[ Page 243 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see you back in your chair. I understand you had a very severe bout with the flu and I wish to inform you that some of us missed you very, very much.

I find that there are certain disadvantages in being the first up in any debate and if you'll just permit me a few comments, I didn't have the opportunity during the Throne Debate to comment on the quality of the maiden speeches of the new members, and although we go through this ritual every Parliament about commenting on the maiden speeches, I want to say that in this particular time that I felt that the quality and the depth was excellent and appreciated. Also, some of the new members have brought a different kind of understanding in this House that I find most threatening. I don't think any one of them spoke over a half hour…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BARRETT: …and if that pattern continues it'll be tough on us old grey beards, but anyway I hope that during the Budget Debate that the quality will be maintained. Not that I agree with some of the ideas.

As a matter of fact I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear such reactionary comments from some of the members here in the 1970's, to hear philosophy and commitment that I thought long ago went out of style. I thought at least a millennium, ago, say in the 30's anyway, but I'll come to some of those comments later on.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity of seeing the Budget before the House sat. Apparently the Premier was going to send one up to my office but he forgot. He seems to forget every year that the Leader of the Opposition should get a Budget before the House gets it, but I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, after I read it I understood why he didn't send it up very early. There wasn't much in it anyway. You know, Mr. Speaker, and I'll tell you what, I'll give the Premier an advance copy of my speech now because he usually leaves early and I'll autograph it before he leaves…. But anyway, I'll give him an autographed copy of my speech in case he's going to leave early.

AN HON. MEMBER: With pictures, with pictures?

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't have any pictures, but I do have some excerpts and signed bits and pieces that I can photostat for him. I'll send out for a copy. I know that the Premier would like to take it as read, but I think that I'll have to go through with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Adopt it.

MR. BARRETT: Adopt it, yes.

It's a new task for me, and of course I've found it most interesting and most taxing. I completed most of my comments yesterday and I have had the benefit of advice of my colleagues this morning, and I want to say this, in terms of the Throne Speech and in terms of where we are in this House, Mr. Speaker, even though this group has been reduced to 12, the fantastic impact they've had in the last two weeks out of their participation in the House has been very, very good. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is a great fear abroad that this Government is out to destroy the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, they have taken the attitude that with 38 seats they can do anything they want.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. BARRETT: They have taken the attitude that democracy functions best when they've got all 55 seats, but I want to give you fair warning right now, we'll continue to carry our message to all of the people of British Columbia. The mail is flooding in to the Opposition offices and every single member of this group has done a great job here. Talk about teamwork, Mr. Speaker, it's never been more evident, when you have a tight knit group as we have over here, as to the disarray and trouble that they have over there, Mr. Speaker, trouble they have over there.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to watch the first moves in the leadership campaign of the Social Credit party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. BARRETT: The first moves were witnessed on the floor of this House when we saw the honourable the first member from Vancouver Centre trying to elevate his image. You recall how he came into the House in the past? He used to dive and zoom and whip around into little peccadillos of personality, but this time he only had one victim. Was it in the Liberals? Was it in the New Democratic party? Was it an official of the House? It was a Cabinet Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. BARRETT: And what do you think about that? Now, Mr. Speaker, the interesting picture begins to develop. The old warhorse is getting ready to pull into the stall. (Laughter) But the fires are still smouldering, the fires are still smouldering, and they can't wait until he gets into the stall and already the jockeying on the track begins. Who do we see emerging?  We see the first member from Vancouver Centre carving a place for himself right out of somebody else's back. And of all the Cabinet Ministers to do it to. What a terrible thing to pick on the Minister of Welfare. I thought that was our prerogative. I thought we had the exclusives in that territory, Mr. Speaker, but it seems there are other people that are picking on that little fellow.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's unfair competition.

MR. BARRETT: It's unfair competition — that's right. But I want to say that the fight is out in the open, the Minister of Welfare said he can take on any bull. Now I don't know if he was referring to the member or to his speech. But in any event, it was an interesting observation.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's financial policy is essentially simple. Budget for a surplus, underestimate the revenue, then invest the resulting surplus augmented by borrowing into B.C. Hydro and P.G.E. Bonds.

[ Page 244 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier's announced that he's going to allow the B.C. Hydro to borrow 250 more millions of dollars. Somebody asked, why are they borrowing that money? And a fellow replied, so they can stay out of debt. The taxpayer of British Columbia would have been better served if these surplus funds were directed towards investments in education, whose share of the Budget is dropped this year, public transportation, welfare, low cost housing, hospitals and other job producing construction areas.

This Government has committed itself, like the Egyptians of old, to monuments which are capital intensive rather than labour intensive. The major power projects won't employ that many people once they're completed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BARRETT: With the prospect of inflation causing a recession in North America, we see no direction from this Government towards stabilizing our economic base away from resource exploitation to resource development.

Then we had a repetition of the debt-free nonsense. The debt-free nonsense was continued in the Budget Speech while our debt is now well over two billion dollars, and a major factor contributing to this is the Columbia River fiasco, Mr. Speaker. The public is finally beginning to get the truth on the Columbia River deal. It is a classic example of the financial simplicity of the Premier.

In 1964 the Minister of Lands and Forests told the House that the Columbia Treaty would provide B.C. with some $274,000,000. This sum invested would reach $501,800,000 by 1973 when the dams were completed. The dams, said the Minister, would cost $447,000,000 and there would be a surplus of $53,000,000. The Premier assured us that this would mean all the power generated on the Mica Dam would be free. You will recall that famous statement. "Nothing is freer than free, my friends." Nothing is freer than free.

I want to tell you how much free is going to cost us, Mr. Speaker. The situation we're in now is that we have $88,000,000 left out of what the United States had advanced us on the Columbia Treaty, plus the flood benefits. The work remaining on the dam or Mica Creek — $131,000,000 based on the Government's 1964 estimate, the generators on Mica — $150,000,000, the transmission lines completed are $180,000,000, for a total of $461,000,000 to go before the job is completed so that we can have it free. There's $461,000,000 worth of construction with $88,000,000 in the kitty, leaving a deficit of $373,000,000 — $373,000,000 that must come out of the consumers of electricity in this Province to pay for the Columbia River Treaty which, the United States Secretary of the Interior admits to me in a letter, has met every single expectation of the United States corps of engineers, who described it as a great deal for the United States. I don't blame the Americans, Mr. Speaker. They have a different interpretation of free than we are getting — a different interpretation.

The figures I've used come from a document placed before the House by the Government on the 6th of February, 1964, the Premier's answer to an Order Paper question last Session, and a statement on the cost of generators and transmission lines by Dr. Shrum, reported in the Vancouver Sun within the last couple of months. These are the Government's figures, Mr. Speaker, and not ours.

In addition to the $373,000,000 deficit, there are hidden costs in the form of subsidies from general revenue. Public Accounts from '63 to '68/'69 sold various subsidies that totalled to $15,280,000. In 1969/1970 another $12,000,000 will be in those subsidies — Orders-in-Council No. 3390, 3693, 4150 of 1969 — a Hydro-Highway vote of $7,200,000. Bringing a grand total of shortage on the Columbia River deal to $419,000,000. The financial wizardry of this Premier has given us the opportunity to pay $419,000,000 for something that is free, Mr. Speaker. If you can figure that out, you're better than I am. $419,000,000 it's costing us to supply the United States with the power that their northwest is booming on.

These are the Government's own figures, Mr. Speaker, and I'm anxiously awaiting the Minister of Lands and Forests' explanation tomorrow of how a $419,000,000 deficit on that project turns out to be something free.

AN HON. MEMBER: It'll take awhile.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sure it will take awhile, but he'll come up with some answer. Who's going to pay for the extra cost, my friends? Every single citizen now alive in British Columbia and every citizen for the succeeding four or five generations will be burdened with a debt caused by this Government and its foolish policies on hydro.

As for the rate increase, Mr. Speaker, the rate increase plus the 10 per cent increase in the use of consumer power will bring in additional revenue of $43,500,000. A 15 per cent increase will generate new revenue plus an increase in new customers of $43,000,000 in one year. Of that $43,000,000, $6,000,000 only will go to meet the new wage demands and the new contracts in salaries. The other $37,000,000 is not a raise in hydro rates, it is a direct taxation on the people of British Columbia to help pay the interest charges on that fantastic debt. It is a tax disguised as a power rate increase and will bring our domestic power rates up to competing with the highest domestic power rates in North America.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I predicted that there would be a hydro rate increase, Dr. Shrum said, "Oh, no, no, we haven't discussed that." And I said that there was a secret minute and he denied that, and then when I produced the secret minute he said, "Oh, that secret minute."

One of the things that was also pointed out in those minutes, Mr. Speaker, was that the quality of safety would be diminished in efforts to cut down costs, Mr. Speaker, and the challenge that I threw to Dr. Shrum at that time has never been answered, that the planning of safety standards has actually been cut back. In that minute it states that planning should go into capital materials that are expected to last five years, rather than ten, 15 or 20 years, Mr. Speaker. If you think we have had a series of brown-outs in the lower mainland accidentally, Mr. Speaker, part of these brown-outs are laid to the feet of Hydro, which has made it a distinct policy now to buy inferior materials. It is Mickey-Mouse equipment to cut down costs and they have spelled it out in their own Hydro minutes.

Well, what it really boils down to, Mr. Speaker, is that we are $2,200,000,000 in debt. That is why our schools, our hospitals and housing needs are not met. Since school mismanagement by this old Conservative Government, because that is what it is, it is a Conservative Government, a young Conservative Government that even Robert Stanfield

[ Page 245 ]

wouldn't endorse. At least he is a bit more progressive. The member admits they are young Conservatives and I expect their only connection with Stanfield is through his products. But I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that won't save their hides. An old Tory Government with a flair for the spectacular, whose financial policies are to continue deadweight debt policies. Dead-weight policies. We have a golden millstone of debt on our necks with no moves by this Government to get us out. A millstone. We must have new policies and new direction and I think it is important that we on this side suggest a few.

While the Government has been riding a crest of general economic well-being, the resources of this Province have been depleted at a fantastic rate. In the area of export of whole logs, Mr. Speaker, our export of raw logs in 1968 totalled 185,458,779 board feet, slightly down from 1967, but three times the total of 1965, and well above the ten-year average of 98,000,000 board feet. Whole logs, Mr. Speaker, leaving this Province, and as they leave this Province, jobs are leaving with them. Every time a whole log leaves this Province some sawmill, some planing mill, or some pulp mill doesn't have the chance to continue employment for its employees. Those logs are going to the Japanese to ensure their continued expansion.

In mineral exports, Mr. Speaker, exports of raw mineral resources in 1968 totalled $175,900,000 according to the B.C. Financial and Economic Review of July of 1969. $175,900,000 of exports of non-renewable resources that are largely owned by foreign interests, and the profits from the export of those materials do not stay in Canada, but the profits are exported as well. In these two areas alone we are committed to selling a large part of our Province's natural heritage to bolster others economy and others' employment. We must seriously consider alternatives to this fantastic drain of resources which in the case of minerals is not renewable. In 1958 this Government — in 1957 this Government attempted to introduce legislation to curtail the export of raw minerals. When the Act was brought through this House it was challenged by Courts and thrown out by the Federal Supreme Court. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, there has been no effort by this Government to curtail the fantastic drain on our mineral resources and, as a matter of fact, they have gone out of their way to encourage it.

Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that a new attempt be made by this Government to recover new income from the export of minerals from this Province, and I suggest that we take a page from the first Minister of Agriculture in this Province when he set up the Milk Board. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we establish a Mineral Board in British Columbia and have all raw minerals exported from this Province go through that Mineral Board and a surcharge be placed for putting it through that Mineral Board of ten per cent. On the export of minerals alone we could have realized $8,000,000 new revenue last year, and ten per cent is a minimal charge. But it is a way to get around the legal entanglements of the Bill earlier introduced by this Government, and I see no reason why, if we are going to export the minerals at the fantastic rate that we are doing, that we shouldn't have some recall of funds for our own use here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it even goes further than that. We are now witnessing the efforts of the Kaiser Coal Corporation to avoid shipping that coal to Japan on Canadian railroads. They have made application to permit them to export their coal through the Great Northern Railroad back up to Roberts Bank with American crews, under Japanese and other foreign vessels, and export that coal to Japan and to California on non-Canadian registered ships. I expect to hear in this Budget Debate the member from Revelstoke-Slocan get up and demand, for the protection of the railroad workers in his riding, that this Government insist in Ottawa that none of that coal go on American railroads, Mr. Speaker.

We were given assurances in this House when we first attacked the Kaiser deal that it would create employment for railroad crews through those unit cars on the C.P.R. We weren't willing to buy that as a reason for the sale of that coal to the Kaiser interests. We weren't willing to buy that as a reason why Kaiser should make fantastic profits to take away to the United States. But if that was the only handle that this Government had in terms of creating employment, because everything else about the project pretty well will be automated in terms of the transportation, then I want to hear a strong statement by this Government that that coal will not go over Great Northern Railroad tracks. Now, Mr. Speaker, Kaiser will be taking some of that coal to California, and in taking that coal to California it will be using foreign registered ships, probably under the Liberian title, and not creating one new job here in Canada in terms of transportation of that coal. The Japanese will send their own ships to pick up the coal here.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when the Premier goes to the next Federal-Provincial Conference, he take a position on a Canadian Merchant Fleet. The United States, Mr. Speaker, has theJones Act. The Jones Act says that all goods produced in the United States and exported from that country must go out on American ships manned by American crews. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting to you that Canada must have the same law. We must have Federal legislation stating that the export of all Canadian materials, whether it be wheat, coal or lumber, be on Canadian ships manned by Canadian crews with ships built in Canada. Here we have in Victoria the shipyards laying idle, and in Vancouver we have the kind of problems of creating our own merchant fleet, and I overheard the Minister of Municipal Affairs say there isn't enough money in the world to do that. There isn't enough money in the world, Mr. Speaker, but there is enough money in mineral resource wealth in this Province to go a long way to pay for shipping, a long way. If we had a fair return on our investments we would have the kind of ship-building development here in British Columbia. And those ships would not be confined to just carrying Canadian merchandise or Canadian products.

We have to go into the world markets and compete there, and we can do it, we can do it. Have you no faith? Have you no faith in the ability and the pride of the Canadian working people and the Canadian investor? You don't give them the opportunity for this challenge. You throw up your hands and say, "Let someone else do it." You have no faith in the potential of this country. You have no faith in the potential of its people. And you won't even lay down the challenge to the people of British Columbia to get involved in the development of their own industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you advocating the Jones Act?

MR. BARRETT: I am advocating Federal legislation for Canada. I mentioned the Jones Act, Mr. Member, and you understand that Act very well. I know you are in favour of that, Mr. Member. I know you would be in favour of creating new jobs here in Canada for Canadians. I know you would be in favour of us getting a fair return from our natural

[ Page 246 ]

resources. I know you would be in favour of us hiring Canadian crews on Canadian-built ships to sell our materials. Well, just nod your head, Mr. Member, and I won't go back and tell your constituency all about you.

But, Mr. Speaker, our old Tory government doesn't understand the excitement of a growing country such as Canada, nor does it have any commitment to create home growth here in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, they don't have the faith in the people of British Columbia that is necessary for us to go out and develop our own resources. Why do we need Mr. Kaiser? I have yet to hear an explanation. He is now deceased, but the Kaiser Corporation is still with us. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, why we needed the Kaiser Corporation to develop our coal resources?

AN HON. MEMBER: They caught the Kaiser.

MR. BARRETT: They caught the Kaiser! There it is. Yes, we did. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Kaiser Corporation said they were going to bring in outside capital. They were going to bring in outside capital, and their first commitment of capital was $55,000,000, and of that $55,000,000, $35,000,000 was borrowed from Canadian banks, from the little depositors here in Canada who went to finance Kaiser's interests here in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Surely to goodness the Canadian people would rather invest in a Crown agency of their own. How about a Crown Development Corporation sponsored by this Government? Surely a lot safer than, Commonwealth Trust, Mr. Speaker. Surely a lot safer than that. We hope that the Attorney-General would avoid looking at his own legislation so that we might be protected through a Crown Corporation. The will and the desire of the Canadian investor is there, but it has never been challenged by this Government.

Look at the problems we have created by not exploiting the natural resources that we have in this Province, even in the industry of tourism. We have done really very, very little to capture a greater share of those tourist dollars. There has been no imagination shown. We allow people to pour into the lower mainland and parts of British Columbia without any co-ordinated Government effort to go after those tourist dollars. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if this Government is really looking for new areas of revenue, then it should go about the business of tourism with some élan.

Why not use the P.G.E. during the summertime, along with its freight loads and its subsidized freight loads, as a basis for tourist excursions through British Columbia? Why not create services for passengers, all along the way? Why not utilize the natural grandeur of British Columbia? Why not make tourists more comfortable? When you drive through Oregon and Washington, alongside the highways they have beautiful rest areas, Mr. Speaker. Here in British Columbia it is difficult to find a latrine in a rest area, and that is hardly suitable to tourists, especially on Vancouver Island, Mr. Speaker, especially on Vancouver Island where strategically located rest areas along the highways should be built and the information scattered throughout the United States and rest of Canada. Make it an attractive place to come to. Make people have happy experiences and pleasant memories.

I don't see why a Government tourist bureau shouldn't encourage the use of the old Kettle Valley rail line. I don't see why we couldn't run one-day excursion trains in various parts of this Province. Why not? You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why we don't build bridges. There is a fantastic currency in the tourist dollar. We have to create new interests. Use your imagination. You are the Government with the flair. Where is it? It is so bogged down with 38 members that you think you don't have to do anything new any more. You know, Mr. Speaker, I think there are such things as riverboat cruises and other scenic attractions that could be developed. There is a whole industry that we are not fully exploiting.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that we face in this Province because there are no new sources of revenue, one of the problems we are facing in this Province because of the fact there has been fiscal mismanagement — what about our school situation?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good.

MR. BARRETT: It is good! Well, Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say something very unkind to that member, but I guess that if he is alive and well and from his frame of reference, if he thinks the school system is good, he is really living proof of that frame of reference. Mr. Speaker, the A plus B theorem has come alive again.

But I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that they have even denied democracy for school districts in this Province by not permitting people to vote on whether or not they want schools, let alone pay for them. Now, referendum for operating budgets, my friend, and referendum for capital construction are two different things. In my own constituency of Coquitlam, where there is, as the Premier says, no freeze on school construction, projects dating back two years are still waiting approval from the Minister of Education, and we are going to have 3,525 pupils on shifts in schools in Coquitlam. But for the last three years — next September we will be faced with that, Mr. Speaker — and for the last three years Coquitlam has had the most severe problem. I am sorry that the member from Delta isn't here, Mr. Speaker, because the shift is now going from Coquitlam to Delta, and if you think Coquitlam's problem was bad, Delta is going to be a lot worse, Mr. Speaker.

We heard nothing from the Minister of Education in terms of a change in policy of permitting school construction, and we are all anxiously awaiting the Minister's speech next Wednesday when the P.T.A. comes to this Legislature to visit him, and he will announce that there is no freeze, and they can go back and tell their children, "You're not really on shift, but just go to school until six or seven o'clock anyway." Mr. Speaker, I don't need to catalogue the number of schools in my constituency that need approval from the Minister's department, nor do I need to catalogue the schools from other members' ridings but Mr. Speaker, I will say this, in terms of the Minister, why was it that he didn’t announce the freeze? Why was the freeze announcement left up to the Minister of Lands and Forests, while the Minister of Education went on his way to Paris? Somebody said Paris was a good place to get an education, but that's got nothing to do with the announcement, Mr. Speaker, of the school freeze coming from a different department head. Who's running the show over there, Mr. Speaker? Has the Minister of Education got the authority or hasn't he, and if he hasn't got the authority, let us know who we have to talk to, because we don't want to waste our breath on junior ministers.

Well! Well! I want to read to you a letter, symptomatic of what's going on in that department. He's the Minister, Mr. Speaker, who has announced the new study on the use of

[ Page 247 ]

school facilities. He's the minister who came out and said that we must use the existing facilities more fully. Every single one of those conservative back benchers has said that the school buildings should be used more fully, and I agree with them. I agree with them. Even the member from Dewdney applauds. He said shifts weren't bad, he wanted to use the schools so much. You know that now that we have a Hansard, he can't say that he didn't say that at the end of the Session.

Mr. Speaker, school trustees in two districts believed the Minister when he said, "Make use of those buildings," believed the Minister when he said, "Let's combine the use of those buildings with community projects." In the district of Coquitlam, Mr. Speaker, and the district of North Vancouver, they wanted to build with the municipal funds a swimming pool in the school complex. Not at additional school costs, not a cent from the Government, Mr. Speaker, but an attempt to integrate facilities, allow the school system to use the pools, with no additional cost to the Department of Education, and thereby integrate a pool programme into the schools and have a community centre for use of the buildings at night. Is there anybody here opposed to that? This is what happened. The Minister of Education said, "No."

Here's a letter to the Minister dated January 27, 1970. "Dear Sir: As a member of the Committee of Utilization I must express my deep dismay at the lack of action, and the apparent lack of support by the Government for the principles which were outlined in our report. The apparent stalling and evasion which is taking place over the idea of locally financed swimming pools in North Vancouver and Coquitlam is a discouraging beginning, particularly in view of your comments at the time the report was released which indicated the desperate need in urban areas for more facilities." The Minister praised the report, and I read on, "Talking privately with a member of the Coquitlam Board, it is my understanding that construction of a facility to be financed 100 per cent by the local municipality will only be considered if the facility is built independent from the school." They can build them on school property. "This, Mr. Minister, is, completely contrary to the principles of maximum economic use of school facilities. It is a knife thrust into the vitals of the whole idea of integrating the community and the school. This ruling over-rides the concept of community use with a basic premise of the Utilization Committee Report." And this is interesting. This is interesting. He goes on to say, "I know from our personal conversations that this is not your own attitude, and the fear that I'm expressing is the goodwill of the general public in North Vancouver and elsewhere in the Province will be wasted and dissipated if such bureaucratic stupidities are allowed to stand." If it isn't your opinion, through you, Mr. Speaker, who's stopping it? Are you the Minister of Education or are you not? Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister, who makes the decisions over there? "I urge you, Mr. Minister, to act immediately to allow private projects such as has been proposed in North Vancouver and Port Coquitlam to proceed. Signed Peter C.D. Powell. Signed C.D. Powell, Trustee, School District 44, North Vancouver."

The issue is simply this, the municipality wishes to build a swimming pool, it wishes to pay for the swimming pool, it wishes to put it in the school complex, to cut down costs, it wishes the pool to be allowed to be used by school children during the day, and by the general community at night, because they are the taxpayers that foot the bill anyway. On top of all this, Mr. Speaker, the cost will be exactly half if it's integrated in the school, but it will be doubled if it's on a separate piece of property in the school area. On the same school grounds. Now that's planning stupidity, Mr. Speaker, and I want to hear from the Minister within the next few days whether or not he's running his department, or someone else is, and whether the someone else is above him or below him. But I would like to hear the Minister stand up and give an explanation as to why we can't save the taxpayer some money, and integrate the facilities in one and the same time. It's bad enough we have to wait for our schools, but to perpetuate that kind of planning, Mr. Speaker, is unbelievable.

I just want to touch on a number of other major subjects that I felt were not dealt with clearly in the Budget. We heard earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker, that there should be a Minister of Environmental Control. I agree with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, there is no need for such a Minister. We have a Minister in the Cabinet who should be the person in terms of all pollution decisions, Mr. Speaker, and that is the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, it should be the Minister of Health's responsibility to protect the lives and the well-being of every citizen of this Province, and he should have the authority in his department to say yes or no to any specific problem of pollution in this Province, and health figures, health facts, and health research should be the decision-making evidence and nothing else, Mr. Speaker, because if we can't provide security of health for our citizens, what else have we got? Some of you, I am sure, saw the programme on television a few nights ago on pesticides. If we can't assure them of that, then what's the point. If we can't provide people with a sense of security of well-being in terms of health, both physical and mental, then surely to goodness there is not much purpose in life beyond that, Mr. Member. There is no point in poisoning ourselves through pollution without adequate environmental control.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget was a big Budget. Big figures but without a heart, and one of the most dramatic illustrations of that was a letter I received just Friday. It's a copy of a letter sent out to the volunteers in Riverview Mental Hospital. Mr. Speaker, we have heard speech after speech in this House from the Ministers concerned with social services and health, about the role of the volunteer in our society. Time and time again we have heard them stand up and say that a professional can't do everything, we need the volunteer. None of us disagree with the concept of the volunteer getting involved with people at all levels of service, especially in the field of mental health, Mr. Speaker, but I want to read this letter that has been circulated to the 175 dedicated volunteers who go in and visit the patients at our largest mental hospital in Riverview. The only contact that a large bulk of these patients have with the outside world and the only string that they can hang on to in terms of any hope of rehabilitation, has been affected. "Dear Volunteer: As you are aware, the volunteer programme at Riverview and Valley View Hospitals has been without a hospital volunteer co-ordinator for one year. The increase in pressure and work load on Ina Watson of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Volunteer Supervisor, has been considerable and, as a result, she is forced to take one month's leave of absence due to ill health and accumulation of overtime." Why has that happened?

It is the policy of the C.M.H.A. that no volunteers be involved in hospital service without the supervision of a volunteer supervisor or a hospital co-ordinator. Mr. Speaker, the Riverview Mental Hospital, with over 3,000 patients, has

[ Page 248 ]

been without a volunteer co-ordinator for a year. That position has been empty for over a year, and a vital part of the programme of service to people has gone down the drain, and this Government comes in with a billion dollar budget that, when you bring it down to reality, you find that people are not getting service at all. Mr. Speaker, this has gone out to 175 volunteers. People who are not asking for salary, are not asking for recognition, that in the best sense of human service are willing to work with mentally ill human beings, and that programme is curtailed simply because the Government is too cheap to fill the post.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, I heard a number of comments about health matters. I welcome the new member from Oak Bay. I'm pleased that we have another medical man in the House. We don't have a psychiatrist any longer and that makes a lot of us feel less threatened, but we still have a few doctors around.

AN HON. MEMBER: A few members applauded on that statement.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't take note of anybody who applauded, and I don't see any unusual significance in that, I mean those who applauded didn't feel any more insecure than the rest of us. But now that we have another doctor in the House, I think we've got three now. One of them gets a bad time because he couldn't determine the sex of a whale. One of them gets a bad time because he's dumping logs in his property, and he's blaming N.D.P.'ers for yelling about it, and we're waiting for the new one, and what does he come in with? He comes in with the most reactionary, hide-bound, Tory policies I've heard in a long time. Even the Premier wouldn't go for those policies. The Premier is a populist enough to know when reaction is bad reaction, and the member came in to be a rebel. He's only 200 years out, Mr. Speaker. He announced that he wanted to up the per diem charge on hospitals to $3 per day. He doesn't even know the history of the Social Service Tax, how this Premier scored one of the greatest political coups in the history of this Province by increasing the sales tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent to cover the cost of the hospital operation in this Province, and took the premiums off, and everybody applauded the Premier. Unfortunately. Everybody. But that member doesn't remember that, he comes into the House and he says, "Charge the sick three bucks a day. Put up financial barriers to health." The Premier knows better than that, Mr. Speaker. A tax on the sick is an unequal tax, Mr. Speaker.

But then I heard the attack on socialism. Oh, Mr. Speaker, such a withering attack on us poor 12 socialists. There are so few of us left anyway, Mr. Speaker, that I didn't think that socialism could survive. Then I decided to carry out his private enterprise philosophy as it applies to the medical profession. You know, Mr. Speaker, it costs us about $50,000 to train a doctor. That's the oppressive hand of socialism, my friend, and the only way to escape that is to send a cheque back in for $50,000. To escape the further oppressive hand of socialism…

AN HON. MEMBER: …the heavy hand.

MR. BARRETT: …the heavy hand of socialism, as my friend down there reminds me, that cold hand of socialism. I phoned the St. Joseph's Hospital here in Victoria, and I found out something very interesting. That doctors use their X-Ray machines, Mr. Speaker, the doctors use their saws, Mr. Speaker, the doctors use their hammers, the doctors use their needles and their thread. As a matter of fact thread costs $37,000 a year to sew people up, and you know, Mr. Speaker, I don't know of any carpenter that gets his tools paid for by the state. I don't know of any plumber that gets his tools paid for by the state, Mr. Speaker, and I ask him to remit his share of the bill for the tools that we are providing him for his job, Mr. Speaker. Now we come to the matter of rental and work space, Mr. Speaker. It costs the St. Joseph's Hospital $528,000 a year just to run its operating room, and I think that the Minister of Health better start working out bills to doctors, charging them for the use of the operating room, Mr. Speaker. We don't want the heavy hand of socialism to corrupt the medical practice of the member from Oak Bay. Let him be the first, let him be the first to send back his money so that we can escape the rigours of such a confining experience. Who's he trying to kid, Mr. Speaker? He couldn't function without cooperative effort through people in society, and if he's against that then he doesn't understand the meaning of civilization anyway.

You know, Mr. Speaker…. I'm glad that I hear from the member from Comox that he's still with us…. I'm glad that he is the only one left in the House. Instead of going up to Port Alice where they are worried about pollution he's handling it right down here. He's doing his share.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never mind the Pollution Control Board — they don't count.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget there is an indication that we are not making any advances in the area of public health needs. There's no increase in staff in some of the rapidly growing suburban areas, and even in some of the rural areas. I want to spend just a couple of moments sharing with you a problem in the Nelson-Creston riding, and I am sorry the member is not here because I just got this letter in the mail this morning. They're having an epidemic in Nelson-Creston, Mr. Speaker. Not a great, fantastic epidemic of typhoid, not an epidemic of something fantastically dangerous, don't get alarmed and get the presses going in Vancouver again.

I'm going to go for the underground press, the underground press. But I want to bring to the attention of this House, Mr. Speaker,…… Anyway, what the member said, even if the presses are running, the Court cases are running so rampant about what's being said in the paper, that freedom of speech is being curtailed anyway, Mr. Speaker. .

I was going to make mention today about the recent tragedy of the death of that child, and the inquest, comments on that inquest, and the fact that we do not have a forensic clinic in this Province, after fighting for all these years to have a forensic clinic. The Government is so happy to launch suits that we cannot even discuss these matters, and I think it's an infringement on the freedom of the press, even if the presses were running, and I urge caution to the Attorney-General and to his department to make sure that the press is not stifled in any way, especially on the day that I speak.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, up in Nelson-Creston is that they have a louse epidemic, a louse epidemic. One louse after another equals lice, and they're trying to determine what to do with this problem. I am sorry the member is not here because I wanted to read a letter out of the Creston Valley

[ Page 249 ]

Advance, Creston, scratch, B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder he doesn't go back there.

MR. BARRETT: Letter to the Editor, dated January 22nd, 1970.

"Dear Sir, I am what is called sneeringly an 'irate mother'. I feel I have good reason to be — if the Public Health Department had been doing the job they're paid for I would not have to be irate.

"I have been told the Public Health Nurses and Doctors had red faces because this louse and nit problem in our schools has got out of hand. Well, I for one would like to change that red to black and blue!

"I've bought batch after batch of 'de-nitting' shampoo only to have my youngsters return to school and become re-nitted'! They didn't get these nits at home — of that I'm positive! They only became infested after attending school. Since Christmas they have been checked several times and nothing was found. Then today they are sent home with nits, proving just one thing — the school needs cleaning up. Either that or the Health Department has bought stock in the company that supplies the shampoo.

"The Health Department has asked for parent volunteers to help detect nits at school. Well I hereby volunteer my help in the only way I feel will do any good. I am keeping my 'de-nitted' children home until they get this whole unnecessary mess cleaned up.

"In my opinion the schools should be closed…." and she goes on to an explanation.

This problem is partly related, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is a desperate shortage of public health nurses in this Province and in that area. I know that the members over there are going to be nit-picking about this issue, but the fact is that this kind of situation should not be allowed to happen, and the Minister should unfreeze that department and let them get busy providing staff.

Well, it's either that or none of the members go up to Nelson-Creston area, one or the other, because if it starts in here it will be too much for us to handle, Mr. Speaker. Well, it'll drive 'em out of the House, it'll drive 'em out of the House faster than a Hansard ever will. Faster than a Hansard ever will, Mr. Speaker, although it won't be much of a problem with some of us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on to talk about the announcements in the Budget about social welfare. We have a new Minister of Social Welfare when he's in the House. He's been a subject of a great deal of criticism, all of it warranted, all of it warranted. He started off with his foot in his mouth, and to correct that problem he put the other foot in with it, and then to cap it all off, after the Opposition said its terrible things, the member from Vancouver Centre put the cap on it and said apologize. What is the member from Vancouver Centre going to do if he doesn't apologize, Mr. Speaker, is he going to quit? But, anyway, he asked for an apology, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Welfare, and all he said was, "I'll take on any bull." Of course I referred to that earlier, and I don't want to belabour their internal problems because that issue is related to leadership and not to welfare.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have the announcement, we have the announcement that the old age pensions with the supplement were going to go up to $150. During the election campaign I proposed a universal $150 old age pension in British Columbia, with the Provincial supplement expanding the base over a period of years, to finally eliminate the means test and take advantage of the Canada Assistance Plan. Mr. Speaker, even the former Minister of Welfare understood these problems. Not that he ever acted on them, but he did understand these problems. I said it before. I said that he understood the problem, and I said he was going about solutions in the wrong way. He went and hired that computer, and I don't know the status of that project now that you've got a new Minister whose thesis is, "the triumph of imagination over engineering facts." You recall that one. Anyway, we've been told that the old age pension with its supplements will go up to $150.

Just so the members of this House won't be misinformed, and the general public, Mr. Speaker, let's review what this $150 is made up of. $78 is provided by the universal Federal old age pension. $79? $78? $79? $78? They're fighting amongst each other, Mr. Speaker. They can get together in committee afterwards. We'll say $78. There is another, that that $78 is paid for completely by the Federal Government, that nasty Government in Ottawa. Oh no, my friends. Let's take one step at a time, and we don't want any confusion on it. An additional $30 supplement is available, totally paid for by the Federal Government. Yes, yes, my friends, because you are ignorant on this subject and you have been peddling misinformation out of sheer ignorance rather than deliberation. The next $30 is paid for by Ottawa. The additional $30. There is no ceiling after that total of $108, Mr. Speaker.

I had a Federal member of Parliament, Grace MacInnis, ask the question in the Federal House, and the Federal Minister said after the $108, which is totally paid for by Ottawa, any additional amount will be shared 50-50. Any additional amount. Mr. Speaker, if the member will stay in the House long enough, I will have the Hansard transcript brought into the House where the answer is given in writing.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have the answers right here.

MR. BARRETT: We saw what the responsible Federal Liberal Minister said and the facts are this, that the $108 base is paid totally by the Federal Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baloney!

MR. BARRETT: Any supplement — baloney is an unparliamentary word — any supplement above that amount is shared 50-50 by the Federal Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish….

MR. BARRETT: Now if he wants to call the Federal Government's share rubbish that's on his head, Mr. Speaker, but I am telling you this, that when the Federal Government took over the first $30 supplement, the actual cost of supplementary money to the Government of British Columbia decreased, because when the means test was applied to the additional supplement, limited to $30 by this Government, very, very few people qualified. The maximum allowable was $78 plus $30 from Ottawa — $108, plus $30 from the B.C. Government — $138, that last $30 being shared $15 by Ottawa and $15 by the B.C. Government. Of that total of $138, only $15 came from this Government, Mr. Speaker. Now they've announced a raise from $138 maximum, now they have announced a raise from $138 maximum to $150. That is a $12 increase, of which this Government will only pay $6, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, out of a total of $150 paid to senior citizens

[ Page 250 ]

who go through all the fantastic hoops of an absolutely irresponsible means test, the maximum allowable of $150, this Government will pay $21 and claim credit for it all.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader is trespassing the anticipation rule, as he knows. I will let him deal lightly with the subject, but it should more properly be dealt with under the Bill itself.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, it's the anticipation. But I will say this, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion of this subject when I pass the Hansard transcript to the member, and I'll photostat it for other members, that by the very least, by the very least, the old age pension means test should be expanded to make sure that at least 50 per cent of the recipients go up to the $150, and the means test, as it exists, allows it to go up to $175, for those who can't pass, who qualify under the existing means test. And the Minister knows full well that this involves less than $9,000,000 annually.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the subject of increase in welfare rates will not be dealt with by Bill, and I'll touch briefly on this subject.

AN HON. MEMBER: That won't be looked after by Bill, either.

MR. BARRETT: Well, then it doesn't affect the rule. Doesn't affect it. Well, no, now don't impugn things to the Speaker, it was his interpretation, not mine.

Now, the $5 increase on welfare rates will not come anywhere near, Mr. Speaker, to meeting the challenge that we have in the problems of social welfare. Mr. Speaker, a $5 basic increase will mean that a mother and her child who are presently receiving $125 a month to live on will get a $10 increase to $135 a month. With family allowance, and with rental coverage, a deserted mother with one child, if she's lucky, can receive around $165 a month. Mr. Speaker, would the members on the other side of the House tell me where a woman with one child is going to rent an apartment for less than $100 a month, if she can get into an apartment with a child? How is she supposed to live on approximately $165 a month which includes a rental coverage and a family allowance?

Mr. Speaker, a $5 increase per head on welfare is an insult. With the magnificent sums talked about in this Budget, to suggest to people on social assistance that they are going to receive $5 per head in a unit family, is ridiculous. The members over on that side, some of whom have had a sterling background of fighting on behalf of those recipients, agree with me, and I say without political partisanship, the member from Richmond who understands this problem very well and has taken his seat, his place in this House, has fought the same issue. $5 is not enough. There is still no differentiation in the case loads, no effort to segregate the case loads so that the hard core social welfare recipient family can receive an investment of time from a social worker, to see what can be done to get them off welfare.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I could say a great deal more about welfare, but I don't intend to at this particular time. I just want to make one other comment, and that is the emergence of the Businessmen's Alliance as a matter for vote in the Budget. One-half million dollars, Mr. Speaker, is going to be provided for the Businessmen's Alliance, a political pork barrel situation, Mr. Speaker, that has been outside scrutiny of this House by warrant money, will now be put into the vote. I insist that all hiring for the Businessmen's Alliance go under the Civil Service Commission, and all competitions be governed. I want to see the Civil Service Commission provide this House with job descriptions of every one of the jobs in the Businessmen's Alliance as job descriptions are written for every other job under Civil Service. I want to see and be assured that open competition takes place for those jobs, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this could become a private employment agency of the Minister and it will be the first time, the first time that patronage in terms of employment will show itself in Social Welfare estimates.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I leave the subject of welfare, I just want to read to the Minister a page from the record in Ottawa. Well, if it doesn't mean a thing to the Minister, let me read it to the other members, because if he can't understand English the rest of us don't have that handicap, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on page 13950 of the Commons Debates, March the 13th, 1967, in answer to a question on supplementary assistance, Mrs. Margaret Rideout, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare said, amongst other things, "The payment to old age security pensioners of the guaranteed income supplement is intended to ensure that all old age pensioners will be guaranteed a minimum income of $105 a month." That was before they got the magnificent $3 raise. Now, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "It has been made clear to all provinces, that where the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement are insufficient to meet the need of pensioners, the federal government will continue to be prepared to share with the provinces in the cost of additional supplementary allowances based on need. There is no ceiling on the level of federal contribution to this purpose, it being left to the provinces to determine the amount of the supplementary allowances it wishes to pay."

Mr. Speaker, if that doesn't mean what it says to the Minister, then the Minister is all mixed up, and the tragedy of it is that his denial of the existence of this agreement under the Canada Assistance Plan is less than a political joke than it is more of a social tragedy. The many, many people in British Columbia who could benefit from the existing Federal offer of fifty cent dollars, Mr. Speaker, fifty cent dollars to the old age pensioners of British Columbia to be determined by this Government, and that's written in the Canada Assistance Plan, and the Minister knows it. And the Minister knows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the Minister?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I'm confusing the whole public.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is the Minister?

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the handicap of being a social worker, I have the handicap of being an M.L.A., I have the handicap of being able to read English and understand it, and I have the handicap of having first-hand knowledge of this problem on a day-to-day basis, and I know what exists in law, and don't tell me otherwise. These people are entitled to money and your Government's blocking it, Mr. Speaker. Your Government's blocking it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've heard a great deal said about inflation, and inflation probably is the most severe problem facing us in Canada and the United States, but the classic

[ Page 251 ]

argument that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods is only partly true. It's only partly true, and the argument given by this Government….

AN HON. MEMBER: Which part?

MR. BARRETT: Well, it is partly true — I'll come to that. The argument given by this Government is that it's high interest rates. But the high interest rates, Mr. Speaker, are only a symptom. What is it really that's driving the interest rates up and the fantastic competition for money that's going on? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it relates to a very elemental problem. The basic necessities of life are food, clothing and shelter. There is an abundance of food, and we're fortunate for that, there is an abundance of clothing, and we're fortunate for that, but there's a desperate shortage of housing in Canada, Mr. Speaker. The competition for money to get the down payment on that home is very, very great, Mr. Speaker, and that's a major cause, a major cause of inflation, and it relates to something that the Premier himself said. The Premier said that the family life is the cornerstone of the good life and, Mr. Speaker, there cannot be any family life, there cannot be any good life, if there is no adequate shelter for that family to live in.

What has this Government done in the field of housing? This Government's policy of providing grants, the purchase of new homes, although having alleviated the problem for some upper middle-class families, the average working man has had to suffer because of the policy, because it's actually driven house prices up, Mr. Speaker.

There is no conscious effort by this Government to control the price of land, which is the greatest area of private exploitation taking place in Canada today. Mr. Speaker, this Government even stands idly by as we see a whole new phenomena develop where the most successful economic groups are not a wealth-producing industry, not a resource developing industry, but purely land speculation, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BARRETT: Some of the most successful businesses trading on the market-place in Vancouver today have nothing to offer other than land. Accumulating, accumulating huge inventories of land throughout this Province and speculating on those grand deals.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are betting on inflation.

MR. BARRETT: Not only are they betting on inflation, Mr. Member, they are creating it for their own benefit. In their conscious attempts to pour gasoline on the fire they have been broadcasting throughout North America the availability of land in this Province. They will unconscionably sell to anyone. They have advertised in California newspapers with great big ads saying, "B.C. for sale — come up and get it."

What chance does the average British Columbia citizen have in that kind of ruthless rat-race of competition for a small plot of land, Mr. Speaker? Where does the hourly worker who earns $3 an hour have a chance at competing for a small lot? Where does the civil servant stand, Mr. Speaker, in his attempt to provide a base of security for his family? Where does that social and psychological atmosphere nurture itself towards a good family life and the Premier's good life if there isn't a stable home situation, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you where it leads. It leads to social and psychological chaos, Mr. Speaker, and the price of inflation cannot just be measured in dollars, but it can be measured in fantastic social devastation.

Mr. Speaker, I call on this Government. Mr. Speaker; I call on this Government to accumulate all of its Crown land in the metropolitan area and, in cooperation with the municipalities, develop those hundreds upon hundreds of acres of Crown land into planned, developed subdivisions and instead of selling lots in those subdivisions, Mr. Speaker, make them available on six-year leases at $20 or $25 a month. Rent the land, Mr. Speaker, 66, 99, make the land available, rent the land to the citizens of this Province, lease the land to the citizens of this Province, lease the land to the citizens of this Province and drive down those inflated, unreasonable profits being made in land speculation. Mr. Speaker, in this Government's zeal to inflate the prices on the non-producing speculators in land, their funds for additions to helping purchase houses is only going to help inflation.

Those people who are above the middle-income group of earning have tremendous pressure put on them to meet the demands of housing costs, and how do they meet those demands of housing costs? A fantastic percentage, Mr. Speaker, of women are out of the homes working just to make ends meet, and I don't care what anybody says, it's my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that a household that has two people working full-time with young children at home cannot provide a good family atmosphere. When mothers are driven out of the home, not to acquire additional things that this acquisitive society psychologically forces on people, not to acquire gadgets and trinkets, but simply to meet the demands of one of the basic requirements of good life, that is shelter, then, Mr. Speaker, the psychological fabric of the family is threatened.

Mr. Speaker, for some time now I have been very, very interested in examining the high cost of this kind of psycho-social disorder in North America. Our divorce rates have been climbing in an alarming fashion. Twenty years ago it was estimated that one person in 20 sometime in their lifetime would occupy a mental hospital bed, or need psychiatric care in a hospital. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, the estimate was one in 12. Today, Mr. Speaker, the estimate is one in eight. One in eight, Mr. Speaker, in his lifetime will require psychiatric treatment in residence, and I don't mean to threaten any of the members with that particular prospect, Mr. Speaker, but it's a fact.

Mr. Speaker, a Mrs. M.B. Nevison on the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia has written a most interesting article. I don't know it it's Miss Nevison or Mrs. Nevison.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doctor.

MR. BARRETT: I guess that's the easiest thing to say — Dr. Nevison. Dr. Nevison has attempted to superimpose upon a cost-of-living index chart the psycho-social damage and the price for that damage. She has taken the factors of marriage failure, suicide, delinquency, and alcoholism, and she has taken these figures and compared them to the graph on the rise of the cost of living. Mr. Speaker, from the year 1962 on, the cost of psycho-social damage and the damage to our family life fabric has been increasing at a fantastic and accelerated pace, far ahead of the cost of living. Mr. Speaker, because the basic securities have not been provided for the family life of this Province and this nation, the attending social problems acquired just by trying to keep up have created havoc with family life in this country.

[ Page 252 ]

Mr. Speaker, we have made no conscious legislative effort to preserve family life style as we know it today. I've heard some sociologists speak about a new family life style, and maybe families will experiment with it, but I don't find too much wrong with the old family life style of a loving mother and a loving father providing a good home and some emotional security and clothing and shelter, and Mr. Speaker, if government policy, if government in action permits inflation and its attending ills to continue in the field of housing, they, are only going to add to the disintegration of family life as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, I intend later on in this Session to propose legislative changes to the Marriage Act. Amongst those legislative changes, I intend to introduce a Bill requiring young couples to wait six weeks before they get married. Within that six-week period I would hope, and it's only an experimental piece of legislation, but I would hope that as much time as the State takes in a young couple's life to intervene in a divorce, the State should be taking three more times in intervening before marriage, Mr. Speaker, and I'm going to suggest that young people before they get married take a premarital course in budgeting, in understanding human relationships, provided by the church of their choice. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, decisions made in a six-week period can cool off if some adequate realities are faced with young people. The problems lie essentially in what I was talking about before, when you weren't here, Mr. Member — an attack on the massive housing problem here in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bad news for marriage fees, eh?

MR. BARRETT: Now I want to avoid any further discussion of that, Mr. Speaker. I'll bring in the legislation.

But Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying a few things about the over-all impression this Budget has on me and the kind of problems, the kind of problems we're faced with. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from Buckminister Fuller. Buckminister Fuller, an interesting and brilliant man, the product of North America. Buckminister Fuller said in 1963 in a book called, "Ideals and Integrities," and I quote, "That there are very few men today who are disciplined to comprehend the totally integrating significance of the 99 per cent invisible activity which is coalescing to reshape our future." He's talking about politicians, Mr. Speaker. He said, "There are approximately no warnings being given to society regarding the great changes ahead, there is only the ominous, general apprehension that man may be about to annihilate himself. To the few who are disciplined to deal with the invisibly integrating trends it is conceptual, probably, that man will not destroy himself." That is the hope of Buckminister Fuller, Mr. Speaker, and it is in the hands of politicians to bring that hope into a reality, but I don't see this Government understanding the dangers that exist in uncontrolled pollution and uncontrolled violence in our North American society. But in British Columbia', Mr. Speaker, we must understand that this is a beautiful Province and we must fight to keep it beautiful to all its citizens. We have come a long way, but we have no plans from the Government of where to go from there.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dependency Budget. It is a dependency Budget based on the dependence of the initiative of the Americans, the Japanese, and the British, and a sit-back attitude of us Canadians. It's not good enough, Mr. Speaker, and we must conserve and develop in delicate balance our resources on our terms. We must have faith in the greater potential of British Columbia, and it is not just to accumulate material goods, but to create a society of making dreams come true, Mr. Speaker. We are unique people but we are not challenged. We are rich in potential and we are poor in challenge.

AN HON. MEMBER: Author?

MR. BARRETT: I wrote it myself, and I'll autograph it for you when I'm through. We need leadership and we get conservatism. This Government is tired. It is too big and it is out of touch. This Government has lost its vision and it lost its faith. Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is great, British Columbia is able, British Columbia can do things on her own. We must be given that chance to achieve our dreams and in that this Budget has failed, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER(1st-Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many familiar things about the Budget Address this year. There are a few changes. I thought the Budget was rather well put out this year. It is briefer. We saved a little paper. I think we must have a new Budget writer because the language is a lot crisper and more concise. And I think they ought to introduce the person who writes the Budget debate to the person who writes the Throne debate, get together on the two. I like the pictures in this year's, but I always like the pictures in the Budget debate. This year there is a very flattering reference to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, his constituency is on a gate-fold. We didn't have his picture on the cover, though. Inside we have a lot more pictures of hospitals, and I wonder if there was an attempt to tell us something in the story of these hospitals. The one thing that always seems to be missing in these pictures in the Budget is that there are no people in them, no people at all. Just kind of stale old buildings.

But this one rather spanking new hospital which is shown as picture number one, the Minister of Health Services must feel that there is a little bit if irony in that, because this charming little hospital in Fort St. John is having trouble meeting its salaries. — $100,000 overdrawn at the bank. They have been down to see the Minister of Health Services about this to try and get their per diem rate to the point where they can pay their employees, just to break even and take care of their overdraft. Catholic Sisters, $100,000 overdraft at the bank. And these are some of the things that aren't told in the very attractive pictures shown in the Budget Address.

I am sorry the Premier isn't in his seat today. There is a new picture of him in the Budget, and it is really a very nice picture. I see the member from Shuswap is looking at it. Brown suit, brown eyes, brown hair, and a very handsome shot.

AN HON. MEMBER: A brown study.

MR. McGEER: A brown study, yes. Well, Mr. Speaker, in my first Budget address, as leader of the Liberal party a year ago, I said that the Liberal members in the House were not going to criticize the Government just for the sake of criticizing it, nor would we criticize the Government just because it is a tradition for this side of the House and one, we hope, some of the members of that group down in the corner

[ Page 253 ]

can take a hold of. I said that our objective was to present constructive alternatives, and, Mr. Speaker, it was in that spirit that I presented last year an alternative budget to that of the Government. I intend to continue with that tradition by presenting a Liberal budget to the Legislature this year and to the people of British Columbia. I think this would be the most effective way that we can convey to the House and the people of British Columbia what can be undertaken by Government from the financial point of view.

The Budget which the Minister of Finance brought down on Friday was a Budget that would have been creditable had it been presented last year, this year's Budget is in proportion to last year's tax. But what has happened in the meantime is that inflation has eroded the purchasing power, population of the Province has grown, and there is a greater demand for services. So what is required this year is a Budget for this year, not a Budget for last year, and, as always, the Minister of Finance allows his Budget to drag a year behind the taxes that he collects.

Now I am going to bring down a different Budget, Mr. Speaker, but I say this — that I believe in surplus Budgets during times of inflation, and this Budget will have a surplus and a large nest egg for the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you got your grapefruit juice on the desk?

MR. McGEER: No, ice-water. We'll be cool. Well, it is going to be a non-inflationary Budget, but what it will do, Mr. Speaker, is show how much more can be done by the people of British Columbia with the resources that this Government has at its disposal today. As usual, Mr. Speaker, the revenue side of the ledger is the brightest side because it demonstrates how brisk the economy of our Province really is. It demonstrates as well, and I think that all members should take satisfaction in this, even our few remaining socialists — four of them — that it demonstrates our magnificent potential for the future, and with our abundant natural resources and growing world demand for them, our future prosperity should be guaranteed.

So what I want to start by doing, Mr. Speaker, is congratulating the people of British Columbia, and I think someone should note just occasionally that governments don't support the people or the economy — the people and the economy support the government. Governments don't produce wealth, they don't grow trees and they don't invent computers, and I think even Social Credit doesn't do these things. Well — the members are thinking about it. I do say this, that Social Credit has clutched at the coat-tails of the private economy. We have had Social Credit members announcing everything on the floor of the House from the establishment of new glass plants to the formation of new banks and we know, of course, that Social Credit had nothing to do with projects such as those.

But I don't think the socialists have been a great deal better, Mr. Speaker, because in their debates, and we had another good example of that only yesterday, they seem more intent on running industry than in running government. It is easy to behave in the House as political isolationists, as the Leader of the Opposition has just done, but I say to him and to his socialist members and to all the House, that we must be international in our outlook. Our industries have to be productive to become competitive and remain competitive. Our technology has to be in the forefront. Our capital inflow must remain adequate. If these things are not done, we will no longer be able to sell our products on world markets and this prosperity we enjoy will melt away. There is no need to monkey with the Rube Goldberg financial theories of Social Credit — A plus B theorem, or C plus D, or anything else. I don't think the Province has yet lived down the episode where a Finance Minister shot a flaming arrow into a barge-load of cancelled securities. I don't think it has recovered, either, from the arbitrary takeover of the B.C. Electric, and certainly the idea of future government takeovers, as agitated by the N.D.P., terrifies people who are accustomed to rather more restrained and responsible politics than seem to grace our public life.

I think it to the credit of the private sector of British Columbia that it has been able to carry Social Credit's economic theories on its back for 17 years and still build a reputation for soundness, and it has done this, too, with the irresponsible economic pronouncements of the socialists in the background all the time. That is a fair amount for the private sector to carry but it has done it and done it well. And you know, Mr. Speaker, even today a businessman still can't get an honest and straightforward financial statement regarding the condition of Provincial Government finances, and it is this Provincial Government that is the largest business in the Province. .

Mr. Speaker, the philosophy of our Party is neither to attempt to take credit for that which private enterprise accomplishes, nor to suggest that we can run industry better. Our philosophy is to tax responsibly, to establish for the private sector ground rules that permit fair and equal opportunities, and to provide excellence in the realm of Government administration and Government services.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sound more like Disraeli than Gardom.

MR. McGEER: But we don't believe in fiscal obfuscation, we don't believe in Budgets that hide financial facts. We believe in a complete, open and frank accounting of Government finance. And all Government operations. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Province is in sound financial shape, that the Government is in sound financial shape, and all that is necessary f or us to be completely responsible and completely straightforward in our declaration of where we are today and where we're going. And it is in that spirit that I set down the financial proposals in our Liberal budget.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the Social Credit Budget, the one brought down not last Friday but a year ago, the revenues were predicted in that budget to be $1,024,000,000. When I presented three days later an alternative budget, I predicted that the revenues for the year ending March 31, 1970 — just two months from now — the revenues would not be the $1,024,000,000, but $1,130,000,000. That was $106,000,000 more than the Premier's Budget, and I can recall, Mr. Speaker, the honourable members on the other side laughing when I brought down that budget. I can remember the first member from Vancouver Centre making a whole speech, chuckling up his sleeve about where all the money was coming from. He couldn't understand it. But, Mr. Speaker, the interim figures that were tabled in the House on Friday show that the revenues for the fiscal year ending March 3ist will probably be $1,201,000,000. That is $171,000,000 more than the Premier predicted in his Budget.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Kamloops): God help any Finance Minister that doesn't work on that sort of….

[ Page 254 ]

MR. McGEER: I don't think the Premier is a foolish man. He knew perfectly well what the revenues for the Province would be. I was out. I was short $70,000,000. But I was $106,000,000 closer than the Premier.

MR. GAGLARDI: I wouldn't accept your figures on anything.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not his figures, they're your figures.

MR. McGEER: What I have done, and I would be very happy to show it to the member from Kamloops, who seems so baffled by these figures, what the situation has been for the past few years. Because it is on the basis of realistic forecast of revenue that you do bring down responsible Budgets. I would like to read this table for the honourable members. 1966-67 the Premier said revenues would be $657,000,000. Public Accounts showed they were $731,000,000. The following year the Premier said they would be $739,000,000. They were $814,000,000. The following year the Premier said they would be $886,000,000, they were $968,000,000. Last year the Premier said they would be $1,024,000,000. I predict they will be $1,201,0009000. This year, last Friday, he said they would be $1,166,000,000, but a realistic forecast indicates they will be $1,400,000,000.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the honourable members scoffed last year, they scoffed when I said that the revenues for the year ending March 31st, 1969, would be $979,000,000. They actually turned out to be $968,000,000. Very close. I was over $100,000,000 closer than the Premier in quoting that figure, too. Well, what it means is this, Mr. Speaker. Built into the Budget for this fiscal year is a surplus of $177,000,000, and next year it will be $234,000,000. The Premier is going to have a sock full of gold that would make King Midas blush.

Well, I stated at Liberal budget time last year that the people of British Columbia were paying $2,000,000 a week more in taxes than they were receiving in service. I was wrong, and I have an apology to make to the House and to the people of British Columbia, because we haven't been paying taxes at the rate of $2,000,000 a week more than we have been getting services, we've been paying them at the rate of $3,000,000 a week more than we've been getting services, and it's going to be $4,000,000 a week in the coming year.

Well, these figures are so large it almost is impossible to grasp their meaning, but if you remember that the population of British Columbia is 2,100,000 people just over 2,000,000, it works out that the average family of four in British Columbia, right now, is paying taxes to Government at the rate of $25 a month more than they are gaining in services. This is an awful lot of over-taxation, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that in the great Budget proposal of the Premier last Friday, the home-owner grant would go up less than $1 a month, social allowances only $5 per person per month, but you're taking more than you need to, $25 per family per month. Sure, who supports industry? Well, the tax rates may not be high, as the Budget says, but we still are the most highly taxed people in Canada, and the average citizen…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. McGEER: …well, your Budget says so. The average citizen is paying $575 a year in taxes to Government, and for a family of four this works out to $2,300 a year. It's a lot of money to pay in, and all we're saying is that when you pay this kind of money, you deliver the services. The Premier is a great tax master, but he's also, Mr. Speaker, a great champion of the Crown corporations because the over-taxation always seems to find its way into the pockets of those gold dust twins, the B.C. Hydro and the P.G.E. That's where the over-taxation goes. Oh yes, all I say is that our budget brings down services in proportion to the taxes that will be collected by Government.

I want to talk for a minute or two on the revenue side, Mr. Speaker, about another enormous source of revenue to the Government. This is the trust funds for the capital investment which are under the Government's care, and these trust funds now total 1.5 billion dollars. They are accumulating without any tax stripping, and we've had tax stripping in recent years at the rate of about $3,000,000 per week. There's nothing wrong with having these funds, and the point I wish to make to the honourable members concerns the use of the funds.

Let me read out what some of these funds are and what their size is, because this is something that doesn't come under the scrutiny of the members of the Legislature, and yet these are funds in public trust. As of a year ago, the holdings of the trust accounts read like this: The Canada Pension Plan — $283,000,000; Teachers Pension Fund — $149,000,000; the Workmen's Compensation Fund — $203,000,000; Municipal Superannuation Fund — $157,000,000; Civil Service Superannuation — $149,000,000; B.C. Power Commission Superannuation — $22,000,000; P.G.E. Railways Pension Fund — $6,500,000. These are all pension funds, workers' savings. Burrard Inlet Third Crossing — $27,000,000; Centennial Cultural Fund — $5,500,000; Queensboro Bridge — $3,100,000; Home Acquisition Grant — $19,000,000.

And then Sinking Funds: The Vancouver and District Sewer Funds — $7,500,000; School Districts — $6,800,000; Ferries — $70,000,000; P.G.E. — $22,700,000; and the Hydro Sinking Fund of $67,000,000. And those funds, a year ago, totalled $1,198,952,809.

But the interesting part is since that time, Mr. Speaker, we have had $130,000,000 stripped from tax surplus. We've had over $100,000,000 more from the Canada Pension Plan. We've had another $50,000,000 plus from other pension contributions, so that the total funds today stand at over $1,500,000,000 and there are questions on the Order Paper to determine the holdings of these funds. But as of a year ago, the B.C. Hydro alone held $720,000,000 out of $1,200,000,000. Twenty-two per cent of all the trust funds in the Government's hands is held by the B.C.E., or the B.C. Hydro. Now what's held by the Pacific Great Eastern? The tax monies that goes to the Pacific Great Eastern doesn't all show up, even in the trust fund account, because what we've been doing to finance the P.G.E. is to strip directly from taxes for share purchase. In other words, this is direct cash subsidy to the P.G.E. and in the past three years, $60,000,000 has gone in this fashion, and another $35,000,000 is going to be peeled off this Session.

Now I want to say a word about the Provincial debt. That includes all the bonds that are guaranteed by the Provincial Government. The bulk of these, of course, are in the B.C. Hydro and P.G.E. accounts. The Public Accounts up to April 1st of this year shows the liabilities to be $2,100,000,000.

[ Page 255 ]

That's a lot of debt for a debt-free Province, and the gold dust twins, the B.C. Hydro and the P.G.E., accounted for $1,670,000,000 of this debt. Schools and local governments accounted for less than $200,000,000, and hospitals less than $24,000,000.

The first member from Burrard asked where should these trust accounts go? The second member — pardon me, Mr. Speaker — the senior member from Vancouver-Burrard. Well, it's easy to see who gets special treatment in this Province — not the people, but the B.C. Hydro and the P.G.E. They're the ones who get the special treatment. I've said, and I'm going to continue to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Crown Corporations, which themselves have substantial earning power, should pull their own weight in the provincial scheme of things. Perhaps the socialists on my right and the socialists on the Government side of the House would disagree with that, but we're free enterprise in the Liberal party and we think the Crown Corporations should pull their own weight. And we say this, that schools and hospitals and some local governments have difficulty doing this, and they are the ones who need the helping hand of Government, and they are the ones who deserve to have first priority from the capital in these trust accounts. And I say this, the needs and priority for capital financing for our Crown Corporations is a shadowy world. It operates outside the authority of this Legislature, but because it involves the commitment of public funds, it deserves the closest kind of scrutiny from all the members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget makes no provision for tax stripping. I don't support the concept of direct tax subsidies to Crown Corporations, particularly when they are alleged to be so profitable, as the Premier always tells us when he brings his Budget down. I don't support the concept of financing Crown Corporation need with publicly guaranteed bonds outside the authority of the Legislature, and my commitment to the people of British Columbia is to bring the whole subject of capital financing of our Crown Corporations into public view, as soon as the opportunity is given to me. In the meantime, we Liberals can only indicate what our priorities for spending are and to suggest to the Government that the mysteries of the Crown Corporations should be ended.

Mr. Speaker, our Liberal spending proposals for 1970-71 total $1,317,000,461, and that's $137,000,000 more than the present Budget. Now, nevertheless, the budget provides for a surplus of $82,500,000, and before those honourable members on the other side of the House begin to laugh, just remember the record of past years. Now this budget, Mr. Speaker, leaves untouched the surplus of $177,000,000 which will have accumulated by April ist of this year if we don't strip it away, Mr. Premier. $50,000,000 which was left over last year, even after you finished stripping it, and this can remain as our nest egg for the future, and that nest egg will total over $300,000,000. That's protection in case revenues in 1971 are not as high as my forecast of $1,400,000,000, but I believe that forecast is realistic. It's based on some inflation, some population increase. $1,400,000,000 this coming year. We'll see what happens a year from now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. McGEER: What do you propose to do? that's your proposal? I was $106,000,000 closer than you last time.

(Noise and Interruptions)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. McGEER: It will be $1,400,000,000. I'll repeat that statement. Willing to make a wager with any honourable member in the House, including the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would point out that no wagers are allowed in this Legislature.

MR. McGEER: ….I'm not taking my seat for the Premier. He had his day on Friday.

AN HON. MEMBER: No paper on Saturday, though.

MR. McGEER: ….Well, there is some uncertainty, it may not be quite that high, but your prediction of what your revenues will be next year are not even as high as they are going to be this year, and I don't think we're going to have a downturn in the economy of British Columbia.

But what our budget of $1,317,000,000 does provide for is the spending proposals that our Liberal members outlined in the Throne debate. These are some of the highlights, and the first, Mr. Speaker, is to eliminate the pay raise to M.L.A.'s. I propose, instead, that the money be shifted to establishing the office of an ombudsman for the Province. Opposition M.L.A.'s for many years have called for the formation of the office of ombudsman and the Bills have always been found out of order, because it involved Government spending, but this is an opportunity to take the money that would have gone to us and use it for a useful purpose, as far as the people of the Province are concerned. Well, just today in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, there is a meeting of the Prices and Incomes Commission with the leading industrialists in Canada. The members of the House of Commons are foregoing any pay increase, unions and management are asking for restraints. We should have no increases in the B.C. Hydro power rates this year, we should have nothing more than a cost-of-living increase for M.L.A.'s, perhaps an adjustment next year, but when restraint is being urged upon unions and upon management, this is no time to put forward in this House a 25 per cent increase.

The second thing I would do, Mr. Speaker, is eliminate the office of the Ministers without Portfolio, and eliminate Public Works, and eliminate Commercial Transport and create, instead, an Auditor-General to look into the details of Government spending.

The Liberal proposals call, as well, for the formation of a Department of Environmental Control, $10,000,000 extra for that, and the establishment of a Legal Aid Fund, and Victims of Violent Crimes Indemnity Fund. It calls for increased grant for Municipal Affairs, we're good to you, Mr. Minister, $37,000,000 more, including the absorption of the Department of Public Works — that won't be much of a job for you. An increased grant to the Minister of Education — $40,000,000 more — he's left his seat, but there's plenty of jobs that he needs to do. And increased grants to hospitals, the Minister of Health Services, $40,000,000 more there. Increased grants to the Department of Highways, $20,000,000 more to get on with, particularly, the southern Trans-Provincial, which I'm sure the Minister travels on many occasions. Increased grants to the Department of Industrial Development, $15,000,000 more there, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 256 ]

Increased grants of $10,000,000 to the Department of Lands and Forests, that's to the Minister, so he can get some clearing done behind the dams. And increased grants of $5,000,000 to the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry so he can salvage Cypress Bowl and some of the other problems that he's created with his development policies.

But I'd like to comment in a little more detail on some of these proposals, and the first is, the creation of an Auditor-General. Because well, you know, the only check that we've got on the Finance Minister today is the Premier. I know the Premier and the Finance Minister get along well, but that isn't necessarily, because a sharp eye is kept on spending, and I think that supervising the Finance Minister is an added burden for the Premier. Because there's really nobody except the Premier who can tell if there's any juggling being undertaken by the Minister of Finance. I know that it pains the Premier to have people outside the House incorrectly suggesting that the Minister of Finance is a juggler, and I'm only trying to be helpful, suggesting how he can live this impression down.

Well, you know, the only other watch-dog we have is the Public Accounts Committee, and I want to confess, as a member of that Committee, that we just don't spend our time curled up outside the vault, and really it's impossible, in the few weeks of the Session, to give more than the most superficial examination of a few of the vouchers. Oh, we find some pretty interesting ones, but not the kind of detailed investigation that Government spending really deserves.

Well the Federal Parliament, as honourable members know, adopted this practice of having an Opposition member as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Probably they felt that a member of the Opposition would be a just little keener watch-dog. Well, you know, I may be wrong, but I've watched our Public Accounts Committee at work and the Government members just haven't struck me as being blood-hounds at nosing out….

AN HON. MEMBER: Chihuahuas.

MR. McGEER: Chihuahuas, someone suggested. Maybe they have been burning the midnight oil, the Government members on the Public Accounts Committee, secretly, but I'm sure that if there were an Opposition member as chairman of that Committee that he'd give them all the encouragement that was necessary to burn the midnight oil and go over all those vouchers.

I think it would be, Mr. Member, a very good thing too, if the secretary of the Public Accounts Committee were an Opposition member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Will the members address the Chair?

MR. McGEER: I'm talking about the Public Accounts Committee, and I'm suggesting that it become a tradition, and well, I think particularly this one, because it's this watch-dog function.

Well, I've got here, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the report of the Auditor-General to the House of Commons, and it indicates the scope of his activities. Well, you know it was interesting that the Auditor-General found the horses and he found a thousand years supply of long johns from the underwear that the Navy had bought. I understand, that there are a few horses that are being eliminated from the payroll by the Attorney-General at Oakalla, and I want to congratulate him for finding those horses, but I think that the Auditor-General could do a very excellent job.

Here we have, for example, 49 recommendations listed on page two of the report that were handed to the Cabinet and not acted upon, and so the Auditor-General comes back and says, "Why haven't you done something?" This is the difference between having an Auditor-General who reports to the Legislature and a Comptroller-General who reports to the Minister of Finance. Again, they go into inadequate accounting and financial control procedures. In the Northwest Territories, and here we have on page 145 an investigation into the accounting and pension procedures on the C.B.C. So you see they deal, not only with Government spending, but they deal with the Crown Corporations as well.

Here we have the Provincial Auditor's Report for the Province of Ontario. Again, the same thing. Detailed inspection of government spending. A report of abuses to the Legislature as a whole. Recommendations for action by the Cabinet. But nothing like that in British Columbia. Everything hidden from view. Only an opportunity for a few vouchers to be examined by the Public Accounts Committee which has a chairman, a secretary and a group of Government members running interference for the Cabinet.

In searching for a suitable source to support this Auditor-General, it occurred to me that the funds from the three Ministers without Portfolio would be the suitable place to find it. There would be no net cost to Government by eliminating these three posts, but there would be an opportunity to effect huge savings by examining the cost control procedures of every office in the Government. And I just think this should become accepted practice, just as it should become accepted practice to have a chairman and a secretary of the Public Accounts Committee from the Opposition members in the House.

Well, while we've got the paring knife out, there are two other departments which I think we could usefully dispense with in Government. The first is Public Works and the second is Commercial Transport, because these are two departments which are simply a hold-over from a past era. The Minister isn't here, and I know Public Works has distinguished itself in its design of fountains, but it really hasn't done very much else, Mr. Speaker. .

AN HON. MEMBER: Washed the Court House steps….

MR. McGEER: Washed the Court House steps. Well, these are hardly the dynamic functions that deserve Cabinet attention. Most of the public buildings should be opened up to architectural competition. Mr. Speaker, this is how these magnificent Parliament Buildings appeared, an open architectural competition, and I shudder to think what our present Department of Public Works might have produced. But having a separate Public Works empire which goes its own way, and often in conflict with those trying to develop a unifying character to their communities, isn't in the public interest. These essential functions, looking after the telephones, and maintenance of the buildings, could be switched to other departments, and we are going to give quite a lot of it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): No thank you.

MR. McGEER: No thank you, he says. Already overburdened. Well, I understand that. The same could be said for

[ Page 257 ]

the Department of Commercial Transport. Now this Budget is almost entirely taken up by operating weigh scale stations, and I think that this administrative anachronism should disappear into the Department of Highways. $762,000 of 900 and something, provided in the Budget for the weigh scale operation. I just said the Budget, but this is an administrative anachronism and it should disappear, But one department that we should form which is new, is the Department of Environmental Control. But you know, Mr. Speaker, all through the Throne debate I listened to honourable members calling for such a department. All parties, and the only ones who haven't called for it- the Cabinet Ministers — they're the only ones, and they're not only in private conflict over the problem of pollution, they're in public conflict over it. The Minister of Health said something publicly one week, and the Minister of Lands and Forests right next to him said something different. The Minister of Recreation, just last week, said we shouldn't have a Department of Pollution or Environmental Control, and I couldn't decide as I listened to him shooting down the idea that so many members propose, whether he was wearing his hat as Minister of Recreation or whether he was wearing his hat as one of the Resource Development Ministers for the B.C. Hydro. But he said the Resource Ministers would have to get together before anything could be done, and it's pretty obvious that the Resource Ministers haven't been able to get together.

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs fidgeting in his seat, and you know, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs was up trumpeting last week about pollution control and all the things they were going to do to coastal pulp mills. Well, it was the usual sound and fury, and as usual from that Minister it signified nothing, because what he was really doing, Mr. Speaker, was reminding us that the Federal Department of Fisheries is determined to protect the fishing industry from coast mill effluent, and when you get right down to it, Mr. Speaker, they're the ones who set the water standards. They're. the ones who do the testing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are too many conversations going on in the House.

MR. McGEER: And, Mr. Speaker, if past experience is any criteria they're going to be the ones to do the cracking down, but I say this, we can't rely on the Federal Government entirely to do the job.

MR. CAMPBELL: We can't rely on it at all.

MR. McGEER: Some Provincial initiative, some, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs, is going to be required, and that is why I say this new department should have an initial budget of $10,000,000 and the Minister should be the toughest member of the Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all pretty tough.

MR. McGEER: We can't have one, Mr. Speaker, who swoons at the faint smell of money, because cleaning up pollution is going to have a cost associated with it, and I am looking across the floor, Mr. Speaker, because I'd like to find a hawk in that Cabinet on the subject of pollution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chicken hawk.

MR. McGEER: But all I can see is a coop full of chickens over there, not one of you interested in cleaning up pollution in British Columbia, but I say this, maybe if the Minister can't be found, you can at least find a Deputy Minister. There are so many departments now that are being run by the Deputies it wouldn't be an exception, and perhaps you can get a tough Deputy Minister. Well, we want to find this department. We should be prepared to offer incentives to industry to clean up. We should be phasing out beehive burners in British Columbia over the next two years. We should be having a strict air pollution control law. These are all functions for this new Department of Environmental Control.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in this budget we are going to be good to the Attorney-General, because we've increased his estimates by $3,124,000. These are the things that this money is for. First of all the establishment of an ombudsman. The second, a fund for the victims of violent crimes, and the third is a programme of legal aid for the poor…. I'll give them to you later, Mr. Attorney-General, but that's a nest egg you can get started with because our Province is wealthy. The Government has an adequate income to do these things for your department, and you know as well as I do that in other jurisdictions the programmes of legal aid and the office of ombudsman and the provision of indemnifying victims of violent crimes have proved themselves, been well established in countless other jurisdictions, and I don't think it's necessary to tell further stories on the floor of the House because so many members have done this in past years. I just reiterate that we Liberals will take care of these things, given our opportunity, and we will be the ones to live up to that slogan of being for the little man, because you have it within your power.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've brightened our day.

MR. McGEER: But you do nothing about it. We've brightened a member's day, he says. Well, that's fine.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

AN HON. MEMBER: The divine right to rule.

MR. McGEER: Well, the next budget that we would increase, Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Municipal Affairs, and this is increased by $37,000,000. It includes the absorption of Public Works, and the recommendation that future Government works be put out to private architectural competition, something we should have adopted as a practice years ago. There are other provisions in your Budget, Mr. Minister. One of them is to give outright grants to municipalities to assist them with their sewage treatment programmes. But you know, and the Minister of Health knows, that you're tolerating all around British Columbia the dumping of raw sewage into rivers. Up north in Fort St. John raw sewage gets dumped into the Peace River, a little further down it is taken out for drinking water at Taylor, then it's dumped into the water again, sewage at Taylor, to be found….

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not right.

MR. McGEER: That's not right, the member says.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the members please address the Chair.

[ Page 258 ]

MR. McGEER: I'll be having more to say about the pollution of the Peace River before this Session is out, Mr. Speaker. I only say that we have to build sewage treatment plants around British Columbia. That the money is there to do it, and we can get the coloform counts down to safe levels in all our waterways. In addition to that, we should be forming a Municipal Finance Authority, a new Crown Corporation. The Minister of Municipal Affairs made a half-baked attempt to sell the Union of B.C. Municipalities on this a year ago and they weren't in favour of it.

MR. CAMPBELL: In favour of what?

MR. McGEER: Your version of a Municipal Finance Authority. Because these are bonds that have to be fully guaranteed by the Provincial Government, perhaps for specific purposes like sewage. But when you take the communities that aren't wealthy, that perhaps don't have expensive mills established within their boundaries, they need to be able to borrow funds at the same attractive interest rate the more developed communities are able to do, and until a Municipal Finance Authority is formed that guarantees these bonds and puts all the municipalities of the Province on an equal basis, we're not going to have essential services built in our smaller towns all over British Columbia.

One more job sits on your platter, Mr. Minister, that can't be delayed too much longer, and this is the building of a subway system, a rapid transit authority for the lower mainland. Do you know that one of the areas of densest population a generation from now is going to be our lower mainland area? There's simply no way of avoiding it. We're going to have high-rise apartments extending in every direction, and there's going to have to be some means of transportation to move people back and forth, and that means a downtown subway in Vancouver, and surface lines running out to the bedroom communities. Everybody knows this, and yet with this certain knowledge we stand idly by year after year and take no action at all to prepare for this day, and because we have to get on with the proper planning of our metropolitan areas as well as our areas more remote in the Province of British Columbia, there is money provided in this budget to make a commencement on the detailed planning of a subway system for the lower mainland area.

Now, there is one last programme that needs to be undertaken by that Minister. He brought in during the Throne Debate a 5-5-5 plan. I don't know whether anybody caught on to that plan or not. Well, it's not the answer, Mr. Minister. The answer was given by the former member from Oak Bay a year ago on this side of the House, and that is that you should be paying, for people who are on fixed incomes and are living out their years in their own homes, you should pay their municipal taxes for them on a loan basis, and when that home is disposed of, then the assets can cover the cost of the money that was advanced to pay those municipal taxes. This is the only way these older people, that are on fixed incomes that shrink year by year, can live in dignity through their remaining years as their taxes go up and as their savings shrink. And this isn't going to cost the Government very much. It would soon develop into a revolving fund, and these people wouldn't have to be moving into the kind of apartments that you conceive of in your 5-5-5 plan. Older people don't like to move, they just want to stay in the home they've grown accustomed to in the years in which they've lived in it.

Well, I see the Minister of Education isn't in his seat. Oh yes, fine. Well, Mr. Minister our Liberal budget calls for $40,000,000 more for you, and that would bring your total to $402,000,000. I think you could do a lot with that, because your problem, and I quite understand it, Mr. Speaker, is that every year the increases you get just barely cover the increases in teachers' salaries, and the population increases around the Province. You can never get at the fundamental backlog of lack of facilities at the post-secondary level and providing adequate schools at the primary and secondary level.

Oh, I know there's no freeze on school construction, no freeze at all, but it's certainly a prolonged trial biological state, and this is what we would propose to end with the $40,000,000 extra, because it would give you a chance to get even, instead of always being a year behind. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows what's required, and I would suggest a commencement on two new universities in the interior of our Province and the raising of Notre Dame University at Nelson to equal status with our public universities. And I would recommend that one of our new universities be in the Okanagan and another in the northern part of the Province.

Well, in addition to the provision of these new universities and increased grants to our existing universities, it's time we got on with the proper regional college system, because what we're doing now, Mr. Speaker, is operating these on a basis of swing shifts in high school. It's really just Grades 13 and 14, but we've got to have something more sophisticated and advanced. We've also got to begin to tie all these separate institutions together in an integrated fashion. We want our educational system not only to be excellent but efficient as well, and people have to know, when they go to a regional college, which programmes are acceptable at all our universities and which are not acceptable. Otherwise we waste their time and money.

I want to underline what was said earlier in the House today about inefficiencies caused by our school facilities lying vacant on weekends and during holidays, because these facilities — the auditoriums, the libraries, the gymnasiums — all can be used by the community. But you know, last October, Mr. Minister, you received this report, very grateful for that, but I would have preferred if you had implemented some of the recommendations in that report, because they told you that what you should be doing was exactly what I've said, and what you should know is right, namely to put all these facilities together. Why is it? What explanation can you give for turning. down Coquitlam when they wanted to pay for and build that swimming pool in the high school? What answer is there to it?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're talking to the wrong man.

MR. McGEER: Well, I think whether it comes from the Minister of Education or someone else, it's the kind of thinking we can do without. We should be pushing now to have all those facilities in the high schools, and in regional colleges too, for that matter, community facilities. That includes swimming pools. The Minister nods his head, so I know he's going to change his mind and give the okay to the Coquitlam School Board. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: North Vancouver.

MR. McGEER: North Van as well?

[ Page 259 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please address the Chair.

MR. McGEER: He's evading the question, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we've got something for hospitals too, and this is for the Minister of Health Services, because our budget would provide an additional $40,000,000 for hospitals and, Mr. Speaker, this is our answer to the "soak the sick" policy of the Social Credit member from Oak Bay. Well, it's been our privilege over the years to have had the member from Oak Bay sit in the Liberal benches, and I've consistently heard these members make pleas — they fell on deaf ears — to the Government to have a proper and rational system of hospitals in this Province, especially, especially in the Greater Victoria area. Our party has called for financing of hospitals on a pay-as-you-go basis, the hospital debt is only $23,000,000, and the elimination of hospital taxes on the land. But we have never called for an increase in the co-insurance rate to $3 a day, and this is what the present Social Credit member from Oak Bay has advocated. A "soak the sick" policy.

Well, you know, Mr. Speaker, only doctors can admit patients to hospitals and the patients leave when the doctors tell them to leave, and if the patients are remaining in acute hospital beds too long, and in my opinion they are remaining in acute hospital beds too long, it's because adequate alternatives are not available. It isn't because they are paying a dollar a day and like the service. They don't have any say as to when they come in and when they go out. The doctors have that say as to when they come in and when they go out. The doctors have that say and they have to be guided by what additional facilities are available for their patient.

I think it ill behooves that member from Oak Bay to suggest the solution he does, and we've already been reminded in the House that he was the physician that suggested that the Government should not disclose payments from the B.C. Medical Plan to physicians' offices around the Province. I don't think there should be anything to hide at all in the medical field, and I think the Government has wisely rejected the member's advice in this matter of payment of fees to physicians' offices, and the matter of raising coinsurance rates.

But what must be done, Mr. Speaker, and in this the member from Oak Bay was correct, is to have a total and sensible plan for hospitals, because what's happened in Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, is that we've concentrated all our hospital finances in acute care, and as a result everything has been pushed under that acute care umbrella. Our hospital beds are not being used efficiently because there aren't alternative services available. The same thing happens, you know, with universities. If you build a university but you don't build any regional colleges or vocational schools, you get all kinds of people going to universities who would be better off and could contribute more if they had some different kind of an education. The same thing applies to the hospital situation. If you have acute care facilities but nothing else, you get all kinds of patients in acute hospital beds who could be as well looked after in other accommodation. This is why we suggest funds should be available for out-patient services, for a home care programme and, particularly, for chronic care beds, and in the long run, Mr. Speaker, this is going to make hospital care cheaper. In the long run it's going to save money. This is why we should be moving ahead with this chronic care programme.

But we also provide in our budget for commencement of a teaching and research hospital, the main unit at the University of British Columbia. You know, during all the years that the Government has been in office it's always been reluctant to move ahead in the health field, always, and that is why we've waited more than 20 years for a proper teaching and research hospital, and it's also why there are such gaping holes in our hospital programmes in British Columbia.

We've got to provide a programme for child psychiatry in the Province, and I think the neglect of emotionally disturbed children has been so often drawn to the attention of the members of the House that there is little point in repeating it now, but only to say that the money for a programme is there. The people are paying for it in taxes and they're not receiving the benefits.

We also want to provide funds for some medical research in British Columbia. We're spending so much money on hospitals, over $200,000,000 a year now, I think it should occur to someone that the best long term, the best long term answer has to be in discovering the cause of some of these diseases. You know, a few days ago I was at the Pearson Hospital in Vancouver. A third of the people in that hospital are under 50 years of age. Almost all of them have neurological diseases of one kind or another. Very few of them have fatal diseases. Quite aside from all the suffering that they will have to endure in their lifetime, the expenses of caring for them are going to be enormous. The only answer for these people, the only answer is to have research done into the literally thousands of diseases for which no cause is known and no cure is available. Scientific research is the only hope, and this Government, which is prepared to spend, sharing with the Federal Government, some $200,000,000 a year in care of these patients, is simply unwilling to take up any responsibilities at all for research.

A lot of that money is still available. Fifty per cent is waiting to be used as soon as the Provincial Government gives the signal to go ahead on the university hospital. That will be one start for it. But these are the kinds of things that are quite within the power of our Provincial Government to undertake, quite within the power, and if the other governments are negligent it's no reason for ours to be negligent. Nothing to prevent us from going ahead and doing our share, and this is what we aren't doing, Mr. Member, and no one knows it better than you. Provincial Government simply isn't doing its share.

Leave the Junior League alone, says the second member for Vancouver East. Well, I don't want to comment on matters that we'll be debating later in the House, but part of the responsibility in this field has been provided by private philanthropy, and as a result of actions on the part of the Minister of Finance, and we had a taste of more of these on Friday, those private philanthropic resources are going to dry up.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. McGEER: They're going to dry up, and it's something that should bring shame to the Minister of Finance and dismay to the members of this House. We've depended on philanthropy to do the things that you will not undertake, no matter how much money you have, and you've never had more than you have today, never been more able to move in these fields that you have neglected for so many years, never more capable to get your chronic hospital programme going, to catch up on education, to do these human things. But the money just sits there, waiting to be stripped off for the

[ Page 260 ]

Crown Corporations.

Not even enough in Highways, and I can only say what I have said before, that what used to be a Social Credit strength is now a weakness. We have got to get on with completing some of the main arterial highways in the Province. The Minister of Highways knows this. I want to start with the worst bottleneck in the Province, which is the one between Rosedale and Hope, a menace every summer. Then we go east, Whipsaw Hill. The Hope-Princeton Highway is completely outmoded now. We still haven't got the Champion Lakes cutoff, and if these things were done, the Minister would be able to scoot back and forth from his constituency of Nelson-Creston in something between one and two hours less than it takes today, and we would have a highway system that was equivalent to the southern TransProvincial. But you had an opportunity to build it and you, Mr. Member, of all people, should be up championing the upgrading of that Hope-Princeton Highway. Well, it should have been done years ago. That is why we are providing the Minister of Highways with an extra $20,000,000, so he can get on with some of these things.

The member from Atlin has repeatedly called for the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, and I would be prepared to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is more important to opening up the northwest corner of British Columbia than finishing the P.G.E. on its way up to Dease Lake, more important. And the Minister of Municipal Affairs has yet to deliver on all his promises of a road to the north end of Vancouver Island. Your memory gets jogged about every three years around election time, then we're going to get something done, then something slips along the way and that highway never seems to get built. But it surely is a priority item, I would agree with you on that. Then the Pemberton-Lillooet Highway. That is another one that would cut 60 miles off to the coast for all the members that live in the northern interior. I am sure that the member from Cariboo would like to see this route put through, cut off from Clinton and avoid that bottleneck. Sixty miles it would cut off to the coast and over an hour's travelling time.

Then, for the members on Vancouver Island, we should by now have instituted our one-hour ferry service to the mainland, from Iona to Gabriola, and this is something that we have repeatedly called for. But by mentioning a few of these projects, Mr. Speaker, I hope I can convey how serious we are about tackling the backlog of highways in our Province. I notice the former Minister of Highways probably agreeing with me that we have got quite a backlog of highways and we have been slowing down year by year, but there is money there to do the job, and we have not been using it.

Well now, we said we were going to increase by $15,000,000 the appropriation for the Minister of Industrial Development. I think I can understand, Mr. Speaker, why the Minister of Finance has been so reticent to put more money under the stewardship of the present Minister. But just the same, the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec have very successfully proved the viability of an industrial incentive programme. I think the Minister should be down studying that industrial incentive programme, because what it does is give an opportunity to the Province of British Columbia to have a breakthrough in the establishment of sophisticated secondary industry in this, Province. I don't think we can hammer home too frequently the point that the present Government has simply got to see beyond resource development as the way of providing industry in the Province. By that I don't mean to discount at all the importance of mining developments, pulp mills, or sawmills, because these are all extraordinarily important to British Columbia. So are oil and gas pipe-lines. And it is because of the importance of these resource industries to our immediate future that I have been critical of many of the provisions in our Federal White Paper. But nevertheless, there is more to industry that just resource development.

There are many small towns that simply do not have abundant resources at their doorstep, and a different approach to industrial development has to be used for these towns and communities, and it is for the benefit of these places that we should have our industrial incentive programme. That includes financing, capital grants, and tax incentives. Nothing new or novel. Something that has been proved to be effective at the Federal level, here in British Columbia, with all those plants up in the Okanagan, a region that has adequate secondary industry. But when it comes to filling in the areas not covered by the Federal programme, nothing in British Columbia. But Ontario and Quebec made up for these defects to the advantage of their provinces. Why not in British Columbia? Is it the Minister? The Minister of Industrial Finance? The Minister of Industry? or the Minister of Finance?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Culture.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you are talking about.

MR. McGEER: Don't know what I am talking about? I suppose they don't know what they are talking about in Ontario either, or in Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're in bad financial shape compared to this Province.

MR. McGEER: Bad financial shape! Industries are going to pot! The fact that they have got 200 new industries from the State of California alone is of no significance at all! Just don't know what they are doing! Well, I think that you don't know what you are doing, Mr. Minister, and that you ought to get on your toes.

Well, I think that we should perhaps get on with something else that you have had some trouble understanding, and that is the necessity to develop in British Columbia advanced technology and a science city, and we have got the ideal location for this on the endowment lands of the University of British Columbia. We have got one science city started in Canada, in Sheridan Park, in the Province of Ontario. Have you ever visited Sheridan Park — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister — ever seen it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aw, go on, he went there. He thought it was an amusement park. He thought it was Coney Island.

MR. McGEER: Well, this is what we should be trying to get to give a lift to our secondary industry in British Columbia and get us past the stage in our development that we seem to be stalled on today, which is to provide for resource industries but nothing else.

Well, we have got something for the Minister of Lands and Forests, too, Mr. Speaker. We've provided an extra $10,000,000 for him and that is for clearing behind the

[ Page 261 ]

dams, because I don't think we want to have repeated any more the mistakes of the past, and they were made in the Peace River, just as they were made behind Stave Lake, and just as they were made behind the lakes in Tweedsmuir Park. The Minister of Agriculture knows very well what I am talking about. Anybody who has gone and seen the mess behind these lakes knows how important it is to clear before they are flooded.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker, we have provided an additional $5,000,000 to the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry, and this is to help bail that Minister out of the mess he has created, he and the Minister of Lands and Forests, of Cypress Bowl. It is to help avoid a repetition of that catastrophe in Powder Mountain. The money is there to provide proper access roads to each of these important recreational developments and to provide access roads for other winter playgrounds around British Columbia. I think that the chairlifts can support themselves. The problem is getting access to these winter recreational areas, and if we are ever to make tourism a viable year-round business in British Columbia, we are going to have to develop proper facilities for winter recreation and probably convention facilities in many of the communities around British Columbia that lie near these playgrounds. As it is, it is mainly a summer business, and the operators who provide the facilities for the people who visit them simply cannot make it on four or five months a year business. This is why your Department has so much to contribute by developing winter recreation.

Well, these are our spending proposals, our 1971 budget highlights. The total programme of $1,317,000,000, $137,000,000 more than the present Budget, still well within the means of the Province. They provide for elimination of the pay raise to M.L.A.'s, elimination of the Ministers without Portfolio, elimination of Public Works and Commercial Transport, creation of the office of an Auditor-general, formation of a Department of Environmental Control, creation of the office of ombudsman, a legal aid system for the poor, a Victims Indemnity Fund. Increased grants to municipalities for sewage treatment facilities, a metropolitan rapid transit authority, a municipal finance authority. Increased grants to education to commence two new universities in the Interior, regional and technical colleges. Increased grants to hospitals to provide a chronic care programme to catch up on the acute shortages, to get the teaching and research hospital at the University of British Columbia under way, to provide facilities for emotionally disturbed children, to commence the research into the illnesses that plague our Province. Increased grants to the Department of Highways to finish off Highway 401, to upgrade the southern Trans-Provincial, to work on the Stewart-Cassiar road, to commence work on the road to the north end of Vancouver Island, and to work on the Pemberton Lillooet Highway. We provide for a grant to Industrial Development for an incentive programme to bring secondary industry to the smaller communities of British Columbia, to establish a science city in our Province, and to form an economic council. We provide increased grants for Lands and Forests, $10,000,000 to get on with clearing behind our dams that will be left in a shocking state if this work isn't undertaken. We provide for increased grants to travel industries, winter recreation, getting out of the mess at Cypress Bowl. We do all these things, Mr. Speaker, and we provide for a budget surplus of $82,000,000. We leave untouched the nest egg of the past. And that, Mr. Speaker, is a budget!

On the motion of the Hon. R. G. Williston, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. L. R. Peterson, Bill (No. 12) intituled An Act Respecting Motion Pictures was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

The House adjourned at 5.08 p.m.