[ Page 325 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills:

On the motion of Mr. B. Campbell, Bill (No. 50) intituled An Act to Amend the Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance Company Act.

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 51) intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 52) intituled An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company.

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 53) intituled An Act Respecting Office Administrators.

On the motion of Mr. Merilees, Bill (No. 54) intituled An Act Respecting Yorkshire Trust Company.

On the motion of Mr. Ney, Bill (No. 55) intituled An Act Respecting Marine Surveyors.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in my brief remarks today I propose to direct my attention to those responsibilities that I'm charged with in administering the affairs of the Department of Commercial Transport.

However, at the outset I wish to make a number of very pertinent suggestions and statements for Government consideration pertaining to the constituency of Boundary Similkameen, which it is my honour to represent in this Legislative Assembly. With the growing importance of the southern Trans-Canada Highway, more commonly known as Highway 3, there are a few portions of this route that have not been brought up to the standards of the rest of the highway. They occur mainly in the eastern end of the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, namely between Greenwood and Grand Forks. Spencer Hill, west of Grand Forks, should receive high priority. A need for re-alignment and widening is most obvious. The type of material involved would not be expensive to move, as it's mostly dirt and fragmented rock. Central Avenue in the city of Grand Forks is in urgent need of having the present programme carried out to facilitate the movement of traffic on the highway through the city.

Realizing the difficulties the Department of Highways has had in locating and designing the new approaches and bridge at Cascade because of the terrain, I would urge that special attention be directed to this project. There is an ever-increasing load of traffic, both commercial and tourist, on the present structure. Before turning my attention to the western end of the constituency, I would remind my colleagues of the urgent need to carry out the development work on the beach and picnic site, or day camp as it might be referred to, that was acquired by the Department of Recreation and Conservation on the south end of Christina Lake.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. RICHTER: The pressure of use on this lake for recreational purposes is almost unbelievable. In the Okanagan Valley, and I speak only of the most southerly end of the Valley from the international border at Osoyoos to Trout Creek near Summerland, it is becoming a very debatable point as to whether or not the tourist industry contributes more to the economy than the older industry of agriculture. Certainly the tourist industry has provided a cash market for some of the agricultural produce.

Mr. Speaker, here again I would suggest that consideration must be given to the re-location of the most easterly end of Highway 3A, from where it joins Highway 97 for about two to two and a half miles west. This would improve alignment and grade. The highway between Penticton and Naramata certainly requires re-location to get it away from the orchards and the traffic adherent thereto. The volume of travel on Highway 97 between Penticton and Summerland, in my opinion, has developed to the point that four lanes are now necessary. Much of the traffic load has come about through commuters from Penticton, who find the constituency of South Okanagan a nice place to sleep and reside.

I want to commend the Minister of Highways and his Department for the excellent programme they have carried out on access roads to skiing areas. In the last few years some very challenging ski areas have been developed within the constituency that I represent, and this development has changed our whole tourist industry from a seasonal nature to a year-round operation. I also wish to commend my colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and his Department for the attention that they have given to the re-stocking of lakes and streams. The benefit to both local anglers and visiting tourists cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

Mr. Speaker, I could spend a great deal more time in discussing matters of great importance to the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, such as the Okanagan Basin Water Board, its programmes and studies, the highway improvements that have taken place in the past year, the results of discussions in planning of the Penticton truck route, the establishment of secondary industries, and so on.

As I mentioned at the outset of my address, Mr. Speaker, and in deference to those that follow me, I would now direct myself to those matters that come within my jurisdiction as Minister of Commercial Transport. I think at this point, Mr. Speaker, it might be fair if I were to give a brief analysis of the budget that was brought in by the leader of the Liberal party, more particularly regarding the Department of Commercial Transport I was rather amazed at the fuzzy fiscal gymnastics that the leader of the Liberal party went through in explaining where he was going to make savings in his budget, such as elimination of the Department of Commercial Transport.

Now anyone that will look at their Estimates will know that even by absorbing the Department of Commercial Transport within other departments of Government, you're still not going to save anything on the cost, as far as the operations of the various branches of Commercial Transport are concerned, no matter what department they might be in. However, there would be a very great saving in doing away with the Minister, and this, had we been adopting the Liberal leader's suggestion, this would be my last address as Minister of Commercial Transport. However, to show you how ridiculous the suggestion was, it's the one portfolio I carry that I don't get paid for. So how you're going to save nothing by nothing is more than I know. It just shows the lack of thinking or understanding of the function of the departments

[ Page 326 ]

concerned that has entered into the whole suggestion. However, it was a brave try and I commend the leader of the Liberal party for his try.

The impact of the expanding economy of British Columbia is being felt by the transportation industry in a manner which perhaps exceeds that of any other branch of commerce within our Province. Wherever one looks the economic explosion, whether it be in mining, forestry, tourism, or any other facet of commercial life, is giving rise to great demand on the transportation service. These demands are as diverse and complex as many of the products which the industry is called upon to transport. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, transportation technology is advancing at a pace which is equal to most of the demands being placed upon it.

In the past few decades vast resource areas were opened up by virtue of the roads, rails, and sea links developed in that period. As a result, a spectacular expansion of industry has taken place. The challenge which faces the transportation industry today is not so much in the area of providing access to resources, although this is a continuing need in a Province such as ours, but rather it is in the technology of transporting the resources once access has been obtained. It is in this area of material handling that a number of exciting new concepts have developed and others are under active research and experiment. Had it not been for the daring concept of the super ship and the mechanical masterpiece of the unit train the conception of a new life for the coal industry in Canada would be stillborn and the Roberts Bank superport would be a dream.

Economical transportation of the commodity is a major factor in the marketing, of the industrial products of this Province. In the mining industry especially, but true of all commercial ventures, it is the cost of transportation which often means the difference between landing a contract or losing it. It is for this reason the expanding economy of British Columbia cannot afford to be controlled by any monopolistic media of transportation, whether it be privately owned or publicly protected. Bureaucratic barriers set up to protect vested interests must not be permitted to retard the progress of this Province.

There are compelling forces in world market today which make it imperative that every feasible avenue of economic transportation be explored and implemented. One such force is the super carrier, and when I mention the word super carrier I think it is beyond many of our farthest dreams the size of the ships that are today in service. We have six ships of the capacity of 326,000 dead weight tons within international trade today. These ships alone would be carrying something in the neighbourhood of 2,200,000 barrels of oil. It is also being accepted by the shipping industry that it is not beyond the concept of possibility, and blueprints are being prepared, for 500,000 ton dead weight ships, and also — dead weight ton ships, yes. Also, it is believed that in the foreseeable future that we will have 800,000 ton dead weight ships along, and in due course that it is possible to have a million ton ship of a similar nature.

Now this is getting pretty fantastic and, as I say, it's probably beyond any possible concept that we might have of the size of shipping that we can contemplate. We already have ships of greater tonnage than a quarter of a million tons actually right now. There are six that are of the 326,000. I would't say that every port in the world would be able to handle this type of shipping but there are some that would be able to.

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the reason behind decisions to pour millions of dollars into harbour facilities at Burrard Inlet, when the Federal Government's decision to build the causeway and island at Roberts Bank was predicated upon the acceptance of the notion that this new port was necessary to facilitate the use of super cargo carriers. Furthermore, in this, day and age when the aesthetic qualities of life are of great concern, why are they persisting in developing coal and other raw commodities loading points in an area which is in the very heart of what is acknowledged as one of the most beautiful metropolitan areas in North American? One can only assume that these decisions are made to maintain a bureaucratic empire whose value to modern transportation concepts is outmoded.

But even this doesn't seem to be enough. The problems are to be compounded. Now, more millions are to be poured into developing container facilities in the Inlet. Any one who has studied the development of containerization knows that there are two essential facts to success of this method of transportation. One is in the availability of large areas of land. To do the job properly it needs a minimum 20 acres per berth. The other is the existence of arteries capable of handling hundreds of tractor-trailers which, if it is to be a container port in fact as well as in name, requires ready access to highway systems of the Province and of the nation. Mr. Speaker, the question is, who is going to pay for this — is the City of Vancouver, or are the municipalities surrounding Burrard Inlet prepared to meet this cost? With a National Harbours Board decision to develop container berths at Lynn Terminal, I am wondering whether the Federal Government will at last recognize its responsibilities and pay its just share of that part of the Trans-Canada Highway which is the Second Narrows Bridge. Without this bridge a container terminal in that location, utilizing road transport, would be impossible. I believe it goes without saying what increase in diesel trucks and trains will do for the air pollution problem in the metropolitan Vancouver area.

Mr. Speaker, my whole point is this. Why, when we have Roberts Bank miles away from the heavy populated area and with the opportunity to establish adequate transportation corridors at minimum cost, do we have to stand by while the National Harbours Board, sitting 3,000 miles away, makes decisions which aggravates an already serious traffic environmental situation. I believe the time has come when government in British Columbia, both provincial and municipal, must have the right to say what will, or will not be done in matters which affect the quality of life and the economic opportunity of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia does not accept the premise that the operations of ports, large or small, are the sole prerogative of the Federal Government. I may add there is sound Canadian precedent for such a position. And I might mention at this time, and I quote from an article in the Colonist — the Victoria Colonist of January 31st — "Three Point Davis Plan. New harbours deal shaping up on coast. There is a whole new harbour deal shaping up on the west coast," and according to what Mr. Davis said, and I quote further, "At the moment, insists Fisheries and Forestry Minister Jack Davis, this is his own idea, and he has still to sell it to the Cabinet before it can become government policy. But he has it well on the way to that now, with discussions in progress between his department and Transport Minister Don Jamieson's officials as to which harbours are to get what classification." Any effort to reconstruct the port facilities of this Province, of necessity, should only be carried out in consultation with the Province and the municipalities

[ Page 327 ]

immediately concerned, and from Mr. Davis' quotation this has not been done nor is there any indication that it is even being given a thought. Mr. Speaker, if cooperative federalism and Canadian unity means anything, surely it means this, that when major proposals of this kind are made they are first communicated to the appropriate authorities in the Provinces, and implemented only after full discussion and with the agreement and participation by those authorities most vitally concerned.

As we all are aware, the age of coal has been reborn in eastern British Columbia. To facilitate this, new railways are being built and the interesting new concept of the unit train is soon to go into operation. The unit train to be used to haul coal from the Kootenays comprises 39,000 horsepower utilized in diesel-powered units to haul a train of 105 cars, each weighing over 1,300 tons. A number of diesel units will be placed 40 cars back from the front locomotive and these slave units, slightly ahead of the centre point of the train, are to be controlled by the driver by means of radio. Mr. Speaker, this is another indication of a modern concept and technology in transportation, serving the needs of our ever-expanding economy in getting raw materials to markets of the world in a fast and efficient method.

Another exciting innovation in the world of transportation is the solids pipe line concept. Is that what you wanted me to talk about, Mr. Member? We have heard much of this method of transportation in recent years, and I read with keen interest any reliable evidence of technical feasibility and market acceptance of this means of transportation of raw materials. Until such time, I have no doubt the emphasis of transporting raw materials in this Province will be upon the ever-expanding railway system.

Before leaving the subject of railways I would like to say a few words about the railway to Roberts Bank. As the honourable members know and are aware, this railway is due to go into operation in April. There are over 20 crossings on this route which will be completely signallized. Road overpasses are to be constructed on Pacific Highway, King George Highway, and Highway 17, and others are under study. Signallized temporary level crossings are to be installed at these locations. My understanding is that due to the requirements of pre-loading these locations, it will be approximately a year before the construction of these overpasses will be completed. The honourable members will find a more detailed report on the building of this railway in the annual report of the Department of Commercial Transport which I will propose to file later today.

Mr. Speaker, comment on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway is almost superfluous. It continues to grow, stretching northward and westward. This backbone of transportation in British Columbia is opening up new resource areas and making what were once mere prospects into sizeable projects. I might also add that a detailed report on this railway is also contained in the Department's annual report.

Mr. Speaker, the unprecedented popularity of skiing our mountain slopes has brought about a phenomenal increase in the construction of aerial tramways. A few years ago there were just a handful of areas with ski lift facilities. Today there are 85 registered areas with 150 facilities operating to serve the winter playgrounds of British Columbia. The responsibility of my Department is that of public safety. In addition to a busy schedule of on-site inspections by the Department inspectors, the Chief Engineer of Commercial Transport has participated on an international basis to bring about safety standards of a comparable nature throughout Europe and North America. Every new facility involves a considerable amount of attention by this Department. Each phase, from the initial drawing to the final construction, must receive engineering approval before an operational certificate is issued. Consequently, British Columbia winter recreational areas enjoy an enviable safety record in the area of the mechanical facilities it operates.

Mr. Speaker, one other aspect of winter recreation that I should comment on is that of motorized snow vehicles. This form of recreation has experienced an incredible increase during the past year or two, and in the light of this I instructed officials of my Department to look into the desirability of introducing measures to regulate the operation of these vehicles within the Province. At the present time regulations exist under the Motor Vehicle Act, Division 24, regulating the use of such vehicles on the public highway. So what we were actually looking into was their operation off highways. I should emphasize that what we were and are concerned with is the safety of the public, not merely the introduction of a licensing system.

If I might digress a minute from my notes, I have an article here — an editorial regarding control of snowmobiles and a Bill that was defeated in the Senate at Olympia just recently, which even went so far as to having some control over snowmobiles on public highways, which I think is very essential. At least we are that much further ahead, that we do control these vehicles on highways that can pose a very great danger to the travelling public. But our concern today is that it is not merely on the highway, but it is in the other areas where a great deal of damage, a great deal of injuries can occur for various reasons. A result of this inquiry was that at the present time it was not considered necessary to introduce regulations to control operations of these vehicles.

It is interesting to note that several commercial ski operations have set aside separate areas for the exclusive use of this type of vehicle. However, I would caution the owners of the various types of motorized snow vehicles — these vehicles can be a dangerous weapon when speed becomes excessive. Also, there is concern for the safety to young children being permitted to use these high-powered machines. If there is a marked increase in the incidence of accidents with these machines, I may well have to give further consideration to the introduction of legislation which may severely curb the pleasure of the public in the operation of these vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, activity continues in the petroleum and natural gas industry, and during the past year some 223 miles of oil and gas pipelines were built. An interesting sidelight indicates the growing importance of Vancouver International Airport. In this respect a six-inch jet fuel line, 26 miles in length, was completed to connect Burnaby refineries with the airport. The throughput of the jet fuel for the year 1969 is reported to be between 52 and 53 million gallons. This will give some indication of the nature of traffic in air transportation in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there was an increase of some 7,384 commercial vehicles licensed to operate on the highways of British Columbia last year. In addition, almost 90,000 non-resident commercial vehicle permits were issued for the same license period, April 1968 to March 1969.

One of the major problems facing this Department in relation to road transportation is in the increasing trend to oversize loads. A recent example of this was where a project called for a roof truss design that would have necessitated a

[ Page 328 ]

series of 19-foot wide loads travelling 300 miles on the highway system. Mr. Speaker, this type of movement is clearly unacceptable. In this particular case, upon reconsideration it was found possible to redesign to a maximum load width of 13 feet, and I must give warning to architects and contractors that before designing structures of this nature, which may have to be transported on our highways, the most careful consideration must be given to the transportation factor. If faced. with a decision in these respects, there is no question but that my Department,officials will rule in the interests of public safety and not in the interests of commerce.

Mr. Speaker, the transportation industry is probably the best barometer of commerce within the Province. It may truly be said as goes transport, so goes British Columbia. Every phase of the transportation industry is expanding, whether it is railways, pipelines, road transport, aerial tramways, harbours or ferries, the whole industry is one action-packed entity which is equal to the challenge of change that confronts it.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to pay tribute to the employees of the Department of Commercial Transport who, faced with an ever-increasing workload, have given unstintingly of their time and talents in the interests of public safety. It is, I believe, in great measure due to the efforts of these men, particularly those out in the field, that the accident level in the transportation industry has been contained within reasonable limits. I wish to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to give some time to the Department of Commercial Transport which it is my honour to administer. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, having gone through this once before, my maiden days are over, I understand. There is one thing I have noticed, however, in my infancy in this Assembly, and that is that there is a good deal of numbers floating around. I think sometimes we tend to play the numbers game.

AN HON. MEMBER: 38 to 17.

MR. COCKE: Yes, 38 to 17, the member says. However, I would like to inform the member that — you see we did an over-all average — it takes 11,000 votes on an average to elect Social Credit, 26,000 to elect NDP, and 35,000 Liberal. I said that very softly about the Liberals. We feel that our 12 are here representing, each one of us, 26,000 people….

You know, I could go on all afternoon if they keep interrupting, Mr. Speaker. However, I appreciate their help.

Now, there is just one thought that I have before discussing my theories this afternoon, and that was the fact that I just noticed a few minutes ago, somebody applauding a level crossing. I thought that we gave that up years ago.

Now, I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, what's new in British Columbia? The mountains and the trees, minerals and the fish, the fertile grounds and lakes and streams, are not in my mind new. These are our heritage and our riches which gave promise to this land before we were born. What's new is man and his needs and wants, Mr. Speaker. In the Budget Speech the Honourable the Premier indicates change in that he says, and I note that indicates change, and that he says the Government's first policy in this new decade is for people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask, what people? Is the Government talking about senior citizens? Is the Government talking about the mentally ill? Are they discussing alcoholics in our midst? Do they mean labour, Mr. Speaker, and are they including the unemployed?

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, could the Honourable Premier mean the people who enjoyed the decade of the 60's, those wonderful years and those beautiful people. This bountiful land has indeed provided great riches and the rounded life for many. What of those who have been left out? And the disparity becomes greater and greater. Clichés and platitudes are poor substitutes for priorities. Now let me not be misunderstood. I have enjoyed the bounties of this Province, thank you…. but it gives me small satisfaction knowing that there are many who have not. Most of those who have not been endowed with good fortune, have not through no fault of their own. Some of those people have had the misfortune of living too long. I'm reminded of "Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee."

Let's just talk about some of those elderly people for a moment, and I would like to start by illustrating with a story. This is made in B.C. and it's all too common. It's about a farmer well into his middle years. He was a prairie farmer. His farm on the prairie was part of the dust bowl, however, which led him to B.C. seeking a new life for himself and his family. Now, starting from scratch again is no easy task, but after some years he had finally paid for a home and by virtue of age had to retire on a small pension. Misfortune occurred in short order. His wife was struck down by a massive brain hemorrhage, and she spent 30 days in the hospital hovering between life and death. At the end of the period, she moved to a private hospital outside the umbrella of B.C.H.I.S. This was early in the 60's, Mr. Speaker. After some time in the private hospital, she was discharged into the care of her husband, who could barely care for himself. It seems strange that this happened coincidentally with that private hospital coming under the B.C.H.I.S. umbrella.

The story is very clear, and I think probably you will go right along with me, and you'll be out there picketing the Parliament Buildings shortly. Married children took the old couple in. Finally after another year or so and a couple of moves, they rented a small place near their children on the mainland. Here she died, leaving a broken, defenseless man wishing he had gone with her. He is a ward of society, having faced major expenses too late in life to handle them. He had to sell his house and everything to pay for the expenses which, unfortunately, he could not handle by virtue of having lost the first half of his income during the depression in the dust bowl. Now he was smitten, I say, by the good life in British Columbia in the 60's.

Now in the Budget, we find $35 monthly for nursing homes, and we find $15 monthly for boarding homes — increases — and we also find nine dollars monthly for many landlords in our Province, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, I'm sure, the institutions need the extra, and I'm referring to the first two institutions. They also have to contend with inflation. What has the nine dollars done for our senior citizens, whose fixed incomes are so vulnerable to inflation? The biggest single bite out of most pensioners' cheques is for accommodation. This Government's contribution to low-cost housing in British Columbia has, in my opinion, been minimal. A fraction of the kind of money going into our great power projects would do the job of providing low-cost housing. It would also be a self-liquidating type of proposition.

[ Page 329 ]

Now what kind of people-concerned Government provides low-cost power to a foreign country, and denies low-cost housing to its own?

Now, dealing with the decade for the people, the Budget does not say too much with regards to radical changes in carrying out the Government's responsibility to the mentally ill. The tragedy of mental illness and mental retardation is compounded by this Government not applying itself to the problem. There was a time in British Columbia when we were considered way ahead of our time. We are no longer in that position. If it were not for the tremendously dedicated staff we have in the Mental Health Service, I'm sure that we would be even further behind, and a trip to Riverview would quickly convince you of the inadequacies of that gigantic institution. Most top professionals recognize the need for change, but they are obviously not being listened to.

Now I visited Riverview during the time that the renovations were going on in West Lawn. It doesn't require much expertise to recognize that a renovation such as this must be extremely expensive, and the reason I draw out the fact, Mr. Speaker, of it being extremely expensive, I believe that this sort of cements us into that kind of a situation. Because once having spent a lot of money, it's like me, if I put a major repair on my car, I feel that I must keep it for a lot longer. Therefore I feel that a major expense on an institution such as Riverview puts us in that position.

I might say, also, that the major renovation I thought was rather odd in this respect, it was on West Lawn, as I said, and when we were going through this particular part of the Riverview complex, we noticed that they had built nursing stations in areas where they seemed to be properly in place, but the problem with those areas was the fact that they built the nursing station totally opaque, in that there were walls on all sides and a door, without even a window. Now I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can a nurse view the ward through the walls, without extra-sensory perception? Most of our nurses in Riverview, I am told, do not have extra-sensory perception. I am sure that this will be corrected, but I really think that it sort of displays the fact that we really don't know quite what is going on, and that one department does not confer with another department when they are doing this kind of thing.

Now I also felt very badly that, the time I was there, jackhammers were working away in this particular ward of people who were there pretty well for lifetime. During the time that the jackhammers were hammering away I could hardly hear anybody speaking, and I am sure that the people, the inmates and the staff, underwent severe nervous shock just being exposed to that kind of situation.

Now that expenditure, if put into small local annexes to general hospitals, I think would have helped us turn the corner in our direction. I hope there is nothing to the rumours that there are other major renovations to Riverview in the future. Let this Government set a goal of reversing its position, and really set about decentralizing mental health care service.

One of the things that I noticed — and I know that there are some aspects of mental health care that must be conducted in that kind of setting, — when I was in Riverside, which is an area down by the river, and this is the maximum security section of the Riverview complex. Now in Riverside we have three floors, and each floor is a ward. The top ward is called R-3. Here we have 80 people who are maximum security, there by Order-in-Council and so on, and there they are, 80 people crammed into a situation that I abhor. Their bedroom, so to speak, Mr. Speaker, is a large sort of three rooms in one where, standing at any position in this huge bedroom, you can see the whole place, you can see everybody in that bedroom aspect. Now in the bedroom itself the beds are so close together, there is no privacy at all. Then to sort of compound this problem, Mr. Speaker, go down the hall to the lounge area, and in the lounge area you find two rooms that are like large living-rooms together, and this is their lounge area. Shoulder to shoulder, Mr. Speaker, shoulder to shoulder, that's what those people are in that institution.

As I brushed through, and you know you do brush through an area like that, a man walked up to me and said, "If you're looking at this place or inspecting it," he said, "I want you to tell the people that are here we live like animals." Now, you know, I'm just quoting what he had to say, but really and truly, there should be some privacy. These are sick people, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that we should certainly in the Riverside aspect, a maximum security aspect, we should do something more about these people.

Now I noticed, when I was attending a John Howard Society meeting not too long ago, there was a discussion of a forensic clinic. Now I don't believe that we have criminal psychiatry in this Province in any way, shape, or form, except for a bit of a study that is going on at the University. My understanding was that Dr. Lipinski was hired to do the job, but did he quit out of just sheer desperation to bring this to the forefront, or did he feel that we were making a showpiece out of him and therefore quit on that account? But in any event I think, Mr. Speaker, that criminal psychiatry must be the order of the day in the future forensic clinics. These are people, and these are part of the people that I'm talking about that I feel have been ignored.

Let's deal for a second with another aspect of the mental health situation of this Province. You know the waiting list at Woodlands has been a subject of conversation for so long I can hardly remember. You know I live in New Westminster, thank goodness, and in Woodlands it's certainly the subject, and I'm sure that some of it gets over to this area from time to time. But in any event, it's shameful that this situation has not been resolved. I had a case brought to my attention of a 19-year old girl, whose parents first made application for Woodlands in 1957. Now she's still waiting to get on the list. 1957 to now is 13 years, virtually. She's still waiting on the list, despite the fact that her parents cannot handle this situation. Twelve years, or going on 13. Now this is not a simple case of retardation, it involves a person unable to control her limbs properly.

I don't suggest that expanding the facilities of Woodlands is the answer, the answer should be to provide the service on a mainly decentralized basis again, but in any event, we have to provide facilities. I have another letter that I just received yesterday that I won't bore you with, but I did go around to see this situation. I saw the girl, I saw the parents, a 60-year old mother who barely speaks English, but has lived here a major portion of her life, a similarly aged father. The only child at home. They cannot handle that child. Now I am not a psychiatrist, but I think, were I a psychiatrist, I would diagnose profound retardation, because she does not have the ability to control her limbs, her hands, and her feet. So, this is a type of situation, I think, that requires resolving. Once again, getting back to what people are we talking about, the beautiful people or this kind of people?

A few weeks ago, B.C., indeed Canada, was concerned over a threat of a typhoid epidemic, as a result of the

[ Page 330 ]

We pay lip service to the fact that alcoholism is an illness, and deny it at the hospital door, Mr. Speaker. There is not any way an alcoholic can be admitted to a hospital in B.C. as an alcoholic, for the most part. We will admit him as gastritis or pneumonia. We will admit him with a fractured skull, but just show me a hospital that admits any number of acute alcoholics as such, and therein lies the tale, Mr. Speaker. They are treated for gastritis, they are treated for pneumonia, they are treated for a fractured skull, or what have you, and they are released with their illness unchecked, Mr. Speaker. The Government of this Province pretends there is no such illness. What hypocrisy, when they are reaping the financial dividends through the sale of alcohol.

Okay, this is not a dissertation in support of prohibition, which would solve nothing. It's a plea to this Government to face the facts and shoulder their responsibility to 43,800 people that are inflicted, and untold thousands of others that are suffering as a result. This Government last year realized a net profit of over $56,000,000 from the sales of alcohol, and the brewers and distillers made huge profits. What of this has been spent for rehabilitation? I wondered last night, when I was doing some calculating, I wondered if in fact over the last 17 years we might very well have made a half a billion dollars in profit. Half a billion — five hundred million — in profits, not even taking into consideration the 5 per cent sales tax. How much of this, how much of this half billion have the alcoholics themselves contributed? I'm advocating, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the member, I'm advocating an alcohol rehabilitation plan for the Province of B.C., and we owe it to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Every winery should have a rehabilitation unit.

MR. COCKE: Hope, hope, Mr. Speaker, not hopelessness, is what an alcoholic needs. He needs acute care, he needs clinical care, and most of all he needs an education and post-acute treatment, and any doctor in this House will agree with that I am sure. With these and only with these does he have real hope. When an alcoholic is diagnosed as one suffering from gastritis, then he's just being encouraged to delude himself, Mr. Speaker, and with an illness such as alcoholism the last thing needed is self delusion.

Firstly, B.C.H.I.S. must recognize alcoholism as an illness. Secondly, hospitals must open their doors to the treatment of this illness. That means doctors. That means A.A. Open wards to workers and doctors and social workers and so on. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, detoxification centres must be established in this Province, in metropolitan areas in particular. More important than establishment of these facilities, is that they must be open to medical authorities and A.A. workers.

Now the work that Alcoholics Anonymous has done and results that they have had over the years is amazing, to say the least. There was a time when an alcoholic was deemed hopeless, but A.A. has changed all of that. They are dedicated to rehabilitation. They're dedicated to rehabilitation. As part of this dedication they'd work with hospitals and detox centres to help restore those afflicted to a more productive life. A revolving door programme, Mr. Speaker, for alcoholics would not meet with success. Dismissing a patient before providing an alternative is not the way. Motivation comes with time and contact with A.A. workers, because A.A. workers understand. A.A.'s success ratio has been phenomenal. Don't forget that this was, at one time, a hopeless disease, a hopeless illness, and now it is a treatable illness. Fifty per cent is what they claim of the people who actually go right through, 50 per cent of the original, you know, the people that are on their own. You see, the alcoholic people tell me that unless a person goes there on his own, you know makes the decision, that he is not really one of those that is included.

The treatment of alcoholics is more economical than most, because so much of it can be a self-help programme. The requirement of nursing care and medication after the first day or two is minimal. Patients can help patients and volunteer A.A. workers can provide much of the needed time. The myth that a programme such as this is not feasible, Mr. Speaker, is sheer nonsense. It's feasible. That it is necessary is obvious by the fact that in Vancouver alone there are 2,500 drunk arrests per month. 2,500 per month. So somebody has this illness.

Now, hospitals have assumed the role in community centres for health care. You know that they're pretty well given that responsibility. Some health problems are distributed among other agencies, private and public and so on, but the hospital is the central point, particularly for severe illness. To most people, physicians, nurses and other staff of hospitals are the teaching authorities on medicine. The hospital is a learning centre for students interested in health and disease. It is a laboratory to the medical school. Here is the setting that the student applies his knowledge under supervision. With all this goes a particular responsibility, Mr. Speaker, the hospital must accept and treat all of those who are acutely ill. In the case of alcoholism, the hospital must accept its part in this problem. Alcoholics are sick, therefore require treatment. Acute intoxication can be and often is an emergency. Alcoholics in this setting should be put in touch with A.A. workers. A.A. can be a helpful ally.

Now, just to give you an idea how long this kind of thing — and I know, probably somebody over there is talking about the fact that in Vancouver now they are talking about a detox centre. They were talking about a detox centre in 1952, Mr. Speaker, and here it is, a great brief to B.C.H.I.S. endorsed by practically every big name in Vancouver at that time. Most of them are dead, I think, by now, certainly some of them are, but in any event this is a brief presented on behalf of alcoholics in Vancouver, it's a hospital exhibit for the Provincial Government and the city of Vancouver to take over the hospital, St. Joseph's Hospital, on Powell St. That hospital now, I understand, is in a position to be taken over and could be used as a detoxification centre and a treatment rehabilitation centre for alcoholics in Vancouver. But, in any event St. Joseph's on Powell, not Mount St. Joseph's

[ Page 331 ]

on Powell. This is the whole thing, it's 80 beds, and you know, the whole works, and I will lend this to any Minister who wishes to see it or any other person who feels that they can contribute to the cause.

We think that there is going to be a possibility now, I see in the papers, that the Hollywood Hospital in New Westminster might be closed down because it's a hazard or something of that nature. This is the only hospital that's dealing with the alcohol situation really to any extent, and that hospital, Mr. Speaker, is privately owned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it?

MR. COCKE: Hollywood Hospital in New Westminster.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you said St. Joseph's.

MR. COCKE: St. Joseph's on Powell St. It's in your riding. I'll show this to you after, Mr. Speaker, through you to Mr. Member. It's an old hospital down on Powell St.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whereabouts?

MR. COCKE: It's somewhere around between Clark and Glen, or somewhere in there. I can't remember the intersection. I have the address in here, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not going to look it up because the member can refer to the phone book, I am sure, in his caucus room. You think I'm wrong. Consult your telephone directory.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the John Howard Society, in their most recent brief to the Cabinet and to other members that were interested, talked about a detox centre in Vancouver. I certainly support this. I support anything that we can do in the treatment of people who are very ill and, as I said, it is approximated that there are 43 odd thousand people that are ill with this disease.

Now let me get on with other people who I wonder if we're talking about in this matter of the Budget. Mr. Speaker, the labour force of British Columbia is 836,000 people, 836,000. Some are organized and some are unorganized. Mr. Speaker, never have so many been maligned by so few. The cost of milk goes up. It's labour's fault. The price of bread increases. It's labour's fault. The price of a house goes up. It's labour's fault. I have never been in a position of being classified as "labour," having never been involved in labour. I have always been involved in some form of management or sales. I felt it incumbent upon me, therefore, to do something and to find out something about labour. I've talked to innumerable trade union officials in this Province and found them to be ordinary men, Mr. Speaker, ordinary men, in many cases with an extraordinary sense of responsibility. Naturally, all don't fit into that package. But many of them had an extraordinary sense of responsibility. These are people concerned about education, they're concerned about pollution, medical care, general welfare of their fellow man. They find themselves the most maligned segment of our society. Management blames the leaders for price increases, Government blames them for unrest, and so on and so forth. In this House, in this House, Mr. Speaker, labour has been talked to again. This is a gloomy forecast that was captioned in the Province the other day, this is the gloomy forecast. After listing the clouds, which include a forecast that 1970 will be a difficult year for labour-management relations in the forest industry, Mr. Williston said, "Labour and management associated with the forest industry must resolve their differences in a realistic and responsible manner, if the Budget you are debating today" — just wait, I'll go on — "if the Budget you are debating today is to provide the necessary revenues to produce the services and the increased benefits which have been set forth. And I emphasize that fact. This is going to be one of the most serious years we've had, that we as a Province will face." What a forecast. Why help them declare war, Mr. Speaker? This is part of the situation, I feel, that the people in general feel an alienation for want of a whipping boy, and because of this, this indictment of labour has become a very popular issue. However, the Federal Minister of Labour has been quoted as saying labour in Canada is a responsible group. Let's dig down and see who's really responsible. Let's dig down and see who's really responsible.

It's on the record that many labour problems today cannot be settled because the rank and file will not permit a settlement. Why are they militant? Why are these people militant? Is it because they feel that life is not providing the promised lands that they are told exist? One of the greatest problems that we have today is advertising, which indicates the Garden of Eden is at hand for a buck. People are hoodwinked into this belief and spend their hard-earned dollars to make it certain. They find themselves up to their necks in debt, and not only Chargex, Mr. Speaker, but the finance companies that I haven't heard denounced too much lately. When the interest becomes a major part of the Budget it yields little satisfaction, and certainly does nothing for the economy from the standpoint of creating jobs, Mr. Speaker. The worker's in a wild melee fostered by money lenders and nurtured by the advertiser. Who takes a good deal of the wrath? The labour leader takes the wrath. I think, therefore, it's unfair for this Government to continually take to task people doing a relevant and necessary job in our society. Surely nothing can be gained by trying to destroy a vehicle that brought the working man out of the dark ages.

I'm going to just talk about that now. Let's be realistic towards labour's contribution to inflation. Here's an example of one of the great contributors to inflation. According to the National Research Council of Canada, this is a valid institution I would take it, the cost of a home is broken down as follows. Materials, Mr. Speaker, 43.9 per cent materials. Land cost, finance charges, and profit 41.2 per cent. This is the cost of a house. Labour costs 13.8 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Miscellaneous costs — you know, who done it — 1.1 per cent. Now as if that wasn't enough, and it isn't because people don't pay cash for their homes. They have a $20,000 mortgage, right?, and a $20,000 at 9.5 per cent for 15 years, means a total cost of $37,197, Mr. Speaker. That's where the money is going. $37,197 that man paid for that $25,000 home. The next man, he can't afford to pay it off so quickly, because that man had to pay it at $206. The next man has the $20,000 over 25 years at 9.5 per cent. His payments are $172, Mr. Speaker, per month. He pays $51,926, Mr. Speaker. How about the poor Joe who just doesn't fit into either of those categories? Here's a man who takes a $20,000 mortgage over a 35-year period at 9.5 per cent and really, I'm talking low interest right now. Everybody here knows that they've gone up beyond that in most cases. 35 years at 9.5 per cent, the total projected cost of that house, and non-productive cost, Mr. Speaker, of $67,859.40. How do you like that? Wonder why inflation is here? That's the reason inflation is here. Let's not make labour the whipping boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder where the money went

[ Page 332 ]

to?

MR. COCKE: We'll talk about that. Now, however, one of the great saving graces is the fact that most of the people in our society now, are in a position where they can't even buy a house, for the very simple reason that unless you earn $4 an hour — you wonder why they're asking for more money — unless you earn $4 an hour you can't properly qualify for an N.H.A. mortgage. So, therefore, the whole problem begins at that point.

Now this Government talks about the sins of Chargex. Where, Mr. Speaker, do they stand on usury in general? What about the mortgage companies, the finance companies who are bleeding people to death? The land speculators, and all the other people? Here is a very good illustration of what happened just a little while ago in the building of homes in Vancouver. On February 19th there was an article by Ramsay Mills that said that at that time, on February 1st, the 20 per cent increase in lumber prices in the lower mainland caused an increase on a $20,000 home of $1,000. You know, all of these little things are things that beset labour, so I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the answer is in government, maybe the answer is in cooperative government, but I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, we don't blame labour for it. That's all I'm asking. I have a tendency myself to blame the land speculators, and the money grubbers, and so on, that are charging extortionate rates. For my part, I feel that a land bank and that kind of thing, and government getting into lending for homes and so on, is the answer.

Mr. Speaker, there's little wonder that there's trouble in the land. Incomes are being soaked up by giant blotters — all you have to do is just take a look at the average person's income, his cheque, and where that money goes, and you'll find a good deal of this money goes to the money lender. Will these people police themselves? The answer is no. How long do we wait for them to become good corporate citizens, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, this Government talks about the high cost of money but this Government legislates against the high cost of labour. Labour is people, Mr. Speaker, but money seems to be the sacred cow. We legislate against labour but we do nothing against the sacred cow — the money lender.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Minister of Recreation gave us an interesting lesson on inflation. It seems to me that the great sinner is the Federal Government and their sin is deficit financing. Did he mention the cost of money in passing? He did mention it. We can all agree, at least in part, with the deficit financing and certainly the cost of money, but the Federal Government's greatest sin, in my view, was the fact that they lifted the lid on that can of worms when they said — no ceiling on interest rates. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have heard the honourable Minister talk about the two-fisted land speculators. However, did he mention the phoney advertising that promotes poverty by putting little people in a position where a great percentage of their income is allocated into this interest only? People need protection, that's why they have governments, that's the only reason we're here, Mr. Speaker. We could live in an anarchist state, but that's not what we want. We want to live in a place where we're governed, and I think that this is part of the responsibility of government.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of promotion and packaging is another area that certainly has been overlooked and surely is a factor — 10 cents worth of product, 50 cents worth of package, what've you got? Sixty cents, Mr. Speaker, in anybody's language. I remember one time seeing a product and seeing it manufactured. The product cost three cents, Mr. Speaker, three cents. When it was finally packaged, beautifully packaged, it was delivered to the consumers for 35 cents.

Most of the honourable Ministers have dealt in great detail, Mr. Speaker, with the White Paper, and I might say that I'm not going to deal in great detail with it, but I think that I would like to take one aspect of it, just briefly. They have said they don't like it, period. There are one or two basic reasons they don't like it, but it seems to be coming through that there is one great area of discontent and that is putting an end to split corporate tax rates.

Now before the White Paper, Mr. Speaker — remember the Carter Commission Report, Mr. Speaker — this is what Carter said about split corporate tax structure. Remember, one of the reasons that you want this is so that financing is available, you know, so that you can finance because you're taxed lower. You can put money into your own business and that type of thing. But this is what Carter said, Mr. Speaker. Two, it does not apply to unincorporated businesses which may have just as much or more difficulty in raising funds, so it's no help there. An income of $35,000 does not mean that the corporation is owned by low income shareholders, Mr. Speaker, or has few assets or small gross sales or is new. Thus the incentive has little relation to the underlying problem. The shortage of funds for expansion is due to imperfections in the capital market. Three, he said, the incentive is inefficient because it has no regard for the magnitude of the corporation's total income. It thus reduces the average rate of tax for the larger corporations which have no difficulty in raising capital in the market place. Four, Mr. Carter said, it also is inefficient because it applies whether the rate of return is high or low, or whether the assets or sales of the corporation are expanding or contracting. Since it has no time limit there is no inducement for the corporation to expand. And number five, Mr. Speaker, he said, by reducing the tax on low income corporations in perpetuity it tends to cushion the market pressures on inefficient or declining firms.

Six — that's Carter talking — the concession creates many potential avenues for abuse. To stop the worst loopholes, Mr. Speaker, elaborate provisions have had to be enacted to prevent the break-up of large income corporations into small income companies that would enjoy a much lower tax rate, and how many in this room, Mr. Speaker, don't know where that is being used all the time? One man starts with one company and suddenly you find him blossoming out into company after company after company, finally he's got ten companies all within that very safe $35,000, Mr. Speaker. Many plugs get unplugged by the lawyers, Mr. Speaker, and this has been the lawyers' dream — the tax lawyers. A great problem with small business is that there is no ready source of capital, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure if we began to make that capital available, there could be a change in the situation. What we need, and I mentioned this in my earlier speech, what we need is a Capital Development Corporation — not criticism of the White Paper.

Once again, in viewing the Budget and the statement of the Premier that the Government's first policy is people in this decade, does the Government mean the unemployed, Mr. Speaker? Looking back at recent history no one in government can claim much success in dealing with the problems of

[ Page 333 ]

the unemployed. How can we, living in opulence, Mr. Speaker, justify the tremendous unemployment that is prevalent in this Province? The unemployment rate running from 5 per cent and up would be considered unthinkable in Europe. To claim that we're sparsely populated, too sparsely populated to support a full work force is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Surely we have the economy, the basic resources, and the inclination to do something. Why don't we do it, Mr. Speaker?

This Government permits and condones the exportation of jobs. Raw logs are a very minor point in this regard, in this area. We have not put the case to the mining companies more, I am sure, because they and other industries don't really care. They owe their loyalty to directors, most of whom, I fear, don't even live in this country. We knuckle under to these foreign corporations because we believe industry when they use their blackmail techniques of saying they're going to pull out. If companies now working in this Province are not interested in our people, they should not be permitted an interest in our natural resources, Mr. Speaker. We have what they want. We have what they want. What's our hurry in depleting our natural resources? It's not just common sense to accept the fact that every unit of material being mined, logged, grown, or produced, just so many jobs are attached to it. You know, every unit, if it's a log or if it's a ton of minerals or whatever, has so many jobs that are going to be sort of correspondingly attached to that unit, and if we export the great number of jobs, the jobs for instance in refining — you know, let's be diggers of the soil but let's not refine, the jobs of making plywood — let's hew them and knock the logs down but let's not do anything with them. The major jobs are outside of this country. When we permit this to happen, we presently export the bulk of those jobs. Surely we can provide more for our own, but it takes courage, Mr. Speaker, it takes courage. Will we see our Government move in an area that's obviously quite alien? For years I've seen corporation annual reports, and ask anyone here who has pursued the hobby of looking at these reports, to think about how often a report takes notice of its employees. They tell you about the tens of thousand of tons of production, the money that they made and the fact that the vice-president in charge of Ways and Means retired at age 38, you know, but do they tell you anything about people? I got this just a few days ago. This is from a whole industry. The Pulp and Paper Report. This is the greatest reading you every saw in your life. The year 1969, newsprint — the amount; the pulp — the amount; fine papers — the amount; paperboard, Kraft paper, all these headings, newsprint again, pulp, container board, Kraft and specialty papers, world competition. All of these great and grand, but not a word about their employees except, Mr. Speaker, the list of the association, and all the top men in the association. These are the important people in our society, Mr. Speaker, these are the people that enjoy the good life.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. COCKE: That's right. They're exactly the same. I'm not here to defend them, Mr. Speaker, through you to whoever spoke. Now the interest of business is making a profit, and so be it, Mr. Speaker. It's therefore someone else's responsibility to be concerned with the employment of people in our economy. The Government is reputed to be our representative. Let this Government therefore represent, Mr. Speaker.

Much of what I have spoken will cost no money, or little money. It's merely a matter of priority and where that priority should lie. This Government owes a debt to the people of B.C. Make the citizens and the future citizens the number one priority, not in word, Mr. Speaker, but in deed. The best government is not that which renders men the happiest, but that which renders the greatest number happy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate to the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: ….moved adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House. All those in favour signify by saying aye. All those contrary minded please stand. Order please.

The House divided.

The motion was negatived on the following division: 

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

NAYS — 36

Messieurs

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's nice to see all the members in their place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. A point of order.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): My point of order is that certain undue influence was used by the member that is about to speak. I was wondering if he has the right at this time to take his place.

[ Page 334 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

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

There was no undue influence, Mr. Speaker. There were so few Government members in the House that I didn't know whether the motion would pass or not, and I had prepared my speech and I wanted to deliver it, so I wanted to make sure the motion would be defeated. However, true to their kind, the Government all voted solidly behind the gentleman who is now absent again. Well, the honourable the Premier has gone, so any of you who want to go back and finish your coffee, you are welcome to do so. Mr. Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: During the remarks of the last speaker, he had occasion to mention the matter of financing plans and financial institutions. He talked about Chargex, and this brought to mind by an event which recently occurred, and it brought to mind, also, that the members of the Government of this Province have spoken in this House and outside against Chargex, and Mr. Speaker, I agree with them. Not for the reasons given by the honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation who, I think, misunderstands the programme of Chargex — oh, I think you do — at least the remarks that you made and were made in this House, Mr. Speaker, indicated that he doesn't fully understand what the programme is. But my concern is because it tends to create the illusion amongst people, particularly our young people, that this is an age when if you want shoes, then click-click — Chargex, that is all it takes. If you want a plumber, then click-click — Chargex, that is all it takes. And this is I believe, another one of the unfortunate examples which adults are showing to our young people.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused because the policies of this Government do not seem to be in accord with the concern which is expressed by these Ministers. If you go into a cocktail bar in this Province you can charge liquor, and you can charge liquor on Chargex, and Chargex is the only credit card that is acceptable to the Liquor Control Board in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now I find this to be an astounding situation when Ministers speak out so strongly against this device and yet, under the Liquor Control Board administration, it is permitted. If you go to the hotel across the way from these buildings and attempt to use any other credit card but Chargex you are refused, and you are refused because this is the edict from the Liquor Control Board. Well, it is wrong —

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st-Vancouver Centre): That's wrong.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's not wrong. Well you go and talk to the manager of the hotel, Mr. Speaker through you to the member, go and speak to the manager of the hotel and find out, because this was exactly the situation three days ago.

MR. CAPOZZI: That is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the booze expert?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, are you the booze expert or do you just make it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the member please address the Chair and observe the rules of this House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think you should explain the rules of this House to this gentleman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor and unless there is a point of order he has the floor.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I must commend you on the evenness of your temper — (general uproar)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your point of order?

MR. CAPOZZI: He has made a statement to this House that this is the only credit card that is acceptable and this is not the only credit card for charging. It is an incorrect statement and it is incorrect information.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would you tell him to sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you be seated.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would you sit down. You are always popping up….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are addressing the Chair and not the member across….

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, tell him to sit down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well then, address the Chair.

MR. CAPOZZI: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that that is an incorrect statement and is not in keeping with the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that's fine. You have made your statement. Will the member proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am always amazed at the equanimity, Mr. Speaker, with which you receive points of order, particularly from the member who has just taken his place. I would have thought that in four years in this House, he would have learned what a point of order was.

But the situation, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Chargex is one which is within the competence of this Government to do something about. Under the Consumer Protection Act in this Province, if they wish to ensure that Chargex is regulated in the proper way, then they have the power to do so, and it ill behooves any Minister of this Government to criticize Chargex unless they are prepared to do something about it and to ensure that people of this Province are protected, as they believe that persons should be protected.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): ….legislate against the Liberal Act.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, just make Chargex — Mr. Attorney-General,

[ Page 335 ]

through you, Mr. Speaker — comply with the other provisions of your Act with regard to people who extend credit. And then the people will know if, as the honourable Minister says, that the interest rates are exorbitant, then they will know just what the cost is to them when they use these services.

However, I am glad that the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources has returned to his place. I was concerned that he might be leaving the House today, but I want to deal for a few moments again with Cypress Bowl, and I make no apologies for raising it again at this time. Under the rules which we have, though it seems impossible to have a debate on the subject of particular concern except in this manner, and I am quite happy to continue the dialogue with the Minister until we can find some solution to some of these difficulties. When the Minister rose in his place earlier this week he presented, in his usual lucid manner, his Departmental view with respect to Cypress Bowl, and he provided us with some information which has not been before this House before. And he referred to the report which was prepared by Mr. Sinclair in 1939.

If members will recall that at that time a proud individual, a resident of California, purported to commence logging on timber rights that he owned in Cypress Bowl. Well, at that time the general public on the North Shore and in Vancouver generally set up a hue and cry because they did not wish the logging to take place. They were concerned about the destruction of the scenic beauty of the North Shore and of the possible unfortunate effects it might have on the future of winter recreation in that area. The Municipal Government of West Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, was also concerned but for a different reason, because at that time Cypress Bowl was a watershed and it was their concern that it be preserved as a watershed so the municipality would not be faced with the very large expense, in those days, of bringing water across the municipality from the Capilano watershed. Following the filing of the Sinclair Report back 30 years ago, the Provincial Government reacted by exchanging for those timber rights, which were privately held, timber rights in other areas and those lands became and continue to be Crown lands. The fact is the people didn't want logging to take place in Cypress Bowl and the Government of that day was in accord with that wish. Well, now we come 30 years later, and find that it has taken this Government and its policies to reverse that entire situation, because logging is what we have had in Cypress Bowl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right. Shame.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now the difficulty is, however, greater than that. There is an impasse in Cypress Bowl. The Provincial Government, as indicated by the honourable Minister earlier this week, is not prepared to accept the Benguet participants in Alpine Outdoor, Recreation Resources Ltd. and has made those views known. However, the Government is not prepared to say that it will take away any interests which Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd. has in Cypress Bowl and offer them to anyone else, and therefore it is the person — it, the Government of this Province — is the group which is causing the roadblock in Cypress Bowl.

AN HON. MEMBER: Benguet owns that land.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. It is a strange thing, Mr. Speaker, what can be done with corporate organizations, and to say that Benguet is not acceptable but Alpine is, but the participants are the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Benguet owns 75 per cent of Alpine.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, and the problem also, Mr. Speaker, is further made difficult by actions of this Government in accordance with the laws of this Province. In 1965 when this entire project began, the area known as Cypress Bowl was handled by zoning under what is called a community plan, and a community plan simply is a plan adopted by, above all, the municipality. But because of its special nature it is not effective and cannot be changed without action on the part of the Cabinet of the Province. An Order-in-Council must be passed. Well, in August of 1965 such an Order-in-Council was passed to establish the community plan for Cypress Bowl, and the Minister kindly tabled in this House this week that Order-in-Council, and the map attached to it, which discloses the kind of development that was to have taken place in Cypress Bowl. Well, what we have today, Mr. Speaker, is not what was set out in that community plan, and no change can be made in that community plan without action on the part of this Government, and therefore it holds the key to the future of Cypress Bowl. It controls the land. The Government of this Province controls the land, and it alone can grant whatever rights may be required to ensure the development of Cypress Bowl.

Aside from all this, however, there is another matter, I think, of greater urgency. Time will, I am sure, produce a proper development of Cypress Bowl when the Government gets around in its own time. But there are other problems. Cypress Bowl is the watershed of Cypress Creek, and Cypress Creek over the years has been a constant threat and, indeed, cause of damage by flooding in West Vancouver. The Municipality of West Vancouver has gone to great expense over the years to protect the lower reaches of Cypress Creek from the rampages of that creek as it goes over its banks. But now, with the trees gone in Cypress Bowl, with the possibilities of serious erosion taking place, again the potential for flooding is at hand. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Government which permitted the removal of the trees in Cypress Bowl, the Government which profited from the removal of those trees through the stumpage it received, is the one which must move now to ensure that the lower reaches of the Cypress Creek area are not endangered from flooding.

By the end of 1968, according to examinations which have been made of these operations, the Government has received approximately $90,000 from this area in stumpage. Additional amounts were received during 1969. If you believe the developers that they didn't profit, you certainly cannot ignore the fact that the Government has profited. The Government has profited from logging in Cypress Bowl which was contrary to the community plan which the Government itself approved. And therefore the Government has a responsibility.

During the last summer the Minister of Recreation and Conservation viewed Cypress Bowl from the air. He made a visit to my constituency during the last election campaign. He flew over it in an aeroplane, but he is a man who understands the problem, Mr. Speaker, and following that viewing, he expressed the concern about the destruction of the ground cover which has taken place in that area, and the

[ Page 336 ]

need that there is to restore it. Well, there are techniques for this, and I demand that the Government this spring utilize the monies that they have received from the stumpage from timber in Cypress Bowl to proceed with a programme of hydro seeding which will ensure the production of grass covers throughout Cypress Bowl during the forthcoming growing year. And that, having stabilized the soil in that way and prevented erosion, they proceed diligently and expeditiously with a programme of reforestation. Then, in the fullness of time, when the Government determines what it wishes to do with Cypress Bowl, then at least when recreational development can take place the effects of erosion will not have left their scars on the mountainside. Man alone has left enough.

We don't, Mr. Speaker, need to place the lower reaches of Cypress Creek in the same jeopardy that Lions Bay faced in September of last year when, admittedly by reason of extreme precipitation, the rivers and creeks in the area of Lions Bay became so swollen, so suddenly, so quickly, put of an area which has been logged off as Cypress Bowl has been logged off, that the highway was washed out, bridges were washed out, extensive damage to private property ensued, and one life was apparently lost. We don't need any repetitions of this in the lower reaches of Cypress Creek. This is only a holding, manoeuvre which this Government can and must take in fulfilment of its responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, as I went through the Budget I was pleased to note and to listen to the honourable Minister of Finance when he read, "With respect to local governments, the policy of this Government over a number of years has recognized the rapidly growing needs of local governments and generous financial assistance has been provided." And certain statistics were given to support those statements. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't suggest that the honourable Minister of Finance chose his statistics with care but it is, I think, worthwhile to consider what has happened in some of the smaller municipalities of this Province, and I use the one in which I reside as an example. In 1957 the Municipality of West Vancouver received from the Provincial Government grants amounting to 13 per cent of its total revenue. By 1965 the Provincial Government grants to that municipality had dropped to 10 per cent of its total fiscal requirements. By 1969, the year just passed, the Provincial Government contributed 15 per cent of that municipality's requirements, an increase admittedly since 1965 of 5 per cent, but, Mr. Speaker, this increase does not even keep up with the increase in costs incurred by the municipalities due to inflationary processes. Certainly the increase does nothing, in a positive way, to assist in the mounting demands for needed services which accompany expanding populations in our cities, in our towns, and our municipalities.

The Budget finds it significant that over 80 per cent of the population of this Province resides in the incorporated municipalities. Eighty per cent — and on those local governments are cast the burdens of health services, schools, streets, urban transit, social welfare, fire and police protection, sewage systems, and water systems. All these services, essential to the people who live within the boundaries of these cities, towns, and municipalities, must be provided, and the landlord is the only revenue source which is extended to local government. The home-owner grant of which this Government speaks with such great pride, is not in any way an aid to local government, nor is it an aid to school districts. The grant is only what its name implies, a grant to home owners. A special bonus to a particular class of our citizens, those citizens who are financially able to purchase their own home. Ignored are the tenants, who form such a large part of the increasing population in our urban centres.

In the Budget, at the bottom of page 34, I found what would be a humorous statement if it wasn't so tragic. The budget reads, "As a further indirect, but very important at this particular time, aid to municipal governments, the Province has refrained from entering the world money markets for now well over two years. Nor does the Province borrow from any bank or other financial institution. This means that total credit facilities are available to local governments without competition from the Province." Well Mr. Speaker, it is just not true. The total credit facilities are not available to local governments because the Provincial Government has consistently maintained its refusal to lend its guarantee for the sale of bonds which are required for municipal services. True, the bond market is bad, there's no question about that, but even if the sale of bonds is possible, either through tendering, or sales locally to residents of communities, the Government will not extend its guarantee to those bonds. Yes, it's true, the municipalities have recourse to bank borrowing at current rates, but this does nothing for the desperately needed monies which are required for capital works, such as water and sewage systems so essential to the growth of young, rapidly expanding municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, the Crown Corporations don't suffer in this regard. The Government has no hesitation, on the day the Budget is brought down, of bringing in legislation which will permit the expansion of the borrowing power of the B.C. Hydro by $250,000,000, or Pacific Great Eastern Railway by $50,000,000. Nor does the Government have any compunction about taking tax money to the extent of $35,000,000 directly out of Provincial revenues and giving it to the P.G.E. through the purchase of additional shares, additional shares in a company whose shares are already wholly owned by this Government. Direct grant of monies out of Treasury. But these advantages are not offered to local governments.

This is one of the total credit facilities that exists in this Province, the surpluses that this Government has out of its annual Budgets. That's part of the total credit facility available, but it's not available to the municipalities. Mr. Speaker, the effect of this is to deny municipalities those things which they must have, water systems, sewage systems in particular, those things which are essential to the health and the welfare of the municipalities. Those that can be provided are provided out of funds raised by the steadily increasing burdens of property tax. Mr. Speaker, it may be possible for the Provincial Government to escape the penalty of increasing tax rates in this Province, but the policies of this Government do not permit local governments to enjoy the same privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about education in this Province. When I went through the Budget, and it's true that there is more money for schools, but the money that is being provided does not meet the emergency situation which is a direct result of this Government's failure to keep up with the need over the years. The report of the British Columbia Public Schools show that 500,000, one quarter of our entire population, are in the schools of this Province. The need is one of which the Department of Education has been aware year by year, and yet we had yesterday the Honourable the Minister of Education stand in this House, and tell the members that just the night before he had received from his department their report on essential classroom need in this

[ Page 337 ]

Province. To think that this statistic is not constantly before the Department of Education is ludicrous. What kind of planning do we have when each year we have to have a special report on what is needed by way of essential classroom construction?

AN HON. MEMBER: They plan one year ahead.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the planning takes place in such a way that the Minister just gets his report, just before his speech, not time to include the material in his speech, and then he can forget the report after he has delivered himself of the address that he got before….

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him to table it in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: He was asked yesterday if he would table the report before the House and the Minister close to his prepared notes, did not stray.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier told him not to answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister told us yesterday of yet a new study which is being launched by his department into construction methods for schools. Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, we've heard it all before. We've heard it all before. The former Minister and his senior staff spoke at length about the wonders of modular construction. The senior members of the staff of his department went to Eastern Canada, and found out what they were doing, and we were told in 1968 that there would be launched a new programme to determine economical construction methods for schools. We have heard it all before. My question, Mr. Speaker, is how many more generations of students must enter and pass through our public school system before this Government receives a report which it's prepared to adopt. Adopt and then embark upon. A programme which will end the annually recurring demands for school facilities. We need a little planning in that department, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the honourable the Minister must sometimes say to himself, "I didn't create the problem," and that's right. I know he was a new boy last year, but he's not a new boy now. Well, he may not have created the problem, but it's his responsibility now to solve it and he is failing in that responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is the problem now.

MR. WILLIAMS: His failure is being manifested in over-crowding in our schools, in the adoption of shift systems, the adoption of shift systems between grade one and grade 12, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a shifty Minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: We had here in this building yesterday, concerned parents from school districts throughout this Province, concerned mothers, concerned because they knew that grade one children in their communities were going to be put on the shift system. The shift systems, with their working through from 8 o'clock in the morning to 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Young children in grade one have to go to school at 8 o'clock in the morning, and when you have one, or two, or three, or four children in school, all on different shifts, when Dad works on a shift, how can the family unit ever be kept together in this Province? Not only is this affecting our children in the schools, but it is affecting our children in their home life as well. But all of these discussions, Mr. Speaker, only deal with one aspect of the problem. The quantity of educational facilities in British Columbia….

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the quality?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, what about the quality of education in this Province? The Government's introduction of the operating cost formula in Bill 86 was a direct blow to the enhancement of the quality of education in this Province. In its attempt to level or standardize educational opportunity throughout this Province, it used all the finesse of a steam-roller. It did nothing to encourage those who were lagging behind to elevate their programmes, no, it shows the other route. Suppress those school districts who would take the lead. The lead in new techniques, new programmes, new methods to meet the challenge of today's youth for tomorrow's world. That's what education is all about.

I was delighted when I received the 98th annual report by the Superintendent of Education on British Columbia's public schools, to find that on page 48 was a photograph of one of the modern schools which was constructed in my school district, and again, on page 66, the picture of two young students who were busily engaged in the new programmes which are being offered in those schools.

Mr. Speaker, you can only have these new schools, you can only have these new schools, you can only have these new programmes, you can only provide this new challenge for the youth of today in this Province, if the local taxpayer is prepared to pay the full costs. Bill 86 amounted to nothing more than an opting out, an abdication by this Government of its responsibility to participate in the experimentation which is necessary to any significant advance in education. That's the effect of Bill 86. To talk about improving the quality to some people who don't have adequate classrooms, is one thing, but when you solve that problem, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education in this Province, controlled as it is by the Minister of Finance, will leave us so far behind in our techniques that it can only affect our young people to their disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the entire Province.

Now before I sit down, I wish to say just a few things about the regional college system and its place in our educational system. The regional college system is one with which we must all be in favour. It is a step forward, it is a programme which can and must succeed, because success will bring great regards to the entire Province, through the type of training that it will make available to our young people, our young people, and also those older people who wish to re-enter the school system and re-equip themselves for their role in our society. Success of the regional college system, as well, will lessen the demand upon our University facilities, and permit those universities to function with greater success in their proper place. By reducing the demands on those universities, we may eventually find some saving, some financial saving, and this above all should commend itself to this Government. The Government is expanding the programme and I congratulate them for it. We look forward soon to the day when all students in all areas of the Province will have the opportunity to go to a regional college, to take the benefit of that type of higher education, either as their final move in education, or as step on to university. But by

[ Page 338 ]

expanding this programme and making it available to all our students, I say that the Government must do for the regional college system what it has done for other systems of higher education, and that is assume the cost. The whole Province benefits. There is no justification, Mr. Speaker, to say to a particular group of school districts — no! you bear 40 per cent of the cost of classroom operation — your people benefit. The fact is that all benefit. And it should form part of the general fiscal responsibility of this Government.

(The honourable member for North Peace River, who was scheduled to speak next in the Budget Debate, not being in his place in the House, a point of order was raised by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the only indication that the Chair has is the members that were given me on the list are not in the House.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): It is an unwritten rule in the area of this House that arrangements are made through the Whips. If the Whip system is going to break down and Government members refuse to speak in a debate, Mr. Speaker, after an agreement is reached on a printed list, then, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. That this House for all the years in the history of British Columbia has operated on agreement for speakers, even before Social Credit. There's a Social Credit member whose name is on this list. There's an honourable obligation between members in this House, on this list. Honour is a structure of the system, Mr. Speaker, honour must be kept more than anything else on a base of tradition in a parliamentary system. Honour is what's at stake. That member should get up and take his place in this debate rather than hiding behind the Premier.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The House stands recessed for five minutes. The House is recessed for five minutes.

(Five Minute Recess)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Order!

Will the honourable Ministers please be attendant to the Chair, and when order is called. I'm not just here to exercise my voice.

I must say, under the circumstances, the lists are provided to the Chair and it is only a courtesy to the House that the members who are to follow be in the House at that time. Under the circumstances we will continue with the debate with the hope that the members will give the courtesy and attention to the Legislature and to the debates that the debates deserve.

I call on the member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, in courtesy to the Chair, I perhaps should say that I was a little tardy getting back into the House. I had presumed that the previous speaker would be on his feet a little longer than he was, and at the time that I should have been taking my place in this debate I was outside and didn't make it back in. I have no other excuse to offer than that.

However, I am happy to stand in my place this afternoon and take part in the Budget debate. I haven't had an opportunity to stand in my place yet this Session and so it's nice to first of all welcome all of the new members to this House. I think that they should be congratulated very much for the contributions that they have made to this House and the type of speeches that they have given. Something that we can all shoot for, I think, is the example that has been set particularly by the new members during this Session.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly, if I may, about a remark that was made by the honourable the leader of the Liberal Opposition party. In speaking in the House a few days ago the honourable member made some references and passing remarks to Fort St. John and to Taylor. I think he was speaking on pollution, and he suggested that there was no treatment of sewage facilities in Fort St. John or in the Village of Taylor. It would seem to me that he should check his facts out a little bit closer before he makes statements like that on the floor of the House, because if he had checked his facts out he would find that there has been sewage treatment of a primary nature in Fort St. John and in Taylor ever since the two communities were incorporated. He would further find that the town of Fort St. John, because of rapid expansion, has been in constant consultation with the engineering firm which represents them and they have in their hands, and I have a copy of the plan that will be implemented to increase the facilities and make better provisions for sewage treatment and increase the facilities in the town of Fort St. John.

It should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that a town that doubles in size in a matter of less than ten years will have certain problems with regard to the facilities that they have available to them. They are prepared to meet this challenge and they are presently working on it, Mr. Speaker. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if they were not prepared to meet the challenge then there would be a problem, but they are prepared to meet the challenge and they're working on it very hard and they're coming up with solutions, and that is more than some of the municipalities in the lower mainland can say for themselves.

I don't intend to speak long on the matter of B.C. Hydro. As a matter of fact, I guess I can't really speak on Hydro and hydro rates, but all I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, is this, that in a recent edition of the Vancouver Province, dated January the 20th, there is an article referring to Hydro buses and the rates that will be charged and the fact that they may have to go up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I might just point out to the member that I did make a ruling in this House, and as long as that Resolution is there and I am in the Chair it is the ruling that must be adhered to.

MR. SMITH: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there has been suggestions in the newspaper that bus rates in Vancouver would have to increase.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. SMITH: Okay, Mr. Speaker, is it allright if I talk about bus rates in New York City?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows full well that he cannot do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly.

MR. SMITH: I would just like to point out that in the City of New York, in the same article of the same newspaper, there is a little clipping….

[ Page 339 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I asked the member to take a certain position in this House and I expect him to do so.

MR. SMITH: I'll recognize your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and all I'd suggest to the members is that they look at the little clipping that came out in the same newspaper.

MR. P.L. McGEER (1st-Vancouver–Point Grey): Point of order.

May I draw your attention to pages 10, 11 and 12 of the Budget. These were presented to the members of the House last Friday. They contain extensive discussion of the capital financing of hydro-electric projects around the Province. It was drawn to the attention of the Speaker before the beginning of that Session that this matter had been ruled out and that, in his opinion, he thought the Minister of Finance should be given adequate opportunity to report on the rate structure and the capital financing of Hydro during his Budget Address.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. McGEER: It was brought up before….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. McGEER: The Minister of Finance at the time you ruled it out, he made no objection at all to your ruling it out, and then when he gave his Budget Address he covered it extensively, and I think all the members should be treated equally in this House, and I think in view of that, Mr. Speaker, you must permit discussion of capital financing and hydro electric rates. If you let this ruling stand, Mr. Speaker, it would be quite possible, in fairness to all members of the House, for people to put Resolutions on that Order Paper at the commencement of each Session which would completely limit the Minister of Finance in presenting his Budget. I would ask you to withdraw that ruling in view of what's on pages 10, 11 and 12 of the Budget and permit full discussion of all financial matters during this Budget Address by all members of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The question has been raised on a point of order. I do recall being in the House when the honourable member from Burnaby-Edmonds raised the point. I do not recall the Speaker making any judgment or ruling at that time. I have had no advice that my ruling was incorrect, and until I have I must leave the ruling where it is.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to you, sir, although the Speaker made no declaration, he gave tacit approval to the point made by the member from Burnaby Edmonds because he did not call the Minister of Finance to order when he discussed those very points. And the Minister of Finance himself has never objected to other people being ruled out of order, but when he presents his Address he violates the rules.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member made his statement and, in due respect, I've made mine. Will the member for North Peace please proceed.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McGEER: I challenge your ruling on this matter.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, am I to be allowed to be heard in this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Will the member be seated. Will the member be seated! The Speaker's ruling has been challenged. All those in favour of the….

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (1st-Vancouver East): Just what was your ruling? Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest your ruling was that the House could not discuss the contents of Resolution No. 3. Now, with respect, I think you were wrong in that decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the Speaker's ruling has been challenged.

MR. MACDONALD: But Resolution No. 3 says that a special committee of the House be formed. It has nothing to do with other than forming or not forming a special committee. That's the way you put it at the time, Mr. Speaker. We can't discuss the advisability of referring this matter to a committee. That's all that's in that Resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker's ruling has been challenged. All those….

MR. G.S. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): On another point — before they decide….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Order please. Just be seated a moment. Please be seated!

All those….

MR. DOWDING: Now, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe that it is possible, under the rules of the House, when a challenge of the Speaker's ruling is made, that must be immediately put — it is not a debatable question.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): If the member would withdraw his challenge, it might do the House good to have a five minute recess, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no.

MR. McGEER: I would be very happy to withdraw my challenge if we could have a recess to discuss the subject, Mr. Speaker, for clarification of the point he made and you made because, with due respect, there's been a….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Just one moment. There are no conditions to either challenging the Speaker or a withdrawal. There is no such thing. Either the member's challenge stands or he withdraws it. And it's just that simple.

MR. DOWDING: Well, Mr. Speaker….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please! There's no debate.

MR. DOWDING: I have a point of order.

[ Page 340 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. DOWDING: You are liable to be charged with bi-partisanship for allowing the Premier….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please be seated. Will the member be seated. Will the member be seated!

MR. DOWDING: ….That is the issue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have no alternative but to name Gordon Dowding. Please leave the House. Please leave the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is partisanship.

AN HON. MEMBER: If that isn't partisanship….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're playing politics. You haven't the right. You have to call the Speaker. That's the rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I asked the member to be seated and I was standing, and the member refused to take his seat.

MR. DOWDING: I couldn't hear you, I had things to tell you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Mr. Clerk.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I suggest a five minute recess to calm the House.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Now the House has calmed down, I have no intention of moving a motion that Gordon Dowding leave the House, and would ask that we carry on.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we prefer to have your ruling rather than the Premier's so that we can conduct the business of the House in an impartial way. That's why I suggested the recess, and I'd appreciate your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was a point raised as to whether or not I have the authority. According to the rules of the House, I have the full authority of the Speaker, and I exercise that prerogative. Now, to perhaps calm things a little, I'll declare a five minute recess and ask the members to hold their seats.

(Five Minute Recess)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, several alternatives are open to the Chair in dealing with the member who defied the authority of the Chair. In this instance I adopted the naming procedure, but in the absence of action being taken by the House I will, on this occasion, allow the matter to rest. I have ruled that discussion of hydro rates offends the anticipation rule because of Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper, in the name of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey. That member may, of course, at a later time, at an appropriate time, ask leave of the House to withdraw his Motion and thus allow debate of the issue, and place the Motion on the Order Paper again at a later time. However, the question now before the House is whether or not the member wishes to a continue with his challenge of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if the member doesn't wish to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has been challenged. All those who uphold the ruling of the Chair.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, which challenge are we now looking at? (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There has been no indication that they wish to withdraw the challenge of the Chair. The challenge of the Chair is on the ruling that it defends the rules of the House on the matter of anticipation to debate hydro rates and the fiscal structure of Hydro because of Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper. All those who sustain the ruling of the Chair please stand. I'm sorry, it should have been a voice vote. All those in favour indicate by saying Aye. Contrary minded No. I think the Ayes have it.

The ruling of the Deputy Speaker was sustained on the following division:-

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

NAYS — 18

Messieurs

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated. The Chair sustained. So Ordered.

The honourable member for North Peace River.

MR. D. E. SMITH: As I was about to say before I was so rudely interrupted,

[ Page 341 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What the member's trying to say is that he was rudely interrupted by the Chair.

MR. SMITH: I was not inferring, Mr. Speaker, that I was interrupted by the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the interruption of the member's speech was by the Chair. Proceed.

MR. SMITH: It's just a figure of speech, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I would like to spend a few minutes talking about northern development. In the introductory remarks in the Budget, on page 7, two-thirds of the way down the page, you will see a statement of policy. "The Government's first policy in this new decade is for people — to provide continuing improvement in Government services to increase social and economic benefits. To make sure increased funds are available for services to people in education, health, hospital and medical care, social services, and urban growth, we must have continued economic growth, particularly in the northern resource areas of the Province." And then it goes on to talk about the P.G.E. Railway and other resource areas.

I would like to spend a few minutes, if I might, talking about northern development, not only because of the fact that I come from the northern part of the Province, but because of the fact that I think this is truly an exciting area. It's an area which, in my opinion, in the next ten years — the decade of the 70's — will see growth which will be equal to or greater than all the growth that has taken place since the century started. There is tremendous future up there and I think it was pointed out quite ably the other day when he turned to the map on page 15 and said, "This tells the story of the development of British Columbia." Certainly there is everything there in the way of natural resources that we need for developing British Columbia. Certainly there is the gas and the petroleum and the mining potential and forest resources upon which the economy of this Province will be built.

Mr. Speaker, it disturbs me somewhat, when I picked up a paper Wednesday, February 11th, a copy of the Victoria Day Times, and on the front page I see a picture of a new division of Canada. This particular regional development as espoused by Mr. Jim Smith, the Commissioner for the Yukon, would cut and divide Alberta and British Columbia, and join the northern half of British Columbia and Alberta to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Now, I agree with this gentleman that if that were to be done this would indeed be the richest block of real estate in North America. I think that's true. But, I would also like to point out to the Commissioner that we are having our problems in selling the rest of Canada on the fact that the development that must take place must be from south to north. If we're going to do that and build roads and railways and develop the country as it should be, and the Province as it should be, then we are going to have to have this development flow out from this heavily populated area along the southern boundary of Canada, and out into the north. That is why it disturbs me to see a man who is so concerned about returning the personality — if you would like to call it that — of the Yukon, that he is prepared to sacrifice many of the other things which he, as a Commissioner knows will be to the benefit of all the people, not only of British Columbia and Alberta but of the Yukon Territories and the Northwest Territories.

Certainly the development that is taking place in the north is the type that will continue to produce millions upon millions of dollars for the coffers of the Province, and this is the type of development that will provide the services to people that we are talking about in this Budget.

I would just like to say one other thing on northern development, Mr. Speaker, and that is that when you talk about northern development and developing the resources of the north, you also create at the same time a number of social and economic problems that did not exist before. We don't have a great problem with pollution in the north yet, we don't have a great problem about land acquisition or overcrowding, but as the northern part of British Columbia develops, and as mines open up and as pulp mills are built, we will have these problems, Mr. Speaker. We'll have them probably in such abundance that we will look back some day and say, "Oh, for the good days when we didn't have quite as much in the way of people up here, or as many people, and we didn't have quite as many problems."

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest at this time that the development must take place and go hand in hand with a department, or at least a sub-department, here in Victoria that specializes in helping people of the north settle these problems of people. We've got small communities growing up and expanding, and all of a sudden they grow from 200 to 300 to 3,000 and 4,000 and bring with them all kinds of the social problems that we have in much heavier populated areas. That is why, I think, that if we are going to get the true concept of northern development, that we must have the communication channels, that we must open up the mines and the mineral resources, but at the same time we must have a Department of Northern Development here in Victoria. A department that would probably be responsible to the Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce portfolio, and could specialize in bringing together all the Resource Ministers and their technical knowledge and the knowledge of their departments to centre on some of these problems that are going to come about, whether we like it or not. We like it, because it's part of the development, but they must be looked after and they must be looked after now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments upon the use of snowmobiles, and I might comment that I was interested in the Minister's comments this afternoon, the Minister of Commercial Transport, in relation to the use of snowmobiles. This is a fun vehicle for everyone. The family fun vehicle. It's also a known fact, Mr. Speaker, that the sales of snowmobiles, which really only go back for a period of four years, amounted to between 7,500 and 8,000 units in the Province of British Columbia. But, the thing that is really interesting is that half of all the snowmobiles that have been sold were sold in this past year, and if that pace and that trend continues and I think it will, we will have snowmobiles by the thousands owned by people in British Columbia to bring wintertime enjoyment to themselves and their families, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

But I just happened to clip an article the other day from one of the local papers and I see now that snowmobiles can be turned into kit carts. A conversion kit which costs approximately $400, they say here, will transfer the snowmobile which we use and recognize today into what I would term a three-wheeled motorcycle. It's true. They're available, and they will be on the market and the people who have snowmobiles today will certainly buy those conversions and if the sales materialize the way I think they are going to materialize, then we must have some control and some

[ Page 342 ]

regulations as to the use of these machines. It is possible now to buy a snowmobile that will travel in excess of 90 miles an hour. It means that that type of machine is not for everyone. I would think the family machine is one that is under 24 horsepower, and doesn't travel quite as fast, but we are going to run into a problem with many accidents and with people getting killed. As a matter of fact, a youngster was killed not too long ago, just a few miles from Fort St. John, where he came roaring across the road on a snowmobile into a car and the driver had absolutely no chance at all. He never saw that machine come out in front of him until after he had hit it, and this is what happens. You get young people managing the machine, this is their first attempt at driving, and they don't realize the number of horses they have in the front end of that machine and what will happen when you crack the throttle wide open.

I would hope that the Minister of Commercial Transport will take a hard look at the rules and regulations that govern the use of snowmobiles, because they are going to have to come in and I am sure that after talking to the association, the Snowmobile Owners Association in British Columbia, that they would be quite prepared and want to help the Minister in drafting rules and regulations for the use of these machines.

Mr. Speaker, because of the tremendous importance of agriculture to the Peace River country, I would like to spend a few minutes speaking on agriculture. You know, the farmers have, in my opinion, a justified complaint concerning the taxation of farm land, and perhaps one of their points of view can best be expressed by the Federation of Agriculture president's message and he says, "Farm lands cannot be considered as a measure of wealth nor does it reflect the ability to pay. Consider what would happen should farm land taxes continue to rise. Farmers are being forced off the land. Many people are dislodged and valuable production land will be lost forever. A survey undertaken by the Federation in 1969 showed property taxes to be from five to 45 per cent on net profit before deductions for those property taxes."

I would think that if we are going to be fair to the people who are truly hard-pressed in agriculture today, that We would look at the home and the home-site as a basis for taxing them for school purposes. Now I also recognize that in that there is an inherent danger that this provides a big advantage to people who would like to accumulate land under the guise of calling it a farm and eventually realize a pretty substantial capital gain for themselves. But I would suggest this, Mr. Speaker, that there would be nothing wrong with a system in which we deferred the taxation on farm land while it was being held for farm land and farmed as such, and if by some change — and we are living in changing times and changing conditions — the total bulk of that farm was sold and a tremendous capital gain was realized, that the Crown would have first claim against the taxes that they had deferred in prior years.

I think perhaps this would be a system that would be acceptable to farmers and farm organizations and it would still get them out of a corner and believe me, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, those farmers are in a bad corner in our part of the country right now. They have had some pretty bad crops for two years and the type of taxes that they have to pay is really beginning to hurt.

I would also like to say that the Province of British Columbia could probably provide a forward look for grain marketing, not only for British Columbia, but for all of Canada. Certainly we have had not too much in the way of leadership shown by the Canadian Wheat Board, and if, in the Province of British Columbia, we could set up within our own boundaries a grain marketing board to market the products of out Province, to market the grain of our Province, I think that perhaps we could use ideas and techniques that are not generally being used now and that will help the farmers of the future. You know, perhaps if we look at a letter I received just a couple of days ago from a farmer living adjacent to Fort St. John, out in what is called the Bear Canyon country, we might have a solution to that problem of marketing of grain. Because he has written me to say that he has spent three years developing a building material from wheat and that he has perfected, according to his letter, a building material that is very similar to the hardboard that we market today, with apologies to the Minister of Lands and Forests. The material is constructed out of wheat and, according to him, it can be nailed, sawed and sanded and has a good tensile strength. Now if he is correct in these assumptions and this does prove to be a good building material, we just might find a sale for that tremendous glut of wheat we have throughout all of Western Canada. At least here is a man, Mr. Speaker, who is trying to come up with a solution to the wheat problem, and it is people like this who will probably provide the solution that the Wheat Board and everyone else has been looking for, for years.

Mr. Speaker, before I leave the matter of agriculture, I would like to comment just briefly on one other matter, and that is that the Minister has told me there will be a showing of a film at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. This film was provided by the Department of Agriculture for Ontario and the film is on pesticides. It is about a 30-minute film and on behalf of the Minister and the Agricultural Committee, I would certainly like to invite everyone, the members of this House and the Press Gallery, to attend the showing of that film. It is only a 30-minute film and it will be shown in the Museum Theatre tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment further for a few minutes about the highway problems in my own area. Certainly in a rapidly growing country, we do have highway problems, and I would like at this point to compliment the Minister of Highways because I think that he has been doing a good job and that we have had an equitable distribution of the funds that have been available to his department. I would like to comment on that, and I would like to thank him for his cooperation, because we have road problems in the north like nobody would believe, and we have the type of problems that are hard to correct because of the soil conditions that we have. They are tough to correct and they are costly to correct, but we do have a tremendous need for increased allocations of funds when the area is rapidly expanding. All I would like to say to the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is don't stop now, we sure need the help, and I appreciate the help that we have received in the last few years on our highway problems in the north.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the value of the petroleum business to the Province of British Columbia. I think all we have to do is look at the record of the amount Of revenue that came in the years prior to 1956, when the total revenue up to that time had only been $19,000,000, and look at what has been happening since that time, to realize what a great contribution the petroleum industry has made to the Province of British Columbia. The revenue in the last few years has exceeded $30,000,000 per year. I understand from the report that I have for 1968 it was

[ Page 343 ]

$36,000,000, and even higher in 1969. Now some people may think that almost all of the available area has been drilled out in northern British Columbia, and that is not true. Really there is only a small percentage of the total area that is under lease that has actually been explored, and the seismic work is being carried on almost every hour of every day in that part of the country.

We hear a great deal about seismic work in the Gulf of Georgia and I would just like to comment on that briefly and say this, that many people have the impression in their minds that seismic work is somehow detrimental to the ecology of the area and this is incorrect. Particularly the type of seismic work that is carried out over water, because all they are doing when they go out with their seismic instruments, is get a reading on the strata underneath the water. It is not harmful in any way, and there is no other way that you can find out if there is even any likelihood or potential of gas or oil in the strata that is below. Even then all the readings may be unfavourable, and that would automatically cancel out the hope or the desire of any oil company to drill over water. I would hope that just from that respect, that before we enter into any offshore drilling programme, for goodness sakes I would like to make this clear — don't stop the seismic work that is going on at the present time because this is not in any way harmful.

But before we get into a drilling programme over water, I would hope the Minister would take a hard look at some of the problems that can be encountered with drilling oil wells off the coast. We are also going to have to take a look at these tremendously large tankers that could be plying back and forth between the north slope of Alaska and the United States. In that respect it has been mentioned in the House before, but I will mention it again, I think the solution to the problem of transporting oil from the north slope of Alaska and probably some from the Mackenzie Basin as well, would be by pipeline. There is no reason why that couldn't tie into the distribution system that is already there, and have the distribution system enlarged and pipe that oil down to the refineries where it is required, and this way you would get away from this problem of pollution of our waters.

Mr. Speaker, after. having somewhat of a time getting started, I want to say that it has been a pleasure to participate in this Budget Debate. I just want to make one final comment, Mr. Speaker, before I take my place. We have heard from the Opposition benches a few remarks now and then during the sitting of this Legislature about the leadership contest that is about to take place in the Social Credit party. It keeps floating back and forth across the House here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you announcing today?

MR. SMITH: No, I am not announcing. Just listen, just listen. I would like to say this, Mr. Speaker. That there is no leadership contest taking place in this party, and that there will not be any leadership contest for a good many years to come (applause).

It has been written, Mr. Speaker, that every man is enthusiastic at times. One man has enthusiasm for 30 minutes, another man has it for 30 days, but it is the man who has it for 30 years that makes a success in life and this is exactly what we have, Mr. Speaker, in the leader of this party. The man who has this enthusiasm for 30 years and More, and will continue to have enthusiasm and show the leadership that we need to direct the Province of British Columbia into and through the 70's.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. EVAN WOLFE (2nd-Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, you see we have so much harmony on this side we just pass the podium right down the line from one to the other. I had the feeling that I was rapidly becoming the member who never got up, because I started to get up on Tuesday and then Wednesday, and now today. Something like the second-string quarterback for a football club who dresses for every game but never takes the field.

In any event, I think it is a little confusing that we have three budgets, and I have been trying all along….

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one are we going to talk about?

MR. WOLFE: Which one? Which one are we going to talk about? The Liberal leader's budget? I will, my friend, I will. Or secondly, the Vancouver Province budget perhaps? Or, of course, the Premier's Budget. And you'll never guess, but I am going to talk about the Premier's Budget.

I would like to suggest a new thought with regard to the Budget, to the effect that I think it is a Budget of restraint at a time when we need restraint, MT. Speaker, because all of the major increases in this Budget are represented for human betterment — education, an increase of $42,000,000; health and hospitals, an increase of $30,000,000; and rehabilitation and social improvement, an increase of $20,000,000. I would like to say that I, with many others, approve of the increases in welfare, in old age assistance, and, of course, in the home-owners grant. We would all like to see these increases greater, but I think we understand why they are not. They have been brought about, of course, by the exigencies of the cost of living increases and I am very pleased to see them. I am pleased to see the increases in the grants to our three universities — $12,000,000 over the last year. Now that is not exactly a small amount. It is up from $65,000,000 to $77,000,000. That is an increase of 18 per cent.

Now, I would like to commend the Liberal leader for his attempt at showing us how to operate a deficit budget, because really we do need some education in this, I think. As a matter of fact, I believe that he is giving us a lesson in deficit financing, and I would label this a "spend it before you get it" budget. As a matter of fact he doesn't know this, but I believe that he got this information by long distance phone call from Ottawa, and I was walking down the hall next to the Caucus Room and accidentally overheard the conversation, Mr. Speaker. I didn't want to hear it but there I was, and here's what they were saying.

He said, "Would you connect me with Mr. Benson, please. Oh hello, Ed! This is Pat." He said, "Say, I'd like to prepare a budget. I've got a little problem, I want to have a deficit. Now, how do you go about that?" So he said, "Oh yes, yes, yes — you say you — what do you do with the revenues? You estimate them as high a figure as they could possibly be — okay? Fine. And what about the expenses? Ali — the same amount — so it's a balanced budget. I see, Ed, that's very good, thanks very much. See you at the next Think-In. Oh, what's that? Don't call me unless I call you? Oh, okay."

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the matters pertaining to the Budget, the increase in the municipal grant of $2. Watching television two nights ago, one of the Vancouver aldermen was belittling this increase in the aid to municipalities of $2, and what he said was, this is such a pittance amount that it is

[ Page 344 ]

ridiculous, and we are going to have to raise our taxes in Vancouver on account of this small increase. Well, I would refer this alderman to page 34 of the Budget, which relates to Provincial Government aid to major cities in this country — page 34, it's indelible, Mr. Speaker. 35.9 per cent of the municipal growth general revenue comes from the Provincial Government, the highest in Canada, and I would say for the benefit of this particular gentleman, that they can hardly argue that they have to increase taxes, when at the same time they can afford to put artificial turf in Empire Stadium.

MR. P.L. McGEER (ist-Vancouver–Point Grey): Are you against that?

MR. WOLFE: I would love to see turf in Empire Stadium, but I can't see a tax increase by virtue of that. Would you be in favour of that, Mr. Member? You're in favour of increased taxes, are you? Yes, that's more deficit financing, Mr. Speaker.

Now my friend on my right, in his maiden speech, referred to the budget for highways, and I'm in accord with what he said. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned with the fact that our Highways budget has not shown the same degree of increase in recent years that other items have, and it's fair to say that in the year 1964 it represented 24 per cent of our total Budget. This current year it will be 13 per cent. In the last ten years, the Highways budget has been doubled in size, the Health and Welfare budget is three and a half times, and the budget for the Department of Education is five times. Now all I want to indicate is the trend that may in time hurt the highways of this Province and, of course, I am primarily concerned with the future problems of the lower mainland of Vancouver. I wouldn't for one moment suggest that we would attempt to take out of our present Budget more money for the Department of Highways, but I am in accord with the member from the Cariboo who suggested that we can't forever maintain the gasoline tax, the lowest in Canada, at 13 cents. So I would agree with him in suggesting that we should be looking to set aside a fund for the lower mainland to take care of things, honest expenses like the approaches to the First Narrows crossing, and also the establishment of an urban transportation authority.

Now, I would like to deal, Mr. Speaker, with the White Paper. I think it's the obligation of all members of this House to pass their views on the White Paper, and I will be very brief. Now first of all, I agree with the White Paper, because all income is income, which should be subject to tax. A great deal of criticism has been leveled at the principle of capital gains tax, and I think we are all coming around to accepting the fact that capital gains taxes in Canada are going to become a fact of life, but what I would question is the evaluation of personal belongings where taxation is concerned. Now in saying that, I do not disagree with the principles of taxing on a capital profit on selling your home. After all it provides for $1,000 increment per year in your home, and I can't really question that kind of an allowance in the provision for the increment on your home, plus the provisions for annual maintenance, regardless of keeping your expenses, so I agree with this, except where taxation for personal belongings are concerned.

But one thing I heartily disagree with, and I would take exception to the remark by the member earlier today from Westminster, when he remarked on the change in the corporation tax, away from the split-level tax to a single taxation, and this is an area where there is a great deal of concern in Canada today, is the removal of the two-level taxation on corporations. Now the member has suggested, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal of manipulation, that corporations are founded by individuals, and then they form two and three and four and they get the advantage of this low-level attack. I suggest that there are many safeguards which prevent this. After all, there is a tax of 22 per cent on the first $35,000 and then above $35,000 — 50 per cent. Sure, people look for loop-holes, but they've closed most of these loop-holes as far as I can see, and I think we would make a bad mistake to go for a single rate of tax and do great harm to our small businessman.

Now I Just want to mention three things that I'm concerned over in the White Paper, because they're missing, things which are missing in the White Paper. For instance, there is no mention of the removal of sales tax on building materials. Secondly, there is no mention of family allowance. I think that our family allowance system in Canada is obsolete. We no longer need an incentive for large families. I've already had mine…. (laughter) It is obsolete, and in my view, Mr. Speaker, should either be scrapped in favour of a negative income tax or, secondly, should be paid on a means test basis to people on low income. We're spending something like $700,000,000 to $800,000,000 a year out of the Federal treasury on family allowances. But it's universal, and I suggest that there is nevertheless substantial expense that shouldn't be there.

The last item that I questioned that is missing, and it may be a small item, is the interest rates paid by the income tax department on over-payments and late payments. These are entirely archaic. For instance, if you over-pay your income tax now, and many people do this, it might be six months before you get a refund, and they pay an interest rate of 3 per cent on this over-payment. If you make late payments on a quarterly basis, or for any other reason were late in your payments, you pay 6 per cent. I think these should be reviewed.

Finally, with relation to the White Paper, I see no reason why they should take so long to implement their decision. They said they would only implement it in 1971, I see no reason why they can't move earlier. They are just aggravating and concerning everybody by delaying the proposition.

A last matter that I wish to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, is inflation, because without any question of doubt, this is the number one problem in Canada today, and I think in the United States it's almost as bad as it is in Canada, but not quite. Now there are important conferences taking place in Ottawa now and next week as to what to do about it, and it is important that all of our members here express our views. This is the worst inflationary cycle in the history of Canada and, as we've all said, it's bad because of the bind it puts people in on fixed income. Secondly, and not often mentioned, is the fact that we are pricing ourselves out of the international market on an accelerated basis. So we have a responsibility to do something about it and do something that will work. Everybody knows this, that we cannot simply afford to continue the present wage-price spiral, but what nobody says, is what you do about it. I think that they are making a sincere effort with the commission in Ottawa about doing something about it, but what I want to say is that they have been suggesting, until now, that this be voluntary. Voluntary price and wage guidelines, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I have no confidence that voluntary or suggested guidelines will work. They haven't worked in the United States when President Johnson tried to tell the steel

[ Page 345 ]

companies how to price their steel, and they won't work here. About the only thing that will work is price and wage controls, including rent controls, and they're not exactly a perfect solution — anything but. Therefore, I believe that compulsory controls should be established as soon as possible, at least for a temporary period — say two or three years — until things have leveled out. No one particularly likes price and wage controls, as a matter of fact they scare everybody. We had them during wartime, and the War-time Prices and Trade Board, from 1941 to 1947, and they took an enormous staff to administer. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no easy answer to this problem of run-away inflation, so we had better start looking for an easy way out. Price and wage controls are the only answer right now, and I hope that the Federal Government, in concert with the provinces, will take some positive action on this right away.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since we have established the fact of respecting your ruling that we must not discuss the matter of power, I have another matter I wanted to bring up which I will delay until a later date. Allow me to just summarize what I was going to say on that point by saying this, that the key to providing more and more services for people is industrial expansion, and the key to industrial expansion is the availability of cheap power, so as we enter the decade of the 70's, the decision on future power developments is the most vital one and should be weighed in this light. Thank you.

On the motion of Mr. Strachan, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to be here. I got here on time…. (laughter) I thought for a moment I was going to have to speak this afternoon in order to keep the debate going and to allow all the other members of the House an opportunity to participate in this Budget Debate. It was an interesting afternoon. I can't promise the same amusement, the same excitement, the same uncertainty, but perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with your cooperation, we might be able to add some interest to the evening.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is always assured of the Chair's cooperation.

MR. STRACHAN: You know, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when I looked across the way and listened and watched the reaction, it reminded me very much of the little boy who went to church for the first time, and the preacher asked all the people who wanted to go to heaven to please stand up, and everybody in the church stood up except this one little boy, and the preacher looked at this little boy and he said, "Son, don't you want to go to heaven, too?" He said, "What, and be with that gang!"

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is to follow me this evening, and in recent weeks he's been making some comments about pollution and municipal responsibility, and I came across an interesting report about the Minister in a newspaper which arrived in my office today. It's written by a reporter and he's praising a Social Credit M.L.A., as a matter of fact, and then he goes on about the attitude this M.L.A. took on pollution. The reporter says, "It's about five years ago, when I was covering the newspaper beat in Courtenay-Comox, that I attended a meeting on the formation of a Regional District in the Native Sons Hall. The meeting was addressed by the Minister for Municipal Affairs, Dan Campbell, who, replying to a question of why was it that there was no one person in charge of pollution control in B.C., stated that he quote was personally responsible for all the pollution in British Columbia"…. (Laughter). In view of the last speech he made in the House and what I expect he'll do tonight, he's still accepting full responsibility for all the pollution in British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches of the other members who have participated in this debate. There are a number of speakers who haven't liked the Budget. There have been some on the Government side who have been critical of some aspects of the Budget. I'm becoming more and more not impressed but afraid of-the number of Government members who are insisting that we raise taxes in British Columbia, who continually want to increase taxes. With the member from Cariboo wanting to increase the gasoline tax, we had another member today wanting to increase the gasoline tax.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I have heard all of these members talk about the election. How they won the election. How they're happy to represent their constituency. How wise the voters were in selecting them. Did any of them tell the voters before they were elected that they were coming down here to advocate increased taxes? Did any single one of them? Not a single one of them. And they're afraid to answer. And they're afraid to answer. They didn't tell the people that the light rates were going to go up, they didn't tell them that the automobile insurance rates were going to go up, they didn't tell them they were coming down here to advocate an increase in the gasoline tax in the Province of British Columbia. You make comparisons about taxation in other provinces. This is in other provinces, when an average wage earner buys a second-hand car he doesn't have to pay sales tax. The sales tax is collected on the new car. The average wage earner, the lower income groups, who form a pretty big section of our people, are not gouged again by the Government for a second, a third, or a fourth or a fifth sales tax on an automobile that has already been paid for. Or a refrigerator, or a second-hand stove. Now we want to increase the gasoline tax, and increase the tax load on the lower income groups in this way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I listened the other night to the speech made by the member from Atlin, and I think every member in this House must have been impressed with his knowledge of the subject and his intention to give leadership in bringing change to the Indian people of this Province. I was very pleased to hear the whole speech and his declared intent. There are provinces in Canada where this problem doesn't loom as large as it does here, because we have a larger percentage of the Indian population in this province in comparison to our total population than any other province in Canada, and they are the fastest-growing ethnic group.

I came across a report in the press last December which gave us the statistics on the Indian death rate in Canada and in British Columbia. It told us that in 1967 in British

[ Page 346 ]

Columbia young male Indians aged 25 to 34 died at a rate of 12 per thousand. Young Canadian males who are not Indians die at the rate of 1.6 per thousand, and the report shows that adequate evidence still is lacking, but that this rising mortality in the prime of life appears to be associated with the increasing numbers of fatal accidents, suicides, and violence, all suggesting serious social dissatisfaction. Serious social dissatisfaction, and that was the message that the member from Atlin was indicating loud and clear to the members of this House and the people of British Columbia. That there is serious social dissatisfaction, and unless we apply ourselves to it this serious social dissatisfaction, with its human and dollar costs, will continue to increase.

In an attempt to help overcome part of the problem in my own constituency, on Kuper Island, where there has been an Indian residential school for many years operated by the Catholic Church, a fine school, they have been integrating with the normal school population. This requires them to go by ferry from Kuper Island to Chemainus. There are still two grades left on Kuper Island. The ferry is a very small ferry and in the winter time there isn't enough space to give all the children coverage. They want to completely integrate this year. We should require another 35 children to go from Kuper Island to Chemainus. Before this can be possible there must be a larger ferry established on the run between Chemainus, Kuper Island, and Thetis Island. If we mean what we say about integration and attacking this problem, then the Department of Highways must provide this adequate ferry service from Kuper Island to Chemainus, not only because of the children, but because of the schedule itself. The children who do go to Chemainus School, because of the timing of the last ferry to Kuper Island, are unable to participate in the community endeavours and in the school endeavours because they have to get back to the Island on a ferry that leaves too early for such participation.

But not only that, there is no landing for automobiles on Kuper Island, and it's almost completely Indian Reserve, with the result that the Indians that live on Kuper Island have to leave their automobiles in Chemainus. One of the forest companies has a piece of open property there that, until this week, the Indians were using to park their cars on while they were home on Kuper Island, and the word they got this week was that they will be no longer able to use that particular piece of property. I have contacted the forest company involved, and the manager promised me he would have discussions with the Indians to see if something could be worked out so they can continue, at least temporarily, to use this property. But if we want to have them integrated, then we must see that they get the same facilities as every other group that live on an island. Right next door is Thetis Island and they have full facilities, full ferry facilities for automobiles, and this is simply a must.

I was surprised that the member from Oak Bay still wants to tax the sick, and he talked about the Alberta plan. Well first, the Alberta plan in essence simply pays subsidies to private profit-making hospitals, and surely in this day and age, not only do we not want to put a financial barrier between the sick and the care they need, but we don't want to set up a system so that private citizens can make profit from handling of the sick. This is a public responsibility, and the public must accept that responsibility through this Government. He talked about, he talked about the difference between $1 and $3. He failed completely to recognize the fact that in 1954….

Would the Minister of Rubbish please be quiet? Mr. Speaker, it's not proper that a member should brag about his own speech that way. (Laughter). Show some of that Scottish modesty, please.

Mr. Speaker, he forgot entirely that in 1954 the additional sales tax brought in $22,000,000, but that in 69/70 it brought in an additional $70,000,000. So there is an increase of $48,000,000 paid by the taxpayers toward the operation of the hospitals. On top of that, from the income taxes paid by the people of British Columbia to the Federal Government, the Federal Government contribution — we're never sure how much it is because since we've juggled the method of the presentation of the Estimates and the Public Accounts, we're not told what the Federal contribution is toward the hospital insurance scheme — but I'll bet you it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of another $50,000,000 paid by the people of this Province toward the operation of our hospitals.

There are over 3,000 chronic care patients still in profit-making private nursing-home beds, paying full rates or being paid for by social welfare in the Province of British Columbia. You know, the lack of care all over the Province in extended care, this Government has held up the construction of the kind of beds that you were talking about, Mr. Member, the other day there.

MR. WALLACE: Address the Speaker.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm addressing the speaker. (Laughter).

The very beds that the member was talking about the other day have been required for many, many years, and they've been promised for many, many years, and, Mr. Speaker, I recollect the maiden speech of the member from Oak Bay, and despite his posturing and bravado about speaking out and being his own man, I noticed how he voted, I noticed how he voted. What he has forgotten, what he has forgotten is the fact that as far back as 1966, the then Minister of Health, Mr. Martin, told that negotiations are being conducted to acquire a number of private hospitals, then turn them into public chronic care units. What happened to that one? What happened to that one? We've had promise after promise after promise from this Government.

The member from Oak Bay said that it's unlikely that anyone could find a party that he could agree completely with, and I doubt that anyone could find any party that they would agree completely with on every issue, but that man knew the record of this Government. This is his interest in life, and how any man could run on the Social Credit ticket with the dedication he says he has to the human betterment or improvement of the health and welfare of the people of this Province, I don't know, I don't know.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I have the extreme pleasure of welcoming to this floor the Member of Parliament for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. As was pointed out by the Premier, this man served as the Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan for almost 18 years, and in that time he pioneered more socially progressive legislation than any other premier in the history of North America. (Applause). Saskatchewan started a hospital care scheme, the first in North America. They started a medical care scheme, the first in North America. They led the way, they were in the vanguard of the Democratic Socialist movement. I want this House to know, Mr. Speaker, that in recognition of the great contribution that that man made to the progress of bringing medical care to the people of Canada, on December the 14th of last year, on December the 14th of last year he was

[ Page 347 ]

awarded the Dr. Tate McKenzie Medal by the Ottawa Academy of Medicine for his contribution to our medical and health progress in Canada. (Applause). The 500 doctors gave Tommy Douglas a standing ovation at the presentation, because they recognized the contribution that he had made.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Lands and Forests spoke the other day about Hydro and the P.G.E. He said that they only gained from their own revenue. I wrote his statement down when he made it, that the B.C. Hydro and the P.G.E. only gained from their own revenue. Now, Mr. Speaker, high levels of population growth and economic expansion in the Province have reflected the increase of 11 per cent in electric sales in British Columbia. British Columbia has the highest per capita use of electricity of all the provinces. The increase in electric demand required expansion of the Authority's electric generation, transmission, and distribution facilities. This also required, Mr. Speaker, that the Authority's borrowing authorization for capital be increased by $250,000,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable member, I am sure that you recall the dispute which took place in the Legislative Assembly this afternoon, and the ruling of the Chair at that time sustained when the matter of the financing of the British Columbia Hydro Authority was raised. Therefore the House has made this ruling, and not the Chair. The member, must conform to that decision of the House to avoid conflict with Resolution No. 3 that appears on the Order Paper.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I humbly want to draw your attention to the fact that I'm simply quoting the words of the Premier in his own Budget Speech on pages 10 and 11.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. I realize that the honourable member is introducing his argument and that he's not going to stop by quoting someone else's speech, but will further reflect on those matters. The Chair, in view of the happenings this afternoon when the House confirmed the ruling of the Chair, cannot now permit any discussion on the matter of hydro financing.

MR. STRACHAN: I think you're pre-judging me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: From years of experience. (Laughter and applause)

MR. STRACHAN: You know, Mr. Speaker, I always oppose that habitual criminal classification within the general laws of the Province of British Columbia. (Applause) My record stands clear. The only time I deliberately or knowingly broke any rule, Mr. Speaker, was at the opening of my last speech, my maiden speech as the member for Cowichan-Malahat, just two weeks ago, when I deflected on a previous decision of this House in this Session, and congratulated you on your election to Speaker. Now, where was I? Evidently I can't quote the Premier's Budget Speech any more, so I will have to turn to other matters. But the Minister said that the P.G.E. and Hydro only gained from their own revenues. But, Mr. Speaker, in this Budget Speech the Pacific Great Eastern Railway is going to get $35,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, $35,000,000. Not internal revenue from the P.G.E., but money from the taxes of the people of this Province paid in this 12-month period. A complete repudiation of the Premier's promise that not one penny of taxation would ever be used for these Crown Corporations, and yet there's $35,000,000 going to be used of the taxpayers' money.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the honourable member won't deal with this matter in depth because he's perfectly aware, I'm sure, of the existence of the Bill on the Order Paper that deals with the financing of the Pacific Great Eastern, and therefore will be violating the rule of anticipation. Touch on the matter, but please don't deal with it in depth.

MR. STRACHAN: I've a very heavy touch, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter)

MR. SPEAKER: This I've recognized also for many years.

MR. STRACHAN: I don't know what we're going to talk about in this Budget — every time you turn around you're out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talked about the $419,000,000 that B.C. Hydro is going to have to find in order to complete its construction programme. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker — I don't think this is contrary to any rule, regulation, Bill, Resolution, Standing Order, Bourinot, May, or any other parliamentary authority that I ever heard of or can dream up at the present time. In the Budget we are promised that there will be $3,000,000 taken from the taxes of the people of this Province for the clearing of reservoirs. Again a subsidy to the B.C. Hydro. We are promised in the Highways Department that they're going to take $860,000 and give it to B.C. Hydro. "Revenues internally generated," the Minister said. Who's he trying to kid?

But we're actually going to take twice these amounts and make it available to B.C. Hydro. Are they going to pay us interest, in this time of high interest rates when that money could be put on the market and get a good return? Not on your life, not on your life. We're going to spend twice this amount, and then at the end of the year, after they've had the use of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, they're going to give us half of this back with no interest. That's financial genius, all right. That's financial genius, all right. It's through this fellow's maneuvering that we find figures of power costs being bandied about.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind public monies being used for either the P.G.E. or B.C. Hydro. I have never objected to the taxpayers' money being used to extend the P.G.E. Into northern British Columbia. I have never objected to public money being used to extend electrification throughout this Province and to develop the hydro power we needed. But what I do object to is trying to lead the people to believe that there's nothing coming out of taxes. If it's going to cost the taxpayer money, let's tell the taxpayer how much it's going to cost him. That's all, that's all. That's all I ask, Mr. Premier, is in a straightforward way, tell the people that in order to do this very necessary job, it's urgent and mandatory and necessary that we take tax dollars and use them for this worthwhile purpose, instead of doing as the Premier does and as the Minister of Lands and Forests did the other day, tell us that all of their money is internally generated. That's rubbish, Mr. Speaker, that's rubbish. On top of this, of course, Mr. Speaker, we have the highest power rates in Canada and the lost industrial opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I think I'm still in order, I just want to refer to the annual tables that I make up as to where the pension funds have gone to. In the Premier's Budget he mentions the tight money situation. We find that in the Teachers' Pension Funds this year, the B.C. Power Commission bonds went down from $7,000,000 to $6,000,000, B.C. Hydro holdings, the B.C. Teachers' Pension Fund, went up from $61,000,000

[ Page 348 ]

to $75,000,000, but the School District serials held by the Teachers' Pension Fund, went down from $30,000,000 to $28,000,000. With regard to the Municipal Superannuation Fund, we find that B.C. Hydro bonds went up from $71,000,000 to $88,000,000 — an increase of some $17,000,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. STRACHAN: We find that the B.C. School serials went down, the holdings of the Municipal Superannuation Fund went down from $29,000,000 to $26,000,000. A third one — Civil Service Superannuation Fund. We find that the B.C. Hydro bond holdings of the Civil Service Superannuation Fund went up from $58,000,000 to $83,000,000. The B.C. School District Fund holdings went up from $16,000,000 to $19,000,000.

The Premier, as Minister of Finance, has the control and direction over large sums of capital. It's obvious why the School Districts and the municipalities are unable to find the money to do the job that they feel requires doing. On top of these pension funds, Mr. Speaker, he has the returns to this Province from the reserves of the Canada Pension Plan which are somewhere around $100,000,000. How much of that went to B.C. Hydro? I didn't see anything about that in the Speech. In reporting in his priorities what he thinks important, and the utilization of the capital that's available to the Province of British Columbia, it's obvious that he made the wrong committal years ago, and because of that wrong committal, the P.T.A.'s and the teachers and the trustees in the schools and the universities, and municipalities, are having to go short of funds. Then he has the colossal gall in the Budget to brag about staying out of the markets in 1967 He's cornered the whole market in British Columbia. He's cornered the whole market in British Columbia and using it for his own political advancement.

You know, Mr. Speaker, a couple or three years ago, that great Vancouver newspaper that supports this Government, The Vancouver Sun, they gave a luncheon for the Premier and they had their top editors and business people there talking to the Premier about the business of this Province And in Pat Carney's column she reports on her discussions with the Premier about B.C. Hydro, and on the question of power costs the Premier was weak on figures but good on theory. He referred the specific question on costs to B.C. Hydro & Power Authority Co-Chairmen Dr. Gordon Shrum and Hugh Keenleyside. Then he talked about the downstream benefits. Then he talked about the situation that developed in this Province about ten years ago, and the Premier was asked about the take-over of the B.C. Electric. He told them that — these are the reporters — that he went to London to find out why the Peace River Power Development Company, which was then a privately owned company headed by the Wenner-Gren Corporation, why they were stalling on the Peace, and he was told in London that the company couldn't raise the money because it didn't have a sales contract with the B.C. Electric. So, said the Premier, he had breakfast with Dal Grauer and asked him, not as a threat, whether he would sign a contract with B.C. Power to take power from the Peace River into the lower mainland. Grauer said no. Asked whether he would share a contract, Grauer said no. Then the reporter asked if Grauer had any choice, because no one knew the costs of the Peace, and as president of the B.C. Electric Grauer couldn't commit the utility with such an unknown venture. Bennett candidly agreed that Grauer didn't know the cost and couldn't sign such an agreement without knowing the cost. Then the reporter asked the Premier this question, as a rhetorical question. The reporter said, "You mean you gave Grauer a stacked deck?" the Premier was asked. "Yes," he replied. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of Budget this is — it's a stacked deck, it's a stacked deck.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member has imputed improper motives to the Minister of Finance by using the expression "stacked deck" and demonstrating its meaning in an earlier analogy. I would ask him to withdraw the words "stacked deck Budget."

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, not because of anything the Minister of whatever he is down here said, but at your request I withdraw the statement that this Budget is a stacked deck. But I would like to describe a stacked deck. A stacked deck is a deck of cards used by someone in a game, and that someone has already prearranged the cards so they will be dealt out to his benefit. That's what a stacked deck is. This is not a stacked deck, but it's a Budget that's been carefully prearranged, so that when the figures come face up the winning figures will always be in front of the Premier's desk.

I know it's true, Mr. Speaker, that the Lands and Forests Estimates are up considerably this year, but the major portion of that increase is not to bring benefit to British Columbia. It's an increase of from $4,500,000 to $7,000,000, taxpayer dollars, out of the taxes of the people of this Province, in order to fulfill their obligations on the Columbia River Treaty so that B.C. can be flooded, to the advantage of another country. Seven million tax dollars, because of that tragic error, that blundering incompetence, that awful mistake that was made by that Government across there. Think how many classrooms $7,000,000 would have built this year, Mr. Speaker. Think how many extended care beds $7,000,000 would have built this year.

Mr. Speaker, I notice as well, while I'm speaking about the Minister of Lands and Forests, I want to mention the announcement yesterday about the new pulp mill somewhere on Vancouver Island. I understand the Premier has committed the Government to not allowing it to be built in Cowichan Bay. And certainly I don't want to see a pulp mill in Cowichan Bay. And the people of Cowichan area don't want to see a pulp mill in Cowichan Bay. If there is going to be a pulp mill in the area, and I hope there is, then I think it should be in the area of the existing pulp mills that is already industrialized. And the two companies — the two mills — could then cooperate in the creation of pollution control facilities in a more economic way. Then we wouldn't have to go through this prize bit of offering a quarter of a million dollars.

Remember we had a prize offered by the Minister of Recreation, I remember he made an announcement here that we offer a prize — I can't remember how much it was, $30,000 — for a house design. I can't remember who won the prize. I don't know how many houses were ever built with that prize-winning design.

But, Mr. Speaker, when I look at the wealth that accrues to those who enjoy the special privilege of a tree farm licence and a pulp mill in the Province of British Columbia, I don't see why they can't put up the quarter of a million dollars to find the solution to pollution control. We are not in the

[ Page 349 ]

games business. This isn't Las Vegas.

Mr. Speaker, in his Budget Speech the Premier says the Province of British Columbia has an excellent staff administering the people's business. You know, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Industry made a statement last December. He said, "I want the people of British Columbia to know that we as a government are on the side of the working man to make sure that he stays on the job." (laughter) Fair enough. Fair enough. He says, "I know that reasonable people, no matter what the problems are, can solve them around the table." Why won't this Government sit around the table and talk to its employees? Who is not reasonable — your employees, or you? I think it is obvious that the unreasonable people are sitting right over there. They could solve these problems of morale and salaries that exist between their employees and themselves.

Last October 16th, Mr. Speaker, last October the 16th the union wrote the Provincial Secretary Wesley Black, the Cabinet Minister responsible for the dealings of the Government employees, asking for Union-Government talks about bargaining rights of the B.C.G.E.U. This letter was a follow-up to the bargaining rights campaign authorized at the union's annual convention. Four weeks passed without a reply. The union wrote to him again on the same subject. The presidents of nearly all the branches sent telegrams to add their weight to the union's second letter. A week later the union got a letter, not from the Minister, but from his secretary, saying that the Cabinet would deal with the union's request at the earliest opportunity. That letter was dated November the 18th. Since then, a stony silence from Mr. Black and his colleagues. It raises considerable doubt that the Government of B.C. Is a reasonable, responsible employer. Then they sent a sign over the Buildings to try and get the attention of the Government, still to no avail.

When I spoke in the last debate, Mr. Speaker, I drew attention to the fact that this Government has in its employ people, married people with children, who would actually be better off financially on social welfare, actually be better off financially if they were on social welfare. And you talk about trying to correct the social welfare situation when your own refusal to meet with your employees, and your archaic and antiquated attitude toward the civil servants of this Province leave it so that there are people who would be better off on social welfare than working for this Government.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring now to the document that was tabled at 6 o'clock this evening. As a dessert tonight I went through this annual report of the Director of Correction, and here is a quote from this particular document on staff and staff training. Now they are outlining the problems that the Corrections Branch face that says, "The low initial salary of security officers continues as the major factor in extremely high separation rate of this Branch. It is hoped that steps can be taken to alleviate this waste of training effort and loss of manpower." Waste of training effort and loss of manpower. Where is this efficiency? Where is this foresight? Where is this plan for the future? Where is this attempt to create a better society? Where is the interest in people? Where is your programme? There it is. Right out of the Corrections Report itself.

And your probationary service — we heard, Mr. Speaker, the story a few years ago, the great increase there was going to be in the probationary service. But do you know what was done with their Estimates, Mr. Speaker? Every year they keep coming up with new ways to keep information from the public and from the members of this House. We used to be
able to look at the Estimates, turn to the probation service, and find how many probation officers were being allowed for this year, how many there were last year, and the amount of money allocated for each. We could do that right through the whole department. But what do we find now? We find that they decided not to do it that way any more. We find in the Estimates other employees, including wardens, probation officers, physicians, nurses, correctional officers, teachers, clerks, stenographers, etc., 1,344 for a total salary of $9,291,000. They were ashamed to tell us. They were ashamed to tell us. They are ashamed to allow us to make comparison between the number being allowed for each of these categories this year, and compare it to previous years, so they lump them all together, all in one multi-group, and nowhere do we find the answer, not even in the annual report of the Corrections Branch can I get the number of probation officers in operation in the Province of British Columbia today.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): I will be glad to give it to you. Why couldn't you ask….

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, we find the same thing in the health services, yes, in the mental health services. Here is, "Salaries — hospital employees including administration, physicians, psychologists, social workers, pharmacists, therapists, teachers, technicians, nurses, dietitians, tradesmen, etc. 3,811 total $23,000,287." What are you afraid of? Where is this Government that used to brag about keeping the people informed? Bit by bit, year by year, they are denigrating the whole system, and refusing to pursue and honour their public responsibility to let the people know.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are some bright spots in this Corrections Report, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this must be a proud night for the Leader of the Opposition in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. STRACHAN: There is only one Leader of the Opposition, my friend, in this House, and that's him right there and I support him 100 per cent. Now there are a few down there and over here that think they're the Leader of the Opposition, except when the vote comes, except when the vote comes! But, Mr. Speaker, fortunately in this party we have the democratic right of free choice. There aren't six people sitting there who ever had a chance to vote on who is to be the leader of their party. There! So let's have enough of that nonsense. Now just be quiet.

I was saying, Mr. Speaker, this must be a proud night for the Leader of the Opposition. He hasn't read this report yet, but I have. Because it indicates a change in attitude, some new policies in the corrections field, and the first time I heard these proposals made was in the maiden speech of the man who is now the Leader of the Opposition. Let me read some sections of it. First of all, they talk about the decrease in the numbers. They talk about the young adults, and they talk about probation service. The section I want is over here, "I am pleased to report the increased use being made of community re-entry programmes this year. There was a 26 per cent increase in the use of day parole, and a start was made in introducing a work release programme and home leaves for young adult offenders." Some of you'll remember the day he stood up — the night he stood up in this House and made these proposals. First of all, in order to help the

[ Page 350 ]

individual, in order to maintain the family ties, and in order to save the taxpayer's dollars — it even appeals to your pecuniary interests to institute such programmes, and here a start has finally been made, ten years after he first made the proposals. Home leaves of up to ten days for selected young adult offenders have been quite successful. The objective of the home leave, programme is to improve. and develop family, relations. Then it goes on with some more in the same field, and I am very proud of the fact that it was after ten years of hard pressing, hard pushing on this side of the House, led in this field by the man who is now Leader of the Opposition, that this year's annual report of the Director of Correction contains this first faltering step towards a new day in the corrections.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the impact that this Budget and the fiscal policy of the Government has in the social welfare field, You know, I have a letter from the Corporation of the District of North Cowichan. All through this Budget this Government and the Premier tells us how well they are treating the municipalities, how generous they are to them, and how thankful they should be. Well, here is a letter addressed to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Development. "Dear Sir: The Municipal Council, at a meeting held this week, expressed its concern at the rising cost of social welfare to the taxpayers of the municipality as noted by the following figures. Total cost of welfare, 1966, was $113,000 to the municipality. The Provincial Government's share was $75,000. The municipal share in North Cowichan was $38,000. In 1969 the total cost of welfare in the municipality" — because of the change of the added responsibility you gave them last year — "was up from $113,000 to $235,000. The Provincial Government's share was up from $75,000 to $127,000. North Cowichan's share was up from $38,000 to $108,000. As you will realize, the increase in cost to the Provincial Government is 75 per cent while the increase to the municipality is 275 per cent." There is a tax increase. You bet Your life it is. The increase to the Provincial Government is 75 per cent. The increase to the municipality is 275 per cent. Is that equity? Is that justice?

AN HON. MEMBER: Going hand in hand?

MR. STRACHAN: Is that dealing all the cards face up on the table?

Mr. Speaker, on page 23 of the Budget Speech, the Premier makes reference, to civil service average salaries and the consumer price index. The figure I would like to see is not the average civil service salary, but the median civil service salary. Then I would like to know how many are above the median, and how many are below the median, then I would like to see them divided in brackets below the median, because that is the only way you could properly judge whether or not this graph adequately represents the true financial picture insofar as the civil servants of this Province are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with, the Premier on page 9 of his Speech where he says that a guaranteed annual income is a very necessary thing in British Columbia and in Canada. Almost 30 per cent of the people of Canada are living in poverty, despite the fact, that the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25, passed in 1948, is not being met. Thirty per cent of the people of Canada are living in poverty.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the Premier includes reference to a guaranteed annual Income in his Budget Speech in 1970 because in April, 1967, I wrote an article for our party magazine, and it is titled "A Guaranteed Income for British Columbians" and I would like to read it to you. "The guaranteed income proposal is designed to eliminate poverty. In its more simple form guaranteed income plan would be based on the, amount that is required to, provide a decent subsistence each year. The number of children in the family would indicate a higher requirement. The people with a low income will be brought up to the level of a guaranteed income by payments from the government These payments will be a matter of right and will be based on a return made within the present income tax machinery." Then, I go on to describe how it would eliminate the multiplicity of agencies, bureaucracy, and be a saving and a more logical way of handling. I said, "The key to the organization of a society in the next: 20 years must be the guaranteed income. It is a natural development of democratic socialist policy and attitude, and is the only method by which we can evolve into a truly humane society." That is what I said in 1967.

Now, let's not kid ourselves that there I will be no problems attached to a guaranteed annual income. No matter what level you set the annual income at, if you set it at $3,000 and he happens to earn $3,000 in the first six months, and then loses his job, he is certainly going to need some payment before the next tax return.

The Canadian Tax Journal for November makes it clear; it is imperative that: any programme for negative income tax be not only administratively efficient, but also of maximum benefit to: the poor. This implies paying benefits on a weekly or monthly basis. It also implies that the benefit be substantial, and it be based on, a family's. current need. Hence, the benefit must either be a fixed monthly amount or be related to the actual income earned by the family during the, past week or, at the most, the past month. This particular article describes three proposals for the guaranteed annual income which I merely suggest you read for your own information, because this is going to be a matter for urgent debate in the next 12 months or so. At the end of the article is a quote from President Nixon. When he introduced a scheme in the United States, similar to what they call Plan A in here, which is of limited intent and purpose, and he said "Any system which makes it more profitable to a man not to work than to work is wrong and indefensible." That's the kind of system that you have managed to produce. Both with regard to the general public and with regard to your own civil servants, you have produced a system that makes it more profitable for a man not to work than to work.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Premier said about the international acceptance of special drawing rights in the monetary field, and I am hoping perhaps now that there is a new leader in France that this situation will get even better because this is one of our hopes for the future, these special drawing rights which were created by the international monetary fund a year or so ago. What was finally agreed on was not what was originally proposed, and it was pared down because of the opposition of France and I'm hoping that now that they have a new leader in France they'll get together and proceed along this field because of the problems, the national and international problems that we face in the field of liquidity at this time.

I also note the Premier's carefully worded statement about the Benson White Paper. I note his usual kick at the Federal Government, and then he says, about the operation of the Government of B.C.,: which has no debt and thus no

[ Page 351 ]

refunding or annual debt servicing costs. Well, you know on page 19 of his 1968 Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, the Premier admitted that he had taken $107,000,000 from the taxpayers of this Province to pay the debts of the Toll Authority. $107,000,000 of the taxpayers' dollars. Page 19 of his 1968 Budget Speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: You voted for it.

MR. STRACHAN: I voted against his Budget.

How many schools would that $107,000,000 have built? Every year the Minister of Education tells me how much of the money under grants to school districts is for the Government's share of the school debt. I think last year it was $22,000,000. Page 42 of the Budget Speech shows that the total net school debt of British Columbia is $322,000,000. The total net school debt of B.C. Is $322,000,000. The Provincial responsibility for that debt is at least 50 per cent of that amount.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. STRACHAN: Is at least 50 per cent. You say hear, hear. Therefore 50 per cent of that amount is a Provincial debt, on which we're paying interest, and which will have to come out of the taxpayers' pockets, to this Government, and I'm glad the Minister of Municipal Affairs has finally admitted that we do have provincial debt in the Province of British Columbia.

On page 42, the Regional Hospital financing shows a net hospital debt of $36,000,000 under that particular field. Again, 50 per cent of that is a provincial net debt responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a new twist.

MR. STRACHAN: That's not a twist, these are the facts, these are the facts, facts of life. On top of that there's a total of two and a quarter billion dollars in guarantees that will be added to this year. Mr. Speaker, these Provincial guarantees are a mortgage on every pay cheque, on every home, on every business in the Province of British Columbia, because any time, any time any of these agencies can't make their way, then the taxes must be found to meet that debt when it has to be paid. I charge you, well, the Minister admits that it comes out of the Provincial coffers, at least 50 per cent of it.

I ask you to look at page 25 of the Public Accounts and see what we're doing to our children. You find that in the three years, 1985 to 1987, we have committed them to a debt of $61,000,000 for school districts in Canadian funds, which must be paid in that three year-period, and $71,000,000 in U.S. funds which must be paid in that period. That means the taxpayers of that three-year period are going to have to find $132,000,000 to pay off the debt, and at least 50 per cent of it will have to come from the Government of the day, at least 50 per cent of that $132,000,000 in a three-year period. Then they try to give us that business of no debt, no debt. We'll have the responsibility of paying it, there is no doubt in my mind and we will pay it, we will pay it.

I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the rural school taxes are up another $4,000,000 this year, which I am sure will make the farmers of British Columbia very happy, all you rural members. I notice on page 27, the Premier tells us of $367,000,000 to be spent on education this year, but in the Estimates it says there's only going to be $362,000,000 spent. Now where did he get mixed up between the two? Maybe it was in the rearranging of the pages. It must have been in the rearranging of the pages, Mr. Speaker, that there was some confusion, because in the Budget Speech he says $367,000,000 for education, and in the Estimates it only shows $362,000,000. He lost $5,000,000 somewhere in the rearrangement of the pages. Anyway, it includes $55,000,000 for the home-owner grant, it includes at least $25,000,000 for debt payment, debt responsibility of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the member from Delta was speaking he complained about the ratio of students in technical and vocational schools to university-trained people and he said it's out of line. He indicated there are too many universities. Now, Mr. Speaker, surely the sole objective of education cannot and must not be simply to mould people to fit into an industrial or technological or technical system. Surely not. Surely we're spending this money for something more important than that, which is the creation of the kind of people who can create a better society. I hope and I pray that a whole big chunk of this money we're spending on education at universities is being spent for people who are going to university for no reason other than to get what is commonly known as a good liberal arts education, as a good liberal arts education, so they'll have some philosophies, so they'll have some understanding, so they'll have some compassion, and some conscience, which is the end product of a good liberal arts education. To complain about the ratio of students! Why, we're the yardstick. Why haven't we developed some formula, so that exact number of students go to university attached to some particular technology, and the quota of vocational students and B.C.T. students all fit neatly into this kind of society, like George Orwell's book, "1984." That's what you're building for.

Mr. Speaker, B.C. spends less than the Canadian national average on university operating expenses on a per student basis, and I listened to the Minister of Education the other day, and it was the same old speech about what we are doing here and what we're doing there. How often do I have to tell this Government that you don't measure success by saying you did more this year than you did 20 years ago. The only measure of success is how you're meeting the needs of today. That's the only measure. If you're not meeting the needs of today then you are a failure, and by that standard, by that measure, by that yardstick, this Government is a dismal failure. The number of students per teacher in our secondary school system, which we are told is a key measure of the quality of a school system, averages the same in rich B.C. as it does in poor Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, our universities have had a long and trying time with this Government, a long and trying time with this Government. The alumni association have put out a great deal of information about their problem. They tell us that no institution can adequately and efficiently plan its future needs on the basis of grants which are announced annually. It needs assurance of having set out on an approved programme, that programme will be completed. It says that U.B.C. could not complete several much needed new buildings in the capital programme which ended March 31st, 1969, because of the failure of the three universities capital fund to meet its goal, and because of unprecedented increases in construction costs. The U.B.C. asked for a new capital funds programme of $85,000,000 for the next five years. All it got was a $1,000,000 increase on the 1969/70 grant, which totals 6.7 million. I recollect the figures, it's exactly the same capital grant this year as it was last year.

[ Page 352 ]

In 1969/70 the University of Alberta at Edmonton will receive a per capita capital grant of $19.85. The University of Toronto will get $15.65. The University of B.C. will get $7.27. The 1969/70 operating grant in Ontario is $33.66 per capita, in Alberta it's $43.26 per capita, in B.C. It's $31.52 per capita. Yet B.C. has a higher proportion of young people in the 18 to 24 years of age bracket in university than any other region of Canada, than any other region of Canada, and we don't give them the chance.

Mr. Speaker, we have an example in Ontario where the government and the universities have been able to work out a formula where the universities can plan ahead, both with regard to their operating costs and with regard to their capital costs. They're just completing a new capital cost formula now, and they are able to predict ahead of time what their enrolment will be, what amount of money they will get, and they agreed. The relationship between the universities of Ontario and the Government of Ontario, I think, must stand as an example to the rest of the country as to what can be done by a government that isn't anti-intellectual, by a government that actually believes in education, and wants to produce the kind of educational system which we badly need in this Province. When I heard that the member from Esquimalt was threatening to close Simon Fraser University, as he did at a meeting last night, then I realize the problems we do face in this Province with regard to getting through to this Government, not only in education, but the purpose of education.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great good fortune and opportunity this year, the last six months, to do something I have never done before. I attended a college for two afternoons a week, and it was a great experience, let me tell you, a great experience to mix with this generation of young people today. I'm not ashamed of the young people today. I'm not afraid of the young people today. I'm proud of the young people of British Columbia today. Certainly they are not going to accept the standards and the values that our generation accepted, and with good reason, because these are the standards and values that got us to this sorry point in the development of a civilization, the pollution, the acceptance of anything so long as it's going to make a buck. And I suggest to you that rather than threatening to close universities we should remember that the vast majority of the young people of this Province are fine young people and are deserving of the very best we can give them.

Mr. Speaker, just before the Session started I made a tour of the three school districts within my constituency. The Cowichan Senior Secondary School is one of the finest high schools I have ever been in. I was in other schools that were so-so, I was in other schools which were pretty fair schools, but the operation of Bill 86 has changed the balance, and there's a deterioration in the morale of the teachers which can naturally and must naturally be transferred to the pupils. Bill 86 is threatening the standard of education in the Province of British Columbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was in a school in Crofton that was built in 1895. It's still the big room with the wooden floor and the stove up at one end — still there, still being used. I was in classrooms, Grade 2, where they have 39 pupils. I know the law says they're only supposed to have 37 or something, or 36, and these fine young teachers are doing a job with them. I was down on the floor with them on some of their mathematical apparatus that they were using. I went down to the basement and saw a Grade 3 class down in a hole in the basement, and yet they go ahead with this school freeze.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been going to the wrong movies.

MR. STRACHAN: I want to remind you of what the B.C. School Trustees said. In their brief, Mr. Speaker, they pointed out that in October, 1966, the Provincial Government announced a school construction freeze in all but essential classrooms. Then they talked about the two difficult years. Then they announced all total projects including gymnasiums and activity rooms would be processed starting April the ist, 1969. Remember that happy day in this House when it was announced that on April the ist, 1969 all school construction is going full speed ahead, including gymnasiums and activity rooms. April the ist. April fool. It was election year, it was election year, it was election year. Then in July, 1969 a departmental form letter was sent to several school boards granting them authority to call tenders on school construction projects. Full speed ahead, the freeze is off, away they go. The letter advised these boards to delay calling tenders until the fall. Until the fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: After August 27th, anyway.

MR. STRACHAN: At which time an improvement in prices could be expected. Now, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Premier of this Province to show me any economic indicator at that time that showed us that the financial market was going to be improved by the fall of the year. There we go again. There we go again. There was no economic indicator or any forecaster that was saying the market was going to improve by the fall of 1969, but they were told they could call tenders but delay calling them until the fall. The election was on August the 27th. The election was on August 27th. Politics of the worst kind — of the worst kind. November 18, 1969 the acting Minister of Education — that's the only kind of Minister we have for our education is an acting Minister we haven't had a Minister of Education in this Province in 17 years. Indications were at that time that essential construction would be accommodated through emergency statutory provisions, presumably section 217 of the Public Schools Act.

Here are the reports from my own constituency on what Bill 86 has done. I won't go through them all. They're all in trouble, but I want to quote to you what has happened in the Cowichan school district. I want to quote to you the words of the District Superintendent of Schools. School District Superintendent Eric Lewis said, in talking of the Budget, "The Budget was not strong and will lead eventually to a run-down of the system. Lead eventually to a run-down of the system. Five years from now this district will be in a serious way unless some method of financing is devised for replacement or maintenance of worn out equipment." Some of the equipment I saw is already worn out. Be in a serious way unless some change is made. This is what Bill 86, has done. This is one of the districts where a referendum was turned down, which led to the laying off of a large number of janitors, the laying off of teachers' aides, the cancellation of kindergarten programmes, and led to a lowering of morale of the whole educational system in the district.

As you know, the P.T.A. was down the other day, but I'll save their remarks until the educational Estimates are up, and I can promise the absent Minister of Education that he's going to hear from the member from Cowichan-Malahat about educational policies in British Columbia. There's one more thing about education before I leave it, Mr. Speaker. In this brief which the P.T.A.'s brought to me yesterday they

[ Page 353 ]

wind up by saying, "therefore the Provincial Government is urged to assist in the establishment of satellite clinics and to encourage the training of personnel in the education, social work and health fields."

You know, Mr. Speaker there are 24,000 emotionally disturbed children in B.C. schools, 24,000 emotionally disturbed children in the schools of B.C. I refer you to the Vancouver Sun of September 6th, 1969. It wasn't a Sun statement, it was a report of a survey that was made, Mr. Minister from Nowhere, Mr. Minister from Nothing, from Nowhere.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. STRACHAN: Twenty-four thousand emotionally disturbed children in B.C. schools.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw it. But he's no right interrupting when he's not in his own seat.

Mr. Speaker, we need the kind of people who can give these young people help in our school system. I was talking about the universities. U.B.C. Medical School has not been expanded since the day it opened. Its very first class had 50 students. I happen to know because a relative of mine was one of the first 50 students in the first medical class of U.B.C. This year they have 600 applications for admission to the U.B.C. School of Medicine. Even with the increased mark required to get into U.B.C. they have 600 applications — they can take only 60. They can take only 60. Is this looking ahead? Is this forward planning? With this tremendous need right through our whole society. And this is the best we can get from this Government after 17 years? Twenty-four thousand emotionally disturbed children in our schools begging for help on the local level, and we allow our medical training facilities in the Province to stand still, and they have stood still ever since this Government came into power.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I very often wonder where we're going. I search for attitudes. I came across the last writing that was done by a great author, Ilya Ehrenburg, in which he enunciated, in a few words, a capsule comment about today's society. Ehrenburg says, talking about the problems that the world faces — he died, you may recollect, a couple of years ago and this was the last thing he wrote before he died — he said, "The real tragedies are more deep-rooted and serious. Knowledge has outstripped character development and the young today are given an education rather than an upbringing. People develop lopsidedly," — and if ever there was a lopsided situation it's in the society we have today with its emphasis on the fast buck — "and on every hand one sees a surprising accumulation of knowledge coupled with an utter lack of emotional refinement. The Russian writers of the last century were remarkable for one attribute which I believe has not lost its validity. The Russian writers of the last century were remarkable for one attribute which I believe has not lost its validity, a conscience." And then he wound up by saying, "Mankind will not survive without it." Basically, that's all I'm trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is trying to prick the conscience of the people who have control of this Province, whether in the public or the private sector, to recognize the kind of world that we are living in and the threat that hangs over it.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I could go into a detailed, and I had intended to go into a detailed examination of this society, but I'll just draw attention to two things. This lopsided society. We hear all the worry about inflation and what it's doing. A report in the U.S. Senate showed that the automobile manufacturers are guilty of price gouging of the public. The data showed that in 1966 the Ford Motor Company was wholesaling extras at prices up to four times the added cost of production. Four times the added cost of production. Yet, as the member from Westminster pointed out today, labour gets blamed, labour gets blamed. I don't know how many of you read the special report on prices that was just published, December 1969, a Royal Commission on Farm Machinery in Canada. It shows us that the farmers of Canada are getting gouged by about $15,000,000 a year. Not through high labour costs, not through the trade unions, but because of the managed price structure that governs so much of our economy, the monopoly and agreement situations that are reached. This is the lopsided society. I have several quotes here ready to make to you, but I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture is familiar with it. The farmers of this country being robbed of $15,000,000, and it's all documented, right in there, because of the kind of market economy that distorts and twists and is responsible for the kind of inflation that we have in British Columbia today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw attention to one or two other things. The Public Accounts of the Province which are part of the handling of the money covered in this Budget, the Public Accounts show, Mr. Speaker, that education for the handicapped in 1965, we spent $1,400,000. In 1969, education for the handicapped, we spent $1,200,000. Is that progress? Is that a people's government? Is that looking after the needy?

Public Accounts show that the amount being allocated for local government planning and development is going down. Public Accounts for last year show that revenue from property tax on coal lands in 1969, the property tax from coal lands in 1969 in the Province of British Columbia brought the Province the magnificent sum of $93,000…. $93,000. Capital expenditures — is the member from Delta here, through you, Mr. Speaker? He talked about Provincial technical and vocational schools. I wonder if he checked Public Accounts. Public Accounts show that capital expenditures for Provincial technical and vocational schools and vocational grants to school districts, the year when we allocated the money, we allocated $15,000,000 for this great forward surge to bring post-secondary education for the non-university. Post-secondary education, $15,000,000 we allocated, and we were glad to do it. But how much did we spend? $5,578,000. Unexpended for vocational training at Provincial and local levels — $9,421,000. Nine million dollars unexpended on the capital expenditures. Mental health services on the community level, we allocated $2,600,000, we expended $1,400,000. Unexpended — $1,138,000. Almost 50 percent of it was unexpended. Mental health services. Community service. Is it any wonder we don't believe a word of that Budget Speech? We don't believe a word of it, because we've heard it all before. Department of Labour — Apprenticeship Fund, Industrial Training Branch. We're all for that too, looking after the workers, upgrading his skills, helping him better to get a job. Allocated $3,500,000, expended — $2,500,000, unexpended $1,000,000. Apprenticeship and Industrial Training Branch in the Department of Labour. Padding, that's padding. It's flim-flam. It's meaningless.

AN HON. MEMBER: Change the record.

MR. STRACHAN: So you change your record, why don't you? Change the record. They're not spending money

[ Page 354 ]

allocated for vocational schools, they're not spending money for training young people, they're not spending money for mental health services.

Look at the Canada-B.C. Joint Development Account. We allocated $5,000,000. Do you know how much we spent? Five hundred and two thousand. Unexpended — $4,497,000. The Canada-B.C. Joint Development Act. Do you know what it's for, the Canada-B.C. Joint Development Act? It is to be used for water and land development, highway construction or improvement, flood control, hospitals, schools, and other matters in the Province. We allocated $5,000,000. We spent $502,000. Unexpended, $4,400,000. How many classrooms would that amount of money have built?

How is the urban renewal? We heard the Premier talk in his Budget Speech about the great increase in that, and I think our housing units were up 22 per cent, as I recollect the figure. I don't think the Premier used it, but I picked it up. Twenty-two per cent on housing starts in B.C. last year, Mr. Speaker, this is all expensive high-rise apartments. That's what it is. So the average worker can't afford it. But in the Public Accounts we allocated $5,000,000 for housing in urban renewal. How much did we expend? One million five hundred thousand. Unexpended, $3,486,000. In a housing crisis, with people living in slums and hovels all over this Province, we passed a Budget like that and leave unexpended monies that we were led to believe we're allocating for specific purposes?

But, in the end, because of all of these failures, Mr. Speaker, the bills still have to be paid, and it shows up in Public Accounts and the social assistance expenditure, which was over-expended by $19,000,000. Because they failed to develop the conscience I spoke of, because they failed to fulfill the promises inherent in the allocation of these monies, they are faced with this continually increasing costs for social welfare. This is a social welfare Government. This is a social welfare society they have built.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier tries to say that his policies are anti-inflationary, but you know H. J. Fraser, the president of Falconbridge Nickel Mines, charged the B.C. Government with the responsibility for unbridled inflation in British Columbia. And I want to remind the Premier tonight, we are talking about the Budget that he brought in last Friday. Well, in 1965, the indicators were there that we were then heading for the kind of inflation we have got now, and I asked him to call a conference between labour, management and Government to discuss ways and means of cooperating to avoid what has happened in British Columbia in this last five years At a time like this, with prices rising, production falling in many areas, the stock market taking a dive, increasing unemployment — tonight's figures show that while the national average of unemployment is 6.1, I think, in B.C. It is 7.2 or 7.3. 7.3 is now the unemployment figure in the Province of British Columbia as a result of the policies of this Government.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I had a note here to condemn the Canadian Labour Congress for not attending that conference the other day called by the present administration, but I notice a report in the paper that they weren't even invited, but I wish that they had been invited, and they should have gone. But I was impressed with a statement that was made by President Beaupre of Domtar when he left that conference. He said "If 250 of us so-called robber barons go out of here and do nothing about rising prices, we deserve to be kicked in the teeth." That is what he said. Now, I happen to know Mr. Beaupre personally. He is a reasonable individual and when he was operating in my constituency I certainly found him an easy man to talk to when it came to the problems arising in the constituency. But, Mr. Speaker, this is your kind of system. This is your kind of system, and Mr. Beaupre said unless you do something about it you deserve to be kicked in the teeth, and I agree with him. I agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Industry to do something that must be done. That must be done. When the Prime Minister of Canada a few months ago warned the people of Canada that unless there was some restraint shown, unless there was some change in attitudes, then further measures might have to be taken. And talk there was of wage and price control. Do you know what happened? He signalled his punch, and practically every business and every manufacturer in the country went ahead and raised prices just in case. Just in case. They have already got their price increase. I want the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Industry to make a survey. I want him to contact every wholesaler in the Province of British Columbia and ask him how many notices they have received since Mr. Trudeau made his statement, and how many notices they have sent out about increases in prices. Because they have already allowed them to add on to the prices. The Premier said the other day that the cost-of-living index in this Province was lower than the national average, but the grant figures show that again the Premier was wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: What notices?

MR. STRACHAN: Notices of price increases that the wholesalers either received from the manufacturers, or sent out to the retailers, since Mr. Trudeau made his announcement indicating wage or price controls might be in the offing unless there was some change made. Nonsense? That is not nonsense. I have been told by people who are in business that it has come as a shock to them the number of notices they have been receiving this last couple of months on price increases. Just put in there just in case.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hamburger business.

MR. STRACHAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, as I say, they are getting their prices up now just in case there is price control. Mr. Speaker, these people will have to be told that the gravy train went through last year, not today and not tomorrow. They have had their gravy train. I notice the second member from Vancouver Centre supporting wage and price control. When the time comes, if it is necessary I will certainly support wage and price control provided there is also profit control. Provided there is also profit control and provided there is also a Prices Review Commission, with authority to order the roll back of prices anytime they are unwarranted. Steel went up four times last year. Copper went up twice last year. The cost of steel production went down. I am not all mixed up, my friend. You just hate to admit the truth, because it's your system that's breaking down, and unfortunately we are going to have to suffer along with you.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Financial Post of November reported that more firms currently plan to raise their prices. Now I ask you to check this, the Financial Post, November 299 1969. It reports that in 1968 only 47 per cent of businesses indicated they were going to raise their prices, but come November 1969, 56 per cent of Canadian businesses

[ Page 355 ]

reported that they were about to increase their prices. Inflation will continue, and as I say, I am quite prepared to accept wage and price controls, but because of the fat that's already been larded into the system by those with special privilege, I want profit control and a Budget Review Board to protect the consumers of this Province. Bryce Mackasey told you last week that unless you change the system you'll become extinct. He said, "Change or face doom." He said, "As long as the skyscrapers and the slums stand side by side, then your system is doomed." Your system is doomed.

This Budget has some bits and pieces. It has the home-owners grant increase which does not quite make up for the increased assessments. The Premier himself, Mr. Speaker, said we should not anticipate a continued annual growth in Provincial Government revenue at the extraordinary rates of recent years.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget Speech does not give any blueprint for the future. Mr. Speaker, in the years ahead there will be institutions that are now thought to be a permanent part of society that will disappear. Society is in for great changes. But, Mr. Speaker, faced with this sure knowledge, these same old policies are not good enough. Measured against today's needs, this Budget fails. As a dream for tomorrow, this Budget fails. As a harbinger of a better society, this Budget fails. As a show of a Government with a conscience, this Budget fails. (applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, in the year 1957 I came to this Legislature for the first time. Before I came I was told that the then member for Cowichan-Newcastle was a proud bird with a golden tail, and from time to time he did soar long and often and at incredible length, and little substance. You know, there is no question about what we can describe him as tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I think it will be completely within the orbit of Parliamentary procedure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (indecipherable on tape)

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable member stand and withdraw that statement. Second time, will the honourable member stand and withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Would the honourable Minister proceed.

MR. CAMPBELL: And, Mr. Speaker, I will do it and I am sure it will be parliamentary, a tired bird with a battered tail.

But the one thing, Mr. Speaker, that does amuse me to some extent tonight is the number of Scottish speakers on the floor of the House. The member for Oak Bay and his one-word effort in the speech tonight, and he gave it several times, was the equivalent of almost two hours from the member from Cowichan-Malahat. So I take my hat off to the member for Oak Bay. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is nice to see in the Chair, too, one from the homeland, and coming from that same part of the old land as my friend from Cowichan-Malahat, I thought that I could do nothing better than to be kind to the House tonight, be gentle, and be brief. But I thought he might be amused by the little poem I wrote about him this afternoon as I looked across the aisle and saw him with his little crimson flower. Oh, yes, this is tremendous. Mr. Speaker, it goes something like this, and I am sure my friend from Cowichan-Malahat will send my apologies to that famous poet,

Wee modest crimson tipped flower

Barrett and Berger met you in an evil hour

And they did crush amongst the star

Thy slender stem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: There is one thing about this House, Mr. Speaker. I always get a lot of help in making my speeches. I know the Leader of the Opposition, because he was a gallant but a spent supporter of the second member for Vancouver East on an occasion a little while ago, that he might even appreciate the opportunity to listen to another little item from Robbie Burns.

MR. D. BARRETT: Is that in the Budget?

MR. CAMPBELL: ….and it goes something like this, Mr. Speaker, and I dedicate it to the honourable the second member from Vancouver East:

"Wee sleek, tim'rous, cow'rin beastie,

Oh, what a panic's in thy breastie!

I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,

For your murderous prattle!"

But Mr. Speaker, there was a reference to a deck, as I understand it….

MR. SPEAKER: Which, as I recall it, was ruled out of order.

MR. CAMPBELL: But Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to challenge the integrity of the Chair by referring to that particular kind of deck. I was going to refer to a deck which the member for Cowichan-Malahat is quite well aware exists, and that is a slippery deck, because if ever a member was on a slippery deck it has been the member for Cowichan-Malahat. But I was rather amused, because when he indicates how much he knows about the statistics of the country, there was one statistic in particular that I thought perhaps illustrated how far off base he can get almost all of the time. That was the statement that over on this side of the House there were six members who had had the opportunity to stand up in support of the Premier of this Province as leader of this side of the House. Well he's exactly 31 members out, because every day in every way there are 37 members in this House who stand up for the Premier.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I said I wasn't going to hold this House that long tonight. But I do want to speak about three things, and before I do I want to illustrate, as well, some of the interesting things for which the Opposition, through the speech that the member for Cowichan-Malahat delivered in the Legislature tonight, has a habit of taking credit for, the policies which have become the outgrowth of financial policies generated by the Minister of Finance of this Province and supported by this side of the House. Perhaps this one, and I hope the member will recognize it because it's great prose, and it illustrates how the members on that side of the

[ Page 356 ]

House so often have taken credit or tried to take credit for things which have benefitted the Province of British Columbia. The Okanagan and the West Kootenays have been declared depressed areas and they are represented by no less than the Premier and Cabinet Ministers, but they are not being criticized, nor are the Federal members. Now get this, get this. During my term of office, Kimberley has got a fertilizer plant, an iron and steel plant, and they are benefiting from the pulp mill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. CAMPBELL: But listen to this one, Mr. Speaker. I didn't even say who….

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Oh yes, you did.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I never identified the member.

Then, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall, and I'm sure the Minister of Mines will recall in the Legislature last year the talk from that particular member who has now identified himself, so I can refer to the honourable member for Kootenay as the author of this prose. You'll recall how he stood up in this House last year and attempted the crucifixion of the coal industry in the Kootenays. But, Mr. Speaker, get this, and they are benefiting from the pulp mill. We also haven't used coal development. Then he goes on in a very modest way, Mr. Speaker, and he says who do you think did all these things? And, you know, Mr. Speaker, he gives an answer to his own question and you know what it was, in his modest way, the member for Kootenay said, in all these cases, no other than yours truly, your M.L.A.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those were three enterprises.

MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, we brought down here last Friday the greatest, the greatest Budget that the Province of British Columbia has ever seen. A true Budget of opportunity for the people of the Province of British Columbia and the first Budget, Mr. Speaker, in all history of political life in British Columbia, that in the first year after an election kept every single campaign promise that was made during an election without exception, without exception. I would suggest that that marks a new high point in political life in this country as well, because, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my Liberal friends remember the 60 days of decision, they must remember it with some sadness, and the "Just Society." But, Mr. Speaker, nowhere else in this country has there ever been as straight-forward an election and, my friend from Cowichan-Malahat, that's the basis upon which this side of the House is 37, and you are 12 from the N.D.P. The answer is that the people know that this Government, during the election and after it, keeps its promises, that's the real reason, that's the real reason. And, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia put 37 here and 12 there because they don't trust you and they do trust this side of the House. Well 37, counting the people that we have to put up there to referee, 38.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the most significant figure in this Budget, and it's not one that has been mentioned except in passing, the most significant figure in this Budget, when you lay it alongside all other Budgets in the country, including that which was brought down in the way of estimated projections by the Federal Government in recent days, the most significant figure in this Budget is the earnings of interest which now are $13,000,000. Because in 1956 when I first came into the Legislature, the thing that struck me more than anything else was the locked in feeling that that Legislature continued to have for four successive years, from '56 through to 1960, that they first of all had to look after a debt of $25,000,000 a year, and that ship of state was kept on course all the way through those difficult years to where, in an intelligent way, we reached the point in 1960 when we could say we were debt free.

Mr. Speaker, when you put that $13,000,000 figure alongside of the $1,800,000,000 debt that successive Federal Governments are spending, not on debt, my friend, on the interest on debt! I know, Mr. Speaker, I know that that's the reason that the Liberal leader brought down that incredible budget that he had the other day, because he, Mr. Speaker, obviously doesn't understand the significance of that $13,000,000 figure in this Budget, and the $1,800,000,000 figure in the Federal budget for interest payments alone, for interest payments alone.

If you think the members of this Legislature felt locked in, in 1956 when they were voting in terms of $25,000,000, then you must understand, I hope, what the Federal members of Parliament must feel like when they're faced with that kind of thing. One billion eight hundred million would pay the entire cost of national defence. Mr. Speaker, that $1,800,000,000 would almost pay half, or a little better than half, of the health and welfare expenditures for the whole country. Mr. Speaker, that $1,800,000,000 would just about pay all of the old age pensions in the country. Now, my friend, if you don't know the difference between a current account and a capital account then you don't go on sitting as a member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go polish your ballpoint.

MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak about three things tonight. The first one has to do with the kind of national policies which have become very serious for the municipalities of British Columbia, and are so serious, Mr. Speaker, that I want to speak about them tonight in terms of the way that the present Liberal Government in Ottawa is seeking to lead this country. You know, in 1871, Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that while there were economic considerations for the Province of British Columbia entering Confederation, if you know anything at all about history, the real underlying reason, the heart reason if you like, for British Columbia joining Confederation was a feeling that this young colony on the west coast of British North America wanted to join and had a yearning for joining the new nation that had been born in 1867. That was the real reason for British Columbia joining Confederation — I'm not fooling about this my friend — and if you look, Mr. Speaker, to all the years after that, there has always been an historical reaching but by the people of the Province of British Columbia to their Federal home in Ottawa, always been there. It was reflected in desire for the lengths of steel that brought the country together. It was reflected, always, in a feeling that we wanted to be part of British North America and we did not want any sense of republicanism and we wanted to be under the British Crown.

Mr. Speaker, that is still the yearning of this part of Canada, make no mistake about that. When that young nation had been born I think there was a real understanding, a little later on, of what had been accomplished when there,

[ Page 357 ]

in fact, was British North America stretching from sea to sea. One of the first indications of that feeling that there was to be one nation can be found in the principles enunciated by Macdonald, and he enunciated the national policy, a one Canada, a one Canada, that was the policy, that was the policy and, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have a nation, you cannot have a nation, if you move in any direction that seeks to destroy that fundamental idea. You cannot have a nation.

Now, when you have a nation, Mr. Speaker, there certainly can be no question about its financial posture in the rest of the world. We have our currency. We maintain our position in the international monetary exchanges, and we maintain that position in the Canadian sense and in the unified sense and that's nationhood.

What's happening now? What is the real meaning behind the suggestions put forward by the Prime Minister on both regional disparities and the suggestion which went one step further last week, that three areas of Canada would be separated out from the unified investment policy of the country, the unified monetary internal policy of the country and the suggestion made that those three parts of Canada would be treated in a separate way, and maybe even as between those three not exactly the same either.

What's the effect, what's the implication of this, Mr. Speaker? Well, I'll tell you what it is. For the municipalities of British Columbia, the school boards of British Columbia, that my friend the member from Cowichan-Malahat was talking about tonight, for the hospital boards of British Columbia, which my friend the member was talking about tonight, it means, Mr. Speaker, that in a deliberate way the Government of Canada is initiating fractional fiscal policies that are going to apply only to three parts of the country, where better than 75 per cent of all the capital generating capacity of the country rests. That's what it's going to mean, and it means, Mr. Speaker, that in a deliberate way the Government of Canada is going to seek to cut off the generating capacity of those three parts of Canada, and in a deliberate way transfer to certain specified sections of the country and, Mr. Speaker, I say that's not nationhood, that's not nationhood.

The other thing, the other thing that's happening, Mr. Speaker, that's going to have an effect on the urban problems of British Columbia, as they will with Ontario, is this business of not only having equalization payments, subsidy, hidden tariff concession, both hidden and on top of the table freight rates, there has been brought forward a new gimmick. It's called regional disparities and it comes forward in a particular way, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I want to tie it in to urban development here, and it's very important that the members of this Legislature know what the Government of Canada is doing at the present time. Equalization, and regional disparity. The Atlantic Development Board is being deliberately used to pull money out of the Federal treasury and place it into the Maritime provinces quite apart from equalization payments. A.R.D.A. has been and is still being used to deliberately pull money out of the Federal treasury and place it into selected areas east of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, Central Mortgage and Housing funds, Central Mortgage and Housing funds are being delicately, to be nice, delicately placed in a most unusual way, and my friend the Liberal leader better pay attention to this, because he's always saying, "Just write a letter, just write a letter." Central Mortgage and Housing have recently released $100,000,000 for urban renewal projects over the next five year period. How much do you think British Columbia gets? Would you believe 20 million, 15 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. CAMPBELL: Ten million?

AN HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CAMPBELL: Five million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. CAMPBELL: We're getting warmer. Three and a half million, Mr. Speaker, $3,500,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, not only that, but far more serious than that, far more serious than that, far more serious than those, and those are bad enough, this new Bill, which was introduced in Ottawa on regional disparities, permits the Minister in that particular department through that former underling of the former Prime Minister, that Regional Disparity Bill means this — I'm not talking about the aid to industry parts of that Bill, my friends, I'm talking about the puts of that Bill which permit the Minister, at the sole discretion of the Minister, to put in what is called in nice phraseology "infra-structure."

Do you know what infra-structure means? It means that while the Prime Minister of Canada is using the Constitution as a blind and a barrier to making it possible to contribute to urban development on the one hand, he's using the Regional Disparity Bill on the other hand to contribute to infrastructure, and what is infra-structure? It makes it possible for the Government of Canada to contribute to water and sewer systems in certain selected areas east of Ontario. It makes the Government of Canada, through that Minister, make absolute grants for hospitals, school purposes, roads, sewers, water treatment plants, sewer treatment plants. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's the biggest — I've got to watch this — it's the biggest boon-doggle to a series of potato patches since I said the same thing about the boon-doggle to the potato patch of Prince Edward Island when they were building a causeway, and I was ridiculed then but I'm not ridiculed for having said it now — no more, no more.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's just a little ridiculous, it gets just a little ridiculous when you can use the Constitution as a smoke screen on one hand to prevent a meaningful Federal contribution to the problems of urban life in the 70's, and then in another piece of legislation you do exactly what you said was impossible because of constitutional barriers. Now make any sense out of that, my Liberal friends, if you can — make some sense out of it.

Mr. Speaker, that is a typical example why this British Columbia yearning for an understanding of the problems that we have here and an understanding by the Government of this country, that there's a tremendous willingness on the part of the people of the Province of British Columbia to not only go forward to help generate more revenue in a meaningful way, but to distribute it when they get it in a fair way, and in a way that means nationhood. And, Mr. Speaker, if money is going through from British Columbia in these generating areas and is being used in that way, not in the name of nationhood but in the name of fragmentation, in the name of smoke screen, in the name of that kind of tactics, I for one don't want any part of it — no part of it.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oak Bay came into this Legislature because he said that the former member for Oak Bay was a silent member for Oak Bay because he never spoke

[ Page 358 ]

up for the people of Oak Bay when he was here. I'm going to predict, Mr. Speaker, that the silent 17 from British Columbia will not be speaking for British Columbia the next time a Federal election rolls around.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this problem of the 70's in the urban area can be very clearly indicated to be environmental management, problems of transit, creation of housing. That's where I've been, my friend, and I was trying to explain to you why some of the policies at the Federal Government level…. Those three are the fundamental problems of the 70's. Environmental management, urban transit, and housing and land assembly. Those are the three fundamental land problems and don't you laugh, my friend, or I'm going to send this report card of yours back to your mother. I've got one, you know. I'll just read you the first line of it if you keep talking like that. "We feel the study is very poorly done with many unjust harmful statements made."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we get back to the Budget debate?

MR. CAMPBELL: There is no constitutional barrier that prevents the Federal Government, on the same equal treatment basis, to grapple with those three fundamental urban problems of the 70's — environmental management, urban transit, housing and land assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, even in the United States which has a stronger attitude, perhaps, on safe rights than this nation need have, because in the United States they have learned in the latter part of the 60's that it is absolutely fundamental that the Federal treasury which has the chief revenue-producing apparatus and credit apparatus at its full disposal, is the only area where the fundamental responsibility for the problems of the urban world can lie. That's the fundamental decision that has been made so quickly in the country to the south of us. Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that we in Canada have to wait so long, most of the time, to do what is already being done in the country to the south of us? They have recognized these urban problems and they are transferring from the Federal treasury through the State governments — through the State governments — why do they pass it through the State governments? So that the people of the particular States through their Legislature can have an overview of the total problem and place the whole thing in the perspective of environmental management. That's the real reason. Oh, I know they say down there they play politics with it, but the fundamental reason, Mr. Speaker, the fundamental concept should be for the Federal Government to transfer to the provinces, on an equitable basis, the kind of money which can then pass itself along to the problems of environmental management, urban transit, housing and land assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in every province….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a little order? If the members have something to say please address the Chair.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do not seem to realize that this Government has always kept faith with the principle of passing along the kind of revenue which we get in small, be it may small, bits and drabs from the Federal Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, the members obviously haven't read this Budget. You know, Mr. Speaker, exclusive, exclusive of the monies which the Province gets in all kinds of other ways for the benefit of urban local government in this Province, this Budget represents 56 per cent is pass-through money coming from the Province's sources of revenue into local governments. This Government has always kept faith with local government — always kept faith with local government. Mr. Speaker, no matter how long I have to stand here, I'll still be able to say, Mr. Speaker, — in 1964 I said it, in '65, in '66, in '67, in '68, in '69 and now in 1970 — if anybody on the other side of the House, exclusive of the eight in the corner, completely exclusive of the eight in the corner, can find any other Province in Canada that treats its municipalities better, I'll resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a fair enough offer. I've offered it every year since 1964 and I've never had any takers, and I can't understand it. If you're so anxious, if you're so anxious to get me out of here as you indicated you were a couple of months ago, why don't you take me up on the offer? I can't understand it, I can't understand it. Yet we have the member for Cowichan-Malahat standing up here for two hours tonight prattling on about the disgraceful way that this side of the House has treated local government. Can you understand that? I can't understand that. Now, the interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the member for Cowichan-Malahat, he's been here in 1964, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70. I can't understand it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's one other. I have indicated how some of the Federal policies are definitely hurting the problems of solving some of these urban problems of the 70's, but I want to take it just one step further. The urban problems of the 70's are not being met head-on by another group in this country, and that group happens to be the financial institutions. They are not by any stretch of anybody's imagination placing enough emphasis on the social capital requirements for the urban life and the urban problems we face in the 7 O's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor is the Minister.

MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, if you want a classic example, just go up to Cook Street, not very far from here, and you will find a fantastic amount of money invested by insurance companies in those buildings that you see there piled block on block.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and eighty-eight of them.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, my friend — and you'll have a hard time finding the same insurance companies willing to put the capital into the trunk sewers that run through the door. Now what kind of foolish system of priorities is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your system. You're the ones who….

MR. CAMPBELL: My friend, the first person in this Province to stand up and get counted when everybody else was silent on the question of raising the bank ceiling rate in this Province happens to be the Premier of this Province — that's who said it first. That's who said it first.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason, there is no reason, either if the banking system of this country can involve itself in the Chargex game, then there's no reason why they can't involve themselves in the community development game — none at all.

[ Page 359 ]

Because, Mr. Speaker, if you're going to have a country that is going to grow in a proper direction, the financial institutions, just as governments are — my friend the member from Cowichan-Malahat certainly was talking through his hat tonight — where do you think the savings of the people of British Columbia, where do you think they should be going if they're not going into schools and hospitals and P.G.E. and Hydro so that it develops more for the people? And, Mr. Speaker, that's also true, that's also true of the savings of Canadians whether it be in trust companies, insurance companies, or in banks. It should be true that a goodly percentage of it should be facing up to these problems of the 70's, and placing it into social capital development needs in terms of environmental management, in terms of urban transit, in terms of housing and land assembly. This, Mr. Speaker, is what should be done in this country. This is what should be done.

MR. R. WILLIAMS (2nd-Vancouver East): What have you done in land assembly lately?

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Tell us about Cypress Bowl and the land assembly.

MR. CAMPBELL: You want the second subject in your report which you failed too? Well, it says here that, "We feel good planning is necessary — by this we mean basic moves by planning authorities to direct the proper moves." Do you want to cover the other subject that you failed?

Now, Mr. Speaker, for emphasis I repeat that the fiscal policies of the Federal Government are dangerous to the nation and they are very damaging to the urban society in which we live, very damaging. The fiscal policies of the financial institutions are not properly organized as to priority and they are extremely damaging to the problems of solving some of these urban problems of the 70's. Extremely damaging. And thirdly….

MR. BARRETT: How is Commonwealth Trust doing? How about Commonwealth Trust here in B.C.? Tell us about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the members please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Will you tell us about Commonwealth Trust?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows the rules of the House, and the proper order of procedure. Would he please adhere to them.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Indian Affairs, because the member for Atlin did have what I considered to be a reasoned approach in his talk to the question of Indian Affairs. There is only one thing I wish he had said, because when you start getting down to the nitty gritty of this thing, I think my friend can appreciate what I mean, when you start dancing around and trying to work out an arrangement with the Federal Department of Indian Affairs. He's probably had as much experience with it as I have, or more, and I think he might be prepared to admit that the real problem presented by the Chretien White Paper on Indian Affairs, is the lack of a specific commitment. That after 100 admitted years of mismanagement, nothing that you are going to do on this question of transferring responsibilities to Provinces, rehabilitation in terms of the educational apparatus that you might set up for Indians, restructuring their communities and the life that's in them, restructuring a good many of the road patterns which are in their reserves, almost redoing the whole housing apparatus in most of the reserves — not all of them, all of these things require a specific commitment in dollar bills, and that, Mr. Speaker, has not been forthcoming, not been forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, the White Paper really failed because, while it implies that at long last there's a confession of failure, while it implies that and they, in fact, say that 100 years of mismanagement represents one of the dark blots on-as the Prime Minister calls it — his Just Society. That's admitted in the White Paper, but, Mr. Speaker, there is no fundamental commitment to saying, in cooperation with the provinces, we will make a dollar commitment with meaningful goal posts and, in my opinion, we will have to make that until the year 2,000. I would like to see the Federal Government, sitting down with the provinces, in cooperation with the Indian people themselves, and establishing absolute goal posts as to what they want to achieve. And then, having established the absolute goal posts….

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the absolute goal posts?

MR. CAMPBELL: I know you wouldn't know, but I'll tell you, if you talk to the Indian people who have been danced around the mulberry bush of the Indian Affairs branch, they'll tell you what an absolute goal post is.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of this Province is the first in this nation to present the opportunity of local government flat on the table to the Indian people and, Mr. Speaker, that's the commitment that I know my friend from Atlin understands, even if you don't. You say that there's been no commitment by this Province. You just, my friend, examine the commitment that this Province takes over without asking the Federal Government in transfer dollars, one five cent piece, except the guarantee of water and sewer and their continuing projects which they now give to the Indian people. That's all we're asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do they get the per capita grant?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, they get per capita grants and, Mr. Speaker, when we made that commitment to the Indian people, we didn't ask the Federal Government to match that in any way, we just said, carry on with your present commitment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have a tax on Reserves?

MR. CAMPBELL: No, municipalities tax themselves, this Government doesn't tax municipalities.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the attitude of the Liberal members in this House, and the people of British Columbia should never forget it either, and I think they didn't during the last election, because they asked what our commitment to the Indian people was. Well, there it is in municipalities. But there you stood in your places and you wouldn't put up the, did they put up five cents for the Indian people? Did they vote for ten cents? Did they vote for ten million? No — or 15 million? Or 20 million? No. 25 million? Did they vote for….

[ Page 360 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: ….who did?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We did!

MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm making a people's speech. I want to wind up with one area. No, no, I don't want to try and get on the same kind of Glaswegian bent that my friend from Glasgow was on tonight. No, no way.

During the course of my last conversation in the House, I suggested that many older people in British Columbia who own homes, found it difficult in many cases, to live with the mental strain of home ownership in larger homes, and also to keep up with the question of school tax. Now I know, my Liberal friend, you have turned this down so I'll put it on the record again. You have turned this down as an idea, that's fine. Let the people of British Columbia understand that you have totally rejected the 5-5-5 approach. I'm glad to hear that because, my friend, once again the Liberal party will show itself to be a party that doesn't understand either young, middle aged, or old people. We don't need a Bill to do this, my friend, no we don't. Mr. Speaker, because certain of the older people would like to see in full the package we are suggesting on this and its meaning, and its use in terms of the new concepts of housing in strata titles and condominium, and because I think it's necessary, not only to let them see something, but to work with their own organization in putting it together — because this is still going to be a question of personal choice — I've asked the Honourable Isabel Dawson, who worked and visited every single old-age pensioner organization in British Columbia over the course of the last few years.

You know, I'll bet you, my honourable friend from Kootenay, that about three or four months from now, I'll come back and you'll have written a letter in that paper of yours up there and say "Guess who thought of the 5-5-5 plan? None other than yours truly." You're a frightened M.L.A.

So, Mr. Speaker, in order to prove up this scheme, we're going to set up a project in the Victoria area, and we are going to do the initial financing of that project, and we are going to do one in the Greater Vancouver area. Mr. Speaker, we will call for proposals on this as soon as we can have the Department of Public Works work up some specifications for this project. We'll call proposals, we'll build the unit, we'll show the old people, in cooperation with them, we'll establish a committee so that they can look after and see if they can make the arrangements, if they want them. Personal choice.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're all getting backed up into the wall.

MR. CAMPBELL: No, this isn't a hand-out, my friend. Five thousand dollars from the sale of their older home which will release their capital, $5,000 second mortgage, $5,000 from those institutions that I've been talking about recently. Fifteen thousand dollars will put a very excellent type of accommodation on the ground for older people and they will still have the security of home ownership they'll. still have the home-owner grant. My friend, they don't have to give up their own home, they don't have to give up their own home. It's a question of choice, my friends, and I'll predict this, and so that you keep getting yourself on the record, my Liberal friend, I'll predict this, that you're just exactly 100 per cent wrong. Now, Mr. Speaker, the value of the project in the Greater Victoria area will be $125,000. The value of the project in the Greater Vancouver area will be the same amount.

Thanks very much for your time. I think it's time I let the boys go home….and the girls!

On the motion of the Hon. Patricia J. Jordan, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 10:48 p.m.