[ Page 413 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Industrial Development.

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (2nd-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as this is the first occasion I've had to stand in my place representing the great capital City of Victoria, I first would like to express to you how very happy I am that you are again in our Chair as Speaker, and I think that now that tempers have cooled a little, I think all members of the House know in their hearts that you always do a good job.

I think also, Mr. Speaker, that I would be remiss if I did not compliment the eight new members on this and on that side of the House, who have brought to this House youth, enthusiasm, and experience, and I understand that they have impressed the Opposition no little and, believe me, it's a wonderful experience. I've been in this House for ten years, and to see such bright, intelligent, young people coming up on our side of the House, whereas we still have the same old, tired, little group across in that corner….

I would particularly, Mr. Speaker, like to thank the voters of Victoria, and I would particularly like to just make this little summary, particularly for the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey, because you know he came dashing across in the last election in that wayward bus of his, and the things that he wasn't going to do, was just nobody's business. I want to tell him that just ten years ago his little splinter party had a member in the House from the City of Victoria. Yes, he's gone to his just reward, he's now on the bench. At that time, Mr. First Member from Vancouver–Point Grey, I won that seat from the Liberal party by 1,100 votes. In 1963, another election, and I beat the Liberals by 5,000 votes, and in 1966 that Liberal candidate, or the two Liberal candidates for your party, dropped not from second place, but to third, and I won the seat by 7,500 votes. In 1969 I beat your top Liberal candidate by 10,500 votes, so I think that you could spend your time, Mr. Leader, to better advantage going out on the hustings and trying to win people to your ideas of thinking, rather than making up those ludicrous budgets that you do.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Public Works has been carrying you for years.

MR. SKILLINGS: I may answer that, Mr. Member, by telling you that there are only four M.L.A.'s in the Province who got an excess of 15,000 votes, and my colleague was one, and I was one of that four as well, so I wasn't carried too far, was I? I may say that during the election campaign I had a serious accident and I broke two ribs and damaged a kidney, and only had to speak once. My good running mate….you're all spoiling my story….my running mate said to me, "Waldo, next time don't speak at all, you might beat me!"

But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal leader gave out, you know, that budget of his a week ago yesterday, and he was throwing millions of dollars around just like there was no tomorrow. He reminded me of a one-armed paper hanger. He was throwing $40,000,000 to this, $40,000,000 to that, and he said furthermore, he said I would have $15,000,000 additional for the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce. He said we would come in with incentive programmes, we would have financial assistance programmes, and we would attract sophisticated industry.

I want to tell the honourable member just one story. Four years ago, in 1966, a well-known industrialist in Victoria by the name of Harold Hilband approached this Government for financial assistance for one of these sophisticated industries and it was the manufacture of heavy water. I may say the Government took it under advisement and turned it down. The Province of Nova Scotia took it on, and I want you to listen, my friend, because this is a little different twist than that one thought that you have. The Province of Nova Scotia took on the manufacture of heavy water some four years ago, and up to the present time, they have invested…. I didn't make this speech last year at all. Mr. Speaker would you ask that member over there from Foggy Bottom to keep quiet for just a few minutes, he might learn something, because his demonstration in the House today, apart from smear, has been nil…. Up to date the Province of Nova Scotia has spent $120,000,000 trying to make heavy water, and up to date they haven't made one drop. It is anticipated that they are going to need another $40,000,000 to $60,000,000 to further progress along their development of heavy water, and at the end of that time they still are not sure whether or not that the plant will be feasible and viable. So you see, Mr. Leader of the Liberal party, that $15,000,000 would have gone just on one, as you call, sophisticated industry. You know it's not a question, in either business or government, how much you spend, it is how efficiently you spent it.

I want very, very briefly today to outline the policy of this Government, the policy it has carried on for the past 17 years, it's not the policy I instituted, but it was instituted by the Social Credit Government back 17 years ago.

We believe to attract industry, secondary industry or any other kind of industry, you have to have four basic requirements. First of all, you have to have proper transportation, and as you know, prior to 1952 our ordinary road system in British Columbia was pathetic. The next thing we did after getting in a real good highway system was to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway both north and south, and at the present time, as you know, we are presently taking the route into Takla Lake and also up to Fort Nelson. In the Province of British Columbia today, we have the greatest railroad development in all of Canada, and in fact all of the free world.

The next thing we said you have to have to attract industries was an abundance of hydro-electric power, and everybody on that side of the House, no matter what they say, were opposed to the two-river policy of Columbia River and the Peace River, and I may say we are the only Province in Canada today that has abundant electrical energy.

The third thing, of course — and I want to say, while I'm on that one point, who could foresee eight or ten years ago that we would have such a state of inflation and prime money at 10 per cent? I see my banker up there in the gallery today. I guess he's here to make sure I'm not going to say anything bad about Chargex, and I'm not going to say anything about it, either. But I may say I was talking to one of the senior vice-presidents of Merrill Lynch in New York a week ago today, and he said, "You know, it's a funny thing, but there wasn't one money manager or one person in Merrill Lynch, or in New York State, that ever could foresee such a tight money market." He said if any had existed they could

[ Page 414 ]

have been billionaires by now. Well, I say that's a funny thing. He should have come to British Columbia. We've got 12 in the Opposition and five Liberals that knew all along that the tight money situation was going to come along and they could have figured it all out. The experts couldn't.

The next thing, of course, to attract industry, you must have a competent labour force, and I may say we now have in British Columbia over 800,000 of the best-trained labour force in Canada, who are working under the best possible conditions and for the highest wages.

Last but not least, you must have stable Government. You must have a Government with vision. You must have a Government with foresight and you must have a Government that has balanced budgets. We in British Columbia for a number of years have had the lowest taxes of all Canada. Besides these three points, we…. Now just a moment, Foggy Bottom, you just listen for a little while, because we went through an hour and a half yesterday with you, and I didn't interrupt you once, so you just have the same courtesy to me as well, will you? Mr. Speaker, would see that member from Foggy Bottom doesn't….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The honourable Minister realizes that's not parliamentary language.

MR. SKILLINGS: I withdraw, but I'll tell you, you got to fight fire with fire, I found that out for a number of years Another thing, Mr. Speaker, that this Province of British Columbia has done. On June 2nd, 1971, from June 2nd to June 10th, we will have our fifth International Trade Fair, and I feel that following on Osaka '70, it is going to be the finest trade fair we have ever had. And don't think for one minute that this trade fair or these previous four trade fairs have not stimulated industrial development in our Province, because they have. As a matter of fact, on December 8th, we had our Consular Dinner in Ottawa, just a little over two months ago, and we attracted to that dinner some 47 either ambassadors, charges d'affaires, or heads of state to hear our presentation on our new International Trade Fair. I was talking to my counterpart in Ottawa, the Honourable Mr. Pepin, and I want to tell you right now, he's a fine gentleman. He said to me, "Waldo," he said, "how do you do it? How do you get a crowd like this out in Ottawa when a Dominion-Provincial Conference is going on, and to have a group as large as this?" I said, "Mr. Pepin, they've come to hear Premier Bennett, but basically they've come to see 'The Good Life." We showed that in Ottawa that night and it went over very big

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you sign any autographs there?

MR. SKILLINGS: No, I didn't sign any autographs at all. But I may tell you that the senior Cabinet Minister from Vancouver, Art Laing, was there, and he said it was one of the best organizations and best dinners that he'd attended in Ottawa for some time. He's been there for some time. No, I didn't organize it at all. I had the president and the executive of the International Trade Fair look after the arrangements.

But I want to compliment you, Mr. Member, because the honourable member from North Vancouver–Capilano at least had the interest of his constituency and the interest of British Columbia at heart, to attend the Outlook Conference on January 8th and 9th of this year. I want to say there were invitations sent to every member of the Opposition, and you were the only member, Mr. Member, that showed up and I want to compliment you for it, because there were other people right from the City of Vancouver that didn't show up at all. Mr. Speaker, I only throw that in to show you they do a lot of talking about how interested they are in industrial development, but I show you how barren they are of ideas, when they are issued an invitation and not one of them had the courtesy to say, because I haven't got an expense account, or because of other commitments, I cannot attend.

Now I want to say a word, too, about what British Columbia has done as far as the Osaka World Fair is concerned. You remember three years ago, British Columbia went in with the three western provinces and put on a display in Montreal. It was a very, very good display, but this year, in 1970, British Columbia is putting on their own display in Osaka Japan, and I hope that every member of this Legislature has taken the time and trouble to look at the model, that you can see outside, that the B.C. Telephone Company has supplied to us and at no expense to the Legislature whatsoever. I may say our pavilion may not be the largest in Osaka, or the most expensive, but I can tell you this, that we stayed within our budget and we're going. to have a display that I will venture to say will rank with the first five of the 78 pavilions in Osaka. We have had terrific cooperation by our agent the Dominion Construction, Company, and I see Mr. Doug Sutcliffe — we used to call him when we were over in Prague, worry-wart — because he is the man who has had to draw all of the different components together, and I want here today to compliment Mr. Doug Sutcliffe for a terrific job.

The Osaka World's Fair, through our pavilion, will put British Columbia in its true perspective before one billion Asiatics, apart from the Europeans that come to the Fair itself. My Deputy and I will be leaving, before the House rises, for the opening ceremonies on the 14th and 15th days of March of this year. I may tell you, that apart from the structural aspect of our pavilion itself, the audio-visual portion, as I mentioned a year ago, with this 42-foot screen, perpendicular rather than horizontal. The new concept that the Czech group has put into our pavilion, is going to be something that I really hope that we can bring back, that spherorama concept, so that we can show it, during our Centennial year. I know that Mr. Sutcliffe and myself, when we are in Tokyo and Osaka, will speak to the Czech consortium to see whether or not it's within the ball-park to bring this terrific spherorama back to British Columbia so that everybody, in fact not everybody, but a great many people within the Province will have the opportunity of seeing it.

You have on your desks today two typewritten sheets of paper giving you some idea of the different periodicals that the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce publish, and I may say that they are available to anybody, if you wish to send for them. They say once in a while they might be out of print. There are three different basic types. There's a Regional Economic Study done by my Department itself, and then there is a Regional District Economic Study, of which we pay 50 per cent along with the region that's interested, and then the Participation and Feasibility Studies. On the second page the Department's industrial studies Are all there — they are not all there — actually there are more. On the second sheet I want you, and I want particularly the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey to note — I have taken as a comparison today the three prairie provinces and compared them with British Columbia.

[ Page 415 ]

Now the leader of the Liberal party always keeps talking about Ontario. Now there is no way that British Columbia can be compared to Ontario. In the first place they have three and a half to four times the population that British Columbia has. They are in Central Canada and they have the benefit of restrictive tariffs from the outside world. They also have the preference as far as rail rates are concerned. They can ship west cheaper than we in the west can ship east, so they are not comparable in any way. So I have taken from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics the last ten-year figures — from 1959 to 1968, a ten-year period — of a comparison between British Columbia and the fourth region, the prairie provinces. You will notice there that British Columbians for capital and repair expenditures during that ten-year period generated, $3,100,000,000. Alberta, $923,000,000. Saskatchewan, $318,000,000. Manitoba, $709,000,000. Making a total of $1,951,000,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that private of public?

MR. SKILLINGS: This is public and private. This is D.B.S. I had nothing to do with the preparation whatsoever. And so that my good friend won't say, "Well, there are three or four pulp mills thrown in there," I would like you to look at the British Columbia portion. It is divided into seven segments, for employees under five, employees under 15, employees under 20, employees under 30, employees under 50, employees under 100, and over 100. You will see that in that ten-year period British Columbia attracted 1,967 new businesses, whereas the three prairie provinces combined only attracted 1,830.

Now I just give you those figures, Mr. Speaker, so that the members of this House can have some appreciation of what this Department has been doing with a very limited budget. But I will repeat, it's not how much you have to throw around, it's how you spend it. I may say that the policy of this Government, very simply, is we do not believe that tax money should be taken from successful businesses to supplement a marginal business or a hard-up business to get them started, because they can't pay the wages that labour wants, and they are always a stone around your neck because they never blossom out into their true worth. For that reason we want to attract healthy business.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the iron bounty?

MR. SKILLINGS: The iron bounty is not a bad thing. It is a start, and at some time I hope that we will have an iron industry in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the incentive programme for the Okanagan?

MR. SKILLINGS: The incentive programme in the Okanagan was a Federal one, and can you imagine anything more ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, than giving $5,000,000 to a distillery to go to the Okanagan?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing for the apples.

MR. SKILLINGS: No, nothing for the apple industry. Nothing for the basic industry. So if you like, and I may tell you….

AN HON. MEMBER: Just state whether you are for or against the programme.

MR. SKILLINGS: Well, as a matter of fact, I am against the programme, yes. Because I tell you it's discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, let me tell that leader of that little Liberal group what Mr. Ross Thatcher said. I had the real pleasure in June of being at the first Dominion-Provincial Conference last year, and also in December, and Ross Thatcher said, and these are not my words, but the Premier of Saskatchewan said, "This new incentive programme is just something for the Canadians east of Three Rivers." East of Three Rivers. The Okanagan programme phases out at the end of this year. $5,000,000 for a distillery.

As a matter of fact, the trouble with the first Area Assistance Act was, they set up certain criteria. If you made that criteria you got the grant, irrespective of what your plant was or what it would do for the community. Now the new Area Assistance Act…. Just listen a minute and you'll learn something, because your big trouble is you shoot off before you know what you're talking about…. Now the new area incentive programme — and I may say I was in Ottawa in June of last year and I listened to the Minister at that time and Mr. Kent who used to be in the Prime Minister's office, as you know, and he is now the Deputy Minister of that particular department, and the original intent of the Act was that they would have this incentive idea with consultation with the provinces. But when the Act came out, only the very little eastern comer of British Columbia is included, the rest of British Columbia is not included and I say….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're against the programme.

MR. Skillings: I am against it because it is discrimination. When I spoke to Mr. Kent — when I spoke to the Minister, I said, "Let's have every application adjudged on its merits, and if it deserves to have financial assistance, rather than pick out some particular area…" As a matter of fact, as I told you, if you had been listening, it is not the policy of this Government to have those supplemental assistances. I never announced it once.

AN HON. MEMBER: You announced it last year three times. Did you get stuck?

MR. SKILLINGS: Well, it's tough, you know, Mr. Speaker, when you've got to be heckled by the Opposition. When you start to get heckled by your own backbenchers you're in bad shape. But I tell you, every time the good member from over there gets up he speaks nothing but sense. Nonsense, that's what he is talking about. And I want to tell you this. I have sat now for three and a half weeks and listened to this debate in the House. You know there is one thing that hasn't settled in — I was going to say something unkind but I won't say it — but they haven't yet realized that last August the 27th the people of British Columbia elected a new Legislature. Now they voted us in. It wasn't you people.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've already been through that.

MR. SKILLINGS: Isn't that too bad. And I have got another 30 minutes, too, and if you keep on interrupting, my friend, I may go to five or six as you did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the members please address the

[ Page 416 ]

Chair?

MR. SKILLINGS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. And I want to tell you, you know when you're getting to them, when they start to prickle their ears and the way those members from Point Grey are doing, and they know, basically, that they haven't got a leg to stand on as far as national policy is concerned. I would like to say to the House this, Mr. Speaker, by what stretch of the imagination, or by what authority has Pierre Elliott To-do — not Trudeau — now coming in, suggesting that the way to solve the problems of Canada is to create further unemployment? I want to tell you, that is really the best!

But I want to finish the other point that I had in mind. It hasn't soaked in or hasn't penetrated — that's the word — to some of their thick skulls, that on the 27th of last August the people of British Columbia spoke, and they spoke in no uncertain terms, and believe me they have given us a mandate for the next four or five years to govern, and that is what we intend to do, no matter what that little Opposition, whether it be the little dreamers over here or the socialists over there, have to say. We accept our responsibility and it is our intention to carry on.

There is one other thing I would like to ask — it is too bad the first member for Vancouver East is not in his chair, because he made a tremendous oration last Friday an how he is going to stand or fall on the hydro rates. I am not going to discuss hydro rates but I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, how they feel now when the Province of Manitoba, with their great N.D.P. government, are going to come up with a 14% per cent increase? Oh, there is nothing — you've got nothing to say about that? I got it. I got it. Sit down. I am going to tell you — I am going to tell you, Mr. Past, Past, Past Leader, or whatever you happen to be — would the real leader of that party stand up. Oh, Leo!

Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a great personal admiration for the past, past Leader, and I can remember when I first came into this House he used to stand up and say, "Nobody, but nobody fools Bob Strachen," and one day a couple of years ago, and I made this statement, he woke up and he found three stilettos in his back, and he says, "No, not three, only two." That was his words, not mine. It is pretty tough you know, when you've got to walk around with two stilettos sticking out of your back.

Now there is another subject I'd like to discuss, and that is…. Now that second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, he is a great talker but he's not much of a listener, is he? I want to discuss a problem we have in Victoria, and, as a matter of fact, my friend, we in Victoria are very proud, my colleague and I, that the citizens of Victoria for six times returned the Minister of Public Works and for four times returned myself, and as long as I sit in this Legislature I will speak for all the people, all the people of Victoria, not just the doctors, or not just the labouring force, but all the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't mind making mistakes again.

MR. SKILLINGS: Oh well, of course, you know, to err is human, you know.

There is a problem in Victoria now, and I think I should mention it because it has come up several times, regarding St. Joseph's Hospital. I think that my position is this, that I think that hospital beds are first priority and roads and transportation are second. That's where I stand on this subject. I think that it is a good thing to have this question aired now between the Provincial authorities and the municipalities but it is a further proof that what I said in my maiden speech in this House — it is time that the four contiguous municipalities of this Province got together, stopped their little empires, stopped their four little mayors, the four little fire chiefs, and their four little police chiefs, their four little empires and amalgamated to make Victoria a really — the Capital City of this Province that it should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. SKILLINGS: I don't care. I don't care, for example, whether you say rubbish or not. The thing is this, that the principle is good and when you've got to go to regionalization like our little friend from Oak Bay, who made the aside, and said, they want the region to look after all of the tough problems, but the ordinary, everyday, mundane, problems they want to solve themselves. Eventually it has got to come, so I just say, why not now?

Now, as far as this street plan is concerned, I really had something to say, but in fairness to our ex-mayor who is holidaying in Hawaii, I will not say some of the things that perhaps I was going to say. But I certainly do hope that the hospital authorities will ask, when he does return, how that report, and how a couple of pages were lost, and how the experts first of all advised against cutting the property up, and then in the second report they suggested that it should be cut up. I don't think this is cooperation.

I may say, since I became the M.L.A. or one of the M.L.A.'s for this area, I went down on more than one occasion and offered full cooperation with the mayor and aldermen of the City of Victoria, and the only time I was ever called by the last three mayors was to put a couple of small amendments to our Victoria Private Act, and when they got into this kerfuffle about the Blanshard Street extension, that is the only time the City has ever come to me at all. But I may say, a new mayor of the City of Victoria was elected last December. He showed real leadership, I think, when this question of hospital or metropolitan health care came up, by inviting all the M.L.A.'s of this area to come down to City Hall and discuss the problems. Because, you know, the region under discussion — perhaps some of you don't know how large it is — it is south of the Malahat taking in all the unorganized territories, taking in all of Esquimalt, all of Oak Bay, all of Saanich and Victoria, and right out to the Gulf Islands. I may say that it is a refreshing treat, you know, because for many years the three municipalities — as far as their mayors were concerned — were Liberally dominated, and for the first time there is only one now that is still in the Liberal camp, and we have now, I think, in Esquimalt and Victoria fair-minded representatives who will do a job for their respective municipalities. And I say that with some experience. I hope that —

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think you have the right to say that.

MR. SKILLINGS: I have the right to say it, yes, and I am not hiding behind any immunity of the House when I say that. It is my own personal opinion. As a matter of fact, if

[ Page 417 ]

the good member for Cowichan-Malahat was a little bit more guarded in some of his statements, he wouldn't look quite so ridiculous in the press a few days later. The problem facing us now, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not we are going to have real cooperation both at municipal level and Provincial level, and I say in this House tonight that my colleague, the Minister for Public Works, and myself have offered to the administration full cooperation, and that is what we intend to have as far as our Capital City is concerned.

The question of health services — my good friend the Minister of Health Services will be handling this question himself, because it is a very, very complicated problem, and I think that the Minister of Health himself will have a further statement on the entire Metropolitan Health Board when he speaks to this House I would say perhaps later on this week.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I have always tried, when I address this House, to get any information I have across in 30 minutes and I may say that I have, right from the day of my maiden speech, always been heckled. But I am going to tell you, anytime I'm not heckled I am disappointed. So I may say the House today has not disappointed me again.

I would simply say this, that as far as inflation is concerned, and they are discussing this very question back in Ottawa now, I say this, it's the Federal Government's policies, their monetary policies of high interest rates, deficit financing, and reckless spending that have caused this galloping inflation, and the quicker they realize that, the better, because British Columbia's record stands beyond any comparison in all Canada. We are the fastest-growing area in Canada. We have had 17 years of balanced Budgets. We are growing twice as fast as the national average. We have the finest work force in all of Canada, with the highest wages, and I don't see how anybody on that side of the House, when it comes their opportunity to stand and vote for this Budget, has any alternative but to vote yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take my place in this debate. I notice today that I am the one member of the Opposition speaking with seven members of the Government, and if you'll pardon the expression, it's like the famous pullet in the fox house. But in any event, I don't intend to deal much with the Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce portfolio — I don't know much about it either.

It is somewhat difficult to find something to speak about when you're at the end of the speaking list. However, I thought I'd look at the Budget and might discuss some things that are in the Budget to go on. Now, I think by reading the Budget, that the big winner in this year's Budget is the B.C. Hydro. They've been given the additional power to borrow another $250,000,000 and, as a result, they are enabled to borrow up to one-quarter of the revenue of this Province. Now, add this to the $2,000,000 in long-term debt of the Authority and we come….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member certainly is aware of the ruling of the House and of the Motions and Bills on the Order Paper, and will he please comply.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm certainly not going to deal with anything with reference to any of the Bills or the other matters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, the matter of Hydro fiscal structure is in the Bill and also in the Resolution.

MR. LORIMER: We'll carry on to, on page 23 of the Budget Speech, Mr. Speaker, we have reference made to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. It states that, "To continue the Provincial Government-owned Pacific Great Eastern Railway's construction push into our resource-rich northern regions, the Government will submit for approval the investment of an additional $35,000,000 in the share capital of the railway company, also from current-year revenues."

Now I am completely in favour of spending $35,000,000 for extensions of the Pacific Great Eastern if it is, in fact, needed, and I believe that the advantages to our northern country and to the Province as a whole will more than cover the cost of the $35,000,000. However, I think that what we should do is admit that the $35,000,000 is strictly a grant to the Authority, and is not a question of purchasing further stock in the company. The Government has owned 100 per cent of the P.G.E. for a great number of years, and this is strictly a transfer of funds for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and I think that we should tell the people, you know, the way it is.

I hope the Premier will announce further extensions if same are required and also, if necessary, take money out of general revenue to have those extensions built. However, if the purpose of these extensions, Mr. Speaker, is strictly to facilitate the removal of our raw materials from our northern areas for processing outside the Province, then I feel that the benefit will be indeed short-lived and the whole exercise will be a waste of time.

Now, I was pleased to note in the grants that the Government proposed an outright grant of $500 on a second mortgage, and $2,500 on the purchase of an existing home, for persons who have rented homes in the Province. Now, this measure will help those of better than average income and as a good measure also the 5-5-5 Plan — I think it's every bit as good as the input-output plan of last year — and I think it's of some help. But really, we're only scratching at the very surface of the housing problem and a number of people have already spoken about this. This matter has been previously discussed in this debate by the honourable Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side of the House, and I only intend to deal very lightly with the problem.

This Government, I think, has had a record of failure in the housing field. They've failed to stop the spiraling costs of land and have failed to cooperate with municipalities and senior Government in the assembly of land, and they have failed to curb the speculation in land. Money should be made available, it seems to me, for the Purchase, servicing and assembly of lands in cooperation with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the local governments. These lands should be leased and retained in the hands of a Government authority. Federal funds are available for land assembly and servicing under the National Housing Act.

Now we're late, we're late here in the housing field, but now we've entered a new era, we're into the 70's, I am of the hope that the Government will move ahead with bold proposals and get the question of the land problem off the ground, and allow a number of people in the lower income groups at least to get a part of the share of the so-called rounded life. I think we should review the taxing methods that we have on land in urban areas as well as in rural areas.

Now the honourable Minister of Agriculture suggested

[ Page 418 ]

yesterday that the Federal Government should pay more money toward housing, and I agree with him, I think they should as well. However, by and large the tie-ups, the hang-ups, that are faced by the local governments are not the making of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Basically, the tie-ups are in Victoria, although I do think that the Federal Government could spend a great deal more money in the housing field.

Now in the subsidized housing field we notice that for a great number of years the Budget has called for $5,000,000 for expenditures, and that is under 5 per cent of the revenue of the Province, but each year there's very little of this appropriation ever spent. Now I suggest that for one of the greatest social needs in the Province, 5 per cent of the Budget is really quite a low figure, and I would certainly hope that a review be made of this figure and some action be taken to help the situation. Now the original figure was $5,000,000, but I noticed in the expenditures for the first nine months a figure of some $2,300,000 has been spent this year out of the $5,000,000. Now I think that the $5,000,000 is a disgraceful figure to start with, but the spending of only $2,300,000 out of that $5,000,000, I think, is even worse. But really, the sad part of the whole situation is the fact that this is probably the best year they've had in years in housing — that this $2,300,000 is more than has been spent, I would suggest, in housing for a great number of years.

Now I suggest that the housing problems are very obvious. The housing projects should be initiated not by the local governments, I suggest that the housing projects, if we really want to tangle with the housing problems, should be instituted by the Provincial Government, and lands assembled, and so on. Too often the Provincial Government is dragged to the cost-sharing procedures by the local governments who have accepted their responsibilities in this field, but there's too many of the applications made, I suggest, by local governments, that are being refused by this Government. The estimates for next year on housing is still $5,000,000, so I can see that there's really been no new thinking in this field by this Government. Low rental housing schemes are financed to the extent of 75 per cent from Federal revenue. There's money available in the Federal field. The Province of Ontario has gone into housing in a big way. Alberta has started to go into housing. Now why should we not take the initiative now and go into the housing as well? The whole housing question has resulted, also, in the number of problems faced by tenants in urban areas, and this whole field of tenant-landlord relationship is connected almost directly with the problem of the housing situation, and I will be speaking further on this at a later date.

Another improvement I notice in the Budget, I suggest, is the increase of the social welfare recipients who are in receipt of supplementary allowances. The increase is going up $5. Now I suggest that $5 is really a sop to the people in need. It'll take care of the cost-of-living increase and a very little more, and I suggest that we should put a little bit of heart in this Budget and do a little more for these people, $5 a month is what we're talking about, $5 a month. Now when we look at the $5 a month, we find that the Federal Government will be paying $2.50 of this $5, the local government will be paying $1 or 20 per cent, so in actual fact the amount given on this increase by the Provincial Government amounts to $1.50, so it's not a $5 heart we're talking about, it's a $1.50 heart — a twelve-bit heart. Now I would suggest that surely a substantial increase is fitting for this time in our history, and the fact that the Province is well off, the revenues are high, surely we can look after these people that are needy, and are unable to help themselves.

Now the Budget has also shown an increase to the municipal governments, a $2 increase per capita, which is a welcome step to assist the local governments in their financing. However, I suggest that the $2 per capita increase will not anywhere near meet the additional cost that the municipalities will be involved in, in the current year. I foresee that the local taxes, and as has been stated by a number of city fathers, that the $2 increase will not cover the additional costs involved in local government, and I think the honourable member from Nanaimo spoke about the great need for further revenues for municipalities when he spoke in the first Debate.

Now there are a number of responsibilities that are added to the municipalities and cities. First of all there is the additional $12 per annum for each individual on supplementary allowances that will be paid by the municipalities. The second item is the change in the legislation with reference to traffic offences. I know that this was changed in part of the Province last year, but it will take effect, as I understand, throughout the Province this year. I hasten to say that I am not disputing the wisdom of the legislation, I'm only talking finances, and suggesting that there will be a considerable reduction this year in a number of areas from the revenue that they received last year as a result of this, that's in the fines from the so-called roadside suspensions, and so on. I understand that, as an example, Burnaby has budgeted for a reduction of some $250,000 in their budget in the question of revenues on account of this one measure. The per capita grant on 117,000 residents will bring it up to around $235,000, so this one item, in itself, more than covers the additional cost of the loss of revenue. Also, there are added responsibilities given to the local governments with reference to the increased cost of operation and performance of the Regional Districts. Now this, although it's not handled by the local governments, the money for the Regional Districts comes in part, from the local taxpayers, and all increases of this nature come right back to the land and the local payer.

The ever-increasing cost of education, of hospitals — they're all provincial matters — will be borne in part by the local taxpayer. Public health costs will undoubtedly rise and they're continually rising each year, and this again is part of the additional expenses borne by the local taxpayer. Administration of justice costs will rise, even though the revenues will fall. Welfare costs will likely rise as they have every year, and these are all costs — 20 per cent on the welfare costs — paid by the local taxpayer.

Now I understand that a committee has been set up by the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs to look into this question of taxation, and I certainly commend him for this, and hope that the study will be in depth and their report will be completed without too much delay.

I think the two basic problems the municipalities face at the present time — one, is the inability to sell their bonds except at a very high rate of interest, and secondly, always the problem of the passing of responsibilities from the Provincial field to the municipal field without the corresponding transfer of sufficient funds to carry out these responsibilities.

I was somewhat amused at the chart that shows up here on page 34 of the Budget Speech. This is the chart that's intended to show that the municipalities and cities in B.C. are treated much more fairly in B.C. than in other provinces in

[ Page 419 ]

Canada. Now it may show this, I don't know. However, what I am getting at is — and certainly this chart doesn't show it — that before such comparisons can be made there have to be a number of items considered. In the first place, the percentage of residents residing under local jurisdiction is one thing that fluctuates from province to province. The responsibilities given to local governments to carry out provincial responsibilities is another matter that hasn't been decided in that schedule. Some provinces look after costs of education, others look after costs of health, others welfare, others administration of justice. Now there's no way, there's no way, that such a chart can be properly made in this way. To come to a decision as to whether or not the local governments are better treated in B.C. than in other provinces, I suggest, would take a lot longer study than even the writing of this whole Budget Address. Now there is a book called "Provincial Finances" which deals with all the different types of taxation in all the different provinces, and I would suggest that the comparisons are impossible, and therefore that this chart in the Budget Address is absolutely meaningless. I would suggest that there is no one on that side of the House who has made an over-all study of all these items to determine what is right and what isn't right. They may be better off, they may be better off, but they may be worse off, I don't know, and I don't think anyone over there knows, either.

Now cities, municipalities and villages are the creation of the Provincial Government, everyone knows that. There's a child-parent relationship, but unfortunately this Provincial Government is not strictly a loving parent, and takes some advantages of its child at every opportune time and in a number of areas.

The Provincial Government pays grants in lieu of taxes on lands that are held, but that's not altogether true, and it's very difficult to speak on the subject due to the fact that there are an awful lot of varieties here, but in any event, generally speaking, I think it is fair to say that lands that are not occupied or being used by the Provincial Government are not taxable. They pay tax on lands that they are using and they don't necessarily pay taxes on lands that are lying fallow. Now no grants are given on a number of buildings such as primary schools, secondary schools and so on, which are actually serving a Provincial function, but there is no tax payable on these. There is no tax payable on regional colleges, vocational schools or universities.

No grants are paid — pardon me — where grants are paid they are paid on an assessment, not by the municipal assessor or the city assessor but paid on a Provincial assessment. Now, the Provincial assessment may be lower than the municipal assessment but there is no appeal to this. The assessment is made by the Provincial Government and they pay the tax on this assessment and, generally speaking, the tax paid by the Provincial Government is based on 15 mills. I would suggest that this is substantially lower than the tax paid throughout the district, and that in some cases I would suggest that it is probably about half the taxes paid in some of the areas. However, they pay a flat rate of 15 mills. Now there are other questions of whether or not tax is paid on sewer installations and so on by Provincial Governments, but in some bases, pardon me, in some cases they are and some they are not.

Now the Crown corporations, the B.C. Hydro pays full tax on their properties, the Pacific Great Eastern pays nothing. The Liquor Board pays full tax. It was interesting to note that there has been statements made that the P.G.E. might be taking over the B.C. Hydro rail system. Now, at the present time, the system is paying full tax to the local municipalities through which the track is running, but if it is taken over by the P.G.E., the P.G.E. Is exempt from taxation and the local governments in the Fraser Valley and in the lower mainland would suffer a considerable loss unless an allowance is given to the change of ownership.

The Pacific Great Eastern Railway, over and above the rail right-of-way, owns huge tracts of land, and I noticed in "The Profile of a Modem Railway," it was estimated in, I think, 1968 that the holdings of the P.G.E. amounted to some 70,000 acres over and above the trackage. This acreage is for industrial and commercial use, and on this 70,000 acres there is no tax paid to local administrations in that area. The industrial and commercial land presently being expropriated in Delta should be certainly of concern to the people of Delta and to the member in this House from Delta, because if, in fact, this property is turned over to the P. G. E. the municipality is going to have a large loss, not only in the trackage but in the industrial and commercial lands being expropriated for this purpose. Now I would suggest that Delta's lost revenue will certainly be substantial.

Now, there are a great number of other examples of areas where local governments are subsidizing the Provincial Government. One example is under the University Act which releases universities from paying tax, not only on their own property but on property which they own anywhere in the Province. Section 37 of the University Act defines land, and states that all real property vested in a university, so in the event that someone leaves the university a building block downtown, in actual fact if the university so wishes they can, I suggest, take that building off the local tax roll and it will be non-taxable.

This is bad enough, but there are commercial enterprises in the areas that are also non-taxable. On page 11 of the Budget Address, there's a picture here of the construction of B.C. Hydro's facility on the Simon Fraser grounds, and it is the System Control Centre, and it would appear to be a substantial structure and worth considerable value from an assessor's point of view. However, the issue I wish to point out is the fact that the B.C. Hydro constructed this facility on Simon Fraser grounds and, of course, no tax is returnable to Burnaby from this beautiful erection. Now, it's bad enough that the Provincial Government does not pay its share of tax on the university areas, but it is much worse that commercial and private and public enterprises can hide behind the University Act to defeat local governments in their pursuit of these tax dollars.

The loving parent, however, takes advantage of its municipal child in other ways. As an example, Burnaby was anxious to have a university within its border. Burnaby was prepared to pay in a real way for this facility and in fact donated 400-plus acres to the Government for the purpose of erecting Simon Fraser. Now, this area was not sufficient for the complete construction, and the Provincial Government found it necessary to buy some property from the City of Vancouver adjoining this land and paid full value for it, and the reason, of course, was that Vancouver's had more experience with dealing with the Provincial Government than Burnaby.

Now, but one would think that the parent would be appreciative of the cooperation and generosity of the municipality, but apparently this isn't the case. The university needed water and they were still cooperating at this time, so Burnaby said fine we'll build you a water line up the

[ Page 420 ]

mountain. The Provincial Government in an informal meeting at the time, said the fact that you are building the water line, we will supply highways to the university because there is going to be a lot of traffic. They said yes, we'll build a highway up to the top of the mountain. We're going to build it from the end of Hastings St. We'll build 'er up there. We'll build another one from the university to service the Port Moody and Port Coquitlam area, and also we'll build a connector to the Lougheed Highway and carry on to the freeway. Now, they had the water up there, the Gaglardi Way was built from the university as far as the Lougheed Highway, the other roads that were promised some great number of years ago are still, I think, not in the planning stages yet and I don't think it's even in the survey stage for construction.

I am sure I noticed the Minister of Highways making notes, and I'm sure the survey crews will be out shortly to look after this oversight and it will be greatly appreciated, because — at the present time I would guess that 20 per cent of the traffic going to Simon Fraser use Gaglardi Way, 80 per cent wind through the local streets, causing great hazards to the children and the residents of this area, and I would hope that the Minister of Highways would take prompt action in this area.

Now, the Budget Address as printed is distributed to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the Province, at least I'm guessing that because I am on the mailing list. I know I get one at my office and I presume I'm not the only one. Now, these unsuspecting readers, when they look at these charts, you know they might take them at full value and not face value and not look behind as to the real meaning of these charts and these pictures.

Now, I only intend to deal very briefly with a page of pictures on page 29. These pictures represent some Provincial spending, and there is no question about it, however, the pictures give no credit to the municipal governments that are spending money here, private societies that are spending money here, and also the Federal Government is spending money. I'm just going to deal with them very briefly. There are some pictures here of the low-income housing in Vancouver, and they are undoubtedly built under section 35A of the Central Mortgage and Housing Regulations, in which case the Federal Government pays 75 per cent, the Provincial Government 25 per cent, and losses if any are shared 75, 12% by the Provincial, 12% by the local government. But, this isn't mentioned here.

There are other pictures of Senior Citizens Housing. Now, the Provincial Government does give a grant for this and up to, I understand, one-third. I don't know what the grants were with reference to the pictures here, and there is no question there was Provincial money put in, but the balance of these monies are paid by the societies and the mortgages through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Now, I can see that the Provincial aspect of it is a straight grant, but still and again, I think that if we are going to have these pictures in this Budget Address, I think we should have a little bit of description, give a little credit where credit is due to other jurisdictions.

Now a number of people have spoken on pollution and I don't want to spend too much time on that, but I do want to mention it in passing. Last year the Minister of Health attempted to get some action going on pollution control and he attempted to publish air and water quality standards, but the honourable Minister of Lands and Forests did hold this up for a time being, and did finally issue the air standards some months later. But on reading an account from the Vancouver Sun of March the 6th last year, it states, "A Cabinet Order-in-Council Tuesday added the names of Resources Minister Ray Williston, Health Minister Ralph Loffmark, and Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell to the Board which remains under Williston's jurisdiction." Then down below it goes, "His efforts…." He's talking about the honourable Minister of Health, and he states, "His efforts to publish air and water quality health standards last year were delayed after he submitted them to Williston. The air standards were finally released in January, but the water quality standards have not yet been published." Now, the air standards were published, due probably to the fact that there is no Air Pollution Act in this Province, so this was safe enough to do, but the water standards were much too high for the present situation in the Province and could not be released.

But in any event these three honourable Ministers didn't delay, they went right to work, and on March the 14th they issued their manifesto. The policy declaration on behalf of the Government included the following points. "One. The discharge of untreated domestic sewage to enclosed or confined bodies of salt water be prohibited where there is any doubt as to the adequacy of flushing effect of the tide." Now, I have a clipping here that says something about some ducks being killed by poison off Stanley Park, so apparently the flushing effect in this area isn't very good, but there has been, to my knowledge, no action taken to remedy these areas. This duck was killed, as I understand, in February of this year, the year after the manifesto was brought down.

The second important item here is that, "The discharge of untreated domestic sewage to any body of fresh water such as a lake, a river, or a tributary to a river be prohibited." Now I don't believe that has been done. And it goes on and on, but what I'm suggesting is that really the Cabinet members of the Control Board have made a variety of statements all in different directions in the past year, but what is required, of course, is an Air Pollution Control Act regulated and enforced by Provincial authority. Now, I suggest that it is no answer to transfer the responsibility of air pollution to local governments. I suggest that the situation has to be handled from Victoria, and handled in and policed by Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Easier to pass the buck than the three of them work together.

MR. LORIMER: The requirement is for an aggressive policy of enforcement. Now our waters are being polluted more and more every day and really nothing is being done, at least nothing apparent is being done. Let's tell the polluters that they've had their day, that things have to be corrected. Now we're told that the Government is taking dynamic action in this field, but where and when is it going to have some results? We certainly have witnessed no dynamic attack on pollution in any of its forms. The future certainly does not look too encouraging. But even this Government, I suggest, can do an awful lot better, mid must do better, if we are going to survive to go into the next century.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, when I took my place in the Throne Speech debate I had occasion to make some rather critical remarks about the operation of the

[ Page 421 ]

Jericho Hill School. I am happy to learn now that the Minister has sent a competent man into Jericho Hill to investigate its operation, and I'm looking forward to some very progressive improvements in that school in the near future, and I wish to thank the Minister for taking the matter at hand so quickly.

I would also like to deal just briefly with a matter which was brought up by my good friend and colleague, the honourable member for Langley, with respect to the beating of a Provincial Government employee in the Province of Quebec. I agree with my good friend on some of the points he brought up, but I wish to disagree on others, and I think that it's important we show that difference because I think that, in a way, we have been misled by what appears to have happened. In quoting from a newspaper account, the honourable member for Langley was reported to have said that the real problem was that the Quebec policemen could not speak English, and they didn't understand him. "All the rights and traditions that all western Canadians cherish are down the drain," he said, "they went down the drain with the English language." I don't agree with that analysis, Mr. Speaker. I don't think the language barrier had anything to do with the deportment of the policemen in this instance, any more than they are any part of the cause of similar incidents which happen here in British Columbia.

I think that most honourable members in the House will recall some four or five years ago I cited a number of cases of brutality, or should I put it a bit more mildly and maybe call it undue roughness, on the part of policemen on the lower mainland and particularly in the municipality of Surrey, which the honourable member and I represented until 1966. I cited instances where women — on one occasion, a crippled woman of some considerable age was beaten mercilessly, of another woman who had burn scars over almost half of her body — were treated unnecessarily rough by the R.C.M.P. from Surrey. I have witnessed myself unnecessary roughness on the part of policemen in applying arm locks, for example, to small people and wanting them to stand still while an arm lock is being applied or a hammer lock is being applied, which in itself makes it impossible to stand still. I must say that in all those cases I looked, in vain, for support from some of the other members of this House, and under the regime of the then Attorney-General, all that was done was the great white-wash brush was put over the whole thing and never any concern was shown. I am very happy to note, Mr. Speaker, that the present Attorney-General has responded to whatever complaints I have ever made to him with respect to the operation of his department, and I thank him for that I am happy to note, also, that he is concerned about police brutality in Quebec, because if he is concerned about that, I think he will also be concerned about police brutality in British Columbia. I hope that when such occurrences take place in British Columbia, the Attorney-General will be as anxious to get to the bottom of them as he is in this case, and rightly so.

Now I do agree with what the honourable member for Langley said with respect to the people of Quebec who do not speak English. I have said in this House and I repeat, that for anyone to live in Canada or in North America, for that matter, and not speak English is ridiculous. It is the language of the country, the language with which we must do most of our business, and it's the necessary language to know in order to get along in Canada, and in North America. The member said that their political and spiritual leaders have led them up a blind alley, and he said a French-Canadian will become a stranger beyond his own borders if he cannot speak English, and I agree with that. As a matter of fact, when I was down to Expo in 1967 and visited some of my relatives and my wife's relatives, we found this to be a fact. We found that the younger people, particularly, found themselves strangers in their own land when they went away from home. They found themselves strangers when they went across the line to the United States and were unable to be understood, and they look back on those who had caused this situation and blamed them for it. They were anxious to speak English, and the younger generation, as they come along, are going to insist. You are going to have some of the bigots who are going to want to retain nothing but French, but there will be few of those. Those who realize the importance, will want to learn English and will learn English, and I think will help to have a better understanding between the East and the West.

Now there is one other little item here with respect to the remarks of my friend, and the paper says here, "Mr. Vogel said he had never heard of a prisoner not being allowed to make a telephone call in similar circumstances." Well, that is a laugh, because one of the women that I was talking about a few moments ago was picked up while walking home at night, minding her own business, and thrown into gaol, in spite of the fact that she had severe burn scars on her body, and whose husband didn't know where she was, was not allowed to make a phone call home until the next morning, when the matron came into the prison — into the gaol rather — and I think this is deplorable. It happens here quite frequently, and I would like to suggest at this point to the Attorney-General, that something be done to institute this into the laws of this Province — that any person who is arrested and taken to gaol, has the right, the undeniable right, to make a phone call to someone within the hour, within the first hour of his imprisonment. Now I know policemen use all kinds of ruses to escape that now, and I have been told by policemen that there is no right, that an arrested person has no right to demand a phone call, and I think it should be made a right. It should be one of the basic rights that we should enjoy.

There was another little part that fitted in with that, and in fitting it in with that the honourable member for Langley said, "Canadians should ask themselves," he said, "what happened to good old habeas corpus, and a man's right under British law?" and I agree with him. What has happened to the rights under British law? I have said on many occasions in this House that British law is laughed at by some of our law-enforcement officers, and I want to make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that when I talk about police brutality or illegal procedures on the part of policemen, I am not for one moment suggesting that there are a majority of policemen who behave in that manner. But as I said before, that if there is one, that's one too many, and there are some, it is a well-known fact.

As a matter of fact there was a time, a few years ago, when I was keeping a closer eye on the R.C.M.P. in Surrey, when it was almost a routine matter that every week someone was beaten up in some way or another. I know of one chap who was tossed into a cell head first, battered up on the way in because he had been banged against the bars several times. He was finally tossed in head first, landed against the leg of the bed, was knocked unconscious and was left there in an unconscious state, and had many marks when the photographs were taken of him later. As a matter of fact I attended the County Court hearing later on, of an appeal in which the judge severely criticized the R.C.M.P. for their

[ Page 422 ]

callous treatment of this man. It happens too frequently to ignore, and I think it's time that we should do something about seeing that it doesn't happen again, and in that respect, I want to quote from Le Droit, an Ottawa French-language newspaper, an article which is reproduced here in the Victoria Times, and I want to quote the last few paragraphs with respect to the Redel incident. "The Quebec Justice Minister Remi Paul has promised an investigation of this incident. Fine, but this is not enough. What is needed is an investigation of all brutality cases of the last few years, and the establishment of training courses in deportment for all policemen who need them. Fortunately, all policemen do no conduct themselves as Mr. Redel's torturers did, but cases of mistreatment are too numerous for justice to be satisfied with investigating one case." And I say Amen to that.

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the Budget, and I would like to address a few remarks in that direction. I suppose that the most important document for a business man is his profit and loss statement, for that is the indicator for whether or not his business is operating successfully. In government the Budget reveals what is happening to the affairs of the people of the Province or the country. If a business man hired a manager to look after his affairs, and at the end of the fiscal year discovered that the business was operating in the red, and was able to keep going only through large borrowing, I am sure that he would start to look for a new manager for his business. On the other hand, if the business showed a good profit, and a comfortable bank reserve, the business man would likely be very happy with his manager and retain him.

A government is elected to do for the people it represents the many things which the people cannot do for themselves. The Budget tells us where the money is coming from, and what is being done with it, and the Budget therefore can be compared to the business man's profit and loss statement, and I think it's a real measure of how efficiently the Government is operating the people's business.

Our Government's record of 18 consecutive balanced Budgets has to be one of the most important features in returning it to power year after year for the past 18 years. This is true I believe, Mr. Speaker, because when people go to the polls they realize how important good management is to them. They're not concerned about the next guy, they think of number one and they say, how important is good management to me, and who must I elect in order to be sure of good management, and they vote Social Credit and that's as simple as that.

As we examine the Budget, many of us will think there should be more money spent in certain areas, but I'm sure that if any of us were to start looking around to find out where you would take a few dollars to place them elsewhere, we'd be hard pressed to come up with a legitimate answer. It's hard to know where you're going to subtract in order to add to some other place. Mind you, I think that many people forget that the Government can only spend that which is obtained from the taxpayers, and many of these people keep crying for more expenditures in all departments, and they are not being realistic, as this can only be done through increased taxation. If you want to spend more than you are spending now, you have to have increased taxation and, of course, those people who keep crying for more spending are usually not prepared to pay more taxes.

Now the N.D.P., particularly in the last few elections, have been notorious for their wild promises, and I brought along some of them with me today, because I think it is an indication of how the people look upon the promises they make and how they react to them. They have been promising year after year to spend about twice as much as we are now spending, while at the same time lowering taxes, and of course this is a wild rumour people know cannot come true. I have here a part of their platform for 1966. It wasn't quite as bad as in 1969, they sharpened up a little bit in the meantime, but I want to show you just how ridiculous some promises can be, and it's clear why people do not swallow such large hunks of nonsense. Here's what they promise — no more dental bills for children, no more prescription drug bills, no more ambulance bills, no more chronic care bills, no more premiums or deterrent fees, no more university fees, no more textbook fees, lower auto insurance, lower gas and oil bills, lower natural gas bills, lower property taxes, lower prices — all that. Everything is going to be lower, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to spend more. Now even a child in Grade 3 wouldn't believe that, because it's too easy to see through. That's the N.D.P. budget.

This unrealistic and unbusinesslike approach to government is the reason for their failure at the polls, Mr. Speaker. I think, at the same time, it is a tribute to the voters of this Province that they have been able to distinguish between the impossible dreams and the realities that we are offering them at the various elections which we have held in this Province.

One must admit, however, that we have had some substantial surpluses, and I think there may be cases where we could spend a little more here and there without hurting our situation whatsoever. I think that these surpluses are due to the ability and the caution of our Minister of Finance, and no less a person than Jack Webster said, this morning, that British Columbia has a good Minister of Finance. And when Jack Webster says that about the Minister of Finance, you can be sure he is a good Minister of Finance. I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, we could spend a bit more in some directions without affecting our tax structure whatsoever, because the surpluses would be just a little bit less, but generally speaking, I am very happy with our Budget.

However, there is one avenue in which I am not at all happy, and I have criticized this in the past and I criticize it again, and I am sorry that the Minister of Welfare is not in his place, because this is directed to him. I was happy to note the other day in his speech, I think it was Thursday or Friday, that he came up with some new ideas with respect to the administration of the Welfare Department. I'm looking forward to some improvements and some changes there, but I still think, as I said in the past, that the welfare allowance for single people living alone and unable to work is completely inadequate. I'm not referring to other classifications, I'm talking about the person who is living alone and who is unable to work. The allowance up to this point has been $75, and it is going up $5, which is most inadequate. I want it to be clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, that I am not referring to those people who are able-bodied and could be earning a living, if they would only get out and hustle a little, and there are some of those.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you call them "deadbeats?"

MR. LeCOURS: I called them "deadbeats." Yes, I agree with the Minister of Welfare in that respect. I called them "deadbeats," and there isn't a member, I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, there isn’t one member in this House who does not know some deadbeats. The Minister has been criticized for saying that he was going to get the deadbeats off the welfare roll. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. He didn't

[ Page 423 ]

say there were many deadbeats on the welfare roll. He said he was going to get rid of the deadbeats who were on the welfare roll, and I say, more power to him. I think that's the first thing that has to be done. I'm not saying there are a lot of them, but as I've said before, there are some, and I'm positive that other members know many of them as well. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who is in good health and able to work and still draws welfare year after year is a deadbeat, and I know some who do that. I don't think the taxpayers of this Province should have to provide beer and cigarette money and bingo money for people on welfare. Maybe some will disagree with me, but I don't think we should have to provide beer and cigarette and bingo money, and I know people who expect that.

I don't believe, either, that just because a young boy or girl, for example, doesn't get along with his parents he feels are too strict, that he can just take off and leave home, report to the welfare authorities, and go on welfare. I don't think this is right. I think we need some discipline in the home. I think the parents should have that discipline, and the welfare department shouldn't come to the aid of the young boys and girls who do not want to submit to their parents' discipline and provide them with welfare.

I don't think, either, that the taxpayers of this Province should have to support winos and rubby-dubs as we've been doing, because these people don't want to work, they want to live on welfare and enjoy the good life on welfare, and they turn around and they turn in their food certificates, and so on, trade them off and go and buy wine, and what's that stuff they drink? You know….

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay rum.

MR. LeCOURS: Bay rum, yeah.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I believe that those who need and deserve welfare should be given adequate help, and not be required to struggle along on much less than an adequate pittance. The one category I am most concerned about, as I said before, is the single person in poor health who is living alone. These people have to pay the same rent, the same heating bills, the same light bills, and the same telephone bill as a couple would, and by the time they have paid all those fixed charges there is very little left for food, and the odd bit only for new clothing, and I don't think they should have to go around to rummage sales to clothe themselves. I think that if these people, through illness, are unable to work, they should be able to live in a dignified manner.

The support allowance for a single person is $45 a month, with $30 a month going for shelter. Now you take out the heat, light, phone, and a few dollars for incidentals which everyone has, and you have about $20 a month left for food and clothing. Twenty dollars, Mr. Speaker, to feed a person for 30 days. I don't think that we should be very proud of ourselves when we talk about that. A couple with the same fixed costs — the couple has the same cost for rent, or could easily have, and for light and for fuel and for telephone, and they won't have very much more for incidentals, so with the same fixed costs of approximately $25 a month, they receive a support allowance of $80 and an extra $10 a month shelter allowance — $40 a month shelter allowance. So they, in fact, have anywhere from $55 to $65 a month more to spend on food and clothing, and goodness knows, that is little enough. In my opinion, anything less than $90 per month for a single person living alone is a disgrace to this Province, and I hope the Minister will take steps to bring the figure up to at least $90, and preferably $100 for the single person who is unable to work.

I believe that people who are really deserving of welfare should be given it as a matter of right without any stigma attached to it and that those who are able to work but prefer to stay on welfare because they don't have to get up in the morning should be cut off the welfare roll. No one has the right to live at public expense simply because having to work is inconvenient People who are working have their own families to support, and it's not right to ask them to support their families plus a member of someone else's family because that person doesn't want to work.

I know that some people prefer to be on welfare because they can get more that way than they can earn. As a matter of fact I understand some civil servants could get more — Provincial civil servants — could get more on welfare than they are getting from this Government, and I'm not very happy about that. But I think that this is partly due to the fact that our approach in the past has been wrong, and that's why I'm happy that the Minister of Welfare has expressed a desire to revamp the welfare situation, and I hope he will have successful results. The purpose of welfare for people who are healthy and able to work should be to tide them over some rough spots. If a person remains on welfare simply because he gets more that way than working, we should modify the regulations to meet that person's needs and help him to get off the welfare roll.

I am satisfied that we could cut our welfare costs by a considerable amount if we brought a more practical approach to the problem. Let us take the case, for example, of a man and wife with two children, as an illustration. They'd be entitled to a basic welfare payment of $191 a month, and I think that allows for about $55 a month for rent. Now if their rent is $110 a month, which it is likely to be, or maybe more, then they can be paid a supplementary allowance for rent of $55, shall we say, bringing their entire payment up to $246 a month.

Now maybe this man could go out and get himself a job at $300 a month, but the first thing that comes to his mind is the fact that if he goes to work he's going to have to have some new and better clothing. He's going to have to have more and better food, and he's going to have to have transportation. So he might say, well, I can't afford to do all those things and go to work and still keep my family and still pay for my Medicare and other things that he might be called upon to pay for if he's working, so he stays on welfare. Although he's getting a few dollars less he stays on welfare because it's an easier way out for him, and in thinking of his family and the welfare of his family he feels that this is the right thing to do, and it may very will be in some instances.

But I think we could do something about that, Mr. Speaker. I think that if we encouraged him to take the job and subsidized him to the extent of another $100 a month until he brings his wage level up to $400 a month, we would be doing him and ourselves a favour, because we would be returning his pride in himself, we would be restoring his dignity and we would give him a chance to get on his feet and take himself off the welfare rolls when he got a few raises in pay. I think this would be much cheaper in the long run than keeping him on welfare as we're doing now. We could save the taxpayer $146 a month right off the bat, or maybe more, and we would give the man a chance to become a useful citizen. We'd give him a chance to join the production line, instead of being a sponge on the rest of society, and I think

[ Page 424 ]

we should give serious thought to making taxpayers out of those who are now a drain on our economy, and this is one way of doing it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't plan on being very much longer, but I do want to say a few words about a related subject, and that is poverty. Poverty and inflation. I think the two are related because, as the old saying goes, in times of inflation particularly the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Those who have large sums of money to lend out at high interest rates are making a real bonanza of this thing, and the poor people are getting poorer. Those on fixed incomes, the pensioners and others, are having money taken from their pockets every day because of the rising prices.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that any government in Canada has ever done anything seriously to try to put an end to poverty. I don't think any government has ever done anything, and I think it's a disgrace. Incidentally, I'm not going to let it off with governments alone, and I want to go back to the little bit that I quoted with respect to my friend from Langley here a few minutes ago and he said, regarding the people of Quebec, "Their political and spiritual leaders have led them up a blind alley." Mr. Speaker, our political and spiritual leaders have led us all up a blind alley with respect to poverty. As I said earlier, no government, no government — and it should be the Federal Government that should do something about it — but no government has ever seriously tackled the problem of poverty, and I don't think the Church has taken its fair share of the blame in that respect. I think the Church is prepared to accept the fact that there is some virtue in poverty, and I don't think that there is any virtue in poverty. I think too many of the Church people are willing to be satisfied if the individual has a few cents to put in the collection plate on Sunday morning. Poverty is immoral, because in a country as rich as ours — I'll listen to you tomorrow — in a country as rich as ours there's no earthly reason for people living in poverty. It's simply a matter of proper distribution of our wealth. While I agree that that distribution is dependent upon the willingness of people to work, there should be no question that those who are willing to work have an opportunity to get out and do so to earn a decent living for their families.

I recall when I first became interested in Social Credit back in late 1934, during the great depression, there were thousands and thousands of people out of work. There was plenty of work to be done, there were plenty of goods in the stores and warehouses, but there was one thing missing, and that thing was money. And now we have the situation where we have money but it's very expensive money. Banks and other institutions, lending institutions, are being allowed to extend credit at rates of 18 and 20 and 24 and more per cent, which is a disgraceful situation in any civilized country, in my opinion. I think that the main fault for this can be laid at the foot of the Federal Government, which has failed to utilize the Bank of Canada to provide funds for public expenditure in this country.

I'm not going to go into a lot of this, but I want to quote one little excerpt here from what the former Minister of Finance said, the Honourable J.L. Ilsley said some years ago with respect to creating money through the Bank of Canada. A lot of people say oh, if you do that you're going to create inflation, you're going to cause inflation. Well, they haven't been doing it and we have inflation. What we want, Mr. Speaker, is some cheap money to be made available for housing, for the use of municipalities and cities for building sewer plants and other things of public expenditure. Cheap money could be provided through the Canadian Government via the Bank of Canada at anywhere from three to five per cent, at anywhere from three to five per cent, Mr. Speaker, and not 10 and 12 and 15 per cent as they have to pay today.

I want to quote just one brief paragraph here. Mr. Ilsley admitted, under questioning, that if the Government changed one word in section 59 of the Bank Act, making it necessary for the chartered banks to hold 100 per cent cash reserve for the increased deposit with the Bank of Canada, instead of as it was then five per cent and as it is now about eight per cent, and here's the direct quote. Honourable Mr. Ilsley — "There's no more inflationary effect in borrowing money from the Bank of Canada than there is in borrowing from the chartered banks, and we are forcing governments across Canada, and the Federal Government itself is borrowing huge sums at high rates of interest."

As you were told yesterday, and have been told many times before, we're paying between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000 a day in the interest on our national debt because the Federal Government has failed to avail itself of the authority which it has under the B.N.A. Act, to issue credit and currency as required by the people of this country. While it has no relationship, Mr. Speaker, to what's going on in this country, I think it's an illustration of how illogical governments can be and how illogical our Federal Government is to indebt us to the point of almost reaching bankruptcy When they don't have to, when they have the facilities at their hand. I want to point out what happened across the line with our friends in the United States recently, when the President okayed a budget expenditure requiring taxation of $400 per capita for defense purposes. $400 — an appropriation of $400 per capita — the President okayed that. But a few days later, or a few weeks later perhaps, he vetoed an appropriation of $13 per capita for health and welfare. Thirteen dollars per capita for health and welfare was vetoed, and I think that gives you some kind of illustration of how governments sometimes react to the needs of the people.

I think that this Government must take some leadership in prevailing upon the Federal Government to do the things that must be done to put an end to poverty in a country as wealthy as ours. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it's a privilege to again take my place in this debate. First of all I want to follow up on some of the remarks made by my honourable colleague from Richmond. It is interesting that we seem to have some shadow boxing in this nation on trying to fight inflation, yet in the midst of this so-called fight against inflation we see a structure introduced into our midst that is basically accelerating the inflation structure. When they introduce Chargex into our economy it just means that it is the merchant himself who has to pay up six per cent of the sales within a two-month period, and, therefore that amount of money that he is dealing in is used six times over in a year. It means that the merchant has to pay 36 per cent interest for the privilege of using Chargex. Over and above that, the individual has to again pay exorbitant interest rates. When, in this country, are we going to wake up to the fact that your basic problem in inflation is the cost of money itself? It's interesting when the National Government itself goes into a pyramiding position on the national debt. A little over a year ago they came in and they told the purchasers of bonds that they would give them two and a half times their

[ Page 425 ]

money in 14 years. A year later they came out with double your money in nine years. I hate to think what will happen with the $2,000,000,000 that have to be redeemed this coming year.

When the situation is faced, we have to come to the conclusion that they may do a lot of talking about holding the line, they may do a lot of talking about balanced budgets, but there is only one balanced budget in Canada, and that is the Government of British Columbia. While others talk, we have the proof here that British Columbia has been following the right course. But what concerns me is the way we are headed into bankruptcy in this nation. How long will we be able to maintain the proper position in this Province unless some realistic attitudes are adopted at the other levels?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see the honourable Minister announce the other day that we are offering a quarter of a million dollars in a competition to try and get a remedy to air pollution and particularly the smell pollution from pulp mills. No, it's not a cheap gimmick, because you cannot enforce pollution control unless you have solutions to those problems, but I think that this is a method whereby we can find solutions. Again, I think we can see an example here, as the Federal Government admitted about a year ago in the field of research, they were doing all kinds of research into what the problem was, but very little in research into finding solutions to the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make another suggestion, because in the field of pollution I don't think that the smell from our pulp mills is the worst offender. I think that in the field of waste disposal we have to find new methods other than trying to put in a lot of sewer lines and treatment plants. I would respectfully suggest that if we took just one-tenth of the amount we are offering for smell control in pulp mills, and offer just $25,000 for someone to come up with a proper type of burner for effluent, we would not only be doing him a favour, we would be doing ourselves a great favour, because I believe we are moving into tremendous expenditures for something that is going to be obsolete in a matter of a very few years.

Now, I want to urge on the Government and the Minister also that we should implement a few better regulations in regard to septic tanks, especially in the unorganized areas. I am quite perturbed with seeing the Metropolitan Board of Health and the municipalities here trying to force the unorganized areas into expensive sewer lines. Some of the areas are just not compatible to it. The people in the area, in the unorganized areas have accepted regulations, they have accepted subdivisions in a manner that you have larger lots, but we do not have any standards set out for proper operation and construction of septic tanks. We do not have inspection of the septic tanks, and I believe that the best form of tertiary treatment would be right there if we had the proper regulations applied and enforced, and I would urge the Government to do so in as big a hurry as they possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, one other point. I received a letter from a school youngster not too long ago, complaining that perhaps we should not open up new trails because of the experience that occurred when we opened up the trail to China Beach, the other side of Jordan River, some months back. I believe that some of the conservationists are taking the wrong track when they come to the Minister immediately and want him to have somebody follow up the people who use the trails to pick up the chocolate bar wrappers and the sandwich wrappers. I would like to see the Minister put in much stricter fitter regulations and a proper fine and enforcement. It's time that we as citizens realize that we have a responsibility not to litter, rather than ask the Government to come and pick up behind us wherever we care to go.

Now, the other day, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat, with some glee, took a newspaper headline and tried to impute certain statements to myself concerning the universities of this Province and Simon Fraser in particular. I want to tell that honourable member, as I have said everywhere, that I am pretty proud of the young people of this Province in our universities and elsewhere, and particularly the young people in Simon Fraser University, because I took the occasion and spent five days at S.F.U. when they had their big rumble. I also sat in on some of the teach-ins at U.B.C. and I was disappointed, or I should perhaps put it a lot stronger, I was disgusted at the actions of some of the professors, and particularly the teacher assistants, in trying to urge the students to take the wrong type of action. The members, I gave them the answer the other day, that as long as you have people hiding behind the cloak of a profession they have to take the total responsibility. They have to take the total responsibility, and I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that these students, despite the urging that they got from their teachers, from their professors, took the right course. They took the right course. Well, Mr. Speaker, some of the members of the Opposition party were there helping along.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh….oh. Name names. Name names.

MR. BRUCH: The Leader of the Opposition, yes, the member for Burnaby-North, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say?

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the member is inferring that I was at Simon Fraser inciting riots. I ask him to withdraw, or make those statements outside the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is standing to a point of order, and the honourable member, of course, will accept the statements of the honourable member, and proceed.

MR. BRUCH: That's right, I did not intend to leave any inference that the member was inciting riots, but the member was encouraging….

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, one moment please.

MR. BARRETT: Encouraging what?

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): I think that I was likewise referred to in a similar vein as has just been discussed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member will accept the statement of the honourable member for Burnaby-Willingdon, and proceed.

MR. BRUCH: Encouraging the students to take the type of action that was being….

[ Page 426 ]

MR. BARRETT: This is an absolute falsehood, Mr. Speaker, and I ask an immediate retraction, and I'll supply him with my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member will simply accept the honourable Leader's statement and proceed with his remarks. Statements must be accepted by honourable members in the House when they are declared by the member accused.

MR. BRUCH: Right, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased….

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): And, my name and my riding were implied here, and I wish also a retraction that I took any part in this.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member seems to be about 100 per cent in difficulty.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's find out what they were all doing there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. But the statement will be accepted by honourable members, and would the member for Esquimalt please proceed.

MR. BRUCH: I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite were encouraging the students not to take radical action, and that is the best news I've heard from the Opposition so far this Session.

Mr. Speaker, the other point I wish to make is that today there has been perhaps an undue emphasis on university education, and if the young people and the professors continue at the rate they are going, the degrees that are being granted from our universities will not have the value they should have. Many of our young people are going to be denied their chance in life because of some of the irresponsible attitudes that have been present. I am pleased to see that the situation is calming down, but my constituents have, in many cases, expressed the opinion that if they do not wish to properly use the university facilities, that we need far more facilities in the field of technology and vocational training, and I would far rather see the institutions used for that purpose if the students cannot act in a responsible manner.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Richmond made a remark that I want to disagree with, because when he speaks about R.C.M.P., I have not heard of any accusations of brutality whatsoever. In fact, I want to say that in my constituency I'm afraid they are treating many of the offenders, many of the juveniles, in particular, far too soft. Too many of the juveniles are taking advantage of the laxity and are, in effect, becoming serious threats on many occasions. When you have a drive-in owner having to hire security people on Friday and Saturday nights in order to keep his operation going, it is about time that we took a little stricter look at some of these people when they become bullies and start transgressing the Criminal Code.

Now, just one more point, Mr. Speaker, and that is that some years ago in this Legislature we laid out a priority policy on highway construction. The point was that we were going to move ahead with four-lane highways radiating outside of our cities and towns, and most certainly Mr. Speaker, I think this is the necessary priority. I don't disagree with the work being done in some of the constituencies, but I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a serious situation on the Sooke Road radiating out from the City of Victoria. There is tremendous traffic there, the use of the road has increased and multiplied, and it is time that top priority be placed on this particular project. We need the four-lane highway at the very least from the Thetis Underpass to Colwood Comer. Particularly with the recreational complex that has been put to such tremendous use, out along that road we do need action and we need action very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. BERT PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in taking my place in the Budget Debate, I can assure you that I think one of the most important things contained in the Budget was mentioned that welfare recipients were going to get a little more money. This is a very important thing, because people who must rely only on welfare certainly have a most difficult time getting along. I am quite sure that every member in this House wonders how they manage to get along, and in most cases where people must rely on it, I'm of the opinion that they should have still more than has been indicated this far in the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. PRICE: Now, we've heard some discussion, Mr. Speaker, on the contingent liability of this Province, which is now $2,250,000,000, but when you consider the inflationary period that we are in, and the fact that we are going to be paying back those dollars with 75-cent pieces, or perhaps less, maybe we are fortunate that the contingent liability is as large as it is and maybe it should be larger, maybe it should be larger. I was very glad to listen to the lady member from Little Mountain discuss housing in her talk last night, and I am only sorry that more members won't discuss this problem, because I think it's one of the more important that is facing Government today. We had with us in this House, I guess, several hundred people today coming over on a delegation from a tenants' organization, and the reason that they are here, Mr. Speaker, is because there is a shortage of homes. If there was not a shortage of homes they would have no need to come here, because they could fit in somewhere down the line and find accommodation that was within their price range and within their liking.

In B.C. last year we had a population increase of 53,000 and we had housing starts of 32,000. It looks as though we are painting a pretty good picture housewise, but from the standpoint of the movement of people to the urban areas somehow or other this indication of 32,000 housing starts doesn't answer the problem. This is something, I think, which will have to be faced by all levels of government, and I'm looking forward to the possibility of the Strata Titles Act being used to eliminate some of this problem if people win only take advantage of it.

Now, I heard something over a radio station from Seattle last night that worries me, and I think would worry a lot of other people, and it's in connection with drilling oil in Puget Sound. I think the public are frightened, both from a standpoint that wells may be drilled, and also the possibility of spillage from tankers. Both these things are very serious and within very little jurisdiction of this Provincial Govern-

[ Page 427 ]

ment. I think, from what I heard last night, that a great deal of cooperation is going to be needed between the U.S. and Canada regarding oil drilling in the Straits of Georgia, because what I heard was that the Texaco Company has completed deals with surface holders on Whitby Island whereby they will receive a return on any oil found after drilling on the Island, and they are evidently prepared to go ahead and drill without delay. I think that this shows a very definite need for B.C.-Washington cooperation in regard to drilling in the Straits of Georgia, Mr. Speaker, and that also indicates to me that it is a vital thing for British Columbia to have control over oil drilling for all off-shore areas in British Columbia.

This has been indicated by many speakers as a possible year of labour unrest in this Province because of the many major contracts which are going to be open for negotiations this year. I have never been one to find fault with the trade union movement because there is no doubt that the trade union movement, not only in British Columbia, but elsewhere has helped to spread the wealth of the earning power of people, and on that basis has been the very thing which has helped to increase the standard of living of all of us in this Province. However, I don't think that the trade union movement, in itself, bears an answer to our economic problems, because unions must of necessity be selfish, they must take care of themselves.

I think we are most fortunate in B.C. to be in a place where we have tremendous resources that other people need. However, we are faced with the fact that people in other countries can only pay so much because they can only afford so much, and wages can defeat themselves if they reach a point where we become non-competitive with the rest of the world. In this respect I am positive that a government must act as a balance wheel, and in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I think that the solution that is bound to come will be some form of profit-sharing between industry and labour. Now, labour does not agree entirely with this viewpoint, for the simple reason that in order to get more profit usually it means less labour and less people employed. But as time goes on I am quite sure that profit-sharing, particularly amongst big industry, is going to become much more common. I think it is the only method that will actually arrive at a situation where we prevent work stoppage by strikes.

Just a word on automobile insurance, Mr. Speaker, and I can't help feeling that the young driver is being penalized. I remember talking many times to the late George Lindsay. He was Superintendent of Motor-Vehicles in British Columbia, and he always assured me that as far as their Department was concerned, 16-year-olds were no problem. Yet if they own cars — the boys that are 17 and 18 — they are asked to pay $450 premiums a year for insurance, even though they have never had any accident. I think this is unfair, and perhaps the Government should help, and I think that one way the Government can help these boys is by having increased training facilities in the high schools for driving. I think this is the only way to improve an accident record.

Furthermore, driver training is effective only if it is exactly the same in all parts of the country, and I am very glad to find out from the Motor-Vehicle Department that this is being arranged on a Canada-wide basis right now, where they are trying to bring out drivers' manuals which are common throughout all provinces. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is the only way to develop better drivers and I think, too, that it will go a long way to getting away from this penalty that the young driver who has never had an accident is being asked to pay.

Now, we have heard a great deal, Mr. Speaker, for several years now — you fellows can talk later — about the losses concerned with the Commonwealth Trust and their subsequent companies. Also, of course, in the East we have the Atlantic Corporation which lost, I guess, ten times as much for the general public as Commonwealth did. Now, I don't know, it may be too late to help people that lost money in the B.C.-based companies, but this much, I think, should be very carefully noted — that it must not happen again. Now I don't know the kinds of legislation that may be necessary to control organizations of this type, but I would certainly appeal to the Attorney-General to make sure that legislation is going to be in effect that will absolutely prevent such a similar situation happening again.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've got the proper legislation, but the Attorney-General, or the Government, won't enforce it.

MR. PRICE: Another thing that I would like to speak about is something that I have talked about many times, and that is metropolitan government for the urban areas of our Province. The Government has recently set up many Regional Boards, and I think this is a splendid idea. However, they are not in a position to tax, and they are servants of the municipalities they serve. But I think there are too many local governments in small areas, and as the population increases this situation is becoming worse. You take in the Fraser Valley, they have Matsqui, Langley, and Surrey, and I think they should be combined into one municipality. Around the Vancouver area we have Vancouver, Burnaby, and New Westminster, and I think they should be one area, and there is no doubt in my mind that if they were consolidated the taxpayers would get more money for their tax dollars.

Speaking of the urban areas, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to everyone that the demand for services in all these urban areas is taxing the tax-collecting abilities of councils, and the demand for services is certainly exceeding the ability to pay. Somewhere down the line we need additional sources of revenue, and I think that one source might be a tax, perhaps of one per cent, on the sale of real estate. The reason I say that is because for many years now, ever since the last war, the value of real estate has been increasing, it changes hands at a more rapid rate all the time, and I think that one per cent tax on the sale of real estate would be a reasonable way of finding money to aid the urban areas of this Province. It is done in the State of Washington, and they earmark the collection for County, which is quite similar to what I am talking about here, and I am of the opinion that it could be collected by the Province and distributed to the municipalities, and it would be a source of revenue untapped at present and one which would not hurt the seller of real estate property.

AN HON. MEMBER: It would hurt the buyer, though.

MR. PRICE: I don't think it would hurt the buyer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, ever since I came to this House, which is going back to quite a while ago, I have advocated that somehow or other they try and move Oakalla Prison Farm away from Burnaby, and I am more determined than ever that this should be done because it is not being used. There are 700 acres around this Oakalla Prison Farm. At one time it was used for producing farm products, which today it is not. The only thing that's being used are the buildings, and I think

[ Page 428 ]

this property is much too valuable to remain idle. I don't know what the value of it would be on the real estate market, I would think probably about $12,000,000. But today this Prison Farm there, as it is, is holding back the municipality, and I think it should be phased out as soon as possible.

A number of times in this House I have spoken about some improvement that is needed in game management, because the wild game in this Province is very rapidly disappearing. In spite of what our game biologists tell us, I think it is disappearing. I notice in the most recent issue of Time magazine that even the polar bears are now in serious danger of being exterminated with the ability of the motorized ski vehicle, the helicopter, and the aeroplane. I think, Mr. Speaker, very, very seriously that it is time we stopped killing our game for fun. People like to see wild game, and I know any time that I have gone through the national parks in British Columbia, if there is any game on the highway on a fine day there isn't a car that will pass but what it will stop and try to take pictures. I think it is one of the greatest tourist attractions that we can have is to have wild game available for people to see, but history shows that the more roads we have the less game we have.

I would appeal to the Government to set up large reserves where game can be permitted to increase, and encourage people to come and hunt here with a camera. I don't know whether you know that it is being done in Africa on a big scale. They have had tremendous success with bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into the areas there, just because people come in and see these game, travel where they are and take pictures. But I can tell you this, that unless we take some steps to preserve our game in British Columbia, in 20 years there won't be any game left.

I think, too, Mr. Speaker, that it is time we took a good look at the farm land area that we have in this Province and try and reserve it for the production of food. I have made an appeal many times that we should keep farm lands for farming, but the ones that are always against this, of course, are the farmers themselves. They want to take advantage of the possible capital expansion and sell their property at a high price, and I can't blame them one little bit, I think I would want to do the same. But the problem is that once this property is lost for food production, it doesn't seem to be ever possible to regain it.

The Government has taken some steps in British Columbia to protect our lake shores for public use, for recreation, and I think that the time is overdue to protect the food-producing areas. Today we live on exports and we have lots of money to buy food, but the time, I think, is bound to come when we are going to need many of our areas to produce food for our own use and I would appeal to the Government to take a survey of this Province and wherever we have areas which can be used to raise food I think it should be kept for that purpose, even if the Government has to buy the land and reserve it.

Now, in the city areas on the lower mainland we have a very serious problem of moving people from one place to another, people going from one place to another, people going to work or going to town or so forth and so on. This is particularly true in the City of Vancouver and the lower mainland, and it seems to be agreed that neither freeways nor rapid transit offer very little solution to this problem, and as far as undergrounds are concerned, they need a very highly concentrated population which in that area we do not yet have. Today the rush-hour service of our buses is impossible, and maybe I'd better not talk about them because I don't think you want to hear about it, Mr. Speaker. I think that the problem is the automobile, and I think we should look to the automobile for its own solution. I am of the opinion we ought to look very carefully and give consideration to operating jitneys within the lower mainland so that automobiles can charge to take people from one place to another, and let's see if they won't solve their own problem of transportation. We know today that the average automobile is driving with one and two-thirds passengers each in it, and there is no reason why a number of these cars couldn't permit themselves to be used as jitneys, and carry people back and forth more rapidly and without the problems of freeways or a very expensive subsidized rapid transit system.

Now a thing which I think must be given consideration, Mr. Speaker, is the additional power which is going to be needed in this Province as time goes on, and it has been demonstrated that the cheapest power that we can get in this Province is by damming the Fraser River, and the problem is how to save the fish, and there is no argument that we must maintain our supply of salmon. But I am told, and I think it is recognized, that fish is an easy thing to raise, in fact it was discussed in this House last night. I think our present methods of catching fish are so antiquated that they should be done away with as soon as possible. We can use traps and catch fish in a much better condition for food than we do now with gill-nets, and I am of the opinion that with artificial spawning areas it would be possible to produce far more salmon than is presently propagated by natural means, and it is well within the possibility of the Province to afford. With the artificial spawning beds they can produce salmon and have them grow much faster than they can with a natural state. I think that this is something which could well be studied, because if we can do this it will be money well spent and it will solve the power problem in this Province probably for the next 25 years.

Now, another little thing that I'd like to mention, Mr. Speaker. It may not be very important to the people listening to me on the floor of this House, but it is more important to some of those upstairs, because the seats that we have in the gallery are about the most uncomfortable type of seats that you could find anywhere. In fact, they are the kind that they had in theatres 50 years ago, and I think that we should try and do something about it. It wouldn't cost very much, but when visitors come to this House I think we should at least try and make them comfortable, and if we can't have more seats, at least we can have softer ones. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.N. CHANT (1st-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the opportunity of once again participating in the Budget Debate. One of the main reasons is because it is a Budget of which we can certainly be proud, because we again have, and this bears repeating, a balanced Budget. The income and expenditure are being balanced. That is a part of Social Credit and has been for many years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, our Premier and Minister of Finance has, in spite of strong and at times vicious opposition, stood fast and given the leadership since 1952 to maintain this record of a balanced Budget in the Province of British Columbia, and there is no other area in North America, that has such a good record in this field. Yes, I would say it is possibly outstanding in the world. And

[ Page 429 ]

further, Mr. Speaker, the people in industry in British Columbia have responded to its leadership and have made possible the continuing and increasing services and benefits to the citizens of British Columbia which we expect, and reasonably expect and, I'm quite sure, will follow in the 70's.

But while the people in British Columbia and industry and the Government have done our part to maintain a sound, stable economy, nevertheless a high degree of inflation is rampant in our midst. Not only here, but also in the rest of Canada and in North America and other parts of the world, and it is quite evident that we cannot entirely escape the ravages of inflation in British Columbia. To put it very mildly, particularly the people on fixed incomes are now being robbed of their savings because of reduced purchasing power, and this, Mr. Speaker, is a very serious condition and situation, particularly for people who gave up their life and services to help build this country, and showed thrift and economy and saved for the future, to find today that their dollar which they saved has been robbed of a high portion of its value, in fact often 50 per cent, and in some cases more.

Speaking of the Victoria constituency and in the area which I represent, along with my good colleague, we do require, in this Government precinct — and when we can catch up with these other demands that are being made throughout the Province, and which takes precedence — there is needed in this area a new Government administration building. The need for this becomes more evident as the time passes by, and I look forward to the time when conditions level out somewhat, and possibly catch up with some of these other highly necessitous expenditures….

AN HON. MEMBER: Like schools, hospitals….

MR. CHANT: Well, there's a whole number of expenditures required, and will be, in a rapidly growing economy such as we have, and we have recognized this, Mr. Speaker, and have worked to develop this condition and have been highly successful in so doing. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, to many of us it's over a period of years, and particularly in recent times, building costs have advanced very rapidly, but at the present time the contractors in the Province are really sharpening their pencils and we are getting good bids based on cost of building at the present time. This is, of course, a matter, Mr. Speaker, of competition and I would also like to say further, that in the field of construction and building, I don't think there is any other industry that provides a higher proportion or degree of labour use or in which a greater percentage of the dollar goes in labour expenditures than in the construction industry.

We look for further and increased efficiency in this field, and we often hear spoken of a concept know as modular construction. This is not a new idea. It is being used in some areas and in some structures, but the greatest problem to overcome is for to obtain the materials, or the suppliers of materials to get machined or prepared to supply the materials that will fit into this policy of building. I think it is a coming idea that will grow in use as the time goes by, and the efficiency of it will prove to be highly satisfactory.

During this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard quite a lot of discussion in regard to inflation, and the causes of inflation, and the effects of inflation, and the people responsible for inflation. There is no doubt there is an element of fact in all that has been said, but nevertheless, there's a factor that I notice has been overlooked, or not understood, or not comprehended, or not enunciated by the speakers, and that is, Mr. Speaker, the primary cause of inflation on our economy at the present time is in our banking system, and the function of monetization by chartered banks. In so speaking, Mr. Speaker, I'm not finding fault with banks or bankers as being any better or any worse than any other of our good citizens in our country. This is not the case. But nevertheless, the function of monetization is one that properly belongs to and is the sovereign right of the Federal Government. It's their constitutional right, and chartered banks can only exercise it through the permission rendered them by Act of the Federal Parliament, and this is allowed, and this is permitted. I might point out that there are in general, and I will just use one illustration a recent statement of an increase of assets which are only a part statement in a public statement, banking statements made public, only a partial statement of their activities. But the Bank of Montreal, a well-known, well-respected and a good Bank, made a public statement that they increased their assets in 1969 to the point of $1,300,000,000. This is mainly on account of the power and function of monetization. The power and function of monetization which creates a shadow of wealth, bank deposits and buying power, which is money, to all intents, practices and purposes, gives ownership to the real wealth by producing the shadow of wealth.

As I mentioned before in my speech, Mr. Speaker, we have a condition in our economy not only here, but throughout most of the world, where the shadow of value rides in the saddle, while the producers of wealth are compelled to walk in servitude. This is the condition. Now this condition can be remedied and remedied very simply, and again I repeat a statement — until you restore to Government, that's the Federal Government and the Bank of Canada owned by the Federal treasury and the people of Canada, until you restore to them the controlling issue of money and credit, this includes bank deposits which do 90 per cent of our business at least in our country, until it's restored, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and democracy are idle and futile. Now, Mr. Speaker, for us to dwell on…. Well, the leader of the Liberal party apparently hasn't reached the maturity of mind where he understands these matters, and therefore he asks silly questions, which a person half his age should well know…. But, Mr. Speaker, the function of doing this can be attained and will be, only when the Federal Government decides that this is the policy that they want in Canada.

We hear many complaints raised, and while it is part and parcel of the fact that labour is to blame for inflation, and interest rates are to blame for inflation, and many other factors, and taxation and so forth, I would say that there is considerable degree in truth in all this. For after all, when labour was willing to work for a dollar a day and later a dollar an hour, and others did similar, agriculturalists and others — and by the way, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is doing a lot of that today, making good the claims of others by producing at a loss — but nevertheless, when this took place, by giving several times the real value in real wealth, they made good the claims and substantiated the claims of the power of monetization, which gives a minimum of value and claims the highest degree of claim on assets in real wealth. Again I illustrate the point where the assets can increase $1,300,000,000 in 365 days, and the organization attaining this increase of assets hasn't even produced a shoe-lace in real wealth. Now these are the conditions.

I'm only saying this, Mr. Speaker, because I think that a lot of the time we are fighting with one another, so speaking,

[ Page 430 ]

in the economy, and while these matters do need to be dealt with, unless the matter is dealt with in its over-all concept and complex, our efforts will, as in the past, prove to be futile. Because when you are offered the choice of either inflation or deflation and unemployment, this is not a solution, this is not a cure, you still have the disease, whichever way you take it. But there is the middle road. If you are going to deal with the problem, you must deal with the whole problem and not a part of it.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, while it could be of a temporary help, and possibly a temporary alleviation of some of the problems we are experiencing in inflation and in our economy today, the talk of freezing wages and prices, either one or both — and you can't very well attack one without dealing with the other — but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, taking a little longer view, at its best this can only be a temporary alleviation of the condition in which we live. Because in its operation and administration it will bring about an administration monstrosity of bureaucrats and people shut up to decide on the issue of what is fair, what is parity, what is right, what is wrong, and who knows in this field? You have to leave the power of the market and competition to decide these in their own proper elements, and when you try to interfere with it, in an artificial manner — and again I say, of necessity like in sometimes in other sickness, physical sickness, you have to use temporary means of alleviation — sometimes these means have to be resorted to, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the alleviation of a problem or the application of a policy is a cure or a solution. It is not.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we hear so much said that because governments spend money they are causing inflation. Mr. Speaker, all too often there's no differentiation made between government spending funds that come out of the velocity of circulation in the economy, or the borrowing of funds from banking. Now when governments borrow funds out of the velocity of circulation of money in our economy, they are simply changing the incidence of who at that time or circumstance spend and use the money, because they spend it right back into the economy again. But whenever a government goes to a bank the same as when an individual or an industry does, and borrows, in the majority of instances the bank monetizes and a new fund comes into existence.

Now I just quote Reginald McKenna, one time Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain, and also chairman of the Midland Bank of England, and he made this statement in a speech to the directors of the Midland Bank in Great Britain. This was nearly forty years ago and the same is true today, except that in 1967 changes were made in the Bank Act which now permit the banks to borrow back funds in circulation as well as to practise monetization plus, But he made this statement at that time, and in the main it is true today, "Every bank loan and every bank purchase or investment creates a new fund, and the repayment of a loan or the sale of an investment by banking, destroys a like sum." This is axiomatic fundamental, is a simple practical answer to where does money come from and go to in the initial and final analysis. In the meantime the funds remain in circulation and velocity of circulation is a tremendous factor in our economy.

But let us not confuse the generation and creation of money with velocity of circulation. I find in most instances when I read articles written by economists, and discuss these matters on occasion with economists, they're confused in regard to the velocity of circulation and the generation of money. To illustrate my point, an electrical engineer, he may know a great deal about the use of electrical energy and its multitude of applications, but nevertheless you wouldn't really expect him to understand the fundamentals of its generation. But today by and large I find, and when I look through the textbooks in our universities, and some used in the high schools, and I look for an intelligent explanation that isn't an Aesop's fable in regard to the generation of money, it just isn't there. It's not to be found. It's not there. So, consequently, a matter that could be very easily understood by any normal child of 12 and 14 years of age — people grow up, they go to university, they receive a degree as an economist and a chartered accountant, and when you ask them for a simple explanation of that simple question, where, when and how is the money generated in our economy, they cannot give you an intelligent answer.

This is a fact because I know it from experience, and this is why I'm dwelling on this, because I think this matter is extremely pertinent and vital to the problems and the questions we are facing in the economy today. It may not be readily acceptable, and the press and other news media may try to make fun of it, and try to laugh at it and laugh it off, but I want to say, Mr. Speaker, we laugh it off to our own detriment and danger. If free enterprise and democracy are to survive, then our monetary system and banking system must be co-ordinated and synchronized with the facts of a power-producing, automated age which we live in today.

The idea that you can somehow wangle out of the productive system the means to purchase its products, is futile and unworkable in a free enterprise economy. If you want that type of an economy, listen to Karl Marx. But the irony of the situation, Mr. Speaker, is that in our economy today, our free enterprise economy, we are and have been propounding the idea that's brought the Communist activity into the world. This is the situation. We have propounded that the productive system will somehow be the provider of the means to distribute its products. This made a degree of common sense when man and ox were the source of energy and power, but today it makes no sense whatsoever, and we have evidence of it all about us, with billions of credit buying and goods piling up, and people told they have too much money, and every last mother's son wondering how he can pay his debts. Such confusion.

This is what we find, Mr. Speaker, and this is related to our Budget, Mr. Speaker, because a Budget is a money matter, and this is the source of the buying power that we are dealing with today. Yes, and this is necessary, I think, for the people and the economy to comprehend in their own best interests, and if we fail to comprehend it, Mr. Speaker, we will drift further down the road into socialism and Communism. However, apparently Mr. Speaker, some people would like to see this drift, because when you try to make the productive system finance the distribution of its goods you simply are, in essence, in simple essence saying the cost of production and the value of what's produced will have to equate each other, Karl Marx gave you the answer to that by saying, "Take over, take over the management of all, take over the ownership of the means to production and the products and distribute them." Well, many Marxian people believe that a monetary system is not necessary, because they say, "Wipe out capitalism — it's wrong." In other words I've heard some of them say, "It's of the devil." This, of course, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in a free enterprise economy. In fact, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe the banks should be

[ Page 431 ]

taken over by the Federal Government?

MR. CHANT: The banking here does not have to be taken over by any Government. The Central Bank must perform its normal function so that you and I become debtor and creditor for the generation of all money through the ownership of the banks, because it's the wealth of the country that's produced that gives value to the dollar. The value is not in the money instrument, it's in that to which it is legally attached.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having maybe taken more time on this than I had intended, because this is a subject that one could dwell on for a considerable time, I'm nevertheless, I'm going to deal with a matter which has also been mentioned on several occasions and which is of vital interest to each and every person throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and that is the ideas and policies propounded in what's known as the Benson White Paper on Taxation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, so as not to be misquoted I have a little material here which I would like to read verbatim.

Mr. Speaker, the regional differential fiscal policy outlined by the Federal Government and aimed at penalizing British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, is really I think wild to say the least, and it is based on fallacies. The first fallacy is that economic well-being comes about by accident. Well, it doesn't. Most of it comes about by a combination of hard work, good management and often times there is also a large element of self-denial involved. The element of luck, as such, is of small dimension. Another fallacy is that by shifting the burden you are going to lighten the total load. That burden remains the same no matter how you distribute it. In fact the Robin Hood syndrome is another fallacy. You never help the poor by destroying the rich. Another is that something can be obtained for nothing. There is always a cost. The idea of something for nothing may appeal to the innermost greed of mankind but there's always a cost — hidden maybe, but it's there. There are further fallacies involved in the philosophy that there should be regional differentials. These same fallacies are part of a socialist philosophy of which the Federal Government is so obviously seized. I will deal further with this further on.

First, the economic well-being of this Province has not come about by accident or luck. It has been well considered and is a result of foresight and deliberate planning and that, Mr. Speaker, was headed up when this Government decided to pay off the net debt of this Province. Lumber and minerals and other resources are not wealth until they are marketed. The emphasis on opening up the Province has made production and marketing possible. The money that has been spent on highway and rail systems is an investment that has paid off and will pay off, and I will also say that this applies to hydro development as well. This programme of providing for transportation of freight and goods and power is and will continue, is continuing. The extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway north of Fort Nelson and northwest to Dease Lake will open up vast resources of future wealth. Money has to be spent to accomplish this. Good management of Provincial revenues, coupled with good fiscal policy and the hard work of the people of this Province, have made these expenditures possible, and the rewards are now becoming evident in our economy and in British Columbia, and more will follow. Now the Federal Government, by taxation, would penalize this initiative and hard work and good management. Not luck.

Again, the fallacy that by shifting the burden you can lighten the total load hardly needs any further comment. It simply doesn't do that. We do know that any measure that reduces the will of any section of the people to produce and compete is bad. It erodes personal freedom. Give-aways and hand-outs never did stiffen character. The great mass of people must be encouraged to provide for their own security through savings and investment. All socialists don't believe this. The welfare state is paramount in their thinking. The welfare state is paramount in their thinking, and I would tell them that this politically popular philosophy of furnishing bread and circuses never did build any nation, and history is replete where nations were destroyed by and through this philosophy.

The Robin Hood syndrome, or the policy that one can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, is such a fallacy. What you do is to discourage initiative on the part of the strong, but you don't encourage initiative on the part of the weak. Canada needs all the free enterprise and initiative it can get. That quality needs to be strengthened everywhere it is possible to do so. The proposition to penalize this Province, along with Alberta and Ontario, for having the audacity to aspire to become prosperous and great is rank discrimination. It should be fought by all of us. This, along with the Federal Government's taxation philosophy as indicated in the White Paper, is damaging to Canada.

The whole business looks like planned liquidation of the middle class, and all you have to do is look through that to see that they are going to take the heavy end of the load, and the small businessman, to dispossess them of their hard earned assets. In fact, I would say, Mr. Speaker, this concept and the essence of the idea, comes right out of Karl Marx, and I have the manifesto of the Communist party here and I'm going to read you two or three excerpts. Oh, you may laugh, but this is what you propound, I'm quite sure. Here it is, "Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, that's the middle class. In other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Now, in this sense the theory of the Communist, and this is the socialist concept.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh….oh. You are mistaken!

MR. CHANT: Oh yes, it is. It may be summed up in a single sentence, abolition of private property, abolition of private property with Benson's taxation. It's there, it's embedded right in it. I made the previous statement that the policies being followed in Ottawa are leading this country into a Socialist republic, and I heard some of the good members over there do this. Oh yes, I heard it. Mr. Speaker, furthermore, just listen to this and you're listening to the Benson taxation, the essence of the Benson taxation paper. In one word you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so, that is just what we intend — take away your home by taxation. You must therefore confess that by individual, you mean no other person than the bourgeois. That's the middle class owner of property. This person must indeed be swept out of the way and made impossible, and the rest will follow in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take a great deal more time this evening. There's a great deal more could be said, but I am going to….

AN HON. MEMBER: Make it while the Premier's away.

MR. CHANT: Is that your line of thinking?

[ Page 432 ]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a great deal of discussion in regard to Western Canada's plight. I am speaking now particularly of our neighbours, the provinces immediately east of us. I have met and talked with a number of people back in the provinces and I am surprised to find the extreme conditions that they are facing, and difficult they are. There are people in the farming areas of Western Canada at this moment who have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in machinery and land, and they haven't the means to scarcely go out and buy a pair of overalls at the present time, nor can they borrow from the banks to do so. It's very limited what they can do. They're in desperate plight.

Now while Ottawa can help out Expo with two or three hundred million and hand-outs to other areas, Western Canada suffers from excessive freight rates and a tariff situation that makes Western Canada more or less a captive market to Eastern Canada, and so consequently, Mr. Speaker, these policies cannot be left unabated or not dealt with. If they are not dealt with, Mr. Speaker, in a reasonable manner, then all I can say is that necessity in the future will become a major factor in future policies. Not through design or desire, but you know the old saying, that when you comer a man and his living is more or less gone and he doesn't see which way to turn he becomes desperate, he has to find an answer, he has to find a way out. The farming people in a lot of Western Canada are facing a condition of this kind. I know it because I know quite a number of farmers back there, good people, good citizens and businessmen and they really surprised me with the attitude that they have developed. That something has to be done or Western Canada will have to do something on its own. In desperation, this is what I hear discussed. You can call it anything you like, I'm just pointing out the simple facts of what the conditions are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you favour that?

MR. CHANT: No, I want to see Canada remain a Confederation. But, I'm pointing out the danger signals that are evident to anybody that wants to take a look at them. They're there. They're there, and they are man made, and they will have to be faced, they can't be left to carry on the way it's happening at the present time. There have to be changes made.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take much more of the time of the good people here tonight. If you didn't like what I said that's quite all right. I think I've given you a fairly reasonable and comprehensive dissertation in a short period of time. I've dealt somewhat in depth with some problems and concepts which apparently many of you good people that are having a bit of a laugh at it, don't want to pay any attention to it. In fact you are interested in taking our country down into the fold of socialism and that's your design, and I'm sorry to say that too many of the Liberals down in Ottawa are headed the same way. There is one matter, Mr. Speaker, I have, on occasion, listened to a few of the members of the Opposition chide me a little because of my age.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no.

MR. CHANT: Oh yes, I've heard you mention it, and the honourable leader of the Liberal Opposition over the radio and television does the same. I don't take any offence at this, but nevertheless,

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CHANT: Oh no, no, don't try to put the blame on somebody else. You know the cap fits you.

But I would like to say this, if the honourable members in the Opposition, when they reach my age enjoy as good health and take as active an interest in public life as I do…. I hope you will be around to do so. And, the Liberal party, and their leader who made certain comments along this line in regard to our good Premier and myself on some of his broadcasts, I just hope that when they look for another leader they will look for someone with more maturity.

In regard to the matter of pollution, Mr. Speaker, the matter is brought up quite often, and it is one of the great dangers of our modern civilization and advancement in science, and so forth. We have found and developed ways and means of mining and pumping and extracting from the bowels of the earth materials that were placed there eons of time previous, under conditions different than prevail on the surface of our planet at the present time. We're bringing these materials to the surface. We're using them, and burning them, and in other ways defusing them into the atmosphere, and consequently there is a poisonous condition developing. While there are ways and means known in science, I think, and mechanics and engineering to deal with these problems in a reasonable manner, again I would point out, Mr. Speaker, to this House that we haven't co-ordinated our monetary system so that it can be done. We're told it can't be done because it can't be financed, and this is the essence of the economic thinking in the Social Credit party, that that which is physically possible can and must be made financially possible. In the Provincial field this is not in our jurisdiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, ooh!

MR.CHANT: Well, the truth is the truth. If it pains you I can't help it — it sounds like you were having a pain. Nevertheless, it's the truth. But this is the fact of what we face, Mr. Speaker, and as intelligent people in the 20th century we must concentrate on finding ways and means that the argument of financial necessity will not stop us from doing those things that are necessary to be done. This is practical, this is feasible, and it can be done, and you don't have to resort to a socialist philosophy to do it.

In the field of pollution as well as other fields there is a demand for this and this and this and this, and listening to the honourable members across there, I suppose there's a list as long as your arm that will require hundreds of millions and billions for to undertake, but they come forward with the idea that you can spend some little surplus times over times somehow, and accomplish all this. One honourable member will get up and say, now spend it on this. The next fellow gets up and says no, it must be spent on this, and the next fellow says, spend it on this, and so they go round and round until they have it spent over and over and over again. Like the little child looking in the window trying to choose what candy he will buy, and deciding he will buy one and the other, and he has a very limited amount of money with which to do it.

We, Mr. Speaker, in our western world, in our free enterprise and democratic way of life — the best concept that humanity has ever had — we are letting it fail and go by the boards because we are not co-ordinating and synchronizing our monetary system with the facts of what we can do. This isn't something to start to blame one another for, or to call each other names about, or anything of this kind. It's a matter, Mr. Speaker, of using our God given sense and intelligence, and it's possible, it's feasible, it's practical and

[ Page 433 ]

it's necessary.

The solving of pollution will require funds, and we will proceed with it as fast as the funds are available within the present economy, and again I say the Province does not have control in this field. This field of money supply is the sovereign right and prerogative of the Federal Government, and this is where it should be. But, Mr. Speaker, there has to be an awakening and a realization that we don't talk about the need of doing this, but they must get down to the facts of doing it.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to say that I think every honourable member in this House should give his support to this Budget. You can think of all kinds of little ideas why you should oppose it, and possibly the honourable members of the Opposition think it's their duty to oppose it. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, there is not another budget in Canada, I'll venture to say in North America, that deserves the support of intelligent people any more than this Budget. It is widespread in its benefits and increases in benefits. No increase in the rates of taxation and, Mr. Speaker, this is the best possible Budget than can be brought down under the prevailing conditions that exist. I want to give credit where credit is due to our Premier, and Minister of Finance, and all my colleagues and the backbenchers that back our Minister of Finance and Premier in making this possible. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for the great applause that has been awarded me by this House and I'm highly honoured that they would take the trouble to do so. I have no idea on what ground it is done, but I thank you just the same. I think that also….

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't bother me a bit because I continue to get heckled by my own side and if I didn't, you see, it would really be a serious matter.

I do not think this House realizes what a fine address we have just witnessed from the honourable Minister. There is a great deal in what he said that I did not fully comprehend.

Mr. Speaker, you can put on a little order now if you want to. It is only proper, Mr. Speaker, for me to say this because to say that I fully understood this address would have to be a complete untruth, because you have here the study of a lifetime in monetary experience. You have here the work of a man who has spent a great many years, how many I do not know, in study….

MR. D. BARRETT: Well spent.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It sounds like the Leader of the Opposition. I didn’t see it, but it sounds like it. He has spent all his life in understanding a great problem. Twenty-five years ago the theories that he brought up in this Legislature would have been said pure nonsense. Ten years from now the things that are being said, the things that refer to the Bank of Canada, all these things on monetary policy, will suddenly become the fact of life. Because the time has come when no longer can the public sector be financed by the chartered banks of the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Now, it is all right if you could do it, if actually it could be done, but the time has come when the public sector has got to be supported by the public itself, and not in the profit motive as we see it today. Free enterprise, yes, but loose structure, no. Today we are finding, at least, it's the structure of our economy that's unprecedented in the world. Now you say that why is it unprecedented, everything is unprecedented. Those of us, even though we were only school-boys at the time, that went through the last depression are always waiting for that depression to happen again.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you are right.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But it will never happen again, because there is no precedence any more, because things do not happen by what happened before. The cycle has been broken, things move too fast. When we expect things to repeat in a few years, they do not repeat in a few years, they may repeat in just a few hours. Everything is changed and the depression that we are waiting for, and that some people are gloating over, and the stock market wishes for, and the big money people pay for, because they ride in on the depression, these things we are waiting for are no longer possible. Today we are sitting in a time that economy is solid and our structure is strong.

To the new members in this House I would like to say a few words, because I'm just barely more than a new member myself, and I'd like to welcome them very much for the fine contribution they have made to the debate. I'm sure they will be wondering and saying to themselves, "This is going to be quite a lark." But I would like to tell them what I found out. I found out after the first year that no longer do you say, "I'm the elected member from this constituency." You go back in the air of greatness, you go back to work, and I think that any member that can do his work in less than an eight-hour day and do it right, is not doing his duty. It's a long, arduous job. I found it that, but believe me, I still want it. It's a good job. It's a high honour to serve the people of your own constituency. It's the highest honour that can be accorded to anyone, to be endorsed by his own people.

You hear the Opposition say, my smiling friend the Leader of the Opposition there, says we want an ombudsman, this country will be no good unless we get an ombudsman. I say to you we don't want an ombudsman. Every member of this House is an ombudsman to his own people, and if anybody ever takes away that position from me I will no longer want to sit in this Chamber to be a figurehead with some ombudsman sitting in another chair.

We've had a Budget. Everybody has spoken good about the Budget, even the Opposition. I have never heard an Opposition say so many nice things about the Budget, and I compliment them on recognizing a good thing when it's out. Even the Leader in his address, which was a fine address, said so many nice things and just had to say a few little remarks. I must admit that it was very generous and very nice, but it was all true. It was a great Budget, a balanced Budget. And how do you know all this? Well, he said it. But in the meantime he said, "And they say there is no debt. There is debt. The greatest debt in all Canada is in British Columbia," he said. That's what he said, but I interjected the point, and I ask him now, if there is a debt, who is paying the interest? Surely not the Government of British Columbia.

[ Page 434 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayer.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not so. There is no debt whatever in the Province of British Columbia. And no matter which way you cut it, no matter which way you slice it —

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order. Is that the way to run a business?

MR. MUSSALLEM: This is exactly the way to run a business, exactly the way, exactly the way. And my honourable friend, the second member for Vancouver Centre, runs his business that way, the most successful dealer in the City of Vancouver. Exactly the way. I know. That's the way we run our business. That's the way we run it. I have no debt in my business.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got money.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But I have a contingent liability of nearly $2,000,000. No debt. (laughter)

Now, I am going to explain to the honourable House a thing or two, and I think that they understand it that way. I don't need my bankers. You see, Mr. Speaker, the situation here is they do not understand the basic principles of contingent liability. There is nothing technical about this. Shall I explain it?

MANY HON. MEMBERS: Yes!!

MR. MUSSALLEM: I run my business with ease and with pleasure, and I have enough capital to make it run. Not too much, just enough — barely enough, but enough.

However, should I sell a car to an honourable member of this House, which I have not had the pleasure of doing so far (laughter), with one exception. Now you are listening, I hope. And that customer says, "Well, George, here is $1,000. I still owe you $4,000. Will that be okay?" I would say, "Yes, that's fine. Excellent. That's too good, really. Just sign here." And he signs there. Then I take that paper…. Now, listen to this now, don't heckle us, you've got to understand this. No, the cheque didn't bounce. By the way, he didn't buy it that way either. A lot of people pay cash but 90 per cent do not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chargex.

MR. MUSSALLEM: No Chargex. Now, you've got to listen to this because it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this House does not understand contingent liability. And if I say no more today but to make this point, I want to make it. So you might as well quieten down and listen, it won't take a minute.

He signs the paper and all I have is a few papers, his signature, his $1,000, and he's got a $5,000 car. Out he goes, with my gas even, and what have I got? A bunch of paper.

Now I haven't got the money to wait for him to pay that $4,000. I haven't got it. I don't have the capital. What will I do with it? I take it to a finance company — Quiet! — and I say, "I've got some papers here from a friend, and he says he'll pay you in 24 payments at so much a month. If I give you these papers will you give me the cash?" He looks at his signature, he looks at the man and he says, "Yes, I will." And I get his cheque for $4,000 and I go home. I've got cash for my car. He's got the car. What happens then? I have endorsed that note that in case this man fails to pay, that I would have to pay. Mind you, I'd take his car. (laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: His house?

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, no house. No children. Just the car. Now that is the principle of contingent liability. I got that $4,000 on the contingency that he would pay.

Now that is the way the Government operates. Sit down. Hydro is self-liquidating. It will pay its own bills. And so what? The people who are using the juice are paying the bills and so they should. Who should pay it? Anybody else? Nobody else.

MR. D. BARRETT: Who is in debt? The people.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They are not in debt — the people are not in debt Mr. Speaker, one thing about the Budget Debate, you can talk as long as you want on anything you want, so I am not going to let any of these points pass.

Let us say the Hydro did not belong to the people. Would there be any squeal from the Opposition? Not one squeal. They would say the robbers are charging us too much for electricity. They are forgetting….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member is straying from the rule of this House in discussing Hydro financing and rates.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, if you say I am straying, I will take your word for it, because you are an expert on these points and I am not.

So I think I have explained contingent liability. They obviously don't want to hear it. I told them about my business, Evan Wolfe's — or the second member from Vancouver East–Vancouver Centre, of course — I explained that to them and I think they know what contingent liability is. But there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. (applause)

A great Budget. The buoyancy of prosperity sweeps the land. There is no question about it. And do you know what caused this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes. No.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Do you want to know?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You'll never believe it. Bill 33. Silence falls on the Opposition, because they'll say it's the worst thing that ever happened. The best thing that ever happened to labour and to management in known history of mankind — Bill 33 — for labour peace. Labour truth for labour men but not for labour leaders. Yes, for them too, but not all for them. And so the greatest thing that ever happened —

AN HON. MEMBER: The building of the pyramids….

MR. MUSSALLEM: Look — look here. Look at that fine phalanx of honourable men and women. Look at that. Look how they reach from one side of the House around the other, look at this. Who do you think put them in? Capitalists? No, the working man — every one. These are the simple facts, Mr.

[ Page 435 ]

Speaker, and I don't want to extend them too much because it was a great Budget that we have that allows for the building of the Haig Highway in my constituency, a highway that costs probably more per mile than any other road in Canada. Fantastic cost. They are building one mile, I think it is going to cost about $4,000,000.

AN HON. MEMBERS: That's too much for you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Not for my constituency (laughter). So the people from the Interior could come down to the great city of Vancouver to spend their money. The Mission Bridge which connects both sides of the Fraser River, and for the Lougheed Highway which will be four-lane, because of the Budget, because of the management, because of the way the Minister of Finance steers this Parliament. We can be grateful that we have such a man in our midst. Not only for one man — he gets all the credit, I think he is a great man there — but for the Executive Council. There never was a greater group of people more dedicated in any parliament of Canada and there never will be any greater. Let us say it the way it is. I know we are kind of bashful. When you see a good thing you say, "Don't say anything, because it sounds a little bit wishy-washy, it sounds a bit too drippy." But I say that's not so. If it's so, say it. Tell it the way it is, and that's the way it is.

I might say this, Mr. Speaker, saying these kind words to the honourable Executive Council doesn't help one single little bit. Especially it doesn't help with the Minister of Highways, because business is done in a business manner and that is all that anyone can expect.

There is only one dangerous thing that can cloud the horizon of the economy in Canada today. I am not going to go into it in detail because you have heard it from every member who has spoken thus far. It is all right to make a joke of it, but it is not a joking matter. The White Paper that was brought down certainly was a kite to be flown in the wind, it certainly may not be all enacted, but that White Paper had a lot of good things in it. Some things that should have been done a long time ago, and I appreciate the thought and consideration, and I would not condemn it, but I condemn only one thing.

I condemn the point where it takes dead aim on the small businessman and I tell you it will sink him. It will sink the small businessman and that's for sure because, for the simple reason the small businessman needs that extra money to develop his business which is got in the first $34,000 of profit, and when he does not get that he is on the road to ruin, because it takes that extra money to expand the business. You might say, "Oh, so he got $34,000 — surely he can give away half of that. He still has $16,000." That kind of arithmetic does not work. You need that money to continue the business and the theory of taking the lower tax on that first amount is sensible, intelligent, and strengthened the small business economy which is important in Canada today.

Now in British Columbia for example — let me give you one example. In British Columbia there are 800,000 jobs. Three hundred and twenty large firms employ 250,000 people. That is about one-third of the labour force. One-third of the labour force is taken up by government, quasigovernment, school boards, and that sort of thing. The other third of the labour force is by the small businessman. That's how important the small businessman is to the economy of British Columbia. If we take dead aim on him and sink him, we sink all of Canada. I am not just saying this to make a speech, because I am one of these poor fellows that will sink with the rest, because you cannot survive — there is no way of surviving the White Paper in its present form.

The strange part of it is this. When Mr. Benson was asked in a radio interview, "Now that we have the White Paper, you have all these new taxes coming in, it will be great for Canada, we'll see results right away." "Oh," he said, "Not so. Not so. It will take five years before enough money comes in to pay the overhead to run the new machinery." Now do you understand what that means? Five years to catch up to pay the overhead to pay the staff to pay the running to pay government for taking the money. Do you understand it? It's threatening, it's dangerous, and it's frightful. You can all laugh, because you say, "It does not affect me." It affects everybody. And it's extremely dangerous.

Did anyone notice, my friends, the quietness lately when the great Vancouver dailies are not at press? Do you know something? I miss them very much because there is no doubt about it — and I am not going to be quoted because there are no papers….

AN HON. MEMBER: There's the Colonist and Times.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yeh, well that's right. I don't object to that. After all, The Colonist doesn't affect my constituency, although I respect them as a very fine paper, and the Times, but my constituency is affected by the Province and mostly the Sun.

However, I say this. You notice the great quietness that sweeps the land again, and this is because there is nobody to beat the drums, and I think our society more than anything else needs someone to beat the drums, to keep up the drum beat, and keep the action on. We will suffer greatly. And you do not realize how much we miss this thing that we take for granted every day. Here we have newspapers, and we say, "Oh they are always knocking that Government." Well, I pray they always will, because look what happened! That is not against the newspapers, that is for the newspapers. Because it shows that they have trained the people to think. There is nothing wrong with that. They can blast us all they want to, and until we do something wrong we'll still be Government, but when we break faith with the people that's when we'll fall. And we never will.

Today when we notice the quietness — I have noticed the quietness particularly — nobody screamed about pollution. I have no intention of standing here and talking about pollution, because it's the last thing you want to hear at a time like this. But I want to tell you about something, about how pollution has been overcome in one area. Put it that way. The Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources was so kind as to say to me one day, when I asked him about the Alouette River, he said, "George, we can't give you any more water out of the Alouette River. No use until the Peace River comes on line." Well, the Peace River came on line — Peace power I should say — and I said to him, "Now, Mr. Minister, the Peace is on line, how about pouring some more down the Alouette River."

Now the Alouette River runs in Maple Ridge, it is one of the beauty rivers of the Fraser Valley, as some of you know. And you know, he didn't know, really, at that time what he had said to me, because it was a lot more trouble than you think. The great gargantuan power corporation didn't want to give up the water in that dam behind Alouette, but I don't know what he did, and I don't know how it was done, but

[ Page 436 ]

the water began to flow down the Alouette. He never even told me. One day I phoned him up and was still screaming at him, and he said, "Well, have you looked at the river lately?" I said, "No." "Well," he says, "go down and have a look." So I went down and had a look and the water was flowing down the Alouette River. It has been flowing since, and that river is back to its old beauty again. Not altogether. I know that next year it will be the same. When it's needed it will flow, and the river will be back to its former beauty. This is a great natural resource that this Province had lost in 1927.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that pollution is serious but we should be giving credit when pollution is being rolled back, and it is being rolled back. This Government is in the forefront of the governments of Canada. I haven't got the time, I've got the material but I haven't the time to enumerate item by item the situations that we're in today. The Minister will tell you when the time comes. You won't want to believe it, because it's not a good thing for you to hear. You don't want to hear it because you can't condemn the Government when they are doing right. After all, that may be your responsibility, but I say to you, gentlemen and madame of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that it is not your duty to condemn everything. Your duty is to support things that are right, suggest things that could be better, but I am so sorry that the British parliamentary system is not followed altogether in this way in this House.

A few days ago we had a man, a Doctor Kerr, a pollution expert with his secretary, came and called us to attention in the Cedar Room and showed us — I don't know what he was, Federal Government — and he had four slides that he showed us on how we had desecrated the whole of East Kootenay, and how we are destroying the ecology of the whole country. I asked him a few questions. I told him a few facts, and I won't labour you with them, and he said to me, "Do you propose to tell me that you, a car dealer, a common car dealer, are lecturing me on pollution, when I'm a scientist and a geologist?" I said, "Yes, I do." But that isn't all. I had the honour of being mentioned on TV by him. He said again, "A common car dealer had the nerve to challenge me in the House of Parliament today." Well, I challenge him because he doesn't know what he's talking about. (laughter) I challenge him because he has no facts, and I challenge him because he is a trouble maker, and I challenge him — he says that he is a geologist — he'd better go back and geolodge, and not pollute.

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

MR. MUSSALLEM: I know that's a new word. I know I shouldn't use it, and I won't use it again, but I couldn't pass the opportunity.

There's another kind of pollution, too, that I shouldn't say anything about because I've been saying the nice things about the Minister. But these forest burners in the summer time, I'll say no more about that, because if I say very much — it's a difficult subject. It's difficult for this reason, that there is good reason for burning and there is good reason for not, but I wonder that a million people should suffer because it is necessary. I wonder about these things, but I don't press the point, because I know the forest management people are anxious to save the forests. I know the Minister is anxious not to burn and make the smoke. I know there's a great tug-of-war there, and I won't add to their problems. But I hope and pray that some system — and I know it's coming, I know that, the forest management is creating a system whereby burning may not be necessary — I hope this time comes faster than we expect, because it's really a very serious thing.

There's one thing I would like to bring up, and I believe it is very important. We find that forest companies, for example in the Maple Ridge area, will, suddenly get a piece of land, management land, and they will all of a sudden slam an iron gate across the road. Where my father, myself and my children have hiked through those forests — no longer can we go, because they have blocked it. Now it can be clearly said that they are afraid of vandalism, and they are afraid of vandalism, but so am I in my business. I got to protect my business. Why can't they protect theirs?

AN HON. MEMBER: You can lock the door.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, we lock the doors, but with windows, they can get kicked in.

If they've got machinery up and they've got wire up there, all they need is a night watchman. I have to have a night watchman. I think that the thing that's been the heritage of the people through the years — and yes, the centuries — shouldn't be closed up because somebody gets a licence. I submit to the Minister that these gates have got to be open for the hikers. I don't care about them taking their cars.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no way.

MR. MUSSALLEM: ….but if the hikers…. All right. There is a way. Those forest trails are the property of British Columbia and they must be open. They're burning up nothing that didn't get burned before. I have seen the sad faces — I just had the occasion before I came to the House this Session — two boys came to me and they were sad, I won't say tears in their eyes, but they were very sad. They said, "You know, Mr. Mussallem, we can't go up the Mike Creek road any more." I said, "There's lots of other roads." "There are none left that we can travel on — they are all blocked." Now I don't think that this is right, and I must condemn the practice of putting an iron gate across a trail that is the personal right of the people throughout the centuries before us. Fire season nothing! Well, I could be wrong, but I've walked these trails and climbed these mountains. But there are more closed all the time, and I think that these should be open, and I firmly believe this point. I know it's not a good thing to say, it might embarrass the Minister, but that's the way I have it, and I've got to tell it the way it is.

There's one more thing that bothers me. We are having problems today with 16-year olds, mostly boys, who are immune to police regulations. They are immune. I saw a case with my own eyes, with four policemen standing by, when two 16-year old boys were in this service station and one was kicking the cigarette machine with his boots. I said to the policeman, "Why don't you do something? He said, "What's the use?" I was horrified. Now I know this is Federal — I don't know what it is — but I say to you there is something drastically wrong. These are good boys. They want to be told off. These boys that were kicking the cigarette machines are the ones with the go and the initiative. They will be the businessmen of tomorrow (laughter). That's right. Because they have got initiative…. Hold it…. Because they have initiative and they have courage. It takes a lot of initiative and courage to kick property in the face of four policemen, I'm telling you.

[ Page 437 ]

I know in Prince George even, where two boys were followed along the street by another group with a car and they tried to grab one of the boys, for what reason I do not know. They ran into a house and banged into the door and kicked the door until they opened the door, and they were frightened to death. Now I know more about this, and I'm not going to tell the House what I know, because it would be just a little too much.

But again, these people are running around with liquor they are half drunk and half crazed. They're not subject to the law of the land on some simple criminal business. I don't know what it is — I'm sure the lawyers' minds understand — but I don't understand why a boy, no matter what age, who breaks the law is not subject to the pressures of the law. Now bring him in any courts you want. I don't say they should put him in gaol. Put him under guidance of probation, anything, but don't let them kick in the cigarette machines, don't let them drink in cars at will. This must be stopped, because if we do one thing — instead of making the businessmen and the leaders that they will be, we're making criminals that they might be, and we've got to stop it, and stop it now. Because I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as we have the solid edict written in the Scripture, "that if you sow the wind, you may reap the whirlwind."

On the motion of the Hon. Isabel Dawson, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. ISABEL P. DAWSON (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take my place in the Budget Debate. Listening to the various speakers in this House this Session, it's been most interesting and informative. Some members have spoken at length, while others have presented their subjects in a concise manner. I've discovered that the tongue, when in action, uses more muscles at any one time than any other part of the body, and in listening to the second member from Vancouver East, I see that he has been getting more than his share of muscular exercise lately. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, he has not come across Washington Irving's apt remark, "Confine your tongue, lest it confine you." This excess muscular exercise on the part of the second member from Vancouver East causes me to be concerned with his well-being. Therefore, I feel it would be wise of him to make more constructive use of his tongue muscles, otherwise he is liable to find that he's worn out before his time.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made a remark one time in the House that a certain member who had 12 votes is worth 1,000, so I said mine's worth 15,500.

Mr. Speaker, before speaking to the House in the Throne Speech Debate, I had been engaged in a great deal of research concerning detergents. As I remarked at that time, I find I've learned something new every day, in fact research in one field seems to lead to research in other areas. For instance, I wonder how many members of this House have considered devoting a little of their spare time to the study of the apple. All down through history, apples have been used as a symbol. Many myths and legends have sprung up about this favorite fruit of man. The ancient Greeks, for example, believe that a golden apple caused quarreling amongst the gods and brought about the fall of Troy. Adam too, I understand, had his problems with the apple, as did William Tell and Newton, although the latter did himself real proud when, after prolonged study of an apple, he came up with the law of gravity. Homemakers find a multitude of uses for this crisp fruit. They delight in making apple pie, apple strudel, apple turnovers and even apple sauce. Myths, legends, the culinary arts aside, the livelihood of our medical profession has been, and still is threatened by the homey challenge of, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away."

Personally, I have always found the apple to be a most delightful fruit, and I am fully aware that its cultivation contributes greatly to the economy of British Columbia. Therefore, I am always pleased to see it getting a great deal of publicity. I felt that I would like to share with all the members of this House my enjoyment of the apple, and to this end, each member will find on his desk this evening a crisp, red, juicy, wholesome British Columbia apple.

Mr. Speaker, before speaking on the Budget, I have a few things I would like to say about my riding. The riding of Mackenzie is without a doubt the greatest sea-coast riding in British Columbia. This past year has seen a number of improvements in the ferry links within the Sunshine Coast waterways. Service was augmented during the summer months, with two additional ferries on each of our main links, the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale, Earls Cove to Saltery Bay, and the Comox to Powell River link. New terminals have been constructed at Langdale, Earls Cove, Powell River, and Blubber Bay. Texada Island is now served by a new 25 to 30-car ferry, "The Texada Queen."

Black-topping of several roads has been carried out in a number of areas including the Ocean Falls–Martin Valley Road. A new bridge is under construction in the Powell River area, and three more bridges are in various stages of planning and construction in the Bella Coola area. Bella Bella is now served by Hydro, by means of a diesel plant. This was made possible through the rural electrification plan. Also, property has been acquired at Bella Bella for a new hospital, and both Sechelt and Ocean Falls are at the architectural stage in the hospital planning. A new elementary school was opened in Powell River in September. The people in the Bella Coola Valley are quite excited over the possibility of a saw-mill and pulp mill development in that area. Such development would give a tremendous boost to the economy of the area and make feasible the construction of a good road out of the valley as well, and a ferry link to Ocean Falls and Vancouver Island.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned with the rise of freight rates along the coastal areas, not only in my riding but along the entire coast of British Columbia. The Canadian Transport Commission approved Northland Navigation's increased freight rates as of November 17th, 1969. Rates were increased to main ports by 18 per cent, and those to the lower mainland, the Johnstone Strait, and the west coast of Vancouver Island by some 13 per cent. This put into effect a minimum freight charge of $5 rather than the former $3. I am given to understand by the Minister of Transport that the firm intends to apply for a larger subsidy in the 1970 contract year. The increase has indeed created a

[ Page 438 ]

further hardship to the people who already suffer from a lack of freight service. Many places receive their freight only once in two weeks. Passenger rates, though not yet increased, are extremely high, and it is almost impossible for a family to get out for a holiday.

Honourable Mr. Jamieson states that while they are concerned about the rising trend of freight rates, the Government agencies are under pressure from the Treasury Board to avoid any increases in subsidies for the 1970/71 fiscal year. This, Mr. Speaker, might well be true, but when one compares the subsidies given on the east coast with those granted on the west coast, there certainly seems to be little justice for the preferential treatment given to the eastern seaboard. The Maritime Commission's Annual Report of 1967 revealed that the west coast shipping firms received subsidies in the amount of $382,000 and the east coast firms received not one million, not two million, not five million, not eight million but over $10,000,000 in subsidies.

I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that the sooner we can institute development in the Bella Coola area, the better it will be for the people of the north. Such development would lead to ferry links, thus providing adequate transportation and communication with the outside areas. Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, I must make mention of Highway 101. Traffic on this road is becoming a real problem, especially during the summer months and the busy week-ends. This road is indeed in need of reconstruction if we are to prevent bottlenecks that occur from time to time, especially in the summer. I would like to state that Highway 101 is top priority for attention on the Sunshine Coast area.

Mr. Speaker, during the summer of 1969 I visited Dawson Creek, where I sat in on a homemakers' course at the Vocational School, and it's a wonderful school, Mr. Speaker. The course was a pilot project with a view of filling a need for this type of training. The course outline involved budgeting for a family, essential home nursing, first aid, dietary care and child care, and came about as a direct result of requests to myself from many women's organizations. I was indeed gratified that the Minister of Education, seeing the value of such vocational training, gave the go-ahead for its establishment. As a follow-up, and due to the success of the Dawson Creek project, a similar homemakers' course is being planned at the Victoria Vocational School this coming summer. The course offers an opportunity for women, particularly those in the 45-55 age range, to find employment opportunities as homemakers in families where a mother is unable to give the care for her children, or where the father is the sole parent, as well as for those who require homemakers' service for varying lengths of time upon discharge from hospital.

I have visited a number of vocational schools throughout the Province. During these visits I've been afforded many opportunities of first-hand observation of the wide variety in the range of courses offered in vocational retraining centres. Being invited to spend time in classes where instruction was taking place gave me an in-depth concept of the training being carried on in these institutions. Students in any one class may vary in age from 18 to 55 years, and it was quite unique in my experience to see an older student sitting next to a younger student and working in close harmony together. It was very evident that the students in these classes had a spirit of total involvement the one with the other, and that the instructors and students were working together towards a common goal — the acquisition of a new skill in a vocational area with employment as the end result. Vocational schools offer not only retraining for those affected by job redundancy due to technological advances, but also through upgrading programmes the high school drop-outs are afforded an opportunity to acquire upgrading to Grade 10 to Grade 12, preparatory to undertaking vocational skill training. Mr. Speaker, I think that the vocational programmes in British Columbia are really tremendous.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge of exploring the horizons of peace and love and creating a world based upon brotherhood and human compassion have never before been so clear. A year ago in this Legislature I asked each member to set aside his political allegiances and to join with me in creating the kind of resources and opportunities that strike at the very root of delinquency in a small minority of children among the great majority of happy, healthy, well-adjusted children in our midst. I was indeed proud to have been a party to supporting the Bill amending the Protection of Children Act. This amendment recognized that these children are not junior criminals, but rather children who are troubled; wanting to belong to their home and community environment, and yet not knowing how to belong or why they do not belong.

Since I last spoke on this subject I have had the satisfaction of watching Willingdon School for Girls and the Brannan Lake School for Boys transformed, by finally achieving recognition of what they've always been, places where children in trouble can be helped. This recognition came about by reason of the cooperative efforts of the Courts, the probation officers, the police, and social workers. Supporting these agencies are the many communities in British Columbia that recognize the fact that the best place in which to care for a troubled child is the place where the trouble originated. Some communities have taken great forward strides in helping their own children by keeping them in their midst, and innovating programmes that are positive experiences. These communities have turned away from the practice of banishment of children and instead have accepted them. I am proud to recognize communities such as Nelson, Penticton, Kelowna, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Powell River, Kitimat, Richmond, Abbotsford, Langley and Nanaimo, all of which have recognized their responsibility in this area.

The most impressive feature common to all these community efforts is that they have followed a common-sense approach in reaching out and helping children in their midst. Our Government makes resources available within a community, by granting one-third of the capital cost after 10 per cent has been raised in the community itself. Then, by operational grants which go towards amortizing the balance and general operation cost, the resource is established. While this arrangement is to raise the physical resource, a more important factor is that the community gets together and in a real and tangible manner demonstrates to the troubled child that they're interested and wish to help. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that through the imagination and boldness of our Government the future is bright for these children.

Again, I will reiterate my remarks of last year, and ask all members of this House to work together for the betterment of the troubled child in our midst. As adults we must face the challenge squarely and equip our young people with the tools of confidence and trust in themselves. We can give counsel to our young people but we must bear in mind that the ideas, the communicative urge, the drive, imagination, and energy of our young people are what will carry us into the world of tomorrow. I urge you to consider that this is the reality we must subscribe to. By pursuing such forward thinking we can

[ Page 439 ]

indeed advance steadfastly and steadily towards a true goal of harmony, balance and beauty, these goals being the ultimate aim and desire of humanity.

Prior to the change in the Protection of Children legislation, Brannan Lake School had been going through a process of change and development for some years. Experimental programmes had been initiated and new units were under construction. However, the change in legislation did have an effect on this school. For instance, after April the 2nd, boys were no longer committed directly by the Courts. One result of this has been much more consultation prior to admission, and a better interpretation to the boys themselves on the reasons for their coming to Brannan Lake School. In most cases the boys are now brought to school by the social worker. One or two have been brought by their foster parents, and one boy arrived with his mother. Nowadays, apparently all the boys who spend time in Brannan Lake School present management problems of one kind or another. For example, the percentage of runaways has increased. Another step forward took place the summer of 1969 when arrangements were made with the Nanaimo School Board for provision of academic services to the Brannan Lake School. The School Board provided a school principal and teachers for the school and placed all the resources of the local school district at the disposal of the Brannan Lake School. This arrangement worked out well, and other similar establishments are taking an interest in having such facilities.

The re-classification of child care workers by the Civil Service Commission in 1969, the institution of completion of in-service training and raising of salary levels has made possible the recruitment, training and holding of the best available child care workers. The number of such workers has increased to six, thus allowing ample time for group and individual counseling. The case worker is therefore more closely integrated with child care and teaching staffs. Boys selected for the new unit opened in 1969 were those showing persistent disturbed behaviour patterns including, as I said, a tendency to run away. The relationships between boys and staff in the unit is intensive and leads to development of meaningful relationships. The attempt to form relationships with boys through meaningful projects is developing well, and a second larger log cabin is well under way. Metal beds have been replaced by wooden ones made by the boys themselves, and some sailing dinghies will be ready for the lake this summer.

Last year the school admitted 50 more boys per month, and these boys stayed an average of three months. This year the school is admitting 25 boys per month, and the stay averages over six months. The number of boys admitted from April ist, 1968 to January 3ist, 1969 was 530, while from April 1st, 1969 to January 31st, 1970, it was 271 boys.

Those in charge of the school now feel that they are in a position to help these troubled young people, and this is evidence enough to encourage every community in British Columbia to become aware of the new concept in this area, as well as being more than enough specification that we are moving in the right direction.

Similar changes have taken place in Willingdon School. It is my hope that arrangements can be made with the Burnaby School Board to duplicate the arrangements similar to Brannan Lake, the arrangements that are already working so well. This year I would like to explore the possibility of girls interested in vocational training areas attending classes at the Burnaby Vocational School. This is situated across the road from Willingdon School. Naturally, girls who have not completed high school must continue to attend classes at Willingdon. Certain areas of both Brannan Lake and Willingdon Schools have been redecorated and some reconstruction has taken place in the security wing at Willingdon. These changes, I feel, have done much towards creating a less institutionalized atmosphere and a much brighter and happier place.

Mr. Speaker, for many generations of time man has contemplated living out his allotted three score and ten years. However, man can often look forward to life expectancy a number of years beyond retirement age. In fact, since beginning of this century our life expectancy has increased by approximately 20 years. Our senior citizens, especially those living in larger centres, require not only a variety of accommodation, but also a number of programmes which enrich their retirement years. Taking care of the material needs of our elder citizens is not enough. Their leisure time must be taken into consideration as well.

Many of our elderly citizens have a vast storehouse of knowledge and experience acquired over the many years they've spent in their various occupations, their skills and professions. Such knowledge and experience should not be put on the shelf, nor indeed is it wise this should be the case. While they have earned the right to a less active participation in whatever field they have been engaged in, nevertheless they want to, and indeed they must, be given the opportunity, if they so desire, of being a part of the community in which they find themselves. Indeed, I would say communities which do not take advantage of the collective talents of our senior citizens could be the poorer for it. For instance, we hear much talk of the so-called generation gap these days. Many a senior citizen will be only too delighted to spend an hour or two a week at the local boys' or girls' clubs instructing in carpentry, sewing, or teaching a wide variety of handicrafts learned and perfected over the years.

Mr. Speaker, it is my feeling that our elder citizens might well be asked to share their knowledge and experience in a practical way, by visiting discussion groups and schools in their areas. Thus not only will our senior citizens feel they are enjoying active community involvement, but also our young people will benefit directly in terms of acquiring first-hand knowledge related to early history of our Province and our country.

A major facet inherent in the fives of many of our senior citizens is the loneliness born of leaving families and friends for retirement in another area. The loss of a lifetime partner is, for some, a withdrawal from community activities, occasioned by gradual disabilities attendant upon aging. No man is an island. The very nature of man revolves around association with his fellow man, and the tragedy of aging in our society is often one of loneliness. Although loneliness does exist in some smaller communities, it does exist to a greater degree in our metropolitan areas, whether they be in British Columbia or any other province in Canada and, as far as that goes, anywhere in the world. Therefore, programmes must be developed to help offset or at least alleviate this area of tragedy in a modern society — the loneliness of the aging. New programmes and new ideas must be explored and brought into being to meet this great and real need.

Through the Division of Aging at 411 Dunsmuir in Vancouver, we have been able to initiate and assist in a number of programmes geared not only to handle the normal needs of the elderly citizens, but also geared to a number of new programmes designed to make life happier and brighter

[ Page 440 ]

for our citizens who have earned the right to enjoy their retirement years.

Throughout the Province we have a group of citizens who are performing a tremendous service for their own peers. They are busy answering phone queries, helping in writing letters, filling out application forms for financial assistance or income tax returns, as well as paying visits to the elderly. These citizens, for whom I have the highest regard and praise, are our senior citizens counselors. At our first seminar held in Victoria in October, 1968, some 45 counselors were appointed, and last October at our second conference in New Westminster the number of counselors increased, until today we have some 60 counselors in the Province. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this is the first of such programmes anywhere in Canada, anywhere I've known in the world. They were appointed by their own community groups, and I want to say that I think the work they are doing is simply terrific.

The counselors thoroughly enjoy their work, express keen interest in what they are doing. There seems to be no limit to what they can accomplish in the way of services for the elderly when a counselor becomes active in a community. These counselors also fill an important role in creating interest in their communities with a view to providing services for the elderly people within the community. The counselors contact local service clubs and interest these clubs in such projects as drop-in centres, where the elderly can drop in for a cup of coffee and some friendly chit-chat. In the same way, such projects as homemakers' services may be provided. Indeed; Mr. Speaker, I find that the counselors are answering a real need in these areas, and I say that not only are counselors working in a keen spirit of cooperation with the social workers and the public health workers, but also that the $50,000 set aside for this service is the best value for money that I know of anywhere.

Another programme which is growing rapidly is the Meals on Wheels service. This is a voluntary community service for homebound individuals who are unable to prepare adequate meals for themselves, generally because they lack the strength or the skill to do so. Those helped by the Meals on Wheels service are either ill, disabled, or elderly persons whose physical, mental, emotional and social condition handicaps their ability to prepare meals for themselves, and who have no one to perform the service for them. All recipients pay a small charge, around 60 cents for a meal in Victoria. This service is available five days a week right in this capital city. The grand cost is approximately $14 per capita for three meals a week in the City of Vancouver. Meals are purchased from local restaurants, hospitals or schools. Some areas, Sooke for example, provide meals twice a week in the Community Hall. Not only do the elderly enjoy a good meal but there is a social hour afterwards. The best aspect of this programme is that it will undoubtedly enable some patients to be released from hospital, and prevent others from having to enter nursing homes and hospitals. Apart from the obvious advantage to the recipient, most people are best in their own surroundings. This service adds to the general health and outlook of the recipient, and the contact with the community by reason of this service is of great value.

In Vancouver, some 300 persons are receiving this service three times a week, and some 600 volunteers assist, providing the vehicles for collection and delivery of meals. It is estimated that within the next year the number of recipients will increase to 650 persons. In Victoria, 140 to 160 meals are delivered daily, five days a week by approximately 150 volunteers. Other communities which have the Meals on Wheels programmes are Chilliwack, Penticton, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nelson, and a similar service will soon be off the ground in Vernon, Coquitlam, and the White Rock areas.

HON. PATRICIA J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Vernon's is going.

MRS. DAWSON: It's going already now. That's good to hear. In Kamloops for instance, Frank Baker, owner of one of the local motels, provides meals free to any senior citizen. The only stipulation is that they should come and pick up the meal.

The Volunteer for Seniors programme provides recreational and diversified activities for residents of nursing and rest homes in the Greater Vancouver area. It is presently administrated by the Volunteer Bureau of Greater Vancouver, and is financed jointly by the Provincial Government, the City of Vancouver, and the United Appeal. In those homes where the Volunteer for Seniors programme is operating, residents are reported to be brighter, happier and more alert because of the contact with people from the community. Presently the seniors programme is serving 778 residents with 60 programmes having been started in the past year, taking care of 159 new residents. Volunteers who visit regularly in the homes number some 182 and, in addition, 53 individuals and 16 groups volunteer their services in entertaining in the homes. This service is excellent indeed, and I feel that the programme might well be considered in other areas, when the groups or service clubs may provide entertainment, not only in nursing homes and rest homes, but also in elderly citizens homes and the boarding homes on the non-profit schemes.

Another programme which is being explored is what I call Line, L-i-n-e. This means locating isolated needy elderly, and can be effected by volunteer groups or individuals to the buddy phone idea of visiting arrangements. That such groups or individuals can reach out and establish contact with a number of our senior citizens and disabled persons who, through a variety of reasons, become isolated. By means of a daily phone contact and a visit once in a while, the elderly person or the disabled person not only has a friendly contact, but also should such person become ill or need help, they are secure in the knowledge that someone will be phoning or calling that day. The worth of such a programme, especially in our larger cities would, I believe, be immeasurable as it provides a two-fold service. A friendly human contact and a quick line of communication in time of trouble for those who live alone and might not be noticed in the everyday affairs of the neighbourhood in which they live. In some areas the phone contacts have been handled by senior citizens themselves, because the need is too widespread for counselors to handle on their own. A pilot project is at present being carried out in the Kelowna area, and it is our hope that women's service clubs will give consideration to setting up such a buddy phone programme in their communities. I say let's get on the line, not just the hot line, but the buddy line.

During the present fiscal year construction of senior citizens' non-profit homes has continued, and a new record of 1,232 accommodations were authorized for construction up to January of 1970. This brings the total to date of such accommodation to 8,270. Some of the communities which have completed homes for the elderly, aside from the Greater Victoria and Greater Vancouver areas, are Trail, Castlegar,

[ Page 441 ]

Ladysmith, White Rock and Williams Lake, and construction has been commenced in Coquitlam, Richmond, Clearbrook, Chilliwack, Prince Rupert, and in the Okanagan, Kootenay and Vancouver Island areas. The development of condominium housing, the new triple five programme, for those senior citizens who by their own choice wish to participate in this new housing concept, as explained earlier in this debate by my colleague, the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, has already had a favourable acceptance by a number of citizens. In fact we have already on hand some 15 to 20 names of people who phoned in and indicated their wish to participate in this new concept, and this is splendid indeed.

I was very pleased to hear the member from Oak Bay, and others, speak in the area of health care in our Province and, in particular, intermediate care or personal care. As I travel about the Province it has become apparent to me that there is a need for a facility for those who require the personal type of care that is not possible to provide under existing facilities. Therefore, I am pleased that a committee of Cabinet has been set up to look into the field of intermediate care, and this committee is headed by my colleague the honourable Minister of Health. I am sure that progress in this area will be forthcoming.

The idea of foster grandparents is beginning to catch on in British Columbia, as it has in the United States and other areas in Canada. Two aspects of this programme could be developed. Families can be encouraged to take an elderly person or couple to the home on a foster grandparents boarding-home basis. In some cases a young couple will adopt the elder person by having such person to their home for Sunday dinner and special occasions of family events such as Christmas and Easter, picnics and family outings. This programme is particularly wonderful when the elderly person is separated by distance from his real family. Secondly, senior citizen groups can offer to provide a visiting foster grandparent programme to child-care resources throughout the Province. The benefits gained by both children and foster grandparents have been most rewarding when implemented and carried out. This has happened in two or three areas and one started at Duncan, some time ago, is doing very well indeed.

Mr. Speaker, as of April the 1st next, the supplementary social allowance to old age security cases will be increased by $8.59 per month up to a maximum allowance on a needs test basis of $150 per month. This could be made up on the basic old age security pension, plus the guaranteed income supplement, totaling $111.41, plus Provincial Government supplementary social allowance of $38.59. This is to be granted on a needs test basis.

If a person in unable to earn anything above the basic old age security and guaranteed income supplement, then the full $38.59 will be granted to them, provided their needs indicate they require this amount. Maximum $150 which is the highest paid in all of Canada.

In determining need, for the single person, $90 is allowed as a pre-added budget. Therefore need is based on whether they require $60 or more for shelter and utilities, and this is the only need they have to prove is shelter and rent, and they get the $150. If the requirements are up to $60 or in excess of this, as I say, the maximum of $150 is allowed. In the case of a married couple, $175 is the pre-added budget, the variable being $195 for shelter and utilities, with a maximum of $217 per month.

During the past year and a half, in cooperation with the Department of Industrial Development, the Department of Health, and the Department of Social Welfare, and with the provincial president of the three more elderly citizens groups, and myself, the entire aspect of the hard of hearing has been under investigation. A number of meetings took place between hearing aid dealers, audiologists, members of the medical profession who specialize in eye, ear, nose and throat, and not only have we obtained a great deal of information on the subject from British Columbia and Canada, but from other countries as well, and much information is still coming in to my office.

We have obtained prices of hearing aids from all of the reputable firms in the Province. We've learned that there is a need to educate the elderly citizens who are reluctant to let others know of hard of hearing problems. We have further learned that hearing defects are not always corrected by a hearing aid, and that surgery may be required in some cases. Therefore, it is important that the person with a hearing defect should consult a medical practitioner before being involved in the purchase of a hearing aid. Also, it is important when loss of hearing is first detected that the situation is checked immediately, for it is like many other ailments, it may be alleviated if attended to in the early stages. At present, hearing aids only guarantee about 50 per cent restoration of hearing. Perseverance is an important factor in getting used to a hearing aid, as indeed it is with any other aid such as glasses or dentures.

Even though we acquired all of this data, we were unable to determine from available sources just how prevalent hearing loss is among the elderly, and we could not establish what percentage of those suffering a hearing loss had had a diagnostic test. Therefore this past year we set up two pilot projects which we termed "Hearing Assessment Clinics," for which the Western Institute for the Deaf supplied the audiologist. The first clinic was held at Abbotsford and was of two-day duration. The second clinic was centered at Port Alberni and was spread over three days. Using our senior citizens counselors as contacts, the elderly citizens with hearing problems arranged for consultive tests free of charge. It is interesting to note that at these two clinics very few of those attending had ever had a test before. For instance, in Port Alberni, of the 37 participants only seven of those attending had previously had a diagnostic test.

While our survey up to this time has been conducted in two communities, this year we are moving into a larger area — the Okanagan Valley for a start — where we hope to conduct similar surveys over a longer period of time, and we are also looking into the possibilities of the same being done in the Kootenays and the Northern B.C. area.

I have been most appreciative of the help and willing cooperation afforded this project by the Western Institute for the Deaf, the medical profession, the counselors, news media and the individuals who gave freely of their time and energies so that this project could be initiated. Senior citizens groups are at present making plans to meet with the hearing aid dealers to discuss the feasibility of instituting more equitable terms for the purchase of hearing aids.

In addition, a hearing aid bank is now in process of establishment. Many people have hearing aids tucked away in a drawer, or have friends or relatives who have owned hearing aids and are not using them any more. The elderly citizens counselors will accept such hearing aids with a view to forwarding them to the provincial president who, in turn, will turn them over to the Western Institute for the Deaf. The hearing aids will be checked and repaired and the repairs will be carried out by the Western Institute. Hearing aids so acquired can be purchased for the cost of the repairs, thus

[ Page 442 ]

greatly reducing the expense to senior citizens on a limited income.

At this time I would suggest to my colleague, the Minister of Education, that consideration be given to including in practical nurses' training, instruction in assisting senior citizens in hospitals and nursing homes to fit or adjust their hearing aids. A number of senior citizens have remarked to me that they suffer inconvenience by reason of being unable, at times, to make adjustments for themselves when in hospitals. I hope to speak further on a later day in this Session on the subject of hearing aids.

Mr. Speaker, this Government has consistently requested the Government of Canada to increase allowances, and if not to increase the allowances themselves, then to be more lenient in the test programme in order that any funds available from the Government of British Columbia or any benefits given, would not be nullified by Federal regulations. The guaranteed income supplement should be removed from the income tax.

I am sure we are all pleased that old age security pension eligibility has been reduced to the point where anyone 65 years is eligible for this universally paid pension of $79.58 per month. If any individual has no other income, he is eligible for $31.83 per month guaranteed income supplement, or any portion thereof, depending upon income test. If a person with this income of $111.41 a month is in need of more assistance for his living costs, then the Province will provide for his living up to $38.59 per month to meet such extra costs and, in addition, to cover him for health services such as drugs, natal care, dental care, co-insurance, etc. This means that elderly citizens can now have an income of $150. per month.

But there is another factor. At age 70 a person is allowed an additional income exemption of $500, and the White Paper on income tax reform indicates that this will still be the case. In other words, when the Federal Government decided to reduce the eligible age for old age security from 70 years of age, they did not decide to allow the additional $500 exemption to go along with the eligible age reduction. The person under 70 years in receipt of benefits only has an income tax reduction of $1,400 per year. This constitutes a hardship in many cases. The Canadian Government is thus taking back not only some of the benefits that is has provided, but is also taking away some of the funds, through income tax, which our Province is providing to assist our older people who need all the assistance that is available to them. The Federal Government should allow the $500 additional exemption to those who have reached the age of 65.

We in this Province have conscientiously been endeavoring to make the lot of all our citizens a better one. But we must have the support of the Federal Government in our desire to assist everyone to five on a more comfortable basis. It has become more and more evident that our Premier's recommendation of a guaranteed income would be the best solution in aiding our senior citizens financially as well.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that as of January 1st, 1970, there were an estimated 195,000 persons over 65 years of age in British Columbia, and the influx of pensioners into British Columbia is increasing every year. In 1961-62 the figures showed 143 net movement of pensioners to British Columbia. In 1965-66 the figure was up to 630 net movement of pensioners. In 1968-69 an estimated 1,669 net movement of pensioners who established themselves in British Columbia. The figures for total numbers of pensioners in our Province, in the 1968-69 period, make interesting reading, standing at 177,382. Thus our January, 1970 figure of 195,000, which I have just quoted, shows a sharp increase of 17,618 pensioners now in British Columbia. This increase is governed by three factors. First, the pension age being lowered to 65; second, the normal process of aging of those already established in this Province; third, the influx of pensioners from other provinces. With the population of British Columbia at 2,108,000, these figures indicate that the elder citizens make up 9.53 per cent of our present population.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this Budget which is a Budget for the young child, for the teenager, for the young adult, for the middle aged, and for the elderly citizen. This, Mr. Speaker, is a Budget for all people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased this evening to see in the gallery a very good friend of mine who was one time my pastor, Reverend Dale Dunn, and I am glad to see him in the gallery tonight.

I am also honoured to welcome another person who has contributed a great deal to the innovations and progress in the shellfish industry. I can recall this gentleman coming before the committee on investigation of the shellfish industry and he was one of the first, many years ago, that I got the name of speaking on behalf of clam chowder. I spoke so much of the clam industry. He was the first to bring to my attention — and I brought it to this Legislature — that you could treat the oysters and the clams in a treatment bath of chlorine, and not have to take any responsibility for the contamination of the beach in the area in which they were being stored. I am pleased to see that the Department, under the Minister now of Recreation, I believe, and Conservation, is processing that type of an operation in Nanaimo, and I am glad to welcome Dave MacMillan in the gallery this evening.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel good tonight. It's not coffee break time either, but when I spoke in this Legislature a few days ago — a few weeks ago I suppose it is — I had been at the Schmockey Night and I had the misfortune of having a broken rib from one of those opposition from the Press Gallery or the radio, and I only want to say this, that if speaking under the handicap of that time for 70 minutes with a broken rib, and tonight feeling really good, you know what you are in for. We'll see how long we can go.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that after speaking in this Legislature several years on the ineffectiveness of the lighting in which the Legislature worked under, that I want to pay real compliments to the Minister of Public Works. I understand the Minister of Finance, when I drew to his attention that I liked what had happened here — the way of new speakers and the decor of lighting up the ceiling, and so on — and he said, "You've cost me a lot of money," the Minister of Finance said. I can recall when he was sitting down there — I am sorry he is down in Ottawa tonight because I don't think we are going to get very far with that narrow-mindedness and stubborn attitude that the Liberal Government is famous for — but I recall when he was sitting here he said, "Now look at this. You are going to encourage the expenditure of money on this Chamber. I want to tell the member that we are not going to do anything with it." Well, I'm glad he changed his mind. The second look

[ Page 443 ]

came along, and we have better lighting, better for the eyes too.

There is one other thing that I would like to mention, though. I think that it has been said before, but it is very important, I believe, for the morale of the — not the Cabinet, the backbencher — to have really no place to accommodate those who come to see him in confidential matters of business in the community and the constituency. It is in the galleries, in the corridors, anywhere that you can go to sit down and accommodate a conversation with them, and I think that this does nothing for the image of the Legislature and Parliament in this land.

When I was in California and I went to that Legislature, I also went to the one in Oregon, I noted there that they had plenty of room and advisers. They had a secretary and also an assistant, some of the chairmen especially of committees, and I think that we are short-changing the work of a member. I believe the member could do a lot better if he had more facilities around him. I think the people deserve it. The people in the constituency which I represent do not like the obstacles that are placed in the pathway of an M.L.A. to get his work done. That is no reflection on the contingency of those who are secretaries and are doing a job during the Session. They are doing their very level best with the equipment we are using. But I look at the typewriters, I look at the cranking-out machines that those girls are having to use, and I think what a waste of time. If we can install the greatest computers and do all of the other things that are necessary to run a continent or a Province like this, on the scale that we are having to run it under, a billion-dollar Budget, it seems to me that we are being pretty small potatoes when we have to relate ourselves to this kind of an operation down here.

You know, this Legislature was treated to something the other day in our debate with respect to the ruling of the Chair, and this is known as the Chamber, and because they objected to the ruling of the Chair I have never seen any people flushed out of the Chamber so quickly. It was a clean flush too, because when the Minister of Welfare got up to speak he came with enough for 17 Opposition members, and he said the whole works to two. They got the whole wagon-load. Well, I am glad to see that there are at least 17 nearly over there tonight, and we'll give you a wagonroad too, probably. You know, I have often wondered about the Opposition over there. Why they are so concerned about the power of this side of the House. If they had only got such manpower over there! Well, of course, when you compare mouse power to manpower you always end up with kind of feeling a little small, you know, on the inside.

Well, every year it seems that we are treated to a contradiction of conundrums in this Legislature. I suppose it comes about by the fact that, from the Opposition, by the fact that once a year, it seems, once a year we are — yes, a conundrum of contradictions, I probably put it the wrong way around, but it is a conundrum of contradictions — just wait a minute and we'll tell you what it is about. But every year we are invited to share in — well, I think we should honour His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, that about four weeks ago he turned this place on and after that — I've turned you on, too — after that we were all treated to the once a year welfare dinner. We go on welfare here once a year, but not just because we are in this Legislature — that is welfare to some but to others it is work — and when we were at His Honour's dinner, I thought what a contradiction it is, really. I said to His Honour, "You know, if this is a sample of socialism I am all for it." I said, "We should do this for the people all the year round, if we could only work it that way, and they could all come in and have one big grand meal that you can hardly get up and walk away from the table with afterwards."

But I can understand this contradiction, or the conundrum of contradictions in the Opposition's mind, when we find that we have these images that we carry on, these traditions year by year, and they are kind of a contradiction. The man always wants some sort of a symbol and he wants something to look up to, and this is good. But the Opposition have a symbol of socialism to look up to, they claim. They have a philosophy, that when you listen to it you go full circle, and then you meet yourself coming back.

First of all this year, if you barred from this Legislature two words, "pollution" and "inflation," most of the speeches couldn't be spoken. Maybe there should have been resolutions on the Order Paper to that effect, and you wouldn't be able to speak on any subject in here but pollution and inflation. Then we heard, well the condemnation of this Government is that we don't stimulate enough secondary industry, and then we go full circle around and say, but you should close down primary industries right now. Which industries have you ever closed down because of your pollution control? Somebody got up, I think it was the member from Kootenay, he said, "We should put people out of work if we have to." It wasn't him, it was one of the other members. Put people out of work if you have to, to clean up pollution. Well, it was one of the other members over there, and they were wanting us to come down hard on the matter of pollution, which it sounds good, but then you say, well let's have secondary industry. Let's see if you can get into the fine arts of manufacturing as much as you can over here. You're going full circle, and then you want to have us have unemployment too. Well, that's a good thing, I'm all for that, but when you put everybody to work, and you get into your primary industry, then you better not start shutting them down, so you're back where you started from. This is why we listen to the contradiction, no the conundrum of contradictions, on the opposite side of the House.

Well, I want to look at the Budget this evening for a few moments, and with respect to the Provincial Government's assistance to compensation claims, that we may see an improvement in those who are left out in the cold on the last few rounds on compensation improvements. There is certainly a no-man's area in the grouping of around the 1953-54 areas, and I hope that this will pick up those who have been left out in a cold area, and did not gain from other contributions that were given for increases in compensation cases. But I am certainly pleased to see the final payment to the compensation people.

In respect to the many millions of dollars that go from our Budget into universities, which we are certainly happy to see that the attitude of Government to higher education is one of progressive thought in that area, and the many millions of dollars that go there. I would question this, of the Minister of Public Works, and the tremendous job in which that Department did in the early stages of the University of Victoria, in its creation and drafting and assistance in the engineering department they received in those early stages of that university. I wonder, if the position of Government in respect to the use of these funds in capital building construction on these universities is supervised. I would like to know if it is, because I understand in my surveys that there is quite a good deal of dissatisfaction with some of the

[ Page 444 ]

construction that has gone on. Are we taking an interest in our side of this expenditure? I think it is a natural one. I think we should be interested. I think if we can give assistance in a supervisory manner, well we should do it, because it is a tremendous amount of money that is going into that area.

In this respect, I would like to bring up the subject I've studied a great deal on, and that is the fact that, again, a contradiction and over-lapping of regulations in municipalities that prevents the useful approach to new materials in these areas. One municipality will okay it, the other one doesn't, so you can't get together even on a building project where it may overlap into different municipalities. Builders are prone to want to get a similarity of construction so that they may proceed on a more massive, or assembly-line technique, but we find a good deal to be desired in the harmony of regulations and zoning, and I would recommend that the Department of Municipal Affairs refer to the Committee on Municipal Affairs this subject for review, and I would like to see that taken under advisement. The Minister of Municipal Affairs probably could refer it to the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs.

In respect to the ferry terminals, too, I would like to draw to the attention of the Government members, Cabinet members, that Federal policy on ferry construction terminals or dock-yard terminals is to grant in lieu of taxes a grant, and I know out in the North Saanich area, which has a large establishment there of our ferry terminal, and the little municipality of North Saanich gets no compensation whatsoever. Certainly the people are served well with the terminal, certainly the tourists and the community at large are served with a good section of four-lane highway, but it seems to me that it's only fair that that terminal should receive in lieu of taxes, a grant to the North Saanich municipality, and I would so request. I think that other Provincial buildings do get this kind of treatment and the municipalities receive something in lieu of the tax services, or the services in taxes, and I think that we should consider it there as well.

Federal Government has been again opting out, or pulling out very necessary programmes in British Columbia, especially in the forestry industry which we receive one of our greatest revenue producers, I suppose, except the tourists, and they are pulling out of the research programme over in the area of Saanich. They are laying off personnel, professional personnel, and here is an area which the Federal Government benefits far more than even a Provincial Government, and yet in so doing this programme of relaxation or diminishing returns will show up in the years to come. But let us take a look at some of the programmes where they are injecting huge amounts of capital outside of Canada. One of them was on the bilingual bus that went to Africa. There they were trying to increase the culture of Africa, the French culture there by sending over French culture into Africa. I can't see that it had much bearing on trade with those countries. Another place in which they injected about $5,000,000 with our own technicians were to train and instruct the methods of terror for to invade Rhodesia. This year we withdrew our instructors, I'm informed, and we have sent instead $6,000,000 to train them in the art of terror, and we left the training up to the Chinese instructors. Maybe you're for that kind, but I don't. I think we could do better at home. If you want to train terrorists, why you could probably get a good contingency of them out here in our universities, if you really wanted to. It seems to me that the Federal Government is certainly squandering taxpayers' dollars, where it could be used worthwhile in reforestation programmes here in the Province of British Columbia.

I want to speak for a moment, too, on correctional institutions. It was several years ago that we studied into the area of juvenile delinquency and its causes, and since that time there's been a great deal to say in the Legislature, and we won't repeat all of it by any means, but there has been an area of concern which we heard this afternoon from the member from Dewdney. I was going to speak about that, they were businessmen. Yes, the member from Dewdney. By the way, I associate myself very gladly with the common auto salesman from Dewdney, having begun my life and career in the Legislature as a car salesman, I am certainly proud to be called a common car salesman. The concern over whether a juvenile should have a criminal career and whether we should treat them with the gravest concern, and this is an area in which I appreciate that Provincially and Federally we have a difficulty of administration.

But I have something in mind tonight to suggest to the Attorney-General. With the new programme, that probably taking off some of the lines that exist, and improving them, and in directing our attention to habilitation rather than putting identity on that group. I would like to maybe stick to my notes on this, and recall that the member from Delta had some ideas on correction habilitation of the anti-social juvenile who had come in conflict with the law. He was suggesting geographical deportation, which may have some benefits, but it's too reminiscent to me of the things that took place in respect to another colony of people called the Doukhobors and the Piers Island experiment, which failed because it did one thing, it succeeded only in identifying the group and made them a force to be reckoned with.

It is my opinion that incarceration, with its common component benefits of the forestry camp education, it carries along with it the stigma that the public mind is not willing to forget, and the individual himself has a very difficult time to wipe out this experience from his memory. I think this is important. Dealing personally with people who have come out of the institutions, they have an institutional mind that has led them to feel inferior, and they never know in their lifetime, no matter how carefully they may live, that this may be an insulting situation to their children. So it is my opinion that this has some very strong liabilities. It certainly wouldn't do anything for a person who has had a failure complex, at least. I think it should be replaced by a merit system.

In British Columbia, which prides itself on a philosophy of education that is based on equality of opportunities for educational excellence, many of the problems that the correctional people now deal with are a direct result of this educational system. Because the person involved is unable to negotiate the educational obstacle course society has placed in the path of success to every child that grows up in this Province to adulthood, we loosely classify this stumbling unfortunate as the drop-out. Could it be said that he dropped into something more than he dropped out, Mr. Speaker? It is said by some that the educational system lacks challenge, but I doubt that, because of the place and characteristics in which these people find themselves. If they are, by comparison, offering more challenge than the classroom did, then we should fire our curriculum advisors, trustees, and teachers, and start over at the hippie community level, if there is more challenge there. At least we would be at the beginning of the obstacle course. Whatever the reasons are with respect to the drop-out community, and I'm sure they are as varied as the

[ Page 445 ]

characters that can be found in it, so are the opinions of those who would give reasons as to the situation.

I would offer a suggestion, inasmuch as the faint-hearted are opposed to any harsh treatment for fractional purposes, and certainly criminal records should be avoided at all costs. Although because of this attitude of the temerity towards the juvenile and adult court, we are experiencing, I am sure, more build-up of crime as our member from Dewdney mentioned, and hold-up gangs and community disorders, with needless killings even, are happening all around us. I said of the needless killings, sometimes needless suicides, too. Therefore, I would like to see a plan tried that would elevate the problem out of the stigma of the criminal where the individual ends up as a revolving door. He's in gaol and out of gaol and he's in the gaol and out in the cold again, and neither place wants him.

Thus the plan I am recommending is simply this. Sentence the person — or commit, I would prefer to use, or any other term that would indicate a responsibility there to the person — to a merit school, not another Brannan Lake. First would be a classification of the individual's ability in the field of education, scholastic and vocational. Then he should be made to complete it, or it should be completed, so that a programme suited to the individual could be developed within the committal. It would be predicated on the information that would indicate whether the person should be sentenced to attain a grade 1n a regular school, or a special school called a merit school. Sentences are not predicated on a penalty involving time, and I realize we can extend time by indeterminate sentencing, but so often that leaves the individual not in a place to feel that he can voluntarily fit into the programme. He'd rather opt out of the programme, and there is no way in forcing him to, because he feels he's in a penal institution. The time element should be eliminated, and the committal should be to a merit school sufficient to complete the education programme. Present educational programmes were developed around a time limit, and a gaol system, and this method of educational programme has attracted volunteers all over the west usually, and of good behaviour.

If a person knew he was being committed to a merit school to complete an educational programme that would be fitted to his particular ability and challenge, I think it would stimulate the individual's ego to succeed. After all, I have a great deal of faith in young people and their ability to have faith in themselves, and the programme should be patterned after a no-fail school, and gradually new citizens not tainted by gaol sentences. Secondly, this would have a diminishing effect on the community of gangs that go around looking for a place to make crime happen.

We have new names being placed on old procedures these days, and take, for instance, the new name for welfare, with which I agree, Rehab and Social Development. We have new names being placed on old procedures these days, but this would be a new game with a new name, and I think young people would make it work, and that is my comment on that. In respect to that, too, I noted in the reports from the correctional institutions, and three written up in the Times of February 14th, that during the fiscal year 1968-69 there was a drop in admissions to B.C. prisons to 4,500 from the previous year, according to statistics, and they are out on probation services, many of them. But there's not a concentrated desire, as far as I can see, to classify those who could make attainment in scholastic or the areas of educational development which would fit them for a programme, and where they would feel that they are not being sentenced to a gaol sentence, but in reality the community, the social community, are saying we are taking an interest in you, we believe you can accomplish a programme and we are going to fit this programme to your needs so that you can become a graduate, rather than a dischargee from a prison society.

I realize that, Mr. Speaker, that I must deal with lightness around the subject of low-cost housing, deal lightly with it. I will only say this, that the best rent control there is, has been the remedy offered by this Provincial Government to encourage new housing, and we have kept the individual in the programme and Government out as much as possible. Last year alone there was a 22 per cent increase in housing in this Province.

Well, all in all, this has been a Budget that the people of my community are writing letters continually back, saying that this is a Budget that has drawn their imagination — I have 100 per cent cooperation — that has drawn their commendation and they are certainly happy with it. I call it a Bennett buster–Budget because it has busted all other records, and I am all for it.

I would like to speak for a few moments on another subject, which I know the Opposition will agree with me on, because this is the Year of the Dog, as they say Chinese-wise, and I think that maybe we should say that this is the year for the underdog in British Columbia, because of the legislation and because of the Budget that has come out, and always the Opposition have been champions of the underdog. I appreciate where you've picked up these fragile particles of our community or social life, where so often they have run shipwrecked on the shoals of the business world. I was interested to listen to one of your Opposition make a very fine speech on behalf of constitutional improvements in union constitutions. I thought that it was very well spoken that he said that maybe there was the rare case that union constitutional law, or otherwise there was the odd one that was being discriminated against or wasn't getting a fair shake. I recall in this Legislature many years ago, about 1954, I read from a constitution at that time of which I had been a member, where it said that management was the enemy of labour, and if I had read that constitution — they've changed it since — but if I had read that constitution at that time I would have never signed as a member, I would have far sooner walked the streets. But I never had to walk the streets or have a cent of unemployment insurance in my life. But he cautiously went over this area because he wanted to show that he had a fair mind to the fact that some people maybe just don't get a fair break amongst the overpowering labour bosses who can engineer some things very well.

I'm glad to say that this Government is interested in the underdog too, and I know that the honourable members of the other side are already trembling in their chairs because they don't like to have to face reality. It's always the mysterious, great utopia of socialism that you never really can put the finger on, but you're always talking about it.

Well, this is an area of reality, and I want to speak on it for a moment, that in all of the areas of service that we may be even by compulsion of voluntary systems of conscription, so-called, find ourselves at least with the opportunity to serve without recrimination because we have a conscience. I noted here that recently in the Bulkley Valley Forest Industry Ltd. there has been a contentious issue arise that when a trade union comes in and organizes, and naturally so, you may find people that have come into that particular employment because there was no trade union there. And there are people

[ Page 446 ]

whose religious convictions say that we will not sign up with a constitution that pledges us to oppose management on a basis that we feel is unchristian according to their convictions. I think that it's a sensible thing that we should respect the position of some people such as this, and I'm glad to see that the Ottawa civil servants' legislation and regulations have permitted this escape clause from people who work for the civil service in — I should have said Toronto. Yes, in Toronto. It's written in their legislation. Saskatchewan also honours this same escape clause, and I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour that I think we could do no less here.

If people have to live in fear of their job and their livelihood because they have been hired in a new industry that has started up and it is not unionized, and then the union comes in, and more power to them if they can come in and get the vote of the people but anyone who has a religious conviction and will give to another charitable organization, as is allowed in the Saskatchewan legislation, should be allowed that opportunity. I don't think that we can say we're truly interested in the individual when we allow fear, intimidation probably, because of the fear of the loss of his job, because of the fear of his family having to move out of a home that he can't get another job in. Will he be driven from pillar to post because he finds that his convictions, his own personal convictions, prevent him from doing these things? I remember the now Judge Gregory, when he sat as a member for the City of Victoria, gave one of the finest discourses on this very thing, and years and years have gone by and we have failed to act on behalf of the little people, and I think it's time that this Government, which was the little man's Government, acted on behalf of the little people. That covers that subject as far as I am concerned.

If you want the regulations in other provinces you can see in the Ontario Regulation, section 4 of the Public Services Act, where on and after date of this section coming into force deductions in lieu of membership dues in the Civil Service Association of Ontario are being made from the regular fortnightly pay of a public servant, and the public servant objects to the deductions being made on the basis of religious or moral conviction, the deduction shall be remitted to a charitable organization registered as a charitable organization in Canada under Part One of the Income Tax Act of Canada, such charitable organization to be designated by the public servant, or in the event of the public servant failing to so designate, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. So there's plenty of evidence to the fact that that could be done in our legislation, and I would hope to see it soon come to pass. The doctors and the lawyers come under a different discipline altogether, if you wish to know it.

Now I'd like to speak on another subject here this evening, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment the Minister of Hospitals for the fine way in which he has made a gift of a tremendous hospital, and the contribution of that hospital to this community will be felt for many years to come, and that's the Eric Martin Institution. I have thought of a lot of things that this Government has succeeded in doing and I'm glad to be associated with them. One of them is Glendale Hospital. Without the assistance of the Minister of Finance, of course, it wouldn't have come into being, but we're certainly pleased that after much debate in this Legislature, that Saanich and the area of this capital city will have a place for handicapped children and mentally handicapped and physically handicapped. It may not be all that I expected, and all that I requested, but at least the nucleus is there, and we can continue to build on to that six or $7,000,000 site, I am sure, to the satisfaction of the future citizens that happen to find themselves, through no fault of their own, mentally or physically handicapped. So I wish to compliment the Minister of Hospitals in what he has been doing in that respect, and also the pressure that he has been putting on the Regional Hospital Board to get on with the job. I'm glad to see that the site has been chosen for the acute care, but first of all the extended care beds over in Saanich and the Central Saanich area, which will serve the great community of the north part of the peninsula and also the Gulf Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can take credit for that.

MR. TISDALLE: Thank you, thank you, I will. Coming to a very important part of my concern as far as hospitals in this area has come to light recently, and many of the speeches in this debate have carried their fair amount of materials on hospitals. You've heard of how the utilization could be improved, you've heard about health care — that we don't want hotels we want hospitals — I should say total health care. Some have told us what a one day reduction in hospital care of a patient would mean, increasing the number of patients treated in a year. But when it comes to building an acute care hospital or almost any hospital in this area, we seem almost to be paralyzed, with the exception of the Eric Martin Institute which I have just spoken about.

Recent news items would indicate that some doctors operate outside of the operating room. However, as in some cases happens, the patient becomes suspicious that something more is missing than he expected the doctor to remove, and he takes his case maybe to a newsman because they're the best snooper-outers that I know of, and I often wonder whether, since that incident that happened and it was reported in the press by none other than the reporter, Mr. Hume, whether this was, and I'm just questioning between you and I, Mr. Speaker, whether this was an intentional leak. Was this something they at last thought well maybe this would improve our position, and was this a necessary leak? Just nod your head, Mr. Speaker. Well, that's enough for the metaphors, anyway. We'll come right down to the hard facts of the matter.

Somebody decided to edit a report which had been requested by St. Joseph's Hospital at the taxpayers' expense of about $10,000, and then present it to the Regional Hospital Board as the original document. The attempt to engineer consent under those conditions is despicable, Mr. Speaker. In future, I would recommend that any taxpayers' dollars that are to be paid out for a hospital report by the Regional Hospital District, that the conditions be that the report be first handed to the Regional Hospital District Chairman and also a copy to the Minister, and not first placed in the hands of the hospital committee or the hospital board that requested the inquiry.

Some of the scheming that went on for the past few months, and especially during the wind-up of the former mayor of Victoria's regime, was municipal politics at its worst. Parochial selfishness and attempts to sew everything up before he left office, even to dismissing committees and setting up new ones loaded with four out of five from the Big Four. How could anyone in the outlying regions of the Capital Regional Hospital District have confidence in that kind of maneuvering? This is what gives us concern in the great area of the Regional Hospital District, with the small populations on the Gulf Islands and other areas that have to take the direction of the Big Four, whereas the lesser

[ Page 447 ]

populated divisions of the capital regions do have confidence in the non-participant attitude of the heavily weighted votes of the city.

I accept the Minister's affirmation that he made his decisions from a position of knowledge that would have not been unduly affected by the two reports if they had been side by side. But we have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that after the major report of Dr. Agnew Peckham for this area on hospital needs somewhere in '68, that the St. Joseph's Hospital requested an advisory report from Dr. Peckham, and I wonder just what happened in that time of employment. I can't recall any evidence of what took place, but I do know that the hospital board decided that they would have another group come and make a survey. But I can't help but ponder if one report can be edited, was there at any time anything else that ever materialized from Dr. Agnew Peckham's advisory capacity and survey for the St. Joseph's Hospital? Maybe we're working on a lot of mystery here these days, and no wonder. My great concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the outlying areas have confidence in what's happening on the inside.

Over the past decade we have had a lot of money spent on the two hospitals in this capital city, with very little evidence of an increase of beds. Not to go over the many reports and opinions of other people, it is vital to say that professionals in the management of hospitals by and large recommend that hospitals function best when they are not ivory-towered and sprawling all over the place, but have a bed complement of, I would say,400 to 550. I did put 600 down, but I withdraw that because on reading other reports I understand that about 400 to 550 is a good complement of beds to a maximum efficiency. With two major acute hospitals at the vortex of the Peninsula — in the capital city — which population growth demands cannot go into the ocean but will funnel out. There's no place for this population to go but only into high-rises and there's a limitation to those, and so the population will fan out over the peninsula and up into the highlands and up even to the Malahat.

It is utterly stupid to plan to spend 20 to $40,000,000 on extensions in either of these hospitals, especially St. Joseph's. St. Joseph's has a complement, I understand, Mr. Speaker, of about 388 beds, and it's been built since 1948. Although admittedly these do need refurnishing, it has been suggested by one report that these beds could be saved, refurnished, and the hospital complex brought up to a satisfactory standard for about $14,000,000.

Definitely a policy of containment for St. Joseph's Hospital is the one that I recommend, and that a new hospital in the northern part of the peninsula which is tentatively approved and the site already chosen, be pushed into construction as fast as possible, and that we view the geography of Saanich, Oak Bay, Victoria, Esquimalt, Goldstream up to the Malahat, as an east and west geography instead of all this north and south. The population expansion could be best served in this area by a breadth of hospitals, and not in depth or concentration here in the vortex of this capital city.

I would recommend that a site adjacent to Glendale Hospital and the vocational school be provided for a new acute care hospital. The sewer, roads, and services can easily be supplied, all are within the area. Speaking of roads, McKenzie Avenue is a must. Not only is it now necessary, but it must be completed to be a perimeter highway east and west through the Trans-Canada Way. A hospital in the junction area would serve Saanich, Royal Oak, the Highlands, View Royal, Colwood, Langford, and to the Malahat. These are the booming residential areas of Victoria today. A hospital in this area would serve an extremely useful purpose in conjunction with the vocational training school, which vocational school will be in operation this year, psychiatric nursing training for children's ailments, being adjacent to Glendale Hospital, and would round out the complete training programme for human needs that this Government is becoming famous for.

In summing up, this is an area of which I use great concern and care, because I realize that the people that are associated with the Regional Hospital District, capital area and outlying areas, are a dedicated people. They have spent tremendous hours voluntarily, and in many cases far beyond their call of duty, and I want to pay them the highest compliment, and I know the Minister of Hospitals would agree with me in this respect.

If we proceed to agree with the routing of Belleville Street through the St. Joseph's complex, it would seem that it's possible to contain the St. Joseph's bed complement in that area of about 400 beds, and not go for the big bill of buying out extra land that won't be used only for probably parking, because if you get a complement of 800 beds in that area you're going to pay about $1,000,000 for a parking site.

It is interesting to read a report here of committees, as summed up by the chairman, and this is a public statement so I am quite in order, Mr. Chairman. This is not exclusive to this place, it can be procured outside and I would file it if somebody wished to have it. The proposal was to acquire, by purchase, land of St. Ann's Academy School for the sum of $1,587,000. Time limit, 14th of December, 1969. The problem — this action commits the board to the acceptance of a plan to continue St. Joseph's Hospital on the same site, to plan and reconstruct the present structure to modern standards as funds are made available, and the development to an ultimate, probably, of 650 beds and even maybe more because of the blending in of Mount St. Mary's.

The argument against this, and this is to lay the foundation for my remarks, and so I do not necessarily agree with all that's in this report, but I think it is interesting to inform the Chamber and also the Minister and the Speaker. In theory, using a basic bed value of $35,000, a brand new acute 300-bed hospital could be built in a more accessible location for $10,500,000, and that is why I recommended Glendale. I think that we could well look at that area, or a 600-bed hospital for $21,000,000. Quotes on various stages of development on St. Joseph's vary from $13,500,000 to an ultimate $27,500,000 and the City of Victoria would have to close and contribute Humboldt Street and Heywood Avenue and parts of other streets in exchange for extension to Belleville Street.

In recent meetings the Minister of Health and Hospital Services has stated he cannot conceive of St. Joseph's Hospital being phased out completely, and he would not accept the difficulties of establishing a fourth hospital at this time, and that's true. I realize that we shouldn't look at phasing out St. Joseph's at this time, but I think that the containment of it is practical, and I would have in my mind that there's evidence to that effect. I would say that I'm aware there's evidence to that effect that he would accept. There will be no fourth hospital in the near future, he mentions, and phasing out of St. Joseph's in this regard would be out of the question.

If we accept these statements, and then the decision has been made for us and St. Joseph's stays and has to be improved, to what extent has to be decided, and that's the

[ Page 448 ]

position in which they are right at this time, and are Government funds available. The Minister also suggests that all additions be concentrated on the north side of the new Belleville thoroughfare, and I agree. He objects to the idea of an acute care major hospital straddling a main thoroughfare, and I agree with that, too. While it is possible to concentrate all acute care facilities on the north side of Belleville the extended care unit is proposed as a separate and independent unit and can go on the south side, allowing construction to proceed in the near future in an open land. This would necessitate the acquisition of all the land. Part could be used for parking and the school and the Academy could remain for some years to come.

The Minister suggested that part of the land could be re-sold to recover part of the investment. There is an implication that the Sisters have a sale reservation that the land be used only for hospital purposes, for a Convent on the land is undesirable, he says. The Minister said June, 1972 be the delivery date of the Academy and the school. The Minister's statement should be considered in relationship to finances available and this is what we are coming to now, because of the programme of financing in this area, so that it shows whether these things can be attained under the programme of financing. That's the important thing, Mr. Speaker, that we in this area have to deal with, and especially the taxpayers.

The maximum of $5,000,000 per year for construction should govern our planning.

Massive commitment to one hospital at the expense of the others would not be acceptable to at least part of the general public to whom we first go for approval of referendum, and that was the point which I wanted to come to because of the position of representing the outlying areas which have to be dictated to, to the way vote of this area that's concentrated downtown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you go over that again, John?

MR. TISDALLE: A massive commitment to one hospital at the expense of others would not be acceptable to at least part of the general public, and this general public is the outlying reaches of this area. The Minister suggests that the referendum be for an eight-year programme, and this is quite right, that we should put before the people here an extensive programme of eight years at $5,000,000 a year — that's $40,000,000. We should first assess what can be done in that time with money available. Planning must be approached with this in mind and the needs are obvious — time and funds available in that time must govern planning. Extended care should proceed as soon as possible without waiting for the master plans, and I agree that we should proceed with extended care in the Central Saanich area and press for it as quickly as possible, and it's apparent that St. Joseph's could do this if the land purchase is approved.

The replanning of roads around St. Joseph's and their construction, followed by demolition and construction of buildings, suggests a number of years before the demand for hospital beds could be relieved at this unit, and the shortage of funds is going to have a definite retarding effect on construction of both major hospitals, and its also obvious available funds must be shared and I have grave concern that when we are doing a major renovation, a major rebuilding programme, that we will be taking out of use available beds whether they are up to the minute beds or not. But this area is in a very, very urgent position needing beds, and we cannot afford to tie up or dismantle beds that can be used at this time.

The Resthaven Hospital will probably have to be retained for some years to come to provide a further measure of relief to hospitals in this area, and I agree whole-heartedly with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote the report?

MR. TISDALLE: The Mayor and Chairman of the board, which I spoke of, Mayor Cummings. He wrote this and presented it, and so it is not a secret. But I certainly repeat it because it is valid, it has been repeated in part by the Minister himself at times, and also the former mayor and others who have wished to associate themselves with part of it. But it does lay out a very concise and clear reasoning behind this programming for eight years at $5,000,000 a year, that you cannot go into a massive major construction, pay $1,500,000 over here and then dismantle everything, without you seriously jeopardizing the health of the people of this area. That's why I say that we should contain St. Joseph's where we are, and I would believe that there are, in my awareness, those who will support this who are in superior knowledge and superior places, who will support what I have said tonight, and I so recommend it. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To deal with such matters at length is at times tedious and difficult, I realize, but no less this is the place we come to thrash them out, and it must be said in this place. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that I finally made it. I asked the first speaker how long she'd been and she said 40 minutes, and the second said 20, and it's almost midnight. However, generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, I am part of the establishment, and I know that if tonight I have the odd remark to make that wouldn't seem that way, it would be because everybody has been scratching the Government's back today and I don't want to be repetitious.

When I came to the House today we had demonstrators out in front of the House, and they were protesting the power rate increase. As a matter of fact they were protesting anything in order to get a big red sign on the bottom of this placard, which said, "The Communist Party." I think there is a limit to what we could allow in this democracy of ours, and I do not believe that we should allow these people to parade up and down in front of the Parliament Buildings and make a nuisance of themselves, advertising nothing but a Communist Party which our friends in this House have seen fit to outlaw entirely. I'm just wondering — you know, I think a good majority of these people perhaps are goof balls, and if we're going to allow this sort of thing, then I think we have them inside as well as out, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to just say for a moment, that this is my tenth Session in the House. You always know how many sessions you've been in this House, Mr. Speaker, because you just count the elections you have been in and that tells you pretty well how many Sessions you've been in, but anyway I went through four elections to attend my tenth Session, which is not a bad average. It was pretty fair at the polls, anyway. However, as the honourable Minister of Lands and Forests always says — be that as it may. This is still the oddest Budget that I've seen in ten years, and I want to say a few nice things now. I think that this is the only Government

[ Page 449 ]

which can increase their assessment by five times and make you pay five times more taxes, and then come up and tell you in the Budget that you have no tax increase…. and George, I wish I could get you to explain this, along with your method of contingent liabilities, because you'd have an answer.

However, on the shores of Lakelse Lake, I would just like to remind the Government, that all the people up there have had their taxes increased four to five times in the last year. Between four and five times their taxes have gone up, and they've gone up because promoters have gone in and developed property and the people have paid several times what this property is worth, because of the shortage of lake-front property on Lakelse Lake, which serves 50,000 people that are located in Prince Rupert, Terrace and Kitimat and it is practically impossible to get a lot. So the other people that are there are being penalized. But when you say no tax increase, and your taxes used to be $85, and suddenly you find they are over $1,000, then you begin to realize that some way we'd have to get the member from Dewdney to explain how this formula works without actually an increase. However, that's the only thing I can see wrong with the Budget, really, was that little remark.

I think that the $10 home-owner grant increase is good, and the outright grant toward building and purchasing an older home is good, because there are so many people that can't afford to get into a new purchase. Also a $2,500 second mortgage is good, and all of these are proper moves, which only this Government in Canada has made to help the people acquire homes, and I think this is wonderful. The per capita grant has been increased to municipalities and also the supplementary allowance. Another big step forward, I believe, is the family home exempt from succession duties, and I have seen people that have had to sell their homes and sell the last piece of valuable property they had in order to pay succession duties and I think this is a big step forward.

Now we had a member, the honourable leader of the Liberal party on his feet, and he made a remark in which he said the lady Ministers without Portfolio should be done away with because, he said, they don't do anything anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Done away with — who said that?

MR. LITTLE: The leader of the honourable Liberal party, the honourable leader. I can't come to the defence of all three of the lady members, but I can come to the defence of one of these lady members, and I wish to do this right now.

In Smithers we had a Dominion Experimental Farm declared surplus, and there was a group there that were very, very active in their work in training of retarded youth, and they wanted to take this farm over and set up a training of retarded youth programme. So it was very necessary that I find someone in Victoria that was interested and would work on this, and I went to the lady member from Vancouver–Little Mountain. And I'll tell you that she never quit working. I saw a stack of correspondence that was that thick, but she never quit working until she was able, with the former leader of the Liberal party here who was, incidentally, a very fine man, Mr. Speaker. But anyway, they finally brought this through to the point where they were able to make an announcement simultaneously that this could be leased for one dollar a year from the Federal Government. Then the Government here saw fit to give a grant toward this programme, and at the present time, alterations are being made, they are hiring staff, and they are preparing for the opening of this retarded youth training programme in the spring. I speak for all of the people in the Pacific northwest that are going to be served by this particular training centre, when I say to the lady member from Vancouver–Little Mountain, thank you very much for your help on that particular project. Because without it, we wouldn't have made it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were to say I would only be 30 minutes and speak an hour and a half, that would be about par for the course tonight, but I am going to try and keep this down to a very short talk, Mr. Speaker. But I do want to speak for a moment on pollution, and I think that we all know and we've had a very good slogan, "Keep B.C. Green," and I think we should develop another one, and I certainly agree with the first member from Vancouver-Burrard when he says we should keep B.C. Clean. I think the last decade has been the ten years in which we shot a man and put him on the moon, and we've had these moon shots and this development, and all the time when history is written, I think it will go down as the period in which we did this and stood in broken glass up to our knees, and it would be my hope that when the history is finally written of the 70's, that this will be the decade in which we cleaned up the mess. And, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do it, then the start has to be made right here.

How can a Cabinet Minister in all sincerity refuse someone a permit to put a toilet on a Playter Launch that accommodates three or four people, when all our ferries except two are dumping sewage in the chuck? How in the world can we stand for this? I think that we have other Cabinet Ministers — one said, "Don't overlook the possibilities of drilling for oil in Georgia Strait," and then the next one comes right behind him and says, "it never can happen," and thank heavens we have Ministers like that t in the House.

Then we had a Minister several years ago who stood up in the House and said, "Non-returnable bottles are a big concern and something, no doubt, will have to be done about this," and I agree with this. Because what we did away with, we did away with a little working army. I can remember when we used to have the old beer bottles and they were worth 20 cents a dozen, or 15, and when I'd go to work in the morning, I could see a little fellow with a wagon, a wheel barrow, coming down to the Civic Centre to pick up the beer bottles. He was going to be the first one there, he was up at daybreak. But these little fellows did a real service for us, Mr. Speaker, they kept the grounds clean. In the last year we've had three serious accidents at track meets and schools in the north, where there has been broken glass on the track and on the track athletes have been badly cut.

I would hope that we would find it necessary to appoint a Minister for this purpose. I think that people demand that, and I think what the people demand the Government should give. This is a duty of Government. I think that one of our main concerns at the present time is pollution control, and I don't believe it can be properly handled unless we have a Minister of Environment Control. When you have so much difference among the Ministers, I think it's easy to see the need of one Minister to tell the different departments that are involved what they should do to clean up the mess. I don't think that a Cabinet Minister has time to properly run his department and then also be chasing around the Province trying to….

AN HON. MEMBER: Pick up bottles.

[ Page 450 ]

MR. LITTLE: ….yeah, pick up bottles and look after the pollution they have in this field.

However, I thought perhaps, you know, that the honourable Minister from Prince George had decided to retire, because as you know very well, Mr. Speaker — you were here when it happened — he came back from Japan and said that he had visited a pulp mill in Japan and there was no odour whatsoever, that he stood in this mill and there was absolutely no smell. The thing that I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, is whether he had a bad cold or whether the mill was closed down that day, he's never really told us. But we do have a quarter of a million dollar offer, and perhaps he has that secret from the Orient in his hip pocket, and if that's the case, Mr. Speaker, well he may be on his way before long. However, even if he did, I think it would be well worth the price. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm saying these words for you.

The next little message that I have, Mr. Speaker, has to do with you, and this has to do with the Fall Assizes and it's for the attention of the Attorney-General, the Fall Assizes in the Pacific northwest, and I'm speaking particularly of Prince Rupert in November and December. I don't know how they ever arrived at the figure, Mr. Speaker, but they pay their jurors $10 a day, and you have hotel rooms, Mr. Speaker, and you know if they went in and offered you $10 for a room, you'd say, "I'm sorry, but you're $4 short." When they offer $10 a day, and expect them to stay away from home and provide meals, this seems to be a ridiculous situation. Now, there is a difference here, of course, if they have a jury and they are locked up or something, why….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member should realize that there is a Bill, the Jury Act, which is before the House at the moment, so I'll let him touch lightly on the Jury Act, but not too heavily.

MR. LITTLE: Well, that's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because we have us almost shut off altogether. However, if there is a Bill to set this deal right, I'd be quite happy to pass it over.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to have a look at one of the other Cabinet Ministers, and he is just leaving. I wouldn't blame him if he went. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking about Lakelse Lake and, as you know, we had a terrific slide at Lakelse Lake and it took a campsite that the Government had spent over a quarter of a million dollars on, and put it out in the middle of the lake. I think the department has done a wonderful job in the restoration of this campsite over the last four or five years. First of all, we had Highways that had to move in and clear the lake. It took two years to get this done and then they started on a restoration programme. So now we have one point in the lake where they had to divide and separate the day bathers from the overnight campers. I think the overnight camping setup is coming along real well, and of course this is a big expense, but for the day-time bathers at Lakelse Lake there is not enough room and there is not enough parking space, either. Last year, just by the figures of your own department, you'd find that there were 65,000 people visited Lakelse Lake in the month of June, and this meant that cars could not be contained within the parking lot. They had to park out on the main Highway 25 between Terrace and Kitimat, and it created a very dangerous situation in which cars were in some cases right up on the blacktop at the edge of the road in order to squeeze off and find a place at the campsite.

Now, I'd just like to remind the Minister that Alcan donated one of the finest beaches in British Columbia to this Government and they did this, Mr. Speaker, about I think you would find seven or eight years ago, and not one solitary cent has been spent on this beach yet. I believe that now is the time, because of the lack of facilities for bathing, that the Department of Recreation and Conservation build an access road into this beach. This would mean that when the weather is good and people are travelling to this lake by the thousands, that they would have an alternative spot to go and bathe and park their cars, because the one that is in the north end, there is no way in which it can look after the heavy traffic that's there at the present time.

Now, if the honourable Minister from Chilliwack wants to take a walk, that would be okay, because I'm now after the honourable Minister from Vancouver South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. No….

MR. LITTLE: For some unknown reason, it just seems that this Government cannot find money for health services. I don't know why this should be, Mr. Speaker, because we can find unlimited money for dams.

Still, when it comes to a health unit — I am speaking now particularly of the Skeena Health Unit — I'd like to point out it has been four years since we have had a doctor in charge of this particular unit, and I think that everyone will agree this just can't be tolerated. So we get the old pat answer that you can't get a doctor, and the facts are, Mr. Speaker, rather amazing. I have them here before me.

We had the Minister, the second member from Victoria, to speak the other day, and he had some rather interesting figures to give us. They distributed these, you know, on the desks of the different members, and they advised us that we've had more new businesses started in British Columbia than all the other three prairie provinces combined during the last ten years. Very interesting. Also that the capital cost and repair, as he called it, in industry in British Columbia amounted to $3,106,000,000 in this period, while the combined total for the three prairie provinces is $1,900,000,000. These are wonderful figures, Mr. Speaker, and they certainly indicate that we are a prosperous Province, the wealthiest by far in the west, and certainly should be able to afford to look after our people because look at the money we have. He said, as you know, and I quote, "It is not the money that you make that is important, it is how efficiently you spend it," unquote, and I thoroughly agree with him, Mr. Speaker. I think those were words of wisdom and certainly nobody can dispute that.

However, you can't dispute these figures either, Mr. Speaker. Now we are looking for a medical director for the Skeena Health Unit. In Ontario for this position they offer $26,714, and for an assistant they offer $21,873. They offer more for an assistant in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, than we offer for a director in B.C. This poor province of Manitoba that we feel so sorry for, perhaps, they offer $21,440. Saskatchewan $21,876. Alberta offers $20,652, and beside that, the local Board of Health can raise this figure from five to 20 per cent. What do we offer in B.C., Mr. Speaker, the richest and wealthiest of all? We offer $20,220. This is the reason why we can't find a doctor for the Skeena Health Unit.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to this, too. I don't blame the Government entirely for this. I believe that the B.C. Medical Association has an obligation as well. I know that you are a businessman yourself, and we as Government are not only acting as a collection agency for

[ Page 451 ]

them, but what other business can you run in which you don't have to worry about being paid for your services? This Government sees that the doctors are paid for their services in the Province. I believe that this Government should have the right to go to the B.C. Medical Association and say, "We need a doctor to go to Terrace at the Skeena Health Unit for a period of two years." If that doctor doesn't go where he is needed most, then pick one that will come into the Province from other provinces, or other countries even. If he doesn't go then I think he shouldn't be allowed the privileges of having his accounts paid by Government Medicare. I believe that we are too lenient, and we are not seeing that people are getting the proper services, in many instances, where they need them the most. We've had appeals from all quarters and still the answer is the same, that we can't get a doctor. I think that we should quit penny-pinching, Mr. Speaker, and that we should revise the rates. I know that when you speak figures like this — and when I get interested in figures perhaps bikini is the figure I like the best — but if you were to be talking to the second member from Victoria, he probably wouldn't know what it was if you put it in his lap. In any event, Mr. Speaker, four years is a long time. It's a long, long time to wait for a doctor to come and administer your Health Unit, and I say for the politicians that are advised, it's time to revise your rate and get off your arses. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the motion of the Honourable W.D. Black, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

HONOURABLE W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day. I think the speakers have made a good contribution to this debate. But if we can detain the House just a little longer I'd like to move to Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions, and call Motion No. 10 standing on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 10, the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HONOURABLE C.M. SHELFORD (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable the Minister of Mines, Motion No. 10, standing in my name on the Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion.

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to study the following:

(1) The benefits or otherwise of separate classification of highly specialized commercial farms, marginal farms, hobby or retirement farms, and other such groupings when considering public programmes:

(2) Efficiencies which might be accomplished in off-farm sector relating to the supply and marketing channels handling the food, the processing, the merchandising, and the financing.

The Committee to hear representations from the food and agricultural industry, organizations, and individuals, and report its findings to this House.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I find with some regret that this motion is being brought before the House today, not because of the lateness of the hour, but it's been standing on the Order Paper for so many days now, and the content of the motion is one that will require extensive examination by the Committee, and in order for organizations to prepare briefs I would hope that we are not going to find that the work of the Committee is going to be in any way shortened; however, in particular if I may refer to the last two lines of the motion, which say, "The Committee to hear representations from the food and agricultural industry, organizations, and individuals, and report its findings to this House." I would suggest that to do justice to sub-section (2) of the motion that the representations are unduly restrictive. Therefore I would move, seconded by the honourable the member from North Vancouver–Seymour, that Motion No. 10 be amended by deleting the word "food" from the ninth line and substituting the words "industries engaged in processing, storing, transporting, retail and wholesale selling of food," and by adding after the word "industry," the word "consumers" so that consumers' organizations will be heard from before this Committee.

In speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, it may be that the honourable the Minister intended to include, when he used the word "food" in this connection, to cover the whole range of industries which are engaged in food processing in all of its many facets, but I think that the amendment which I offer clarifies this, so that we may have representations before the Committee from all persons or organizations in the off-farm sector who may contribute to a discussion of efficiencies in the supply and marketing channels with regard to food, its processing, merchandising and financing.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if I could call the debate to order for just a moment. It runs in my mind that an amendment to the instruction to a Committee requires notice. I'm not certain of this point. Would the House excuse me for just a moment while I have a look, unless anyone cares to offer some suggestion on the point of order.

HONOURABLE C.M. SHELFORD (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to stand on a point of order, but I'd like to point out that this resolution is so broad, and we intend to hear all the groups that the honourable member mentioned, and there is no thought of restricting at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Nevertheless the honourable member has prepared an amendment and has submitted it to the Chair, and I am questioning whether or not that amendment is in order.

HONOURABLE L.R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I believe any amendment instructing any Committee has to be with notice. I have a notation in my Rules to that effect. I can't find the authority for the notation….

MR. SPEAKER: I am having trouble myself (laughter).

MR. PETERSON: In any event, I think the discussion is academic on the Minister's undertaking that it is not the intention to restrict the Committee and the people who can be called and the wording now is "any individual or organization" and therefore perhaps the member would withdraw the amendment on the Minister's undertaking.

[ Page 452 ]

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order no. 55 which says that when a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but I think there is a difference in the instructions to a Committee and I am sure in my mind that it requires notice.

Forgive me for the delay. May, 16th edition, page 549. Does the honourable member have a copy before him? "Notice of Instructions and of Amendments Thereto. Notice is required not only of an instruction, but of amendments thereto, which, if agreed to, would enlarge the scope of the instruction, or convert the same into a novel proposition." In other words, an amendment to — instructions to a committee do require notice. The authority — page 549 in the 16th edition of May, and I therefore declare that the amendment is not in order. Thank you.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): The Minister's commitment is well received by this side of the House, and since he has given that assurance we look forward to participating in a Committee. There is, however, another problem, and that is the problem that we do not have mass communication in the lower mainland areas through the daily press any longer. I would like to put forward this suggestion to the Minister that, through his Department, he send out letters to agricultural organizations and consumer organizations and to trade unions or anyone else who he feels might be interested in appearing before the Committee, because without the publicity going out in a newspaper, there may be people out there who don't know that this Committee is going to sit. So I would suggest that the Minister consider that approach, and possibly radio advertisements as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, at this point I would ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition — I have already asked the member from Yale — to supply a list. I think the Chairman has already sent out a list, if there are any other organizations, just send them over.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. All those in favour say Aye, contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.