[ Page 469 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

By leave of the House, the Honourable W.K. Kiernan made a Government statement of policy regarding Sunday passes on British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority buses and the establishment of regional transit boards.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): The statement is in two parts, Mr. Speaker. The Government has requested that Hydro reconsider the question of the 50 cent Sunday passes with the view to reinstatement of theSun day pass at an early date. The Government feels that this Sunday pass is of great importance to people on limited incomes and that a special case can be made on their behalf, Mr. Speaker.

The second part, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to transit in the two metropolitan areas of our Province. The Government is prepared to endorse and facilitate the establishment of regional transit boards for the Greater Victoria and Greater Vancouver metropolitan regions, if this meets with the wishes and cooperation of the municipal governments of these areas. The Provincial Government guarantees a continuing subsidy of not less than $2 million, annually, from the Provincial Treasury in support of these urban transit operations. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority will continue as the operational and administrative body, unless otherwise determined by mutual agreement at some future date. The Hydro Authority will continue to subsidize the transit operations of the two metropolitan areas from its other earnings at a level equal to the subsidy provided in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971.

The regional transit boards, if established, will have full participation rights in terms of determining policy as to fares, extensions or limitations of services and related matters, provided the municipalities of the regions served, will share equally with the Provincial Government the deficits arising from transit operations in the metropolitan areas. The deficits to be shared will be determined by deducting from the audited annual costs of the urban transit operations in each of the two areas, deducting all of the following: all revenue received by the transit operation, as determined by audit; the $2 million Government subsidy, as provided in the estimates before the House; and the contribution made by Hydro to urban transit from its other earnings, as determined by audit for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971.

The Government commends this proposal to the early and active consideration of the metropolitan regions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, replying to the Minister's statement, in two parts: first of all, we welcome the first statement. We regret that, along with theSun day pass, the cutback on some hours of service has not been restored. Not only does the shortage of the pass work a hardship on the working poor but there is a hardship of transportation in the early hours of the morning for those people who have janitorial jobs and other marginal incomes to keep a family going. Those hours in the morning, when nurses must come home from the hospital, and those people, who work 24-hour shifts must have transportation, still do not have their problems solved.

On the second item, Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. We have the opportunity in this House to discuss through the Throne Debate and the Budget Debate, in a thorough manner, long-range transit problems and solutions, and the Government has found it necessary to respond only on the basis of a crisis, and that it has initiated, rather than spell out clearly to the House and to the people of this Province, just exactly where we are going in the transit business. (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I would just answer this, Mr. Speaker, by saying to the Minister, whom we gave leave to give this statement, and I'll complete my statement by saying this, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, if you want us to intelligently debate the matter of transit on a regional basis, then I ask the Government, in all conscience and responsibility, to lay the matter before a committee of this House with all the accounts of Hydro so that we can study the problem properly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The House gave leave to the Minister to make a statement on public policy. This is not a matter of debate at this particular time.

The Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister, if I may, that he would clarify a point for us? The question is simply this. Will there be included in the transit operation, whose financial statements will be turned over to the metropolitan authority should they decide to participate, the freight operation which also works within municipal boundaries and which returns a very generous profit to the B.C. Hydro….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: …because this question is absolutely essential for deciding whether or not this will be a profitmaking or a profit-losing operation. I just want to…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: …that in the House, Mr. Speaker, only this morning, we were turned down the opportunity in the Public Accounts Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: …that we could debate this question.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a matter of debate at this time.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Education.

HON. D.L. BROTHERS (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 470 ]

while I intend to devote most of my address this afternoon to education, this will be the only opportunity I'll have to speak on behalf of the people of the Rossland-Trail riding. Just as the economy of Canada slowed down last year, the economy of the Rossland-Trail riding noticeably slowed down. That doesn't mean to say that nothing was going on in the riding.

During the year I had the opportunity, for example, on behalf of my colleague the Honourable Ralph Loffmark, to officially open the 50-bed extended care unit and the 24-bed psychiatric unit at the Trail Regional Hospital. These additions involve an expenditure of $2 1/2 million and they fill a much needed gap in our hospital facilities in the Trail area. This hospital can compare favourably with any in the Province.

During the year 1970, as well, there was a major addition to the Senior Secondary School in Trail in library facilities; there was also a brand new school constructed in Fruitvale — the Beaver Valley Junior Secondary School — which I had the pleasure of opening just a week ago and which cost just under a million dollars to construct.

We also have in our area a very energetic group known as the Kootenay Industrial Development Association. They worked tirelessly, during the past year, to try to attract new industries to our area but up to now they've had very little success. I hope that the municipalities of our area will continue to support this kind of group in their endeavours. At the present time, there is a wood component company that's announced they would be building a plant in Trail. This application is being held up in Ottawa, but I hope that this venture will be able to get off the ground shortly.

While 1970 was a difficult year for our riding, I'm hopeful that 1971 will be much more progressive. I was happy, indeed, to be able to announce recently the construction of a new school for mines in the Rossland area I originally began working on this project when I was Minister of Mines. I'm convinced that the mining industry will continue to grow in the Province of British Columbia and, in time to come, that it will jostle the forest industry as the number one revenue producer in the Province. I think it's fortunate, indeed, for our Province that we had such a buoyant mining industry last year, because otherwise our economy would have suffered even further. With the development of this school for miners, my understanding is that the industry may require as many as 3,000 trained miners in the next few years. In prior years, the industry was able to obtain these skilled miners from other parts of Canada and from other countries, but these miners are no longer so easily available. It seems to us, therefore, that it was an appropriate time that a mining school be launched. I'm hoping it will commence on April 1, with an initial class of 40. As the school gains in experience and, contingent upon the demands, the number of students likely will be increased. They will be taught open-pit mining, underground mining, blasting techniques and the operation and the maintenance of mining equipment. The Mining Association of British Columbia has volunteered its complete cooperation and, in fact, will be obtaining a good amount of mining equipment which will be available for this school. The financing is being undertaken by Manpower and I'm very appreciative of its great assistance in this project.

During the last year, the Murphy Creek section of the Trail-Castlegar Highway was completed and I was recently able to announce that the Department of Highways will be shortly calling for tenders on the Blueberry Creek section of this highway. As soon as the contract is let, work will commence on this important section of highway.

I share in the Premier's optimism, shown in his Budget, for the economy of the Province and I expect and I hope that some of this improvement will show up in the Rossland-Trail riding this coming year.

Regarding the education portfolio, I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that our educational system in British Columbia has now been in operation for almost a hundred years. As a matter of fact, the Annual Report I tabled with the Legislature, this year, was the 99th Annual Report of the Department of Education. You'll notice that the basic principles upon which the system in British Columbia was founded have endured through the years, although many changes have taken place as our Province grew and as society became more complex.

Education must undergo a constant process of change in order to be relevant to the times in which we live and to face the problems which lie ahead of us. These changes should be brought about by an evolutionary process. Our laws and regulations are sufficiently flexible to allow the system to grow and to allow for developments. Indeed, we encourage principals and teachers to implement new innovations at the school level, as long as they remain within the framework of the changing laws which govern the operation of the system. We do not necessarily agree that change is good, simply for the sake of change because, I'm told, damage can be caused by those who implement change on the wholesale basis, without regard for the possible effects it may have on the pupils.

For example, several years ago, I had the opportunity of appearing before OECD in Paris and, at that time, the United States educational authorities were pointing out that, when you make a change in the educational system, it takes something like five to seven years before you can see the actual effects of the change on the educational system. If it is wrong and if you have made an error, it has a substantial damaging effect on the pupils who have gone through this experience.

For example, a few years ago, there was a major revolution in the area of teaching arithmetic and mathematics. Studies and research indicated that the teaching of that day was not proving effective and the subject matter of courses was sadly out of date for the scientific age. Revisions in programmes began to introduce what was often referred to as "new mathematics." It was felt that the children should be exposed to the latest ideas in the world of mathematics and in the theories and laws of science so that they would be able to operate in this area more effectively. The changes that resulted were quite marked, and proved difficult for parents to understand — some, at least, found that they could no longer assist their children with their homework — me included. These ideas and proposed changes were genuinely accepted. In this Province, as in many other educational jurisdictions, they were supported by the authorities and they received some trial use, which indicated that the new programmes did develop a greater degree of interest and enthusiasm to what was thought, up to that time, to be a very dry and dull subject and a very unpleasant one to learn. However, as in the case of all revisions, it was necessary to undertake a reassessment of this programme and, as a result of the surveys by our department of our research branch, they indicate that, while there have been some gains in the aspects of learning arithmetic, there would appear to have been a decline in certain other skills, such as multiplying, dividing or computing. Our department is now at work undertaking further revisions to ensure that

[ Page 471 ]

appropriate emphasis will be placed upon learning and maintaining the basic, fundamental skills which everyone is expected to possess.

I think that it is necessary to take stock of new developments, from time to time, to assess them in the light of the best evidence that's available. There are times when we must ask if these changes are justified, in terms of the contribution they make to the improvement of education for the pupil. Are they justified in terms of the time and the energies they demand from the teachers and in terms of the expenditure of public funds? I think it can be expected, in the future, that the Department of Education, in consultation with local school districts, will be taking a very critical took at some of these innovations. It can also be expected that local authorities, who have the right to approve such innovation, will be requiring an accounting of them.

I'm especially pleased to see that more and more of the school boards are making their school facilities available for community use. I know that the PTA has been pushing very hard for this programme, especially during the last year. I think that the school plants have tremendous potential for the promotion of a community spirit and I, personally, feel that, in a school district where the classrooms, the libraries and the gymnasia have been open to the public, the taxpayers of that area are far more likely to approve of capital referenda.

Talking about the school buildings themselves, I think that Members, if they have gone through a school recently, will realize that there's been a great change taking place in school construction in the Province today. Instead of the old honeycomb-type building, with its permanent interior walls, with which most of us are familiar, many British Columbians will find, if they go and take a look at some of the modern schools that are being constructed, a protective outer shell inside of which we have wall partitions that can be moved from place to place so that you can expand or you can reduce the size of classrooms. The wiring, the heating, the lighting and the ventilation services in these types of buildings are overhead so that they're out of the way, where they're easily accessible for inspection and repairs or overhaul. This new approach to school construction has been brought about largely in response to suggestions from teachers, principals and the educators that the classroom space belongs more properly to those using the school itself. Through the construction of a number of open-space schools, supported by these steel posts and beams, it was soon realized that it would be even more economical, in the long run, to continue with this type of construction. Since these walls are easily movable it's no longer necessary to bring in wrecking crews with jack hammers and crowbars to demolish the old walls. The services now are overhead so it's no longer necessary to bring in tradesmen, plumbers and electrical men, when the wall is moved, to move these services.

I think I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not bring to your attention and the attention of the Members, the good work of school boards in keeping the older type of building up to date and functioning. In the course of my visits to the schools, this last year, I was very much impressed by the imagination shown in reconstructing and renovating some of these buildings. I would like to particularly single out the School Board of New Westminster because, in this area, it has done a great deal of work in maintaining its old buildings and they've been maintained with scrupulous care.

It would appear to me that there's no magic formula today, no perfect model, that we can accept in the Province as being a model for all times in school buildings. The best that can be done, I think, is to proceed with care and caution to avoid extremes, fads or fashions of school construction and pay due attention to processes which will result in the most effective product for the costs involved.

Turning for a moment to our own departmental reorganization, I think it's vitally important, in our modern age, that departments and governments are organized to function efficiently and effectively as a team. It must be possible for departments to respond to needs and new demands rapidly and effectively. As is the case with many organizations, it often happens that they become involved in traditional ways of functioning and, perhaps, the carrying out of actions, the need for which may long since have disappeared or become far less important than they once were in comparison with new demands. So, that, within the last few months, we've completely reorganized the Department of Education under a new Deputy Minister.

In order to clarify the roles and responsibilities of our senior staff members and in order to improve our efficiency, we have structured seven major areas of responsibility: administration in school relations, instructional services, special education services, field and inspection services, vocational and technical services, post-secondary education services, and financial and accounting services. Under this new organization, headed up by a senior official, under the general direction of the new deputy, it is expected these will function as a team in giving advice and in carrying out major responsibilities. Each of these areas has special and various branches and offices working specifically in the particular fields, such as adult education, curriculum or correspondence education. I've also insisted that the members of this team, the senior members of the Education Department, get out into the field as much as possible and travel around the Province and see what the problems are out in the field.

I'd like to turn for a moment to educational television. I'm pleased to report that the Department of Education has initiated an experimental programme concerning the use of educational television. This new medium, which has untold power to bring the world into the classroom and provide leading learning experience for children, which was undreamed of in earlier days, is one of the major challenges we're facing today in educational planning. While television's potential value is great, its problems are many and complex. One of these had to do with the importance of determining standards of equipment and facilities for the various levels of use of this medium, so that as this expensive hardware is accumulated, we will have reasonable assurance that it will fit and suit our future needs and those of the various school districts.

Regarding this matter, our department, following extensive studies, which have taken almost a year, has recommended certain standards for school districts, and locally purchased installation of ETV equipment will be recognized in light of these standards. It's expected, as a result of this, that there will be an increase in facilities available and use made of this medium in the school systems. We have also begun a pilot project, involving the distribution of ETV programmes through cablevision, to classes in 12 elementary and secondary schools in the Penticton School District. Broadcasting began on January 1, with some 200 programmes. It's really on two separate channels, one of which will be functioning most of the day, and the other channel will be reserved for retrieval on specific requests and

[ Page 472 ]

at a specific time. We received the approval of the Federal Radio and Television Commission to be able to use this programme. We hope to be able to evaluate its use and effectiveness under the controlled conditions of the school system. It's also expected that our Department of Education will be receiving the assistance of BCIT, because over there they have complete facilities for the development of educational programmes, and we intend to have them prepare these programmes for use in our ETV programmes in the schools.

Regarding school districts themselves, I've personally visited most of the school districts in British Columbia, during the last year, to meet with the school boards and tour most of the schools. By going right into the field, it was possible for me to obtain a firsthand experience regarding the problems which are of concern to the various boards. On a number of occasions, I've been accompanied by members of the senior personnel of the Department of Education. I think the school boards must be complimented for the great work and interest that they take in education in their various areas and for the fine services which they are rendering.

During my visits to districts, I became convinced that educational services could be improved while effecting a saving to the taxpayer if some of the smaller districts were merged into more economically viable units.

For example, one area of the Province that I visited, and you can go from the centre of this area to an outlying portion of the area in one and a half hour's driving time…in this area, each of the districts, and there are five of them, is attempting to develop its own resource centre, each is buying different kinds of bus equipment, each is buying small quantities of supplies. This area could be served by five trustees, one secretary-treasurer, one superintendent of education, but to service this area there are 39 trustees, five secretary-treasurers and three district superintendents (interruption). Well, I'd prefer to not identify the area.

I have encouraged trustees, throughout British Columbia, to carefully scrutinize their operations in the hope that some districts will consider the possibility of consolidating with their neighbours. I'm very pleased at the realistic attitude the B.C. School Trustees' Association has taken towards this matter. There are some instances where it would be very impracticable to consolidate school districts, such as the Queen Charlotte Islands, Mr. Speaker, because it's almost impossible to service this area, other than it being a district of its own. So, I think that the concept of keeping some small districts intact is a good idea, when these other considerations are taken under advisement.

There were 85 school districts in British Columbia, at the time of my appointment. Since then, with the help of the School Trustees' Association and individual school boards, we've managed to bring that number down to 77. I trust that further consolidations will take place in the coming year.

I'd like to turn now to post-secondary education in the Province. I think the public of the Province is becoming aware of the tremendous changes which are taking place in this field. For example, many students today are asking themselves what they expect of higher education. Is it merely to broaden one's awareness of the world around him or is it to provide him with a knowledge which will enable him to obtain employment upon graduation? There was a time when higher education in British Columbia simply meant going on to the University of British Columbia. Those were the days when a university degree was looked upon as a touchstone to success. Today, however, so many students are going on to university that a Bachelor of Arts degree can no longer be looked upon as any kind of guarantee that the graduate will find a job. Now, it is the person with the best job qualifications who has the least difficulty in finding employment and, usually, these qualifications are obtained through some form of career or technical training.

Nine years ago, you may remember, Dr. John Macdonald, who was then the president of the University of British Columbia, brought down a report on higher education. He reported that there was as much as a 40 per cent dropout after the freshman year at university. Obviously, most of those dropouts had discovered that, for one reason or another, they were not suited to the academic programme which was offered by the university. To remedy this situation, it was proposed that a network of colleges be established in a number of communities throughout the Province, and that these new institutions should offer technical programmes as well as academic programmes. The Government adopted these ideas and set about the task of expanding this Province's post-secondary programme. The result was that the BCIT opened its doors in the fall of 1964. The Government also played a very active role in the creation of colleges. During the 1960's, the Government also embarked on an ambitious programme of building regional vocational schools at a number of centres throughout the Province, although the vocational training programme was not actually a part of Dr. Macdonald's plan.

Our vocational school enrolment has more than doubled in the past five years. We had an enrolment of about 36,000 students in 1970, compared to 17,500 in 1965. We opened a new vocational school in Victoria in June, 1970, and another one was officially opened at Terrace in August. Another vocational school is under construction in Kamloops, and it was recently announced that a vocational school will be built near Chilliwack to serve the Upper Fraser Valley region.

Even more successful has been the development of our network of colleges. For example, whereas there was only one public college in operation in 1965 — Vancouver City College, with about 2,500 students — there are eight colleges in operation in 1970. They have a total enrolment of more than 12,000 — that's nearly five times as many students in the five-year period. Cariboo College at Kamloops and Douglas College in the Lower Fraser Valley came into operation in the fall of 1970. About the same time we opened the new Langara Campus at Vancouver City College. Approval was also given in 1970 for the establishment of a college, which will come into operation in Victoria this fall — Camosun.

The popularity of our college programme has been phenomenal and I think this is because we have taken higher education to the people instead of requiring the people to come to it and, also, because our colleges offer technical and career programmes, as well as the university entrance programme. It is now possible, for example, for students in the interior of the Province to take their first year of technical training at a college, before having to go to Burnaby for their second year at the BCIT.

We are also taking steps today to merge the administration of the vocational schools with the colleges in those places where it might prove feasible, with a view to making it easier for students to move from one stream to another and with a secondary view of improving administrative efficiency of these facilities. It is now estimated that 85 per cent of the students throughout the Province of British Columbia are within easy reach of a college, a vocational school or a university. The statistical returns show that most of the

[ Page 473 ]

students in the colleges and vocational schools are now taking courses which will enhance their ability to earn a living upon graduation.

You asked me about the graduates receiving jobs. At the BCIT, Canada Manpower reports show that 94 per cent of the 1,038 students, who graduated in June, 1970, had found jobs before the end of last year and that was in spite of the difficult year. A recent random telephone survey of 25 of these graduates revealed that only one had changed jobs and that all 25 were still working in the field for which they had been trained at the BCIT. It was a similar story the year before: in 1969, 861 students graduated from BCIT and there were more jobs available in most occupations than there were graduates, and all of the students had been placed by the end of that year. Several of the students I spoke to at the graduation ceremonies had had as many as 14 jobs offered to them. They picked the best out of the 14 jobs. In June, 1968, 563 students graduated from BCIT and only 22 of those had not been placed by Labour Day. The job placement figure was in the high 90's, by the end of that year. So, how do you reconcile these figures with those reports of university graduates having a hard time finding work? In many cases, I believe, it is because a student taking a technical course at BCIT or a career programme at one of the colleges is often better prepared for the type of work which is available in British Columbia than the student who has taken a liberal arts programme in one of the universities.

I don't suggest that all students should go to a technical school, instead of a university, for that would be as one-sided as the university-oriented situation which Dr. Macdonald sought to overcome in 1962. I would strongly recommend, however, that those students, who are not sure of what they want to achieve through higher education but are hopeful of obtaining employment because of their schooling, should take a second look at what is available at BCIT and in our colleges, before they go after a university degree. Academic programmes are necessary for people who want to pursue professions such as medicine, law, engineering, health services, education or forestry but, for every professional position in this Province, there are four or five backup jobs for people trained in technical work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. BROTHERS: In view of the fact that we now have a wide range of post-secondary education facilities there is more opportunity than ever before in the history of this Province for an individual to develop his own interests and aptitudes.

In the Budget Speech, the Minister of Finance pointed out that our achievements in the first century of British Columbia's existence are closely identified to educational attainments of our citizens. Therefore, and I'm quoting directly from the Budget Speech, "It is vital for our future prosperity that the educational system be encouraged to the utmost of our capabilities." That's why the Government intends to increase its Department of Education spending by $35.5 million. This takes us to an all-time high of $398 million. This increase will provide $14 million for the school district grants, $9 million more in operating grants to the universities, $6.2 million more for colleges, BCIT and the regional vocational schools, and $1.2 million more for teachers' pensions. The Budget Speech also indicated that services to the people such as education, health, hospitals, social improvement and our medical plan, will be given an increase of $112 million, which represents 83 per cent of this year's total budgetary increase. With the Provincial homeowner grant being increased to $170 per household, home-owners will be paying less than 10 per cent of the actual cost of public education, which is the lowest percentage in Canada.

I think I should draw to your attention that the cost of education is rising at a staggering rate. The estimates for the Department of Education, alone, have risen nearly $127 million in the past three years. They jumped from $271 million in 1968, to where they are today, $398 million. I've had charts prepared showing the rising costs of education, which can be found at the back of my address and I'll send copies to all the Members.

The Social Credit Government considers this great investment as essential, in order to prepare our young people of today for the role they must play tomorrow. We also want to retrain others so that they will be better able to adjust to the rapid changes which are taking place in our society.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education is carefully examining many facets of the structure and operation of British Columbia's educational system, because we want to keep it flexible and efficient enough to meet the needs of our people. We're keeping our minds open to new ideas and we are willing to implement the changes which, we feel, will improve the system. As I said at the beginning of this address, this is an evolutionary process, which must continue if we are to fulfill our obligation of helping the citizens of this Province prepare themselves for the challenges of the fast moving decade ahead of us. I'm confident that we're moving in the right direction. I will be supporting this Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened, of course, with a great deal of attention to the previous speaker. I'm not supporting the Budget, Mr. Speaker, on the strength of the previous speech, I can tell you that. The figures are interesting and, of course, the Minister made great use of the kind of large volume of dollars that is now becoming so familiar. Members of the PTA, who are in the galleries, of course, will know, because they get cheques from their husbands, that it doesn't really matter what you spend, but how you spend it (interruption).

That's right. I think that the mere quotation of figures, of course, in the large measure, that we see in the Budget, really doesn't get down to the essentials of educational problems. We'll go into those in a second or two.

I want to welcome, as well as the rest of the House, of course, the members of the PTA, particularly those from my riding, and I want to say to them that all of us in this House have a concern for education. I hope to persuade more people in the House to be more concerned with the areas, such as Surrey, Coquitlam, Delta, which are facing the real problems in the lower mainland. When you think that the ladies here from Surrey are facing a $50 million programme in the next six or seven years, I think the House will share with me that their concern is good and their concern is real and their concern should be encouraged and, hopefully, solutions will come from this Chamber.

The Minister said that changes in education might take seven years to evaluate. One of the main changes in education, of course, took place two years ago, and that was when we changed the Minister of Education. I hope the Minister isn't asking for a moratorium on criticism until

[ Page 474 ]

1975, because he's not going to get it. I don't think he'll be there in 1975, Mr. Speaker (interruption). There's that business of figures, again, Mr. Speaker. He gets more votes every year but his percentage goes down and down and down (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. HALL: I don't want to shout all that loud to drown out the hecklers but I guess I can do it.

I looked at the PTA brief, of course, as I'm sure all of the Members did, and there were two or three things in it that I found of particular interest. I'd like to deal with my views on some of the interests that the PTA has shown, from time to time, and, of course, teachers and trustees. They deal with three small points, perhaps, easily said, but very important, in terms of where education is going.

The first item is the one that was mentioned by the Minister, that is the co-ordination of public facilities within the educational system and within the community. Whilst the Minister tells us that great strides are being taken, in terms of the use of facilities, I find that. the school boards and the PTA and the teachers don't share that optimism. They say they're finding difficulty in getting this co-ordination. The Minister tells us that he's not stopping it. Well, that's a change from two years ago, when he did stop it. So, now, I guess we're in that neutral position, where we're neither stopping it nor encouraging it. I think that what's required in this area of co-ordination is some simple desire. Perhaps, two or three people, I think, could sit down with the gentleman that shares the seat to his right, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to perhaps get to the root of these problems — the identity of the 50 cent piece out of each dollar that goes to these constructions, how it can go through the various supervisory formula, how it can be looked at in terms of the 110 per cent formula that this Government's fixed the school trustees with. It's all very well and good to say we're not stopping it, but I'd like to know what the Department of Education is doing to encourage it. I think, thereby, lies a field of debate which, no doubt, we will go into in estimates.

Another point that many people in education have talked about south of the river, Mr. Speaker, in the lower mainland, is, of course, the question of fire prevention. I noticed that the brief contains resolutions regarding protection of schools from fire. Yet, you know, even to this day, when we have suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of loss in schools in Surrey and Delta, the Government won't share the cost of sprinklers in schools. They won't share the cost of putting in sprinklers to prevent fire, even when they've been told that the saving in the cost of insurance would probably pay for those sprinklers over the life of the school.

I think, too, the PTA and, in fact, all members of the community, and I raised this in the Throne Speech Debate, must be concerned about the problem of young offenders. I want to just spend a moment or two talking about this problem. I think the Attorney-General was out of the House when I spoke about this before, and I want to perhaps get his attention on this matter, because I'd like to hear him say something about it in estimates. The Federal Government has before it a bill dealing with young offenders and I am shocked, I'm disappointed and I'm apprehensive over what will happen if that bill is passed and if the legislation contained in that bill goes forward. I want to deal with it by comparing it, if I may, Mr. Speaker, without raising anybody's hackles, to some legislation in other countries, particularly the country of Great Britain. If this bill goes through, and what I'm really calling for, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General, is for an involvement of the community, not only M.L.A.s but PTAs, social agencies and so on, to deal with this problem of young offenders and to try to get some sense into the current Solicitor-General in Ottawa.

In the United Kingdom, Mr. Speaker, no person under the age of 14 years can be charged with an offense. He can't be charged, unless it's an indictable offense, for some years after reaching the age of 14. In Canada, if this bill goes through, we can charge 10-year-olds for simple offenses. Without revealing my background, Mr. Speaker, I would say that if you can be charged at the age of 10 for some petty theft, I doubt very much whether there are many people in the community today that could honestly say they wouldn't have been charged. I don't expect to get much heckling on this but I think many of us know that we climbed, at the age of eight, an apple tree and stole an apple. I think not many of us could put up our hands and say we've not done that. Only one. One's enough, Mr. Minister, and that's the point. One's enough to become an offender. A person 10-years-old or over could be charged with an offense in the Young Offenders Act and I suppose we can count ourselves fortunate that that Act wasn't present when we were 10 years of age. Now, in Great Britain, no person can be charged, unless he's 14 years of age or over and, up to a certain age, it must be an indictable offense.

I think that we should discuss this, Mr. Attorney-General. I think we should possibly set up a commission of some kind and get some intelligence on this whole question to make representations to Ottawa. It seems to me fair to say that, if this Act does go through, it's an Act of punishment. It has no emphasis whatsoever on care or rehabilitation. In the Great Britain statute, it's possible for the Court to make an order requiring his parent or guardian to enter into cognizance to take proper care of the child and to exercise proper control over the child, or it may take a supervisory order or a care order or a hospital order or a guardianship order. What a comparison there is between that Act and the Act that's presently in front of us in Ottawa and the subject that I'd like the House to concern itself with now.

The British Act concerns itself with care and treatment and ours is one of punishment, because it simply brands young persons as criminals. I accept, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have to take it upon ourselves and let it be our duty to make sure that the observance of law and order is total in our young community. But I think there's more than just saying law and order to them. I think our treatment of those who become maladjusted, who run afoul of these laws…I don't believe, for instance, in just pushing tough kids around for the sake of pushing them around. I'm talking about social, moral and spiritual education. I think many of us are tired of seeing the troublesome kid just going through the revolving door of social care agencies, of training schools, of foster homes and then ending up in the prison system, in the mental hospitals and in the detention homes. We're not using the resources of our neighbourhood, we're not working with parents, we're not working with schools, with businessmen, with trade unions and others to solve this problem of young offenders. I hope, in the spirit that I'm trying to deliver these few remarks on young offenders, that we might engage, during the Attorney-General's estimates, in a debate on this matter, which I think is extremely serious.

Let me say, in passing, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation in

[ Page 475 ]

British Columbia on young people and that kind of thing is, by and large, something to be proud of. I commend the previous Attorney-General for some of the legislation and some of the draftsmanship that went into some of those statutes, which I know are quoted in far-off countries as being reasonable pieces of legislation. I can't pass that commendation on to the current Attorney-General. In fact, I must condemn — because it's all right building this legislation, it's all right passing it but, if you don't put any money into it, if you don't put any people into it, if you don't put any resources into it, it's meaningless. Now, I know, the Attorney-General doesn't like me to say that, and I know that he really doesn't like the situation, but it does seem to me that it's not good enough to be able to brand this legislation and say this is good legislation, unless we expend some dollars to effectively transform that legislation into the solution-producing activities that we've got to have.

The other item on education I'd like to deal with is the family life programme, Mr. Speaker. I feel that, having been in the educational system, many years ago, in another country, and having forgotten about it, but now being brought back to it because my two young children are in it, I should start to look into more deeply some of the problems in our schools and some of the problems of just living together. I'm rather disappointed that the family life programme, which has received endorsation from many areas and many jurisdictions, doesn't get the kind of encouragement that it should do here. In my own area, an experiment was carried on some short while ago in one of the schools, which was a thoroughgoing success. The children appreciated it, enjoyed it, communicated, asked questions and kept the thing going for a number of weeks afterwards. Yet, we don't encourage this, and what we allow is the kind of controversy to come into it because we use the words, "sex education" and, somehow, it gets abroad that that's a how-to-do-it programme, a gymnastic programme, rather than a family life programme. I'm bothered about that, because that's no way to go about it. That causes the kind of controversy that we've got to try and downplay. It is a controversial subject and, by its nature, it's obviously going to be controversial. There's no uniform parental agreement on this programme, I know, but then there's no uniform parental agreement on many school policies. There's no parental agreement on corporal punishment, there's no parental agreement on religious exercises, there's no parental agreement on report cards, but that doesn't stop the establishment of those policies that the school boards and the Department of Education and the Minister, hopefully, consider to be good things. So, why don't we endorse this programme and put it into action? I think the vast majority of parents would welcome the kind of programme that the Minister knows so well.

The Government's first responsibility surely is to provide leadership, not to wait until they've got that magic 61 per cent again. Good heavens, you rule this Province without that kind of majority, what's holding you back? Parents who are opposed to this programme can take their kids out of it. The whole question of this family life programme, as I say, taking it away from this rather stupid idea that many people have about it, will obviously start to solve some of the problems that we have mentioned in this House. The Member for Nanaimo, for instance, talked about drugs. I think we can get into that subject and I have some more criticism about that. But, do you know what else is happening in Nanaimo, according to some of these figures, and in B.C. as well, and across the country, is the incredible spread in venereal disease. We have probably as good a programme as any, if not better than most Provinces, in terms of the treatment, and we produce the highest statistics you can find of diagnosis. The curious thing about that statistic must mean that we must have more cases. I think that this programme could do much to start to alleviate that, because the problem of the disease, which we thought we had licked and beaten and eliminated some years ago, is now coming out in the lower-age groups, in the teenagers. So, to just set one's face against the programme, which we'll call the family life programme…instead, cover it with some intelligence and some education and this would be doing a great deal of good.

Lastly, may I deal with the problem of this, when I'm asked and told, why can't we leave it to the parents? Well, it's with no pleasure I say, Mr. Speaker, that I think, Mr. Speaker, we cannot leave it to the parents! It's becoming increasingly obvious today as we look at society, the changing mores, the changing life patterns, the changing life styles, that we cannot leave it simply to the parents to be able to put this information into the young people today. It just doesn't work that way, it just doesn't work.

That brings me to the drug question, Mr. Speaker. Last Session I had a motion that would have seen the Drug Committee revived, seen the problem explored, again, after two years of so-called activity by the Department of Education and Health. It died on the Order Paper. Right now, we're faced, in many areas with simple expulsion from school of 15- and 16-year-old people because of drug offenses. To some school boards' credit, they're not taking the expulsion route. They're saying that there's something else we have to do. If the kid is in that much trouble, what's the point of cutting him off from the only available professional advice he can get, namely, the school system? But schools are expelling. Government inaction is obvious and I share the concern of the Member from Nanaimo, but putting two more policemen on the job isn't going to solve it. I agree that his conference would start to solve it and I congratulate anybody who starts that kind of dialogue going. Hopefully, we will be able to plug into the school system. But what happened to that research, what happened to that motion? The fact of the matter is that I suspect the problem has grown, not lessened.

The third item on my educational page, here, deals with athletic endeavour, and it could be argued that I might be the last person in the House to talk about it. However, I was an athlete once and I'm bothered about the kind of thing I see, again, in my area, in the Delta area and the Coquitlam area. I see sports programmes erected and failing because of lack of facilities. I see school boards meeting in a panic on a Thursday night to discuss the condition of their playing fields and then send the word out and the whole football or soccer programme is cancelled for the weekend. I see the kind of scrapping around for playingfields that just boggles the imagination as to why it should happen in this Province. I see no co-ordination of development of these programmes. By the way, I see discrimination, too, between girls and boys. I see lots of programmes for young six; seven; eight- and nine-year-old boys, but I see no programmes for six; seven; eight- and nine-year-old girls. The boys can play soccer or hockey. The girls are told to join the Brownies. It seems to me that that's something we should be discussing, when we're discussing discrimination. I went through my research and I looked at the report on special needs and I looked at the report that was done by the B.C. Teachers' Federation, regarding the whole athletic programme, and I looked at

[ Page 476 ]

some of the observations made.

The first thing they did was to start to isolate the problems and they summarized and they said…This is in 1968, the last report we have and they sent it to the Government for attention. I have seen no indication, by way of preliminary remarks, Mr. Speaker, that this has seen any concrete action. The first point they made was the overloading of physical education teachers and coaches and the lack of time to both teach effectively and operate a satisfactory athletic programme. They observed that there was a lack of properly trained and willing teachers to assist in the cocurricular athletic programmes. They noted that the problems concerning transportation and travelling were extreme. They noted that there was an adequate financing of extracurricular programmes, exclusive in the main of transportation costs.

I want to just put those problems to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, by asking him how he can square away any progress in solving that problem, when you've got a 110 per cent formula? How can you possibly do anything about solving those programmes, when you're averaging down the school systems so that they can't spend any more than 110 per cent of the last average budget? I turn the page and I see some details regarding what the schools are providing in the way of athletic programmes. I see in one question, here, regarding the construction and the use of school and community facilities, through definite administrative procedures, which provide complexes such as parks, schools and school community centres, I see that there's no programme and no response and no activity in over 62 per cent of our school districts. I see there's a complete absence, to the tune of 67 per cent, in any administered procedures and policies governing school and community cooperation. Yet, the Minister, approximately 40 minutes ago, said that all this was there, all this was there.

I turn the page again. I look at the actual physical plants. Now, the Minister often talks about bricks and mortar. He talks about the actual buildings and we've spent so much time in this House and outside just simply talking about the buildings, and never talking about the programmes. I see that, if we look at the school sites that are normally used, varying from 5 to 50 or more acres, there is over 52 per cent that are less than the present Department of Education standards — less than 52 per cent below your own standards. How are they going to get out of that hole, with the 110 per cent artificial limit on the expenditures? I notice in this brief, which is exhaustive and covers our Province, that it terms as "just sufficient," playing fields. There was 71 per cent with from fair to no facilities, only 18 per cent with good facilities and 9 per cent with excellent facilities. The Minister shakes his head. I don't know whether he's in shock or whether he's disagreeing with me. But those are the figures that were done in a report and it's never been discussed by you, Mr. Minister, never once in all those speeches which you supply to us so beautifully and quickly and efficiently. I'm sure it's in my box right now. Do you ever mention any of these things? You make your speeches, Mr. Minister, as though you were about to cut the ribbon, opening another school, and we listen to 45 minutes of it, every time you speak.

Mr. Speaker, field areas that are surfaced with materials in order for the kids to play the games, we find there's more than 50 per cent that are unsatisfactory. In terms of hard-surfaced areas for kids to play on — we're talking about badminton, basketball, handball and all those other games — we find there's 86 per cent at less than the departmental standards. How can they get out of that hole, with the 110 per cent formula which has been put on by this Government? I say, Mr. Speaker, until we start to deal with those problems and make sure that the educational system is completely rounded and not just simply talk about turning out of vocational schools people who can work, people who can obey orders, people who can push buttons and pull levers. Until we talk about that, we're really not doing our job.

The next point I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is on the whole question of labour-management relations. I want to say that I've listened in the House, since Opening Day, to a series of charges made against the trade union movement of this Province that I don't think we've ever heard before. I don't mind the backbenchers getting uptight and fighting about the B.C. Federation of Labour and personally insulting the elected officers of that movement. That's their political bag and they are in it. I have some objections to the Cabinet Ministers doing it. You know, most of the charges were frivolous, but there was one serious charge made by one of the Cabinet Ministers, who was really upset because the organized trade union movement of this Province had refused to go to the Mediation Commission. He seemed to single out one person as having refused to go, showing he really doesn't know his trade union history, his trade union practice or anything like that. The B.C. Federation of Labour, for instance, had made a convention decision, with I don't know how many hundreds of delegates there, that they weren't going to go to the Mediation Commission. We can judge the merits of that in some debate. To single out the individual who is charged with the responsibility, at his peril, of not observing convention policy, seems to me rather ridiculous. I think the Minister of Labour should open his sights a little, because who else has said the same thing, but hasn't got the kind of condemnation from the Minister of Labour and others? Why? It's that other labour leader, Mr. Speaker, the Senator. Senator Ed Lawson, what has he said about the Mediation Commission? He said he's never going to go again, never going to go again. Is the Minister going to accuse him of being a rabblerouser, as well? Who else has said he won't go again to the Mediation Commission? Mayor Tom Campbell. Mayor Tom Campbell has said he'll never go again. Is the Minister going to accuse him of being a rabblerouser? What other institution has said the kind of things that the B.C. Federation of Labour has said about the Mediation Commission? The Vancouver Sun has said exactly the same as the B.C. Federation of Labour has said about the Mediation Commission. Let me quote from a number of these people and so on. The Teamsters' union head, Senator Lawson, when he went to the Mediation Commission said, "The Teamsters will never again appear before the three-man body." Do you want the quotation? I haven't printed this newspaper. This is the Victoria Times, November 3, 1970. The next one is the Province, October 10, 1970, for the Minister. '"I want to make another matter clear,' Senator Lawson said, 'after we settle the details of this dispute, the Teamsters will never again appear before the Commission."' The Province of September 5, 1970, joins the ranks of the B.C. Federation of Labour by talking about the ineptitude of the B.C. Mediation Commission chairman, John Parker, when he said in Halifax that civil servants shouldn't have bargaining rights. The Province raises the whole question of Mr. Parker's credibility and his worth and his continued employment as the chairman of the Mediation Commission. Similarly, the Building Trades Council said the same thing about the commissioners this time. They set their sights a little lower

[ Page 477 ]

and went after the commissioners, not just the commission. This, again, is the Vancouver Sun on June 30, 1970. The two leaders of the Building Trades Council, after negotiations had gone on for a long time, they visited the Mediation Commission offices for the first time and they were astounded by the plush surroundings of the Mediation Commission offices on the 2ist floor of the Board of Trade Building and by the attitude of the three commissioners. "They were arrogant and superficial," said Mr. O'Reilly. "My hair stood up when Mr. Parker suggested he could get people off the streets to mediate our dispute and Mr. Baskin implied that we had been fooling around for the past three months." No wonder that this three-man board has been brought into disrepute with that kind of activity and that kind of foolish statement.

Let us look, now, Mr. Speaker, at the two Annual Reports that are in front of us from the Mediation Commission. The first one is the 1969 Report, and the Minister of Labour, when he presented these reports, made a point of saying that the officers, that is the mediation officers, as distinct from the mediation commissioners, were requested more times by trade unions than they were by employers. That proves nothing. That proves exactly nothing because, in order to understand this fully, Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the Act and realize that the only way the union can avoid trouble at a later stage is by getting this application for a mediant officer out of the way at the beginning of the dispute. That's what we, on this side, have been saying over and over again — that the three or four or five stages that are in the labour legislation of this Province just make both sides recalcitrant and operating not on, "What shall we do on stage one, what shall we do on stage two," but, "Let's get to stage five as fast as we can." That's why there were 182 appointments made on the application of the trade unions in 1969.

Let's look at the actual report that deals with the commissioners. They had four hearings in that year, Mr. Speaker, that's nearly one eighth of a million dollars a hearing. The first one was the Board of Police Commissioners for the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Policemen's Union. The results of my investigation, and these are my investigations, say that the Policemen's Union was unhappy, the Board of Police Commissioners was noncommittal at the results obtained by going in front of the commission. The second case — the City of Vancouver and the Vancouver Firefighters. When it was all over, they were both unhappy and Mayor Campbell said he'd never go again. The third one was the Board of Police Commissioners and the city of Victoria and the Victoria City Policemen's Union. We all know what they thought about that one. The fourth case, in 1969, was the Imperial Oil versus, if I may use a legal description, the Oil and Chemical and Atomic Workers' Union. There, the results were, as predicted by everybody, that the union was unhappy and Imperial Oil was very happy indeed.

Another thing about this Mediation Commission Report, Mr. Speaker, is that it really doesn't give us any real details about how the Mediation Office is operated. It's just a cold recital of the number of disputes that came before it. One of the interesting things I find is that the mediation commissioners and the officers, as distinct from in the old days when the Labour Relations Board used to get into a dispute and try to bring the parties together and try to act as an encourager, as a messenger from one to the other, and keep the thing going and keep these collective bargainings going, they sit back, Mr. Speaker, and they wait for the application to be in writing. Frankly, that really means that the recalcitrant position that I have mentioned, hardens up. Stage three, stage four goes past then we're into the kind of massive confrontation situation that we see ourselves in so often.

I notice in answer to my question, Mr. Speaker, that is now on the Order Paper, this year, when I asked the Minister of Labour what were the names, salaries and wages paid and job classifications of every person employed by the Mediation Commission, that I got pretty well the same answer that I got last year. I want to go through the list, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's rather important. First of all, we deal with the commissioners: at $42,500; at $40,000 per annum; at $40,000 per annum. Then we have an executive secretary, then we have a registrar, then we have 8 mediation officers, then we have an administrative assistant, then we have a secretary, a second secretary, a clerk, a second clerk, a clerk-stenographer, a second clerk-stenographer and a switchboard operator. That's the Mediation Commission. When it was first set up the Minister of Labour here and, later, Judge Parker and his officers said that the first thing they were going to do was to hire an economist, so they would know some of the details and some of the facts around the disputes they're supposed to investigate. There is still no economist, still no economist hired.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does Judge Parker do?

MR. HALL: Judge Parker, who is available at a moment's notice, I suppose, acts as all three — commissioner, head of the office and the economist.

As we look at the report this year, Mr. Speaker, we see the same kind of thing. Again, the proportion of applications for a mediation officer is weighted on the side of the trade unions for the reason I've mentioned. There have been only two cases referred to the Mediation Commission, Mr. Speaker. The first one was LaFarge Concrete versus the Budding Material Construction and Fuel Drivers' Union. That's the one where Senator Lawson said he would never go back to the Commission. The last one, of course, was the transit strike, which is only just finalized. We have no exhaustive report here because, of course, we were present when it was all going on. One question I might ask, of course, deals with the number of signatures that was on the award — only one signature on the award of the officer. I think that's open to conjecture. I think we're entitled to conject, as much as we want, as to why there was only one signature on that report.

Mr. Speaker, the two points I want to make in summation of this labour-management situation is that the officers that come into the disputes from the Mediation Commission never bear down on the parties, never suggest all-night talks, never hold themselves in readiness like the labour relations officers used to do. The time, when just before a deadline occurs, whether it's a deadline for the employer or a deadline for the employee, is the time when the officers should really be putting the pressure on to keep these people together, to keep them talking. Never does that happen. The second point is that they never seem to take the initiative. The trade unions…I researched and talked to the leaders of some of the trade unions. I've asked them, "How many times has a mediation officer phoned you up to say, 'Can I be of assistance, can I help, can I get you together?'" And the answer, Mr. Speaker, is, "Never, never. They say, 'Send me a letter in writing and I'll turn up."'

I think that's a sad state of affairs when we see what's

[ Page 478 ]

happened over the past year. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, until we face up to the facts that we're going to have to repeal the compulsory arbitration section of our labour statutes, until we've got a reorganized, truly independent and fully-staffed Mediation Commission, we're not going to get anywhere. Until we've abolished the use of ex parte injunctions in labour disputes, we're never going to get anywhere. The use of injunctions was defended by this Government on the grounds of violence — "You've got to keep the violence down." Yet, in the tugboat dispute, which I agree was Federal in terms of jurisdiction…At the time of the tugboat dispute, there were more injunctions went against that union than you could shake a stick at and there wasn't one single case of violence during the whole of that strike. So the argument about violence is nonsense and, anyway, as any competent lawyer can tell you, there's sufficient room in the other statutes to deal with that kind of problem. Until we get full bargaining rights for civil servants, Mr. Speaker, and until we can make sure there's legislation to ensure that changes, technological changes and dislocation and all that kind of thing are dealt with, properly join the collective bargaining procedures and are written into the agreements, until that happens we're not going to see the climate improve.

I, personally, believe that this Government has to take much greater responsibility for industrial safety. I think that will remove some of the pressures and some of the problems that frequently come into the labour-management disputes. I think we should repeal all the legislation we can, in one fell swoop, that does anything to hinder the organization of the unorganized.

I would be out of order, Mr. Speaker, as you know, if I dealt with the current situation at the hospital up the street. Just let me say this, that had we not got hindersome legislation, that situation wouldn't exist today. I think, in order to make sure that all the flim-flam and all the posturing and all the false information and all the irrelevant facts that come at the time of the dispute are cleaned out of the way, we have to make sure that we erect some sort of supply system for both management and labour of acceptable facts. The research that Justice Nemetz talked about three years ago, which took him 90 per cent of his time, before he solved the IWA dispute in 1968, the research he had to do should be done before the event. I think that until we make sure there is easy access to the research staff and to data processing and the statistical branch, and, here, we could probably find something for the Second Member for Victoria to be doing, if we could possibly get that altogether in one pot and make it available to both labour and management …

My third point, Mr. Speaker, out of four, deals with a subject I have dealt with, on occasion, in the House. That is the question of safety. This year we've seen a slight reduction in the death rate on our highways whilst, at the same time, the statistics show there's been an increase in the death rate in the areas that I refer to, time and time and time again, in this Legislature — that big urban sprawl that starts in Coquitlam, goes to Surrey and ends up in Delta. The fact of the matter is that the highway safety in that area is not good. The fact of the matter is that we're not doing our job in terms of legislation and inspection and coverage. I wish the Minister of Commercial Transport were here because I've raised this, as you know, many times. I found out, talking to the senior civil servants in the departments involved, that they agree with me that something should be done. But they say they can't decide who's going to do it. Now, that's the kind of thing that used to make this Government tick — that you could decide who was going to do it. If ever there is a sad reflection it is the fact that, now, you can't decide who is going to do it.

The first thing we have to do, Mr. Minister is this. We have to make sure that all the commercial vehicles in this Province pass standards. I'll tell you a story about that, about the famous mobile inspection places that were built. A very large company, which shall be nameless…(interruption). No. I don't think that would be fair…was complimented by a person I know who is very involved in this road safety programme, because they had lifted their exhaust stacks on the tops of their trucks another three feet. He said, "By jingle, why don't they all do that because it makes so much sense to get the pollution out and get better combustion in the engine and so on and so forth." The fellow said, "Well, we didn't do it for that reason at all. We built the smokestack three feet higher so it wouldn't go through the Government inspection station." That's unfortunately the kind of attitude around in the trucking industry. We've got to have hours-of-work legislation. I can tell you, Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Minister, who is showing an interest, that there are many truck drivers coming out of Montreal right across the country and in B.C. who are taking benzedrine to keep awake at the wheel. If the Attorney-General will check with the detachment on the 401, the 499, let him find out and tell me how many trucks were picked up by the RCMP in the ditch with the driver asleep. There's only one reason for that and that's lousy employment practice, forcing the men to drive nonstop between here and Kamloops, nonstop between here and Calgary, no breaks, no turn-arounds, no time to rest, bring the truck back, so on and so forth. The Federal legislation is meaningless, absolutely meaningless, and is laughed at by all the trucking industry across the country. We should have testing stations like they do in the States, we should have the kind of strict legislation they have in the States, that governs the frequency of inspection, the condition of these trucks. You know, I don't know how many people realize that, when the Minister of Commercial Transport the other day was talking about the commercial vehicles and all the thousands of miles he has, he went into a learned dissertation about, now, the trucking industry is on two foot modules. Now, two times two is four, and two times that is eight. Right, eight feet? An eight foot module in a truck, and we've allowed by legislation for large trucks and trailers to, now, become over eight feet wide. If you add the overhang at the side and you add the mirrors and so on, I can tell you, Mr. Minister, it's impossible for two trucks to go over the Pattullo Bridge side by side. Impossible for two trucks to go over the Pattullo Bridge side by side. Our safety inspection on trucks will cause accidents and I mention again the Pattullo Bridge. How long ago is it — three months? — when two youngsters were killed on the Pattullo Bridge when a load fell off — based on two foot modules, I might add. But, that's not really fair, it was an unsafe load. It seems to me that unless we do something about…starting off with the Commercial Transport Division of all the roadusers, we're not going to get anywhere. The Minister's expert, I can't remember the gentleman's name, on brakes, he's made a name all across the Province and into the States. I wish I could remember — the senior man in the Minister's department. His name has escaped me…Swanson, Mr. Swanson — an expert, a man I've read about in many magazines, who is probably a real authority on brakes and he will tell you there hasn't been a single improvement in the braking system in the commercial vehicle industry for 30 years. Not one single improvement

[ Page 479 ]

and, yet, day after day, week after week, we accept larger loads, longer loads, faster loads, heavier loads, and I will still make my point with the Minister of Commercial Transport that he will eventually allow three trailers on our highways. I think that, until we do really stiffen up on this whole question of industrial safety and road safety, we're not going to get anywhere. I wish I could perhaps debate in a smaller way, in a more informal way, this question because, frankly, the death rate, which can be obtained, of truckers in the Canyon and along the Fraser Highway — I see the Minister listening, because he's had his accidents on your highway through your area — is becoming tragic and unnecessary.

I was promised last year…I see I should really finish off on the Minister of Highways who, I hope, will be with us tomorrow. He promised last year to do a study in the area along the border, where the heavy commercial vehicles come in at Blaine, Douglas, and so on, that he'd do a study of traffic patterns around there. I still have no knowledge of any study and I still know that, in the areas that are shared between myself and the Member from Langley, we are seeing 60, 70, 80 thousand-pound vehicles coming through on those roads, around those farm areas and those narrow lanes. They're breaking down the shoulders. You know, in my area, Mr. Speaker, we've got intersections, round schools, at 40 mph. There will be a school at the end of the block, there will be an intersection, a four-way intersection, a four-way stop sign, and the speed allowable, on those intersections on 14 ft. of roadway, is 40 mph. It's no wonder the death rate's going up in Surrey, it's no wonder.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the question of park assembly and I'm glad to see the Minister of Recreation and Conservation here. In the regional districts, and I want to refer my remarks through you to him, Mr. Speaker, that encompass my area, we have one of the most exciting possibilities for park development there is in the lower mainland. It's going to be the safety valve for the urban push that's coming and that Members, such as the leader of my Party and the Member for Delta, know about. There was an announcement two years ago that there would be a park. The various devices were set up, the letters patent, I suppose, were granted, the administrators were hired, the municipalities got together, and they all put something in the pot, and we started to buy and assemble that land. Immediately you do that, Mr. Speaker, you freeze the value of every single home that's in that projected park area. You freeze the value and you lock those people in, because who's going to buy a house in an area that's designated for a park? Who's going to repair a house in an area that's designated for a park? Who's going to do anything about their home in an area that's designated for a park, knowing, as they know, that it's going to be bought, dealt or expropriated? The money supply is not available to do the job. The public relations aspect of it I will leave alone because it has no relevance to this debate or to the Minister, indeed. We've got the situation, now, where not only has the whole area been frozen, but there's been an enquiry into the behaviour and the practices of that regional district. The administrator has resigned. Allegations have been made against him and I think that it is unfair, I suppose, to leave this thing in limbo. I'm going to leave that alone. Should I say, the results of that enquiry and the enquiry, itself, by the company retained by the regional district has, of course, got everybody in the area even more excited than they were before. They are now told that the budget for 1971 is already spent, has already been committed. They're told that the boundaries of the park will remain unchanged but there are areas with a priority, that areas east of one particular street will not be touched for at least five years. They're told that the area adjoining that particular arbitrary boundary is of low priority and they're told the rest will be purchased. I think they are entitled to know a little bit more than that, Mr. Speaker. I think they're entitled to know where the money has gone, how it's been assembled, what the values were, what the prices were that were paid, how much money is likely to be coming in. I think that the report of the investigation into the Fraser-Burrard Regional Park District should be made public, with the possible exception, and I'll bow to the Attorney-General's wisdom in this, with the possible exception of some of the personal things that must have gone on in that enquiry.

The fact is that, as I see it, and there's only $400,000 in the Budget, I think, Mr. Minister, for regional park development of which, obviously, our area will only get a share, there's nowhere near enough money to do the job. I say "you" meaning the authorities and, as the Minister looks after the Regional Parks Act as far as this House is concerned, there wasn't enough money to do it in the first place. So, what we've done is we've really starved those people out. They are people who have pioneered that area, people with five acres, with ten acres, people with registered feed lots, people growing a bit of hay, people with a nice house in the modern way. We've effectively frozen those people in. I'm reminded of the irresponsible remark that was made by a senior alderman in the city of Vancouver when the debate about the mill rate for regional park districts came up. Alderman Broome, and Alderman Broome has never been one of my favourite aldermen, said, "Why should we increase this mill rate to buy parks for other municipalities? Why should we increase this mill rate to buy parks for other municipalities?" showing he just doesn't understand the whole concept, and showing, too, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has done an awful job of explaining things to him. I think we should, Mr. Speaker, at this Session of the House, pass legislation to make it mandatory for every single municipality within the regional district to accept the mill rate. Why should there be freeloaders? Why should a municipality, knowing full well that its citizens and its population are going to use these parks, are going to go there, why shouldn't they pay that half of a mill rate? I want to put in a plea, Mr. Speaker, finally, if I may, skirting the rules of the House, for some of the $15 million that the Minister may have, if the bill goes through, in order to rescue the situation in the Tynehead regional park in that Tynehead district. It's going to be a very small percentage of all the money the Minister's got and I think that the least the Minister can do, knowing the complete breakdown and the fact that this district is really in a crisis situation, the least he can do is, perhaps, give me the nod over the floor of the House, sometime in the next week, and say that this area will be looked after. This area is going to serve, not only Vancouver, not only Burnaby, not only Delta, but Coquitlam and Surrey in a way that no other park could possibly serve.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in closing, may I say that these four issues that I've dealt with today, namely education, labour relations, safety and park assembly, all have a direct effect and a very direct effect on Surrey and its neighbouring ridings and municipalities? The areas, Mr. Speaker, of Coquitlam, Surrey and Delta are the fastest growing in the Province, the fastest growing in the Province. Surrey and its neighbour, Coquitlam, have welfare problems that, I think it can safely be said, exceed the kind of problems there are in

[ Page 480 ]

many of the other areas. All of them have got educational problems. The educational thrust and growth and demands in the Surrey-Delta-Coquitlam area are greater than anywhere else in the Province. We're on shifts, Mr. Speaker, we're on shifts in most of the areas. Our school building programme just staggers the imagination, staggers the imagination. The co-ordination the Minister talks about does not appear to be there. The shortage of land in the northern part and the western part of my friend's riding, obviously, means that if schools are going to be build we're going to be expropriating five-year-old property. We've all got transportation problems. I've sat in this House, now, five times, five Sessions, and listened to the Leader of my Party talk about the transportation problems in his riding. I remember when he incurred the wrath of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, by talking about busses. I think that, again, the Delta-Coquitlam-Surrey area has got to receive greater attention from this Government.

The area south of the river, that is the Delta and the Surrey area, have got more problems about rights-of-way, about access and the planning problems of developing railways and highways than any other area in the Province. I could produce a figure, which I haven't got in front of me, of the thousands of acres that have been lost to those two municipalities because of the most casual and careless development programmes by either this Government or its Crown agencies. They've all reached the stage where housing developments are now looked at with a jaundiced eye by the municipal council. I could tell you, quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, that if a housing project comes to Surrey, the municipal council will look twice at it, because the mathematical formula and mix of the various criteria that go to provide the tax dollars to run our municipalities have reached the breaking point in the Surrey-Coquitlam-Delta area.

They are all looking, Mr. Speaker, for some facts behind the figures of this Budget and, frankly, I see that, in those huge urban areas, those facts aren't there behind those figures. This Government, unfortunately, doesn't even seem able to notice that they are problems. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): This Budget, Mr. Speaker, is a recordbreaker. I'd say it's a testimonial that, once again, this Cabinet has come through with their old battle colours, which are fantasy and fallacy and they're asking B.C. to believe, once again, that so much is being given, so little is being taxed and there is no debt. We find, throughout the total Budget, a gross underestimation of revenues and a failure to adequately reveal the true story of the ever-increasing debt in this Province, which is something that I intend to speak upon at some length this afternoon. The two taxes, once again, just socking it to the little guy and the hotel tax is just another swift kick to the municipalities because, although they're going to generate it, Mr. Speaker, they will never ever see it. It won't be labelled for tourism. It won't be used to promote the tourist industry, but it will just fall into general revenue and be sloughed off into another fund for another dam. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I back the Liberal budget head and shoulders and toenail to forelock over yours (interruption). The B.C. Liberal budget. It's very nice to see this Minister back in his seat, because he's one of the more popular Ministers in this House; as we all know, and I see that he's been given special distinction in this issue of the Budget. As a matter of fact, a picture, a picture for the first time! That's quite something. You'll find at the very back page, in front of the Parliament Buildings, there are two Tally-Ho's. I would say that they somewhat signify what this Minister's dynamic new policies are in his department — he's still running a tally-ho department, but using two rather than one. Maybe that's an improvement.

Now, there hasn't been a peep from the Government in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, about how our taxes have increased over the years and not a peep as to how much our debt has increased. The people of the Province should know this almighty load, so I have compiled some figures here. I'm using some figures from 1960 to 1970 and these are the people's burden. I suppose you could say that the people's burden in British Columbia is the Social Credit Government. This is the people's burden, insofar as these taxes are concerned: in 1960 the people of B.C. paid $370 million; in 1961, $387; 1962, $419 million; 1963, $447; 1964, $483; it's up, up and away, all the way, Mr. Speaker; 1965, $543; 1966, $656; 1967, $731; 1968, $814 million; 1969, $968 million; and 1970, $1,179 million worth of taxes. Now, on the basis… (interruption). Yes, I'll give you a copy of them. On the basis of this Budget of $1,300 million, the tax increase, from 1960 to the present time, is 351 per cent in the Province of B.C. That's the tax increase from $370 million, on the basis of your present Budget of $1,300 million. What you are actually going to collect, this year, from the poor old B.C. taxpayer is $1,400 million and that will mean that your actual percentage increase, over the period 1960 to 1971, is a 380 per cent increase in taxes to the people in this Province.

Now, someone is going to say what about the population. All right what about the population? The population increase over that period of time was 36 per cent, a population increase of 36 per cent and a tax increase of 380 per cent. I can say one thing, Mr. Speaker, that the B.C. taxpayer has, surely, got an unbelievably strong back.

Now, I'd like to have a word or two about this gibble-gabble about no debt. That's absolute guff, guff, guff. I've got another graph here of the guaranteed account. It is fuddy-duddy, my friend. I agree, it's fuddy-duddy Social Credit bookkeeping. In 1952, the guaranteed accounts of this Government were $270 million (interruption). I can come to that in a moment or two, my friend. In 1960, going from 1952 to 1960, there are $601 million; 1961, guaranteed accounts, $1,265; 1962, $1,364 — I won't read all of these to you — 1965, $1,458 million of guaranteed accounts; 1967, $1,947 million; 1968, $2,094 million; 1969, $2,250 million; 1970, $2,431 million, or an increase in these per capita debts, which I'm going to give you in half a second, from 1952 to 1970, of 900 per cent. That has been the increase in per capita debt in this Province from 1952 to 1970. The increase over the period from 1960 until 1970 is 400 per cent, up four times in the ten-year period, up nine times since this Government took over.

What about this, insofar as each individual citizen, every man, woman, boy and girl in B.C., is concerned? Here's what you carried in 1952, as your per capita debt, $232; 1960, $374; 1961, $772; 1962 and 1963, $822; 1964, $789; 1965, $870; 1966, $1,034; 1967, $1,025; 1969, $1,067: 1970, $1,111. That's the per capita debt in 1970. It's up nine times what it was in 1952, four times what it was in 1960, and these people have the unmitigated gall to say that there is no Provincial debt in this Province which is absolute 100 per

[ Page 481 ]

cent tommyrot.

It's very interesting, also, to see what portion of these guaranteed accounts, that I've been telling you about, is Hydro and PGE. It's truly staggering. I won't read all of them but if the Members would like copies I'll be more than delighted to send them to them. This, again, is from the period 1960 to 1970. In 1961, we find Hydro owing guaranteed accounts — these are the accounts that the Province of British Columbia guarantees for Hydro — $811 million; the PGE, $117 million. Now, my friends, listen to this, 1970, the guaranteed account of Hydro, $1,760 million; the guaranteed account for PGE, $171 million. This means that, over the 10-year period, the indebtedness of Hydro has doubled and the PGE is up nearly 50 per cent, which is truly staggering.

From all of this, you can determine one thing — that the Premier is a publicist, the likes of whom we've never ever seen before. There was a very learned editorialist in British Columbia, many years ago, who used to work for the Province. His name is Jim Butterfield and he said, "It doesn't take long for a fallacy handled by a determined publicist to almost become in the minds of the people a divine revelation." That's been the gospel of this Government. I say it's high time that this so-called divine revelation came right down to earth. In four years, Mr. Speaker, its guaranteed debt is up about $500 million. In four years, we now owe $2,431 million, of that figure, $1,930 million is Hydro and PGE, and our per capita responsibility is $1,111 each.

My friend, the First Member from Burrard asked me what about assets and here's a word or two about that. You don't hear too many Government figures in this, either. Our debt is about nine times as great as it was when Social Credit took over, but our fixed assets have only increased about six times, from $188 million to $1,262 million. The figures are in your books. You just look them up, my friend, and read them. Stop looking to the stars for guidance. Just get the figures out of the books.

Last year, if Hydro had a net profit, and it did, some years ago…last year, I think it had a net profit of $9.28 million. Well, let's just for fun, make that an even $10 million. If we use that net profit on annual calculation to repay the capital debt of Hydro — and I would like all of the Members to take exceptional comfort from this — it will only take another 176 years to pay off Hydro's debt — another 176 years — 2147 A.D. However, last year, we find there was a deficit in Hydro of $408,000. So, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is mortgaged right into perpetuity and make no mistake of that. The Member from Cowichan-Malahat gave us some very interesting figures about the interest rates of Hydro and I have forgotten what you said — it was per individual…(interruption). Thirty cents in every bill head. OK. Now the interest, alone, of Hydro, last year, on its debt charges, are $97.7 million, $14.7 million on construction, and the total interest that this Hydro has to pay is $112.4 million, every year. Little wonder that we hear from the lady Member over there saying, "Keep the lights on all night." I tell you, if we had a night as long as the night of Rip Van Winkle, we'd never find enough money to take care of this interest, Mr. Speaker. And you wonder, and you wonder, and you wonder why we want a close look at your books. The second Member from Vancouver Centre, and I'm delighted to see that not only is he here but his very charming wife is up in the balcony, too. I'm a great man in the field of matrimonial relations, you understand that. He said, however, "Everything's OK with Hydro, you know there's an audit." But, Mr. Speaker, auditors add up figures and they see they balance and that's their responsibility. They don't inform the public of the worthiness, or otherwise, of the financial policy or of a contract. Then the Member from Langley woke up and he said a few words, too. He said, "Fellows, there's no need to look at the books, because if mistakes were made the public would ask questions and the elected representatives would raise issues." I say so they should, Mr. Speaker, it's not only their right, it's their responsibility.

If we had an Auditor-General, we'd do the same thing. Make no mistake of that. But, Mr. Speaker, public money is public money from the start to the finish and that's our position in this side of the House. It's the people's throughout, and the complete lack of capacity and the complete lack of philosophy of this Government to either understand, appreciate or carry that fact into practice, Mr. Speaker, will spell its eventual downfall. Make no mistake about that, because the people are demanding a look at the books. The fact that they're not allowed to see them is straight, unadulterated nonsense. I would suggest to the Government never to ever forget the words of Lord Acton, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I say that the B.C. Hydro needs to be reminded that its only association with power is to sell the hydro-electric variety to the people and not to dictate to them, as it has re the transit cuts, as it has re the rate raises, as it has re the expropriation procedures and as it has, in its present attempt, to slough off the transit losses on to the cities in this Province.

Now, I want to say a couple of words about the Minister's statement, this afternoon. He's asking Hydro to reconsider the continuance of Sunday bus passes. Of course, they should. Who quarrels with that? No one. The Leader of the Liberal Party said, in his speech, he said, "Free bus passes for all of our pioneers, all people over 71 in this Province," and to that we subscribe. The Minister's statement raises peculiar questions to me, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see why the Government has to bring its arm against Hydro in regard to this, because it amounts to a vote of nonconfidence in the directors of B.C. Hydro — and two of those are in this House, the two Ministers in this House. The lead dust twins. Those two Ministers brought in this measure. Those two Ministers, as directors of B.C. Hydro, ordered that the Sunday bus passes be cancelled, a few days ago, and, now, we have them coming in here and reversing. That's a consistency of about zero, Mr. Speaker, a consistency of zero. The second point that the Minister raised saying, here, "…the regional board, " so forth and so forth, "provided the municipalities of the regions served will share equally with the Provincial Government the deficits arising from transit operations in the metropolitan areas." That offering is ominous. If I may quote a little Latin, with a little license, Terneo Hydro Donna Ferrentes — I fear Hydro when bearing gifts. I think Government and Hydro are just looking for a partner to share in a loss, and an amountable loss, which is totally uncertain, and this offer, itself, is even like the sword of Damocles hanging over these municipalities. Because, Mr. Speaker, if they complain about cutbacks, if they complain about rate increases, if they complain about rotten service, all of which would be at the order of management…Who is management? The Directors of B.C. Hydro, and where next do we find them, wearing the next hat? The Ministers of the Crown in this House. So, if the municipalities complained about these cutbacks, or complained about these rates, or complained about the rotten service, you know what they

[ Page 482 ]

could be told to do — the other thing. "If you don't like it, wait in the rain, wait in the rain." I'd like to tell these Little Red Riding-hood municipalities that they had better check these big molars of Grandma Hydro and this offer as carefully as they possibly can. They should be entitled to the fullest disclosure of each and every fact. In the committee of this House, today, Members were not allowed to investigate the use of the Government's $2 million subsidy to Hydro. They were not permitted to call the head of the Transit Authority as a witness. Is Hydro going to make full disclosure to the municipalities?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course not.

MR. GARDOM: Is Hydro, Mr. Speaker, going to let the municipalities ask full 100 per cent questions about the $2 million Government subsidy? Are the municipalities going to be permitted to ask those questions of Hydro? Are the municipalities, Mr. Speaker, going to be permitted to have the head of the Transit Authority of Hydro called in front of them? I ask you, are they? What's the answer from Hydro going to be? No, again, I suppose. No, again? (Interruption.) Audited statements, my foot. The municipalities will want to ask questions, Mr. Member, and you know that, and they should be entitled to. There were audited statements of Commonwealth Trust, weren't there? We remember that. What we've got here, this suggestion, this afternoon, of the Minister is an unloading to municipalities of increases and they won't know what it's going to be. I say it's just another attempt of this Government and of B.C. Hydro to fuddle duddle the municipalities.

In the Premier's speech, Mr. Speaker, of February 8, 1963, the Budget of 1963, he made very prophetic statements and he quoted a speech that Gladstone gave, a long time ago, on April 25, 1887. The Premier said this, "Seventy-five years ago, the Right Honourable W.E. Gladstone emphasized that sound public finance principles include economy, a balanced single budget in each year and .redemption of debt." I say that's good logic, but I read the actual speech of Mr. Gladstone. I see in that speech that he also said that his principle was, "…that revenue and expenditures should balance together, year by year, provided the balance to the credit side is obtained by legitimate means," and I emphasize those words, "providing this balance is obtained by legitimate means." Gladstone also said that he was not prepared to admit that the reduction of a tax by the appropriation of another public fund is a proceeding which ought to be approved." Mr. Speaker, this would apply just as properly to the loading of public debt onto Crown corporations and then saying it was not a public debt. So, since the Premier bought Gladstone, I rather wonder why he didn't buy him the whole way because, in no way, Mr. Speaker, would Gladstone have ever agreed that the sloughing off of a debt by flogging it into just another public authority is any kind of a proceeding, which quoting Gladstone, ought to be approved or, again quoting him, ought to be effecting a balance by legitimate means. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should have in this Province a committee of accountants and tax experts struck, who are independent of Government, and have them delve into the financial and fiscal maze that the Premier has constructed and that this committee should be empowered to recommend to the Legislature accounting procedures which will truly and correctly and openly reflect the total financial operation and status of this Government. The public is entitled to a better set of books and ones that are clear and certain and incapable of political distortion. Secondly, I'd ask for an Auditor-General to independently check on Government spending; for example, the preposterous, unwarranted and expensive Government propaganda supporting Social Credit candidates in the last election. Thirdly, I'd ask for an open-file policy and an end to the secret life in B.C.

Another topic I'd like to say a few words about is the per capita grant. I do wish…is he there? No, he isn't…the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Do you know where he is, Mr. Whip? (Interruption.) No, not particularly. It's not likely to make much impression upon him in any event, unfortunately. We think it should. However, Mr. Speaker, as faithfully as the swallows return to Capistrano each year, the Minister of Municipal Affairs flies into the municipalities and he gives them the bird about their expenses. He's got a great assortment of frenetic phrases. He accuses them of things, such as not having their houses in order, or being crybabies, or profligate spenders, and so forth and so on. Now, we find last year in his monumental talk that he gave in this House — I believe during the Budget Address and, in any event, it's found on page 122 of our Hansard — he came forth with a very amazing statistic of a few local governments, whose names he refused to reveal and whose administrative costs he said had increased 60 per cent for the period of 1964 to 1968.

However, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not mention at that time that, over the same span, the same five-year span, the Provincial Government's administrative costs rose by more than 80 per cent, from $9.9 million to $18.1 million and that, in his very own department, the cost of administration climbed 125 per cent, over the same period of time. So there you've got comparisons that are apples to apples, but they don't seem to be the ones that the Minister likes. I think we've got to put things into perspective and, most of all, by permitting the revenues of the municipalities to at least keep pace with the Provincial Government and not have them always placed in the position of poor little Oliver coming to the table of the Almighty asking for some soup. It's mighty thin gruel as it is.

Last year, the per capita grant was increased from $27 to $30 on the basis of estimated revenues of $1,165 million. This year, your Budget is about $1,300 million. But, as we earlier indicated, it is much more likely to come in at $1,400 million. In short, it means this, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government will have about 11 to 12 per cent increase in estimated or actual revenues this fiscal period over last, yet, it still leaves the municipalities holding the line at $30 per capita grant and that's totally unrealistic. Now, in order to provide a little bit of equity in this thing, because there's no way that these municipalities can tighten their belts anymore without buckling their backbones, we've got to put in a provision so that they may keep pace with the times and not always have to run the gauntlet one year late.

I'm requesting the Government, and I do wish that one of these Cabinet Ministers would convey it to the Minister, or backbencher, if he has the gumption so to do, the suggestion that you bring in legislation that will ensure that the per capita grant will increase or decrease, for that matter, as the Provincial revenues increase or decrease. This year, your revenues are up about 11 to 12 per cent, as I've said, so your per capita grant should increase by a like percentage, say, another $3, for round figures, up to $33. Now, this would give them a greater opportunity for better budgeting and any effective form of long-range planning.

[ Page 483 ]

I want to say a couple of words about an ombudsman. We know that bureaucracy…pretty well all governments this day in time are staggering. There are more Crown agencies and boards and committees and commissions and departments and organs of government than ever before. Parkinsonism, we've got running absolutely wild. It is now next to impossible for a citizen to find his way through the labyrinths of rules and regulations. My request is for technical law reform, but I'm making the request, unfortunately, in the feeling that it will never ever be accepted by this Government because it would interfere with the almost totally unfettered powers that this Cabinet has in the rather amazing and secret domain that they exist within, behind the green door of their little Cabinet room. As I said before, the good life, my foot, Mr. Speaker. What's practiced in this Province is the secret life.

We need better relations between the public and the power of the State, and right at patient level and for the man in the street. He's got to have, at least, one place where he can go for a helping hand and where his problem won't be shelved and it won't be shoved under the rug but it will be investigated, with a view to solution, with power to correct, or even circumvent, if necessary, the terrific might of a Minister of the Crown. An ombudsman would be able to do that by report and democratic disclosure to all of the representatives of the people which is this Legislature.

Some Members will say the law is available, but the law can't do the job, Mr. Speaker, and the Courts can't, because in B.C. It's only the Government who has judicial rights against the citizen and there's absolutely no reciprocity. To the public of B.C., as far as the Government is concerned, the doors of the Courts are clanged shut. They have no right to sue their Government; it's verboten and it amounts to judicial emasculation. That's what we've got practiced and perpetuated in this Province. Why'? What's the reason for this'? Well, the only answer that I can come up with, is it must be by virtue of the primary dedication to political survivalism because there's no business reason, there's no legal reason, there's no ethical reason, there's no valid reason of any description, whatsoever, to support any position to the contrary. If I'm wrong and, yes, I'd be more than pleased to eat these words, and I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, it will be the best delicacy I would ever have had. If this Cabinet would like to come on, like knights in shining armour, and say, "OK. We'll stand the test," I'm prepared to retract each and every one of these statements. They have not done it for 19 years and I don't think they will ever do it, because their policy is that in the Court of Cecil I, they should remain isolated from the legal process, forever.

Mr. Speaker, it's this kind of arrogant and distant and erosive attitude that causes so many of the criticisms of democracy in the world today, because you cannot isolate a Government from the people. There aren't any more of those kinds of islands and that's a fact. Without the law, there is an even more desperate need in this Province for an ombudsman, a man who could temper the heavy hand of the abuse of ministerial discretion and who could alleviate maladministration and hack through the bureaucratic jungles.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'd be a busy man.

MR. GARDOM: It's been, in my view, a specious and weak-sistered argument, too often raised in this Chamber, that the function of an ombudsman can be best carried out by the traditional approach through a Member of this Assembly. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, the expertise is not there. Government is more complex and interwoven than it ever was before and, also, this Cabinet will not furnish information, it won't open its files so that no Member is able ever to crack the secrecy cult. The job of the Commissioner of Grievances in B.C. should be to protect the citizen against inefficiency and errors and arrogance and abuse. I call for one in this Province right now, complaints to be made informally and without expense to the complainant. The office should be one of high stature and its banner impartiality. There would be security of tenure, power to fully report and not just to administration but to this Parliament, as well. His job would be to recommend and to advise and to bear the problems and propose solutions.

There's a wealth of precedence and, as most Members know, the title initially came into being in Sweden in 1713. In 1809, in Sweden, the ombudsman was instructed to supervise the observance of statutes and regulations by the courts and public officials. In 1917, one was established in Finland in 1953, Denmark — he had wider authority there and he was instructed and authorized to keep himself informed when ministers, civil servants and all other persons, acting in the service of the State, except judges, committed mistakes or acts of negligence in the performance of their duties. Next came Norway, in 1958, which I hope would, at least, stir the metal of the Attorney-General, but so far it hasn't. The first ombudsman in the Commonwealth was in New Zealand, in 1962, and his job was to investigate either by complaint to him, or on his own motion, any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted to be done. In any case, what it boils down to is this, Mr. Speaker, if there were something wrong, he had the power to find a solution and report the opinion to the appropriate department and, if nothing was done there, he could report to Cabinet, or report to the Prime Minister and, if nothing was done there, he could report to the Legislature. So there, you see, you've got a check and a balance. Now, in North America, the first jurisdiction to create the office was Nassau County in New York, in 1966. Hawaii came along in 1967, as did Britain. It is very interesting to note that Britain was so hot with the idea that they appointed their ombudsman even before the bill was approved by their Parliament, which is a procedure I don't entirely agree with, but they certainly deemed it was very, very necessary in a quick period of time, there.

In Canada, we've had a number of resolutions and private Members' Bills introduced in various Legislatures. Mine, for example, in 1969, but legislation did not become enacted, in Canada, until 1967, when New Brunswick and Alberta came along the line and, in 1968, we find Quebec following and, in 1970, Manitoba. Now, Mr. Speaker…. (interruption). I'm sorry. When was your bill, honourable Member'!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, about five or six years ago.

MR. GARDOM: About five or six years ago. The Honourable Member from Burnaby-Edmonds would like a line that he had a bill. I think he deserves great credit for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Commissioner for Grievances.

MR. GARDOM: Commissioner for Grievances — good credit to you, sir. But the concept of ombudsman is spreading like wildfire and one writer said it's like ombudsmania. You find it in many States in the United States,

[ Page 484 ]

today, Mr. Speaker. Michigan, Colorado, to name a couple, and California and in others it's under consideration. It's in Western Europe, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the emerging countries, Guiana, Mauritius. It's in India. Israel has a State Controller, who's taken on the job and, in modified form, you'll find it in the cities, in the universities, in the newspapers, even — the Province newspaper's action line is a form of an ombudsman — and even stores. In each case, both at the legislative level and at the other levels that I'm talking about, the function of this individual is to go ahead and put the finger in the dike of the general awareness of the part of society, which has become so much more highly integrated and complicated that we've just got to have this kind of a troubleshooter and this kind of a check and balance.

I'd like to say a couple of words, before closing, about the Canadian Statutes and the way that they are modelled, because I would like all Members to exert every possible influence that they can upon what they call the Government of this Province, which is the Cabinet, to see that this measure becomes a reality in this Province. In the four Canadian Statutes, I think they all take the obvious decision and the correct one, that the job has to be filled by a person with a sense of fair play and intelligence and, certainly, the courage of his personal convictions. He's likened almost to a Supreme Court Judge and he's got somewhat similar powers of examination. He can summons witnesses and he can subpoena documents. He can proceed on complaint from anyone or again on his own motion. And — a very important thing, he's also entitled to proceed, following a reference from the Legislature or from a Committee of the House, and he's got an almost unlimited capacity to examine and report. He has the responsibility to request that an omission be rectified, that a decision be cancelled or varied, and that a practice be altered and that the law be reconsidered. He has also got the right, Mr. Speaker, and this is a very important one, I think, for this Province, that reasons have got to be given for any departmental action. We find all sorts of departments in this Province doing all sorts of wild and wonderful things, without furnishing any reasons whatsoever. Still, in the four Canadian Statutes, if there's no response by this report to a department head or to a Cabinet Minister, then, he can report to the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and/or to the Legislature. Now, this step, Mr. Speaker, is not one towards the socialization of government, but it's absolutely to the contrary, for its function is to shore up the position of the individual and protect individual freedoms. The essential features are the ones that I have mentioned: independence, non-partisanship, the capacity to do the job, the ability to search out the answers, the capacity to report. In one word, it's insurance — it's insurance — a great insurance policy for openness and fairness and for impartiality. I say this, Mr. Speaker, if this Legislature has any dedication, whatsoever, to find any solution to the problems of the bureaucratic process, then, it should support this measure and I intend to introduce, at the next appropriate sitting of this House, a resolution to that effect.

As my final topic, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say a few words, as did the last Member and I much enjoyed his speech, that part of his speech in which he discussed the problems of the roadways in our Province… We have run into one fact, today, and that is that driving is no longer a right in B.C., it's a privilege. A person's got to follow the laws of the road or be kept off it. This calls for three things on the part of the Government. It calls for leadership, it calls for a programme to increase the road capabilities of the individual, and it calls for enforcement of the law. We arc a mobile society. Our car-person ratio stands at about nearly one to two, one million cars to two million people. The facts are absolutely conclusive. We don't have to have any more evidence to convince us that roadway-to-graveyard has got to stop because there's some really ghastly figures. For 1970, 557 deaths. The figures for 1970 are not yet complete, but there's one that is. For the first nine months of last year, we had 15,700 injuries for the first nine months, alone, and for the first nine months, there were $30.5 million of property damage in this Province. So, I can say that, despite the activities of some very, very conscientious civil servants, and here I would very much like to commend the Superintendent of Motor-Vehicles. Despite the activities of interested citizens, this Government is still a country mile from effectively checking this grizzly toll of social damage.

I say we've got to do this and I've got six points here. First of all we have got to have compulsory driver training in all our high schools.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. GARDOM: This should be a well-documented course, with as much audiovisual aid as possible, and it should cover motor-vehicle condition and repair, it should cover traffic rules and safety, it should cover road worthiness and accident causes and consequences, and advanced and practical courses could be phased in as electives. I think the police would be delighted to help with something like this and the students could hear firsthand from traffic officers and coroners, too, for that matter, as guest lecturers, of the terrible consequences of highway violence. I think that we have got to bring home to the driver, as is brought home to the other people in these vocations, the frightful aftermath of bad driving.

Dealing with compulsory driver training for youngsters, California was the pathfinder and there, if driver trainer courses are not taken, licenses are not issued until age 18, otherwise 16. Now, in 1969, in this House, we passed an amendment to the Motor-Vehicle Act, section 2d and it said, "Except with the consent of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, no person under the age of 18 years may drive a motor-vehicle unless he is certified under a driver training programme approved by the superintendent to be qualified to drive a motor-vehicle." Honourable Members, still this isn't proclaimed and, to me, that's straight 100 per cent dereliction of Cabinet duty. This is a package that should be put into effect when the students return to school in September of this year.

Secondly, for the more interested students and adults, as well, and, certainly, the chronic drivers and the problem drivers, the defensive driving course, which is a good one, should be programmed into every community in the Province. The teachers could handle this on a part-time basis, because all of the statistics point to the driver being the effective cause of the bulk of the accidents and there's money in the bank to train him. But, to date, our attack has been absolutely tailpiped backwards.

Another thing that is very needful here is compulsory, and I emphasize the word, "compulsory" — Province-wide motor-vehicle inspection and testing. Now, fine and dandy. We've got it in Victoria. We've got it in Vancouver. We've got it in Richmond, and I gather there's some talk of it going into New Westminster and Burnaby but, this is where it comes to a fullstop. Now, this can easily be done throughout the whole

[ Page 485 ]

of the communities of B.C., Mr. Speaker, and you don't have to build these enormous and expensive public structures to do it. You could use the existing public structures at off-peak times; for example, schools or fire halls or community centres, or programme this thing into local garages. We've got to have more mobile testing units. To think that we've only got one, single, solitary, mobile testing unit in a Province of this size is absolutely ridiculous, and with its affluence. They cost about $25,000 and more should be purchased immediately.

Here's a startling figure — of the 114,000 cars inspected in the Vancouver, Victoria and Richmond stations, 37 per cent of them were rejected; therefore, on the basis of one million cars, you can project that over 370,000 of them are not roadworthy. That's one out of every three. One out of every three cars in B.C. is not roadworthy and we don't have Province-wide compulsory motor-vehicle inspection and testing! That's roadside roulette in my view, Mr. Speaker, and it's the type of thing I do not like one darn bit. You know, the one unit that did tootle around the Province, it only received cars on a voluntary basis. Last year it handled 13,565 inspections — an absolute drop in the bucket. Listen to how many of those were rejected — nearly 60 per cent, nearly 60 per cent of the cars, three fifths rejected. You know, in this morning's paper and it wasn't B.C…. It was Iowa. It says, "Another Carload of Victims. " It was a junker, a ten-year-old car, probably not worth $100. Six people have died in it in the past four months, all of carbon monoxide poisoning. The bodies of the latest victims, three, were found Sunday. Three people died in exactly the same car, some months ago, of the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did that happen?

MR. GARDOM: In Iowa, as I said. It can happen here, it can happen here. Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely stupid that this is not attended to in this Province. These wrecks have got to be made roadworthy or they've got to be kept off the road — it's that simple. All of our traffic rules and regulations should be reviewed, too. I think the public should be solicited for their idea, here, because the statistics are coming in in a rather interesting manner. Of the 122,000-odd accidents, 13,700 were caused by drivers who didn't have the right-of-way and 13,800 by careless driving. Those were the two major offences, careless driving and right-of-way. I'm talking about accidents, now. I'm not talking about Criminal Code convictions, which is another statistic which is ghastly. The pedestrians, they seem to fall into two areas, mainly, not crossing at an intersection or coming from behind a parked or moving car. Speeding, an enormous thing in this Province, of 183,388 offenses, speeding took care of over one half last year — 100,288 speeding offenses. That boils down to about 10 per cent of our total driving population.

I think we've got to have a consumer protection bureau, under the Department of the Attorney-General, to set minimum safety standards for the commercial sale of all new and used cars and there should be some teeth in this provision. I say, Mr. Speaker, that violators should be subject not only to just penalties but, as well, they should face the risk of having their licenses rescinded because there's far too many of these kinds of tinsel-type cars on the road.

Now, let's take a look at the grossest area of all — drinking-driving. Of the 70,624 accidents, 36 per cent of them happened on Saturdays and Fridays, the leisure and drinking evenings. Of the 7,214 Criminal Code driving offenses, 75 per cent of those resulted from alcohol, being 6,840 impaired and 1,142 failing to remain at the scene of an accident. Those are startling figures. I say, Mr. Speaker, we've got to make it a firm and established policy, and loud and clear, that one has got to be sober to drive in B.C. or keep right off the road. I really criticize the fine system. It's a rotten yardstick. It's insignificant to the wealthy but it's backbreaking to those in the lower- or middle-income brackets and, unfortunately, the heaviest burden is usually not borne by those at fault but by their next of kin. Now, for the convicted drunken driver, I say, in order to get the message across that there should be some commitment of time for him to a social agency or some form of social agency custody, even for the first offense, and this would get the message across, because, apart from fine and apart from suspension, the convicted driver would have to put in, say, some hours at a hospital or in a welfare agency or in the field of alcoholic rehabilitation or even ride shotgun with a traffic officer or even spend some hours in the morgue, to bring the point home. What I suggested here is a more equal form of punishment for all segments of society and I think this would be an excellent deterrent as well.

For the more serious offenses and repetitions, you still continue on with the Criminal Code and imprisonment and so forth but, Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have got to advertise and bring home the fact that we mean business. That has not effectively been done to this point. I think that we should post in every liquor outlet in B.C., in the bars, in the beer parlours, in the liquor stores and tack on to every gas pump in the Province, the consumptive levels for impairment and what the penalties for drinking-driving are. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, I don't know of any reason, whatsoever, why every bottle of booze shouldn't carry a "don't drink and drive" label as well.

Now this is a six-point programme. I feel, as sincerely as I can possibly state, that we have to have a total and frontal attack on the problem. This is not a political issue. It's a social issue. It's an issue of, maybe, your life or mine and I think if these six points were followed and some of the excellent ones mentioned earlier, today, by the other speaker, that we would have a lifesaver, here. Thank you, honourable Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order'?

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): The speaker who has just spoken brought up matters concerning the Public Accounts Committee, which are before the committee. I just wish to bring to your attention that this does not help the committee in its discussions, neither is he a member of the committee, furthermore.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Well, Mr. Speaker, the truth will out. I must confess that I've never heard quite so many, and just in closing, Mr. Speaker, as we had from the last Honourable Member from Point Grey. I listened with great interest to his speech. He called our Budget, of which I'm very proud and of which this side of the House is very proud, a document in fantasy and fallacy. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is far superior to the Liberal budget which has consistently proved fickle and foolish.

[ Page 486 ]

However, one can't help but be impressed by the way the honourable Member gallops through myriads of figures and he lustily raced on with fervour and vigour, with articulate terms, such as Rip Van Winkle, bish, bish, bish, and I like that goof, goof, goof. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this sort of bish, bish, bish and goof, goof, goof, interlaced with irresponsible figures, certainly, supports, without a doubt, the highest recommendation I can make for his financial ability and say that it is exceeded only by that of the Federal Government. However, I enjoyed his actions and I want to compliment him. I won't comment on his speech because I think the best form of flattery is no comment but I would say, Mr. Member, that, in watching your actions, I don't think I can keep up to you but I like this business and this business. I want to tell you I don't have a raincoat, but I think I've got everything else. I hope you won't go away because I really don't have too many unkind things to…Do that!

I would ask the House to welcome a gentleman, who is in the gallery and has been treated to a very long and interesting afternoon and that is Mayor Courtney Haddock of Victoria. I'll explain, in a moment, why he's here. The Members may recall that, this time last year, when I stood in my place in the Budget Debate, I talked about the tourist industry and one of the points that I made, I hope, very strongly, was the tremendous need that there was in British Columbia for municipalities to take a lead in encouraging and demanding that industry develop in keeping with the personality of British Columbia and in keeping in a manner that reflected our character and added to the attraction of our tourist industry. I took a potshot at the gas stations and the service stations in Victoria, as well as their shopping centres, which border the entrance to Victoria. I would like to compliment Mayor Haddock because, two days ago, he not only took up the fight but he is going to lead the fight. He is going to fight for a change in the by-laws and building codes of Victoria to see that the service stations of Victoria do, in fact, live up to what we expect of them, and do, in fact, form an attraction and an addition to our environment and to our community. I'd like to challenge him to go one step further and that is to remove the gas stations and the service stations altogether from the main thoroughfare of Victoria. This is done in England and, I might add, was done before the Socialist Government, in the good old Conservative days. If any of you have been there, you know that most of the service stations are entered by attractive turn-offs. They perform a useful service but they don't detract from the environment and they don't hold up traffic (interruption). Well, it was under your type of Government. I think that, if Mayor Haddock could lead in this extreme area, he would set a pattern for the rest of British Columbia. We must look to the day when service stations do not occupy the most vital comers in our metropolitan areas and that they do, in fact, serve a useful area, increase the value in other property zones of the community and contribute more than they do to the tourist industry and the environment of our Province.

I also would like to compliment Mayor Haddock, as he has pointed out the beauties and the value of maintaining the armouries in Victoria. I feel that this is something that has been advocated by this Government and it's in the Budget. There are many parts of the Province, where the Government of British Columbia has spent funds, affirming and reaffirming their belief that green areas and historical buildings are a very vital, if slightly unrecognized, part of our community development. I believe there's ample opportunity, on the basis of what the Provincial Government has done, for the Federal Government to enter into this field. I'm sorry that all the Liberal Members but one have left the House.

We have a very powerful Minister in Ottawa, the Honourable Jack Davis who, we are told, will manage the environment which gives him supreme power over all the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, and we are told that he has almost a limitless budget. Now, if this is their way of handling the situation, I certainly don't object, providing they do something other than talk. I would like to suggest that this Minister has an opportunity to set a pace, perhaps in North America, by recognizing that older buildings of character and green areas in municipalities are not only areas for people and are attractive but that they, in fact, are going to become a vital part of environmental management and pollution control in the future.

If this is to be recognized, and I believe it will be, and I believe that this Minister should lead the way, then, we have to decide whether we buy up green areas, which are sterile and, really, offer people little interest or whether, in fact, we take what we have and create around it. This is where I suggest that the Victoria armouries is a unique opportunity to do this. We can make it a living, usable centre and we can develop a view area and a green area that will serve as noise pollution abatement. It will serve to avoid sight pollution and it will serve, in its context, in the actual environmental control and balance. This should be done and made available to all the Provinces of Canada, on a Federal, Provincial and municipal cost-sharing basis, with the Federal Government contributing one-third of the capital cost, the Provincial Government contributing one-third of the capital cost and the municipalities having the opportunity to contribute one-third of the capital cost. I would suggest that, if the Federal Government does this, the Victoria armouries be the first building and the first area in British Columbia to take advantage of this programme. I think that they will be proving, as they have failed to prove in the past, that they are truly interested in environmental management and people's senses and that they want to deal with this area of pollution in all its facets, not just on a basis of clobbering every available industry that they might be able to get their hands on.

The other important aspect of this is that, if we are going to avoid what Bruce Hutchison has so rightly called and aptly described, "The dread disease of monotony," then we must, as governments and legislators, recognize that old buildings and viable, livable people-green areas are very much a part of this. Our tourist industry is going to benefit from it. We are going to benefit from it, as people, in British Columbia and the Federal Government will benefit from it, even to the point where, if they adopt it, I would be pleased to say something very complimentary about them. In the meantime, I am sure that every Member will join with me in wishing Mayor Haddock success on his violent attack on the service stations and that we'll all enjoy the fruits of his efforts.

Mr. Speaker…. (interruption). The only problem, Mr. Member, is that I haven't seen any Federal historical sites in British Columbia (interruption). Where do they spend it? This is our concern. They're being spent at historical sites, building mountains in the middle of Saskatchewan.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Members please address the Chair?

[ Page 487 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Well, certainly, as one has sat listening to the Budget Debate, I can only suggest, on the next topic, that I would compare it to the fact that everything has been washed except the baby's diapers in this last debate. So, I would like to go back to my original subject, which for 1971 and the Centennial Budget, is the family and the direct assault that is being made on the foundations of the family.

I feel that there is great emphasis in this Budget, by the Minister of Finance and by our Government, on the family. This has been evidenced, year after year after year, in the factual and people Budgets that we've brought down. If you look at this Budget, you'll see that fully 80 per cent of the dollars, here, is involved in people-service and in direct benefits to the family, in housing, in education, in health and hospital care, in social and people rehabilitation.

I'd like to talk, specifically, at this time, and I must reflect it back to a comment made by the Honourable Member from Oak Bay, in relation to the family, and in relation to his comments that we do not have a home-maker service in British Columbia. I frequently agree with this Member. There are times when I don't agree but I do think that, in all kindness, he should move out of the area of Oak Bay and get further around the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, in 1952, the home-maker service could be described as literally zilch. But, in 1967, we had 17 home-maker services and, today, in 1971, we have 32 home-maker services in British Columbia. I suggest that the lack of flack from the Opposition would indicate that we are, in fact, doing an excellent job in this area and I appreciate their confidence. The home-maker services are far ranging throughout the Province. I won't mention them all, but they go from Creston to the North Peace River, from Shuswap to Victoria to Vancouver, Langley, Merritt. They're all over the Province. And Powell River. The greatest input of dollars and effort in this service is for the families who are in receipt of social allowance, or marginal incomes, or single parent families, or families who for, one reason or another, whether it's physical handicap, are having problems and who are in need of a complementary mother figure and service. In 1969, and in 1970, in the fiscal year, this Government, through the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, spent nearly a million dollars for home-maker service in British Columbia on a fee-for-service basis.

I feel that the Members would like to know how the service is operated. This is by a formula of cash grants, based on total population served, by the cash and volunteer time from communities, and on a fee-for-service basis, where needed and where it can be afforded. We recognize the benefits and the needs, in case of illness, of this service. We know that the Government knows, as most Members know, that it is a far healthier and a far happier situation to keep a family together at home if the mother is ill. We also recognize, and it is an accepted fact and a growing fact in medicine, that people will be sent home from the hospitals earlier. Therefore, we feel that this service, which is well expanded, and will expand more, is the foundation from which this need will be met.

There were problems with the early programme. One was, of course, that there were not enough trained and competent people and I spoke before, in one of the other debates, on the importance of recognizing home-making and babysitting as a respected and demanding vocation. I also related that to the fact that it should be income tax deductible. However, when this service was started, people expected to get someone in the middle of the night or at the drop of a hat. They wanted someone who was competent to manage their children and their husbands and they wanted someone who was knowledgeable in first aid and they wanted someone who could drive the car and do all the things that the mother does. So, obviously, there just weren't enough trained people. The second problem was that when they did get these people, the communities and the individuals who could pay were not prepared to pay a going wage and to recognize the monetary value that would have to be returned to these people for their services.

We feel that this matter is now almost under control around the hospitals. The Government, through various staff members and various departments, has organized training sessions for home-makers in various parts of the Province. It hasn't been needed to have a number of members and some of the programmes have been geared to individuals. It is my hope and, I know, the hope of my colleague from the Sunshine Coast, that the Department of Education will see fit to follow through with the pilot project in home-making service education, which was carried out in Dawson Creek, and that this next programme, under the Department of Education, will take place in Victoria. The programme, itself, is more academic and more streamlined and, I think, with the nature of people who will apply for this position will prove a more satisfactory form of training. I would like to suggest that with this and the emotional needs that are being met and will continue to be met as the Government spent over a million dollars directly in this area last year, that the service is provided for on an increased basis this year.

Mr. Member, I'm sorry but I'm sure you want to get home so I won't take time to explain the details of the formula, but if you want to take the time you can. Seeing that we've talked about mothers who are ill, and the family, I would like to refer again to the Honourable Member from Burnaby North who has joined with me on many occasions and many times, both outside the House and in this House, in talking about the broad subject of the care of children. We talk about it, but when we come down to the point of what to do, we part company. She has, until the tape ran in the House, consistently inferred that the Government should be embarking on these State-operated, State-controlled and State-imposed, isolated dumping grounds for children. I want to make it very clear that this Government will have no part of this philosophy, no part. Consistently, we have heard the Opposition Members of this House say the Government should go in…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I've been completely misinterpreted by the honourable Member. I have, at no time, suggested State-run nurseries or day care. I have just suggested that you take the leadership in establishing them. I'd just like to clear that point up.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Honourable the Minister accept the statement of the Honourable the Member for Burnaby North?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think there's a difference between misinterpretation and misquote, but I'll accept your ruling. If I have misinterpreted the Member's inferences, then I suggest that they should listen to their own speeches. They are consistently telling this Government

[ Page 488 ]

whether it's in education, municipal affairs, the Attorney-General's Department, that the Government should go in and say where shopping centres should go, where the service stations should go, where the day care centres should go, where the hospitals should go. They leave no room, no room, Mr. Speaker, for people to have financial or vocal involvement. This has, consistently, been the philosophy of those Members.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before that this Government will have no part of that philosophy and I would suggest that the Honourable Member from Burnaby, really, doesn't understand what is going on in the Province. You have to understand, before you can comment and advocate a programme of what is being done, where it is being done, how it is being done and what the problems are. I'll be glad to enlighten her as we go along. I want to make it very clear that the philosophy of this Government believes and is that the basic influence in a child's life in British Columbia should be from the parents and from the home, and that the basic responsibilities for children and the children's lives lie within the home and the parent. This is a privilege, as well as a responsibility of being a parent. Now, where there is need, because of finances or emotional need, or single parents, or handicapped, whatever it may be, then, the Government does have a complementary role to play and this Government is playing that role. The key to this whole programme is assistance to the family situation and the key word is individual and programmes which meet the needs of the individual child and the individual family.

To date in British Columbia, there are 107 Government supported, subsidized or otherwise involved, day care facilities throughout this Province. This is not to mention a host of private facilities which, I might add, are doing an excellent job. They comply with the Government regulations and they co-operate in every way with the Government in trying to meet the needs of the individual families and children they are serving. These specific 107 centres fall under five headings depending, again, as I said, on the needs of the individual community. These programmes can vary from out-of-school programmes, which are taking place in the summer time, or they can be a short-service child-tending programme, or family day care or group day care, whatever the need is. There are three specific financial plans and there is a special needs financial programme. These centres are operating throughout the Province and nearly every Member in this House has them. They go from Alberni, the Cooinda Village — and I'm not sure I pronounced that correctly — they go from the north — Nelson, Prince George, Prince Rupert, UBC, Simon Fraser, in the area of handicapped and oral problems — pardon me, handicapped hearing. I would suggest that, in the last year, again, there were over $1 million spent in direct involvement by this Government in these programmes as well as training programmes for the personnel. If you examine this Budget carefully, you'll find that the allowance for this year is nearly double.

I mentioned that there were some problems that the honourable Members should be aware of, and this is certainly true, and I would like to outline them. One of the problems one faces in establishing day care centres, in its broadest terms, is the mobility of today's families. You can go in or people can start a day care centre and you have enough children to attend it, so that it's of benefit to them. A year later, because of the change in age groups or the mobility of the families in that area and the change of the character, the centre is without children. I am very sorry to say that this is exactly what happened in the community that I have the honour to serve in Vernon. We just couldn't make it go. There just wasn't enough call for it, although there was when we originally started it. I would also mention, along with this, that the natural evolution of age creates vacancies and we do have some day care centres around the Province that arc vacant and have no waiting list, I would suggest that this is, in fact, in the Member's own riding of Burnaby.

Some of the other reasons that we have for running into problems in establishing these centres are the municipal by-laws. I'm sorry to see that Mayor Haddock has left because I would like to have talked to him. Obviously, when you look at the development of these around the Province, you have to watch the placing of them or they're going to put each other out of business, whether they're Government supported or private. The greatest need right now is in the congested areas of Vancouver and in the congested areas of Victoria.

One of the problems we have are the by-laws and the city laws in these areas, which prohibit the development of day care centres or handicapped facilities in anywhere but on the ground floor, because we do require in our regulations that the children have a certain degree of outside light and outside activity. In New York and in other American cities, they have very effectively proven that day care centres or children facilities can be established on the top of any sound, well constructed and well managed building.

So, we intend, this year, to meet with Mayor Campbell and he was going to call and give me his answer. Unfortunately, when I got the message that he was on the phone it was when the Honourable Member from Point Grey was just going to sit down. But, in this area, we are going to ask Mayor Campbell to join with us, to allow us the opportunity to prove that day care centres and children care centres can, in fact, be effectively established on some of the high-rise buildings in Vancouver. We intend to do the same thing in Victoria. Well, I have a building in mind — two of them, but I'd just as soon…(interruption).

No, I'm going to speak and see if they will co-operate with us. It is your side of the House that imposes, not ours.

It's important that we have some of these centres down in the business district, so that the mother or father or whoever is transporting the child, can have easy transportation, they can have the companionship of the child to and from work. As I mentioned before, because I believe and this Government believes that you don't just dump your kid for eight hours and go back, that there should be an exchange at least once or twice a week and more, if possible, at lunchtime or coffee time.

Now, the private areas have been hampered and the volunteer groups have been hampered by the municipalities. There is a number of cases where church groups have tried to establish day care centres or child care centres and, as soon as they do this, even though they're on a nonprofit basis, the municipalities have advised them that they will have to pay taxes. This is a matter that we intend to carry on further discussions about. I would advise you that in the two centres of the Province where this recently became a problem, we are now negotiating with them.

I am sure it will come as a shock and a great disappointment to the Honourable Members of the Loyal Opposition, who continually degrade and downtread and blacken the efforts and the honour of the private sector of the economy — and you'll probably rock on your heels — when you find out that Block Bros. is one company which has established a

[ Page 489 ]

very fine child care centre in their housing development on the mainland and that they will be working with us to develop more of them. In Coquitlam, the riding of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, a garden apartment, private money, private enterprise, has also developed a day care centre. This is where they belong — in the home, around the garden apartments where the family is living or where the family is working, not three branches of a cherry tree off to the right or the left. There are many others. The Chinese community in Vancouver has established a centre but, as I mentioned before, it is important to watch the spacing of these around the communities and around the Province in order that they don't become too spread out and lower the standard of the care or the feelings.

As I mentioned before, we intend to zero in this year, with the help of the Mayor of Victoria and the Mayor of Vancouver, on these building restrictions. We intend to prove our point. We will be zeroing in on the municipal councils and asking their co-operation in not taxing these nonprofit organizations. Again, I would like to call, and through the Members of the other side of the House, on the unions because, certainly, this subject belongs within the scope of the unions, to form committees to study where the employees in their particular areas or their sphere need these facilities and how they can best be handled. Surely, this should be one of their vital interests and, surely, this can be part of the employment practice (interruption).

Yes, I am and I have asked some of them. I'll be asking more and I'll be glad to report to you, Mr. Member, how successful we have been, that a co-operative effort does pay off and that the unions will be leading the way. However, I don't want you to think that I would solely ask the unions to undertake this. I believe that management in British Columbia must also assume this role and it must be prepared to provide the physical plants, in terms of space for the centres, where it can be shown that they are warranted. I would like also management in the private sectors to study the needs of their employees and this applies also, as I mentioned, to shopping centres. I also would like to suggest that the Government of British Columbia, through my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, lead the way in setting an example for the private sector and that we ferret around these Parliament Buildings, after we've done a study, which I believe will show that this type of facility is needed in the Parliament Buildings, where we have many women, working younger women, who have young families…I can't think of a better way than to find the facilities to house this and then to ask the employees to undertake, on a co-operative programme, the development of the centre. We should be prepared as a Government, as I know we will be, to enter into the same financial formula. I haven't heard him say yes, yet. It should be very clear that this is a good programme. It will expand as need arises. The finances are in the Budget. It must remain a programme, as far as we are concerned, that meets the individual family, child and community needs. It must remain flexible. There is room for the private sector but I think the greater impetus should be from the nonprofit society.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want there to be any linking of ideas, here, as I turn from the subject of children to the subject of garbage. I was quite interested to listen to the Honourable Member from North Vancouver-Capilano, the other day, who, with his usual charm and suave manner, did treat us to a delightful afternoon of quotes and rereadings of articles from American magazines. But, if he'd only done his homework! It's with great embarrassment that I wish to advise him that, not only can we not agree with you that Government should become involved in this area but that this area is already very much a viable and growing centre within the private sector of British Columbia. I have here two reports…the N & S Steel Company, which is in Vancouver, which was formed nearly two years ago and went into production last August. They have an initial machine that cost $500,000 and it costs them a $1,000 a day to run. They have 20 employees which they employ directly, plus numerous employees who deliver to and cart away from their plant. This company, which is managing to make a profit, feel that their major problem is in freight rates. They feel that they can well handle the ferrous metals from the lower mainland area as they expand, and that they would be capable of handling the interior market, if I may call it that, if we can do something about the freight rates. To this end, of course, my colleague in the Department of Trade and Industrial Development will be making every effort to negotiate with the Department of Transport for freight rates.

As the Members are probably aware, this machine will digest 20 cars a day and up to 100 tons of ferrous metals and the engines are stripped and the car chassis are sent to another British Columbia secondary industry, the Western Canadian Steel. The blocks themselves are sent to foundries, where they are used to strengthen other rehabilitated steel products. The only parts that can't be utilized are the rubber tires and the upholstery. But, this company, as I suggest, is independently operated and is providing a solution to the solid waste problem. It is providing employment. It is actively recycling metals and it has indicated that they can well handle this problem within the lower mainland, if not the interior. At the same time, there is another company that will develop, or is developing, and they are again working through our Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. They plan to be in production by 1972 and they anticipate that they can handle 60 cars a day, plus the ferrous and the nonferrous metals, which is important, for a total of 960 tons. I don't know how many old cars a day you think there are in British Columbia, Mr. Member, but you might be surprised. My question is, with two fine, independent industries meeting an aesthetic problem, meeting a pollution problem, should we, as a Government, interfere as the Liberals have suggested? I suggest that it is not the policy of the Social Credit Government of British Columbia to encroach and compete with private enterprise. Now, as far as actual household garbage, I would like to mention another company, I believe, in the Member's own riding, which is in Victoria, today. I couldn't meet with them this afternoon but I will be meeting with them tomorrow. They are discussing matters with the Honourable Dan Campbell, Minister of Municipal Affairs, as well as our Health Department. They have developed a shredder and a compactor and this is installed…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: (undecipherable remarks)

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I will accept your ruling and appreciate your point. The name I mentioned was Benson Industries, which I was referring to (interruption). I'm sorry. I retract and I apologize. Anyway, I would like to get onto the subject of shredding and compacting garbage. This unit is installed in, through you, Mr. Speaker, several areas of Vancouver and it produces a highly compacted product, which can be more cheaply picked up by municipal

[ Page 490 ]

councils and effectively delivered. In this Budget, there is provision for greater study of this programme. The end result of the compacting and shredding is generally considered to be most useful for land-fill but it seems quite reasonable to expect that it could enter in and be useful in the area of cattle feed as well as fertilizer.

The Honourable Member from North Vancouver-Capilano, through you, Mr. Speaker, also mentioned recycling. I thought it might be of interest to him to know that the matter of water recycling is very much under study in the Federal-Provincial agreement, the project of which is taking place in the Okanagan Basin. I will not be speaking on that in this debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one other area that I would like to discuss for a few minutes, on behalf of the people in the Okanagan Valley, and draw the attention of this House to the tree fruit industry which, while it's in the bills before the House, I won't mention them, is going to benefit from this Budget. I would like to advise this House that, in this just society and in this time of great affluence in Canada, the theme of the British Columbia fruit industry is "Survival of the '70's." I would quote, "Survival in the '70's," a grim theme for the 82nd Annual B.C. Fruitgrowers' Convention and, yet, it is the only possible theme. The concern of the growers is indicated in the resolutions but, in the face of the appalling situation, it would appear that the resolutions do not pack sufficient dynamite to do the main job, which is to blast the Federal Government out of its indifference and apathy towards the crisis which faces the tree fruit industry in British Columbia and the rest of Canada. I think, Mr. Speaker, this is appalling that these should come from a Member of the Liberal Party and a competent businessman, not on a political basis but on a factual basis. I don't like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to hammer away at the Liberal Members in this Government. However, the facts speak for themselves and I would like to take a few minutes to enlighten the Members about this industry and what its problems are and what the possible solutions are, because agriculture in the Okanagan Valley is very much a part of British Columbia. It is very much a part of the way of life that we lead and, if we lose it, we not only will lose the product of the industry but we will lose a unique characteristic that we have in this Province. We're going to lose a way of life (interruption).

The Oliver growers don't like the way the management is marketing. I'm not sure they don't have a point. However, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, just listen. I thought it would interest the House to know that the first fruit trees were planted in the Okanagan by the Obelate Fathers in 1860 and this was in the mission just outside Kelowna. By 1890, the first commercial orchards and a community-sponsored irrigation system were introduced in the Okanagan and, by 1921, the present pattern of harvesting and agricultural development was established. Since then, Mr. Speaker, this industry and the production has become as streamlined and as efficient and with as high a quality of product as anywhere in the world. In 1939, it was the interior growers, without the help of the National Government or for that matter the help of the Provincial Government, who set up their own marketing boards. One was the B.C. Tree Fruits, which was for the marketing of fresh and cannery fruits, and the other was Sun-Rype Products which was to handle processed food. They weren't Government agencies, Mr. Speaker. They aren't Government agencies, today. They worked perfectly then, Mr. Speaker, but they aren't perfect today. However, they are grower-owned and operated and they are grower-supported. I would suggest that until the forest industry developed as it has under this Government, it was the fruit industry in terms of employment and in terms of value of production which had been the instrument of growth for both manufacturing and secondary industries in the Okanagan. It was the fruit industry, which was the original catalyst for tourism in the Okanagan and, again, I would suggest, that it has been the fruit industry which is the mainstay of the Okanagan's environment and is very much the mainstay of our way of life.

I'd like to outline the problems that this industry faces, today. I must say, with deep regret, that the Federal Government has subsidized, promoted, marketed and encouraged production and withholding of production in many of the other agricultural industries in Canada, but not with the food industry…and I don't intend to bring out books and parade all the figures through, because I think there's probably been enough of this in this House this time. I do suggest that this is an industry that has, basically, stood on its own feet and that it has utilized its own resources, its own growers, the quality of its food and its own marketing agent to create its position in the economy of Canada.

Our Government, Mr. Speaker, has done a great deal for this industry and, again, I won't parade the figures, but I assure you, if you look, it has a consistent history. Only the other day, through you, Mr. Speaker, we passed several Orders-in-Council, with the Government backing the bonds and providing the funds for the irrigation systems in these areas. I'd like to review for you what this industry had done on its own and the position that it occupied. In 1966, this industry had 28 per cent of the British apple market. Today, it has 8 per cent, and why? This is very interesting and I'm sure will catch the attention of the Opposition. The Socialist Government in England set up import quotas, which I don't quibble with. The only trouble is that they didn't handle the importing quotas, themselves, they turned it over to the importers, with a result that, in England, today, we have 8 per cent of the market. Although there is a known market for British Columbia MacIntosh and Spartons and Red Delicious, the French produce and the French Government have the sole control of that market with an inferior product of poor quality and, in fact, is subsidized.

The next shocking point is that the importers, who have the sole control of the importation of this inferior Government-subsidized product, are making up to 300 per cent profit and the consumer in England is paying the same price. Canada's international trade negotiators, I would suggest, have been literally blind or robbed blind, to what has been going on in other parts of the world. They have been accepting importation of Government-subsidized fruit into Canada and into British Columbia to compete with our B.C. apples. I suggest that there will be approximately 110,000 boxes of subsidized apples from New Zealand allowed in here by the Federal Government, landing on the docks of Vancouver within the next two months. The Federal Government is allowing the importation of apples and fruits into Canada on a consignment basis and they are allowing political barriers to be used against our fruits in other countries, while we still continue to import the fruits from those countries.

I'll give you an example. In Brazil and in Venezuela and all through the Caribbean, British Columbia fruit had markets, but these countries have put up these artificial barriers, they are letting Government-subsidized fruits from

[ Page 491 ]

France into their markets, they are, again, charging the consumer to the hilt, the importer is making the money and they are dictating the terms of any other fruit entering the country and the fruit of British Columbia is excluded. In South Africa…for you, Mr. Member, I suggest that you get on that hot line, through you, Mr. Speaker, and talk to your Honourable Leader. Instead of lipping with the orangoutangs, while he was in South Africa, he might have sat down and discussed why South Africa, which was a market of British Columbia fruit for 50 years…(interruption).

Why? Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister of Canada knows so little about the development of the fruit industry and the trade of his country that he doesn't know anything unless he's been there then I suggest that we need a new Prime Minister. South Africa has been allowed…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: South Africa has been allowed to put a protector veil up which allows them to sell to us in areas, but does not allow British Columbia fruit into their country. Japan, with self-admitted political restrictions and they've made it very clear that these are political restrictions, yet Canada remains the largest mandarin importing company from Japan in the world. This Japanese industry has come in here. It is Japanese Government subsidized. They even have a Government-sponsored multimedia campaign and advertising campaign across Canada. The Federal Government has allowed Japanese canned apples to come in from Japan and from Mainland China and this erosion has almost completely destroyed the can pack industry in British Columbia. Never was the Government in Canada, Mr. Speaker, in a stronger bargaining position where we, Canada, are the largest importers of mandarin oranges in the world from Japan and yet we have allowed them to put up political barriers.

Mr. Speaker, this industry doesn't ask for preferential treatment but it does ask for a long-term policy from the Federal Government in tree fruit production, in sales and in export markets. It asks the Federal Government to acknowledge the independent achievements that they have made in the past and lost under the policies of the Federal Government. It asks the Federal Government to acknowledge that this industry cannot rotate its crops at one month's or one year's notice, without excessive cost and without a good deal of planning and without a time of five years from the time they take out the trees, replant them and have them grow to maturity and production. This industry, through you, Mr. Speaker, suggests that the Federal Government prohibit importing foreign apples where there are import restrictions of a political nature or supposed health restrictions and it asks the Federal Government to prohibit the import of apples into Canada and British Columbia on a consignment basis. It asks the Federal Government to prohibit the importation of subsidized fruit concentrates, which are imported into Canada, relabelled in Canada, and sold to the United States. Then, the Federal Government turns around and says we are the greatest exporters of fruit concentrates in the world and all this while there's a storehouse of tons of fruit concentrates in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada (interruption). Through you, Mr. Speaker, that Member might do well to sit down and think about some of these things.

Mr. Speaker, the members of this industry ask that the Federal Government encourage Federal institutions and public institutions to use Canadian products, as they do in British Columbia, and to make it mandatory that liquor producers use a percentage of apple alcohol in their brews.

I don't suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there aren't other steps that this industry could take. Certainly, there is some question as to how their marketing practices might be better improved. I suggest that there is a potential for box- or pack-orchard-to-consumer in the right season that wouldn't, in any way, jeopardize the long-term market of this industry. I do suggest that the Federal Government must move in the areas that I've outlined. I believe that they should, again, give serious thought to the Minister of Agriculture's suggestion, on behalf of our Government, that they establish a producer export development corporation. I believe, Mr. Speaker, and have spoken on this subject because of this belief, that the time has come when governments of all levels and members of legislatures must make a decision as to whether or not agriculture…As I mentioned before, green areas play a role in our environmental development and management and the choice is, if we decide that they do and I believe we will, do we just chop up all these areas? Do we, as the Federal Government has done, slice an industry to death and then turn around and say we must raise funds to buy back this land, or do we take the reasonable approach and the intelligent approach and give a viable industry a break and an opportunity to survive on its own and form a part of environmental management? I would suggest again that this is an area in which Mr. Davis, the Minister of Environmental Management, might well interest himself.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the British Columbia tree fruit grower is tired of being told that he is the one to provide the green belts and the play areas for the metropolitan dwellers and he is tired of planners and he's tired of idealists telling him that he should be eager to be locked into zoning, that he should be willing to forego a profit and that he shouldn't ask to make a living in order to provide the green belts, when, at the same time, the strength of the National Government is being used against him.

I would suggest that we should adopt policies, which will allow the fruit industry to survive. This Government has proved its position in the past and there is ample proof in the Budget, that we're debating today. I'd ask every Member, in all seriousness, when you're thinking about this subject, remember that the Okanagan Valley is a unique part of the country in Canada. It is a unique part of British Columbia and the fruit industry is a unique industry. If this industry disappears or becomes so consolidated that it has little visual impact, not only are the individual farmers and the communities going to suffer, but the valley is going to suffer, a whole way of life and the whole character of an area will be gone. The tourist industry in British Columbia will be the loser and we, the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada, will be the losers.

Mr. Speaker…. (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, one keeps getting these sort of squeaky little questions. "What is the Provincial Government doing about it?" I haven't paraded any figures, Mr. Speaker, from the Federal Government, here, and I don't intend to parade any from the Provincial Government, but, if these Members would do their homework, they would realize that the Government of British Columbia and the Minister of Finance have played a very vital role in the development and

[ Page 492 ]

perfection of this industry.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my belief in this Budget. I believe it is a wise Budget and I acknowledge that I am really just a home-maker. I believe that this Budget expresses the confidence and the responsibility that is needed in our Province and I believe, with the assurance of the Minister of Finance, that this Budget will be even broader and more successful next year and that this Budget has the unqualified support of the people of the North Okanagan and their Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. E. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I suppose this is what you would call poetic justice after what I did to the House during the Throne Speech Debate. However, I think that by chopping off a bit here and there and speeding up a bit and cutting my questions a bit shorter, we may be able to achieve the same results or maybe better even.

Mr. Speaker, I had a very gratifying experience last weekend and, because it's something that happens so very seldom, I think I should share it with the House. On Sunday noon, I had a phone call from a young businessman of my acquaintance asking me if I might spare a few minutes of my time to talk with him. I welcomed him to my home and he came along, half an hour or so later, and he told me that he knew from talking with people and just being about the community that I had a lot of people who came to me with problems. He had decided that he wanted to become involved in trying to help solve people's problems and he wanted me to get him started getting involved. He said, "I'm a young man, I'm 29, I've been very successful in business, but I suddenly realize that all I've been doing is taking from life and I would like, now, to start giving." I think that's very commendable, Mr. Speaker. I would ask honourable Members to withhold their applause, please.

One thing that I want to point out with respect to this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this man was not a Christian and I mention that because I'm sick and tired of these selfrighteous, sanctimonious, hypocritical people who go around calling themselves Christians, as if that's supposed to indicate that they're better than non-Christians. I'm sick of hearing it because those very same people quite often lack in ordinary charity. They think that the fact that they're a Christian looks after all their shortcomings, that they can do anything they like once they announce that they're a Christian.

Mr. Speaker, I've been saddened during the debate to notice the number of personal insults and invectives arising from both sides of the House. I think that most of this could be avoided, during times such as we are facing now, when there is so much unemployment, poverty and misery, that those of us who are happy dare not think about good fortune without being ashamed of it. I think we could spend our time better than in insulting each other.

The Budget, itself, I think, as has been our experience for the past 18 or 19 years, is a very good Budget. Obviously, it's the best budget in Canada, because it's the only balanced Budget we have and we've had them continually. I would expect that the increases in taxation were probably not required, because I think the decrease in revenue last year was due to a lot of lockouts and strikes which shoud not occur this year and, therefore, we probably wouldn't have needed the increase in taxation. However, my people aren't complaining very much about them. I think we can afford them and I think they will help build up a surplus which will be well used by our Minister of Finance, as it has been done in the past. I think that we can expect that the new taxes will bring in 50 per cent more than they're expected to bring in and I'm sure that there'll be another $50 million or so surplus on top of that. So we can look forward to at least $70 million surplus during the coming fiscal year. I think that's good because those surpluses are well used to do things for the people of this Province and that's what we expect.

I do think, Mr. Speaker, that we could have avoided one of those taxes by giving the people something they want and that something is a Provincial lottery. Now, the experience in Quebec has been that they have made, I think, something in the neighbourhood of $21 million, in one year, from their lottery. Well, these are the figures I read. I could be wrong but those are the figures I read — something around $21 million. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with the great number of visitors that come here during the tourist season, we could probably average a net profit of $1 million a month throughout the year. As far as any danger of the Mafia moving in, I think that that is an absurd statement because, if it is handled through the proper channels, no one can move in. The proper channels are available to us in a number of different ways. I would suggest that they could be sold through the liquor outlets, which are in all areas of the Province. You could also have mail sales from the Provincial Parliament Buildings or elsewhere and, perhaps, somewhere on the mainland. The control would be very easy and I would say that there is much less danger of the Mafia moving into our Provincial lottery than there is into many of the businesses in the Province, which it is now moving into, to some degree (interruption). I may a bit later on in the Session.

While I say that the Budget is a good Budget and the extra taxation is not that high and people don't seem to be too concerned about it, I think it has done little to solve the real problems which have been facing us for many years. The problems that face the poor and the oppressed are not going to be solved by this Budget. There's only one way that you can solve the problem of the poor and that is by putting money into their hands so they can spend it and create employment. While this will provide us with, I think, a good year as we always have, I don't think it's going to get right down to the root problems which we are facing. I think it's about time that we realized that we can't go along, as we have been doing in the past, just running the run-of-the-mill type of operation and letting those who fall by the wayside lie there. I don't think we can any longer say that we can pass the other way and ignore a poor person who is sitting there and needs help. I think, as a responsible Government, our Government should take a hand in trying to upgrade the living standards of not only a part of our society but all our society.

One of the four principles of Social Credit, Mr. Speaker, is that the individual is the most important element of God's creation. I agree with that principle and I think that that means that we have to zero in on every individual and make sure that he is well treated. Legislation, normally, is aimed at the average citizen and I think that we have to emphasize looking after the plight of some of those who are least equipped to look after themselves. I think this is where we have been failing down in the past. I'm just wondering how many Members in this House feel as I do or are they prepared to just look the other way and let the poor go on being poor? In order to determine that, I have prepared a number of questions here which I want to put before the House. In

[ Page 493 ]

order to save time I will see if anyone agrees with any of these statements, then, I would ask them to stand so we know who those are who feel the way they do. I won't ask you the question each time because it will save time this way. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, is there a Member of this House who thinks that poverty is necessary? If there is I would like that Member to stand? (Interruption.)

Well, you know what poverty is as well as I do — people who are living beneath the standards of living as recognized as…(interruption). No, it's not a senseless question. I'm not going to spend time explaining to you. I have very limited time as you know. Is there a Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, who believes that unemployment is necessary? I don't think it is necessary. Is there a Member of this House who believes that injustice is acceptable as long as it happens to someone else? That's usually the attitude. "I'm all right, Jack, to hell with you."

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member will withdraw that statement and apologize to the House for the use of that language.

MR. LeCOURS: I simply used a well used quotation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking the honourable Member to withdraw that word and to apologize to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. LeCOURS: I'll withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please apologize to the House for using the language.

MR. LeCOURS: I apologize to the House for using such foul language. Is there a Member of the House, Mr. Speaker, who believes that the exploitation of the poor and the ignorant should continue? Is there a Member of the House who thinks that thousands should be allowed to suffer from poverty rather than impose Government controls which would prevent this poverty? Is there a Member of the House who does not think that the welfare of all our citizens is his or her responsibility? Is there a Member of the House, Mr. Speaker, who thinks that it's right that some of our citizens should have to leave this Province or die waiting, because we are not providing the facilities for the type of surgery they require in the Province, simply because we're not prepared to put up the dollars that are required to do so? If there's a Member of the House who believes that's acceptable, I would like that Member to stand. Is there a Member of this House who thinks that every handicapped child in the Province, regardless of what his requirements might be, should not be entitled to every facility towards obtaining an education that the normal child receives? If you visit some of the schools for the handicapped around Vancouver, you will find that many of them are lacking in many things which they need. It's only a matter of dollars and cents and it's a gross injustice to deprive them of the opportunity of obtaining an education. And finally, Mr. Speaker, is there a Member of the House who thinks that this Province is not capable of providing adequate housing for all its citizens? This Province, a province as rich in timber as we are, surely, we can produce adequate housing for our citizens.

AN HON. MEMBER: We all support you.

MR. LeCOURS: Well, I'm happy to know, Mr. Speaker, that there are no Members opposed to these questions, which I'll agree were loaded. They were loaded because I wanted to know if anyone would dare stand up to them. If not, I would suggest that it's time that some of the people got on their feet and started doing something about the problems which I have named here today. The problems are there, the Government knows the problems are there and they have to face up to them and they have to solve them. They can't blame it on Ottawa or anyone else. The buck ends right here, Mr. Speaker, and we have to do something about it right now and not wait any longer. I'm sure there are many more questions, which honourable Members could think of to add to the list; however, I knew my time would be limited. I wasn't planning on taking over half an hour, in the first place.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that, in order to solve all these problems, we must first of all realize, as I pointed out in the Throne Speech Debate, that the financial system as we operate it now has a built-in provision for poverty and unemployment. It's going to happen, no matter what. Everybody in the country could have a Ph.D. and you'd still have poverty and unemployment. It's not a matter of skills, it's a matter of the fact that the financial system does not allow the population to buy back its production. It's just physically impossible. All you have to do is examine any Federal Budget and you'll find that there is a disparity of 25 per cent between National income and National production. You needn't go any further because anyone who can add to 100 can see the difference.

The war and money in the hands of the consumers, back in 1939, ended a depression which had gone on for 10 years, A ridiculous situation which could have been ended in a matter of three months if the Government in Ottawa had taken proper steps. But, Mr. Speaker, if the Ottawa Government is not prepared to take the steps and they, obviously, are not, they're already announcing that unemployment will be worse in 1972 than it is now. If they're not going to do something, we must do something. We must find our way around. I proposed, during the Throne Speech Debate, that we could issue what we could call energy credits in lieu of money, every bit as good as money, providing the Government accepts them in payment of various taxes. They could be used. Through these energy credits, we could build a thousand or two thousand homes for the very low-income people in this Province. We could buy the land, develop it, have the house built by some of the unemployed, restrict the wage rate, perhaps, between $3 and $5 so we could get more work out of it and provide it cheaply. The interest rate to these poor people could be 3, or 4 or 5 per cent at most, because it's costing us nothing in any case — just the printing of the credits. Anybody who thinks it cannot be done, had better have another look at things, because it can be done, without any trouble. As I said, the Budget is a pretty good Budget as Budgets go. It's orthodox but, Mr. Speaker, I'm a Social Crediter and I'd like to see a Social Credit Budget when we need one and we need one right now.

By financing consumption, Mr. Speaker, by putting money into the hands of those who are hungry and those who are prepared to go to the market and buy, we are assuring more production and employment. That's a simple way of doing it. By planning consumption you're assured of more production in the future, because that future demands more production and provides employment. We could make taxpayers out of those who are now on welfare and many of those who are now on unemployment insurance. We could

[ Page 494 ]

put them to work and make taxpayers out of them, make them help to provide some of the wealth that this country has.

With respect to prices, my friend the Minister of Public Works, mentioned a matter of prices yesterday. It matters not, Mr. Speaker, if prices are high or low, as long as you can buy back what you produce. We could knock all our price structure in half and knock the wage structure in half and we'd be the same as we are right now. That wouldn't be good enough — we have to do better than that. We have to increase the income side and increase the production as well but, particularly, increase the income side to make it possible for the people to buy the production which already exists. We have plenty of goods, we have plenty of people who want them, we have a ready market for most of our production. We lack money in the hands of the people who want to buy and this is what we need, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the only way you can normally have increases in wages is by having an increase in production or cutting down your cost of production, or the third manner would be for the producer, himself, to cut down his profits. That's the way you can pay an increase in prices. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might now ask leave of the House for about three or four minutes beyond six o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. LeCOURS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is one other think I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, and that is the fact that our rubber economic measuring stick is another serious fault in our economic system. I think everyone would recognize the fact that we have 16 ounces in a pound and 3 feet in a yard — I hope I get all these right now — and 12 inches in a foot. So, if you bought a yard of goods 10 years ago or 30 years ago you still got 36 inches. But that is not the case with the measuring stick which measures our economy, Mr. Speaker. Twenty years ago a dollar bought, probably, about 8 lbs of meat. Today, it buys about 8 ozs. of meat or a little more. This is one of the problems that we face. We have a rubber measuring stick for measuring our economy. There's no point, for example, in giving a person a raise of 50 cents an hour when, about three months later, his cost of living has gone up to the extent that it's eating up that raise that he has had. Every aspect of society is doing the same thing. Everybody's trying to beat inflation by asking for a raise and contributing to inflation. So, what we should do is give the dollar a value, in relation to the goods, and it should have a static value. If you want to give a person a raise, it means something. It means, instead of buying one pound of meat, he can buy two pounds of meat, not just pay a higher price for it.

I think these things are serious enough, Mr. Speaker, that, when we finish the ordinary business of this House, I would like to recommend to the Government that we have a special meeting, a special committee of all the Members of this House and we spend one week, or two weeks, or four weeks, if necessary, discussing the most important problems facing our Province right now, and those are poverty and unemployment. I think, if we do that we can come up with some answers that have long been sought and are badly needed. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.