1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 189 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Press release concerning budgetary matters.

Mr. Schroeder — 190

Mr. Speaker — 190

Mr. Smith — 190

Mr. Speaker — 190

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Juvenile delinquents and Human Resources

programmes. Mr. Bennett — 190

Housing of juveniles in Empress Hotel. Mr. McClelland — 190

Purchase and rezoning of Casa Loma property. Mr. L. A., Williams —

Use of Laws Declaratory Act. Mr. Curtis — 191

Contingency plan for school disruption. Mr. Wallace — 191

Loose policies in Human Resources. Mrs. Jordan — 192

Establishment of public service grievance board. Mr. Gardom — 192

Suspension of Human Resources programmes. Mr. Schroeder — 193

Environmental dangers from aerosol containers. Mr. Rolston — 193

Victoria Highlands sewerage facilities study. Mr. Wallace — 193

Throne speech debate

Mr. Gibson — 194

Ms. Brown — 196

Mr. Curtis — 202

Mr. Gardom — 208

Mr. Phillips — 213

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 219

Mr. Lewis — 222

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources): Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislature, I've

got a very pleasant duty to perform today and a very pleasant

and surprising introduction to make to the House.

Back in 1949 when I first entered the House, there were

quite a number of Members here, but today there are only two of

us left who came in at that time — Frank Calder, the Hon.

Member for Atlin, and myself. At that time he was classed as

the baby of the House. I've known Frank for these 26 years.

I've worked with him. At times I've tried to match him up, but

Frank was very particular, and went on for 26 years without

being caught: (Laughter.)

But a few years ago he made a trip to Japan. Now I don't know

why he made that trip to Japan, or what happened. But a short

time ago a visitor from Japan was here and the other day I was

introduced to the surprise; I was asked to be a witness, along

with Mary Christiansen and my wife, at a very enjoyable

ceremony.

I would like to introduce Mrs. Frank Calder to you

today.

I am sure that that response means you wish them the very

best for the future. Mrs. Frank Calder's name happens to be

Tammy. I hope that we make her a pleasant welcome to British

Columbia.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, Hon. Members, I have great pleasure in introducing to

you and asking you to welcome the No. 1 alderman from the City

of Vancouver, Mike Harcourt.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, we have

two visitors with us today, seated on the floor, whom I'd like

to introduce: my counterpart from one of the other provinces, a

Minister of Highways. As we all know in the house, it takes

just a little bit more courage, a little bit more intelligence,

a little more sensitivity to hold that post — and a little bit

more capability. (Laughter.) But it does give me great pleasure

.... We have two visitors: the Hon. Eiling Kramer, Minister of

Highways from Saskatchewan, is with us today and I would ask

you to make him welcome. Also, with Mr. Kramer is his executive

assistant, Martin Semchuk, who was also an MLA in Saskatchewan

from 1960 to 1964.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, it's my good

fortune to represent a constituency which encompasses three

school districts — Surrey,

Langley and Abbotsford, at least parts of those districts.

We have a group of teachers from each of those areas today and

on behalf of my colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) as

well, I'd like to introduce them with the leaders of their

delegations: Mr. Wayne Anthony from Abbotsford district, Doris

Hahn from Surrey and Brahm Sahadeo from Langley. I'd like the

House to make them all welcome, please.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, as you know, one of

the most excellent high schools in B.C. Is the Pitt Meadows

Senior Secondary School, and Mike Siddiby, John Hofmann and

John Collins, teachers, are in the gallery with the first

delegation of 35 students. Another delegation in another hour

will be in the gallery from Pitt Meadows Senior Secondary.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, we have

the pleasure today of having the second group of students who

contested for the privilege of being here under the Education

in Democracy, in writing essays. They come from a wide area of

British Columbia — some from South Okanagan constituency, some

from the Mackenzie constituency, some from the Comox

constituency, some from the Alberni constituency and actually

some from Boundary-Similkameen. Surprisingly enough, Mr.

Speaker, the majority of the group here today come from the

sunny Okanagan.

We are very, very pleased that they were winners in this

particular contest. This contest is sponsored by the Council of

Forest Industries and radio station CKNW in Vancouver. I would

like the assembly to welcome this hard-working group of

students to our session here this afternoon. I know they are

all very interested and look forward to taking a lot of

information and interest back to their colleagues back in their

respective constituencies.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery

this afternoon are three representatives from the Comox

District Teachers Federation. They are here this afternoon to

observe us in session. I would like the House to join me in

welcoming Mr. Art Tindill, president of the group; Mr. Doug

McRae, vice-president, and Mr. Darryl Pippin, secretary.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker,

before one of the Liberal Members welcomes everyone else, I

would like to draw to your attention and that of the House the

fact that we also have teachers with us today from Saanich

School District 63.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

announce that there are teachers in the

[ Page 190 ]

gallery today from Victoria School District 61. But in passing, I would also

like to state that later on in the day, in the gallery — in my particular family

it's a pretty big day — we are going to have my two youngest children who are

20 today, no longer teenagers in the family.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey — shall we take it as read? (Laughter.)

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): With searching eyes,

Mr. Speaker, I found one lonely soul in the gallery who has not

yet been introduced and I would like to bid him or her the most

gracious welcome to this assembly.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

refused to answer questions during question period, and she

cited as her reasons that she could not answer questions that

were related to budgetary matters before the release of the

budget. Yet today, under today's date, we have a press release

which involves itself almost entirely with budgetary matters.

I'm asking the House: is there a double standard here?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that the House has any obligation

to decide or to rule upon the question of answering questions

in question period. That is the prerogative of the person

concerned, as to how and when he answers questions. I cannot

force compliance with that. It's a rule of the House.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On the same point of

order then, Mr. Speaker. It would appear to me that the proper

way to handle a question such as that would be to take it as

notice rather than to suggest to the House that we are

prohibited from answering because of the fact that the budget

will be placed before the House within a few days.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the intent of making a statement

like that would be to in effect say: "I'm taking it as notice;

at some stage it is going to be answered." That's what I take

from the remark made by the Hon. Minister.

I can't deal with matters that happened outside the House

unless the thing is before me and there is a definite point of

procedure that you can point to on that question. Otherwise,

we're dealing in sort of a vague generality at the moment.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I haven't even seen what you're talking about.

Oral questions.

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS AND

HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMMES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Human Resources with respect to the Minister's

remarks at the University of British Columbia, as quoted in

The Daily Colonist , wherein the Minister stated that a

review of programmes in his department is underway to determine

among other things what cutbacks in programmes might be

undertaken. Can the Minister assure the House that the

programmes and facilities of his department for the care and

rehabilitation of juvenile offenders will not be subject to

these cutbacks?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I

can't be responsible for what appears in the newspaper. I did

not use the phrase "cutback." I said we were evaluating

programmes; I at no time suggested that there would be any

cutbacks at all. We're talking about evaluation.

MR. BENNETT: A recent report, then, from Surrey has shown

that juveniles 16 and under committed over 1,300 offences in

1974 in Surrey alone, compared to 1,800 for all other adults.

Has the Minister received this report, and is the Minister

going to take any action on its content?

HON. MR. LEVI: I've obtained a copy of the report and I'll

be looking at it. I recently got back from travelling so I

haven't had a chance to read it.

HOUSING OF JUVENILES

IN EMPRESS HOTEL

MR. McCLELLAND: With regard to juvenile delinquents, could

the Minister advise us whether or not it's true that hard-core

juvenile delinquents — or perhaps I should say any juvenile

delinquents — have been housed in Victoria's Empress Hotel at

the expense of the Department of Human Resources?

HON. MR. LEVI: That's a serious question, is it, Mr.

Member?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not aware of such a.... I'm certainly

prepared to find out for you.

MR. McCLELLAND: I take it the Minister has agreed that he'll

look into that.

[ Page 191 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'll take it as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if he would also at the same time

look into how much if any of the $50,000 or better that was

paid out to the Empress Hotel, as is in public accounts, was

charged to housing either delinquents or other people under the

Department of Human Resources.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'll certainly do it.

PURCHASE AND REZONING

OF CASA LOMA PROPERTY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): To the Hon.

Minister of Housing with reference to the mortgage which the

Government of British Columbia holds on the Casa Loma property.

Would the Minister be prepared to table the purchase agreement

which is recited in that mortgage?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll consider

that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: While the Minister is considering that

matter I wonder if he would advise whether or not the

government's acquisition of the Casa Loma property is subject

to the obligation of the vendors to have the property rezoned

in some way.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'll explain that, Mr. Member.

There are 33 units of the 125 that are commercial units

inasmuch as they are motel units. There is a stipulation that

would give the government a prerogative, subject to the

rezoning of those units.

Even if they are not rezoned we would probably want to

proceed because we have a commitment from Central Mortgage and

Housing for almost $3 million under

section 43. We also have

under that the 50-50 cost-sharing of operation expenses. It

would be a considerable loss to this province and to the many

senior citizens who are writing in and phoning for

accommodation of this type, particularly those who are writing

in with connection with Casa Loma.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Then, Mr. Speaker, in view of the

explanation from the Minister — which was not quite an answer

- is he prepared to make the purchase agreement public so the

municipality of Burnaby will not need to proceed with its

rezoning application, as reported in the paper last night,

since it is not a condition of purchase?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I've already answered that question.

USE OF LAWS

DECLARATORY ACT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same subject to the Minister

of Housing, are we to assume then that the amendment to the

Laws Declaratory Act, which permits the Crown and its agencies

to ignore the rezoning process in local government matters,

will be employed in this instance?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To the paranoid Member, I would....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order! That's only permitted in the press.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: My information is that one could....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please! Would the Hon.

Member please withdraw that? Would the Hon. Minister withdraw

the use of the word?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, I will, unlike

the Members from that side, give unqualified withdrawal of that

remark if it offends the Member or the Members of this House —

unlike those people as they fiddle around about such matters

for five minutes.

CONTINGENCY PLAN

FOR SCHOOL DISRUPTION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Education.

Inasmuch as education is costing $600 million a year and is a heavy

burden on homeowners, and sin ce the

students in Victoria are not receiving the education that has been paid

for because of a labour dispute in which the students are innocent

victims, could I ask the Minister what contingency plan the Minister

has to ensure that students continue to receive the education that is

being paid for?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, don't pass the buck. Come

[ Page 192 ]

on! Let's have an answer.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education) : I am as concerned as you are

when the students have their educational services interrupted. I know you are as

well aware as I am of the intricacies of a labour-management situation. At this

time I know that the school board and the teachers are doing everything they can

to give some educational services, although it may not be, of course, what we

want to see at this time.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and I are in constant contact as to

what is happening in this particular scene. As you know, until assistance is

asked of the Minister, we cannot move at this time.

MR. WALLACE : Could I ask then if the Minister is making any provisions

for the children of either single-parent families or of cases where father and

mother are both out at work in the daytime? Could that not come under some human

consideration, regardless of the labour problem?

HON. MRS. DAILLY : I am certainly willing to discuss with the school

board, whom I think would be the ones to bring this to my attention. I don't

know the individual cases; but if the school board has deep concern about this

and wishes to discuss it with me, I am willing to discuss it.

LOOSE POLICIES

IN HUMAN RESOURCES

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to go back to a question to the Minister of Human Resources in

reference to an

article in The Province on February 22,

1975, and referred to earlier in The Daily Colonist .

Since the Minister has admitted the possibility that loose

policies had contributed to your department's overrun, could

the Minister advise the House in what areas these loose

policies have developed or he feels they have developed?

Interjection.

HON. MR . LEVI: I don't recall using the phrase "loose

policies." That's your characterization of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think Members are well aware

that you cannot refer to newspaper articles as a basis of a

question. It says so clearly.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Minister deny...?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member did so, but because I didn't

correct her doesn't mean that it's permissible.

MRS. JORDAN: Does the Hon. Minister deny that he used the

term "loose policies" during that interview and speech at

UBC?

HON. MR. LEVI: I just said that I don't recall using the

words "loose policies." I was talking about an evaluation of

the programmes in the department. Since we've been the

government we have introduced several new programmes. What we

are attempting to do is to evaluate them. That includes day

care, special services to children, therapeutic foster homes,

services to adults and to the handicapped. We are evaluating

these programmes.

ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC

SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Provincial Secretary, have you yet

established the public service grievance board under the Public

Service Act?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Will it be your intention, Mr. Minister, to

appoint the board in the near future in order to enable it to

hear the appeal of Dr. Stanley Knight?

HON. MR. HALL: While the Member can't technically ask about

the future, Mr. Speaker, I will tell him that I have, since

last November, been actively talking to candidates and others

for the position of chairperson. I hope that in the very near

future I will be in a position to make some sort of statement

about the chairperson of that board.

MR. GARDOM: Would it be possible, Mr. Minister, in this

situation for this particular individual to have his rights

maintained so that he could make an appeal?

HON. MR. HALL: I don't think there is any infringement of

rights in the case referred, but as it's obviously before the

Public Service Commission now I think it would be out of order

for me to make any comment on it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Provincial

Secretary when it is executive's intention to implement laws

passed by this Legislature which grant rights to civil

servants?

HON. MR. HALL: ...answer to that rhetorical, hypothetical

question.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's in order in any event.

[ Page 193 ]

SUSPENSION OF

HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMMES

MR. SCHROEDER: This question is for the Minister of Human

Resources. Since you are expecting evaluation reports on

various programmes, have your department's activities in such

programmes as senior citizens' transportation and day-care

programmes been suspended?

HON. MR. LEVI: You're a really remarkable bunch over there.

I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know.

HON. MR. LEVI: I really don't know. You're damned right I

don't know. We're talking about evaluating programmes. There's

no suggestion that the programmes have been stopped. We are

evaluating them, looking at them, seeing what has been

happening in there. That's not related to anything we know

specifically about because we are now looking at them. We are

broadening programmes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't beat around the bush.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: But the Minister hasn't answered the

question. Since this evaluation is going on, have you cut back

in any areas such as day care or senior citizen transportation

programmes? Are they ongoing or have you stopped them? That's

the question.

HON. MR. LEVI: I said in the beginning that we were not

talking about cutting back; we were talking about evaluating,

so one could presume that they are still ongoing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is the Minister putting more money into

those programmes right now?

HON. MR. LEVI: What do you want me to do? Do you want me to

stop the programmes?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm suggesting you have stopped the

programmes, and you're not admitting it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. LEVI: You know, that kind of question that you've

just asked is as asinine as the previous question about whether

we're putting up kids in the Empress Hotel.

ENVIRONMENTAL DANGERS

FROM AEROSOL CONTAINERS

MR. ROLSTON: A question to the Hon. Minister of Consumer

Services. People have been anxious for years about the buildup

of the ozone particles in the outer atmosphere, and there's a

possible linkup to the use of aerosol containers. Could you

tell this House what is happening? How great is this threat?

Could you bring us up to date on this? Also: what percentage of

these containers actually contain anything, a product?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, the scientific community is concerned about the gas in

the aerosol containers destroying the ozone, which may lead to

skin cancer, but I'm more concerned about the possible crop

damage it can do to the world. The scientific community has not

yet made a complete evaluation of the danger. However, I think

aerosol containers are perhaps one of the most wasteful forms

of packaging there is in the world today. For one thing, they

are about 90 per cent gas and 10 per cent product. I tested

that myself.

Interjections.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, they could be really called a

Socred-type container.

Mr. Speaker, it may be of interest to the House to know that

the nozzle on the aerosol can — when you purchase it you are

contributing to that fine, upstanding American, Mr. Abplanalp,

who is one of Mr. Nixon's closest friends. So every time you

buy one, you're contributing to him and his ilk.

VICTORIA HIGHLANDS

SEWERAGE FACILITIES STUDY

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask the Minister of Housing, with

regard to the Highlands Development in the Victoria area:

inasmuch as your Deputy, when asked about the development,

replied "I only work here," could the Minister tell the

House if prior to the....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's one of the few Deputies left.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's not fair — you are attacking the civil

servants.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just quoting his department,

[ Page 194 ]

Mr. Minister.

Could the Minister tell the House if, prior to the purchase

of the 1,200 acres, there was a specific study done as to how

sewerage facilities would be installed in that area?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, studies are being

undertaken, but I would point out that a great deal of the

initiative, especially in the early acquisitions, was from the

Capital Regional District, and their expertise and their

planning department recommended each and every acquisition that

was made in the Highlands area.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order. Mr.

Speaker, during the question period, on two or three occasions,

you reminded the Members who were asking questions that they

couldn't refer to what appears in the press: what happens

outside of this assembly is not of concern inside this

assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not what I said. In any case, if you

want the rule, it is very simply stated on page 147 of

Beauchesne , copies of which you have all been supplied,

where it says: "A question, oral or written, must not inquire

whether statements made in a newspaper are true." This has

happened on three occasions today, that clippings from

newspaper have been the basis for the information. That is, of

course, not the way that questions should be asked, as

Beauchesne points out. That's simply what the point is

all about.

MR. CHABOT: My point, Mr. Speaker, is that you have said

that what appears in newspapers shouldn't necessarily be taken

as true in this assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I didn't say that. The point of the rule,

very simply, is that you must not use what is in the paper as a

basis for your question, because you must take primary

responsibility, yourself, for the authenticity and not use

somebody else as a basis for your question. You must take that

primary responsibility for the question you ask.

MR. CHABOT: Well, I agree, Mr. Speaker, that you can't

necessarily accept it as accurate in some instances, but in a

decision you brought down on February 20, in which you said

that in view of a patent misunderstanding of the constitutional

procedure of prorogation which was evidenced on the part of

some Members on Monday in statements....

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but that has nothing to do with question

period, so you're quite out of order. Will the Hon. Member

please sit down so that we can get on with business of the

House?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please sit down? Would

the Hon. Member be seated? Then we can get on with the

business.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, at

the hour of adjournment last night I was told that I have

something under eight minutes until the government-imposed

guillotine falls.

In any event, I had been talking as quickly as I could and

I'll try and do so for the rest of my remarks.

I had gotten onto the subject of democratic institutions

which I think are as important as any subject for us to

consider in this House, and I've been going through a little

bit of the government's record. It's done some good things in

that, but it's done some bad things too, Mr. Speaker. One of

them I want to draw attention to now is the British Columbia

government B.C. News .

Now I don't know whether this is a newspaper to which we can

refer in the House or not, but it certainly should be one

because it contains a lot of questionable articles and what you

might call slanted news. I want to draw attention to one line

in the January number. Referring to the B.C. News , its

contents "represent a consolidation of departmental news

releases and related information provided by information staffs

in the departments concerned."

Mr. Speaker, I want to know why its contents don't also

include opposition party press releases about the matters

referred to in that newspaper. This newspaper, Mr. Speaker, is

paid for by taxpayers' money, raised by this Legislature, which

happens to have more than one party in it. The fact that the

private propaganda of one party is going out in this B.C.

government newspaper is not a good thing for a democratic

institution.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Ban your own paper —

the Sun .

MR. GIBSON: Government propaganda.

I want to go on and talk about the regular use of inquiries — what the regular use of inquiries should be as a supplement

to problems turned up by his House. There can be no more useful

task to the judges or other distinguished citizens of this

province than to dig into some of these things rather than

lesser legal matters they might be engaged in. Look at the

matters of public interest which have come up so far in this

session. The Columbia River: is it a good deal?

[ Page 195 ]

What were the downstream benefits? Were they good enough?

The flood control, the B.C. damage, the environmental damage,

the peaking power: what can be done to remedy this? And are the

charges of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) against former civil servants justified,

and what was the role of the previous government? It's a case

for an inquiry, very clearly.

Chickens and eggs, Mr. Speaker; backroom muscle on chickens

and eggs — and we recall that so well from last year; the

veracity and good name of truth, and truthfulness of several

British Columbia citizens who filed affidavits, or of the

Premier of this province: clearly a case for an inquiry.

Casa Loma: that deal stinks, Mr. Speaker. That's clearly a

case for an inquiry.

This government simply has to get off the pose of covering

up those things that make it uncomfortable, and revealing only

the information it finds it comfortable to reveal.

I want to speak about legislative procedure in the few

minutes remaining.

We need more committee work and more independence in this

Legislature. We need committees that have some freedom to roam

around the activities of the government rather than be guided

by the narrow terms of reference that are laid down for us. In

the Legislative committee on education last session, I think

some good work was done on collective bargaining. But we had no

right in that committee to get inside the Department of

Education and say: "What's going on in this administration? Why

are there problems in this department?" That's just an example

of the stringent terms of reference that are put on these

committees and the inability we have to follow the lines we

would like.

I would like to refer very briefly to what I consider a

potential abuse of the so-called rule of anticipation, whereby

some items inscribed on the order paper can prohibit debate for

the balance of the session on those particular items. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that may be very well when they're government orders

and we can be reasonably sure they're going to be called for

debate. But on the matter of the Skagit in the last session,

this House was virtually precluded from discussing the Skagit —

which would have been an embarrassment to the government to

discuss — by the fact that there had been inscribed on the

order paper, by a government backbencher, a resolution relating

to the Skagit. We all knew that that resolution was never going

to be called. I won't speculate on the motives for setting it

down, but I will say that it had the effect of gagging this

House on the subject of the Skagit for the entirety of the last

session. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it might be a useful thing

for you to inquire into whether the rule of anticipation might

not be modified in such a way as to relate it precisely to

government orders.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Legislature might do

well to study Alberta and Ottawa and other jurisdictions on the

question of a statutory instruments committee, a standing

committee of this House which would look at regulations

promulgated under the various Acts of the Legislature to ensure

that they are within the four corners of the legislation that

have been passed, and within the competency of the government

agency. We all know how these regulations come out in the

B.C. Gazette like sausages in a sausage machine, and

it's all too seldom that people have time to scrutinize them

carefully. A statutory instruments committee could do just

that.

As a new Member to this House — this may not be a need felt

by Members who have been here longer — I feel strongly the need

for what you might call a Beauchesne for British

Columbia, a reconsolidation and updating of Speakers' rulings

in the British Columbia Legislature so that we might have a

current reference to consult.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It has just been suggested by some of my

colleagues that it might be called Dowding for the B.C.

Legislature. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Not if I can help it. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I would suggest, too, to the Speaker that when

he is considering procedures of this House, he might look into

the practice of statements by Ministers prior to the question

period. These statements are currently given by leave, but what

is not given by leave is the right of the opposition parties to

respond in kind, not necessarily in an argumentative fashion,

but to have a chance to comment in this chamber on the comment

that was made by the government.

In other words, the issue is the same as it is with the

B.C. News . The opposition must have a chance of fair

comment in any form when the government has a chance for a

comment. I would think that the parties should be able to get

together and work out reasonable ground rules, as has been

possible in other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, these kinds of

democratic institutions, I think you would agree, provide the

underpinnings of not only the freedoms of Members of this

House, but of all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I think that about completes my time and I

think that is an appropriate point....

AN HON. MEMBER: The light isn't on.

MR. GIBSON: I see the green light isn't on yet.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Try and say something just to fill in

the space. (Laughter.)

[ Page 196 ]

MR. GIBSON: My, my. I will recap very quickly before I sit

down.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Try to say something nice for a

change.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member for Shuswap says, "say something

nice." And I will say something nice, Mr. Speaker.

The throne speech contains a lot of good things. I've tried

to pay some attention to that in my remarks. But it overlooks

the fundamental problems of British Columbia, as we all know.

It overlooks the questions of employment. The word "mining,

" as I pointed out yesterday, isn't used once in the

speech. Rent control isn't referred to. Indian claims aren't

referred to, which is a shocking disgrace for that party above

all which has spoken so strongly of these things in the past. I

took the opportunity to go over local issues relating to my

riding and I hope that the Ministers concerned took note of

them and will take them into consideration. I saw some of them

making notes.

I spoke about the alternate throne speech put forward by the

leader of my party. He made some very good suggestions. First

and foremost, the repeal of Bill 31, which I think should be

at the top of this Legislature's priority list this year

because the investments and exploration in the mining industry

is just not happening.

I called for complete registration of foreign-owned land in

British Columbia rather than simply the registration at time of

transfer, as is presently the case.

I called for a coherent statement of government policy,

through the means of a White Paper, in several areas of great

concern to British Columbia. First of all, the policy on

resource exploitation, its timing; secondly, upgrading, and

manufacturing of the resource concerned, the employment base,

world competitive factors, and so on. I called for a White

Paper on population growth in British Columbia, its rate, the

probably location of people, what the government could do to

encourage settlements in less crowded areas. I called for a

White Paper on housing objectives, because we currently are in

the dark as to exactly where the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) thinks he should go.

As an assistance to Members of this Legislature, and for a general public dialogue

in British Columbia, I called for the formation of an economic council of British

Columbia which would be able to give us an annual report on the British Columbia

economy — an impartial annual report, into the piece of puffery which comes

out in connection with the budget every year — which could investigate resource

economics, the place of B.C. In Confederation — just what kind of a deal we

are getting out of Confederation and how we want to bargain for it — the impact

of tariffs in this province, the impact of foreign investment in this province,

agricultural economics and marketing boards, and so on.

Finally I suggested, and I hope the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) is listening, that it is imperative that this

government at this point start to release the data on the wage

settlements it is making with the public service as the largest

employer in British Columbia. The rumours are flying around

that some of those settlements are in excess of 40 per cent,

that the averages are running over 20 per cent with a COLA

clause stacked on top. It is right and proper that for the

information of this Legislature, in considering the budget, the

Provincial Secretary reveal those figures. He's not revealing

anything new to the components with whom he is still

bargaining. They know all these things. The only people who

don't know these things are the public concerned.

I'll say once again, Mr. Speaker, that under planning all of

these things has to be our concern for democratic institutions.

I hope that you might take some note of the suggestions I made

for the conduct of business in this House.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): It's a pleasure for me to

take my place in this throne debate. The Hon. Member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford), who sits beside me suggested that this would be

an ideal time for me to make a leadership speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: She pointed out that there were certainly enough

delegates here to warrant such a thing. However, my modesty

deters me, and I'm not going to do so. Instead, I would once

again like to speak on behalf of the constituency of

Vancouver-Burrard and deal with a subject which is most

important to the residents of that area at this time. That is

the subject of shelter — housing, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I would like to remind this House that 75 per

cent of the people living in that constituency are presently

tenants. They do not own their own homes and, in fact, the

percentage is increasing and has increased since 1972. For this

reason, therefore, I must confess that I was a little bit

dismayed by the statement of the Leader of the Official

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) which appeared in the December 4 issue

of the Sun , in which he said: "We should encourage people to

own a part of B.C. as a right that will make them responsible

citizens."

Was the hon. leader suggesting that because people are

tenants they're irresponsible and that in fact they are

second-class citizens?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): You said it. You

[ Page 197 ]

said it.

MS. BROWN: This statement was further compounded, Mr.

Speaker, by an additional statement by that same person which

was carried in the February 13 issue of the Sun , which said: "I

can't imagine anyone fighting or going to war when they don't

own land, when they are only a tenant in their own

country."

Of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of tenants in

this country have indeed fought not in one but in two or more

wars to protect this country, and a number of these veterans

are still tenants, many of whom reside in the constituency of

Burrard.

I think that statement of the leader of the official

opposition did a disservice to those veterans everywhere who

have gone to war and who have fought to protect this country

for him, as well as for all of us.

The other question which comes to mind, of course, is

whether he is anticipating another war. Is the leader of the

official opposition suggesting that soon there will be a war,

and that the only way of preparing for it is to ensure that

there are no tenants remaining in this land?

The fact of the matter is that tenants presently living in

Vancouver, and in the Burrard constituency, as everywhere, have

been victims of a very destructive process on the part of

unconscionable landlords in the past, and it was this fact that

forced the government to introduce

an Act to stabilize rents.

The Act was an attempt to protect the tenants who, in fact, are

quite defenceless and have no say and cannot influence in any

way what rents should be charged for their accommodation.

As you will agree, Mr. Speaker, shelter is not just a basic

right. It is much too important to the welfare of the

individual to be left in the hands of any one sector of the

community. It was this reason, therefore, that prompted me, at

the last session of this House, and again in this session, to

introduce a private Member's bill asking for collective

bargaining rights for tenants. Now as this bill is presently on

the order paper I cannot discuss it any further.

Another suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, and

he seems to be quite an authority on housing, is that the

housing shortage can be solved by massive construction of new

housing by private enterprise. I'm wondering whether that

private enterprise and the private interests to which that

Member was referring will cover, for example, companies like

Gemstar. Now Gemstar, Mr. Speaker, is a Belgium-controlled

conglomerate which owns a corporation based in Winnipeg, known

as BACM Industries, and this corporation has been in the

process of acquiring and hoarding land in and around the

Vancouver area.

Another company, which is Calgary based, is New West Development; and these

two corporations between them have been recently entering into the Vancouver

market and, through their subsidiaries, acquiring land and hoarding it in and

around the Vancouver area.

Then there is the Western Realty project, another

Calgary-based company. And, of course, I wouldn't like to leave

out our own B.C. companies such as Marathon Realty, Daon

Developments and Imperial Ventures. What these companies are

able to do, of course, is to maintain the artificial price on

land, making it so expensive that development, even by other

members of the private sector, becomes difficult. It is this

ability on the part of the private sector to create artificial

shortages and to play around with the value and the price of

land that contributes, more than anything else, to the shortage

that presently exists, and results in the ludicrous situation

of a market of surplus lumber, a market of surplus builders and

surplus carpenters; yet the cost of building homes is going up.

The cost of land is going up.

The profits of these companies are also going up: Block

Bros., 53 per cent in 1974 over 1973; Daon Developments,

profits 70 per cent in 1974 over 1973; New West, 125 per cent

in 1974 over 1973; Wall & Redekop, 160 per cent in 1974

over 1973.

I'd like to quote from an unpublished book by Donald

Gundstein, which says:

"To talk about a housing market is really stretching the

truth, for on one side may sit a gigantic, vertically

integrated development conglomerate, controlling all aspects of

building from land assembly to servicing and subdividing, from

construction to selling, with its legion of lawyers, tax

specialists, accountants, financial consultants, engineers and

technicians, figuring every conceivable way to squeeze every

last penny of profit from their product.

"On the other side is a young couple, barely able to make a

down-payment, with little knowledge about housing or

construction. It is hard to imagine this one-sided situation

producing anything like a fair transaction."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the opposition suggests that this is the

way to solve the shortage of houses and the housing crisis

presently in existence in the cities.

If we are really serious about the crisis, we should first

of all identify for whom the crisis exists. The February 15

issue of the Financial Post carries on its front page an

article stating that this was a buyers' market for housing. It

went on to elaborate that there were a number of houses

presently waiting to be sold. What this indicates, and what we

have always known, is that there has never been a housing

crisis for the rich or the near-rich.

We also know that the private sector is not

[ Page 198 ]

interested in social housing. It is not interested in

supplying housing to people on fixed incomes, to senior

citizens, to the working poor, or even to those people who, for

all intents and purposes, are considered to have an adequate

income. Therefore, the supply of social housing has to be the

responsibility of government. Housing is too vital a need;

people cannot be left without adequate shelter.

The first way in which we can do this, Mr. Speaker, is to

look at the whole business of the cost of money and the cost of

mortgages. This government has to involve itself in a

meaningful and massive way in the mortgage market.

I was very pleased to see the Lieutenant-Governor mention in

his Speech from the Throne that we are going to participate in

the development of a financial institution which would be

responsive to the needs of the people and would be for the

people of this province. It is my hope that the first priority

of this institution would be mortgages and that this

institution would see itself as a tool through which it would

become possible for people on average incomes or even on fixed

incomes to secure mortgages at a very low rate of interest.

The B.C. credit union, on a very limited scale through its

CUPAC programme (CUPAC Services Ltd.), has already moved into

this field. They should not be expected to do it all on their

own; it is much too large a field for the credit union to

handle.

The other area with which this government must concern

itself is the encouragement of the development of non-profit

cooperative housing. I'm not here speaking about new housing;

I'm speaking about existing housing. There are many older

apartment blocks and many older multiple dwellings which are

presently coming onto the market. The owners of those buildings

have decided that it's no longer possible to make the large and

unconscionable profits that they used to make, so they have put

them up for sale.

I feel that it should be one of the priorities of this

government to encourage the tenants presently living in those

apartment blocks and multiple dwellings to come together and

form non-profit cooperatives to purchase those buildings for

themselves. If necessary, we should be prepared to give them

seed money so that they can afford the down-payment. If

necessary, we should be prepared to give them the advice and to

help them in every way to secure low-interest mortgages and to

encourage them to do the financing for themselves. This would

not be creating any new housing, but it would give some

security to the people presently living there. It would

stabilize the community.

I think that as a government we are doing an excellent job

in terms of our second-mortgage programme. I think we are doing

an excellent job in terms of helping people to purchase their

first home.

But this is another area and it is one that would encourage

people to continue living where they seem to want to live and

where they are enjoying their living.

Many of these houses and many of these older blocks, when

they are sold, are torn down. Then they are replaced with

condominiums and high-priced units — in the Kitsilano area

ranging from $70,000 to $110,000. People who are presently

paying rents between $175 and $200 a month have to move out of

the area and they cannot afford to move into these new units

which replace the units in which they were previously

sheltered.

In addition, I think we should continue our dialogue with

the municipalities to encourage them to take a more active

part

in using some of the programmes which are presently at their

disposal. There is far more that they could do in terms of the

duplexing programme, for example.

They could improve their zoning and their building codes to

make it easier for people to take advantage of this excellent

programme, which, in fact, would secure a lot of new housing

and increase density without over-increasing it in many of

these areas.

Like the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), the

Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), and in line

with the very moving statement of the Minister of Economic

Development (Mr. Lauk), which he made last night, 1, too, would

like to say a word or two about International Women's Year.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you

on the steps that you have taken to celebrate this year. I am

referring, of course, to the complement of women recently hired

by your office to be Sergeant-at-Arms staff. I would like to

assure you that, knowing how deeply you respect tradition, we

realize that it must have been very hard for you to break the

tradition which has maintained that Sergeant-at-Arms staff in

this chamber should be male. So I would like to say again how

pleased we are that you have set the tone for this year. I'd

like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very gratified to hear the Lieutenant-Governor mention

that legislation would be introduced this year to eliminate

discriminatory practices applicable to women. I am glad that

this government has decided not to treat International Women's

Year in the way in which the federal government has; that we

are not going to be treated to a round of conferences, a round

of newspaper, radio and television ads asking us, "Why not?";

that the money which is available is going to go into genuine

programmes, as the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)

outlined yesterday; that the funds will be given directly to

grassroots groups to be used in developing programmes which

they identify as being of real need to the community of women

[ Page 199 ]

this province.

I am glad that the provincial government has not taken the

attitude which the federal government has demonstrated through

its ads, namely that it is women's own fault that they are not

equal today. I'm glad that the provincial government recognizes

that there are some basic legislative, as well as institutional

and social, reasons for the inequalities which presently

exist.

It is my hope that this year will see an end to a lot of the

annoying little pieces of legislation which really just serve

to irritate us because they are so senseless. I am referring to

an Act on which I have spoken on many occasions, the Change of

Name Act. It's a silly little piece of legislation, yet we seem

to be having the most difficult time getting rid of it. I hope

that this year the department responsible for this piece of

legislation will finally get it together and see to it that it

is amended.

If a person, be she married or single, should decide that

she wants to change her name, why should she be prevented from

doing so once it can be demonstrated that her reasons for

wanting to do so are not criminal ones? This Act is an insult

to all married women in this province, and I hope that before

this year is out we will see it amended.

It is also my hope that this year will see implemented in

this province a real programme dealing with the early detection

of breast cancer. B.C. has the highest incidence of breast

cancer in North America. The figures vary from one in seven, to

one in 11, to one in 15 — I don't know which one is accurate.

This is not just a simple little illness, Mr. Speaker; 60 per

cent of the people who have this disease die from it within

five years.

Now there's a lot of controversy swirling around as to just

what is the best way of treating it, whether we should have

mastectomies, whether we should use chemotherapy, whether we

should change our diet — what we should do. The one thing about

which there is absolutely no controversy is that early

detection is the best way of getting rid of this cancer, that

the sooner it can be identified, the better the chance a women

has of being able to beat it. Early detection can cut the

mortality rate, we have been told, down to as low as 10 per

cent.

It is going to cost money — there is no question about it. I

am not going to say whether it calls for large sums of money or

little sums of money, because you do not place a dollar sign on

people's lives, Mr. Speaker, and life is what we are talking

about.

We do not have a programme — no, I'm sorry, that was a

misstatement: the early detection programme has not been

implemented — it's still being discussed.

In our inaction in this matter, what happens is that every day there are more

and more women in this province who are developing cancer of the breast, who

are not aware of it. I think we have a moral responsibility regardless of what

we may think about women and about their usefulness to this society at large.

We have a moral responsibility to invest in this early detection system to at

least give them a fighting chance in dealing with this killer.

It is my hope that this year will see some legislation

introduced that will build some real income security into the

lives of those women who remain at home. Most of the women in

this province are not in the work force; they are at home.

All of the women in this province who marry, at one time or

another, if they decide to have families, are at home for a

period of time. Presently there is no income support protection

for them, and if, by chance, through death or desertion or

abandonment, or whatever, they should be deprived of the income

of their spouse, they have no alternative but to turn to the

welfare services.

We extol the virtues of motherhood. We write poems and songs

about it, yet we penalize the women who choose to spend their

lives doing the very things that we maintain are the highest

possible calling that they have in life. Whether it be through

ICBC, whether it be through this new financial institution that

the Lieutenant-Governor mentioned, or through some other

source, let us hope that this is the year that some kind of

income support legislation is introduced so that for a period

of time, even a short period of time, when the spouse in the

home finds herself deprived of all income, there will be a sum

of money to help her re-educate, retrain, or in some way

revitalize herself so that she can go on to become independent

and self-sufficient once again.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is the year when we

will take a serious look at the women between the ages of 50

and 60 and 65. In transition houses all around this province,

in women's centres, in status-for-women offices, at information

centres, women in this particular age group are turning up.

Their children have left home. Their husbands for one reason or

another have left them or have died, or whatever, and they are

ready to re-enter the labour force — or they may not be ready

to re-enter the labour force. The only thing we know for sure

is that at age 50 they find themselves with nothing, and they

turn up asking for help, for counselling, for guidance, for

retraining, or whatever, and the only thing we know is that

there is no other resource in the community for that particular

group of women.

These women are our mothers, Mr. Speaker, and your mothers.

We can identify them; now we need to identify their needs, and

I think that this is the year that we should seriously start

doing that through the Department of Human Resources, through

the Department of Education, and certainly through the

Department of Health, because their health is also an area of

major concern. This is the period when all illnesses, real or

imagined, start surfacing and when

[ Page 200 ]

large sums of money are put out for drugs and medical care

and for intermediate care, and for other kinds of

treatment.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is the year when we

will develop some kind of service for immigrant women. In our

community in Vancouver and throughout this province we have

large groups of immigrant women who have no resources to help

them with their language problems, their legal problems, With

integrating into the community, with making cultural and

employment adjustments, or whatever.

The immigrant woman is in a double bind. I don't want to

focus primarily on her because I recognize that it's the whole

immigrant family that's in a bind. Usually the immigrant man is

allowed into the country because he has certain skills; he has

a profession. When he comes here he finds that our licensing

laws demand that he study for two more years, or that he trains

for three more years, before he can work at his profession. So

he has to take a low-paying job and she has to deal with

poverty.

She finds her children in schools where they can't handle

herself unable to deal with the language. And the whole family

is in crisis. But these women in particular are surfacing;

their needs are surfacing as a real force throughout the

community. It is time that some kind of service on her behalf,

preferably developed by her, should be encouraged by this

government.

Once the transition has been successfully made, it has been

demonstrated that these women make a major and positive

contribution to the country and to the community. So it is in

the province's best interest to assist them in making this

transition as quickly and smoothly as possible.

It is my hope that this is the year when the apprenticeship

programmes of this province, through the Department of Labour,

will really start opening themselves up and addressing

themselves to the needs of single parents, to the needs of

women who have to make it on their own. There are many areas in

which women are willing to work, are capable of working, but

they need apprenticeship training. The apprenticeship training

area is a tough nut to crack, and the only people who can crack

it are the government. So I hope that this year we will finally

do that, thus allowing more and more women to benefit from

these excellent programmes sponsored by the Department of

Labour and the Department of Education.

This is the year, Mr. Speaker, when I hope that we are going to have a greatly

expanded child-care service for school-age children — what we refer to as the

latch-key programme — not just for children whose parents work. We have seen

that the latch-key programme is a good socialization experience for all children,

and they should be available to any child who wants to avail herself or himself

of it. It makes sense for working parents.

What we are fighting is a new phenomenon — the young

delinquents surfacing — because with children between the ages

of 9 and 10 and 15, sometimes their parents are students. This

problem is surfacing in the university areas, for example,

because their parents are at school and we haven't got this

kind of latch-key programme for these children; so they are at

home for extended periods of time by themselves. So it's the

children of students as well as the children of working parents

that we should address ourselves to.

As I mentioned earlier, housing is a major concern. It is an

extremely difficult thing still for single parents to secure

mortgage money if they want to purchase. Even if they have

excellent jobs they still have to have a signature. There are

still a number of mortgage companies demanding that they have a

signature of a male, any male. It doesn't even have to be a

relative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any old male?

MS. BROWN: Yes, just any old male.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we are finding that rental accommodation

for these people can still discriminate against their children.

I have a letter here, signed by the property administrator of

Victory Holdings, from the Chateau Magnifique Apartment, which

reads:

"We have noticed that some tenants have kept pets in

their suites. We hereby strongly advise that pets and children are not

allowed in this apartment building."

And this is still permitted, even with our new amended

Landlord and Tenant Act. This is a crucial area which we must

deal with this year.

This year, too, we have to come to grips with the fact that

women are still being ripped off by the pension schemes in

existence in this province and elsewhere. We have to introduce

legislation which absolutely prohibits this kind of

discrimination towards women in pension benefits which are

under our jurisdiction. I realize there are a number of pension

plans operating in this province over which we have no

jurisdiction, and I also realize that our own pension plan

administered through the civil servants has no discrimination

at all in it. It has all been cleaned up.

But there are a number of other pension plans that we do

have jurisdiction over that demand that women pay more and

benefit less, and that women contribute more and receive less

in benefits. In fact, what we are doing through our pension

plan is subsidizing the men of this province, and we are tired

of it. I hope that inequity will be ended this year.

This is the year, Mr. Speaker, when hopefully the

[ Page 201 ]

government will introduce legislation which will ensure that

domestics and agricultural workers are covered by the Minimum

Wage Act as well as by all other labour legislation in this

province. Now the Labour and Justice committee travelled and

listened to a lot of horrendous stories about what happens to

people who are not covered by our Payment of Wages Act, what

happens to people who are not covered by Workers' Compensation,

what happens to people who are not covered by the Minimum Wage

Act. All of these people are not women, but this is a year when

we can use the concept of International Women's Year to deal

with this, the struggles of the domestics and the agricultural

workers, and to cover them with our legislation.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that there will be any argument

from anyone if we point out that this province, compared with

the federal government and compared with other provinces, will

have been seen to move further than either of these two

jurisdictions in terms of trying to eliminate discrimination

that has always traditionally existed against women. Our human

rights legislation was one of the first pieces of legislation

introduced, and it is good legislation. True, the code needs

strengthening in some areas, but it is good legislation.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Programme, which was

introduced by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), is

good, and we are looking forward to seeing that programme work.

I think the appointment of Gene Errington to be responsible for

International Women's Year planning is excellent. I think the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) has got to be

lauded for introducing a

section 1n his department dealing

specifically with the economic developments of women. I think

one has to compliment the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea).

He's trying to get more women into his department.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): He sure is!

(Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: I think that the effort by the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) in terms of funding transition houses

and picking up the tab for so many women's centres around the

province, for expanding child-care services in the province, is

excellent, and he has to be lauded.

I think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the

excellent work that she is doing with the appointment of Riva

Dexter to look at the whole sex stereotyping in the schools and

in the textbooks is excellent, and she has to be lauded.

I think the work being done by the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) throughout this area has to be

lauded.

There is no question that many departments have been moving in the direction.

True it is a struggle and the struggle continues. But the Lieutenant-Governor

stated that there will be intensified departmental activities on behalf of women,

and I certainly look forward, and all of us look forward, to these intensified

activities in every department. This year gives us the opportunity and it gives

us the impetus to introduce some real legislation.

Let us pull all those Acts off the book. Let us look through

them — this is through the Attorney-General's department. Let

us pick up the discriminatory clauses and wipe them out. Let us

deal effectively with the whole concept of the equality of

spouses in marital unions. Let us deal with the division of

family property in a fair and equitable way. Let us have no

Murdock decisions being handed down in this province. Let us

not pretend either that this government is doing it just for

this year because, in fact, this government did not need

International Women's Year.

We started two years ago, very slowly and with halting

steps, but we started, and hopefully we will be gathering

momentum, which is more certainly than can be said of the

federal government with its long-promised debate on abortion

laws, for which we are still waiting; with its long-promised

federal human rights legislation, for which we are still

waiting; with its long-promised coverage of the pension plan

for housewives, for which we are still waiting — and waiting

and waiting. All we get in exchange are buttons asking us "Why

not?"

It is my hope that this is the year in which we will seek

out and identify the special needs of rural women, women in

isolated areas in the province — women on farms, women in the

north, the doubly disadvantaged women — and that we will

develop the programme, the policies and, if necessary, the

legislation to meet these special needs.

I have always believed and I still believe that the

quickest, most efficient and most competent way in which to

meet the many and varied needs of women in this province, the

quickest, the smoothest, and most reliable method of achieving

our stated goals of true equality between men and women, is by

instituting a department with full responsibility for achieving

those ends. A Minister of women's rights is the vehicle we

need. It is the vehicle that we must have if we are to ensure

that women realize their full potential in this century in this

province.

The final area of the Lieutenant-Governor's speech which I

would like to deal with applies to the statement by the

government: "We are prepared to share our good fortune in the

state of present world food shortages." I laud this statement

and look forward to some really meaningful way in which we are

going to do this. I have no idea how we're going to do it

because this information has not been shared with us at this

point. I'm hoping, however, that it

[ Page 202 ]

means more than just sending grain or just sending food to

these countries presently in the grip of famine. Everyone knows

how important it is to feed hungry people. But we also know

that it is much more important to help those people to be able

to feed themselves.

You know, as we do, Mr. Speaker, that we can keep sending

grain year in and year out. We can send our 28 million eggs

rather than let them rot. We can send our beef rather than have

it butchered and buried. But that is really not the secret of

those countries' need. They have enough land to grow their own

food, and they can grow their own food. But in fact what

they're using that land to do is to grow food to export to us

rather than for use for themselves. A lot of this land is being

used to grow coffee for export, is being used to grow sugar for

export, is being used to grow rubber — being used to grow

things that we in the western world need to keep us fat and

sassy while those people are going without.

Jeffrey Barclough, in his

article in the New York

Review of January 23, pointed out that we, the 6 per cent

of the world's population, consume 33.3 per cent of the world's

energy.

Lester Brown's

article was quoted by the Liberal Member last

night. He also pointed out that last year in the United States

they spent $3 billion — they paid people not to grow food. What

I would like to add is that in Canada, over that same period of

time, we took 4 million acres of wheat out of production and we

paid farmers $40 million to switch to forage.

The Swahilian region of Africa has thousands of acres

designated for agribusiness to produce raw materials for the

Western world, not food. We found that the production of food

has declined in those areas from 6,000 tons in 1967 down to

1,500 tons in 1973.

There are two myths which we have to deal with: one is that

the food shortage is a direct result of over-population; the

other is that there is an overall shortage of food. Neither of

these is true.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

As Mr. Brown pointed out: "The problem is in the inequity of

distribution. Hunger is caused by plunder, not by

scarcity."

I certainly hope that in our plan for dealing with the

hunger of the hungry nations of the world we will address

ourselves to the plunder, that we will not try to treat this

tumour of the brain with an aspirin.

We can send food, but we must do more than that. We have to talk about how

we readjust our demands on the food market, how we cut down our consumption,

how we can justify four to seven pounds of cereal going into the production

of one pound of meat just because we like grain-fed beef better than we like

grass-fed beef. How can we accept the fact that last year 140 million tons of

grain were consumed in North America by cattle, by sheep, by pigs and by poultry

while people are going hungry?

Let us use this opportunity to look at our consumption, to

examine why we need so much of the world's production, and to

see if somehow we can become more responsible in our eating

habits which, incidentally, are not more nutritious, are not

even wiser. We are dropping dead all over the place from high

cholesterol and from bad hearts. We are so rational that we

live in a society in which it is cheaper to buy beer than it is

to buy milk. That is the kind of stupid thing we are doing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Milk is a better buy.

MS. BROWN: It's a better buy, but it is still cheaper to buy

beer.

Now if we can deal with this, if we can deal with the whole

concept of multinational agribusiness and what they are doing

in these developing countries, if we can get these countries

back to producing their own food, then we would be doing them a

much greater service than by continuing to send them the

one-third of 1 per cent of the surplus food, which we are

presently doing.

We have got to get at the reason; we have got to know the

causes for the shortage, for the hunger and the starvation.

That is what we have to address ourselves to. That is certainly

what I hope my government means when it says that through new

proposed legislation we are going to share our good fortunes

with those parts of the world which are suffering from food

shortages.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it has

been a pleasure speaking in support of the

Lieutenant-Governor's speech. It is a speech which has outlined

services to people and the continued dedication of this

government to the people of this province. Thank you, and a

very happy International Women's Year to you.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): It's a pleasure

to take my place in the debate on the Speech from the Throne

today. Before making a few comments as a Member of the official

opposition, I would like to echo earlier tributes which have

been paid to the late Ned DeBeck, who served this chamber and

this province for so many years. I imagine that all of us, from

the longest-serving Members of this House to the new MLAs who

came here in the fall of 1972, will have our own individual

memories of his quiet dignity, his warmth and his good humour,

as well as his dedication to the legislative process. Indeed,

as others have said, this House is the poorer as a result of

his death.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in preparation for today and as

[ Page 203 ]

a result of the fact that at least one Member of the cabinet

enjoys reminding me about earlier speeches, I decided to have a

look at some of my earlier speeches. I don't propose to read

many of them, but I have some comments I made when I first

joined this 30th parliament of the British Columbia Legislature

in the fall of 1972. These comments from Hansard on

October 19, 1972, seem to me to be even more valid today than

they were at that time, some 28 months ago. There are some four

paragraphs and they are brief:

It is tragically ironic in my view that many of those persons

who enthusiastically turned away from the previous government to support socialism

for this interim period are now the first to be disillusioned and feel most

keenly the results of out-of-control inflation and the spectre of increased

unemployment.

Quoting again from October of that year:

In conclusion, may I express my concern for the future, concerns

which have arisen from the contents of the throne speech (of that year) and

the contents of interviews given and policy statements made and answers given

to questions by the press. First, taxation. I am concerned there will be an

even greater tax burden on the people of this province by this new government

— a burden which will stifle initiative and cause very real difficulties among

those persons that this government states it wants to help.

Secondly, fiscal responsibility. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker,

that there is a lack of financial understanding on the part of key Members of

this government and an inability to set priorities and think them through carefully

and with caution — again before bringing them to this House.

Thirdly, growth of government. We are concerned, Mr. Speaker,

that we shall be exposed in British Columbia to an unnecessary expansion of

the bureaucracy, preventing the ordinary citizen from ready access to his elected

representatives.

Fourthly, and finally, responsibility of government. We are concerned

that the Ministers of the Crown do not yet fully appreciate the heavy responsibility

of government which has been placed upon them — the responsibility which at

times places a restricting obstacle on their desire to make pronouncements on

the future direction of this province. I congratulate the government (as I did

at that time), but I urge the government in these critical weeks and months

to be careful, to be cautious.

October of 1972.

And so you will see, Mr. Speaker — the caustic comments of

the Premier and some of his cabinet and back bench

notwithstanding — that my basic opposition to this government

and to its attempt to drastically alter the lifestyle and

economy of this province remains unchanged.

Now as a relatively new member of the British Columbia Social Credit Party,

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the House and the people of the province that

I have not been alone in making a major decision regarding political affiliation.

It's taking place all over British Columbia as this party gathers support from

former Conservatives, former liberals, from those who had no political affiliation

and, indeed, from a number of people who enthusiastically supported the NDP

at one time.

What frightens this government and the party in power at the

present time is that they know this. They also know very well

that these individuals all over British Columbia are bringing

new ideas, revitalization and an enthusiasm which was

admittedly and obviously flagging in the last years of the

former government.

This is now 1975; it is no longer August, 1972, and these

citizens say, as I say, this government has been tested. It has

been tested in British Columbia in its capability to manage the

affairs of this province, and it has been found — with one or

two notable exceptions — to be not what the majority of people

wanted, expected or deserved. That is why I am here, Mr.

Speaker.

Now we have in 1975 a new Speech from the Throne. Clearly,

as I indicated in 1972, there is very widespread concern, even

greater reason for concern, about unemployment, the philosophy

which appears to guide this government, disillusionment on the

part of many citizens, an incredible lack of fiscal

responsibility and the responsibility which comes with

government.

Two areas of provincial government's activity which are of

particular concern to me, namely education and municipal

affairs, as you will note, Mr. Speaker, received briefest

possible mention in the speech this year. You'll note that

there were, being very generous, about 2 1/2 lines in the short

section on housing, urban and municipal affairs which touched

on local government. The specific reference was to the Sewerage

Facilities Financial Assistance Act, and I acknowledge that

this is a good programme. However, a great deal more should

have been said about the staggering increase in local

government costs.

It's very clear to us, and to many people in British

Columbia, that the present government has no well-thought-out,

carefully prepared and, most importantly, effective formula to

help municipalities as the dollar crunch becomes even

tighter.

In education — and I'm sorry the Minister responsible for

education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has left the House at this time —

a mere six or seven lines of type for this vital and extremely

expensive department of government — the largest single item in

public spending at the provincial level, traditionally. Six,

seven, at the most eight pathetic lines for education, with an

extremely brief passing reference to the question of

pupil-teacher ratio, about which

[ Page 204 ]

we've heard so much in the past.

Well, Mr. Speaker, borrowing from another Member of this

House — not presenting my own budget, because that would be out

of order — what the Speech from the Throne for 1975 should have

said on the subject of education is something along these

lines: the government now recognizes and admits that it has

failed miserably in the complex and demanding operation of our

educational system. The Department of Education is in need of

being declared a disaster area. Further, the government

recognizes and admits that the Minister of Education, a

pleasant person and well-intentioned, has nonetheless proven to

be a disappointment, a disappointment in virtually everything

she has attempted associated with her portfolio. This is the

Minister who had all the easy answers and solutions for our

education ills prior to the summer of 1972. Her performance

since that time has been less than sparkling and innovative. As

a result we now have a situation where there is this widespread

disappointment, where there is anger and frustration on the

part of many individuals involved in educational matters in

B.C. — parents, teachers, school trustees, education

administrators, university personnel and the public at

large.

The throne speech, therefore, Mr. Speaker, should have gone

on to admit the failure I have outlined for you and to announce

that this Minister is resigning her portfolio forthwith in the

best interest of that which she has espoused in her years in

the House — the educational system of British Columbia.

It is to be regretted that this is a government of broken

promises in education. The single most disturbing aspect, I

feel, relates to the removal of education costs from property

tax. That, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as one who's been

interested for a long time in the affairs of British Columbia,

was one of the the most important planks in the platform of the NDP in the

summer of 1972, stated very clearly by the Minister in this

House a few months earlier when she was in opposition.

One short paragraph from Hansard for March 13, 1972,

page 775 — since we enjoy being reminded of speeches. The

opposition critic for education at that time said in part, and

without interfering with the context:

We in our party advocate the removal of property taxation for school purposes,

even if the Minister doesn't. It's quite obvious with the type of legislation

he's bringing in that the average taxpayer who finds his tax bill increasing

every year because of lack of aid from this government in other areas in the

municipality in services which they must put in, it's quite obvious that the

taxpayer is not going to support any increased taxation for schools. It's a

natural reaction and the Minister must be aware of this. It's his responsibility

to provide the money for a proper education, and our party firmly believes that

property taxation must be removed when it comes to educational services.

March of 1972, Perhaps a few other reminders will be of

assistance to the Members of the government today — this one

from a Canadian Press story carried in the Victoria

Times on September 10, 1973. This is a full year after the

NDP formed its government. I'll read just the first paragraph.

I think that is all that is necessary. It's a CP story

datelined Coquitlam, the headline: "School Tax To Go Within

Five Years."

"Premier Dave Barrett said Sunday 'school tax will be

completely removed from land by spring and from homes within

five years.' "

September 10, 1973: five years; that was the timetable in

that month of 1973, as announced, not by the Minister of

Education in opposition, but announced by the Premier and

Minister of Finance of the present government.

This same five-year goal was referred to by the present

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who is also

not in the House at the moment. This is one year earlier.

That's according to a feature interview which appeared in the

Victoria Daily Colonist on Sunday, October 8, 1972. The

government, as you will recall, had been in office for just a

few weeks.

"In addition to thato municipalities will be able to finance a lot of projects themselves because we will

remove school tax from residential and farmland. Removal of the

school tax from residential and farmland, he (the present

Minister of Municipal Affairs) says, will be accomplished over

a period of five years. Revenue lost from that source will be

paid by the provincial government out of the income tax revenue

and this will give municipalities the much needed additional

revenue to cope with things that had to be ignored until now."

Five years again, Mr. Speaker.

From The Province , August 17, 1972, another example

of this promise. It's a brief story headed: "Education Tax

Pledge" — it refers to the present Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. D. Stupich) as he was seeking election in the

constituency of Nanaimo. It quotes him as saying, Wednesday,

that his party is committed to removing the education tax from

property within five years of taking office. This individual

told a gathering of Gabriola Island residents earlier in the

day: "The NDP would remove the property tax share of education

financing at the rate of $30 million a year." He said: "The

property tax share of education financing is between $125

million and $175 million a year. The final part of the story:

"B.C. Is rich enough to eliminate this cost on a gradual

basis."

What has happened to those confident promises of 1972 and

1973? Well ' in my view, it is readily apparent that the NDP

has finally come to a

[ Page 205 ]

realization of the hard facts of financial life — the hard

facts of life in government. Because what appeared so easy to

advocate in opposition, and even during the first 12 months of

this government's term, is now recognized and admitted to be an

extremely expensive and apparently, under this government, a

virtually unattainable goal.

When combined with increased costs of general local

government, the higher education tax bill facing property

owners in the province for this year can only be described as a

staggering blow to owners and tenants alike, because they do

pay property tax through their rent, as we know. It will be a

source of the most tremendous disappointment to those who were

led to believe that in the area of taxation this government

actually meant what it said, but such is not the case.

I could quote examples from a number of school boards which

have supplied me with information on request with regard to the

likely increase in the education tax bill on property. The

education tax bill alone in Vancouver could be, at the minimum,

$63 to $65 on an average, ordinary, single-family dwelling. In

Victoria, several dollars more.

I emphasize that this, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of education

alone. It has nothing whatever to do with the increases now

facing municipal councils and regional districts for the

provision of services for which they are responsible.

I realize that it's dangerous to make predictions. But as we

come down to the wire in this debate in preparation for the

budget speech on Friday, I'm prepared to make a couple of

predictions.

Recognizing that school and local property taxes are heading

into the stratosphere for 1975, the Minister of Finance will

announce a significant increase in the homeowner grant and/or

the resource grant and probably a very small increase in the

per capita grant to municipalities. He'll announce the

increases with great pride.

But some months later, when all the local government and

school costs and the costs- to property, to owners and to

tenants are finally computed at the municipal and regional

district level, there will still be a very dramatic shortfall

between this transfer of provincial revenue and the amount

required to finance municipalities and school districts out of

the property tax.

We've had a problem for decades in British Columbia

concerning the cost of operating municipalities and school

boards, but, in the colloquial, we ain't seen nothing yet.

Getting back to the pupil-teacher ratio again, there is a

general feeling of disappointment and confusion. One quick

example from School District 68 in Nanaimo. In 1974, in

compliance with the request or instruction to reduce the

pupil-teacher ratio by 1.5 per cent, the Nanaimo school

district added

Approximately $300,000 to its annual budget — $300,000 in a relatively small

school district. The province made a grant to cover that cost. But what is important

and significant and what has to be realized is that the district concerned hired

additional teachers. You don't hire teachers in a short term, only to turf them

out because there is no money in the following fiscal year.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): One can accept

criticism when it's justified, but when a Member makes a

completely inaccurate statement I do ask it to be

corrected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Minister rises on a

point of order. She's entitled to correct a statement that was

attributed to her.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: All right, I'll leave it to the end of the

speech. As a matter of fact, I'll leave it until I have my

opportunity on the floor, okay?

MR. CURTIS: We have been told on several occasions that the

present Minister of Education will have quite a bit to tell us

when she participates in the budget debate, and that's fair

enough.

I make the point again, however, that school districts

following the instruction or request of the Department of

Education did hire the teachers necessary to reduce the PTR

(pupil-teacher ratio). As we sit today, they wonder precisely

where the money is coming from in the next fiscal year, in the

next school year. If the Minister can reassure us when she

rises to participate in one of the debates, then I'm sure that

will be very welcome news indeed.

I was interested in receiving today a copy of her press

release which was given to a number of teachers' organizations

that visited the city today. It says in part:

"'However, it is neither reasonable nor rational to expect

a continuation of the programme'" — the PTR — "'when rampant

inflation is coupled with the worst recession in years.

"'I think any reasonable person will agree that in the

short period of time this government has been in office we have

done everything we possibly could to improve education in the

province by way of financial assistance to all levels of

education, observing that other segments of our society — the

sick, the aged and the poor — also have legitimate claims on

our fiscal resources.'"

I must ask then about priorities. What about the Casa Loma

priority, the Can-Cel priority, the shares in Westcoast

Transmission? Is that a priority? The shares in British

Columbia Telephone — is that a priority to come ahead of

education? Plateau Mills —

[ Page 206 ]

is that a priority ahead of education? The loan from the

Arabs which was probably made at one point over what could have

been received in Canada or the United States market at about

the same time. Is that a priority over education? What about

the $30,000 cabinet table? Does that take precedence over

education in British Columbia?

MR. PHILLIPS: It sleeps three.

MR. CURTIS: The statement goes on:

"Mrs. Dailly said that in the meeting with the teachers she reiterated the statement on budgeting made

in Prince George on January 25 because her remarks have been

grossly misinterpreted and have led some people to believe that

the government intends to curtail educational expenditure."

Quoting the Minister in her own release: "The very opposite

is true...I have already announced that the government grants

to school districts will be higher than ever before." With

inflation, they will have to be higher than ever before. But

will they meet the shortfall?

If the remarks from Prince George were grossly

misinterpreted then they were misinterpreted by many very

careful, intelligent and well-informed individuals in education

and outside of education.

I think that the Minister will have to be extremely careful

in her remarks to this House and to the people of British

Columbia as she attempts to straighten out the confusion. The

confusion is not with the people of B.C.; I suggest the

confusion is with the Minister of Education.

There is another area of government responsibility which I

feel merits a few moments today, and that is the relationship

between the Department of Municipal Affairs and other

provincial departments or agencies now operating in B.C. I

continue to have very real misgivings, as I've said before in

this House, about the attitude of the NDP as a party toward

local government, and I include municipalities and regional

districts.

I wonder if we could pose the following questions: how effective is the present

Minister in cabinet discussions relating to local government? What roadblocks

does he encounter when he advances a particular position which is of direct

concern to municipalities in the province? How often is his department, or are

his senior staff people, short-circuited, or perhaps even excluded, when policy

discussions are taking place which will have a major impact on our cities, our

districts, towns and villages? It is necessary to ask, I think, and to continue

to ask, that with his background as a former planner in this province, what

degree of direct involvement does the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) have in matters which have been clearly, over the years,

properly within the jurisdiction of the Department of Municipal Affairs.

There is one very — the Minister of typefaces, yes, the

Minister of typewriters — interesting comparison which can be

made to support the validity of this concern. Quoting briefly

from an address by the present Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to the Union of B.C. Municipalities'

convention in Prince George, September, 1973, we read this: "I

believe the government legislation in municipal matters is an

indication that we wish, and are prepared to give, more

flexibility to local governments."

That's one side of the story. However, in a letter from the

Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, over the

signature of the director, A.D. Crerar, and addressed to the

then Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Prettie, this November 23,

1973, we read the following. To explain the context to you, Mr.

Speaker, it deals with proper natural resource management, the

Land Commission, and the secretariat. The key sentence, and one

which should be carefully heard by every municipal council, by

every mayor, alderman and regional district director, and by

the people who look to those individuals to serve them in

elected office, is this: "Needless to say, my own personal view

is that these matters are too important to be left to purely

local decision-making." A very real conflict of opinion between

how one Minister views local government and the view expressed

by a well-paid, senior official of the ELUC.

So we have to ask: what about other departments and agencies

and their contact and consultation with Municipal Affairs —

Housing, the Land Commission, the Attorney-General's department

with regard to a number of matters, including, as the Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) outlined yesterday, the Surrey

refinery? Is. that consultation? Is that full and frank

discussion with local government? Obviously, it is not. It

isn't open government. It is shut tight.

I think that it is time the UBCM came to a full realization

of this conflict of opinion within the provincial government.

If the UBCM is to effectively serve the principle of local

government, if it is to advance the interests of residents at

the municipal and regional district level, the level so often

referred to as that closest to the people, then the UBCM must

view some of this government's actions with very real doubts.

While, admittedly, they have polite and friendly interviews

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and while he's readily

accessible, that's one thing; but what is taking place in other

parts of the legislative buildings? What other decisions are

being made which are not available to senior people in the

Municipal Affairs department, or perhaps even to the Minister

himself?

I would like to advance one proposition: when it

[ Page

207 ]

forms a new government in this province, I'm going to urge

the British Columbia Social Credit Party to establish the

highest possible level of cooperation consultation and close

liaison with all units of local government — free and frank

discussion — as well as with other agencies and departments.

We've had degrees of cooperation rising and falling in the

recent and distant past, but I believe that it has rarely

reached the ideal.

Unpleasant as it may be for those Members of the cabinet who

serve as directors of B.C. Hydro, I must also refer today to

one constituency matter. That is the widespread interruption of

electric power which occurred over a very large part of the

Saanich Peninsula on the evening of February 11 and lasted

until very late the following morning — almost noon, in fact.

"Outrage" is the word I've heard used most frequently in

connection with the power disruption which started,

understandably and naturally enough, with a large tree falling

across power lines in the area of West Saanich Road.

At the very least, some 20,000 peninsula residents waited

between 12 and 14 hours for their power to be restored through

a night which was, fortunately, not one of extreme cold. No

other single event in the constituency I represent in this

House has brought so many telephone calls and letters and

personal comments of protest. I can guess that the files of

B.C. Hydro here in Victoria and Vancouver carry many similar

objections to this unreasonably long and apparently unnecessary

major power interruption. In all, probably 5,000 individual

residential and business units were left without heat and

light. Because of the dependency in many cases on electric

pumps for water, they were left without water service,

including a number of elderly patients in the Saanich Peninsula

extended-care hospital on Mt. Newton Cross Road, Incidentally, it was due only to the efforts of the Canadian

Armed Forces base at Esquimalt that breakfast was served to

those patients, and to Glendale Hospital. Thanks to the lunch

which was served to those same patients that day, the patients

at least were able to receive two hot meals at the regular

time.

My purpose in raising this matter in the House is not, I

emphasize, to wildly condemn either B.C. Hydro or the union,

local 150 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers, but to point out to the Members, to plead with the

Members to realize that this case in point deserves the most

careful review by both parties.

The refusal of Hydro workers, which has been reported, to

turn out outside their working hours after the power

interruption is attributed directly to their negotiations with

Hydro. Now one resident took a much stronger position when he

wrote to the union, sending a copy, and saying:

"People do not care about the finer points of your disagreement

with B.C. Hydro. But they care very much that you could be a party to a situation

which forced people to spend the night in cold and darkness, with a deliberate

disregard for human life."

The resident went on in his letter to say:

"There is a great difference between reasonable bargaining

and childish extortion. The people of this district feel that

when Hydro executives and union leaders are accepting the pay

of responsible adults, then they should act accordingly."

In School District 63, which covers the peninsula, I have a

report from the administration office there regarding the power

failure: nine schools were closed the following day; 2,824

students unable to attend; 132 teachers not attending. The

school district administration office was unable to operate

until after lunch. Because of this power failure, 2,824

students lost a day of schooling. The board, in this time of

critical shortage of money for education, will pay out — the

taxpayer will pay out — in excess of $13,000 in salaries to

staff who wanted but were unable to perform their duties.

It was felt by the board that:

"If we had been notified at the time of the power failure,

we could have redirected teachers and some students to other

schools, and could have notified parents and teachers earlier

in order to reduce the confusion. As it was, the word didn't

come until about 6:30 the next morning when the custodians

reported that power in the respective schools was out." This is

admittedly a local issue, but it's one that I know will not be

forgotten by Saanich Peninsula people. I also think it is

indicative of a general malaise in our province today. There

has to be a better way to conduct the always-delicate

negotiation process between labour and management. This was not

a strike situation; it was the result of a breakdown in mutual

agreement between labour, and management to continue to provide

essential services while negotiations are in progress. The

people who pay the bill, who depend on continued electrical

service, who expect it and are entitled to it, except in a time

of major disaster, should receive far better treatment than

20,000 or more citizens in my constituency received on the

night of February 11 and 12.

I've talked about feelings of anger and frustration and

outrage in British Columbia today. It's certainly not limited

to school boards, to teachers or to residents deprived of their

power supply. As far as I've been able to determine, it can be

easily identified in many parts of the province and with so

many of our citizens, even among a number who voted for that

party in 1972, because they now realize the full significance

of the harm which 21/2 years of this government has done to our

province. Other Members

[ Page 208 ]

of the House will be aware of the fact that it has to be

said that this government has not met the test. The government

has not met the test.

There are some citizens who say, in effect, that we don't

really object to the fact that you are socialists; it is your

general incompetence which troubles us the most. It's a fact

that you've introduced an exploded bureaucracy at tremendously

increased costs. It's a fact that you've introduced your task

forces, your consultants, your experts, your research teams,

your think tanks with little or nothing to think about. It's

the amount of money that you have been prepared to throw around

with little or no idea of where the money is going. It is the

harm which you have done to our province, to our people, to our

economy through mismanagement and through amateurism. And, Mr.

Speaker, that is the legacy of the NDP on the basis of its time

in office so far.

The Speech from the Throne may well have been longer this

year but it still told us very little about the problems in the

province today, 1975 — not August of 1972 or before, In those

areas where this government has fallen so badly short of the

mark, I think it is a poor document with which to start this

legislative session, and I cannot support it.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): First of all, I'd

like to pay my personal respects to the memory of two very

great worshipers of the parliamentary process: Mr. Ned DeBeck,

who will certainly be well-remembered for his very thoughtful

and never-ending contribution to the dignity of this chamber. I

think we can all recall his very fair-minded counsel and

assistance for any of those who sought it.

I'd also like to pay my respects to the memory of Senator

Arthur Laing, who had the continuing capacity to endure the

hurly-burly and thoughtlessness of political life without ever

questioning or demeaning the process itself. He was a very

great Canadian and he always strove and sought for the

betterment and improvement of all Canadians.

I'd like to extend my sincere sympathies to the families and

next of kin of these two very fine gentlemen.

The throne speech made somewhat scanty but prophetic

reference to election reform. It's conceivable that an election

is not too far around the corner. I was glad to notice His

Honour's reference to the word "rights" when referring to

electoral reform. He said:

In order to reform our electoral system and provide greater

opportunity for people to exercise their rights in a democracy, a new

Provincial Elections Act will be brought forward.

It's going to be very interesting to see what form this statute will take.

If it is to be detailment of expenses, I would say fine and dandy; open donors,

most satisfactory; more seats — personally, I think very few are needed. I think

that we're grossly over-governed not only in this province but in this country

as it now is. But where these seats are going to be is going to be extremely

interesting. Are they going to be established by an independent commission or

is it going to be a matter of governmental gerrymandering? We certainly hope

not the latter.

It's also going to be very noteworthy and interesting to see

what regard the government is going to have to the basic

concept that, under any democratic system, the vote of one

person should be equal to the vote of another. Under the

Canadian Bill of Rights, Canadian citizens are supposed to be

entitled to equality before the law. It says:

"It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there

have existed and shall continue to exist, without

discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour,

religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental

freedoms: namely, the right of the individual to equality

before the law and to protection of the law."

Well, one can readily see that a Provincial Elections Act is

a law. To this point there certainly has not been equality

under the law insofar as the equality of votes. We find that it

takes about seven times the vote of an individual in, say,

Vancouver East or in some of the more heavily congested ridings

to elect one individual that it w would, say, in Columbia

River. There would be a comparison, say, of about 22 to 1 with

the constituency of Atlin.

I think it could well be argued that the existing B.C.

elections Act is contrary to the Canadian Bill of Rights. It

would be a most interesting programme for the Attorney-General

to see if that could be tested in the courts. I don't know why

the voters in certain large ridings should have to find that

their representation is worth a 7th or a 22nd or a 15th or a

10th of voters in less congested ridings. All of these people

pay the same kind of taxes, if not more. They have the same

responsibilities and the same duties as other citizens. They

certainly should be entitled to the same rights of

representation.

The test in British Columbia should be one of fairness and

equality. One man equals one vote. The way it has been is not

that way. We've had a straight tilt insofar as the elections

Act is concerned. Let us hope that this is not going to

continue.

Another provision which I think should be in the new Act is

that, unless a government is defeated on the floor, there

should be fixed election dates. There is no need to saddle the

province with $3 million or $4 million or $5 million or $6

million worth of continuing expense every three years just to

satiate the political appetite of any one person, whoever he or

she may be.

Order on the ballot has always been a great

[ Page 209 ]

problem here. It always seems that the government candidates

are first on the ballot. That's a goofy situation. It should be

alphabetical or, perhaps even fairer, chosen by lot, I think that there should be a complete ban on unwarranted

departmental advertising once the election writ is issued. That

has been used to buck up the fortunes of backsliding Ministers.

I would suggest that, once the election writ is issued, there

should be a complete ban.

If any advertising follows the issuance of the election

writ, injunctive processes should be able to issue and the

Ministers concerned should be subject to public account and

personal lawsuits, and repayment to the Treasury of any amount

spent on such advertising. This so-called governmental

advertising, in which the real purpose is obviously for the

propagation of political office, is not only utterly unethical,

Mr. Speaker, but it should be made completely illegal.

The public, I think, should be given a much more in-depth

choice of both candidate and party. For far too long British

Columbia has been ruled by a minority, and the public should be

entitled to list their preferences of candidates, with an

overall majority of 51 per cent required to win. I say return

to the alternative voting system that was utilized in British

Columbia in 1952 and 1953, so B.C. would be able to have as its

legislators people who are more truly representative of the

wishes of the greatest number of our people. That, indeed,

would be a declaration of democracy.

There are very substantial policy differences and philosophy

differences in this province, Mr. Speaker. I would say that it

is not at all unfair, but completely democratic, to suggest

that the wishes of the majority of our people should be

paramount, and they should have a better opportunity to express

majority sentiments and make a majority choice than they have

at the present time.

Now this could well work to the disadvantage of some

political parties. It could well work to the disadvantage of

some of the current elected representatives, but it would

certainly better express the will of the people, and that's

what it's supposed to be all about. I tell you, if this ever

went to public plebiscite at the present time, the public's

response would be a resounding "yes" to this suggestion.

There has been a lot of discussion about integrity in this debate, Mr. Speaker,

and integrity should be a governmental quality, and never an issue. But when

integrity becomes a governmental issue, the process becomes demeaned and, I'd

say, irrespective of the outcome. When integrity is the issue and the executive

fails to act upon it, or acts adversely to it, indeed, the more the process

becomes demeaned. The resultant public reaction is one of disdain, not only,

unfortunately, for the legislators, but for the process itself, which is more

unfortunate.

A public laissez-faire develops a nihilistic attitude, a

response of: "So what? They're all the same!" It ends up just

being another kick in the withers to both the parliamentary and

the participatory concept of democracy. So many of the public

become fed up as a result, and they just don't care. They feel

cheated; they feel cheated, rightfully SO.

I'd say that the two greatest single questions in the minds

of the general public today are: are we getting value from our

government and our elected representatives? Are we getting

value from our civil servants? Secondly: are the programmes of

our government responsive in meeting the needs and desires of

our society as a whole?

Well, I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the answer to the

former question is far more apolitical than the answer to the

second one. The public's response to the former question, I

think, would be a resounding "no." They, indeed, question the

value they are getting from their elected representatives and

from their civil service, The public are quite prepared to

tolerate error, but they wish value. The outward activities of

government are on view. It is not a question of bi-weekly

newspaper accounts delivered three days later; programmes and

policies are subject to tri-media coverage with all sorts of

editorial content. But usually this is after the fact. That

which is aired is usually made available by those who are

inquiring having to go through the very few doors that are open

to them, The executive and the administrative are past masters

when it comes to establishing barriers and roadblocks in front

of those doors — motivated, I suppose, by political survivalist

on the one hand, and by feat or pride or shame or lack of

capacity, or a combination of all four, on the other.

Finding the facts today is a real cat-and-mouse situation,

and so the result is that the public encounters conflicts in

statements; they encounter a diversity in cost, a duplication

of services, increased expense, multiplication of taxes — move

direct levies and indirect. And all the time the public are

trying to survive through political stratagems that seem to be

calculated to divide, conquer and squander.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Yet the public still asks one question. They still

plaintively ask one question: are we getting value? Well, the

government, with all the facts at its disposal and all the

resources at its disposal, they always say yes. The opposition,

with the few facts at their disposal, they usually say no.

Neither are totally correct, and the public don't accept either

viewpoint 100 per cent.

Surely the job is to build into the government

[ Page 210 ]

process some proper, independent accountability mechanism —

someone to independently watchdog both the government and the

civil service — someone with the power and the ability to

report to the public about the excesses of either — I'd say a

body with complete responsibility to account, one with complete

freedom of access to record.

So if value is not received, if the piper doesn't play the

tune, then those who had imposed upon them the legal

responsibility to pay the piper will become entitled to know

about that. That's the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is entitled

to rights, too.

But has this ever been the genuine approach of governments

in this province? The answer has to be no. With a rather

calculated overstatement of the obvious, the Premier had a

great ranging discussion about what he has done here to bring

about more open government.

Well, there's no question that the present administration

did bring us up to 1803 by introducing a Hansard . If

they want the Order of the Dogwood for that, fine and dandy; we

can give it to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: They brought in an....

MR. SPEAKER: The administration didn't bring in

Hansard; the Speaker did.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, Mr. Speaker, you always like to have a

little credit.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want anyone to think that

Hansard has anything to do with the government.

Hansard has nothing to do with the government, as you

well know.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I would tend to think that if the

government hadn't wanted a Hansard , there might not be

one.

MR. SPEAKER: They might have stopped it, but they didn't.

(Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: They didn't want one?

MR. SPEAKER: I said they might have stopped it, but they

didn't.

MR. GARDOM: I hope this is on your time and not mine, Mr.

Speaker.

We see that the government seems to be in favour of an oral

question period. That's very good in concept but somewhat

farcical in practice.

We also see that the government has seen fit to appoint an opposition Member

as chairman of the public accounts committee.

But there's nothing startling or new in these three items

that I've been talking about; there's nothing innovative there.

They're hardly the greatest inventions since the wheel. They're

just following procedures that have been adopted and followed

in other areas for years and years and years — just bringing

the process into the present century. To say that this

constitutes governmental accountability is nothing more than

window-dressing.

We still do not find, Mr. Speaker — a point that you've made

quite often yourself, and most excellently, I may say, in

dealing with questions — the, situation of a Minister having to

answer questions, such as you found in your peregrination to

India in the Lok Sabha where there is a responsibility upon

Ministers of the Crown to answer questions. Indeed, that would

be a welcome procedure in this House.

But let us look at the conduct of the government in the last

session, which was the longest one in the history of our

province. It existed without a private Member's day, Mr.

Speaker.

The longest session in the province seemed- to carry on

without discussing 24 resolutions affecting matters and

problems as serious as marketing boards, the flooding of the

Skagit Valley — as another Member mentioned earlier today — the

opposition to nuclear weapons, development of the Victoria

harbour, the University Endowment Lands and the expansion of

studies of the Okanagan water basin.

The longest session of the year concluded with 82 unanswered

questions on the order paper, 15 of those dealing with

questions on the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and its

financial organization and 28 of those questions to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) — 43 in total. Those two Ministers were responsible

for not answering 43 out of 82 questions which died on the

order paper in the longest session in the history of this

province.

Some open government, Mr. Speaker, with question after

question taken as notice and subsequently ignored.

We ran into the blatantly preposterous situation in the last

session where the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) — whom I think is aptly misnamed — when he

was the head of ICBC, sat through his estimates, never

volunteering to this House any reasons as to why a difference

in opinion or philosophy between Mr. Bortnick, the head of

ICBC, and Mr. Adams, its administrative executive ' should

result in the resignation of Mr. Adams and by him being paid by

B.C. taxpayers for 18 months and receiving $50,000 of public

money without lifting a finger for it. We heard today that some

fellow was thrown off welfare because he spent his accident

settlement moneys in Acapulco. Well, I would gainsay that Mr.

Adams could get to Acapulco

[ Page 211 ]

20 times plus on his $50,000.

The curiosities, Mr. Speaker, are inevitable. What sort of

expensive philosophy is this of Mr. Bortnick's that the

taxpayer is saddled with? Why should the philosophical

interests of Mr. Bortnick have to be assuaged out of the public

purse of this province at such terrific expense? We have to

ask: how many more philosophical differences and at what cost

and what value has the public received from this type of thing?

Is it going to be the lifestyle of the province that

philosophical differences between administrative personnel are

to result in resignations that are going to be financed at such

terrific public expense? Are the public getting value out of

something like this?

In the fall of last year I drew to the attention of the

Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) that there were

terrifically serious problems in B.C. Rail. Estimates were

proving three times higher than people bid upon; we find

estimates of $5.2 million to do a job resulting in an estimate

of $20 million to complete.

I drew the attention of the Minister Without Portfolio to

the Minty report, which was scathing of the accounting

procedures and the audit procedures.

I asked him the question, Mr. Speaker, as to whether he's

prepared to order a judicial inquiry into the accounting and

estimating and bidding procedures of B.C. Rail, and he said the

matter was being considered. It was being considered and it was

being reviewed and I would like to ask: how was it considered;

how has it been reviewed; what is going on, and what, indeed,

has gone on?

We've got to look at the government's adventures into

business, Mr. Speaker, into the private sector. We find Hydro,

B.C. Rail, Can-Cel, Ocean Falls, Dehy Products, ICBC, Dunhill,

Plateau Mills, Panco, on and on. Yorkshire Trust — I suppose

that's going to be the next one to come down the line. Yet all

of these Crown endeavours seem to be exempted from the usual

safeguards that are offered the public and shareholders under

our B.C. Companies Act. Surely to goodness it's ludicrous to

suggest that there should be greater protections available

under the law in a $10,000 private company than for the

shareholders of these enormous public corporations, who are the

taxpayers. And the shareholders, Mr. Speaker: 70 per cent of

them are not and never ever will be socialists in this

province, make no mistake of that fact at all.

The advent of this government into the public sector has not

served to democratize the public corporations but has made them

more totalitarian and less accountable in the economic sense

if nothing else. Surely to goodness they should be under the

same rules of conduct and account that is called for by the

rest of the laws of the province.

MR. GIBSON: Stronger rules.

MR. GARDOM: Stronger rules, as my colleague from North

Vancouver states. The policies and the programmes, the expense

projections, the accounting procedures, the methods of letting

contracts, the capital projections and the income estimates of

these companies are never subject to proper public scrutiny.

The NDP hasn't lessened the problems of governmental

accountability, but they have compounded it. That's the big

difference between the socialist in power and the socialist out

of power. When he is out of power, he says: "Let the sunshine

in." Let the sunshine in until you get into power and then,

zot! Down comes the blind. These Crown corporations should be

forced to operate as all other government departments do in

that their budgets and expenditures and costs and estimates

should be before the public, openly declared, openly debated,

and subject to full public scrutiny. That's exactly what we

need.

Now if there were these safeguards, if there were

independent watchdogs, not only would the public have a better,

if not a proper, sense of security, but the more cautious the

executive and the civil service would be because they would

know....

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: Hey, fellas, do this in your own time.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: They would know that their mistakes, be they

deliberate or inadvertent, would be aired and they would be

able to better rationalize their actions because they would

know by law that they would be held to account. The public, Mr.

Speaker, would obviously receive better value and the public

interest would obviously be better served.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the longest and most expensive

lawsuit in the history of the province — it started way back in

1967 — ground to a halt in December following 396 days of court

hearing, and a decision resulted.