requested approval of a

modular unit programme, a year later, and on and on it goes. On June

the l2th we asked again and on and on, until in September of that year

we even sent a Special Delivery over to Victoria and asked again. On

September the 26th he said well it's half o.k. providing we can meet

certain budget conditions, and that was still in '68, but nothing

happened.

I'll go right down here to July the 10th where they suggested that a

letter was sent to the Greater Vancouver Regional District explaining

the revised increased cost estimates from, you know, the $2,000,000 to

$2,500,000. I suggest one of the reasons for that great increase was the

[ Page 88 ]

delay in all of this time that had been taken up.

On August 4th, however, we were told that we could conduct a study

again, a $50,000 study. It was outlined that we could do this and I

thought that that was rather timely. That August 4th, 1969. The study

was completed in October, and everything seemed to be o.k. but,

unfortunately, on October 15th when we sent it over here to Victoria

nothing happened again because, I believe, that somewhere along the

line there is another road block and that's to do with financing.

Between May of '67 when a programme for modular units was proposed,

pretty well everyone involved in the negotiations has given approval,

but not all at the same time. so now the approval is being withheld. I

believe, because of a preconstruction budget between the Government and

Royal Columbian Hospital and the difference is 96 staff people. 96

staff people is difference. Well, I am quite sure that the Royal

Columbian Hospital is not that incompetent that they can't come closer,

if, in fact, it were a realistic budget. This to me looks like somewhat

of a stall.

Now what do we face? Firstly, living with an inadequate facility

and, secondly, I think we are providing a fire hazard to all concerned.

The 1912 wing is an old frame building, and don't kid yourself about

that brick facade out in the front. That wing is a source of real

concern to the staff as well, as I am sure, to the civic officials. If

it were not for the fact that it is a lifesaving institution, I am sure

that the fire Marshall would have closed it long ago. How long can we

wait?

Our hope was that we would not have to go through another summer

without our modular unit, and maybe we won't have to in any event, with

the possibility that we might have to close it. You know that the heat

of the summer at that hospital is something to witness. I have been

down there in the summertime when they have been hosing off that old

building and, particularly, the children's ward. The children's ward is

in the old wing and they hose it down to keep these children cool, and

I think that this is disgraceful.

We face another problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is the problem of

losing accreditation. This means that the important function of

teaching both doctors and nurses would have to cease, and this would

further deteriorate an already sick health service in our Province. In

this past month we lost our deep therapy service. Now the people in our

general area, and it's a big area, serving a lot of people, have to go

to Vancouver for this treatment. What happens to the doctor-patient

relationship under these circumstances? The deep therapy treatment that

was afforded the community and surrounding communities was very much

appreciated by all the citizens, particularly those involved. But

B.C.H.I.S. did not recognize the need of it being there. The feeling of

the responsible officials in this hospital is that it should not have

been suspended, that it should have been conserved and expanded.

Let me add that the Premier said in this House, in response to a

question from the member from Surrey, that the special position of

referral hospitals — and the Columbian is one — would be acknowledged

and never be allowed to deteriorate. I am sure the member asks, as I

do, what happened to this promise? This is an ad that appeared in

practically all the papers in the lower mainland on October 3rd, 1967,

and it says "Royal Columbian" — this is an ad for people to vote for a

by-law — "vote tomorrow, yes October 4th." The by-law says, "Major

expansion, temporary accommodation during demolition of the older unit,

renovation of new area, new building property, plans and development

for 250 beds." That's Royal Columbian. Really and truly, we wonder just

what has happened to that particular situation, because the people

voted over 90 per cent in favour of that by-law.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two and a half years ago!

MR. COCKE: In mediaeval times, Mr. Speaker, man dumped his

garbage on the streets and his effluent in the fields. Now we feel we

have improved our lot by dumping garbage in isolated areas, but to rid

our immediate proximity of the remainder of our waste we use our rivers

as sewers.

Could a river be more abused than the mighty Fraser? By the way,

it's not nearly as mighty as most of us think. It's wide, but it's not

deep right across, the channels are very narrow, that is the deep

channels. From Hope to the mouth the gradient is almost nonexistent, in

other words, Hope is just a few feet above sea level. Tides push that

river back and forth all the way up beyond Mission. It's estimated that

a dump made at flood tide at New Westminster takes about 48 hours to

clear the mouth of the Fraser. Now that's a dump made at flood tide. Is

it any wonder it is becoming a stagnant mess? This fall, the shores for

the first time in history were green with algae. Could anything be more

indicative of impending disaster, or do we need to wait until it's too

late?

The Fraser River in our locality is designated as one of the most

polluted areas in the whole province of British Columbia. Let New

Westminster take the lead, we are told. We ask how. We ask why. This is

the responsibility of the whole community, and the leadership and

assistance has to come from the Provincial Government.

If there is any thought in this House that there is an exaggeration

here, I would ask you to drop down to the fishing docks in Queensboro

when the boats are coming in. Take a look at their nets and what's in

them. I might also add that you can smell the nets with no trouble.

They give off the odour of a million outhouses. A trip along the Fraser

is something that all of us should take from time to time. I did this

just before Christmas in a fishing boat that was well equipped, thank

heavens, because there are so many deadheads around. But during that

trip along the Fraser I saw the outfalls, I saw what disgraceful use we

are making of that water, and to tell you the truth it made me sick.

One of the outfalls that I think is probably most indicative of the

problem that we are creating is that safe outfall that was built in the

middle of the river, and you can find it if you take the intersection

of River Road and the Great Northern Railway, and if you go out beyond

that to the middle of the river you will find an outfall, and that

outfall is supposed to safely dispose of effluent from North Surrey and

from North Delta. Now this effluent is not being taken care of, because

a short while ago they were doing some sand removal near the shore and

they found that they were getting almost all effluent rather than sand

in their dredging.

Now, a member in this House spoke about our tourist industry. I

suggest that we should be very careful about our tourist industry that

is worth $350,000,000 — if it's dollars standing in our way — and also

a fishing industry that's worth another $100,000,000, because if we are

poisoning our Province we are certainly not going to attract tourists.

Speaking, Mr. Speaker, of fishermen, they're afraid of their

livelihood and they are concerned about the future food supply of this

Province. This $100,000,000 industry is sick, and the only salvation is

a water standard that must not be violated.

[ Page 89 ]

I note with interest in the Throne Speech that we are talking in

terms now of doing something about pollution. I certainly hope we are,

but I do hope that it's not like the municipalities' primary treatment

by 1975 situation. Our own plant is likely to be located on Annacis

Island. 93,000,000 gallons per day of double chlorinated effluent from

New Westminster, Burnaby, Surrey, Coquitlam, and all the other

municipalities should do a real job on the baby salmon on their way to

sea to grow up. We depend on those fish coming back, but if we kill

them on their way downstream, logic says that they won't be back. Fish

cannot survive in our chlorinated drinking water, therefore it would

seem that the cards would be stacked against them. Primary treatment

cannot be the answer. Let's take a trip to Iona Island and see the

effluent coming out. Look at the shore in the area. I recall the

beaches when they were sandy, and now they are a weed-infested mess. To

compound the mistake by making Annacis another disaster would not be in

our best interests. To say the least. The fishermen are also concerned

about one other form of pollution, and that is the irresponsible

dumping of 4,000,000 board feet of logs at a time in the Fraser River

channels just below Annacis Island. The effect of this dump must not be

minimized. There are over 100,000,000 board feet of logs dumped every

year, and I am told it is a growing amount. When dumping such a heavy

load and such a large volume, naturally there are tons and tons of

bark, branches and other junk set free in the River. Most of the heavy

hemlock bark sinks to the bottom and the junk causes its usual effect.

The river at this point has two bottoms. The natural one and an

unnatural one. The poison set free from this great quantity of hemlock

being dumped at one time and all the agitation, I am sure is

detrimental to fish life in that water. It would seem that industry

should be called upon to dump elsewhere.

Is there no relief for the poor old Fraser River? You know I went

over this dumping ground with a boat that had very adequate

echo-sounding equipment on it, and you could see, actually see, the two

bottoms. It would seem to me, judging from the indicator on the

echo-sounder, that it was almost a fathom or more of junk and sludge at

the bottom of the river. This organic material, even if it's not

poisonous, certainly does nothing to help the Fraser River maintain its

life. One of the fishermen told me that he was fishing not too long ago

and watched the barge after it had dumped its logs, and that barge is

so big that it has a bulldozer on board, watched that bulldozer on

board even sweep off all the junk into the Fraser rather than going out

to sea as they usually do. I don't think they should dump it either

place, but particularly not in fresh water. Now I recognize that this

is not the fault of the Government or anybody else, but it's certainly

the fault of irresponsible people that are doing a job in there, and I

do hope that we look at this in a strong manner in the future. When

looking at what we are doing to our Province in terms of pollution, I

cannot help but think what the Psalmists said in Psalm 18 when he said,

"The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His

handiwork." I say that much of His handiwork has been undone by

thoughtless people and reluctant governments, and the responsibility of

this Government is suspect, despite the aura of responsibility that

seems to be in evidence.

Our Government should work with its people, not just its friends.

The whole Assembly should be organized into committees from time to

time and travel the length and breadth of the Province, seeking answers

from any and all people. We, here, are not all-knowing — why not tap

the knowledge that surrounds us? We should really listen. It would be

very interesting, and we would be developing a whole new resource if we

did. Let's plug into these people. While we are listening, let's pay

particular attention to what youth is telling us. Having been involved

in youth leadership for some time and youth activities, I feel that

there is an honest concern coming from our young people, and it's time

we listened. The world that is ours today, is theirs tomorrow, and

nothing we can do to conserve their world would be too much.

At present, I believe, our growth is being stunted by lack of

investment capital and I'm sure that I get instant accord across the

floor. Why, otherwise, would we submit to the terms that are presently

our lot? The supposed fact that Canadians, and particularly B.C.

Canadians are conservative is a fallacy. We do not have the vehicle by

which they can invest if they wished to. The private sector in Canada,

as a whole, has failed in this respect. The private sector has failed

to even a greater extent in British Columbia. The Federal Liberals set

up a capital investment fund, called the Canadian Development

Corporation, because it was a good idea. It would appear that the good

idea, in their opinion, was to set it up, but use it was obviously

beyond them. In B.C. we should immediately set up a corporation of this

sort to attract pension funds and other savings that could be channeled

into our own economy. This would be an alternative to channeling them

to Bay Street, Wall Street and heaven only knows where else. Seeing, as

I have, the millions of dollars in pensions and savings funds being

channeled away, I cannot help but think that we must act in a way to

develop our own economy.

Walter Gordon, a well know Liberal, was noted for his concern over a

take-over of our economy. We in B.C. are in double jeopardy. The

decisions pertinent to our development are made outside and often in

the East by people who are passing on instructions from the South, or

directly from outside the country. The decisions taken are not

necessarily in the best interest, and as history has taught, oftentimes

they are not in our own interests at all. With courage, we could, to a

greater extent, become masters of our own destiny.

Another great concern I have is regarding the conduct of an

election. Irresponsible charges, such as "godless socialist" and other

completely false statements, make me apprehensive about the future.

This, for an example, was a charge leveled against me and many other of

my faith in our party. I don't have to tell you we have an abundance of

active church members and ministers actively involved in our party. For

my part, I have been active in both church and party for years, and

naturally feel a great deal of resentment.

I feel that statements made, which are misleading, are not conf-med

to charges leveled at people. Steps should be taken to outlaw incorrect

statements which could have a relevant effect on the outcome of an

election, such as a statement as this, which occurred on August 26th, I

believe, that was election eve, it says "Tenants to receive Rent Grant."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. COCKE: Now no word of this was mentioned in the Throne

Speech. "Social Credit Government Home-Owners Grant will be extended to

apartment tenants, probably starting next July." In any event it

appeared, and there was a great hue and cry in my constituency. As a

matter of fact, many who had been former Social Credit supporters, came

[ Page 90 ]

me and said, "We have to vote for you now….

I would also suggest that it is against the law to take straw votes,

and I'm not suggesting that I know where this straw vote came from, but

it was passed around in our constituency during the election. That,

again, should be something that we take firm steps on.

Mr. Speaker, the work of government is to create a climate where a

human can grow and realize his potential in the best sense of the word

"human". This goes for our native Indians, organized labour,

unorganized labour, students, tenants, for urban and rural — poor. To

stop at less, would be to fail. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it is again an

honour and a privilege to rise in my place on behalf of the people of

Esquimalt and take my place in this Throne Speech Debate. First of all,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his

re-election to that responsibility. I know very often some of us as

individuals may disagree with certain decisions that one another may

make. However, there is a certain decorum, there is a certain tradition

in the Speakership of the House, and I believe that our Speaker has

well shouldered his responsibility and deserves the respect of all

members of the Legislature.

I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder on their splendid

addresses to this Legislature, and I'm certain that they will have much

to contribute to this Legislature in the years ahead. The new members,

all of them that have spoken so far, have presented themselves ably,

and as I look back over a past nineteen Sessions, I believe that the

new members have shown a tremendous capability, much greater than we

have ever seen in any Legislature before. We welcome them and I am

sure, as older members, we will give them every assistance and advice

should they care to seek it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech, one of the first paragraphs

deals with the debate that took place some 100 years ago in the Crown

Colony of Vancouver Island. I would like to make this point because the

member preceding me said something about coming back home to New

Westminster. I want to remind him that 100 years ago, when the members

of the Assembly here on Vancouver Island began to deliberate to make

their decision, there were three choices they were considering. One was

to remain a Crown Colony as Newfoundland chose to do at that time, the

second was to join as a State of the Union in the United States, and

the third was to join with the mainland into the Province of British

Columbia and then into Confederation.

However, if you want to check the archives, you will find that their

deliberations were loud and long, and when they finally made their

decision, it was by a one-vote margin. But their decision was

influenced by three promises made to the people of Vancouver Island.

The first was that the transcontinental railway from sea to sea was

going to terminate on Vancouver Island. This, of course, was never

kept, and in the year 1900 the government of that day, of course, went

back to Ottawa and asked for certain considerations because of the

nonfulfillment of this promise to the people on Vancouver Island. At

that time they were pledged they would have a ferry service from south

of the Fraser River to a point near to Victoria on Vancouver Island. Of

course, it took sixty years with the normal type of action we have come

to expect from Ottawa, and we had to put it in ourselves — even though

the areas on the East Coast enjoy government-subsidized ferry services

run by the Federal Government for those people.

The second, of course, recognized the tie then of the area to the

United States, and it was a promise for twice-weekly passenger and mail

service to Olympia, Washington, and a weekly steamer service to San

Francisco. That, of course, has become somewhat obsolete and I'm not

going to deal with that at this time.

However, the third, and the reason that I mention this is because,

to my amazement, one of the newspapers in Victoria seems to want to

stir up the issue of whether or not the capital should be here in

Victoria. The third promise was that the capital of British Columbia

would be in Victoria. This is the only promise of those that influenced

the people of the Vancouver Island at that time to join with the

Mainland into Confederation that has been kept, and I hope that we have

the decency at least to leave that to the people of Vancouver Island. I

might say, if anyone has any doubt as to feasibility of the capital

being located in Victoria, if you look at the structures elsewhere in

the world you find that that principle has been applied and it would be

ridiculous to place the capital into a big-city environment. I believe

that it is well located and that there should be no doubt about leaving

that concession to the people of the Island.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other items in the Throne Speech mentions

the extension of the benefits of home ownership and the home-owner

grant and further legislation to assist in the purchase of homes

already in existence. While this is a partial remedy, Mr. Speaker, I

believe that we have not applied ourselves sufficiently to protect what

has been happening in the field of home ownership. Because,

traditionally, over the years N.H.A. was providing capital for home

ownership and I think Mr. Hellyer found out quite decisively that the

dream of over 85 per cent of the people in Canada is to own their own

home on their own little piece of ground.

However, we have the ridiculous situation today that under N.H.A.

regulations, you have to get to the $8,500 income level in order to

qualify for a $15,000 mortgage. If you are lucky enough, at 25 years of

age to qualify, you will not only have to pay over $40,000 for that

$15,000 over the term of the mortgage, but you will be eligible to

collect the old age pension the day you make your last payment. It is

somewhat awkward and difficult to try and find remedies, and even

though we did a year or so ago provide the $1,000 home acquisition

grant, we have to ask ourselves, what good was that grant when, within

the next two and a half months, federal interest rates increased the

price of the average home between two and one half to three thousand

dollars?

I think that it behooves us as representatives of the people of our

Province, and particularly the young people, who are frustrated because

of the things that face them, not to always cry "separatist", as we

hear from the Opposition every time that someone says there's something

wrong with our national structure in the fiscal and economic fields.

But I think we should as one voice say that the interest rates,

particularly as they apply to the provision of homes, of capital for

schools, hospitals, sewage treatment, pollution control, and the rest

of it there's absolute usury to see the interest rates that are being;

imposed upon us by the national government and the Bank of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with a few more items of the Throne Speech, I

have a few complaints as well as commendations. We are pleased to see

that the ferry the Queen of Esquimalt

[ Page 91 ]

has worked out very satisfactorily, as it has been

lengthened. I am pleased to see some of the other vessels stretched as

well, but there's been one stretch job that I'm a little bit concerned

about and that is some of the prices on the menus on the ferries in the

last year, and I'm afraid that if we see some more stretch jobs in some

of the menu prices we may have to call in the Consumer Affairs people

in order to have a look at it. One of the nice parts about our ferry

service has been that you could eat while you ride.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a recommendation from B.C. Hydro for an

increase in the electricity rates. I have been interested to watch the

figures that have been bandied about and, of course, it's all very nice

to compare some cities in British Columbia with some cities in the rest

of Canada without taking into consideration that your tax dollar and

mine helped to provide half the cost of the South Saskatchewan Dam.

Your tax dollar and mine are helping to subsidize the Nelson River

project in Manitoba. Your tax dollar and mind are helping to subsidize

the nuclear plants that have been constructed and are being constructed

in Ontario, and your dollars and mine have helped to subsidize the dam

in New Brunswick as well. And again, again we hear a buzz from the

Opposition. Instead of saying as a united voice as the representatives

of the people of British Columbia that this is rank discrimination, as

soon as some member has the gumption to stand up and say something

about it we hear, "Oh you're a separatist". No, we're not separatists,

we just believe in fair treatment right across the board.

The amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, is that in comparing rates they're

quick to pick out Seattle in the State of Washington, but they don't

tell you what the national average is in the United States where the

bulk of their installations were not only put in years ago when costs

were lower, where the installations were put in with national

subsidization, and where the installations were put in with capital

that was provided at two per cent interest rates. However, the national

average as published a year ago now in the United States, their average

monthly cost of 500 kilowatts throughout the United States, and this is

only in the cities of over 2,500 population and does not reflect a

rural rate, $10.37 for 500 kilowatts,

whereas ours is $9.50 for 500

kilowatts plus the sales tax. However, if you take into consideration

the eight per cent premium on the U.S. dollar we find that their rate

comes to $11.20 approximately for 500 kilowatts compared to the $9.50

plus tax in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: …we have water power, and plenty of that, though, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BRUCH: That's right, we have water power, someone says

across the way, but we have just brought on line the first basic

low-cost hydro development in British Columbia. Not only that, Mr.

Speaker, I am convinced, as I look at the Hydro statements, that if the

Opposition and the Federal Government had not held up the Columbia

River project for four years we could have not only built it at the

lower cost that then prevailed, but we could have gone through without

a power rate increase being necessitated.

But under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the

Government that because we have been talking in terms of guidelines, of

increases of six or seven per cent, that perhaps we should pare down

the 15 per cent proposal just a little and then remove the sales tax on

residential electricity as well, because certainly we can no longer say

that this is a luxury, this is one of the prime necessities, I believe

if we can pare down 15 per cent somewhat, take off the five per cent on

residential electricity, we can keep the increase within the six to

seven per cent range at this time.

Mr. Speaker, there is reference in the Throne Speech about the

growing labour force, about new jobs being provided, and on labour

conditions in general, and I would like to just make a few

observations. I think it is very regrettable to see the B.C. Federation

of Labour almost browbeating the unions not to follow through with the

legislation of this Province and appear before the Mediation

Commission, because they are in effect saying, "We are citizens

separate, we want laws to apply to everyone else, but we will choose

what laws we will abide by."

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you for labour?

MR. BRUCH: Absolutely. But I don't think some of the labour

officials are for labour, they are instead playing a political game

instead of representing the best interests of the working people of

this Province. I think it is time that all citizens of British Columbia

at least gave the legislation and the procedures a proper try, instead

of taking the approach that they have taken in months gone by and even

in recent days.

There are just two proposals that I would like to ask the Minister

of Labour to take into consideration, and they mainly concern the bus

drivers in the Province. First of all, on the Vancouver-Victoria run

there's always a bus provided if there are extra passengers. However,

on the Vancouver Nanaimo run this is not the case and they allow five

people to stand. It is on the basis of the regulation that says that if

the trip is less than one-half hour in duration, then they are

permitted to stand so many passengers. However, anyone who has taken

that bus trip along the north shore with the way they have to weave in

and out, and particularly if you get into rough traffic, I think it is

time that we took a little different look at that particular situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Widen the highway.

MR. BRUCH: Widening the highway is not going to solve the

problem and you have to perhaps weave in between lanes. It still

presents quite a problem when the passengers have to stand for the

duration of the trip, because when you get into the terminal the bus

has to wait for the ferry and those people have to stand, very often

well over the half hour limit.

The other is, with our increasing tourist trade there are, of

course, much greater use made of bus sightseeing facilities in the

Province, and this is as it should be. However, there is a problem

arising that when the bus driver has to fight the heavy traffic, has to

try and pick out the landmarks, and has to try and entertain the

passengers as well, that they have a real problem. The problem is now

somewhat being compounded because their minor accident rate increases

by about 300 per cent in the summer months. It is being compounded by

the point system and many of the drivers could be in real difficulty,

really through no fault of their own, because they are trying to, and

they normally do an excellent job of trying to tell the tourists of the

splendid wonders that we have here in British Columbia. I think that

they should install a tape deck with some of the spiel played to the

passengers, or else in summer we should perhaps hire some of the

university students to give the running commentary along the tour and

leave the driver to take good

[ Page 92 ]

aim at the traffic situations that face him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, certainly much has been said about pollution

control, and of course in my constituency it's really in the wind right

now. There's a lot of controversy going on and, first of all, I want to

say that there have been some statements made by the Greater Victoria

health authorities that I must disagree with, because there has been an

obvious approach to try and force the unorganized areas into the

sewerage system. There have been approvals of some facilities in the

unorganized territories that should never have been approved. With the

regulations, for example, in the Colwood Langford area saying that you

cannot build any apartments, still the Health Officer approved a

so-called auto court with 40 units, and the ground in that area cannot

possibly carry the sewage in a septic tank properly. I believe that if

care had been taken not to allow some of these units to operate and if,

secondly, some type of regulation had been laid out for the regulation

and the maintenance of septic tanks, we could solve some of these

problems without having to go into the expense of sewage structure.

However, Mr. Speaker, we're being bombarded on all sides by the

experts with the solution to the pollution of our environment, and I

again want to take issue, because I am very much afraid that some of

the things that are being proposed are not going to be feasible, and it

is my personal belief that our present methods of collecting and

treating the sewage will be obsolete within ten years time. First of

all we have to look at the root cause of the problem. The reason we

have pollution here today is because nature's cycle has been broken. We

cannot continue to pour in the sterilizers, the detergents, and all the

chemicals that are being put into our effluent and expect nature to

continue to survive and keep our lakes, rivers and countryside clean.

We had a perfect example out in the Langford area about eight years

ago. There were two contributing factors, one was a potato grower who

was pouring the fertilizer on the land and the other was the housewife

pouring the dishwashing liquid into the kitchen sink. When you went to

swim in Langford Lake you came out almost like the little green giant.

However, when number one, the potato grower, stopped growing potatoes

and the housewife stopped using detergent, within two years time that

lake was back into operation and back into useful structure.

It amazes me that we start thinking in terms and talking in terms as

the only solution to our problem being more treatment, and tertiary

treatment of our sewage. In fact, I think if we followed the experts

and we put the settling ponds for tertiary treatment for the sewage

here in Greater Victoria we'd have to cover half the Saanich Peninsula

in settling ponds, and in Vancouver I suppose we'd have to take half of

the Fraser Valley in order to give tertiary treatment, as they are now

recommending, to the sewage structure.

I believe that we have to do one of two things. I thought it a

little ridiculous a few weeks ago when I watched a television programme

on C.B.C., we saw all the evils of the use of detergents, and then saw

the Federal Minister get up and say, "Well, I think somewhere

municipalities and Provincial Governments are going to have to find

enough money in order to put in the filtering plants to filter the

detergents out of the sewage before it gets to lakes and rivers." When

the question was raised later on as to what this might cost, there was

a figure bandied about of some 30 billion dollars. Well I say that it

would be much simpler and much better sense to turn around and ban

detergents than to have to put the people of Canada to that expense.

There are a lot of people who are bandying about that they want

something done about pollution control, but I'm afraid that if you

asked the average housewife if she had to choose between whiter white

in her wash and a clean environment, I'm afraid that environment would

come in second place. I think….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no.

MR. BRUCH: ….we as individual citizens have to take a close

look as individuals as well, because it is not just industry that is

polluting, it is the individual that is one of the worst pollutants

that exist.

I was surprised too, when the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation put a new trail into one of the little parks on the south

end of Vancouver Island, and within two months time the

conservationists were howling that we should put somebody in there to

walk behind and pick up the chocolate bar wrappers and the rest of it,

I think it's time that we as individuals looked at our own

responsibility in regard to pollution as well.

But I want to make one further suggestion, that if we cannot ban the

use of detergents in total, then I believe that we should go into a

crash programme of research into perfecting methods of burning our

sewage, of using a treatment, preferably natural gas, in sewage

disposal. Such units are being used in many parts of the United States.

They are mainly using oil, however, which I believe will cause too much

of an air pollution problem, or electricity, and there is a problem

there of a little more smell and probably more leftover refuse.

However, I believe that if we really did proper research on the

utilization of gas-burning, that it would not only solve the problem

that detergents would be burnt out, it would also solve the problem

that we would be reducing much of our waste right at source. It would

also solve another problem that the conservationists are concerned

about, because today it's almost impossible to go into some areas

surrounding our cities and expect to put in sewer lines through the

rock out-cropping that exists, but if we used a burning method we could

put housing into some of the marginal land and save our open spaces,

our farmland and our green areas. I think now is the time that we are

approaching a realization by the population that something has to be

done, it is time that we did some very extensive and quick research to

try and find another solution before we go into the obsolete methods of

treating our waste.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see the completion of the

Vocational School here in Greater Victoria, because the vocational

training structure is providing a very useful function. Today it is not

only the individual students who are realizing the respectability of

vocational training, but with what has been happening at some of our

universities, many employers are finding it far preferable to reach out

and take a graduate of our vocational institutes rather than take some

of our students with a university degree. I think, too, that the

taxpayers of my area are becoming quite concerned with the so-called

attitudes of some of our professors in our universities. They are

coming to the point where they don't like to be called upon to provide

the dollars to have these professors teach revolt when they should be

teaching some responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be specific….

MR. BRUCH: I am being specific. Mr. Speaker, the core

[ Page 93 ]

of professionalism is that the profession polices

itself and what I am saying is that if the profession is unable to

police itself then they don't deserve to be called a profession.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just plain, ordinary smear.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, let me say that what some of the

universities are doing is far worse than smear. I am accepting my

responsibility to voice the opinions of the electors of my constituency.

Mr. Speaker, there's one other problem that has become somewhat

serious. I notice mention in the Throne Speech that there are some

changes going to be made regarding the handling of juveniles in this

Province. However, whether it is because of the legislation or an

attitude of enforcement we have had some terrorization by teenagers

that I believe has to stop, and I would like to see a little better

enforcement rather than the shrugging of shoulders.

Mr. Speaker it has been a privilege to take my place in this Debate

an I look forward to the Budget and the further expansion and

development of our Province and of the opportunities that our abundance

can provide.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FRANK NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be

here today to bring you greetings from the constituency of Nanaimo, the

jewel of the West, the sun porch of Canada, and the bathtub capital of

the world.

I hope you like these little cans of high quality food which are on

your table today — clam chowder, oyster chowder, smoked salmon, smoked

oysters and a piscatorial delight here for epicureans and connoisseurs,

it has a fragrant and elegant aroma, it's delicious, it's sweet, it's

tender — it's called Cahudas — Cahudas. British Columbia Cahudas — in

the common vernacular, dogfish — a new industry in Nanaimo.

While we're on the oceanways, I would like to say to you today, that

with Centennial Year coming shortly I'd like to inform you that in that

particular year we expect to see plunging into these nine-foot waves,

32 miles across the Straits of Georgia from Nanaimo to Vancouver, the

greatest armada the world has ever seen — 10,000 ships, rafts,

destroyers, kayaks, canoes, accompanied by at least 500 bathtubs, once

again to prove that British Columbia leads the world in bathtub

technology. I say to you today, when you go back to your constituency

please invite all the noble and audacious bathtubbers of your

constituency to join this great Centennial armada.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll send you 500 hippies.

MR. NEY: Very well. And now, while we're discussing the ocean

I would like to say a few words further about our ferry system and, in

particular, the Horseshoe Bay–Nanaimo run which contributes

approximately 25 per cent of the passengers that ride the huge B.C.

ferry fleet, and also 25 per cent of the revenue. This traffic is

increasing at a rate of approximately ten per cent per annum, that's a

million people a year, which means by 1980 this traffic will reach

probably two million passengers a year.

A constituency has to plan for the future and in Nanaimo today we

are wondering whether the plans of the Government will be for an

expanded modern terminal in Nanaimo to handle the big jumbo ferries of

the future, or whether the Government proposes at a cost of

approximately four times more, probably around $20,000,000, a bridge

across Dodds Narrows to Gabriola Island, and a fast shuttle service to

Vancouver. There are other visionary plans where the bridges go right

through the Gulf Islands across Salt Spring Island into Victoria. But

we'd like to have some idea now. The Government should decide. I'm not

an engineer nor an economist but I'm open-minded in the matter,

particularly when I look at the old C.P.R. dock in Nanaimo which, when

it was built at the cost of approximately $5,000,000, the most modern

of its type in North America, ten years later was obsolete.

We also realize that the R.N.4 hovercraft which cost four or five

million dollars, I think, and carry 100 cars and 300 passengers is a

new mode of transportation. There are so many ramifications when you

start thinking of transport, but I say that the time has come now when

the Government should start planning the next step, because we are fast

approaching the crossroad.

While I'm on the question of transportation I might add that in my

journeys from Nanaimo to Victoria it is evident to me that the time is

approaching when the Government should also consider a four lane

highway — Victoria to Campbell River — 170 miles. Vancouver Island

contributes one-third of the tourist economy of British Columbia to

this Province, and in the summer particularly the congestion on this

highway is becoming more and more acute.

The geography of this Island follows most traffic down one highway.

Now I recognize that a project of this type would be an extensive one

and would suggest initially that a series of passing lanes be

considered throughout the highway, and this would not be that

expensive, and it would do a lot of good. Today we're having more and

more of these small trailers travelling, not just on the Vancouver

Island, but right across the Province. They're slowing down traffic. If

we could get the passing lanes and let the fast traffic carry through

we'd get rid of a lot of these frustrations. But, if the Government

decides to accelerate plans for a four-lane highway, possibly a one

cent tax increase per gallon gasoline on Vancouver Island could be

considered and make this a self-liquidating proposition.

Roads are not the only method of transportation. The dayliner

service on Vancouver Island is a matter of concern to our citizens. We

should take a long look at the day after tomorrow and face the fact

that we are expanding at such a rapid rate that in no time at all

Vancouver Island will be faced with more than just a traffic jam.

Tourist activity will probably double in the next 12 years on the

Island. We should also remember proper transportation will attract the

tourist dollar. People will undoubtedly require a commuter service.

Many isolated areas will be better served with such a service. Today we

have a vaudeville show going on. The dayliner goes from the market

place in Victoria to the north of the Island every day and returns to

the market place at night. The

schedule should be reversed and times

executed that would meet public convenience. It is the impression of

many that the E and N Railway is deliberately creating a type of

service that is bound to put it out of business. The E and N Railway is

morally and possibly even legally obligated to improve this service in

a normal business manner. The present initiative displayed is a farce.

The Throne Speech has mentioned about increased social assistance.

In this respect I would like to point out that the problem has been

brought up at U.B.C.M. with regard to pensioners who have lived in

their homes for many years and have been caught in the inflationary

spiral where old age

[ Page 94 ]

pensions are simply not keeping up with the cost of

living. There are many cases of hardship in this Province, and where

the dignity and pride of fine citizens is being injured by the heavy

hand of inflation. I believe the time has now come where the Government

should consider supplemental homeowner grants in the cases of hardship,

and I have in my hand here now a tax document which by a different

method in Britain gives similar benefits to pensioners who are

financially distressed. I might say this too, I don't think it would

cost the Government that much money, because there aren't that many in

that category of the higher priced homes, because we do have a $150

homeowner grant.

Another little point here is that it's all very well for the Federal

Government to be concerned with taking the Queen off our paper money

and off our postage stamps and consider changes to our Commonwealth

medals, banning of American television, government newspaper councils

and even discussion of a republic. Now the most destructive socialist

document of all, the White Paper, is to bring even further money to the

Federal Government, an experiment that would probably change the whole

economic and social climate of our country and make it another ism

nation. The point I want to get here is, that according to the Canadian

Tax Foundation the take of taxes expressed a percentage of gross

national product by the Federal Government in 1926 of 7.6 per cent. The

Provincial Government in those days was 3 per cent and the local

government 6.3 per cent. In 1968 the Federal Government has increased

this percentage to 17 per cent, provincial 10.9 per cent, but the local

government is down to 5.1 per cent. In other words, the take by senior

governments has increased from 10.6 per cent to 27.9 per cent, while

the local government has been reduced.

Now I'm going to hit the Federal Government on this more than

anyone, because the provinces in Canada in the past year have had a

deficit of $270,000,000. It was $552,000,000 a year before, and it's

all very well to say that we can go back and borrow money, there's the

bond market. There is no bond market, and to raise taxes is not

palatable. I say with the Federal Government in all likelihood having a

$500,000,000 surplus this coming year, we ought to take a hard look at

things. I respectfully submit that the local government today is

becoming the forgotten child in the three levels of government. The

Federal Government has already taken the biggest share of taxes and, by

the White Paper they're going to take even more. The only good thing

about this White Paper is that it's going to boost the Immigration

quota, because that's the only way they're going to have enough income

tax inspectors to service the White Paper.

The average municipality in Canada is finding that with the cost to

run and service the city increasing approximately 10 per cent per

annum, that municipal taxation is reaching a point where it is becoming

an almost unbearable burden to taxpayers. Property tax, the largest

source of locally raised revenue at the municipal level, is less

responsible to economic growth than the revenue source of senior

government. Until there is a shift of responsibility to these

governments, or an increase in transfer revenues from the senior levels

of government, and particularly the Federal Government it will be

increasingly difficult to maintain or improve the quality of local

environment and, I may add, that the problem is not unique to Canada,

it's the same problem facing the United States today.

I hope that at the Inter-Provincial Conferences later this year this

problem facing the municipalities will receive due consideration. Good

government starts at the civic level, and I say that Federal Government

must pay more attention to the problems at the grass roots instead of

new ideologies which are leaving many parts of our country stunned. The

goose that lays the golden egg is losing its steam at the local level.

One other thing I would like to add here, I don't think it would be a

bad idea if they had the presidents of all these provincial

associations and municipal associations present at some of these

Inter-Provincial Conferences, because we're losing touch with each

other and the municipal governments are most frustrated that they just

can't get to the root of the problem. But remember those ratios — they're factual.

Now let's talk about specific things, because I'm trying to say that

at the municipal level we need more tax money. I'll give you an

instance. The mobile home market will soon have an impact on this

Province similar to that in the U.S.A. where 20 per cent of the housing

market is now mobile homes. Many municipalities do not welcome mobile

homes and trailers because, unless they are permanently established,

they are not taxable. Consequently lower-priced housing has difficulty

locating. Could not legislation be considered to tax the trailers at

approximately one and a half per cent per annum of value in a similar

fashion as is now being done in the U.S.A. and 64 per cent of this tax

returned to the School Boards to assist them with their rapidly

increasing costs?

Now I'm going to say a word or two about our dairy farming on

Vancouver Island, and I want to tell you that the farms and the dairy

industries on Vancouver Island are not becoming decadent and they

aren't becoming fed up. They're coming up with new packaging methods,

exciting technology, beautiful packaging — here we have the new type of

milk bottle on Vancouver Island, unbreakable, undrippable, untippable,

unsinkable — nutritious, fresh, creamy, clean Vancouver Island milk.

Now here is something else we have, we have the raw pack, the cream

pack for the restaurant trade. These aren't the three-cornered type

like you get on the mainland and delivered to Vancouver Centre, these

are non-squirtable and they're produced on Vancouver Island. On

Vancouver Island in the dairy business we have the good life, the round

life and the best life. In the dairy business, for those people who

don't like to use milk with their mixer, like the Honourable the

Minister of Agriculture, we have orange juice, in every type of package

conceivable. We still have milk the old-fashioned way, too.

Now, you wonder why we have any problems. I'll tell you why we're

having problems. Milk is being shipped in carton form to Vancouver

Island in ever-increasing volume by chain stores owning and operating

their own dairies in Vancouver. This is creating a surplus situation

for the producers on Vancouver Island, and this is lowering their

financial returns. It is not possible for Island-operated dairies to

service this business because it is in the nature of a captive market.

Locally owned stores are purchasing their dairy products locally, and

finding the range, quality, and price available to them exceptionally

good. They are completely happy with the local product, and the

consumer is completely happy as well. The problem is that an

ever-increasing volume of business is being done by the international

chain stores that own dairy plants in Vancouver, and it's going to get

worse.

You probably know that the dairy business on Vancouver Island

amounts to $12,000,000 annually in sales. I am talking about the retail

level now. This gives the economy of the Island a boost of at least

$30,000,000 a year when one considers the servicing sector. There is no

question here of

[ Page 95 ]

any price increase to Island consumers at all,

because the figures show that the dairy plants here on the Island are

operating as efficiently as plants in any other locality. Farmers are

being paid the same as Vancouver for food milk, and labour agreements

are similar. The solution is that we require the milk produced in a

Milk Board Area be used before the milk supplies by an outside area and

this, as pointed out earlier, would not cause price increases to

consumers. The Government of British Columbia is making an effort to

develop business and agriculture all over the Province, for which it is

to be commended. The milk situation here on the Island is one which is

going slightly contrary to this policy due to this captive market

situation. The policy I am recommending is being carried out

successfully by the Milk Control Agencies in the Provinces of Alberta

and Ontario. I had a five pound bag they even carry milk in, but I

didn't want it filled up because I'm saving my energies for the rest of

the Session.

Now, in closing, I'd like to state that Vancouver Island with

approximately one-seventh of the people of British Columbia produces

approximately one-third of its tourist wealth as well as one-third of

its forest wealth. There are few geographic areas in the world that has

the tourist potential of Vancouver Island. I think it is very

interesting to note that the recently-retired chief director of tourism

for the Federal Government, when he chose to retire two or three months

ago, he chose Nanaimo, the sun porch of Canada, for his happy days.

Now this Government has made a magnificent effort in encouraging

tourism during the past two decades. The Industrial Development Bank

and our lending institutions have made a great contribution to the

development and improvement of our tourist facilities, and such

improvements should always have high priority. Many tourist operators,

anxious to make improvements, are reluctant to refinance at today's

high rates. There is a real opportunity to help the tourist industry

today by creating tourist improvement loans for the secondary market

financing. There is nothing more discouraging to a tourist or a

community than run-down facilities, and this also damages the image of

British Columbia, and it is a fact today that many small operators are

having difficulty in getting long-term financing improvement loans in

the secondary money market.

Actually, these people are creating money in the primary market

foutis. There is nothing like tourism to buoy up the economy of an

area. Creation of a financing authority for small improvement loans

structured to fit the secondary market would reap benefits for the

tourists, the entrepreneur, and the Province all in one go, and the

investment would be self-liquidating.

Vancouver Island merits dedicated attention to our environment.

Beautification and pollution control probably gives greater returns per

dollar invested than any other form of initiative. As an example of the

emergency science of survival, it is a weakness of our civilization

that the bald eagles surrounding the Great Lakes, the rivers of Eastern

Canada and the U.S.A., have now virtually been exterminated by man's

indiscriminate use of pesticides. Alaska and British Columbia are the

last havens of these magnificent birds, and I think this, in itself,

indicates that British Columbia certainly as far as the provinces of

Canada are concerned is leading the way in pollution control. However,

there is still much to be done. We'll go along with that, and I say

let's start by banning D.D.T. as they have done in other parts of North

America, and then start out on other pesticides, sorting outsome of these other pesticides. Mother nature still has a lot going her way.

Now I would just like to finish up by telling you that today Nanaimo

is the third port in British Columbia. It is booming ahead, and our

lumber shipments in the last seven years have increased in the Port of

Nanaimo by 265 per cent. Last year 399,000,000 board measure, and it's

going to be more. We have just completed a $3,000,000 mill and there

will be even more timber going out this coming year. This is a great

thing for our economy. They have dredged the water down now to 42 feet

and very soon it will be going deeper, and the great ocean cargo boats

will be able to come into the Port of Nanaimo. I might add at the same

time that pulp shipments have doubled to 300,000 tons in the last six

years. Nanaimo will continue to play an integral

part in the economy of

British Columbia as a transportation and service centre, hub of a huge

forestry and fishing area, and fast becoming a tourist Mecca. Keeping

pace with this growth rate of four times the national average and an

average earning wage approximately tenth highest in the nation. Quo

vadis, Mr. Speaker, horizons unlimited.

On the motion of the Hon. Isabel Dawson, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. LESLIE R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I

have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to

prepare the list of members of the Select Standing Committees. With

leave of the House, in view of the fact that the report has been

approved by all parties in the House, I would ask that the report be

taken as read and received.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? So ordered.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. ROBERT M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): I am not going to

object to leave being granted, I just wish to draw your attention, Mr.

Speaker, to page 19 of Standing Orders. I say I am not going to

withhold permission, because this must go through as quickly as

possible, but I would like to draw your attention to page 19 of

Standing Orders with regard to the operation of the Committees which

this particular resolution will set up. It outlines the duties of the

Committee and it outlines the procedures that the Committees are

supposed to use. I refer you to the bottom of the page,

section 72 of

Standing Orders, which says, "No witness shall be summoned to attend

before any Committee of the House save at the instance of the Chairman

or a certificate shall first have been filed with the Chairman of such

Committee, by some member thereof…."

Now, in past years in Committee, we have found on occasion that

Chairmen of the Committees have been interpreting this in a manner that

led to some disagreement in the Committee. I would like your opinion,

Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not you agree with this wording, that

there are two ways in which a witness may be summoned inherent in

section 72 of the Standing Orders. One, by the Chairman or,

[ Page 96 ]

two, by a member of the Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me say that the Speaker agrees entirely with

all the Standing Orders, but that the

interpretation of those Standing

Orders within the Committee must rest with the Committee Chairman, as

the honourable member, I am sure, knows.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, is there any way, if there is a

disagreement within the Committee, that we can ask your help,

permission, guidance and decision? I just don't think it's right that

the Committee should find itself embroiled in what is essentially a

semantic argument, and I think that part of your duty as Speaker, in my

humble opinion, should be to help the Committee in this way by giving

us a ruling. I am quite sure it would prevent future developments and

rancour and anger and disagreement within the Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Let me say to the honourable member that I think

his point is well raised because I know of some of the difficulty that

has taken place. Nevertheless, it is not the function of the Speaker to

take away in any way the responsibilities and functions of the Chairmen

of the respective Committees. May I say, however, that I will take the

matter under advisement, look carefully into the parliamentary law in

this case, and if there is anything that I can bring into the House as

a direction, I most certainly will.

Are you ready for the Question? All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded No. The motion is carried.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Resolution number four on the

Order Paper. I move, seconded by the Honourable W.K. Kiernan, "That a

Special Committee be named by those responsible for listing Select

Standing Committees of this House, to consider whether

(1) section 14 of

chapter 20 of the Statutes of British Columbia ,

1969, which provides inter alia that no action shall be brought against

any person for recovery of damages to property occasioned in an

accident involving a motor-vehicle exceeding $250 and costs, should be

proclaimed in force or amended and, if so, to what extent;

(2) the accident benefits described in the Second

Schedule to the Insurance Act should apply to a motor carrier as defined in the Motor Carrier Act ;

(3) automobile insurance premiums in British Columbia, including the

premium charged for the accident benefits, are commensurate with the

risks assumed;

and report their recommendations to this House.

"This Special Committee, when named, shall have the

power to send for persons, papers, and records, and hear such

representations as may, in their discretion, appear necessary."

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, are you ready for the question?

The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. DAVID BARRETT(Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we

will not oppose the resolution. We are not even going to amend it, but

we must express at this point our disappointment. It is not being

expanded as completely as it was in the past, and I would like some

clarification from the Minister as to whether or not this Committee is

going to be strictly limited to the exact wording of this motion, or if

the other attendant factors relating to previous Committees on this

matter will be allowed to be discussed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the terms of reference in

this case are quite explicit. The honourable members who were present

in the previous Session of the last Parliament will recall that on that

occasion the Committee was struck to examine all the implications of

the Royal Commission Report that had been presented to the House at the

beginning of the Session, and then the legislation was introduced

following both the Royal Commission Report and the Report of the

Special Committee. Now, of course, this is confined to the three areas

that are referred to in the report. Each item of the terms of

reference, I think, are broad in themselves in those areas to have a

full study and a full enquiry, whether it's in terms of limitation of

the right of action for property damage, which comes under point number

one, or under number three of determining whether the premiums charged

by the insurance companies today in the Province of British Columbia

are commensurate with the risks that they have assumed. But in specific

answer to the Leader of the Opposition, this Committee is not intended

to embrace the very broad and general area of study that was involved

in the last Committee in the previous Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister closed the debate,

and there can be no further discussion. You've heard the motion. All

those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded No. The motion is carried.

The House adjourned at 4:23 p.m.