[ Page 477 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (1st-Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, this being the first occasion when you've been pleased to recognize me, I welcome this opportunity to join with the other members of the House who have at one time or other in this debate, and in the preceding debate, addressed both to you and to your office, Sir, their high regards. I would also like to add to the expressions of high regard which have been heard throughout the House in respect of the new members and, in particular, my running mate from Vancouver South.

There are a number of matters of public concern with which I should properly deal today, some of them of general interest, others of more particular concern, and one which I would like to dispose of very briefly at the beginning, and while it is couched in terms referable to the Greater Victoria area, it does have ramifications of interest across the rest of the Province. I am referring now to the question that has been before the Government the last little while relating to the re-adjustment of health boundaries in the Greater Victoria area. My colleague, in his then capacity of Minister of Social Welfare and also in his capacity of Minister of Municipal Affairs had spent some little time on this very difficult question of the health boundaries in the Victoria area and, after having completed what he considered to be the corporate proceedings associated therewith, had passed the matter to me to deal with the question of financial arrangements. Out of these negotiations I have been authorized by the Cabinet to report that it is the intention of the Government to make a thorough review of the cost sharing arrangements which presently exist among the various health units and the Provincial Government. My recollection is that one of the members from North Vancouver raised this point last year, and I think that there was a good point involved in it, and it related to the differences in cost between some of the metropolitan areas and some of the rural areas.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the problem is this, that when the cost-sharing arrangements for the health units was developed, the total cost was running at about one dollar per capita, of which the municipalities were going to pay about 30 cents per capita, but since then there have been very rapid increases in costs, of which a diminishing proportion has been paid by some communities, whereas other communities have had to carry an ever increasing load.

It is our intention, after a careful review of these differences, to introduce a cost-sharing formula which applies across the Province, and the effects of this will be, I think, that there will be an increase in costs as applying to some rural areas. I would suspect that in the Greater Victoria area there will not be significant changes, although there will be some. There will be a very substantial increase in the Provincial share as it relates to the health services being brought in the Greater Vancouver area. I hope that this deals with some of those issues that were very much in the minds of members of last year.

The implementation in Victoria will be forthwith and we will strike what we hope is an interim rate, which will be at least sufficient to maintain the present services at their existing level and then, thereafter, a permanent rate in conformity with the rate across the whole Province. I'd mention one aspect of this, and that was that the local share was fixed at an amount of money instead of percentage.

There was a second complicating problem — and I'll have more to say about this later — and that was that there has been a continuous withdrawal of the Federal Government's support under this field. I think that honourable members ought to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that whereas the original agreement in which the municipalities and Provincial Government have always participated in good faith on a third-third-third basis, now has to be jettisoned for a very simple reason, and that is that the Federal Government has withdrawn from these local community health services, so it's likely that when we come to strike a new rate, that the Provincial share will be at least doubled, it being understood that this is a natural consequence of the withdrawal by the Federal Government. I'll say no more about that matter just now, but we'll come back to it later.

I'd like to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to another matter which has been raised at various times during this and the preceding debate, and this is on the subject of therapeutic abortions The reason why it should be a matter of attention to this House is that in the past the law, I think it may be fair to say, was rather narrow in its application, and prior to the very recent amendments to the Criminal Code the only concern that could be in the mind of a doctor at the time that he dealt with this kind of a problem was the life of the mother. He was not at that time entitled to consider the health of the mother nor the financial or economic considerations, or any other of a number of concerns which might be properly expressed. Now, in the 1969 Session of the Canadian Parliament, there was a very substantial change in the laws relating to this subject, and whether they have gone as far as you personally might have hoped them to go is another matter, and perhaps I can mention that a little later on. Sufficient to say that the law as it now stands, with this amendment, permits a doctor under certain conditions which are very carefully spelled out, to perform, under properly supervised conditions, the termination of a pregnancy providing he is satisfied, and other conditions are satisfied. The main questions that he is now entitled to consider are not only the life of the mother but also the health of the same person. This means that he can consider not only the physical well-being of the mother but also her mental state, and I think that aside from any other question, this is a step in the right direction.

In order to implement this throughout the whole of the Province, I am sending out today a series of instructions pursuant to the authority granted to me under the Criminal Code directing the hospitals of this Province in the way in which they can set up machinery, procedural machinery, to accommodate women seeking assistance under this head. Now the procedures, as you may have already noticed, Mr. Speaker, envisage a committee of three doctors properly qualified and properly accredited at the hospital concerned, who form a review committee, and it is to that body that the attending physician presents his application. Upon the concurrence of the committee and upon the concurrence of the hospital and, of course, the patient herself, the law permits a therapeutic termination of a pregnancy to be performed.

Now it is a fact that some hospitals under the old law, and

[ Page 478 ]

indeed under the new law, are already offering this service. But I think that the significance of what I have to say today relates more to those women who live in parts of the Province where this service has not heretofore been available, and I'm hoping that there will be no prejudice arising in the case of women who live in remote parts of the Province or where they haven't had, heretofore, access to hospital facilities. Now the test upon which a hospital will be designated by me will relate first of all, of course, to the presence of qualified medical practitioners, also the presence and concurrence of a properly constituted committee, and thirdly, the existence of the facilities in the hospital.

Now on that point perhaps I might mention, too, that during the past year or so there have been a sufficient number of occurrences under this head to warrant some concern on our part, both in respect to the procedures and more particularly relating to the theory upon which the legislation has most recently been advanced. I have made a survey of six hospitals in the Victoria-Vancouver area, and I might begin by saying that at least in one or two cases where the hospital has a very close association with a religious order or a church, it is sometimes the case where the hospital does not authorize abortions under any circumstances, However, among those that do, the Vancouver General, you might be interested to hear, Mr. Speaker, in the period July 1st, 1969 to January 1st, 1970, reports 64 cases of this kind; the Royal Columbian, 81 during the same period; Burnaby General, 14; the Grace, 15; and the Lions Gate Hospital, 19.

Now the honourable member from North Vancouver–Seymour told the House something about his own personal experiences arising out of his activities in private life…. (laughter) and he described to you…. I hasten to say as a radio announcer — how's that? Now that we have cleared up what might have been a very unfortunate misunderstanding, and refer specifically to his activities as a radio announcer and a discussion on the radio of public problems, raised the question of how best to inform members of the community about this very difficult problem. I might say that first of all it's highly desirable that, wherever possible, the patient be referred to her own family doctor. There may be occasions, of course, where this is not practical. In this case it is sometimes possible to refer the same person to a specialist such as a gynecologist. In some instances, indeed, it has been the practice in the Vancouver office of the Public Health Department to talk to people who are raising questions on this subject, and while it is not the policy of the Public Health Department to examine the patient or to make any recommendation, it has been our policy to make available to the person the names of a number of doctors, or to refer the person to the College of Physicians and Surgeons where they do make an effort to bring the patient in touch with a properly qualified doctor.

Now there was one other aspect, though, that the honourable member raised, and I think it's worthy also of some comment. He talked about the situation sometimes arising where it seems desirable that the patient should look to some other country for this kind of help. Now I think here, and as the member well said, that one should proceed in this area with a great deal of caution for this reason, that it's not fair to assume and it's not proper to assume that there's any country in the world where the termination of pregnancies is permitted as a merely medical practice. While it is said that the laws are somewhat different in termination which are just as illegal there as they are here.

There's also another way in which this same problem can be tackled, and this relates, of course, to the problem of controlling the number of people who go to increase our population. I don't need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the concern that's being expressed on all sides throughout the world on the almost appalling rate at which the population of the world is increasing. During the course of the time that this House is in session today and until tomorrow, there will be added to the population of the world something like a net increase of 150,000 people — and that's a good sized city — and as the days tick on, 150,000 each and every day. I'm not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that the problem won't be brought home to us with great force in the future, much more so than it has in the past, for this reason, that during the last two or three hundred years North America, as a safety valve for the population of the world, has been the prime relief, but now that the North American continent is filling up, as an escape hatch for an over-populated world it is no longer available. With that, I think the biologists and so on who make a study of this have a genuine concern for this ever-mounting pressure.

Now in British Columbia we have done two other things which we think ought to commend themselves to the public, and I'd like to report to you on them at this time. The first one is that under the Public Health Department there's been a very substantial amount of what we call genetic counseling, and through the cooperation of the Vital Statistics Department and also the Public Health Department we have had many occasions to advise individuals, families, or young people getting married, that the risks of having children in their particular case, who had some physical or mental defect, were very great. Having persuaded them to this we have put them at the top of the list of persons for whom adoption would be considered, and in a great number of cases they have adopted children and started off on very happy and well-adjusted family life. I think, too, that it's worth reporting that there is developing in medical science a considerable skill in being able to identify physical and mental handicaps prior to birth, and by testing of chromosomes and so on in that pre-natal period, it is possible to identify these natal defects and, in some instances, these have become the basic consideration upon which the abortion committees in hospitals have proceeded.

Now I'd like to turn next, Mr. Speaker…. I see the Whip here is giving me quiet signals that he has a tight schedule to maintain (laughter)….

Mr. Speaker, an examination of the Budget for the last three years will readily show that the operating costs of hospitals have, first of all, in 1968 been budgeted at $125,000,000. Subsequent reporting of disbursements show that the actual cost of operating hospitals was $137,000,000 in that year. In 1969, our Budget was $150,000,000 and we've already said that we expect to spend around $160,000,000. Now I don't see how it's possible to accuse the Minister of Finance of under-estimating in a situation like that, where you have probably the best example of over-expenditures — in one case of $12,000,000 and in another case of $10,000,000.

This year we're budgeting for $175,000.000. Now this, Mr. Speaker, is an increase of 15 per cent, and I might point out to you that practically all of that increase is taken up under two headings. First of all, new bed capacity, and increases in wages and salaries, by far the largest portion of that 15 per cent. Now if this is the case, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an appropriate time to indicate that there must be

[ Page 479 ]

a very neat balance and a steady hand in the bringing of hospital and medical care, in times when the inflationary spiral is proceeding at the rate it is.

There are certain things, of course, that we can't hold up. Hospital construction presently underway amounts to about $41,000,000. We also have in very advanced stages of planning an additional $25,000,000 worth of construction. In line with that, of course, as I mentioned at another debate, the hospital service last year published a set of standard plans for extended care construction. I'm very pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the last year these standard plans have received a great deal of attention, not only in Canada among the professions and the hospital operational people, but in a number of publications, and we have had very favourable reports on this both in Canadian publications and throughout the United States. We've had a great number of inquiries, not only from Canada but from our American friends hoping to make use of these.

Also, on the same subject, we have increased the equipment allowance for hospitals from 30 cents to 40 cents, which in effect has added about $400,000 to the operating budgets of hospitals during this year. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the honourable the Provincial Secretary and also my predecessor in office, spent a great deal of time bringing together the Regional Districts and introducing regional hospitalization and district government. I might say and report, particularly to my two colleagues, that that system is working very well indeed and, without exception, the Regional Districts are to be commended for the way in which they have identified the problems within their own areas, and have translated those into administrative action.

Perhaps it might be worthwhile, too, to note very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the fact that today the cost to the public of operating our hospitals in this Province runs from about $30 to $55 a day; with one exception, the hospitals come within that operating range. One only has to look at two things in the United States — first of all, the very high degree of social unrest and uncertainty that accompanies life in the United States today, and the almost unbelievably high cost associated with hospital and medical care. Care which is being delivered to a patient in British Columbia at a community cost of about $45 or $50 and one dollar to the individual patient, is costing, for those who can afford it, in the United States anywhere from $100 to $300 a day, and I doubt very much if it's possible to get any hospital care in the United States today comparable to what is being given in our community hospitals for less than $100 a day. Now is there any wonder that there is an ever-increasing degree of concern among the people of the United States over the stability they can expect to see in the future?

I think that we must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to maintain the present costs, as I say, of around $30 to $40 or $50, with normal increments for wage increases that are well earned, that if we are going to deal with all of the people in our community, we must not allow ourselves to get into the great difficulty that the Americans are in. They tell us that it's almost impossible to bring in a broadly based medical or hospital scheme in the United States, and I think it's fair to say that in the United States today that the only people who are getting adequate care are the very rich and the very poor, and that the great group of people in between are somewhat less than well looked after.

Now I don't think that we can match the highest level of care in the United States, because for those that are able to pay $300 a day, they will get a high level of care. But if we are going to bring care to all the people in our community, if we're going to maintain the kind of ratio care that my honourable colleague talked about yesterday, with 99 per cent of our people covered under medical care, and all of our residents covered for hospitals, we must use a degree of restraint, we must use a degree of intelligence to bring a level of care that is fair, that is equitable, and that reaches everyone.

Of course I need say no more on that except this, that it will all turn upon our ability to pay, it will depend on how well we maintain our economy. This is the reason why we're building dams, this is the reason why we're building railroads, so that the money will be available for a fair distribution throughout the whole of our community.

I want to deal very briefly with two or three other items here. First of all, one in respect of the question of increasing the per diem charge to a patient from one to three dollars, or any other figure. I agree that these suggestions, often times emanating from the medical profession, are put forward in good faith. There are a number of cases, of course, where in some provinces these have been implemented. Aside from the substantive issue of whether it is fair or unfair to charge a sick person a dollar or more, there is one problem that I am faced with which puts me in a position where I am very reluctant to advise the Cabinet to embark on such a policy, and that's this. That is, that the Federal Government would not share in such a cost, and so that if we increase the per diem figure from one dollar to three dollars, what it would do would be to relieve the Federal Government of 50 per cent of whatever that figure was, and I don't think that I am in a position to advise the Government to take that step.

Now, the next point is the question of progressive care, and I think this is one that deserves a great deal of attention and one on which I hope to be spending a lot of time with my two associates on the Government side, the honourable member from Oak Bay and the honourable member from Alberni. They have both been proponents of the progressive care hospital programme, and I am thoroughly in agreement with them. In order to implement this kind of a programme I am very pleased to say that we have two of these kinds of projects under way right now, one which we have approved at the St. Joseph's, and another one which we hope to implement over in the Vancouver area before very long, and following closely along with that will be two or three others of the same type.

Now there's another aspect to this, and that is in respect of what we might call ambulatory, or as they sometimes say in Scotland, what is it, ambulatory. But in any event, a diagnostic and treatment centre, and I'm very pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have already taken steps to get one of these under way at Houston. We hope that by spring break-up which will be coming very soon, apparently, in the north, there will be an ambulatory diagnostic and treatment centre under construction at Houston, and we hope that that will be the pilot model for a whole series of these in other parts of the Province. I think, too, that it might be worth noting in passing that I propose to invite the Regional District to join with me in examining the question of increasing the present $51,000,000 by-law in the Greater Vancouver area for two purposes. One, to bring in ambulatory, diagnostic, and treatment facilities at the Children's Hospital at 59th, and also to develop a very special kind of extended care hospital facility for some teenage persons suffering from serious physical handicaps.

[ Page 480 ]

There have been two or three examinations made of this whole problem of what is called a total health programme, and I might say that before I leave that subject, to the best of my knowledge there are only two functioning progressive care programmes that I can discover in the western world. One of them is at the Nuffield Ward at the Community Hospital at Durham in England. They have about 30 beds there. And I believe that there's a new one that has just opened down in Seattle. So I think that British Columbia can report to be well in the forefront in the introduction of this kind of care.

But now I am going to address myself to another problem, and I'm sorry the honourable first member from Point Grey is not here, because I think this is a subject on which he would have some particular interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you explain progressive care?

MR. LOFFMARK: Progressive care, essentially, is a setting up of a series of hospital beds in such a way as to have facilities in some where there is suction, oxygen and all the elaborate equipment that is necessary, for very high level acute care, sometimes called intensive care. Then other beds, less expensively constructed, suitable for care of patients whose medical demands are much less. For instance, the case of the person who is in for orthopedic treatment, and he may be in traction, where there is very little need for oxygen or anything like that, and it's possible to have a much lower level of nursing care as well as medical care. The idea is to move these people through different forms, different levels of hospital accommodation, depending on the seriousness. In some instances, of course, we have already embarked upon the other end of this spectrum, by bringing people in for ambulatory care without ever having put them into anything more than a recovery bed.

Now I want to get on, but before I leave this problem I want to deal with one aspect of it, and I think that we should look at the broad outlines of the financing of this subject in Canada and see where it is leading us. I point with my finger at no one, other than to show you as best I can the direction in which our community is travelling. Now, the first thing I think is fair to say, is that the Federal Government has been throwing increasing amounts of money into hospital operating budgets and its medical care plan, but at the same time they have left pretty much to the provinces and to local governments a long list of preventative medicine practices, and let me tell you something about these more specifically.

First of all, the Federal Government has withdrawn from the construction grants previously given, remember it's $2,000 a bed for hospital construction, and also a comparable figure in respect of health units. Federal assistance in this field has been withdrawn, withdrawn completely.

Now the second area from which they have withdrawn is in the whole series of grants to voluntary agencies, of which the Multiple Sclerosis Associations, Cerebral Palsy, Heart Foundation, and the C.A.R.S. and the Hemophiliac Association, all the Health Centres, and so on. Now the total amount in 1960 was $900,000. This year the withdrawal will amount to about $1,700,000, next year it will be about $2,700,000. So over a period of three years the Federal Government will have withdrawn, under this one heading alone of voluntary agencies support, a total of $5,400,000.

In addition to that, they are telling us they are going to withdraw from the care of Indians under two headings, tuberculosis and mental health, and the result will be to throw an additional burden on the Province in this particular case of about $500,000 or $600,000 a year. Also, there has been a very significant withdrawal under the National Health Grants.

Finally, under the fifth heading, there has been a very substantial withdrawing under the Health Resources Fund. Now we are advised that the Health Resources Fund, which normally is for the financing of such things as the Health Science Centre of the University, will be so restricted as to make available to this Province about one-tenth of $38,000,000, which is about $3,800,000. Now if you remember that the budget of hospital construction for the Health Science Centre at U.B.C. will run at least $10,000,000 a year, you'll see that the phasing in, in the construction of this, must be handled with a great deal of care.

Now what is to be taken from all this — and I'm glad to see the first member from Point Grey is back again, because this is a subject on which he has a considerable interest, and well he should — because what you've seen here is a very substantial withdrawing by the Federal Government from all of these preventive care, preventive medicine services. Furthermore, the additional costs which are being piled on to patient care, direct patient care, are being met at the expense of medical research. Mr. Speaker, if I might respectfully say so, I think all levels of government in Canada, and certainly the Federal Government which should take a lead in this, should go back and have another look at the present programme which is placing so much attention on immediate care, and so little emphasis is being placed on preventative medicine, and more particularly on research.

Now my friend the member from Skeena, and I believe other honourable members have also discussed at various times, the problem of bringing medical care to the northern part of the Province. I am very pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that not long ago I wrote to the Medical Association and to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as well as to the Dental College, pointing out to them this very, very serious imbalance between the number of doctors that are located in the Vancouver-Victoria area and those in the rest of the Province, and they have undertaken, Sir, to sit down with me and talk about a system of bringing adequate care to the northern part of the Province. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I spoke to them in the most firm tones and pointed out to them the very serious consequences that the Government would recognize in the event that something wasn't done to make a better distribution of doctor's care throughout the Province. The fact is that, on a per capita basis, there are more doctors in the Vancouver area than in any other part of Canada, and I think the same thing applies in respect to dentists. The difficulty is that they all want to enjoy the climate of Vancouver and Victoria, without recognizing that the privilege of enjoying professional standing in this Province carries with it certain duties, and it is our expectation that the professions will do that and we've already seen that in some of the professions they have dealt with this matter.

Now I would like to turn next, very briefly, to a question that was raised by the honourable member from Yale Lillooet, and he discussed this year and last the subject of cooperative medicine in the United States. I listened very carefully to what he had to say then, and again this year, and I say that my colleague the Provincial Secretary and I have both examined this proposition. I think that it's fair to say, without casting any reflection upon the best intentions of the member, that I think he was very much enamored by

[ Page 481 ]

two aspects of that programme down there — one, the fact that it was a co-op, and secondly, that the remunerations of doctors were on a very orderly basis by salary.

But if I may respectfully say to the member, there are some other aspects of this thing that I think are quite inconsistent with the philosophy which not only he, but the other honourable members in his own party have expressed at other times, and I'll tell you what these are. First of all, I think that you'll find that most cooperative medical plans in the States were nothing more than a combination of what we had at one time here under our M.S.A. or C.U. & C., and our hospital programme. That's just about what they are. The second thing is, that it's a salary programme, and the third thing is that they have not proved in the United States — and here is the fatal difficulty with those things down there — they have not proved that they can meet the demands of universality for the whole of the community and, by and large, their operating costs are high. I would say that ours are about five and theirs are about eight, and I would say that they are not as far progressed — and I'll make this concession to you — they are not as progressive in their service to the whole of their community as either the Saskatchewan plan, or the British Columbia one. They do not cover, they don't have the universality, and I don't think you'd work them in Canada. We're far ahead of them on that.

Now I want to deal next with the two or three items under the heading of mental health, very briefly. We have introduced in the last year, ten new mental health units and we have under construction several more, and probably the only thing I need to report to the House is the fact that in conjunction with the bringing of medical care to the northern part of the Province, we are also discussing with the professions the need for staffing our mental health units. We have also taken steps to convert Riverview into what is called an Open Hospital, and I am very pleased to say that their psychiatrists are now dealing on a private basis with their own patients in Riverview and Crease Clinic, much the same as they would anywhere else. I think this is a very, very worthwhile step, but at the same time bearing in mind that we must have, in our community hospitals, a continuing construction programme for the introduction of psychiatric care beds in the general hospitals.

I'm passing next, very briefly, to the Eric Martin Institute. As you may have noticed, Mr. Speaker, the hospital is now in operation. We had some difficulty in persuading the Federal Government to cost share in the 170 beds. That problem has been worked out by introducing 120 beds for psychiatric care. The operating costs are divided, in respect of 120 beds, under the heading of psychiatric care, and another 50 beds are being used for those children who otherwise would be looked after at the Woodlands extended care hospital.

My only regret in connection with the whole process of opening the Eric Martin, was a certain reluctance, on the part of some of the professional people to agree to the bringing of these children into the Eric Martin, and I'm sorry to say that in some instances there was some rather clumsy language used in respect to these children. Mr. Speaker, whether those descriptions were technically right or not, it doesn't really matter. I think that a lot depends on how we introduce these matters to the public, and if there is any one among us, Mr. Speaker, who is without sin, it's those children, and as long as I'm the Minister of Health, they shall get first call on my consideration.

We have, at the same time, got under way the Lady Fatima School now as a halfway house, so to speak, for young adults who are being taken out of Woodlands, preparatory to bringing them into a boarding house or a foster home community. We hope that within the next year the Glendale Hospital will be in operation, and I think we will be able to say that there will be a more than adequate supply of beds for all of our extended care children, as well as those who have serious physical handicaps.

There's also a small group that we mustn't forget, Mr. Speaker, and that relates to those children who appear, in all physical circumstances, to be normal, but there seems to be something wanting, in that in some instances they utter no sound. These children are described as autistic children, and a great deal of exploratory and adventuresome and exciting work is being done at Woodlands. There is a group of people in Vancouver who feel that there is another channel, another road we might take in order to bring these children out of the terrible silence in which they move, and so we have authorized, very recently, the purchase of a house in Vancouver, which we are going to call Laurel House, and there will be a small group — there aren't many autistic children in the Province — and they will be brought up in what we hope to be a home environment, with probably six, or eight, or ten, and we hope that between the two of these, we will have made some real progress in the bringing of happiness into the homes, not only of the children themselves, but their parents.

I would like to turn very briefly to one or two aspects of pollution control insofar as they relate to health. Now one of the honourable members across the way made an assertion that we didn't have any quality standards in this Province. I must say that I was considerably agitated about this at that time, for the reason that it came to me as a great surprise, because all the voters of this Province knew that we had air quality standards, and all the voters in this Province knew that we had water quality standards, too, because as you well know they read about them. Now my colleague, the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources, has already said to you that the standards upon which the Pollution Control Board will proceed will be the health standards that were established in respect to water quality and air quality and he has my assurance, and I have his, that these will be enforced in good faith throughout the Province. Now then, in the case of water quality standards these of course, are normally enforced by medical health officers and by the Pollution Control Board, as well as the Water Resources Department and this is as it should be. But the same thing doesn't apply to air quality standards for this reason, that of all the places in the world, there is no place where there's such a wide variety of geographic and climatic conditions as in this Province.

Let me illustrate. Outside of the Antarctic, the lowest temperatures in the world have been recorded in northern British Columbia. The highest temperatures in the world have been recorded within a degree of each other in Libya, North Africa, Imperial Valley in California, and a place just west of Salmon Arm near Walhachin in British Columbia — they have the highest temperatures in the world. There are some places in British Columbia where the rainfall is over 300 inches a year, other parts of British Columbia only get about five inches. Now this being the case, and having regard for the almost incredible differences in geographic conditions of this Province, there's only one sensible way to apply air quality standards and that's on a regional basis. That's precisely what the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources said we were going to do, and he has the complete support of the

[ Page 482 ]

Health Department in this matter. Now then, if there is any difficulties about this, or if there is any concern on the part of the honourable members, I need only remind them that the present by-laws in the City of Vancouver on the matter of air quality standards are based almost word for word upon the quality standards published by this Government.

Now there is some talk about the Neptune Terminal over on the north shore in North Vancouver, and the honourable members would like to hear it as it is — I shall tell them. The Neptune Terminal is standing upon ground in respect of which the authorization for construction was conferred by the National Harbours Board, which is an emanation of the Federal Government which is, I think, a responsibility for which the Liberal party is accountable. The transportation of the coal to that place is under the guidance and direction of the Canadian National Railroad, which is operated under the direction of the Federal Government, which is under the domination of the Liberal party. At the same time that this place was constructed and purported to be under operation, they had as their representatives three Liberals in West Vancouver, North Vancouver, North Vancouver–Seymour, they also had two Liberal members of Parliament. Now by what stretch of the imagination is anybody but a group of Liberals responsible for Neptune Terminal in North Vancouver?

Now, there is one aspect of this, Mr. Speaker, though that hasn't been canvassed and that is just how badly is the air quality control over there going to be? We propose to put within that jurisdiction, and as close as we can come to that piece of property, a series of air testing stations, and when the time comes, we will tell it as it is. We will tell it, Mr. Speaker, as it is; We will, we will, my friend, we will tell the people of North Vancouver just how badly they were led down the path on that one, and the people who are going to do something about it are the voters of North Vancouver.

This, Mr. Speaker, characterizes the great difficulty of some of the members opposite in respect of their ambivalence which they characteristically display from one session to another. It wasn't so many years ago that they were being told that this Province is broke, and now they say, and that was the truth. We'll come back to that in just a minute.

Now I want to deal now with one other aspect of financing. These days there is a considerable concern about the financing of sewage, sewage construction, and so on. There is a very clear problem of raising money today for any purpose, and it is suggested by some members opposite that the question of raising money for the construction of sewers and sewage treatment plants is something that is strictly the exclusive responsibility of this Government. I think it is proper to say that this Government has a share of that responsibility, and this Government will assume its fair share of this responsibility but I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago this Government sought to take a position in the Bank of British Columbia, and this objective, Mr. Speaker, was a fair one. Now the reason why the Federal Government refused to permit the British Columbia Government to take a position in that bank…. Now they may have had many reasons, but there was only one that they were prepared to make public, and it was as follows — the Federal Government refused to give the British Columbia Government an opportunity to take a position in that bank for one reason, and they said that the supply of credit, they said that the setting of interest rates was a Federal matter. That's what they said. They said that the supply of credit in Canada, they said that the rates of interest, were matters of Federal concern. We say that fair is fair. If the Federal Government wants to control banking, let them. But, they should also have the responsibility of putting into the hands of the municipalities a sufficient amount of credit at a fair interest rate sufficient to build.

The biggest political boon-doggle that ever took place in Canada took place at the time that the bankers of Canada came before the Banking Committee in Ottawa, and what did they tell the people of Canada? They said that the six per cent rate was too inflexible. They said open up the bank interest rates and rates will find their own level. They said that some rates would go down and some would go up. Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one rate in one bank that went down. They all went up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't plug Commonwealth, don't plug Commonwealth.

MR. LOFFMARK: Mr. Speaker, there has been some request for a detailed statement of Commonwealth, which can be said in two minutes, and that is that the Federal Government….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. LOFFMARK: All right now, are you ready over there? I'll tell you. Simmer down now, simmer down. You'll notice that they always get excited when things get tough for them.

Now, the fact is that the Federal Government, through the Department of Insurance in 1968, after a full and complete examination of the Commonwealth records, permitted Commonwealth to register for deposit insurance. On a full examination of their accounts, but it was done without any reference to anyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (loud interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order.

MR. LOFFMARK: The fact is that the Federal Government granted that company deposit insurance in 1968 after a full examination, on a full examination. Now listen, everybody, I'll tell you what really hurts some of your friends….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LOFFMARK: A full examination by the Federal Government. Deposit insurance issued by the Federal Government. If there was anything wrong, why did they ever issue that deposit insurance? Why did they issue that deposit insurance?

Alright now, going back to some general subjects under the heading of the Budget. It is sometimes said, Mr. Speaker, that the portion of the sales tax which originally was allocated for hospital purposes, two per cent of the sales tax was originally intended to defray the cost of hospital operations, and there has sometimes been suggestions that some part of that was being siphoned off and it wasn't going to hospitals. Now you don't have to be a post-graduate in mathematics to look at the Public Accounts to see that not only all of that two per cent is being paid for hospital operations, but more, Mr. Speaker, much more, much more. And where is it coming from? Now then, just to refer….

[ Page 483 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Part of that is Federal.

MR. LOFFMARK: After the Federal is taken off, after the Federal is taken off.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much of that budget is Federal?

MR. LOFFMARK: Less than half, less than half.

Now then, getting around to this question, I want to refer again to the well-known ambivalence of some of the members across the way, and it seems to me this is the particular problem of that group in the middle over there. Exactly what it means is this. It means talking out of both sides of your mouth at once. This is what that little group has to do because they are saddled with all the defects of that crowd down in Ottawa, that's their problem.

I want to just close off, Mr. Speaker, by referring very briefly to two other items. The first one is respecting the Pacific Great Eastern, and during the course of the Budget Address, there was an announcement that the Government intended to increase its equity and its equity contribution to the P.G.E. Now the result of all this is that we will be proceeding from Prince George up to Fort St. John on one side, and up into the Dease Lake country on the other.

AN HON. MEMBER:…. here we go.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, the member is not discussing the financing at this point but actually the progress of the railroad. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that and I don't like the inferences that are being cast. Please proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER:…. he'll get out of control.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm perfectly capable of controlling the debate. (Applause)

MR. LOFFMARK: I'm very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance in this matter. I will change somewhat, and refer very briefly on the same subject to the very famous writer of 100 years ago, Zane Grey, who wrote many wonderful stories which have passed into the folklore of America. One of them is a great story about the U.P. Trail, and it's the story of how the Union Pacific was brought out through the west, and how the great Irishmen with their great bulging muscles drove steel across the plains of Wyoming, and how in the west side the Chinese work gangs brought the Union Pacific up through the Donner Summit. Zane Grey said that the U.P. Trail was built with whisky and tea. It doesn't matter how it was built. It's the story of the opening of the west.

During the time of the Budget it was a very straightforward statement of what was the progress through British Columbia under this heading. I think what we are seeing here in British Columbia — and I think we should be grateful — that just as through the west the story of building railroads was the story of opening up the country, so too, the Budget insofar as it relates to transportation and the development of those great fingers of steel that go up through the northern part of our Province, we too are participating. I hope some day, Mr. Speaker, that we will produce in this country a man like Zane Grey to tell the story of how they opened up the great northern country. In fact one word more, too, about that northern country, that some day, some day, Mr. Speaker, we hope to see a real unified, economic, jurisdiction in the west that goes all the way from the 49th parallel and Vancouver right to the mouth of the MacKenzie.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. LOFFMARK: The day that the people of British Columbia are assured that the people of the north, of the Yukon and the western Northwest Territories are anxious and willing to sit down with them and redraw those boundaries to make it the kind of community that is worthy of the west, that's the day that we'll be calling for steel to Whitehorse. (Applause)

We heard a year ago, this time last year, Mr. Speaker, that there were 100,000 new voters in British Columbia, and at that time there was no reason why we should dispute that statement. It was verified by all the records, but there was some suggestion, you know, that the reason why we should have an election last year was that those 100,000 voters were going to change the political picture of British Columbia. Well, I suppose they did, in a sense, because 100,000 more is what we got.

It's said, Mr. Speaker, from time to time by people who lack something else to say, that this is a lucky Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, there may be an element of luck, but I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, you have to make your luck. But even if we conceded just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that this is a lucky Government, I don't think that the Opposition could take much comfort from it. I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the voters like a lucky Government!

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had a very entertaining hour and a quarter during which I am told by the Minister himself that the population of the world increased, but I don't think the sum total of human knowledge increased one drop during that hour and a quarter. The point of the exercise, it appears every year when the Minister of Health gets up, is to talk about Ottawa, to say what they are not doing and to blame the Liberals for every crime in the calendar, and to go into an arm-waving tirade and say nothing at all about his department.

I think, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Health to have made a major address to this House in the Budget debate and not mention the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster, to fail to grasp the point that the member from Yale-Lillooet was making about preventative medicine, and just simply to skip over the problems of the handicapped, the cerebral palsied, by saying that Ottawa wasn't looking after them, leaves a lot to be desired.

We are nearly at the end of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the second time that we've debated a billion dollar Budget, and there are precious few areas of Government activities that haven't come under some scrutiny already, but I will and must go over some of them again with perhaps a slightly different point of view. But before that, there are a couple of things that I'd like to comment on that happened since we first came into the Session. The first, Mr. Speaker, is the complete silence of the Government of the Province on the matter of the proposed resumption of nuclear testing in Alaska. On February the 3rd, which is some time ago now, during my speech in the previous debate, I appealed to the Government to give this Legislature an opportunity to

[ Page 484 ]

express the opinions of the people of this Province on this stupid and dangerous course of action. I praised the Government for its actions in opposing the original testing last year, and I ask that the Government Leader introduce a motion on this matter, Mr. Speaker, so that we can and as soon as possible, express the total view of this Legislature on this testing. Failing that, failing that, we can only come to the conclusion that the Government, by its silence, is agreeing to the resumption of this nuclear testing. Mr. Speaker, I want to say, along with others, that if you think that is a Federal matter that's a matter for everybody who draws breath on this continent…. He wants to give his opinions about many things, but not that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say how pleased I am that the Premier's back safe and sound from the east. He's safe from the moneylenders and the sharks in eastern Canada, the straw men he uses so often in his speeches at half past five. But I'm really glad he's back because it means the Conference only lasted two days, and because I don't think that the country could have stood another day of that foolishness that went on in Ottawa this past two days. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier from the Maritime provinces simply came to Ottawa to ask for more money. The Quebec Premier came to conduct the original rounds of his T.V. election campaign that he's going into in Quebec. The prairie premiers, Mr. Speaker, came for more socialist dollars for private enterprise wheat, more socialist dollars for private enterprise wheat. Premier Robarts came and just talked about opting out, whilst our own Premier, Mr. Speaker, just sort of floated past them in his lifeboat, saying there is no inflation in B.C., there is only inflated prices.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to know what these inflated prices are. Which company? Which products? And, which prices? When the member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke about inflated prices a week ago and showed this Legislature how the fat is being larded on the price since last November, how there has been increase after increase after increase, there were protests from the other side. Those increases, Mr. Speaker, were a direct result of the telegraphing by the Federal Government last November of their so-called voluntary restraint programme, and we all know what happened since last November, that these prices have been raised in anticipation, so that now we've got the situation in this Province where one party to the bargaining table is fixed on 1967 wage rates, and the other party to the bargaining table has had the advantage of all these price increases, particularly those since last November. We've got that debate going to be continued around the industrial table in the eye of public opinion, Mr. Speaker, this coming summer, with '67 prices on the one hand and 1970 prices on the other, and frankly, it seems to me that that is simply not good enough.

It is just as meaningless, Mr. Speaker, as the expression of voluntary restraint, another meaningless expression like corporate citizenship, and we have seen examples, Mr. Speaker, of corporate citizenship all over this Province and all over this country. We have seen the oil companies. We have seen K. C. Irving in the Maritimes. We've seen the steel companies both here and in the States. The steel companies putting up prices, being asked to take them down, and putting them up again. Two increases, Mr. Speaker, in steel in the last 12 months alone. Whilst the labour cost per unit production of steel has gone down and down and down. Four increases in the price of copper in the last 12 months, and the productivity and the labour costs of that unit going down and down while the productivity is going up. If restraint and control, Mr. Speaker, is to be the path — and I suggest it is probably the only path we can go as long as these old-line party governments want to tinker with the system — that it's got to be compulsory. It has got to include profits, it's got to be retroactive, it has got to be enforced, and it's got to start now. Otherwise, the galloping inflation, as it is commonly called, together with unemployment, will continue.

  I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, it has got to be accompanied by a stop to some of the inflammatory and ill-advised statements of some of the members of the Cabinet. We have already heard the Minister of Lands and Forests fire the first shot in the forest negotiations this year, predicting gloom, sowing the seeds of despair, warming up the conflict, I suggest. Two years ago the same thing happened with the same Minister. We have seen the Minister of Labour produce the figures on labour costs of 1969, itself an innocuous document, a responsible document, and I take no exception to the production of that document, other than to say it should have been accompanied by a similar document from the Minister of Trade and Industry about prices and profits. The Minister of Trade and Industry was told and warned and asked and requested a week ago in this House to look into the whole question of price increases and profits. He spoke two days ago. He didn't say a thing. He didn't say a thing. As my colleague, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon said, he wasn't going to talk about trade and industry because he didn't know anything about it either. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is not the fact that the Minister of Labour produced the document, it is the fact that only one document came before us. When the Minister of Trade and Industry spoke, he told us all that had happened since 1952, how everything had grown, how everything had increased and, Mr. Speaker, he even took credit for the increase in the birth rate, and that seems to me to be a little much.

Already, you know, Mr. Speaker, we have seen unemployment figures. It was announced that this is 7.3 per cent. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that it is probably a realistic nine per cent, a realistic nine. I am informed, Mr. Speaker, by a responsible social worker in this Province, that there is 25 per cent of the work force unemployed in the Peace River area, and we haven't heard a word from either of those two members — 25 per cent of the work force in the Peace River area.

The carpenters of the Province, Mr. Speaker — and that is, I think, a thoroughly reasonable statistic to take — have reported that on the 17th of February when they had their Joint Council Meeting on their pension and welfare plans, February 17th, that 75 per cent of the carpenters in the Okanagan are unemployed, that the situation in Kamloops is good, that the situation in Northern British Columbia is poor. That there is 25 per cent unemployed carpenters in New Westminster, there is 25 per cent unemployed carpenters in Vancouver. In the West Kootenays, Mr. Speaker, there is total unemployment of union carpenters in the West Kootenays. In Cranbrook a third of the carpenters were unemployed, in Victoria, 20 per cent. In Nanaimo the situation is reported as being good. In the rest of the Island the situation is called depressed. The figures, Mr. Speaker, for this one union, which I think is a barometer of what's going on, is in between 25 to 30 per cent unemployed across the Province, and that's whilst we've got a freeze on hospital and school construction and a housing shortage, and sitting on top of what is obviously the cheapest supply of lumber in the world. Some would say you have to be a real financial genius to arrange that kind of situation.

[ Page 485 ]

Whilst that is going on, Mr. Speaker, the social welfare department in the City of Vancouver has had to open up a special unit for single male welfare recipients, and there are over 5,000 of them, Mr. Speaker, over 5,000 for the first time ever. Now we have all said on both sides of the House that unemployment must never be an antidote to inflation, and we all agreed on that. But the extra tragedy, Mr. Speaker, is that you can have inflation and you can have massive unemployment at the same time, and that is what is going to happen here unless we do something about it and stop that nonsense that went on on Monday and Tuesday. With 7.3 per cent — I suggest a realistic nine, Mr. Speaker, we should finish this debate tomorrow and we should go into an emergency debate on unemployment in this Province. If the U.S. figures are followed, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures will be doubled by mid-summer. At the same time, prices are increasing at the fastest rate for 20 years and, Mr. Speaker, the tragedy about the prices is, as I have said before, that they are managed prices, they are managed prices, and I think this Government should take action against it.

Last year during the closing days of the Budget speech I said that the Government had to be an instrument for social change and that we believe that the Government has a role to play in industrial development, in directing the economy, that we believe the Government had a role to play in orderly resource management, we believe that the Government should be the instrument in guaranteeing rights and protections in the Province. Just as the Budget failed to reflect that year, Mr. Speaker, it reflects it again this year. We can't escape the fact that we have the biggest per capita debt anywhere in Canada. That 30 per cent of every dollar on our light bill goes to pay interest.

Now I was amused by the speech of the member for Dewdney who unfortunately isn't in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, who tried to explain to us a couple of days ago what contingent liabilities really were. You know he failed. He failed to show us that, but he did show us how inflation occurs, how prices are managed, how buyers pay twice for their purchases, how pieces of paper are discounted and then marked up. Yet at the same time he applauded when one of his colleagues suggested financial counseling services as part of our consumer protection law. If financial counseling services were to come into operation — and take a look at the interest rates the member was telling us about when he discounts his pieces of paper and marks it up on the other side — 20, 25, 27 per cent. Mr. Speaker, if counseling services were introduced by the Attorney-General as part of our consumer protection law, that member would be out of business.

Our debt, Mr. Speaker, is $2,433,000,000, and no amount of talking on the other side is going to hide that fact. Mr. Speaker, being in debt, if the money is spent wisely, is nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be ashamed of at 0. But when we see the Government sitting on $227,000,000 of cold cash last March 31st, with essential services going unfinanced, it is something to be ashamed of.

Let's look at some of the things that happened whilst that cash reserve was there. In the Department of Education, for a start, in the division of teacher registration we estimated $456,000. We spent $281,000 in the first nine months, that's about half-pace expenditure. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister of Education, that nearly every member in this Chamber has received letters complaining about the delays in that department. We have all heard of individuals coming from out of the Province who are schoolteachers, people who have passed the examinations and can't get the certificates. We've been told what the B.C. Teachers' Federation have had to say about it and yet there is half-pace expenditure. In the Department of Education again, in its training programme the estimates were $185,000. In the first nine months of the year we spent $5,000, and yet we heard Socred after Socred criticizing the teachers, criticizing the teachers.

In Health Services, Mr. Speaker, on the cancer control, we have $450,000 budgeted. We spent $224,000, half-pace expenditure again, while at the same time we have cash reserves. In public health research, and here we had a speech from the Minister who talked about the need for research, we had $600,000 in the estimates and we spent $360,000. It seems to me that that diversion that we were entertained by, from two o'clock to a quarter past three, might have included something about that.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago we heard the member for Skeena complain about the shortage of public health officers in his riding. I want to tell him, Mr. Speaker, through you, that service totally across the Province was 30 per cent undermanned, 30 per cent undermanned, and we are waiting for an answer to a question on the Order Paper. But I want to say that last year we didn't have a medical health officer in Prince Rupert, in Dawson Creek, in Prince George, in Saanich, and we didn't have assistant directors in Cloverdale and Nanaimo. And when the Minister tried to answer the question of the member for Skeena, he jumped off the public question right into the private question and talked about private doctors up there, when the real acid test that the member for Skeena was asking about was the public health officers. At the same time he said we are going into a programme of genetic counseling — with 30 per cent undermanning of that particular department, 30 per cent understaffed. It's no wonder the member for Skeena suggested, using excessive language, that the Cabinet should get working. No wonder he said that.

Mr. Speaker, I notice we only spent $502,000 out of an appropriation of $3,500,000 for apprenticeship and industrial training in the first nine months of the year. That, of course, looks like it is out of line, but I suppose the reason is that the residential month's course in the beginning of the year would take up the difference. But going back over the years I noticed the levels of expenditure have been consistently under the allotments. We have put into our Estimates $1,000,000 per year more for apprenticeship and industrial training than we have spent, year after year after year. That is nearly a third each year remained unspent.

But the area of greatest neglect, and I think five or six members have spoken about it at length, is about housing. The urban renewal proportion is still $5,000,000, and we still only spent 50 per cent. Senior citizen homes rationed down to $2,500,000 like last year, totalling $7,500,000 for housing in this Province. Seven and a half million is less, much less, than one per cent of the Budget.

Now the Government has obviously put housing at the bottom of its list of priorities, and we believe it should be at the top of the list. We need a housing programme for senior citizens and low-income families, because they are the people who are suffering most, they are the people who are suffering most from the housing shortage. The housing programme of the Government, the grants and the second mortgages, are all pointed towards the middle class and the upper class income groups. It seems to me that we need a housing programme, Mr. Speaker, that has got an effect on the low income

[ Page 486 ]

population, that looks after the low income population and one that looks after the Indian people of this Province who are the poorest of all, the poorest of all. The old age pensioner, the elderly in this Province, spend over 50 per cent of their income on housing, and that simply means they don't have enough left for food and for heating and clothing. Our programme of housing is incomplete, it is incomplete because it leaves behind the poor, and when the housing programme leaves behind the poor it can only be described as wretched, wretched.

We have heard a lot about the new programmes in social welfare. The accent, the Minister tells us, will be on rehabilitation. Now if you really want to talk about rehabilitation in social welfare you are going to talk about two things. You are going to talk about more social workers and a lighter case load, and you are going to talk about heavier expenditures. There is no evidence that there is going to be more workers or more expenditure in the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: A wide awake Minister.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is stirring. I think he is tuned in now, and I want to tell him that with the municipalities facing the increased share of that five dollar bill, it's going to mean heavier taxes. But we have only budgeted here in this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, for an increase of $3,000 in the very division that the Minister is talking about. $3,000 in the rehabilitation division. In the field service division there is no extra personnel contemplated, there is no extra people in the field service division. He was talking about rehabilitation. Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are going to want a lot of answers to a lot of questions on this. Before the Session is over we would want to ask the Minister to explain to us in detailed answers, how he is going to accomplish the promises he made to the press.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's got the Alliance for Businessmen.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Alliance for Businessmen was mentioned. I want to tell you what happened to the Alliance for Businessmen in the States. They just conducted a survey, after the years that it has been in operation, and they find that they are only achieving a 42 per cent retention rate in that programme. I don't think we'll even hit half of that in our programme.

I would like to turn to a couple of issues in my own riding, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want to comment on the statements of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Highways about the number of traffic deaths in the Province. The Provincial figures show a decrease, that's true, a slight decrease, but in my own riding, Mr. Speaker, they have gone up 60 per cent. Traffic deaths in Surrey have gone up 60 per cent, and frankly, I want something done about it, Mr. Speaker. The Provincial figures are one thing, but when you see an increase like that in one riding, then I think we should look about what's going on. For four sessions I have talked about safety in this Legislature, I have talked about truck safety, I have talked about the necessity for legislation, and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, there have been meetings where I have talked to people in the industry, I have talked to people in Surrey. They have come to see people in authority. Authorities tell them that everything is being done that can be done. Well, I don't believe that. I don't believe that we can sit here and see an increase in traffic deaths of 60 per cent in one municipality and say everything is being done that can be done. I would like a study into that whole question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another problem, and I'm going to try this one again, because we have a new Attorney-General since I brought it up last time. It concerns the aftermath and the resultant problems — mental, psychological, call them what you will — that take place following cases of child molestation and child rape. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, south of the river in the growing areas like Surrey, because of the geography, I suppose, we are faced with this problem more than most other areas. I'm concerned about the problem not just from the point of view of the need for forensic clinics and psychiatrists in the institutions and so on, and all the other preventative measures we could and should take, but I want to talk about the delays that occur following the event, and the apprehension and charging of the offender.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm treading into an area that I can probably be mistaken on, but it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that as the Attorney-General knows, part of the technique and part of the rules and traditions of British law require the accused to be faced by his accuser. In this case it means that where we have had an instance of child molestation or child rape, the doctor's involved, the parents are involved, and we're talking about an incredibly high level of emotional disturbance. The Courts are crowded and months may elapse between the event and the trial. It seems to me that delay is the remedial treatment that is needed. It seems to me that delays — in fact, the problems of the man involved, and obviously he's got lots of them, lots of them — and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the business of having to relive the incident may indeed be worse than the incident itself.

I know that we can get into the Federal thing if we're not careful, but it seems to me that we have to either put a priority sticker on these cases, or we have to adopt some of the methods that are used elsewhere. The Israeli method, where a paramount youth officer says, "No, the child is not going into Court." The Ingleby Committee in England made all sorts of recommendations and they rejected the Israeli method, and then years afterwards they brought some of those Israeli methods into the British Courts, where depositions and affidavits and so on could take place. Now I want to appeal to the Attorney-General to look at this thing, because it seems to me that those delays we cannot stand, even if it's only one, we cannot stand.

Now, Mr. Attorney-General, I believe it is your problem, and I hope that your department can come up with a solution that's as fair to the victim as it is to the accused.

Whilst I'm on the subject of youth and crime and this whole question of young people in Courts, I'd like to comment on the situation that we find ourselves now, Mr. Attorney-General, with the young offender, and let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I reject the arguments that are put forward by the member for Shuswap and the member for Esquimalt. Their policy in this, Mr. Speaker, when they spoke, appeared to me to be one of violence itself, of retribution based on some sort of Old Testament thinking. I think that, too, is at a piece with some of their remarks about schoolteachers and professors and students, and I feel sorry about those statements.

But I think the Attorney-General should re-examine the report of the Department of Justice on Juvenile Delinquency in '65, because therein, I feel, ties some solution. I'm persuaded, however, that the examination of the Israeli system would bear merit, particularly as their system appears

[ Page 487 ]

to take note of the fact — and I think this is what's escaping some of the members — that a great number of the incidents that involve young offenders are incidents of group behaviour, group behaviour, rather than the single incorrigible. It seems to me that if we have that in the back of our minds, with the statistics and the evidence that they could bring to bear, we could put B.C. back where it was, Mr. Speaker, where it even may still be in terms of some of the laws — in the forefront.

I want to congratulate the Government on two or three of the measures they've brought in, because we are in the forefront in this regard, but the trouble is whilst you've got the laws, you're not using the resources and you're not bringing the people in. But certainly from the point of view of legislation we are in the vanguard, we are in the front. But I think we should explore this problem, and if the member for Shuswap and the member for Esquimalt who have every right, just as I, to have an opinion on this, why don't we put it into committee? I want to appeal to the Attorney-General to look into this problem and let us have a look at it, but I must say I'm pessimistic and I'm puzzled by the continual pattern of the Government in rejecting the use of these committees.

When I was preparing these notes, Mr. Speaker, I went over some of the files and one of the files I've got is called, "Government promises — bring forward……… you know, temporary promises, and you bring them forward each year. The one from the Municipal Affairs Department about his committee on tenants and housing. Two years ago we heard about it from the Minister in response to our Bill on the Landlord and Tenant Act. In January '69 the Minister reported that a review was under way, a review was under way and when completed he would make a report to the Legislature. Thirteen months later we're still waiting for the report, but, Mr. Speaker, what do we hear the other day? We heard his colleague, the Minister for Little Mountain, say that we're going to go into another review. This time it's going to be an in-depth study, an in-depth study.

Two years ago we were told that the Ministry of Trade and Industry had a special task to look into the employment problems of the handicapped. I will resist some facetious remarks. But what happened to that report, Mr. Speaker, from that Minister about the handicapped employment? A year ago, for the fifth year in a row, for the fifth year in a row we heard that the Government was again looking into expropriation laws. I think they're trying to find a copy of the report, that's what I think.

It's got to be seven years ago since I first heard about gasoline prices, seven years ago since the member of that day in the Chamber became exercised about gasoline prices. We've had Commissions, we've had committees, we've had reports, we've had motions, we've had Bills, we've had minority reports, we've….

AN HON. MEMBER: We've had more gas increases.

MR. HALL: We've had more gas increases, we've had price increases, and all that's happened is that the gas prices continue to increase and the man who started the whole thing off is in the Cabinet. Is it all over, Mr. Speaker? Is that the end of the gas strike? Well, I want to say it's not. It's not over as far as we are concerned. We still want action and we're still going to continue to press for Government intervention in price fixing because that's what it is.

The illustrations I've given show that the Government, Mr. Speaker, is not grasping the real problems. It seems to me to be fatuous to talk about the good life, to talk about the rounded life, when we've got 20 per cent of our population in poverty, with unemployment going to all-time levels. We've had deputations from P.T.A's, from the farmers, from the teachers, and from the tenants, all complaining about the failure to act by the Government, and it isn't a question of expenditure necessarily, Mr. Speaker.

I want to repeat again what I said in the previous debate about the Government's role in these critical times, and the disturbing trend I've noticed is that the number of people — and I want to say this over and over again as long as I'm in this House — the number of people outside in the Province who are becoming to think that the Legislature, the parliamentary system, that this form of democracy we enjoy is becoming irrelevant. We've had instances over and over again where young people have come to us at meetings, at youth groups, that would strengthen this feeling if anybody is aware of them.

I feel that the whole question of the relevance of parliament, the question of the measure of responsiveness, responsiveness, Mr. Speaker, and responsibility to our problems is the greatest issue facing us today. The Government appears to be badly equipped to handle that problem. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my concern and the concern of my party about this feeling.

I want to warn the House, and I want to say it again very clearly, because two of the members that came to me after my last speech I think may have misheard me. I want to say that the question before us really is that democracy on the continent was never so dangerously poised, that our system of checks and balances are based on the rational tradition. The forces that can and may play a role in our future cannot be described as either rational or traditional.

When the wishes of the school taxpayers, the wishes of the farmers, the wishes of the underprivileged are thwarted and denied by the Government, we are adding to the numbers outside who have already made up their minds that we are irrelevant, and that the dogma and the manifestos and the objectives and the agendas and the sloganeering that goes on from time to time is, in my view, no longer viable and is dead. The only dogma I'm prepared to accept, Mr. Speaker, is the dogma that deals with making this Government, this democracy, this Chamber, this Province really work, to ensure that the dead weight of bureaucracy is lifted, to reduce and to make more democratic all the quasi-judicial boards that we've erected all over the Province. The rest, Mr. Speaker, will have to go to the essential nature of the quality of the Government in power at the time. I add, Mr. Speaker, that this Government hasn't got that. It's a proof for me, if I needed proof, that those remarks that I made on the Speech from the Throne were relevant to this Budget, and the Speech that accompanied the Budget gave me that proof. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. H. MERILEES (1st Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, my understanding, as one of the kindergarten group of this Twenty-ninth Legislature, is the members taking their place in the Budget debate are allowed to do considerable roaming as far as their choice of subjects is concerned, except that they mustn't wander into the pitfall of hydro-electric rates. Well, I've had my fill of those, so it'll be a pleasure to talk

[ Page 488 ]

about something else.

First of all, let me give you a progress report on several of the recommendations made in my maiden speech. First of all, a committee has already been formed and will meet shortly with regard to plantings to beautify the median of Highway 401 between Chilliwack and Vancouver. These plantings will also make it a safer highway for night driving. The project will show its first results in the Spring of 1971, and it'll be a part of our greeting to visitors driving to our Centennial Confederation celebrations. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I've been flooded with grand-stand quarterbacks. Everybody thinks this is a great idea, but everybody and every amateur horticulturist in British Columbia has her or his own ideas as to the best thing to plant — everything from cherry trees to native dogwoods and bluebells — and the latest suggestion comes from the wife of the honourable member from Cariboo. She came all the way from Quesnel today to be in the House to petition for the planting of petunias, and she's watching me now, and I guess I'd better plant a few petunias. From long range standpoint the greatest….

AN HON. MEMBER:…. give them lots of fertilizer!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MERILEES: You'd better be nice to me, young man

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All the members will have an opportunity to make their contribution.

MR. MERILEES: If it wasn't for me, you might be one row back and working for half price. (laughter)

MR. D. BARRETT: I'll speak to you later.

MR. MERILEES: From a long range standpoint, Mr. Speaker, the greatest contribution that this can make will be inevitably a dividing hedge that will block blinding headlight rays and make for safer night driving.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MERILEES: I wonder how many members of this House know, Mr. Speaker, that one of the best hedges in the whole world, or for a windbreak for that matter, is made from our own natural cedar trees. The seedlings grow by the thousands along the side of every road on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island, and I'm sure that our Forestry Department would supply enough for free to do the whole of Highway 499 between the Peace Arch and Richmond. What a blessing that would be on a rainy night when you're driving to the boundary or to the ferry. They grow fast and they're easily trained.

Suggestion two — I'm pleased to report that some of the best architects and designers that we have in the Province have volunteered their assistance in the formation of a voluntary design panel to assist municipalities, cities and this Government in doing a better job of design and colours to match the various parts of the Province of British Columbia, and cut down some of the hideous colour combinations and structures that now decorate the Interior as well as the Coast and the Island.

Number three. I've already entered into discussions with Dean Philip White, who is the head of the Department of Commerce at the University of British Columbia, and with leaders of the transportation and accommodation facets of the travel industry, to produce a four-year course with specialised tourist summer job training and post-graduate research. Hopefully, such a course will give British Columbia at least a few specially trained tourist and convention oriented young men and women at the end of each university year.

Along with the positive, Mr. Speaker, we must, in all honesty, complete the record with a quote "lack of progress report" unquote on a couple of items. One of these is the absence in the Budget Speech of any hint for cheaper money to encourage the building of badly needed and long overdue physical accommodation in the hotel, motel and resort field. In my maiden speech, increased better quality accommodation received a top priority rating in my list of the needs for tourist development. On the subject of more financial help for the heavily urbanized areas, I suppose my answer was contained in the Budget Speech which indicated how much better off Vancouver was faring in comparison with some of the other Canadian cities, but this is a comparison that I am presently checking up with the chairman of the City of Vancouver's Finance Committee, Alferman Earl Adams, and I'll report to you later on that one.

By and large, Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult for even the most rabid critics to fault the Minister of Finance's Budget for the first year of the 1970's. Increases are included for the most crying of our needs. There is nothing in it of a serious inflationary nature, and yet the spending on necessary services to people and construction has not been stinted. But, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully suggest that investigation and consideration be made of the total amount that will be allocated for tourist, convention and travel development in the next Budget. True, the Department of Travel budget was increased by a half a million dollars, but with increased newspaper, magazine, television, film, and printing costs, I would suggest that this increase will barely enable us to hold our own.

If General Motors or Woodwards Store had exclusive control over an industry the size of British Columbia's Travel Industry, roughly $345,000,000 a year, I think that you'd find that they would be spending a lot more than $3,000,000 a year on servicing and promoting a product. The advertising and promotion budget on almost any saleable service or product today is between two and seven per cent. If one took the lowest figure, two per cent, we would still come up with a tourist budget for British Columbia of close to $7,000,000.

Tourism produces general prosperity and employment for over 20,000 British Columbia families, as well as a very healthy slice of business for just about every merchant and manufacturer in the Province. The honourable Minister of Agriculture, I'm sure, realizes the tremendous support our farmers and ranchers receive from tourists and convention delegates. Just one small example, Mr. Speaker, during the peak of the tourist season, visitors from outside the Province of British Columbia, consuming at least a million of fresh-laid eggs a week, to say nothing of millions of pounds of beef and other farm produce, and the Provincial revenues also gained substantially, as you well know, from gasoline, liquor and sales taxes.

In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that in last year's Budget, under Bill No. 10, 1969, the Minister of Finance allocated one and a half million dollars of additional funds to the municipalities for the express purpose of tourist promotion, but not one, as far as I know, passed on this amount to

[ Page 489 ]

their local tourist promotion group.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let us turn our attention for a moment to pollution and to litter. Everybody has had a kick at the cat or should I say a kick at the can, on this issue, so I see no reason why I shouldn't put in my nickel's worth. There are some very fine contributions that have been made by members of all parties, both during their debate on the Throne Speech and on this Budget Speech. Positive action has been announced by the Government, and I commend the honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources for the very meaningful plum on the end of what I hope is a stick, that he has pointed at the pulp mills of this Province. I refer to the offer of $250,000 to the individual or company that comes up with the answer to this ghastly smell. Even in Vancouver, as far removed as we are from the pulp mills in Howe Sound, when there's a certain set in the wind, this dreadful odour percolates through Stanley Park and into the city centre, and those driving the Island Highway don't need to be told when they are getting near Campbell River or Nanaimo.

But, Mr. Speaker, pollution, as everybody agrees, is not just a one-industry, one-product problem. It covers the gamut which is best described by a word that was practically unused as recently as five years ago, that word is "ecology." Rachael Carson, not too long ago in her famous book "The Sea Around Us," was a voice crying in the wilderness, but now everybody either has an intimate or at least a speaking knowledge of what the meaning of the word "ecology" is.

Because my patron saint was Captain George Vancouver, as you all know, and because Vancouver was of Dutch descent, I quoted the old Dutch proverb in my maiden speech, "If you would like to improve the world, the best thing you can do is to start with yourself." Well, as good citizens and individuals, and through various organizations and through our municipalities, we can accomplish a great deal by our own personal efforts, and again I recommend we adopt and publicize the slogan, "Keep British Columbia Clean."

For every cigarette carton, every chocolate bar wrapper, used chewing gum, pop bottles, beer bottles, tin cans — these are the things that ordinary people can deal with — they are not only an eye-sore, but they also contribute to the pollution of our Province. Mr. Speaker, the results you see are horrendous. You see whole cartons of empty beer bottles, of beer cans heaved out on the side of the highway or individually smashed to smithereens against bridge abutments, rocks or trees. You see them degrade the bottoms of beautiful streams, ponds or lakes next to the highways, making it almost impossible to retrieve them, even if you had the machinery to do it, or the manpower. You've seen places, even in designated areas, where people have moved in and out and left a fantastic mess. I've seen places just off the highway, and I daresay you people have seen them, where some of our so-called sportsmen have pulled out after a day or two of slaughtering deer, birds, fish or anything else that happened to move, and examining the ground where the camper stood, I'm almost prepared to swear that I could give you the precise measurements of the vehicle. These people, Mr. Speaker, are not litter-bugs. That's just too polite a term for them. These people are garbage-mongers. Let's fact it. They should be labelled, and they should be treated as garbage-mongers.

There's a section of the Highways Act that calls for a $5000 fine for littering our highways, but in searching our Provincial records I can't find six convictions over the past year for the whole of the Province of British Columbia. We all know that education and our pride in our community are vital to the success of any correctional programme, and the honourable Minister of Travel, and his department, are to be commended on their splendid efforts, continuing efforts, in this regard. But, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe there will be nothing, nothing quite so effective a deterrent to these garbage-mongers, as a regular and well-publicized programme of convictions under the highway littering Act.

In April of 1968 the Legislature passed another commendable Act, the Highways Scenic Improvement Act, and this was aimed squarely at what I call garbage-mongers. It's an excellent extension of the Highways littering regulations, and covers land anywhere up to 500 feet from the centre line from any designated highway in British Columbia, and it specified, I quote, "any accumulation of rubbish, garbage, ashes, filth, discarded materials or the bodies or parts of vehicles or machinery, " unquote. The Act covers Crown land, and also gives the power to municipalities who proclaim it in their areas. As far as I can determine, Mr. Speaker, in the whole of the Province of British Columbia there has been only one conviction which produced one fine of $100 since April of 1968, and to the best of my knowledge, the Municipality of Saanich was the only municipality that has seen fit to take advantage of this legislation and have it proclaimed.

Abandoned auto and truck bodies are probably the worst offenders that we have, and we all know the difficulty of tracking them down, but means must be found, even if it requires some kind of a bonus system or whatever may be needed to get this type of junk to a central crushing plant in Nanaimo, Vancouver, Prince George, or where have you. I think it would be well worth the small additional budget that might be required, and as the Scotsman said, why spoil the soup for a halfpenny's worth of salt. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere belief that a systemized, well-publicized programme of convictions is required to bring home in a forceful way, itinerants and residents alike, that they just can't go around dumping and polluting our roadside areas with junk and garbage.

Communities throughout the Province are all deeply interested, and many of our municipalities and many organizations stage very excellent clean-up or paint-up campaigns, but I think it is up to us in this House, this Government, to set the lead and give an inspiration by declaring total war on the irresponsible disposition of garbage and litter in every part of beautiful British Columbia. (applause) To this end I would respectfully recommend to the honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation to have the Premier declare a set day each spring in British Columbia as a giant clean-up day. The one end of the Province to the other — from boundary to boundary — give it a special name, enlist all the forces that can be mustered, including service clubs, school children, boy-scouts, guides, municipal authorities, particularly the police forces, and let's all get together and do a cracker-jack job.

After all, Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague, the second member from Vancouver-South got away with a suggestion and was roundly applauded, declaring it a Provincial holiday for everybody and I, incidentally, think this is a jolly good idea, too. The least we can do, I would suggest, in reply to that, the least I can do is to suggest that we have a Province-wide clean-up to get rid of the mess created by the holiday…. (laughter and applause)…. You may have noticed that through the cooperation of the

[ Page 490 ]

Canadian Tourist Association, that the City of Terrace in the riding of the honourable member from Skeena, has been chosen as a national test area for a clean-up and beautification experiment in the month of May. Possibly the date for a British Columbia campaign could be made to coincide with this date. So much for the garbage-mongers, Mr. Speaker.

Now for a couple of ideas I'll add to the list for the prevention of pollution. Number one: Through the cooperation with the appropriate Ottawa authorities, let us insist, and this has been mentioned before — a slight twist on a subject that's been discussed by a number of the members. Let us insist on a review and the imposition of the strictest possible rules governing the ocean-borne and highway-borne materials and liquids that have pollution and human disaster potential. The one on everybody's tongue at the minute is the water-borne shipment of oil by tanker.

The inside passage from Bull Harbour through the Straits of Georgia and down to Victoria is a prime route for many a dangerous cargo. How we have escaped disaster between Bull Harbour and Victoria up until now, I just cannot understand but, Mr. Speaker, I am truly thankful. The good people of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, should be showing real concern for the cargos that are presently passing in front of their front doors through the Straits of Juan de Fuca. The latest possibility, I understand, will be shipments of deadly nerve gas that the Japanese have insisted be removed from Okinawa. Just think about that one.

Also, in the honourable member from Alberni's area, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, the graveyard of the Pacific so-called, why in the name of thunder are there not laws that prevent freighters of any kind, unless bound for a definite port on the west coast of Vancouver Island and under professional pilotage, coming any closer than 50 miles offshore? I don't see it. Such a law might not eliminate all accidents, but it would certainly lengthen the odds. Even a blind man, barring serious engine failures, should be able to keep off the rocks on this basis.

Point number two, and my second suggestion, Mr. Speaker, regarding pollution concerns what I consider a vital area and a vital new concept. This is the Gulf of Georgia, Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Years ago, if anybody had told me one day the Gulf of Georgia with its beautiful Gulf Islands, the Strait of Georgia, Discovery Passage, and all of the British Columbia inland sea could become completely polluted, I wouldn't have believed them, and I don't think you would have believed them either.

Incidentally, British Columbia's inland sea is one of the most fabulous pieces of cruising water in the whole wide world. During the 1958 Centennial, the well-known British Columbia writer, Mr. Bruce Hutchison, did a feature for Reader's Digest on British Columbia, and it was a beautifully done article, and Mr. Hutchison pointed out that we had on the coast of British Columbia 5,000 miles of cruising waterways, inlets. I thought this was an impressive figure, but I also felt that it was a little conservative, so I had the officials in the Department of Lands do a survey for me, an accurate measurement of every inch of territory on the inlets on the coasts, of all the islands of British Columbia, and you better guess what they came up with. The actual outline, if you travelled every inch of the coastline of British Columbia, you would have travelled a distance only a couple of hundred miles short of the circumference of the world — better than 24,000 miles of cruising coastline!

Today it is the unanimous opinion of experts that pollution of this Gulf and the Straits is not only possible, but that the elements are already loosed to do just that. These problems, I know, are under discussion. The Fraser River's sewer outfalls in the lower mainland, and the south-eastern coast of Vancouver Island, including Victoria, are all great offenders. But, Mr. Speaker, the one area where I think immediate cooperative action should be instituted, is in the relationship between British Columbia and our American neighbours in the State of Washington.

There was once a notorious or famous, depending on your point of view, American business tycoon, who put his foot in his mouth when he said, "What's good for General Motors is good for America." I don't think I'm putting my foot in my mouth, Mr. Speaker, when I say that what's bad for the State of Washington is bad for the Province of British Columbia, or vice versa. This applies to all forms of pollution, but particularly it applies to the Gulf of Georgia, Puget Sound and the Straits of Juan de Fuca. There is no sense in having a new pulp mill on Vancouver Island just outside the boundaries of Cowichan-Malahat, with the hope that the people at Duncan won't smell it. Nor is there any sense, Mr. Speaker, of placing pollutants by the Americans into Puget Sound and banning them in British Columbia, or vice versa. The question of pollution by the State of Washington, in my opinion, is a much more vital issue and concern to British Columbia than any kind of pollution even in our sister province of Alberta.

There are strong forces at work right now, Mr. Speaker, at Olympia, Washington, keen and eager to combat the same types of problems that confront us, and may I respectfully suggest that the Premier of this Province institute a programme that would be a vital history-making first, by inviting the appropriate representatives from the State of Washington to commence discussions with appropriate Ministers from British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't they have a $5,000 a day fine for air pollution down there?

MR. MERILEES: I don't know.

Targets for these talks between the representatives of the State of Washington and our own Ministers would be a mutual programme of cooperation to keep the Gulf of Georgia clean.

The Minister of Finance is to be commended on giving a further grant of $2,500 for a second mortgage or $500 outright to assist in buying an older home but, Mr. Speaker, what about the other older homes, and their pioneer owners. These people are doing what the Premier is probably anxious that good British Columbia residents do, and that is to own and take a pride in their own home. There are thousands of these people in my constituency alone, Mr. Speaker, and many of these homes, though they be 40, 50 or 60 years old, are extremely well-built and well-kept. But to stay abreast of the times, to keep them in tip-top modern condition, they require costly remodeling with either the installation of a modern kitchen, bathroom, automatic central heat, or whatever it may be. In some cases where zoning regulations permit, these older people might be permitted to make a conversion into a revenue type property. Mr. Speaker, I think a home improvement loan plan for people of this type and their homes might well be considered by the Minister of Finance in his next review.

Also, Mr. Speaker, may I at this time enter a plea for those of us who live in apartments. Does anybody here live in apartments besides me?

[ Page 491 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

HON. ISABEL DAWSON: I do when I'm here in Victoria.

MR. MERILEES: The trend toward urbanization has been mentioned many times already during this Session, and today in the larger cities in Canada, and especially in British Columbia, the trend to apartment-house living is turning into a torrent. I see no reason why people who establish themselves as long-time steady tenants, paying steady rents, thousands of couples, both young and old, who elect to live for a period of years or for the rest of their lives in an apartment-type dwelling should not receive the home-owner grant. In doing this, they still make their just contribution to municipal, provincial and federal revenues, and I see no reason at all why they should be treated as second-class citizens.

Everybody, Mr. Speaker, has also had a kick at the cat as far as education costs are concerned, and agreed we need more teachers, agreed they deserve the best possible treatment, and agreed we need fewer students per class, and agreed we need many other things. But, Mr. Speaker, there is one thing we don't need, and the thing as far as I am concerned that we don't need are luxurious public schools scattered around this Province of British Columbia that have all the trappings of a California ranch house. Whatever happened to the sound economic principle of multi-storied school buildings? Surely they are more efficient. Surely with modern construction methods they are as safe as a church. If we can't cut the cost of building our schools and still include suitable covered recreational areas, then I think we need to have our heads examined.

One of the most interesting experiments in Canada today is going on right in the Strathcona area in the Vancouver Centre riding in the City of Vancouver under the direction of Mr. Maurice Egan, newly-appointed director of social planning for the City of Vancouver. This structure under discussion and planning today amalgamates the needs and desires for an educational, social and community programme building for that whole area. The plan envisions a combination of community library, swimming pool, gymnasium and auditorium, all of which are combined with secondary school facilities. This building could be the indicator toward a better way of spending our money.

Now, one last kick at the White Paper, Mr. Speaker, and I will be finished. Members of the Opposition have claimed that this Government is totally opposed to the whole of the White Paper. Such a statement, Mr. Speaker, is nothing but misleading hog-wash. Many of the recommendations have been openly approved by the Premier and the members of our Cabinet and by various of the backbenchers of this party. but there are a number of proposals in the White Paper, and some of these have been spelled out for you, that are just absolutely no good insofar as the effect that they would have on the economy of British Columbia.

The honourable member from Oak Bay pointed out, and I think it's rather interesting, that if we are able to move hospital patients out of expensive acute beds one day earlier, it will result in the saving of millions of dollars on capital and operating costs. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to turn this coin over and say to this House if, on the other hand, we are able to keep tourists and convention delegates in our hotel beds one night longer, we would gain over $60,000,000 of additional revenue every year. And this would go a long, long way to buying more schools and more hospitals and more services. But, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Benson proposes to eliminate the presently tax-deductible expenses incurred by delegates attending Canadian conventions. He claims this would save $17,000,000 every year, $17,000,000 every year.

Well, I have news for Mr. Benson, and it may even be news for some members of this House. The convention part of the travel industry in British Columbia brought to this Province alone, gross revenues last year of over $47,000,000. If this regulation is allowed to become law, British Columbia would be the biggest single loser in Canada, because we are at the end of the line, and you all know that. Business meetings and conventions of all sizes, kinds, and types that are vital to national business, professional and fraternal organizations — and they are going to be held — would be, for vital reasons of economy, held in Toronto or Montreal, so don't think that this wouldn't create unemployment in British Columbia.

The honourable member who was against convention expenses — if there are abuses in connection with convention expenses, then these are easy to get rid of. They're easy to get at.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. MERILEES: Regulations governing convention expenses are already covered under Federal statute. They are under Federal statute and they can be policed, but for the life of me I just can't understand why Benson seems so hell-bent to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we want to save money and we don't want taxes to go up. On this score let me doff my hat to the best housekeeper in Canada, the Honourable Minister of Finance. Just take a look at the chart on page 45 of the Budget Speech that shows where the money comes from and where the money goes. If there is a man in this House who thinks he could do a better job let him stand up.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing up there?

MR. MERILEES: This is one of the terms of reference. This goes with the position, you stand up to speak and you don't sit down rudely. Look at Table 4 on page 25 of the Budget Speech and consider the advantages that we in British Columbia enjoy regarding taxes in comparison to the taxes imposed across this nation.

Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote yes on the budget motion. A yes vote is a vote for a bigger and better and more beautiful British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H. R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take my place today in the Budget Debate.

I would like to say, before really getting into the meat of the matter, that I am a little bit concerned about the performance of some of the members on this side of the House with regard to the first member from Vancouver East. Now, we've heard from the member from Vancouver East, and he has been referred to in some rather biting attacks from members on this side as the member from smear — second member, excuse me — the member from smear and other rather unfortunate epithets, and you know, as I listened the other day to the rather memorable speech in this House of the member from Dewdney, I couldn't help but look over at that member and it occurred to me, you know,

[ Page 492 ]

that any member in this House that couldn't crack a smile sometime during that speech had to be in pretty serious trouble. I don't think that he deserves our condemnation, I think he deserves our pity. I'm not so sure, Mr. Speaker, whether the member is really missing the second member for Burrard who was here last Session, but I think he does miss his analyst. I'm only hopeful that from what I read in the paper of his impending change in marital status it will have a more salutary effect on his personality than what has been evidenced in the past.

This is a time when we traditionally talk about money, the clear indication in the Budget about where the money comes from and where it goes. The answer, of course, is the same for both. It comes from the taxpayer and it goes back to him. However, it's a question of how you proportion it and what your priorities are that form the general over-all philosophy of the Government. In my previous speech in the Throne debate I indicated that I was concerned with the rapid growth in the Province of British Columbia because of the great amounts of capital that are necessary to service that growth, and if we look at the Budget what we want to do is to see where does the bulk of the money go, and it goes to people in the form of health and education to the tune of 67.2 per cent, or over two-thirds of our entire Budget in those particular areas. These are two functions that are supposedly under provincial jurisdiction and I think — let's be honest — that we, as in every other jurisdiction in Canada, have trouble keeping up those particular fields.

There is nothing here, however, that can't be solved with money. We can build gymnasiums. We can have limitless pools. We can build more acute care beds, more chronic care beds, increase home nursing, if only we have more money. And, as far as I am aware, there are only two ways in which you can get more money for these two particular areas. Well, one is to increase taxes, and the other is to spend less in other Government departments. Now then, the Opposition — it's a rather interesting thing — never seem to me to be very interested in cuts in other departments. I don't think we have ever seen the Leader of the Opposition now, get up and call for cuts on social welfare, if memory serves correctly. I don't think that we've seen the second member for Vancouver East call for cuts in the Department of Lands and Forests. I don't believe that we've ever seen the member from Cowichan-Malahat …. Granted, the saving of a dollar is not very significant an opinion.

It's rather interesting thing, we used to hear the old saw that we are just a blacktop government, just a blacktop government. We haven't heard that this Session, I wonder just what's happened to it. You know, it was a funny thing during this last election, you know, I never heard of the blacktop government during the election. It's a funny thing, you know my N.D.P. opposition in the constituency of Alberni, when he went into Tahsis, you know it's a funny thing, he didn't condemn us for the blacktop government, he promised them a road into Tahsis. When he went into Gold River, you know he didn't condemn us for being a blacktop government, he was going to fix up and pave the last link into Gold River. When he went into Port Alberni, he talked about a second route into the Albernis. When he went into Tofino-Ucluelet, he talked about relocation of the switchbacks, and on and on. You know, that particular fellow built more roads in three weeks than the Minister has done in the last two years. All in three weeks!

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you opposed to these suggestions?

MR. McDIARMID: Just a question of the money. No, I'm not opposed to them at all, I'm not opposed, not for a minute, no, no.

As for the increasing of taxes, we heard a marvelous address in this House from the member of Cowichan-Malahat or Duncan- Ladysmith or something. You know, he held our rapt attention at least for the first two hours of his speech. You remember how he stormed and he raged in stentorian tones, I'm sure well over the allowable decibels of safety. You know, he recounted the dismay that he had with the backbenchers on this side of the House who are proposing, of all things, selective tax increases for specific purposes. He gave us, I am sure, the distinct impression that his Opposition party would have no part ever in the raising of taxes.

I think you can sum up their philosophy very succinctly in this way, in the old poem: "Under the spreading gooseberry bush the village burglar rests, the burglar is a hairy man with whiskers in his eyes, and the muscles on his brawny back keep off the little flies. He goes on Sunday to the Church to hear the parson shout, he puts a quarter on the plate and takes a dollar out."

And, you know, I just want to tell you right now, that to take a dollar out, Mr. Member from Cowichan-Malahat….

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Take two dollars out. (Laughter)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will both members withdraw their reflections on the honesty of each other.

MR. McDIARMID: The very simple lesson of this is to take a dollar out you've got to put a dollar in, and that's what we do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McDIARMID: I listened to you for three hours the other day, my friend, I'm only ten minutes into mine.

But you know, seriously, no real discussion of the Budget, I don't think, can be had without getting into the serious questions of philosophy that are raised by the proposed White Paper on Taxation. Ostensibly, this has been purported by the Finance Minister as something that will redistribute the load of taxation. It will make it easier for the small man, the person who doesn't make a buck, and it will make it tougher on the wealthier person. This is the whole purport, but you know, really, when you get into the nuts and bolts of it, it isn't that at all. It's a very thin guise to raise an awful lot, many more millions of dollars, for the Federal treasury. That's what it is. It's not redistribution, my friends, not redistribution for one bit. That's the ostensible purpose but really, it's more like confiscation.

Mr. MacNaughton, who was the Minister of Finance of the Ontario Government, indicated in a fairly comprehensive study through his computer banks and this sort of thing that even the many millions which Mr. Benson admitted would be raised by this, that this real figure would be only half, in fact, of what actually they would raise. So what we really want to get down to is, if it's going to raise that much more money, where is the money going to go? We haven't heard anything from the Federal Government as to where this money is going to go, and it's going to be a substantial amount, in the many millions of dollars. You know, the thing about this is that the Federal Government, after a bit of pruning which was probably long overdue, tells us that they will finally, for the first time in 11 or 12 years, balance their budget. Even have a bit of a surplus.

[ Page 493 ]

Now our needs as far as provinces are pretty obvious. They've already been mentioned in many areas of health and in the areas of education. But you know, it's a rather interesting thing, that I read in the paper today about this recent Conference that our Premier was at. Mr. Trudeau said here, in part, "That the primary responsibility for putting the lid on the rate of health, welfare and education costs," said the Prime Minister, "was provincial. The Federal Government was the prisoner of these vastly expanding shared cost programmes with the provinces."

Well, you know, probably the greatest recent single expenditure in the area of health has been Medicare, which in fact has been a boon to many people, but this is one of the principal large costs and this was instituted by the carrot and the stick, by the Federal Government, the Federal Government. They were the prime movers, they were going to tax, and unless you instituted the plan you wouldn't get your money back. Certainly I believe in it, but what I'm getting at is this — on one hand they turn around, institute the big expenditure and then they turn back to the provinces and say, "You keep the lid on." You know, this is great philosophy.

You know it's only a year ago, really, or a couple of years, that this happened, and it's a rather interesting thing that when they went into this field, what they did was that, as the member from Cowichan-Malahat said the other day, something about a stacked deck. Well you know, they dealt the Medicare cards out right on top of the table where everybody could see them, but what were they doing at the bottom of the deck? What were they doing at the bottom of the deck? National Health care grants to British Columbia, grants from the Federal Government for professional training, mental health, T.B. control, general public health, cancer control, medical rehabilitation, child and maternal health, and hospital construction, all Federal grants, all share-cost programmes entered into with this Government; in 1967-68, $3,311,000, 68-69 — $3,320,000, 69-70 — $2,400,000, down a million, 1970-71 — $1,600,000. So, here we have the proposition of health. They come in at the top with one programme while they are pulling the other things out from under the rugs. If you're going to go in for health, go in for it. Don't put one in at the top and pull one off the bottom.

Hospital construction is another thing. The $2,000 per bed grant to hospitals has been a very real help in raising the municipal share of construction costs as far as hospitals are concerned. I was in on the building of a hospital in Tofino and Ucluelet and this, at that time, amounted to a real big factor. But what are they doing in the areas where we need the help the most? Next year there won't be one nickel of a Federal Government share for a hospital bed in British Columbia — not one nickel, and this is what concerns me.

The same thing with the health resources fund of $500,000,000 — big fanfare. Well, they are going to string it out over 15 years, maybe 20, maybe 25. They absolutely diluted the effect of that, so it has absolutely little or no impact today whatsoever.

I feel this, that when the provinces are facing, as their two major things in the areas where we need help that the Federal Government is taking that help away, that they've got their priorities mixed up, my friends, they've got their priorities mixed up. You know, the worst is not to come. It is to come — I'm sorry. Every indication is that they are going to opt out of Medicare itself in five years, no question about that, and you know, there's another little hooker here, too.

We heard from the member from Atlin the other day about the White Paper on Indian Affairs, and I agree with him that certainly the native people have to have far more self-determination. The Federal Government has indicated from time to time that this is simply a transfer of responsibility, but the Federal Government will retain full fiscal responsibility for these things that are put over onto the province. Well, if what we've seen as far as the medical health branch is going to happen, you know what will happen on that programme. I would just like to read a little thing on page 9 of that thing which I think puts the thin edge of the wedge. As I said last year, the Federal Government policy on Indian Affairs is retrench, retreat, withdraw, and nothing in this paper has led me to believe any differently. "Subject to negotiation with the provinces, such provisions would, as a matter of principle, eventually decline, and this is the provision of money for these programmes, the provinces ultimately assuming the same responsibility for services to Indian residents, as they do for services to others."

So we've got spelled out — they are opting out of health care, they are opting out of care for the Indians. You know, I perhaps wouldn't be so upset about this if we weren't having so much trouble in these particular areas, but with no clear cut policy on the Federal Government as to what they are going to do with this money — is there any indication there that they are going to come back into the health field and help with this most pressing problem? None whatsoever. Is there any indication that they are going to help with the educational costs? None whatsoever. You know, I think really the way it's going I think you'll find — would you believe another Bonaventure? How about a bi and bi committee? Five million dollars for French lessons for western Canada. You know, how much Federal money went into that $120,000,000 in Nova Scotia for a plant that can't even make its water? $120,000,000. Not a drop, not a drop yet.

You know, here's the thing, with this White Paper on taxation, we on all sides of the House have pounded our desks and we talk about our sophisticated and excellent and highly-paid labour force in the Province of British Columbia, and make no mistake about it, we have just that, but really, isn't the White Paper just another form of redistribution of the wealth to the Province of Quebec? I think that that's exactly what it amounts to. Because you know, the people in the pulp and sulphite industry, the people who are papermakers, the people who are doing these sophisticated jobs, the union people of British Columbia, are the very people that are going to get hit right where it hurts. Right in the pocket by the White Paper, that's exactly who's going to be hit if you don't believe me — I don't know whether you read this in the morning paper, but the Labour Council of Victoria met, and you know it says here, "Those who would soon be earning real middle-class money, like the B.C. Telephone Company journeymen, would stand to face bigger tax bites and would probably oppose the White Paper, the meeting was told." They know exactly where it lies.

It's a very interesting thing about this, that there is absolutely no consideration for the fact that there is a much higher cost-of-living in British Columbia, so what you're doing is you are taking the wealth out of the average middle man in British Columbia, redistributing it down to the fellow who's living on the farm in Quebec whose costs are much less — mind you his income is much less — but he is the one who's going to be getting the tax break. His cost of building a home, of supporting and educating his family, aren't nearly as high as they are in the Province of British Columbia, and I

[ Page 494 ]

think that is not a fair proposition for one minute. Not for one minute and that's exactly where the White Paper is going to hit, and is it surprising, under these circumstances, that there are movements all over western Canada today, looking into the proposition of forming Canada as a western economic unit? Is it surprising? Not really.

There are the agricultural bodies that recently formed a group in Calgary, under the leadership of the former head of the Conservative Party of that province, formed a group to study this very problem, to look into the economics of the question. This is what I say — I'm not saying that I'm a separatist — no, but I am saying that there are many people who are grossly dissatisfied with the treatment that western Canada is receiving from the Federal Government, and they are fed up right to here with it.

It wouldn't surprise me but what there is a ground swell amongst the average person for separatism in western Canada, and that we probably haven't seen the last of it, and that's a political fact in a reality of life. It's simply a comment. And the Liberal members from the western provinces sit quietly by on their haunches in the House of Parliament, like a bunch of trained sheep, and never say a word — not a word. It's not surprising that there is growing dissatisfaction.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about just one simple thing in my constituency, and that's the question of some people who got involved in the Barclay Housing Project. There was a group under the leadership of a fellow by the name of Rick English who formed a group called the Western Co-operative Housing Society, and this group was brought together to provide the little man, the smaller person, with housing. This is what the articles of association and their objectives were, "The Association shall perform the following services for its members:- The Association will survey housing requirements, perform initial planning, provide promotional services, architectural planning, arrange financing and mortgaging, contract for construction of housing units including tendering, allotting construction contracts, and supervision of construction and, in addition to the above, the Association will provide professional management services covering the operation of housing units when completed."

These people went to the little people in the Alberni Valley, and they got them to form Barclay Housing and they promised that they would perform all these functions for them. They were the experts and they could put them in to their houses at $500 to $1,000 down, and they got them in all right, they got them in. They got their $500 and their $1,000, but you know, this fellow English, after having formed this association, finally found himself as the general manager of the association, and the one who, in fact, was running the construction. Mr. English went to C.M.H.C., where he arranged for first mortgage financing, and then he went to the B.C. Central Credit Union where he arranged for interim financing.

These people, who really aren't sophisticated at all, who really were led down the garden path, who believed that they were buying a home with this down payment, found that after this thing was well along the way, that by absolutely the most inept and gross mismanagement, and possibly worse, that you could ever imagine, this thing was thousands and thousands of dollars in the glue. So to protect their position, the Credit Union stepped in and put it into bankruptcy. You know, these people stand to lose the whole ball of wax.

They've been threatened by the B.C. Central Credit Union with foreclosure, although it hasn't happened yet. They have indicated that it could well happen, and I don't believe that this is going to do the cooperative and the Credit Union people in the Province of British Columbia, one bit of good. I feel that thee people who put out that money in the interim financing should have had some idea as to what was happening to that money and what sort of management was going on, and they didn't. When they had meetings with these people in the Barclay Housing, they were all assured by the manager of both the Western cooperative, and also the fellow of the B.C. Central Credit Union, "Don't make any waves, everything is going to be fine," until they woke up one morning and found that they were going to be facing eviction.

I would like to say in this House, that I think that if for no other reason, that the B.C. Central Credit Union has a moral obligation to give those people the housing at the rate that they were promised and that there should be no foreclosure.

One other thing, one last thing. Many, many times in this House we've heard problems of our backbenchers in trying to get some sort of help of an investigative nature, some research facilities, and we've always had a deaf ear, and the Liberals find themselves perhaps in the same boat. Mr. Speaker, I think I might have found an answer to this. You know, in the great City of Victoria we've probably got more retired civil servants who are experts in one area of government or another, than any other province, in British Columbia. I think this year that what we should do is we should advertise and ask for volunteers to come in to give the M.L.A.'s a little bit of assistance with their expertise for two months, and I think you'd be surprised at the response that we might get. I think that we could well use a work force of this nature who are dedicated to helping their M.L.A.'s perform their functions better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. AGNES KRIPPS (2nd-Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take my place in this Budget debate, the Budget that is already known as the Budget with a billion dollar heart, the Budget that is the greatest in the history of our Province. The Budget that makes it possible for the people of British Columbia to enjoy, among many other things, the best working conditions in all of Canada, the highest wages, the shortest working hours, the best fringe benefits and the lowest tax rates in Canada. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this record Budget will lay the foundation for continuous orderly growth and development of our Province in the years ahead.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the major problems with which we Canadians are faced today is that of inflation. It robs everyone, but it particularly hurts the average citizen — those in the lower income brackets — pensioners, those with insurance policies, and so on. There are many causes of inflation. I only want to mention two. The first one has to do with wage demands which have been repeatedly made in the past year by many Canadian trade unions. Wage increases tied to improved productivity are desirable and beneficial to all concerned, but wage demands which are not related to increased productivity are harmful to the whole country. Canada is an exporting nation. We depend for three-eights of all our jobs on the export market, and unless Canadian workers, and I include British Columbia workers, exercise restraint in their wage demands, we shall soon price ourselves out of the many international markets. This can only result

[ Page 495 ]

in unemployment.

Drug prices should be curtailed. A certain contributing factor to inflation is the Federal Government's policy. Deficit after deficit has been financed by borrowing, new programme after new programme has been announced with little regard to the over-all budgetary position. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has failed to balance the budget year after year.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't know how.

MRS. KRIPPS: They don't know how — that's right, and to top it all off, it has increased the interest rate to an astronomical proportion. Mr. Speaker, actions such as these have kept the fires of inflation burning brightly. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is the greatest contributor to inflation. If Ottawa would have operated on a pay-as-you-go budget, like we do in British Columbia, we would never be in this horrible mess in which we find ourselves today. If an individual or business spends more money than it takes in, sooner or later it's going to get into trouble. So it is with governments. No government has money of its own. It can only spend what it takes from the taxpayer, either individual or corporate. Mr. Speaker, good management is most important to government affairs and that is what our Government has exercised for the past 17 years. The record speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, it is recognized that a car is no longer a luxury but a necessity, recognized, I should add, by all but our insurance companies. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the insurance companies are using monopoly tactics to steadily increase their prices. They are quick to justify their increases with accident statistics and red ink in their bookkeeping, but keep very quiet about the investment income which makes them one of the country's most profitable industries. Mr. Speaker, there is a good deal of unrest among the premium paying citizens. Such unrest may, or it may not, be justifiable, we do not know. So, in order to dispel any false assumption and to clear the air once and for all I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a Commission be set up to investigate all the activities of the insurance companies and to publish its findings so that we would all know the true facts and whether the complaints of the premium paying citizens are justifiable.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, municipal governments, and private agencies, all provide hundreds of services designed to facilitate the development of British Columbia's physical and human resources. I believe these services will function efficiently and effectively only when the multiplicity of programmes are inter-related and correlated with the needs of individuals, organizations and communities who are the recipients of these services. What is needed, Mr. Speaker, is not additional programmes and services, but the development of a comprehensive services system to obtain maximum effectiveness through the refinement, integration, coordination, and expansion of the many policies and programmes already in operation or in the course of implementation.

I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we authorize the preparation of a comprehensive inventory of all programmes and services available to individuals, organizations and communities in British Columbia, both Federal, Provincial, municipal and private. This inventory, which I hope would be constantly updated and refined, would provide a comprehensive reference of services available to the public, and it would foster co-ordination by creating an awareness of the nature and inter-relation ship of governmental and non-governmental services.

Mr. Speaker, we intend to spend 31 per cent of this year's Budget on education, because we know that our future as a Province is determined to a major extent by the quality of education that we provide. Additional education means a more highly skilled work force, it means more highly trained professional people, it means a better life for all of us. Education properly directed is the chief means whereby people can find new kinds of jobs when the old kinds disappear.

According to the latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics, British Columbia has the highest percentage of persons with a high school or university education, the highest percentage of teachers with university degrees in elementary and secondary schools, the highest school retention rate and the highest teacher retention rate of any other province in Canada. This is a credit to our high standard of education, the quality of our teachers and the administration of our educational affairs.

I am very pleased that our School Boards recognize the fact that there is not an unlimited supply of money and that they believe, like we do, that budget time is a time of joint effort to find a way in which we can get the most education for the dollars we have. What is true of operating budgets is equally true of construction costs. School buildings need not be monuments to architects, school boards, or educational officials. They are tools for teachers who will teach our children. Brick, marble, glass, may be fine and may be desirable, but the test is whether the children are dry and warm and whether the design makes teaching as efficient as possible. Mr. Speaker, with a view to reducing costs of school construction there should be a continuing examination of developments in the construction industry so that full advantage may be taken of pre-built and modular construction techniques.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, significant savings, coupled with the development of improved cultural and recreational facilities, can be achieved by co-ordinating school and community development to provide joint use of facilities wherever possible. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that provisions be made in the Public Schools Act and in any other relevant legislation to remove any existing obstacles to joint financing of school/community activities and facilities, and to specify the terms under which such joint financing may be carried out. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, regulations governing the use of school premises should not be binding on community activities taking place outside school hours.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia are concerned with the staggering annual increases in costs of education, which means an increase in local property taxes and, in turn, creates a particular hardship for elderly retired homeowners who are on fixed income. Although this year's Budget includes a welcome increase in the supplementary assistance to old age pensioners, there are, however, many who are experiencing difficulties in meeting the increasing tax burden on their homes. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we set up as soon as possible a committee that would, after an in-depth study of this problem, devise a satisfactory means of giving an urgently needed tax relief to those elderly home-owners on fixed incomes. We want these citizens to live in dignity in their homes. They need the help now, so let's give it to them.

Another area of concern to me, Mr. Speaker, is that of the

[ Page 496 ]

little community known as the family. Today's family seems to be passing through a series of crises resulting from certain profound changes in modern man's way of life. Although the structure of a civilization may change and at times emphasis may be placed on different values, yet one thing remains — the family. Human nature will always urge man and woman to found a home, and the home, Mr. Speaker, is the cornerstone of our democracy. The development of wholesome values and aspirations in an individual is dependent on stable and harmonious family and community life, especially during a child's formative years. So, Mr. Speaker, we must direct our efforts in such a way that the family continues in the future to hold its unique place in society with its human values and ideals.

It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I believe sex education should be taught in our schools as a supplement to what our children receive in the home. Unfortunately, our sex education programme is inadequate. I would therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, since 1970 is international education year, that our Minister of Education takes a bold step forward and initiates action for a sex education programme in our schools. However, before such a programme can be implemented, I would suggest that we solve some of the problems concerning introduction of such a programme. These problems, Mr. Speaker, are not related to the problem of the education or the teaching part of the programme but rather to the word itself — that nasty little three-letter word, Sex, which carries with it a stigma and a distorted connotation. That word, Mr. Speaker, can have one hundred different meanings to one hundred different people, and while we all spell it the same way, there the similarity ends. The Oxford Dictionary defines sex as, "either of two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively; the male or the female, especially of the human race, viewed collectively." In 1631 it was thought of as the class of phenomena with which these differences are concerned. In 1675 it was used, by confusion, in senses of sect, s-e-c-t, and in 1884 to determine the sex of by anatomical examination.

Today sex is still a confused word. If I ask any one of you to define "sex education" each one of you undoubtedly would have a different version. Some would coyly refuse to discuss it, thinking of it as something vulgar. Others would say that this was no place for a discussion of sex education. And some, yes, even adults like my friend from CKWX would blush. (laughter)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. oh….

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MRS. KRIPPS: Because so many shades of meaning have been written, because so many shades of meaning have been written into the word, I have come to hate it, and I propose (laughter) I hate the word sex, and I propose that we throw it out of the vocabulary of education — let's find a substitute and start all over again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No! No!

MRS. KRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't know I was going to be the one blushing. Mr. Speaker, let's standardize the word so that it means the same to everybody. Let's call it…. Listen carefully now, let's call it, for example Bolt. That stands for B for Biology on Life Today — B-O-L-T — Biology on Life Today. That's the first initial of each. That's just an example. (laughter) Now listen. That's just an example. You may have other words that you would like to use (applause and laughter)

Now, to carry on, Mr. Speaker. I am serious — listen! Let's call it the word Bolt. Then we can tackle the problem afresh so that when we talk about bolt education in schools we're not going to become involved in moral or religious aspects of its meaning. We will face bolt education with a fresh, open mind. Mr. Speaker, this is a Canada-wide appeal for universal — this is a Canada-wide appeal for universal acceptance of a new word to replace that prejudiced, archaic, misused and misinterpreted word, sex. By eliminating the word sex and replacing it with Bolt or any other word — any other word, we will remove the blindfolds, the smirks, the embarrassment and, above all, the ignorance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call it Social Credit (laughter)

MRS. KRIPPS: Then we will be able to teach our boys and girls in school how and why they are different (laughter). Mr. Speaker, then we will be able to teach our boys and girls in a refreshing way and with the same frankness and freedom from inhibition with which we tackle ordinary conversations of life.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of this Assembly to an editorial in the Vancouver Sun dated February the 12th under the heading of "It's All Yours, Agnes", the Vancouver Sun dated February the 12th, and I might add that was the last editorial that we have seen. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Vancouver Sun for that editorial and, in particular, their welcome of my suggestion that, in recognition of the good life we enjoy, the first Monday of August be declared a Provincial holiday to be known….

AN HON. MEMBER: As Bolt Day. (laughter)

MRS. KRIPPS:…. as British Columbia Day.

Mr. Speaker, would you please make some order in this House. Mr. Speaker, would you please break your gavel. Thank you.

The suggestion was great, says the editorial, but they were surprised I didn't exploit a Cabinet characteristic and I quote "narcissism, good, honest, old-fashioned vanity, the stuff that the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, Lake Williston, and Gaglardi Way are made of. Fancy forgetting that." The editorial goes on to suggest that I should have called the day "W.A.C. Bennett's Good Life Day". I thank the Vancouver Sun for their suggestion, but I don't agree with it, because everybody knows that when you talk about British Columbia you mean the good life, and when you talk about W.A.C. Bennett you mean Mr. British Columbia. So there you have it. The words are synonymous — W.A.C. Bennett, the good life, British Columbia — it is all the same.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the proposed British Columbia Day be proclaimed a Provincial holiday beginning in 1971, our Centennial Year of entering into Canadian Confederation. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that on British Columbia Day throughout the entire Province we hold a special Good Life Festival.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MRS. KRIPPS: A Good Life Festival. A festival of the people and for the people, a festival in which young and old

[ Page 497 ]

from all walks of life and many diverse cultural backgrounds will share their rich cultural heritage with the communities. A festival that you and I can enjoy as we gain an insight into our cultural life. A festival of memories and traditions, of family life, nurtured and grown on British Columbia soil. A festival that will demonstrate our love of freedom and the good life we enjoy as we work together in a spirit of friendship, good will, mutual respect and understanding of ourselves as Canadians. A festival that will strengthen our pride in ourselves, pride in British Columbia, and pride in Canada. What a wonderful tourist attraction. Can't you hear the voices calling, "Come to beautiful British Columbia for the Good Life Festival on British Columbia Day".

Yes, Mr. Speaker, with vision, experience and enthusiasm, let us go forth and build together a greater British Columbia and a more prosperous and united Canadian nation. "Usta Ad Astra" — let's aim for the stars.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st, Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us I would certainly welcome you, Mr. Speaker, to our bolt new world (laughter) and I will certainly say, that if nothing else, she had everyone bolt upright in their chairs. I would point out to the honourable member, however, in reference to words alone, that there is a rather interesting statement about the word Sex, and there is a little poem that says, "It makes me wonder, Mr. Member — And indeed it takes much telling — Why a word that's so much fun — Is so dirty in the spelling."

Mr. Speaker, now that we have brought the Chamber back into its proper perspective, and we are nearing the end of the Budget debate, I would certainly like to express to you my appreciation for the tremendous manner in which you have handled the debate to date. We are down to the last four speakers and I think that it is a sign of the efficiency of the new members and the brilliancy of the Speaker himself, and there are some few who might just add some aspersion that the fact that there is no newspaper being published in Vancouver has had some factor in this. I do believe that I would take the opportunity of welcoming the Premier back from a very successful Conference from the point of view of British Columbia, and I certainly think that we should dispel the rumour that the previous speaker on this side and myself are speaking today only because the Premier is back, and in view of some of the speeches last year we are not permitted to speak while he was away. I wish to deny that rumour. There is no truth in it whatsoever.

I have been listening, and I am sure many of the members here have heard some of the comments about the Budget. Some of the criticisms, I think, have been a little facetious — the reference to the various pictures — there even was one, Mr. Premier, that made some comment about the picture of yourself, and suggested that it was taken a long time ago, and I would point out that it is certainly wrong. If you will examine it, you will notice that it is the latest style with a gray double-breasted suit with the wide lapels that could have been taken any time between 1925 and today.

It has been, I think, a most interesting debate, and I would point out to the new members that, though it has been a Budget debate in which the real purpose of the debate is the criticism of the Budget, that you really have not had criticisms as to the size of the Budget in that anyone has said it was too small. No one has stood up and said that any department was not spending enough money. No one has suggested that one Minister should cut the amount of dollars involved in his Department, nor have they suggested that there is one school that is marked in this that should not be built, nor one highway that should be stopped, nor have they suggested that there is any part of any programme that should be terminated at this time. We have heard from the leader of the Liberal Party that he would add to this Budget, that he would increase the amount of dollars in this Budget, and this was his concept of how you fought inflation. You also heard, and I think that this is rather intriguing, that in the statement which was made at the Conference by the Prime Minister of Canada, referred to by the member from Alberni, a statement that the primary responsibility for putting the lid on the rate of health, welfare, and education costs, said the Prime Minister, was provincial and this was a method of fighting inflation.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this: That if the Prime Minister of Canada is suggesting to us that the way to combat inflation in the Province of British Columbia is to cut down on welfare programmes, reduce the number of dollars we are spending on schools, then if that's inflation then we had better be prepared for inflation in the Province of British Columbia, because this Budget is not in any sense an inflationary Budget and cannot be considered so. It is a Budget which is a balanced Budget and the amazing thing, Mr. Speaker, that we must constantly be looking at is that one of the reasons that we do not hear the great words of praise for a Budget which is the biggest in the history of this Province, is that this Budget follows year after year of sound Budget, year after year of balanced Budget. I think the member from Columbia put it as clearly as he could when he said to the Premier. "I am amazed, Mr. Premier, that you brought down a preelection Budget in a post-election year."

You know, we have a terrible tendency to overlook the size of a Budget and the size of a billion dollars. I said it last year, and I pointed out that a million dollars in $1,000 bills is nine inches high. That's all it is. But a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker, is 900 feet high. A billion dollars is four times the height of this building from the very top. The education budget alone in this Budget in $1,000 bills is higher than twice this building right to the top of the statue of Captain Vancouver on top.

Now, that is not sufficient in itself, because a Budget of dollars alone means nothing. It is the translation of those dollars into the goods, the services, the facilities that are required in the Province of British Columbia, and that is why this Budget is the type of Budget that we have been debating on for the past eleven days and will, very hopefully, be passed tomorrow.

Now, across the way during the speech on this Budget, the good member from Cowichan-Malahat stood up and he made reference to this Budget. He is one of the graying four senators that sits on that side. If you were in the Liberal party you would have been made senators by now, and I am sure that if Mr. Barrett had his way he probably would have made the four of you senators by now. But he stood up and in his speech — and I would point out that the member from Cowichan-Malahat has been around a great deal of time and does impart a certain amount of wisdom — but I would also point out a statement in Italian, a statement about the devil that says, "The devil is not wise and mean because he is the devil, but because he has been around a long time." I would think that the good member in his wisdom, in his long length of time in the House, went on to make references to this

[ Page 498 ]

Budget. If you will recall, he stood up in this House and he used the reference that, "This is a stacked deck budget."

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you are out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The reference to stacked deck was withdrawn by the honourable member, and I don't want it repeated in the House again.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, Mr. Member, he clarified it very clearly and went on to say that this was not a sign of cheating in any sense. The quote is here. No, he said that this is a Budget that has been carefully — Mr. Member, the quote is correct — he certainly did. He painted a vision, by the way, of a man in a Frank Ney vest-coat standing there doing something a little bit — what he meant by it was a Budget that has been carefully prearranged so that the winning figures will always come face up, and he went on to clarify that this was the type of Budget, and this is what he meant, where the Premier must always win.

Now, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you what a Budget is supposed to be? Does he imply that the alternative of a Budget in which the people are the losers, and in which the Budget is a losing Budget, is the type of Budget that he is referring to? A Budget is a carefully arranged group of figures which is the basis on which you must operate the economy of — and don't turn around, you know I am referring to what you said. If you can't face the truth front on, leave the House. If you can't take the truth, leave the House.

I'll tell you, Mr. Member, and don't give me that long pained look of silence, I'll tell you, Mr. Member, that you lost a good member who would have understood the economic principles, the good member that was here from Nanaimo. He, is missed because of ability, but not because we don't have a better member from there now, but he would have explained the differences between a carefully arranged Budget that would produce to give a sound economy which was based on a balanced Budget within the figures, and is the type of Budget that we must have.

We have heard, during the lectures in this House, an outline on the White Paper and it has been implied that this is a Federal matter and should not have been brought up, and we have wasted too much time on the White Paper. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, that the White Paper and this Budget are so closely intertwined, because if the White Paper as it is presently outlined goes through, a Budget such as we have at this moment in the Province of British Columbia will be impossible in the future, and it is the responsibility of every member to assure himself that this doesn't happen.

Now the good member from Cowichan-Malahat again stood up in this House and he asked a series of questions, and implied that this side is not in favour of fair taxation, is not in favour of justice and social reform, that it is not in favour of many of the points that are in the White Paper. He asked us a series of questions, and said, "Answer them, and if you can't answer them, then you're against these things of social reform." Mr. Member, let me put a series of questions based on the White Paper to you. Are you in favour of the gathering of revenue solely, as they put forward, for taxing a person's home? Are you in favour of the taxation on a person's home when he sells it? Yes or no — just nod. Yes or no? Are you in favour of a tax on the belongings of an individual valued before he sells them? Yes or no? If you don't nod your head it implies yes. Are you in favour of eliminating the risk allowance….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member be kind enough to address the Chair.

MR. CAPOZZI: All right, Mr. Speaker, through you to the man who isn't answering my questions, I would say this, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, through you, to him, is he in favour of a tax principle that would lower the taxes that a senior executive in this Province would pay? Because the present regulations as outlined, in a man earning $60,000 or more will pay less taxes under the proposed White Paper than he will now.

Now I'm not going to go on to spell out the total objectives of clauses of the White Paper, but I think that it is an important thing to realize this, that what we are really talking about in the White Paper is a question of principle as to whether it is socially preferable to gather additional funds by killing your economy, or should you enlarge the total tax base to create the amount of money that is required to do the services, provide the things that are required for people. You know it reminds me, in what we are talking about, of the man who tried to train his horse not to eat, and just as he got the horse trained it died, and I think that what we're talking about in the White Paper is much the same thing. We're dealing with a treatment of our economy which is not a new and fairer method of taxation but, as the good member pointed out, it is a measure of increasing, by almost $1,000,000,000 at the end of the fifth year, the amount of revenue that is taken out from the total dollars available for the development of industry, the development of new growth in the various locations and areas throughout Canada. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier of Finance I suggest — to the Premier and the Minister of Finance, he knows who I mean — a strong statement, reflecting the views of the people of this Province should go to the Prime Minister, should go to the Minister of Finance in Ottawa.

Now, however, having spoken in praise of the Budget, I'm afraid that there are some items in the Budget that I do not agree with. Not all of them are large and one of them, perhaps, could be lost in the total shuffle of what we are dealing with. Firstly, Mr. Premier, over a period of years you instituted in this Province, one of the features of legislation for which I think you will be famous, and which has served a great purpose in the Province of British Columbia. In 1958 you instituted the Home-owner Grant and you will recall it was $28. It went up in '61 to $50, '63 to $70, in '67 it was $120, in 1970 it will be $160. It is a great piece of social legislation and has tremendous value and has enabled many home-owners to protect themselves against the rising costs of taxation.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): It's a good time to stop.

MR. CAPOZZI: No, no, we're still going, we've got lots of time here, Mr. Premier (laughter). But I would like to give you, very briefly, some figures showing what is happening with that. This is a comparison of a home….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member realizes that on the Order Paper there is a Bill dealing with the increase in the Home-owner Grant.

MR. CAPOZZI: I'm not referring to the increase in any sense, other than to extend it into another area, so I don't

[ Page 499 ]

think that I am infringing on its validity or any other point.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll judge that in a moment. Proceed.

MR. CAPOZZI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): The answer is no, anyway (laughter).

MR. CAPOZZI: Signed, yours truly, your M.L.A.

Mr. Speaker, in 1960 a home-owner of a home that was worth in the area of $20,000 paid a net of $233. At the end of 1970, on that same home, he would be paying roughly $350 in the net tax figure. He has gone from, I'm sorry, from $282 net to $350, a $70 increase — that is all he is required to pay. But a man in an apartment in exactly that same period of time, the rent per apartment, the tax load per apartment, has gone up in that same period of time from roughly $90 to $256. So without any compensating grant, his load on that particular apartment has gone up by $176. In his rent he is paying $20 of the tax dollar every month that goes to pay municipal tax. My point, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, is that in putting on the benefit for the home-owner we have increased the percentage burden that is being paid by the tenant. That if you take the two, starting with equal valuation, equal paying total tax in the community, he is now paying an extra third of the cost of the operation of that city.

I think that this is not fair and I think it should be re-examined, and I'm not suggesting we remove the homeowner grant, but I do think we should institute a tenant's grant which would compensate the tenant a portion of his one month rent if he's there a year to be paid to the city on the taxes that he would normally pay on his apartment block because right now we are using his money to bribe the, or to pay….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What!!

MR. CAPOZZI: not bribe, his money which he has worked for and gained in pride — did I say — I said pride. (applause)

Mr. Premier, I would ask you, at the same time that you look into this matter, as I know you will, there are several things in assessments. I think that it is time that we combined and gathered together and looked after the rezoning concepts that come under the new Zoning Act. At this moment, Mr. Speaker, through you to the House, I would ask that the areas — I've moved away from that, Mr. Premier, you can turn and listen too, now — at the present time in the City of Vancouver an area can be rezoned without the permission of the people living in that area. I would suggest that this is creating a considerable hardship on people who are living in their own homes.

There is a very reasonable solution, Mr. Speaker, which is instituted in the Alberta Act, and all it would do is to state that where zoning by-law land is zoned for some use other than its actual use, the assessor shall, until such time as the land is used for the purpose for which it is zoned, assess the land as if the zoning had not taken place. I would suggest that this legislation could be instituted without any great deal of cost and would protect the home-owner in that area where there are high-rise apartments springing up, trying to live in his own home, it is zoned for apartment blocks, he doesn't wish to sell his land, the value is tripled in his assessment, he's paying unduly high taxes, and he is penalized by trying to maintain his own home.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other item in the Budget that I would call attention to, and as I said, it is not a very large item, it is the deletion of a $20,000 payment to the Police Academy. Now that's not a large amount, not a large sum, and it is there because the Federal Government has reduced their payments. I say that the Federal Government, and I think the Liberal members should bring this to Ottawa, are remiss in their duties in having removed that payment to the Academy, but at the same time it does not and should not be a reason for us to reduce this payment because, Mr. Speaker, police brutality or police obstruction is no further away than how well we treat our policemen.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that we've heard a great deal in this House about what occurred in Quebec, and I would like to tell this House of an incident that occurred in Vancouver, not to place any blame whatsoever on the police force, but merely to point out that within our own framework of law at this moment is a loophole which can permit certain things to take place that I'm sure no one in this House would have.

In May of this past year a friend of mine attended a gathering in which there was dinner, dancing, etc. On leaving the establishment, deciding, and very wisely, that he had consumed more than he wished, he said to his wife, "Will you drive the car?" which she did. Driving down the street, stopped by a policeman, and the wife, who was speeding, was asked to step out of the car. All perfectly correct. The husband, seeing the wife being asked to step from the car, stepped out from the car and was told by the policeman to step back in the car. He refused, he wanted to see what was happening. He refused to go back in the car. The policeman said, "Step back in the car." He said, "I won't'." "Step in the car or we'll book you, or we'll call the paddy wagon." He said, "Call the wagon." They called the wagon, handcuffed him, took him down to the gaol and did not book him, because under our law if he is in an intoxicated condition he does not have to be booked. He asked to 'phone his lawyer and they said no, you are not permitted to 'phone your lawyer, we do not have to let you 'phone your lawyer, under this present legislation.

He was then taken and held, put in the tank. At approximately 3:00 in the morning, three policemen came in to remove his handcuffs and, according to the man, then proceeded to administer a very sound beating to him because of the fact that he had been using abusive language. Now this has gone to the Court. He was found not guilty of any obstruction charge, he was found not guilty of any damage charge, so I feel free to use it. But I'm pointing out that this can occur in our own Court no further away than the City of Vancouver, and, Mr. Speaker, it stems back to the responsibility that we assume for policemen.

And I say that it is time that the entire structure of how we train our police — at the present moment we spend more time and money training a welder than we do training a policeman. We should be testing these people psychologically, we should be seeing that they have certain educational standards. In the police force in the City of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, there is one member that has a university degree. Now I don't think that a university degree is the only criteria, but it is a measure of the courses that they have taken. I think that it is important that we should be encouraging young people to go into the police force after having gone through university and taken courses in law administration,

[ Page 500 ]

and there are many fine courses, and the salaries and enough dollars should be in the Budget to pay for that type of service. We underpay our policemen worse than any other group of responsible people in our society. I do not think, when you only have to examine what occurred when the police went out on strike in Montreal, to determine how fine the line, how thin the line, between law and order on one side and lawlessness on the other.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is time, not just in our city police, I don't think that we can continue forever to have the boys from the prairies come out to be our policemen out here within the R.C.M.P. They are a fine service and a proud service, but I still feel that the training that is given to police in the Province of British Columbia is the responsibility of our Provincial authorities to make sure that we have the finest, best qualified, best and most capable people working in the police force in the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, how serious that problem can be, and I'm not going to belabour the point, but recently Mr. Eisenhower, the brother of the President, did a report in the United States on the position of the cities in urban society in the present rising rate of crime, and he described what could happen in the cities if we continue along the path we are. He said, "Central business districts in the heart of a city will be surrounded by mixed areas of accelerating deterioration. They will be partially protected by a large number of people shopping or working in commercial buildings during the day hours, plus a substantial police presence, but will be largely deserted except for police patrols during the nighttime hours. High-rise apartment buildings and residential compounds, protected by private guards and security devices, will be fortified cells for upper-middle and high income populations living at prime locations in the city. High-speed patrolled expressways will be sanitized corridors connecting safe areas, and private automobiles, taxi cabs and commercial vehicles will be routinely equipped with unbreakable glass, light armour and other security features.

"Streets and residential neighbourhoods in the central city will be unsafe in differing degrees and the ghetto slum neighbourhoods will be places of terror with widespread crime, perhaps entirely out of police control, during nighttime hours. Armed guards will protect all public facilities such as schools, libraries and playground areas." Now that, you say, can never happen here. The very thought of it is frightening enough to make us take determined steps in this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one other point, and I am very pleased to see this, Mr. Attorney-General, in your budget, that the amount of money which you have for the Security Commission has been doubled. For years this has been a source of difficulty, of problems of people clearing through, and I certainly wish to commend you for having increased this.

The one other point Mr. Speaker, having spoken about the cost of various things and the cost of living, etc., I would like to speak briefly about the cost of dying. I am not going to put on a full stage attack on those people who operate funeral homes, because at times they provide the sympathy that we require. But recently in Vancouver, the major funeral homes have all been bought up by an American company who now controls the funeral homes, not just in Vancouver, but in Calgary, Winnipeg, and most of the major areas in Canada. The company's name — they're located in Texas — is the International Service Corporation Limited, and since they have taken over, the cost of funerals has steadily increased in Vancouver and right at this moment in the major funeral homes the minimum charge is $475 plus the cost of coffin, plus the cost of service, and plus the cost of plot. The minimum cost that you could be facing is $750 and, Mr. Speaker, I think that we should investigate this raise in prices. I am concerned by it.

I think also, as a Government service and a Government function, we should be pointing out to people that cremation, which is now acceptable by the majority of religious groups, is available at a very economical price. It is a very sane, it is a very fine method, it has with it all the aspects that we should be looking for. It surprises me, in a society which prides itself on its Christian approach to living, that we take such an unchristianlike approach to how we handle our dead. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this Government should encourage wherever possible, the sanity and the lack of ostentatious funerals. Where, for example, the Department of Welfare has a budget for funerals which amounts to approximately $300, and it is done with taste, it is done with every requirement being fulfilled, and I certainly think that the public of the Province of British Columbia should have these facts presented before them, and realize the tremendous dollars that are being used in this particular area.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to two areas, the Chinese Community and Gastown, only to remind the Premier of the request that I have had before him in the past which is for a grant to re-develop those two key areas in the heart of Vancouver. Certainly the Chinese Community in this year 1970, going into our Centennial Year, the dedication of these people and what they contributed in the past. In 1871, when this Province became a Province and joined Confederation, there were approximately 45,000 people in all of British Columbia, of which approximately 25,000 were native Indians and of the remaining 20,000, 6,000 were Chinese. We heard the great discussion of the building of the great railways, certainly the contribution which the Chinese people made — they say that for every mile of railway track there is a dead Chinese buried along the track.

The contribution that they made in the coal mines in Nanaimo, in the work force in the lumber mills and in the yards in British Columbia at a time when their protection was nil, is certainly something that we should recognize by going back and recreating part of their culture, and make a centre of their national heritage in the heart of Vancouver, and I would hope that this would be given some recognition.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the Budget, and again referring to the member from Cowichan-Malahat, he went on to say as he pointed out in his final great wind-up, he said because it doesn't recognize people this is a Budget that fail because it doesn't do these services, this is a Budget that fails, and everybody pounded.

Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that this Budget as a sign of the confidence in the 70's, is a Budget that succeeds. As a sign of faith in the future, it is a Budget that succeeds. As a sign of a Budget for people, it succeeds. As a sign of sound economic growth, it succeeds. As a sign of good management, it succeeds. As a sign of good fiscal policy, it succeeds, and, Mr. Speaker, as a stepping stone into the 1970's, it is the greatest stepping stone and it succeeds.

On the motion of Mr. B. A. Clark, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.