[ Page 349 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable C.M. Shelford, the following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be Placed on theOrders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill (No. 24) intituled An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act;

Bill (No. 23) intituled An Act to Amend the Trespass Act;

Bill (No. 25) intituled An Act to Amend the Animals Act.

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

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 50) intituled An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology.

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 51) intituled An Act Respecting Central City Mission.

On the motion of Mr. Capozzi, Bill (No. 52) intituled An Act to Incorporate Canadian Institute of Management (British Columbia Branch).

On the motion of Mr. Wolfe, Bill (No. 53) intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

On the motion of Mr. Merilees, Bill (No. 54) intituled An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953.

BUDGET DEBATE

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

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, it is not without some trepidation that I rise in my place to speak this year. Last Session I thought I had prepared a relatively good address. I know there was no intended sabotage but I did think, Mr. Speaker, that probably, a few words of it might have been printed in the records, known as Hansard in this House (interruption). It probably wasn't too great a loss, Mr. Member. I remember it well. I still have it in print. So I will repeat it again this year, hoping it will get on the records of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is again my privilege to take part in this Budget Debate. Before going into the more detailed points relating to the administration of the Portfolios of which I am particularly charged, I want to take this opportunity to speak again on behalf of the constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, which I have the honour to represent in this Legislature.

Since the last Session of the Legislature, a considerable number of projects has been undertaken within the constituency, in relation to highways, parks, rural electrification and other important projects, all of which have enhanced the conditions within the constituency and benefited the people generally. But I find that I must reiterate, especially to the Department of Highways, some of the very important projects which have, in my estimation, a high priority. I refer, specifically, to the Penticton by-pass, the Spencer Hill west of Grand Forks, Central Avenue in the city of Grand Forks and the Cascade Bridge. I want, particularly, to express my appreciation to the Department of Highways for its diligent pursuit in attempting to find ways and means of overcoming the problems that are encountered in obtaining access for the Penticton by-pass.

Many frustrations have been encountered and certainly have not yet been cleared to the degree that the Department of Highways would be in a position to give the green light to the construction of this very important traffic artery.

I have brought to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Highways, several other projects to which I am sure he will give consideration at his earliest opportunity.

I want to express my appreciation to my colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and his department, for the establishment and development of what is taking place at the south end of Christina Lake. This project will not only serve the immediate community but will have far-reaching benefits to the residents of Rossland, Trail, Grand Forks, Greenwood and Castlegar, as well as the communities immediately south of the international border at the port of Cascade. This project was undertaken on a continuing development status, and I look forward to the second stage of development being undertaken within the coming fiscal year. I must also express my appreciation for the excellent restocking programme of the various lakes and rivers within my constituency, in replenishing these lakes and rivers with new fish from the various hatcheries. A new life has come into existence for these various waters, which are affording the local citizens and the travelling public a great deal of sports fishing.

I have received many letters, along with oral commendations, regarding my efforts in having the programme, which presently exists, undertaken within my constituency by the Department of Recreation and Conservation. Other matters which are important to the constituency will be put forward to the various departments concerned, within the course of the next year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in my place in support of a Budget which, once again, evidences the financial stability of this Province. The message of confidence it contains will contribute greatly to the social and economic wellbeing of the people of British Columbia during the coming year.

I wish now to turn my remarks to those departments whose Portfolios I have the privilege of administering.

As Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources, it is particularly gratifying to be in a position to comprehend the tremendous contribution these industries have made to the economic wellbeing of the people of British Columbia during the past year. Despite extreme economic pressures resulting from Federal monetary and fiscal policies, notably the proposed and indefinite policies in respect to mining in the so-called White Paper and the indirect impact of lockouts and strikes in other areas of the economy, the mining and petroleum industries have continued to expand and have, again, achieved record production.

I think it would not be presumptuous to say that the one stable area of the economy during 1970 was the mining and petroleum industry. Estimated total production for 1970 is $497 million, an increase of $32.5 million, or 7 per cent over 1969. This was achieved despite the fact that lockouts and strikes in the construction industry, together with a scarcity of mortgage money for building, contributed to a $19 million, or 34 per cent, decline in the value of structural materials produced. Had it not been for this factor, my estimate, a year ago, of half a billion dollar production value for the industry would probably have been exceeded by some $20 million. Notwithstanding the general economic conditions, 1970 will be the ninth consecutive year that a record value of production has been set in mining.

[ Page 350 ]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it to be of paramount importance that the people of British Columbia be given some understanding of the beneficial impact which this great industry has upon the general economy of British Columbia.

First, let me say that it is an elementary precept of economics that, without population density, there is no market. Consequently, if there is no market there can be no mining. Unfortunately, neither two million British Columbians, nor even 25 million Canadians, constitute the kind of market upon which an industry, such as mining, can be based. It is for this reason that the resource development policy of this Government related to mining is based upon the acquisition of, and entry into, markets overseas with a production the market is prepared to accept.

Had it not been for the success of this policy, the employment picture in this Province would have been catastrophic. To illustrate this point, I would indicate two examples of mines which came into production in the past year. The first example is that of Brenda Mines at Peachland, a metal mine which has a mill capacity of 24,000 tons per day.

The capital expenditure to bring this mine into operation was $62,300,000. As of the end of January, this year, it directly provided 397 steady jobs for the people of this Province. The indirect impact will be readily seen in the following list of major supplies required annually to keep this mine in operation.

It will require $750,000 worth of explosives; $900,000 worth of tires; $150,000 worth of drill bits and steel; $100,000 worth of diesel fuel; $1,100,000 worth of chemicals and reagents; $2,500,000 worth of grinding balls, rods and liners; and $750,000 worth of transportation. I think it would be fair to say that 80 per cent of mine supplies in British Columbia are purchased in Canada. One could add to this the value of housing and the multitude of additional services to accommodate the needs of the 397 workers with jobs which did not exist two years ago.

If this were the only new mine in operation in British Columbia, it would not be too significant. However, one could speak of Granduc Mine near Stewart, which, after a capital investment of over $100 million, provided 707 direct jobs as of December, 1970, to operate the mine, and has spent $3.4 million in providing housing for their employees. Then there is the Pinchi Lake Mine, King Resources Mine and Churchill Copper. All these came into production in 1970 and provided thousands of jobs for the workers of British Columbia. This significant contribution of jobs for workers in the mining industry of British Columbia is only the beginning. Over the next 18 months, Gibraltar Mines with a 30,000 ton mill capacity, Lornex at 38,000 ton, Noranda's Babine Mines at 10,000 tons, Similkameen Copper at 15,000 tons, and Island Copper at 33,000 tons, will all come into production and provide several thousand more jobs. These jobs are all provided as a direct result of the resource development policy of this Government in British Columbia.

I might interject at this time and digress from my notes. In relation to the Western Mine, of which we have heard in recent days, the employment there is 282 direct jobs; wages, $2,133,000; mine development, $1,241,000. Now, to bring this into production, the total expenditures — the preproduction — was $9,553,000, and this is continued on with the equipment, the Buttle Lake Road, the housing in Campbell River, at $9,300,000; capital expenditure, since production development, and equipment, $978,000. Including the road in the expenditures, there have been spent $2,580,000. Now, this being the only mine in operation in a park, I thought it would be well to give you some indication as to what this contributes to the local economy within the given area.

So far, I have referred only to metal mines. But that is only a part of the…

Kaiser Resources alone have made a tremendous contribution to the work force of this Province. As of January 7, this year, there were 1,419 employed by this company in British Columbia. Of this number, 1,365 are on the payroll at Sparwood. Again, this represents approximately a thousand direct jobs which did not exist two years ago. This is the development which the Member for Kootenay was opposed to at its inception. Now that this project has brought a great measure of prosperity to the east Kootenays, the Member indulges in political gymnastics, jumps on the bandwagon and is trying desperately to filch some political advantage from the successful employment picture which now exists in an area which was previously depressed. It's too late for him to come to this House and lecture us on the need for hospitals and schools in the area. The fact will never change that, if the Member for Kootenay had had his way, the coal industry in the Kootenays would be dead, and thousands more people in British Columbia would have been out of work.

Mr. Speaker, this direct employment figure is again only a part of the picture. There is a capital investment of $125 million at the mine, an additional $48 million in railway facilities and a further $15 million on the island at Roberts Bank superport.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Honourable Minister where he has been getting his information from.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. RICHTER: Public information by way of the press.

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member may rise at the conclusion of any address and correct any misinformation which may have been given inadvertently — not now.

MR. RICHTER: I expected the interruption, Mr. Speaker, so I'm not too badly disturbed by it.

Since the Kaiser project commenced, 583 housing units…I see the Member wants me to repeat, so I'll give him the further information by repetition. Since the Kaiser project commenced, 583 housing units have been built at a cost of approximately $12½ million. I am advised that if construction in housing, hotel, stores and other accommodation at Sparwood and Fernie are taken into account, the capital investment in this type of construction approximates $50 million.

When we speak of the Kaiser development in the Kootenays, we are talking of a capital investment of almost a quarter of a billion dollars, a direct work force of 1,419 people and an indirect work force of several thousands more. I say again, if we had listened to our political opponents, thousands more people in British Columbia would be out of work and jobs and depending on welfare for an existence.

The attitude of the Honourable Member for Kootenay can perhaps be excused. He obviously did not have the foresight nor the capacity to understand the economic impact this project would have in the area he represents. However, what is completely inexcusable is the attitude of

[ Page 351 ]

Mr. Haynes, the secretary-treasurer of the British Columbia Federation of Labour. In a letter dated January 8, 1971, this man urged me, as Minister of Mines, to slow down the development of the coal industry in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is the man who, on January 21 in the guise of seeking jobs for the unemployed workers, brought to this city a group of protesters, some of whom then proceeded to destroy public property, attack other men, following their unlawful occupation, and attempted to frustrate and stop the democratic process of the Government of the people of British Columbia. Even discounting the actions of the radical element in that affair, it is sheer hypocrisy for this man to lead a parade of job seekers when, only two weeks previously, he had appealed to me to slow down an industry in which one company, alone, is providing directly almost fifteen hundred jobs in British Columbia.

This man's reasoning for his appeal to slow down this industry is that we may need the coal for other uses. The plain fact is that the coal reserves in the Kootenay, alone, is of such magnitude that if we were to ship 50 million tons per year overseas, and I mention that again, Mr. Speaker, 50 million tons per year overseas, it would take over one thousand years to deplete the present known reserves in that area. The latest report of the Geological Survey of Canada, dated 1970, places the coal reserves of southeastern British Columbia at over 56 billion tons. I may add that exploration in the eastern portion of north-central British Columbia gives indications that this area may also become a major source of coal reserves. Present contracts for coal approximate 12 million tons annually. I believe that there are reasonable indications that this figure will approach 25 million tons annually by 1975.

As the Minister responsible for the administration of some of the major natural resources of this Province, I am gravely disturbed by the attitude of certain groups in our society who advocate the alienation in perpetuity of large areas of this Province for single-purpose use. This attitude is tantamount to imposing stagnation of resource development, through reservation, by means of the device of legislation. It is my belief that no land should be reserved for single-purpose use until a comprehensive study has been carried out to ascertain the nature and value to the public of the geology, forestry and other resource potentials of any given area. The stampede to alienate, without thought to the advantages of multipurpose use, is shortsighted and, in some cases, a distinct hazard to the ecology of these areas. In addition, the public must understand that, if resource development is to be inhibited by this principle of alienation, potential work and wage opportunities will cease to exist.

As far as the effect of mining on land services is concerned, it is important to note that all producing mines in this Province occupy only one thirty-sixth of one per cent of the 366,255 square miles that make up British Columbia. Land surface occupied by mines is substantially less than that of any other resource industry, including agriculture and that which is available for recreation. It is interesting to note that of all the major resource industries, mining produces the greatest returns to the people per square mile of land used. In a submission to the Select Standing Committee on Mining and Railways, studying proposed mines reclamation regulations in 1969, the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines illustrated the potential value of land use during the following fifty years, as being: the average value of timber land per square mile, $1,500,000; the average value of cattle-ranching land per square mile, $300,000; the average value of farm land per square mile, $1 million; the average value of mining land per square mile, $115 million.

In summary of the mining industry, it is interesting to note that British Columbia now leads all other Provinces in Canada in mineral exploration and new mine development. The Mineral Act has attracted more large exploration companies and risk capital than like legislation in any other Province, to the point where $45 million is now being spent on the search for new mines per year. It is anticipated that one billion dollars will be spent on new mine development and plant construction during the next eight-year period. This, in itself, will create a market for a wide range of goods and services and provide jobs for thousands of British Columbians, as well as create opportunity for the expansion and creation of secondary industry in this Province.

Before proceeding to other matters, I would like to repeat what I have stated on several previous occasions, Mr. Speaker.

Mining is an exciting industry, primarily because the human element is still such a decisive factor. In this, our Centennial Year, we may well recall that the pioneers of Barkerville, the Boundary country, the coal mines of Vancouver Island and the Kootenays, have left their imprint on the pages of progress in our Province. Despite the technology of our times, the intrepid prospector still has to face the rigours of terrain and the vagaries of the elements in his quest for the oft-times elusive "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow. It is to these men, with their spirit of adventure and their willingness to endure hardship and privation, that we first owe a debt of gratitude. Without them, the mining industry would be a figment of the imagination, and the history of our Province would be a rather uninteresting commentary.

Mr. Speaker, the petroleum and natural gas industry of the Province continues its steady progress of development and production. In the calendar year 1970, there were 1,990,000 acres involved in Crown reserve dispositions. Average price per acre was $8.21, which is 19 cents per acre above the 1969 figure. British Columbia is the only oil- and gas-producing Province to record an increase in the average price per acre disposed of during 1970. Exploration activity is continuing at an increasing pace over 1969, as the market for gas and oil expands.

Now, of the total of 2,721 wells drilled at the end of 1970, 638 are classed as oil wells, of which approximately 527 are producing each month. Oil production is about 70,000 barrels per day. There are 716 gas wells, of which approximately 298 are producing each month. Gas production is about 869 million cubic feet per day.

I wish now to centre my remarks upon my responsibilities as Minister of Commercial Transport. Broadly speaking, this department regulates the in-Province operation of roads, rail and pipe-line transportation.

One of the major barometers of the economy is transportation and this was most certainly evident during the past year. The movement of forest products was severely curtailed by work stoppages.

The tie-up of coastal tugboats and the shut-downs in the construction industry had a depressing effect on the transportation of building materials and industrial components. Notwithstanding this, it is enlightening to note some of the changing characteristics of commodities. Among these is the increased movement of mobile homes, modular buildings, prefabricated houses and precast beams. On April 23, 1970, the regulations under the Department of Commercial Transport Act were changed to allow for a maximum width of 8 ft.

[ Page 352 ]

6 ins. for commercial vehicles. This change was necessary to permit the line haul section of the industry to take full advantage of the modern method of packaging, which is in modules of two feet. With the advent of the new regulation, a full eight feet of interior cargo space was made available. Despite the general economic conditions, there were 11,338 more commercial vehicles licensed in 1969-70 than there were in 1968-69.

Railways are playing an ever-increasingly important role in the economy and industrial development of British Columbia. The Pacific Great Eastern continues its expansion in the north and, in a report dated January 18, 1971, the chief engineer of my department reports, as follows: "On the extension from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, a distance of 250 miles, 212.5 miles of grading are completed; 115 miles of rails and ties laid; and a further 76 miles of ballasting completed. The extension from Fort St. James to Takla Lake has 30 miles of grading completed; 42.5 miles of grading, 50 per cent completed; and six miles of rails and ties laid. The actual inspections of these lines were carried out in October and November, 1970. The rail relay programme has reached the point where heavy rail is now continuous from North Vancouver to Prince George, a distance of 460 miles. The 85-pound rail made available by this programme is being utilized in the new construction.

The Roberts Bank superport railway of the British Columbia Harbours Board was opened for traffic on April 6, 1970, and it is reported that the average density of traffic has been one unit-train per day, each train averaging 87 cars with 100 tons per car. Canadian Pacific reports an actual figure of 2,245,834 short tons hauled during the first nine months of operation. The unique aspect of the railway to Roberts Bank is that it utilizes six different railway facilities in a continuous nonstop route to the port. CP Rail, CN Rail, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Harbours Board, Burlington Northern and Kaiser Railway on the island itself, each have access without the necessity for, and delay of, interchange. At the present time, equipment has been installed and negotiations are under way to bring all these facilities under one central traffic control system.

During construction, 12 level highway crossing signals were installed. Since then, by Order-in-Council, a further 12 are to be installed. These have been ordered and will be installed immediately upon delivery. Highway 499 has been overpassed, Hornby Drive has been relocated and Highway 17 has been overpassed. Pacific Highway and King George Highway grade separations are not yet constructed. This is due to highway relocation, in one case, and the establishment of foundations, in the other. The overpass at Arthur Drive is dependent upon the ultimate location of the rail sidings and other conditions in the municipality of Delta.

The aerial tramway industry has, again, been very active during the past year. The Hells Gate aerial tramway is being constructed to allow public access to the fish ladders at Hells Gate in the Fraser Canyon. The terminal will be on the west side of the river and it will be a rather scenic and probably interesting experience to cross the entire canyon by way of an aerial tramway. Considerable engineering has been studied on the Boston Bar aerial car ferry. This work has been progressing in stages so that, by the end of 1971, it is expected that the engineering will be completed and, in addition, a rescue car will be provided in case of emergency.

The number of lifts installed in recreational areas exceeded that of 1969, which was considered to be a very active year for the construction of new facilities. The total number of facilities in operation in 1970 was 175, compared with 158 in 1969.

The continued progress of the oil and gas industry brought about a total of approximately 145 miles of new pipe-line construction last year. This, together with the marked increase in compressor stations, pumping stations and gas and water injection systems, have all contributed to the buoyant employment situation in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying, from the point of view of the mining and transportation industries, the prospects of the 1970's are challenging in concepts of human betterment, technological advancement and economic expansion. Given a reasonable world economic climate and realistic labour-management accord, I believe we can look to the future with great confidence; however, any drastic change in world markets, punitive tax measures or unreasonable demands from labour will upset the delicate economic balance which presently enables us to look to a bright future for these industries and the contingent benefits for all the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I hope this will appear in the records of the House. Again, thank you very much.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to keep the record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I would like to deny having ever said anything that would hinder the economic development of the east Kootenays.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and allowing me to take my place in the traditional Debate which ensues after the Minister of Finance has delivered his words of wisdom, hope, despair or confusion or whatever they may be, to the Legislative Assembly.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm in my usual benign, benevolent, charitable, understanding, sympathetic mood, but I promise you a modicum of criticism before the afternoon is finished.

I would like to start, first of all, with some of the remarks made by the Minister who has just taken his place. He referred to the secretary of the B.C. Federation of Labour as having written him a letter which could only have the effect of destroying, or taking away, or stopping jobs in the Kootenays. Now, the Minister didn't read the letter. I am going to read the letter, addressed to Mr. Richter, January 8. "Dear Sir: The selling off of all our coal in the 'Chamber of Commerce' fashion is shortsighted since science is beginning to tap other industrial and chemical uses for coal, besides its current use as a fossil fuel. Since it is scientifically possible that coal could become a major industrial substance in the not too distant future, we would call on your department for a slowdown in the present coal 'bonanza' in favour of keeping reserves of coal for possible other uses, especially the development of secondary industry in western Canada." No doubt he wrote this letter on reading the issues of the B.C. Gazette, which show issue, after issue, after issue, applications by major corporations — some of them now engaged in the forest industry — for the taking up of large leases, large coal leases, not one of them giving any indication, and the

[ Page 353 ]

Minister having given no indication ever, that the purpose of the grabbing of these coal leases is for anything else but the export of that coal in its raw state, as quickly and rapidly as possible — even by pipe-line. What Mr. Haynes was saying is that we should take a look at that raw material and, Mr. Minister, if you don't know by this time the basic theory of economics that the more labour applied to a raw material, the more wealth you create, it's time you did. What Mr. Haynes was saying to you was, "Speed up" in the utilization of our natural resources but utilize them more fully, in here, in this Province, get more wealth from them, create the clean kind of jobs that we do need to get the best out of British Columbia.

It's only part of the general attack that's been made on Mr. Haynes by Members all across the way and I'll have more to say about that particular aspect later.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister also made some criticism of those who are in favour of the alienation of land for a single-purpose use. He said this was terrible. Mr. Speaker, I agree with him, most of the time, but I ask him, "When we allocate land for strip mining, what other use can you put that land to, when you are strip mining it?" Isn't that a single-purpose use? You said you don't like it — alienation for a single-purpose use. I ask you! What are you going to do with the strip mines? What are you going to do with it while they are strip mining it? Are you going to have a hockey game? Or build an arena? Or go hiking? What are you going to do with it?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn, briefly, too, to the Minister who spoke yesterday, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he speak?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, he spoke and I listened carefully to what he said. When he was finished, it reminded me of the story of the son who brought home a test paper from school. The test paper was marked zero. The angry father phoned the teacher and complained. He said, "My son studied half the night for that exam and I don't think he deserved a zero." "Neither do I," said the teacher, "but it's the lowest mark I could give."

You know, I have to give the Minister a zero for that speech. I don't think he deserves it, but it's the lowest mark I can give. And that's in all generosity and charity and friendliness, hands across the sea (interruption). Yes, yes, he said a number of other things, you know, while he was speaking. He talked about having his civil servants prepare dossiers on Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier. Now, surely to goodness, in the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Industry, you can make better use of your civil servants than that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the Budget Speech. That's my opening remark. I want to pay tribute to the printer, the photographers, the layout men, the fiction writers and the papermakers that produced the paper. It is a magnificent production. Look at it, beautiful!

AN HON. MEMBER: Creates jobs.

MR. STRACHAN: Creates jobs. You bet you it does. It creates jobs — and it costs money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five jobs, right there.

MR. STRACHAN: And the people will pay tribute to this Budget through increased taxes. I can't pay tribute to much of its content, although I will, as I go through my remarks, pay tribute to some of it.

I want, first of all, to apologize to the Minister of Agriculture. It was obvious, from his remarks when he followed me in the last Debate, that he had misunderstood what I said when I made a remark about communism. I was only referring to the headlines, where it said, "Mr. Shelford had said we're going to…" I was making no inferences or references to you of any kind, with regard to that; therefore, I am apologizing. There was no intention on my part of leaving that impression.

During the last week or so, one of the lady Ministers, I'm not sure which, one of the lady Ministers, launched a vicious attack on me about something I had said about somebody. I can't remember what it was but I apologize for that, too.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs wound up the Throne Debate. You know, Mr. Speaker, he's always wound up, that's why he makes so many Mickey Mouse speeches. Mr. Speaker, once again, that Minister attacked the municipalities. Last year, if you recollect, he attacked the teachers. On other occasions he has attacked the municipalities. I think this is deliberate. I think it's done deliberately to undermine the faith of the people on the local level in their elected representatives. I think it's a deliberate attempt to undermine the faith of the people on the local level in their representatives. When we think of what has been happening in this House, the remarks that have been made by a number of Ministers in recent years, then it becomes obvious — the attack after attack, based and centred on, and directed toward, local representatives in every field of human endeavour. The same Minister attacked the teachers last year. The former Minister of Education attacked the teachers and attacked the school boards. We've heard the Minister of Health attacking the hospital boards. Yesterday, we heard the Minister of Health attacking the medical profession. We've heard attack after attack on the trade union movement. As a result of all these attacks, especially on the local representatives, we find that the people are beginning to lose faith in their local representatives and that system, with the result that many of the by-laws that are put to the people by the local representatives go down to defeat. This deliberate programme by that Cabinet to spread distrust and hate among the people about their leaders and their representatives on the local level, I think is designed to put the Government in the position where big brother is the one who always knows best and the one who will take you by the hand and see you safely through. I resent these continuous attacks on these local representatives because, without them, we haven't got the kind of local leadership that is a very necessary part of the fulfilment of any kind of progressive endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, still with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he was speaking the other day he was referring to the Member from Vancouver East, the Second Member from Vancouver East. He said to the Members on this side, "If you have any appreciation whatsoever for the parliamentary system, I ask you to persuade that Member of the Opposition to apologize to this House." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people, in the time I've been in this House, who have demonstrated that they have no appreciation for the parliamentary system are the people who sit right there on the Treasury benches. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, that ever in the history of this House have we had a collection of Cabinet

[ Page 354 ]

Ministers so liberally endowed with india-rubber consciences that can stretch to cover almost any situation. You want him to apologize for what? I'm going to refer to the news reports of what he said the other day. The Victoria Times, February 3.

He was talking about the sale of some land in the Okanagan. "Williams said about 25 acres ultimately became a site for a major shopping centre which is now under construction. This land was zoned for rural use only until August 14, 1969, when Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell, approved a request for rezoning of the land for commercial use, 'in spite of a busy election campaign.' He said, the Honourable Minister approved this rezoning…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STRACHAN: …after no discussion with Kelowna City and in spite of the fact there was no highway access, no water supply and no sewer system. The 25 acres were then sold by MacIntosh Centre Ltd. to Marathon Realty for a total of $870,000 or $35,000 an acre. The shopping centre development also had to get necessary access to the highway and, as late as October 23 last year, the city was being told by the Highways Department that no decision on provision of access had been made. The city had asked the Department if it weren't reasonable to assume that access would be granted because construction is already taking place. On the same day that the city was told by the Department that it wouldn't be reasonable to make that assumption, the Regional District was being told that highway access would be granted and, on that basis, the Regional District issued a building permit." That's what Williams said. He then reminded the Minister of Highways, in the House, that they had promised that in the future, the rip-off artists along B.C. highways there…he promised there would be public bidding for major sites along the highways. "Williams said land that sells for $35,000 an acre is assessed at $160 an acre, right next door." That's what the Member from Vancouver East said.

Following his statement, the persons who were involved in this particular land operation were interviewed. What did they say? They said the increase in price to $35,000 per acre was justified because they had assembled the land and the shopping centre's tenants, including Simpson-Sears, and Super-Valu had paid for various essential study. That may or may not be, that's a matter of opinion. They said the sale agreement to Marathon resulted in devaluation of the rest of the assembled land because they could not develop it in a similar manner. Now, I want you to keep that phrase in mind, "they devalued the land because they could not develop it in a similar manner" — the adjacent land. The 48 acres was just used for growing corn. "We acquired it to keep future development orderly over the next 15 years or so." Keep that figure in mind also. "The principals did not mention their development plan for the remainder of the assembled land, which includes plans for a hotel and office building complex. When first assembled, the landowners told Marathon it was zoned as rural. The land was rezoned commercial by Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell, on August 14. The sale to Marathon was announced September 2." So there is no conflict between the two stories so far.

The principals did not deal directly with the zoning change in the interview. The principals said the subject of accesses did not concern them, because they were granted to Marathon, in which they have no interest. The application for access was made, and they admitted this, while they were involved. The application for access was made while these principals were involved. So, basically, that story agrees with what the Member from Vancouver East said.

In the same story, it says, "Williams charged the shopping centre would probably get its water from the city of Kelowna which, in 1965, was forced by the Public Utilities Commission to supply water to a townhouse development outside the city instead of extending its boundaries, which would have meant a higher tax yield to Kelowna." There is no argument about that, so, there's no conflict there. Yet, between what the Member from Vancouver East said and what the principals involved said…So, let's go back a bit. Let's go back to the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, December 26, before the Member made his speech in the House. What do we find? A full-page story about the situation. The story starts off by saying: "Premier W.A.C. Bennett has been asked by the city council here to investigate highway accesses granted to a shopping centre development. In a letter to the Premier, as M.L.A. for the area, the council says the present accesses approved by the Highways Department could result in more fatalities on the main Okanagan Highway." This is the city council in a letter to the M.L.A. That's what the Member from Vancouver East said.

"Highway 97 runs alongside the Orchard Park Shopping Centre, now being built by Marathon Realty on 25 acres of land bought from a group which includes these principals. The centre is about three miles from downtown Kelowna. It is part of a larger proposed development which the principals, in association with other local people, plan a hotel land convention centre, six-storey office blocks and garden apartments. Only the first phase has gone ahead."

Kelowna council members and staff, in a series of interviews with the Sun…Now, this is not the Member from Vancouver East speaking, this is the Kelowna city council and their staff. What did they say? They said, "As well as highway accesses, they are concerned about water supply and sewage disposal at the site. Council has a policy of not supplying water outside city boundaries, unless forced to do so by the Public Utilities Commission, and has turned down one application by Marathon for service. There is no sewage disposal system in the area, which comes under the Central Okanagan Regional District. Kelowna Mayor, Hilbert Roth, said council officials tried to meet with the Highways Department on accesses before approval was given but were unable to do so or get any information. Then suddenly council was given a plan by the Regional District showing four approved accesses from the highway to the centre. Alderman Syd Hodge of Council Safety Committee said the city would never have approved the accesses granted by the Highways Department." That's what the Member from Vancouver East said. "He said he cannot understand how they could have been approved without more thought and without the co-operation of the city." This is an alderman of the city council.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Members across the way don't want to face up to the principles that are involved in this whole matter of the relationships between a city council and the various departments of highway. They don't want to face up to what's involved and what damage is being done to this Province by land speculation and a number of other items, which I will come to later. But that's their choice. They may not want to face up to it. That's their choice and they are

[ Page 355 ]

quite free to do so.

It said, "The city's request for information from the Highways Department and for consultation on the traffic plan and accesses for the centre have been an exercise in futility as far as the city is concerned." This is in the letter to the Premier, to their M.L.A. The letter added, "As the M.L.A. for the South Okanagan electoral district, which includes the city of Kelowna, we would appreciate your investigation of this matter and any assistance you can give to the city of Kelowna, in an attempt to ensure proper control of all accesses on Highway 97 for the protection and safety of the people of this community."

AN HON. MEMBER: Boy, what a conflict for him to have to worry about.

MR. STRACHAN: The story goes on, Mr. Speaker. It validates the statement made by the Member from Vancouver East as to what the property cost and for what it was sold. Later on it says…it interviews one of the principals…Now, this is an unusual thing. We have been discussing the accesses, how they were applied for, while the principals, mentioned by the Member from Vancouver East, were still involved. One of the principals in this story on December 26, said, the first he knew of a controversy over the accesses was a newspaper article. Later he got a copy of the plan. He said, "I wouldn't agree personally with the accesses as they are laid out. That's my own personal feeling."

Marathon's McLernon also believes that first announcement has worked against the company. He's talking now about the sewage disposal. "We went for our sanitary sewage disposal system and there was just refusal all the time. The refusal was made by Dr. D.A. Clarke, South Okanagan Medical Officer, who has built a strong reputation as a pollution fighter." Is that a crime in the Province of British Columbia to be a pollution fighter and build a reputation? I don't think so. However, Marathon's man said…and I think Marathon is a CPR subsidiary. Marathon's man said, "Dr. Clarke was very cold; he was really shocked that a $34 million development was going to pour its effluent into the ground." I remember the Premier giving a speech on what was needed in this Province — pure land, clean air, pure soil. "Kelowna director of operations, Lawrence, is another who is critical of the sewage scheme — a septic tank system designed to take up to 5,000 gallons of waste a day. He calls it a $1.98 system for a multimillion dollar development and contrasts it with the Crown Zellerbach box plant across the highway — which comes under city jurisdiction," the same as the Member from Vancouver East did. Insofar as the land is assessed at $160 an acre, in an original statement I quoted to you by the principals — they were talking about 15 years. In December, they said, "If the regional scheme comes in in two or three years it would be just right for MacIntosh. We are willing to wait for the region." So it's not a matter of land going to lie fallow for 15 years. "If the region comes in in two or three years it would be just right." So these are the indications that, within two or three years, it is hoped that the $160 an acre assessed land will be able to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, neither the Vancouver Sun, the city council of Kelowna, nor the Member from Vancouver East have said that anything illegal has taken place. They were all expressing concern about the way public business is run in the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I join them in that concern and so should every other citizen of this Province, because the public business of this Province being run in that way is a charade and something, which you, Mr. Minister, should be thoroughly ashamed of. The Vancouver Sun, the city council of Kelowna and the Member from Vancouver East were protesting the lack of consultation by those who make the decisions. When the Premier was told about the statements made by the Member for Vancouver East, he said, "Just say I laughed, just say I laughed."

The Vancouver Sun, the Kelowna city council and the Member from Vancouver East were expressing anger that the administration of the law in the Province of British Columbia is not even-handed and impartial. "Just say I laughed," he said, "just say I laughed." The Member from Vancouver East was pointing out that large profits on land speculation are deleterious to the future of this Province and I join him in that statement.

The city council, the Vancouver Sun and the Member from Vancouver East were saying that politicians and those close to them have a special responsibility in their financial dealings, a responsibility that goes far beyond the legality of the situation. It's not good enough to "Just say I laughed."

AN HON. MEMBER: We all laughed.

MR. STRACHAN: Perhaps you did. You are entitled to laugh. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I remember when I built my house, the house that I am living in. When I got my first tax notice, the roof was on and in construction we figure that is about one-third of the construction. It was a pretty reasonable tax notice and I paid it. A year later I was living in the house (interruption). You bet, it was union workers right through,100 per cent. I was living in the house and I got my assessment notice. The assessment notice was exactly the same as it had been the year before, despite the fact that the house now had windows in, walls up, doors in, cupboards, plumbing, heating, light, the whole works. The assessment was exactly the same. I wrote to the assessor. I said, "I would like you to come and reassess my house because I am now living in it and a great deal more work has been done since the last time you saw it." He wrote to me and he said, "Well, we will fix it up in next year's assessment." I calmly attacked him and I said, "That's not good enough. I want it fixed up this year." Mr. Speaker, I couldn't look my neighbours in the eye if I knew that I was getting an assessment lower than I should be, and me, the M.L.A. for the constituency.

You know, the Member from Vancouver Centre, when he was speaking the other night after the Member from Vancouver East, mentioned a great man by the name of…Bernard Baruch (interruption). Well, someone mentioned Bernard Baruch. Bernard Baruch was a great American, a great entrepreneur, a great promoter, who became very, very wealthy. He was a friend of presidents and he served his country well in its time of need during the Second World War — no question about that. He made a great deal of money. He tells the story, or, at least, he did tell the story when he was alive, of how after the war he thought he would write his autobiography. He wrote this autobiography and, after he had written it, he reread it and he realized that, while he had never done anything illegal in the accumulation of his vast wealth, he knew that the average member of the public would not look with favour on some of the procedures he had used in order to acquire that wealth. He was a little ashamed of it, himself. He admitted it, and that autobiography was never published. I think we have something to learn from that. When it comes to our own personal public situations, we have to look back on the things we have done.

[ Page 356 ]

Now, I mentioned land speculation as a hazard and as a danger to the Province of British Columbia. Here is the Social Welfare Report, which was given to us at the last Session. I'd like to refer you to page 37, at the bottom of the page, he was talking about…this is a report by the Regional Director of Vancouver Island Social Welfare…. He was talking about the situation in Port Alberni and the moving of population from upcoast and so on. He says, "Housing remains one of the most critical problems within the region. Home ownership is now out of reach of many wage earners, impossible for social allowance recipients. We require additional subsidized housing. Possible solutions include the reduction in interest rates on mortgages, and Provincial and municipal governments developing fully-serviced building lots for sale to the general public. The above suggestion would not only create more housing for all economic levels of society, but help create necessary employment. One other thing that stops the provision of the housing is the high cost of land, and the high cost of land in British Columbia is due to the unconscionable exploitation of the land by speculators." Here is the brief that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Welfare presented in Ottawa, and he talks about housing, how badly it's needed, the impact it could have on the whole economy in the provision of jobs. He talks about the inhibiting factors that prevent adequate housing in British Columbia. He listed them in the order of importance. First of all, he said, the availability and the cost of money. Secondly, the cost of land, as the second most inhibiting factor between us and adequate housing in British Columbia. Is it any wonder we get angry when we hear about land speculators driving up the price of land so that in Vancouver it now amounts to 18 to 20 per cent of the total cost of a single dwelling.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. STRACHAN: "More than that," the Member says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, sure, it is a third of the cost.

MR. STRACHAN: I want to pay tribute to the Minister from Prince George, who is not in his place. They knew the story up there in Prince George. One of the happiest moments of my life was being taken around that extended area of Prince George, where the Provincial Government, in co-operation with the city, had taken a piece of Crown land and brought it into the city, and sold it to the city, on condition that the land would be divided into lots by the city and the cost of the lot would contain every cost. You go through that subdivision, it made me proud, let me tell you, these lots were completely serviced, underground wiring, electric and telephone, natural gas laid in, water laid in, sewage laid in, storm drains laid in, blacktop sidewalks, even the cost of the sign on the corner of the street was included in the price of that lot. Do you know what they were sold for? Between $2,500 and $3,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: In what year?

MR. STRACHAN: That was just a couple of years ago. Three years ago. Any person could buy these lots from the city at that price. They had to build on them within 12 months and if they didn't build on them within 12 months, they had to be sold back to the city of Prince George at the same price they paid. No speculation — it was a great example to the rest of British Columbia (interruption). Yes, as a matter of fact, there was a trade unionist on the council. It was Ron Tweedie who took me around, and the pride was just shining out of his eyes and, by golly, I joined him in it. It was a great example to the rest of the Province; one, of what you can do with housing when you avoid the land speculators and, two, how you can bring housing to the people at a reasonable cost.

What is most upsetting, Mr. Speaker, is the knowledge that land is assessed at $160 per acre right next door to land that was sold for $35,000 per acre. I don't know how many of you have ever sat in a Court of Revision. I have and it is quite an experience. I was sitting as an observer. Now, this is how assessment works in the Province of British Columbia. You appeal for assessment and you haven't got a chance. Then, you go to the Assessment Appeal Board and you sit down and listen to the assessor. The assessor presents the case for the municipality and the assessor explains how he arrives at assessing a certain piece of property. He says, "This property over here, half a mile away, sold for so much; that property over there, half a mile away, sold for so much; that property over there, a quarter of a mile away, sold for so much; that property over there, a mile away, sold for so much; therefore, this property is worth so much." In this particular case, which I was sitting in on, I'll just read you the one paragraph regarding the land. This is from the Report of the Appeal Board. It was just last year. "The appellant is also appealing [he was appealing two lots] the land assessment which was, in fact, reduced from $795 to $790 in the process of applying the provisions of section 8a of the Assessment Equalization Act. The fact is that the appellant bought the lot next door in 1968, for $2,000, and he paid $1,250 for the lot on which his house is built in 1967. Having regard for the sales ratio, the Board cannot find that there is any overassessment, so far as the land is concerned. This part of the appeal is dismissed." The price at which land sells for, a quarter of a mile away, a half a mile away, determines the assessment that is placed on any particular parcel of land.

Now, what is this man thinking, today, when he picks up the newspaper and finds that there is land in the Province, that sold for $35,000, that's now paying $10,000 assessment on 6 acres; $5,000 assessment on 6½ acres; $6,000 assessment on 5 acres; sold for $35,000 an acre, and right next door to it, land is assessed at $160 an acre. Where is the equity before the law? Where is the reason? What do I say to that man when I go back to my constituency? How do I explain that? Do I tell him that the Assessment Equalization Act works only in some constituencies and for some people? That's what I'm protesting. That's what the Member from Vancouver East protested. Believe you me, there will be more protests from all over the Province because this can't go on.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, when the Member from Vancouver East first came to this House, he enunciated a principle. That principle was, that the people, the Government, should get part of the benefits when they confer privileges on certain landowners which provide an added value to the land they own. If the Government action adds value to land, the public is entitled to a share of that value. That was a principle the Member enunciated and it was a principle that the Premier accepted. Victoria Colonist, April 7, 1968. "Premier Bennett, during the debate on the final Session omnibus Bill said, 'The Government policy is to secure land in advance where there will be development.'" That's what he said. That was his promise. That was his pledge. "'The Government policy is to secure land in advance where there will be development.'

[ Page 357 ]

'This is a victory for the Opposition, a victory for the people of the Province,' said Robert Williams, NDP Vancouver East, adding he hoped the Government will look into methods that will contain continuing revenue from highway development." We now find it wasn't a victory for the Opposition, it wasn't a victory for the Province. We now find that the Premier broke his word, the Premier didn't fulfil his pledge, the Premier says, "Just say I laughed, just say I laughed." Well, I don't intend to laugh, Mr. Speaker, because I think that when situations of this kind develop, we must look to the principles involved and that's what I intend to do. That's what we, on this side of the House, intend to do, no matter how much the Government tries to muddy the water to direct attention away from the fact that there is difference in equity, there is difference in law, there is a difference in assessments and that the Premier broke his word.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the Budget. The good point first.

The so-called park development, I hope, will be carried out. I applaud it. The mention in the Budget Speech about the Lake Cowichan Road, I applaud. The increase in the home-owner grant is necessary. The fund for the narcotic and alcohol addiction work will help, providing that next year we don't find they cut out the direct grants for this purpose, which I wouldn't put beyond them. I was happy to see on page 23 of the Budget Speech, that the Federal Government had given us an extra payment of $28 million. I was happy to see, on the same page, that we have advanced $11 million of the monies on technical and vocational systems. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Province would learn a lesson from the Federal Government and pay monies that are due in advance of the time due. Every municipality, every hospital board, every school board in the Province of British Columbia has, time and time again, had to go to the bank and borrow money at the going rates of interest because this Government was behind in its payments to them. I suggest they learn a lesson from Ottawa and make the advance payment so that these local municipalities don't have to go to the banks and pay interest.

Page 23 mentions environmental control. You know, the Premier didn't laugh when he read that part of his Speech. But I did. "The Government of British Columbia is acting now to preserve the Province's healthful climate and abundance of unspoiled recreational area. Legislation enacted in 1956 established the Pollution Control Board and initiated the procedure of developing our resources in a manner least disruptive to our natural environment." Western Mine, Utah Mine, Cypress Bowl — that long litany of disaster. Then he says, "All motor-vehicles manufactured since January 1, 1971, and licensed in British Columbia are now required to meet the pollutant emission standards." Story in the Times, February 3, two days ago: "Compulsory pollution control devices in all new 1971 cars sold in B.C. are going untested in Provincial car-testing stations, Motor-vehicle Superintendent, Ray Hadfield, said today. There is still no adequate testing equipment to install in the testing stations, but there may be a breakthrough by summer." Hold your breath, my friends, there might be a breakthrough by summer. "Spot checks are being made to see if new cars have the devices intact, he said, and, obviously, smoky exhaust fumes may result in a car failing its examination. Outside of this there is no testing of the equipment, because there is simply no equipment to do the job, he said." Well, what are you bragging about it for in your Budget Speech? Window dressing — if you knew there was no equipment to do the job. It is misrepresentation, that's all it is (interruption). Just a minute, it's not finished yet. That's not the real reason.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Point of order. The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat has charged us with wilful misrepresentation. I ask him to unconditionally withdraw. Knowingly witnessing misrepresentation is the same thing. I ask him to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the honourable Member should withdraw. In the first place, he should not have been making the statement that he did on the Floor. I think the decorum of the House demands that the honourable Member should withdraw his statement.

MR. STRACHAN: I withdraw "from knowingly."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. STRACHAN: "Answering complaints by some people that such equipment does exist," Mr. Hadfield said, "the only accurate equipment requires a long expensive procedure. Economically, this is most impractical." So as long as this situation exists, that it's a long expensive procedure, then we are not going to have any testing equipment. Therefore, you have no right to be saying in your Budget Speech that there's an effective situation developing because, according to what the man in charge says, that is not the case.

Later on, in the same page, the Premier talks about the write-offs on pollution control equipment and, of course, you know this business of write-offs on pollution control equipment is giving all the companies an opportunity to include in that write-off, a lot of the normal equipment they would install anyway for safety and other purposes.

I notice that the estimates include another $7 million for the Libby Dam, which, in essence, is flooding forty miles into British Columbia. This is a further result of the bungling of the whole Columbia River Treaty. It is attached and part of the treaty, but another $7 million right out of taxes of the people of this Province so that we can pay to flood our own land, because of your bungling policies? Then, as the Member says, we can't look at the books.

I notice in the reports that revenue figures from natural resources are down from $214 million to $205 million — less and less to the Crown for more and more of our natural resources. You look at that graph on page 40 of the Budget Speech and it's interesting to notice what's been happening from these two graphs here. We find that in 1959-60, income and succession duties were 18 per cent of the total Provincial revenue. Now they are up to 26 per cent. In 1959-60, 14 per cent of our Provincial revenue came from the Federal Government. Now 19 per cent of our Provincial revenue comes from the Federal Government. Big, dirty, old Ottawa! In 1959, they were giving us 14 per cent of our total revenue and now they are paying us 19 per cent of our total revenue. Big, bad Ottawa. How terrible! We find that our natural resources 10 years ago were bringing us 14 per cent of our total revenue, now they are only bringing us 12 per cent of our total revenue. Only 12 per cent of our total revenue and I heard that Minister talking about the great increase in mineral production and the great increase in everything under the sun. Yet, it's producing a smaller and smaller section of the total Provincial resources. It's obvious that we've got the give-away artists, right over there. Perhaps, looking at other figures involved in the whole statement, Mr. Speaker, perhaps

[ Page 358 ]

it is also due to the fact that, in 1965, 8 per cent of our expenditures were being ploughed back into natural resources, but now only 6 per cent is allocated for that purpose (interruption). Well, now, I'm just taking the figures that you have here.

You know, Mr. Speaker…(interruption) I don't know what's the matter with these people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier used to brag about his ferries making a profit. Do you all remember the days when he used to come running in, "My friends, we made a profit. Look at that, look at that!" You look at the Public Accounts. You remember when the ferries were moved from the toll system into the Department of Highways and, at the time, I thought it was done simply to get the ferry employees firmly under the thumb of the Provincial Government as civil servants. But that was only part of it, because, when you examine the Public Accounts, you find why they were moved into the Highways Department. The Premier's projection at the time must have shown very clearly the cost position into which the ferry system was moving.

In 1967-68, revenue was $1,200,000, expenditure, $1,600,000; 1968-69, revenue was $21,700,000, expenditure, $22,400,000; 1969-70, revenue, $24,600,000, expenditure, $29,700,000; 1971-72, we are told that revenue will be at $26,500,000, expenditure, $29,800,000. You know, we gave the ferry authority, the toll authority, more than $100 million from taxes. I don't mind that at all because these ferries are put of the highway system. What is concerning me is that, despite all of the money we have spent on this part of the highway system, despite the fact that it's now costing us $7 million roughly per year, we're still unable to develop the transportation system adequate for the needs of coverage between the mainland and Vancouver Island. I just simply ask the Minister to let us know what his projections are showing, what his plans are, because I don't want to see the thing develop into a real chaotic situation. While I understand the reason for the spreading and the stretching, and the pulling, and the two-way stretch, and the cross stretch, and everything else, that goes on within the ferries, nevertheless, I think we are heading for some real problems there. I would simply ask them to let us know what the projections are showing and how they are going to go about solving this growing problem about communication between the mainland and the Island.

When the Premier talked about a modest readjustment in taxes, I said, "Just say I laughed." Because taxes are increased. A year and a half ago we had an election. There is an ad: "Premier Bennett pledges no increase in taxes." Misrepresentation? Has he kept that pledge that he gave to the voters in that election? Has he kept that pledge? "Premier Bennett pledges no increase in taxes." (Interruption.) What date was the paper? August 25, 1969. Actually, Mr. Speaker, there is no need for such an increase. Actually there is no need for any increases in taxes in British Columbia. When we look at the way the Premier screwed the lid down tight on expenditures in every area of Provincial endeavour, even though many of the services were desperately needed, it's obvious that there was no shortage of money. I admit that forest revenue was down last year, but retail sales were up last year, gasoline sales were up, mineral sales were up. Your Budget doesn't show it for this year, but there are some new sources of revenue promised by the Minister of Lands and Forests — unless it's only window dressing. The change to cubic scale for logging should bring additional revenues to the Crown. His promise there is to be no more company-to-company sales of timber leases because they have been using this procedure to avoid taxes, should mean more revenue to the Crown. His promise that a new committee set up last year was examining items charged as cost for stumpage purposes by the companies, should mean additional revenue to the Crown. The water charges were increased, that only means about three or four hundred thousand dollars.

There was absolutely no need for increases because your own books tell us that we can expect an increase in development for next year. Look at this page. Predictions for 1971 by the Minister for Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce… "What Business Firms Expect in 1971." Sales up 64 per cent, profits up 45 per cent, employment up 24 per cent, price of goods sold up 69 per cent. That picture there indicates that, with the other things I have mentioned, there was absolutely no need for a tax increase in British Columbia this year. With these figures you are showing a reduction in your expectation of corporation income tax. Down from $73 million to $69 million and, yet, here we are 45 per cent of them saying that they expect the profits to go up, with 37 per cent no change. Just in case you might be saying that the forest industry is in trouble and heard the Minister of Doom and Gloom over there, the Minister of Lands and Forests, when he spoke a couple of weeks ago, talked about a timber cutback. A moratorium! What does the Minister of Industrial Development say in his report? "The forest industries look for a recovery in 1971 from the overall adverse conditions which prevailed in 1970 and profits are expected to return to more normal levels." Now, don't you ever talk to each other over there? Now, to back up, the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Industry put it on his report and said, "Already there are signs that a turn around has occurred in housing starts." (Interruption.)

I'll get to money in a minute. Just you wait a minute, until we get to that one. The Minister of Doom and Gloom… across the line where we sell a very substantial amount of our timber, a man named Weyerhaeuser, who is not unrelated to the lumber industry, had this to say just the other day. He says, "The United States lumber industry is faced with a production capacity crisis. Coupled with a too rapid recovery in housing construction…it could lead to a sharp rise in prices." He said that they are actually going to be short of productive capacity. And, we are going to have a moratorium — as I say — the Minister of Doom and Gloom. That was only a by-the-way and a back up to my statement that there's absolutely no need for any increase in taxes and that your projections of corporation profit returns are absolutely wrong and misleading.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying we won't have problems, we will have problems which I will return to later. With your apparent programme there was no need for a tax increase and you broke your promise to the elector. I now hereby award the Premier the first medal for caution over and above the call of duty. Our Provincial guarantees are up to $2,431 million. B.C. Hydro is $1,760 million of that. Mr. Speaker, 30 cents of every dollar we pay in our light bill is interest on that $1,760 million of B.C. Hydro debt. Thirty cents of every dollar we pay in our light bill. Now, listen to these sermons from over here, about this horrible interest, this terrible debt thing, how it drags you down and destroys you. Well, if it applies in one place, surely it applies in the other.

Mr. Speaker, we know that for years most of the capital

[ Page 359 ]

funds available to this Government have been going into Hydro. I listened to the Member from Alberni the other day. He said this was great, he said it meant that Hydro didn't have to go into the marketplace during that period of high interest rates. He indicated that Hydro, then, must have been paying less than market interest rate to the pension funds from which the money was coming. That's what that indicates — the civil servants' pension fund, the teachers' pension, the municipal pension, the Canada pension fund. Now, he said how good it was how we didn't have to go into the marketplace with interest rates as high as they were. The only inference is that we are paying these pension funds less than the going interest rate. You are robbing the teachers, the municipal employees and the Government employees.

I had intended to refer to the article by Bob McConnell in the Province, the other day, regarding the parity situation. Now, that is just an example of how this Hydro-headed monster is no longer a servant of this Government of the people but is now the governor of everything that happens in this Province. Your mishandling of the affairs of this Province, especially in the financing of Hydro, has cost this Province dearly. It has kept the development of our Province continually off balance and that is the tragedy of your bungling. It has kept the development of this Province continually off balance. It has left our schools short of capital, it has left our municipalities short of capital, it has left our hospitals short of capital and it has left our social programme short of capital. That's what I mean when I say it has kept this Province continually off balance. Your every move has been twisted and warped to meet the bungled Hydro monster. That is why you have had to undermine and attack the municipalities, the hospital boards, the doctors, the school boards and any other group that raised its head in protest against your action or inaction in these fields of Provincial development. You had to destroy them in order to protect yourself in this unbalanced situation, with your committal to, and your bungling of, B.C. Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why the curtain of secrecy, too.

MR. STRACHAN: Let's go to your educational policy and there is money in there for education. You attack the school boards, you attack the teachers, you slap on a freeze, then you take it off and you say it wasn't a freeze. You attack the boards, you attack the teachers, so that referendums will be defeated. Then you change the law so more referendums are necessary. You get the public fed up with referendums so that they will vote them down and then you won't have to divert funds from Hydro to the school bond market. You squeeze every school board into the same mould, you regiment them, you take away their economy, you put them on a procrustean bed and you know what that is. A procrustean bed, I think it was Greek mythology, where everybody had to fit the same bed. If they were too long they chopped their feet off, if they were too short they stretched them.

I listened to this bunch over here talk about Ottawa and its special areas programme and how poor British Columbia has this terrible problem with people pouring in. You apply exactly the same regimented school formula to Vancouver Island that you apply to the rest of the Province, despite the fact that your own social welfare report of two years ago shows that the average school population increase in the Province of British Columbia was 3.3 per cent. On Vancouver Island, that year, it was 18 per cent. Your own report shows it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get those figures?

MR. STRACHAN: All right, you asked for the figures, my friend. I shall gladly find them for you. Here we are. "The school population of Vancouver Island" — I'll read it slowly so you can catch it. Do you want me to spell some words? If there are any words you can't understand, I'll spell them for you — "The school population of Vancouver Island increased by 18.5 per cent, while the school population for all of British Columbia increased by 3.3 per cent." (Interruption.) I am reporting from the Annual Report, Department of Social Welfare, 1969, and this is why I sympathize with the Premier when he talks about the number of people flowing into British Columbia and the fact that there are special situations developing. But I want the same kind of treatment for Vancouver Island. You can't fit it into that procrustean bed with that regimented autonomy — the undermining of the school boards and the teachers so that referendums get defeated. What happens? (Interruption.) I do understand the formula. I know it takes certain things into account, but so does the Federal formula take into account increased population. The more people you have on social welfare, the more they pay you — 50 per cent. What are you talking about? Any time there is a better, bigger-than-average…there are extra situations related.

Let's talk about what happens when we're in this position. I won't go through all of these news reports. "Slash Slightly in Malaspina Budget." "School Cuts This Year Means Savings Next Year." I won't refer to what happened inside the classrooms. "School Boards Start Big Class Cutting Jobs. The staff cuts will have to fall on the elementary schools, where the boards have deliberately kept the sizes of classrooms down in order to enable teachers to teach more effectively. This does not mean that any teachers are expected to lose their jobs, however. In any year, there are a number of resignations and it will likely mean that less of the teachers leaving the district will be replaced." Then it goes on to the hiring of less experienced teachers. How about…is the Member from Nanaimo still here? He's still here, good. Part of my constituency is in the Nanaimo school district and it was one of the areas that defeated a referendum — after the school boards had been attacked by the former Minister of Education and that Minister over there. Colonist, February 3, 1971. "Filthy Rooms, Teacher Lack, Follow Referendum Defeat." Now, I heard that Member the other night give a nice speech on the Budget Debate on one topic, a matter of drugs, and I agree with him 100 per cent. But Mr. Speaker, I would much rather see some of that cost he is talking about in crisis centres, police protection and all the rest, prevented by spending money before they get that way. I expected the Member from Nanaimo to talk about this report. Filthy school rooms, stinking offices, small children walking along busy and dangerous roads…By the way, Mr. Member, when are you going to get that bridge across the Nanaimo River at Cedar fixed? You know that bridge — they were building it during the last election. We had an NDP Member, then, and things were going great, the steel was going up. The minute they elected a Social Credit Member, work stopped on that bridge right away. However, it is a dangerous road. The Member knows there are dangerous roads around there. The whole thing is due to the cut down in the buses, part of this whole thing of defeated referendums. Now, I could go on at

[ Page 360 ]

great lengths about that but, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about these things, all we get is the Premier's favourite phrase, "Just say I laughed." The Minister says, "Right." Well, I think education is more important than the Minister seems…as I say I've got clippings here by the dozen about the impact of education. But I know that the Minister says, "Just say I laughed." That's all right, let him laugh, it's his shortcoming, it's his failure. It is also his Province. It is my Province, too, and I hate to see you make the mess of it that you are making.

Let's look at health services. The statement made by the Minister of Health after the last Session, when he refused to pay a percentage of increased costs, remember he said in Prince George…the Premier told us that these vacancies were only there because the people weren't needed. I mention the public health nurses. Last fall, speaking at Prince George, the Minister of Health said, "Staff shortages in health units throughout British Columbia will continue for the time being," says Health Minister Ralph Loffmark. "Just say I laughed," says the Premier. That's his favourite answer, any time he is faced with a problem, "Just say I laughed." Look at the nurses' newsletters. "No matter how you cut," a hospital director of nursing noted, "we've got less staff to do more work. The freeze on hiring of staff for Provincial public health units has also aggravated the public health situation." In the newsletter before that, the Registered Nurses' Association talked about "…the recent budgetary restraints have resulted in levels of nursing care that range from minimal to frankly unsafe in many hospitals and health agencies in the Province."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. STRACHAN: The registered nurses of British Columbia. Not Ray Haynes. The registered nurses — from minimal to frankly unsafe. "Just say I laughed."

I had intended to go at some length into the other kinds of inflation, the high costs healthwise because of inflation and because of poverty. Indexes and graphs have been prepared relating the increase in the cost of living to the alcoholism index, the crime index, the psycho-social index, the psychiatric index and the alcohol and tobacco index. All are reflections of our present health situation and our economy.

I have been through this taxation statistics book, which gives the breakdown of a number of people of various income levels in the Province of British Columbia. While it's true that many people do enjoy a pretty high standard of living, I find it rather shocking to discover the hundreds of thousands of people who have a very limited income. How do these people manage to survive and raise a family with incomes of that kind? Hundreds of thousands of them, earning less than five thousand, less than four thousand, less than three thousand, less than two thousand…now, admittedly, some of them may be wives working or something like that, but it's obvious many of them are heads of families trying to do a job. We have an unemployment situation in this Province that is nothing short of tragic. The latest figures just out today show that we have 788,000 employed in British Columbia and that the unemployment rate is up, with 82,000 unemployed in British Columbia as of January (interruption). Oh, don't give me "the seasonally adjusted up and down" nonsense. Argue…

AN HON. MEMBER: Those are people, not statistics. What's the matter with you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. STRACHAN: Look, Mr. Speaker, I don't care if it's 78,000, 79,000, 80,000, 50,000, 40,000 — there are too many people unemployed in British Columbia and, here we are, sitting and arguing about "that's not a loaded statistic", or "that's not a weighted statistic." It's just avoiding the issue.

You know, Mr. Speaker, with the result that many of our people are finishing up on social welfare, I know how much social welfare is costing us in the Province of British Columbia and, here, I want to say I appreciate the reduction from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. I would have enjoyed it better if they had taken it back down to the 10 per cent that it was before they put it up to the 20 per cent. I welcome a small rate to the municipalities. But a large part of the Budget is going for social welfare costs and you know in that last Social Credit Convention, there was a resolution put in by Prince George. The resolution says, "Whereas our Province is becoming a haven for all human misfits of the North American Continent for reasons of its climate and openhanded social assistance, and whereas this represents a huge injustice to the taxpayers who are paying for their keep, therefore, be it resolved that our Government take this type of person off welfare forthwith."

I would ask the Members to read the Social Welfare Report for 1968. I won't read it to you. Page 15 and you'll get an idea of the impact that social welfare has on people. I just ask you to read that one paragraph. Millionaire Peter Graham, the NPA candidate in Vancouver, when he was shown slides of slum dwellings at an east end election rally said, "I think the poor should work a little harder and get a little better place."

We think we're doing well in this Province, but you know we have neighbouring Provinces. We find, for instance, in B.C. in a certain category, a 57-year-old widow, in poor health, running a two-room house at $65.00 a month, gets $105; in Alberta, $143.00; Ontario, $121.00; in Manitoba, $121.00. A married couple with two children, one boy aged 10 years, one girl 13 years, living in a four-room house and paying rent of $100 per month, in B.C., $247; in Alberta, $293; Ontario, $280 Manitoba, $271. A recent publication by the B.C. Association of Social Workers points out that the rates of assistance are 56 per cent below the poverty line in the Province of British Columbia. "Just say I laughed." That's what the Premier would say.

Mr. Speaker, there was a letter in the Vancouver Sun, written by a man who attended the opening of this Legislature, with the unemployed. The letter was headed: "I am sick of being a poor man." He said, "I came to this demonstration because I am poor like my father before me was poor, and I am totally sick of being pushed to the back of the ruling classes' middle-class minds. See me, I am dirty! See me, I am lazy! Listen to me, I am uncouth! I do not like being poor, it is not easy doing without. On welfare they give you enough to keep your body together, sometimes, but there is much withering of souls."

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of unemployment in this Province and 40 per cent of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. The Budget Speech and the brief the Minister of Welfare presented to Ottawa, say many things about our present economic and unemployment conditions. It blames immigration. You know, I have a copy of the brief here and

[ Page 361 ]

there is the ad that the Federal Government was putting in that the Minister of Welfare was complaining about. Dirty, old Ottawa. Advertising in Britain, for people to come to Canada — "Terrible," he said, and he's giving the Federal, dirty, old, big Ottawa Government the devil because they are advertising for people to come to Canada at a time when we've got so many unemployed. But, then, we discover the other day, Mr. Speaker, that this little Government over here, who's back there complaining to Ottawa about everybody coming to B.C. in this brief, is advertising in every newspaper back east. And what are they saying? They are telling them what we are doing in British Columbia create more jobs in relieving unemployment," they say. Now, if that isn't an invitation…If you were out of work and in Toronto or Nova Scotia, what would you do? You'd come to B.C., right?

Now, what in the devil is the sense of us complaining to Ottawa for bringing people into Canada when we are spending public money to bring people into B.C. Then, complain about it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Madness, madness.

MR. STRACHAN: Where is your savvy? Where is your reason? Where is your thinking? That egotistical braggadocio that dominates your every move allows you to take public money and advertise in this way. It's a piece of nonsense.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's also misrepresentation.

MR. STRACHAN: I would say, if you were back in Ontario and you were unemployed, and you saw that ad, what would you do? You would do what I did in 1934. You'd catch the first freight with a pack on your back (interruption). You bet your life, I was poor once. That is why I have never forgotten where I came from and have no intentions of forgetting.

Mr. Speaker, five years ago the Premier made a Budget Speech, in 1965. I was going to read four paragraphs because it is beautiful prose. It really is magnificent prose, even better than this last one. But there is one sentence that says, "Our basic objectives are sustained in expanding development throughout British Columbia through employment of our increasing labour force and our bountiful natural resources, to achieve a higher standard of living for our people. To achieve these objectives, fiscal measures and indicative planning are employed by this administration." Indicative planning…and it goes on here to say what they have done, "…enables us to offset stringency from external forces." In other words, indicative planning puts this Province in a position that we are invulnerable. That's what it said. Indicative planning is planning toward an objective. Have we reached that objective? Twelve per cent unemployed after five years of indicative planning?

AN HON. MEMBER: God help us.

MR. STRACHAN: God help us, indeed, if they keep on indicative planning. Because they indicated, in that Speech five years ago, that they were planning for the future, therefore, they must take the responsibility for what's going on in this Province today.

What do I say to this girl from Cobble Hill; graduate from high school; can't get into BCIT because there is no room? She says, "After the hopes of school, the refrain becomes 'I'll do anything.' I just want a job." Eighteen years old. What do I say to her?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell her to write the Premier.

MR.STRACHAN: …that your indicative planning went wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just say the Premier laughed.

MR. STRACHAN: Then you say, "High interest rates. Big, bad Ottawa." You've been in power for 19 years and, instead of wasting your time back there in Ottawa, as you have done so often, you should get down to business and change the whole direction of this Province and get leadership in Canada. Big, bad Ottawa, high interest rates, ignoring completely the major forces that control, dominate and direct every single thing that happens in this country. Poor, little Ottawa! Let me tell you, every time the Federal Government of this country has tried to affect the economy through its fiscal policies, the chartered banks and major industry have defeated them — because it didn't suit their purpose. I told you, earlier, that three times since last May the Bank of Canada reduced the prime interest rates and the chartered banks reduced it only once. Only once, in that period. Now, who's to blame? Ottawa? Or the chartered banks, to whom we give such tremendous control and power over the whole financial lifeblood of this country? (Interruption.) You're darn right, you support that nonsense. Any time we talk about changing the direction and the control you say, "Oh, that's socialism." I have said, for years, that the Government must, in the future, participate more fully in the accumulation, direction and the control of capital. No question about it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier once said that he was a follower of Keynes in fiscal policy. But Keynes showed there were no automatic forces operating that would push an economy toward full employment. He showed it is possible for an economy to stay in a condition of underemployment, unless dramatic measures are taken to cause a reupsurge in activity. Keynes demonstrated that a fall in prices and interest rates would not necessarily lead to increased employment. He did not even believe that interest rates were the dominant factor. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, just about 40 years ago, we had pretty low interest rates. You could borrow money for about 3 per cent or 2½ per cent, without any trouble at all, providing you had enough collateral to cover twice as much as you were borrowing. But those were low interest rates.

We need a forum in a number of ways. I think, instead of talking about the Constitution, the Federal Premier should have been back in Ottawa determining what tax changes are required so that the business world of Canada can settle down and know exactly what's going to happen. I think that is one of the first things we should be doing instead of discussing the Constitution at this time.

Consumer spending is one of the dominant factors and that is why I get a little afraid of what's happening with regard to inflation. I was going to cover the whole matter of the monies available in Canada. You people, who are all the time saying, "We can't raise our own capital…" The record is very clear from the Watkins Report, that was tabled in the House, and Bill Fletcher's column the other day, that we are pouring billions of dollars across the line of Canadian capital into the United States. With the reorganization of the control of our economy, opening, cracking those doors that are

[ Page 362 ]

closed to the Canadian investor, then we'll dominate our own economy. Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, in the recent public opinion poll, 80 per cent of the people of Canada are now agreeing with Tommy Douglas that we should control our own economy right here in Canada. Eighty per cent of the people of Canada, finally, realize that Tommy Douglas wasn't anti-American, he was pro-Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to refer to the fact that we still face problems in this Province. The people of this Province, the workers of this Province, are faced with increased gasoline prices, increased cigarette prices — I don't mind that — increased telephone prices, increased assessments on their homes, increased university fees for their children, increased car insurance, increased diesel fuel for industry, increased automobile insurance, increased bus prices…your own report indicates that 69 per cent of the firms expect increased prices in the next year. The U.S. economy is away on another insane course of war, which affects the inflation in that country, which will spill over into this country. We are facing inflation just as bad in the next 12 months to two years, as we have ever faced in the past.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do you expect the low-income people of this Province to sit supine and silent? Do you expect the workers of this Province, even though they have come through a tough year, to see the gains they made this year eaten away by the inadequacy of the rotten system that you support? Do you expect the old age pensioners to be content, faced with that sort of situation?

I suggest that we are moving into, probably, one of the most crucial periods of our time. Technological change will continue to provide jobs for the educated and the private sector, as the private sector moves toward more sophisticated and automated procedures. But we need change. I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to read the highlights of the Alberta Speech from the Throne. Let me tell you, it is a pretty enlightening document. Had we had such a document presented in this House as the Alberta Speech from the Throne… I'm going to read it. "…reorganization and structural innovation of Government services." How does that strike you? "A new Department of Environment, Energy Resources Conservation Act, an educational opportunity fund, industrial development incentives to provide financial incentive to areas not covered by the Federal requirements, new tax legislation to give all municipalities a fair share of benefits from the resource development, health and social development amalgamated to give an integrated approach to health services, the age of majority reduced to 18, a new department of cultural youth and development, an intergovernment affairs agency of permanent liaison between the Federal and Provincial Governments," instead of just shouting at Ottawa, "a new market assistance for agriculture, expanded efforts to improve economic and social conditions for rural residents, committee on urbanization and the future, directed to public transportation, roads and highways, a commission to study revenue and responsibilities of Provincial and municipal governments." — while you sit and laugh.

The times we are moving into, Mr. Speaker, will leave the lesser skiIled in a position where it is more difficult to get a job. They will get a job with more and more difficulty. This will create an ever-increasing pool of the poor and underprivileged, mostly young people. Forty per cent of the unemployed in this Province now are under 25 years of age. People who can't get in — the outsiders — and that's the end result of 19 years of Social Credit administration. Your nineteenth Budget — 40 per cent of the unemployed under 25 years of age — outsiders that can't get in.

This Budget fails to discriminate between desirable growth and maximum growth. It fails to weigh social costs and benefits. Your indicative planning has been a failure. You've broken your promises. After spending a painful week, mulling over this Budget, its proposals, its meaning, I realize it would have been a great Budget 45 years ago. Today, it is large in money — $1,300,000,000, but it is bankrupt in ideas. It harbours no change and it leaves too many festering sores in society. When I had finished thinking about the failures of this Budget to meet today's needs, I bethought myself of Bertrand Russell and one of the last things he wrote before he died — when he was talking about what he had lived for. Towards the end of that statement he says, "And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power, by which number holds sway above the flocks. A little of this, but not much I have achieved. Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the Heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people they hated, burdens to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot and, I, too, suffer." Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take my turn in debate and to speak for the constituency I represent, the great mid-valley area of Langley, particularly, today. I just got a little note, Mr. Speaker. In the gallery is one of my great admirers, a grandson, 5 years old, and he is with his big brother, who is a year older. Just opposite me here. I have asked my son and daughter-in-law to restrain their natural enthusiasm and also to not be embarrassed if they fall asleep, which they undoubtedly will.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the thorough job of criticism that is done by my friend from Cowichan-Malahat. He knows his business and it is his job to be critical. It is not his job to answer questions, the questions that he poses. He poses all of the questions that there are, the ones that are being continuously pondered by those people who have the responsibility of running this Province. Now, in all fairness, I am sure my friend would agree that some of the allusions and references, a particular phrase that was used, were really not appropriate to the particular subject that he referred them to. When the Premier read the Budget Speech and he talked about the gravity of the unemployment situation, he did not laugh. He did not laugh, he was a very grave and troubled man in that particular respect. You know that is true, Mr. Member, because you have known him for a long time.

Now, at the risk of establishing a precedent, I am going to say a few words about the Budget. The Premier, when he spoke, in order to dramatize the particular problem upon which we should focus our attention, said the four letter word and he spelled it out, J-O-B-S. Certainly this is the matter that we should concern ourselves with. I think it is the word that means security and happiness to all of us. It is the word, the lack of which creates the misery which my friend

[ Page 363 ]

was speaking about. In relation to that, a little later on, I am going to say some things that might have caused my dear old mother to disown me. She was a fifth-generation Canadian, who came from Ottawa incidentally.

First of all, in speaking about the Budget, Mr. Speaker, a lot of things have been said and there have been some facetious remarks. One wag said, "You could even save money on this Budget. All you have to do is quit smoking and buy a compact car." Now, I think that it could be reasonably said…(interruption). On this next remark I expect to get a lot of applause from Saanich, the great constituency of Saanich, because I think the smoker in this Budget is paying for his sins. But I think that the gasoline consumer, which includes most people here today, all of us here, is paying appropriately for value received, value received in the thousands and thousands of miles of wonderful highways that have been built in the last number of years. I won't say 19 years, that just stirs them up. Certainly, for the excellent ferries, the wonderful ferries, that my friend did seem to be criticizing when he talked about Island communication. I was disappointed in that. I think we have a wonderful ferry fleet. And the bridges and at least one tunnel that the people of the central valley use to get to the great city of Vancouver.

On the other hand, we've got to be quite realistic and responsible in talking about this single problem that I have referred to. I wish to be. There is one thing that I do appreciate very much, as one who supports this Government, and that is that the Premier and Minister of Finance has maintained the record of 19 years in office in which this Budget has been balanced. I applaud, I personally…we talk about financing, difficult times, and paying for it later. But, really I would not like to be associated with deficit financing, the difficulties that have been caused in Canada by that type of administration, or, perhaps contributing to the problems of today. I think that most of us here, certainly those of us on this side, do feel a higher degree of security to know that we are anticipating that the money will be in the till to pay for the bills that are incurred (interruption).

Well, that is another story, my friend. The individual home-owner gets modest help. The only thing I would say about that — the $10 extra on the home-owner grant — there was a time when I felt the home-owner grant had gone far enough. But, when you talk to people, who are so concerned about their municipal tax bill, you realize that they greatly appreciate and depend upon this share of the productive capacity and wealth of the Province that we help to generate. The big thing, of course, is the job proposition, and being serious about it and deadly serious, there are two avenues in which Government has jobs to provide. The first, of course, is the rapidly, healthfully growing Crown corporations and this is the number one source because they are the career jobs. These should be provided on the basis of merit I think, rewarded on the basis of productivity, like every other type of job. I would think that that's a responsibility of the Civil Service Commission. I would think that very few of us here would want to be involved in that sort of thing. We feel that we would have better administration and healthier structures, if it were left as it is. For that reason, I was rather surprised at the subject matter of the motion of nonconfidence that came into the House. I was not surprised at the motion of nonconfidence, I think that is the function… I believe the Minister of Recreation and Conservation expressed it very well — we anticipated this. I was surprised, really, that it was supported by the Liberal group, because there have been times in other parliaments when there has been an attempt to use the Crown corporation structures as a political football and bring it into the political arena. Let it be said that great credit should be given to prime ministers of the two old-line, major political parties that all such attempts were sternly resisted. The Auditor-General in Ottawa…(interruption). No, I was talking about Ottawa. Just listen. We have comptrollers. We don't have that particular title. The Auditor-General sought to do what you people sought to do, and without success. That was supported by the House. This was the right and responsible thing to do. I say this, that it is very, very wrong to take the chance that you muck up and destroy the very necessary structures of people, who are involved in a job of work, like every other citizen, because these are Crown corporations, to make political capital. I'll say more than that. You talk about revealing. I'll tell you what you reveal. If you ploughed all through this thing, what would you find? You might easily find that somebody had made a mistake. I would think that, perhaps there are people in Crown corporations, doing their jobs in the normal way who might make a little error in judgement. While you are mucking around in that way you will destroy those structures and I would, certainly never be a part of anything like that.

Now, there is another kind of job…(interruption).

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

MR. VOGEL: There is another kind of a job and, at a time like this, I appreciate the effort of some of our departments to create jobs in our forest industry, recreation and conservation. I think, particularly, the emphasis should be on usefully employing university students. They are having a tough time getting jobs to earn the money to go back to school. These things — that is good therapy and it is good economics. It can certainly be defended. I think that that sort of thing is, perhaps a stop gap because, perhaps, we could open up a greater number of opportunities when there are so many young people looking for employment and school money. Perhaps, we would not be so concerned if the employment role was full and a number of young people who require jobs could be taken up in industry in the normal way.

Mr. Speaker, I am bound to say that we should recognize our limitations and that the job-producing factors that really count are outside the jurisdiction of this House. Now, I am not going to start off on a tirade about the distribution of funds. We've talked about that a lot in this House and I'm not going to talk about it. I am going to talk about something that, to me, is much more significant and much more fundamental. I don't know whether it will be any more popular on this side of the House than it will be on that side of the House.

There is another good reason why we might talk about it. It does involve Ottawa. I'm sorry. It is the only reference I will make in an unkind way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, give them lots.

MR. VOGEL: No, it's the only personal reference. Mr. Speaker, we just, no matter how stark we think we have to be and how courageous we have to be to seek solutions, we simply cannot tolerate the cynical Trudeau attitude that the burden of controlling inflation can be placed upon the backs of 700,000, or perhaps a million unemployed Canadians.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House, have to

[ Page 364 ]

decide, maybe not today, but certainly in the next two, three, four or five years, if we really intend to put ourselves in a position to discharge our responsibilities to the people of British Columbia. I think, perhaps it will involve in the final decision all of western Canada and certainly Alberta.

If the answer is yes, we will take that responsibility, that of course is clear. I would say that it would be imperative in that case, that we would seek the controls that we now lack. I suggest that the alternative if we don't speak up, is a situation that is not only undesirable, but an increasingly number of restless young people will find it to be unacceptable.

In this Centennial Year, 1971, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the people of British Columbia for very plain and obvious reasons for which we cannot blame anybody at all, have never really been partners in Confederation. We have been a colonial appendage since joining in 1871. Now, it's not a moral question at all. Nobody did us wrong, it's simply a matter of arithmetic. I certainly don't blame, in this regard, Ontario or Quebec, because, on July 1, 1867, these two areas, which were the original Canada of the mainland, apart from the Maritimes, decided to bury the hatchet. They decided to get together and confederate as Quebec and Ontario. Finally, later on, we decided to come in. It wasn't an illogical thing at that time because we made what could be regarded as a reasonable deal. We said, "You embark upon the expensive and all the unknown, financial and physical perils of building a rail line and we will become a part of the Federation you are forming." But, when they divided control between them, it was simply a partnership on that basis. A small group of French-speaking people sat down across the table from a small group of people who were not English, but English-speaking, and I won't say…the development of western Canada was an entirely different thing…I will not say that neither of the founding Nations had anything to do with the building of western Canada, because you can't really say that. I would say that there is an interesting point here, an interesting historical point, I think. The English-speaking people, who took part in that initial agreement to combine two areas — upper and lower Canada — were actually 80 per cent American. They were people of old-country origin, who had lived south of what was the international border, and they had left in the exodus following 1776.

AN HON. MEMBER: Draft dodgers.

MR. VOGEL: No, they were United Empire Loyalists. This was a nucleus of these good people, who had come from many lands to the new land, and they spread across this country. So it wouldn't be proper to say that neither of the founding Nations really, had any part in forming the west. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is this business of founding rights. Although the Constitution reflects the situation that existed in 1867, it is unreasonable for us now, because the situation has changed as far as we are concerned, to anticipate that anything could be done in terms of numbers in representation. We could say this, though, when we talk about our responsibility, that the fact is that we in the west are a magnificent mixture of many people from many lands and many nations and that none of these nationals stand, in fact, fortunately for us, selfishly apart. We have Swedes, we have Italians, we have Danes, we have Chinese, and all these people present themselves, in the common way, as Canadians, and I would say particularly my friend from Richmond, and my friend from Columbia River, who both happen to be in the context of my remarks, of French descent.

In my opinion, it must follow logically that all these people who made western Canada are entitled to share equally in recognition and benefits. I would think that we should agree that we want no favourite Nation and we want no separate Nation. I mean by that, that it is a mistake to talk in terms of this country as English, because we are not English at all. We are Canadians and we are Canadians who come from many, many countries around the world.

We don't want two Nations in the west, Mr. Speaker, and I must say, with sorrow, that I have concluded that we will never have one united Nation in the Canadian Confederation. I am going to say this and I hope the Premier isn't personally offended. I know that, when we have these annual Premiers' Conferences, a great deal of preparation is done here — and I'm not speaking for the Government, good gracious, they might even disown me — but I'm going to say that these annual conferences are…what? I think my friend used the word. The English word is charade, the Americans say charade and the French say charade. Is that right? They are a ritual dance, they are a ritual dance and they will accomplish nothing. Why? Why should we expect it? Why should we expect it, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker. Quebec and Ontario quite properly, because they set it up, hold the pat hand. Have you ever sat down with a person who holds a pat hand, and they ask for a new deal? Have you ever seen that situation? (Interruption.) A pat hand. You know, not an open-ended straight, or anything like that. Just a pat hand.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we playing poker?

MR. VOGEL: No, we're not, not at all. There's no gamble involved. I am predicting exactly what the outcome will be. I say that we are going to be the victims of circumstances. As the people of western Canada insist that we, as their representatives, continue to go through this ritual dance, I know that those on our side who have the responsibility will do the best they can and they will put up the most sensible proposals. I think we should anticipate the obvious, natural law, that the people who initiated this arrangement, did so, in their own interest, and they will retain it, in their own interest. That would be perfectly all right if it had happened that this country had developed economically and sociologically, so that our interests coincided. That easily might have happened, but it didn't. The reason it didn't happen is this, that the economic policies, that they quite properly initiated for the areas they represented, were designed to protect the emerging secondary industry of Ontario. From their point of view, it was a good idea. From their point of view, it was a darn good idea. But what is our position? Our position is that we are a resource-based area, right straight through to the Great Lakes — resource-based, and that is quite a different picture.

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

MR. VOGEL: Nothing. It's wonderful, providing you have policies — that's what I'm going to talk about. It's the greatest thing in the world, Mr. Member (interruption).

Right. Exactly. This is what I'm going to tell you. It's worse than that, my friends. I think we all recognize, or we should, those people who give any study to the long-term economic probabilities involved in our tremendous good fortune in the fund of raw-material industries that we could

[ Page 365 ]

support, based upon our resources, our future lives. First of all, in the pattern that has been developing in the last 15 or 20 years, north and south… If you are in industry in British Columbia, you must know that the technology that we use comes from the south, it comes from Washington, it comes from Oregon and it comes from California. That's where your contacts are. When you pick up the phone, when you send a wire, when you want to see somebody, when you want to go and visit somebody to get some information, my friends, that's where you go. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the fact that there is less and less interchange between the east and the west. Now, this isn't a matter for invective. It's not a matter for making charges or anything of that kind. It's just a fact of life. It's just a fact of life. The fact is that unity is not forged with flags. You can change a flag. It's not forged with words in the Constitution, by the rights of man, or anything of the kind. It's forged by the mutuality of economic interests, that's what it's forged by (interruption). Just like you, my friend, you look after the people who hire you in your business. That is what you do. You phone them up, you send them Christmas cards, you're nice to them, you look after the people who hire you. That's your right, however outrageous they may be. That's only common sense. If there isn't any mutuality of interests, there is not going to be any long-term partnership. It happens that, economically and sociologically, we have a divided country and we have, in fact, two countries, in my view.

What would you do about it? We have grown apart. I hope I'm not belabouring the point. I'd like to say what I have in mind, Mr. Speaker. I think that western Canada should be a separate, loosely federated Canadian West. Completely autonomous in all the matters that are now under Federal jurisdiction. I think that proposition should be proposed and submitted to all courageous and intelligent western Canadians for their thoughtful consideration. I think that we would have to come to the conclusion that that is where the jobs are — in the economic structure that would be developed in that way. One of the key things that should be really carefully considered in this House, and I know that there are people over there who have some idea of what I am trying to say. I might not be saying it very well. What is the fundamental thing that is wrong with the entire developing, emerging picture, as far as our development of raw-material resources is concerned? The fundamental picture is that right from the very beginning to an increasing degree it has been a foreign sell-out. Certainly, it has been a foreign sell-out. Your only problem is that you don't know why.

The reason is there has never been the type, concurrently, in western Canada, the type of financial institutions that would support the increasing requirements to retain ownership of those resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh.

MR. VOGEL: Now, wait a minute. You don't know. You never looked. You can't see it from Cranbrook. You live in a valley (interruption). Now, listen, just a minute. This matter has received some very, very serious study in the neighbouring country in United States. The reason for that is that they have the privilege, in the various States, of chartering banks under State jurisdiction. As a result of that privilege, they have different legal structures and acts to permit this and control it and they vary widely. If you want to go down and take a look at it, they vary widely. I would like somebody, such as the First Member from Vancouver East, he would understand it. They vary widely (interruption). Yes, and in a manner in which they can expand. There are two fundamental types: there is the branch system which we've got, and there is the unit system. Now, one of the most interesting things I was able to come across is a study and I think it was made…I thought I had a note on it, I don't seem to have…It was a study that was made in the State of Florida and it said that they had looked at the State. It was made by a legislative subcommittee, interestingly enough (interruption). Right, they used this one. It was a legislative subcommittee — a different structure and that was their function. They spent a couple of years on it and it is the most interesting thing. They said that the unit system was superior; the branch system had three outstanding characteristics, invariably, by comparison. One was that it charged higher interest than average loan rates. Number two was that it paid lower average rates on both time and savings deposits. The third was that it made the smallest percentage of small business loans.

I want to say by way of reference, and if anybody is interested and they really want to know, they can go down and they can meet people and they can find out…California, a long time ago, I don't know whether they blundered into it, or if somebody were smart, they had the unit system. I want to give you one outstanding example of what happened and I think it inspired the Premier when he was talking about the Bank of British Columbia. You really can't do it under our laws but it was a nice try. They had the unit system 66 years ago. An Italian named P.A. Giannini founded a bank in an old, what had formerly been, a saloon. It was the Bank of Italy. It was in the San Francisco area. It was in a old saloon. I don't know whether he operated the saloon before that. If he did it was a nice switch. But, anyway, that was 66 years ago, Mr. Speaker. This became the Bank of America. The Bank of America is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, from that humble beginning, and it was simply because the system in which it was incorporated, or chartered as we say, permitted the formation of units that could successfully gather and then disperse large amounts of capital that were required in an expanding economy.

Mr. Speaker, if you go through Washington, if you go through Oregon, or if you go through California, you must come to the conclusion that they had the same type of origin as we had. They had the prospector with the donkey, they had the farmer with the hand plough and they had the people who came over the Oregon trail and so on. They developed multimillion dollar organizations of every kind, including farms. Some of them are astronomical. Just go down there and take a look. Let's not be foolish about this thing. Where do you find down in that country any foreign sell-out? They were able to buy it all and retain ownership of it all. Therefore, I say, that if you want to do the job, and we want to think about the job, some of us had better be telling the people that here is a problem and there is a solution.

Just a little facetious thing, here. I was chatting along these lines to a friend, who is not a Member of the Party, and he said, "Ali, but you couldn't have an army and you couldn't have a navy." I said, "Good, good, let us be one country taking the modern stance for peace on this continent." I would think that that could be done, simply because the alternative would be pretty futile anyway. You'd never be able to have any defense against intercontinentals and all that kind of business. So, what we should have are good police forces to look after the protection of our

[ Page 366 ]

property and our people to see that they can live a life of freedom, free from molestation. We should have on the water, simply the type of boats and ships that can police our shipping and protect our shipping lanes and, perhaps our fishing grounds.

There are another couple of points here, Mr. Speaker, that I want to briefly cover. We had a very interesting debate on the hazard of oil spills, which related to the new refinery that is going in on the American side. I think that we are for it there. I think the ships are coming our way. I think that the reason it would be extremely difficult to take any effective action in that regard, is because, if you look at the chart, the Strait of Juan de Fuca is formed on the south side by the U.S. mainland and on the north side by Vancouver Island. Therefore, these ships will ply waters that are, in effect, in U.S. territory. That's not all there is to it. We could, at the very least, have a voluntary separation and traffic control. It's not ideal. They do it in the English Channel and they do have failures. Some of them have been referred to in this House. I think that the short-term solution is traffic separation and control in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I think that, to some degree, it should be policed. I think that if we went into this kind of thing and widely circulated what is done and what is not done among marine people, and they are quite conscious of this kind of thing, that deep sea ships could be kept out of Active Pass. They don't belong there, and I'm going to say that I can't understand a mariner or a pilot who really knows his business and the character of shipping that uses those waters and the difficulty of going through a pass that has an S-turn, using that route at all. Therefore, that should be part of the international arrangement. And all pilots would be under compulsion to observe that dictum, in my opinion.

On this business of a pipe-line there is just one thing that I do want to suggest, for what it might be worth. I think, in this regard, we are the victims of very bad industrial planning. I know a Member over there spoke about the location of the refinery influencing our attitude. Perhaps to some extent he is right. There is another thing there, the refinery complex is in the wrong place and it is ridiculous industrial planning. If the refinery complex, instead of being in the Anacortes area, were on the mainland, south side of Puget Sound, what you could do and it would be reasonably economic I think, in any case it would be something you could look at, you could pipe-line the raw incoming oil from Neah Bay, which is right on Cape Flattery, right at the mouth of Neah Bay to the refinery complex, and there would be no oil coming through the Strait in ships. That, in my opinion, would be a long-term solution that could be thought about.

The only other thing I want to mention, I just want to say briefly, Mr. Speaker, a word about power. We have talked about this a lot and the Second Member for Vancouver Centre spoke about Hydro. I think we should continue, in spite of the negative attitudes that have been expressed in some quarters, to plan our anticipated needs well in advance. I think that, in that regard, there should be wide disclosure, public disclosure, after safeguards against speculation of the development intent where the next complex is going to be, where the next dam is going to be, where the next lake is going to be, so it can be widely considered and discussed, taking the safeguards as I say, by freezing an area or doing whatever you like from speculative encouragement. In our planning we should recognize that one, society cannot progress without power, and two, that Hydro is number one because it's clean. Although it is capital-sensitive, once you get the dam up it is cheap for all time and that water, and this most of all, water is valuable for water's sake. Water is going to be the most precious commodity on this continent, Mr. Speaker. We have it in abundance, but it is something that is going to be greatly sought after. The preservation and the containing of water, for water's sake, is going to be part of an extremely valuable resource.

Now, when we look at that too, another thing that obviously should be recognized is that nature should be enhanced and not destroyed, that one of the most valuable things we have in British Columbia is the beauty of our outdoors. So, I don't get upset when people talk about critically a hydro proposition here or there. If they can prove their case, if they've got a case, beauty is one of the priceless assets we have and I'm sure that we all recognize that.

So, we get down to the sources of power and I'm just going to say this. In my view, we should continue to develop Hydro on the basis that I suggest. We should be conscious of the cheap power, in terms of capital costs, that can be generated from fossil fuels, particularly our vast coal resources. We should realize that it's pretty filthy, in terms of environmental incursion, at this time, it's a smoke-prone sort of a process, but I have a lot of faith in technology. Technology will improve and there may come a time, and we shouldn't shut our eyes to that, when we can use coal for fossil generation. Atomic power I'm really not keen about. I admit I don't know an awful lot about it, but very quietly there leaks out in some of the technical magazines, the problems that have occurred at Pickering and so on.

I'll just wind up by saying that Vancouver Island is one of the places where we are sort of in the bite. I don't think there is any large Hydro on Vancouver Island. I understand that there is a possibility of developing Hydro — from engineering firms, I understand, because this is not my business — above Bute Inlet, which seems to measure out at about four times the current annual consumption on Vancouver Island. The transmission problem and so on would have to be looked at.

I think in closing, Mr. Speaker, that, just to be critical, and even though in periods of rising costs we do get into difficulties where so much money is involved — on the Peace, and the Columbia, and so on — we musn't lose sight of the fact that everything associated with water involves one of our most magnificent assets and, in terms of the power that is going to be required on this continent and in terms of water preservation and storage, it is one of the greatest hopes for our economic future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have a little bit of fun with the Leader of what's left of the Liberal Party in British Columbia, particularly with my good friend from North Vancouver–Capilano. But I have some remarks that I want to get said before the hour of adjournment and so I'll get into them.

Just over a week ago, on January 29, the Canadian Transport Commission handed down its decision with respect to the rationalization plan proposed by the CPR for its last remaining transcontinental passenger train, The Canadian. I respectfully suggest that the alternative to the CPR's plan for rationalization is really a plan for destruction. It is a plan for the destruction of cross-country passenger train service in Canada and proposes a cure that is almost guaranteed to kill the patient.

Briefly, under its rationalization plan, the CPR wanted to

[ Page 367 ]

reduce passenger service for nine months of the year to three times a week, it wanted to cut the train's length to about one-third and to increase coach fares by 10 per cent and all-inclusive fares by 25 per cent. In its decision of January 29, the Canadian Transport Commission noted that only one of the three parts of the CPR's rationalization plan required the commission's specific approval and that was the part that would have involved a reduction in service.

The Canadian Transport Commission said that its approval wasn't required to vary the train's length nor to change its fares or its charges for sleeping and dining car services. With respect to reduction in services, the Canadian Transport Commission to its credit, ordered the CPR to continue daily, year-round operation of The Canadian, although this order to continue daily service is a temporary one, in the sense that the commission wants to consider any reduction in frequency of service as a single problem in relation to the transcontinental service of the Canadian National as well as the CPR. However, the CTC also decided, and here I quote the decision's actual words: "That any plan of rationalization of The Canadian, or any other passenger train, should provide for the elimination of losses on sleeping cars and meal services, or, if that is not feasible, the elimination of such services within a reasonable period of time." While the commission felt that "…with ingenuity and initiative, the railways could provide adequate meal service without cost to the taxpayer or loss to themselves," it showed no such optimism about revenues from sleeping cars. In fact, the commission's decision stated that "….unless the out-of-pocket costs of operating sleeping cars can be recovered from the users by direct charges, we feel that consideration will have to be given to phasing out of sleeping car service."

That, Mr. Speaker, is the plan for destruction. There is the invitation to the CPR to eliminate both its dining and sleeping car services. Without meal service of any kind and, especially, without sleeping cars, The Canadian will no longer be a transcontinental train. It will be a milk run…a Budd car service.

Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to discuss the Federal Youth Hostel Programme, as it was operated last summer, and to make some constructive suggestions concerning it. Previous speakers in this House have already made brief references to press reports out of Ottawa that the Federal Government is putting together a $50 million youth programme for this coming summer, that would include provision for a fleet of 25 buses to carry young transients across the country without charge. Now, I suggest that these buses will, really, have only one destination. They will come to British Columbia full and then they'll deadhead back to the east, where they will fill up for the return trip back to this Province.

I'd like to tell this House a little bit about the Youth Hostel Programme, as it was set up by the Federal Government in 15 National defense facilities across Canada last summer. First of all, there was no prior discussion or consultation with municipal councils in the communities in which these hostels were to be located. One of these hostels was located in Revelstoke, in my constituency, and the first notice that the Mayor of Revelstoke had was a wire from the Secretary of State, Gerard Pelletier, saying that the armoury in that city was to be made available as a youth hostel. Now, 1,200 people in Revelstoke sent a wire to the Prime Minister saying that they didn't want the hostel, but it went ahead anyway. There were 72 beds set up in the armoury and use of it in this way contravened local health, zoning and fire by-laws. But it was in the administration of the hostel that the really unbelievable occurred. First of all, a Reverend Elmore Smalley, and you can put the word, Reverend, in quotation marks appeared on the scene. This is the infamous Elmore Smalley, one of the cofounders of Cool-Aid in Vancouver, who claims to be a minister of something called the Twenty-fifth Church Lord Saviour Divine. But, anyway, Smalley…(interruption).

That's right. He got his ordination by postal delivery. He appeared before the city council on July 20 and was unable to produce a letter of introduction, or any credentials, giving him Government authority to operate the armoury as a hostel. And, get this, even though he was unable to produce this letter of authorization, he was the sole signing authority on a bank account, which, I am reliably informed, contained $11,000 of public money. That is, $11,000 of taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, for which this man with a record of two convictions for false pretenses, two convictions for fraud, one conviction for theft over $50, two convictions for assault and one conviction for causing a disturbance, was the sole signing authority. This haphazard approach to public funds of hard-earned taxpayers' money was apparently followed throughout the programme. Then, the really further unbelievable continued to occur.

In a letter to the local newspaper, when the hostel closed at the end of the season, Reverend Smalley, DD, Doctor of Divinity, thanked the citizens who contributed to the hostel and, then, tongue-in-cheek, thanked the council for its co-operation. He added, "Let us make it known that, when two of my staff were arrested for possession of marijuana, they were employed as workers in the hostel and even though they have not been found guilty, the Mayor has already judged them as such. As I hired these young people, no matter what they do, I feel it is my responsibility to stand behind my staff, no matter what happens. I feel strongly that these two young people will be found not guilty." As a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, the two young people referred to by Smalley are Robert John Gilson and Jo-Anne Catherine Gregoire. Gilson, who was second in command at the hostel, was fined $500, or, in default, three months in gaol, while a stay of proceedings was entered in the case of Miss Gregoire, who was also charged with possession of marijuana. As for Smalley, himself, a trial date is now being set for March 8 in Vancouver Drug Court. The charge was laid last December for possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking.

This type of situation is continuing today, in employment by, particularly, the Secretary of State's Department, because, here, in this morning's newspaper: "Advocate for Poor Hired by Ottawa." I'll quote just briefly from it: "Alex Bandy, 25, an outspoken advocate for the poor and unemployed in British Columbia, has been hired by the Federal Government to organize low-income groups outside the lower mainland. Bandy has a three-month post with the Citizenship Development Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State. His job is one of 18 posts under the Action Research and Stimulation of Employment Project, funded with $44,000 from the Citizenship Branch. He will be travelling to the Cariboo, the more northern areas, the Okanagan and Vancouver Island." This is the Alex Bandy, the fellow who at one time was known as Bonde. He was charged this past November by the Vancouver city police with possession of restricted weapons, specifically, two automatic pistols. He was convicted and sentenced just 15 days ago, on January 27, and was fined $300. This is the

[ Page 368 ]

Bandy, who, as the secretary of something called the Unemployed Citizens' Welfare Council, picketed the city of Vancouver Social Service Department on April 14, 1969. What's more, this is the very chap who accused the Prime Minister of Canada of being a killer. A Vancouver Sun photographer-reporting team visited in August 5, 1969, the games room in the Alexandra Neighbourhood House in Vancouver and there they found red and black signs being prepared for a visit to Vancouver by the Prime Minister a few days later. These signs read, "Trudeau is a killer." "Trudeau kisses ladies and takes from our babies. Power to the people." He was quoted in that Vancouver Sun story as saying, "The system is responsible. Trudeau is the system and Bennett is, also. So, they are both killers." This is the man who single-handedly tried to shoot down Vancouver's United Appeal last fall. He urged those thinking of contributing — he was on the Board of United Appeal — to spend their money elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I speak for the Member for Shuswap, the Member for North Okanagan, the Member for Cariboo, and the Federal MP's for the Okanagan, Revelstoke and Cariboo areas when I say that this is the type of people that we don't want in our areas. I say what is Pelletier up to and what is the Federal Government up to? Because, while the policy now appears to be hire bilingual people, or even unilingual if the language is French, here, this apparently has been expanded so that requirements for Federal employment must be that you must also have been convicted of statutory and criminal offences.

Incidentally, just back to the Revelstoke hostel — Smalley and Gilson didn't live at the hostel. They lived in an apartment, I am informed, renting for $160 a month, and 35 army personnel who were in the Revelstoke area on a special course, had to set up a tent camp. They couldn't even use their own armoury. The forest fire situation was bad in the Big Bend area, as the Minister of Lands and Forests can confirm and, when the forest ranger went to the hostel seeking volunteers for forest firefighting, he got only six volunteers from the 30 to 40 youth present there at the time. While Smalley leased a truck and made regular trips out along the trans-Canada highway, picking up young people and taking them to the hostel in Revelstoke, not all who stayed at the hostel were, by any means, destitute or without funds. In fact, some of the hostelers drove good cars, including sports cars and camper vans and one person even had a three-year-old Cadillac. The majority of them had money. There is also evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the establishment of this type of hostel increased the incidence of crime, including petty theft and shoplifting. One Revelstoke shopkeeper, in a two-month period last summer, caught 15 people, from the ages of 16 to 30, shoplifting. He describes them all as hippie types and all had some money on them, some with several hundred dollars in travelers cheques.

Now, out of the 15 who shoplifted…(interruption). I would like to engage in an exchange with the Leader of the Opposition, but I am fighting the clock here…one was from New York and was let go and one from California also got away, as did one from New Jersey. Now, of the 12 who were convicted, one was from Colorado, 2 were from Quebec, 2 from New Jersey, 2 from New York and 5 were from Ontario. All of the 15 were out of Province, with 8 from the United States, and 7 from the two central Provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

What is required on a Canada-wide basis, Mr. Speaker, and, therefore, the Federal Government must provide responsible leadership in this field, is a realistic approach to transient hostel facilities. That the subject is one that crosses Provincial boundaries is emphasized, Mr. Minister of Rehabilitation, through you, Mr. Speaker, only too well, in a report by the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver, whose figures for July of last year show that fully half of the nearly seven hundred transient teenagers assisted by that society in that month came from only two Provinces, Ontario and Quebec. Between April 1 and August 31, 1970, last year, the Children's Aid Society spent $18,772 on the shelter and boarding of transient youths under 18 and another $16,472 was spent on the cost of transporting transients back to their homes. All of this $35,000 was paid by the Provincial Government, meaning that the Provincial Government spent, with one agency alone, Mr. Speaker, close to 20 per cent as much as the Federal Government spent, or mis-spent, Canada-wide.

Mr. Speaker, one of the more popular bromides today, is one to the effect that the establishment doesn't know the kids and the kids don't know the establishment. This is one of those catch phrases that contains a certain amount of truth and is parrotted unthinkingly. But it must always be kept in mind that, if a person is over 19 years of age, he is not a youth. He is an adult and must assume the responsibilities as well as the rights of an adult. Even young people, themselves, turn thumbs down on the type of institution the Secretary of State set up last year because, when the Jericho Hill temporary hostel was closed, more than three thousand UBC students attending one of the largest student rallies in the University's history, voted, by a two to one margin, to not provide space in their student union building to the 350 Jericho Hill transients.

Mr. Speaker, I call on the Federal Government to declare a moratorium on plans, such as it apparently has under way for these free buses, and to immediately enter into discussion with the Canadian Youth Hostels Association, a highly responsible organization, to see if capital funds to that association and, perhaps even some assistance towards its operation costs, wouldn't be a better method of meeting this problem in a much more responsible manner than was the case last summer. Chartered in 1938, as a nonprofit, educational, recreational and charitable association, the Canadian Youth Hostels Association is financed by voluntary contributions, membership fees and programme fees. Membership, which now stands at over 13,000, is open to anyone and there are six regional branches across Canada operating over 40 hostels. These hostels are not intended as cheap substitutes for hotels. They provide simple, inexpensive overnight accommodation in a cabin, farmhouse, community centre or lodge. Patrons of the Canadian Youth Hostel Association include well-known gentlemen such as Major-General the Honourable George Pearkes, Colonel the Honourable Frank Ross, Colonel the Honourable Clarence Wallace, the Honourable Chief Justice J.O. Wilson, Mr. B.M. Hoffmeister and Mr. C.N. Woodward.

Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that when the Federal Government formally announces its plans for this year's hostel programme, it will be asking the Provinces to share in the cost and to give the Programme their support. I would respectfully suggest to this Government that it not do so, unless absolutely convinced that the plan is to be far more responsibly organized and operated than was last summer's programme.

In no way should this Government support, with taxpayers' money, the type of hostels operated last year at Revelstoke and at the Beatty Street Armoury in Vancouver.

[ Page 369 ]

In the previous debate, Mr. Speaker, I made mention of some of the especially noteworthy events that took place in the Revelstoke-Slocan constituency last year and also repeated some of my recommendations and views with respect to road work in the riding. Just briefly this afternoon I would like to again bring to the attention of the Minister of Highways in this Chamber, as I have done in continuous representation, we have one especially bad piece of road on Highway 6, directly north of Slocan city and I hope that the Minister and his department keep the Slocan bluffs fully in mind when giving consideration to road projects in the constituency. Also on Highway 23, north of Nakusp, which I dealt with in the last debate, there is, of course, a need for a bridge at Halfway River and I hope that we might see a continuation of the day-labour programme on the section of road presently under reconstruction between Nakusp and Halfway River. A new bridge at Rosebery is necessary and I look forward to a good programme on the road between Kaslo and New Denver this year. We've had problems, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, with Highway 6, south of Nakusp, specifically between east Arrow Park and Burton and I would suggest your consideration of a seal-coating programme for that piece of road. I'm informed by the experts that this would extend the life of the road something like ten years and I would hope that you might carry that out. I would also like to re-emphasize, once again, the need for a contract on Highway 23, north of Nakusp, between Halfway River and Galena Bay, and my very strong opinion that an eastern access is very necessary for Revelstoke and should receive the early consideration of this Government.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I've had the opportunity of speaking in this Chamber since the Member for Kootenay has had two opportunities. I might say that he entertained us because, any similarity between the facts when the Member spoke about coal development in the southeastern section of this Province, the CPR and the application of the Kootenay and Elk Railway, which is presently before the Canadian Transport Commission's railway committee, and similarity between the facts and that Member's version of what is factual is simply accidental.

Now, let's just briefly recall some of the background development to the development of metallurgical coal reserves in the east Kootenays. First of all, there was the Roberts Bank proposal. We know the position of the Liberal rump group in this Chamber contained in the Journals of the House, where they voted against the Roberts Bank, and "Perrault Scorns New Port Proposal." The Liberals might have been opposed to it but I would gather that, while the NDP voted for it, they were also opposed to it, that they were on both sides of the fence at once. Because…(interruption). I don't know. A news clipping out of the Times, where it quotes Ernie Hall, the NDP Member for Surrey. He said his "…Party approves the bill but deplored the incredible series of statements exchanged by Provincial, Federal and CPR officials." Then, he added, "Although the NDP supports the bill, it reserves the right to say, 'Shame on both your Houses.'" So, they believed that they would do what was wrong so that they could, hopefully, later prove that they were right. Then, of course, Ottawa completely changed its opinion. There was a change in face. Mr. Pickersgill went out and Mr. Hellyer came in and, then, by golly, the Liberals were not only for Roberts Bank, but it was a Federal responsibility and they were going to build it all of a sudden.

What about the application of the Kootenay and Elk? The Crowsnest Industries had tried to explain the tremendous Japanese market to the CPR in 1965, when CNI was in discussion and negotiations with the Japanese for markets and that, if improvements could be made in cost, including water transport as well as rail, then there was a big market there. The CPR rate, at that time, was $5.13 a ton and this was increased in October, 1965, while critical negotiations were going on, to $5.28 a ton. With no indication that the CPR would lower its rates, then, and only then, Mr. Speaker, did the Crowsnest Industries initiate a feasibility study on a railway to the border, which would join the, then Great Northern, now the Burlington Northern, and so, the Kootenay and Elk was incorporated and negotiated a $3.50 rate. Subsequently, Kaiser Resources purchased part of Crowsnest coal lands and the CPR matched the rate, only however, of course, for the first 3 million. Then it went up to $3.55 for the next 2 million. When the CPR went back to try to negotiate yet a further 3 million to 8 million tons, the rates went suddenly up something between $4 and $4.40, which it had already signed with Fording Coal, one of the company family compact members.

Now, I'd like to just briefly make mention of the CPR's plans, through its subsidiary, to build a slurry pipe-line, because our friends opposite in the NDP like to make out that they are the only ones who are interested or concerned about the railroaders. But the plan of the CPR is to move vast quantities of east Kootenay coal by pipe-line and to use coal trains only sparingly. The headline in the newspaper, reporting on the CPR's Annual Report, says, "Coal Pipe-lines West, Unit Trains to the East." Mr. Crump, himself, in a magazine article in Canada-Japan, 1970, magazine, said the construction of that $200,000 project could get under way as early as 1972. So, if there is any doubt about the CPR's intent to move as much coal as possible by pipe-line rather than by train, then, I remind Members of the comment of Cascade's vice president, Mr. Joplin, in coast newspapers, that the pipe-fine would pick up the base load from the east Kootenays with the CPR's trains being used only to handle the fluctuation.

What about the NDP position on the development of this huge coal reserve which, as the Minister of Commercial Transport and Mines pointed out today, is such that a Federal Government survey shows that if we were to use 50 million tons a year that resource would last for over a thousand years? What did Mr. Berger say, a man who no longer is with us and was once Leader of the NDP for a very short while in this Province? If he were Premier, said Berger, "I would stop the Kaiser coal deal." He said he would cancel the multimillion dollar Kaiser coal deal in southeastern B.C. if he were Premier.

Now, what about the present Leader of the Opposition? I thought that, maybe, the fellow who used to be one, two, three leaders ago, was maybe looking for it again today, and thought he was, when he spoke for something like an hour and forty-five minutes or something, revelling and thinking he's back as Leader…. But what does the present Leader of the NDP say? "The Kaiser coal deal is the biggest give-away since Manhattan Island," says NDP Leader (applause). They applaud, they applaud. Let the record show they applaud. "Barrett said Kaiser intends to do something which has baffled their chemists for years, and that is turn coal into gold." This outburst of Mr. Barrett's caused Bill Fletcher, a business page writer with the Vancouver Sun, and I gather he is a respected writer, because the former Leader of the NDP Party, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat, was quoting Mr.

[ Page 370 ]

Fletcher here this afternoon, to say that "Oh, but British Columbia would be sitting pretty today if we had had someone with the foresight of NDP leadership candidate, Dave Barrett, in the Legislature back in 1933. He says he would have led a campaign to take over the Crowsnest Pass Coal Co.'s Coal Creek Mines, when they were shut down in April, 1933." It goes on, "Now that the ground-work has been done, Barrett would move in and apparently expropriate Kaiser Coal." But was Kaiser project the plum the now Leader of the Opposition thought it was? Bill Fletcher had yet another column, just a few days ago, in last Thursday's Vancouver Sun. He reported that they had lost $4.7 million last year and $303,000 the year before — over $5 million in two years! Besides the fact that it lost some $5 million, it has experienced some financial difficulties as it has to spend another $30 million over there. So, I don't know where the Opposition Leader would have gotten the money to develop these coal resources, since he is opposed to the Provincial guarantee being attached to borrowings of Crown agencies, such as B.C. Hydro, when instead of having a $69 million profit, which he talked about, he'd have a loss of $5 million and he'd have another $30 million to find, and all the while he'd probably be busy trying to renegotiate a new price with the Japanese for the coal and, apparently, be paying the CPR any price it asked for hauling it.

Now the Member for Kootenay read a newspaper clipping in this House in his speech before last, published from outside of my riding, so I'd like to read him one from a paper printed in his riding. This is from the Cranbrook Courier. "Cranbrook city council has withdrawn its support of the CPR in opposing the application of the Kootenay and Elk Railway. Council originally wrote a letter to the Board of Transport proposing the Kootenay and Elk application. At last night's council meeting, Alderman Art Draper proposed that the CPR support be withdrawn. He said he had checked people in the lumber industry of the area and they strongly felt that the CPR needed competition. The CPR is not giving local lumber operators a fair deal he contended. He said it cost $1.37 per cwt. to ship lumber from Vancouver Island to Montreal, and $1.49 from Cranbrook to Montreal. He said the first coal contract…" and I've gone into that. "'It would appear,' he says, 'we were a little bit shortsighted by our first move. Council agreed to withdraw the support."

So, let me say then, that apparently the Member is not the Member for Kootenay but, apparently at least in the Cranbrook city council's view, would be the Member against Kootenay.

What do we further see? China, with respect to transportation costs which must come down to market our coal…a headline in the paper within recent days, "China May Undercut Canada Coal Sales. Western Canadian Coal Mines Soon be Facing Two More Big Challenges for Contract: Mainland China…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CAMPBELL: …was on the verge of resuming coal shipments to Japanese steam mills and Tokyo's tycoons are considering investing up to one and a half billion dollars to develop a huge virgin coal field in Siberia." And it goes on, "Surveys suggest Chinese reserves may be about 400 billion tons of coal, about three times that of Canada." The record clearly shows that the NDP oppose any progressive steps taken to encourage the development of this resource. Their policy on this subject is not pro-Canadian, apparently it's pro-Chinese and pro-Soviet…(laughter) because Australian coal is already a $1.23 a ton less than ours. The Soviet Union is selling coal at $1.06 less a ton than ours.

Here are some of the facts about the East Kootenays where the NDP oppose the Kaiser development. What about the district of Sparwood for the period from September 1, 1969, to August 31, 1970? Building permits for the district of Sparwood totalled $6,880,000 for one year. The NDP are against that. In Fernie, for just the first nine months of last year, building permits totalled $1,800,000 and their position is against that. Kaiser Resources have already spent, as the Minister of Commercial Transport pointed out, close to over $100 million, and the NDP is against this and the people of Kootenay constituency will gain.

The B.C. Telephone Company estimates that there will be a 300 per cent increase in population in the Fernie-Sparwood area by the end of 1975, with the population increasing by over 12,000 in that time, from 6,500 to nearly 19,000, and the position taken by the NDP puts them against that. Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Member for Kootenay to debate his Party's record on these important issues with me at Fernie.

On the motion of Mr. H.J. Bruch, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

The Honourable F.X. Richter (Minister of Commercial Transport) presented the Annual Report of the Department of Commercial Transport for the year ended December 31, 1970. (In manuscript form.)

The Honourable W.A.C. Bennett (Premier) presented the Annual Return for the calendar year 1970 submitted in accordance with section 53 of the Administration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960.

The House proceeded to the Order "Motions and Adjourned Debates on Motions."

By leave of the House, the Honourable R.G. Williston moved, seconded by the Honourable W.K. Kiernan —

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries to receive and study the following reports from the Forest Service:

(1) The contractor clause in tree-farm licences. This results from a specific recommendation and request made to the Service by the Committee last year:

(2) Log and debris salvage in the Strait of Georgia. With regard to the second report, specific recommendations should be made concerning debris control in support of the general requirement for the control of such types of pollution.

In the consideration of these matters the Committee shall afford ample opportunity for all interested companies, groups, and individuals to make representations on the matters under study.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I've spoken to one of the honourable Members concerning the matter of debris and boat damage and so on. I have given him assurance, and I do so here orally, that that matter is completely within the compass of the jurisdiction of the committee under the wording that's placed here at the moment.

[ Page 371 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable Minister for that assurance because we don't know, in this motion, just exactly what is in the reports. I hope the Committee becomes fully aware… (interruption).

I'm not on that Committee, so, I can't speak in that Committee. I can only speak now. All I want to be assured, you see, is that when we deal with the question of log debris in the waters and lakes and rivers that the people who cause the debris, particularly those who pull the logs, who have the mills that cut up the wood that goes into the rivers and down to the sea to wreck the boats and the motors and everything else of the small boat-owners, that this Committee will have within its terms of references, consideration of ways that these people that do this will be discouraged from doing it by some means or other. I suggested ways in my amendment but I don't think the amendment is necessary after the assurance of the Minister. I just hope the Committee will give thought to it. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this evening to take my place in this Budget Debate. As we look at the Budget of this year and cast our eyes a little further on to see the problems that we are facing, we can be most grateful that the policies of this Government have permitted us to bring forth this type of a Budget at this time. Certainly, there are for the first time in nine years some tax adjustments to the individual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjustments (laughter).

MR. BRUCH: Well, Mr. Speaker…

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjustment is either up or down.

MR. BRUCH: …if we look at the spending in the Budget, when we consider that in many other jurisdictions, they have for many years insisted that they collected sufficient from gasoline and motor-vehicle taxes and licenses for their highway and road programmes and in this Province we have consistently exceeded the amounts collected, in many instances by 50 per cent. When we consider, for example, Mr. Speaker, that under the great Socialist administration in Britain, they use the gasoline tax as their general revenue source, because their policy was that only 54 per cent of what they collected went back into roads and highways… So, when we see that our spendings on highways are going to exceed the gasoline tax and when we consider that it is the motor-vehicles that use the highways most, that damage the highways most, that are going to pay the greatest share of the increase, and also that those people who want to travel within British Columbia, the tourists as they come along will also share in the cost of the provision of those road facilities…

Mr. Speaker, if we take a look on a percentage basis, and the Members opposite so often like to use percentages when they're convenient, actually the gasoline tax now is still not higher, percentage-wise of the cost of gasoline, than it was five years ago.

The cigarette and tobacco tax I think has become a necessity because of some of the extra costs upon society by abuse in some of our habits.

The one increase, Mr. Speaker, that I have some hesitation about is the hotel-motel room tax increase. Now, I realize, Mr. Speaker, that there is an argument in the philosophy that when British Columbians go elsewhere they have been for many years paying this room tax. However, one of the attractions to British Columbia has been that we have treated and approached the tourists somewhat differently than other jurisdictions and I have some reservations about that facet.

Now as we look at the increases of the Budget…(interruption). You know, Mr. Speaker, the Members opposite have been continually trying to suggest that the tax increases are going to hit the little man.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BRUCH: Well, it's not going to hit the little man who drives a small compact car in the same measure as the fellow who drives a large one. It's not going to hit the little man who smokes on a very limited basis and, Mr. Speaker, it's not going to be the little man who's going to pay the hotel and motel room tax. In fact, it's these awful industries and business men, who the Opposition are always screaming against, that are going to bear the brunt. Now, Mr. Speaker, certainly the increases in the benefits in the tax adjustments are impressive in this year, when we see retrenchment all around us. Certainly, the increase of the share that the Government will bear on social assistance is going to be of benefit to all of our citizens. The perpetual fund on education, prevention and rehabilitation for those afflicted with drug abuse, alcohol and cigarette habits, is not only going to benefit in regard to the work that will be done by the fund but that money will be available for some of our school and hospital construction as well.

When we look at the $20 million added to the Provincial Home Acquisition Grant Fund, Mr. Speaker, that again is going to increase jobs because I'm certain that…

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member has been speaking about a number of bills that are on the Order Paper. I do wish he'd observe the rule of anticipation.

MR. BRUCH: That's right, Mr. Speaker. I have not gone into depth in any of these. I have not debated the aspects of it. I'm dealing with the Budget because, if we are not allowed to touch on these increases at all, Mr. Speaker, we couldn't debate the Budget at all.

Mr. Speaker, the $20 million that is going to be available for the home acquisition I'm convinced is going to generate about $60 million in the other funds that will be provided in order to have the home construction take place.

The park development, too, is going to be a particular boon to our young people from the universities, who will be

[ Page 372 ]

looking for jobs in the not-too-distant future.

The home-owner grant increase again is helping to keep pace with some of the increases in taxation that are necessary at local levels.

Then, the increase in education, the increase in medicare, the increase in hospital insurance, plus the increase in civil servants' salaries, I think is an indication of the sound fiscal base that this Province enjoys.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard some arguments across the Floor and we have particularly heard many inconsistencies. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Kootenay gave us another long dissertation on the evils of the doctors having a closed shop. But, if we said to that Member that if a doctor should be able to go to Cranbrook and take up a practice without any hindrance, then, should not a plumber, an electrician and a carpenter have the same right and authority? (Interruption.) He's not banished. Yes. He can't turn around, Mr. Speaker, unless the union allows him and accepts him. Unless the union turns around and puts him at the bottom of the list of the carpenters in the area, then and then only, can he, under the agreement, set up there.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we've also heard an awful lot from the opposite side…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BRUCH: …about the exploiters regarding land speculation. They abhor the philosophy of get all you can, regardless of the consequences. And yet, Mr. Speaker, is that not the same philosophy that some of our trade union officials are advocating, today? It's not what the economy can stand. It's not a matter of taking into consideration what is feasible, but they're advocating let's get all we can while we can get it.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the matters that has been batted about in this Debate has been concerning Hydro and hydro increases. I would like to suggest to the Government that, just as soon as possible, arrangements should be made and the transit function should be placed on a regional basis. I think that is where it rightfully should be and that is where the function should be administered from.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest problems that I think Hydro faces is that the municipalities concerned know where they want the routes, how much service they want, what facilities there should be and I think they should basically administer it within their area. I don't think that it's justifiable that we turn around and subsidize on an overall basis, not just the Provincial subsidy but also through electricity rates and gas rates in other areas that do not have Hydro transportation, that these people should not only have to pay for their own but also pay for the others.

Mr. Speaker, there's one matter that has been of considerable concern, not only to this Legislature but throughout the North American continent at this time. While we've heard some pretty glib statements about the use of soft drugs and particularly marijuana, the researchers are beginning to come up with some pretty concrete findings. For example, a recent report in the United States has the following to say: "On the question: can marijuana cause brain damage? Evidence is coming to light that marijuana may cause injury to the brain, in some cases, Dr. Sidney Cohen, former Director of Narcotic Studies at the National Institute of Mental Health, recently reported to the American Medical Association. Memory lapses, blackouts, not only become more frequent among marijuana users as time goes on, they also tend to last longer. Recent studies tend to show that students of all ages who pick up heavy pot habits, do worse in their classes and drop out of school more often than nonusers. The question was asked does the use of marijuana affect one's ability to drive a car? The answer — marijuana users are classed as dangerous drivers while under the influence of the weed, and they are shown to be more dangerous at night than in the daytime. Scientists say that this is because marijuana works very quickly in intensifying and prolonging the effect of glare on the eyes. The marijuana user is likely to be more quickly and completely blinded by oncoming headlights than the nonuser. The effects are likely to last longer with the marijuana user, too.

Tests in the U.S. reveal that drivers under the influence of marijuana react as erratically as do drunken drivers. Their reaction time is slow and their judgement is poor in performing complicated tasks, such for example as simultaneously flashing on the turn indicator, changing lanes and stopping at a traffic light. What about the long-term hereditary effect of marijuana? Investigators are only in the early stages of studying people who have used the weed for generations: Arabs in North Africa, Indians in the high Andes of South America. The results of such studies do contain some interesting findings. In North Africa, where smoking of hashish, a potent relative of marijuana, is common, large groups of.people appear to drop out of society altogether. These North African dropouts develop many of the physical and mental ailments that characterize the chronic alcoholic of a skid row in our modern cities."

Mr. Speaker, the reason that I've brought up this point is because we have a tremendous number of accidents, or supposed accidents, on our highways, in increasing numbers, that I believe are due to soft drug use. Yet, the individual who is convicted of alcoholism is banned off our roads. The individual who is an habitual pot smoker enjoys the privilege of continuing to erratically drive down our highways. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we tighten up our legislation and that the same penalties and the same action against the drug user be applied to him as to the man who hits the bottle a little too often.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard some mention of power and power development. To listen to the Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat, this afternoon, all our evils, again, are due to power development. I don't know what they would want to run an industrial complex on. They're beginning to sound as bad as the Liberals a few years ago with their candle-power policy.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Premier for the stand he took in regard to the nuclear reactor proposition for Vancouver Island because, about two years ago, there was a report in the United States and part of the extract on the article headed, "The Columbia — the Hottest Stream in the World," is as follows. "The great river of the west is now the hottest stream in the world because its waters are used to cool the reactors at the atomic plant at Hanford, Washington. A recently concluded six-year study of the lower Columbia River by the Oregon Board of Health states that more radioactivity is found in the stream than in any other known body of surface water." The article states that in 1966, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, after issuing its own report, citing the high level of radioactivity in the Columbia, asked that the pollution of the river by the Hanford Works be stopped or reduced by an Executive Administration Order. Most of us have read that this Order did come in the last couple of weeks, and despite

[ Page 373 ]

their dire shortage of electricity, they now see that even though it was subsidized electricity, even though the industry in Washington State and Oregon require the power, they have shut down their nuclear reactors and are turning to other sources.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did they shut them down?

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of reasons and this is one not to be overlooked. The pressure had been there, it was creating a serious pollution problem, and I would think that these people who are so concerned about our environment would welcome this type of information (interruption). Well, we often heard, even in this House, that this was a cheap source of power — why were we developing our rivers when atomic energy would be the thing of the future? Yet, it was only when it was utilized for other purposes and subsidized that it did provide cheap power. Today, in the United States, their power rates are rising because they now are beginning to have to pay the type of interest rates, without subsidization, that our power generation has had to bear for some time.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased when the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture gave a report on the Agricultural Aid Fund in this Legislature. I recall a statement that, while one part of humanity is struggling with the effects of overeating, more than half their fellow human beings suffer from undernourishment. At present 400 million human beings in the Western industrial nations consume as much protein as 1,300,000,000 of their fellow men in Asia. Famine is a disgrace to humanity, an offense to the dignity of all men, not merely the victims of it. I hope that, Mr. Speaker, we can expand the programme because, certainly we here in British Columbia, as in all Canada, have been particularly blessed with abundance and I think it is a reflection on our country and on the greed of some of our people that they would rather be concerned with absolute orderly marketing than producing this food for the people who do not have the nourishment and the dignity that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, the other day in one of the legislative committees we were treated to quite a little stage show (interruption).

I will in just one moment. If the Members were that concerned and if they did not know the rules of the House, then it might be excusable (interruption). Certainly I'm talking about you. The Honourable Member from Vancouver East knows full well that if he conducted himself in that manner in a Court of Law, he wouldn't last very long in that type of an assembly (applause).

Let's look at the matter that they wished to discuss, because this is the place that we should discuss that type of a matter — right here in these debates. The motion presented by the Honourable Member from Vancouver East, seconded by the Member for Kootenay, led off in this way: "Whereas the people of the Province of British Columbia have sustained serious financial loss and human sufferings in 1970 as a result of industrial conflicts, strikes and lockouts, and whereas business and particularly small business, and the public generally, have sustained losses as well…now, what an admission, what an admission.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a fact.

MR. BRUCH: Certainly, it's a fact. Certainly, it's a fact, but, Mr. Speaker, if those people and their allies in their political organization, the B.C. Federation of Labour, would only admit…(interruption). Mr. Speaker, I would have been quite happy if the Member opposite would have left the politics out the other day. But, if he is as sincere today, as he tried to make out in front of the television cameras, Mr. Speaker, then he'll listen to what I've got to say. If you will listen to this debate…because they are admitting that many people, the public, have been hurt from the result of industrial conflict, strikes and lockouts.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. BRUCH: Then, Mr. Speaker, the duty of those people, during all of the conflicts that we had, when they were asked to be good citizens and obey the laws of the land, instead of setting themselves above the law of the land to appear before the Mediation Commission, because you can't turn around and condemn the mediation concept on one hand, and then cry that B.C. has been hurt, that the public has not been considered, because the place for the working men and the unions to have presented their case, the only court where the public interest can be considered is the mediation structure… I think it is a disgrace that the trade unions of this Province try to set themselves above everyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, that was just the purpose. They were asked to appear and be given a hearing and they said, "No, we will not serve, we are mightier than the public at large." Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to debate that issue right here in the House, where it should be debated. Mr. Speaker, if the sincerity is there, then certainly the Members opposite…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BRUCH: …who represent the poor and the little man, as they claim, would be bringing up that factor, too, and would be encouraging their cohorts to go to the Mediation Commission where the public interest can be taken into consideration. Mr. Speaker, there are some people who believe in law and order only when they can make the laws and give the orders.

Mr. Speaker, we see a lot of concern in not only our Nation, but throughout the North American continent, when we see headlines, such as "Welfare out of Control," "Welfare — There Must be a Lot Better Way," "The Welfare Maze."

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out the last time I addressed this House, I have been conducting a questionnaire among my constituents and one of the points that has, particularly, irked the people has been the particular issue of welfare.

On the simple question that, in your opinion, are welfare rates sufficient or too little — it didn't say anything about too much — they came out with the answer that 45 per cent of them figured it was sufficient; 25 per cent figured it was too little; and 30 per cent came out emphatically that they felt it was too high. But the interesting part is, Mr. Speaker… (interruption). Well, just give me time. Just give me time and I'll tell you what I think. You get the remarks, where they'll take the trouble to sit down, "Welfare rates definitely sufficient," "Welfare plenty, I live on less myself." (interruption.)

[ Page 374 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BRUCH: "In my opinion, welfare rates are excessive." "I believe a mother with children should get welfare if she has no support." "I do not believe in a 19-year-old school dropout receiving welfare the minute they ask for it, as is the case right now." "I think welfare should be administered Federally, so that rates are the same in each Province." "I do not like the idea of people from other Provinces coming to British Columbia and living off me. Even worse, I don't like people from other countries coming to Canada and getting welfare." "Too much for the young and those able to work, too little for the handicapped and the old." Another one, "People who are on welfare and are in good health should work and get going wages for their work." (interruption.) I'll deal with that. "Welfare rates should be sufficient for the recipient to live on. Some cases require more assistance than others." "I feel that able-bodied recipients should have to do some work for the money received." "Be employed on make-work or beautification projects in the municipality involved in payments." Another one, "Fed up with supporting lazy, pot-smoking, rebellious young adults who come drifting in and leave the discipline of home." "Fed up to the teeth with the lazy burns who earn more on welfare, so why work?" (interruption.) Well, I'll tell you. Just give me time. "Yes, not to be wasted." "In the case of abandoned mothers too little, for most of the rest too high."

The general trend, Mr. Speaker, is that people feel that there should be sufficient money available for those people who can't help themselves, who are unable to work, or unable to move into the full stream of our society. But I think there are two particular factors, Mr. Speaker, that this Government should not only continue to press on, and I don't think that we've made our case strongly enough. First of all, is on the immigrants. I object to the people of B.C. being forced to accept and pay welfare to recent immigrants. If the Federal Government wishes to waive the two-year financial responsibility requirement, they should assume full responsibility for them. I think we're in a ridiculous position…(interruption). I'll deal with that in a moment. I think that we require a situation whereby we show some optimism and not the doom and gloom that the Liberal Party over there has been continually preaching.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's ridiculous that the laws of Canada have been changed and that we, in this Province, have to assume the share of cost of welfare. I have no objection to people coming in — as your parents and my parents came in — they had to show financial responsibility. Mr. Speaker, where else in the world can you turn around and cross the border and immediately go on welfare. I think it's absolutely ridiculous and it's time that the Federal Government changed that requirement.

The second is that, if Manpower wants to ship youngsters across the country and ship them out here, they should have the responsibility, because in the first place, we have a shortage of jobs, we have a shortage of housing, we have a shortage of university facilities and we have some shortage of hospital and medical facilities — they're over taxed. Why should we have to resume the responsibility for those people on welfare when many of them have homes elsewhere and parents who are willing to look after them? Why should the taxpayers here in British Columbia have to take them under their wing?

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the Government a number of definite points. Number one, that, in our dealing with welfare and rehabilitation, we should separate the employable unemployed from the unemployed in the structure and consideration. Number two, I'd like to see the rates for the unemployables increased by at least 10 per cent. Number three, we should set up evening courses for the unemployed. Number four, we should require either retraining, or acceptance of work when available. Number five, we should make the parks development programme a continuing thing. Number six, we should share clean-up and beautification programmes with the municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifty-Fifty.

MR. BRUCH: I think it should be on the same basis as welfare is provided, and the Federal Government should share in these programmes as well, and it should be on the basis that these people who are capable of work, we should be providing them with a pay cheque instead of a welfare cheque. We should undertake a beach clean-up programme. Number eight, I believe we should share one-third of the salary for persons who have been on welfare for more than one year for a three-month period as an incentive to industry and business to hire and train welfare cases. Number nine, I believe that we should request that the costs of these programmes be shared on the same basis as the employable unemployed by the Federal Government. Number ten, I request that all migrants be either returnable to their native Province or else the cost of their welfare should be carried by the Federal Government for one year, and that changes in immigration regulations by the National Government require the two-year financial responsibility as a requirement of immigrant status. If the principle is that they must be a citizen to buy land, then the principle that they should be a citizen to receive welfare in this country, I think is just as valid.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close with this because we seem to hear a constant philosophy expressed in this House that you've got to tear down the rich, you've got to damn industry in those that are industrious, that it's always good business that is to blame for everything. I want to point out to the Members that you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift, strengthen the weak by weakening the strong, help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income, you cannot establish sound security on borrowed money, you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence, you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves, you cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer, you cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, it's always difficult to speak in this Chamber, when you have two constituents present on the floor of the House. My one constituent, the Second Member from Burrard, is quite critical and I think I have his vote, but you still can't take things for granted. Now, my other constituent here, from Burnaby-Edmonds, is a different kettle of fish but we're still working on him.

The last speaker, who is also the chairman of the Labour

[ Page 375 ]

Committee, objects to the proceedings at their last meeting and I think other Members in the committee objected as well. I think the solution would be for the chairman to maybe start over again and reconvene the meeting so they can resolve their differences in the committee rather than on the floor of the House.

We have heard the Speech from the Throne and also the Budget Speech in this Session so far and there are a number of similarities in the Speeches. We could not hear the Speech from the Throne and we could not see the Budget Speech. The Speech from the Throne gave no indication how the Government was intending to deal with the problems facing the Province at the present time, and there was no message of the plans that were intended to be used and really contained very little hope. Likewise, the Budget Address was written, I believe, in a mood of despair and not really in a mood of optimism.

It contained some very fine sentences, in the Speech, and I quote one, "It is our view, bold new policies are required to stimulate the economy and provide jobs for our people." Now, this statement is, of course, very fine and, if made in sincerity, would be, and I believe it was made sincerely…but we have no indication of the new bold policies that are being presented. We have heard from most of the Ministers and I don't think we've heard of any good new policies coming forth as of yet.

On page 8, it goes on, "Work projects have been augmented to provide additional jobs." Now, what work projects and what jobs? I suggest that the unemployment is now just as high as it has been all winter.

The Budget Address went on to recite the amounts of money that were being paid to the city of Vancouver from grants but, on looking over the figures, it appears that half the totals recited was made up of the home-owner grant. Now, we know the home-owner grant is of great value to the individual home-owner, but I suggest it's of no value to the city as such, and that the figures really don't indicate what is being paid to Vancouver and the corporate structure. However, there was one bright spot I felt in the Budget, and that was the continuation of the extensions of the PGE. I'm pleased that these extensions are going forward.

The Honourable the Minister of Finance will have a surplus at the end of this year and it's admittedly been a tough year. He forecasts a good year for next year and, also, he has found it necessary to increase the Budget by adding additional taxes to the Budget. Now, I would suggest that the tax increase was the forecast given by the Honourable Minister, and the fact that he was able to balance the Budget, this past year, would indicate the increase of taxes would not be necessary (interruption)…not justified and that one would wonder why the taxes were increased. Possibly, it's to have extra money in the kitty for an election year, or maybe it's to increase the taxes now so that taxes can be reduced in another year.

Three years ago, the Provincial Government raised the municipal share of welfare costs from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. They have now reduced it by 5 per cent and, I suggest, they believe that the people will forget that there was an increase three years ago. It might be described as the short-memory Budget. Now the division among the Governments, at the present time, will be 50 per cent for the Federal, 35 per cent Provincial and 15 per cent Municipal. Now, over the years the municipal governments have been taking quite a considerable strain on the increase in the welfare costs and during the years from 1965-66 to 1966-67, the increase was $1 million paid by the municipal share of the welfare costs, or an increase of 25 per cent. Then again, in the year 1968-69, when the increase was raised to 20 per cent, the actual increase in the municipal share of welfare costs was $10 million, or an increase of 200 per cent.

Now the figures for 1969-70 will be much higher again, but no figures are available at this time. These figures, I suggest, show the great burden that the municipalities have been operating under during the past few years, the last two or three years anyway. I would like just for a moment to look at the Burnaby budget as an example. For 1969, the welfare costs were $3,796,000 and, in 1970, $5,388,000, an increase of 42 per cent in the year 1969-70, and that was both years, at the time when the percentage rate was 20 per cent for the municipal share of the welfare costs. So, I think this is an indication of the great strain that the municipalities have been operating under in the last two or three years.

The increase in the taxes though does point out the fact that now appears to be the time that we can look and hope for the use of this money, the additional monies to be garnered from this Budget, to bring about chronic care under the British Columbia Hospital Insurance Service. I suggest that the additional cost of this policy will not be out of reach as we do now pay a large degree of the chronic care costs through welfare and other features. For a great number of years, we had been promised, I think from back in the 1950's, that chronic care would be brought under the hospital insurance scheme, but we have had no suggestion until this year. This promise is becoming a chronic promise. The major problem seems to be that those who are chronically ill have difficulty in obtaining help. The cost of obtaining care in private hospitals is out of reach of most people and the facilities are full. I suggest that our Centennial Year would be a great time to give relief to those of our pioneers who are unable to help themselves.

The Government has accepted extended care, generally, but not chronic care and really there is only a technical difference between the two terms. I feel that we are, in the health field, probably hung up too much on a variety of terms referring to the sick. I don't think the help we give them should be determined on artificial definitions but rather on the sickness of the individual.

I regret that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he spoke the other day, made no mention of the proposed change in status for Burnaby from a municipality to a city, and I don't care to harp on this subject too long. I'm very concerned that this is really a great financial problem and could be a great financial problem to the residents of Burnaby. I think, next, it will be Richmond or Surrey or Delta, and I think that we should have a little more explanation as to what are the financial effects of this change?

I've discussed this earlier, but I mentioned that the voters of Burnaby, on a plebiscite, were opposed to city status. The Minister has power to change the municipality into a city, but the test for that is for the public good. Now, I would think that the public good means the good of the public, and the public, I would presume, are the people who are involved in the decision. I'm somewhat wondering whether or not this is for the public good or for the financial good of the Provincial Government. After the Minister spoke, I was wondering why he didn't discuss this matter, at least briefly, and I began to wonder whether or not he was the Minister who was really pushing this affair. I was wondering whether or not it was a question of finances more than a question of

[ Page 376 ]

municipal policies.

I believe that the decisions were made without proper consultation between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe the decision was made as a snap decision and probably in a vacuum. I suggest that decisions of this magnitude should have thorough study from both the Minister of Finance and his department and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his department. I would ask the Minister to consider withholding, or delaying, the target date, at least, until such time that discussions can be had with the municipality, in order that a proper resolve could be made out of this proposition.

I really don't think it's quite good enough to have a decision of this type just sprung on municipalities, as if they have no responsibilities themselves. I think that discussions should be had first (interruption). I'm coming to that, Mr. Minister (interruption). But I object to the passing of further financial responsibilities, which are Provincial in nature, to the municipalities on the changing of a name from a municipality to a city. I'm sure that the Minister will keep this in mind. I'm sure that is his policy as well, that he doesn't want any extra financial burdens on the municipality of Burnaby when it does become a city.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be too sure about that.

MR. LORIMER: Last year, the Government brought in a bill establishing a Municipal Financing Authority. The decision was reached in 1969 and was announced by the Minister at Kamloops at the Municipal Affairs Convention in September, 1969. The necessary legislation was passed this year. We were told that this new plan would be the answer to the problems of municipalities, villages and so on, in obtaining necessary funds. We urge that this whole responsibility is Provincial, and that the Provincial Government should be guaranteeing the loans of the municipalities, and not the municipalities guaranteeing the loans of the other municipalities. However, the necessary legislation was passed. The authority immediately went to work, but found that a great amount of interference was being exerted by the Provincial Government. All the plans of the authority were thwarted by the actions of this Government, even though the Government had washed its hands of its responsibilities in this particular field of borrowing. One example of this was in the appointment of a fiscal agent to arrange the necessary borrowings. This was not approved by the Government. The Mayor of North Vancouver, Mr. Ron Andrews, spoke at the UBCM at Penticton, as reported in the Vancouver Sun of September 17: "For the Minister to stand up and say we are going to pass the buck again makes me feel very displeased. For him to say, in effect, go and see the Federal Government…" That's a baby crying for the future…(applause) and I feel for it. "For him to say, in effect, go and see the Federal Government, don't talk to us, is unsatisfactory. There is no way we, as municipalities, can go to the Federal Government." Then, further on in the article, "Andrews also accused Campbell in the Provincial Government of tinkering with the Municipal Financing Authority which was set up to act as a borrowing agent for B.C. municipalities. 'If the Municipal Financing Authority isn't dead, it is close to it,' he said, 'and the only reason is that Mr. Campbell and the Government tinkered in what we were trying to do. We were set up as an autonomous group. We called our own shots. We were turned down by the Government. The Municipal Financing Authority is not a child of the Government, it is a tool of the Government.'" That's Mayor Ron Andrews of the North Vancouver District.

As a result, this authority has been in the works for at least a year and a half. The necessary legislation was passed a year ago and to date the Authority hasn't borrowed one cent. That's the great plan that we heard about. I suggest that, if the Government is not going to help in this operation of guaranteeing these bonds, that it shouldn't hinder the attempts of the authority to try to get the job done.

The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in his speech last week, did his annual thing, telling all those within earshot that B.C. municipalities were better off than those in the rest of Canada. I suggest that a comparison cannot be made, due to the fact that the different Provinces have different grants and are given different responsibilities and so on. It's almost impossible, I suggest — impossible — to compare the separate municipalities, as to which is the better off. I don't think it matters. I think what we're concerned about is how well off are the municipalities of British Columbia?

One of the main items he pointed to was the low mill rate in British Columbia, on the average. However, we didn't hear what the average was, whether it was the average municipality or the average property or the average between urban and rural areas. But, of course, the mill rates mean very little unless you know what the assessments are, because a low mill rate can be a high tax or a high mill rate may be a low tax. So it doesn't make much difference. But I don't think the Minister was being serious. I think he was having his annual jollies.

However, the Minister did make some harsh statements regarding the efficiency of the four municipalities in the southern part of the Island: Esquimalt, Saanich, Oak Bay and Victoria.

I agree that there could be a duplication in, what he was talking about, in the administration costs. However, in the total budgets, these administration costs are not a great factor. Now, I'll agree that they are a factor, but the actual fact is, that the Minister, I think, feels that the treatment given the municipalities, due to the heavy costs of welfare in the last year or two, really, cannot be defended. So the best defense, in a case like that, is attack. I think that is the basic reason for his study on this matter. Maybe, the residents of this area will believe that their high taxes are due to overlapping of services, but I think that they will consider the fact that…

AN HON. MEMBER: Where it came from.

MR. LORIMER: Where it came from is right…the cost of the welfare. I want to quote just a short statement here from the Times of February 5. I'm quoting a statement of Mayor Hugh Curtis, the chairman of the Capital Regional District. He states, "If Mr. Campbell and the Government really want to talk about cost increases then, perhaps, we could spend a moment reflecting on welfare costs to the property owner." And he goes on at some length there. But I think that points out the major problem and why the costs have gone up in municipalities. It's not really the cost of duplication of administrative services.

I agree that maybe the four districts should amalgamate. Maybe money could be saved and taxes reduced by a small amount. I believe this is probably true. I may be old-fashioned, but I still believe the individuals in the areas should be able to decide whether or not they want to

[ Page 377 ]

amalgamate or whether or not they don't. I believe if some person wants to pay a few dollars higher taxes to keep his independence and away from another area, I think that person should have that right to do so. I don't think amalgamation on these conditions should be forced from above. However, I agree that there is a case for forced amalgamation and for forced extensions of boundaries. That is where the Minister is convinced that the municipality, or the unorganized territory, is riding on the back of a municipality and not contributing to the benefits it receives from that municipality.

I agree, in that case, the Minister should take steps to prevent this from happening. He mentioned one of the municipalities, a few moments ago, and I agree with him that action should be taken by him there. In these other cases that I've referred to, it's not a case of someone leaning on the back of its neighbouring municipality. I suggest this doesn't apply to those.

In all other areas, I think that it should be by the will of the people whether they amalgamate or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you think those people have a right to vote, too?

MR. LORIMER: I don't think the freeloaders have a right to vote, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Fraser Mills, don't you think they've a right to vote? Crown Zellerbach?

MR. LORIMER: No. I think there's a difference. I think the basic difference is if a municipality is freeloading on another municipality, or something of that nature.

I want to turn to the Minister of Health and the Jericho Hill School for a moment. Last year, I took up the matter of Jericho Hill School, at some length, and I mentioned that this school must provide a much greater degree and extent of care than normal schools, as it is helping to develop children who are living in the school for ten months out of the year, in a number of cases, and are dealing with physically and mentally handicapped, emotionally and socially handicapped people. In a number of cases, of course, the physical handicap is very minor compared to the emotional handicap. I am pleased to say that the improvements, during the past year, have been very good and I want to commend the Minister for the action he has taken on the school. I believe that the school has improved considerably and that the new superintendent and the Health Department in Vancouver are being able to work very well together. I wanted to mention this. However, I would ask the Minister not to desert the school yet. There's still improvement always possible and I am sure that he will keep after that school and bring it up to an even better standard than it is at the present time.

The other aspect which needs attention, here, is in the physical aspect of the school. There are barrack-type accommodations for the children who live there year round and I would hope that your colleagues will look into this physical aspect of the barrack-type accommodation that these children are living in to see what can be done to improve this aspect of it. Also, there is a great need in this school for a new dining room and a kitchen. I hope that the Minister of Public Works will look after new accommodation for dining.

In closing, I would say that the commendation I make about this school is quite sincere and I hope that he carries on his good work.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should wait a minute and allow some of the Members to take their place or those leave who wish to. At any rate, I should like to begin tonight by congratulating the Minister of Finance on an excellent Budget. I'd like to comment that I think the best feature of the Budget was that it was a Budget that displayed confidence, because the whole economy of the Western world revolves around confidence and, without confidence, we cannot have productivity. So, for this confidence, I congratulate him. Certainly, he is not the only person representing or suggesting confidence in the Budget or in the future for the coming year or two. We see also in the stock market a tremendous comeback (interruption). Well, I'm reading the Dow Jones that moved this year from a low of 630 up to 885, today, and I think it's tremendous that this recovery is being shown. I would encourage each and every one of you to get busy and buy Canada back. That's your responsibility. I'll be happy to talk to any of you later and give you some advice in that area.

Certainly, the comeback of the stock market, the confidence in the Budget, does give us a ring of hope for the 1971-72 season. I would suggest that probably an even greater reason for optimism and for this optimistic feeling being pushed in Canada is the probability of a Federal election coming up. I hope that that isn't the reason for the new hope. I hope that it's based on the soundness of the economy as I feel it is, at this point.

I might say that one of the major sources of finance that I think is not adequately tapped are those funds that are invested in life insurance and trust company assets. I notice that the life insurance…(interruption)…investments, yes, of trust companies, OK? At any rate, I notice that life insurance companies have, in assets, $14.3 billion, and trust companies control another $6.1 billion. In each of these cases, in the cases of trust companies and life insurance companies, they invest in two kinds of securities. They invest in a bond security, a debt security, and they also invest in an equity or an ownership security. Unfortunately, they have been investing less and less in equities or stocks, so that this great pool of money is being put more and more into debt areas. I think that this is…(interruption). No, I'm sorry, but your statistics are wrong and I'll challenge them, anytime. I'm afraid that while, in pension plans, the equity portions are increasing, in the case of life insurance and trust companies, percentage-wise, they're going down. I can give them to you, specifically, if you wish, what the percentages are.

At any rate, I think this is an unfortunate…(interruption). Oh, all right, we'll just give them to you, then.

In trust companies, or in life insurance companies, they have 34.8 per cent of their assets in bonds and only 6.2 per cent in stock or in equity issues. This is down, percentage-wise. Of course, the volume is larger but, percentage-wise, that's down considerably since 1960.

Now, I would suggest that, in some way, for the small percentage, 6.2 per cent is a very large percentage of $14.3 billion, that 6.2 per cent, I believe, could be more aggressively invested in equities, particularly Canadian equities. I think it's unfortunate that insurance companies and trust companies are not fully regulated relating to their equity position to buying Canadian stocks. Because Canadian stocks, this is the hope, I think, for Canada…we talk about buying Canada back. Canada is going to have to be bought

[ Page 378 ]

back through these large sums of money, these large insurance company funds and the funds from trust companies, as well as the capital of you, as individuals in this Legislature.

In fact, the day that everybody…(interruption). Union money — there's another excellent source. If that were invested in Canadian stocks instead of American equities in the United States, that's another great pool of money that could be used to buy Canada back and to make, thereby, every Canadian a capitalistic shareholder.

At any rate, as I said, the most important thing in the Budget is that it's a Budget that expresses confidence in the future. I feel this is justified and shown in the financial world through the increase in the stock market and I hope that it will continue during the year.

I would like to just refer, now, briefly, once again, to land use and I would like to begin by apologizing to the Minister of Finance because, unfortunately, through you, Mr. Speaker, of course, I would like to apologize to him because apparently I was too late with my agricultural parkland suggestion to make the Budget. I'm sorry that I didn't get that into you a little sooner but I'll try and emphasize it a few more times, so we can get it in for next year in time. I would like to say in relationship to that that I am pleased the Premier, as the organizer of our Cabinet, has established a Land Use Committee. I think this is a very profitable and can be a very profitable and useful organization of people.

I would suggest, however, that the first thing that the Land Use Committee should do is establish what are the philosophies, what are the principles and what are the directions of a Land Use Committee. Before they start to act, let's find out where they are going. I would suggest that there are some principles, that are very basic, that should be established. First of all, I would suggest that, in densely populated areas, wherever an individual or a developer covers a piece of earth, say, with a house or an industrial building, he must provide adequate tax revenue to set aside somewhere else, in perpetuity, an open-space area, be it agricultural parkland or any other kind of park-living space holding. I would suggest that, in addition to that, a second function that has to be determined is that we have to decide to limit the size of our cities, instead of concentrating the population, as we have in the lower mainland. I know it is the policy of the Government to try to establish jobs and housing in the north but I would encourage further in this direction (interruption). No, I'm not in favour of vertical living. I'm in favour of spreading out all across the entire Province of British Columbia into the great northland, into the great Columbia. We'd love to see you with some people up there. We've got far too many in the lower mainland already and, with a threat of another two, three, four million coming, indeed, it is a frightening aspect to our way of life. I would suggest also, though, that when you present a proposal, you should present some financial method by which this programme may be achieved. So, I'm going to suggest a taxation area to the Premier, that he may find interesting, to acquire the base capital to get some of this land zoned, in perpetuity, for open-space areas, some of this agricultural parkland.

I've been looking for quite sometime for a definition of this home-owner grant thing. What is this home-owner grant really for? For the first time, I think I've seen it written down and I'd like to quote from the Budget the purpose of the home-owner grant. "This means the Province will now be contributing $60,500,000 annually and the purpose is to offset the cost of local school tax levies upon the resident home-owner." I'm glad to see that it is to help alleviate the educational tax, because it is doing more than that. In many cases, it is relieving the tax on municipal levies as well. I would suggest that some money might be found if the levy of school purposes is less than $170, if it is only $130, then you should only pay $130 out of the home-owner grant and the rest of the tax could be available for other purposes. If the purpose is, as it says in the Budget, to offset local school costs, I might suggest that you could go even a little bit further than that, at least in my constituency, and I can only speak for my constituency. I don't know one single resident anywhere who doesn't receive at least $50 worth of services from its municipality. I don't think anyone should get away with living in an area and paying less than $50 tax. So I would suggest that you might raise from one dollar to say $50, the basic minimum. Well, the Minister of Finance shakes his head but, at least, he wasn't too… I think that's an excellent philosophy, and the dividend I'd like to see you give the people is from open-space areas in a highly-desolate population area. That's why I'm suggesting we might get this money to give just that great dividend to the people of the Province of British Columbia. So there's two suggestions (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. WENMAN: Maybe you should pass that around, Mr. Premier. If I could get some notes on it, I'd be happy to speak on it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WENMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't tell you how pleased I am that I can finally wake the House up. That's just tremendous.

I would like to speak, just briefly, now, in relationship to welfare or social rehabilitation or whatever you want to call it. In relationship…(interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WENMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have a little order? The Member for Delta has the Floor.

MR. WENMAN: This reminds me of being back in my classroom. You find in the classroom that you…(interruption). Oh, the children are much better behaved. Definitely, any day. You find out if you try and yell above them, they just yell a little bit louder. So, usually, it's best to just stand and wait. So, I'm just waiting.

I wish that I had a magic wand and could make some broad generalizations and solve all the problems of welfare. Unfortunately, the problems of welfare are not a monetary problem, they are human problems and they can't be solved by broad generalizations or infusions of particular sums of money. I'm not going to attempt these broad generalizations, rather, I would like, while I would support the negative income tax idea, I would rather present one specific item that I think is of importance in this area. As a result of, I would say, first, of the adoption programme as a result of a decrease in supply and an increase in demand, the quality and quantity of adoptive homes for babies in the Province are

[ Page 379 ]

considerably improved. Further factors probably relate to the legalized abortion and the birth control pill but I would expect that the quality and quantity of homes for adoptive babies is improving.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are some problems, and there are problems, particularly in the area of foster homes, that I would like to bring to your attention. Unfortunately, the laws relating to the rights and protection of children…(interruption). I have a very important subject that I'd like to talk about, Mr. Speaker. I want you to be lively and awake but… At any rate, the area that I would like to speak to in relationship to foster homes, is that the laws relating to the rights and protection of children in the foster programme have proven totally inadequate. It is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, a tragedy, that children can be torn from their foster parents against the will of both foster parents and the child. It is a tragedy that a fifteen-year-old, after knowing ten years of love and stability, can have his life and world upset by legal technicalities that tend to protect adults before children. Such cases — I'm not referring to any specific case — I'm referring to a case…(interruption). All right, let's change it, then. Let's say a ten-year-old who, after nine years in the home is torn from his foster parents. This is not right and our laws are tending to protect the adult before the child. It's unfortunate that we will upset his life on legal technicalities that tend to protect adults before children, that places legality above morally sound humanity. This would lead us to ask the question. If a young person is placed in a home, in a foster home and, after two years or three years, or a period of time, that bond of love and stability grows to a mutual feeling of sound parental-child relationship, why don't such parents after seven, two, three years or four years, why don't they adopt these children who have become, in a real way, their own children? I would suggest whether they can get the consent is one of the factors, but I'm going to suggest another one, today. Another factor is the financial situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment (interruption).

MR. WENMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to situations throughout the Province that have happened, not just this year or last year, but have been happening continuously. At any rate, I'm suggesting that one of the reasons that more foster parents don't adopt the children directly is because of financial reasons. I would suggest that in the first year, maybe the second year, the third year, by the time a foster child has been in the home that long and has been receiving Government support, that money has become part of the family budget. It's become an integral part of the family budget that the family cannot get along without, without the child whom they are trying to help suffering and the entire family. Who are these people that adopt children or foster children? I think, generally speaking, they are middle-class people, the middle-class people, who are counting their pennies. I think that this financial incentive to adopt a child — we prevent them from adopting a child because they cannot take the financial responsibility of another child or lose the financial assistance that they have gained for this child. Certainly, that financial assistance is not an over-amount, it no more than covers the cost of caring for this child.

I would suggest that, somehow, we have to establish a programme that when parents adopt a child they do not lose total financial Government support. I would say that this is particularly important in the area representing children other than babies. The demand is greater than the supply, here. I don't think we need to do this, here, but when you take a child at five or six years old, their patterns are set. You are taking on a great responsibility, here, and we should be encouraging people to take on this responsibility and, as they become a part of the family, let's make them a real part by not discouraging the adoptive process.

I would like next to refer to education. The Science Council of Canada estimates that, by 1972, there will be a 1,700 Ph.D. surplus to market requirements in Canada. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation figures show us that there are 388 unemployed teachers in British Columbia today. At the University of British Columbia, one thousand graduate students are seeking work at least — at least. At the end of the term, UBC will pour another three thousand graduates into an already flooded market.

Yet we still…(interruption) Three hundred and eighty-eight teachers, Mr. Member (interruption). No, 3,000 graduates, Mr. Member. At any rate, I look at our Budget and I'm afraid I'm greatly disappointed here. I'm afraid I'm disappointed because I see that we're going to pour another $14 million into capital expansion at our universities. Now, I'm not as concerned about the $14 million as I am about the fact that we're only going to put $12 million into the vocational programme, when there are five vocational technical jobs for every one professional job. Yet, we're pouring more money still into our universities. I would suggest that that $14 million be added to the $12 million to make $26 million for the vocational schools and the universities will have to suffice with the limitation on enrolment. I can't understand, as the demand is being met, that we keep increasing the supply further and further and further.

Speaking of eggheads, I'd like to next refer to a Professor Ivar Berg, who has done studies to show, perhaps, the irrelevancy of what we are trying to do in education, today. His studies show that a growing number of workers have more education than they need to perform their jobs well. In some cases, more education than even their employers regard as desirable. An employee's productivity, it is found, does not vary systematically with his years of formal education, particularly, when experience is taken into account. Experience seems to be equally as important, perhaps, more important, a factor as years of formal education. Salaries today are not necessarily related to education. Many teachers and social workers, for example, earn less than plumbers, professional athletes or even politicians. The rate of turnover is positively associated with education. Educated people tend to not stay as long but to move on; the turnover rate seems higher. Upper- and middle-level employees are not the only ones who are overqualified for the jobs. Among workers in lower-skilled jobs, dissatisfaction was found to increase as educational levels rose. Better educated employees are often rated as less productive, not always as more productive often less. In the armed forces, it was found that high school graduates are not uniformly and markedly superior to nongraduates, and that training on the job was more important than the current type of educational credential. I would say, does that show us that this 14 or 16 years of education that we're giving our young people, does this not indicate that education as it exists, today, is, to a large extent, irrelevant, or is it just what we are teaching that is irrelevant to productivity and practicality?

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why is it that we can bring a young person out of our schools after four, twelve, fourteen

[ Page 380 ]

or sixteen years and have him not know what a mortgage is. Yet the biggest financial investment he ever makes will probably be in a home. Yet, we're going to see him make that mistake. We're going to see him pay that 10¾ per cent interest or 11 or 12 or 16 per cent. We all hear cases of it. Why don't the young people know what a mortgage rate is and how to buy a house? Why is it that he'll walk into a certain area of Delta that we have and he doesn't know to look underneath, to look at the structure of the house. He doesn't understand that the beam across here, if it's grade 16 lumber, is not very good (interruption). That's what I mean, I'm talking in terms of grade 3 or rejects, but the point that I'm making is that they don't know and they haven't been educated to this. They haven't been educated to look, to know what they're buying, let alone the interest rates they're paying or the quality, in any measure (interruption). Yes, they should know the kind of paint too, Mr. Member, that they're buying and I'm certain you could recommend a good store.

They should know, Mr. Member, they should know the interest rate that they're paying on their car. They should know if they're paying 18 per cent on that car, how long it will take to pay for it. Fortunately, through the legislation of this Government, these rates are now being exposed and this is very, very fine, and only one part of the consumer exposure of credit that needs to be done.

While too little education is obviously a disadvantage, we must, now, also realize that, under certain conditions, too much education can also be a disadvantage. Studies can be brought forward to prove overwhelmingly that performance is not necessarily measured by increased educational achievement but more often by other personality characteristics and environmental conditions. I ask you to look around our own Legislature. We have ample proof in many, many instances of the importance of personal characteristics, environmental conditions and experience.

Employers tend to demand high school graduation, not because of what the student has learned in education, but only to prove that, by staying in school, he has shown a certain level of character relating to ambition, discipline, work habits and endurance. Is this what our school system should be measuring, today — endurance, work habits and discipline? It should be, instead, offering a criterion that will help that person live better in our society. What does a grade 12 graduation qualify someone to do? You've all hired grade 12 graduates, what do they know? Woefully little, in too many cases. Certainly, major revisions to the kind of things and major rethinkings of what we're doing in education are going to have to be contemplated in the near future.

Academics have argued in the past that investment in education is greater economically than the average return on other forms of investment and this has proven true. Wherever we have fully invested in education, we have achieved the greatest standard of living. However, economists can show us, also, that the educational investment can be placed on a curve of diminishing returns. Until this point, we have found the level of education has risen and so has the productivity and our standard of living. However, since we now keep more students in the formal educational process for a longer period of time, and now that we're going into a junior college system we're saying that we're going to give every child 14 years of education, that means he doesn't enter the work force earlier than 20 years of age. That's assuming he doesn't go on for further post-secondary education. I wonder if we can afford to direct or try to keep all of our students in school that long, particularly, as I say, in the irrelevancy that education can, perhaps, demonstrate many times over. We are keeping more students, as I say, in a formal education longer and at a higher cost per student, too often in fields unrelated to the student's future field of productivity and at a greater cost to the State and a lesser cost to the individual.

Educational costs in relationship to economic returns and productivity have overaccelerated in our society and, soon, if not checked, will consume the entire productivity of our Nation. It is time that we explode this great educational myth that 16, 14, 16, 17, 18 years of formal education, as we know it, is the answer to all of our problems. It is time to rebuild and restructure our educational objectives and processes to meet the changing structures of our society to meet the life styles of the future.

In order to control the spiralling costs of education, I would recommend the following reforms be considered. Number one, public schools should be operated on a 12-month basis. Students attending any grouping would attend only 9 months out of the 12, or perhaps less, and teachers in turn would teach some 195 to 200 days out of the 365 days. I'm not suggesting, in any way, that we should take a child, start him in school and have him in school for 12 months of the year. I'm suggesting the schools themselves would be operational for 12 months a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the teachers teach longer though?

MR. WENMAN: No, the teachers would still teach 195 or 200 days. It might be desirable, but I'm afraid it's not possible. Duplication of schools and community buildings should be avoided and not only should duplication be avoided, we're trying to do that, now, but we're not providing the incentives to make the joint usage. We must move past just approving, we must move into a situation where we are encouraging joint ventures of school boards, recreation commissions, the whole works. I've talked on that so many times, I'm not going to expand further at this moment.

Fewer but better qualified teachers per student, assisted by an increasing number of paraprofessionals and community resource personnel…. I think that, sometimes, we waste teachers. Sometimes, teachers could be used in differing manners. We could have the master teacher teaching the large group and, then, paraprofessionals working with the smaller group on the finer details. I believe in teachers' aides, only if it doesn't just mean on top of additional staff. That's a very difficult statement. I'm going to have to revise that one, I know, but I'm not going to continue on that for the moment because I have quite a few things I want to get to. I'll talk about that in the estimates.

Increased use and efficiency of teaching machines is another feature that needs to be encouraged in our schools, but it's no good just to buy the machines. Too often, we buy the machines and they sit in the closet and everybody wonders what they are, or, too often, we buy them in relationship to fads. We had overhead projectors, you'll recall a couple years ago, I brought one in here. It used to be that everybody wanted an overhead projector. Now that we have bought them for pretty well everybody, we find out that the glare is rather strong on your eyes and they're not being used as much, anymore, and they tend to be collecting dust. This isn't true in all situations, in all schools, but it is true, too

[ Page 381 ]

often.

We need to provide an educational public relations programme upgrading public attitudes and prestige, relating to vocational and technical training. We'll never get more students going into vocational and technical, until we show that labour in these fields is worthy, and that it is worthy of prestige and further consideration in our community. Allow and prepare young people, who can accept and need, to enter the work force sooner in a productive capacity. I see so many young people sitting in our classes and taking up the time of our students and other teachers, who shouldn't be there. Perhaps they should be in another system, in another form, but we've forced too many students to stay in an outdated school system, too long.

I would like now to speak briefly about some of the redundant and outmoded sections of the Education Act. I think I'd like to start with one of the controversial ones. This is one, I'll just read it briefly to you. It goes like this, "All public schools shall be opened by the reading, without explanation or comment, of a passage of Scripture to be selected from readings prescribed and approved by the Council of Public Instructions. The reading and passage of the Scripture shall be followed by the recitation of the Lord's Prayer…" and so forth.

Mr. Speaker, this is a lofty ideal, perhaps. But, in practice, in most schools in our Province, it's just not being done. It just isn't being done. Not only is it not being done, where it is being done it would be better if it hadn't been done. It is made meaningless by the attitude of our students and our teachers and our society towards this exercise that is supposed to go on day after day. Too often, this ritual goes like this: the bell rings for home room, everyone comes in. Because there are so many teachers who object, on conscientious grounds to reading it, over the PA system comes booming across somebody reading the Lord's Prayer. Meanwhile the roll is being called, the kids are talking in the back corner there, and this is going on. There's not respect being taught here, there's not understanding being taught here, there is nothing but disgust being taught here and contempt for this kind of thing. If it's going to be done, I say, that it should be done effectively and it should be done well. But I don't think that it is practical to treat it in this mode in today's society. I think it is important that we do have this influence in our schools and I would suggest that the Act be amended to read appropriate passages of Scripture with particular reference to the Psalms, the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer shall be placed in the English and Social Studies curriculum for each grade and these portions of the curriculum shall be presented to the pupils each year." In other words, take it out of this ritual and use the beautiful words of the Psalms and so forth, and put them in the Literature and the Social Studies where they belong. Then they will be presented in a meaningful way. Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting, in any way, that we take anything out of our schools. I'm suggesting we add something in and make it more meaningful, make it more meaningful because, right now, it's a sham and it's a disrespect. It teaches disrespect for religion and for authority and everything else. It's just not being done in an effective way, so, let's relook at this situation (interruption). Right. However, I'll leave that for you, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre. You can bring that one up next time, but I think it is relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, also, about the next section that I'd like to talk about. I'm concerned because the Public Schools Act is in conflict with another Act of this Legislature. It says in the Human Rights Act, that we all applauded so strongly here…we all stood up and said, "Isn't this wonderful, look at the rights of the individual, let's protect them in a bill, enshrine them forever." So we did it and we said, for example, in here at any rate, that, "There shall be no discrimination because of race, religion, sex, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin." But I said, "religion," there. Now, I say that section 62 of the Public Schools Act is in direct contradiction of our Human Rights Act. Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, we can't allow this. I'm afraid we're going to have to make this change in our Public Schools Act and that means we're going to have to delete section 62 of the Public Schools Act which says…or one of them has to be deleted. I would suggest that the School Act section that says, "No practising clergyman of any denomination who is registered under the Marriage Act is eligible for the position of superintendent, district superintendent of schools or teacher, under this Act, in the public schools of British Columbia." This is gross discrimination. We do not discriminate against the atheist in our society. We'll allow anybody to teach in our schools, except someone who has a religious bias. I think that's wrong. I think that it should be changed. The principle is unsound (interruption). You like these amendments do you?

The next section I would like to see deleted…in section 59, delete the words, "or other British subject." I'm suggesting that we put a period after "Canadian," and, just as our Prime Minister in this great Centennial Year returned from the conference and brought our Constitution home from England, we now hope that we're going to be able to amend our own Constitution. To him, I send my congratulations and, I say, let's continue the idea and the thought through to the Public Schools Act.

The next amendment I'd like to suggest relates to finance and the educational finance formula, which I happen to feel, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General, that a good job was done in drawing up this formula. I commend the formula and I support it, in principle; however, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I have to get together on this one because his area and my area are being discriminated against by this finance formula. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Minister, that we need to put more money into the great educational pie. I think there's an adequate supply of money there, but it's the distribution that's not quite equal. For rapid growth areas, it makes no allowances for growth between October 31 and the end of the year. It makes no allowance. Now, I know that you want to correct this inequity so that the School Board in Kelowna and the School Board in Delta are treated fairly in relationship to this rapid growth we are experiencing. I'm going to be presenting an amendment later on in the Session, to this effect, and I feel confident that you'll be most encouraged to support it. The author comes from me, the author comes from the people of the Province of British Columbia, particularly Delta, who have a special concern. There are other Members that understand this problem, that's for sure. But I don't think this amendment will appear anything quite like theirs. It's quite original, I think you'll find.

At any rate, a couple more suggestions here. In Surrey School District, alone, we spend, each year, $234,000 extra, we spend $234,000 extra for teachers, who are away from school on account of illness. It concerns me that we should lose a $60-a-day teacher and replace him with a $20-a-day substitute. I don't think that that is fair to the children. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I'm concerned about

[ Page 382 ]

the health of that teacher, so, I would suggest, just to make sure that the teacher can be returned to active service as soon as possible, that each school employ a public health nurse who shall call on, by telephone or personal visitation, teachers absent due to illness. I think it might help them back to school much, much sooner. In fact, I might even suggest that we might, to the Minister of Health, through you, that we might employ some of the health nurses, when they're not busy vaccinating. We could have them doing this job for us because we just can't afford to lose those $60-a-day teachers.

Maybe we can get our departments together, here, and we can do something about the ill teachers. We must give the teacher some incentive to want to stay in school. You know, every day, all of us, sometimes, we don't quite feel like getting up and going that morning but we want to try and encourage her, if the teacher is well enough, to go to school. One incentive would be to allow her to accumulate her sick leave instead of saying, "Well, I have fifteen days every year. They're just gone if I don't use them." I think they need to be given an incentive and I'm suggesting, in recognition of outstanding services, school boards may grant a leave of absence to a teacher who has accumulated 200 days of sick leave within the same school district and pay the teacher at a rate not exceeding 50 per cent of the teacher's current salary and for a period of up to seven months for the purpose of further education. In other words, for one semester, if that teacher wants to go back to university, let's reward them for being at school in their place each and every day that is humanly possible. I'm suggesting accumulative sick leave be established, as well as trying to make sure the health of the teacher is kept to its maximum by public health nurse consultation (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. There are too many discussions going on.

MR. WENMAN: There is another section 1 would like to refer to you, Mr. Speaker, relating to the Vancouver Members. I'm suggesting that section 12, referring to special treatment for Vancouver schools, should be deleted. I want to assure you that the teaching in Vancouver schools is no different than the teaching in Burnaby, in New Westminster and so forth, so I suggest that this…(interruption)…that you have special problems. I doubt that you have special problems, not very many that we don't have elsewhere in education (interruption). We provide for Chinese students. The formula provides for special classes. I'm suggesting that this section be deleted (interruption). How many more minutes? I'm just about finished, just about finished.

I'm suggesting positive…(interruption). Oh, I don't know. You'll have to ask the Member. Maybe we should have more schools in Chinese, maybe we should have more schools in Ukrainian, maybe we should have more of this kind of thing, but remember that we are a multicultural and a multilinguistic country (interruption). Well, we should be. Oh, monolinguist? OK. I'll leave the amendments for the moment.

Several years ago, in B.C., we entered a great experiment. I remember looking from Saskatchewan and saying, "Look at progressive B.C. going into the junior high school system." We're going to take these children with special problems in growth and so forth in grades 8, 9, 10, and we'll put them altogether. I'm afraid that that experiment hasn't worked, Mr. Minister, and it's time that we had a Royal Commission or a Task Force reassess before we move further into the establishment of the junior high school system. I'm asking that this problem be looked at because, when you take the influence of the older students away from the aggressive students and the ones full of energy, they tend to have unnecessary problems.

One more positive suggestion. The Province of British Columbia already pays at least 75 per cent of the cost of university for each individual student. I would suggest, Mr. Minister of Finance, that the Provincial Government should pay the whole cost of the university education; however, conditional on…. I'm saying that we should pay the full cost for each student and then place a charge on the student, upon graduation, for the full cost of his education. Now, I'm not suggesting that an education that costs $2,000 a year and he goes for four and that's $8,000, that he pay back a full $8,000 in cash, but there are methods in which this investment can be repaid. I would suggest that, perhaps, after graduation, the total cost remaining could be forgiven at the rate of $2,000 per year for each year of service served in British Columbia in an area of need, in a northern community, perhaps, something along this line. I'm suggesting, also, that each student would pay, in addition, after graduation, $200 per year in attendance. In other words, if they attended for five years, they would pay $1,000 in cash back to the fund.

Now this would help in relationship to the doctor situation, as well. We have a greater supply of doctors in British Columbia, I understand from the dean, per capita, than anywhere in the world, other than Russia. This is his statistic, at least. But the problem is, in the northern areas of our Province, the distribution is not adequate and, if we have this commitment from university students that the cost of their education were charged to them and they had this service commitment to repay, then we could direct them to various parts and give an even service throughout the entire Province of British Columbia.

I would suggest, also, during summer breaks, the students could work on Government projects at the rate of perhaps $2 an hour and the Government would retain one dollar an hour on the repayment schedule of the $1,000. They could do jobs that have been suggested by many of the Members here — clearing reservoirs, clearing of brush on B.C. Hydro rights-of-way, instead of using pesticides. There are all kinds of possibilities that could be developed and, for example, if we're going to subsidize them and drive them from Montreal to Vancouver in buses, I suggest that's the wrong place to drive them. Let's drive them up to the Peace River Reservoir. Let's drive them out to areas of the Provinces on these buses the Federal Government is going to provide and let them provide a service to their country. They talk constantly about meaningful jobs, about doing something meaningful. They talk about their environment. This is meaningful, let's give them the opportunity rather than living on welfare and hand-outs in our cities. Let's give them an opportunity to help build this great north country in British Columbia. Just one final brief item.

I want to "dis-associate" myself with the popular bandwagon called "Women's Liberation." (Interruption.) Thank you. Well, I know that many Members are jumping to the support of the Women's Liberation movement and I don't wish to do that, today. I would suggest, instead of promoting day care for children, we should be advocating mother care for children rather than day care. I'm glad there are some people left for motherhood. We hear fine speeches regarding

[ Page 383 ]

the building of day care centres, so that mothers can abrogate their natural, necessary and most important function to a cold, impersonal, glorified baby-sitting service. I resent this communal hurting of babies during their most formative years, when they require the stability and love that is only available on a one-to-one basis from one source — their own mother. We talk of maintaining and strengthening family units. Let's do it. Let's keep mother in the home (interruption). I thought you'd like that. The Federal Government, my friend, is going to take away the universal family allowance and they're going to replace it with a higher allowance on the basis of need. I submit that the measurement of need in our society, today, is not monetary but rather the need of the child to have the security of a full-time mother be he three or thirteen years of age. I would suggest that the allowances should, therefore, be given only when a mother remains in the home, regardless of financial status. Children have one important common need, whether their parent is making $4,000 or $40,000 dollars a year. I would suggest that that Federal money should have been redirected to help keep mother in the home. Many mothers work, not only because of financial need, but also to fulfil professional, career or status objectives. While it is unfortunate that such females ever had children, such female liberation types do exist in large numbers and, occasionally, they do a reasonable job as both mother and career female. I would submit, however, that these tend to be the exception rather than the rule and, in order to encourage a better and stronger generation of mothers, Governments and educationalists should start, now, to respect and encourage the noncareer mother in the home by both moral and financial support. It's one thing for the Women's Liberation Movement to throw away their bras but it's another thing for them to throw away their responsibility as mothers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the motion of the Honourable P.A. Gaglardi, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

By leave of the House, Mr. Dowding withdrew the following notice of motion:

That Motion No. 8 be amended by adding a further instruction as follows:

The Committee is further requested to consider the advisability of recommending establishment of a compensation fund for owners of small boats and vessels under 500 tons damaged by reason of floating logs and other debris, and whether such fund should be imposed on logging companies, lumber mills, and log-towing companies utilizing rivers, lakes, or the sea for log transport or gathering.

The House adjourned at 10:04 p.m.