TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present to the House a group of visitors and ask the House to welcome them. They are a group of about 60 people, members of the New Democratic Party in Vancouver South and Point Grey. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today a group of Grade 12 students whose teachers are from Vancouver South but the school is the Windermere School. They are my guests for today in the galleries. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are in the legislative precincts today, and will be later in the galleries, 65 schoolchildren from Surrey Centre School with their two school teachers and their helpers. I hope that the assembly will welcome them in the usual fashion.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I'd like the Legislature to welcome a class of young people from Glanford Secondary School. I know that they show forth the happiness that all of us like to see in this Legislature. Happiness is a direction, not a place. Thank you, I'd like you to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

FIRST READINGS

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today:

Bill No. 90 intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

Bill No. 88 intituled An Act to Amend the Trade-unions Act.

Orders of the day.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

THIRD READINGS

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 23 Mr Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 23, intituled An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act.

Bill No. 23 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 24, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 24, intituled An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962.

Bill No. 24 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 31, intituled An Act to Amend the Hearing-aid Regulation Act.

Bill No. 31 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 32, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 32, intituled An Act to Amend the Litter Act.

Bill No. 32 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 42, intituled Human Tissue Gift Act.

Bill No. 42 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 43, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 43, intituled An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act.

MR G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment that the words "six months hence" be substituted for the word "now." Seconded by the Member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Hartley).

Motion negatived.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 43 be now read a third time.

Motion approved. Bill No. 43 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 44, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 44, intituled An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

Bill No. 44 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 788 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 45, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 45, intituled An Act to Amend the Physiotherapists and Massage Practitioners Act.

Bill No. 45 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 46, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Committee on Bill No. 46, intituled An Act to Amend the Practical Nurses Act.

Bill No. 46 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 5, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1961

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 5. The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): This has been considered by us, Mr. Speaker, and we've also checked with some of our colleagues in the profession concerned with the deletion of the affidavit of bona fides in the Bills of Sale Act. It seems to be the considered opinion that it has been sort of a check and balance but it hasn't proved to be too workable. We're supporting the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 5, An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, now be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 10 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 10, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY
SHARE CAPITAL PURCHASE ACT, 1972

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 10. The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver– Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is absent.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in Washington.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The question is that Bill No. 10, British Columbia Railway Company Share Capital Purchase Act, 1972 be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 10 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 11, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PACIFIC GREAT
EASTERN CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT, 1954

(continued)

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm winding up the debate.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: I just want to say this that we have a further report on the derailment on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway on February 19, 1972.

The investigation of the derailment indicated that it was no fault of the locomotive trucks. It shows that the first wheels off were in the first and second car. These cars are American railway ownership. It has been found that maintenance in some American railroads of their equipment has not been up to standards. We have these cars coming on our tracks.

With the high percentage of foreign equipment on our railway, it makes it more difficult to catch each car's defects.

An engineering study has been completed for the area in question. The grade from Horseshoe Bay to Vancouver is original construction of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in 1914. Since that date housing developments have taken place between Nelson Creek and Horseshoe Bay to such an extent that no local revision can be accomplished to improve the alignment of tracks to reduce the hazards of derailment due to defects.

The railway has decided to construct a 4,500 foot tunnel from Nelson Creek to a point beyond Horseshoe Bay which will eliminate 2.1 miles of the present line in the most densely-populated section of the railway subject to damage in event of derailment. This costs about $2 million but for safety through that area, railway management feels we should have that tunnel built.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 11, An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954, be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

B ill No. 11 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA
HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY ACT, 1964

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the second reading of Bill No. 12. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, this bill is kind of a few pennies that are going to be spent here on behalf of B.C. or give them permission to borrow a few extra pennies to carry on their work. $500 million, we're asking the Legislature to authorise them to spend another $500 million. Now I don't think anyone in the House would want

[ Page 789 ]

to place any obstacle in the way of the B.C. Hydro from carrying on and progressing as the province progresses. The only thing that we have been asking for is an accounting or an indication as to where this $500 million may be spent.

We know that we were short a great deal on the Columbia River Treaty development. It would be quite easy for the Honourable the Minister of Finance to tell us some of it is going to be spent here. We know there's other projects in the offing such as the pipeline to the island, is it going to be spent there? There's talk about the Moran dam. Is there any idea that it might be used for the building of the Moran dam?

I feel that the Legislature has a right to know what is contemplated to do with this money. That's the only objection that I have got and that our group has got really to the bill. It's the not giving of any knowledge, just asking us to sign a blank cheque and say go ahead and spend it wherever you like.

I think that the House is entitled to an explanation as to where this money may be used.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill. As the last speaker was just saying, we're basically being asked to write a blank cheque to a company that has no accountability to its shareholders. That actually is what we're being asked.

I give you a specific example. We've raised the question in this House on several occasions of the Kootenay canal project. We've said the expenditure is $130 million for a project that at least one eminent consulting engineer suggests is not economically viable.

I think everyone is aware of that report. I make no pretence of trying to judge that report. The fact remains that we are told that the installed capacity at the Kootenay Canal project may cost as much as $1,000 per kilowatt which is uneconomic and makes it a completely unviable project and a very, very expensive project.

The very fact that those kind of questions can be raised and the only answer that we've had in this House has been one of the Ministers from Hydro has waved his arms and said: "Well, we know there's a little shortage of water, that is true. But we think it's going to be all right." That's really the only specific answer we've had.

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Kiernan) said that.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'm sure I put it much better than that.

MR. BROUSSON: He didn't say any more than that. He might have put it in nicer words. You might have said it a little louder and you waved your arms more, but that's really all you said.

HON. MR. KIERNAN: You know I don't wave my arms.

MR. BROUSSON: You did that night.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: So really, Mr. Speaker, what we're asking is some kind of accountability on these kind of projects and all these other expenditures. I think the public of British Columbia is entitled to it. I know for one thing as a businessman, if I own shares in a company, I would expect to be able to go to the annual meeting of the company and ask questions of the chairman of the board or the president or whoever was in the Chair and I would expect to get some answers.

That has clearly been established as a principle of Canadian, American and British business practice but it's not been practised in this House. We ask question after question about B.C. Hydro. They stay on the order paper. There are no answers. We ask questions in the House and there are no answers.

So basically we're back to the problem of accountability on a simple business-like basis. Why should we carry on with this business of father knows best? I don't have that kind of confidence in this father and I suggest we need specific and business-like answers. More than just father knows best.

We oppose this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. EA. LeCOURS (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that B.C. Hydro will require additional funds throughout the years for expansion purposes and I am sure that we would all agree that with our rapid development, that further power will be required within the province.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. LeCOURS: We're not going to buy flowers with it, you can be sure of that. In contemplating the fact, though, that when they have borrowed a further $500 million we're going to be faced with paying between $30 million and $35 million or perhaps more additional interest per year on the B.C. Hydro debt, then…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LeCOURS: It's not a government debt, it's a B.C. Hydro debt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Honourable Member address the Chair and proceed.

MR. LeCOURS: I think, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Honourable Members opposite that B.C. Hydro debts are paid for by the users of B.C. Hydro, and not by the taxpayers of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LeCOURS: However, Mr. Speaker, as a user of B.C. Hydro facilities, I am not prepared to pay any more than I have to for the services which they offer and I want to urge again upon the B.C. Hydro and upon the government Members who are directors of the B.C. Hydro to consider the possibility of using at least part of this in their own credit.

I have made some reference in years past — I think last year and the year before — to using energy credits. This would be very, very appropriate in the case of B.C. Hydro because they sell energy. They sell electrical and gas energy and if they were to use their own credit — the same as many

[ Page 790 ]

of the big stores and other concerns in the province — use their own credit in making exchanges for labour or among people at times, and you can cash that credit in at any time.

With annual income of over $250 million, I believe, that the B.C. Hydro has, it could quite safely issue at least $100 million in their own credit which would cost them nothing. They wouldn't have to pay 6 per cent, 7 per cent or perhaps 8 per cent interest or more on it.

That would be a great saving to the consumers of this province who use the B.C. Hydro facilities and I think that one move would be very welcome and one which would enable us to keep our electrical rates down.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with what was said by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) that this is like a shareholders' meeting. I mean, who are the shareholders of the B.C. Hydro? They're all of the people of British Columbia and we are their representatives here in this Legislature and the B.C. Hydro is floating a loan here and being given the power to do that to the extent of $500 million and the government has given no explanation whatsoever even to the elected representatives of the shareholders who are ourselves and none whatsoever to the shareholders.

As I say, this is a shareholders' meeting. If any board of directors drew a veil of secrecy over their activities as this government is doing in this case, they would be subject to being fined and locked up. They would be required to issue a prospectus for a borrowing of this size and if there was non-disclosure in that prospectus or false information, they would be prosecuted for that.

Yet the government has lowered the velvet curtain, and asks us to vote for $500 million borrowing power. We like Hydro and we know there are important projects to be undertaken in the province and while I'm prepared to vote for the bill at this time because we support this provincial organisation — I know it's a difficult decision to make, but I'm also prepared…

AN HON. MEMBER: Wiffle-waffle. You're $500 million blind.

MR. MACDONALD: This is second reading of the bill. Then there is the committee stage. First there is the winding up that the Premier is going to make in a few minutes. We intend to listen to that and specifically we're asking him — does this money or does it not provide the means whereby B.C. Hydro can build the natural gas pipe line to Vancouver Island? Will the Premier answer that when he's winding up?

Well, we insist upon that kind of an answer, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of thing we have a right to know.

Silence on that kind of a question from this government will be interpreted, failure to give the accountability that we've been talking about will be a sign, not only of arrogance on the part of this government but senescence. I almost said senility, Mr. Speaker. Senescence as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Does the Premier wish to make a statement, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. HARTLEY: I want to come back up again.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Member proceed please?

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, it's really remarkable to have a bill of this nature from a government (1) that says there are no debts, (2) from a government that says that it believes in private enterprise and not public ownership and (3) a government that says it's open to the people, that it reports to the people.

Now here we are passing judgment on a one-page Act. Approximately 50 words so those words are worth $10 million each. $ 500 million, a half a billion dollars. There's 50 words, I counted them. So it's $10 million a word. And we can get no answers.

The government Members are not prepared to get up and defend this or explain it. On this side of the House we have always supported public ownership of power and industry that was monopolistic in nature. So we support the basic philosophy, but I think that a government that is giving leadership, it's time that they had some plans for the future.

If this half a billion dollars is just bailing us out the more from the mistake that the Premier and the Minister of Water Resources made on the Columbia treaty, we all recall that, back in 1964, how we finally got the Premier to admit that $273 million plus was not enough money. But the financial wizard that he was then, he got up and told us: "No, I now agree that $273 million is not enough but we will invest that $273 million at 5 per cent and 6 per cent for 10 years."

As we know he invested $100 million by loaning it to Quebec at 5 per cent but ever since then he's been borrowing money here and there at 6 per cent and 7 per cent so any child with grade school arithmetic knows that when you loan money out at 5 per cent and borrow money at 6 per cent and 7 per cent that you have less than your $274 million.

Now, do we have $500 million less on the Columbia exercise? Is this the reason that we're borrowing this money, to bail this government out of the Columbia? To pay for the cutting down of the snags up in Duncan dam that weren't cut as they were promised at the time of the debate?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, during the Hydro debate back in 1964, on the Columbia Treaty, I asked if those valleys would be cleared and grubbed out before they were flooded and the Minister of Water Resources stood in his place and said yes they would. In a year or two's time we saw that the dams were being built and the valleys were being flooded without being cleared. So now we're going over it in a very incompetent, a very expensive way, attempting to clean those valleys.

We have problems below the Duncan dam with great fish kills. Some of this money could be used to help overcome the problem of nitrous poisoning that's killing our great Kokanee and other trout runs in those lakes. Now, surely as representatives of the users, if this is truly a publicly-owned and administered authority, this Legislature is entitled to answers to questions to some of the points that I've raised.

I think that we should at least have some indication if we are being bailed out of the Columbia or if this money is going to be used to build the Moran dam or other dams on the Fraser or other dams on other watersheds. Or is this money

[ Page 791 ]

to be used to build a gas pipeline, Mr. Speaker? Is the Hydro going to build a gas pipeline over to Vancouver Island?

No, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Premier. I think this $10 million a word bill is the height of arrogance. This shows how far this government is prepared to go in dictating to the little people. Supreme arrogance. That's what it is. $10 million a word. Is there any other bill that we've passed this year or in the lifetime of this government that has cost more than that?

Mr. Speaker, the only people, possibly the only person, that knows what the plans are is when we have one of those very special cabinet meetings when the Premier meets with the Minister of Finance. Possibly those two in that personality. Yes, no doubt it's this lack of knowledge and lack of information that not only the Opposition suffers under but the private Members on that side, the cabinet Ministers on that side. They suffer because this one man, arrogant government keeps to himself what he is going to do with this $500 million. This $10 million a word bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, the Member says she knows what arrogance is. Well, she should well know. She sits close to it. She sits very close to it.

Now these decisions are made behind that green door. Not the green door of the cabinet, but the green door of the combined office of the Premier and the Minister of Finance. It's a closed decision behind a closed door. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) doesn't know what's going on but if he was serving his constituents and other users of B.C. Hydro, he'd be up asking some questions too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, through you, I'd like to challenge the Minister of Municipal Affairs to get up and make a public statement on this $10 million a word piece of legislation that's before him and he's going to vote on it. He's prepared to sell his constituents down the river at any price.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Let's get back to the principle of this bill. We're not discussing the principles of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. HARTLEY: Well, I think it is something that affects municipal affairs. It can in fact affect the taxes and the taxpayers of every citizen and every municipality of the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Certainly. Certainly.

Those of us who were here in 1964 and voted in support of the Columbia Treaty — we're paying for it. We're paying for it now in our increased light bills. We remember on many occasions the Premier getting up here and going into orbit, waving his arms and flying about and saying there will be decrease after decrease, at least before every election.

Now, we have no decreases before election but increases in rates after the elections. The whole style has changed. It will be very interesting to see the Premier get up and go into orbit today.

There is one thing certain, Mr. Speaker, that I'm certain that he won't be getting up and laying forth proper plans, plans that the Hydro should have.

Let's us know whether he's going to build a grid down the Fraser Canyon so that in times of ice storms like we had this winter, the upper Fraser valley and the metropolitan area can be fed by a different route. This would be good engineering. It is something that I think should be discussed in this Legislature at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'll try to be brief and try to avoid repetition. I simply wish to go on record as saying that for the same reasons — lack of accountability, lack of information — this is a very large sum of money we're being asked to borrow, or to allow the borrowing of this large sum of money.

I think that the Member stated that everyone recognises the 8 or 9 or 10 per cent increase in the need for power each year and I understand that the studies of the energy board should be available in May. I think that this is the kind of study which should provide us with the answers to the questions that many of the Members have been asking, but I do agree with all that has been said in criticism of the bill, that the citizens of British Columbia should be aware, even in an approximate way, of how this large sum of money is to be used. For that very basic reason I oppose the bill.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I may have to say will I'm sure be repetitive and redundant but in an issue of this kind I don't believe that it can be said too many times to impress this government with the need for accountability.

When you consider what we are being asked to do in this bill, Mr. Speaker, and compare it with the exercise which is currently going on in this House and has been ever since the close of the budget debate, it must be note worthy that we have spent hour after hour, day after day, and week after week debating in many cases in the finest detail, proposed expenditures of this government over the forthcoming year.

These expenditures will total something like $1.5 billion, yet in this one bill we are to give the authority to a Crown corporation to borrow an additional $.5 billion — 1/3 of our budget — without any answers whatsoever to the questions properly posed: "What will the money be used for?"

The example has been given, an analogy if you like, by Members speaking in this debate to what might happen in other corporate circumstances. In fact, Mr. Speaker, many companies — the directors of many companies — have the power to borrow ever-increasing amounts of money without the approval of their shareholders.

But it so happens that this Legislature in 1964 saw the wisdom of limiting the borrowing authority of the British Columbia Hydro and it is for that reason that we are having this debate today. The Legislature in 1964 acting in its wisdom must have seen fit to place a limit for some specific purpose.

We are now being asked to abridge that limit and we are therefore entitled to ask why. Why are we this year being asked to allow this company to borrow $500 million? For what purpose? What are their plans?

We have no answers. We're just voting in the dark. I'm surprised that the Hon. the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) standing in his place speaking today who

[ Page 792 ]

has standing on the orders of this House a bill dealing with — he calls it The Sunshine Act — open disclosure, everything that goes on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support it?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Of course I'll support it. Will you support this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: We want to know the answers yet.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'm quite certain that the N.D.P. will rise in their places and support this bill. Speaking against it but supporting the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Support them. Liberal laws?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It really is a disgraceful performance and it's one which…

AN HON. MEMBER: Just wait for third reading. See what we do then.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Which is typical of the positions they have taken in so many of the Acts before us this year.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But, Mr. Speaker, to come back to the principle of this bill. The principle of this bill is unprincipled.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: "Give us the money. Don't ask any questions. We'll go ahead and spend it. Don't ask any questions after it's been expended. Don't, don't, don't!" That's all we have from the government of this province in respect of the operations of the B.C. Hydro.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: There are other examples in this country of a Crown corporation and the kind of accountability that they go through. Look at the Canadian National Railway for example. Annually it has to have an independent audit. Its affairs must be laid before the railway committee of the federal government for open, precise, scrutiny of the conduct of the affairs, financial and otherwise, of that railway.

We don't have that chance at all with the B.C. Hydro. The government of this province, the Premier of this province, refuses to give this assembly the opportunity of meeting with the senior officials of Hydro and posing to them the questions which they can answer and which I'm satisfied, Mr. Speaker, they are willing to answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's crazy!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Silence!

AN HON. MEMBER: He turns his back!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We even have sitting on the government benches two of the directors of Hydro and in this debate they remain silent. You would have thought that at some point in this debate they would have stood up and justified the positions which they hold on the board of that company.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liars!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What secrets are there? What dark things need to be locked away? What absence of planning do we have in B.C. Hydro? The monster which is slowly gobbling up ever-increasing amounts of the fiscal resource of this province, and doing a great deal to depreciate the environment. This is the control that it has over our province, over its land and over its people. We who are here are entitled to demand, and we do demand, that we be given the information before we vote on this bill.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): The Opposition, the official Opposition has supported the B.C. Hydro Authority for many years. We have done so because we are convinced and have always been convinced that public ownership of a great utility must be under the auspices of government. But this is not to say thereby that when the government is a Social Credit government that the official Opposition should quietly submit without any concern for the people of British Columbia to an absolute arrogant silence by the government on what the authorising of these powers is all about.

Surely it is time that this government accounted to the people of British Columbia — the people who buy that power, who have supported this great corporation the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority — so that they may know why the authorised borrowing power is sought in this bill, $500 million?

It could have a variety of purposes. It's simply speculation until the Minister in charge of the bill explains to the House why this borrowing power is required.

There are so many things that still are projected in the future of B.C. Hydro of which we know at this present time from this government so little. In fact you could paraphrase Churchill's remarks in that regard.

I point out to the government that it has shown an ambivalent attitude in regard to where its generation of power is coming from in the future. Whether it's going to be hydro power, nuclear power or whatever.

You know, it would have been so appropriate and so right in the terms of government with a proper administration in this province if before this bill has passed second reading even the B.C. Energy Board had reported to this House on what its proposals for the future are, and the government's reaction to those proposals.

Because there's no more vital matter in the economic future of British Columbia than for us to know the future of the British Columbia Power Authority and its power generation — how the plans of the future are going to be met, what options exist that must be decided and decided now.

I expect that the B.C. Energy Board report will come down after this session of the Legislature is finished and all of

[ Page 793 ]

us have gone back to our homes. This is the way this government works. It doesn't believe in logical, informative, explanations of its policies to anybody. It's above that kind of explanation to anybody.

I'm going to suggest to the Members that the obvious answer to this, as in every case where it is a mystery wrapped around the enigma of the B.C. Hydro, that what we do is we send this to a committee. Now to do that you have to pass second reading and it's obvious that…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I can't help it if my Hon. friends are not familiar with procedure.

In principle there is only one answer to this and that is to find out in committee what's going on.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: Through long experience in this House I know that a committee of the whole House never seems to get any information.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: You know, in the history of this House, I can only imagine one occasion when they ever dragged any witness before the bar of the whole House. He was merely there to accept a presentation from the House for his good work in one of our many centennial celebrations.

But to expect this group to ever inquire into the affairs of B.C. Hydro and to call those officers of B.C. Hydro before us to tell us what they want this borrowing power for would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, I can see only one course open to us. When we're talking about this bill in principle we're talking about the right of B.C. Hydro to have borrowing power. If the Liberals are opposed to that let them say so.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: It's one thing to give the power. It's another thing to exercise it. I say, well, alright, they're going to vote against it. That's their position.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: They are not prepared to accept the idea that this bill should even pass second reading.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: But I say everyone's entitled to another chance. The Premier has a chance to explain to the House when he winds up in second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll give you a chance.

MR. DOWDING: And then he has another chance and that is when it goes into committee.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. DOWDING: I suggest that he has those two chances before the ultimate decision of this House as what we do with this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going on for your third time.

MR. DOWDING: Well, maybe. We'll see when we get to that stage.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. DOWDING: But I'm going to tell you this — when we get to the motion as what we do with this bill, we'll tell you what it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker and a few others have gone around and around the mulberry bush.

They might vote second reading, they might vote in committee. They might not vote in third reading therefore the people of British Columbia should know that the minds of the N.D.P. — the Socialists — are not 100 per cent for public power in this province because they may vote against it in the third reading. They said so themselves and they said they'd make up their mind then.

That doubtfulness, that lack of decision within the N.D.P. Socialism is the reason why they're not government today. Because the people will never trust them. Never trust them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Order? You're never in order! You haven't got enough people to have an order!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's his personal attack. There he goes again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On who? On who?

AN HON. MEMBER: On the Liberals. Picking on those poor fellows.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill No. 12?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know you're their friends. The Liberals are the friends of the N.D.P. I know that they're their friends. They always vote together.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill No. 12?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We should know that they're the same — eeny, meeny, miny, mo.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked two very important questions; because he asked them in a very serious way I'll give him answers.

Would there be money in this $500 million for the

[ Page 794 ]

pipeline to cross the island? If the P.U.C. and everyone decides that they're the best people to build it the answer is yes. The money will be there in that money. Yes.

Then the other question was is there any money in the $500 million for the Moran dam? That was a serious question, I'm sure. The answer is no.

I want to say as far as the planning of the expenditure of this money and recommending the expenditure it's set out in the Hydro bill. The Hydro people and their engineers, they have the responsibility given by the Legislature, not the Premier of British Columbia. I haven't got that responsibility. It is Hydro's. Where the government has the basis we appoint the Hydro and they're not there in any 10, 20 or 30 year agreements. They've always been as all the appointments of this government, always been at pleasure. Always been at pleasure.

I want to say this. They say there should be a real auditing firm, auditor of books. I know of no better auditing firm, and I don't want to give them a plug, but I know of no better auditing firm in the whole Dominion of Canada than Price Waterhouse and they are the auditors of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Surely that is sufficient. I would move second reading, Mr. Speaker,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question is that Bill No. 12 be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

NAYS — 6

PAIR:

Bill No. 12, An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964, read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 18, Mr. Speaker.

GREEN BELT PROTECTION FUND ACT

(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 18 the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 18, the Green Belt Protection Fund Act has been discussed at some length in the House, however there are a great many points in this bill that I think should be discussed further.

In 1968, the government goofed badly in my view. They dumped the regional planning board at that time, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs defends the fact that splitting up the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board was the best thing. But you know in doing that he really created a very bad climate for this new bill. Because a lot of the things that they were suggesting back in 1965, '66, '68, when they were finally disbanded in 1968, in those years they were suggesting these very thoughts, they were suggesting a green belt around the lower mainland.

I know the Green Belt Protection Fund Act isn't only for the lower mainland, but it's the place that it is patently obvious that there is a tremendous need. Because of the fact that their ideas at that time were not followed, and because of the fact that they were broken up, now nobody has the kind of authority that's needed. We don't really have the muscle to do the job that this Green Belt Protection Fund Act indicates.

Mr. Speaker, the most important area in the whole lower mainland as far as I could see at the time was the protection of Delta. For many reasons, the fact that Delta is probably the richest farming land in North America capable of six crops a year, wasn't even considered when the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board made their recommendation that there was conservation of land around the super-port.

The government felt, no — that wouldn't be a good idea, that that land should go for industrial development along the railway. That was the choice the government made at that time, and they've lost the great green belt, and not only just a green belt but a food production area.

So the bill comes in late, and very weak. Naturally it's going to help in patches. I'm sure when we fly over the area it's going to look like patches too. Because the minister said when he was introducing the bill, that "there would be no expropriation."

It's never stopped Hydro, Mr. Speaker. When Hydro wants an area they expropriate. When the people want green space, park land, recreational land, the Minister says: "It's not important enough to expropriate." So therefore, this is the kind of climate that we have in the introduction of a new concept — a long-overdue concept, Mr. Speaker.

The flight that you take over the land is going to show you the kind of holes that are in this legislation — industrial land, interspersed with green land. It's going to be very much like a man standing with a belt, and the belt slips and his pants are right around his ankles. And this green belt has slipped badly. Instead of being close to the Vancouver area, the lower mainland area, each time it slips into the Fraser Valley. That's where the pants are at the moment, Mr. Speaker. Out in the Fraser Valley.

Mr. Speaker, on that basis we would like to know whether or not there's going to be a little more muscle put into the implementation of this Act. We would like to hear the Minister on winding it up, indicate that he's prepared to take this whole matter seriously, tell us that there is an overall plan, tell us there is some direction.

[ Page 795 ]

Don't tell us, "write to your M.L.A., " or "the M.L.A.'s should write in and say we should conserve this acre" and that kind of patchwork job. Mr. Speaker, we feel what's needed here is a firm announcement by the Minister that there will be some real protection as a consequence of this Green Belt Protection Fund Act. And I would hope that when the Minister stands in his place that he is going to give us some sort of indication of just how they're going to go about this thing in a workmanlike, businesslike manner.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 18 be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

NAYS — 5

PAIR:

Bill No. 18, Green Belt Protection Fund Act, read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 26, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT

(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 26, An Act to Amend the Motor-Vehicle Act. The Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We intend to support this bill…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HALL: I am being heckled by my own side now, Mr. Speaker. We intend to support this bill and I moved adjournment for an opportunity for all Members to find that there was a consistent principle throughout the Act, knowing how difficult it is on the Attorney General's part to amend comprehensive statutes in any specific way.

There is, however, one main point in this bill that deserves some mention at this time. And that is the question of the improvement in those sections dealing with hit-and-run accidents. I think it's safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that anybody would applaud any toughening up of legislation dealing with hit-and-run drivers, particularly when we are trying to do something on the other side of the coin by making sure that the offences are checked and receive the due process in whatever punitive or remedial measures are open to us in the Act.

I don't want to see the situation continue — as indeed it has on a few occasions — whereby in order to avoid one penalty people will leave the scene of the accident. Certainly I think that punishment meeted out to those who do hit and run should be equal to the most severe punishment that is contained in the Act itself. I think that's a fairly commonsense approach to it and I recommend that course of action and I will say that the bill receives that support.

Mr. Speaker, the other section deals with drunken offences and I think the House has indicated its unanimous support of the Attorney General in the way he's going on that and we take pleasure in supporting the bill.

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

MR. G. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is one measure that I am very, very interested in and I pleaded for better and safer driving laws in this province long before I was first elected and I notice that over the past six or seven years or so we've had things come into the Dominion of Canada such as the breathaliser test, the blood level of alcohol lowered insofar as consumptive quality is concerned, and furthermore the penalties and the fines and the suspensions have all become stiffer.

I would, however, continue to advocate to the government, Mr. Speaker, that they do what ever they can to give a proper and effective warning to the general public. I would very much request that while I've seen some of these government advertisements and signs in the liquor stores, I think that they should be in every bar and every beer parlour, and every club for that matter in the province. Also go ahead and tack on each and every gas pump what the levels of impairment are and the penalties that can be expected so that the general public can know exactly what they will have to run into, and that they are going to have to follow the very, very simple rule of either be sober, or keep off the road,

I've also argued, Mr. Speaker, that the fine has been a very rotten yardstick insofar as penalty is concerned. A fine of say, $300 or $400 is pretty well insignificant to a person of means. To a person of moderate means, it can constitute some suffering. But to the poor people of the province it could be absolute back breaking and the people who most often suffer from the fine, are not the individuals who perhaps may be paying it, but it would be the families and their children. I think, as I've suggested before, give in B.C. in lieu of a fine, some form say of social agency custody where everybody would be in exactly the same boat. If there happened to be a conviction for drunken driving, an individual would have to spend some time in a hospital or a rest home doing some kind of work, or say, a little bit of time at the morgue or even riding shot gun with a traffic officer. I think here we would have a yardstick that would be fair, and would apply to all economic sections of society

[ Page 796 ]

whereas the fine definitely does not.

I would also like to say a couple of things about the suspension, notwithstanding the fact we are supporting the provisions for suspension here. Now, a suspension in the case of a person of means again can be somewhat of an insignificant thing, because a business man can take a taxi and perhaps it is not too much of a problem to him.

But to another individual in society a suspension can definitely mean the loss of his vocation. If a fellow is off the road for six months it can affect his family, he could be put on to the bread line for six months and there wouldn't be any money coming in whatsoever. The magistrates — now they are the provincial court judges — have always been very, very concerned about the superintendent of motor vehicles essentially usurping their powers of sentence. And the magistrates after all, Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who have the facts first hand. They consider the ameliorating factors and the mitigating circumstances.

In this bill it is an automatic six-months' suspension, it doesn't have any leeway whatsoever for things such as I am talking of.

To give you an example you can have a situation where perhaps there's a very borderline type of drinking and driving, there's not any accident. This gentleman is brought in front of the magistrate and he pleads guilty, or he's convicted and he's sentenced. True, perhaps it's the man's second offence and the reason this offence may have come about is that perhaps his wife could have died as a result of an operation, and there was a terrific amount of emotion. It could happen for a number of reasons. And here's a fellow pleading that in these terrible circumstances, "I am truly repentent, I am not the type of person who gets involved in these kinds of offences. I have some children. And what can you do to help?"

The magistrates, and the provincial court judges as they now are in this province, Mr. Speaker, have been able to effectively handle this and they've done the job, and they've done a terrific job. They've said to these people: "O.K., under the circumstances that you have suggested I am going to fine you a certain amount of money and perhaps we'll give you some time to pay it, and we're also going to put you off the road, but we're not going to take you off your job. You are going to be permitted to drive a motor vehicle if you have to be a trucker say, between the hours of 8 in the morning and 5 o'clock, or 8 o'clock at night, or whatever the case may be. You are not permitted to drive a motor vehicle for social reasons, you are not permitted to be on the road except during the work-day week."

It gives a fellow an opportunity, it's sort of parole situation, and it gives him an opportunity over a six-month period to just prove to the court that he can do this thing. If he happens to be picked up in violation of this dawn-to-dusk suspension, as it's usually called, Mr. Speaker, he can be brought back to court, and he can be resentenced. The magistrates have the power to do that.

So I say there's a terrific — I don't want to use the word "club," but that's essentially what it is — there's a terrific club over the offending party there. But please, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, I'd very much suggest that if he's going to go ahead with this bill in this present form for goodness sake at least give the superintendent of motor vehicles — which you have not done — the discretion to go ahead and grant a dawn-to-dusk suspension along the lines that I've talked about.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm just trying to catch the Attorney General's ear. What could happen in this kind of a situation, much the same way that happened before in motor vehicle suspensions, the individual would have to take the time and the trouble to come say, to Victoria or go to a branch of the motor vehicle office that was closest to him in B.C. and he would have to be able to show good reason to the superintendent why the suspension that was ordered should not be effective.

I'm saying extend this tying to a dawn-to-dusk type of discretion along the lines that I have talked of.

Apart from that what you're doing in this bill you are turning 180 degrees from the other bill that you introduced in the House which I think is a first-class bill — one we passed, the Summary Convictions Act. In that you granted the magistrate a discretion or was it the prison authorities, I have forgotten which in any event a discretion was granted, I believe to the magistrate to order that a person would not have to be in jail throughout the full period of his term.

He could be out during the week, he could be vocational, and he perhaps would have to be in custody during that weekend. So you're giving this social legislation, you're giving these people the opportunity to maintain their families, to keep their children dressed, to keep them clothed, to keep them fed, to have these poor kids to be able to still go to school.

I agree with you thoroughly that we need a tough law in B.C. so far as drinking and driving is concerned here — and I want a tough law here, make no mistake of that. But I do not feel that you should suddenly just have rubber stamp automatic suspensions without the people who are closest to the offence being able to render equity. That's the word, and this is the concept of equity as the Attorney General well knows.

Here you are destroying it, there is no equitable principle here whatsoever. And it can be provided by reverting to the situation whereby the magistrates do have the power as they always did have. You had a case that went to the court of appeal not too long ago wherein the superintendent was ordering automatic suspensions and it was decided by the court of appeal in B.C. that he had exceeded his powers. So at least either give it back to the magistrates to allow them to exercise the discretion, or permit the superintendent of motors to be able to authorise something a little more lenient if the circumstances warranted it.

Secondly, I would have also liked very much, Mr. Speaker, to have seen in here that there would have been government policy to the effect that motor vehicle driving training would be compulsory in all of our high schools. I think this is high time we had this in B.C. I've talked about it in this House for the better part of a dozen times and I'm not going to repeat my statements here. Secondly I cannot for the life of me see why you don't have contained in this Act that there will be compulsory motor vehicle inspection throughout the province.

Now it costs $25,000 a unit to have one of these units trotting around the province to do the job, and that's not very much money. And according to the statistics that we have received from the motor vehicle inspection stations, the figures are either 33 per cent or 63 per cent of all cars are rejected. Well O.K., you multiply that, Honourable Members, times the number of cars that we've got in B C. and we've got

[ Page 797 ]

a third of a million plus motor vehicles in the Province of B.C. that are going down the roads that are wrecks, or that are close to wrecks, and that are causing accidents. And every Member in the House got a…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: No, you're not a wreck, under no circumstances. No, neither is your car a wreck, I'm sure. But I'm not too sure of your car. But, Mr. Speaker, these vehicles that are not capable of passing are in the hinterlands primarily, and why shouldn't these people have the same kind of benefits to safe driving that we have here? A couple of days ago all of the Honourable Members received from the superintendent of motor vehicles a very, very interesting brochure talking about the incidence of accidents that are caused by faulty cars. And it's enormous. It's just like going down the highway with a loaded shotgun, to have a vehicle that is in faulty shape to be on that highway, and it should just purely and simply not be there.

The government has got this enormous surplus that's going to the public with an election campaign, and why don't they make this part of their platform, that there will be compulsory motor vehicle inspection throughout the province of B.C.? It is not a dollars problem to handle it, make no mistake of that. You don't have to go ahead and build structures all over the province, all you need to have is a unit that will go from A to B to C. I believe you've got one now, and I'd say buy 10 more and you'd save lives and you'd really cut the social cost of damage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I regret that I cannot agree with the Attorney General in respect to the cancellations of licences in the case of a drinking driver. I agree that they have committed a serious offence. I agree in many points of the previous speaker. But I want the Attorney General to understand that as much as we abhor drink, as much as I consider alcohol a hellish brew, we still must recognise that it is part of society and I think it is proper to legislate against it, but not to the extent of depriving a man of his living, and his power to earn his living.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the Attorney General — and I think the Attorney General does not see this point, because I have mentioned it before — there are two fundamental sections of society. One section is the people that live in the cities, and the other section is the people that live in the country. Now the country individual must have his automobile or his motorcycle to move from point to point. The city driver can use even a taxi. The distances are not great, or he may if he wishes, use the local transportation. But there's no such opportunity for a man in the country.

I feel that we are being unfair and prejudicial to a man's ability to earn a living. After all this is not a function of government, it's a serious punishment. How do you punish a man by taking away his right to live? I think that it is a wrong thing, and the Attorney General must use discretion here. He's removing the power of discretion, and I call on him to reconsider this section as I've asked him before. It is seldom I rise on the floor of this House, and take issue with the Honourable the Attorney General, but I must in this case because I feel that people like the Attorney General and others whose habitation has been the city forget the problem that country people have.

My suggestion in this House before was punishment — yes. Drastic punishment — yes. I don't mind the punishment. I agree that punishment must be made. But to stop that man from earning a living…would the Hon. Attorney General — I know that he never would, but if he lost his licence what difference would it make to him? None whatever, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He bounced that back, Mr. Speaker. He bounced that back beautifully. And I should know who I'm speaking to.

Alright, if I lost my licence it wouldn't make one solitary difference to me. As a matter of fact I'd be better off. What punishment is that? So I say to the Attorney General, review this item. Be fair, there should be equity in law, and there is no equity here whatever. Punishment yes — put a flag on the man's car, paint the top yellow or green, give him a new licence plate, make him a spectacle among his friends — that's punishment. Call him anything but, Mr. Speaker, it isn't fair to take away his right to live. And he has a right to live, and this government above all acknowledges that fact of fairness to all, and privileges to none, and I say that this enactment is a reversal of that point of our principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to speak in support of the last two speakers on this question. I have an idea I think that is applicable in the north, and possibly would help here.

We have people up North as has been said before that have to have a licence, and have to be able to drive in order to earn a living, and we're taking their livelihood away from them here entirely.

I do not believe that people who get in trouble should be allowed to use a car for pleasure, or for anything other than to be able to perform their duties and their day's work. I'd like to suggest in this particular case that their driver's licence be lifted, between the hours, say, of 6 at night, and 7 in the morning, or something in that line so that they would still be able to do a day's work and not be able to use their car for a period of time that's set down under the Act, so that they would be deprived of any way that they could use this car for pleasure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I too am a little worried about the provision in this Act in regards to impaired driving. I don't quite understand that we can say that a man is sober at .079 and he's drunk at .08. This is too fine a fine. As far as I'm concerned I think there are degrees of impairment. There's some people that at .08, if you didn't pick them up maybe in a road block and had them blow into a balloon you wouldn't tell that they were impaired.

But when you say that that person gets the same penalty as the fellow that's weaving all over the road, I think this is wrong. The policemen today have got discretion so when they meet up with a person that looks as though he might be impaired, they can give him a 24-hour suspension — and he

[ Page 798 ]

might have .24. Yet they can do that if they want to.

You're giving police discretion, but you're not giving the superintendent of motor vehicles any discretion. You're not giving the magistrate any discretion, but you're giving the policeman wide-open discretion to say that if a person is really impaired he doesn't have to blow in the balloon, he can take his driver's licence away for 24 hours and that person is free to continue on.

But the other person who may be just over the mark, and sometimes, some people might show .08 with not too much alcohol in their system, they'll get picked up and they've got to blow in the balloon. They throw the book at them right there and say that you're automatically suspended from driving.

I've had a number of cases of young people who have been suspended for impaired driving, and they've come to me because their job was on the chopping block. They had a difficult time getting a job. Maybe they have been very good workers, and they have come to me and asked me. And I've taken it up with the superintendent, and I found the superintendent very considerate in these cases. He had the power to do these things. Every one of those cases that I have taken up and I have got them to get their licence back to drive for work — only during working time. I don't think you can specify hours because you take in Trail, there are truck drivers for the company that work in shift work. If he's given the right to drive at his work it's a big thing because none of these people that I have managed to get their licence back for them during working hours has failed me.

Don't ever think I didn't give them a good lecture when they got it. I gave them a mighty good lecture on what they were doing and the position they were putting me in and the position they were putting the public in by giving them back their licence.

Nevertheless, we didn't wreck that person's life. A lot of these impaired driving cases, there was no accident at all. No accident at all. Nobody knows whether there would have been any accident. Maybe he was just a block from his home. I'm not objecting to taking his privileges away for pleasure, but when we start taking their privileges away for their livelihood, I say no. I think it's wrong — I think that under any circumstances.

Very few of these impaired driving cases you ever found were caught at work. You never caught them impaired driving a truck at work. They're always on the job. It's after work, in social hours, that they get impaired. I think that the…

MR. CAPOZZI: Not true!

MR. NIMSICK: Not true — what?

MR. CAPOZZI: Impaired at work.

MR. NIMSICK: I say that they're not impaired during working hours. Very few. Very few you would ever find…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, I've never found one yet become impaired and I've worked for a long time for industry. We never had a drink during lunch hour. Maybe you people that run a wine factory might have it but we don't have it in other industries.

I think Mr. Speaker that we should give the same rights to the magistrates and to the superintendent of motor vehicles as you're giving to the police because you're not taking their discretion away from them. I could mention that this could happen — the policeman might know a person and naturally he might see him and he might give him a 24-hour suspension. This is fine. I'm not objecting to 24 hours, but I think if we're going to give that kind of discretion to the police then we should give it to the magistrate and to the superintendent of motor vehicles as well in regard to allowing him to drive at least at work.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a tough problem. I'd like to give the House and the Attorney General a current case which is now before Mr. Hatfield.

This man, it's true, he's had two convictions for being impaired — about a year apart. The last one was in January. He went to jail for 14 days and that was probably a good thing — rather than pay the fine because when you pay the fine the family suffers perhaps more than the man. So the 14 days is all right.

But he's been under a strain because his wife — he's in Vancouver East — his wife is on dialysis — the Minister of Health would know more about it, how they bring the boxes from the hospital every other day. He has a lot of running around to do — he has five children. So under that kind of a strain, okay, he's had two impaired charges, a year apart. He drives a bus for Pacific Stages. Now he's faced with the indefinite suspension. That's what he's got.

Thirty days he could live with. He could live with the 14 days in jail. He could live with the first part of your section — the 30-day suspension, but the six months I think destroys him as a useful working person in British Columbia society. I think he'd lose his job. I don't see how they could hold it for six months.

The penalty on him is absolutely massive punishment in comparison to his short jail term. In comparison to a fine of $500 to $600 his life goes up in smoke. With five children suffering and the wife on the brink of death the whole time.

I think perhaps these speakers are right, that this second six-month thing to be automatic is just a little bit too rigid and will not in fact be providing equal and fair justice for all people involved in that kind of an offence.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I was called out and I may have missed some of the debate but I think the comments that were made about .08 from a scientific point of view, the Member was possibly correct that it's very difficult to suggest that somebody just below .08 is not impaired and somebody a little bit above is impaired.

I think, at least in my experience with cases where this has arisen, there are many other factors taken into account and I think it would be wrong to leave the impression with the House that this .08 is at some absolute and complete and total vindication of how the verdict would go for the driver.

Certainly all the other features that suggest impairment and lack of judgment are taken into account. It's also my experience that around the .08 mark the police do have this degree of discretion and I have…

[ Page 799 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, but if the person is merely suspected like the one that you suggested — where you couldn't tell by looking at him — in these cases the person has been advised to go home and cool it for 24 hours and I think this is a good idea. I would like to add my support to the point of view that we should try and be fair before the law and that the person who in fact might lose his livelihood because he has committed this offence, I think we should try to provide some alternative sentence or some better handling by giving the magistrate discretion.

I think on the other hand that in suggesting this, one has to repeat that in no way is one condoning or trying to diminish the severity of the offence or the seriousness of drinking and driving in terms of the statistics.

Even worse than the mortality is the morbidity — the number of people who are left mangled or with brain damage. This I may say, Mr. Premier, is something that I think many members of the public are very moved about — the people who are killed in the accidents. But I would submit that a far greater heart break is to see either parents or young men and women in their teens who are just next to being vegetables after some of the accidents they are involved in.

So that in no way am I suggesting that this isn't one of the most serious problems facing society. But I do say also, as many Members have said — and I'll be very brief — I think it is fair to try and give a person some sentence which will inflict punishment. But if it goes to the extent of perhaps even wrecking his livelihood completely, if he's out of work or can't travel around as an agent for example in his motor car for six months, it's quite possible to affect his total livelihood long beyond the six month period. It may not just be possible for him to pick up his job six months later.

So I would submit, this is an area the Attorney General might reconsider.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my opinion is that cases dealing with drinking drivers are very difficult in the particular but not difficult in the abstract. None of us here want anyone to drink and then to drive. I think that's clearly understood throughout all the Members in this House. I agree with the position that the Attorney General takes that we must be very, very strict with drivers who drink. There is no alternative. We have no other alternative.

The question is the area of flexibility in dealing with particular cases. If some of the problems outlined by the Members are some that occur, then I agree that there should be some flexibility. I'll tell you the kind of experience I've had as an M.L.A. that really browns me off.

I've got a call from a fellow saying: "I've been convicted for drunken driving and it's a terrible thing that's happened to me." The guy's drunk on the phone — right on the phone — and he says to me: "I've been wrongly picked on."

He give me all kinds of abuse about the Attorney General and I said to him: "Look, I don't need your abuse, I got my own abuse to give the Attorney General."

But when he's drunk on the phone, then pleading his case at the same time, that's a little bit much.

I think it should be clearly understood that any reference of understanding for the particular situation should be made on the frame of reference that we all agree to, that anybody who drinks and drives is absolutely stupid and he's placing not only himself in danger, but far worse, many, many other people in danger.

The question I would like to make a suggestion on to the Attorney General and his department, in terms of the drinking driver, I think a sincere appeal to you through you, Mr. Speaker, to close the beer parlors again between six and seven. That one closing hour is a very important hour and if you examine the peaks of accidents, you'll find that that particular hour relates fairly well to those peaks as well as the early hour morning, after midnight. It certainly breaks the rhythm, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker.

What it does, it forces people to go home for a meal instead of sitting in those cavernous beer parlors — drinking, drinking, drinking. If they are closed between six and seven, people go home and have a meal where either their wives or their husbands can grab hold of them and settle them down before they go on a long drinking spree that may last that whole night or even trigger a three-day drinking spree.

That's a very, very serious appeal that I make to the Attorney General. Please re-consider closing the beer parlors again between six and seven. I know I'm out of order and I'm coming back to the bill now.

The other point that I wish to make is that in some of the sections, you're altering the obligations of the statements made by the owner of the car in terms of the insurance companies. You're changing onus in here on proving whether or not you've got insurance. I think it's section 15.

Now, I would like to ask the Attorney General this question. Is the insurance board reviewing the problem of insurance companies raising rates after an offence by a driver under sections of this Act? Is the insurance board reviewing the problem? Are they reviewing that problem?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Not finished. No, because it will alter my answer. You may save me a whole speech.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: They are? That's fine. The problem really — one that you and I have a great gulf between us on — is in my opinion, under your legislation, in this Act, you have delegated to the insurance companies the rights that only courts should have, if a man is convicted of drinking driving.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but I have case after case. Yes, but the penalties are there. I think you have to discuss it under this bill because sections are now in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with insurance. You can't escape it. You inescapably tied the whole insurance scheme into the Motor Vehicle Act. You have passed a law and you are altering a bit of it here. You've passed a law that says it is a criminal offence unless you are able to produce proof that you have automobile insurance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where does the province get authority to enact federal law?

MR. BARRETT: Well, O.K., it's an offence…what is the offence then? You mean you can drive…you mean

[ Page 800 ]

you're telling me that it's not an offence to?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a criminal offence.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, but it's an offence? All right. But it's treated as a criminal offence by the insurance companies.

AN HON. MEMBER: No they don't.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Because they impose fines. They do impose fines, Mr. Attorney General. I'll tell you every single M. L.A. in this House has run across a case or two of the same thing. After they're convicted under your Motor Vehicle Act sections, the insurance companies take it upon themselves to increase the rate as a penalty for your conviction. The courts didn't do that. There's no system of appeal that we know of through British justice. It's an arbitrary decision by the insurance companies that if there's a violation of this Act, you'll pay on your premium. That in effect is a crime, Mr. Attorney General. That is what it is. It is a fine.

It's more than the question of losing a job of course, it's outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. If an employer says you've been convicted and you lose your job, that's very unfortunate and we should try and modify that. The Attorney General stands by helplessly, while the insurance companies are on this moveable feast that they have of compulsory insurance.

It guarantees them a compulsory market under the Motor Vehicle Act. You must buy automobile insurance and the moveable feast comes when the insurance companies, in their little Star Chamber rooms, rattle the bones on their insurance rate structure and fine people for breaking the law.

What recourse does the poor little citizen of British Columbia have against this juggernaut? He has no recourse at all. He pays up and shuts up because the word gets around among the insurance companies — and let's face it, they even have the facility, they admit, that they have certain risk drivers. The word gets around the insurance companies — "Watch out for Joe. Put him on the list."

The whole decision of whether or not this poor little British Columbia citizen is punished — do you think that's made in British Columbia? It's made in New York. Made in Montreal. Perhaps some of the companies may have a head office in the city that the Premier dreads more than any other city — Ottawa. Those decisions are made outside the jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia based on this law that we're amending now.

I want the Attorney General to stand up and say that only the courts of British Columbia will fine people, after a fair hearing, if they're proven guilty. Only the courts of British Columbia will determine what kind of penalties there will be and the rights of the individual will be protected in that he can go to the courts and ask for an appeal of that decision.

At the present time there is no appeal from the right given by the Attorney General to the insurance companies who are fining our citizens. They have no appeal.

Forced to buy insurance by law. Forced to pay these fines through the heavy penalties of insurance and no appeal to anyone. It goes against every concept of British common law and it goes against every concept of traditional decency in terms of how we approach problems and allow people to have court hearings and to appeal those court hearings.

I don't like it. I don't like this Act that allows outside foreign insurance companies to pick on the little citizens of British Columbia, protected by this government, in a law that requires you to buy car insurance from those outside corporations — foreign-owned, foreign-dominated. Picking on the little citizens of British Columbia. What about that slogan, Mr. Attorney General, fair treatment to all, special privileges to none? As far as special privileges go under this Act, the foreign-owned insurance companies have this special privilege of fining the people of British Columbia. I think this government should do something about it soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Richmond.

MR. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, while I think all of us would agree that anyone who exposed himself to a second impaired driving charge has to be more than foolish, I believe there are times when this happens rather accidentally.

If a person exposes himself to it deliberately then maybe no punishment is too severe. I think that there are countries where a second offence results in a life-time suspension. However, I have been impressed by some of the arguments expressed here this afternoon. I'd like to endorse in particular my good friend, the Honourable Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) with respect to the fact that a person who is in a position to hire himself a taxi or a chauffeur actually suffers no punishment to speak of in being suspended for six months or even for a year. As our Honourable friend said, in some cases he may welcome the idea of having his wife drive him instead, or being able to take a taxi.

That is one important consideration. I think in addition to that the idea of discretion advanced by the Honourable Member for Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) was a very valid one.

A policeman who stops you, if he happens to be a friend of yours, might just say: "Well, gee, you're in trouble already, boy, I better just take your licence away for 24 hours and you get home the best way you can. We'll leave your car here or have it towed away." And that's the end of the story for that person. He could be bombed right out of his mind.

So, while we don't in any way condone such action, the discretion is there. I'm sure that it is exercised in some cases. That's why I feel that while I'm not too enamoured of some of the magistrates we have on the bench — or the provincial judges — I think we have to expect that in hearing the case, they have a better insight to the circumstances of the accused and what the consequences may be — I'm aware, of course, also that some of them don't care what the consequences are.

But I would think that some discretion should be allowed the judge in determining what the sentence should be. I'm rather reluctant to see this compulsory six-month suspension go into effect without knowing if it's going to, as one of the Members said, destroy this man completely perhaps.

If the man is going to lose his job and perhaps is not going to get a job again, he and his family may become public charges for the rest of their lives. Because there are circumstances — and I've had the odd one phone me — where they're on an odd shift maybe that starts at midnight or something like that until the morning. They just can't get a ride that time of the day and to hire transportation or to get someone to drive them there at that time of the day and to get them back in the morning would cost them more than they get paid at their job perhaps. So the only alternative they have is to give up their job. I know it has happened. And then they go on welfare.

I don't think that is the intention. I think the intention is to protect the public from drunken drivers. I'll be the first

[ Page 801 ]

one to endorse that. We're not guaranteeing that we're protecting ourselves against impaired drivers or drunken drivers by extending this to six months.

There is one other aspect, Mr. Speaker, that concerns me greatly. That is those that can afford a fancy lawyer and who can afford fancy medical evidence will quite often beat the rap whereas the poor little fellow that can't afford an expensive lawyer or any lawyer at all, perhaps, is given the full shot.

This is one type of injustice that I think we must guard against. I'm sure that we can all point our finger at one or two cases where exactly that has happened. Someone who is in a position to get one of the best lawyers in town and to bring some fancy defence in has been found not guilty by virtue of some far-fetched reason. I think this is a great danger to see. It's very unjust to see someone else treated in so severe a manner, in relation to that.

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

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be very brief. I just want to get on to the question of the automatic suspension and mention as it's been mentioned already that for the majority of people the automatic suspension is certainly an inconvenience but for people like truck drivers or taxi drivers the automatic suspension is a complete calamity, with suffering to the families and so on.

But I think the solution is quite simple. It seems to me that there would be no problem in endorsing the licence of that person, giving him the right to drive his gravel truck or whatever it is that he's driving at the place of work so that he doesn't become a charge of society, having lost his job. I think this could quite easily be done. That person would, of course, have to find his way to work and so on, but his actual job, he would be able to keep that and keep the family intact. I hope the Attorney General will consider this as a way out of this very basic problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney General will close the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting discussion particularly on the one feature of the bill relating to the automatic suspension of licences of those who find themselves convicted of impaired driving.

While there have been many arguments advanced this afternoon in support of an easier, a less harsh policy than that contained in this bill, there hasn't been an argument advanced this afternoon that I didn't consider before recommending this particular provision to this legislative assembly.

The reason is simply this. That while you can argue about the poor chap in the country — and for the information of the Honourable Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I was a country boy myself before coming to the city — I state in all sincerity that that distinction between country and city as far as impaired driving is concerned has no application at all, none at all.

You'll find people who live in the city who need their cars as much in terms of travelling and in terms of perhaps selling throughout the Province of British Columbia as you do people in the country. So let's not divide this in any sense between country and city. It has no application, in my submission.

I say, as well, that the business and pleasure distinction, while there is a hardship for those who need their cars or trucks for business, you know for the person that's been killed — as many are — by drunken drivers, it doesn't matter, does it, whether you were on business, or whether you were on pleasure? It doesn't matter whether you lived in the country or you lived in the city. I say the statistics are such, the damage done by the combination of drinking and driving is such, that we have to take harsh action.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can go right out and fly a jet airplane.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I don't have control over who flies a jet airplane, Mr. Speaker, but I tell you this much, if I did in terms of pilots carrying other people, I certainly would have very, very harsh restrictions. If they flew a plane while they were impaired, I would say they should never fly a plane again with public passengers.

Now, we're not talking about people who are sober. We're talking about people who have been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be impaired. Their ability to drive a vehicle has been impaired by the use of alcohol. Those are the people who you've been advocating a softer approach to, in this bill.

Now what does this bill do? It says if you're convicted of impaired driving, you're going to have an automatic suspension of one month on your first conviction. In other words, you won't be able to drive for one month.

Now, is that too harsh? I say it's not. You can compare the provisions that exist elsewhere. You'll find much harsher provisions than that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what's the advantage of having an automatic suspension? I know some of the lawyers are against it. I know some of the lawyers like to go to the courts and make eloquent appeals on the behalf of their clients.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a cheap attack.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not making a cheap attack at all. I've had representation from lawyers and I'm responding to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're well-principled people.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I'm not talking about their principles, but I'm talking about a very serious matter of whether you're going to give discretion to the courts to say: "Look, there'll be no suspension of this poor chap's driving licence. After all, he had a reason to go out and get drunk," so you're going to allow him to drive during the day and not at night.

I say that there is an advantage in having simple rules. People like simple rules that they know in advance. So if they go out and drink and drive, they know there's no way out, no matter who they hire, no matter how eloquent their lawyer. They're going to get this suspension for one month.

Is this going to, as the Honourable Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said, take away his right to live? Is it going to take away his right to live by a suspension for one month?

Mr. Speaker, what about the right to live of other people on the roads? What about the right of those people? Surely, in this modern day a person who has employment can make arrangements for other transportation for one month. That's

[ Page 802 ]

not too long. If any criticism is due this government it's the fact that this bill isn't harsh enough. One month isn't long enough.

That is the problem and if you say, look, let's give the discretion to the courts, let's give a discretion to the superintendent, then, Mr. Speaker, you can go out and drive tonight and drink tonight. You can go out and drive afterwards with the thought in your mind, "I can get myself out of this. I'll go over to Ray Hatfield and tell him the story of what happened, how necessary it is for me to have my car for work."

You can make a plea. You can hire an eloquent lawyer and be successful, perhaps. That's why we're eliminating the discretion either on the part of the superintendent of motor vehicles or on the part of the courts. So henceforth, once this bill passes, everybody in the Province of British Columbia knows before they take their first drink what the consequences of that action are. They know if they're convicted of impaired driving, they're not going to have the right to drive for one month. It's as simple as that.

The six months that have been referred to refers to the second conviction. Two tries within a special period of time. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious point on which I feel very strongly. I think all of the Members should feet equally as strong when you see more people killed on our highways because of alcohol than there are people killed in the wars that are in operation today.

That's how serious this problem is. So we're going to get carried away by a chap having to find some other means of transportation for one month when he deliberately drinks and drives. I say this is legislation that's required. I listened to all the arguments and I've answered all the arguments.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

HON. MR. PETERSON: What about the truck driver? Mr. Speaker, it doesn't make too much difference to the person that's injured by someone on the road whether they're driving for business or whether they're driving for pleasure.

MR. NIMSICK: That's where the discretion comes in.

HON. MR. PETERSON: That's where the discretion comes in? That's why I say there should be no discretion so that people know in advance that they can't use the same excuses that the courts have heard — every excuse that's been mentioned on the floor of this House today. The Honourable legal Members know that.

There hasn't been one excuse that's been brought forward by a Member on the floor of this Legislature.that hasn't been before a court. So they know in advance this is it. This is preventive, designed to be harsh in that sense that people know in advance, so there'll be no excuse. They'll have this automatic suspension. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 26, An Act to Amend the Motor-Vehicle Act, be read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 26 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 37, the Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is absent. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 37 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 39, Mr. Speaker.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 39. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition? Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 39 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 48, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this bill, the Act to Amend the Provincial Elections Act.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that once again we're facing the same old Social Credit pin-ball game. This Act could be best described with one word. That word is tilt, t-i-l-t.

Because this Act is a law that you're introducing into the Province of B.C. I've always found it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to read the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Canadian Bill of Rights provides for the right of the individual to equality before the law. But in fact in this Act, there is no such thing as equality before the law. In any democratic system, Mr. Speaker, one man should be entitled to one vote and vice versa. But in no way, Mr. Speaker. It takes about seven times the votes to elect a member in Vancouver–Point Grey…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member is speaking on the Constitution Act and not on the Provincial Elections Act.

MR. GARDOM: …in Columbia River. To leave that point, Mr. Speaker…

[ Page 803 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Please get back to this bill.

MR. GARDOM: I don't see any provision within this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, to say that it will be mandatory upon the government to maintain their time in office. This surely is where one would expect to find that precise kind of a rule.

I can't see anything within this bill, Mr. Speaker, which gives one individual the right to snap his fingers, look out the window on one day, and say "this is the day." This happens to be the day that one individual can reach a decision that's going to cost the people of B.C. $2 million for an election, just on the whim of one man.

I don't see anything within this bill, Mr. Speaker, insofar as reform is concerned of the order on the ballot. On the ballot in B.C. the government Members are listed first. Why for goodness sakes, Mr. Speaker, in the sense of all fairness?

MR. CAPOZZI: How should they be listed?

MR. GARDOM: How should they be listed? I think the fairest way to list any people on a political ballot would be by lot. I wouldn't advocate alphabetical order but draw them by lot. You take your chance you end up at the beginning, the middle or wherever it may be.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we find in this bill, of course, the requirement of 20 candidates in order to list a political party affiliation. I have no desire to be sacrilegious, Mr. Speaker, but under this particular kind of interpretation the first Christian in the world in British Columbia would have to run as an independent. That's pretty ridiculous in my view.

I also see nothing with this bill, Mr. Speaker, to prevent the unwarranted public advertising by cabinet Ministers for the sole purposes of their perpetuation of office.

I think that is unethical, Mr. Speaker, and apart from it being unethical I think it should become illegal. I would like to see an amendment in this bill to the effect that any advertisements by cabinet Ministers within four months of the date of the election, or at least after the writ issues would be contrary to the laws of the Province of British Columbia and if they so advertise they would be subject to a punishment under the Summary Convictions Act and also would have to go ahead and repay the public treasuries the amount of the money that they spend in this kind of unwarranted, uncalled-for, unprincipled and unethical public advertising.

I don't see anything within this bill limiting the election expenses of the parties, of the Members in the Province of British Columbia. I am very much in favour of some limits being placed upon them. Quite frankly it wouldn't concern me too much what the limit was as long as the Legislature reached a decision on it and it was a reasonable amount of money. I would suggest that any amount expended over that reasonable amount of money as determined by the Legislature should be subject to a 50 per cent tax and that 50 per cent tax put into the public coffers.

I cannot see anything within this bill to deal with preferential voting in the Province of British Columbia. I do feel that the citizens would have the better opportunity to make a more selective choice if they could have the opportunity to have a preferential ballot.

This preferential ballot proved to be rather successful I believe at one time, to one party. But by George, once it proved to be successful they kept well, well away from it. If they brought in preferential balloting again, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid it would be the heralding of the more prompt demise of the Social Credit than is going to come about in any event.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: In closing, surely to goodness we should have democracy in the electioneering procedures in the Province of British Columbia. It's the object and the function of a government, the object and the function of an Opposition Member to primarily see that democracy is done — and it is not being done in this Act. In fact, it's far to the contrary.

To recap, Mr. Speaker, in one word this is a tilt Act — t-i-l-t Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond.

MR. LeCOURS: Mr. Speaker, I'll only be very brief in this instance with respect to one particular aspect of the elections Act, one that I have mentioned in this House on a number of occasions and I'm rather dismayed to find that we're so reluctant to adopt any new ideas. They seem to think that unless the ideas emanate from the Minister they're not worth entertaining, I think.

I refer especially to the use of a voting card, with the voter's photograph on it and perhaps numbers around the outside of the card, which numbers could be punched when you present yourself for a ballot. So it eliminates all possibility of a person voting twice and I know that at the last election there are many people who voted twice in two different constituencies.

With a voting card you would simply present your card with your photograph on it. It could be used for municipal, provincial or federal elections. It could also serve as identification in many other instances. I understand we're going to have drivers' licences with your photograph on soon. It's going to be incorporated into the driver's licence even.

It would prevent any people voting more than once. It would simplify the entire procedure. If you are an absentee voter, away from your home constituency, simply present your identification and be given a ballot and the ballot is mailed back to the address shown on your voting card. All a very simple procedure and as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have learned subsequent to my bringing the matter up in the House — because the idea wasn't original when I brought it up as far as I was concerned — but I have learned since then that there are senior officials in the department that administers the Act who have been advocating just such a procedure for the past 20 years. It's been ignored. I'm wondering whether it's been ignored simply because it's progressive.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note the crossfire a little while ago about the single transferable ballot — what it inflicted on this province and the reasons why it was done away with.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were they? What were the reasons?

MR. STRACHAN: Because it would eventually defeat the government in power.

[ Page 804 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. STRACHAN: They did away with it because the Premier knew eventually he'd get defeated if he retained that system. He would have been defeated long ago had he retained the single transferable ballot. He knew that and that's why he did away with it. Because he always uses not only this Act but the full power of government to stay in office and he uses that power ruthlessly. We all know that — that's his 20-year history.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: He uses the power of government ruthlessly to maintain himself in office. I agree with the Member who just sat down with regard to the people being sworn in. I think it's time we had an election Act that brought us into the 20th Century. Even the awful federal government is able to have a complete enumeration in every constituency all across the country. In the rural areas — and the rural areas are defined as cities like Duncan, Ladysmith, and Lake Cowichan — you can go in, you can be sworn in and that ballot goes right in the box.

Because people have some difficulty in differentiating between elections, they think: "Well, I voted last time therefore I must be on the list." In all probability there are people in every constituency who haven't cast a valid vote in their life. Because they thought they voted last time so therefore they think they're on the list again. But it's under that section 80 and goes right clunk into the waste basket.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How can they never vote once in their life if they…?

MR. STRACHAN: A valid ballot. A valid ballot, Mr. Premier, in the provincial election.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: They can go in election after election and say: "Well, I voted last provincial election." But they voted under section 80. Their votes went right into the waste basket. So they go back the next election and say: "Well, I voted last time." They thought they'd cast a valid ballot but it's in the wastebasket under section 80.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: I say we should allow a swearing-in procedure similar to that in the federal government and we should have a full enumeration before every election. If the federal government can do it there's no reason why we can't do it in the Province of British Columbia.

Insofar as this particular bill is concerned, there are a number of principles involved here to which I raise some questions. You state that all of the electoral officials must be electors. I am inclined to think that there are positions in the electoral machinery where we could take 18-year-old high school students and use them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here?

MR. STRACHAN: And all of them can't be utilized. I don't like the contradicting sections of this Act where it says students must retain their registration in what is called their home constituency. Students must vote in what is called their home constituency. But a construction worker is not allowed to vote in his home constituency.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): He certainly is.

MR. STRACHAN: Unless he happens to be living there.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: No. There's an absentee ballot.

MR. STRACHAN: There's a section here which says they must register in the area in which they have lived for 30 days. Under that section an absentee ballot under the old system can be declared invalid, because it says they must register in the new constituency if they have lived there for 30 days prior to issuing of the writ and that's it. It doesn't say "may" or anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: So, you're not on the voters' list in the other constituency.

MR. STRACHAN: I know, but it'd be against the law for them to cast a ballot there with that particular piece in there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not resident any more in there.

MR. STRACHAN: They're not resident any more.

AN HON. MEMBER: So that they don't vote twice.

MR. STRACHAN: That's not what it says. It said they must register…

AN HON. MEMBER: You read it.

MR. STRACHAN: …and on that basis any absentee ballot of someone who wasn't in their home constituency for 30 days prior to the issue of the writ can be challenged. So what happens then?

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Don't tell us they can still retain the old absentee ballot rights because that's not what's in there and I suggest it's making one situation for the students and another for construction workers, fishermen, and others who are away from home — very often away from home for more than 30 days prior to the issuing of the writ. I think basically the bill is designed to help the government again and that's why the amendments are brought in.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd just briefly like to go on record as saying that I oppose the idea of any specific number of candidates required before the party can be given recognition. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR WALLACE: I would say further, Mr. Speaker, to

[ Page 805 ]

reassure any thoughts the Premier might have that we will not be running 20 candidates in the next election, that this is not the cause for my opposition.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: We will we hope to have 55 candidates and I'm sure we will. But I do feel that…

Interjection by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to a lot of the cynicism and much of the humour, there's still the possibility even in this day and age that new political parties come on the scene regardless of, as I say, the humorous comments that are being made today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: New parties and not old parties?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sure it's as much the new party idea that I'm considering, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be a sad situation in a so-called free democratic society if in fact a new political party is so handicapped at its outset that it cannot even be given identification on the ballot.

I think history shows that parties have been a useful force but in this case 20 out of 55 is a very high percentage of the total number of seats. I think that this really if there has to be any kind of definite number at all, I think it should be a smaller percentage of the total number of seats and just would repeat that this I think inhibits the tendency for new electoral forces and new political forces to develop in this province.

Whether it's this province or any other province I think that anything which inhibits new political ideas and ventures is a very sad thing for the future of this province.

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking to the bill on the Act. There's a very basic principle in this Act I find objections to and take very definite objections to, Mr. Speaker.

The Act as it provides at the present moment provides the right of voting for Canadian citizens and intends to be changed for British and/or British subjects. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the right to vote is a right of the citizens of the Province of Canada.

I have no objections at all to the question of British subjects or of nationalities in this at all. I've a very sincere feeling that the duties and responsibilities are inherent in the right of being a citizen. If we are not saying that a citizen of a country is that person entitled to vote, then why should people become a citizen of the country? What responsibility is there for individuals to become a part of the nation?

This was a principle that was recognised in the federal Act. As of 1975 unless you are a Canadian citizen you will not be permitted to vote in any federal election. This was made retroactive so any British subject who arrived in Canada after 1968 is not entitled to vote in a federal election. In other words, Mr. Speaker, at this moment British subjects who are resident in Canada, who have been residents since 1968 will be entitled to vote until 1975. If by that time they have not made their choice to be a Canadian citizen, this right — and it is a right — will be taken away.

Those people who have come since 1968 are not entitled to vote and have no entitlement until such a time as they acquire a Canadian citizenship.

Last year in this House, and I call the attention of the Attorney General to this, he spoke in this House about the rights of certain citizens and the rights of individuals. He was speaking on the Legal Professions Act and he spoke in this House. He said that we must change the Act because lawyers and judges must be Canadian citizens. I recall, and I have his words here as he spoke on this bill. He said:

We have as well a number of Commonwealth countries now that are republics and do not have an allegiance to the Queen or anything of that nature. Some of the members of Commonwealth countries are requiring Canadian citizenship…

and then he corrected his error.

not Canadian citizenship but citizenship of their own country as a requirement for the Bar. The governing bodies of the legal professions in Canada have given this question extensive study during the past two years and they have agreed nationally that it would be desirable to each province to make this change to Canadian citizenship.

Hence the Provision is found in this bill. I suggest to the Attorney General that if his words ring true when he talks about lawyers that certainly the responsibility that rests on the shoulders of M.L.A.'s is as heavy as the responsibility that rests on the shoulders of lawyers.

If it is a requirement that you be a Canadian citizen if you are going to be a lawyer in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Attorney General, is the responsibility not as heavy for an individual who sits in this House and is responsible for the weighty decisions that are involved in the very decisions of government?

I suggest to you, Mr. Attorney General, that the rights in law should be restricted to none. They should be restricted in a sense to Canadian citizenships and not granted as has been the custom in the past to another special category.

I find it difficult to believe that an individual from whatever country, having arrived in Canada six months ago could stand for an election, and through some method become elected — and it's possible — and would therefore sit in this House, having been in this country for six months and not be responsible as a citizen of Canada.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to introduce an amendment to this section at committee stage and I suggest that every individual who sits in this House should between now and that time weigh very sincerely in their conscience what they voted on, in the question of lawyers, and the House was unanimous or close to unanimous in that decision, in providing that lawyers must be Canadian citizens.

These same individuals should regard this very basic principle. I suggest that equality as Canadian citizens which will now be a fundamental part of the federal government, should also be a very fundamental part of the provincial statute. I hope that that amendment will receive the proper support at that time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, after waiting for a number of years for the Honourable the Provincial Secretary to bring in some amendments to the Provincial Elections Act, it's hardly worth that wait. It's not even a mouse, not even a mouse. It's not really meaning anything to the amendment of

[ Page 806 ]

the elections Act. The serious problems we face, in terms of the elections Act corrections in this province, are a matter of wry amusement to the Members of course. Why change a system that works so well for the government? I suppose if you want to function on that basis, that's fair enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Honourable Member who is now on his feet has already taken his part in this debate.

MR. BARRETT: No, I haven't.

HON. MR. PETERSON: He moved adjournment of the debate.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, the Member from…

HON. MR. PETERSON: Oh, I'm on the wrong bill. I'm sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster moved adjournment.

HON. MR. PETERSON: My apologies.

MR. BARRETT: That's quite alright, Mr. Attorney General. I accept your apology. I don't want you to be embarrassed that you're not following the order properly. I accept your apology.

The point that I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is this: that the government of this province and the Social Credit Party have formed a system of winning elections by leaving a loose elections Act. Very, very loose. There's no mandatory registration for voters under this Act.

When an M.L.A. phones the registrar of voters and says: "Mr. Registrar of Voters, I want some cards to register voters," you know what the registrar of voters said to me?

AN HON. MEMBER: He referred you to the cemetery.

MR. BARRETT: He said to me: "You can't have any registration cards." I just phoned a couple of weeks ago and I had to plead to get 25 cards because I want to help register people in my constituency. You've got a situation in the province where an elected official attempting to do his duty by signing up voters on the voters' list, simply because the government doesn't have an automatic registration of voters, was told by the registrar of voters that it's policy to only have 25 cards. Policy of whom? The Provincial Secretary's policy? The Premier's policy? Social Credit policy?

This is a government that doesn't have, like the federal government, registration of voters automatically. Now, with the new Act, you only get one card at a time. You don't really want people on that voters' list, Mr. Provincial Secretary. If you did, you'd have a section in here saying…

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member please address the Chair?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Provincial Secretary doesn't want everybody on the voters' list. I think he's given a great deal of thought, not so much what goes in the amendment, but what should be avoided by this government.

Don't you believe in the freedom and the right to vote? You don't want to make sure that every citizen that has the right to vote be on that list. The Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) gave a very sincere statement about the sanctity of the vote. I appreciate his sincerity but I submit to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, certainly I support the amendment, I will support his amendment. Will he support my amendment that everybody that is a Canadian citizen gets registered as a matter of right? Will he support that?

If you say that it's a right to vote, O.K. Let's see where you stand on that right. If he feels so strongly that they should have the right to vote, then he should support my amendment that says that everybody should be registered. Will he support that? Just nod your head before it falls off, just nod your head.

Everybody who registers and who's qualified, everybody who is qualified to vote should be registered to vote in this province. Mr. Speaker, many people think they are on the voters' list. They make a declaration…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Neither have you. Making deals! Mr. Speaker, if anybody ever made deals, it was the Premier and the Provincial Secretary on this Act.

They know what to avoid when it comes to electioneering. One of the things they want to avoid is mandatory registration of voters. The Premier is always saying: "I go to the people. I go to the people." He goes to the people he selects, Mr. Speaker, the selected few. He's given orders to people, electoral officers, not to hand out voters' cards. He gives orders now through this bill that only one card be given out. Not everyone will be registered.

If that isn't a deal, I don't know what is, Mr. Speaker. He talks in here about other amendments to the Act: the ball-point pen. Big deal! I checked his recounts. There was just as many votes for the Member from Kootenay (Mr. Nimsick) thrown out with a ball-point pen as kept. Is that a real issue?

Well, well, well. He laboured and brought forward a mouse — a ball-point pen. What about the real matters of the election Act that should be changed? What about redistribution? My constituency has 39,000 voters and one M.L.A….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is not in order.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct, Mr. Speaker. I agree that they haven't registered all the voters in my riding. But the point is, we're faced with a political organisation the like of which this province has never seen before. Every angle, every method, every device that has been avoided in this Act is designed to keep this government in power.

Why don't you put this bill in the committee? Why don't you let politicians go over the problems they face? The business of scrutineers: why one scrutineer now at every poll box? That means that there won't be any communication at all between the one scrutineer at the poll and any kind of activity in terms of turning out supporters on election day.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't say that at all.

MR. BARRETT: It doesn't say that at all? Well, how in

[ Page 807 ]

the world are you going to do it? If you're going to switch your scrutineers off? Oh, my friend, you've read the bill and you know very well that people power is a thing that you fear. You're cutting down people's activities in elections as much as possible through this bill.

Organisation on election day will be knifed by this kind of approach. We know it. It's designed specifically against the New Democratic Party. It's money, money, money as against people, people, people. You know very well that the attack is on the New Democratic, Party because they're able to mobilise people on election day and through their organisation. You've sat down and figured out the best way to cut down any possibility of this government being honestly evaluated by all the people in this province who are eligible to vote. What cynicism. It's a matter of giggling concern for a government that has had ruthless power used ruthlessly in this province.

You don't believe that sincerity business about "let's have the people vote who are entitled to vote." Let's make sure of it by putting in a law — everybody that is entitled to vote be registered for every election by government enumerators, Mr. Speaker. Anything less than that means this government continues to play its little games, keeping people off the voter's list, making sure that the old lists are all jumbled up. There's dead people still left on my lists in my constituency. You others know it too. Those lists haven't been updated for years. There should be a mandatory registration of voters door-to-door before every election throughout this whole province.

You don't want it that way. Those lists are so out-of-date, it's unbelievable. Cards that represent deceased people from three elections back or more.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: No, that wasn't an enumeration. That was a half-hearted attempt at registering voters.

Mr. Provincial Secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to support this bill. What for? To condone the games that this government is playing when it's got serious problems facing it in terms of maintaining some respect for the democratic system? No way am I going to dignify this kind of games-playing. No way am I going to have anything to do with it.

If there are specific amendments, like that Member proposes, certainly. But I'll tell you this. I'll be putting specific amendments on too. If you really believe it, let's make sure that everybody's eligible vote does get on this voter's list in the province, otherwise I don't think they're being sincere with this bill at all.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, as several Members have indicated there are several principles involved. I would like to just mention one that concerns me very much. That's the principle of the absentee ballot.

I haven't gone over the bill as well as some of our experts on the elections Act, but I have gone through one section time and time again. I'm convinced that particular section, which I will mention in the committee stage, eliminates absentee ballots in this province.

I'd like to refer to people who are transient on our coast, namely the fishermen. Depending on when the elections are called — which I don't think when the snow and ice are here but when the fishermen actually start moving — and in which that word "must" then must apply.

Mr. Speaker, don't think that my main battle in all these years has been against my opponents. It has been with registrars in your city who have continually chased the absentee voters and registered them in your riding. This has gone on all these years. Gradually, we're losing.

Now, in this particular bill, they now "must, " and I know the person, the very person, who is going to be indicating that very word to people that they're going to register in the sloughs and in your cities and in everywhere else.

They're going to be eliminated out of one riding to the extent of at least one-quarter — which is the number that is involved, say, in the Atlin constituency.

I think this is a very serious situation. I'm quite sure that when the impact of this is known to people who are transient and who wish to vote in their respective ridings, you'll be hearing a feedback from these people.

Yes, it may be true that people who are other types of transients and who are in the province maybe for the first time, but because of regulations they may be able to register — I think they'll be very thankful for it. It also involves transients in my riding who'll be thankful to be registered.

But I am talking about the residents, born and raised in the area, who then find that they must register elsewhere, providing they've been there 30 days and the announcement is made.

Like I said, they'll be told that they must be registered in another riding. This I can see. As far as I am concerned, this particular clause, particularly in an area such as those large ridings up north where votes count, that I actually believe this particular clause is "eliminate Frank Calder clause."

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I better speak on this bill because I think it was the last election, it was a…

AN HON. MEMBER: The last election for you.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, it might be for you too. It may be for me, but I would maybe like to take a little bet on that, if you want to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, these amendments as I see them here, I think some of them at least are the outcome of the recount in my riding.

I don't know why they would take this out on me. I'd like to know what I'm supposed to do with these 5,000 ball-point pens that I was going to give to all the Social Credit members in my area so that they could mark their ballots with ink.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Mark their ballots with ink.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many votes did he have in the last election?

AN HON. MEMBER: He got 10,000.

[ Page 808 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, I was going to even pass them out in other ridings too because you're the one here that said that the Social Credit were so foolish that they mark their ballots in ink.

Now you weren't there at the count but I was. Let me tell you that there was as many ink-marked ballots for one as for the other. There was no question about that. As far as marking your ballots in ink, I've got no objection to this change in the Act. I've got no objection to this change in the Act but I do say this, that you've got in the Act that in these amendments where you can mark your ballot by any form, an X or O or anything else, and on another section you say that you cannot identify yourself.

I don't know who is going to be the judge in that case. I think that you should have left the X the way it was. So it's not going to make much sense in that regard.

I don't know why, Mr. Speaker, when this bill came up for amendment, why they didn't turn it to a committee and discuss the whole Act, rather than just a portion of it. There's many areas in this Act that are not lived up to.

One of them, the Honourable the Minister of Rehabilitation and Confrontation, was up in my area for quite a while. He was giving out free meals. The Act says in the Act you're not allowed to treat. He said that they're not allowed to treat. Now why don't you take that out if it's not going to be lived up to?

AN HON. MEMBER: Trick or treat.

AN HON. MEMBER: He got a treat but no tricks.

MR. NIMSICK: The registration…

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he give out? Boloney?

MR. NIMSICK: In this province, an awful lot of people are moving around. The registration of voters should be done just prior to the election, right completely across the province, so to give everybody the right to exercise their franchise.

Now you've placed in here a 30 day requirement which, if anybody moves from one area to another six months before they're on the other area and they're moved to another area and they don't get on that list, well they don't get their vote at all. They're ruled out.

You cannot vote absentee if you're out 30 days in the other riding, as a resident. So you're ruling out probably many mobile home-owners. You're ruling out many people that are residents in an area and because they forgot to register they can't even vote in the place that they were in three months before because it isn't their residence any more.

I think this is a very serious situation. To me, the whole elections Act needs to be overhauled because I went through that elections Act pretty thoroughly at the last election. I had to fight against the returning officer that you sent up.

You sent up the chief electoral officer, you sent up everybody into my riding to try and beat me. You didn't do it. You didn't do it.

You made every effort to defeat me in the last election, and out of those recounts you did bring in a few amendments to try and protect yourselves, thinking that you're protecting yourselves. But I feel that if we're going to work on the elections Act why don't we do a good job of it and bring it right up to date?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, Mr. Speaker, in calling the police in it shows how effective I must be when they have to get the police in to protect themselves against me. So I'm proud if that's the case. But anyway I think that the elections Act should have been gone over completely — bring it up to date the way it should be in this day and age and not just patch it up here and there in a few little spots.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: This matter of a minor review which has very serious connotations is something that I think warrants very, very serious discussion.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, you heard that catty comment from the lady Member. This is the way they treat flagrant abuse of an elections Act by an government that has been returned to office over the years by doing just whatever they feel they can get away with.

I'd like to give you one case in point, Mr. Speaker. In the 1966 election the emissaries of this government of the Social Credit Party went into one Indian riding and hauled all the natives out of there, took them apple picking the day before the election. They knew they voted for us in '63, in another poll that was a vast majority of the electors there were native Indians. What did they do? They had the employer and his foreman that hired most of those Indians go out and pick them up at 6:30 in the morning, an hour and a half before the polls opened. Hauled them in their station wagons and vehicles down to the polling station…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think there's any principle in the bill that's involved with this sort of description.

MR. HARTLEY: There is certainly no principle in the election tactics that this government has used.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member will try to confine himself to the principle of the elections Act.

MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out some of the weaknesses. However, if you wish I'd be pleased to move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived.

MR. HARTLEY. In that case I'll carry on, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member has forfeited his right to speak. The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, there's one aspect of the bill that I find extremely unusual and that is, Mr. Speaker, that the government would dare to make a party a living fact only if they have 20 nominations, on the day of nominations closing.

I think it is Machiavellian, Mr. Speaker, absolutely

[ Page 809 ]

Machiavellian. Because the effect of it is that the government is forcing parties that may want to contest and might win 10, 11 or 12 seats to end up with 20 nominations. In the circumstances, on that point alone the bill should be rejected.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 48, intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Elections Act be now read a second time. Are you ready for the question?

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 48 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Member for Burnaby North, Motion No. 16 standing in my name on the order paper that reads: "That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia welcomes the joint resolution approved by the House of Representatives…"

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order! The Honourable Member will require leave to get back to that position on the order paper. We are now in public bills and orders. In order to get back to motions it will require leave of the House.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but apparently a precedent was set some weeks ago when the Member for Burrard got up in the House at the same time in the order of business and moved a motion without leave of the House, just a matter of some 11 days ago. There was no leave asked at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: I forget what order of business the House was in at the time. But if the Honourable Member did move back from public bills and orders and got into motions without leave, then certainly the Chair was out of order and should have so ruled.

MR. BARRETT: Perhaps that was the case, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly was established. Alright, Mr. Speaker, if that's your ruling, I ask leave of the House.

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. The government does not wish to co-operate with Washington State. Now we know.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This evening we will resume legislation and perhaps the discussion on the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

The House met at 8:00 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): I move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 60, Mr. Speaker.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC SITES
PROTECTION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 60 deals with the question of the Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act. I'm wondering if when closing the debate, the Hon. Provincial Secretary will perhaps advise us how one gets into the protection of this Act. I refer specifically to two instances recently.

Very recently in the case of Surrey by happenstance a historic and archaeological find of perhaps some consequence has been discovered. Also in the case of Delta — and the Member for Delta (Mr. Weriman) knows the area well as I do as I happen to live there — in the course of some building an old Indian site has been found to be slightly more extensive than previously thought.

How does one give the thing a sort of a six-month hoist until some decisions can be made? How can one protect the site as the name of the bill implies, Mr. Speaker, until such accommodations can be made with either the private sector or the public sector in terms of the Crown federal or Crown provincial or even the municipal authorities? It seems to me that this Act may have something in it that could usefully be applied to it and perhaps the Provincial Secretary could tell us.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Provincial Secretary): Yes, I'd be happy to.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment please. The Honourable Minister will close the debate. The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): This is a bill that is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, and coming from the far northern area I hear so much of abuse comes about because nothing has been done with the sites.

But we have quite a number of interested people, namely students, who in past years have gone into the northern areas and just tampered with the many things, including graves. This has been brought to my attention time and time again. To see this bill come in, I think would be quite welcome by people that are interested in the far north.

The north, as you know, has not had too much protection in terms of this bill and so I'm one that is very happy to see this bill introduced. It has a lot of protective measures in it. I think it would provide answers and solve much of the abuse in the northern areas that I know much about.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

[ Page 810 ]

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, just one point. I'm pleased to see this bill come forward because the Minister has done a good job under adverse circumstances to preserve some of the historic sites, especially lately Craigflower Manor, and basically we have very few of the original historical locations left. I trust that now under the terms of this bill he will be able to stop development in some of these places and be able to preserve them for future preservation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll have to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, I want to point out a very serious danger that I would hope that the Minister would perhaps refer some of his remarks to. That is that many British Columbians are not aware of the many treasures that exist in this province through our natural history in terms of the indigenous population — that is the native Indian population and shortly after that the pioneers of the Province of British Columbia, especially during the gold rush era.

The Province of British Columbia has been looked upon somewhat as a happy hunting ground for outsiders. Along with the current boom of the antique business and the historical artifacts business that is booming in North America, many outsiders have come to this province and generally taken advantage of our provincial naivety on these matters. Because we are such a new province we have not had the deep recognition in our total population of the value of some of our historic sites and the protective laws that are necessary for those sites.

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems is that artifacts are being picked up, described here in sales as secondhand things — as junk — and are being taken away from the Province of British Columbia for sale at very high prices in the California and New York markets.

I hope that the Minister will indicate that some effort will be made to curtail the trade in not only the sites themselves but all the equipment and the material that are associated with those sites.

For example, many people wouldn't realise that a garbage dump could actually classify as an archaeological site. They do. That's quite right. As a matter of fact, in the hunting of archaeological mementos garbage dumps are sought out as a prized source of artifacts. Witness the boom in the City of Vancouver in an old dump area by Renfrew Park just behind the Vancouver Tech School. We had campers all the way from California and from Midwest United States digging up these bottles.

It was very good for the tourist business. I'm not opposed to that. But it was the export of these things from our archaeological sites that I'm concerned about.

Now, Mr. Minister, I don't want this bill in any way to harm the tourist trade but the problem with this is if we don't protect the artifacts and the tourists remove the artifacts the cause of the tourists coming in the first place is lost. So even though we may offend some of the tourists who are involved in this trade we're far better off ensuring that none of this material leaves British Columbia. So that there is an on-going curiosity, an on-going enquiry by tourists about the material.

I'm glad that the government is at last awakening to the fact that we do have some archaeological artifacts here and some historic sites. Perhaps some people feel that the government itself qualifies as a archaeological attraction. There are those who feel that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be in a museum.

MR. BARRETT: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, perhaps they have valid cause to feel that way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly I expect that Members like the Members for Victoria will get up and defend this bill. They too would demand that archaeological and historical sites be preserved right here in the Victoria area. The Premier knows very well that modern history in British Columbia is really deep history in the rest of North America. It is not only in the archaeological and historical sites but it is the memories of people like Duplessis and Huey Long that bring attractions to this province. I hope the bill only protects memories.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I noticed with some interest in an issue of Beautiful British Columbia Magazine some newly-discovered caverns that had a magnificent display of stalactites and stalagmites and I understood that it was a matter of great concern whether that would be protected as an attraction for the people of British Columbia. Perhaps the Minister could tell us about that particular series of caves because we in British Columbia have not up until now been fortunate enough to have that kind of attraction for our local people and tourists to examine.

The importance of protecting that type of site was brought home to me vividly a little over a year ago when I was in England and I was travelling near Cheddar and the Cheddar Gorge. There are some caverns there that have been known for 300 or 400 years.

These caverns have been known indeed for many centuries. But almost 250 years ago a great poet of England went to visit this particular spot and he and others were attracted by the beauty of the stalagtites and the stalagmites and they proposed immediately they all be knocked off the cave walls and ceilings and floor and carted away to London to show people in London. So ever since, of course, the caverns have lost much of their magnificance. They're rather a disappointing sight. I lost immediately all respect for that poet. It happened to be Alexander Pope who proposed that project, that they remove everything from the cave and take it to London.

I hope that the Provincial Secretary will assure us that that kind of site will be protected by this bill, so that it may become a great attraction for North America. It may rank with the caves of Carlsbad and Montana, Lewis and Clark Caverns and others placed in Kentucky. I do hope that this will be covered by this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

[ Page 811 ]

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to…

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all in Point Grey, the archaeological sites.

MR. McGEER: There are many fine archaeological sites in Vancouver–Point Grey, Mr. Speaker, and I'd remind the Member for Vancouver Centre — and he's pretty thin on the history of British Columbia — that it was right off the tip of Point Grey where the University of British Columbia stands that the Spanish boats met with Captain Vancouver in 1792 on Captain Vancouver's famous voyage of discovery and opened up the Pacific Northwest to exploration and development. It wasn't very long after that that southern Vancouver Island was colonised and this was the commencement of British Columbia.

So, Mr. Speaker, right there off the tip of Point Grey was one of the very historic areas. It's worth noting too — and I wasn't going to speak about this until the Member from Vancouver Centre reminded me — but Vancouver when he met the Spanish Armada began to name all of the sites right around Howe Sound, Wrottesly Mountain, Burrard Inlet, Point Atkinson, Boyer Island and so on. These were all named after famous naval figures of the day of Captain George Vancouver.

There's a book called "The Glorious First of June" which describes the great naval battles of that period and details the glorious history of the people whose names are remembered in the area right around Point Grey and indeed around the Vancouver Centre constituency which that Member represents. So that indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is very, very historic.

You know, before Vancouver met with those Spanish boats off the Spanish Banks in June 1792 he had been naming the areas on the United States side after members of his own crew. Puget was a member of his crew, Baker was a member of his crew and Mount Baker, Puget Sound and Whidbey Island — these areas all commemorated those who made the voyage with Vancouver.

But as soon as he met the Spaniards he was inspired to out-do the history of that country and he then began to name all these areas after people who were famous naval figures in Britain so that there's quite a bit of history tied up with the names of the geographical places that are right around this area.

The Spaniards were doing the same thing, naming all of the islands of the gulf here after famous Spanish naval figures of that day. They are remembered in names like Gabriola, Valdez, Quadra, Galiano, Saturna, Texada and so on. So that the islands were all named after famous Spanish figures while the mountains and the inlets and the points were named after famous British figures.

By and large, those that lay on the east side were the British names. Those that lay on the west, and I'm talking about the west of Spanish Banks, were named after the famous Spanish figures.

You know, that visit and that rendezvous was the last time the Spanish ever entered into voyages of discovery and exploration of the Pacific Northwest. Never since that day have we invited the Spaniards back. Never have we done any investigation in their archives of these voyages of discovery. Never have we tried to have any kind of commemorative, joint history with the Spanish people. But they had a great deal to do with voyages of explorations up and down the Pacific Coast.

What inspired the people of that day to continue their explorations of the Pacific Northwest was not just the attempt to discover a Northwest Passage. But it was also an attempt to further sea trade with the orient. One voyage in those days was enough to give a man, an ordinary crew man, a wage on which he could retire. Because they came out and they traded axes and trinkets and so on — tools — with the Indians. They took the furs that they got here and traded them in the Orient for tea and spices. They took the tea and spices back to England and they sold those and the crew could get enough from a single voyage to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.

So it became very, very profitable to trade in the Pacific northwest. As the Indians obtained tools they began to fashion the famous art work that we remember today. The totem poles — the great day of the totem poles only came after the Indians had obtained axes and tools brought over by these British and Spanish traders, particularly the British ones. The great time for constructing totem poles and other Indian artifacts was in the period from about 1820 or so on until the turn of the century. Then what happened, Mr. Speaker, is that many of the precious works of art were picked up by visitors to British Columbia.

Today the finest collection of argyllite totem poles in the world is in the State of Florida. The second finest collection is in the Museum of Natural History in New York city. I have in my home a magnificent replica of an argyllite totem pole with all kinds of history about it. It's an exact duplicate of one that sits in the Museum of Natural History in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, I only mention this to point out that our great cultural heritage in British Columbia has gone elsewhere. We're known for what has been done by the first citizens of British Columbia in Florida and in New York City and in other parts of the world. Because we never in those pioneering days recognised the value of the art.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Well, in those days we didn't have parties but the first party that served was the Conservative Party from 1902-1912, I think it was, before the Liberals got in and began to get the province organised well. There's been this hiatus but we'll get the province back on the tracks again.

I don't want to get into that part of our history, Mr. Speaker. Right now I'm attempting — if those Members that babble back there would be quiet just a little bit — to compliment the government on doing something important to our future. I only wish that this had been done before so many of the treasures of British Columbia had gone elsewhere.

One of the things that we can do to compensate for that is to nourish once more some of the skills that led to that golden age of Indian culture in British Columbia. Much of it has either been forgotten or it's been downgraded. What I would like to see is for the government to sponsor a North American Indian art festival in the province where the government might offer a prize for the best Indian art exhibit.

AN HON. MEMBER: They already did.

MR. McGEER: Well, no, not this kind of thing. The

[ Page 812 ]

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) says "we've done it, we've done it." But he hasn't really. We should be getting all the tribes, Indian tribes, of North America here to a great pow-wow in British Columbia and out of this should come a revival of the Indian art that made this province famous.

One of the things that British Columbia is noted for in places like New York and Florida is Indian art. If we could do this maybe we could recapture some of the past and begin to give it a flavour and a meaning for the future — as well, by the way, and this I'm sure the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) would appreciate, as well as establishing an important industry for the Indian people of British Columbia.

We support this bill and we want to compliment the government on a far-sighted piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Provincial Secretary will close the debate.

HON. MR. BLACK: Well, let me answer these questions before closing the debate. I'm quite well aware, as are a great many of our citizens and indeed people in this Legislature, that some of our history and artifacts have been whisked away in years gone by and there isn't very much we can do about it. Most things that we've had to buy back, we've had to buy back at very, very inflated prices.

Some of those things that my friend from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is talking about I've seen myself in that Museum of Natural History. I'm absolutely positive that they bought it for practically nothing as compared with what you'd have to pay for the very same thing today.

I think — and I don't mean this in an unkindly way either — I think, certainly to my way of thinking, the finest Indian art is in those argyllite poles. If only there's some way that the federal administration could protect the patent of those designs because those designs are being stolen by the Japanese, they're been stolen by anyone who has skill enough to copy them and only the other day did I see a copy of the design by Rufus Moody. There's been copies of the designs of other famous Indian carvers which is all wrong.

I defy anyone to tell, without a skilled eye, to be able to tell the difference between one of these well-molded graphite poles as compared to a real argyllite pole. You have to have a real skilled eye to tell the difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least they're done in B.C.

HON. MR. BLACK: That may be so but nevertheless the first citizens' fund in relation to bringing together these people and having a display of their art that has already been done by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mt. Campbell). On top of that he has a bill before the House which gives them some type of protection in terms of some sort of merchandising.

This bill of course really has been before us — has been on the statute books since 1960. True it wasn't a good bill, it was just a beginning — this well may only be another step too but we hope a step in the right direction.

I don't want to repeat all the arguments and things that were said here. I do hope that we're able to protect the caves mentioned by my friend opposite. I certainly hope we do.

My friend from Surrey (Mr. Hall) — all one has to do, it's very simple, it's simplicity itself — all one has to do is to make us acquainted with where a particular site is. I declare it an archaeological site and will so post it and having done that under this statute — I'm not going to explain all the rights, because you can read the thing as well as I can.

I did say that without knowing at that time that a committee was going to sit on dealing with all expropriation problems, I did have an expropriation clause in here.

I say to you once that committee has done its work and whatever its recommendations may be, at the next session or the session after that, there will have to be some expropriation clauses go into that to put some teeth in it otherwise in some degrees it's meaningless. You've just got to get hold of those now.

I know what my friend the Leader of the Opposition is talking about because I've been to auction sales too and have been competed against by millionaire Americans who don't give a darn and you can't even get your own stuff back.

There's no way where you can stop the individual from selling his antiques. They want to sell them for a profit — there's no way you and I can, we just have to compete at the village pump and try to get them, that's all.

This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'm delighted to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 60, Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 60 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 61, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PETROLEUM AND
NATURAL GAS ACT, 1965

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 61. The Honourable Member for Surrey adjourned the debate.

MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 61, An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act as introduced by the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Mr. Richter), I feel is something of an advertising bill.

The principle seems to be clear but I cannot find where it strikes a new principle as compared to the Act that we have in our statutes at the moment, chapter 33. I will support the bill on the basis that it gives some strength and some clarity and gives in the form of a bill what is in effect a policy statement or a Press announcement. I want to state, Mr. Speaker, that it's something of a showboat bill.

The powers that are mentioned in the bill describing measures to prevent spillage, I maintain are well contained in section 113 already. I could quote — the Act is before everyone and is in the House, Chapter 33 of 1965 statutes.

The containment of the spillage and the requirements it places on a company for notification, and so on are all well spelled out in the bill regarding an order. I'd be rather curious to find out when the Minister closes debate of second reading, how he can tell us this is more really than a rather glorified formalised Press announcement?

I may be somewhat critical, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr Speaker at the same time I feel that the powers are

[ Page 813 ]

there — it needs a bit of muscle, a bit of political clout on the part of the Minister to do this. We welcome the bill, it's says really, in perhaps more clear language than that which is there but it really is a showboat bill.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce the words of the Member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) who as an individual Member of this House has perhaps done more work on the pollution control matters than a number of others. Mr. Minister, I was curious, when I read the bill…

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member must address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, I tell the Minister I was curious when I read his bill. Nice words. So I examined whether or not his department had done any research work as to what kind of materials he can mobilise to make these words into some kind of meaning. I'll tell the Minister, I don't think he's done any research at all.

I think the Minister has put on a bill that's caught the fancy of people in terms of words but I'll tell you what I've found out. Perhaps when he closes the debate he'll tell me that my figures are wrong. I found that if there were major spills off British Columbia, an oil spill, the intention of his bill is to say and I quote a couple of words: "make every reasonable effort." I submit through you, Mr. Speaker, what reasonable effort?

Do you know what we've got available to contain a major oil spill in British Columbia? I'll tell you what we've got available, we've got 8,150 feet of various types of booms, including 2,500 feet of booms owned by the National Harbour Board. Two skimmers, seven boats from 10 feet to 22 feet, plus a National Harbour Board boat and a company fire boat with three monitors. Six pumps, two trucks with vacuum pick-up, 200 feet of hose, plus standard fire hose, 36 hand shovels and 13 rakes. That's to handle a major oil spill off the coast of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Won't need many conscripts.

MR. BARRETT: I want to ask how many conscripts, as the Member says, how many conscripts do we need to handle 36 hand shovels and 13 rakes? Also on the inventory are dispersants varying in amounts from nil — that's your favorite word, through you, Mr. Speaker, when you talk about royalties — nil to 50 drums per location and absorbants vary from nil to six bales of peat moss, to 20 bales of hay.

This is inventory prepared by a group that I'll talk about in a moment, who may be confronted by the Minister's bill with the responsibility of cleaning up. There are nine contractors in the Province of British Columbia who were shown to be able to supply some of the equipment not included in the existing company's inventory or to supplement the requirement listed. At Prince Rupert contractors are shown available with dispersant boats, sand and gravel and wood chips.

The outline I gave, Mr. Minister, through the Speaker, is the total of what's available in the Province of British Columbia. If you've got more up-to-date information, please let the House know about it. Please let us know. Twenty bales of hay, six bales of peat moss, 36 hand shovels, 13 rakes. We're going to ask the companies to make "every reasonable effort."

I want to quote to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, what Dr. Susumi Tabata, a native of Steveston, B.C., and now a member of the marine sciences branch, for the Department of Environment, believes would be necessary to be prepared for such an eventuality as a major oil spill. First of all he's talking about the area that we're dealing with under this bill. Dr. Tabata doubted if it was an exaggeration to say that the southern Strait of Georgia possess one of the most complicated regions with respect to the oceanographical and meteorological systems. Confrontations have to be made with tidal currents, wind-driven currents, river discharge and internal waves.

In spite of the limitations of knowledge Dr. Tabata says that theoretical examples show that an area such as Boundary Bay is very susceptible to contamination should an accident occur in the vicinity of Cherry Point.

I put to the Minister, with the evidence that we have from Dr. Tabata's research — and I don't know if his department is familiar with that or not and I hope he refers to that in closing the debate on this bill, because the bill is directly related to that research. If the Minister is not aware of it, I hope his department picks it up. I hope he refers to Dr. Tabata. I hope the Ministers met him. I hope his department knows who he is.

I asked the Minister to inform the House what contact he's had with Washington State to set up a joint control programme on a pollution spill. Earlier today I presented the opportunity to the House to debate joint action. But leave wasn't granted. Now we have this bill in front of us, Mr. Speaker, where the Minister says and I quote: "Every reasonable effort should be made to prevent spilling." Then he lists the action which should be taken and the research that I'm quoting from indicates that we don't have near the equipment.

I'll let you know now who did the research, through you, Mr. Speaker. The research was done by PACE. Do you know who PACE is? You're the Minister of Mineral Resources, through you, Mr. Speaker, do you know who PACE is?

I'll tell the Minister. Do you know who PACE is, Mr. Premier? Nod your head. You don't answer questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order please, order!

MR. BARRETT: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I inform the Minister that PACE is the Canadian Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you're reading it.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly I'm reading it. Where do you think I get it from — out of the thin air like the Minister does? Certainly I get it. I make myself available to the research that exists.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says we're trying to show off — it's the duty of the opposition to inform this government of what's going on.

Research information is available — the work done by the federal department, by private industry. This government is always extolling private industry.

The information is available and the Premier says:

[ Page 814 ]

"Showing off." The Premier would rather fly by his oil slick than get his feet on firm ground and look at this problem seriously.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Will you get up and speak, Mr. Premier? I challenge you to get up and speak and you tell us in detail what's available to control an oil spill off this coast. You tell us why you're not going to allow the motion to set up a joint special committee between Washington State and us to deal with an oil spill. Giving silly little giggling answers over there when we're faced with a serious problem is not good enough. Simply not good enough.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member would generate far less heat if he would continue to address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Correct, Mr. Speaker, less heat and more clean up is what we want.

The study was done by PACE, Canada's Petroleum Association of Conservation and Environment and completed at the end of 1971.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, there is a regional superintendent of Western Marine Regulations with the Ministry of Transport. Is it your plan, under this bill, to meet with the federal department and set up a joint emergency committee? In closing the bill, will you tell the House whether or not your department has done an inventory of what's available plus manpower to clean up a major oil spill?

Mr. Minister, Dr. Tabata defines a major oil spill as including over 100,000 gallons and yet, considering some of the other spills we've had in the North American region, that would be a minor spill. He defines it as a catastrophe for this area. I think that there is a contingency plan available by industry in conjunction with the federal government but it's theoretical only. Totally theoretical.

I ask the Minister to explain to this House just what equipment he's got ready to mobilise under this bill, just what material he's got ready to mobilise under this bill, just what kind of co-operation he intends to get from the federal government on this bill, what approach or communications he's had with the American coast guard in terms of a spill involving international waterways. Without that kind of information, Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than words.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just for a moment intercede to point out that Honourable Members are adopting a technique of addressing other Honourable Members opposite directly, and not addressing the Chair. This is a bad technique and one that should not continued to be pursued.

I wish that the Honourable Members would conform to the rules to address the Chair, and in reference to a Minister, or Ministers in reference to Member of the Opposition should refer in the third person and not directly. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question or two to the Minister which I hope he'll reply to in closing the debate.

I read the bill very carefully and in theory it sounds like we've got some protection of our coast as a result of this Act. But if you look at the penalties that exist for nonconformity with the Act it suggests that if the government runs into some expense in cleaning up an oil spill then they can charge whoever was responsible for the spillage with the costs of that clean-up.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how on earth the government hopes to obtain any indemnity at all from a freighter, an oil tanker, that's on the high seas spilling oil on the British Columbia coastline.

What powers do we have under this Act, or any other Act, that would require a tanker going from Alaska to Cherry Point in Washington to indemnify us for the cost of the major oil spills? Mr. Speaker, I dismiss the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that these are just trivial and unreasonable things.

If we are going to have a major oil spill, anything of large proportions, obviously the kind of major equipment that is available in Canada and has been marshalled to deal with major oil spills on the East Coast can be brought to British Columbia rapidly. And we have this slick-licker, and other devices which could be there to clean up any oil spills.

But as I see it there are no penalties that we can effectively bring, through this legislation, against those who might be the cause of the spill that are nationals of other countries transporting goods from one point outside Canada to another point outside Canada. And I'd like to ask the Minister, how he thinks British Columbia can really have any protection against that kind of thing?

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

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, on that same point, as may well be known by Members of the House, many of the big oil companies around the world — which are fantastic conglomerates, in terms of their intricate corporate structures — have taken to a new device, that is, incorporating a company for each vessel that they own as a subsidiary so that in the event that that particular vessel is destroyed, and breaks up on the coast of some country only the corporate entity which owns the vessel is liable for the damage caused, which means in effect they could go into bankruptcy because there wouldn't be enough left to collect against that corporate entity.

This has been particularly true of one bad actor in the oil field internationally who, it is said, had over 200 major oil spills in one year.

Now, I might suggest the bill is short in its reach, in that it says at one point in dealing with the question of compensation for spillage it may order any person to contribute or pay the cost expenses.

May I suggest that practically every major oil carrier is related as a subsidiary or in some connection with a major oil company that does business in British Columbia. And I think that the usual effect of the law in describing a person as a corporate entity, has to be widened so that we can visit upon subsidiaries or other companies that are related, which are within our reach, some responsibility that they are seeking to avoid by legal shenanigans.

I do suggest the Minister give thought to that point,

[ Page 815 ]

through his advisors because as matters stand today you'd be hard put to find anybody in a case of a number of very large tankers who would be responsible for the breakup of those tankers off our coast.

There's another aspect, although I'm sure the federal government would rush to the rescue and I'm sure our friends in Washington State and the United States Navy would also, and their coast guard would be enlisted in any major oil spill that occurs either in Puget Sound, or in the Straits of Juan de Fuca or elsewhere in our social area, it seems to me only part of wisdom that we do everything we can to concert the precautions that are set out within this bill with those of our neighbours and other governments.

As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the time is very short once an oil spill occurs. When you think of the huge freighters they are proposing to bring down the coast of British Columbia to Cherry Point, some freighters if they can get the depth for them to anchor there will be in the range of 250,000 ton vessels. There are in the world today some that go up to 600,000 tons and this is a frightful thought when you consider just one of them in 10 years could wreck the whole of the Pacific coast.

Recently one of the great research institutions did a study to determine what the possibilities are of spillage on the coast, of a major oil loss. And they calculated it could happen within 5.2 years. So that's what they're facing and it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy beyond description that we on the coast of British Columbia are helpless to stop that tragedy from happening some day off our coast as international law stands at this moment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to hear the remarks that have been put forth with respect to this bill. After listening to the Opposition I wondered for a few minutes if I was reading the correct bill or not. It seems to me that the whole matter that is covered in this Act to Amend The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act relates to seepages, or the failure of production facilities or leakages occurring in or around well drilling areas.

If you refer to section 113 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act you will see that it deals with the rules governing the drilling of wells, and the production and conservation of petrol and natural gas, and it goes on through a number of subsections. And now we've added some new subsections which deals specifically with the problem of controlling and containing and eliminating spillage.

If I'm correct in that assumption, Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the transportation of petroleum products by boat or by barge would come into this particular Act any more than it would in a companion Act which deals with pipelines which are laid at the present time only on ground surface, not underwater. To me, having lived in, and living in an area where we have a tremendous number of oil wells, this is exactly the type of legislation that we need. Because if we do incur a spillage or a malfunction in a production facility, there is a requirement and a very quick requirement to get on to the job to find the source of the trouble and to eliminate it as quickly as possible.

If in effect you have to deal with several petroleum companies and you can't establish who is exactly at fault then the Minister has, must have, as his prerogative the authority to go in, correct the problem that exists and charge back whatever might be a fair proportion of the expense against the particular companies that may be involved.

As far as equipment is concerned in the handling of this type of problem there is certainly no shortage of the proper type of equipment available in the oil drilling areas to correct any condition that may come about as a result of a spillage or leakage.

The principle of the bill is sound, it gives the departments added teeth and authority. There's nothing more volatile or dangerous in my opinion than the production of petroleum and natural gas. No one knows for sure, when they spud in a new well and go into the drilling process, exactly what they will hit or where or when. And if any of you had been around a drilling operation and have seen what can happen when an improper mixture of mud or chemicals results in the drill stem blowing out of the hole like it was a piece of spaghetti you'd realise the tremendous pressures that can become involved in the production of natural gas and petroleum products.

It is at times like this, and even after that at times when the wells have been completed and a malfunction can cause problems that the Minister needs the proper authority to go in regardless of what the circumstances are, or what the costs may be, see the spillage is cleaned up and done immediately. It's only if you get a jump on these problems that you will get control of them.

The same thing applies to the companion bill which deals with pipelines. Breaks can happen and you have to have the proper authority to clean up the mess that could result. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that if this deals with the movement of petroleum products up and down the coast of British Columbia I'd be pleased to hear about that when the Minister closes the debate on second reading. But as I read the bill and interpret it, it deals with the drilling process and so far the only drilling process that is known in British Columbia is in areas on land, not on the seas.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on this, on the very point of drilling oil wells. A year ago you will remember there was a resolution before the Legislature with regard to shipping oil by tanker up and down the coast. This little group in this comer of the House tried to amend that legislation to outlaw any further drilling of oil wells in the Straits of Juan de Fuca or anywhere out on the west coast of British Columbia. That Member that has just spoken and said that the only oil wells being drilled are on land voted against it.

We tried to outlaw and do away with drilling oil wells out in the Pacific, because if you think you have a problem with a tanker springing a leak, or dumping its cargo, just how much more worse would the problem be if one of the wells that is drilled out there now, and there are several, they've been spudded off, if that happens to break off with some tidal current and the oil spews up to the surface and all over our beaches, we will have a horrible mess. And yet this very government rejected an amendment put up from this side of the House to outlaw any further drilling of oil wells…

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is reflecting on legislation that didn't pass some time ago and should be talking really about the principle of this bill and not

[ Page 816 ]

reflecting on other matters.

MR. HARTLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this has to do with future exploration work, future spills and I am merely pointing out that the previous Member — you allowed him to speak about drilling oil wells up in the Peace River on land. I'm merely pointing out that it's quite possible to continue to do exploration work in the Pacific, in the Gulf of Georgia, under the ocean. Many of us, when the Honourable Member from Rossland-Trail (Hon. Mr. Brothers) was Minister of Mines he took us down and we visited the Shell oil drilling rig that was built down here in the Victoria Machinery Depot. We visited it, and this rig went out into the Straits of Juan de Fuca. It drilled several holes and spudded them off. So, this is history, something that has happened in my time in the Legislature, something that has happened in this province.

Now, not only does this not guarantee that further exploration work will not be done under the tidal waters of this province, but under clause CC it gives this Minister, and this government the right to exempt, say, the oil crews, or the oil company that's responsible for drilling that hole — gives them the right to exempt them in cleaning up that mess.

I think this is an absolute shocking piece of legislation. If we are going to vote for this and pass it, then there should be companion legislation outlawing any further drilling of oil wells anywhere in the Pacific, or any part of the waters that comes under provincial jurisdiction. Because this is doing for the oil industry what this Minister and this government have done for mining. They allow the mining companies to carry on the type of operation and to pay as little taxes as they wish.

So that I think this is one point, Mr. Speaker, that had been overlooked in this legislation. Sure, it has to do with drilling oil wells, but that is the greatest hazard, the greatest disaster that could happen on the Pacific coast — an oil well that has been drilled or a future oil well, if it were to rupture and blow-off, it would be a very miserable situation to attempt to contain. For this reason I argue that we should have companion legislation outlawing any further drilling of oil wells in the Pacific.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister will close the debate.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I think if ever the spirit and intent of an Act was misconstrued, it has been here tonight.

Outside of the Member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I appreciate his remarks in relation to the existing legislation, it is quite true that there are certain provisions there applying to the people who are actually doing the drilling. However, there is no provision, and that's what this bill provides, for co-ordination of equipment — not only from the individual's point of view but from the point of view of other companies. This is the mechanism by which the co-ordination will occur.

Now, as far as all this dissertation in relation to off-shore drilling and so on, there is a Department of Environment which was mentioned. Certainly the Canada Shipping Act doesn't come within the constitutional purview of this government or the province.

Naturally, we will co-operate with them where we have any jurisdiction. We have in the past and we will in the future. You know this yourself. The Minister of Environment has taken certain measures against pulp mills and so on. We will co-operate where we have such as the Trans-mountain pipeline under the federal government, under their permits. But this deals entirely with those pipelines and the drilling that takes place on the land, the word "stream" was mentioned where a pipeline crosses a stream or the flow of the resource in the direction of a stream — this has to be taken care of.

But the equipment of one company or maybe two companies may not be of the nature that we need to have a complete inventory of where it is and the skilled operators to handle it, because as my colleague from North Peace (Mr. Smith) has mentioned, it is a very volatile substance whether it be petroleum, natural gas, or not. Fire can be very devastating. People can be hurt.

Now the idea here, in this legislation, is to form a co-ordinating body in which we will be able to have the communication we need to get to the job at the very earliest point. Also to be able to, at all times, know where the equipment is and how soon we can get it to the place.

Now the responsibility in the first instance is the companies'. Through our co-operation in the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, we will be there to man telephones through our Charlie Lake offices or other offices because all the pipelines are under Charlie Lake.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, but a telephone can't soak up oil.

HON. MR. RICHTER: We can use telecommunications, I heard quite a guffaw about another type of communications which was referred to a carrier pigeon type.

We do have radio telephones and we have all kinds of communications that we can contact the responsible people. Yes, the hot-line if the gas catches on fire. We might have hot-line. We might have to have Red Adair up here to blow it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: A pigeon could soak up…

HON. MR. RICHTER: However, this the intent and purpose of this bill, to work within the confines of what we already have as far as pipelines and drilling is concerned. But we have not, at this point, ventured into the tidal waters or the areas covered by the Canada Shipping Act.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. RICHTER: Well, now, my friend. You forgot, since I spoke here on the budget debate…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. RICHTER: So, at one time, we used to travel by horse and buggy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that through this legislation, we will be able to have the co-ordinating body to be able to undertake quick action in expelling the losses we could incur and the damage we could incur from the spillage of natural gas or through petroleum loss. I move second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six bales of hay!

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 61, An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1965.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

[ Page 817 ]

Bill No. 61 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 3. The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I take my place on this bill. I draw your attention to the remarks from the Honourable Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), the Honourable Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), and the Honourable first Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

There was obviously no enthusiasm in their remarks. The Honourable Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) it seems almost odd that he say that he'd had a minute of silence for the death of freedom. I've never heard anything quite so melodramatic.

The Honourable Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) pounds the desk with her fists. I could see no real enthusiasm. Really there can be no enthusiasm behind anyone who would attack the government's principle in this action.

All of the teaching profession knows, or most of them know, the reason behind it. The reason I say it in this House is because I want my teachers to know what I've said here. I know that if the teachers in my constituency were to decide who was going to be the next Member at Dewdney and no one else, I'm confident they would elect me to represent them again.

I've never met nor ever have I dealt with a more intelligent group of people as a whole. We find radicals among them. We find radicals in every phase of our society. But we do not condemn them all. They are an intelligent group of people and I respect them greatly. I believe we have a great mutual respect there. I'm sure this applies throughout the country.

The issue here is not the loss of freedom. It is not the loss of the right to bargain. That is pure nonsense. The teachers have a full right to bargain. But the only thing the Minister has said on many occasions is that if they ask for more than 6.5 per cent — that's all the government can pay — let the district pay that wants to pay it. This is a fair assessment. There's nothing wrong with this. The problem clearly as the Minister has said to me and to others very often is clearly a question not of the amount of the cost of education but the bite that it is taking from the total provincial budget.

In 1960, education took 18 per cent of the budget. Here we are in 1972, we've escalated to 31 per cent. What happens now? There's only one way and that's up.

This is not a problem only in British Columbia. It's a problem across Canada. It is estimated that by the year 2000, in a study made by the federal government, that education at the present rate of escalation would take the entire budget of every province in Canada.

So I say this government is showing leadership in saying to the teachers kindly, but with reasonable force, "we want you to be the best-paid teachers in Canada, which you are. We want you to have the best conditions in Canada, which you have. We want you to be the finest group of teachers in the whole country, which you are. But we do not want you to break and liquidate the country." And the reasonable teachers, and the majority of them are, will say: "That is right. We're satisfied. We appreciate the circumstances. We realise that one-third of the total budget of the province is the figure for education."

That is the message I have given to my teachers. That is the message I got from the Minister. I think it is a good message.

I say to this House now, let us not continue to deal with this foolish talk of the loss of bargaining, the end of free bargaining. A moment of silence for the death of freedom. Let us be honest with ourselves and realise that the country cannot extend more than one-third of its annual budget for education.

We have good education in the Province of British Columbia. We have the finest education in Canada, I believe. My children have gone through the system. My brothers and sisters have gone through the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to you? (Laughter).

MR. MUSSALLEM: I was trying to avoid that point. (Laughter). I am very proud of them all.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): I'm proud of you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you. I'm confident that with our education system the way it stands today, with one-third of our budget going to this resource, it will give us all the education that our children can absorb without wasting our resources. The teachers know it. The parents know it.

I'd like to give a little message to the people that oppose this bill. I warn you, my honourable friends, the mass of the teachers are not with you.

Mr. Speaker, they must realise this, that the mass of the people are not with them, the mass of teachers are not with them and society is not with them for demanding an over-proportion of the resources of our country for one section of the community.

I feel that the Minister of Education is wise and shows great judgment in the action he has taken, because he's protecting the teachers, protecting their salaries, protecting them on every front. It is not impossible that suddenly we'd have to shut down schools.

I was reading just the other day where three or four school districts in the United States have had to close down because of escalation of education. Do you say this can't happen here? It most certainly can, and very quickly. It could happen in three years here if we went on with this rate of escalation.

I say again the Minister has shown great judgment. I know the teachers will support him. I know the electorate will support him in doing what he has done. He has not taken away the right of collective bargaining. He's let them bargain for all they wish. But he's said: "This is the limit that the purse of the province can pay." That is the standard I take. That is the point I make. I am confident again that the teachers in my constituency, and there are many hundreds of them, and I repeat again if they were the sole ones to elect me, I would be back in this House whenever the next election came.

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

[ Page 818 ]

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with considerable interest to what the Member from Dewdney didn't say.

I'll try and cover some of the statements I expected him to make, but which for some reason or other, he forgot to make. It has been an interesting debate, even before it came into the House and even after the bill was introduced to the House and especially just before the Minister got up to move second reading.

It was a most interesting development. It was obvious. We were winding up the budget debate, we had the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Black) winding up the debate that afternoon. We saw the notes being passed to him to watch the time. There was just enough time left for the Minister to get up and to move second reading of the bill.

He passed over the tenures sections of his notes and was right into the financial aspect of this bill, moved adjournment of the debate after having left the false impression with the people of this province and the Members of this House. It was a deliberately-machined manipulation of this House to get maximum coverage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member must withdraw that expression of "deliberately."

MR. STRACHAN: I'll withdraw it. I'll withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, on your advice. I apologise to you for using that phrase. But it was deliberately done, Mr. Speaker, in order to achieve a maximum coverage for the Minister's viewpoint and the emphasis on the financial aspect of this bill.

I'll come to the charts later, because the charts he used and the emphasis he placed and the statements he made, were deliberately done in order to achieve these things. What happened made it very clear that it was being set up for this particular procedure.

You know, this is not the first time we have seen education become an issue in this House, not the first time we've seen legislation introduced about education by this government written in such a way that actually very few people among the electorate were able to fully understand all the ramifications of the bill.

I'm thinking of the 1953 session when the so-called Ralston formula was introduced. I think the Premier has said since, it was such a ridiculous proposal that even he couldn't have implemented it. But it was brought in for a specific purpose, so he could say anything he liked about it, and they did. They said anything they like about it.

Once they were re-elected, they forgot all about the educational formula that was trumpeted around the province as being in the best interest of the province and all the rest of it.

It seems to me that since then, the government has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. If it works once, you try it again. But you know I want to refer to the Minister's speech, a speech he gave earlier in this House.

No, I'll talk about your charts first. The charts that are on the back of this speech here. The Minister held this up. "Can we let this happen?" Total provincial revenue at 10 per cent, education, health, and social services at 15 per cent. He shows the lines crossing. He quoted the Economic Council of Canada and it would use the whole of the Gross National Product of the Province of British Columbia, because of the escalating costs in social welfare, health, and education in the last 10 years. I agree. In all probability, it is true that if they kept on at the present rate of increase, the increase over the last 10 years, that could happen for two reasons.

One, inadequate economic policies by this government and the federal government, so our Gross National Product is inadequate. I say to you the gross provincial product of this province is inadequate because of your inadequate economic policies. That's point number one.

Then we come to the escalating costs. First of all, let's observe the fact that you lump all three together — total education costs, total health costs, total social welfare costs. The increase in the social welfare costs again is a reflection of the inadequacy of the economic policy. That's the first thing. That increase in the social welfare costs which you included in those graphs is a reflection of your completely inadequate give-away fire sale natural resource throw-away bargaining. That's point number one.

Secondly, why have the health costs increased the way they did? I'm referring to them because you used them in this chart to mislead the people of this province. In this last 10 years two things have happened. I forget when the federal government brought in full participation in the hospital insurance scheme, which meant that all across the country for the first time there was a hospital insurance scheme. Are we going to introduce another, superimpose another hospital insurance scheme on top of health costs to keep that figure going up at that rate? Of course not!

Another reason why health costs went up in the last 10 years and why they won't go up at that rate in the next 10 years. We introduced a medical care scheme in this province. Are we going to take another medical care scheme and superimpose the costs of that and double present health costs? And again the federal government produced a scheme all across the country. Are we going to have another medical care scheme superimposed all across the country to keep these costs escalating?

AN HON. MEMBER: If it's left to you we will.

MR. STRACHAN: No. But these are the figures the Minister used in showing these costs points on the chart. They're completely misleading. There's the reason for the increase in health costs and first of all why include health welfare costs when we're talking about education?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: That's right. That's right. But I'm saying that because of these new schemes in health that that's why this increase has been in the last 10 years. But we've got them locked into the system now. We're not going to have to superimpose another medical care scheme on top of the one we've got now.

That's why the costs have gone up in the 10 years so rapidly. Because of the introduction of two new health systems. On a nation-wide basis they're going up, I agree. But the major factor was the fact that they weren't even in there as a national system 10 years ago. They weren't in there at all. Apart from that why should you include them in a discussion on educational costs?

Then look at what we did with educational costs. Let's look at what you did with educational costs. You took the whole educational cost of the Province of British Columbia in the last 10 years whereas this bill is talking about one section of education — elementary and secondary schools. Now, where has a large part of the cost of education come in the last 10 years?

[ Page 819 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Right. Right. Well that's got nothing to do with this bill. Nothing to do with this bill.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: It's included in the percentage this Member down here used when he says get up from 13 to 31 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Certainly. We took it from Saskatchewan.

MR. STRACHAN: The McDonald report of almost 10 years ago laid out for this province a picture of post-secondary education. The McDonald report of 10 years ago — and go back and read it if you forget your history — it made it very clear that unless this province embarked on a crash programme of post-secondary education, unless we moved from one degree-granting university to, I think he recommended six as a matter of fact, unless we built immediately new degree-granting universities then we'd be in trouble.

So we moved and we built Simon Fraser, we moved the Victoria College from its downtown site out to the Gordon Head site and built a brand new one and we expanded U.B.C.

That's all part of the total figure that the Minister used and it's a major part of the escalating education costs.

But that's not what this bill's talking about. On top of that the McDonald report recommended that we build all across this province regional colleges but I think we have eight or nine regional colleges going now. That is part of the increased education costs from 13 per cent to 31 per cent.

But this bill isn't about regional colleges. They're in the Public Schools Act but that is part of the escalating costs in this last 10 years. There was a sudden input — to use the other Minister's favorite phrase — of educational costs requirement almost brand new — much of it was brand new — being fed into the educational system. To suggest we're going to go out and build four more universities, degree granting universities you know, it's just nonsense.

This is almost completely primary and secondary education. That's why when the Member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) indicated that in actual fact primary and secondary education is taking a smaller part of the educational budget than it has in the past she's perfectly true and perfectly right. But the Minister I suggest was misleading this House when he did what he did. But in pointing public attention towards the money aspects of this bill he was doing this and concentrating public attention on the money aspect of the bill and in that way directing attention away from what the money's all about.

The money is all about education. The Minister tried to point away from what he's intending to do to education. What this bill will do to education.

An education is for what? It's for the students. Will it bring better quality education to the students of this province or won't it? That's the question we have to answer. Nothing else matters. Nothing else matters when we are examining the impact of any legislation. Who are the beneficiaries of the legislation? They are the students and if it's not going to do a better job for them then what are we doing here?

As I say, you use misleading figures because of the special situation of this last 10 years. You took the whole education costs instead of confining yourself to the primary and secondary and local school boards which is what this bill is all about.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member please address the Chair.

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to a speech you made in this House, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, On February 1, of this year. Excerpts from address by the Hon. D.L. Brothers, Minister of Education, February 1, 1972. Your third paragraph.

A public school system must be continually alert to change if it is to function effectively in meeting two fundamental needs. The needs to preserve and transmit the knowledge, wisdom and skill of the past and the need to equip all pupils with the tools of learning for the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who put those words in his mouth?

MR. STRACHAN: That's what the Minister said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds better than when he gave it.

MR. STRACHAN: Does this bill meet the two fundamental needs? Does this bill preserve and transmit the knowledge, wisdom, skills of the past to the pupils to the fullest possible extent? Is it upgrading the ability of the school system — to use your words — to transmit the knowledge wisdom and skill of the past to the pupils? I think we have to agree that this legislation will reduce the ability of the school system to transmit the knowledge, wisdom and skill of the past to the pupils that are in the school system today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute. You just hold your horses for a while, Mister. Next you said:

In meeting these two needs in practice schools must always be concerned with two things. The first is the individual pupil.

Is this Act going to enable the school system to best serve the individual pupils? Can any Member of this House honestly say that this bill will best serve the needs of the individual pupil?

The so-called system becomes so efficient, the Minister says, so highly organised and supervised that the individual pupil gets lost.

Does this bill do anything? If it does anything, it gets the system so highly organised you finally get so efficient and so supervised that the individual pupil will get lost. That's really my objection to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't care.

MR. STRACHAN: It's my objection to your whole educational attitude, Mr. Minister, that you're determined to move and so regiment the school system of this province that there will be no area of freedom on the local level to do the experimental work that's required in education if the system itself is going to survive in the next 20 years.

[ Page 820 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventeen government methods.

MR. STRACHAN: So supervised, so highly-organised, so efficient that the individual pupil gets lost. This is what he said.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Just a month or so ago, this is what he said. Yet all this bill is designed to do is to get the individual pupil lost. The whole thing.

The second thing is the group or community of our society. The system can become so preoccupied with the individual…

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you get up and say something?

MR. STRACHAN: The system can become so preoccupied with the individual that it completely overlooks the fact that the individual must live in a community. That the people or public collectively expect the school to teach him to do this.

Mr. Minister, this bill is going to make it impossible for the school boards of this province to relate that pupil to the community that he's living in. It's going to make it impossible for the school boards of this province to take the field trips that let the pupil relate to the community because of the super efficient organisational thrust that your whole department has taken. That's right. That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Throw in a television set.

MR. STRACHAN: I said in an earlier debate, in many, many cases the student can get a better education out of the school than he can get in the school. I give you an example — regular trips to the Harmac pulp mill, for instance. They'll get more out of seeing the pollution pouring out of that mill than they would by sitting in the classroom for two days studying pollution. If they want to recognise the need for proper sewerage system in the province, then go to Nanaimo harbour and watch the raw sewage pouring out of the pipe.

All of these field trips will be curtailed, cut back or wiped out altogether because of this bill. Because of this super-efficient organisational thrust that you're taking. What is it doing to children — the individual pupil? The system? That's what's concerning me. As I say I've already explained that the actual percentage of the elementary and secondary school costs has been down, not up. But because of misleading charts and figures that the Minister gave the public out there are thinking this.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: I agree with the Member. Many of them agree with what that Minister says this bill's going to do because they've not been told what it's going to do to the children and how it's going to harm and hamstring the development of the kind of educational system in the Province of British Columbia that we so desperately need.

What else did he say? In the same speech — this is the curriculum committee:

Upon receiving the recommendations, I announce that effective in the fall of 1972, grade 11 students will have a new kind of curriculum which will allow greater freedom and choice of courses, thus enabling them to obtain a far better education than was possible in the past.

For Pete's sake, Mr. Minister, you say the curriculum committee's going to allow a broader choice of courses. Then you say "we're not going to give you any money to help develop that broader set of courses." In this speech you said one thing and in that bill you did another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you believe what you read?

MR. STRACHAN: Develop a broader freedom in choice of courses.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense. Who wrote the speech — the school board?

MR. STRACHAN: How can they with this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're trying to find ways of cutting you out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are the government Members where the support should be?

MR. STRACHAN: Later on the Minister said:

The department will retain the authority for prescribing courses and for laying down the general requirements for the province to insure a reasonable degree of order and uniform standards. The school will be given the responsibility of providing enough courses to ensure that each student will have an opportunity to study those subjects which will be of the greatest interest or value to him.

The schools will have this responsibility. The local school boards will have this responsibility. Look what happened in Campbell River. Look what happened in Victoria.

The Minister says one thing here. He misleads the people. Puts the onus on the local school boards and no way are they going to get a chance to enlarge the curriculum or provide the choice of courses which you yourself in this speech said the system needs.

What I dislike about the bill, of course, is what it does for the rural areas of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are the M.L.A.'s for those areas?

MR. STRACHAN: What it does to the rural areas of this province. You know here's a letter I got the other day from a director in one of the schools on the island. He was talking about the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said.

This ridiculous comment made by the Minister about "art, music and all that boloney" is just one more example of the total lack of concern by the Social Credit government for the quality of education in B.C.

It is time the people of this province elected a government that among other things considers education a first-class investment in the future of this province and not just another expense to be cut as much as politically possible.

"Not just another expense just to be cut as much as politically possible." Now, what is this bill doing to the educational system? As I say, I'm concerned. I read your statement, you say "we're concerned about the individuals, more courses, greater choice, relate to the community" and then you bring in this bill.

[ Page 821 ]

Because of the failure of that referendum in Victoria what's going to happen here? This is from the Victoria Colonist of February 1, before they knew whether it's going to pass or not. They were pessimistic about it passing. Then they say:

District Superintendent A. Longmore presented an administration proposal of what programmes would have to be cut at 109 per cent. They include the loss of eight teachers, one family life education teacher and two supervisory personnel. At 108 per cent 33 teachers would have to leave by September. Six special councillors would be dismissed. The family life and swimming pool grant would be discontinued and four supervisors would have to go.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are the jobs?

MR. STRACHAN: But look at what they're cutting out of the system — 33 teachers, six special counsellors. Now, what's the work of a special counsellor? Isn't it to try and relate to the individual? Isn't it to try and get the problem individual pupil fitting into the school system and getting the fullest possible benefit from education?

AN HON. MEMBER: That kid will go delinquent.

MR. STRACHAN: Six special counsellors are to be cut out in this one school district alone. Because of the defeat of that referendum. Did you mean this when you said it or were you just talking for political propaganda? That speech you made on February 1 about raising the individual and more courses. More courses and they're cutting out 33 teachers. Is that improving standard and quality of education?

What's going to happen in Nanaimo? Instead of a normal increase of 8 or 10 next September the school district staff will be cut by six. They said up there: "We have operated on a short leash for many years and future cuts are going to have to come out of the educational programme and the auxiliary services."

You talk about a wider curriculum. Nanaimo says they're going to have to cut down on the educational services because of this legislation. In the cuts is an allotment of $5,000 for preliminary work on an outdoor study centre, you're relating to the community — that's what that outdoor study centre would have done in Nanaimo. It would have allowed the people to relate to the community but because of this formula they're going to have to cut out that outdoor study centre.

Teaching supplies will be trimmed by 10 per cent — teaching supplies. How are they going to get the broad courses you're talking about if they're going to have to cut the teaching supplies? There's Nanaimo.

Let's go to Ladysmith. What's going to happen in Ladysmith? As many as 11 teachers will face the prospect of not being rehired in the fall — so that's a cut back, it's not a case of expanding — will not be rehired in the fall and there will be an immediate cut back in bus service to walk limits now set.

But routes will have to be cut to the limits — there will be only the bare necessities in maintenance and no replacement of equipment. No replacement of equipment. How are you going to expand the worth of the education system if there's going to be no replacement of equipment?

The auxiliary service account will be cut. Now what are the auxiliary services? You talk about making education of broader courses available to the student. This is in my constituency, Ladysmith. What are the auxiliary services that are going to be cut? This is the fund out of which the local school board in Ladysmith pays to have pupils go to neighbouring school districts such as Nanaimo where they do have a wider set of courses, so that the people and the students in the smaller towns can get a broader set of courses. They're going to have to cut it out in Ladysmith. It's not broadening the courses, it's reducing the courses under this particular legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you amalgamate?

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about what's happening now in the present situation.

We feel that the way the budget is going the quality of education is going to deteriorate as money decreases. That's what they said. The trustees said the board will be looking at kindergartens and special classes in September with the view to closing them if the vote fails on the additional moneys not found. That's what we're doing — going to close kindergartens and the special classes.

Do you know what special classes we have in that Ladysmith school district? You know the one that's in Saltair. Have you visited that school?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: I'm telling you what the school boards are looking at because of this formula and because of what you're going to do to them under this bill. They're talking about closing kindergartens and special classes.

Have you visited that special class out at Saltair? Do you know what we're doing to those young people? How we're rescuing them? Mr. Minister, if they have to close that class it'll be a tragedy.

HON. MR. BROTHERS: They don't have to.

MR. STRACHAN: You say they don't have to — but you write the regulations and the stipulations so they're going to have to.

MR. BARRETT: Where are they going to get the money?

MR. STRACHAN: You create the public climate so they turn it down. So they turn it down and they'll have to close it. You're responsible, Mr. Minister, for this creation of this anti-education climate in the province. You're responsible.

Let's go to Duncan! What's going to happen in Duncan, Mr. Speaker? In Duncan, again right in the community, right in the community, giving our young people a choice of courses that will allow them to fit into the community. In Duncan Grade 12 accounting and bookkeeping courses will be dropped in September unless there's a bigger class than they usually get for that kind of course with the present system. They're considering dropping that bookkeeping and accounting course in Grade 12.

Eight elementary and four secondary school teachers will not be replaced in September. Teaching supplies have been cut in half and sums allocated to some particular services such as special education and district department will be cut in half — cut or halved. Again, special education where the

[ Page 822 ]

real need is. Because of the restrictions of this bill, the people who need it most are the ones who are going to be hurt. You shake your head, Mr. Minister, but veto of the school boards is the position you forced them into.

This is another report on Duncan. The effect they say will be a lower staff level and even a slight decline in cleanliness because they are cutting back on the janitorial services too.

Lake Cowichan. They're having their problems too. This is what concerns me about your whole attitude toward education in this province, Mr. Minister. You've failed to realise how the system really operates. I think you were handed these figures by your civil servants or the Minister of Finance and you don't really know what's happening out there in the rural areas.

You know there are three principles in this bill — three. I'm going to pass over these particular aspects of it right now. One of them is about the appointment of teachers, suspension or dismissal and appeals therefrom.

You know the select standing committee brought in some recommendations last year and the bill reflects some of them but doesn't reflect a lot of them. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't mind the findings of the review commission being final and binding on the board because as you know full well, the old system didn't work. That was the administerial right to accept or reject that report that finally came to your desk. You know that there was just no way that you could refuse to accept the report that was handed to you.

As I say, I don't mind making the findings of the review commission final. But I question the wisdom of the section which allows suspension when charged. I said "allows suspension when charged."

I was very careful to say that because you're saying really that he's probably guilty. You're saying: "Oh yes" — because it's a "may" thing. You're then saying that once they get to that point that they do it, they're saying he's probably guilty.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: That's right. Now I know, then you go on to say that the board "may" pay his salary during suspension or afterwards, I think that should be "must." I think it should be "must" until he's found guilty or not guilty — one or the other.

The next thing it does, it calls for the approval of the owner-electors of salary increases in excess of certain limits. Now, the teachers already had compulsory arbitration. We're told that the salary increases have been right on the provincial median. Now the approval of owner-electors is required for expenses in excess of 108 per cent of the basic education programme.

In West Vancouver even though the budgetary increase did not require a single penny of increased taxation, they're still going to have to go to referendum. Even if it's not going to mean a single penny increase on the tax burden of the local taxpayers, the school board is still going to have to spend money to have a referendum.

Now what sort of nonsense is that? How could you even relate to increased costs when there's not any increase in the individual impost on the taxpayer? Here's a prime example of what can happen. It can happen in other districts too.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: The education formula, Mr. Speaker, is based on average school costs throughout the province. It doesn't take into account individual differences between districts. This is why in the rural areas we're suffering even more than in the major population concentrations like Vancouver and Victoria.

When we have to start cutting out librarians and so on and the special courses or bookkeeping-accounting because we're not a big enough community to have sufficient pupils for that class, then we're doing damage to the young people of the rural areas.

Someone who's in Duncan and in high school has just as much right to a bookkeeping and accounting course in high school as somebody who lives in Vancouver or Victoria or any of the major centres.

Under this particular legislation they're not going to be able to have that choice. This is what you're doing to the local areas and I don't like it because I represent the rural areas.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: You're darn right I get louder about it because I hate to see the young people in rural areas being discriminated against in this way by this government in this legislation. I say the young people of Duncan, Ladysmith and Lake Cowichan have just as much right to a half-decent education as the young people who live in Vancouver or Victoria.

There are basic costs in rural areas that are bound to be much higher if the standard of education in the rural areas is even going to approach the level of education that is available in the more populated areas.

Let me read a letter to you that I have here. It's from one of the rural areas. Not my own. If I was a Member for a district and the school board in that district sent me this letter, I'd be reading the letter to the House but the Member who happens to represent this district, may have something to say and he may not, I don't know. I'll wait and see.

This is from a board of school trustees in the interior of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What part of the province?

MR. STRACHAN: I'll tell you when I'm finished reading it.

The democratic principle of asking the taxpayer to sanction expenditure on capital development is sound. The same is not true of increases in wages. Buildings are impersonal, wage decisions affect individuals. Voting is controlled by taxpayer emotion and not by dispassionate judgment. Taxpayers resent all tax increases.

This legislation negates collective bargaining because it is cut short at a predetermined point by the Minister. The argument that this procedure meets with public approval does not validate it. The public decision process cannot replace that of the negotiator or the arbitrator. It would appear this move is a part of a more general attempt to control inflation. The principle of wage control must be applied to the entire work force. Any attempt to introduce on a provincial level must be automatically limited to people whose wages are controlled by the provincial government. This is discrimination.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that Quesnel?

[ Page 823 ]

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Quesnel. That's right.

Reference to median salaries published in the public schools report indicate that wage increases to teachers are about the same level as those of most parts of the work force.

But this is the clincher.

This district is also concerned over the gradual reduction in the money available to it. For some time past the tax base here was low and the district was not able to provide all the materials and services that were available in districts with more money. At the time when our tax base is beginning to expand, restrictions are placed on expenditures. How does this district reach the level of services available in larger more established districts?

They're at a static tax base for a long time and they're just beginning to expand on their tax base and the Minister says "no". Because there's a static tax base the level of education, they say, was not as high as it should have been, not as high as it was in other areas. Not as high as they would like it to be. Now that the tax base is expanding the Minister says "no". The board wants to know…it is Quesnel. School District 28, Quesnel, February 18, 1972.

That school board wants to know how they can get the educational system in that rural area up to what they have in other major centres and they're not going to let them.

You've got the public mind poisoned against the school system of the province. There's no way that the taxpayers of this province are going to vote for those referendums, because of the poison you spread all over the province and in the rural areas especially where they have enough hardship and troubles — you've turned their minds against the school system.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I object to this bill because of everything I've said earlier. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the time to be reducing the ability of the educational system to train our young people to meet a very troubled and uncertain future. It's very clear — especially in the rural areas — they are not going to have a school system that will allow them the choices you say they should have. It's obvious that they're not going to be allowed to have the kind of educational system that they should have.

You talk about Washington State on page 14 of that speech. You say Washington State, their system is much more severe on school boards than is ours in British Columbia. They have a basic programme and any spending in excess of that must receive the approval of the taxpayers.

Their success rate has been disastrous. Most levies were rejected in 1971 and knowing that that's the situation, that in a given climate it's disastrous, you deliberately bring legislation into this House that you know full well will duplicate the disastrous experience of Washington.

You described it as disastrous and you bring the same thing deliberately into this House. After what you've done, you're not a Minister for education, you're a Minister against education. You're not a Minister for the young people of this province, you're a Minister against the young people of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: "To put the records straight," he says, "I might mention that in spite of an increase of 46,100 pupils in our public schools, from 1968 to 1971, the cost of our basic education programme for 1971 equates to $620 per pupil as compared with $479 per pupil in 1968."

You know why a major part of that is in there. Because in many of the rural areas they were just beginning to get the proper school system. In many of the rural areas they were just beginning to get an adequate educational system. They were just beginning — and that was a major factor.

On page 15, the Minister said: "We're assured that regardless of where a pupil lives in this province he has the same opportunity for a good education as any other pupil anywhere else."

Now that's just not true. I've read you the evidence from four or five different school districts. I've told you and reminded you of what the school board in Quesnel has said. It's obvious that the bill does not fulfil your promises either in this speech or in your previous speech.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because it will squeeze education into a rigid robot system. Education is for people not for a computer. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: "The barbarians are at the gate." Mr. Speaker, the barbarians are at the gate, the barbarians are in this province, over there in this House. There's the barbarians, they deliberately set out on what the Minister said himself is a disaster course. Deliberately set out a policy of denigrating the educational system in this province and depriving the young people of the rural areas of equal opportunity with their brothers and sisters in the cities. Mr. Speaker, I can only fight the barbarians that are in this House by voting against this bill and I do so proudly.

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

HON. W.M. SKILLINGS (Minister of Industrial Development Trade and Commerce): I stand to refute one statement that the Honourable Member that just took his seat made. And that is a statement that our Minister of Education has poisoned the entire Province of British Columbia…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Now just listen. I listened to you with a great deal of disbelief. I didn't interrupt you once, my friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: You turned your back on him.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Turn your back now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I would, Mr. Speaker, have the Opposition refer to this week's Time magazine.

AN HON. MEMBER: The cigarette ad.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Never mind the cigarette ad. I'm just telling you just read the main speech. It has to do with the subject matter that's under debate tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at the back cover.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Never mind the back cover, my friend.

[ Page 824 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: A very serious debate, isn't it?

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Yes, a very serious debate. Yes, yes. Certainly the barbarians are at our gates. You refuse to listen to the truth. I may say in 1971, 65 per cent of all bond issues proposed to build new schools, hospitals and sewage treatment plants were repudiated by the voters across the North American continent. So I don't think our good Minister of Education has that much authority that he can look after the whole North American continent. I may say in the '60's only 30 per cent were repudiated. Back in 1947, 8 per cent was the only rejection level.

I may say that in the last year of statistics, 1970, federal, state and local government of the United States overspent by $60 billion. That is roughly $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

Now, the only reason I quote United States figures is because we haven't got the statistical review as far as Canada is concerned. But let's not fool the general public. Bill No. 3 is to stop the escalating costs of education.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Yes it is. That's basically what it's all about — 108 per cent of what it was before and you all know what happened in Victoria, in school district 61. Are you a bunch of dumb-bells? You saw how the people voted. They voted 2 to 1 against the $412,000.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: Never mind what the percentage was. That's the way some of you people got elected over there in the North Shore — by very small percentage. And as far as we're concerned in Canada we're going to have a taxpayer revolt the same as they have in the United States where they're closing the schools.

Just read, my friend, and don't stick your head in the sand like you usually do. This is what's going to happen unless we face this project now. We have got to stop this escalating cost, and 70 per cent of the education costs are salaries.

Now, I was talking to a schoolteacher and we have one of the representatives of the school board in the gallery today. Another person said a great many of the teachers who are unemployed would be very glad to go on to teachers' salaries that they have today, let alone the 6 1/2 per cent increase.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: That's not an argument. An unemployed schoolteacher told me that.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a lot of back benchers who would take your job for half the price.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: I guess they would. There's an awful lot of New Westminster people who will take your place next time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Members please address the Chair.

HON. MR. SKILLINGS: You're just a lame duck from New Westminster and you know it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the only point that I make tonight is let's not becloud the issue. The main issue of Bill No. 3 is to stop the escalating costs of education at the 108 per cent and 6.5 per cent and I'll tell you something. The people of British Columbia want this bill and I am supporting it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments and try not to be repetitious. We seem to be repeating points many times over. I'd like to pick up the subject where the former speaker left off on the question of escalating costs.

One of the former speakers the other night on second reading which was adjourned — I think it was the Member from Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — pointed out that actually the fraction of money that certainly was going into primary and secondary education had decreased. The percentage…

AN HON. MEMBER: The percentage has gone down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Members please address the Chair?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have looked back through the budgets from '72 back to…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I'm talking about percentage of total and I'm saying that if you go through the budget speeches from '72 back to '67 — and I'm assuming these figures are reliable because they are right here in the cut-up "pie" — it shows that the fraction on education budgets of the total budget has decreased from 31.9 per cent, to 30.9 per cent.

Do you agree with that? I'm just trying to point out that the argument that costs…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: …I'm not talking about health, Mr. Minister, I'm talking about education and the figures in the budget show that if costs are escalating, one point is clear. I'm not saying they are escalating but if they are you are at least spending a smaller fraction of the total budget on education today, than you did in '67. And it has gradually come down a little bit at a time.

The other impression, Mr. Speaker, which I get from listening to public comment and reading the newspapers and so on, is that the teachers are some sort of money-grabbing bunch of individuals who have no social conscience. This is the picture that is so often propagated. And I feel that the figures, again I'm speaking of experience in the Victoria area and I've researched the figures, and again in the last five years the percentage raises which have been negotiated by the teachers in the greater Victoria area have ranged from 5.84 per cent, to 7.82 per cent. The average over the five years is 6.92 per cent. This is the negotiated increase each year — over a period of five years it has averaged 6.92.

I'll submit, Mr. Speaker, that since even the government's arbitrary action in deciding a level has come up with a 6.5

[ Page 825 ]

figure and if the average over these five years has been 6.92 I would think that this illustrates the fact that the teachers have negotiated in good faith. In fact I don't think it's on record that they have used the average wage and salaries, the weekly wages and salaries, as an index on which to base their claims for an increase.

Now, it seems to me that this is a very reasonable and logical way for any group of citizens to negotiate for an increase in their remuneration. Furthermore as has been said, and I shouldn't keep repeating it, but they have negotiated, and they have submitted to arbitration and they have in general, I would submit, demonstrated their social conscience and their awareness of how they should behave in society in this very important matter which can contribute to inflation.

But I would again say that in general when you put 6.92 beside many of the other sectors of society who are negotiating for increases — and the most timely one at the moment to think of is the figures that I have been reading for the woodworkers — I think any reasonable citizen would suggest that the teachers have been very fair in their approach and they have applied a very reasonable and logical method by which they have negotiated wage increases in the last five years.

The Minister mentioned civil servants in his discussion when he introduced second reading. But I think that it would be wrong to suggest that we are just dealing with civil servants. The teachers are not civil servants, and I would suggest that if the Minister or if this government wishes to have this kind of control which they are now imposing unilaterally on teachers then they should make the necessary legislation and bring them under the civil service and be done with it.

But I think it is quite unfair on the one hand, to suggest that there is local autonomy in school boards and that the school boards and the teachers negotiate their own arrangements. And yet out of the blue government simply says: "Well, there is a certain level of increase above which you cannot go."

Then I think the government is even more unfair by implying that teachers have some other avenue to get more than 6.5 by going to the taxpayer. I think it's quite obvious that with the present heavy taxation against the home-owner for education that the chance of any one in 100 referendums going through is very unlikely.

The other principle has been stated tonight by one of the other speakers — that taxpayers generally are opposed to any tax increase over which they are given control. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that the teachers should either be included as civil servants, and if they're not to be civil servants then they should certainly have the fair bargaining rights which are not interfered with by government imposition. It has to be one or the other.

I think it is unfair for the teachers to be given the impression that they are free to bargain, and that they are employed by the school boards when in fact this kind of action of the government completely realistically removes (1) their bargaining rights, and (2) the autonomy of local school boards.

Regardless of this particular question of the teachers' salary increase I think that the 108 per cent is not justified at the present time. I'm certainly concerned particularly in Victoria by the consequences that will follow from the recent defeat of the referendum. The chairman of the school board appeared on television tonight and said that usually 50 teachers leave their school district each year and it's simply a matter that 33 of the places will not be filled when the school term begins in September.

I think much comment was made in the debate on education that the quality does depend very much on just how many pupils a teacher can realistically cope with and give good teaching performance and obviously, in this area alone, if we are to lose 33 teachers there are going to be many more pupils in the average classroom.

The other point which certainly came home to me the other day was when a delegation of unemployed teachers came to discuss their problems. Perhaps this is a little philosophical but it just seems to me tragic that the main point that came across in the interview that I had with them was that the older and most highly trained and most experienced teacher seems to be the one who is most seriously penalised in the later years of his teaching career. Two of the men who came to talk to me were penalised — the reason is very simple, that the school boards can hire two young less experienced teachers for the price of the…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I don't know why these ones went but they certainly assured me they weren't fired or suspended. I think it was West Vancouver School Board who wrote to me and mentioned that the more teachers you have who are highly skilled and experienced with extra training and extra degrees, so this creates the greater difficulty in getting within a 108 percent.

This is perhaps a little off the point but I do feel that there is something wrong if we're producing teachers with such skills and experience and there is such a high level of unemployment I do feel that the tremendous accentuation on this word "escalating" costs is overdone. I don't think that the rising costs are such a serious problem, that the actions taken by the government are having these very serious results in reducing their quality of education, and producing increasing numbers of unemployed teachers.

For these very fundamental reasons — the interference with the bargaining rights of teachers, the deteriorating effect on the quality of education — I feel that I have no choice but to oppose this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it has been rather interesting to hear several of the Members of the Opposition on the debate this evening. I am particularly intrigued by the good Member from Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan). It's rather intriguing to watch as he sort of tiptoes on a tightrope of platitudes and half truths, and tries to balance himself as he did it with a balancing pole that was somewhere between the great advantages of motherhood and apple pie.

He talked for a long while this evening, for a long while he talked on the quality of education. And he made a great thing that the Minister was attacking the quality of education, and the singleness of purpose of individuals within the system. That this was the whole key point of the discussion this evening.

He went on at great length. He went on to discuss how important it was that we should not lower the quality of education, that this was the basis behind the concern of the people who were actively bothered by this Bill No. 3.

[ Page 826 ]

I have a stack of letters here from teachers. I go through these letters one by one, it says we're taking away the civil rights, the collective bargaining. Nothing on the quality of education. The collective bargaining is the key to the whole Bill No. 3. Nothing on the quality of education. Placement of controls on a group of people exclusively. Nothing in that letter on the quality of education. Letter after letter after letter from teachers — all complaining about the fact that their bargaining power has been controlled, they say.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: They're here, they're here. Glad to table them. You can have them. They're here, take them. They're McDiarmid's letters. (Laughter).

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: And I'll ask any Member to go through his letters and take a look at how many have mentioned the quality of education as being their vital concern. Because this isn't a part of it.

He went on to talk about the statistics that were introduced by the Minister of Education. In discussing the figures he really ended up by comparing how much larger is an elephant than a flea. He didn't say that there was a tremendous discrepancy between the education costs and the Gross National Product. He tried to point out that it wasn't as large as the Minister said it was. It's still enormous.

Take a look at the "Gross" National Product, as he often calls it, that's the "Gross" National Product.

MR. STRACHAN: Either way is acceptable.

MR. CAPOZZI: Well, I'm just saying that's the way. Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I never implied that it wasn't. I said that he called it the "Gross" National Product. That's what I'm referring to, so that there won't be any mistake that we're dealing with the same term. I just wanted to make sure, because that would be a "gross" miscarriage of justice if I were to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're being gross.

MR. CAPOZZI: That he is concerning himself with in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, seems to me that in the references to the quality of education he constantly moves away from the key issue — which is whether the people in the community who pay the cost of education have a right also to determine how much they are prepared to pay for the quality. Isn't that as essential a right of those people in a community to determine the quality of education as in the quality of the payments which they are prepared to make?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they vote on Hydro?

MR. CAPOZZI: The referendum which was put through in Victoria indicates, Mr. Speaker, that people have made a certain basic decision. I ask the Members opposite to answer another question. Answer another question, Members opposite.

If there is no control as such placed on individuals on the costs of education, where else does the taxpayer indicate his dissatisfaction with education costs?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: That is not the taxpayer speaking. He can't do it in the city councils because the city council says: "We do not set the costs of education in the community." He can't throw out the trustees because the trustees say: "We don't collect the taxes." The trustees do not collect the taxes and have not had a responsibility to collect the taxes. So where in the past has the taxpayer had the right or the opportunity to indicate in any manner that he was dissatisfied with education costs?

What we have said now is that finally, in the community, the person who has watched — not by making a comparison of graphs, not by going back and determining whether it was 5.5 per cent or 6.7 per cent — but who has watched his costs of education as reflected in the tax that he pays in his community escalate at a rate that disturbs him to such a degree that referendum after referendum has been turned down. Why has it been turned down? Because he is not satisfied that the quality of education has kept pace with the cost of education.

Mr. Speaker, last year the teaching costs went up by an average of 8.8 per cent. The quality of education did not improve by 8 per cent. There was exactly the same amount of experienced teachers in the system from one year to the next because the same number of teachers are there, as many teachers that come on go off the end of the system.

Interjection by an Hon, Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: How do you measure the quality? I'm saying the taxpayer has measured it and I'm saying the taxpayer has decided that he is not getting the quality of education. I don't say that I can judge it. I certainly have not indicated that. But certainly the person who must pay the piper has said: "We do not feel that we get the quality of education."

Mr. Speaker, the good Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) quoted some figures; one year 5.9 per cent, an average as he indicated of 6.9 per cent. Would the good Member from Oak Bay like to point out that it was in the last three years that the largest percentage increases took place and that if you take the last three years that figure doesn't end up at 6.9 per cent, it ends up at something like 7.4 per cent?

The lowest figure you used was the fifth year, Mr. Member, was it not? He didn't indicate that to the House, Mr. Speaker. Because the escalating costs are also escalating. It's these things that aren't being mentioned in passing by the Hon. Member.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CAPOZZI: And from then, what was it in 1969, Mr. Member? Through you, Mr. Speaker, 7.1 and last year it was 7.8 in most of the areas, was it not? The cost has moved higher and higher because…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CAPOZZI: …they escalate and escalate our escalating costs.

[ Page 827 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Members address the Chair and each have the opportunity to say their piece? The Honourable Member had his opportunity without interference.

MR. CAPOZZI: I don't object to what he said. All he's indicated so far is that his figures are wrong.

I think it has to concern people that this so-called quality of education is the vital concern that people, that the taxpayer has a right to make his comment on. You can go through the entire letters and correspondence that you receive and what they go back to is the one key thing of the so-called collective bargaining.

But how many people in this House — and even as the good Member said, experienced teachers were let go to replace with two young ones. That's impossible, Mr. Member. That's impossible. A teacher has tenure after the second year and you can't release a teacher without a cause. You cannot release that teacher without cause.

The same teachers that are talking about being restricted — and they are at an average salary of $10,500 — after the second year in the system cannot be released for any reason other than those so serious that only five teachers in the Province of British Columbia have been released in the last three years under the tenure system. If they want to get into the act of what they're saying in collective bargaining and the right to bargain and their freedoms, et cetera, what about their freedom to stay within a job on a guarantee of employment almost in spite of the quality of education that they have?

I was in the committee room when various people came into the committee and ranged in what the qualifications and the quality of teaching was — it ranged from people who commented, even among the teachers, that 5 per cent to 10 per cent were incompetent and among people beyond that they also stated that in their opinion, there were areas where it was 10 per cent to 20 per cent.

I listened to that and heard that. But they're not talking about that in the quality of education, are they? They're not referring to that on the other side of the House, are they, Mr. Speaker? The concerns must keep going back, because they're trying to make out the case. The average teacher is earning a salary of $10,500 in the Province of British Columbia. A 6.5 per cent increase on that amount will bring him up next year to approximately $11,200. At the end of the next year at 6.5 per cent he's at $12,000. If they have that great concern of the quality of education at that type of salary figure, then where was their concern for the quality of education and the great responsibility they've loaded on their shoulders when they walked out of the classroom on a one-day strike last year in the Province of British Columbia?

If that's the concern for the quality of teaching, then it somehow strikes me a little different from what I would consider as the quality of concern. I'm not stating that there are, and I've said before, there are large numbers and great numbers and the majority of teachers are dedicated teachers. It is not a question…

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop your waffling.

MR. CAPOZZI: I'm not waffling. I don't have to stand here and waffle in front of somebody like you, Mr. Member. If I'm going to take anybody and waffle, I'll find somebody worth the quality to waffle in front of. (Laughter). Constantly standing there and here's the good Member from Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan) referring to the 17 Members that sat on this side as though we weren't interested in the quality of the debate and what was being said. He got up, finished his speech, and walked out of the House. Typical, typical of making a mockery and a sham battle of a serious discussion and a serious debate on something that we are as concerned with.

I find the whole thing, as I go back constantly over the letters, that the real thing that they're boiling down to in spite of everything that you try to put as to where the whole issue stands, it still stands that the teachers themselves are putting on it, they're hitting them supposedly in the pocketbook and they don't like it.

Who doesn't like it? I tell you the really major party who are concerned are those people who recently in the referendums across this nation and across the Province of British Columbia are saying what they think about it.

If you tell me that you're not concerned what with the people of the Province of British Columbia think. If you're telling me that the referendums of the people of the Province of British Columbia aren't the important things when we discuss their democratic rights and privileges and freedoms, then somehow or other you're reading something about education and something about democracy and something about rights that I don't read into it and I intend to support this Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear the last speaker give his interesting statements as a tax on the local school boards, as tax on the teachers and a tax on everybody that is in the bill. Also all the amendments to the bill which are about as lengthy as the bill itself.

But I think it is a mistake to suggest that the school trustees of this province are not concerned with the costs involved because they don't have to collect the taxes.

I think there is no question that the school boards throughout the province have done a very good job throughout the years in curtailing costs and trying to build up the quality of education at the lowest possible cost. I think this has been done very, very well,

Now on the question of arbitrations I think he said that the public had no voice in arbitration. Well, of course, the public do have a voice in the arbitration hearings due to the fact that the trustees have a nominee on the board and the trustees being the representatives of the public. So that extends a public interest represented on arbitration boards.

Now if you carry his argument to the extreme, then you can say that any increase in hydro rates or any increase in telephone rates should all go to a referendum. Any increase in the wines of the province, price of the wines, private and so on, would have to be done by referendum.

The one thing in common between the last speaker and myself, neither of us have taught school. But that's about it.

He did mention the fact that teachers were highly paid. He said they were getting $10,500 on an average in the province. There's no doubt that teachers are being paid more than they were a few years back…

AN HON. MEMBER: I've seen lots of millionaires.

MR. LORIMER: But I think we should look at the

[ Page 828 ]

preparations required for teaching. Some are somewhat limited in preparation, two to three years in school and then starting out in their teaching profession, others are six or seven years. By the time they reach their maximum this is a question of teaching for anywhere from up to 13 or 14 years as far as the higher categories of the teaching profession are concerned.

There's a maximum that these people can reach. Probably in the province now, it's around $15,000 for a man with a Bachelor of Education and his Master's degree. He doesn't reach this figure until 14 or 15 years after he has been teaching. During that first period of going to university and so on, he has been out of the work force and is considerably behind the person that goes out in the work force immediately.

That particular teacher probably starts in his first year at $8,000 to $9,000 on his teaching. Now that may be a high salary. I don't know how you determine what a teacher's worth. But I don't think it is as high as people might be led to believe.

Also in the basic levels of the qualifications of teachers, the starting salary is probably in the neighbourhood of somewhere around the $6,000 mark, which is not that extreme. Probably the maximum they can reach is in the $9,000 mark. That's after a period of 10 or 11 years of actual teaching experience.

So I think that the argument that the teachers are overpaid is very limited.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: The only way a teacher can really get into the money market is by leaving teaching and going into administrative work and working as an administrator. But the principle involved, as I see it, in this bill is the removal of the last vestige of authority to the school board.

The local school boards have no local autonomy any longer. Any idea that there was local autonomy has disappeared. It is now strictly a myth. I would suggest that the logic of conclusion in this type of thinking, this type of action by the government, would be to disband the school boards altogether and put the teachers into the roles of civil service.

Now I think this would be done except for one basic problem. That is they would then have no excuse. If they had no local school board, they'd have no excuse to charge the cost of the education on the local taxpayer. So the local school boards would be encouraged to function even though it's only to buy chalk once a month. That's about the only powers that they have left to run the school districts.

The school boards throughout the province undoubtedly will have to make drastic cuts. The members of the school boards, who may be very active workers and noble citizens of the community, probably are not well trained in what and where the best area of cuts can be made, if any cuts can be made. But where should the cuts be made? That's the problem that's facing a number of boards. Should they do away with the special classes, should they do away with teachers teaching those, should they do away with the department heads? What would happen if this were done?

There is a variety of things that they have to make decisions on. What about the positions of stenographers? Should they be done away with or cut back?

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LORIMER: No, I'm talking about the problems that are facing the school boards throughout the province, in a variety of areas. I'm not talking about necessarily Burnaby. I'm talking about the cutting back of costs under the formula. I'm suggesting that these problems that are facing the school boards as to cuts are a very difficult problem for them to resolve. I certainly think that this is a very, very backward step for the government to bring in a bill of this kind. It's certainly the death knell, as I see it, of the local school boards.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are several parts of this bill, several principles involved in this bill, some of which are very satisfactory — others on which questions need to be raised.

First of all, I'd like to say that I think that one of the first principles is the principle of teachers' tenure. I think the…

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. HALL: I'd like a ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has already indicated that he will not vote on this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has no knowledge how someone is going to vote. Every Member has the right to be recognised to speak on the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's already stated his position.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has no knowledge of that.

MR. WENMAN: I'll state my position at the end of my remarks.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WENMAN: At any rate I think that the 10-year provisions are of a very satisfactory nature generally speaking and the direct results of an all-party committee of the House.

Certainly teachers should not fear 10-year provisions because good teachers certainly have nothing to fear. The teachers of British Columbia are generally speaking good teachers.

I think the financial formula, one of the points in the financial formula, is the growth factor. I would like to commend the Minister for recognising the growth factor and this will be of considerable significance to my constituency which has such a tremendous growth rate.

I think the government has an obligation to set an example in the public sector to the private sector. I hope also that as the government has called for controls here similar controls will be called for in the private sector. Because it does not seem to be a sound principle to just set the example in the public sector without speaking out against exorbitant demands of the private sector as well.

It seems difficult to speak in terms of 6.5 to the public sector while we hear negotiations proceeding already in terms of 30, 40, 50 per cent salary negotiations. These cannot be tolerated and it would seem to me that companion legislation

[ Page 829 ]

for the private sector should be forthcoming.

Certainly some forms of wage and price control are necessary until wages and prices can more closely reflect the actual productivity rates of our province and our country. Certainly the federal government, just as the provincial government, has a common responsibility to legislate in this area. But that does not let the provincial government off relative to the private sector in British Columbia either.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WENMAN: Well, we'll let you get up and speak on that, Mr. Minister. I'd like to have that clarified from the Minister of Labour. That would be very interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now?

MR. WENMAN: In a moment, in a moment, Mr. Minister, you'll get your chance. At any rate, teachers, trustees, and taxpayers I think can accept the arguments that it is necessary to reduce the overall education costs — the spiralling costs of education or educational inflation.

I think, however, that we could look at alternative methods for limiting the costs of education in British Columbia, in fact even in North America. Studies can be brought forward that prove overwhelmingly that performance is not necessarily measured or increased by educational achievement but more often by other personal characteristics and environmental conditions outside the formal school structure.

One of the aspects of having an examination of the financial formula and the financial directions of education is that we are forced to look for new methods and new controls for the cost of education.

I think that's a sound direction to be looking at the present time. Academics have argued in the past that the investment in education is greater economically than the average return on other forms of investments. However economists can readily show us as well that this can be placed on a curve of diminishing returns. Until this point we have found that the level of education has risen. So has the productivity of our standard and our standard of living.

The history of North America has been the better educated the society, the higher the level of productivity and their standard of living. But as far as producing for education today we may have been on this curve of diminishing returns and we may have peaked and have to find other rationalisation for further educational goals and standards over and above that of economics. Because as far as economics go I think we have passed the point of return.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WENMAN: Both those Members have had their chance, so just wait and listen now.

However, since we now keep more students in formal education process for a longer period of time and at a higher cost per student, too often in fields unrelated to the student's field of productivity, and at a greater cost to the state and a lesser cost to the individual, educational costs in relationship to economic return and productivity have over-accelerated. Many economists have stated that it will soon consume the entire productivity of our nation.

We have a great educational experiment in North America. Never seen since the beginning of time, since man started into public education back in the time of the Greeks, have we tried to keep so many students in school for so long at so high a cost.

I think it is important to examine this programme and to seek new direction. It's time to explode the great educational myths that 14 or 16 years of formal education as we now know it are the answer to all of our problems.

It's time to rebuild and restructure our educational objectives so that they will meet better the structures of our society and the life styles of our future within an economic liability. I would suggest several other areas, other ways, in which costs could be brought under control.

Public schools should be operated on a 12-month basis — students attending any grouping of nine months out of 12, teachers teaching at least 200 out of every 365 days as they do now.

I mentioned earlier in the session that in both last year and this year the continuous school year has been looked at by Delta. I think we should study this relative to the potential of cost saving on operational costs. I think we should avoid duplication of community and school buildings and provide not just toleration or joint projects but provide incentive where joint ventures can be established. Perhaps we should look into the efficiency of new teaching machines. We should allow and prepare young people who can't accept and need to enter the work force sooner in a more productive capacity. We should establish more terminal courses with the more practical value to their curriculum — to their base. We should increase the apprenticeship programmes. There are many additional ways of cost saving that need to be looked into, as well as the terms specifically mentioned in this bill, that could keep the costs within the 108 per cent.

I think one of the most important things that we have to look at is the student in all of this situation in the bill that we are passing. What will be the effects on the student?

Relative to tenure provisions I think the fact that the tenure provisions are more professional and less legalistic. I think perhaps they are just a little bit looser and if we can make sure that 300 unemployed teachers in the Province of British Columbia are the poorest 300 teachers we will be doing a service to the student. After all, in the legislation that we pass we're trying to look towards a better education for our students.

I think that it is important that we should have the 108 per cent provision and I think that's worthy of support. I think it's worthy of support that each year the government should state on their share how much they can and how much they will pay.

The only principle that gives me concern in the bill is that of the compulsory referendum. I think this could be avoided if we could have written into the law something that would read like this: "That the assent of the owner electors in the manner prescribed by the regulations or if school boards can meet the agreement terms within the 108 per cent as approved by the Department of Education." If the 108 per cent, we're concerned that that's too high, I think I would prefer to have the 108 per cent drop to 106 per cent if that meant that a referendum were not necessary in the public sector. I think that matter needs further study.

Relating to my own position which has been questioned, I've spoken with the Speaker on the matter and he suggested that while in his opinion I should feel free to speak on the subject when it comes to the vote because I am a teacher under contract I should withdraw, and that is my intention.

[ Page 830 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: You're an M.L.A.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, as has been very clearly indicated by the two former government Members who spoke, the Minister for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Skillings) and the Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) it certainly seems that the government is taking a very, very firm stand against the arbitration procedures in this province.

It's obvious that the government considers that this legislation that it is introducing now is going to bring its rewards and secondly it's also obvious that the government feels that it's going to be beneficial for the public weal.

I have to agree with that in part. It may unfortunately bring this government rewards but they're going to be very short-term rewards, and they're going to be rewards, Mr. Speaker, that will disappear and the short-term Dr. Jekyll assets which you'll be receiving from this will in very, very short time turn into long-term Mr. Hyde liabilities. For the simple solitary reason that the public acceptance of this measure is going to be the acceptance of the uninformed public in the Province of British as was best exemplified in the vote that was taken in Victoria a couple of days ago when you found that 22 per cent…

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: …22 per cent of them turned out.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: This legislation in no way, in any manner, Mr. Speaker, does anything to unite society. But to the absolute contrary, it's only going to serve to divide society in the Province of B.C. There's not going to be any public rewards from this kind of a bill. But there's going to be long-term debt and in my view it's short-sighted, it's ill-conceived and it's definitely an unplanned decision.

Many points have been made by many Members. The damage to the process of arbitration. The complete ignoring of the positions that have been taken by the elected representatives of the taxpayers — the trustees. The complete ignoring of their position. The ignoring of the position taken by the teaching profession in the Province of B.C. The refusal, really and truly, to meet with these people to try to come up with some kind of a workable compromise that will be in the best interests of the trustees in the best interests of the teachers and in the best interests of the teaching of our students and in the best interests of the public in our province.

The fact, Mr. Speaker, that they are bringing this sort of wage freeze or attempting to bring this wage freeze in against only one section of society to me is ridiculous.

What about prices? The prices of soup and soap and bread and meat? What about the cost of rents — the cost of insurance and the cost of upkeep and the cost of taxes which this government constantly increases?

We had a situation this afternoon of a $500 million borrowing for B.C. Hydro but if you put that to referendum in B.C. not in your tick-tack-toe you wouldn't! You wouldn't put one of the taxes you've levied against the public in B.C. to referendum and you know that. Never in any way but you're going to go ahead and try to impose a moratorium or some sort of a 6.5 per cent moratorium on the cost of these services.

Are you going to go ahead and try to impose a similar kind of moratorium on the prices and goods and taxes and other services in the province? And if not, why not?

But no way you're going to do anything like this. To me this is just an indiscriminate, ill-considered attack upon one section of the people in B.C. who really and truly serve. There's no question that you're catering to the negative side of society when you're doing this. Make no mistake of that. As I said, there was a 22 per cent turnout in Victoria — and I say to the Victoria residents, I have no hesitation in saying it whatsoever, to me that's absolutely disgraceful — 78 per cent of the residents in Victoria sitting in their rusty dusties.

What a terrific example of public responsibility! What a marvellous example of public responsibility! Little wonder they've got the kind of representation in this House that they have.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: And then the Member over there picking up the letters from the Hon. the doctor Member…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: …And he indicated to the Legislature the only thing that teachers are interested in is bucks. That's what he said. And he's nodding his head.

The only thing he thinks that teachers in this province are interested in is dollars and cents. Well that's a mighty shallow attitude. And he said he would like to hear some letters from teachers in the Province of B.C. about the quality of education. He would like to hear some letters from the teachers in B.C. about how they felt about the cost of education and how they felt about what could be done by the government by the teachers and the trustees to bring about a better solution. I'd like to read a letter — and it's well written. It's a letter from a teacher.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I've got lots of them here. I'm going to read from one.

The provision of adequate educational opportunities so each child realises maximum potentials has been the single most important function of the British Columbia educational system. Surely to protect the educational interests of its children the enlightened and affluent public of British Columbia must insist upon a serious dialogue and an adoption of a planned approach before the confrontation deteriorates further between the teachers and public sector workers on the one hand and the government on the order.

That's a very true statement isn't it? There's nobody in the House can disagree with this man's premise there.

It's my belief that the proposed legislative amendments would tend to create the following adverse effects.

This is this teacher's attitude.

Since the introduction of the 110 per cent limit under the 1969 education finance formula the education facilities have been taxed and unable in many instances to keep up with the inflationary pressures. Consequently the quality of education services has been slowly going down. Yet the

[ Page 831 ]

young people and their parents are demanding relevant and meaningful education. This calls for increased curriculum flexibility, use of paraprofessionals, different organisational patterns, the use of technology and a more intense professional involvement on the part of educators.

He makes the point these strategies cost money. Indeed they do. It's money well spent.

The proposed amendment reducing it to 108 per cent would tend to further restrict educational flexibility.

Is not this true? Look at Victoria, going, going, gone, says Brian Butlers of the Times staff. And he shows the cut in staff — administration $13,390 down, fringe benefits $6,445 down, department heads, libraries down $15,000, supplies down $18,000 teaching aides taken out $4,000, research and testing $12,000 deleted, supplies $2,000 cut — cleaning, power, fuel, grounds, maintenance, all down, down, down. The public interest is to provide a meaningful education and that's the point those Members are failing to get.

The proposed amendment would tend to further restrict educational flexibility. It would increase the use of rote learning.

Is not that true?

It would cut down on programmes which provide motivation for children to stay longer in school and thus undercut the school's attempt to meet the individual needs of learners.

A very true statement.

The holding power of schools would go down and consequently many more people are unemployed or on the streets. If the percentage of school dropouts rises significantly,

and this is a factor to take into account, what about the dropouts?

…it would probably mean substantially higher social cost in education in fighting crime, in fighting drug addiction, and other youth problems.

He says is this the way to plan for education as British Columbia enters its second century? And I say, "no, it isn't," and he doesn't think it is either. He makes an excellent point here, he says:

By tradition teachers in general tend to be conservative. Would not the present dilemma prove conducive for radical elements to encroach upon the control of the teaching profession?

And I say yes, and you've seen signs of that starting already, Mr. Minister. And I say unfortunately. He says: "Who would be hurt?" He says:

Is this going to create a healthy climate for children's schoolings? British Columbians are proud of their educational system which provides for local autonomy. To effectively meet the needs of the local community the school board should have a reasonable opportunity — and economic strength. If the formula does not give them reasonable means to attain educational standards and creates uncertainties, how can they plan for the future? Further, if it does not provide them for the necessary authority to bargain in good faith with their teachers how can they help to maintain a co-operative educational system.

You have done away with school trustees in this bill. You might as well tell them to pack up their tent and fade away into the night. The school trustee has become obsolete in the Province of British Columbia today — and the concept of the school trustee, and this is one thing that I can certainly compliment this government on, the concept of this school trustee is something that you have pushed as strongly as you can ever since you've been in power in B.C. Because you feel it's a good thing. Because they were there in the area doing something, associating, contributing within the community, participating.

But you've destroyed them. You've just snipped them right off at the knees. And he says: "Is it not time to examine the whole question of educational taxation and finance formulas?" And it is. This bill would not be coming in today if this wasn't a paramount question in the Province of B.C. It is indeed time to examine the whole question of educational taxation and finance formula.

The present tax base is at least iniquitous in a single dwelling home-owner, and is inadequate to meet modern educational needs. And this is what the people are saying when they're telephoning the hot lines: "I'm not going to pay any more for education because it's coming out of my allowance, and my home and I just can't do it." And they are poor people speaking from a poor position.

The tax base in wrong. And you're bringing this thing in with an incorrect tax base, slamming it into the teachers. You think that you're going to produce long-term rewards. You're going to produce long-term liabilities. And I can tell you it's going to hurt every side of this House — the Liberals, the Conservatives, the N.D.P., the Social Credit or anyone else whoever may be in here. This is going to hurt the citizens of B.C. Everyone. I'm going to bear this on my shoulders just the same as you people are, and make no mistake of that fact. The intent of this letter, this man who the Member figured is only interested in writing about books. The intent of this letter is…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. GARDOM: Oh, jump back into what you were in a little while ago. The intent of this letter… Are you suggesting the teachers in the Province of B.C. are not honourable men? Is that what you are suggesting? Oh, by golly! It's O.K. If you happen to sell a winery for $11 million but if you want a 6.5 per cent increase in salary it's wrong is it? Boy, you've come a long way in one generation. But not philosophically.

The intent of this letter is to lodge an urgent appeal to resolve the present problem in a rational manner. And we're not resolving this in a rational manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's low…

MR. GARDOM: What's low? I said you've come a long way in one generation but not philosophically, well I speak the truth don't I?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come to the principle of the bill?

MR. GARDOM: The government should join hands, and this is this man's suggestion, this is his suggestion.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Honourable Members would please address the Chair and take their opportunity to give the other person an opportunity we might get along with this

[ Page 832 ]

debate.

MR. GARDOM: This is this particular teacher's suggestion, and with every respect I don't agree with his suggestions. Well I agree with the premise at the outset. Maybe this is the best one in reflection; by golly it doesn't look too bad after all.

The government should join hands with B.C. Teachers' Federation and B.C. Schools Trustees' Association, the B.C. Parent-Teachers' Association and others, and including student, to conduct a comprehensive study and prepare a master plan to meet the educational needs of the 1970's. And I'd say included in that is a new taxation base. And he says to do this, in order to create a climate for such a study, it is important to withdraw these legislative amendments at this time.

You know, I think that's an excellent point. And I think if the government would do that I think that you could build up a proper climate here instead of one that is definitely deteriorating in the Province of B.C.

He finishes by saying this: "It is observed that in order for education to function effectively society cannot allow each group to view the other group as an adversary." That's the point that I made at the beginning of my talk. We are developing confrontation politics in this province, and the end of confrontation politics has never, ever in the history of man been a pleasant one for any side, and at fantastic social cost.

"It has to" — presumably referring to the government — "it has to create the conditions and the climate for positive relationships among all those concerned with education — the government, the educators, the trustees, the children and the public."

I say that this is a very well-motivated expression of sentiment, and apart from that, a very well-phrased expression of sentiment.

We have a person here who is wanting to go ahead to do the things that you people want to do yourselves. I am not impugning motives against Social Credit tonight — not one little bit. I think you've been too hasty in what you've done. You have recognised the fact that there is an overall — not percentage-wise as we have heard the figures left, right and centre, and you start apples and oranging when you start talking about the figures — but you have correctly recognised that education is costing more.

But we also know that society is receiving more, government is receiving more from society by way of tax returns. We also know that we — and we are all parents in this House — are demanding better education today. We want a little more out of education. So darn it all, if I don't want to go back to the little old school house and say that I am going to cut out this and cut out that and not pay-for it, I suppose that's my privilege.

But in here I think we've accepted as a society that we wish to have a better education system. O.K. — now you're caught in a conflict here of philosophical positions, shall I say, and you try to reconcile it with this one isolated attempt to freeze by going to the general public and asking them to assess it on the basis of the payment of their tax dollar.

You're not going to get an intelligent response — make no mistake of it, there wouldn't be a tax law in the history of this province that would ever pass on the basis of public sentiment and public moratoriums.

So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think that this teacher has come up with a good suggestion, I think he's come up with a good suggestion. I know that teaching fraternity in the Province of B.C. And the Minister knows this better than I do because he's dealt with them and so did his colleague the Attorney General when he was Minister of Education.

You know, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, you know the teachers and the trustees are very reasonable folk. You know that they could go ahead and get down to a bargaining table with you and try to come up with an understandable recognisable formula without going as far as you've done.

What you've done, you will be disrupting the bargaining process in the Province of B.C. for other areas. And this is going to be used as a precedent and the hornet's nest is starting to swarm already and I don't like that one bit myself, not one bit. But it's a fact of life and it's happening.

It's happening, and you're trying to go ahead and prescribe a single control. You can't prescribe single controls. It's just not possible without doing disservice to some sections, to some side of society. So with every respect, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the government do what it can to hoist this bill, maybe put the thing to committee and took at it maybe for a year, and I implore that the government do that particular thing. And failing that I am forced, to vote against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on two things as far as the principle in this bill, and the first one is the quality of education. I mentioned this before in reference to the upgrading I think that needs to be done within the teaching profession so that they will generally have the high regard of the public — which the teaching profession I think should have.

You know I made perhaps some rather hasty remarks the other day, and have been receiving some fan mail. But, I did receive some letters, this one I think I'd like to read to you, because it does concern quality of education which is one of the things we are talking about in this bill.

It says:

Dear Mr. McDiarmid:

My impulse upon reading the report of your statement on page 36 of this morning's Province that 20 to 30 per cent of B.C. teachers are incompetent was to say bravo and don't back down one bit under B.C.T.F. fire. I am a teacher with 35 years experience and many of the staffs I have been associated with have varied from 20 to 50 per cent incompetent. Your 30 per cent average is right on. Teaching is like the ministry, it's an endless contribution of selflessness with love and concern for the well-being of children the motivating force. The attitude of giving detached and minimal performance is growing and many of us feel that this approach is being condoned at the U.B.C.'s College of Education, and condoned by the B.C.T. F. To protect my well-earned pension I must remain anonymous. My heartfelt gratitude for your astuteness.

The interesting thing, I think, about this is that for the people, if you get out really and talk to the parents, there is concern about the quality of education. When we talk about quality of education it revolves roughly about two things. One is, of course, the physical plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you write that yourself?

[ Page 833 ]

MR. McDIARMID: No, my writing isn't nearly as legible as this, Mr. Speaker. But it's the question of physical plant and of course the Member from Cowichan talked about the poor things in terms of rural education. But you know, in my constituency in which there is a large rural area, there is an excellent physical plant in the village of Gold River. There is a beautiful new high school which I hope to go and open shortly in Tahsis. There is a beautiful new school in Tofino which I hope to attend the opening of. And there are better physical things going on. I'm talking about three things involved in the quality…if you don't want to listen leave the chamber. That's one of things that's involved. The other thing that's involved in this…

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McDIARMID: May I have a little order, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Member…?

MR. McDIARMID: Watch your hypertension, watch your hypertension and get a hold of your tongue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Members please address the Chair?

MR. McDIARMID: Mr. Speaker, the other thing that's involved in the terms of quality education is the question of teacher aids. And do you know I have been in the schools and I have talked to teachers, and I have three boys in the public school system, and when they have open houses at the schools I go.

And if you look around at some of the schools throughout the Province of British Columbia I don't think anybody can say that they haven't got a very adequate amount of teacher aids. I'm sure those of you who have been concerned enough to go to the open houses will see for yourself that in fact this is true.

But these are rather pale in insignificance when you consider that the main factor in terms of quality in education is the teacher himself. The concern that I have here — and it's a real concern, and I could be pilloried by the Opposition for this — but there have been certain historical factors as far as the enrolment and recruitment of teachers and retaining of teachers in the system that has led the public to be somewhat disillusioned with the quality of teachers.

I've mentioned these before and that is the fact that up until about three years ago there was a considerable teacher shortage. I served on a school board for a considerable number of years, and there was a time when we had no choice, we were lucky to get the complement and not end up with two teachers short.

I want to tell you from a personal point of view that some of the people that we took we were not happy about them, not happy about them at all. And yet once they got on the school board they were there. And they couldn't be dismissed. The Member from Vancouver Centre said there were only five teachers dismissed in the whole thing.

So that with our tenure provision that we have now — which the teachers agree to and I commend them for this — that there is going to have to be a replacement of some of those teachers who got into the system at that time and who have been retained within the system. I don't view it as a bad thing and I don't think it's a proper solution when we say: "Well, there's 600 or 700 teachers who are unemployed at this point in time. If you lowered the pupil teacher ratio you would get everybody into the system and would create more jobs and relieve unemployment."

I believe that it's a healthy thing in a profession that is as sensitive as the teaching profession that there should be nothing but the best in the teaching profession — because they are the people who are teaching our children.

These are the people who we rely on to provide the quality of education which we think we should have. That's why I suggested that they should have their own professional body where they can control and up grade the teachers that are coming out — the people that we're getting into the system. We should have better teachers all the time.

I don't believe that the public would be that averse really to passing referendums in terms of teachers' salaries if they had the feeling that there is towards some of the schools that are in, say, Port Alberni.

I have a boy who is going to a particular school there where the esprit de corps and the level of teaching and the interest that is shown by those teachers is an example to any school in the Province of British Columbia.

I think if all the schools were like that and they had the leadership of principals who became involved in the community, who become involved in the kinds, extracurricular things, then there wouldn't be a problem with going to the people that there is now.

That's a personal opinion, but I get around my constituency and I do talk to the people and I think that this is a very important thing when it comes to the question of passing a referendum for teachers' salaries.

Now, I'd like to get on to the question of salary. It's been pointed out that we have asked the teachers to limit their increase this year to 6.5 per cent. There is this feeling in the letters that I get, you know, that we have been particularly selected. That we have been picked upon for restraint. But you know, this really isn't true. The R.N.A.B.C. are at the mediation commission. The Premier has indicated that the medical profession will have considerable restraints put upon them. The civil service — I've indicated that with their salaries there will be some restraint in line and very close to the 6.5 per cent. In fact, the M.L.A.'s as well and people in government. So it isn't really the teachers. What the government is trying to say is…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McDIARMID: Nobody likes to be first. I don't blame the teachers for this and I don't believe the other people who come under the purview of relying on the public purse for their salaries like it and I can sympathise with their point of view. But if we're really serious about inflation and we aren't going to put hard-and-fast controls, the only way that this can be accomplished is by example.

It's been suggested it may fail. I hope it doesn't fail. But you know, how are you going to try and ask some of the people who are involved in collective bargaining and some of the demands that have been indicated to us that are going to be made this year, unless you have the solid accomplishment that you can point to and say, "these people have been limited — your school costs are going to be limited to 6.5 per cent, your doctor fees are going to be limited in a way, your cost of government is going to be limited in a way"?

As I say, when it comes to restraint there will have to be it seems to me in terms of examples that the trades union movement coming up this year will have to know if they are

[ Page 834 ]

going to be reasonable, that the government has in fact set that example and that I think is a very worthy thing.

But when you look, what have they been asked really to give up? Their increment which is roughly in the area of 3 per cent a year, also applies to, I think, approximately 60 per cent of all the teaching force. It means that the raise for about 60 per cent of the teachers will not be 6.5 but somewhere closer to 9.5 per cent. We've asked them really to go down from about 7.5 to 6.5 — one per cent roughly in 10, 1/10 of that raise.

Is that too much to ask? I think that the teachers would have gained a lot of stature throughout this province if they'd said: "We see what the government is trying to do, we're not that unhappy about giving up 1/10th of our projected raise as a curb and as an example that we are serious about trying to do our part to curb inflation."

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the doctors?

MR. McDIARMID: The doctors did it last year. Even before.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McDIARMID: I'm not practising and I don't want to get into that at this point of time. But I'm saying 1 per cent really is all that we're saying. But you know, when you get out among the public and when we have the question of collective bargaining and teachers that write to me say "you have destroyed our free right of collective bargaining," but they still have the option of going to the people. But you know, really collective bargaining has been a great thing for the people who have the clout to bargain collectively. A great thing. It certainly has made them able to keep pace.

The Leader of the Opposition is waiting for me to fall into a trap. I know he is. I'm just waiting. Quiet, quiet, the troops and listen. But you know, the thing about this is that when in the last two years there was a recession in Canada, when there were many jobless, when there were people who didn't go up 6.5 per cent, who didn't go up 9.5 per cent in the last two years or 18 per cent perhaps in the last two years — there were people who did not have collective bargaining some of whom went down 20 per cent.

There are a lot of those people, Members in the Opposition, and they have some concern when they see that people aren't prepared to give even up 1 per cent of the 9 per cent increase, when they have gone through a very serious crisis in this sector.

I think these people are showing this in various ways to the government and certainly to me as a legislator. I get this feed-back when I go throughout the country — that the people who have not done well are in a serious position and they are questioning what is happening with an automatic raise of 7.5 per cent every year.

Maybe we should be looking to the question of saying do we really have to have raises of this order every year? Does everybody have to have it? Maybe we should be saying in British Columbia, you know, if we take the lead and try and reduce our rates of increase maybe we will be able to let the pensioners and other people catch up.

Maybe we will be able to because we export to live in British Columbia. If we become non-competitive in world markets this will be a very serious thing for the Province of British Columbia. Therefore it's in our own interest for our majority of jobs that we have a relatively low rate of inflation.

If we have a high rate of inflation we're in serious trouble competitively. I think when we look say to the construction industry, for instance, if one is able to build a better building in Vancouver and at less cost than they can do in Toronto or in Montreal maybe we'll get more work in British Columbia. Maybe well be looking to some sort of stability and know that their savings will not be lost in this province.

So I say this in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, that maybe it isn't a good thing to have an automatic 6.5 or 7.5 or whatever it is to try and keep up. We should be setting the leadership to try and keep down to the people who can't afford these kind of raises.

The only other thing that I really have to say on this thing is I think that the teachers at this point in time are being fairly compensated. I don't think that they're being over-compensated. I think they're being fairly compensated and I would like to see the teachers rise to the challenge of controlling inflation by turning around tomorrow and making announcements and saying: "In the interests of British Columbia trying to control inflation we aren't afraid to accept 1 per cent less than we would normally expect to get."

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, this bill here is the result of interference by this government in the operations of the school trustees and in the rights of the teachers of the province.

In my area during the last negotiations they had everything practically settled when the Minister came out with the 6.5 programme that forced them into arbitration. They ended up with 7.5. If the Minister had not interfered they would have never had to even go to arbitration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: Probably less than the 7.5. I think that what we've got to consider here is the quality of the education for the children. This government is not worried about the education of our children. They're not worried about anything except creating a confrontation and ever since I've been in this House, since this government came into power, the confrontation has been and the arrogance of this government has been on the incline continually.

We can remember Bill No. 41, Bill No. 43, Bill No. 42 and Bill No. 33. All these bills were confrontations that this government has tried to chip away at the rights of the individuals in the province. I'm rather surprised when I hear people talk about the state. The state is the people. The state is the people, and the people are the state. So that you might as well forget about it when you're trying to divide one from the other.

But the arrogance of this government has continually, as I say, been on the incline. They've got to have some body as whipping boy continually. They've reached the state today where there is somewhat of the thinking that they're the divine right of kings. What is so different to be elected to the Legislature than to be elected to a city council or to a trustee? What is the difference?

The people of British Columbia entrusted the operation of the Province of British Columbia to the people they elected in this Legislature. Being that you're in the majority party they have granted you that right. You've never at any

[ Page 835 ]

time have gone back to the public and said to the public: "Here, we're going to give you a chance to vote on this, vote on that" — When you wanted to spend $1 million or $100 million or $200 million…

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. NIMSICK: …or the total on the budget or whether you need increased taxes. Even when you took over the B.C. Electric you didn't ask the public whether they were satisfied with taking it over or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: They said the opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NIMSICK: Certainly! Mr. Speaker, I say that this government has deliberately, now they're in a bind in certain things, they're going to have a whipping boy. They're trying to whip the teachers.

You know, most of us were born a good many years ago and we went to school a good many years ago. We remember things when they were a lot different price-wise than today. Even today when I go into a store to buy something I immediately relate the price I see on the article with what they were maybe 25 years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can testify to that.

MR. NIMSICK: You can immediately relate that price and I think everyone here does the same thing. Maybe they can't look as far back as I can but they at least can look a little ways back and the price has been increasing continually.

In 1958, I believe it was when the Sputnik went up in Russia, we catapulted education. It gave a great spurt to education. We got in a regular flutter about education — that Russia was so far ahead of us that we couldn't catch up. It was going to take us years to catch up. So we made a great effort.

AN HON. MEMBER: We made it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure you did. You were Minister of Education.

MR. NIMSICK: That was the Sputnik that went up.

AN HON. MEMBER: You worry about Sputnik.

MR. NIMSICK: Maybe we should have another Sputnik to up today and it would shake this government into realising that they can't fall into a sleep over education. Because the education of our children is the most important thing that we've got in this world.

We can have fancy buildings. We can have everything else. But if we don't educate our children to make use and to take their proper place in the world today and the advanced world that we've got then we've done nothing.

I'm sure every father and mother, when their children are growing up, they're always looking ahead what's going to happen to little Johnny and how smart is he and how far is he going into school. Everybody thinks this. Even the grandparents, they look at their grandchildren. And don't ever think that education isn't an important part of the area.

It's not like many years ago you know teachers were something like the nurses. They were the poor relations of our society as far as wages went. They were the poor relations of our society. I remember my sister went down on the prairies. I think she worked for her board for a while to get to teach. They worked for their board. The teachers here took arbitration and accepted arbitration, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, so don't mention strike because they were willing not to strike. But you're putting them into position today where they may have to strike if they if you're going to drive them to it.

The teachers here accepted arbitration…

AN HON. MEMBER: Compulsory arbitration.

MR. NIMSICK: …something that this government said when they brought down Bill No. 33. Compulsory arbitration was the ultimate, and it would never be used very often. The teachers went and did this. What are they getting today? They're getting the whip on their back today by this Minister, Mr. Speaker. Because the average teacher…

MR. BARRETT: What does the average cabinet Minister make?

AN HON. MEMBER: $12,000?

MR. NIMSICK: The average cabinet Minister is making $20,000 and if we bulked all the Members of this House and the cabinet Ministers together it would average around $15,000 or $17,000.

The average teacher in British Columbia made — I've got it right here — $9,971, the mean salary. And $9,252 is the average salary. This is right out of your book — that might be the new salaries that haven't been okayed yet.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Honourable Members allow the Member to make his speech, please?

MR. NIMSICK: You haven't okayed that salary yet. But the elementary teacher, the teacher that teaches your little grandchildren and your young children, what do they make? The average is $8,667. That's not a big wage. The average elementary junior is $9,275, elementary senior is the highest at $11,000. Now that's not out of range, when you take many of the trades are making that much money today. Some people that are of the ordinary run are in that range of pay.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: No, they're not considerably lower than that.

These are within the average. You're trying to tell me that they're out of range? When you look at the percentages — the percentage of total educational expenditures devoted to the public school system — it was 82.6 per cent in 1962-1963 and it's 63.7 per cent in 1972-1973. Of the provincial budget in 1962-1963 it was 23.2 per cent and today it's 19.7 per cent.

What are you trying to hand the public? A false piece of goods? What are you trying to tell them? That they're making too much money? You don't talk about the doctors, you don't talk about the mediation commission that you

[ Page 836 ]

paid $40,000 a piece to. You don't talk about the M.L.A.'s. We're all making as much as the average teacher is making. What are you talking about? Then the cabinet Ministers are making twice as much and doing half the work as the teachers are doing. Don't forget that you lead the people to believe the teachers are not working.

As far as teachers that are not qualified — some people are saying they're not qualified — that's not the fault of the teachers. That's the fault of the administration of the Department of Education, if that's so. If that is so, that's the fault of the administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the Minister's fault.

MR. NIMSICK: This is no good, to try and beat them over the head now because you've made mistakes in the past in regards to education. In the 1960's what did you do? You went to England and to Australia and Eastern Canada and robbed other areas of their teachers and brought them here because a sputnik went up in Russia.

You gathered them here and paid them better wages. That's the reason you brought them here. You built schools. You encouraged the children to take up teaching as a profession. You wanted them to take up teaching. You sent people around to the high schools that were graduating and you were telling the children what a grand opportunity it was to get into the educational system and teach. You did that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. NIMSICK: Now you've got 700 teachers idle in the Province of British Columbia and you're going to have more when you put through legislation like this. Is that common sense? Is that running a country the way it should be?

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a couple of thousand unemployed teachers now.

MR. NIMSICK: This country has been run in a mish-mash fashion for years by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Remember teachers' aides?

MR. NIMSICK: This is one place where they have really done it. You've created jungle warfare among them. I can't answer it much better but I'd like to read an editorial that came out in a little paper in the interior, the Crowsnest Clarion. It came out in Sparwood. It's entitled: "Second-class Citizens" and I quote:

What do you think of having your youngsters taught in school by a bunch of second-class citizens? That is the position the Minister of Education has given to our teachers with his proposal to have teachers' salary increases approved by the taxpayers of the province.

The Minister's proposal would put the teachers in a position to negotiate their salaries with individual taxpayers in their school districts. This would be equivalent to having the stockroom boy negotiate his salary with all of the shareholders of the company which employs him. Hardy a practical process. This proposal, like so many others of recent years, has made our provincial government the laughing stock of the rest of the nation. And what disturbs us most is that the Minister of Education is one of the hopefuls for the Premier's throne…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you telling them in the Kootenays?

MR. NIMSICK: …

When the incumbent decides to abdicate. Is this the sort of provincial leadership we want?

No, Mr. Brothers. A cost limit on education as a guideline may be acceptable but individual taxpayer negotiations on the component parts of that cost are not acceptable. This is the job we have delegated to the school trustees who represent us for such matters.

The school boards of this province have a difficult time negotiating with teachers and they have a much better understanding of the teachers and the issues than have the taxpayers as individuals. How could we ever be in a position to conduct these negotiations on our own? There must be negotiations if we are to be fair to our employees, the teachers.

Yes, Mr. Brothers, you have the limited mandate of your constituents — that is a mandate from only a small portion of the province. You were selected by the Premier to administer education matters. Our hundreds of trustees across the province represent the entire province and have a mandate through elections from the entire province. Can they not be trusted to fill their roles?

Mr. Speaker, I think it's about time. I'm going to move adjournment.

That editorial there, Mr. Speaker, I think speaks for itself very definitely of what we think in the Kootenays about our trustees that the people elect. You people have not the divine right of kings. You have not got the right to put a dagger in the heart of education in this province. Don't think that you're God-all-mighty himself, the way you act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you hear that, Donald?

MR. NIMSICK: That's exactly how you're acting, as if you had the power over everybody — you can decide on the morals of the people. You can decide on most everything that you want to do. You can intimidate the Press. You can intimidate the doctors. You can go around in all walks of life and you think you can take them on and create with your arrogant power. I think this is definitely wrong.

In doing this, I think you're endangering the economy, Mr. Speaker. If you remember when the last war was on, the lack of education throughout the country turned down a lot of our boys that were willing to join the forces because they didn't have the education. Some of them didn't even have the physical stamina because they didn't have the food they were supposed to have.

The costs are going down. You try and tell the people that you're trying to stop the spiralling costs of the teachers. The teachers this year with the average of around 7 and 7.5 per cent, were the easiest group of people in regards to salary to get along with.

When we sit in this House and get $10,000 as a backbencher or $20,000 plus your indemnity — you get $30,000 as a cabinet Minister, $30,000 plus expenses. You bet you. You get your indemnity too. Then you can say that the teachers are overpaid. I think that you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

I think that a Minister that has gone through the educational system in this province, Mr. Speaker, and has

[ Page 837 ]

been rewarded by the educational system in this province, is not thinking much when he talks about cutting down on the quality of education. The Honourable the Member for Delta (Mr. Wenman) said that we shouldn't educate children for as long as we do. That's a fine thing to say in this day and age.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. NIMSICK: What you have gained since that Sputnik went up, you'll be losing in the future.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): While the words of the Member from Kootenay are still ringing fresh in our minds, he admitted that at one time the teachers and the nurses were the downtrodden. He must be admitting tonight that they're no longer in that position. They are in a favourable position with the rest of the country.

Then we listened to the Honourable Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) as he said for a moment tonight that he had some criticism. But again we listened to the Opposition who have criticisms but no solutions. Tonight we are treated again for the hours of debate to criticism but no solution.

The people here tonight know where the Opposition stand. They know they're the raiders of the taxpayers in this province. They know they're against the fathers and the mothers and the parents of this province. They know where you stand tonight.

You would open and help empty out the taxpayers' pockets and say there's unlimited taxation for schools and education. The people will know where you stand in this debate. You have pitted against the people and the taxpayers with your debate. We know where you stand,

You're not discriminating against teachers. No, you're discriminating against taxpayers. That's what you are. That's where the answer lies tonight.

This legislation lays down a sensible approach to a time that is today, when we need to have sensibility in our negotiations in this area of educational costs. People know where the answers are to be found. They're found on this side of the House, not among those who have the criticisms and no solutions. The solutions are to be found here.

I move adjournment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that we adjourn the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Shelford files the 66th annual report of the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Aid and World Disaster Report.

Hon. Mr. Peterson moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:44 p.m.